The Shirk of Obedience

There are many aspects of Sharia that critics of Islam find problematic and unattractive, such as the hudud punishments for apostates, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and alcohol drinkers, as well as practices such as slavery, polygyny, child marriage, female genital mutilation, marital rape, dhimmitude, pederastic love poetry and so on. Those aspects of Sharia are often discussed and debated, but another aspect of Sharia that I find even more problematic and unattractive is how abolition of most, if not all, of these Sharia practices actually amounts to Shirk and kufr (disbelief). This is something that I haven’t really seen being discussed by non-Muslims.

Shirk, by definition, is the association of others as partners in worship with Allah. It is the worst sin in Islam and ultimately violates Tawheed (Islamic monotheism). One of the principles of Tawheed is Tawheed al-Hakimiyyah, which is that Allah alone has the right to legislate and govern humanity. This principle is echoed in in this Quran verse:

“You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know.” — Quran 12:40 (Sahih International).

Quran 12:40 says that the right of legislation is for none but Allah alone. The Arabic specifically says “Innil hukmu illa lillah.” This basically means that any form of governance other than Sharia is unacceptable and invalid.

Sharia is not just hudud punishments, it’s a comprehensive system that covers every aspect of life, including the most miniscule details. What also needs to be remembered is that Sharia is specifically an Islamic Caliphate, but most Muslim countries in today’s world are not Caliphates. While the culture and legislation in these Muslim countries still retain many aspects of Sharia, these Muslim countries are still modern nation states that are democratic (at least in theory), rather than being an ever expanding Caliphate that unifies the Muslim world. This is very contrary to Islam because these Muslim countries have divided the Muslim world and are abiding by democracy, which is a very unIslamic form of governance. Not to mention, they’re also more lenient with Islamic rulings than an Islamic Caliphate would be due to international influence.

This, in a nutshell, means any form of governance other than a hardline Islamic Caliphate is a form of Shirk. Abu Waleed of SalafiMediaUK explains it in this clip:

What must be understood is that all obedience, all ta’ah, is completely to Allah SWT alone, exclusively, and not to anybody else. Any form of ibaadah, any form of worship to other than Allah SWT, meaning to democracy, to freedom, to secularism; that is the Shirk, the Shirkut-Ta’ah, the Shirk of obedience, and that is why we as Muslims, we can never accept any laws which these kuffar they bring in, whether it is the likes of Hosni munafiq, Hosni Mubarak; whether it’s the Syrian government, whether it’s the French government, whether it’s the Spanish government, whether it’s the Belgian government. No matter which government it is, we recognise them all as bunch of tawagheet; bunch of kuffar who rule by other than what Allah has revealed. And the Ayah said in the Quran: “Innil hukmu illa lillah,” that the right of legislation is for none but Allah SWT alone. So how is it now that we start to accept the law of man, where man he wants to impose his democracy over us? How is it that we want to accept the law of Insaan over us, where man he wants to say to us: “Haakimiyah tul Insaan,” when we believe the Haakimiyah, the sovereignty — the supremacy — it belongs to none [but Allah alone].

Abu Waleed argues that any form of governance that is contrary to the Sharia, is a form of Shirk, specifically the Shirkut-Ta’ah, i.e. the Shirk of obedience. This doesn’t just apply to governments that have secularism and democracy, it also applies to Muslim governments who govern by a compromised form of Sharia and the example he gives is Hosni Mubarak, the former Egyptian President. All these governments are automatically illegitimate and have no right to exist, let alone be accepted, since they commit the Shirk of obedience. He also says “No matter which government it is, we recognise them all as a bunch of tawagheet; bunch of kuffar who rule by other than what Allah has revealed” which is important to keep in mind because tawagheet is a plural for taghut in Arabic. Taghut is an Arabic term that is used to refer to false gods, idols or anything that is worshiped or obeyed by Allah. This is how far Islam takes Quran 12:40’s “legislation is for not but for Allah” principle.

This is a common talking point in Islamist circles. Abu Waleed comments on this once again in another one of his lectures:

…So [Muhammad] SAW, you can understand, he rose up with the sword of Tawheed in his society. With the sword of la ilaha illa allah. The Tawheed of not just understanding God as the only creator, but God the only commander, God the legislator and he carried that in his society. So today, when we find that the sanctity of Allah SWT is being violated, how is it that we remain silent? Somebody comes in the middle of the street to steal your own mobile phone, you telling me you’re not going to defend it? You’re telling me you’re not going to defend it? Somebody scratches up your nice £20,000 BMW, you would remain silent? You would never remain silent! So how is it today when somebody, he violates the sanctity of Allah SWT, and we remain silent? We can never remain silent! We are not from the Ummah of Gordon Brown. We are not from the Ummah of Tony Blair. We are from the Ummah of Usama Bin Zayd. We are from the Ummah of Khalid bin Walid. We are from the Ummah of Umar al-Faruq. They are our example. They are our example. When they rose up in their society, what did they do? They did not integrate. They did not isolate. They worked to destroy the god of man, and worked to replace it with the law of Allah. The Shari’ah above their noses. So we need to understand, today in our reality, we are not people in need of democracy. Let their democracy, their freedom, their secularism, let it go to hell. It’s a false god. It’s a false idol for us. We never worship it. We never submit to it. We never obey it.

He comments on it in more detail later on at this time stamp:

… And though that is the description of those Ghurabah, that they carry that message; those Ghurabah-those strangers, if they are the strangers-if they withdraw themselves and they command good and they forbid the evil and they order the maruf, which is absent today-the Tawheed-the presence of the munkar necessitates that you must order the maruf-the maruf, it is the Tawheed, which is absent as the law and order today. Which is why we have so many problems today. Our lands are being occupied. Our sisters are being raped in Abu Ghraib prison. Did you know that? My sister is being raped, your sister is being raped. Our brothers are sitting inside Guantanamo Bay, we sit here and discuss “What are we going to have for iftar? He’s going to have chicken, he’s going to have lamb, how many dates? One or two.” We’re fighting and debating and discussing over 8 rakats or 20 rakats of Taraweeh. What would Rasulullah SAW do in our reality? His Taraweeh my dear brothers would be inside the battlefield, my dear brothers. His Taraweeh my dear brothers would be on the horse going all the way to the White House with the raiyah of Islam. He would understand that the sanctity of Allah SWT being violated, how is it that we remain silent? Ghurabah my dear brothers need to rise up today. Those Ghurabah-they never fear the tyrants. Those Ghurabah-those strangers, they never bow their heads to the tyrants. Rather, they remove the head of the tyrants. They remove the head of freedom, the head of democracy, the head of secularism and they replace it with the law of Almighty. Allah Al–Hakam al-‘Adl, “Innil hukmu illa lillah.” That should be our call, my dear brothers, when we understand that the book of Quran is the book that shook the world. It shook the world. It shook the Roman Empire. The Persian Empire. The Quraysh, 1400 years ago. My dear brothers, we have a responsibility. Allah going to ask you, Allah going to question you on Yawm al-Qiyamah: “When you witnessed the all munkar present, when you witnessed all the fahisha, all the haram; when you witnessed some man take my attribute and attribute it to himself, what did you do? What did you do? On Yawm al-Qiyamah our hands will speak out against us. Our ears, they will speak out against us as well. Yes, our ears as well. Our ears that “you heard that this man, he was taking my attribute, that this man, he was violating my sanctity, yet you did nothing. Your eyes, it saw it, your limbs-they witnessed it-everything, it will testify against you.”

In another lecture, he talks about how Sharia is inseparable from Tawheed:

Abu Waleed: There’s no ambiguity about this verse. Allah said that whoever desires a deen other than the deen of Islam, it will never be accepted from him and in the hereafter, he will be from amongst those who are the khasirin– amongst the losers, meaning what? Whoever takes a religion-a deen other than Islam. Deen is what? Who can tell me what is deen is? What is definition of deen?

Muslim audience member: Way of life.

Abu Waleed: No. According to the Sabah understanding? Abdullah ibn Abbas, what did he say deen was? Deen is what you believe in, what you live by, what you’re prepared to die for. Believe in what? What do you believe in? At-Tawheed. What do you live by?

Audience member: Quran.

Abu Waleed: Quran? How? That’s the source of our constitution. What do we live by? What are we supposed to have governance of?

Audience member: Shari’ah.

Abu Waleed: Shari’ah mashallah so you know, alright OK. OK so believe in Tawheed, live by Shari’ah, which is not separate by the way from Tawheed. Only Murjiʾah they believe this, right? Only coconut Muslims they believe this. They believe Islam is inside the heart, wake up as Ahmed, but live as John, but John lives a different way, so they wake up as Ahmed and live like John Abu Futa or John Travolta or Charlie George Abdul Wahid or people like yeah. So believe in at-Tawheed, live by Shar’ah and prepare to die for dawah and jihad fisabilillah. So these 3 things, meaning what you believe in, what you live by, what you’re prepared to die for. By jihad I don’t mean terrorism, just for the record yeah. But meaning that is deen, so whoever chooses another deen, democracy is what? It is a deen, is it not? It’s a deen which people believe in, what they live by and what they’re prepared to die for. Am I right or am I wrong?

Later on in the same lecture, he says this:

So this is what we understand by deen, deen being another religion. So now, whoever chooses to go to the taghut in regards to ruling and legislation, the hakim, becoming a member of the United Nations has left the fold of Islam, why? Because of this very verse. So our refutation against anybody who votes for man-made law willingly, without any prevention of takfir and chooses somebody as a candidate on his behalf to go and make tashri or someone who makes istihlal, makes haram halal, or makes istibdal, replaces the laws of Allah and this regard, in these three matters, King Kong, King Abdullat, the slave of Obama and Kamrun, Dawud Kamrun, is guilty of all three.

You’ll notice that he has a clownish demeanor, but make sure to pay attention to the seriousness of what he’s saying.

SalafiMediaUK also has an interesting article on this issue:

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti said:

It should be noted that we must differentiate between man-made systems the implementation of which implies disbelief (kufr) in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and systems which do not imply that. This may be explained by describing systems as being of two types, administrative and legislative. With regard to administrative systems which are aimed at organizing things and making them run smoothly in a manner that does not go against sharee’ah, there is nothing wrong with this and no one among the Sahaabah or those who came after them objected to it. ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) did many things of that nature that were not done at the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as writing down the names of the soldiers in a register to keep track of who was present and who was absent, even though the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do that and he had not known that Ka’b ibn Maalik was not present during the campaign of Tabook until after he had reached Tabook. Similarly, ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) bought the house of Safwaan ibn Umayyah in Makkah and turned it into a prison, even though neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor Abu Bakr had established a prison. Such administrative matters which are intended to make things run smoothly and which do not go against sharee’ah – such as organizing employees’ affairs and organizing work matters in a manner that does not go against sharee’ah – is a kind of man-made system that is o.k. and does not go against the basic principles of sharee’ah which aims to take care of the public interest.

But in the case of legislative systems which go against the laws of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, referring to them for judgement constitutes disbelief (kufr) in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, such as claiming that giving males precedence over females in matters of inheritance is not fair and that they should be given equal shares, or claiming that plural marriage is a form of oppression, or that divorce is unjust towards women, or that stoning and cutting off hands etc. are barbaric actions that cannot justifiably be done to anyone, and so on.

So implementing this kind of system to govern people’s lives, wealth, honour, lineage, minds and religion constitutes disbelief in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and rebellion against the divine system which was set up by the One Who created all of mankind and Who knows best what is in its interests. Glorified and exalted be He far above having any other legislator alongside Him.

“Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods) who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not ordained? And had it not been for a decisive Word (gone forth already), the matter would have been judged between them. And verily, for the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there is a painful torment”

[al-Shooraa 42:21 – interpretation of the meaning]

“Say (O Muhammad to these polytheists): ‘Tell me, what provision Allaah has sent down to you! And you have made of it lawful and unlawful.’ Say (O Muhammad): ‘Has Allaah permitted you (to do so), or do you invent a lie against Allaah?’”

[Yoonus 10:59 – interpretation of the meaning]

Source: Adwaa’ al-Bayaan, 4/93.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti says “It should be noted that we must differentiate between man-made systems the implementation of which implies disbelief (kufr) in the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and systems which do not imply that” makes a distinction between administrative and legislative systems. Making changes to the administrative aspects of Sharia does not amount to disbelief, but making changes to the legislative aspects of Sharia does however amount to disbelief. The examples of changes he gives are abolition of double inheritance for men, polygyny, divorce laws, stonings (presumably for adulterers and homosexuals) and amputations. He doesn’t give any other named examples, but he says “etc.” and “and so on” which implies that abolition of other legislative aspects of Sharia would also amount to disbelief. I presume that abolition of slavery, child marriage, dhimmitude, female genital mutilation, marital rape and the hudud punishments for apostates, blasphemers, fornicators and alcohol drinkers would also amount to disbelief.

What this means is that there is nothing within the scope of Islam that allows for an abolition of the hudud punishments for apostates, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals and alcohol drinkers, as well as the abolition of practises like slavery, polygyny, child marriage, female genital mutilation, marital rape, dhimmitude, pederastic love poetry and so on. Not only are such laws and practices permissible in Islam, they are required, meaning that you cannot have an Muslim government without these laws and practices, otherwise that Muslim government is violating Quran 12:40 and committing the Shirk of obedience.

It would be one thing if these laws and practices were merely permissible in Islam, but it’s another thing when they are required because it would be Shirk to not have these laws and practices. If they were merely permissible, but not required, then it would mean that even though Islam did permit these laws and practices for over a thousand years, Muslims are still in a position where they have something within the scope of Islam to abolish and abandon these laws and practices, but they don’t because Sharia is inseparable from Tawheed.

Another reason why abolishing such laws and practices would result in disbelief is because it would call Muhammad’s morality, and therefore his prophethood, into question. Muhammad for all intents and purposes, is supposed to be a perfect man. He’s supposed to be Allah’s final and greatest Prophet. He’s supposed to be a role model and ideal example for all of humanity to follow until the end of time. To be the best Muslim possible and secure yourself a place in heaven, it’s recommended that you imitate Muhammad’s example in every single way possible. This doesn’t just include the fardh (obligatory Islamic duties), but also the Sunnah (optional Islamic acts). Muhammad married Aisha, who was only 6 years old at the time. Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was 9 years old. He was 54 years old at the time he consummated his marriage with Aisha.

There’s nothing within the scope of Islam that allows for the abolition of child marriage, and it’s not just “right wingers” or “Islamophobes” like me who are saying this; Muslim scholars like Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini are saying this too, so take it up with them. Back in 2011, Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini literally declared jihad on the Bangladeshi government… For trying to pass a law banning child marriage:

Notorious pro-Taliban Islamist clergy in Bangladesh, Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini has threatened to wage jihad in the country if the government will pass any law banning child marriage.

He said, two hundred thousand Jihadists of his group are ready to ‘sacrifice’ lives if any such law, which goes against “Koran and Sunnah” will be passed by the current government in the country.

Mufti Amini said, “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, who also married minor Ayesha, when she was just eight years old”.

He said, “The new law initiated by the current government will put the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.”

Fazlul Haque Amini further said, “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.“

The current government in Bangladesh has taken several measures in ensuring better rights to the women thus treating child marriage as severe offense. It also recommends equal distribution of properties amongst male and female inherits. In contrary, Islamic Sharia law gives lesser rights to women as far as inheritance is concerned. It also allows men to marry any infant girl child. It may be mentioned here that, such law is prevalent in most of the Islamic republics, while in Iran, even forceful sexual relations with the married infant is allowed. A large segment of Muslim scholars and secularist individuals term this as mere perversion.

In Bangladesh, especially in the rural areas, child marriage is very regular phenomenon, where hundreds of child mothers die due to lack of medical facilities as well as for pre-mature pregnancy. There are even cases of deaths of child wives being virtually raped by their husbands. Child marriage is prevalent in rural Bangladesh both amongst the Muslim and non-Muslim families.

Several weeks back, Islamist clergy Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini and Moulana Rezaul Karim launched a movement of ‘combating anti-Islam actions’ by the government in Bangladesh. Since then, hundreds and thousands of followers of these fanatic leaders are active in various forms of demonstrations around the country. It is also reported in media that, minor boys in the Koranic Madrassas were forced join most of the anti-government demonstrations of these leaders. According to unofficial statistics, there are roughly 9 million students attending various madrassas in Bangladesh.

Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini is branded as a ‘political tout’ in Bangladesh, who is virtually making millions by selling Jihadist notion amongst the people. He is under payroll of various Islamist groups including Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Amini maintains closer ties with Al-Qaeda, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Toiba and militant outfits inside Kashmir. He also is actively involved in recruiting local youths for participating in ‘Jihad’ in Kashmir, Palestine and other places in the world.

Both Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini and Moulana Rezaul Karim are known for their extreme opinion against United States, Israel and the West. They also patronize various activities against these nations, as well as provide support and logistics to anti-Semitic forces in Bangladesh.”

Yes, that’s right. This Bangladeshi Mufti literally declared jihad against his own government for attempting to pass a law that banned child marriage. He was so fanatically hell bent and demonically bloodthirsty in his pursuit of preventing this law from being passed that 200,000 of his fellow jihadis were literally willing to sacrifice themselves just to prevent child marriage from being criminalised. Why was that the case? What caused this Mufti and so many Muslims to want to commit a self inflicted genocide to prevent child marriage from being criminalised? The Mufti’s explanation was that laws banning child marriage “will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam” because he married a little girl. He also said “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.”

The worst part of this all, in my opinion, is that Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini and Maulana Rezaul Karim launched a movement of “combating anti-Islam actions” by the Bangladeshi government and that “minor boys in the Koranic Madrassas were forced to [join] most of the anti-government demonstrations of these leaders.” Imagine being that sick minded that you’re indoctrinating and coercing young boys into joining demonstrations against a law that bans child marriage at the threat of a committing self inflicted genocide if that law is passed. Imagine being that sick minded that you want to coerce and indoctrinate young boys into becoming demonically self entitled narcissists who will commit a self inflicted genocide if they lose the right to marry and rape underaged girls. Of all the causes that you can get young boys to fight for, you choose this as your cause? I don’t know how else to put it.

This is how Sharia is inseparable from Tawheed and Muhammad. It’s another explanation of why Muslims campaign on bringing Sharia to the west. It’s rotten at its core.