Re: Is this true?
JazakAllahuKhair brother ZeeshanParvez
So merely calling on another is not the criterion … It is not substantiated with a caveat that so long as they are able. So what if the mother is alive? Merely calling on her when she is able is not shirk. I think a major part of this is missing. For example when a dog is alive I say to it fetch and throw a stick … but if it dies and I say to it - fetch … that is shirk? I can understand that it is absurd - but what makes it shirk? i.e. what makes calling on a dead person who is unable to do something equal to appointing partnership to God? Which part of this is partnership to God?
You see I have always understood shirk to mean …
“Conferring the Haqq that is due only to God to another regardless of whether they are alive or dead”
Asking our living mothers to do du’a for us is not shirk, so it cannot be shirk if they are no longer alive either, it may be an oddity to ask dead people to do du’a for us but that is another matter.
Exacting intended worship is a Right of Allah (SWT) and likewise the Names and Attributes are unique to Him and calling others by those Names so long as that is what is intended is also a subclass of that definition that I gave above.
Ability to deliver it is a consequential part of it … it is not a criterion in and of itself. Because obviously since Allah (SWT) is Unique and since all of His invocations are His right therefore others will be unable to fulfil the demands that are His Right, because He is Unique.
Based on this if people go to graves seeking what is the Right of Allah (SWT) then that is matter of individual concern - it is not a matter of a whole group of people such as the Barelviyya or for that matter the Qubooriyyah unless they attest in their books and scholars to doing something that compromises that definition. I say this to the best of my knowledge and Allahu’alim.