P5 An eBook About "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :The testimony of faith (Shahādah),The First Condition:Verbal Pronouncement

Join 4Shared Now!

Your Ad Here

P5 An eBook About "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :
The testimony of faith (Shahādah)

The Conditions of the Shahādah

The Shahādah has numerous conditions of which one’s belief and faith cannot be correct without them. They include;

The First Condition: Verbal Pronouncement

When one wishes to enter into Islām and for the attribution and rulings of Islām to be applicable to him, they must state by word the testimony of Tawhīd, ‘I bear witness that there is no god but Allāh and that Muhammad (saw) is the Prophet of Allāh (swt).’

Whosoever rejects by their own free will not to pronounce the Shahādah is not a Muslim whose blood is protected from being spilled. The evidence for this is according to the Hadīth reported by Sa’īd bin Musayyab (ra) from his father who said,

لما حضرَت أبا طالب الوفاةُ، جاءه رسولُ الله  فوجد عنده أبا جهل، وعبد الله بن أبي أمية بن المغيرة، فقال رسول الله: يا عم قُل لا إله إلا الله، كلمة أشهدُ لك بها عند الله، فقال أبو جهل وعبد الله بن أبي أُمية: يا أبا طالب أترغب عن ملة عبد المطلب ؟! فلم يزل رسول الله  يَعرضها عليه ويُعيد له تلك المقالة، حتى قال أبو طالب آخر ما كلمهم: هو على ملة عبد المطلب وأبى أن يقول: لا إله إلا الله، فقال رسول الله: أما والله لأستغفرنَّ لك ما لم أُنهَ عنك  فأنزل الله ) ما كان للنبي والذين آمنوا أن يستغفروا للمشركين ولو كانوا أُولي قُربى من بعد ما تبين لهم أنهم أصحاب الجحيم (، وأنزل الله تعالى في أبي طالب قوله لرسول الله)  إنك لا تهدي مَن أحببتَ ولكن اللهَ يهدي من يشاء وهو أعلمُ بالمهتدين(

“When Abu Tālib was entering his deathbed the Prophet (saw) came to his side and found Abu Jahl and Abdullah ibn Abie Ummayah al-Mughira. He (saw) said, ‘O my uncle! Say: there is no god but Allāh (swt) by which I will be able to testify for you in front of Allāh (swt). Abu Jahl responded, ‘O Abu Tālib! Are you going to reject the religion of Abdul Muttalib?’ The Prophet (saw) continued to encourage his uncle to say the Shahādah until Abu Tālib said his final words to them, ‘He is on the religion of Abdul Muttalib,’ and refused to say there is no god but Allāh (swt). When this came to pass, the Prophet (saw) said, ‘By Allāh! I will continue to beseech Allāh (swt) for Abu Tālib’s forgiveness until I am ordered to do otherwise.’ Allāh (swt) then revealed, ‘It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire.’ [Surah at-Tauba 9:133] and Allāh (swt) also revealed to the Prophet (saw), ‘You cannot guide whoever you so will, it is Allāh (swt) who guides whom He wishes.’ [Surah Qasas 28:56]”[1]

And upon the authority of Abu Hurayra (ra) who reported that the Prophet (saw) said to his uncle,

قال رسول الله  لعمه: قل لا إله إلا الله أشهدُ لك بها يوم القيامة  قال: لولا أن تعيرني قريش يقولون إنما حمله على ذلك الجزع لأقررت بها عينك !! فأنزل الله:) إنك لا تهدي من أحببت ولكنَّ الله يهدي من يشاء (

“Say: there is no god but Allāh and I will bear witness for you on the Day of Judgement.’ Abu Tālib replied, ‘If Quraysh did not reproach me by saying that I said this statement out of fear, I would have repeated it for your sake!’ Then Allāh (swt) revealed, ‘You cannot guide whoever you so will, it is Allāh (swt) who guides whom He wishes.’[2]

And the Prophet (saw) said,

أُمرت أن أقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمداً رسول الله، ويُقيموا الصلاة، ويؤتوا الزكاة، فإذا فعلوا ذلك عصموا مني دماءَهم وأموالهم إلا بحقِّ الإسلام وحسابهم على الله

“I have been commanded (by Allāh) to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allāh and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allāh, and they establish regular prayer and pay Zakāh. If they do that, then their lives and property are protected from me except for the Islāmic laws and then their reckoning will be with Allāh.”[3]

Imām Nawawi commented in his Sharh of Sahīh Muslim,

“From this we understand that one of the conditions of Īmān is to pronounce the two testimonies of faith in addition to believing in them and believing in all that the Prophet (saw) came with”.[4]

Ibn Taymiyya commented in his Fatāwa,

“If one has capability to, but does not say the two testifications of faith he is a disbeliever by the unanimous agreement of all Muslims; and he is a Kāfir inwardly and outwardly according to the Salaf of the Ummah, their leaders and the Jumhour (vast majority) of the scholars.”[5]

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya in his Fatāwa mentions, ‘…capability…’ to exclude those who are disabled or infirm in particular those who are mute and are unable to speak or vocalise the Shahādatān (two testimonies). Such persons are excused this responsibility by agreement of the people of knowledge.

None from the Muslim scholars disagree regarding pronouncement being a condition for the correctness of one’s Shahādah except the misguided Jahmeyeen; who restrict Īmān to conviction of the heart alone. Such a definition carrying them to the reverse conclusion that Kufr can only be of the heart as well. Consequently, they do not believe in anything called Kufr of actions or Kufr of speech.

Although such statements are clearly rejected, opposing the Shar’iah texts and is not what the ‘Aqīdah of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah is based upon, they still have affected a great number of the students of knowledge from our times in particular, those who falsely claim to follow the methodology of the Salaf. Such a way of thinking having also infiltrated most of the schools and universities found in the Muslim lands.[6]

However, if one were to investigate the situation of these people more closely, one finds that they have different methodologies in matters relating to Kufr and Īmān. If you were to ask such a person, ‘when does a person become Kāfir?’ or, ‘what leads a person to Kufr?’ you will find then leaning towards the ‘Aqīdah of Jahm, implying that anyone who has conviction of the heart is a believer irrespective of committing Kufr actions or uttering Kufr. By way of example if you say such and such a person has committed clear Kufr by swearing against Allāh (swt), the Prophet (saw) or against the Dīn of Islām, they will answer you, ‘did they make such an action permissible in their hearts? What is important to us is the completeness of his conviction. This is only Kufr of the outer but does not represent his inner! And we have no way to gain access to know what is in his heart. Consequently we must call him a Muslim!’ According to them he is a Muslim irrespective of how grave the Kufr such a person may state!

This is regarding matters of Kufr. If one were to ask the same people regarding matters pertaining to belief and when a person is a believer or not, you find them following a different methodology, that of the Murji al-Karamiya. This states that whoever simply states and pronounces the Shahādah then he is a believer even if inside his heart he is a Munāfiq (hypocrite) disbeliever, neither believing in nor confirming his Islām!.[7]

If you say to them regarding the Communist atheist who believes in Kufr and denies that God exists, and who is a disbeliever even according to the definition of the deviant Jahm bin Safwān, you find them answering, ‘But he said the statement, ‘there is no god but Allāh’! How do you want us to make Takfīr upon them and his apparent shows Islām and Allāh (swt) ordered us to judge the apparent; and to Allāh (swt) are the internal secrets. We were not ordered to open the hearts and check what was inside!’

If you were to ask them in relation to one of the Tawaghīt alive today that performs Kufr openly, they would immediately repudiate you using the words and beliefs of al-Jahm i.e. did they permit such Kufr in their hearts? And if you show them another of the Tawaghīt who holds hatred to Islām and permits the Kufr in their hearts, they reject what you say about them by the belief of the deviant Karamiyyah i.e. they will claim that such people had said the Shahādah once in their lives, what is in their heart does not matter!!!

They are Batineyīn (mention the inner) Jahmiyoun if you ask them about someone whose apparent is Kufr and Dhahiryoun (mention the outer) Karamiyoun if you ask them about someone whose heart is full of Kufr and atheism yet proclaims the Shahādah when it is requested of him.

These individuals are amongst the worst types of people by which this Ummah has been tested, employing all manner of misguidance and distortion. They often parade themselves under the guise of Salafiyyah or Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah to spread their ideas amongst the general public. However, as-Salafiyyah and Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamā’ah are free from their propaganda in the same way the wolf was free from the blood of Yusuf (as)!

Topic: Is there anything which can substitute the Shahādah as evidence for a person’s Islām?

The correct understanding of this question is that there is nothing that can fulfil such a role except the Salāh (prayer). If you were to see someone pray and prior to that you had no knowledge of them saying the Shahādah, you must judge him as a Muslim and deal with him according to the duties of Islām as mentioned by the Divine texts. This is because the Prophet (saw) said as recorded in Sahīh Bukharī,

من صلى صلاتنا، واستقبل قبلتنا، وأكل ذبيحتنا، فذلك المسلم له ذمة الله وذمة رسوله

“Whoever prays our prayer, faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered meat is a Muslim under the protection of Allāh (swt) and His Prophet (saw).”

Imām Qurtubi commented in his Tafsīr,

“Īmān cannot exist except by declaring there is no god but Allāh and nothing can be equivalent to it from ones actions or statements except the prayer. Ishāq bin Rahaway said, ‘(The scholars) have unanimously declared that if a person who is previously known as a Kāfir is seen to pray the prayers of the Muslim on time and regularly and no-one had previously heard from him the confirmation (of the Shahādah) upon his tongue, then he is judged as someone with Īmān (i.e. he is Muslim). However, they did not judge likewise in the case of fasting or giving Zakāh.”[8]

Someone may ask if the Shahādah and the Salāh are the only two things that can make one Muslim why then did the Prophet (saw) disown the action of Khālid bin Walīd when during the conquest of Makkah he killed some Arabs who said, ‘Saba’na! Saba’na! (we have come out of one religion to another)’ trying to imply that they became Muslim. However, mistakenly instead of saying, ‘Aslamna (we have submitted i.e. become Muslim)’ they said ‘Saba’na’. So how can one reconcile the fact that the Prophet (saw) reprimanding Khālid bin Walīd for killing people who did neither of these, but who appeared to be considered as Muslims?

My answer is that there is a difference between a statement that makes a person enter Islām and a doubtful statement that prevents the drawing of the sword upon a person during the midst of fighting.

The matters which enters one into Islām is as we have mentioned previously i.e. pronouncing the Shahādah and the Salāh, and the matters that remove the sword upon a person is any expression or action that may imply that the one who is saying it is a Muslim; for example by someone saying, ‘Assalāmu Alaykum wa Rahmatullah.’ This is because Allāh (swt) says,

يا أيها الذين آمنوا إذا ضربتم في سبيل الله فتبينوا ولا تقولوا لمن ألقى إليكم السلام لست مؤمناً تبتغون عرض الحياة الدنيا

“O you who believe! When you go out in the cause of Allāh, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: ‘You are not a believer!’ Seeking the perishable goods of this life: with Allāh are profits and spoils abundant.”[9]

This ayah is indicating that when one wishes to go out to fight one must verify and check the situation of the people before they are killed seeking the spoils of war. So such statements and anything of a similar nature removes the sword upon a person until further verification. However, having said that, the simple stating of such speech do not in themselves make these persons Muslim.

Regarding the situations in the lands of the Kuffār, if a person living there meets another he should always carry a good opinion about his fellow Muslim and should not be hasty in declaring one another Kāfir. As by making Takfīr this is like killing a person as the Prophet (saw) said,

ومن رمى مسلما بكفر فهو كقتله
“Whosoever declares a Muslim to be a disbeliever, it is as if he killed him.”[10]

And the Prophet (saw) said,

إذا قال الرجل لأخيه يا كافر فهو كقتله

“If a man says to his brother, ‘O disbeliever!’ It is as if he killed him.”[11]

And he (saw) said,

و قتل المؤمن أعظم عند الله من زوال الدنيا

“Killing a Muslim is greater in front of Allāh (swt) than the destruction of the whole earth.”[12]

Consequently, the one is who quick to declare someone a disbeliever without verifying a person’s situation is like the one who is quick to kill and spill blood before verifying and making confirmation. This is because, what follows the pronouncement of Takfīr is not less serious than the sin of killing unlawfully.

Topic: Regarding the one who performed Kufr which has no relation to the pronouncement of the Shahādah, does pronouncing the Shahādah thereafter benefit him?

The answer is that whoever has committed Kufr from an angle other than the pronouncement of the Shahādah, i.e. if he rejects any matter that is known from the Dīn by necessity, his spelling out of the Shahādah again will not benefit him in the least, unless and until he retracts the matter which was the cause for him to leave the Dīn in the first place.

So for example, if he says fasting in Ramadhān is not an obligation or was not ordered by Allāh (swt), he becomes a disbeliever by such a statement, and saying the Shahādah after this will not help him, except if he retracts his rejection of the obligation of fasting in Ramadhān. Similarly for the Tawaghīt who replace the laws of Allāh (swt) with their own man-made laws and those who fight against Allāh’s (swt) Dīn, such actions causing them to be disbelievers. Even if they were to repeat the Shahādah every second of the day, this will not help them as they are still entrenched in the actions which caused them to leave the Dīn in the first place. For such people to return back into the fold of Islām, they must repeat the Shahādah along with seeking forgiveness and publicly declaring their disassociation to those actions which caused them to become apostates. This example can be used as an analogy for any other situation which one finds an apostate in wishing to return to the circle of Islām.

Indeed, Abu Bakr (ra) and the Sahābah alongside him fought against those who rejected to pay the Zakāh, declaring them as apostates despite their saying of the Shahādah and bearing witness that there is no god but Allāh (swt) and that Muhammad (saw) was His messenger.

Shaykh Kashmīrī commented in his book, ‘Ikfār al-Mulhidīn’,

“Whoever’s Kufr is by rejecting a known matter such as the prohibition of alcohol, he must declare disassociation from this belief as he used to believe such and state the two Shahādahs at the same time before it; as Imām Shafi’ī explained in ‘Jami’a Fasoulayn’. If he were to only state the Shahādah as normal, this will not help him one bit as long as he did not reject the Kufr which he fell into in the first place.”

And Shaykh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahāb stated,

“Whosoever prays night and day to Allāh (swt) and then goes to a grave and makes Duā (petition) to the Prophet (saw) or the Awliyā’ (those close to Allāh), it is as if they have taken another lord besides Allāh (swt) and they have rejected the Shahādah. This is because the Lord is the only One who can be called upon for Duā. The one who gives another man the status of the Prophet (saw) has disbelieved and his blood is lawful to be spilt; neither his repeating of the Shahādah nor his Salāh will benefit him.”[13]

The last statement indicates that the testimony of the Shahādah will neither benefit nor prevent the judgement of Takfīr or apostasy befalling a person until they were to reject the very matter that was the root cause of their expulsion from the Dīn.

---

[1] Agreed upon

[2] Narrated by Sahīh Muslim. The fact that Abu Tālib the uncle of the Prophet (saw) did not enter Islām despite the perseverance of the Prophet (saw) is one of great signs of Allāh (swt) for those who ponder about it. The person who stood trying to guide Abu Tālib to Islām was the Prophet (saw) himself. In spite of what Allāh (swt) had given the Prophet (saw) from knowledge, the best manners and greatest wisdom, and in spite of his insistence and great perseverance with his uncle hoping for his guidance, he was unable to realise this and Allāh (swt) had written for Abu Tālib to die upon Kufr and the religion of Shirk. This example clearly demonstrates that the matter of guidance and guiding is completely in the Hands of Allāh (swt) alone and no one can even participate in this. He (swt) alone guides whomever He (swt) wishes and misguides whomever He (swt) wishes, and no one is equal in this, not even the Prophet (saw). As Allāh (swt) said, “Not for you, (but for Allāh), is the decision: Whether He turns in mercy to them, or punishes them.” [Surah ale-Imrān 3:128].

[3] Agreed Upon

[4] Sharh Sahīh Muslim,  1/212

[5] Shaykh ul-Islām Ibn Taymiya, Majmou’ al-Fatāwa  7/609

[6] Please refer to our books, ‘Supporting the people of Tawhīd’ and ‘Refining Sharh Aqīdah Tahawiyah’ if you wish further details refuting such a concept.

[7] We discovered such statements regarding these people through our own dealings with them and from their own works. We would like to mention what Shaykh Muhammad Qutb (may Allāh (swt) preserve him) said in his book, ‘There is no god but Allāh, Belief and methodology for life’ regarding a person afflicted with such an understanding, “I am still astonished by a particular person, soft hearted in al-Tayba, may Allāh forgive him, when he was a leader in charge of Islāmic works, he said, ‘We never make Takfīr on anyone who says there is no god but Allāh even if they are Communist!’ May Allāh have mercy on the one who said this and forgive him!” Just think for a second, this statement, which is the core of the Murji’a Karamiya belief, is being made by people who are in charge over the Muslim, what hope is there for the general masses who follow blindly without any insight or evidences? If we have any grievance it is for Shaykh Muhammad Qutb (may Allāh protect him) for asking mercy for that famous leader’s grave mistake and crime in which he does not make Takfīr upon the atheist Communist because perhaps once in his life he said the testimony of faith! The least the Shaykh should have done was to mention his shock at this ugly statement without speaking good or bad about the person, neither making du’a for him nor du’a against him! Ibn Taymiyya counted the Karamiyyah as part of the Murji’a when he said in his Fatāwa, ‘The Karamiyyah are the followers of Muhammad bin Karām who claim that Īmān is the testification and confirmation of the tongue without the heart.’ [Fatāwa Ibn Taymiyya 7/548].

[8] Imām Qurtūbi, Tafsīr Jāmi’ Qurān 8/207

[9] Al-Qurān, Surah an-Nisa 4:94

[10] Sahīh Bukharī

[11] Agreed upon.

[12] Sunan Nisā’ī

[13] Ar-Risāla Ash-Shaksiya, P.166 and Majmou’a at-Tawhīd P.82

P4 An eBook About "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :The testimony of faith (Shahādah),The Meaning of Ash-Shart (Condition),Ab

Join 4Shared Now!

Your Ad Here

P4 "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :
The testimony of faith (Shahādah)

The Meaning of Ash-Shart (Condition)

The scholars of Usūl have defined ash-Shart as follows,

‘The presence of a certain matter depends on the condition’s fulfilment, and its negation necessitates the negation of the matter. However the mere presence of the condition (solitarily) does not necessitate the absolute presence of the matter.’

For example, one of the conditions of the Shahādah is testifying and pronouncing it and ones Shahādah cannot be correct without it. By performing this condition in isolation, without fulfilling the other conditions does not necessitate the correctness of one’s Shahādah. However, if the condition of pronouncement on its own is not enacted, then ones Shahādah is rejected in its entirety, whatever other conditions you may have fulfilled.

And this is the same for the rest of the conditions of the Shahādah, which Inshā’Allāh we will go on to present in more detail in this work. Ones Tawhīd and Shahādah can only be correct with the presence and fulfilment of all the conditions collectively. The mere lacking of any one of the conditions prevents the realisation of the Shahādah in its completeness.

P3 An eBook About "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :The testimony of faith (Shahādah),The Meaning of “Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh”,Abu B

Join 4Shared Now!

Your Ad Here

P3 "شروط لا إله إلا الله The Conditions Of Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh" :

The testimony of faith (Shahādah)

The Meaning of “Lā-Ilāha-Ilallāh”

The testimony of faith (Shahādah) means, “There are no gods or objects of worship which have the right to be worshipped except Allāh.” It is built upon two fundamental pillars; the first which encompasses an absolute rejection and negation (Nafī) of the presence of others gods which are worthy to be worshipped which is represented by the statement, “There is no god…” The second pillar encompasses the concept of confirmation (Ithbāt) that the only one worthy to be worshipped is Allāh (swt) alone which is represented by the statement, “…except Allāh (swt).”

We have the following observations to be made regarding the above definition of the Shahādah;

Firstly: Whoever fulfils the side of negation solely without confirmation is not a true believer. And conversely, whoever fulfils solely the side of confirmation without negation is also not a true believer. A person can only be a true believer if he has both aspects of negation and confirmation present at the same time in their ‘Aqīdah (belief), speech and actions, outward and inner.

As Allāh (swt) mentions regarding the companions of the cave,

وإذ اعتزلتموهم وما يعبدون إلا الله فأووا إلى الكهف

“When you separate from them and the things they worship other than Allāh, betake yourselves to the Cave.”[1]

The companions of the cave expressed both aspects of rejection and confirmation together, to detach themselves from the disbelievers and whatever they worshipped in terms of false gods instead of Allāh (swt). They did not reject to worship Allāh (swt) since He (swt) is the only One worthy of being worshipped and to Him is the sole right for all obedience and worship.

Similarly Allāh (swt) said regarding the Prophet Ibrāhīm (as),

وإذ قال إبراهيم لأبيه وقومه إنني براء مما تعبدون . إلا الذي فطرني فإنه سيهدين

“Behold! Ibrāhīm said to his father and his people: ‘I indeed free myself of what you worship. (I worship) only He who made me, and He will certainly guide me.’”[2]

And Allāh (swt) has mentioned that Ibrāhīm (as) said,

أفرأيتم ما كنتم تعبدون . أنتم وآباؤكم الأقدمون . فإنهم عدو لي إلا رب العالمين

“Do you see that which you have been worshipping, you and your fathers before you? For they are (all) enemies to me except the Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds (Allāh).”[3]

In the previous ayāt, we find that the Prophet Ibrāhīm (as) is publicly proclaiming his enmity and disassociation from all the other false gods which his people worshipped, and then following that, confirming his worship of Allāh (swt) who is the only One worthy to be worshipped.

These verses of the Qurān and others beside them, show that the previous mushrikīn (idolators) used to worship Allāh (swt); however they used to associate and take others partners besides Him. Hence, if Ibrāhīm (as) only declared his complete rejection (barā’) of all that the Mushrikīn had worship without making exception for the Creator (swt), this would imply that Ibrāhīm (as) was rejecting Allāh (swt) as well. However, as we mentioned, Ibrāhīm (as) was clear in his assertion that he is free from all that they took as objects of worship besides Allāh (swt).

Secondly: In the definition we made mention, ‘…have the right…’ The purpose of this statement is to exclude all those false gods which are worshipped instead of Allāh (swt) devoid of any of the attributes which grant them the right to be worshipped. They neither have the ability nor the functions to be included as gods encompassing the essence of Ulūhiyyah (divinity) which would afford them the right to be worshipped instead of, or along side Allāh (swt). Some one may claim that we do find other gods and Tawaghīt present which are worshipped besides Allāh (swt), how can we answer such an assertion? We say, you are correct that there are many things which are worshipped besides Allāh (swt). However, each and every one of these objects do not have the attributes nor the qualities to be considered as objects of worship. In fact they are being worshipped fallaciously. Allāh (swt) has all the attributes and the functions of Ulūhiyyah such as Creating, Providing, giving life and taking it etc. which designates Him to have the sole claim for worship and subsequently, the only One we must direct all our acts of worship to.

Thirdly: The definition of the Shahādah we stated illustrates the falsity of accepting the understanding which unfortunately most of the Muslims have today, that, ‘There is no god but Allāh,’ solely means there is no Khāliq (Creator), no Dār (Harmer), no Nāfi (Benefitter), no Rāziq (Provider), no Mumīt (causes death), no Muhyī (cause life) and no Mālik (Sovereign) except Allāh (swt). This definition, even though it may be partially correct from the angle that Allāh (swt) is the One and only who is described by all these Names and Attributes, it does not encompass the essence of what the Shahādah was intended. The evidence for this is that the Mushrikīn of old used to confirm such facts and affirmed that Allāh (swt) had these attributes and never once did they disagree with the Prophets (as) in this matter. However, their dispute with the Prophets was regarding who was worthy of being worship and for that reason, they would offer worship to their gods and idols besides Allāh (swt) despite being in full knowledge that Allāh (swt) was al-Khāliq (the Creator), and al-Mālik (Sovereign)!

In spite of this belief in Allāh (swt) they were still considered Mushrikīn (associators) and Kuffār (disbelievers) who were deserving of being fought against by the Prophets and the messengers (as).

As Allāh (swt) says in the Qurān,

ولئن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض ليقولنَّ الله

“If you ask them, who is it that created the heavens and the earth. They will certainly say, ‘(Allāh)’”[4]

And He (swt) also said,

قل لمن الأرض ومن فيها إن كنتم تعلمون سيقولون لله قل أفلا تذكرون

“Say: ‘To whom belong the earth and all things therein if you know?!’ They will say, ‘To Allāh.’ Say: ‘Yet will you not receive admonition?’”[5]

Subsequently, any person who takes the Shahādah believing that it only carries the above meaning has not understood the Shahādah correctly as ordered by Allāh (swt) and His messenger Muhammad (saw); and this testimony will not benefit him in the Hereafter and there is no doubt that they will remain amongst the disbelieving folk.

Fourthly: The testimony of faith also comprises the complete Tawhīd in all its forms namely, Tawhīd al-Ulūhiyyah (the Oneness in Divinity), Tawhīd al-Rubūbiyyah (Oneness in Lordship) and Tawhīd al-Asmā’ was-Sifāt (Oneness in Names and Attributes).[6]

Fifthly: What we see nowadays is that many people including the Tawaghīt have memorised the testimony of faith (Shahādah) as we have defined previously, such that if one were to ask them regarding the meaning of such a testimony they would reply swiftly, without hesitation that, ‘there is no one worthy of worship except Allāh (swt)!!’ They bring forth such a definition without correctly pondering upon what it means nor considering the consequences and duties attached with it. They give you such a response whilst simultaneously worshipping other gods besides Allāh (swt); they answer whilst they themselves are objects of worships besides Allāh (swt); they respond by words only, devoid of meaning, such that they can deflect and protect themselves from the attacks or accusations of ignorance by others.

The example of such people is like the one who states the Shahādah but does not understand what he is saying or like the one who states it but does not undertake any of its duties or obligations. The mere statement of the Shahādah will be of no benefit for such people, nor for the one who has simply memorised it, nor will it protect them from the accusation of others in this life and the hereafter.

---

[1] Al-Qurān, Surah al-Kahf 8:16

[2] Al-Qurān, Surah az-Zukhruf 43:26-7

[3] Al-Qurān, Surah ash-Shua’ra 26:75-77

[4] Al-Qurān, Surah al-Luqmān 31:25

[5] Al-Qurān, Surah al-Mu’minūn 23:84-85

[6] The false claimants to Salafiyyah (who are really the Scholars of Irjā’) claim that the callers to Tawhīd of this age have invented a fourth division of Tawhīd which they call Tawhīd ul-Hākimiyah (Oneness is Ruling / Judgement). My answer is that this false allegation is full of lies and deceptions for the following reasons: firstly, this type of Tawhīd which is known as Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah is correct and one’s Īmān cannot be complete except by believing in it. It essentially means making Allāh (swt) One in matters relating to ruling and legislation. To Allāh (swt) belongs the right to ordain the destiny and the right to lay down legislation. Nothing from creation can associate themselves with Allāh (swt) in these matters. In the way that the creation and managing of all things is for Allāh (swt) alone, similarly, all matters of judgement and command is for Allāh (swt) alone. This definition of Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah is derived from numerous clear-cut, unambiguous evidences; for example when Allāh (swt) says, “The command is for none but Allāh. He has commanded that you worship none but He: that is the right religion, but most men do not understand” [Surah Yusuf 12:40], and He (swt) says, “Nor does anybody share with His Command” [Surah Kahf 18:26] and He (swt) said, “(Where) Allāh commands, there is none to put back His Command” [Surah ar-Rad 13:41] and He (swt) said, “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allāh” [Surah al-Maida 5:51] and He (swt) said, “For Allāh commands as He pleases” [Surah Maida 5:1] and He (swt) said, “Whenever you differ in a matter, the final decision is with Allāh (swt)” [Surah al-Shura 42:10] and He (swt) said, “No! By your Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make you the judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.” [Surah an-Nisa’ 4:65]. And it is reported in a Sahīh Hadīth that the Prophet (saw) said, “Allāh (swt) is the Judge and to Him (alone) returns the judgement.” These are but a few of the numerous texts which indicate and provide evidence for Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah. Whosoever rejects this type of Tawhīd rejects Īmān (belief) in its totality and disregards the Qurānic injunctions we have mentioned above. Secondly, none of the scholars who speak about Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah necessitate that it is made a compulsory fourth category in addition to the three agreed upon. In fact the concept of al-Hākimiyah transcends all three levels, with aspects of it relating to Ar-Rubūbiyah, some to Al-Ulūhiyyah and also to al-Asmā’ wa-Sifāt. However, we must note that when the Shirk of legislating by other than what Allāh (swt) has revealed and arbitrating to the laws and orders of the Tawaghīt, becomes widespread amongst this Ummah it becomes incumbent upon the Muslims to warn and highlight this aspect of al-Hākimiyah to their fellow brethren. One can equate the statement of saying, ‘Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah’ to those who call the people to be aware of ‘Tawhīd ul-Talab wa Dua’ (Oneness of seeking help from and asking Allāh (swt) alone), or the ‘Tawhīd of Mahaba wa Tā’ah’ (Oneness of loving and obedience to Allāh (swt) alone) amongst other examples whenever you find the Muslims disregarding these aspects of Tawhīd and instead associating with Allāh (swt) in these actions. This is indeed the correct way the ‘Ulemā’ have explained this. However, we never found a single scholar charge others that by stating these types of Tawhīd one is bringing an additional fourth or fifth type of Tawhīd and newly innovating in this matter. Rather the one who brings such terms relating to Tawhīd does so to give importance of the matter in view of the lack of knowledge of the people and their need to realise these fundamental aspects of the Deen. If this is the real intent and purpose then there is no harm in mentioning it as a separate category. Indeed, many of the people in our day and age when you tell them, ‘Do not forget Tawhīd al-Ulūhiyah’ do not understand what you mean. However, if you explain it a different way making mention of its details such as saying, ‘Be mindful of Tawhīd ud-Dua (petition) wa Talab (asking)’ or ‘Be mindful of Tawhīd ul-Mahaba (love) and that Allāh (swt) is the only One we are allowed to love for His own sake’ one finds it easier to understand and appreciate. This is the same reason why people make mention of Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah to remind the people that the rule and judgement is for Allāh (swt) alone and He has no partners in it. If you understand the matter in this way, then you can realise the grave mistake which befalls the scholars of Irjā’ who wish to lessen the importance of this aspect of Tawhīd and Īmān. They wish to deceive the people telling them that the crimes that the Tawaghīt in charge over our countries in changing the law and order from that of Allāh’s (swt) Shari’ah to the law of Kufr (disbelief) is not so great that it affects one’s Tawhīd and Īmān, nor does it affect one’s Aqīdah as such actions do not fit into one of the three divisions of Tawhīd, nor is there any such thing as Tawhīd al-Hākimiyah; consequently, one is not allowed to declare such people disbelievers making takfīr upon them! Unfortunately, such persons do not do this for the purpose of sincerely seeking the truth but rather do so to argue on behalf of the tyrants in charge over our countries; lessening their crimes and beautifying their condition in the eyes of the people. And if you ever seek such people, you can almost guarantee to find them perched at the gates of the rulers vying for any scraps or morsels which are tossed at them. At this juncture I would like to mention, by way of example, that on one occasion I was in the company of one of those ‘Ulemā’ of Irjā’ and I warned him from what I termed, “Ash-Shirk ul-Qusūr” (associating the palaces as partners besides Allāh (swt)). He did not rest except to reject such a notion asking, ‘Where did you bring this type of Shirk from?... What is your evidence stating it?... We only know about ash-Shirk ul-Qubūr! Not a single of our scholars have ever made mention of that type of Shirk!’ So I responded by asking him where does he get his evidence to back up the concept of Shirk ul-Qubūr (the associating with Allāh (swt) which takes place at the graves). He answered, ‘When people begin to worship the graves from the angle of asking assistance, blessings or making dua’a at them then they are committing association (shirk) and therefore we call it Shirk ul-Qubūr’. I told him that he spoke the truth and that he should apply the same principal for the palace. He replied, ‘How do people worship the palaces so that we can call it a form of Shirk?’ I replied that the palaces are worshipped besides Allāh (swt) because the people refer and arbitrate to the laws and orders which emanate from them and their inhabitants, instead of the Law of Allāh (swt). And that it is worshipped besides Allāh (swt) by people making allegiance (Walā’) to it and its tyrannical inhabitants and protecting them, come what may, until they die. It is worshipped from the angle of the people’s fear and dread of both it and its inhabitants; some people even fear the palace more than they fear their graves! It is also worshipped by those sick hearted people whose hearts are inclined towards it in the hope that they can get some paltry material benefit. Just think for a moment about the statements we hear from the general public and the media which talk about, ‘the guards of the palace’, ‘the soldiers of the palace’, ‘the servants of the palace’, ‘that we should offer our allegiance and obedience to the palace’, ‘this is what the palace has decided’, ‘the peace and security of the palace.’ Such terms, if we were to truly investigate their meanings we would find the stench of Shirk permeating through such words! Everything we have mentioned is from the actions of Shirk when one directs them to or alongside other than Allāh (swt).