Allah, to whom all honour belongs, is the Creator of the universe. He has unlimited power and His sovereignty extends over everything, living and non-living, earthly and ethereal. He is the only true Helper. While all other aids are bound in the vicious chain of cause-and-effect, His transcends these limitations. Whatever takes place in the universe, on the earth and in the heavens, owes to the exercise of His will and power. The world of becoming and the world of being dance to His tunes. From Him alone emanate the eternal concepts of right and truth. He is the One Who causes the brightness of the day to lapse into the darkness of the night and then the brilliant sun to pop out of its murky folds and the whole process occurs in imperceptible grades and shades that one is simply stunned by its inviolate precision. While human calculation fails or shows unpredictable variation, divine calculus remains steady and varied and is immune to the "slings and arrows"[1] of unpredictability. He is Unique in His self-orientation and in His attributes. He has no partner and associate and, single-handedly, He blesses billions of creatures with the gift of life, reclaims His blessings in the flash of a second leaving the living creature a mere bundle of bones and "a heap of broken images"[2] and administers countless worlds stretching to inconceivable limits. Each particle in the universe carries the stamp of His identity. No other object or creature has the power to possess anything of his own free will because his will is moulded by divine consent. Whatever he owns or possesses is a divine gift and not a self-created achievement. An individual has no right of possession even over his own body. Gain and loss, life and death and resurrection after death are not in human control. Allah alone is directly responsible for the act of living and the act of dying because He controls each breath we inhale, each movement we make and each step we take.

Human acts may be justified by purely human motives in terms of cause-and-effect and, only to this extent, it is supported by Islamic regulations and Qur’anic injunctions. On this level it is possible to believe that a creature is himself responsible for his gain and loss and it is through his personal efforts that he has attained certain possessions or achieved a specific degree of excellence. But to hold him responsible for gain and loss from the point of view of creation, invention, disease or absolute power is incorrect. If we take a deeper view we will realise that any attribution of gain and loss, life and death, belonging and possession to the creatures is not real but figurative. All such phenomena should actually be arrogated to only Allah, as He alone deserves it. But, unfortunately, some people have a chronic addiction to twist the Qur’anic verses and clamp on them an interpretation that is tailored either to their preconceived notions or reflects a kind of perverse self-indulgence. In order to put a philosophical spin on their distorted derivations, they rely on hair-splitting and logic chopping. But their interpretations are inconsistent with the actual semantic tenor of the Qur’anic verses, and these ‘mini-devils’, instead of drawing closer to the meaning of the Qur’an, are drawn further apart and like “vacant shuttles weave the wind.” But such people abound in the present times as extremism has elbowed out moderation, vulgarity has edged out modesty and shame has replaced decency. These people have eliminated the difference between the literal and figurative meanings of the Qur’anic verses and discarded the sobering influence of moderation. They consider it valid to base their arguments on the real meanings of these verses. Therefore, they are pathetically allergic to any metaphorical elaboration. This is the reason they have turned their faces from the explanations and interpretations offered by our forefathers. They are trying to create purely opinionative explanations and giving rise to unpalatable innovations and they are busy generating beliefs, which run counter to the actual teachings of the Qur’an and the sunnah. If we cast an impartial glance, we come across innumerable ignoramuses among the masses who are victims of literal distortion and blow out of all proportion the figurative dimension, throwing the element of moderation to the winds. Their misplaced enthusiasm is as irritating as the unwelcome prejudice of the others is unsettling. Though they are firmly anchored to their faith in divine unity and other Islamic beliefs they are treated as suspects and pariahs by those who regard figurative interpretation as alien to the essence of Islam. But the fact is that those who are in search of truth follow the path of balance and moderation; they shun extremism in any shape and form. Therefore, if they keep in mind the Qur’anic concept of balance, they can bridge the chasm between the two extremes of literal and figurative interpretation and reknit the Muslims into a more dynamic unity. It is this spirit of moderation and creative reconciliation that can guarantee the security of our faith and generate a sane and sensible response to divine unity.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah is regarded a controversial figure as far as the interpretation of Islamic beliefs is concerned. But this is flying in the face of reality. In fact, his belief is rooted in balance. And if it receives an objective and impartial interpretation from our contemporary scholars, it can provide a link between the two extreme positions. The present situation is that a group of people, on the basis of their limited understanding of Islamic beliefs, is offering a self-concocted version of the teachings of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah to seek endorsement for their own flawed views, while others with correct Islamic belief, are accusing him of un-Islamic beliefs which is, in fact, only a reflection of their ignorance of facts. Thus, while the first group is guilty of wilful falsification, the second group is handicapped by factual limitation. But a correct understanding of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s views can straighten out the hump in their understanding of Islamic beliefs and draw them closer in the process.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s view is the view held by all Muslims: "Allah is One; He has no associate; He alone is to be worshipped. We should pray only to Him and seek only His help. Anyone who regards non-God as the source of help is automatically expelled from the fold of Islam, as it is a negation of divine unity. Allah alone has the power to reward our good deeds and condone our sins. Besides Him, no one on his own can either enable someone to do good or avoid evil. To seek help from the prophets or saints is justified only on the basis of its borrowed status, as it has no independent existence. Its ultimate source is Allah alone.” This is the correct Islamic belief and any deviation from it amounts to entertaining false beliefs. Ibn Taymiyyah has discussed the validity of istighatah and tawassul in detail in his book Qa‘idah jalilah fit-tawassul wal-wasilah.

Once Imam Ibn Taymiyyah was questioned whether it was valid or invalid to depend on the mediation of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), he replied:

Lexical research into the word istighathah

The etymological composition of the word istighathah is based on the three letters: ghayn, waw and tha (ghawth), which means help. Istighathah means "to seek help". Imam Raghib Asfahani explains its meaning in these words:

The lexicologists believe that the words istighathah and isti‘anat both mean “to seek help”. Imam Raghib Asfahani says:

The word isti‘anat is also used in the holy Qur’an in a similar sense, that is, to seek help. In surah al-Fatihah, the Qur’an declares while grooming the followers in the etiquette of supplication:

Kinds of istighathah

According to the interpretations of Arab lexicologists and exegetes, the meaning of the word istighathah is to seek help. It expresses itself in two forms:

1. Appeal by word (istighathah bil-qawl)

2. Appeal by deed (istighathah bil-‘aml)

If a person, trapped in difficulties, appeals for help through words uttered by his tongue, it is called ‘appeal by word’, and if he appeals for help on the basis of his present condition or situation, it is called ‘appeal by deed’.

1. Appeal by word

Islam is the religion of nature (din-ul-fitrah) and it is the religion of all prophets, from Adam (as) to the last Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). The concept of divine unity forms the matrix of their teachings. According to any shari‘ah, including the shari‘ah of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), there is no real helper except Allah while in this verse, his followers have appealed to Musa (as) for help. If it were a form of disbelief, the miracle that accompanied it would not have materialised, as there is no link between disbelief and a miracle because miracles have divine sanction behind them. History is a witness that whenever the prophets were asked to perform an act in violation of the divine unity, they stamped out the appeal firmly in order to pre-empt all forms of disbelief in future as any pussyfooting on this count could have weakened faith and entrenched evil. Therefore, they strictly forbade their followers to indulge in any such activity. On the other hand, in the verse Allah Himself is empowering Musa (as) to perform the miracle at the appeal of his followers. It means that the real helper is Allah Himself and He is delegating His powers to Musa (as) to perform the miraculous act. The verse also clearly illustrates the difference between real and delegated power. While Allah’s power is real, as it is self-activating, Musa’s power is delegated as it depends on, and draws its nourishment from, the divine will.

2. Appeal by deed

To appeal for help through some specific act or on the basis of one’s present plight and predicament without uttering a word is known as appeal by deed. The Qur’an records the miracle that happened to Allah’s beloved and venerable prophets to justify appeal by deed. Ya‘qub (as) had lost his eyesight on account of excessive crying when his son Yusuf (as) had been separated from him. When Yusuf (as) came to know about it, he sent his shirt to his father through his brothers as an appeal for assistance. He directed the brothers to touch the eyes of his father with the shirt, which would help him regain his eyesight. As a result of the act of touching, Ya‘qub (as) recovered his vision. Allah has referred to this incident in the holy Qur’an in these words:

When his brothers touched the eyes of Ya‘qub (as) with the shirt, he regained his eyesight through the divine will. The Qur’an says:

The auspicious act of Ya‘qub (as), through which he regained his vision, was practically made possible with the assistance of Qur’anic example of appeal by deed in which Yusuf’s shirt served as a means for the recovery of eyesight by the divine will.

Link between intermediation and appeal for help

Both intermediation (tawassul) and appeal for help (istighathah) have a common focus of meaning. What differentiates them from each other is the nature of the defining act. When the act relates to the help-seeker, the act is known as appeal for help, and the virtual helper whose help is being sought will act only as an agent or a means because the real helper is Allah Himself. Thus Ya‘qub’s act serves as an appeal for help and the shirt serves as a means to invoke help. On the other hand, when Allah’s help is beseeched through direct prayer, He in this case acts as the real helper because there is no greater source than the source of divine assistance. Therefore, while intermediation is loaded with indirect implications, appeal for direct help from Allah has a palpitating immediacy about it and elicits a more prompt response. In short, the Qur’anic verse clearly establishes the fact that appeal for help by deed is proved by the practice of the prophets. (A detailed discussion on the concept of intermediation is available in our book Islamic Concept of Intermediation.)

Difference between appeal for help and supplication

To seek help in a state of trouble, grief and pain is called appeal for help. When someone cries for help unconditionally, it is called supplication as it precludes the condition of trouble, grief and pain. The relation between supplication (du‘a’) and appeal for help (istighathah), in fact, boils down to the relation between general and particular. While supplication is unconditional, appeal is conditional; it is spurred by some trouble or pain. Therefore, each appeal is a form of prayer while each prayer is not a form of appeal for help. And this is the basic distinction between appeal and prayer.

Use of the word du‘a’ in the holy Qur’an

The meaning of da‘a, yad‘u and da‘watan is to call and implore. The root da‘a is used in various senses in the holy Qur’an. A few significant aspects of the word du‘a’ are explained below to illustrate the way the Qur’an has conceptualised it in various contexts:

1. an-Nida’ (calling)

In the Holy Qur’an the word du‘a’ is used in the sense of nida’, and sometimes nida’ and du‘a’ are interchangeable. For instance, the Qur’an says:

2. at-Tasmiyyah (naming)

In the Arabic lexicon sometimes the word du‘a’ is used in the sense of naming or calling. Imam Raghib Asfahani has given a very apt example:

Similarly, the holy Qur’an, stressing the dignity and reverence of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), says:

In this sacred verse, Allah Himself has laid stress on the special respect to be accorded to the holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). He has commanded the believers not to address the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by his name Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Whenever he is to be called, he should be addressed by the special titles of Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Friend of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is reinforced by the vocative forms used in the holy Qur’an. Allah Himself has nowhere addressed him by his first name: at no place in the Qur’an He has addressed him directly as ya Muhammad (O Muhammad).

3. al-Istighathah (beseeching for help)

The word du‘a’ has also been used in the Qur’an in the sense of begging and beseeching for help as is declared by Allah:

4. al-Hath ‘ala al-qasd (persuasion)

The word du‘a’ is sometimes used to persuade someone to do something or to provoke someone. The Qur’an illustrates this meaning in the verse given below:

The word du‘a’ in the sense of desiring is frequently used in the Arabic lexicon. The Qur’an offers the following example:

6. ad-Du‘a’ (supplication)

The word du‘a’ is also sometimes used in the sense of supplication that is sent to the Lord. The Qur’an records the prayer of His favoured ones in the following terms:

7. al-‘Ibadah (worship)

Worship of Allah is also called du‘a’ as is stated by the holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم):

8. al-Khitab (address)

In addition to these meanings, the word du‘a’ sometimes carries the meaning of address or speech. At the occasion of the battle of Uhud, when the Companions seemed to lose heart and were fighting in scattered groups, and only a few of them were concentrated around him, the holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called those who had scattered away from him. The Qur’an has described his words in these terms:

The word yad‘ukum of the verse, that is, he was addressing you, cannot be interpreted in the sense of worship. This interpretation borders on sheer disbelief, which is simply inconceivable for the true believer.

Self-fabricated division of du‘a’

After discussing at length the eight recognised forms of du‘a’, we will now focus on some of the irrelevant encroachments on its authentic frame of reference. Some people, in order to declare appeal for help and intermediation as invalid acts, have devised a self-concocted division of du‘a’ as their negation of appeal for help is not supported by any argument from the Qur’an. All of their assumptions are based on intellectual hair-splitting, which is in fact a product of their flawed reasoning. In order to establish appeal for help as a form of disbelief, they first dress it in the robes of du‘a’ and then derive two self-engineered kinds of du‘a’:

1. Du‘a’ as worship

2. Du‘a’ as begging

1. Du‘a’ as worship

The first kind of du‘a’ is worship and all kinds of Allah’s worship are in fact different forms of supplication as stated by the holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم):

Du‘a’ is the essence (kernel) of worship.[22]

While, according to another tradition, du‘a’ is also equated with worship:

Du‘a’ is precisely a form of worship.[23]

Since only worship of Allah is valid, therefore, they erroneously conclude that, in conformity to this meaning, any du‘a’ attributed to non-God is a form of worship, and therefore, by virtue of this association, a form of disbelief.

2. Du‘a’ as begging

To beg someone, to acknowledge someone as the solver of your problem and extend a begging hand to him is called du‘a’ as begging.

The objection raised by these people is that, since Allah Alone has the power to solve problems, therefore, He Alone should be implored to solve them. Since the person’s act of begging is an acknowledgement of his creaturely status, therefore, beseeching non-God for help is an acknowledgement of servitude to him and of being his creatures and thus is a form of disbelief. According to them, the person indulging in this act is a disbeliever.

Distinction as the purpose of division is absent

This division, even from the viewpoint of this group, is irrelevant as a proof to justify the inauthenticity of appeal for help. It is both extraneous and unnecessary. They, in fact, have dissipated their division by presenting it in a semantically identical garb as they have merged du‘a’ as begging into du‘a’ as worship. What is the point in creating such a division when according to them, both kinds of du‘a’ are forms of disbelief? The fact is that this division is absolutely unwarranted. The relevance of the division is proved only when it leads to the formulation of a different set of rules and regulations. Since they lack a separate identity, their division becomes superfluous. This can be illustrated through a simple example.

The act of prostration is divided into two kinds:

1. Prostration as an act of worship.

2. Prostration as an act of reverence.

These two kinds of prostration are kept in two separate compartments: prostration as an act of worship and prostration as an act of reverence do not merge. While the first kind is inspirational, the second kind is ceremonial; the first one is an expression of faith in divine unity, the second is merely a ritualised representation of a ceremony, and the twofold division reflects their differentiating features. Therefore, any attempt at merging the two kinds is a negation of divine unity. In addition, the two kinds are different in their regulatory aspect. If the act of prostration is performed before a person with the intention of worship, it clearly amounts to disbelief; if it is performed as an expression of reverence, it will not constitute an act of disbelief, though it may be declared a forbidden act. For example, if a Muslim drinks, commits adultery, murders, etc., he commits a forbidden (haram) act and is a sinner, violator, rashly extravagant, etc. But if he considers his act as lawful (halal), he is committing disbelief. He is negating Islam and will be declared an apostate. It means every forbidden act is not disbelief, but to consider some forbidden act as lawful is disbelief.

Let us take another example. A word has three kinds: noun, verb and letter. All the three are mutually incompatible and any attempt at their merger amounts to linguistic absurdity.

Du‘a’ is not merely an act of worship

The contention that the word du‘a’ is used only in two senses is not practically tenable because its eight different applications have already been discussed. If we interpret du‘a’ as simply an act of worship, and the act of begging for help is also merged into the act of worship, then the entire society will be pushed down into the quagmire of disbelief and (God forbid) even the prophets will not be immune to this downward slide. Therefore, it should be clearly recognised that du‘a’ (calling) is not synonymous with worship in all contexts. If we do not acknowledge this difference between their contextual meanings, it will amount to opening Pandora’s box of disbelief, as no one will remain untainted by its rampant proliferation. The Qur’anic verse itself is a witness to the fact that the holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) himself also called non-God for help, and the Qur’an itself is according permission to call one another for help. If, as a supposition, we interpret da‘a, yad‘u, tad‘u, nad‘u as worship or as an act of beseeching help in every context of situation indiscriminately, which is regarded by some people as an auxiliary form of worship, then it will be quite problematic to offer a sound explanation of the following Qur’anic verses:

1. And, O my people, what is this that I call you to the (path of) salvation and you call me to hell?[24]

2. He said: O my Lord! I call my people night and day (to the right religion) but my call only increased their flight (from the religion).[25]

3. And Allah calls (people) to the home of peace (Paradise).[26]

4. Call (the adopted sons) by the names of their fathers: that is just in the sight of God.[27]

5. Then, let him call (for help) his comrades. We shall also, call (our) soldiers soon.[28]

6. Then they will call on them, and they will not listen to them.[29]

7. When we shall call together all factions of human beings with their leaders.[30]

8. And if you call them to guidance.[31]

Surah al-Fatihah and the concepts of isti‘anat and istighathah

Surah al-Fatihah not only conceptualises a number of Islamic beliefs in their quintessential form, but it also attractively presents the concept of appeal for help. It is stated:

(O Allah!) We worship only You and we seek help only from You. [32]

It is this Qur’anic verse that lays the foundation of appeal for help and assistance where worship and help are mentioned one after the other. The first part of the holy verse ¾ iyyaka na‘budu ¾ consists of the concept of Islamic worship, and the second part ¾ iyyaka nasta‘inu ¾ explains the concept of help and assistance. It is this verse whose superficial understanding has prompted some individuals to level allegations of disbelief against the entire Muslim community.

In fact, a superficial study of the verse has induced in them the baseless idea that both of its parts comprise semantically identical words. The first part mentions worship, which is exclusively reserved for Allah, while the second part refers to help and assistance. The use of identical words generally reflects an identical reality, and if one looks at this relationship superficially, one is likely to be deceived by the surface resemblance and may draw an incorrect inference. These people are the victims of a similar deception. They ignore the contextual implications of these words and equate appeal for help and assistance with the act of worship.

But if we dispassionately analyse the Qur’anic verse, we come to an entirely different conclusion. Though the repetition of similar words cannot be denied, the interpolation of the letter waw (and) between the two parts of the Qur’anic verse is not to be ignored either as it reflects a much deeper and more significant reality. If the injunction relating to help and worship were identical, Allah would never have inserted the letter waw between the two parts. The addition of waw points towards a clear-cut differentiation between the apparently similar expressions. This difference in meaning leads to the formulation of a different injunction for each one of them. If the appeal for help in iyyaka nasta‘inu were equated with the worship of God, the Qur’an would not have disassociated it from iyyaka na‘budu through the conjunction of separation i.e. waw. The use of the separative particle clearly indicates that the two parts of the holy verse reflect two different types of reality. If they were meant to portray identical reality, the two parts would not have been delinked by placing waw between them.

The Qur’an is an inimitable model of verbal condensation and precision and is, therefore, immune to the fallacies and distortions coined by logicians and philosophers. Each word in the Qur’an carries a precise and specific denotation and none of its letters can be declared irrelevant and superfluous as it discards all forms of waste and superfluity. If God had meant to forge a semantic coalescence between the two parts of the verse, He would never have differentiated them semantically through the addition of the particle of separation. The Qur’an contains scores of examples to endorse this dissimilarity. Where the difference is not intended, there the distinction is made conspicuous by the absence of any delinking element. Surah al-Fatihah, especially its first four verses, furnishes a clear proof of distinction:

All praise is only for Allah Who is the Sustainer of all the worlds. He is extremely Kind and Merciful. He is the Lord of the Day of Judgement. (O Allah,) we worship only You and we seek help only from You.[33]

An examination of these four verses reveals that, after a description of His extraordinary nature, four of His attributes are consecutively mentioned. Since they are not mutually exclusive and are specifically designed to create a cumulative impression so that each attribute reinforces the other, the separative waw is nowhere inserted between them. But, in the following verses, where difference is intended, the linguistic particle waw, is inserted to indicate the difference. Thus, it proves that du‘a’ and appeal for help and assistance are two different realities and, therefore, deserve different treatment and reception, and any attempt to expunge their semantic difference is an explicit violation of the inherent purpose of the Revelation. An exclusive reliance on flawed human reasoning spawns various forms of disbelief and those who are trapped in philosophical nuances and innuendoes drift far away from their real destiny. They not only create doubts in the minds of others but also become hostages to infinite confusion and fuzziness.

---

[1]. Shakespeare, Hamlet.

[2]. Eliot, The Burial of the Dead.

[3]. Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu‘ fatawa (1:140).