Review of the Incorrect Definition of Shirk and Barelvi Interpretations

To understand the reality of the issue under discussion and to obtain the correct answer, it is first necessary to know what shirk is called and what the definition of shirk is.
Linguistically, “shirk” means “part.” The famous lexicographer Ibn Manzur writes:

«شرك: الشركة و الشركة سواء: مخالطة الشريكين وفي الحديث: من أعتق شركا له فى عبد أى حصة و نصيبا ـ وفي حديث معاذ: أنه أجاز بين أهل اليمن الشرك – أى الإشتراك فى الأرض ، وهو أن يدفعها صاحبها إلى آخر بالنصف أو الثلث أو نحو ذلك»

Shirk. Al-Shirka and Al-Shurkah are the same. It means the joining of partners, mixing together… And in a hadith, it is mentioned that whoever gave his “shirk” in a slave means he gave up his share. And in the statement of Sayyiduna Mu’adh (may Allah be pleased with him), he permitted “shirk” among the people of Yemen, meaning the permission of partnership in land, that is, the landowner/farmer gives his land to someone else to work on, then in return for half or a third share of the crop or something similar, he gives it.

In the famous dictionary “Al-Mu’jam al-Wasat,” it is written:

«وـ فلانا فى الأمر شركا …. كان لكل منهما نصيب منه ـ فهو شريك»

(The meaning of shirk is a part which is said) So-and-so is a partner in such-and-such matter. (This means) each of the two has some share in that matter, so he became a “partner.”

From this, it is understood that shirk means a part and sharik means a partner or shareholder.

Not only complete equality is shirk, but even a little equality and participation is shirk

Now, even if there are partners with equal shares, they will still be called partners or shareholders, and even if there is no equal partner but rather a partner with a third, a quarter, or even less share, they will still be called partners or shareholders.
No sensible person would say that so-and-so is merely a partner with a third or a quarter share, so this is not a share or partnership and therefore he will not be called a “partner.” Absolutely not! Even a person with ordinary intellect would consider and say that he is indeed a partner or shareholder.
From this linguistic discussion, we have reached the conclusion that shirk (associating partners with Allah) is not only when someone is considered exactly equal to Allah or treated exactly equal to Allah alongside others, as many people mistakenly believe. Then, keeping this idea of “exact equality” in mind, they themselves fall into deception and delusion and cause many others to fall into the same deception, and they start giving strange examples, such as some people being heard saying that look, all the attributes of Allah are infinite; no one can count them, nor can their limits be defined. Now, if someone attributes any attribute to a close servant of Allah, no matter how great, but considers it limited, then it is not shirk, because Allah’s attributes are infinite, so the question of equality does not arise. When there is no equality, then where is shirk? And those who call it shirk are, in effect, defining limits to Allah’s attributes, so this itself is disbelief?
Whereas the reality is that all these are satanic whispers.
Allah Almighty says:

﴿الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَجَعَلَ الظُّلُمَاتِ وَالنُّورَ ۖ ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِرَبِّهِمْ يَعْدِلُونَ﴾

All praise is for Allah, who created the heavens and the earth and made darkness and light. Yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lord. [Translation from Zia-ul-Quran]

Now, the point to ponder is: Did those disbelievers know the limits of all the attributes of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds? Did they fully comprehend Him? Certainly not, absolutely not. Then why did Allah, Glorified and Exalted, say that these disbelievers set up equals with their Lord?
In answer to this question, please observe the tafsir note of Karam Shah Al-Azhari Bihrawi Sahib, who wrote that it means «اي ! يجعلون له عديلا» (Mufradat), i.e., they made false gods partners and equals with Allah Almighty. How did they make them equals and partners? Imam Ibn Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, explained it in these words:

«يعدلون: يجعلون له شريكا فى عبادتهم إياه فيعبدون معه الالهة والأنداد»

“That is, they worshipped their false gods along with Allah Almighty. From this, it is understood that worshipping anyone other than Allah clearly means that they are believed to be equal and partners with Allah.”

From the statement of the “renowned Pir” of the second group, Karam Shah Al-Azhari Sahib, it is clearly understood that the meaning of “equal” is absolutely not that they are considered completely equal, which would imply (may Allah forbid) defining the limits of Allah’s attributes and encompassing them. Rather, worshipping anyone other than Allah is sufficient to be considered equal and partner, and this is among the worst kinds of shirk.
Now, this worship, whether it is any form of worship such as standing, bowing, prostration, sacrifice, vow, supplication, etc., there are many examples of it in the Quran and Sunnah. We will mention a few so that the matter becomes somewhat clear:

First Example: Shirk in Religion

Allah Almighty says:

﴿شَرَعَ لَكُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ﴾

(Allah has) ordained the religion for you.

From this verse, it is understood that the Shariah was established by Allah, and regarding those who were following the laws of their elders and chiefs instead of Allah, Almighty Allah said:

﴿أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَاءُ شَرَعُوا لَهُم مِّنَ الدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَن بِهِ اللَّهُ﴾

“Do they have partners who have ordained for them a religion to which Allah has not consented?”

Hafiz Imam Abu al-Fida Ismail bin Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, states in his Tafsir regarding this verse:
That is, (O Prophet, peace be upon him) these disbelievers do not follow this “straight religion” (Islam) which Allah Almighty has ordained for you. Rather, they follow what their devils among the jinn and mankind have ordained for them. Among the prohibitions that were forbidden upon them, such as (they forbade) Bahira, Sa’iba, Wasila, and Ham, and they declared carrion, blood, and gambling lawful. Similarly, other misguidances and false ignorances which they had fabricated in their ignorance regarding what is lawful and unlawful, and false acts of worship and corrupt matters.

(1) Regarding Bahira, Sa’iba, and others, the esteemed mufassirun have various opinions. We present here the meanings narrated by the noble Tabi’i Sayyiduna Sa’id bin al-Musayyib from Sahih Bukhari, Book of Tafsir:
(2) Bahira: The she-camel whose milk was dedicated to idols, so no one would milk her.
(3) Sa’iba: The she-camel which the disbelievers would leave for their false gods, and would not use it for carrying loads.
(4) Wasila: The young she-camel which would give birth to a female offspring first and then again a female offspring, without giving birth to a male in between; the polytheists would leave it free.
(5) Ham: The male camel whose pairing determined the number of offspring born from the she-camels; when that number was completed, the disbelievers would leave it free for their idols. This male camel was also exempted from carrying loads, etc.

This clarifies that lawmaking and establishing Shariah is an attribute of Allah, and Allah Almighty has established Shariah for His servants. However, the polytheists associated partners in this attribute and followed the laws (Shariah) made by their elders, which is associating partners in Allah’s attribute of legislation. Allah, Glorified and Exalted, used the word “partners” to clarify their “shirk” and declared it shirk.
Here, there is no evidence that these polytheists considered their elders equal to Allah in every respect; rather, it is established from the Quran and Sunnah that they considered their deities as creatures and servants of Allah Almighty (as will be explained later, God willing). Therefore, the question of equality does not arise.

Second Example: The Oath of the Kaaba

It is narrated from Sayyida Qateela bint Saifi (may Allah be pleased with them) that a scholar from among the Jews came to the noble presence of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: O Muhammad (peace be upon him)! What a wonderful people you are if only your people did not commit shirk (associating partners with Allah)! The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was surprised at this and said: SubhanAllah (meaning we consider Allah free from shirk), what is that thing (which you call shirk)? The Jewish scholar said: When you people swear, you say: «والكعبة» “By the Kaaba!” Upon this, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) paused for a while… then said: Whoever among you swears should say it like this: “By the Lord of the Kaaba.”

The Jewish scholar again said: O Muhammad (peace be upon him)! What a wonderful people you are if only your people did not associate partners with Allah! The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: SubhanAllah! What is that? The Jew said: You say «ماشاء الله و شئت» “Whatever Allah wills and you will.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) paused for a while and then said: Whoever wants to say it like this should separate (make a distinction) between «ماشاء الله» and «شئت» by using “thumma” (then). That is, he should say «ماشاء الله ثم شئت» “Whatever Allah wills, then whatever you will,” not like this: “Whatever Allah and you will.”

In this blessed hadith, during the conversation with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), when this Jewish scholar called swearing by the Kaaba shirk, the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not deny his statement but rather forbade all Muslims from swearing in that manner in the future and said: Instead of swearing by the Kaaba, swear by the Lord of the Kaaba.

Now, those Muslims who used to swear by the Kaaba, can any believer have a bad suspicion about them that, God forbid, they considered the Kaaba equal to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, in essence or attributes? Certainly not; a believer cannot even think such a thing. Nevertheless, calling this oath shirk is clear evidence that “shirk” is not only that “someone is considered equal to Allah in essence or attributes.” If that were the case and “shirk” only meant this one form, then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would have certainly clarified to this Jewish scholar that calling it shirk was due to his ignorance and misunderstanding because there is nothing in it that constitutes shirk.

Third Example: What Allah wills and you, peace be upon him, will

Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه states that a person came to the presence of the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, referred back to him in some words, then said: «ما شاء الله وشئت» “Whatever Allah wills and you will.” The Messenger of Allah صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said:

«جعلتني لله عدلا ماشاء الله وحده»

“Have you made me a partner with Allah?” (or) “Have you made a partner for Allah?” (Do not say it like that, rather say) “Whatever Allah alone wills.”

When this person combined the will of Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and the will of the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم in his speech, the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم considered it as associating partners with Allah and said: “Have you made me a partner with Allah?” Now, those who think that shirk (associating partners with Allah) only occurs “when someone is considered absolutely equal to Allah in essence or attributes,” should reflect whether we can even imagine that this Companion رضي الله عنه considered the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم equal to Allah? Certainly not. Then what else does the declaration of the Seal of Prophethood and Messengership, the treasure of wisdom and insight, that this is “associating partners” clarify other than that “shirk is not only that someone is considered absolutely equal to Allah.”
It is hoped that from the previous few examples this point has become somewhat clear. Now observe the other side of the picture, how the second party defines “shirk.”

Muhammad Najm Mustafai Sahib, while explaining shirk, writes:
That is to say, just as Allah Almighty is ancient, eternal, everlasting, the worshipped deity in His essence, in exactly the same way if one considers Angel Jibra’il (Gabriel) عليه السلام or Prophet Adam عليه السلام or Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم or Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani رحمۃ اللہ علیہ as ancient, eternal, everlasting, worshipped deities and necessary existents, then the person holding such a belief is an open polytheist because he has equated, made equal, and partnered someone else with the pure essence of Allah Almighty. And this equality, this parity, this partnership is the first type of shirk (polytheism).
Respected Muslims! I want to ask you: just as Allah Almighty is unique, eternal, everlasting, and necessary existent in His essence, do you consider any angel, any prophet, any saint, or any spiritual guide as eternal, everlasting, and necessary existent? If you do not, then surely your garment is free from the impurity of the first type of shirk and is clean and shining like the sun. You are by no means polytheists. You are firm and true Muslims. There is no doubt about your being Muslims. Your being a polytheist is proven only when you associate any other with Allah’s essence. When there is no partnership in the essence, then what kind of shirk is there?

Before we consider the contents of this excerpt and then present some observations related to it, it seems appropriate to present the “honorable names” of those influenced by this book and its endorsers, along with their brief “impressions,” so that the importance of the book becomes clear. So please listen:
➊ Mufti Muhammad Abdul Qayyum Hazrawi, Al-Jamia Al-Nizamia Al-Radawiya (Lahore) Pakistan writes:
“I read the mentioned book carefully and found your style of writing commendable… This publication not only meets the standards of the present era but also possesses further qualities both outwardly and inwardly. This book is available at every stall across the country through agents or libraries.”

You have seen how impressed Mufti Hazrawi Sahib was after reading the book carefully.
➋ Muhammad Mansha Tabish Qasuri, teacher at Jamia Nizamia Radawiya Lahore writes:
“The emergence of such a composition is nothing less than a barrier against Alexander the Great; despite the modern style of writing, it is full of research… I offer congratulations on this successful effort.”

It should be noted that “Jamia Nizamia Lahore” is the reputable and central “institution” of the second party.
➌ Their prolific author, Ustadh al-Ulama, Faiz-e-Millat, Allama Al-Hajj, Mufti Muhammad Faiz Ahmad Owaisi Bahawalpuri writes: “His treatises are extremely beneficial.”

➍ Mufti Abdul Rahman Qamar, Director of Islamic Foundation USA writes:
“I have read this book and have come to the conclusion that this book is a necessity of the time for every Muslim.”

⋆ The Refutation of the Incorrect Definition of Shirk

Now consider this excerpt! According to it, when does “shirk” become necessary? When a person believes “just as Allah Almighty is unique, eternal, primordial, and necessary in His essence, similarly considers any angel, any prophet, any saint, or spiritual guide as eternal, primordial, ancient, and necessary.” If someone does not hold such a belief, then it is stated about them that
“If they do not believe so, then surely your garment is free from the impurity of the first type of shirk, pure and shining like the sun; you are by no means a polytheist, you are a firm and true Muslim.” According to Najm Sahib: believing in eternal, primordial, and necessary existence is what necessitates “shirk,” therefore it is essential to first understand their meanings.
1. “Eternal” means: everlasting, without end.
2. “Primordial” means: ancient, existing from always.
Najm Sahib wrote about these two words that “He (Allah) is ancient, primordial, and eternal in His essence, meaning He has always existed and will always remain.”

3. “Necessary existence” Najm Sahib explained it somewhat like this: He (Allah) is necessary existence, meaning He did not come into existence from anyone, He does not depend on any cause or means for His existence. He is self-existent in His essence.”

Now, according to the author, if a person does not hold this belief about any human, angel, or jinn, that person does not fall into shirk and is not a polytheist. We are surprised and saddened that the author has stated all this and conditioned shirk with these criteria. Even the shirk of the “Arab polytheists” does not become necessary under these concepts and conditions; under these conditions, they are not proven to be “polytheists” but are clearly saved. How? Let us see.
Allah Almighty says:

﴿وَلَا يَمْلِكُ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِهِ الشَّفَاعَةَ إِلَّا مَن شَهِدَ بِالْحَقِّ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ.‏ وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَهُمْ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ.﴾

“Those whom these people call upon besides Allah do not possess intercession, except those who testify to the truth and know it. And if you ask them, ‘Who created them?’ they will surely say, ‘Allah.’ So how are they deluded?”

In the exegesis of this verse, the renowned “Maulvi” Syed Ahmad Saeed Kazmi Multani Sahib says: “Allama Alusi wrote in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani that this verse can relate to the idol-worshipping polytheists as well as their deities.”
Similarly, Kazmi Sahib writes: The polytheists worshipped idols; when asked who created these idols, Allah Almighty says: “They will say Allah created them.”

From this blessed verse and the above exegesis, it is clearly understood that the “polytheists” considered their deities not as creators but as creatures, that Allah created them; they were not self-existent. The cause of their existence is Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
In short! The “Arab polytheists” acknowledged their deities as creations of Allah Almighty and openly declared this, even in front of the great caller Muhammad ﷺ and the believers, especially at a time when they established their argument against them based on this “answer.” Their admission that “Allah created our deities” and accepting them as “creatures” clearly proves that the “Arab polytheists” did not consider their deities as “unique in their essence,” “eternal” without end, “primordial,” always existing, “necessary existence” who did not come into existence from anyone, who does not depend on any cause or means for their existence, and who are self-existent in their essence. They neither thought so nor held such beliefs about their deities.
Despite this confession, Allah, Lord of the Worlds, did not declare them “free from the impurity of shirk, pure and shining like the sun,” but rather repeatedly called them “polytheists” in the Holy Quran, as mentioned in many verses. This clearly shows that the conditions and principles imposed by the second party regarding “polytheism” are against the principles of Allah Almighty and His Messenger ﷺ.
Anyway, if the second party insists on their principle, they should declare that the “Arab polytheists” were also “free from the impurity of shirk, pure and shining like the sun, and by no means polytheists.” And if they are ready for reconsideration and reflection, it will be clear to them that imposing the essential condition of believing in “ancient, eternal, primordial, necessary existence” for “shirk” is absolutely incorrect and is clearly a result of negligence and lack of contemplation regarding the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. As for Najm Sahib’s statement in this definition of shirk that
“Your polytheism is proven when you associate anyone with Allah in His essence; when there is no partnership in essence, then what kind of shirk is this?”

From this, it appears that the author does not consider “shirk in attributes” as shirk, nor does he label those who commit shirk in attributes as “polytheists,” otherwise what meaning does his statement hold that “when there is no partnership in essence, then what kind of shirk?” Whereas later on, the author himself mentions shirk in attributes.

⋆ Incorrect Definition of Shirk in Attributes:

After defining shirk in the essence, Najm Sahib attempts to define shirk in attributes and writes:
“The second type of shirk is ‘shirk in attributes.’ Shirk in attributes means that the exact attributes of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, are also attributed to someone else.”

Then he writes: So whoever considers any attribute of Allah in the same perfect manner as Allah’s attributes—such as considering the attribute to be eternal, ancient, everlasting, primordial, unlimited, intrinsic, infinite—in someone else, for example, saying that just as Allah’s knowledge of the unseen is intrinsic, ancient, unlimited, eternal, and everlasting, similarly the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) knowledge of the unseen is also intrinsic, ancient, unlimited, infinite, eternal, and everlasting. Or saying that just as Allah’s being the sole controller, compassionate and merciful, ruler is ancient, eternal, everlasting, intrinsic, and unlimited, similarly the Prophet Muhammad’s being the sole controller, compassionate and merciful, ruler is also ancient, eternal, everlasting, intrinsic, and unlimited. Or attributing any of Allah’s perfect attributes to any other besides Him, then the one who holds such a belief is a “mushrik” (polytheist).

Similarly, he writes: “Whenever there is suspicion of ‘shirk’ in any matter, one should consider this ‘reality’ whether it necessarily involves considering someone other than Allah as wajib al-wujud (necessarily existent), worshipped and prayed to, and attributing to them eternal, intrinsic, unlimited, and primordial attributes. If any of these are necessarily involved, then undoubtedly that matter is shirk; if none of these are necessarily involved, then it cannot be called ‘shirk’.”

Reflecting on the above excerpts, it appears that according to the second party, the following points are absolutely essential and necessary to prove shirk in essence and attributes:
1. The attribute of Allah is considered in someone else as intrinsic, ancient, eternal, and everlasting.
2. Similarly, that attribute is considered infinite and unlimited in that other.
3. Also, it is necessary to consider that other as wajib al-wujud (necessarily existent) and worshipped.

If any of these points are found, then it is shirk; if none are found, then shirk is not necessarily established. Once again, with great regret, we are compelled to say that according to these conditions of the second party, even the Jews, Christians, and even the “Arab polytheists” do not necessarily fall into shirk; rather, they easily escape the ruling of shirk clearly and explicitly. Whereas the Quran and Sunnah inform us that they are indeed involved in shirk.

Now it is unclear whether the second party’s intention is to defend themselves or to defend the Jews, Christians, and Arab polytheists!! But it is clear that, even if unknowingly, what they have presented and the principles and points they have stated provide a strong defense for the Jews, Christians, and Arab polytheists. Because the statements and beliefs attributed to them in the Quran and Sunnah are such that, based on these conditions or points, every individual among them easily proves to be completely free from shirk and shining like the sun. Now let us examine these points one by one in the light of the Quran and Sunnah:

1. The first “instruction” of the author seems to be that shirk occurs only when an attribute of Allah is considered intrinsic, ancient, eternal, and everlasting in someone else; otherwise not.

In previous pages, we have proven from the Quranic verses and the tafsir narrated by the second party’s “recognized scholarly personality,” Kazmi Sahib, that the “Arab polytheists” considered their deities as creations of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, and admitted their createdness. When they did not consider their essence or existence as intrinsic, ancient, eternal, and everlasting, how could they consider their attributes as intrinsic, ancient, eternal, and everlasting? Although this single argument is sufficient proof of this matter, for clarification, we also present some other evidences. Allah Almighty says:

﴿قُل لِّمَنِ الْأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهَا إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ . سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ ‎. قُلْ مَن رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ ‎.‏ سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ ‎.‏ قُلْ مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكُوتُ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ وَهُوَ يُجِيرُ وَلَا يُجَارُ عَلَيْهِ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ . سَيَقُولُونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُلْ فَأَنَّىٰ تُسْحَرُونَ .﴾

(O Prophet, peace be upon him) Say to them, if you know, tell me: To whom belongs the earth and whatever is upon it? They will say: To Allah. (Say) Then why do you not take admonition? Say to them: Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the mighty Throne? They will say: Allah. Say: Then why are you not afraid? Say to them: If you know, tell me: Who has control over everything? And who grants protection that no one can oppose? They will say: Allah. (So) Say: Then what magic are you under?

In these blessed verses, the polytheists are asked to tell whose is the earth and all that is on it? Who has complete control, dominion, and true governance over everything? Then Allah Himself states that they will say that all the earth and its inhabitants belong to Allah, and He alone has control and dominion over everything.

﴿وَمَنْ أَصْدَقُ مِنَ اللَّهِ قِيلًا﴾

“Who can be truer in speech than Allah?”

When the Arab polytheists considered Allah as the owner of everything and accepted His complete dominion and control over everything, certainly their false deities were also included in everything. This clearly shows that the Arab polytheists acknowledged Allah’s dominion and sovereignty even over their false deities. Their acknowledgment is also evident because even after the revelation of these verses, they did not say that they do not accept everything as Allah’s property nor do they accept Allah’s dominion and control over everything. Because there is no evidence of that. Simply considering everything as Allah’s property and accepting Allah’s complete and absolute dominion over everything is clear proof that they did not consider their deities, about whom they held supernatural and super-causal beliefs, as intrinsic, ancient, eternal, and everlasting.

⋆ The Fabricated Belief of the Arab Polytheists

Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) says:

«كان المشركون يقولون: لبيك لا شريك لك، قال فيقول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ويلكم قد قد فيقولون: إلا شريكا هو لك تملكه وما ملك ، يقولون هذا وهم يطوفون بالبيت»

The polytheists used to say while circumambulating the House of Allah: «لبيك لا شريك لك» (when they said this) the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would say: “Woe to you, enough, enough” (stop there), but they would say more words: «إلا شريكا هو لك تملكه وما ملك» meaning, O Allah, You have no partner except a partner who is for You, and this partner also has an owner, and whatever is under the control of this partner, You are also the owner of that.

It should be noted that among the Arab polytheists, slavery was common and they were well aware of the difference between a master and a slave. They did not need any explanation that there is a great difference between a master and a servant. The master is the one who commands and rules, and the “owned” is the one who is bound to obey. The master is free and independent, whereas the “owned” has no authority of his own. The master has his own will, while the “owned” does not have his own will but is compelled to act according to the master’s will. Despite this, their public declaration during the circumambulation of the Kaaba that “the owner of these gods of ours is Allah alone” shows that they considered their gods as subservient to Allah, helpless, powerless, and compelled before Allah. There is absolutely no question of equality here. From «وماملك», it is proven that they considered Allah as the owner of the powers of these gods, that the owner of these powers is Allah and these powers are granted by Allah. Despite this acknowledgment and declaration, Allah and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) declared them “polytheists.” Their “granted belief” did not save them from the necessity of “shirk” (associating partners with Allah).
It is understood that for the necessity of “shirk in attributes,” it is not a condition that the attribute in the other (partner) is accepted as “inherent, eternal, primordial, and everlasting.” When it is granted, it is no longer inherent; when it is granted, it means that before being granted, this attribute did not exist, so it is not primordial either. The polytheists believed that these powers of their gods were “granted.” Despite this, being declared “polytheists” invalidates all the conditions of the other party having “eternal, everlasting, inherent, primordial” attributes. Since whatever they accepted as “granted,” there is no proof of the granting of that.

Belief in the Infinite Attribute:

According to the second party, for associating partners (shirk) to be necessary, it is also essential that this attribute in the other than Allah be considered “infinite” and “unlimited,” otherwise, there will be no “shirk.”

So it is stated that this condition of “unlimited” is also false in the light of the Quran and Sunnah. Because the polytheists also considered the power of their deities to be “limited,” and this behavior of theirs has been mentioned as a reproach in many places in the Holy Quran. Consider a few verses: Allah Almighty says:

﴿هُوَ الَّذِي يُسَيِّرُكُمْ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ ۖ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا كُنتُمْ فِي الْفُلْكِ وَجَرَيْنَ بِهِم بِرِيحٍ طَيِّبَةٍ وَفَرِحُوا بِهَا جَاءَتْهَا رِيحٌ عَاصِفٌ وَجَاءَهُمُ الْمَوْجُ مِن كُلِّ مَكَانٍ وَظَنُّوا أَنَّهُمْ أُحِيطَ بِهِمْ ۙ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ لَئِنْ أَنجَيْتَنَا مِنْ هَٰذِهِ لَنَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الشَّاكِرِينَ﴾

“He it is Who enables you to travel on land and sea until, when you are in the ships and they sail with them by a good wind, and they rejoice therein, there comes a storm wind and the waves come upon them from all sides, and they think that they are surrounded, they call upon Allah, sincere to Him in religion, ‘If You save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful.'”

﴿وَإِذَا غَشِيَهُم مَّوْجٌ كَالظُّلَلِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ فَمِنْهُم مُّقْتَصِدٌ ۚ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا كُلُّ خَتَّارٍ كَفُورٍ﴾

“And when the waves cover them like shades (mountain-like shelters), they invoke Allah, sincere to Him in religion. Then when He delivers them to the land, there are some of them who are moderate (in faith). And none denies Our signs except every treacherous, ungrateful one.”

﴿فَإِذَا رَكِبُوا فِي الْفُلْكِ دَعَوُا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ فَلَمَّا نَجَّاهُمْ إِلَى الْبَرِّ إِذَا هُمْ يُشْرِكُونَ﴾

“When those people embark on a ship, they call upon Allah, making their religion pure for Him only. But when He delivers them to the land, behold, they associate others (with Him).”

From these verses, it is as clear as daylight that the polytheists also considered their gods (many deities) to be effective to some extent. They did not believe in the attribute of unlimited power in problem-solving and facilitation. In times of severe difficulty, their conviction became firm that here our gods can do nothing; their limits, in their view, practically ended, and at such moments, they temporarily purified their worship from shirk and called only upon Allah, seeking relief from Him alone. However, when the relieving Allah removed their difficulty, they again resorted to shirk. In short, according to them, their “gods” did not possess unlimited attributes but rather limited ones, and that was that they considered them problem-solvers and grantors of needs on land, but when they came to the seas and faced the turbulent and stormy waves, they openly acknowledged their helplessness and “limitedness,” not only acknowledging but temporarily freeing themselves from shirk «مخلصين له الدين». This is clear evidence. Their limiting and considering the attribute of problem-solving in their “gods” as “limited” was the cause of Sayyidna Ikrimah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) guidance and enlightenment.

At the time of the conquest of Makkah, when the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) declared general amnesty and peace, except for a few people (who were staunch enemies of Islam and Muslims), among them was Abu Jahl’s son, Sayyidna Ikrimah (may Allah be pleased with him), who had not yet accepted Islam and sought safety by fleeing towards the sea.

«فأصابتهم عاصف فقال أصحاب السفينة: أخلصوا فإن آلهتكم لا تغني عنكم شيئا ههنا ، فقال عكرمة: والله ! لئن لم ينجني من البحر إلا الإخلاص لا ينجيني فى البر غيره»

«اللهم إن لك على عهدا إن أنت عافيتني مما أنا فيه أن آتي محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى أضع يدى فى يده ، فلأجدنه عفوا كريما، فجاء فأسلم»

When he boarded the ship, a storm came upon them in the sea. The people on the ship said: Now call upon only Allah; surely your (other) gods cannot benefit you here. Hearing this, Ikrimah said: By Allah! If there is no salvation in this sea except by calling upon Allah alone (if this difficulty cannot be removed otherwise), then no one other than Allah can grant salvation on land either (cannot solve difficulties or remove grief).

O Allah! I promise You that if You save me from this calamity in which I (along with those on the ship) am involved, I will go to Muhammad (peace be upon him) and place my hand in his (blessed) hand, and surely I will find him forgiving and honorable. So (after escaping from those stormy winds) he presented himself to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and accepted Islam (may Allah be pleased with him).

Reflect calmly on this hadith! Think! Did the Arab polytheists consider the attributes of their gods as “limited” or “unlimited”? After reading these Quranic verses and seeing this hadith, no fool would dare say that “the polytheists accepted the attribute of unlimited problem-solving and need-fulfillment in their gods.” «كلاو فلا» Absolutely not.

Since this clear declaration and repeated invocation by these polytheists would have been mocking themselves, ridiculing themselves, and lamenting their foolishness, and this declaration is that

«أخلصوا فإن آلهتكم لا تغني عنكم شيئا ههنا»

Purify your worship, call upon Allah alone, for surely your other gods cannot help you here. They cannot benefit you at this moment. In these turbulent waves and these fierce winds, they are powerless to relieve your distress.

In short! The second party’s condition that the attribute in the other than Allah must be considered “unlimited” for shirk in attributes is also incorrect. The clear verses of the Holy Quran and the mentioned hadith contradict their belief, theory, and thinking, proving them false.

Since the Quran itself has stated this belief of the polytheists and it is clear from the Quranic statement that those polytheists did not consider the attributes of problem-solving and intercession in the other than Allah as “unlimited” but rather limited, yet Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, counted them among those who commit shirk. According to the conditions imposed by the second party, their shirk would not be proven due to considering the attributes as “limited.” Now, if Allah, Glorified and Exalted, counting them among the shirkers is correct—and it certainly is—then it is evident that the condition of only “unlimited” in the other than Allah is false and certainly false. «ومن أصدق من الله قيلا»

It is evident that merely denying “unlimitedness” and affirming “limitedness” and self-imposed determination of limits in the other than Allah is not sufficient to save from shirk; rather, the matter that is adopted with the other than Allah must also be within those limits. What meaning does it have to call upon the created, the possessed, the limited, to seek prayers, need-fulfillment, intercession, problem-solving from them, to seek wealth, honor, dignity, property, children, etc., from them? While in the Holy Quran, Allah, Glorified and Exalted, commands:

﴿قُلْ أَرَأَيْتُم مَّا تَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ أَرُونِي مَاذَا خَلَقُوا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ أَمْ لَهُمْ شِرْكٌ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ ۖ ائْتُونِي بِكِتَابٍ مِّن قَبْلِ هَٰذَا أَوْ أَثَارَةٍ مِّنْ عِلْمٍ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ﴾

“(O Prophet! Say to them,) ‘Tell me, those whom you call upon besides Allah, show me what they have created from the earth, or do they have any partnership in the creation of the heavens? Bring me a book before this (Quran) or some remnants of knowledge if you should be truthful.'”

Even today, those who are called upon besides Allah, from whom prayers are sought, who are called for problem-solving and need-fulfillment—what have they created from the earth and sky? Surely, they have created nothing and are not creators but created beings. Although Allah, Glorified and Exalted, has honored them with high ranks and exalted statuses, no Muslim considers them or any of them as creators. So what meaning does it have to pray to them and seek problem-solving from them?

In many places in the Holy Quran, where questions are posed to the polytheists about who is the creator, owner, and manager of the earth and heavens, their affirmative answer is also mentioned that it is Allah alone. Upon this acknowledgment, Allah advises: Then why do you not understand ﴿أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ﴾ Then why do you not think ﴿أَفَلَا تَتَّقُونَ﴾ Then why do you not fear?

If to avoid shirk, it is necessary to consider the attributes in the other than Allah as “unlimited,” then today those who seek help, intercession, consider others besides Allah as problem-solvers, need-fulfillers, treasure-givers, givers, and benefactors—can they explain how they have determined the limits of these attributes in the other than Allah? What is their understanding of the limitation of these attributes in the created? And at which places do these people consider the limits of these attributes in the pious servants to be non-existent?

Are not people today seen calling upon others besides Allah in every difficult moment on land and sea, in dryness and wetness, and seeking prayers from them? Are not these cries, these prayers, these supplications, these calls commonly heard: O Mawla Ali! O Lion of God! Help me cross my ship. Or O Mu’in ad-Din Chishti! Help me cross my ship. Or while seeking prayers from Sheikh Abdul Qadir Gilani: Aid, O Aid! Free me from grief and sorrow, make me happy in religion and the world, O Greatest Helper! That is, aid me, aid me, free me from grief and sorrow, make me prosperous in religion and the world, O the greatest helper who holds the hand of all supplicants (Astaghfirullah). Are these and countless such prayers not common?

I wish someone would inform us that these are the “limits” according to us, due to which in our belief it becomes clear that we do not consider these attributes in the other than Allah as “unlimited,” and the denial of their “unlimitedness” is proven.

In short! Affirming “limits” and denying the “unlimitedness” of these attributes in the other than Allah is not sufficient to save from shirk, because despite acknowledging limited attributes, the Arab polytheists were described in the Holy Quran as those who commit shirk and were declared polytheists.

Since this determination of limits was self-imposed, there was no Shariah evidence for it, nor was there any proof from any book before the Quran, nor from any of the Prophets (peace be upon them) or their companions regarding these attributes or their limits.

Many prayers of the Prophets (peace be upon them) are mentioned in the Holy Quran, and the mention of the prayers of the noble companions (may Allah be pleased with them) is present in the Hadith collections, but praise be to Allah, no such thing is found in them.

Believing in the Worshipped and the Worshipper:

For necessary polytheism to occur, the second party presented an essential condition that “polytheism will necessarily occur when, besides Allah Almighty, someone else is considered a necessary existent, worshipped, and prostrated to.”
Regarding the necessary existent, we have already presented our arguments with evidence. Now, as for the condition that one must also consider the other as “worshipped and prostrated to,” it should be stated that, like other conditions related to polytheism, this condition of the second party is entirely false and baseless in the light of the Quran and Sunnah.
Allah Almighty says:

﴿وَإِنَّ الشَّيَاطِينَ لَيُوحُونَ إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِهِمْ لِيُجَادِلُوكُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ أَطَعْتُمُوهُمْ إِنَّكُمْ لَمُشْرِكُونَ﴾

“Indeed, devils inspire their friends to dispute with you, and if you obey them, you will be polytheists.”

The “well-known commentator” of the second party, Naeemuddin Muradabadi Sahib, wrote in the margin of this verse: “Because abandoning the divine command in religion and accepting another command, making someone other than Allah the ruler, is polytheism.”

See, in this verse, abandoning Allah’s command and accepting others’ commands is declared polytheism, as is clear from the second party’s margin, yet this does not necessarily imply considering them as “prostrated to.” From this verse and the second party’s own explanation, their third condition is also proven false.

Clarification of a Misunderstanding:

It seems appropriate to clarify here a misunderstanding that commonly arises during discussions about shirk, and many people fall into distant misguidance due to these misunderstandings.

Misunderstanding: Many attributes of Allah are also found in others besides Allah

If acknowledging any attribute of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, in others besides Allah is shirk, then many such attributes are also found in others besides Allah. For example, Allah Almighty said:

﴿وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ بَصِيرٌ﴾

“And indeed, Allah is Hearing and Seeing.”

And the same was said about humans:

﴿فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا﴾

“And We made him hearing and seeing.”

Meaning hearing and seeing are attributes of Allah as well as of His servants, so is this shirk?

Clarification:

This is absolutely not shirk and there are several reasons for this:
Firstly: Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, says:

﴿قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ ۖ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا﴾

“(O Prophet ﷺ) Say, ‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden you.’ (That) you do not associate anything with Allah.”

Similarly, Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, says:

﴿قُلْ إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ رَبِّيَ الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَالْإِثْمَ وَالْبَغْيَ بِغَيْرِ الْحَقِّ وَأَن تُشْرِكُوا بِاللَّهِ مَا لَمْ يُنَزِّلْ بِهِ سُلْطَانًا﴾

“(O Prophet ﷺ) Say, ‘Indeed, my Lord has forbidden immorality, whether apparent or hidden, sin, and unjust aggression, and associating partners with Allah for which He has sent no authority.'”

It is clear that Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, has declared “shirk” forbidden and has not revealed any authority for it. The evidence for the other being as All-Hearing and All-Seeing has been revealed by Allah in the Holy Quran. Besides Surah Al-Dahr, there are other verses as well, so this cannot be “shirk” because Allah has not revealed any authority for shirk.
Secondly: If this were shirk, then Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, would not have bestowed this attribute upon humans, so that on one hand Allah forbids shirk, threatens severe punishment for it, and declares it an unforgivable sin, and on the other hand creates humans in such a way that it becomes impossible not to commit shirk. Absolutely not; no believer can even imagine this.
Thirdly: The attributes of being All-Hearing and All-Seeing for both Allah and humans are such that they are befitting and worthy of the described. The attributes of Creator and creation are not identical or similar. Allah hears even the heartbeat and the hidden sound, whereas human attributes are limited.
Fourthly: The second party, Allama Ahmad Saeed Kazmi Sahib writes:
“Shirk does not necessarily arise from the attributes that Allah has bestowed upon someone.”

So the attributes of being All-Hearing and All-Seeing are also bestowed by Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, therefore the question of shirk does not arise. If it is said that this proves that accepting something as limited and bestowed does not necessarily lead to shirk,
then it is stated that whatever is considered limited must have evidence, and whatever is considered bestowed must also have evidence of its “bestowal,” so who calls it shirk? But if one sets very large limits on their own, and attributes many “qualities” to someone on their own, calling these qualities bestowed, and then the matter reaches the point where those rights are given to them which belong to Allah, and they are treated in the manner related to Allah’s worship and servitude, then that will be shirk. Moreover, such matters have been and continue to be considered shirk by the people of Islam. Just one example is given:
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Mu’adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

«حق الله على عباده أن يعبدوه ولا يشركوا به شيئا»

“Allah’s right over His servants is that they worship none but Him and do not associate anyone with Him.”

From this hadith, it is understood that worship and servitude without associating others is solely the right of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Nu’man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet ﷺ said:
«الدعاء هو العبادة ثم قرأ» ﴿وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمُ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِي سَيَدْخُلُونَ جَهَنَّمَ دَاخِرِينَ﴾
“Dua (supplication) itself is worship.” Then he recited this verse: “And your Lord has commanded that you worship none but Him. And to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them [so much as], ‘uff,’ and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.”

From this hadith, it is clear that dua is worship. Allah has commanded to ask Him in dua. But today, many people ask for prayers from others besides Allah and think that these close servants hear our prayers, observe our condition, and can accept them. If such prayers were collected, a thick book could be prepared.
In short, when they ask for prayers from others besides Allah, they are actually worshipping them because dua itself is worship which is solely the right of Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He. Giving this right of Allah to others and worshipping them in this way is certainly shirk. Whether the attribute of hearing and accepting prayers in these close servants is considered limited or bestowed, it will still be “shirk” because there is no evidence for it, no proof from Allah, no authority or proof for these limits and this bestowal, so due to it being worship, it is “shirk.”
Alhamdulillah! From this one example, some other misunderstandings presented in this regard can also be easily removed and corrected. (InshaAllah)