Shirk as the Opposite of Islam

Main Part · Full-text chapter from the book The Doctrine of Monotheism · Read as PDF

In some detail, the linguistic or the theological meaning of the words Islam and Muslim has already been examined in previous chapters, based on the source texts of Islam and the Arabic language. It became clear that these words can in no way refer to a polytheist or polytheism.

This can also be further clarified by examining the words shirk (polytheism) and mushrik (polytheist), as they represent the opposite of monotheism. As has already been made clear multiple times, shirk stands in direct opposition to the concepts of Islam, ikhlas, hanifiyyah, and the religion of Abraham (millatu Ibrahim) عليه السلام.

Just like the word Islam, shirk also refers to a specific content and is not an empty word without any meaning. The words Islam, Muslim, shirk, and mushrik are terms and designations of the shari'ah (asma'un shar'iyyah). Just as with the words “eating, drinking” and “the eating one, the drinking one”, these are words that describe specific actions¹⁰⁰. Just as in the case of Islam, ikhlas, and similar concepts, it is evident here as well that whether or not a person is aware of the wrongdoing of an action has no effect on the action itself.

The same applies to a person who commits theft or adultery. By unlawfully taking someone else's property, a person becomes a thief, regardless of whether he knew that stealing is prohibited in Islam or not. Whether he is punished for it is an entirely different matter. However, in any case, it would be absurd to claim that such a person did not steal, just because the punishment does not apply due to the excuse of ignorance.

The same applies to an adulterer (zani). The moment he went to a woman to whom he had no right, he became an adulterer. It would be absurd to claim that he is not an adulterer simply because he did not know that adultery is a prohibited act in Islam.

In the same way, someone who worships something other than Allah is a “worshiper of something other than Allah.”¹⁰¹ Whoever commits shirk must necessarily also be referred to as a mushrik. This is linguistic self-evidence.

However, when some people today are confronted with this, they oppose these fundamentals of the Arabic language and basic reason. For example, if one tells them, “That person is an adulterer”, they actually respond that the person should not be called an adulterer because he was unaware that this act is forbidden in Islam!

In the same way, such people can “imagine” – or at least claim to – that a Muslim can simultaneously commit shirk. According to their assertion, a “Muslim mushrik” could exist. When confronted with this contradiction, just as with the terms “adulterer, thief”, etc., they respond in the same manner, saying that the person should not be called a mushrik. According to their argument, only the act should be referred to as shirk. It is evident that anyone who makes such a claim suffers from great confusion regarding the core message of his own religion.

As previously explained, the word mushrik is what is known as ismu l-fa'il, meaning the active participle. This ismu l-fa'il carries the meaning of the verb in Arabic, which is why it is also permissible to use it in place of the verb and allow it to assume its grammatical function.

The verb ashraka means “to associate (partners with Allah)”, and the mushrik is “the associating one.” In Arabic, the word “mushrikun” can therefore be used instead of the verb “ashraka”, as follows:

“zaydun ashraka bi-llahi shay'an”: “Zayd associated something with Allah.”

“zaydun mushrikun bi-llahi shay'an”: “Zayd is associating something with Allah.”

It functions in the same way as the words shariba for “to drink” and sharib for “the/a drinking one.”

If someone drinks alcohol, it is said in Arabic, by the consensus of all Arabs, that he is “drinking alcohol.”¹⁰² Here, too, it would be absurd to say: “He is/was not an alcohol-drinker because of his ignorance about the prohibition of alcohol.”

Instead, one would have to say: “This man is/was an alcohol-drinker. However, due to his acknowledged ignorance, no punishment is applied.”

In the Arabic language, the active participle, sharib, can be used in the same way in this context.

This person is therefore, from a linguistic perspective, inevitably a sharib. However, the hukm of shurb, meaning the subsequent ruling in the Islamic legal system – in this case, the punishment – does not apply to him.

Now, if we say about a person “ashraka bi-llah”, meaning “he associated something with Allah or worshiped something alongside Him”, no one would object. Even those who adhere to this false notion agree that this person worships something besides Allah.

However, in Arabic, this person is also, by consensus, described with the words “mushrikun bi-llah.” Whoever rejects this has clearly contradicted both language and reason. Someone who argues in this way would have no other choice than to call such a hypothetical person “muslimun mushrikun bi-llah” – a completely absurd designation.

At-Tabari said in his previously quoted explanation of the verse in sura az-Zumar [39:29]:

يَقُولُ جَلَّ ثَنَاؤُهُ: وَمَا يَسْتَوِي هَذَا الْمُشْتَرَكُ فِيهِ، وَالَّذِي هُوَ مُنْفَرِدٌ مُلْكُهُ لِوَاحِدٍ، بَلْ أَكْثَرُ هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ بِاللَّهِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُمَا لَا يَسْتَوِيَانِ، فَهُمْ بِجَهْلِهِمْ بِذَلِكَ يَعْبُدُونَ آلِهَةً شَتَّى مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ

But most of these “who associate something with Allah” do not know that the two are not equal. In their ignorance of this, they worship various different alihah besides Allah.

At-Tabari used exactly this expression: “al-mushrikuna bi-llah.” According to the distorted viewpoint discussed here, however, At-Tabari could just as well have meant “Muslims who associate partners with Allah!”¹⁰³ Anyone who seeks a sincere and reasonable approach to the texts can certainly not accept such a contradictory meaning.

The adherents of this false belief must therefore ask themselves whether the following descriptions can truly apply to a Muslim:

• mushrikun bi-llahi ilahan akhar: Associating another ilah with Allah.
• 'abidun ma'a-llahi ilahan akhar: Worshiping another ilah alongside Allah.
• muttakhidhun ma'a-llahi ilahan akhar: Taking another ilah alongside Allah.
• 'adilun bi-rabbihi ilahan akhar: Equating another ilah with his Lord.

Through a closer examination of the words Islam and shirk, or Muslim and mushrik, it has become very clear that Islam and shirk are two complete opposites that can never coexist in the same person at the same time.

However, it is certainly possible for a mushrik to enter Islam through sincere repentance and a complete abandonment of polytheism, thereby becoming a true monotheist.