Would it be correct to say that Allah ﷻ Acted In accordance with the needs of a Prophet? That is one asked something directly to behave or become in a way that is contrary to natural laws. Then at that moment Allah ﷻ Willed it. An example of this is in the story of Joshua when he told the sun directly to become still without explicitly supplicating to Allah ﷻ; although in the same story, at least in the book of Joshua, it was actually Allah ﷻ Who Made the sun become still.
Perhaps the same can be said with the prophets Sulayman and Isa. It was still Allah ﷻ Who Did these Feats.
On the surface this would entail that the Prophets had "authority" over things. But the Prophets' actions were verbal with no real efficacy.
We could speculate over the dynamics of how this worked. Did the Prophets literally make dua each time? Were they given open discretional authority to perform certain miracles that were not from Allah's divine prerogatives? Did Allah inspire them at the moment to say "stay still sun" and then Allah made it still? We don't know. What we do know for sure though is that Allah does not give anyone the power to perform things from His divine prerogatives, and that's what's relevant for our discussion with people asking the dead for hidayah, granting children, etc.
Could you do a follow-up piece on occasionalism and causality?
It seems heavily linked to this issue and the difference between Atharis and other groups on those issues evidently pay a part in how this discussion is generally navigated in our circles.
Despite my disagreement with occassionalism, I am worried about leaving people with the impression that this reprehensible istiqlal/independence stance makes sense within the occassionalist paradigm. It most certainly does not. The Mutakallimun who are not affected by much of the extreme Sufi deviant takes on the subject of Ibadah would most certainly not approve of their reasoning.
At the end of the day, they would still agree that attributing many of the things that these extreme Sufis do to their saints should still be judged as Shirk. Just because there is no real cause and effect in their paradigm does not mean that they are okay with anyone doing and ascribing anything they like to others.
Also, Shaykh Sultan al-Umayri briefly touched upon this argument in his Sharh of Kitab at-Tawheed. After claiming that occassionalism is wrong, he pointed out that worship is more expansive that affirming causal powers for the revered being. You can worship a being even without ascribing to it causal powers.
Also, consider the ramifications of this stance. This means that you can literally make dua to the sun and rocks (because they give “barakah”) but still not fall into Shirk as long as you deny that they have causal powers and that Allah is the only cause. Heck, you can even make dua to idols and get away with Shirk based on this line of reasoning. This of course is absolute absurdity.
More importantly, the bulk of these laity who fall into these saint veneration practices don’t even believe in occassionalism. Occassionalism is not the aqeedah of the masses. It’s something you have to be indoctrinated into accepting in a classroom setting. Even Ashari scholars affirm this (see the Imam Sanusi quote here https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/is-asharism-the-theology-of-the-masses), so all this is *practically* irrelevant when it comes to the reality on the ground.
I don’t know if you can read Arabic, but if you can, consider this quote from Rashid Rida where he highlights that it’s inconceivable that all these masses flock to these graves if they didn’t truly believe that they help them:
"من أغرب ما يتأوله -يقصد يوسف الدجوي- لعُباد القبور بناء أقوالهم وأفعالهم على أنهم أشعرية يعتقدون أن لا فعل لغير الله تعالى ولا تأثير في شيء ما، لا كسب البشر الذي هم فيه مجبورون في قوالب مختارين، ولا خواص الأشياء الطبيعية كإحراق النار وإرواء الماء، فلو كان هؤلاء الناس يعتقدون هذا لما شد الرحال نساؤهم مع رجالهم وأطفالهم إلى القبور، وحملوا إليها الهدايا والنذور، وقربوا عندها القرابين لأجل قضاء حوائجهم ودفع البلاء عنهم، ومن العجيب أنهم يعتقدون أن بعضهم لا يقبل من القرابين إلا المعز كأويس القرني الذي ذبح عند قبره من عهد قريب ألوف من المعز، وهذا القبر مزوّر قطعًا، فإن أويسًا لم يأتِ مصر -وأشهر الأقوال أنه قُتل في واقعة صِفِّين وكان في جيش علي كرم الله وجهه- وكذلك شيخ آخر اسمه أبو سريع لا يقربون له في مولده وغيره إلا المعز.
ومن استنبأهم واستبطن أمرهم يعلم أنهم يعتقدون أن هؤلاء الموتى يجيبون دعاء مَن يدعوهم وإغاثة من يستغيث بما له من التصرف في العالم فوق الأسباب، لا أن الأسباب نفسها صورية يخلق الله الأشياء عندها لا بها كما يقول الأشعرية، وإن أبلد الناس يعلم أنهم لو كانوا يؤمنون بأنه لا تأثير لها في نفع ولا كشف ضر لا بسببية ولا بسلطة غيبية لما شدوا إليها الرحال، وحملوا الأثقال، وبذلوا الأموال وارتكبوا عندها منكرات الأعمال، كترك الصلوات، واتباع الشهوات المغفورة بزعمهم بما لهم من الكرامات.
وكذلك لو يعلمون أن نذر هذه القرابين لها لا ينفعهم شيئًا لما نذروا شيئًا منها، فإلى متى نكابر الحس بالاحتمالات الوهمية ونسمي هذا علمًا ودينًا؟!"
So, my brother, don't fall into the trap of thinking that you MUST refute occassionalism in order to refute these people. The Mutakallimun unaffected by this Shirk nonsense would be the first to declare their occassionalism free of directly contributing to this deviance.
Would it be correct to say that Allah ﷻ Acted In accordance with the needs of a Prophet? That is one asked something directly to behave or become in a way that is contrary to natural laws. Then at that moment Allah ﷻ Willed it. An example of this is in the story of Joshua when he told the sun directly to become still without explicitly supplicating to Allah ﷻ; although in the same story, at least in the book of Joshua, it was actually Allah ﷻ Who Made the sun become still.
Perhaps the same can be said with the prophets Sulayman and Isa. It was still Allah ﷻ Who Did these Feats.
On the surface this would entail that the Prophets had "authority" over things. But the Prophets' actions were verbal with no real efficacy.
We could speculate over the dynamics of how this worked. Did the Prophets literally make dua each time? Were they given open discretional authority to perform certain miracles that were not from Allah's divine prerogatives? Did Allah inspire them at the moment to say "stay still sun" and then Allah made it still? We don't know. What we do know for sure though is that Allah does not give anyone the power to perform things from His divine prerogatives, and that's what's relevant for our discussion with people asking the dead for hidayah, granting children, etc.
Could you do a follow-up piece on occasionalism and causality?
It seems heavily linked to this issue and the difference between Atharis and other groups on those issues evidently pay a part in how this discussion is generally navigated in our circles.
May Allah reward you
Assalamu Alaykum,
Despite my disagreement with occassionalism, I am worried about leaving people with the impression that this reprehensible istiqlal/independence stance makes sense within the occassionalist paradigm. It most certainly does not. The Mutakallimun who are not affected by much of the extreme Sufi deviant takes on the subject of Ibadah would most certainly not approve of their reasoning.
At the end of the day, they would still agree that attributing many of the things that these extreme Sufis do to their saints should still be judged as Shirk. Just because there is no real cause and effect in their paradigm does not mean that they are okay with anyone doing and ascribing anything they like to others.
Also, Shaykh Sultan al-Umayri briefly touched upon this argument in his Sharh of Kitab at-Tawheed. After claiming that occassionalism is wrong, he pointed out that worship is more expansive that affirming causal powers for the revered being. You can worship a being even without ascribing to it causal powers.
Also, consider the ramifications of this stance. This means that you can literally make dua to the sun and rocks (because they give “barakah”) but still not fall into Shirk as long as you deny that they have causal powers and that Allah is the only cause. Heck, you can even make dua to idols and get away with Shirk based on this line of reasoning. This of course is absolute absurdity.
More importantly, the bulk of these laity who fall into these saint veneration practices don’t even believe in occassionalism. Occassionalism is not the aqeedah of the masses. It’s something you have to be indoctrinated into accepting in a classroom setting. Even Ashari scholars affirm this (see the Imam Sanusi quote here https://islamicdiscourse.substack.com/p/is-asharism-the-theology-of-the-masses), so all this is *practically* irrelevant when it comes to the reality on the ground.
I don’t know if you can read Arabic, but if you can, consider this quote from Rashid Rida where he highlights that it’s inconceivable that all these masses flock to these graves if they didn’t truly believe that they help them:
"من أغرب ما يتأوله -يقصد يوسف الدجوي- لعُباد القبور بناء أقوالهم وأفعالهم على أنهم أشعرية يعتقدون أن لا فعل لغير الله تعالى ولا تأثير في شيء ما، لا كسب البشر الذي هم فيه مجبورون في قوالب مختارين، ولا خواص الأشياء الطبيعية كإحراق النار وإرواء الماء، فلو كان هؤلاء الناس يعتقدون هذا لما شد الرحال نساؤهم مع رجالهم وأطفالهم إلى القبور، وحملوا إليها الهدايا والنذور، وقربوا عندها القرابين لأجل قضاء حوائجهم ودفع البلاء عنهم، ومن العجيب أنهم يعتقدون أن بعضهم لا يقبل من القرابين إلا المعز كأويس القرني الذي ذبح عند قبره من عهد قريب ألوف من المعز، وهذا القبر مزوّر قطعًا، فإن أويسًا لم يأتِ مصر -وأشهر الأقوال أنه قُتل في واقعة صِفِّين وكان في جيش علي كرم الله وجهه- وكذلك شيخ آخر اسمه أبو سريع لا يقربون له في مولده وغيره إلا المعز.
ومن استنبأهم واستبطن أمرهم يعلم أنهم يعتقدون أن هؤلاء الموتى يجيبون دعاء مَن يدعوهم وإغاثة من يستغيث بما له من التصرف في العالم فوق الأسباب، لا أن الأسباب نفسها صورية يخلق الله الأشياء عندها لا بها كما يقول الأشعرية، وإن أبلد الناس يعلم أنهم لو كانوا يؤمنون بأنه لا تأثير لها في نفع ولا كشف ضر لا بسببية ولا بسلطة غيبية لما شدوا إليها الرحال، وحملوا الأثقال، وبذلوا الأموال وارتكبوا عندها منكرات الأعمال، كترك الصلوات، واتباع الشهوات المغفورة بزعمهم بما لهم من الكرامات.
وكذلك لو يعلمون أن نذر هذه القرابين لها لا ينفعهم شيئًا لما نذروا شيئًا منها، فإلى متى نكابر الحس بالاحتمالات الوهمية ونسمي هذا علمًا ودينًا؟!"
So, my brother, don't fall into the trap of thinking that you MUST refute occassionalism in order to refute these people. The Mutakallimun unaffected by this Shirk nonsense would be the first to declare their occassionalism free of directly contributing to this deviance.