Istighatha of the Dead, and the Al-Majaz al-Aqli Defense

Many advocates of saint veneration who support beseeching the dead argue that this practice does not constitute major Shirk because it is not a literal appeal to the deceased for assistance. They justify this by referencing a rhetorical device known as al-Majaz al-Aqli.[1]

For instance, when we say, “This water quenched my thirst,” or “This medicine cured me,” we acknowledge that Allah is the ultimate cause of all effects. However, due to the manner of our speech, it may seem as though we are attributing the ultimate cause to something else. Similarly, it is argued that calling upon the dead by saying, “Help me,” does not imply a belief that the deceased saint possesses the power to help. Instead, the supplicant intends only Allah as the actual cause and helper.

It’s important to remember that many who put forth this argument interlinked it with their stance on occasionalism (the theory of kasb), whereby all secondary causes are negated with the only real cause and doer being Allah. That’s why many proponents of this view had no problem using analogies like, “I can say this drink quenched my thirst, but intending, in reality, that only Allah truly quenched my first.”[2]

Setting aside the dubious and contentious doctrine of occasionalism,[3] there are additional issues with the appeal to the rhetorical device of Al-Majaz al-Aqli in this context.

Firstly, it contradicts the conventional use of language and common speech patterns. All Arabic scholars permit the use of emphasis (tawkeed) in the language. For instance, in the phrase “the man himself built his house” (بنى الرجل نفسُه بيتَه), the emphasis on “himself” implies that the man played a significant role in building the house. This rhetorical emphasis is meaningful precisely because it reflects actual involvement.

Moreover, traditional communication methods do not support the indiscriminate extension of Al-Majaz al-Aqli to all contexts. We do not request things from specific individuals unless we expect them to take some action. For example, I would not ask my friend, Ahmad, “Please help my stomach ache go away,” unless I actually expect him to assist, perhaps by massaging my stomach or procuring medicine. It would be illogical to ask Ahmad in that manner if I believed he could not help at all, especially when I could instead ask Khaled, the pharmacist, who could genuinely assist me.

Furthermore, this would have significant juristic implications. It could invalidate a substantial portion of apostasy rulings in our fiqh manuals, allowing individuals to argue that actions deemed indicative of apostasy by jurists can be interpreted differently. For instance, if someone outwardly makes dua to Buddha, he could defend himself by claiming that he is actually calling out to Allah, the true doer, and so on.

Moreover, this approach could undermine the established Islamic principle of judging actions based on their apparent meaning. The Prophet (peace be upon him) assessed statements by their explicit content, not by their underlying intent. This is evident from his rebuke of the speaker in the following instance:

‘Adi b. Hatim reported that a person recited a sermon before the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) thus: He who obeys Allah and His Apostle, he in fact follows the right path, and he who disobeys both of them, he goes astray. Upon this the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: What a bad speaker you are; say: He who disobeys Allah and His Apostle. Ibn Numair added: He in fact went astray. [Saheeh Muslim]

Also, the Prophet (peace be upon him) felt uneasy here:

Narrated Ar-Rabi`: (the daughter of Muawwidh bin Afra) After the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet (ﷺ) came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the tambourines and reciting elegiac verses mourning my father who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said, “Among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow.” On that the Prophet said, “Leave this (saying) and keep on saying the verses which you had been saying before.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly focused on the explicit wording itself. He did not dismiss the apparent meaning when someone equated him with Allah or ascribed knowledge of the unseen to him.

Many individuals who beseech the dead are illiterate villagers with a limited grasp of Arabic; to assume that such individuals understand Al-Majaz al-Aqli is highly improbable, to say the least.

Furthermore, numerous indicators undermine the Al-Majaz al-Aqli justification by examining many of these supplicants’ relationships with their deceased saints. We observe them beseeching the dead with a level of reverence typically reserved for Allah alone. We also see them seeking closeness to these saints through actions such as sujud and ritual slaughter. The application of Al-Majaz al-Aqli is not plausible in these instances. Words carry significant weight, and many of these invocations contain explicit terms of Shirk.

Furthermore, those who invoke Al-Majaz al-Aqli in this context are misapplying its conventional use in the language. They are unjustifiably conflating informing (خبر) with requesting. In linguistic practice, Al-Majaz al-Aqli is appropriately used for informing (خبر). For example, one might say, “Spring has grown the herbs” (أنبت الربيع البقل). However, this does not imply that one can call upon spring itself to grow the herbs. Thus, Al-Majaz al-Aqli cannot be validly invoked to justify calling out to others in this manner. Some attempt to use this example from the hadith:

Rabi’a b. Ka’b said: I was with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) one night. and I brought him water and what he required. He said to me: Ask (anything you like). I said: I ask your company in Paradise. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Or anything else besides it. I said: That is all (what I require). He said: Then help me to achieve this for you by devoting yourself often to prostration. [Saheeh Muslim]

This analogy is fallacious because it is already established and known that the Prophet (peace be upon him) serves as an intercessor and not as the actual granter of paradise for Muslims. The man is not addressing the Prophet (peace be upon him) with, “Please grant me Jannah and salvation,” only to later clarify, “I know the Prophet has no power or ability to do this; I know it is Allah alone who does it.”

How can this be compared to people sacrificing and prostrating to dead saints in reverence, invoking them with requests such as, “Please help me have a child,” or “Please send down the rain”? This comparison is utterly absurd.

May Allah keep us steadfast in Tawheed and grant us sincerity, preventing us from resorting to desperate arguments in defense of our sect’s positions when they are evidently incorrect.

Recommended Reading:

Ibadah Discourse

---

Note: The arguments used in this article are mainly adapted from Shaykh Sultan al-Umayri’s book commentary on Kitab at-Tawheed.

[1] See: Ali Ahmad Hussein, Majāz ῾Aqlī “Intellectual Trope” and the Description of Wine in a Poem By Abū Dhu᾿Ayb Al-Hudhalī, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 71 (4), 429–442 (2018)

[2] Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304 A.H.) said in his ad-Dorar as-Saniyyah fil Radd 'ala al-Wahhabiyyah:

مع أنَّ تلك الألفاظ الموهمة يمكن حملها على المجاز من غير احتياجٍ إلى التَّكفير للمسلمين، وذلك المجاز مجازٌ عقليٌّ شائعٌ ومعروفٌ عند أهل العلم، ومستعملٌ على ألسنة جميع المسلمين، وواردٌ في الكتاب والسنة، وعليه يُحمل قول القائل: هذا الطعام أشبعني، وهذا الماء أرواني، وهذا الدواء شافاني، وهذا الطبيب نفعني، فكل ذلك عند أهل السنة محمول على المجاز العقلي، فإنَّ الطعام لا يشبع حقيقة، والمشبع حقيقة هو الله تعالى، والطعام سببٌ عاديٌّ لا تأثير له

[3] See: A Critique of the Scriptural Evidence for Occasionalism