Ibn Taymiyyah was a Salafi scholar who lived in the seventh century Hijri. Although he made contributions to the Islamic scholarly field, he was a scholar who formulated serious ideas contrary to established Islamic understanding and strove vigorously to propagate them through his books. He questioned many of the established practices of Muslims worldwide by presenting Tawassul (seeking mediation of righteous individuals to obtain help from Allah) as Bid'ah (reprehensible innovation) and its other form, Istighatha (seeking help directly from the deceased or absent), as Shirk (polytheism). For this purpose, he formulated a division of Tawhid (Tawhid Rububiyyah, Uluhiyyah) unfamiliar to the scholarly world. Therefore, many contemporary and later scholars have intellectually opposed him. Imam Subki (﵀), Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (﵀), and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (﵀) are some of them.
He was the main ideological source for sub-sects that emerged in Islam in later periods. They have given him more importance than the Imams of the Madhhabs. They relied on his division of Tawhid for their prohibition of Istighatha. That is, Tawhid is not achieved merely by believing that Allah alone is the Creator, He alone has independent power, all others are merely His creations, and they can only intervene subject to Allah's control (Tawhid Rububiyyah); rather, Tawhid is complete only when one also prays only to Him and offers worship only to Him (Tawhid Uluhiyyah). On this basis, expecting supernatural help from great personalities, and believing that they can help in a supernatural way (which, in the parlance of modern innovators, is considered worship directed towards them) is Shirk (e.g., the belief that Prophets (Anbiya) and Saints (Awliya) hear our calls and help is obtained through them).
Even if one does not expect supernatural benefit from them, the belief that they are capable of supernatural interventions is Shirk for modern innovators. Their argument that supernatural intervention is an exclusive attribute of Allah is the basis of this futile argument. Although there are differences among modern innovators in determining the criteria for the supernatural, there is no disagreement among them that believing in the supernatural interventions of great personalities is Shirk.
Is this definition of Shirk familiar to Ibn Taymiyyah? According to this definition, does he too become guilty of Shirk in many instances? The purpose of this study is a serious discussion that gives impartial innovators an opportunity to reconsider.
Ibn Taymiyyah and Istighatha
Ibn Taymiyyah was the first in Islamic scholarly history to categorize Istighatha as Shirk. His contemporary, the famous Shafi'i scholar Imam Subki ﵀ (683-756), discussed this issue in his book "Shifa'us Saqam" and refuted Ibn Taymiyyah's weak arguments by presenting the history of Istighatha from Prophet Adam onwards, based on evidence. The great scholar Aliyubnu Ya'qub al-Bakri authored a book refuting Ibn Taymiyyah's claims regarding Istighatha and defending Istighatha. In response, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote the book "Al-Istighatha fi Raddi alal Bakri". In this book and other books like "Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim", he has attempted to categorize Istighatha as Shirk. However, he has not been able to face the crucial question of 'what is Shirk?' and provide a comprehensive definition. Therefore, he has had to speak in ways that undermine the foundations of his own basic arguments in many places. Note what he says while criticizing those who perform Istighatha in the aforementioned book responding to Imam Bakri.
ومن هؤلاء من يؤذي الميت بسؤاله إياه؛ أعظم مما يؤذيه لو كان حيا، وربما قضيت حاجته مع ذم يلحقه، كما كان الرجل يسأل النبي ﷺ حيا فيعطيه ويقول: «إن أحدكم يسألني المسألة فيخرج بها يتأبطها نارا»، ومن هذا، الحكاية المذكورة في الذي جاء إلى قبر النبي ﷺ وطلب منه سكباجا فأتاه بعض أهل المدينة فأطعمه سكباجا وأمره بالخروج من المدينة، وقال: إنه رأى النبي ﷺ فأمره أن يطعمه وأن يخرجه، وقال: من يقيم بالمدينة لا يتمنى ذلك أو كما قال ولا ريب أن النبي ﷺ بل ومن هو دونه حي يسمع كلام الناس، وكما قال ﷺ: «ما من رجل يسلم علي إلا رد الله علي روحي حتى أرد ﵇» و[«ما من رجل يمر بقبر الرجل كان يعرفه في الدنيا فيسلم عليه إلا رد الله عليه روحه حتى يرد عليه»
(Al-Istighatha fi Raddi alal Bakri 1/226)
"Among those who perform Istighatha, there are some who fulfill their needs by asking and troubling the deceased. A similar incident occurred after the passing of the Prophet ﷺ. A person came to his grave and asked for food. Some people of Madinah gave him food and ordered him to leave Madinah. They informed [him] that the food was given and he was ordered to leave Madinah based on a dream-instruction from the Prophet ﷺ. There is no doubt that the Prophet ﷺ, and those below him in rank, are alive in their graves and hear people's speech!"
He is making a futile attempt to categorize Istighatha as Shirk by arguing that it troubles the deceased. Didn't he state that the Prophet ﷺ and those under him would help through supernatural means even after their death? Is he trying to say that supernatural help can be obtained from them and believing this is not Shirk, but only asking for it is Shirk? Does he mean that Shirk is related to actions, not beliefs? If asking was Shirk, then why did the Prophet ﷺ fulfill his need? Shouldn't he have been made to understand that it was Shirk?
This argument seems to backfire on him from various angles. These are lines that modern innovators should ponder deeply. According to your argument that believing those other than Allah can help through supernatural means is Shirk, wouldn't Ibn Taymiyyah become a Mushrik (polytheist)? Or else, was it you or your ideological source who erred?
Ibn Taymiyyah Stumbling in Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim
This book ("Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim") was written to argue that many customs prevalent in the Muslim community during his time were, according to his claims, resemblances to non-believers and were bad practices. In this book, he refutes the established belief that there is special merit in praying near the graves of great personalities. Pay attention to some lines he wrote while trying to assert that evidences suggesting special significance for the graves of great personalities and thus special merit for praying there are not contrary to his argument.
ولا يدخل في هذا الباب: ما يروى من أن قوما سمعوا رد السلام من قبر النبي ﷺ، أو قبور غيره من الصالحين. وأن سعيد بن المسيب كان يسمع الأذان من القبر ليالي الحرة . ونحو ذلك. فهذا كله حق ليس مما نحن فيه، والأمر أجل من ذلك وأعظم.
وكذلك أيضا ما يروى: «أن رجلا جاء إلى قبر النبي ﷺ، فشكا إليه الجدب عام الرمادة فرآه وهو يأمره أن يأتي عمر، فيأمره أن يخرج يستسقي بالناس فإن هذا ليس من هذا الباب. ومثل هذا يقع كثيرا لمن هو دون النبي ﷺ، وأعرف من هذا وقائع.
وكذلك سؤال بعضهم للنبي ﷺ، أو لغيره من أمته حاجة فتقضى له، فإن هذا قد وقع كثيرا، وليس هو مما نحن فيه.
(Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim 2/254)
The fact that Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab (﵀) heard the Adhan from the Prophet's (ﷺ) grave, and that the Prophet (ﷺ) suggested a solution to a person who came to his grave complaining about a famine, are not exceptions to our argument (that there is no special merit in praying near the graves of great personalities). Incidents of the aforementioned type, where needs were fulfilled after complaining [to the deceased] after their death, have also occurred for those of lesser rank than the Prophet (ﷺ). I know of many such incidents.
وعليك أن تعلم: أن إجابة النبي ﷺ أو غيره لهؤلاء السائلين، ليس مما يدل على استحباب السؤال، فإنه هو «القائل ﷺ: «إن أحدهم ليسألني المسألة فأعطيه إياها، فيخرج بها يتأبطها نارا»،
فقالوا: يا رسول الله، فلم تعطيهم؟ قال: “يأبون إلا أن يسألوني، ويأبى الله لي البخ
وأكثر هؤلاء السائلين الملحين لما هم فيه من الحال، لو لم يجابوا لاضطرب إيمانهم، كما أن السائلين به في الحياة كانوا كذلك، وفيهم من أجيب وأمر بالخروج من المدينة.
فهذا القدر إذا وقع يكون كرامة لصاحب القبر.
(Iqtida' as-Sirat al-Mustaqim 2/255)
"The fact that the Prophet ﷺ and other great personalities responded to requests for help made to them after their death is not proof that asking them is a virtuous act. During his lifetime, the Prophet (ﷺ) fulfilled the needs of those who asked, but also said that asking is not good (he interprets the mentioned Hadith in a completely baseless manner). The Prophet (ﷺ) used to fulfill the needs even of those who asked while possessing enough to live on. It is such unnecessary asking that is opposed through this Hadith. It is not about a person in difficulty asking. Since those who ask are in particular situations, if their needs are not met, their very faith would be jeopardized (if the need is not fulfilled, developing a bad opinion about the great personalities would damage their Iman). It is to prevent this from happening that the great personalities respond. It is part of their Karamat."
These are lines that should be read carefully. Ibn Taymiyyah explained that great personalities solve our problems after their death, they help to protect our Iman, and this help is their Karamat. Yet, how irrelevant is his argument that one should not ask them. The Hadith brought as evidence has no connection whatsoever to the topic. Anyway, where would those who think beyond the positions of the predecessors find evidence?
To the Modern Innovators
The argument of modern innovators is that believing in the supernatural interventions and help of great personalities, even if one doesn't ask them, is Shirk. Since their ideological source, Ibn Taymiyyah, has admitted that great personalities provide supernatural help, some questions become pertinent.
1. According to the definition of modern innovators, wouldn't Ibn Taymiyyah become a Mushrik? Or was he unable to understand Shirk?
2. Since the ideological source has erred, who initiated this futile definition?
In reality, both Ibn Taymiyyah and the modern innovators have stumbled. Because there would be no evidence to question a virtuous act that started from Prophet Adam and was accepted by the scholars of the four Madhhabs. Imam Subki (﵀) opines that he was confusing the general public without properly substantiating his claims. It is another fact that he was unable to provide a comprehensive definition of Shirk.
The definition of Shirk as 'attributing supernatural interventions to those other than Allah and expecting supernatural help from them,' formulated in the face of constant scrutiny from Ahlus Sunnah, has no tradition beyond Rashid Rida. It is evident from the aforementioned explanations that this definition is unfamiliar to the Islamic scholarly world (even to Ibn Taymiyyah). We can hope that modern innovators will undertake a reconsideration of this definition, which was unfamiliar even to Ibn Taymiyyah.
