INTRODUCTION
For the past three hundred years, few issues have caused as much controversy and consternation as the the issue of “al-istighatha wa al-tawassul.” Some of the greatest debates that have engaged both the minds of scholars and the public in these centuries have revolved around the fall of the Ottoman empire, navigating Islam for the first time without a caliphate, the advent of modernist ideologies such as secularism, modern science, technology, the place of speculative theology (Kalam), and even the very necessity of Islam itself in the modern day. Yet, the topic of this book remains one of the most controversial of all of these subjects.
In this book, the practice of istighatha is exemplified by the calling upon someone other than Allah with phrases like:
- Yā Rasūl Allāh, ishfini (‘heal me, O Messenger of Allah’),
- Yā fulān, madad (‘O so-and-so, help me’), or;
- “O’ friend of Allah, grant me children!
This practice is purported to have begun fairly early on in Islamic history. Indeed, proponents of istighatha attempt to evince that it was something allowed by Allah’s Messenger himself. However, it did not become a major controversy until about the eighth hijri century (14th century Gregorian). At that time, the scholarly community split into two camps with respect to this issue.
On one hand were the traditionalists, consisting of Ash’aris, Maturidis, and some Hanbalis. Following the statements of the fuqaha of their respective madh’ahib, they found evidence permitting various forms of istighatha and tawassul. While these scholars are themselves not monolithic, they all agree that a person may not be rendered a kaffir by partaking in these practices. Some of them found istighatha to be haram, a reprehensible bidd’ah that could even lead to shirk, while others found it to be encouraged.
On the other hand were the followers of shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah proposed a revisionist view. He claimed that many of the practitioners of istighatha, especially among ignorant laymen, had fallen into outright shirk. Their devotion at the sites of the righteous had become akin to the polytheism of Quraysh.
This text, “Isti’athat al-Ma’mul fi Hukm al-Istighatha bi al-Rasul” – the Hopeful devotee’s plea for refuge [with Allah] as pertains to the ruling of beseeching the Messenger – seeks to critically evaluate both positions. The idea for this work was serendipitous. While I have followed this debate for years and was brought up within a strand of Taymiyyanism (Wah’habism), I followed the critiques of the traditionalists carefully. While I was researching a seemingly unrelated matter, that of the religious landscape of Jahili Quraysh, I came upon a startling conclusion.
Both sides of the istighatha debate were formulating their arguments and creating interpretative frameworks based on key misconceptions. These misconceptions were rooted in a lack of anthropological knowledge and the academic study of religion. As a result, the projection of Islamic normativity onto places where it did not belong lead to arguments that were borne from false premises.
Therefore, this book is not a partisan polemic to bolster either side. The author believes that both sides have a portion of the truth, however have made fundamental errors which lead to downstream misinterpretations.
We will begin this investigation by defining the basic terms of the debate which both sides agree with. Then, we will conduct a cursory review of the history of the istighatha debate among the scholars until ibn Taymiyyah. Subsequently, we will analyze ibn Taymiyyah’s contributions and that of his major student ibn al-Qayyim to this debate. In doing so, we will have traced the historical origins of the central arguments both sides present.
Subsequently, we will review both the Ash’ari and Taymiyyan arguments as to the religion of Quraysh. We will impartially present the evidences of both sides and the counter-evidences of their interlocuters. Then, we will present epigraphic, anthropological, and academic study of religion arguments as to the religion of Quraysh. Finally, we will conclude with the author’s thesis of Qurayshi religion.
After having this new thesis, we will re-evaluate the parameters of the istighatha debate. The Ash’ari and Salafi definitions of Tawhid, Iman, Islam, and Ihsan will be evaluated in light of the new Qurayshi thesis. As will the concepts of shirk and kufr, then ‘ibadah. Finally, after proposing definitions more in-line with the new thesis, a definition of ‘ibadah is presented.
Once the theoretical framework is in place, we will apply the redefined parameters based on the new Qurayshi thesis to the most hotly contentious issues of the istighatha debate. Firstly, we will present a new stress test and utilize an old one. Then we will take the evidences that are used to justify istighatha – from Qur’an, Sunnah, and Athar – and examine them in light of our new thesis.
In conclusion, we will discuss the issues of takfir as pertains to istighatha. This discussion will not be exhaustive nor will it consider the previous opinions of the Ash’airah or the Salafiyyah. The reason for this is that it is not the topic of this book. Rather, an approach that is in accordance with the new Qurayshi thesis will be advanced.
It is hoped that the research which has went into this book and the subsequent conclusions are beneficial to the reader. I ask Allah to accept this very humble effort from his most needy slave. If it helps even one believer have iman settle more firmly in his heart and inspire tolerance toward his brethren then it should be an astounding success.