The “but, you ask your mom to make a sandwich for you, to make du’a for you, to pass the glass for you” argument. Ya Allah, where to begin addressing this shallow and superficial understanding that is based on a flawed comparison (logical fallacy)?!

Even a caveman knows the difference between asking his wife to make him food and calling on (invoking) a supernatural entity around a shrine to give him healthy children, longer life, health, success, and what have you! The former is part of the acknowledged ordinary life and course of action and the latter is tapping into the supernatural/unseen/transcendent for supra-ordinary achievement or goal in apparent acts of religious devotion.

Invoking transcendency/supernaturality is the hallmark of religious deification or worship of any kind. Invoking spirits/souls of all-hearing all-seeing dead imams/pirs/shaykhs. Rings bell? Oh, yeah, exactly the right amount of supernatural invocation going on in a patterned religious devotion! Just like them spirit-worshipers. Doesn’t matter they are created, independent, this or that. And, of course, the help you ask for is passing you the glass or making you a sandwiched, huh? No, no! It is exactly the type of help a worshipper would invoke from the entity they worship with clear address of language (‘Ya ‘Ali madad’ for example). It is The type of help that is beyond the scopes of ordinary humans and requires supernatural intervention in a clear context of deification and worship. But, but, but, you ask your mum, your mum to make dua for you.

I know my mom is not some supernatural spirit entity with the supernatural demi-god ability to hear everyone from anywhere like the spirits of imams and then channel supplications to Allah with the promise of acceptability, or other transcendent intervention and powers. I did not build shrines around my mother (or my late doctors grave), prostrate to her shrine tell people that my mother has supra-ordinary powers and abilities to help them whenever they call upon her, and make it a ritualistic practice for millions of people to come to kiss, bow down, and do what not in apparent religious gestures around her shrine. I know that she is just a human being who will practice ordinary course of action, e.g., stretch her hands in prayer like a human and utter with very human mouth and tongue and plead to Allah about me, perhaps Allah will accept me for her sake. Give me a break!

None other than the Qur’an itself makes very generic addresses without making it contingent on independence from Allah when dealing with the mother of all shirk i.e. calling upon other than Allah in du’a (for help, etc.) :

{And the places of worship are for Allah: So invoke not anyone along with Allah.} [Qur’an, 72:18]

{And who is more astray than he who invokes besides Allah those who will not respond to him until the Day of Resurrection, and they, of their invocation, are unaware. And when the people are gathered [Day of Judgement], they [who were invoked] will be enemies to them, and they will be deniers of their worship.} [Qur’an 46:5-6]

Whom Do You Call Upon Besides Allah? Servants Like You!

Notice how the Qur’an does not make it contingent on independence from Allah, yet you have seemingly intelligent individuals who make absurd arguments, conflating a religious ritual (du’a i.e. prayer) with worldly interactions or helping each other (e.g, to ask their friend for a cup of water). They do this to excuse themselves from these obvious acts of worship/praying (because acknowledging this obvious fact would mean they are directly in contradiction with their scriptures). Even anthropologists in universities categorize these people as “de facto polytheists” because it’s so obvious that’s what they are, even kuffar know it.

Doesn’t Allah know والعياذ بالله that we (mankind) ask each other for help every day? Of course, He, the Exalted, knows. Yet despite that he made the generic statement addressed to the believers to not call anyone but Him alone in prayer/supplication (du’a). This is because Allah is clearly speaking about ritual invocation i.e. du’a, the du’a (call) of worship (Du’a al-‘Ibadah), not Du’a (call) al-‘Addah (non-ritual asking, like when you ask your doctor to prescribe you something. You don’t raise your hand and make du’a to him when your local doctor is buried six feet under the ground).  

Other than in some miraculous instances (exceptions to the rule), neither the Prophet (ﷺ) – much less anyone below him in ran – could communicate (let alone rush to help) with anybody from afar. This is why the Sahabah, including ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) sent messengers on horses (who had to travel for hours and sometimes days) to deliver messages to nearby towns. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wasn’t aware that his wife ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was accidentally left alone in the desert, he could not hear her no matter if she would have called upon him day and night. The only evidence we have in the Shari’ah is that our salutations are delivered to the Prophet (ﷺ), nothing else. There is zero proof that the Prophet (ﷺ), much less other than him, turned into demigods after they left our world and are capable to hears every distress call and rush to our aid. A ‘with the permission of Allah’ won’t cut it, it does not constitute evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.

Quburi straw man: "Wahabis say it is shirk to call upon other than Allah if the person invoked is dead. How does the death of someone turn the practice into shirk?!" 




Response: This poor argument stems from the severe ignorance of the Quburis as they do not understand that ritually invoking the living is as shirk as ritually invoking the dead/absent. If 'Ali b. Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was alive and someone believed that he can hear all prayers and can respond and even provide madad/help whenever he is called upon, then he has committed shirk and 'Ali b. Abi Talib has been deified in his mind even if he doesn't call upon him.

Those who claim Islam and invoke other than Allah are essentially saying that Allah does not know how to speak to humanity about the most important thing (Tawhid and Shirk), how to relay the most important thing to humanity. How do they believe Allah doesn’t know how to speak properly, you ask, right? Let me explain. They say that there is no distinction between asking for transcendental benefits (universally known as praying) and asking each other for things in the dunya (e.g. cup of water); it is the independence contingency when asking that makes it shirk [regardless of whether it is the physically asking for a cup of water from your buddy or for rain, success in life from the transcendental, i.e., praying] – they say.

Now, the question is: if that is the case, then the polytheists on earth did shirk much more so by asking each other for help every single minute of their lives (because they don’t believe they’re helping each other is dependent on Allah either). And, to address this, saying “don’t invoke anyone besides Allah” makes no sense [it would mean completely ceasing all human activities which require helping each other at all times]. It would have been: “don’t believe that you are independent of Allah when invoking others” to make sense in that case, in order to stop shirk [as understood by those who call upon other than Allah in du’a].

If Allah says: “do not ask anyone else except me”, it doesn’t refer to the asking of things in the world that we can normally ask each other for (under physical laws) – e.g, asking a cup of water, for medication from a doctor, help from your buddy whatever. If it meant those as well, then Allah wouldn’t say “ask Allah alone” because that would mean a complete cessation of human activities. We can’t survive without helping each other out. Those who call upon other than Allah are taking Allah’s words out of context. When Allah says “ask me alone”, He is definitely referring to the asking of transcendental benefits (e.g. asking children, sustenance, fortune in life, success, protection etc.) in the religious sense which people on earth ask from other beings as well (gods, spirits, saints, pirs, imams, etc.).

Praying (religious): a concept that is distinctively known and understood by all religions and cultures on earth. One’s asking their mother for a sandwich is not a transcendental benefit, one does not invoke his mother raising one’s hand, one simply asks. Only then do the commands “ask/invoke/pray to Allah alone”, or, “do not ask/invoke/pray to anyone else except Allah” make sense. “And, the places of worship are only for Allah, so do not invoke/call upon besides Allah anyone else” – (Surah al-jinn 72:18).

“But our saints/pirs/shaykhs/imams whom we call upon besides Allah are dependant on Allah!”

As for the Sufi (Barelvi)/Rafidi get-out clause: ‘with the permission of Allah’ (a divine formula that they misuse):

There are zero proofs for their excessive (ghuluw) beliefs regarding the saints, and a ‘with the permission of Allah‘ added get-out clause/cop-out won’t legitimise their heresies. Many things are hypothetically possible but that doesn’t mean that they are true. There is no evidence that ‘Ali/Fatimah/Jesus/Mary (let alone Badawi and Jilani) can listen to millions upon millions of madad/help calls and respond to them. Islam is based on proofs, especially on such a crucial creedal matter such as invoking saints for help in one’s supplication (du’a, the essence of worship) like as if we are in the Catholic Church. Islam came to eradicate such nonsense, it certainly did not come to replace Ya Jesus, Mary, saint X, Y, etc. with Ya Ali, Fatimah, Husayn (much less Badawi, Jilani, Sufi pir, etc.).

Deifying one’s favourite set of saints and then adding ‘with the permission of Allah/بإذن الله’ to one’s heresy is a silly get-out clause, of course, the extremists will say that. Believing that anyone or anything is independent of Allah is the most obvious form of polytheism and disbelief, it’s a no-brainer. It’s like saying that there are two gods, literally. Of course, no deviant will say that, even the trinitarian Nasara don’t say that (they argue that the essence of the Trinitarian ‘god’ is one).

If someone says something is independent of Allah, then he is doing kufr/shirk in and of itself anyway (without having to call on it besides Allah). Self-independent is an attribute of Allah. Just like if someone says something is all-knowledgeable or all-hearing besides Allah he is doing kufr/shirk by this statement itself, someone saying something is independent of Allah is similarly kufr/shirk by itself.

Now, to say “it (du’a to other than Allah in the religious context) is shirk only when the caller believes the doer is independent of Allah” is just as silly as saying “it is shirk only when the caller believes the doer is all-knowledgeable/all-hearing apart from Allah or only when the caller also adds this and that attribute of Allah in the belief”. Praying to (not asking your neighbour for salt or ordering a Pizza; some of the fallacious analogies of the Quburis) anything or anyone for a transcendental benefit (rain, fortune, success, children, solution to life crises, etc.) besides Allah [i.e, du’a al-‘Ibadah which is a form of worship] is shirk in and of itself without the contingency on independence from Allah [because it is a right of worship belonging to Allah alone]. And, there is no such contingency condition (of independence from Allah) in the Qur’an in terms of invocation/prayer made to others besides Allah, in order for it to be shirk.

‘But Jesus raised the dead and the angel of death takes billions of souls’ argument debunked

Thus, together, making them de facto deities (despite refusing to agree; like Christians not admitting that they are de facto tri-theists, not monotheists as they claim), and thus those who call upon other than Allah are directly involving others in this essential worship (i.e. invocation/prayer) reserved for Allah alone.

Encyclopedia Britannica says that “prayer/invocation/supplication” to the supernatural is a religious universal common – i.e. every religion, every society, every human on earth knows what it means “to pray” for transcendental benefit or harm to a supernatural being. Different religions pray to different types of beings (gods, spirits, animistic entities, saints). And, Allah addresses all of humanity (who already know from their universal socio-religious common what praying/invoking in the religious sense means), to direct all forms of praying/invoking/supplicating to Allah alone and not to anyone or anything else at all weather in the form of (false) gods, godesses, demi-gods, saints, angels, spirits, mythical creatures, pirs, shaykhs, imams, etc.

“But we don’t have the intention to worship”

Well, of course you do have the intention to worship. Do you have the intention to invoke when you invoke others besides Allah? Of course, you do. Well, guess what? Invocation is worship.

al-Nu’man ibn Bashir reported: The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

الدُّعَاءُ هُوَ الْعِبَادَةُ

“Supplication is the essence of worship.”

Then, the Prophet (ﷺ) recited the verse:

وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمْ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِي سَيَدْخُلُونَ جَهَنَّمَ دَاخِرِينَ

Your Lord says: Call upon Me and I will answer you. Verily, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell in humiliation. (40:60)

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi 3247, Grade: Sahih

In a similar narration it states:

الدُّعَاءُ مُخُّ الْعِبَادَةِ

“Supplication (du’a) is the essence of worship.”

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhi 3371, Grade: Hasan li ghayrihi (fair due to external evidence) according to Al-Arna’ut

Quburis suit their own brainwashed subjective definition of what constitutes worship and then they use that in their argument to say they don’t have the intention for it – what a ridiculous fallacy! The moment you intend to religiously-ritually invoke other than Allah (e.g. for help in relief of a life calamity, for provision, for children, for madad in troubles – i.e. making du’a to other than Allah not praying to Allah to bless the Prophet, have mercy on a beloved deceased family member, etc.), you have automatically intended to worship (because invocation is worship) and have deified the one who is invoked. This is a brutal fact.