Had the matter been of the sort they imagined, ʿAbd Allāh would sooner have asked ʿAlī “by the right of the Prophet, or of Abraham the Friend,” and the like; for ʿAlī’s reverence for the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—his love for him, and his eagerness to answer a petitioner who invokes him, were greater than his readiness to respond to someone who invokes anyone else.

Yet the two notions differ. One who implores “by the Prophet” is making him the means and the cause; if that cause contains nothing that would yield the requested outcome, and the petitioner is not seeking something appropriate to that cause, the plea is baseless.

When a person puts another under oath by something, this stems from the adjurer’s veneration of what he swears by, and this is what the ḥadīth refers to when it commands that oaths be honored. In this connection it is said: “Among the servants of Allah are those who, were they to swear by Allah, He would surely fulfill it.” At times, however, the motivation arises from the addressee’s own veneration for the one on whose account the plea is made.

The first case resembles what the jurists discuss regarding oaths intended to urge or to deter; the second is a petition that appeals to the respondent’s love, esteem, and regard for the person invoked.

If the factor invoked is indeed something that leads to the petitioner’s aim, the request is proper—for example, appealing to kinship ties. Included in this is a servant’s appeal to Allah through righteous deeds or through the supplication and intercession of His prophets.

As for merely invoking the prophets and the righteous, or Allah’s love for them, His exaltation of them, and His safeguarding of the rights He has granted them—by themselves these do not compel the fulfillment of the supplicant’s request unless