The meaning of shirk: it comes in the narration of ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas’ūd (ra) when he asked the Prophet (saws), “What is the greatest sin?” The Messenger (saws) said, “That you set up a partner with Allāh, when He created you.” [Agreed upon]
The
meaning of a partner: a like, equal, and peer. So whoever sets up a
partner for Allāh in His rubūbiyyah has committed shirk. And whoever
sets up a partner with Allāh in His ulūhiyyah has committed shirk. And
whoever sets up a partner with Allāh in His asmā was-sifāt has committed
shirk. This is the meaning of shirk.
As
for the definition of at-tā’ah: its meaning with regards to the Arab
(i.e., in the Arabic language) is compliance and yielding. As for the
definition of shirk at-tā’ah: it is to consent to constitutions,
fabricated man-made laws, and tribal codes. So whoever affirms belief in
the constitutions that govern the lands and the people today, follows
the man-made laws (like them the tribal codes), has committed shirk with
Allāh and the type of shirk here is called shirk at-tā’ah.
Before
going further into this kind of shirk, one must know what the existence
of shirk means in relation to the book of deeds man will have on the
Day of Resurrection, and it can be arranged into three issues:
The first issue: that this type of sin is not forgiven by Allāh and the evidence for that is His saying, “Indeed Allāh does not forgive shirk, but forgives what is less than that from what He wills.”
If anything comes but it is less than shirk than it is forgivable,
falling under His will (mashī-ah), as for shirk than it is absolutely
not forgivable in front of Allāh.
The second issue:
the presence of shirk in the book of deeds for man means his deeds will
become worthless. In other words, this man who commits shirk with
Allāh, whether shirk of du’ā, shirk of tā’ah, shirk in love, shirk in
will and intent, shirk in likening, shirk in fear, if there is shirk
present in his book of deeds it will ruin the rewards of all the acts of
worship that is found with those who are affiliated with Islām. He
could have performed salāh, fasted, and memorized the Book of Allāh, and
usually these deeds gain rewards, but because of the presence of major
shirk they will all become worthless. The evidence for that from the
Book of Allāh is in sūrah al-An’ām where Allāh mentioned eighteen
prophets by name then at the end of narrating their blessed names He
said, “But if they had committed shirk (ashrakū) all that they used to
do would have been of no benefit to them.” The meaning of no benefit:
all their deeds that would have been rewarded would become futile.
Similarly, He said about the Messenger of Allāh (saws), “That if you should commit shirk, your work would surely become worthless.” And
far be it that the prophets of Allāh would commit shirk with Allāh, and
far be it that the Messenger of Allāh (saws) would commit shirk with
Allāh. But, undoubtedly, this speech was for the ummah of the last of
prophets. I understand from these āyāt that man, regardless of the
status he has reached with Allāh, even if it is the status of
prophethood, if he commits shirk then his status will not intercede for
him in any way because shirk is a sin that Allāh will not forgive.
And
here comes the question: Allāh is just, so if man commits some type of
shirk but had good deeds, as we had previously stated, how does the
justice of Allāh take its course with regards to those good deeds that
carry rewards? And how is it related with regards to the shirk that
comes nullifying all those good deeds? The answer is in the hadīth of
the Prophet (saws) where he said, “The kāfir will have his reward hastened to him in the dunyā but in the akhirah he will not have anything.”
So in return for those actions that would be rewardable, Allāh has
ruled that he will not have anything left on the Day of Resurrection
because of that presence of shirk. Instead Allāh will exchange those
rewardable actions and compensate him with worldly matters, which could
be: wealth, a spouse, good health, and so on. The main issue is the
point that he will not have any rewardable actions in his book of deeds
on Yawmal-Qiyāmah because the shirk laid those actions to waste. This
ends the second issue.
The third issue: whoever in his book of deeds has shirk present, Allāh has forbidden him from entering Jannah. Allāh says in the noble ayah,
“Whosoever ascribes partners with Allāh, for him Allāh has forbidden
Jannah. His abode is the Fire. For the doers of evil there will be no
helpers.”
That
abode in the akhirah is either a home of bliss or a home of torment and
punishment, with no third. Since Allāh has forbidden anyone who committed
shirk the entrance into Jannah, that would necessitate his only place
would be Hell-fire, and we seek refuge in Allāh from that.
If
we have truly taken note and paid attention to these āyāt that mention
the fate of man that is between the hands of Allāh, then from here it is
obligatory and crucial for us to outline, detail, and break this issue
of shirk down and to be aware of it from every angle. For if one is
saved from this sin of shirk, then what is less than that is forgivable
with the permission of Allāh (it is important to mention that I am
referring to major shirk and I am not speaking about minor shirk).
Now we come to our topic of shirk in at-tā’ah, and we said previously it is consenting, for whomsoever consents and sees it permissible that the man-made laws and these constitutions should be ruled and judged with is committing shirk with Allāh. The proof for that from the Book of Allāh is in sūrah al-An’ām, “And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience (fisq). And indeed do the shayātīn inspire their allies (among men) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikīn.”
Before going into the details of this ayah, we should be aware of the reason of revelation, as knowing the reason will help you in understanding it. The narration by imām at-Tirmithī states, “It was narrated from ibn ‘Abbās that he said: ‘Some people came to the Prophet (saws) and said we eat what we kill and we do not eat what Allāh killed, then Allāh revealed, ‘And do not eat of what upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned.’” Imām at-Tirmithī said about this hadīth that it is hasan gharīb (these are among the terms of imām at-Tirmithī).
Similar to that, ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned this in his tafsīr. Ibn Kathīr mentioned a narration from ibn ‘Abbās and said, “Some people came to the Prophet when Allāh revealed, ‘And do not eat of what upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned.’” He said, “The Majūs said to Quraysh, ‘Oppose Muhammad and say, ‘What you slaughter with your knife is halāl and what Allāh slaughters is harām?’ Then Allāh revealed, ‘And indeed do the devils inspire their allies (among them) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikīn.’”
The reason of revelation was also narrated by ibn Abī Hātim mursal from Sa’īd ibn Jubayr who said that, “The Jews opposed the Messenger (saws).” And a narration of Abū Dāwūd is connected to Sa’īd ibn Jubayr from ibn ‘Abbās that he said, “The Jews opposed the Prophet (saws).” So we now have two narrations in which it is stated that the Jews are the ones who opposed, not the Majūs who taught the mushrikīn of Makkah.
Ibn Kathīr rejected the narration which says that the Jews are those who raised the question and said, “This matter (that the Jews are those who opposed) requires a revision for three reasons: first, the Jews consider the dead animal as harām and thus, how do they oppose the Prophet (saws) in the dead animal? Second, this is a Makkan ayah, meaning the ayah was revealed in Makkah, and you know that in Makkah Allāh honored it so that not one Jew lived there.” Then, ibn Kathīr mentioned a third reason and said, “The narration that is mentioned by at-Tirmithī that some people came to the Prophet (saws) did not mention the Jews.”
After mentioning these three reasons, ibn Kathīr said, “And at-Tabarī (meaning ibn Jarīr) mentioned numerous narrations from ibn ‘Abbās and none them mentioned the Jews.” Then ibn Kathīr said, “This is what is preserved.” Meaning, that those who came to the Prophet (saws) were from Quraysh, motivated by the Majūs or by themselves. This is the reason of revelation.
Imām ash-Shanqītī said, “There is an agreement from the people of knowledge that the reason this ayah was revealed was because the mushrikīn said to the Messenger of Allāh (saws), ‘How do you eat a sheep that you have slaughtered and do not eat a sheep killed by Allāh?’ So Allāh revealed, ‘And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned, for indeed, it is grave disobedience (fisq). And indeed do the shayātīn inspire their allies (among men) to dispute with you. And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikīn.’”
Therefore, look with me at the beginning of the ayah and that it points to two legislations: the legislation of Allāh, “And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned,” and the jāhilī legislation that was common in Makkah when they used to eat the dead animal, and this is the legislation of the mushrikīn. Thus, there are two types of sharī’ah in front of us: the Sharī’ah of Allāh, “And do not eat.” And the sharī’ah of the mushrikīn, “eat from the dead animal.”
Allāh forbids us from that, and then, He mentions some matters regarding the condition of one who opposes the Sharī’ah of Allāh and obeys the sharī’ah of the mushrikīn. This conflicting legislation, what is the situation of one who obeys it? Allāh said, “And indeed, it is fisq.” Meaning, if you were to go against My legislation and obey the legislation of the mushrikīn and eat the dead animal this fisq is ruled upon you: “And indeed, it is fisq.”
The meaning of fisq according to the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah: al-‘Izz ibn Abdus-Salām said in his tafsīr, “Al-fisq is disobedience or disbelief.” Ibn Jarīr like that mentioned the same definition in his tafsīr. As for imām al-Qurtubī in his tafsīr he relays from ibn ‘Abbās that he said, “Al-fisq is disobedience,” and in another narration from him: “Al-fisq is disobedience.” As for imām ash-Shanqītī, he explained al-fisq in his tafsīr of sūrah ash-Shūrā and said, “Al-fisq is leaving from the obedience of Allāh and following the legislation of the Shaytān.”
Thus, you can conclude that the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah said about al-fisq here that it is either disobedience or disbelief. Why do we have the tafsīr of this word here? Why is it sometimes said that it is disobedience and at others disbelief? That is because al-fisq is divided into two parts: either it is fisq asghar (fisq of a lesser degree) which does not take its doer outside the Millah, and the evidence of fisq asghar from the Book of Allāh is in sūrah al-Baqarah (the ayah of debt), “Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is fisq in you.” The meaning of this ayah is that if a man gave a loan to a man, and they came with a scribe and two witnesses, Allāh says that it is not allowed for neither the creditor nor the debtor to harm the scribe or one of the witnesses. If you were to harm the scribe or the witness, then your action is fisq. Without doubt, this fisq does not take its doer outside the Millah of Islām. Thus, what is this fisq called? It is called fisq asghar.
As for the fisq akbar (major fisq), its evidence is the saying of Allāh, “And (mention) when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate to Ādam,’ and they prostrated, except for Iblīs. He was of the jinn and departed (fafasaqa) from the command of his Lord. Then will you take him and his descendants as allies other than Me while they are enemies to you? Wretched it is for the wrongdoers as an exchange.” Therefore, when Iblīs disobeyed Allāh in relation to prostrating to Ādam, Allah called his disobedience as fisq. This type of fisq takes its doer outside the Millah of Islām. So fisq is sometimes considered as a sin that does not make one a kāfir and sometimes it is an action that makes one leave the Millah.
In the issue of the dead animal, in the ayah we have talked about, a man, for example, comes and ate from the dead animal and says, “I know that Allāh forbids that,” his fisq is fisq asghar and he has committed a major sin. Why? Because he admits and acknowledges it is forbidden but he disobeys the command of Allāh and ate it, this is fisq asghar. Another man comes and did not eat from the dead animal but says, “It is halāl,” this person leaves the Millah. Why? Because he considers what Allāh made harām as halāl, and the principle among Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah, as imām at-Tahāwī mentioned in his book on ‘aqīdah, “And we do not make takfīr on anyone from the people of the Qiblah by a sin unless he considers it halāl.” Thus, the Muslim who does these sins stays in the fold of Islām but there is fisq in him. However, if was to call the halāl harām or the harām halāl, he leaves the Millah because he opposes the legislation of Allāh and came up with an opposing legislation that clashes with the legislation of Allāh. Abū Muhammad al-Maqdisī added a condition to this general rule and said, “We do not make takfīr on anyone from the people of the Qiblah by a sin that is not mukaffir (i.e., does not constitute kufr), unless he considers it halāl.” When we come across some of these details, we will talk about the benefit of this condition, if Allāh wills.
"And indeed, it is fisq.”
Now, those who accept and approve to rule and judge by man-made laws and constitutions, is this fisq asghar or fisq akbar? This is fisq akbar, and the evidence for that is the saying of Allāh at the end of the ayah, "And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikīn." Allāh judged them with shirk and whomever Allāh judges with shirk, his shirk is not asghar. This is the first evidence, and as for the second evidence it is that the one who consents to those man-made laws has made those who legislate partners to Allāh. How? Putting down rulings is the exclusive right of His and no one is allowed to make a legislation except Allāh. The evidence for that is in sūrah Yūsuf where Allāh says, "Legislation is for none except Allāh. He has commanded that you worship nothing except Him. That is the correct Dīn, but most of the people do not know." When we come to this ayah we will elaborate on it, with the permission of Allāh.
So this ayah establishes that laying down rulings is the exclusive right of Allāh, and it is not allowed for anyone other than Allāh to make a legislation. If a committee of drafting a constitution comes and lays down a constitution and an individual concurs and approves the constitution, he has then taken as an object of worship the one who put down the constitution because the one who establishes legislations and laws is an ilāh. So either he is our lord or he gave himself one of the attributes exclusive to Allāh. And whoever consents to the legislation of Allāh and also consents to the man-made laws has taken Allāh and His legislation, and those with their man-made laws and constitutions as two objects of worship! Their fisq here is fisq akbar which takes them out of the Millah, "and indeed it is fisq."
Then He said, "and indeed the shayātīn," what is intended by shayātīn here? Ibn Kathīr mentioned from 'Ikrimah that he said, "The intended shayātīn here are people from the Persian Majūs." And he mentioned another narration from ibn 'Abbās that he said, "Shayātīn here means the jinn." Why the variance of interpreting the shāyatīn here to be those from the jinn or from the men? Because Allāh mentioned two types when He said, "Shayātīn from men and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion." So there are shayātīn of men and shayātīn of jinn.
Imām at-Tabarī said in his tafsīr, "The shayātīn of men inspire to their allies from mankind, and it could be possible that the shayātīn of the jinn inspire to mankind." And he said, "The matter could be both, meaning, the shayātīn from jinn and shayātīn from men inspire to their allies'." Now we know what is meant by this noble ayah.
Then He said, "...they inspire..." meaning, the shayātīn inspire their awliyā (the awliyā are their supporters and beloved). What is the meaning of inspiration from the shayātīn to their awliyā here? It comes in "Mukhtār as-Sihāh" (a dictionary by ar-Rāzī): "Wahī is to inspire or what is delivered as hidden words is called wahī." This wahī is divided into two: wahī rabbānī from Allāh to whomever He wills from His creation, and wahī shaytānī from the Shaytān to his awliyā. The evidence for wahī rabbānī is the wahī from Allāh to His prophets and messengers as mentioned in His saying, "Indeed, We have revealed to you, (O Muhammad), as We revealed to Nūh and the prophets after him. And we revealed to Ibrāhīm, Ismā'īl, Ishāq, Ya'qūb, the Descendants, 'Īsā, Ayyūb, Yahyā, Hārūn, and Sulaymān, and to Dāwūd We gave the book (of Psalms)." What is this called? (It is) wahī rabbānī from Allāh to His messengers.
However, sometimes Allāh sends wahī to other then His prophets as He said, "And when I inspired the disciples to believe in Me and in My messengers." The disciples were those men who were close to the prophet of Allāh, 'Isā (as). What is the meaning of wahī here? Those words that were cast into their chests.
There is a third wahī from Allāh to some of His creation, as He mentioned in the ayah in sūrah an-Nahl, "And your Lord inspired the bee: build homes in the mountains and trees, and in (the hives) they build for you." This teaching of Allāh to this creation Allāh called wahī, so the wahī rabbānī from Allāh goes to whomever He wills from His slaves.
The second type of wahī is Shaytān to his awliyā, and it’s evidenced by the saying of Allāh, "And indeed, the shayātīn do inspire their allies." And also His saying, "...shāyatīn from mankind and jinn, inspiring to one another decorative speech in delusion."
A man once came to ibn 'Abbās and said, "Mukhtār ath-Thaqafī claims that wahī comes to him."
He is the son of Abū 'Ubaydāh ath-Thaqafī, his father was the leader of
the battle of Jisr in al-Qadisiyyah, but after that he went out to seek
revenge for al-Husayn and then he claimed prophethood and used to claim
that wahī comes to him. So, ibn 'Abbās said, "Yes." Meaning, it is true that wahī comes to Mukhtār, then he recited, "And indeed do the shayātīn inspire their allies."
How
does this alliance between the Shaytān and those take place? Because
when the Shaytān takes over some people or they ally with him, the
Shaytān takes power and authority over them. What are some entry points
the Shaytān takes until some people become allies to him?
There are four doors which allow Shaytān to enter through to the point where he takes some people as allies.
The
first door: if there was a defect in īmān. This is a wide door that
Shaytān could enter from to those with a defect and takes them as his
allies.
The second door: a defect in relying on Allāh.
The third door: a defect in both īmān and reliance. Through these doors Shaytān could enter.
The
other or fourth: if shirk is found with someone, then this is a door
for the Shaytān, a wide door through which he could enter and take them
as his allies.
(And there is also a) fifth: sins and disobedience is a door for the Shaytān to make them his allies.
What is the evidence for what I have just said?
Allāh says,
"Verily, he (Shaytān) has no power over those who believe and put their
trust only in their Lord. His power is only over those obey and follow
him, and those who commit shirk."
So
if īmān is present it would then preventive factor preventing man from
becoming the ally of Shaytān, and if the correct reliance is found it
would be a preventive factor from becoming an ally of Shaytān. If these
two matters are established it would be impossible for man to become an
ally of Shaytān. As well, if shirk is negated from man he cannot become
an ally of Shaytān.
These
are four reasons, but the fifth reason, sinning and disobedience, as a
door for the Shaytān like what I mentioned to you earlier,
"...but Shaytān made their deeds fair seeming to them. So he is their
helper today (in this world), and theirs will be a painful torment." He
commits this sin then he sees this sin he brought forth to be
acceptable and that he will be praised for it; such are these from the
allies of the Shaytān.
Anyone
who comes forth with munkar that opposes the legislation and sees this
violation of the legislation to be acceptable and beautiful, then he is
from the allies of Shaytān. Now you know that the Shaytān inspires, and
you came to know that he has allies, and you came to know how Shaytān
makes them his allies.
Anyone who comes forth with munkar that opposes the legislation and sees this violation of the legislation to be acceptable and beautiful, then he is from the allies of Shaytān. Now you know that the Shaytān inspires, and you came to know that he has allies, and you came to know how Shaytān makes them his allies.
After that Allāh mentioned: why do the shayātīn inspire their allies? What is the goal from that inspiration? He says, “...in order to dispute with you.” The “lam” (in the Arabic) here is for purposes and intent.
The meaning of dispute in “Mukhtār as-Sihāh” is: “dispute with strong animosity.” The definition imām al-Qurtubī said with regards to “dispute”: “the strike of speech by proof or strength.” What does this mean?
A
person is either someone upon the truth or someone upon falsehood, so
if one of them wanted to strike the other person, for instance the one
upon the truth wanted to strike the one on falsehood, he would strike
him with proofs, and then after that with force, this is called dispute.
Like that, when one upon falsehood wanted to strike the one on the
truth, he would strike him with proofs or with force, this is called
dispute. Dispute also carries two meanings between “good dispute” and
“indecent dispute.” It can be generally referred to as either. What is
the evidence for this categorization?
Allāh says, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best.”
So there is the good dispute in when you defend your truth with proof,
but if the matter needed after that to be defended with force then so be
it. Allāh also said, “And do not argue with the people of the Scripture except in a way that is best.”
Did
the Prophet (saws) defend the truth he possessed with proof and
strength against the falsehood of the mushrik? Yes. For thirteen years
he was calling the mushrik of Makkah with proof and after migration he
was granted permission to fight, so he began to strike falsehood with
force. For us, the Muslim, we don’t just strike falsehood with proof
only, if the matter calls for force then it is permissible for us to
strike falsehood by force, and that is the guidance of our Prophet
(saws).
The
indecent and obscene dispute is when the individual of falsehood tries
to strike the person of truth with his falsehood. The evidence for that
in the book of Allāh is in sūrah al-Kahf, “And those who disbelieve dispute by (using) falsehood to (attempt to) invalidate thereby the truth.” And in another ayah Allāh says, “And
every nation intended (a plot) for their messenger to seize him, and
they disputed by (using) falsehood to (attempt to) invalidate thereby
the truth. So I seized them, and how (terrible) was My penalty.”
This is happening now in reality on the ground, for the muwwahidīn
in the cause of Allāh have established the proofs that what we are upon
is the truth. We want to rule by the Sharī’ah of Allāh and for His word
to be the highest, and they have established the proof for that. They
have combined it with the establishment of the proof by strength and
tried to strike falsehood with all their might, and they have disputed
in the manner which is best.
Likewise,
opposite to that, the people of falsehood tried defending their
falsehood with “proof” and also with the use of force. For “proof” they
attempted to establish it through the scholars of the rulers and the
satellites. We had in our city two of them: one of them was Abū Hārith
and the other Abū Safwah, if you can remember them. They tried to strike
the truth with falsehood, how? They attempted to make obedience to the
tawāghīt leaders obligatory. And at that time is was Iyād ‘Allāwī, and
what will make you know about Iyād ‘Allāwī?
They
said its obligatory to obey them, and they added to that and said:
those who are recruited by the defense ministry and the interior
ministry are considered “muwwahidīn,”
but as for those who go against those rulers and tried to fight them
they are “Khawārij.” Then they said: whoever is killed from the army and
police are martyrs. And that those killed from the “Khawārij” then:
those are Khawārij dogs of Hell-fire, and they brought forward all the
hadīth that the Messenger (saws) said in regard to the Khawārij.
In the end of the Ayah Allāh said, “And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikūn.”
That is: if you oppose My legislation and I said, “And do not eat of
that upon which the name of Allāh has not been mentioned,” and you ate
the dead meat in accordance with the legislation of those mushrikīn, you
have with this action - obedience - become mushrikīn. Imām ash-Shanqītī
mentioned something beneficial here in that in the first part of this
Ayah he said, “In the Ayah there is a part missing.” What is it?
He
said, “The conditional clause - if - needs a dependant clause that
highlights the condition and it needs a main clause that highlights what
happens if the condition is fulfilled. For example, we say: ‘If you
study, you will pass,’ so if you do this action (of studying), you will
achieve success, bi'ithnillāh. In the Ayah, Allāh said, ‘And if you were
to obey them,’ and the conditional clause here is ‘if,’ while, ‘you
obey them’ is the dependant clause that expresses the condition. What
consequence results from this obedience? He said, ‘Indeed, you would be mushrikūn,’” This is not the main clause that expresses the consequence and result. Why? He (ash-Shanqītī) said, “The
main clause can not be a present tense verb, because if the main clause
is a present tense verb, then it does not need a subject. On the other
side, when the main clause is a verb in the past tense, or a verb of
command, or dependent-sentence, then the main clause should start with a
"ف "in the Arabic language. So if the Ayah was: ‘And if you obey them then you are mushrikūn,’ then
it is permissible to say that ‘then you are mushrikūn’ is the main
clause which expresses the consequence, nonetheless, since the "ف "is
not mentioned here, then ‘you would be mushrikūn’ is not the main clause
that expresses the consequence and result.” Therefore, where is the main clause?
He (ash-Shanqītī) said, “The
main clause is an absent oath (that is omitted from the sentence),
which would be: ‘So if you were to obey them, then, wallāh (fawallāh),
you would become mushrikūn.’” [All this has to do with the original
Arabic and the scientific details regarding the grammar of the Arabic
language, which is above many who speak Arabic let alone translating it
and attempting to make sense of it in English]
Then, the Ayah highlighted a collection of issues.
The
first issue: without any doubt this Ayah is addressed to the Muslimīn,
speaking to the Muslimīn not the mushrikīn because it is not possible
for me to say to a mushrik: if you obey the mushrikīn in their
legislations, you will be a mushrik like them. That is a false
statement, and the speech of Allāh is far from it, so this ayah is
without a doubt directed to the Muslimīn. Allāh says to the Muslimīn: do
not obey legislations that are invented by others and leave My
legislation, and if you were to obey these legislations, indeed you
would be mushrikūn.
Another
benefit (i.e., the second issue) from this ayah is that we know,
without a doubt, that every legislation other than the legislation of
Allāh, from whichever source it may come, is a shaytānic legislation
because Allāh said, “And indeed do the devils inspire their allies.”
The
third issue: whoever approves and consents to a legislation other than
the legislation of Allāh, or accepts it or is content with it, then
Allāh has judged him with shirk. This is plainly stated in the Qur’ān
because at the end of the Ayah He said, “And if you were to obey them, indeed, you would be mushrikūn.”
So the ruling of shirk here was revealed from Allāh in His Qur’ān. When
I say: whoever obeys the man-made laws and constitutions are mushrikīn
it is not my saying, this is the saying of Allāh, and I am merely
repeating what Allāh said. So the ruling is the ruling of Allāh, and we
convey the ruling of Allāh by explaining and establishing the proof.
I
point to the last matter and it is that whoever accepted in the past
man-made laws he has committed shirk, and it is from the blessing of
Allāh that he lengthened the life of the one who committed it so he can
have the chance of repentance. So whoever said to the constitution “yes”
he has committed shirk with Allāh, and the type of shirk is shirk of
obedience (meaning, voted for the constitution in democratic elections).
He needs to correct his affair and repent to Allāh from the shirk he
fell in. I said what I said, and I ask Allāh for His forgiveness for me
and you. May Allāh reward you all with goodness.
[By Shaykh Abū ‘Alī al-Anbārī (rahimahUllah)]
No comments:
Post a Comment