And as for the Hadd, it refers to: the worldly punishment prescribed by God that results from a crime (for which the conditions and pillars have been met, and its impediments have been removed, concerning both the crime and its perpetrator). Thus, we know that the Hadd, like a legal ruling, can only be known through revelation, and it requires legal controls to be implemented against the perpetrator of the crime. Thirdly: Shirk (which is worshipping other than God) is a descriptive matter, perceived by the senses. Revelation is not required for its perception; rather, it is known before and after revelation, because monotheism and disavowal of shirk are innate. However, the legal ruling concerning shirk and the polytheists, which is (disbelief and declaring polytheists as disbelievers), is informative. It is only known after revelation. So, shirk is a description that the law has clarified and its features have been elucidated, so that the legal ruling can be applied to it. Perceiving shirk is one thing, and perceiving its legal ruling is another. Fourthly: A person may disavow shirk and polytheists on the basis that shirk is misguidance and that polytheists are misguided, by virtue of their sound innate disposition with which God created them. His belief in the misguidance of shirk and polytheists does not mean that he has applied the ruling of disbelief to them, as not all misguidance is disbelief. Rather, there is misguidance that falls short of disbelief, such as innovation. By believing in the misguidance of shirk and polytheists, one has achieved disbelief in Taghut. This means disavowal, hatred, and rejection of shirk, even if one does not know its legal ruling as disbelief and its consequences. The sound innate disposition loves and accepts monotheism, and hates and rejects shirk, even if one does not know its legal ruling, because God created people with innate monotheism. This is like someone who hates and rejects the accusation of chaste women before the legal ruling that it is immorality reaches them.