Islam is a monotheistic faith. This means that Allah is the pre-eminent authority, without equals. Allah does not share His sovereignty with anyone. He alone is the Lawgiver in religion. We are expected to follow the Book of Allah at all times. But Islamists also follow tradition. They justify following tradition in addition to revelation by asserting that tradition, too, is "revelation." Islamists follow the traditions of the predecessors together with revelation, and follow what they believe are the traditions of the prophet at the expense of the Book of Allah. The treatment tradition as "equal to," a "part of" and a "judge of" revelation is an expression of scriptural shirk. The "abrogation" and "replacement" of revealed rulings by rulings from traditions are expressions of juristic shirk. These expressions of shirk emerged from treating the rulings of the ulama as supplanting the rulings of God. The re-orientation from revelation to tradition was a reorientation from a revelation-centric paradigm to a tradition-centric paradigm. Tradition eclipsed revelation. What triggered the turn from revelation to tradition? Hawkish rulers required a re-interpretation of revelation that would provide a "religious" justification of waging wars of territorial expansion under the banner of Islam. Islamists want to establish a paradise on earth, the caliphate. That they share with parties that endeavoured to establish a workers' paradise on earth. Islamism is a secular ideology. Islamists emphasize present-day existence at the expense of the hereafter. Islamists drifted from the Book of Allah, producing a parallel faith. This religion is based on tradition treated as "revelation." It is based on recourse to the teaching of abrogation, too. The treatment of tradition as revelation and the allegations that the Book of Allah is in parts "unclear," "incomplete" and "contradictory" provided a justification for the turn from revelation to tradition. But the Book of Allah presents itself as "clear," "fully detailed," and "free of contradictions." With the treatment of tradition as revelation, they transformed Islam into "traditional" Islam. Recourse to the teaching of the abrogation of the verses of reconciliation by the verse of the sword Islam enabled hawkish ulama to transform Islam into Islamism. To treat tradition as revelation is to ascribe a "partner" to revelation and, by extension, to its Author. Tradition is not "equal" to revelation because Allah has neither "equals" nor "partners." To say that a mutawatir tradition is upon an "equal" footing as revelation is problematic. For it treats a transmitter of a mutawatir as a "partner" of the Author of revelation. The advocates of political Islam assert that the words of Allah - revelation - may be "abrogated" by traditions attributed to the prophet. But Allah prohibited "adding to" revelation. The prophet prohibited recording his traditions. Persons that recorded the traditions disobeyed Allah and the messenger. A few jurists asserted that a tradition could "abrogate" revelation. In fact, they asserted that they, too, are able to "abrogate" revelation. These assertions betray hubris. These perceptions are expressions of shirk, as revelation teaches that the authority of Allah may not be "overruled" by anyone. For there is no authority greater than or even equal to Allah. Thus, the assertion that tradition or a jurist could "abrogate" revelation is tantamount to asserting that traditions or jurists could "abrogate" the words of Allah. To say that a tradition may abrogate revelation is tantamount to asserting that the authority of the transmitter surpasses that of Allah. It is an example of reasoning tainted by shirk. Renewal requires purifying exegesis and jurisprudence of all shirk, as well as all unwarranted presuppositions that defy the teaching of revelation. This will require the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason.