An intermediary for intercession?

For many the matter of calling upon any form of an intermediary, seeking intercession or otherwise, is a clear matter falling within the realm of Shirk (polytheism) and outright kufr (disbelief).  Along with the other pieces published under the broad theme of the origins of Shirk, we outline in translation here a specific chapter dedicated to this topic from Kitāb al-Tawḥeed by Professor Muḥammad ibn Abdullah al-Massari, may Allah preserve him.  The chapter is from Part 10 of that series which is entitled ‘The Nature of Sanctification and Devotional Rituals.’  This will appear, inshallah, in Volume 4 of the English translation.

As a subject, this matter is and very often can be, particularly divisive as well as emotive.  However, this needs to be properly deconstructed and understood.  For too long sweeping statements and terms have been applied and these don’t lend towards a proper or even detailed understanding.  Coupled with this, is the often outrageous notion held that current or previous scholars, however much this is implied, are above making mistakes.

Chapter 11

Is the person who places an intermediary between himself and Allah, calling upon them, asking for their Shafā’ah (intercession), necessarily a disbeliever – kāfir?  Stated differently, is the matter sufficiently clear that the person doing this is automatically and necessarily a kafir?  What seems to have gained prevalence in our era is derived from the mixture and obsession arising from the mind of Imām Ibn Taymiyyah.  In Majmu’ al-Fatāwa’ he said:

He the Almighty said: ‘No person to whom Allah had given the Scripture, wisdom, and Prophethood would ever say to people, ‘Be my servants, not Allah’s.’ [He would say], ‘You should be devoted to Allah because you have taught the Scripture and studied it closely.’  He would never command you to take angels and Prophets as lords. How could he command you to be disbelievers after you had devoted yourselves to Allah?’ [3: 79/80].  So the Exalted explained that taking the angels and Prophets as Arbāb (lords) is kufr.  Whoever makes the angels and Prophets wasā’iṭ (intermediaries), calling upon them, relying on them, and asking them to bring about benefit, to ward off harm, such as asking them to forgive sins, guide hearts, relieve distress, and fulfil needs, is a kāfir as per the ijmā’ of the Muslims.[1]

In response to the wording of Ibn Taymiyyah ‘taking the angels and Prophets as Arbāb (lords) is kufr,’ we would say indeed this is the ḥaqq (truth) with certainty, bearing no doubt therein, as it is expressed by way of the clear naṣṣ of the noble verse itself.  However the latter portion of what he argued as cited above, is not the exact wording as expressed in the infallible Qur’ān.  Rather, the explicit mention is regarding taking the angels and Prophets as Arbāb.  It refers to the language of the Arabs; other Qur’ānic verses and explanations derived from the Prophet Sunnah provide completion to undertaking what this means in terms of ‘taking’ and ‘Arbāb,’ which is the heart of the matter here.  The matter of kufr, disbelief, is expressly connected to ‘taking as lords,’ and not something other than that.

Without doubt, the mere belief in al-Rububiyyah – which from the correct stand point is a part of al-Uluhiyyah, for any other than Allah is kufr.  That is proven by the definitive evidences established from the Qur’ān, the Prophetic Sunnah and ijmā’.  Similar applies to those who would worship other than Allah, given that it necessarily implies that they believe in the object of worship as having some aspect of al-Rububiyyah or al-Uluhiyyah.  As set out exhaustively thus far, acts and words, in and of themselves, cannot be said to be construed as being worship or non-worship per se.  Belief must be taken into account. Acts of worship are made up of bodily acts and words, be they internal, relating to the sayings and actions of the heart, or externally realised, expressed on the tongue and carried out by the limbs of the body.  All are directed towards or devoted to someone or something which is believed to have al-Rububiyyah or al-Uluhiyyah besides Allah or alongside Allah, even if that were only in a single aspect.

As for where the Shaykh said: ‘Whoever makes the angels and Prophets wasā’iṭ (intermediaries), calling upon them…’ to the end of the quotation as set out above, this was his Tafsir upon the wording of the verse which stated ‘He would never command you to take angels and Prophets as lords.’  It is not more fitting than the one who said ‘He does not command you to make a kinship between Allah and the angels or for that matter the Prophets.’  Rather, this viewpoint is more apt due to the deep overview already mentioned which highlighted the belief of the Quraysh regarding the angels, as they said they were ‘the daughters of Allah.’  Also, in this regard, the belief of the Christians as it concerns Jesus, the son of Mary, peace be upon him and his mother.  It is well known that they regard him as the ‘son of God’; they also had beliefs which related to the Holy Spirit, Jibreel, that he is one of the hypostases of Allah.  In other words, bearing something of the same essential essence or nature.

Context of the verses

Particularly relevant here, is the context of the verses and fully wording, which is set out as follows:

وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِيقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ، مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِي مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ، وَلَا يَأْمُرَكُمْ أَنْ تَتَّخِذُوا الْمَلَائِكَةَ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ أَرْبَابًا أَيَأْمُرُكُمْ بِالْكُفْرِ بَعْدَ إِذْ أَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ، وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ النَّبِيِّينَ لَمَا آتَيْتُكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابٍ وَحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَاءَكُمْ رَسُولٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهُ قَالَ أَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَى ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِي قَالُوا أَقْرَرْنَا قَالَ فَاشْهَدُوا وَأَنَا مَعَكُمْ مِنَ الشَّاهِدِينَ، فَمَنْ تَوَلَّى بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

There are some who twist the Scripture with their tongues to make you [people] think that what they say is part of the Scripture when it is not; they say it is from Allah when it is not; they attribute lies to Allah and they know it.  No person to whom Allah had given the Scripture, wisdom, and Prophethood would ever say to people, ‘Be my servants, not Allah’s.’ [He would say], ‘You should be devoted to Allah because you have taught the Scripture and studied it closely.’  He would never command you to take angels and Prophets as lords.  How could he command you to be disbelievers after you had devoted yourselves to Allah?  Allah took a pledge from the Prophets, saying, ‘If, after I have bestowed Scripture and wisdom upon you, a messenger comes confirming what you have been given, you must believe in him and support him. Do you affirm this and accept My pledge as binding on you?’ They said, ‘We do.’ He said, ‘Then bear witness and I too will bear witness.’  Those who turn away after this are the ones who break pledges.[2]

All of this came within the context of an argument and prelude to the delegation of Najrān and the challenge from that famous incident.  Thus He said, may He be Glorified and Exalted:

مَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَنْ يُؤْتِيَهُ اللَّهُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحُكْمَ وَالنُّبُوَّةَ ثُمَّ يَقُولَ لِلنَّاسِ كُونُوا عِبَادًا لِي مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ كُونُوا رَبَّانِيِّينَ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ تُعَلِّمُونَ الْكِتَابَ وَبِمَا كُنْتُمْ تَدْرُسُونَ

No person to whom Allah had given the Scripture, wisdom, and Prophethood would ever say to people, ‘Be my servants, not Allah’s.’  [He would say], ‘You should be devoted to Allah because you have taught the Scripture and studied it closely.’[3]

Here, this is a clear declaration of the innocence of Christ, the son of Mary peace be upon him and his mother, from what the Christians claimed and attributed to them, be that a claim of divinity for himself, or that relating to the Holy Spirit.  Hence the verse which follows expressly says: ‘He would never command you to take angels and Prophets as lords.  How could he command you to be disbelievers after you had devoted yourselves to Allah?’  Given this, the statement made by the Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah as previously quoted ‘Whoever makes the angels and Prophets wasā’iṭ (intermediaries), calling upon them…’ etc. is evidently not an accurate Tafsir of the meaning of the verse.  Compounding this, it contains terms and expressions that are ambiguous, being neither precise nor self-evident.  The ‘intermediary’ could be a divine being, or in fact otherwise.  Calling or invoking could be directed toward someone believed to possess divinity, in which case it would be considered ibādah ‘worship.’  However, if it is directed toward someone not believed to possess divinity, then it is not considered ibādah and it is impossible for it to be as such.

A simple example

Without doubt some of the matters which are given such as the forgiveness of sins, the guidance pertaining to the hearts, a relief from distress as well as the fulfilment of needs, are not sought, not always or by necessity, except with the accompaniment of a particular belief regarding the one being asked, that they are perceived as a divine being.  Therefore that makes the one seeking this a mushrik and a kāfir.  For the sake of completeness and to stress emphatically, it is typically, but not always, or by necessity.  By way of a simple example, a Muslim may say to a friend – ‘I’m really distressed, suffering from serious hardship.  I beseech you to help relieve my distress, rescuing me from the current predicament.’  By saying that, he does not become a mushrik and a kāfir.  There has to be a certain belief present, which as shown by the context, is absent.  By way of comparison, this is completely unlike someone from the Quraysh, either in the pre-Islamic era or during the advent of revelation, who addresses the idol Hubal and says – ‘I’m really distressed, suffering from serious hardship.  I beseech you to help relieve my distress, rescuing me from the current predicament.’  Evidently that person is a mushrik and a kāfir, as the context would clearly show; ‘Hubal’ was one of the false deities of the Quraysh.  Although the wording expressed is the same, the judgment and outcome are vastly different.

One should therefore see quite clearly that the statement made by Imām Ibn Taymiyyah as quoted above, is neither precise nor well-defined.  Repetition of such in his works is highly problematic.  Moreover, it strongly suggests that his analysis in approach only focused on a superficial and outward appearance of the act or statement, without due consideration of any belief underpinning or accompanying it.  Naturally, the approach is flawed, with conclusions built upon it even more so.  As we have shown throughout this work, it leads to devastating consequences.  Invoking a claim that there is an ijmā’ – consensus, upon the matter from all Muslims is not uncommon.  In many instances he has done this and without proper justification.  It is an assertion that is unfounded.  We ask Allah, praying to Him that this wasn’t a deliberate lie.  If it was an ijmā’, it would be built upon falsehood, and the Ummah conferring upon misguidance, may Allah forbid that.

Regarding the correct and accurate meaning, which makes belief, specifically, belief in al-Uluhiyyah (divinity) or al-Rububiyyah (lordship) besides Allah, even if it were in a single aspect, the actual basis for judgment – this is the correct and precise meaning.  It is manifestly established by the verse which Ibn Taymiyyah cited, bolstered by a plethora of other verses in the Qur’ān, established from the Ṣaḥīḥ Prophetic Sunnah, as well as from the historical record.  Hence, all that is definitely established is thus necessarily subject to ijmā’.  Any who oppose that would land themselves in disbelief and outside the fold of Islam.

Endnotes

[1] Ibn Taymiyyah Majmu’ al-Fatāwa’ [Vol. 1, p. 127 (print edition)]

[2] Qur’ān, 3: 78/82

[3] Qur’ān, 3: 79