Did Al-Qadi Abu Ya‘la (d. 458 A.H.) Believe Istigatha Is Not Shirk?

Ibnul Qayyim al-Jawziyyah states in Badai‘ al-Fawaid:

سئل القاضي عن مسائلَ عديدة وردت عليه من مكةَ، وكان منها

ما تقول في قول الإنسان إذا عَثَر: محمَّد وعلي؟

فقال: إن قصد الاستغاثةَ فهو مخطئٌ؛ لأنَّ الغوثَ من الله تعالى، وهما مَيتانِ فلا يَصِحُّ الغوثُ منهما، ولأنَّه يجبُ تقديمُ الله على غيره

Al-Qadi [Abu Ya‘la] was asked several questions posed to him by [the residents of] Makkah, and of them was:

What do you say about the statement of the person who, when he stumbles, says: Muhammad and Ali?

So, he (i.e., Al-Qadi) said: If he intended [by this statement to do] istighatha, he is mistaken. This is because ghawth is only from Allah Ta‘ala, and they are both dead. Thus, it is incorrect that there be ghawth from either of them. It is mandatory to prioritize [seeking Istighatha from] Allah over anyone else. [end quote]

Specific individuals say that Al-Qadi Abu Ya‘la merely described the person who commits istighatha as “mistaken” without labeling him a mushrik. Al-Qadi also said that istighatha from other than Allah “is incorrect,” without describing it as kufr or Shirk. Hence, they argue this lack of explicit labeling implies that Al-Qadi did not perceive istighatha as a manifestation of major shirk.

However, this line of reasoning exhibits notable frailties upon closer examination.

Let us start by pointing out the obvious, and that is that a kafir and mushrik are clearly “mistaken,” and shirk and kufr are also “incorrect.” The characterization of being “mistaken” does not inherently preclude one from being classified as a disbeliever or a polytheist. The relationship between these terms is far from mutually exclusive.

Analogously, some scholars employ the term “haram” to encompass major Shirk,[1] akin to describing it as “incorrect.” Furthermore, several erudite scholars have characterized kuffar as having a state of “mistaken” understanding. [2] Ibn Taymiyyah, for instance, would employ the term “mistaken” to depict individuals who assert the uncreated or eternal nature of human attributes, despite such a stance inherently signifying a position of profound kufr.[3]

This substantiates the point that within scholarly discourse, it is not uncommon to employ more tempered expressions like “haram” to delineate concepts that constitute major shirk or kufr and to designate those who adhere to such beliefs as being “mistaken.”

Furthermore, it is essential to differentiate between the judgment rendered upon an action and the individual performing it. As previously demonstrated, eminent scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah, by way of illustration, were capable of deeming istighatha as a form of major shirk while simultaneously refraining from issuing a verdict of takfeer upon the practitioner unless specific prerequisites were satisfied. [4] Consequently, it is highly possible that al-Qadi was not pronouncing a declaration of takfeer against the individual in question, primarily because he acknowledged the necessity of fulfilling certain conditions before such a ruling could be invoked.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that Ibnul Qayyim, in various instances, articulated viewpoints that align with those of his mentor, Ibn Taymiyyah, regarding the classification of istighatha as a form of major shirk. Notably, Ibnul Qayyim is the scholar who referenced the statement of Al-Qadi Abu Ya‘la, and he refrained from raising any dissenting objections to it, a course of action he assuredly would have taken had he interpreted Al-Qadi’s perspective as divergent from his own conviction that istighatha constitutes major shirk.

Finally, and of greater significance, it bears emphasizing that formulating a comprehensive assessment of Al-Qadi’s method of pronouncing takfeer and his theological framework concerning the veneration of saints solely on the foundation of this isolated and ambiguous sentence is an exceedingly irresponsible approach.

In summation, individuals who endeavor to magnify the significance of this solitary and decontextualized utterance by Al-Qadi, which was a response to general inquiries posed by the residents of Makkah, are merely revealing their sense of desperation. It is incumbent upon them to possess a more scholarly approach and refrain from resorting to such tactics.

Recommended Reading:

Ibadah Discourse

---

[1] For example, Abu Mansur al-Maturidi states in his Qur’anic commentary that Shirk is rationally deduced to be haram:

الشرك حرام بالعقل، ويلزم كل من عقل التوحيد

Likewise, Imam al-Qurtubi says in his Qur’anic commentary that all the forms of Shirk are haram:

فَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ عُلَمَاءَنَا رضي الله عنهم قَالُوا: الشِّرْكُ عَلَى ثَلَاثِ مَرَاتِبَ وَكُلُّهُ مُحَرَّمٌ

[2] There are too many examples to show, a couple would suffice.

Ali b. Ismail al-Abyari (d. 616 A.H.) states in his Sharh al-Burhan:

فإذا استقر ذلك، فما ليس بقرآن انقسم قسمين: [قسم] علم ضرورة أنه ليس بقرآن. فمن قال: هو قرآن، فهو مخطئ كافر. أما خطؤه، فمن جهة عدوله عن الحق. وأما كفره، فمن جهة تكذيب الرسول

Al-Babirti (d. 786 A.H.) says in his Sharh Mukhtasar bin al-Hajib:

واستدل على أن نافي ملة الإسلام مخطئ كافر اجتهد أو لم يجتهد بظواهر الآيات

[3] Ibn Taymiyyah remarks in Majmu al-Fatawa:

قَالَ لَفْظِي بِالْقُرْآنِ مَخْلُوقٌ يُرِيدُ بِهِ الْقُرْآنَ فَهُوَ جهمي فَالْإِنْسَانُ وَجَمِيعُ صِفَاتِهِ مَخْلُوقٌ حَرَكَاتُهُ وَأَفْعَالُهُ وَأَصْوَاتُهُ مَخْلُوقَةٌ وَجَمِيعُ صِفَاتِهِ مَخْلُوقَةٌ؛ فَمَنْ قَالَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْ صِفَاتِ الْعَبْدِ إنَّهَا غَيْرُ مَخْلُوقَةٍ أَوْ قَدِيمَةٌ فَهُوَ مُخْطِئٌ ضَالٌّ وَمَنْ قَالَ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْ كَلَام اللَّهِ أَوْ صِفَاتِهِ إنَّهُ مَخْلُوقٌ فَهُوَ مُخْطِئٌ ضَالٌّ.

[4] See the citations linked to footnotes 6 and 7 in this article.