|
One of the supplication (du'a) that is recited during the Hajj rituals
encapsulates the concept of Tawheed which connotes a weighty conceptual
meaning:
''Labbayk Allahuma Labbayk''
I am here (to obey), oh Allah, I am here (to obey)
''Labbayk Laa Shareeka laka Labbayk''
I am here (to obey), (and) you have no partner (in the share of Your
Kingdom), I am here (to obey).
''Inna Al-Hamda wal-Ni'meta laka, wal-Mulk''
Truly all praise, and all the favour is (only) to you, as is the ownership
(of all things).
''Laa Shareeka Lak''
You have no partner (in the share of Your Kingdom).
The Tawheed that Muhammad (saw) propagated was distinct from all other ideas
because it was based on two principles:
Tawheed Rububiyah, which means that Allah is One, without any
partners or associates.
Tawheed 'Uluhiyyah, which means that Allah must be worshipped alone
in everything, and total slavery must be to Allah alone in everything
ranging from the spiritual to the political.
What is Al-Shirk (polytheism) ?
The opposite of Tawheed is expressed by the Arabic term Shirk
(polytheism), derived from the root Sh-r-k which conveys the notion
of ''sharing'' or ''partnerships.'' The word Sharik (plural
shurakaa) means ''partner'' or ''associate.'' It encompasses far more
than the more blatant forms of idolatry and denial of Allah's Unity. The
term Shirk means associating partners with Allah (even in
legislation), and the related term mushrik is applied to someone
guilty of such polytheistic association.
''The shirk is a great oppression.'' [
31:13]
Due the secular onslaught upon our thinking the concept of ''associating
partners with Allah'' is assumed to be a non-existent issue amongst many
Muslims although we have been mistakenly practising many forms of shirk
due to ignorance, faulty information and the distorted outlook. To
understand what exactly constitute ''associating partners with Allah'' ,we
need to refer to a decisive moment in the history of our Prophet Mohammed (sallalahu
alaihi wassalam). As we know some of the pagans had denounced the call of
Islamic monotheism (Tawheed) and they were looking for ways in which they
could stop this divine call. After weighing up various possibilities from
giving money to assassinating Muhammad they decided to lay down an offer
that was acceptable to both parties. Ibn Ishaaq reported that Ibn Abbas
reports that some Quraish went to Muhammad and put forward a solution
whereby the people would worship his (saw) lord for one year and the
following year the people would worship their idols [Tafsir Qurtubi]. Once
having completed the second year the people would then gather to decide
which of the two systems they preferred over them and they would rule
according to what the people were in favour of. In other words the
Quraysh offered him (saw) a form of coalition Government.
The above incident gave cause for a famous chapter of the Quran to be
revealed, Surah Al-Kafiroon, Muhammad recited the chapter to the mystic
heathens, it responded to the pagans request explicitly:
Say: Oh disbelievers!
I Do not worship what you worship.
Nor do you worship what I worship.
I shall never worship what you worship.
Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
To you belongs your deen (way of life) and to me my
deen ( way of life). [ 109: 1-6]
The above verses were straight to the point, Islam did not except manmade
laws as the arbitrator for any dispute, no matter how small or big the
problem is. At the time that this Surah was revealed, the rules for fasting,
Hajj, Zakat, and prayer did not exist. When the last ayah stated, ''To you
be your Deen and to me my Deen,'' the word Deen did not refer
to the spiritual aspects of Islam because those aspects were not revealed
yet.
Therefore we cannot assume that just by praying, fasting, and performing
hajj we have evaded shirk (evaded associating partners with
Allah). Rather the correct understanding of Tawheed (opposite of Shirk)
entails referring exclusively to WHAT ALLAH REVEALED as our criterion and
sources for solutions.
Some ridiculous patterns of thinking have been the hallmark of declined
intellectual level of the Muslims these days.
Partnering the legislation of Allah with other references
There are many who diligently adhere to the standard of Quran and Sunnah,
when it comes to rituals and morals. But actions in the realm of politics,
economics and other societal affairs are governed by the another set of
references such Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Law, UN
Charter, Paris Convention...etc etc. This is the most apparent form of
''associating partners with Allah''
Partnering the legislation of Allah with 'benefit'
There are many who are steadfast in prayer, fasting on the grounds that they
are Orders of Allah and they take these Orders very seriously. Ironically
the same people would avoid dawah work on the grounds that it does not bring
benefit. This is a case of Islamic texts partnering with 'benefit'
Partnering on a part time basis
Then there are many hypocrites who refer to Quran/Sunnah to
fulfil a specific agenda. Such people would dig the Islamic texts to search
for prohibited acts and starts accusing their foes of the prohibited acts
which they discovered in these texts ('You fornicator' or 'you homosexual').
When the accusations and slandering is over, the same people proceed in life
based on another reference, notwithstanding the fact that we as Muslims
cannot accuse anyone of haraam action without DEFINITE EVIDENCES. Hence
reference to the Quran or Sunnah was to extract selective evidence to
justify accusations against a person. And then this reference is casually
brushed aside when it comes to seeking solutions for problems. This kind of
partnering Allah's legislation on a part time basis is a prominent feature
among corrupt Muslim politicians embroiled in the western Machiavellian political
system. If we agree that a certain action is haraam on the basis that there
is a text which says so, then by greater reason we ought to follow these
texts in the political life as well.
Partnering Allah's legislation with other sources based on
personalities
Some have developed the tendency of referring to Allah's legislation
exclusively to judge the actions of a person based on his rank. For example
there are many who would judge rulers or politicians based on Islamic
legislative sources and substitute it with another reference when it comes
to evaluating their own actions. In this regard, many would argue that it is
haraam for rulers to erect mansions with misappropriated funds. People
presenting such arguments would not mind, lets say, misusing their office
telephone for personal pleasure and thereby dishonouring the employee work
contract. Islam mandates that we fulfil all the terms of contracts.
In one instance, Rasool-Allah (saw) appointed one man to collect the Zakat.
When the man returned he said, ''This is for you, and this has been given to
me as a present'' Upon hearing this, Allah's Messenger (saw) said, ''What
is it with the man? We appoint him to work on what Allah has entrusted in
us, and he says this is for you and this is a present given to me? Why
doesn't he stay in his parents' home and see if he gets any presents? If we
appoint someone to do a job and pay him for it, anything he takes besides
that would be ill-gained'' [Bukhari].
In Islam, actions are evaluated based upon on evidences (daleel)
which the legislator revealed regarding that action. Actions are NOT
evaluated based on the outcome of the action. Misappropriating is not permitted for a ruler or an ordinary
citizen. It does not matter that the same ACTION committed by the ruler
results in mansions and burden of high telephone bills when committed by the
ordinary citizen. What matters is the Islamic ruling regarding contracts -
includes ruling contract and employer contract, contract of rent,
hiring...etc. If ordinary citizens are to assume that they can base their
actions on BENEFIT rather than hukm Shariah, why wouldn't the rulers act
differently if BENEFIT is the pervasive standard criterion agreed by all.
Furthermore can everyone agree on what exactly constitute BENEFIT ?
The Western culture is fundamentally based on the arrogant assumption that
man can determine whether actions are good or bad. While everyone can agree
that sugar is sweet and vinegar is sour, such agreement cannot be reached
regarding actions. Judgements about actions come from one's viewpoint of
life. The West believes that the objective in life is to please ones desires
and satisfy ones instincts as much as possible, in whatever manner is
available. Most people will argue that they choose to drink or not to drink.
The question is what do they base their choice on? The simple answer is that
they decide after weighing up what they see as the benefits and harms that
will result from the action. So an individual in this society can argue that
they drink alcohol because it makes them feel good or allows them to relax
and be more sociable, whilst another could argue that they do not drink
alcohol because it is too expensive. The fact remains that each person can
bring his or her own reason for drinking depending on his or her own
perspective at that particular time. It is this perspective (i.e. benefit)
that must be brought into question.
Correcting our mindset will prevent the shirk
Ideas are built upon other ideas, and each idea provides the foundation for
other ideas. Before accusing someone of committing haram actions, such as
fornication or homosexuality, it should be agreed that an action is deemed
haraam solely because Quran or Sunnah indicates to it. But this is
irrelevant unless we believe in the Quran/Sunnah revealed to the last
Messenger. Before discussing a prophet Muhammad, it must be agreed that we
need prophets and messengers. And the issue of prophets and messengers is
irrelevant unless we believe in the One Who sent Prophet Mohammed.
Therefore, rather than spiraling around 'this is right' or 'that is wrong',
it should be agreed that a Creator exists. If we build our dichotomy of
thoughts based on unconvincing or orphaned facts, the basis of our thoughts
would be mere sand ready to crumble. Partnering Allah's legislation with
other references is a grave sin and entails many pitfalls.
Today we are inundated with ''solutions'' from virtually anywhere and we
should not blindly rush towards adopting a specific concept until we have
done a thorough research on it. Otherwise we might be practising all forms
of Shirk. Some example will throw light on the importance of exclusive
reference to Islam.
when Imam Ali (raa), while fighting the jihad, was about to kill a Kafir,
and just as the Kafir spit on his face, Ali laid down his sword. Later, when
the Kafir asked Ali why he did not strike, Ali responded, ''Initially I was
going to kill you for the sake of Allah, but after you spit at my face, I
was going to kill you for personal reasons.''
When Umar was the Khalifah, he had a habit of wandering the streets of
Madinah to check how the society was running, and once he came upon a house,
and it was very clear from the sounds of the inhabitants that they were
drinking. Umar leaped over their wall and caught them in the act. The people
responded to him, ''If we violated the rule of Allah on one account, then
you violated Allah on three accounts. First, you did not knock before
entering. Second, you were spying on us. And third, you entered from the
back door and not from the front door.'' Umar acknowledged his mistake, and
he let them go.
Conclusion
The reasons why we refer to diametrically opposite references is due to
apologetic and defeated mindset that resulted from the way ''Islamic
history'' is presented to us. We have to be very careful when it comes to
relaying information and making sure that this information is correct and
accurate to the best of our ability, especially when it comes to ''Islamic
history'', much of which contains fabrication and lies churned out by
Orientalists to paint a grim picture of Islam. This is why we find ourselves
hating some aspects of Islam and its application, which is exactly the
intended outcome of those who wish to maintain a gap between the Muslims and
the complete system of Islam.
Interestingly, within the context of the Crusades, after the Crusaders
failed to defeat the Muslims militarily, they did their homework and
realized that the secret of the success of the Muslims was Islam itself, and
the unshakeable conviction that the Muslims had in Islam. As a result, the
Europeans reinitiated a new intellectual and cultural crusade that aimed to
deviate the Muslims from Islam, taking advantage of the already weakened
situation of the Muslims. Within this context, they utilized many approaches
and avenues. Among the many approaches they utilized was to undermine the
confidence in our very sources. Most of these attacks were concentrated
against undermining the Sunnah (in part because attacking the Sunnah was
less challenging than attacking the Quran itself, and it could be done more
discretely without provoking the emotions of the Muslims). The end result of
this movement was ideas such as ''Quran was from Allah, but Sunnah is
from human beings,'' or that ''Quran was preserved, but Sunnah was
not preserved.'' These ideas are circulating among many Muslims, and
they do nothing but erode our confidence in Islam itself and create an
intellectual barrier between us and the correct understanding.
Also, those who claim that Islam does not have a specific political system,
should re-evaluate their stance. For this begs the question of how Islam as
a ''complete way of life'' can be applied without a political system.
This notion is false because Allah (swt) would not leave any issue in
this life unanswered, especially something as critical as the political
system, which is the mechanism that implements and safeguards the Ideology
of Islam. Therefore we should not invent excuses for ''partnering'' or
swapping Allah's legislation with other references.
Therefore, we have to also do our homework and revive our understanding by
exposing such ideas and building the correct understanding within ourselves
if we wish to stop practising shirk. May Allah (swt) forgive for our sins.
|
