Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mohammed AlSharif's avatar

السلام عليكم

One issue I don’t understand is: is Istighatha only Shirk Al-Uluhiyyah or both Shirk Al-Uluhiyyah and Shirk Al-Rububiyyah? If you say it’s both, then what’s the point of proving that the pagan Arabs had Tawhid Al-Rububiyyah? And how is Istighatha also Shirk Al-Rububiyyah when Asharis who do this act don’t believe their saints are independent of Allah? Is Shirk Al-Rububiyyah restricted to just believing other than Allah acts independently or are there certain things when attributed to other than Allah are considered Shirk whether or not it’s accompanied with the belief that the saint acts independently of Allah? Thank you.

Expand full comment
Afiq's avatar

I think you should list all of the verses and ahadith that demonstrate that the Prophet ﷺ was not Alim al Ghayb. Barelwis and extreme sufis have this belief about the Prophet ﷺ and saints that is eerily similar to how Unitarians believe about Jesus and their saints.

Also according to the following quora post.....

https://ibrahimspost.quora.com/Im%C4%81m-Ibn-Taym%C4%AByyah-on-Takf%C4%ABr-and-Istigh%C4%81tha

.....Sh. Muhammad Abd al-Wahid al-Azhari mentioned that scholars have traditionally used istighatha-like formulations/phrases in the majazi sense. So they’d for e.g. say “ya fulan, provide for me” but actually mean “O Allah provide for me due to the dhat/jah of fulan”. This is istighatha in the majazi sense but tawassul in the haqiqi sense. Are such formulations valid even if the niyya is sound?

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts