The Categories of Attributing a Thing to Its Cause
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
His Eminence the Shaykh: Is attributing matters to causes always shirk (associating partners with Allah), or is there a detailed distinction?
Attributing a thing to its cause is divided into categories: The first: a category that constitutes major shirk,For example, he says: “If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, I would have perished,” when the wali so-and-so is buried in the ground and benefits no one in any way. This statement does not come from anyone except one who believes that the buried wali has control over the universe, in which case it is major shirk that expels one from the religion.
The second: It is permissible, which is attributing a thing to its cause that is known by the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) or known by sensory perception. This is permissible and there is nothing wrong with it.For example, you say: “If so-and-so had not performed wudu' (the ablution for prayer), his prayer would not have been valid.” This is correct and a reality; if he had not performed wudu', his prayer would not have been valid. This is a cause prescribed by the Shari'ah.
And an example of a sensory cause: A man falls into a well and another man pulls him out, and he says, “If it were not for so-and-so who pulled me out, I would have perished.” This is also correct, but he does not believe that so-and-so independently pulled him out; rather, Allah facilitated it for him and saved him.
And among this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his uncle Abu Talib, where he was informed that his uncle Abu Talib is in shallow fire, and he has sandals from which his brain boils,The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (And if it were not for me, he would have been in the lowest depth of the Fire) And this is common in the speech of scholars: attributing a thing to its cause that is known by sensory perception or by the Shari'ah.
The third: Attributing it to the cause alongside Allah, connected by the conjunction “and.” This is not permissible; rather, it is shirk, but it is minor shirk, unless he believes that the second one, alongside Allah, has control like Allah’s control, in which case it is major shirk.For example, he says: “If it were not for Allah and so-and-so, such and such would have happened.” This is not permissible, even if he believes that Allah is above everything.Rather, he says: “If it were not for Allah, then so-and-so.” However, if he believes that Allah and so-and-so are equal in effect, this is major shirk.
The most important thing in this three-part division is that when a person says: “If it were not for such and such, such and such would have happened,” if it is a statement of fact, there is nothing wrong with it, or if it is based on a valid cause, there is nothing wrong with that.
Attributing a thing to its cause is divided into categories: The first: a category that constitutes major shirk,For example, he says: “If it were not for the wali (close friend of Allah) so-and-so, I would have perished,” when the wali so-and-so is buried in the ground and benefits no one in any way. This statement does not come from anyone except one who believes that the buried wali has control over the universe, in which case it is major shirk that expels one from the religion.
The second: It is permissible, which is attributing a thing to its cause that is known by the Shari'ah (Islamic sacred law) or known by sensory perception. This is permissible and there is nothing wrong with it.For example, you say: “If so-and-so had not performed wudu' (the ablution for prayer), his prayer would not have been valid.” This is correct and a reality; if he had not performed wudu', his prayer would not have been valid. This is a cause prescribed by the Shari'ah.
And an example of a sensory cause: A man falls into a well and another man pulls him out, and he says, “If it were not for so-and-so who pulled me out, I would have perished.” This is also correct, but he does not believe that so-and-so independently pulled him out; rather, Allah facilitated it for him and saved him.
And among this is the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his uncle Abu Talib, where he was informed that his uncle Abu Talib is in shallow fire, and he has sandals from which his brain boils,The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: (And if it were not for me, he would have been in the lowest depth of the Fire) And this is common in the speech of scholars: attributing a thing to its cause that is known by sensory perception or by the Shari'ah.
The third: Attributing it to the cause alongside Allah, connected by the conjunction “and.” This is not permissible; rather, it is shirk, but it is minor shirk, unless he believes that the second one, alongside Allah, has control like Allah’s control, in which case it is major shirk.For example, he says: “If it were not for Allah and so-and-so, such and such would have happened.” This is not permissible, even if he believes that Allah is above everything.Rather, he says: “If it were not for Allah, then so-and-so.” However, if he believes that Allah and so-and-so are equal in effect, this is major shirk.
The most important thing in this three-part division is that when a person says: “If it were not for such and such, such and such would have happened,” if it is a statement of fact, there is nothing wrong with it, or if it is based on a valid cause, there is nothing wrong with that.