The Concept of Shirk
Today, some people, who obviously have no fear of Allah, accuse the simple Muslim of Shirk. This is in spite of the fact that Islam and Shirk are 2 opposing and mutually exclusive phenomenon - Islam came to seek out the roots of Shirk! Further, just as committing Shirk is a major crime, falsely accusing a Muslim of Shirk is also a severe crime.
The Prophet said "Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Quran so much that his face will become enlightened and he will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah desires. Then these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind him and will attack his neighbour with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet was asked - which of the two was commuting Shirk - the attacker or the attacked. The prophet replied - the attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk). The classification of this Hadith is Jayyid. (Tafseer ibn Kathir; Vol. 2 p265, Amjid Academy, Lahore Pakistan)
With the grace of Allah, the aforementioned hadith proves that accusing the Ahl-e-Sunnah wal Jamaat of Shirk over every little matter is baseless. In the light of this hadith the judgement issued against us, rather than fitting us, returns back to the accusers and rests with them.
What is Shirk?
It seems appropriate to define Shirk in the light of the Quran and Sunnah.
There are 3 types of Shirk - Shirk in Worship, Shirk in Personality and Shirk in Attributes.
Shirk in Worship - accepting anyone/ thing other than Allah, as being worthy of worship.
Shirk in Personality - considering any other being equivalent to Allah.
Shirk in Attributes - considering another's attributes similar to the attributes of Allah.
In prohibiting Shirk in worship Allah warns
"So whoever hopes for the meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord" (AI Kahf 18, v 110).
"And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him" (Bani Israel 17, v 23)
In negating Shirk in personally and attributes Allah states
"And there is none co-equal or comparable to him" (AI-lkhlaas 112, v4)
When Allah will throw the mushrikeen and their deities (idols) into hell, the mushrikeen will cry out to their idols
"By Allah we were truly in a manifest error, When we held you (idols) as equals with the lord of all the worlds" (As Shu'raa 42,v 97,98)
These verse clearly show that Shirk in Worship, Shirk in personality and Shirk in Attributes are grave crimes. Allah states that Shirk is a major travesty. "Verily Shirk is a great wrong" (Luqman 31, v3)
By Allah! We (Ahle Sunnah) do not commit Shirk in either the worship of Allah nor in His personality and nor in His Attributes
What is Worship?
It seems necessary to allay any suspicions and confusions by establishing 3 definition of Worship.
Imam Baghwi defines worship as - submitting with humility and humbleness. (Mualim-ut- Tanzeel p.22 vol 1)
Allama Alousi writes - `The highest rank of humility is worship' (Ruh-ul-Ma'ani vol 1 p86)
Qazi Baidaawi writes - "Worship is the end limit of humility and humbleness." (Baidaawi vol 1 p9)
Abu Hayyaan Andlousi writes- "Humbleness is lbadah" (Al Bahr ul Muheet vol 1 p23)
Numerous other mufassireen have provided a similar definition that lbaadah is to express the utmost humility in front of someone"
However the heart does not find contentment from such a definition for the following reasons
The companions expressed the utmost humility before the Prophet. It is difficult to envisage any greater humility or humbleness This relationship between the companions and the Prophet can be understood through the following famous incident (which is presented in the words of a Wahabi Scholar Safee-ur-Rehman Mubaarakpuri).
"After this Urwa came to ascertain the relationship of the Prophet and his Companions. After returning to his colleagues he said "Oh people, I have both been seen the Caesars of Rome and kings such as Negus, (but) I have not seen the Romans show the amount of respect to any of their emperors which the companions of Muhammad show to Muhammad. By God, whenever he would wash (the water) would land into one of their hands and they would rub it ove their faces and bodies and whenever he would command anything they would all run to fulfil it. When he spoke they kept their voices muted and through respect they refrain from looking directly at him. (Ar Raheeq-ul-Makhtoom p.s40, Maktaba Salafia Lahore).
2. Standing with folded arms in the prayer constitutes ibaadah and so too does standing after Ruku with open arms. However, similar expressions of humility before the Prophet were deemed respect and not worship. Clearly rubbing saliva on the face is a greater expression of humility than simply standing with folded arms.
3. Qiyaam (standing) in prayer is ibaadah, so too is ruku, sajdah and sitting upon two thighs. All of these actions are expressions of humility, but when compared to sajdah, they are lesser expressions of humility. Thus if worship was only the utmost degree of humility, then qiyaam, ruku and sitting would not be considered ibaadah for they are not the ultimate levels of humility.
4. The mushrikeen of Makkah in explaining their rationale for worshipping idols pleaded:
"We worship them only that they may bring us close near to Allah"(Az Zumar 39, v 3)
This verse reveals that although the mushrikeen showed humility before idols, it was not the utmost level of humility. This, they reserved for Allah.
Thus, explaining ibaadah as only the ultimate level of humility leads to difficulty. We must conclude in the light of the above that worship is not simply humility and submission. Rather, worship is to display humility and respect for an entity whilst believing it to be absolute and self existent"
If humility is displayed for someone, if respect is shown for someone whilst considering him not absolute and self-existent - but rather as creation and non-absolute - then this humility is reverence and not worship.
To clarify this further, a number of examples are presented:
In prayer, we stand with our arms folded in decorum. Whilst recognising Allah as absolute and self-existent our standing with folded arms is regarded as worship.
However, when we stand with arms folded in respect before our father, teacher or master, recognising them as creation and dependant, this action is considered not worship but respect.
4. After performing the ruku in prayer, we stand with open arms in decorum, regarding Allah as absolute and self existent such as stance in prayer is deemed as worship. However, for example, during the national anthem, people also stand with arms at their side, but this action is not seen as worship but is considered respect.
5. The Angels prostrate before Allah considering Him absolute and self-existent and such a prostration is rightly recognised as worship. However, these same angels prostrated before Hazrat Adam, but not whilst considering him as a deity but as a creation and the beloved of Allah. Instead of him being absolute and self-existent, they recognised him as a dependent. Thus this prostration of theirs was a sign of respect and not worship.
Thus worship is not simply humility and submission or the utmost level of humility but it is the respecting and submitting to an entity considered is absolute and self-existent.
Note : In Islamic Shariah, a prostration of respect is not permitted. For an informative discussion on the prohibition of the prostration of respect refer to A'la Hazrat Shah Ahmad Raza Khan's booklet on this topic.
Shirk in Personality
This is to consider anyone else to be like Allah. By Allah, the Ahl-e-Sunah does not partake in this type of Shirk - Allah is Self existent, everthing else, including His beloved Prophet, the mercy of the universe, is dependant for its existence. Allah is independent, he needs no one whereas everything else is in need of Allah.
Shirk in Attributes
This is believing that another being has an attribute similar to an attribute of Allah. Again, on oath, we declare that we consider no creation to have an attribute similar to the attributes of Allah.
Even our critics concede that the Ahl-e~Sunnah does not commit Shirk in worship- it worships none but Allah - and nor does it commit Shirk in Personality it does not consider anyone like Allah. However they claim that it does believe that the attributes of Allah are found in Prophets and Awliya (saints). For example knowledge of the unseen is an attribute of Allah and the Ahl-e-Sunnah acknowledges the Prophet as having the knowledge of the unseen. Similarly he is Haazir and Naazir and a reliever of difficulties. The Ahl-e-Sunnah refers to Syed Ali Hajweri as "Data Sahib" (the nourisher). It is for these reasons that they accuse the Ahl-e-Sunnah of committing Shirk in attributes.
However, this accusation is also a complete fallacy. They have been misled by the use of similar words and have horridly accused others of Shirk when in reality there is no similarly in meaning.
If there is no similarity in meaning then Shirk does not occur simply by the using the same word. For clarification, study the following examples:
1. Allah is alive and so are we, however, Allah is alive in a different way to us. He is self-existent, we are all alive because of Allah, his life is not dependent upon anything, ours is, thus Shirk is not implied by the usage of a similar word.
2. Samee' (hearing) and Baseer (seeing) are attributes of Allah.
"Verily He is the All Hearer, the All Seer" (Bani Israil 17, v1) but such words have also been used for the human
"Verily we have created man from drops of mixed semen, in order to try him; so We
made him hearer and seer" (76:2)
Even though the same words have been used for the creator and the creation, there is no Shirk because the meaning is not the same. In hearing and seeing Allah is not dependent whilst the human is dependent , he could not have heard or seen had not been for Allah.
3. Both Rauf (Kind) and Raheem (Merciful) are attributes of Allah.
"Truly Allah is full of kindness, the most merciful towards mankind". (Al Baqara 2, v 143)
These same words have been used for the Prophet.
"Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He is anxious over you; for the believers (he is) full of pity, kind, and merciful. (At Tauba 9, v 128)
Again there is no similarity in meaning, Allah is not dependent upon anyone to be Rauf and Raheem whilst the Prophet is dependent upon Allah for these attributes. Thus, simply applying the same word to the creator and the creation does not imply Shirk.
4. The word `wali' has been used for Allah, the prophet and the devoted believers, Allah says:
"Verily, your Wali (Protector or Helper) is none other than Allah, His Messenger, and the (righteous) believers" (AI Maidah 6. v 55)
Even though this verse describes Allah, the Prophet and devoted believers as walis, the use of the same word (even in the same sentence) does not imply Shirk because the way in which Allah is our Wali is different to the way the Prophet and the Awliya are our Walis. Allah is our `Wali' in His own right, the Prophets and Awliya are our Walis through bestowment. As there is no conjunction in meaning, there is no Shirk.
5. The word `Shaheed' (witness) has been used in the Quran for Allah and this same word has been used for the Prophet. Allah says
"Verily Allah is Ever All Winers over everything" (Al Ahzab 33 v 55)
Allah in reference to the Prophet states
"And the messenger be a witness over you" (Al Baqarah 2, v 143)
In being a witness, Allah is not dependent upon anybody whilst this attribute of the prophet is dependent upon Allah. In this way Shirk does not occur.
There are many other Quranic examples of joint terminology. However it is hoped that the above mentioned examples will suffice in clarifying that simply referring to the prophet as having the knowledge of the unseen, Haazir and Naazir, reliever of difficulties does not imply Shirk. Allah is not dependent upon anyone in any of His attributes whilst the prophet, in every attribute, is reliant upon his Lord. All attributes of Allah are personal, whilst every attribute of the Prophet is bestowed.
Daata
Opponents render a fatwa of Shirk upon the referring of Syed Ali Hajweri as Daata Sahib. They claim that Allah is `Daata' and to refer to any of the creation as Daata is a major type of Shirk.
However they seem ignorant to the fact that the term 'Daata' is not Arabic but restricted to Hindu/Urdu diction, whose meanings are
1. Bestowed, generous
2. Nourisher, God
3. Devotee, dervish, pauper
To contemplate Allah as Daata in the meanings of dervish and pauper is Kufr (heresy). However,
in terms of bestowed, nourisher the word Daata is applicable to Allah. But this does not prevent its use for creation.
For example the word `Rabb' (Lord) is much more stronger in meaning than Daata but the Prophet Yusuf has used the word Rabb to describe one of the creation.
In Sarah Yusuf, when explaining the dreams of the vessel carrier and the cook of the king Hazrat Yusuf said
"O two companions of the prison! As for one of you, he will pour out wine for his lord" (Yusuf 12 v 41)
Hazrat Yusuf described the vessel carrier's king as Rabb. Allah is Rabb but a king has also been labelled as Rabb. Even though the same word has been used there is no Shirk since there is no similarity in meaning. Allah Nourishes but so too does a king.
In nourishing Allah does not need anything whereas the King needs resources in order to nourish others, he taxes some, penalises others and receives gifts from other.
Similarly Allah is Daata and there is also a Daata in Lahore. Despite using the same word and recognising both as Daata there is a world of difference in meaning. Allah is a Daata but does not need anyone in being a Daata whilst the king of Lahore receives from Allah and passes it on to the creation.
I was once asked whether the Quran teaches that there are providers other than Allah ? I replied that only those who recognised the Prophet as a Daata would enter Paradise for Allah has surely stated
"Would that they were contented with what Allah and His messenger gave them and had said "Allah is sufficient for us. Allah will give us of his bounty and so will His Messenger. We implore Allah" (At Taubah 9, vs9)
Inspect the following words of the wahaabi scholar Allama Waheed-uz-Zaman and witness the veracity of the beliefs of the Ahl-e-Sunnah:
"Some of our contemporary brothers have adopted the extremist path and have created a narrow vision of Islam, they label as Shirk acts which are in fact Makhruh (disliked) and Haraam (forbidden). If their purpose in doing this is lesser Shirk or to create an obstructor then may Allah forgive them because they are committing an excess. (because) Introducing extremism within religion is one of the evils of the kharijites (seceders) who seceded from the deen and broke the covenant.
We will now present these accusations. Our purpose is to protect our Ahl-e-Hadith brothers from making the above mentioned mistakes. Verily Allah is the best protector and guider to the straight path.
1. Extremists claim that it is not part of the qualities of prophets and Awliya to fulfil needs and solve difficulties with the power, permission and commandment of Allah. They also claim that anyone holding such a belief is a polytheist (mushrik).
This assertion is not correct because the Angels of Allah help people with the order and permission of Allah and not through their own ability and power. In addition, people help each other and Allah commands
"Help one another in virtue and piety; but do not help one another in sin" (AI Maida, v 2)
"But if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them". (Al Anfal 8, v 72)
"Your Lord will help you with five thousand angels having marks (of distinction)" (Aali- Imran 4, v 126)
The Prophet Dhul Qarnain stated "So help me with strength (of men)" (AI Kahf 18, v 95)
In the hadith of the Abdaal it is stated "In my Ummah there are 30 who are abdaal, it is because of them that the world remains established, and because of them you are bestowed rain and it is because of them that you are helped "
In the hadith of Hassan, it is stated " Oh Allah, strengthen Hassan Through the Holy spirit"
It is further stated in hadith `When one of you loses an animal in the jungle he should proclaim "Oh servants of Allah, help me"
Holding a similar belief about the souls of Prophets and righteous people is not Shirk. Whether this belief is wrong or a bidah is a different matter but it is not Shirk (the assistance of prophets and Awliya after passing away is proven, for example, Prophet Musa was the reason for the reduction in Prayers on the night of Mir'aj).
It has been previously stated that it is a mistake to make a distinction between the living and the deceased when discussing Shirk. This is because the living and the deceased, and even the angels, are equal in being Ghair Ullah (other than Allah). Of course there is the difference of "Samaa `ljaabat' in the living and deceased just as Allah says " The living and the deceased are not the same." In a similar way the mufassireen state that a believer and a kaafir are not the same.
Thus, anything, which, when sought from angels is Shirk, is also Shirk when sought from both living and deceased humans and if an item when sought from angels is not Shirk, then it cannot be Shirk when sought from living or deceased humans.
It is impossible for a thing to be Shirk when sought from the deceased but not be Shirk when sought from a living being. Whoever fails to comprehend this simple point - cannot be expected to debate the docrinal (`aqeedah) issues.
Question: Of the thing sought from living humans, if these same things are sought from idols. it is Shirk. This proves that there is a difference in living and deceased humans.
Answer: Idols are a different matter; for Allah has ordered us to not only to protect ourselves from them but to destroy and burn them. Thus anyone seeking their assistance is in effect showing respect towards them. It has already been stated that the sanctification of Prophets; Angels; holy people and the signs of Allah is part of the Deen whilst even the minutely respect of the gods of the mushrikeen is Shirk. The revered souls of Prophets and holy people are not in the same circumference (of debate) as idols, rather they are similar to Angels (in this debate), if not more venerable. One should make the analogy of the souls of prophets and Holy people with
the Angels and not with idols, who are impure.
If someone was to say "Oh Mikaail (a prominent angel), with the command of Allah, send rain upon the earth" or "Oh Jibrail (the greatest angel), with the command of Allah place such a thing in my heart" would the extremist label him a mushrik ??
Verily if a grave, made from soil and stone, was to be worshipped then it would become like an idol and if something was sought from the grave then that would be tantamount to seeking it from a idol. However the matter of the dweller of the grave is different. What is a stone compared to a bird ?
2. Extremists claim that kissing, touching or standing at the graves of Prophets or holy people turns the grave into an idol and it thus becomes necessary to destroy, dig up and degrade it. In support of this view, extremists make use of the Prophets saying "Oh Allah, do not make my grave an idol which is worshipped". In response we state that Allah has made respecting the graves of Prophets and righteous people a part of our Deen and the destruction and degradation of them is forbidden. Undoubtedly those who undertake forbidden acts at these places must be stopped. This will be akin to the situation where people begin to treat the Kabah, Hajar-e-Aswad, Safa or Marwa as deities or objects of worship, would anyone, in this situation, contemplate their destruction and degradation? The (aformentioned) Du'a of the prophet was a plea to Allah to ensure that his grave did not become an idol, that it is does not become an object of worship like an idol. The du'a certainly does not imply that the worshipping of the blessed tomb would transform it into an idol. How can a believer even contemplate that the blessed tomb of the prophet is, like an idol, impure and vile.
Note: Allama Waheed-uz-Zaman, in Hadiya tul Mahdi p. 12-49, has produced a noteworthy discussion on Shirk which is worth consulting, even if certains pieces of his research are debatable. In the aforementioned piece, Allama Waheed-uz-Zaman proves clearly that, with the grace of Allah, we the Ahl-e-Sunnah wal Jama'ah art believers and not rnushrik.
Before concluding this discussion a number of statements by leading Disband scholars shall be presented which cleary show that the Ahl-e-Sunnah are not mushrik.
1. It is stated it Fataawa Dar-ul-uloom Deoband:
Question no 33: My soy-in-law, Molvi Hashmat Ali Lakhnavi has become a follower of the Raza Khaani sect , he both believes and openly proclaims "Yaa Rasullallah, Yaa Ali Mushkil Kushaa". He states that the Prophet Muhammad and all other Prophets possess knowledge of the unseen and that Allah has granted the Prophet the keys to all his treasures. Allah bellows all the blessings whilst the prophet distributes them. He also states that when a person enters his own home and finds no one present he should say salam upon the Prophet because the Prophets' blessed soul is present in every muslims house. Please state whiter my son-in-law is a kaafir or not, and if so, is his Nikah (marriage) invalid or not.
Answer: It is not correct to call kaafir the associates of Molvi Ahmad Raza Khan Sahib Barelvi. Rather there is scope for interpretation and explaniation in their statements. (Fataawa Dar-ul-uloom Deobnd vol 2 p142, compilation Mufti Muhammad Shaf'ee)
Note - Even if this answer did not accept the aforementioned beliefs it did however explicitly state that it was wrong to label Maulana Ahmad Raza Khan and his associates as kaafir.
2. Molana Ashraf Ali Taanwi states "A person enquired whether prayers are possible behind the people of Bareilly. He (Ashraf Ali Thaanwi) replied, "Yes, we do not label them as kaafir. Even though they label us as such. Our belief is that one needs to be very careful in labelling others kaafir. Because if someone is a kaafir and we fail to label him as such, what is the loss? But if we label someone a kaafir and he is not, then this is very dangerous. We do not (even) call the Qadianis as kaafir even though they label us kaafir, but when it is proven that they believe in the Prophethood of Mirza Sahib, then we label them kaafir because this is clear Kufr (heresy). Apart from this there is the possibility of explanation and interpretation in their statements. We do not label the people of Bareilly as kaafir. There is the issue of knowledge of the unseen, which is a source of debate between us because it implies a partnership in an attribute of Allah. However, we hear that they believe in the Prophets knowledge of the unseen not in terms of being unlimited like the knowledge of Allah but accept the limit up to the entering of the people of paradise into paradise and the people of Hell into Hell. If this is true then Shirk is not implied. The attribute of Allah is unlimited knowledge, not limited knowledge. Thus, the only issue between us and them is whether the Prophet has been given knowledge "to the entering of the people of paradise into paradise and the people of Hell into Hell".
We state that such a granting is possible in theory but (the actual granting) is not proven in Shari'ah whilst they claim that it is proven. We consider all their proofs deficient and they are unable to prove their claim. Thus the most we can accuse them of is the accepting of something which is not proven from Shariah. This is an attribute of a Mubtadi (Bidah) and not of a kaafir. (Qasasul Akaabir Li hassisil Asaagir p252.3)
Note: we have the required evidence to prove our claim;
"Tariq bin Shuaab states that I heard Umar-e-Farooq state that (one Day) the Prophet stood and began to they label us kaafir. but when it is proven that they narrate to us all the events from the begining of creation to when the people of Jannah enter paradise and the people of hell enter hell. (Bukhari Sharif).
In explaining this hadith the muhadditheen have stated that the Prophet told the companions of
everything that had and would happen from the beginning of creation to the entering of the people of paradise into pradise and the people of hell into hell. This was a great miracle of the Prophet. (Umda-tul-Qari, Mirqaat Share mishkaat, Ashatul Lum'at, Irshaad-us-shari Shara Bukhari, Fath-ul-Baari Share Bukhari).
3. Ashraf Ali Taanwi states:
"It is often stated that that this is the age of knowledge but in truth ignorance has spread everywhere, each and everyone has made himself a mujtahid and muhaqqiq, whoever you meet is either a mufassir, mufti or muhaddith, what a great tragedy this is! This is why we find ourselves in the state that whenever a slightest act displeases someone a fatwa of kufr is immediately issued. What a grave matter it is that when one is asked for an opinion about the one who accepts the knowledge of the unseen of the Prophet. I state that if someone accepts this as personal knowledge then he is kaafir but if he believes it to be bestowed, in that Allah has granted him this knowledge, then such a person is not kaafir, even if he believes it to be absolute knowledge. (Although) This is a lie (but) not every lie is kufr. (ldaafat-e-Yawmiya a vola, ps8 (Multan Edition).
Note: we the Ahl-e-Sunnah accept the `restricted knowledge' of the prophet, as we have previously stated-we to do not accept absolute knowledge.
4. In replying to a question Dr Khalid Mahmud Sialkoti writes:
"Question: Seven people offered the sacrifice of a cow and one of them was of Barelvi beliefs. The question is whiter his inclusion affects the acceptance of the other sixes offering? (M.Yasin, Imam Masjid Muhammadi, Cotton Mills Sarghoda)
Answer : The offering is accepted, However if anyone of the participants was so misled that he had reached the state of kufr, then such a participation would also render each of the other offerings invalid. The research of our elders concludes that Barelvis do not come under kufr and the Dar-ul-uloom Disband has never declared them kaafir. It is true that believing anyone other than Allah as present everywhere is kufr but as far as we know the Barelvi people do not consider the Prophet to be present everywhere in body but explain that he is present in terms of knowledge etc. Whether this explanation is acceptable is a different matter but such an explanation does not constitute the Kufr which the fuqaha have explained. Also amongst them are some who say these words- Haazir Naazir - not as part of doctrine (aqeedah) but through stubbornness. May Allah guide them, the truth is that they cannot be labelled as kaafir and their participation does not invalidate the sacrifrices of the others. Caution is another matter whilst abstinence is superior. Wallahu a'lam bissawaab, Khalid Mahmood. (Abqaat p154, Idara Hifz-e-Muaarif-e-Islami, Shah Alam Market Lahore).
