The Four Quls: Surah al Ikhlas and Trinity (3/3)

The Arabs and the Makkans during the pre-Islamic time were not atheists.  They believed in Allah as the supreme God, but associated other gods alongside with Him.  In fact, if asked who created the heaven and the earth, they would answer Allah (Quran 43:84-87).

Surah al Ikhlas was revealed to resolve this matter unequivocally.  Allah is one, and one only.  He is absolutely self sufficient, in need of no one to be His associates or helpers in managing His affairs, but everyone is in need of Him. 

This we have touched in the Part 2.

In Madinah, in addition to the polytheist Arabs, who lived either in the city or throughout the Arabia, he also faced the People of the Book, the Jews and the Christians.

The Jews were the first to confront Him, for many of them lived in Madinah itself.  The confrontation with the Christians came much later, after his mission had succeeded and spread as far as the border of the Roman Empire.

Being among the front runner of Tawhid, the Jews had no problem with the Oneness of God.  In fact, they were among the earlier Muslims, for their ancestor, Jacob, known as Israel, was a Muslim.  Their leading Prophet, Moses, who delivered Torah to them, was also a Muslim in the truest sense of the word. 

Like the Ishmaelite Arabs, they too descended from the Great Patriarch, Abraham the Muslim, as the Quran puts it.

Overtime, however, they made the universal God to be their exclusive God, the God of Israel.  They anthropomorphized Him, assigning human attributes to Him, depicting Him as a bearded old man, like the way the Greeks depicted their god Zeus.  The exceptions being, Zeus is the King of many gods, whereas Yahweh, the God of the Jews, is one and only God, and that only the God’s face is painted, not the whole body of a man holding a lightning rod, like Zeus is pictured.

In their tendency to attribute God in the likeness of man, a quotation from Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo would come handy.¹

The New International Version of Genesis 3:8-11, reads,

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.  9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”  10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked?  Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

Here, God is pictured as walking in the garden in the cool of the day.  What is even more astonishing is that Adam and Eve were able to hide from God and he had to ask, “Where are you?...”

In Genesis 32:24-28, there is the story and literal description of Jacob wrestling with and defeating God.  In verse 28, it says, “You [Jacob] have wrestled with God and with men, and you have won.” In other words, the creator of the universe whom mankind is expected to worship and submit to was defeated by a mere mortal in a wrestling match.

The Old Testament even pictures God as one who intended to do evil but then repented.  Exodus 32:14 states, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people” (King James Version).  It would not be surprising for anyone to turn away from God and not consider Him worthy of worship if He himself has to repent from His own evil.

It is with this obsession of anthropomorphizing God that the Jews came to the Prophet, asking him about the attributes of Allah, as various Traditions in Part 1 suggest.  The Prophet answered their questions, which came in various ways, by reciting Surah al Ikhlas.

Just as Surah al Ikhlas was an apt answer to the polytheist Arabs, it was also an apt answer to the Jews with their obsession of anthropomorphizing God, as if God has sex, need to eat and drink, and carries Himself like a human being.

And it was also a very apt answer to the Christians, who was obsessed with the nature of God, of what substance He was made, as the Tradition quoted in Part 1 illustrates.

Since the Godhood of Christianity is far more complex than the anthropomorphizing tendency of the Jews, we need to explore this issue with a little background.

Like Islam and Judaism, Christianity too considers itself a monotheistic religion.  Unlike Islam and Judaism, which have no problem with number, for to them God is one and only, Christianity’s notion of the oneness of the God is more problematic.  It says that God is one, but exist in three personalities: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.  This triad makes up what they call Holy Trinity.

But since there are three personalities in the One God, questions arise as to how these three persons is actually only one God.

It would have been easier if they believe that only the Father is God, as the Jews likewise believe.  The Jews called their God Yahweh, but they address Him as Aba, meaning father.  Yahweh is the name of their God, while the Father is only the way they address Him.  There is no mistaken identity as far their God is concerned, and there is no problem with regard to His number, which is one and one only.  The only problem with the Jews is their tendency of assigning human attributes to an otherwise unique God.

Christianity is different.  While they believe the Father to be the One God, they also believe in Jesus to be the God.  They regard him as the Son of God.  On top of that, they also believe the Holy Ghost to be the God as well.  Yet, they consider themselves monotheists. 

Monotheism simply means that God is One, and only One.  If they believe Jesus to be no more than human, or that the Holy Ghost is no more than God’s Messenger, then there is no issue in the first place.  Likewise, there would not be any issue if they believe the number of God to be more than one.  

Since they believe that God is only one, but yet Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost are also God alongside with the Father, then they are tied with a very complex knot.  For many centuries, there had been raging debates about the nature of their God, especially on the nature of Jesus Christ, for the God in Heaven and the God on earth can hardly be one.  For three centuries, their Church Fathers (leading priests or theologians), could only come up with words.  When one theologian comes up with one word, however, the other theologian would come up with ten opposite words. 

If Jesus is the One God like the Father, is his divinity similar to the Father?  Is he created or uncreated?  Is he equal or subordinated to the Father?  Does his substance different, similar or in fact exactly the same as the Father?  And many more questions of that nature.

In the fourth century AD, the knot that tied the mystery was at last broken.  It was untied not so much because their Church Fathers suddenly found the answer.  It was not merely words that put the matter to rest.  It was with the help of the sword.  In that century, one pagan emperor had decided to convert to this faith.  It was through the power of his sword, and the swords of his successors, that Christianity finally found its true faith. 

The Pagan Emperor who had helped in the cause of finding this true faith was none other than Constantine the Great.  It was to him, perhaps, more than to the Christian theologians, that Christianity owed their orthodox or true faith. 

In the fourth century, or more precisely the year 325 AD, a council was held to resolve the nature of Christ’s Godhood at the city called Nicaea.  It was in that Council that Jesus the Christ was officially proclaimed as God, along with the Father. 

The answer to the mystery is deceptively simple.  God is only one.  The Father and the Son are not two, but one.  They are of the same substance.  They are co-eternal, co-equal, exactly the same.  They are not even of similar nature or substance, because that would make them more than one already.  They are exactly of the same substance, exactly of the same nature.  They are consubstantial, theologically speaking.

The answer would not have been deceptively simple, one may observe, if the pagan emperor who had become a Christian, the Emperor Constantine, did not help with his sword.  His sword had made it acceptable what the theologians could not make with their words.  With the help of the State apparatus, the third element of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, did not pose much of the problem.  It was resolved in the Council of Constantinople, which took place in 381 AD.

But wouldn’t it easier to just believe that Jesus Christ is only God’s Messenger, instead of making him God as well? 

If you ask that question, then you definitely do not know what Christianity is all about.  One is not a Christian if he does not believe Christ to be a God, or at least Divine.  The whole Christianity tenet rests on that. 

You see, when Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit, they did not only become naked, as the above quotation suggests.  They had in fact committed a major and unforgivable error, known as the Original Sin.  Since it is the Original Sin, it gets stuck into humanity and becomes hereditary.  There is no way you can get it off, no matter how much you repent.  Although you don’t commit that Original Sin, for it was your first ancestor who did, you are nevertheless going to carry it down until you die.  And your children too will inherit it from you.

But God is Gracious (or perhaps He has regretted the whole thing about the Forbidden Fruit, which has caused the whole mankind to be doomed).  He does not wish for the mankind to be doomed forever.  The problem is, even God cannot erase that Original Sin from humanity, unless of course, God Himself makes a sacrifice.  And not just any sacrifice.  God Himself has to be sacrificed.

But can God sacrifice Himself? 

Well, God is all powerful.  He can do whatever He wants.  It would be funny, however, if God were to take His own life, because the world would be without God, albeit for a while.  Further, if God were to sacrifice Himself, who is going to resurrect Him?  Can the dead God resurrect Himself? 

It was quite a bind, to say the least.  Yet, for the Original Sin to be erased, God MUST sacrifice himself. 

So, how does God get out of this bind?

Well, He took His own Word, His faculty of Speech and planted it into the womb of the Virgin Mary.  Lo and behold, the Word became flesh.  Now that the God had become human, it was easy to get him sacrificed.  So he was sacrificed at the Cross.  Problem solved.

It sounds simple now, but it was not then.  A whole three centuries were required to understand it.  And it is simple only to the believing Christians.  Even to the majority of the Christians, it raises more questions than answers.  For instance, when God took out His Word, or His Speech, does He become mute?  Well, this tenet has got to be believed, not so much understood. 

Even the first proponent of Trinity, whose name was Tertullian, found it perplexing and absurd.  But he has a simple solution.  “I believe in it because it is absurd,” he was quoted as saying. 

St. Augustine, the fifth century Church Doctor (a status higher than Church Father), who was credited to solving the mystery of Trinity, simply said: “Anyone who denies the Trinity is in danger of losing his salvation, and anyone who tries to understand it is in danger of losing his mind.” 

In short, you are damned if you don’t believe in it, and you are damned if you try to understand it.  That is why it is a matter of faith, not a matter of reason.  Since it is easier to believe and be saved than to understand and go crazy, one might as well just believe in it.

Since the whole crux of Christianity Godhood is based on the substance of His nature, it is no wonder, then, that the Christians who came to the Prophet asked him: "O Muhammad, tell us what is your Lord like and of what substance He is made."

To this inquiry, the Prophet recited Surah al Ikhlas.  In one short chapter, he told them that God is Ahad, one and only.  There is no need to make it complicated by saying One for Three and Three for One, as if God is some kind of musketeers, and that one plus one plus one is equal to one.  

He is the Samad.  He is not in need of any absurd theology to solve the dilemma posed by the Original Sin, which does not exist in the first place.  He can just forgive whatever sin there is, Original or Otherwise.  

He does not give birth, nor is He born.  Thus He has no parent, neither does He have a son.  And nothing is equivalent to Him.  There is no such thing as His co-equal, co-eternal, or consubstantial.

To sum up, Surah al Ikhlas, which takes no more than two lines out of 604 pages of 15 lines each, can be used as an answer to just about every question regarding Islamic theology.  No wonder, therefore, that the Prophet says this short Surah is equivalent to a third of the Quran.

Note:

1.     Jamaal al-Din Zarabozo, “The Miraculous Quran.”

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/528/viewall/#_ftn10206

The Four Quls: The Value of Surah al Ikhlas (2/3)

Muhammad the Prophet was sent to mankind, but since he was a Qurasyhi, it was the Qurasyh whom he first confronted.

The Quraysh are the Ishmaelite Arabs, having descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham.   Although Ishmael is considered as the Father of Arabs, he himself was not an Arab.  He was half Hebrew half Egyptian, for his father Abraham was a Hebrew, and his mother Hagar was an Egyptian. 

Ishmael was nevertheless considered as the Father of Arabs because he married a Jurhum woman, a pure Arab from the Qahtan stock, and adopted the Arabic tongue.  Qahtan was the ancestor of the pure Arabs.  He was related to Eber, the ancestor of Hebrew.  Both Qahtan and Eber were descended from Sam, the son of Noah, which is why both the Arabs and the Jews are considered as Semitic people.

As the son of Abraham, Ishmael and his descendants were the believers in the One God.  This One God they called Allah.  Their way is called the Hanafiya Way. Over time, however, his descendants introduced other gods along with Allah.  This we have touched briefly in The Story of Four Hunafa, Part 1.

By the time Muhammad the Prophet was born, the Way of Hanafiya, as we have related in the The Story of Four Hunafa, was lost.  Allah was still being worshipped, but along with Him, the Arabs, including the Quraysh, worshipped also other deities.  Inside the Kaabah and its vicinity, there were 360 idols being worshipped, with Hubal as their leading deity.  Kaabah itself, to the Quraysh and the other Arab tribes, remained as Baitillah, the House of Allah.

So entrenched was the belief in associating other gods with Allah among the Arabs that, when Muhammad the Prophet came to purity the belief in Allah, the Qurasyh rejected him.  As other gods tended to be associated with some kind of angels, the saints, etc., these deities therefore had their origin, or their ancestry.

Having lost the notion of the True God, the Quraysh demanded the Prophet to tell them the ancestry of Allah.  They came to him and asked: “O Muhammad, tell us the ancestry of your Lord.”

It was probably to this request that the Surah al Ikhlas was first revealed, as we have noted in Part 1.  Later on, the Bedouin who lived in the desert also asked similar question, and the Prophet responded by reciting this Surah.

In both situations, as we have seen in Part 1, the question was: Tell us the ancestry of your Lord.   But the response given was not just about the ancestry, or the lack of it.  It was to present the nature of Allah in its purest form, in the most precise way, but yet most comprehensive as well. 

No wonder, therefore, that this Surah is called al Ikhlas, the Purity, taken from its theme, as opposed to other surahs, which are mostly derived from particular words in those surahs.  There is not even the word ikhlas in this Surah, as there is the word kafirun in the Surah al Kafirun.

The first verse read: “Say, He is Allah, Ahad (the One and Only).”  The key word here, as many Quranic commentators have observed, is that Allah, the name of Muhammad’s Lord, is Ahad, One and Only, Unique and Absolute. 

Ahad literally means one, but it is not so much about number, for in Arabic, to express one, the word Wahid is usually used.  In many other verses, the word Wahid is used instead of Ahad, when the purpose is to stress that God is only one, not two, three, or many.

Ahad means One and Only, in the sense that it stands by itself, independence of all others, and is not to be compared with anything or anyone, for no comparison can ever be made.  For that reason, it is sometimes translated as Unique instead of One, because unique means there is nothing like it.  But even the word Unique cannot capture the essence of Ahad.

In any case, the Arabs during the Prophet’s time understood it, and understood it well.  To them, if Allah is Wahid instead of Ahad, then there is still the possibility of mixing or associating other gods with Allah.  Since He is Ahad instead of Wahid, they knew that there is no more possibility of having other deities along with Allah. 

It is for this reason that they vehemently opposed the Prophet.  If the Lord of Muhammad is merely Wahid, they would not have much problem with it, for they too believe in Allah.  In fact, the Quraysh and the Arabs regarded Allah as the supreme God, pretty much like the Hindus who regard Brahman as their supreme God, along with other deities.  This is the crux of polytheism.

Polytheism in the case of the Arabs was not the rejection of Allah, but of associating other deities to Allah, making them Allah’s partners.  This is the corrupt belief that the Prophet came to purify, and it is through this Surah that the true nature of Absolute Monotheism of Allah is being presented in a simple and pure form.  

The case of the torture underwent by Bilal ibn Rabah, one of the leading companions, illustrates this point clearly.  Throughout the episode, the only word Bilal uttered was “Ahad, Ahad.”  His master who carried out the torture, Umayyah bin Khalaf, understood its meaning very well, which made him angrier.  He understood that Bilal refused to recognize any other gods alongside Allah.  As for Umayyah, he too recognized Allah as the supreme God, but he believed other deities have some share in the Godhood. 

Umayyah did not ask Bilal to renounce Allah.  All he wanted was for his slave to recognize also other deities being worshipped by his people.  But Bilal was adamant.  Whatever Umayyah and his henchmen did to him—and the only thing they did not do to him was to kill him outright—Bilal only uttered the word that made his torturers growing more exasperated.

Since the word is so precise, yet so comprehensive in its meaning, one may be excused into thinking that this word alone would be sufficient to answer the question regarding Allah’s ancestry.  Since Allah is Ahad, one and only, unique, absolutely alone without any partner whatsoever, the question about His ancestry, therefore, does not arise.

But Allah does not want to leave any room for doubt, thus the second verse follows: “He is the Samad.”   

While the word Ahad is noted for its precision, the word Samad is noted for its encompassing broadness in meaning.  The basic idea, however, conveys absolute self sufficiency, one who has absolutely everything, is in need of absolutely nothing, but everything is absolutely in need of him.

This is the idea that Allah describes Himself, when question about Him was asked.  That He creates everything, owns everything, in need of nothing, a focal point for everything.  This is the only place in the Quran, according to Muhammad Assad, where the word Samad is used.  

Looking through its meanings that run close to a hundred or so, as the contemporary and classical scholars describe it, I am inclined to think that, almost, if not all, of Allah’s other attributes such as Almighty, Omniscience, All Hearing, All Powerful, etc., are encompassed in this one word.  It is the summary of what He is all about.

The Arabs during the Prophet’s time understood it.  This God, the One and Only God, the Lord of Muhammad and his followers, requires nothing and no help whatsoever, and that He alone is the source for everything.  He does not need to be dusted, repaired, painted, carved, or remade, as the idols of the Quraysh and the Arabs do.

And because He is absolutely One, in need of nothing, not even the notion of “need” itself, the next verse in Surah al Ikhlas simply says: “He does not beget, neither is He begotten.”  Differently put, there is no such thing as ancestry when comes to Allah.

The word used in the Quran to negate either giving birth or born, is lam, instead of la.  In Arabic, the former connotes strongest negation, meaning “never,” while the latter simply denotes “no.”  This word lam instead of la is to further strengthen the assertion that it is not merely the case whereby He does not give birth to anyone or anyone giving birth to Him, but to stress that such is NEVER the case. 

This third verse further underscores the fact that He is Ahad and that He is Samad, and therefore the notion that He needs someone else to be His parent, or another to be His child, would be contradicting His real nature.

And the Surah ends with the verse: “Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”  Nothing resembles Him, none is equal to Him.  Even our imagination cannot fathom His likeness, for everything that we imagine is simply not Him.   This verse concludes His nature of being One and Only, of Him being the Samad, of the need, or the lack thereof, for Him to be born, or giving birth.

These four short verses, therefore, provided a concise but comprehensive response to the questions put by the polytheist Quraysh and their Arab neighbours, including the Bedouin.  Allah Himself has chosen the answer by revealing this Surah, and instructed the Prophet to merely recite it to the questioners. 

One would also note that this Surah opens with the word Qul, meaning “say,” or “proclaim.”  Very few indeed Quranic verses or surahs begin with Qul.  When it does, it suggests that the message about to be delivered is of paramount importance, as many commentators put it.

To conclude this part, the Quraysh or other polytheist Arabs had gotten more than what they asked for, irrespective whether their question on the ancestry of the Lord of Muhammad was for genuine reason, or merely for mockery.  This Surah, which purifies the Godhood of Allah, whom they also worshipped, delivers unequivocal statement to the utter falsehood of their way. 

It is the perfect answer to the polytheists in Makkah, as it is also a perfect answer to the Jews in Madinah, as well as the Christians who came to Madinah, enquiring about the Lord of Muhammad.

We shall talk about that in our concluding instalment, insyaAllah.

Stay tuned.

End of Part 2.

The Four Quls: The Value of Surah al Ikhlas (1/3)

Surah al Kafirun, the first of the Four Quls, denounces the objects of worship by the disbelievers, while at the same time affirms the “One” worshipped by the believers.

What might this “object” be, the One worshipped by the believers?

The answer comes in the second of the Four Quls, Surah al Ikhlas.

“Say, He is Allah, the One and Only,” the Surah opens.  The Surah then elaborates this One and Only God with three other short verses.  And that completes it, making it one of the shortest chapters in the Quran.

Yet, its standing in the Quran is “valued” as if it is a third of the whole Quran, as authentic Hadith (Tradition) by al Bukhari indicates. 

Now, consider this point.  The standardized Uthmani copy of the Quran contains 604 pages, with 15 lines every page, and, excluding the normal Bismillah which is not part of the Surah, this Surah barely occupies two lines.  Two lines out of 604 pages of 15 lines per page, and yet its value is a third of the whole Quran!  That alone indicates the importance of this Surah.

Surah al Ikhlas is considered a Makki surah, but, as Maudoodi has observed, there seem to be some dispute about this fact, because some scholars seem to think that it was revealed in Madinah.

The reason for the dispute is because some Traditions indicate that it was revealed during the Makkah period, while others point to its revelation during the Madinah period. 

In one tradition, for instance, Abdullah bin Mas'ud has reported that the Quraysh said to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace): "Tell us of the ancestry of your Lord." Thereupon this Surah was sent down.

Jabir bin Abdullah has also stated that a Bedouin said to the Holy Prophet: "Tell us of your Lord's ancestry." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Both of the above Traditions clearly point to the Makkah period.

One the other hand, there is also a tradition from Ibn Abbas, saying that a group of the Jews came to the Holy Prophet and said: "O Muhammad, tell us of the attributes of your Lord, who has sent you as a Prophet." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Ibn Abbas has also related that a deputation of the Christians of Najran along with seven priests visited the Holy Prophet, and they said: "O Muhammad, tell us what is your Lord like and of what substance He is made."  The Holy Prophet replied, "My Lord is not made from any substance. He is unique and exalted above everything." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Yet in other Tradition, Dahhak, Qatadah and Muqatil have stated that some Jewish rabbis came before the Holy Prophet, and they said: "O Muhammad, tell us what is your Lord like, so that we may believe in you. Allah in the Torah has sent down His description. Kindly tell us of what He is made, what is His sex, whether He is made of gold, copper, brass, iron, or silver, and whether He eats and drinks. Also tell us from whom He has inherited the world, and who will inherit it after Him." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Those three Traditions clearly point to Madinah period.

Why are there so many contradictions, not only regarding the periods, but also the “reasons” for its revelation? 

In actual fact, there are no contradictions.  All those apparently contradictory reports do not actually point to the reasons for its revelation, but rather the responses made by the Prophet regarding the questions put to him.   

As we know, Quranic verses were revealed little by little in stages, addressing specific event, question, challenge, problem, dilemma, accusation, etc..  Some were revealed to console the Prophet, such as Surah ad Dhuha, others were revealed to console the whole Islamic community under distress, such as Surah Yusuf, many others to respond to the challenge made by the enemies, such as Surah al Kahfi. 

Verses were also revealed to address specific dilemma faced by the Prophet, such as his marriage with Zaynab bint Jash, who was then the wife of his adopted son, Zayd bin Haritha.  A few verses were also revealed to clear the good name of his young wife, Ayesha, who was being accused of infidelity.

Now, it is known that repeated revelations of the same verses are unnecessary, because once revealed, the Prophet would remember these by heart.  His companions would in turn put these into writing, and many would also memorize by hearts. 

Likewise with Surah al Ikhlas.  It was revealed but once, although the above Traditions appear to suggest that it was revealed many times.  All these apparent contradictions, however, can be resolved with a very simple solution.  Take the phrase “therefore Allah sent down this Surah” in those Traditions, and replaces it with “therefore the Prophet recited this Surah.”  Do that and the whole contradictions are vanished into the thin air. 

Just because the narrators of the Traditions say “therefore this Surah was revealed” does not mean that it was “actually” revealed at that moment, or because of that particular event.  It was merely their way of recording the events that they had witnessed.  And they had witnessed that, after those questions were put to the Prophet, the latter responded by reciting Surah al Ikhlas.  

In short, therefore, all those contradictions do not exist in the first place.  On the contrary, those various ahadith only point to the weight of this Surah, which was used many times to address many different questions asked in different occasions, unlike other verses or Surah which are used only once or twice.

Looking from that light, it is not surprising that the Prophet put a greater value on this short Surah as compared to others. 

Of far greater value, of course, must have come from its meaning.  Taking the above quoted Traditions as the backgrounds, we shall try to look into some of its meanings in the next instalments, insyaAllah, but to conclude this first part, let’s see whether it is a Makki or a Madani Surah.

That this is a Makki Surah is well established.  In all likelihood, it is also among the earliest surahs being revealed to the Prophet.  As Maudoodi puts it, “another proof of this Surah's being one of the earliest surahs to be revealed is that when in Makkah Umayyah bin Khalaf, the master of Hadrat Bilal, made him lie down on burning sand and placed a heavy stone on his chest, Bilal used to cry "Ahad, Ahad!" This word was derived from this very Surah.” 

Maudoodi’s keen observation is of some validity here.  Although the word “Ahad” was already in the Arabic vocabulary, it is highly unlikely that Bilal would utter that word to mean “Allah” when being tortured had the Surah not been revealed.  He would have uttered “Allah, Allah” instead.

Since Bilal was tortured during the fourth year of Muhammad’s prophethood (or thereabout), this Surah must have been revealed earlier. 

End of Part 1

The Four Quls: Surah al Kafirun Is About Non-Compromised, Not Tolerance (2/2)

In Part 1, we have seen that, taken out of context, the Quranic teachings can be portrayed in their total opposite.

Likewise with Surah al Kafirun, one of the Four Quls. 

Numerous ahadith (Traditions) are pointing to the reason of its revelation, with a simple background.  Namely, after all their efforts to silence Muhammad had failed, the leaders of the Quraysh had come to Muhammad the Prophet and offered a compromised.  Their proposal was simple: they suggested that Muhammad and his followers worship the idols of the Quraysh for one year, and for another year, the Quraysh would worship the God of Muhammad.¹

As a response to that proposal, Allah Himself gave the answer through the revelation of Surah al Kafirun.  Muhammad was commanded to proclaim: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship that which you worship, nor do you worship the One whom I worship. And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, nor will you worship the One whom I worship.  For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” [al Kafirun: 1-6, i.e., the translation of the whole Surah]

With that background, does this Surah sound like a proclamation on religious tolerance, as some allege?  Or, more pointedly, does it sound like a recognition of religious pluralism, the notion that all religions are true and therefore equally good, as others claim?

Quite the opposite, one must admit. 

In fact, this Surah unequivocally states that, as far as faith and worship are concerned, Islam and its counterparts are the complete opposite of each other, and the two cannot and will not meet, nor  can the two will ever mix. 

In the nutshell, Surah al Kafirun is about putting the clear line of separation between belief and unbelief, and the Muslims’ attitude as well as their approach towards unbelief, their objects of worship, as well as their religious rituals. 

This is the position of the classical commentators such as Ibnu Kathir, as well as the position of contemporary commentators like Abu Ala Maudoodi, Sayyid Qutb and Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani.  Those who take the opposite position are displaying intellectual dishonesty, if they are scholars, or ignorance, if they are laymen.

Irrespective of the intention, quoting Quranic verses out of context to fit the preconceived ideas is deplorable.  This practice can confuse the ignorant folks.  As the popular saying goes, many calamities are built upon good intentions.

Furthermore, quoting Surah al Kafirun to signify religious tolerance in Islam does not do justice to this Surah; neither does it do justice to the concept of religious tolerance in Islam.  If quoted to signify the recognition of Islam to religious pluralism, I am afraid that it is already bordering on heresy, for the idea itself is heretic, since Allah does not recognize the true religion other than Islam. 

The only acceptable “pluralism” in Islam is with regard to multiple interpretations or differences in rulings upon certain matters, whereby each different opinion is considered true or valid.  As I wrote in other entries, there are more than one ways to slice a cat.²

In the likewise manner, one can say that there are multiple ways to skin a cow, but for the meat to be consumed lawfully, it must first be slaughtered.  And the meat itself must be from lawful animal to begin with.  It cannot be a pig.  Irrespective whether it is properly slaughtered, and subsequently skinned neatly, a pig is never lawful for consumption, except during emergency, and taken only so that one can continue surviving.

Thus, when Professor Kamali put forward the argument that Islam recognizes Religious Pluralism because various Quranic verses point to the fact that there have been various “religions” sent to the Prophets before Muhammad, and that all were considered true, Professor El-Muhammady quickly pointed out that these were the Prophets sent before Muhammad.  With the advent of Muhammad as the Last Messenger, all these were abrogated. 

Moreover, we know that Muhammad has said even if Moses were still alive, Moses has no choice but to follow Muhammad, as the following Tradition puts it clearly:

“Narrated Jabir Ibn Abdullah :

Umar ibn al-Khattab brought to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) a copy of the Torah and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah’. He (Allah’s Messenger) kept quiet and he (Umar) began to read it. The colour of the face of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) underwent a change, whereupon Abu Bakr said: “Would that your mother mourn you, don’t you see the face of Allah’s Messenger?’ Umar saw the face of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and said: ‘I seek refuge with Allah from the wrath of Allah and the wrath of His Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet’. Whereupon Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said : ‘By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, even if Moses were to appear before you and you were to follow him, leaving me aside, you would certainly stray into error; for if (Moses) were alive (now), and he found my prophetical ministry, he would have definitely followed me’. (Sunan Ad-Darimi, Vol. 1, Hadith No. 435)

  

To his credit, Professor Kamali did not make it unequivocal that Islam recognizes Religious Pluralism as commonly defined.  He went at great length, and with great pain, to theorize what he meant by Pluralism.³  

It appears that he tries to be as diplomatic as he could, although in the end, I am not sure whether he really understands what he wrote, much less whether he really believes it.  He would have done better if he follows the mainstream thinking and risk being called “conservative” rather than taking the “progressive line” and risk being called muddle headed.

A simple folk like me would put the whole matter much more simply.

For the last few years, I have been living in a neighbourhood filled with people of multiple religious persuasions.  Living in a terrace house, on the right side, I share common fence with my Chinese neighbours, who are devoted Buddhists.  They place their altar just next to the door of my house and would burn incense daily.  Having suffered from sinusitis, the burning incense troubles me every time I inhale it, but I never complain about it.  They have the right to exercise their religion.

To my left, also sharing common fence, is Indian family.  They are devoted Hindus.  Aside from having many idols in their house, they would chant their prayers, rather loudly, from time to time.  Since the idols and the sound have nothing to do with sinusitis, I am basically oblivious with their activities. 

Right in front of my house is a devoted Chinese Christian family.  From time to time, they would sing hymns very loudly.  Occasionally they would have congregations and put their speeches on loud speaker.  Their activities generally disturb my reading, but I never complain.  They too have their right to exercise their religion.

On their part, they too never complain about the fact that the road gets congested when the Muslims perform Friday Prayer in our community mosque, just like we never complain of the same when the Hindus, Buddhists and the Christians perform whatever religious ceremony in their respective temples and church in our community.

That, to me, is religious tolerance, of respecting each other to exercise each religion.  It also means that we accept “plurality” in religions, as opposed to Religious Pluralism, which has a specific connotation.

But neither I, nor my other Muslim neighbours, ever participate or partake in their religious ceremonies.  We don’t worship what they worship; neither do they worship what we worship.  We don’t get involved in their religious rituals; neither do they get involved in our religious rituals.  We meet and mix only when non religious activities are involved.

Now, I myself do not hang the Four Quls, but many of my Muslim neighbours do.  I have not seen, however, any Muslim who hangs the Four Quls alongside with Shiva’s Idol, Christian’s Cross, or Buddha’s Statue. 

If truly Islam recognizes “Religious Pluralism,” in the sense that all religions are true and after the same truth, then a Muslim in a multi-religious country like Malaysia should try putting his Four Quls with icons of other religions.  After all, these religions are all the same.  To signify what religion one belongs to, a Muslim can put the Four Quls at the top while the rest of the idols below; a Hindu can put whatever their leading idol top, with the rest below; and so on and so forth.

Since this does not happen, then it is better to declare that Islam is different, and that we should not mix Islamic rituals with the rituals of other religions, as Surah al Kafirun clearly proclaims.  At the same time, we have to accept the fact that people of other religions have the right to exercise theirs, as numerous Quranic verses and Prophetic Traditions allude to.

Notes:

1.     Said bin Mina (the freed slave of Abul Bakhtari) has related that Walid bin Mughirah, Aas bin Wail, Aswad bin al-Muttalib and Umayyah bin Khalaf met the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said to him: "O Muhammad, let us agree that we would worship your God and you would worship our gods, and we would make you a partner in all our works. If what you have brought was better than what we possess, we would be partners in it with you, and have our share in it, and if what we possess is better than what you have brought, you would be partner in it with us and have your share of it."At this Allah sent down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hisham also has related this incident in the Sirah) [from Ala Maudoodi’s Tafhim al Quran].

2.     Those interested may go to this “Slice Cat” Series: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

3.     Go herefor Professor Kamali’s “clearly vague” discourse on Quranic Perspective of Diversity and Pluralism.

The Four Quls: Surah al Kafirun Is About Non-Compromised, Not Tolerance (1/2)

It is amazing how one can look at something and see the total opposite.

It is not amazing if “this something” is the picture designed for optical illusion.  Many of us would have seen a picture that, depending on our focus, depicts both an old lady and a young woman.  In this regard, one particular picture that I like is the one whereby, if we look at close range, it shows Albert Einstein, and if we look from a farther distance, it shows Marilyn Monroe.

But when one looks at a certain verse or chapter in the Quran, which clearly tries to convey something, and yet interprets the message in its complete opposite, I am at a loss at how this illusion is called.  Perhaps this is some kind of mental illusion, whereby one’s mind appears to be deluded by some preconceived ideas.

One particular case is Surah al Kafirun, the first of the Four Quls.

This Surah, as mentioned in the Introductory Remarks, is among the last chapters in the Quran.  As Quran has 114 chapters, this Surah, numbered 109, is placed as the last sixth.  Also as mentioned in the same entry above, al Kafirun is among the short Surah, like the other Four Quls.

Reading this short Surah, one would notice the repetitious proclamation of a certain idea.  The idea is that the believers and the disbelievers do not share similar “object” of worship.  The Muslims are asked to proclaim to the disbelievers that they do not worship what the disbelievers worship, vice versa; and the Muslims are not going to worship what the disbelievers worship, vice versa.  The Surah concludes with a verse: “For you is your religion, and for me, my religion.”

In six short sentences, the unequivocal idea is put forward that the believers and the disbelievers are not on the same path as far as faith or the “object” of worship is concerned, and that each is threading on a different way of life (which is what Deen, the exact word used in the last verse, means).

Amazingly, taking the last verse, “for you is your religion, and for me, my religion,” many people, both Muslims and their counterparts, say that this verse points to Islamic religious tolerance.  More amazingly, some, in particular Professor Hashim Kamali, go as far as saying that this Surah proves the validity of Religious Pluralism, the idea that all religions are true, all are seeking salvation,  and that all are leading to the Truth¹. 

That Islam recognizes the right of others to exercise their own religions is well known.  Numerous Quranic verses and ahadith (Traditions) point to this fact. And that Islam also forbids forced conversion to Islam is also well known, for the Quran declares that “there shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion (2:256).”

But to surmise that Surah al Kafirun is about religious tolerance, and to use it as a basis to prove Islam’s recognition of Religious Pluralism is, at best, out of place, and, at worst, suggests a sinister motive.

The concept that all religions are true, and that all are leading to the Truth, in itself, is unIslamic.  Quran already states it unequivocally that: “indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (3:19); and that “whoever seeks other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from Him” (3:85)”; and that “this day I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour to you, and have approved for you Islam as Religion” (5:3).

Most amazingly, Kamali also quoted those three verses to commence his piece on Religious Pluralism, but end up with a completely opposite conclusion.

I make no pretence of being an equal to Professor Kamali, for he is an erudite scholar, while I am but a learner.  Yet, even a soft spoken and mild scholar, known for his moderate views, such as Professor Uthman El-Muhammady, finds Kamali’s thesis distasteful.²  A scholar noted for his more stringent view such as al Maudoodi would have taken Kamali to task.  To use Surah al Kafirun even as the basis for religious tolerance is already distasteful to him³, what more to use it as a basis for Islam’s recognition of Religious Pluralism.⁴

It is imperative that Quranic verses have to be understood within their contexts.  Taking a particular verse in isolation and proceeding with “too liberal” an interpretation is dangerous.  Such is generally the route taken by the enemies of Islam, of which Professor Kamali is not. 

For instance, in order to claim that Islam promotes terrorism, the enemies of Islam are fond of quoting the following verses: “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (2:191); “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood” (9:123); “When the sacred months have passed, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (9:5); “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam” (5:33); “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water...and melt their skin and bellies”  (22:19); “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels... behead them when you catch them” (47:4).

None of those represents Islamic teachings, but taking the Quranic verses out of contexts, the enemies of Islam would quote these, and many other verses, to prove their point that Islam is a religion that promotes terrorism, and that there is no such thing as Islam being a moderate Religion, for Quran itself teaches killing the infidels.

It is not the place here to talk about the nitty gritty of Religious Pluralism, nor about Islam vs Terrorism.  The point is simply to note the danger of taking something out of context.

Likewise with Surah al Kafirun.  It has to be understood within its context.  We shall cover that in the next instalment, insyaAllah.

Stay tuned.

Notes:

1. Professor Kamali’s article appears in the New Straits Time (NST) on 8 February 2011 and may be accessed below, but as far as I can recall, this is only a portion of what he wrote in the NST:

http://xinniralubayna.blogspot.com/2011/02/pluralisme-agama-episod-2-islams.html

2.  Professor El-Muhammady’s rebuttal may be accessed below.  This soft spoken and extremely polite scholar, a well known figure in Malaysia, is at pain to conceal his distaste to Kamali’s thesis (at least that is the impression I gather):

http://traditionalislamblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/prof-hashim-kamali%E2%80%99s-religious-pluralism-reconsidered/

3.  In case one is interested, this is what al Maudoodi says concerning using Surah al Kafirun as the argument for religious tolerance:

“If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity.”

http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/109/index.html

4. Religious Pluralism is commonly defined as the idea that all religions are true, all are seeking salvation and all are leading to the Truth, but Kamali makes it rather complicated.  Perhaps to make the concept palatable to his arguments.  Those interested with what he says may go to:

http://karamah.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Diversity-and-Pluralism1.pdf

  

The Four Quls: Introductory Remarks

Many houses in Malaysia hang the “Four Quls.” 

Qul is Arabic for “say.”  The Four Quls, however, are not the four sayings, but rather the four surahs (chapters) in the Quran starting with the word “qul.”  They are, in the order of chapters in the Quran: (1) al Kafirun; (2) al Ikhlas; (3) al Alaq; and (4) an Naas.

Three of them are the last chapters in the Quran, with an Naas being the last, al Alaq the second last, and al Ikhlas the third last.  Al Kafirun is not much further, being the sixth last chapter.

They are also among the most oft-recited verses or chapters by the Muslims in their salah (prayer).  Two of them, al Kafirun and al Ikhlas, most certainly are.  When the Muslims pray alone, or when they pray Sunnah prayers (as opposed to the five obligatory prayers), these are the optional recitations they often recite after the obligatory al Fatihah.

All the chapters are short, but their virtues and standings are great.  Two of these are most prominent: al Ikhlas is considered one third of the Quran while al Kafirun is one quarter.  This does not mean, however, that if one were to read these two chapters, one is already reading 7/12, or more than half, of the Quran. 

Their virtues are not arithmetic.   What it means is that they constitute the core of the Quran, whereas other verses are detail explanations to this core.

Or, as someone asked Abû al-Abbâs b. Surayj about the meaning of the Prophet’s saying that Surah al Ikhlas equals a third of the Qur’ân, he replied:

The meaning of this is that Allah sent the Qur’ân in three parts: a third of it is comprised of legal rulings, a third is comprised of exhortations of promises and warnings, and a third is comprised of discussing Allah’s names and attributes. This chapter [al Ikhlas] brings together within it those names and attributes.  [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (17/103)]

Whatever explanation may be given, the virtues of these two chapters are great, for the Prophet himself has stated them in authentic ahadith (Traditions).  It is no wonder, therefore, that these two are oft-recited chapters, second only to al Fatihah, whose recitation is obligatory in prayers, without which one’s prayer is invalid.

While the first two of these Four Quls are often recited during the prayers, the remaining two are oft-recited as well, but for different reason.  These last two, al Alaq and an Naas, are known as verses for seeking protection.  The former is to seek protection from black magic (sihr), while the latter is to seek protection from the conspiracy of the devils, be they of genie or mankind.

There are at least two interesting points about these last two chapters, known as Mu'awwidhatayn (the two surahs in which refuge with Allah has been sought). 

The first is that they are so closely related in terms of style and subject matter, and are said to be revealed together at once.  Thus, although they are separated into two chapters and given different names, some consider them as if they are one chapter.

The second is that Ibnu Mas’ud, one of the foremost authorities on Quran among the Companions, was alleged to be saying that they are not part of the Quran.  The Orientalists have a field day about this.  Since a companion of Ibnu Mas’ud stature claimed these chapters not to be part of the Quran, the whole authenticity of the Quran is therefore a matter of conjecture.  Their intent, of course, is to denigrate the status of Quran to the level of their Bible.

We shall talk about these issues later in the series.  Suffice to say here that even the foremost authority can make mistake, as was the case with Ibnu Mas’ud, who later repented when he realized his error.

There is also an interesting point about Surah al Kafirun.  It is used by some people to convey the tolerance in Islam, while the subject matter clearly indicates otherwise.  Some people, even among Muslims and by scholars no less, go as far as saying that this chapter indicates that Islam accepts pluralism, which is contradictory to the essence of Islam itself.  We shall talk about it later in this series.

For this introductory remarks, suffice to say that Muslims in the main take their Quran, as a sacred book if not its teachings, very seriously.  It is unthinkable for them to make fun of it, as the Christians do with their Bible. 

Many memorize the whole Quran by heart, which is not an easy job no doubt, especially to those who do not even understand Arabic.  They recite it every day in their prayers, although most of them would just recite the short chapters or verses, and do not even know the meanings.

Some even hang selected verses on the wall to get the blessing, or as part of the decoration, with the Verse of the Throne (Ayat al Kursi) easily passes as the most prominent.  The Four Quls is also prominent, being hanged in many houses. 

But among those who hang the Four Quls on the wall, I suspect few indeed who know about the stories behind these chapters, or some of the controversies surrounding them.  Many probably do not even understand properly what these chapters are all about.

As for me, I have memorized these Four Quls even before my parent taught me how to recite the Quran.  I am sure I am not alone here.   These four chapters are so oft-recited in the prayer halls, mosques and houses that their verses get imprinted in a child’s heart.

But it is only a decade or so ago that I learned the finer points about the Four Quls, and I hope to share them with you.

Stay tuned.