That a being is a medium for conveying existence to other...

That a being is a medium for conveying existence to other creatures does not imply its independence. For a better understanding of this, consider the following example. When one writes, the action of writing can be attributed to the person writing, to his arm, which holds the pen, and to the pen. Ascribing the action of writing to all three agents is correct, but the one which is independent and on which the others depend is the person.

So although the action can be attributed to the arm and the pen, but they are only secondary agents, they are merely means. In the example of fire cited by the questioner, the truth is that God has created fire with the natural quality of burning, not that fire issues from one act of creation and burning from another.

God created the quality of burning by the mediation of fire, not independent of it.[^6] Hence, to affirm agency for God’s creatures is not a challenge to His agency, for His is independent, whereas theirs is dependent. In fact, the Qur’an in ascribing various actions to creatures reaffirms the principle of causality but at the same time makes clear that independence in agency is solely God’s.

But it should be pointed out, in light of the above explanation, that “calling” God’s creatures is conceivable in one of two ways. One way is invoking a creature with the intention that it is independent in agency, and the other is invoking it as a medium.

Thus, monotheism condones invoking God’s creatures if it is borne in mind that they owe their existence and agency to Him.