CHARACTERISTICS OF
ABD
AL - WAH H A B S F U N D A M E NTAL I S M
propagate and defend the faith, and so on. He devoted his life to teaching
those fundamentals, explaining them, arguing for them, urging people to
believe in and act on them, and rebutting objections to them.
c. He started one of the strongest, if not the strongest, modern Islamic
movements that ultimately even had to engage in war with its opponents.
d. Though his movement succeeded more than any other Islamic
movement in modern times in achieving its goals in the land which was its
field of activity, and though the movement which he started is to this day
making good headway among Muslims worldwide, it is nevertheless still
rejected by many as a dangerous aberration from the Islam with which
they are familiar. But to be rejected by some adherents of the religion to
which it belongs is a hallmark of a truly fundamentalist movement.
e. His interpretation of sacred texts, especially in relation to divine
attributes, is that which is called literal.
f. He was very much aware of the fact that he was not a mere preacher or
arm-chair scholar but the leader of a movement that sought to effect a real
change in society, and that, though the dissemination of knowledge was a
first step and necessary condition for that change, it was not enough. Like
all practical social reformers he was convinced of the necessity of power
for the realization of the goals which he advocated. Though he had
followers, he did not organize them in the form of modern-day activist
societies or political parties. He sought that power instead in the support of
tribal chiefs, who were the counterparts of todays heads of state. One of
them, Muhammad Ibn Saud, the ruler of Diriya, accepted his teachings
and promised to implement the Shariah and defend the movement, thus
laying the foundation of the state that was later to be known as the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
g. Todays fundamentalism, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, is
characterized, as we saw, by its rejection of Western secularism. But Ibn
Abd Al-Wahhab did not face that problem. Western civilization, for him
was non existent. He was not, in fact, concerned even with other parts of
the Arab or Muslim world. His was a very local movement. But he
nevertheless faced a secularism of another brand, which he
called jahiliyyah. Jahiliyyah, literally ignorance, is the Islamic term for
any system of social life which is based on human ideas and whims, and
not on divine guidance. The governance of those tribal chiefs was jahili, or
secular, because they did not implement Islamic law.
For example, resort to deception to deprive females of their legitimate
shares of inheritance, was widespread among their subjects, but none of
them prohibited it or punished those who did it; the Islamic penal code was
not applied. Thus, when Abd Al-Wahhab ordered the Islamic punishment
to be applied to a woman who confessed to committing adultery, there was
an uproar among those chiefs, so much so that a powerful one of them
threatened the chief in whose territory that punishment took place, to
either kill the sheikh who ordered it, banish him, or face the consequences.
He chose to banish him.
h. The mark of a good teacher is to pay close attention to the nature of his
audience, and have the ability to address each type of them in the most
appropriate manner. Ali, the fourth caliph after the Prophet, is reported to
have said, Speak to people in a way they can understand. Do you want
them to disbelieve God and His Prophet ?[4] Abd Al-Wahhab heeded
that advice to the maximum, and had the ability to put it into practice.
Thus, whenever he wrote to scholars outside his Bedouin community, in
Iraq, say, he would use classical Arabic of a high quality; but when he
addressed his own people, even in writing, he would use very simple
language, and would not even hesitate to use colloquial words and
expressions.
This persistent attention to the importance of conveying his message in a
manner appropriate to his audience comes out very clearly in the fact that
though he had the highest respect for a man like Ibn Taymiyyah, and
though he very often quoted him extensively, his style was very different
from his. Ibn Taymiyyah had lived in Damascus at a time when it was
teeming with philosophers, philosophical theologians, Sufis, Christian and
Jewish scholars, scientists, and so on.
But Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab lived in a simple cultural milieu where there was
no such erudition. He therefore steered clear of Ibn Taymiyyahs style.
While Ibn Taymiyyah resorted to elaborate, and in many cases rational,
arguments to buttress and defend Quranic teachings on theological
matters, Abd Al-Wahhab was mostly content with religious evidence. He
avoided the subject of philosophical theology altogether. With the
Every Muslim says la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammadur rasulu Allah. This
witnessing of the fact that there is no deity worthy of worship except God,
is the fundamental pillar of the whole edifice of Islam. Abd Al-Wahhab
said that it is not enough to profess this statement verbally; it is not enough
to understand its true meaning, not enough to admit its truth, not enough
even to actually worship none but God: one must add to all this ones
denial of every other object of worship. One must also abstain from any
belief, speech or act which violates ones profession of that belief. But he
realized[5] that the belief of most Muslims of his time with whom he came
in contact, including the ulama (scholars of religion), did not satisfy all
those conditions.[6] Fundamentalists of his persuasion would say the same
about Muslims of our day. To be a true believer in the Islamic sense of the
word, one must:
a. Believe in God as the only creator and sustainer of every thing that
exists. But this was admitted even by the idolatrous Arabs before the
advent of Muhammad, and is accepted by the majority of human beings all
over the world, so by itself this does not make a person a believer in the
sense in which all messengers of God wanted them to be.[7]
b. Believe that no one other than God deserves to be worshipped. To do so,
one has to fulfill two main conditions:
1. Believe that God alone is worthy of worship, which means that it is not
enough to worship Him, but you have to worship none besides Him. This,
he explained, is the core of tawhid, it is the tawhidwhich all messengers of
God advocated and the tawhid over which there was enmity between them
and those who denied it. However, the majority of those who call
themselves Muslims, including the ulama, are ignorant of this and do not
therefore satisfy this condition, i.e., they do worship others besides God.
But those Muslims would indignantly and emphatically deny such an
accusation and insist that they worship none but Allah. The crucial
question then becomes: what does worshipping consist of? Explanation of
this point is a recurring theme of Abd Al-Wahhabs writings. Here are
examples of the feelings and acts which, he explains, are expressions of
worship and which, as such, are Gods, and no one elses due:
i. Love. It is natural for a person to love many people and many things
besides loving God. But he does not become a believer in God if he loves
anything as much as or more than he loves Him. A persons utmost love
must be for God only. The Quran says, There are some people who
associate partners (with God), whom they love as deeply as they love God.
But those who believe love God more deeply (than they love anything
else). Commenting on this verse Abd Al-Wahhab observes that God
stated that they love God as they love those they took as equal to Him,
which means that their love for God was great, but that did not make them
Muslims. What, then, about one who loves a compeer more than He loves
God? And what about the one who loves the compeer only, to the
exclusion of God?[8]
ii. Fear. The Sheikh counts fear among acts of worship,[9] and quotes the
Quran: Do not fear them; fear me [2:150]. But this should not be taken
to mean that one should not fear anything besides God it is impossible to
do so; rather, it should be taken to mean that one should not fear anything
other than God as much as or more than one fears God, because only in
this case would it interfere with ones obedience to God. The Quran itself
says, Surely we will try you with something of fear and hunger, and
diminution of goods and lives and fruits [2:155].[10]
iii. Supplication and invocation. Call on those whom you claimed (to be
gods) apart from Him. They have no power to remove affliction from you
or to transfer it. Those they call upon are themselves seeking the means to
come to their Lord, which of them shall be nearer; they hope for His
Prophet himself says, May God curse anyone who sacrifices to other than
God.[18]
Many of those who venerate saints in any of these or similar ways would
emphatically deny that they are thereby worshipping them. Rather, they
would say, as they used to say at the time of Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, and as
they are still saying, we know that they are not gods, that they do not have
any power independently of Gods, but we turn to them because they have
a special place with God. They are not our gods, but our intermediaries to
God. Abd Al-Wahhab replied by saying that that was exactly the
argument of the idolatrous Arabs. They claimed that they worshipped idols
only so that they bring them nearer and closer to God [39:3].
Remember, says the Sheikh, that the form of shirk committed by the
associationists whom the Prophet battled against was that they made
supplication to God, but also to idols and saints like Jesus and his mother,
and to the angels, saying that they were their intermediaries with God.
They did believe that God, exalted He is, is the One Who benefits and
harms and disposes (of all affairs). God stated this about them in His
saying, Say: Who provides you out of heaven and earth, or who has
power over hearing and sight, and who brings forth the living from the
dead or the dead from the living, and who disposes of affairs? They will
surely say, God' [10:31][19],[20]
ii. Believe that God must be worshipped in the manner prescribed by His
Prophet. Here comes the importance of professing faith in Muhammads
prophethood. The meaning of this profession, according to the Sheikh, is
to obey his orders, to believe what he says, to avoid what he forbids, and
not to worship God except in the way He prescribes.[21]
iii. Believe in the names and attributes which God ascribed to Himself:
To God belong the names most beautiful; so call Him by them, and leave
those who blaspheme His names [7:180].[22] A true believer is, therefore,
one who takes these names and attributes as they are, without likening
them to the attributes of created things (otherwise one would be an
anthropomorphist), and without explaining them away as being only
metaphorical, which amounts to denying them.[23]
sent down to you from your lord, otherwise you will not be conveying His
Message [5:67].
This normal method of interpreting texts, which is said to be literalist,
should not be confused with another method that is also sometimes
described as literal, and which is indeed an irrational method. This is when
the interpreter isolates the speakers or writers words from their context,
especially in idiomatic phrases, or when he pays no attention to the special
uses of words or phrases by a certain speaker or a certain community. But
fundamentalists are not usually accused of this kind of literalism, since
their main aim is to understand what is really meant by the words which
they take to be words of God or of one of His true prophets. As a matter of
fact, it is so-called liberals who resort to this kind of irrational
interpretation.
B . AR A BI S M .
some who tells you that the hijab (womens Islamic dress, covering the
head and the body) is an Arab custom, and not an Islamic requirement.
T HE WAH HA BI MO VE MEN T TOD AY
[5] Unless otherwise indicated, the source of all quotes from the Sheikhs writings is volume 1 of the
collection of his works, called, Mualafat al-Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, Imam
Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh,
[6] p. 399.
[7] p. 200.
[8] p. 25.
[9] p. 189.
[10] A.J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted, George Allen and Unwin, 1955.
[11] Arberry, (with minor changes).
[12] op. cit., p. 25.
[13] loc. cit.
[14] It is for this reason that in Saudi Arabia the oath of allegiance is foumulated in a way that takes
account of this important Islamic fact: I pledge allegiance to God, then to my king and my country,
and to obey my superiors, except in matters of disobedience (to God).
[15] 5:44.
[16] p. 377f.
[17] 108:2.
[18] p. 35.
[19] Arberry and A. Y. Ali, The Holy Quran, English Translation of the Meanings and
Commentary (with minor changes).
[20] p. 398f.
[21] p. 190.
[22] Arberry.
[23] Al-Shaykh Sulayman Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab,Taysir al-Aziz alHamid fi Sharhi Kitabi al-Tawhid. Al-Maktab al-Islami, Beirut, 1988, pp. 636, 645ff
also practiced it. The Queen of Sheba was, according to the Quran, in the
habit of never making a decision without consulting her chieftains.
What is democracy?
What is democracy? The usual definition is rule, kratos, by the
people, demos. On the face of it, then, democracy has nothing to do with
shoora. But once we ask: How do the people rule? we begin to see the
connection.
Ruling implies ruling over someone or some group, and if all the people
rule, over whom is it that they rule? (Barry, 208)
The answer on which almost all democracy theorists are agreed is that
what is meant by rule here is that they make basic decisions on matters of
public policy. How do they make those decisions? Ideally by discussion
and deliberation in face-to-face meetings of the people, as was the case in
Athens.
Similarities
Democracy, then, has also to do with decisions taken after deliberation.
But this is what an Arab would have described as shoora. It might be
thought that there still seem to be some differences between shoora and
democracy, because the latter seems to be confined to political matters.
But the concept of democracy can easily be extended to other aspects of
life, because a people who choose to give the power of decision-making
on political matters to the whole population, should not hesitate to give
similar power to individuals who form a smaller organization, if the matter
is of interest to each one of them. The concept of democracy can be and is,
therefore, extended to include such groups as political parties, charitable
organizations and trade unions. Thus broadly understood, democracy is
almost identical with shoora. There is thus nothing in the primary or
extended meaning of democracy which makes it intrinsically Western or
secular. If shoora can take a secular form, so can democracy take an
Islamic form.
Islam and secular democracy
Basic differences
What is it that characterizes shoora when it takes an Islamic form, what is
it that characterizes democracy when it takes a secular form, and what are
the differences between these forms, and the similarities, if any? What
would each of them take, if put in the framework of the other? I cannot go
into all the details of this here. Let me concentrate therefore on some of
the vital issues which separate Islam and secularism as world outlooks,
and therefore give democracy and shoora those special forms when placed
within their frameworks.
Let us understand by secularism the belief that religion should not have
anything to do with public policy, and should at most be tolerated only as a
private matter. The first point to realize here is that there is no logical
connection between secularism and democracy. Secularism is as
compatible with despotism and tyranny as it is compatible with
democracy. A people who believe in secularism can therefore without any
violation of it choose to be ruled tyrannically.
Suppose they choose to have a democratic system. Here they have two
choices:
a. They can choose to make the people absolutely supreme, in the sense
that they or their representatives are absolutely free to decide with
majority vote on any issue, or pass or repeal any laws. This form of
democracy is the antithesis of Islam because it puts what it calls the people
in the place of God; in Islam only God has this absolute power of
legislation. Anyone who claims such a right is claiming to be God, and any
one who gives him that right is thereby accepting him as God. But then the
same thing would happen if such a secular community accepted the
principle of shoora, because they would not then exclude any matter from
its domain, and there is nothing in the concept of shoora which makes that
a violation of it.
b. Alternatively those secular people can choose a form of democracy in
which the right of the people to legislate is limited by what is believed by
society to be a higher law to which human law is subordinate and should
not therefore violate. Whether such a democracy is compatible with Islam
or not depends on the nature and scope of the limits, and on what is
believed to be a higher law.
In liberal democracy not even the majority of the whole population has the
right to deprive a minority, even if it be one individual, of what is believed
to be their inalienable human rights. Belief in such rights has nothing to do
with secularism, which is perfectly compatible, as we saw, with a
democracy without limits. There is a basic difference between Islam and
this form of democracy, and there are minor differences, but there are also
similarities.
The basic difference is that in Islam it is Gods law as expressed in the
Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which
people have the right to legislate. No one can be a Muslim who makes, or
freely accepts, or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept,
legislation that is contrary to that Divine law. Examples of such violations
include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality,
usury or interest, and even adoption.
When some Muslims object to democracy and describe it as un-Islamic, it
is these kinds of legislation that they have in mind. A shoora without
restriction or a liberal shoora would, however, be as un-Islamic as a liberal
or an unconstrained democracy. The problem is with secularism or
liberalism, not with democracy, and will not therefore disappear by
adoption of shoora instead of democracy.
Another basic difference, which is a corollary of this, is that unlike liberal
democracy, Islamic shoora is not a political system, because most of the
principles and values according to which society is to be organized, and by
which it should abide, are stated in that higher law. The proper description
of a political system that is based on those principles is that it is Islamic
and not shooraic, because shoora is only one component of it.
This characteristic of Islam made society immune to absolute tyranny and
dictatorship. There have been Muslim rulers who were despotic, but they
were so only in that they were not chosen by the true representatives of the
Muslim people, or that they were not strict in abiding by some of the
Islamic teachings; but none of those who called themselves Muslim rulers
dared, or perhaps even wanted, to abolish the Islamic law.
This emphasis on the law stood in the way of absolute tyranny in another
way. It gave the ulama so much legislative power that it was their word,
and not that of the ruler that was final on many matters. An interesting
section of one of al Bukharis chapters reads: If the ruler makes a decision
that is contrary to that of people of knowledge, his decision is to be
rejected.
Walter Lippman considers it a weakness of democracy that it laid more
emphasis on the origin of government rather than on what it should do. He
says (Rossiter, 1982, p. 21) :
The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of
government rather than the processes and results. The democrat has always
assumed that if political power could be derived in the right way, it would
be beneficent. His whole attention has been on the source of power, since
he is hypnotized by the belief that the great thing is to express the will of
the people, first because expression is the highest interest of man, and
second because the will is instinctively good. But no amount of regulation
at the source of a river will completely control its behavior, and while
democrats have been absorbed in trying to find a good mechanism of
originating social power, that is to say, a good mechanism of voting and
representation, they neglected almost every other interest of men.
Similarities
So much for the basic differences, we now come to the similarities, and
some of the less basic or minor differences.
Islam and liberalism share certain values, basically those which the
concepts of democracy and shoora entail.
In liberal democracy there are rights which individuals have as
individuals, even if they are in a minority. These rights are said to be
inalienable and cannot, therefore, theoretically speaking, be violated, even
by the overwhelming majority of the population. Such violation, even if
embodied in a constitution, makes the government undemocratic, even
tyrannical. One might think that the idea of inalienable rights is not
compatible with the basic concept of democracy as rule of the people,
because if the people choose, by majority vote, to deny some section of
the population some of what the liberals call their human rights, then that
is the rule of the people, and it would thus be undemocratic to not to let it
pass. But on close inspection one can see that this is not so. It is not so
because the concept of democracy entails that of equality. It is because the
people are equal in having the right to express their opinion as to how they
should be ruled that democracy is the rule of the people. But surely
individuals have rights that are more basic than participating in decision
making whether directly or indirectly. To participate they must be alive,
they must be able to express themselves, and so on. There is thus no
contradiction between the concept of democracy or shoora and the idea of
inalienable rights that sets limits on majority rule, because the former is
more basic to democracy than the latter.
Introduction
The idea of Islamizing the sciences, whether they be natural or social,
raises some philosophical and methodological questions which must, in
my view, be settled before any serious program of Islamization can be
carried out.
I shall, in this paper, do no more than give examples of these fundamental
questions, give brief answers to some of them and throw out hints as to
how others can be answered. In doing so I shall do my best to keep as
close as possible to the Quran and the Sunnah, but I cannot claim that
whatever answers I give are the Islamic answers to the questions I raise.
Philosophical Questions
What does it mean to Islamize knowledge?
The elucidation of this question and the answer to it are given in the
following imaginary dialogue between a Western philosopher, call him W,
and a Muslim propounder of the Islamization of knowledge, call him M.
W: Is Islam compatible with all forms of truth?
M: Certainly.
W: Would you agree that if something is known, then it is true, i.e. that
knowledge implies truth?
M: I agree provided that you make a distinction between knowledge and
claims to knowledge and provided that you agree that there are degrees of
truth.
W: I accept the qualifications, but if knowledge implies truth, and truth in
all its forms is compatible with Islam, then knowledge in all its forms is
Islamic. But if this is so, what does it mean then to Islamize knowledge?
How do you make something Islamic which is already so? Or is it your
intention merely to give each form of knowledge an Islamic flavour by
peace be upon him, the Quran likens them to a herd which understands
nothing of what the shepherd tells them but hears only voices[1].
The senses mentioned in the above quoted ayat and in many other ayat of
the Quran, which speak about the acquisition of knowledge, are the most
important senses, hearing and sight. The other senses are mentioned in
other ayat[2]
This illustrates that the Quran recognizes the authority of the senses in
bringing to us knowledge from outside ourselves. This means that
everything which is empirically proved becomes a fact which is un-Islamic
to deny. One cannot therefore be a Muslim and a complete skeptic about
the authority of the senses. We should therefore forget about those doubts
which Al-Ghazali cast on the authority of the senses, and which he himself
never took seriously any way. This does not of course mean that our senses
never err; they do; but it is through them that we discover and rectify those
errors.
What are the sources of our knowledge?
Our knowledge has two main sources: The world and revelation. I must
repeat here that these are sources from which we obtain knowledge and are
not to be confused with our senses and our minds which are our means for
obtaining knowledge from those sources.
The world, as a source of knowledge, can be divided into the following
subsources:
1. The natural or physical world.
2. Our internal states; pain, pleasure, envy, etc.
3. Human beings, as physical objects, as informants, etc.
4. Dreams: As Muslims, we have no doubt about the fact that some
dreams come true and that as such they are sources of knowledge,
but since we human beings -excepting Gods Prophets -can never be
sure about the truth of our dreams, we cannot take them as
independent sources of objective knowledge neither in the field of
religion nor in that of the world, but we may benefit from them
personally.
5. Minds: The mind has three functions.
A. it is a means for acquiring knowledge.
Just as there are scientific ways of ascertaining the truth of our claims to
knowledge of nature or society, there are ways of ascertaining the truth of
religious knowledge. Scientific method is not therefore confined to the socalled empirical procedures followed by the natural or social scientists.
This is as it should be, if our claim is true that the Quran is the word of
Allah and that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is His Prophet, because
given this belief, religious knowledge has objective sources, and hence
there must be objective ways of obtaining it from those sources. It is of
paramount importance for everyone interested in the Islamization of the
social sciences or in the relationship between Islam and the natural
sciences, to be aware of these procedures if he wants to be sure that what
he attributes to Islam is valid or most probably so.
Procedure Of The Islamization Of The Sciences
Equipped with the kind of background knowledge that was our concern in
the first pan of this paper, we can now go to the main business of showing
how our program of Islamizing the sciences can be realized. Here are some
of the steps which we, as an Islamic scientific community, must take to
reach our goal:
1. Accept as true all the empirically or rationally discovered facts
whether they be natural, physical, psychological, social,
mathematical or otherwise, irrespective of who discovered them.
2. Add to this in respective fields and relevant places facts stated in the
Quran and authentic traditions.
3. Research Quran and Sunnah laws under which these facts can be
sub-summed and explained.
4. Discover or develop theories which explain these laws and facts.
5. Beware of the non-Islamic philosophical assumptions and statements
of Western scientists that might come to us in the cloak of scientific
facts or theories
6. Put all these facts, laws and theories in an Islamic framework. This
will enable us to see them in a new light and infer from them new
facts which otherwise would have no relevance within the prevailing
Western materialistic and atheistic framework. The Quran says that
the unbelieving Arabs who passed by the town of Sodom did not
perceive the lesson to be gained from its destruction. Why? Did
they not actually see it, asks the Quran, and it answers, Nay, but
they expected not the resurrection.[3] This shows that a number
of people can be aware of the same empirical facts and yet differ in
the conclusions they draw from them because of the differences in
their world-views.
7. Since we have two sources of knowledge, the world
and wahy (Divine revelation) we must be very clear about the
relationship between them. What should we do if an empirical
statement about the world contradicts a religious statement about it?
Which of the two should we put before the other? Early Muslim
theologians and philosophers made extensive discussions of this
problem. What I take to be the right position can be summarized in
the following points:[4]
A. There can be no contradiction between true statements.
B. Since the world is the creation of God, and religion is the word
of God, genuine empirical statements describing the world,
and authentic religious statements must necessarily be true,
and cannot therefore contradict one another.
C. The contradiction between religious and rational or empirical
statements cannot therefore be real; it is always only apparent,
and it is due either to the fact that what we thought was a
religious statement was not in fact an authentic one (such as a
weak or fabricated hadith) or because the meaning we
attributed to it was not the correct one. Or perhaps because
what we thought was an empirical or rational statement was in
fact not so. But how do we resolve this contradiction even if
we take it to be only apparent?
Since the contradiction is not real, it cannot be between two statements
known for certain to be true. It can therefore be only between two
statements, one of which is known for certain to be true (qati ), and a
statement whose truth is only probable (zanni ) , or between
twozanni statements. If this is so then we should, according to Ibn
Taymiya:
1. Give priority to what is known to be absolutely true. (the qati)
irrespective of whether it is the religious or the rational or empirical.
know for certain that the book we call the Quran contains the words
that Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him,
we know for certain that whatever Allah says is true; we know for
certain concerning some ahadith that the Prophet peace be upon him
uttered them, and we know for certain that whatever the Prophet
peace be upon him said is true. But our knowledge of many of what
we consider to be authentic ahadith is not based on certainty, neither
is our knowledge of the meanings of all the Quranic ayats and
Prophetic traditions. But rationality and prudence demand that we
act upon them. This should not be any cause for misgivings
regarding religious knowledge because the same applies to what we
call scientific knowledge and to the knowledge on which we act in
our daily life. If someone who is not known to be mad enters a
crowded hall and shouts: Fire! Fire! The people surely will not sit by
calmly until his claim is empirically proved.
We should not therefore expect our Islamizised sciences to consist of absolutely true statements. There can be, on the same issue, different Islamic
points of view and different Islamic scientific theories. The one nearest to
Islam will be the one with the stronger evidence behind it. Some Islamic
theories or views advanced by honest, learned and intelligent Muslim
scientists, and some facts accepted by them as true, can often be proved to
be false. This has happened in the field of purely religious matters whose
sole source is revelation and it will ipso facto happen in the fields of the
worldly sciences.
[1] 2:171
[2] see for example 6:7 for touch, 7:22 for taste, and 12:94 for touch
[3] 25:41
[4] I am here almost paraphrasing Ibn Taymias position, especially in his.
Daru taarudhilaqIi wa-nnaql. edited by Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim.
Riyadh: Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. 1399 AH-I979 AD.
vol. I. pp, 4-8, 78-80, 86-92.
rather it is the agent which brings about the process. Only in this
unscientific and imaginary sense can evolution take the place of God;
otherwise, a believer who accepts the theory of evolution can easily
reconcile it with his belief in God, by saying that that process is itself the
work of the Creator.
There are, on the other hand, atheists who say in a misleading way that
they believe in God; but on inspection, their god turns out to be the god of
the atheists. I am referring here to people like Einstein, who is said by
some to have been a believer, but whose god was in fact not God the
Creator in whom we all believe. Einstein declared that he believed in
Spinozas god, i.e. in a god that is identical with the universe, and who
does not thus interfere from outside in its working. The man who is
thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation,
says Einstein, cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who
interferes in the course of events. [Quoted by Hans Kung, Does God
Exist? Vantage Books, 1981, p. 629]
Thus all atheists are in fact polytheists, or mushriks. A mushrik, according
to Islam, is one who believes in a god or gods besides, or to the exclusion
of, the one true God, or who worships such gods, even if he also worships
the true God. That perhaps is the reason why the Quran never talks about
atheists, but only about mushriks (or polytheists)
Are Muslims and the West bound to clash? Dr Jaafar Sheikh Idris,
professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences,
Washington, gives an answer which supports the idea of peaceful
coexistence.
Is it possible for the inhabitants of our global village to live peacefully
together and reap the fruits of science and technology whose pace of
advancement is ever increasing? Or are their religious, cultural and
civilization differences bound to create clashes and wars among them? The
matter is so important that it behooves Muslim intellectuals and statesmen
to give it serious thought.
Western intellectuals are very much concerned with this question. But they
are by no means agreed on the answer. One view is that the clash between
Western civilization and others is inevitable, nay that it is already under
way. Another view is that the real clash is within Western culture itself.
A third view is that people all over the world are heading toward Western
political liberalism and economic capitalism, and that these systems
constitute the end of history in these respects. A fourth view is that
peaceful coexistence among people of different cultures and civilizations
is possible provided they adopt secular pluralistic democracy.
What is the Islamic standpoint on this important and urgent issue? This
paper is an attempt to give a brief answer to that question. But I am not
speaking here as a social scientist who describes and explains actual
reality; rather I am attempting to describe only theoretically what I
consider to be the Islamic standpoint on this issue in our present
circumstances. And my short answer is that it is a standpoint that is
(In Sontage, Frederick and M. Darrol Bryant, editors, God, the Contemporary Discussion.
The Rose of Sharon Press Inc., New York, 1982. Updated by Dr. Idris. August 2001.)
Prior to the modern age very few people disputed the fact that the
world has a creator. This fact was for them as obvious as a logical truth or
an observed phenomenon. They only differed about the nature of this
creator and about the appropriate attitude people should have towards
Him. But now the very existence of a creator is disputed.
Why? This is not an easy question to answer. However, I tend to
agree with those contemporary writers who trace the origins of modern
atheism in the West to the ideas of some influential Western philosophers,
some of whom were themselves believers. But these believer argued in
such a way as to make people at least doubt , if not reject, some of the
facts belief in which used to be considered of the essence of being
rational .
Good reasons for belief in the Creator, whether they be strictly
rational or otherwise, used to be related to those facts. Belief in God was
based on the fact that there was something in our nature and in the nature
of the world which points to a transcendent Creator whom we should
worship. The claim of the new thinking was that our world is in every
respect a closed system that cannot therefore point to anything outside
itself.
The first step toward this separation of heaven and earth was
perhaps Descartes mechanistic conception of the world in which it is
claimed that it is possible to explain natural phenomena by reference to
matter and motion and their laws. Hume widened the distance between
heaven and earth by claiming that the causal principle by which we make
such explanation of natural phenomena was nothing but observed regular
succession.
but He is not using words describing these qualities in any real sense.
What are we then to understand by such words and expressions when we
use them in relation to God? Nothing, according to the extreme advocates
of this view. This view, though it was not known until about the third
century of Islam, soon became, especially in its milder forms, very
influential and popular among many theologians and educated Muslims. It
is sometimes wrongly assumed to be the only alternative to the first view.
(c) The affirmers view says that when God describes Himself as being
capable of seeing, hearing, etc., He is using these words in a real sense,
because God really sees and hears. He has a real face and real hands. But
since nothing is like Him, His attributes, though real, are not like the
attributes of human beings or any other created things. This is the view of
the early generations of Muslims and of all the great Sunniteulama who
followed in their footsteps. It is, I believe, the view of all believers in their
hours of worship. But it is no longer popular among theologians and
modernist believers. One reason for this, as I have said, is that it is
confused with the anthropomorphist view, which is obviously untenable. It
is this view which I am going to briefly expound and defend against the
second view.
Does God exist ? The extremist advocates of the second view would
refuse to answer in the affirmative, because existence in the real sense is
ascribed, in their view, to natural things only. Since God is not like them
we cannot even describe Him as existent. What is He then? We cannot say
anything positive about Him, they say: we can only say what He is not.
The affirmer says that by refusing to liken Him to any physical existent,
you end up likening Him to non-existents because it is only in reference to
non-existents that we cannot say anything positive.
A contemporary philosopher might think that what the negators are saying
is that it is a categorical mistake to describe God as existent and therefore
it would be equally wrong to describe Him as non-existent. The affirmers
may respond that: we did not say that negators liken God to non-existents
merely because they refused to describe Him as existent, but because of
their argument for doing so, namely, that nothing positive can be said
about God.
Our claim is that this description applies only to non-existents. The
affirmers say, more over that the claim that a category mistake is being
committed must be supported by showing that the nature of the thing to
which a certain attribute is wrongly applied is different in at least one
relevant aspect from the things to which this attribute is rightly applied,
i.e., that they belong to different categories.
But to claim that two things belong to different categories you must
know something positive about each one of them. If the only thing you
know about one of them is that nothing which applies to anything applies
to it in a real sense, you are saying that it belongs to the category of
nothingness.
That is why the famous Imam Ahmad said in replying to
the Jahmiyyah, a very influential school of negators, that a thing which is
not like anything else is not a thing at all.[i] Admittedly, there is a verse
in the Quran which says that Nothing is like Him.[ii] The Jahmiyyah
took this to be a Quranic support for their negativist view, but this verse
does not say that nothing which is said of other things can be said of God,
in any real sense. That is why after saying that Nothing is Like Him, it
goes on to say He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing. All that the verse is
saying is that God is not to be likened to His creation. But you do not
liken Him to them by merely saying that He exists and they exist, or that
He knows and some of created things know. You do so only if you take
His existence to be as ephemeral and dependent as the existence of created
things and that His knowledge is to be as limited as theirs.
The Affirmers second objection to the negators refusal to describe
God as existent is that anyone who takes such a belief seriously cannot
really worship God. How can a person worship, love, fear, turn for
guidance to, depend on, or pray to something about which he cannot say,
even to himself, that it exists? This is not to say that they do not actually
worship God; many of them do, but only at the expense of their theoretical
standpoint.
The third objection is that since as Muslims you read the Quran and
believe in its divine source, what do you understand by expressions which
attribute to God things like knowing, hearing, acting, creating, speaking,
seeing, etc.? Some negators would say that since God is completely
different from anything we know, His real attributes cannot be couched in
human language because human languages are necessarily confined to
things which fall within our sense experience. But since this language is
the only one we understand, God is using it to give us a glimpse of
something which is really beyond our comprehension. The question is
how our human language can succeed in giving us even such a glimpse. If
the words and expressions of our language do not apply to God in any real
sense, then they cannot convey to us anything about Him. And in that
case, God would be revealing to us a mere string of words which have no
meaning. But no one who really believes in God would attribute to Him
such a folly. On the other hand, if they do convey to us even a glimpse,
there must be a relationship between them and the real attribute of God.
Other negators would acknowledge the existence of such a relation, but
would say that the words are used in their metaphorical and not in their
real sense. For example, when it is said in the Quran of God that He sees
or hears, what is meant is that He knows,[iii] because seeing and hearing
in their real senses apply to animals only. There are three objections to
this view.
(a) It can easily be shown that to see is linguistically different from to
hear, and both are different from, though related to, knowing.[iv]
(b) If it is claimed that all the words of our language are used in the
metaphorical sense when they apply to God, this would lead either to an
infinite regress or an impasse. If every word or expression in our language
had a metaphorical sense, then once a word, say X, is used in a sacred
book to describe God, we must look for its metaphorical sense, but that
metaphorical sense must be expressed in yet other words whose
metaphorical senses are expressed in other words and so on, ad infinitum.
But if you stop the regress by giving some words their real meanings, you
violate your principle.
(c) If the claim is that this applies to some and not all words and
expressions describing God, then a valid argument must be given to the
difference between the two. But no such argument exists. The truth is that,
as Ibn Taymiyyah showed clearly in his ar-risalatu attadmuriyyah, whatever is said of some Divine attributes can be said of the
others, as we will presently show.
This leads us to a milder version of negationism. Propounders of this
milder version are ready to attribute to God things like existence,
knowledge, life, power, will, seeing and hearing in their real sense, but
would take as metaphorical attributes such as love, pleasure, anger and
hate. The reply to a person who makes such a distinction between these
two classes of attributes affirming the former and denying the latter is
to say there is no difference between what you affirmed and what you
denied. What applies to one of them does indeed apply to the other. If you
say that His will is like the will of human beings, so also would be His
love and pleasure. But this is anthropomorphism. But if you say that He
has a will that suits Him just as a human being has a will that suits him, it
will be said to you: He also has a love that suits Him, and an anger that
suits Him; and the human being has an anger that suits him.[v] If one
interprets things like love, hate and anger in an anthropmorhistic way, we
say that the same can be said about will, knowledge and power.[vi]
People like Ibn Taymiyyah, the author of the above quotations, are
often mistakenly described by their opponents and by some modern
scholars as being literalists, or even worse, anthropomorhists. Those who
say this assume that the only alternative to negationism or allegoricalism is
literalism or anthropomorphism.
But it is clear from Ibn Taymiyyahs statement that when he affirms
that God loves or hates in a real sense and not in a metaphorical sense, he
is not, thereby, likening Him to human beings. He rejects the view that
language cannot be used in a real sense except when it applies to created
things. He thinks that some descriptive words have general meanings
which as abstract meanings do not apply to anything in particular, whether
it be human or divine. But when they are used to describe a particular,
then they describe something which is peculiar to the particular in
question.[vii]
For example, if we describe two persons, X and Y, as learned, the
connotation of learned when it applies to X is not the same as its
connotation when it applies to Y. Does this mean that all words are
equivocal? No, by no means. Ibn Taymiyyah thinks that though the
referents are different, the word has an abstract meaning that is common to
both referents. This, he thinks, applies even in the case of God. When we
describe Him as loving, for example, we are not likening Him to Human
beings, i.e., we are not saying that he loves in the same way as humans
love. It is wrong, he insists, to think that the real meanings of such words
are their meanings when they apply to human beings. Descriptive words,
as such, are neutral. They take their specific forms according to the
particulars which they describe. And just as there are differences between
particular created things, there are differences and greater ones
between God and the world of created things.
How do we know about the attributes of God? According to the
school of Ahl as-Sunnah, also called the people of affirmation, some of
the Divine attributes can be known by reason alone, though most of them
are known by revelation also. Other attributes of God are not known
God, there is no God but He, the Living, the Everlasting, slumber seizes
Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the Heavens and the
earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He
knows what lies before them and what lies after them, and they
comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His
throne comprises the heavens and the earth; the preserving of them
oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious.[xiv]
[1] By person I do not of course mean that God is a human or like a human
person. Person is used here in the general sense of an actual existent with
definite characteristics in contradistiction to an abstract idea. Allah is
described in some ahadith of the Prophet as being that and as having
a shakhs (personality)
[i] Imam Ahamd, ar-rad ala-az-zanadigati wa-ljahmiyyah, p.68.
[ii] The Quran ayah (verse) 11: Surah (Chapter) 42.
[iii] See Ibn Qurtayba, Kitab al-ikhtilaf fil-lafaz ar-rad ala-ljahmiyya
Wa-l-mushabbiha, in the collection, Aqaid as-salaf, ed. Ali Sami
Nashshar and Ammar JamI Talibi (Alexandria, 1971), p.233.
[iv] Ibid. p. 233.
[v] Ibn Taymiyyah, op. cit., p. 21.
[vi] Ibid., p. 22.
[vii] Ibid., p. 80.
[viii] V.I. Lenin, Materialism and Empiro-Criticism (Moscow: Foreign
Languages Publ. House, n.d.), pp. 269-70.
[ix] Abu Said Ad-Darimi, Kitab al-rad ala-l-jahmiyyah, AqaidusSalaf and Kitab ar-radi-l-Imami-d-Darimi, Uthman Ibn Said ala-lmarisil-anid, p. 570.
[x] Ibid., p.508.
[xi] Ibid., p. 249.
penetrates into secularism, the fewer such individuals will become, and the
more marginal their influence will be, until the society collectively rebels
against those same innate religious values it used to uphold.
There may be another reason for some traditional Jahili cultures to
maintain innate religious values: they might appeal to their desires, or they
represent their heritage and do not conflict with their desires.
And when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge
between them, Lo! a party of them refuse and turn away. But if the
right is with them they come to Him willingly.[Al-Nur: 48-49].
Their relationship with truth is similar to Satans, as described by the
Prophet (sallallahu alayhe wa sallam) to Abu Hurairah, whom Satan had
advised to recite Ayat al-Kursi when going to bed: He told you the truth,
even though he is an inveterate liar.
Contemporary Western, secular societies are the clearest examples of
the shifting, self-contradictory nature of jahili civilization. From one angle
it views culture and the values it rests upon as a relative, variable
phenomenon. However, from another angle it characterizes some values as
human values, views their violation as shocking, and punishes their
violators severely.
The sources of this problem are two fundamental principles which
democratic secular societies rely upon. The first is majority rule as a
standard for right and wrong in speech and behavior; the second is the
principle of individual freedom. These two principles will necessarily
conflict with each other if they are not subordinated to another principle
that will judge between them.
Secularism, by its very nature, rejects religion, and in its Western
form it does not consider fitrah (innate values) a criterion for what is
beneficial or harmful for humanity. It has no alternative but to make these
two principles an absolute standard for what behavior is permissible and
appropriate, and what isnt.
The contradiction and conflict between these two principles is
showing itself plainly in some of the current hot issues in these societies.
Those who advocate the acceptance of homosexuality and the granting to
avowed homosexuals equal rights and opportunities in every aspect of life,
including military service, base their argument on the principle of
something different from the water or oxygen that we know and deal with
if their nature changes.
The question should not therefore be about whether or not humans have a
nature, or whether or not that nature is changing: it should be about the
kind of qualities that make them the beings they are.
We are all agreed that we have bodies, and that these bodies have a nature
in virtue of which they need for example certain things for their existence.
We are also agreed on the fact that we have certain mental qualities
without which we cannot be the human beings that we are. A being that is
intrinsically unable to think, or will, or know, cannot be a human being
even if it had a body that looked exactly like that of a human, and even if it
had some of the other mental qualities of humans. Thus if genetic
engineering could bring some being like these, we should not say that it
changed the nature of humans, but that it came up with a new being that
has nothing to do with us. Assuming this to happen, it will not abolish
human beings; normal humans will continue to exist and be reproduced in
the natural way they have always been.
The question would then be: is it in our interest, as normal humans, to
allow something like this to happen?
The answer of a believer in God would be an emphatic no! Why? Because
he believes that no being can have a nature that is even equal, let alone
superior, to that of a human being. Anyway, this should be the position of a
Muslim.
Humans, according to Islam, have many qualities that distinguish them
from other creation, but these qualities are not of equal importance. Let us
start with what, according to Islam, is spiritually common to all creation
and then deal with humans as a special creation.
All Creation is Muslim
Every created thing worships its Lord; each according to its special
makeup. The Quran gives us some details of this worshipping that is
common to all creation.
Submission. (Islam)
003.083 Seek they other than the religion of God, when to Him
submit (aslama) whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly
or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned.
Glorification
59:1 All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifies
God.
Prostration.
022.018 Have you not seen that to God prostrate whosoever is in the
heavens and whosoever is in the earth, and the sun, and the moon, and the
stars, and the hills, and the trees, and the beasts, and many of mankind,
Obedience.
030.026 To Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth.
All
are obedient to Him
Humans, a Special Creation
Human beings are a special creation; but they are no exception to the
fact that their essence is that of being servants of God. They are however
distinguished from all other creation by certain qualities that make them
the special beings they are with a degree above other created things.
First, Adam, the father of all human beings was created in a special way.
God tells us that He created him with his own hands (38:75 )
Second, He told the angels to prostrate themselves to him once he was
created (2:34)
Third, He breathed into him a spirit (called in Arabic rooh) with which He
did not endow any other animal. (38:71-2 )
Fourth, He made all that is on the earth subservient to humans:
002.029 He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth
Fifth, He endowed them with dignity:
017.070 Verily we have honored the Children of Adam. We carry
them on the land and the sea, and have made provision of good
things for them, and have preferred them above many of those whom
We created with a marked preferment.
Sixth, He taught him what the Quran calls the names of things in virtue of
which he became more knowledgeable than the angels:
002.031 And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to
the angels,saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if you are
truthful.
002.032 They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that
which You have taught us. Lo! You, only You are the Knower, the
Wise.
002.033 He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he
had
informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know
the
secret of the heavens and the earth ? And I know that which you
disclose
and which you hide.
It seems from this that no external factor can change or corrupt the human
soul and deprive it of some or all of its good qualities. Only the person
himself can corrupt himself by his willful acts.
is however encouraged and even ordered to care for animals and show
mercy towards them. The Prophet tells us of a prostitute whom God
forgave and even caused to enter paradise because she descended into a
well and brought water in her shoes to quench the thirst of an almost dying
dog. He tells us on the other hand of a woman who went to hell-fire
because she kept a cat that she neither fed nor allowed to seek food for
itself. Animal bodies are not to be maimed, neither are their faces to be
branded. When the Prophet saw a brand on the face of a donkey, he cursed
the person who branded it.
Genetic Engineering
There are in Islam, some general principles that help to guide us in our
dealings with Gods creation, and that can thus help us in the position we
take regarding genetic engineering. These include the fact that
1. Everything God creates He creates in the best of ways.(32:7)
2. All of Gods creation around us is created to serve human beings.
3. This creation should not therefore be altered.
4. There are close relations and links not only among the constituents
of an individual creation, but also among all creation
5. Experience tells us that the results of all such alterations have been
harmful.
You might say that we do, we have to, till the land, plant crops, kill
animals, dig wells and canals, build bridges, and so on. Yes indeed but in
doing all this we are working within the natural order not disrupting it. We
do the same when we fix something that goes wrong; we seek cures for
our ailments and the ailments of our animals; we might to that end even
have to cut off some parts of our bodies. This is because though God
creation is the best, it cannot, in the nature of things, be as perfect as its
Creator is.
Genes should be dealt with in the same way. There is no harm in replacing
genes that are not working properly with better ones. Genetic engineering
should not aim at perfecting nature; it will only distort it.
If the human person, body and soul, is the best of Gods creation, any
tampering with it will only make it worse. We are warned in the Quran of
making any alterations in Gods creation. One reason for this might be the
fact :that there are close relations and links not by only among the
constituents of an individual creation, but also among almost all kinds of
Gods creation.
Genetic engineering should not therefore aim at perfecting nature; it will
only distort it. It should only be resorted to for therapeutic purposes.
As to human cloning there is in my view nothing that justifies it and much
that is against it. The way a human being is naturally reproduced is a way
is a way that is very well connected to nature; it involves sexual urge,
close intimacy between two individuals, growth in the uterus of a natural
mother, love, suckling, caring and the joy of childish behavior; it has
father and mother, brothers and sisters and relatives. But a cloned being
lacks many of these qualities and relations.
What kind of a creature is that going to be? And what is the need for it?
Isnt it really odd that while we try to control natural birth, we encourage
un-natural production of creatures that, to say the least, lack some of the
qualities of naturally reproduced humans?
Introduction
The pillars of Faith, Iman, enumerated in many verses of the Quran and
sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, are belief in God,
in Gods Angels, His Books, His Messengers, in the Hereafter and
in Qadar (Destiny).
These are familiar terms; but the non-Muslim reader would be
mistaken if he thought that the Islamic concepts designated by them are
the same as those of other religions and philosophies. It is hoped that the
following exposition, which is itself made in the light of the Quran and
the sayings of the Prophet, will make this point clear. It will also make
clear the fact that the Islamic concept of faith itself is, in many ways,
different from the popular Western one.
In the West faith is usually contrasted to reason and knowledge. But
according to the Quran true faith is that which is based on knowledge and
supported by argument. Any belief which is not so based and supported is
considered by the Quran to be mere caprice and whim which a thinking
person must avoid. True faith can therefore be gained through reflection
and the acquisition of knowledge, and not by blind and irrational
commitment. A person armed with such an enlightened faith can enter with
great confidence into rational discussion with people who do not share his
beliefs with the hope of showing them their mistakes and weaknesses and
winning them over to truth. If this paper helps to take the reader a step in
that direction it will have achieved its purpose, and all praise is due to
God.
BELIEF IN GOD
Muhammad, peace be upon him, was sent to invite people to God and to
teach them how to perform the task for which they were created, namely to
worship God. Many of the people whom he addressed had a hazy idea of
God. Some did believe in Him, though they associated other lesser gods
with Him, but a few of them were downright atheists, or materialists,
whose creed was, we live and we die and nothing causes our death except
Time. [Jathiya XLV: 24] Before inviting such atheists to God one must
first convince them that there is such being. What reason do you have for
believing that there is a God? This, logically, is the first question which a
theistic view of life should address itself to. The Quranic answer to it is
given in the following words:
. . were they created out of nothing? Or were they the creator (of
themselves) or did they create the heavens and earth. [Tur, Lll: 36]
The Quran is here saying that for everything like man that has a
beginning in time, there are only three ways of explaining how it came to
be.
a.
Either it is created, or made, or caused by nothing at all i.e. it
came out of nothing.
b.
c.
borne out in the case of these Quranic words by a historical event. Jubayr
Ibn Mut`im, until then, a non-Muslim was sent by Quraysh on a mission to
the Muslims at Madina. He says that when he arrived he heard the Prophet,
who was leading the evening prayer, reading Surat al-Tur and when he
reached the foregoing verses my heart was almost rent asunder.] Shortly
after that Jubayr embraced Islam.
Why did this happen to him? Probably because the verse made things clear
to him for the first time. It is inconceivable for something to come out of
or be made by nothing at all, he realized, and it is even more inconceivable
that it should bring itself into being. Hence the only conclusion is that it
must have a creator outside itself.
A thesis is therefore untenable if it means the denial of any maker or cause
whatsoever. But admitting that this is indeed so, one might still wonder
why should that cause or maker or creator be the God to whom
Muhammad was inviting people? Why shouldnt it be one of the many
other gods in whom people believe or why shouldnt it even be the
matter of the materialists? Almost the entire Quran deals with this
question but we shall do our best to give a brief answer which would
provide the reader with the basics of the Quranic position. In a nutshell
the answer is as follows: to explain the coming into being of temporal
things, the creator (or cause or maker) for which we are looking, must
(logically must) have the attribute of the God to whom Muhammad invites
us. How so?
The creator must be of a different nature from the things created because,
if he is of the same nature as they are, he will have to be temporal and
therefore need a maker. It follows that
Nothing is like Him. [Shura, XLII: 11]
If the maker is not temporal then he must be eternal. But if he is eternal, he
cannot be caused, and if nothing causes him to come into existence,
nothing causes him to continue to exist, which means that he must be self
sufficient. And if he does not depend on anything for the continuance of
his existence, then that existence can have no end.
The creator is therefore eternal and everlasting:
He is the first and the last. [Hadid, LVII: 3]
All that dwells upon the earth is perishing, yet still abides the Face of thy
Lord, majestic, splendid. [Rahman, LV: 26-27]
There are two ways in which causes produce their effects. Either they
produce them naturally or intentionally. The maker that has the attributes
we have enumerated cannot be a natural cause. Because if things of this
world flow from Him naturally and spontaneously, they cannot be but of
the same nature as He is. And if like all natural causes He causes only
under certain conditions, then His power is limited. It follows that He must
be a willful agent. But intention implies knowledge and both imply life.
So, that maker must be a living all-knowing agent with a will that is
absolutely free.
Thus God according to the Quran does everything with intention and for a
purpose.
Surely We have created everything in (due) measure. [Qamar, LXIV: 49]
What, did you think that We created you only for sport? [Muminun,
XXIII: 115]
He is absolutely free to do whatever he wills [Hud, Xl: 107] and is aware
of every movement of His creation.
He knows what is in land and sea; not a leaf falls, but He knows it. Not a
grain in the earths shadow, not a thing fresh or withered, but it is in a
Book Manifest. It is He who recalls you by night, and He knows what you
work by day.[Anam, Vl: 59-60]
GOD IS LIVING:
There is no God but He, the living, the everlasting. Slumber seizes Him
not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.
Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave? He knows
what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not
anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His throne comprises
the heavens and earth; the preserving of them oppresses Him not; He is the
All-high, the All-Glorious.[Baqara, II: 255]
God is not only willing and powerful, He is also Just in that He does not
punish a sinner for more than his crime. He is merciful and His mercy, in
the words of the Prophet overcame his punishment. So He does not
punish us for whatever we do, but forgives and erases our sins, and
magnifies and multiplies our good deeds.
The likeness of those who expend their wealth in the way of God is as the
likeness of a grain of corn that sprouts seven ears, in every ear a hundred
grains, so God multiplies unto whom He will; God is All-embracing, Allknowing. [Baqara, Il: 261]
These, and many others which can be arrived at in a similar way, are the
attributes which the true creator must possess. Any other being or object
which is alleged to be a god or an ultimate cause and which necessarily
lacks some of them cannot in actual fact be what it is believed to be. Thus,
having shown clearly what the true God should be like, the Quran goes on
to show why there cannot be any god but He, and reveals the falsity of all
alleged gods.
To the worshipers of man-made objects it says:
Do you worship what you have carved out and God created you and what
you make? [Saffat, XXXVIl: 95]
and
have they taken unto themselves others beside Him who create
nothing, who are themselves created, who cannot protect them, nor can
they protect themselves.
[A`raf, Vll: 191-192]
To the worshipers of heavenly bodies it relates as a reminder the story of
Abraham:
When night outspread over him he saw a star and said, This is my Lord.
But when it set he said, l love not the setters. When he saw the moon
rising, he said, This is my Lord. But when it set he said, If my Lord does
not guide me I shall surely be of the people gone astray. when he saw the
sun rising, he said, This is my Lord; this is greater! But when it set he
said, O my people, surely I am quit of what you associate with God. I
have turned my face to Him who originated the heavens and the earth, a
man of pure faith; I am not of the idolaters. [An`am, Vl: 76-79]
And when, later on, the Prophet comes into contact with the Jews and
Christians, the Quran condemns their belief in the divine nature of
human-beings.
The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God.[1] The Christians say, The
Messiah is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths,
conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they
are perverted. [Tawba, IX: 30]
It tells them that if everything is created by God then it must be His
servant and cannot, therefore be his son, [Maryam, XIX: 88-95].
It then goes on to explain to the Christians the real nature of Jesus.
Truly, the likeness of Jesus in Gods sight is as Adams likeness; He
created him of dust, then said He unto him Be! and he was. [Aal `Imran,
Ill: 59]
For someone to take something as a god, it is not necessary that he should
acknowledge it as such or worship it in a ritualistic way; it is enough for
him to follow its dictates obediently, or devote to it acts or have towards it
feelings which should be devoted to or felt towards God only. There are
many such unacknowledged gods.
Hast thou seen him who has taken his caprice to be his God? Wilt thou be
a guardian over him? [Furqan,] XXV: 43]
They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God,
and the Messiah, Marys son, and they were commanded to serve but one
God.[Tawba, IX: 31]
Thus to be a Muslim i.e.. to surrender oneself to God it is necessary to
believe in the unity of God in the sense of His being the only creator,
preserver and nourisher. But this belief later on called tawhid arrububiyya is not enough. In fact many of the idolaters did know and
believe that it is the supreme God alone who can do all this. But that was
not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyya one must add
tawhid al uluhiyya i.e. one must acknowledge the fact that it is this God
alone who deserves to be worshiped, and therefore abstain from directing
any of ones acts of worship to someone or something else. In the Quran
the argument for tawhid al-uluhiyya is based on tawhid ar-rububiyya i.e. if
it is God alone who creates and controls everything why then and to what
end do you worship others beside Him?
O you men, serve your Lord who created you, and those that were before
you; haply so you will be god-fearing; who assigned to you the earth for a
couch, and heaven for an edifice, and sent down out of heaven water,
wherewith He brought forth fruits for your provision; so set not up rivals
to God wittingly. [al-Baqara, Il: 21-22]
Having known the true God, man is called upon to affirm what he knows
i.e. to believe and have faith in God, and not allow any ulterior motives to
induce him to deny a fact which he knows to be true.
that they who have been given knowledge may know it is the truth
from thy Lord and so believe in it, and thus their hearts become humble
unto him.[Hajj, XXII: 54]
But when our signs came to them visibly, they said, This is a manifest
sorcery; end they denied them, though their souls acknowledged them,
wrongfully and out of pride. [Naml, XXVII: 14]
When faith enters a persons heart, it causes therein certain mental states,
which result in certain apparent actions, both of which are the proof of true
faith.
Foremost among those mental states is the feeling of gratitude towards
God, which could be said to be the essence of ibada (worshiping or
serving God).
This feeling of gratitude is so important that a nonbeliever is
called kafir which means, one who denies a truth and also one who is
ungrateful. One can understand why this is so when one reads in the
Quran that the main motive for denying the existence of God is that of
unjustified pride. Such a proud person feels that it does not become him to
be created or governed by a being whom he must thus acknowledge to be
greater than himself and to whom he must be grateful.
Those who dispute concerning the signs of God without any authority
come to them, in their hearts is only pride that they shall never
attain.[Ghafir, XL: 56]
With the feeling of gratitude goes that of love.
There are some people who take to themselves (for worship) others apart
from God loving them as they should love God: But those who believe,
love God more ardently than they love anything else.[Baqara, Il: 165]
A believer loves and is grateful to God for His bounties, but being aware
of the fact that his good deeds, whether mental or physical, are far from
being commensurate with Divine favors, he is always anxious lest because
of his sins God should withhold from him some of these favors or punish
him in the hereafter. He therefore fears Him, surrenders himself to Him,
and serves Him with great humility.
Your God is one God, so to Him surrender. And give thou good tidings
unto the humble who, when God is mentioned, their hearts quake.[Anfal,
Vll: 2]
One cannot be in such a mental state, without being almost all the time
mindful of God. Remembering God is thus the life-force of faith, without
which it fades and might even wither away.
So,
The faithful are those who remember God, standing and sitting, and on
their sides.[Aal `Imran, Ill: 191]
The Quran therefore prescribes and describes, in great detail ways and
means of helping man to remember God and keep his faith alive. All
Quranic and Prophetic injunctions and prohibitions which extend to all
aspects of human life acts of worship and personal matters, social
relations, political order, etc., etc. are designed to put man in a state
which is conducive to Gods remembrance. The details of this Islamic way
of life were expounded in the Madina period, and we shall not therefore be
concerned with them now. But the main principles of this new order were
already laid down in the Makkan period, and will be summarized at the
end of this chapter.
We shall now go on to deal with the other pillars of faith. These are belief
in life after death, in Gods angels, His books, His messengers and
His qadar, the arguments for all of which are almost entirely based on the
assumption that the audience believes in God.
Their main task, the one from which their name is derived is that of
conveying Gods messages to His chosen prophets. This great honor
is assigned mainly to their leader Gabriel (or Jibril as the name is
pronounced in Arabic).
A noble messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne, secure,
obeyed there (in heaven) and trusty. [Takwir, LXXXI: 19-21]
A Muslim believes that the Quran is the word of God. But it is not the
only word. God sent many prophets before Muhammad and He spoke to
them as He spoke to him. So a Muslim also believes (in fact he would not
be a Muslim if he did not believe) in these earlier books, like the Torah and
the Gospel, since the true believers are those who believe in what has
been sent down to thee (Muhammad) and what has been sent down before
thee [al Baqara, IV: 4].
Say: We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and
sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and
in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the prophets, of their
Lord; we make no division between any of them. [al Baqara, II: 136]
God created men so that they may serve Him. His being a servant of God
constitutes the essence of man. Man cannot therefore attain to his true
humanity and acquire peace of mind unless he realizes this aim for which
he was created. But how can he do this! God, being merciful and Just, has
helped him in many ways. He granted him as we said before an originally
good nature that is inclined to know and serve its true Lord. He granted
him a mind that possesses a moral sense and the ability to reason. He made
the whole universe a natural book full of signs that lead a thinking person
to God. But to make things more specific, to give him more detailed
knowledge of his Lord, and to show him in a more detailed manner how to
serve Him, God has been sending down verbal messages through His
prophets chosen from among men, ever since the creation of man. Hence
the description of these messages in the Quran as guidance, light, signs,
reminders, etc.
All these books advocated basically the same message,
And we sent never a Mesenger before thee except that we revealed to
him, saying, there is no God but I so serve Me.' [Anbiya, XXI: 25]
And the religion which they all expounded is Islam i.e. surrender to God,
The true religion with God is Islam. [Al-`Imran, III:19]
Thus Noah (X:72) Abraham (III: 67), Jacob and his sons (II: 133), the
Apostles (V: 111), etc. were all Muslims.
Islam in this sense is in fact the religion of the universe.
What! do they desire another religion than Gods and to Him has
surrendered (aslama = became a Muslim) whatsoever is in the heavens and
the earth, willingly or unwillingly, anti to Him they shall be returned. [Al`Imran, III:83]
If the religion of all prophets is the same in its essence and basic
foundation, not so are the ways of life based upon it. [Maida, V: 48]
One last important point about books is that with the exception of the
Quran they have not been preserved intact, but have either been
completely lost or else suffered distortion and corruption. As to the Quran
God has decreed that it shall never be subjected to such distortion but shall
be preserved by Him. [Hijr, XV: 9]
Messengers are human beings chosen by God who have the honor of
conveying Gods message to other men and women. Being such a
Messenger is not a position that one attains by any consciously designed
effort. It is a grace from God, but God grants this grace to those who are
deserving of it.
Messengers are not then, like the rank and file of us. True, they are men
but they are men of an extremely high moral, spiritual and intellectual
standard that qualifies themin the eyes of Godto be the bearers of His
light to the world. When God chooses any of them, He supports the
messenger with a clear sign [Hadid, LVII: 25] that proves the truth of his
claim, and distinguishes him from false prophets, sorcerers and
soothsayers [Taghabun, LXIV:41-42], [Taha, XX: 69]. None of them
betrays the message or falls short of being exemplary in practicing what he
preaches. [Hud, XI: 88].
Asked about prophet Muhammads conduct his wife Ayesha said, It was
the Quran, meaning that he embodied all the ideals which the Quran
presents.
Two related points about messengers which the Quran stresses, and which
therefore deserve some elaboration are the humanity of prophets and the
nature of their task.
Despite the vast spiritual, moral and intellectual difference between them
and ordinary men, and despite the special relation with God that they
enjoy, prophets are nonetheless humans with all that this term implies.
They beget and are begotten; they eat and drink and go about in market
plates [Furqan, XXV: 20]; they sleep and they die [Anbiya, XXI: 34]; they
forget and they err [Taha, XX: 121), [Kahf, XVIII: 34].
Their knowledge is limited; and can therefore tell only that part of the
future which God reveals to them [Jin, LXXII: 26-27]. They cannot
intercede with God on behalf of any person except with His permission
[Jin, LXXII: 26-27], and it is not left to them to cause people to go in the
right path [Qasas, XXVIII: 56]. In short, they have no part to play in the
running of the affairs of the universe [Al-lmran, III:128]. Many early
Muslim scholars have observed that to emphasize the humanity of the
Prophet the Quran called him servant of God on the three occasions on
which he was honored.
Blessed be He who has sent down the Salvation [Quran] upon His
servant. [Furqan, XXV: 1]
Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque
to the Further Mosque the precints of which We have blessed, that We
might show him some of Our signs. [Israa, XVII, 1]
When the servant of God stood calling on Him, they were well-nigh upon
him in swarms. [Jinn, LXII:119]
A Prophet whose humanity is specially emphasized is Jesus. He was
created in the same manner as Adam was created, from soil [Al-lmran:
III, 59j; he is the son of Mary not of God [Nisa, IV: 157]; he and his
mother used to eat food IMaida, V: 75]; he is indeed the word of God
[Baqara, II: 45j but since he is a human being in the full sense of the word,
this should not be interpreted to mean that there is a Divine element in
him. He is the word of God only in the sense that God said Be and he
was. But in that sense everything is the word of God. Why then is he in
particular called the word of God! Because, as many scholars have, rightly
explained, he came more directly as a result of this word. Jesus is thus a
loyal servant of God who never claimed that he was in any sense divine.
[Maida, V:116-117]
Messengers are entrusted, we said, with the task of conveying Gods word
to other people. But this is not as simple as it looks. It implies many things
which are not at first sight clear, and which the Quran therefore expounds
and elaborates.
The most important point of which all Messengers are reminded, and
which is very easy to forget or be heedless of, is that since their duty is
only to convey the message they are not responsible for peoples reaction
to it, once they have made it clear to them. God has given man the power
to understand the difference between truth and falsehood, especially in
matters religious, once this has been explained to him. God has also given
him the ability, by reason of his free-will, either to accept or reject this
truth. And since it is only God who knows what goes on in peoples minds,
it is only He who can judge who is worthy of being guided and who
deserves to be left groping in the dark; and it is God who according to this
knowledge guides whom He will and withholds His guidance from Whom
He will. A prophet has no such power, and cannot, therefore, guide whom
he loves. [Qasas, XXVIII: 56].
Then remind them thou are only one who reminds, thou art not charged to
oversee them. [Gashiya, LXXXVIII: 21-22].
He should not, therefore feel sad if people turn away from him, or impute
falsehoods to his message [Anam, VI: 33-34]. But this is a most difficult
rule to abide by. We love to be accepted by the community in which we
live; many of us must have experienced that strange feeling of sadness,
loneliness, and being lost when we come to live as aliens in a new
community. We undergo a similar but more intense feeling, when as a
result of our intellectual convictions we come to hold about life views that
are entirely different from those of our own community. One easy and
usual escape from the psychological and other hardships of such a life is to
live in seclusion from society.
Those who, for some reason cannot afford such a withdrawal, more often
than not, sacrifice intellectual honesty for conformity with their
community. Prophets have of course to live in the midst of the people for
whom they are sent and they do not of course go to the extent of betraying
their message. To have to cling tenaciously to the word of God, and yet
live in the midst of people, is perhaps the greatest difficulty they have to
put up with. This is made evident by the fact that most of the few
occasions on which the Quran expresses Gods disapproval of a certain
line of behavior taken by the Prophet Muhammad are related to his being
so keen to win adherents as to verge on exceeding the desirable limits.
Yet perchance if they believe wilt consume thyself, following not in this
tiding, thou alter them of grief. [Kahf, XVIII: 6].
Indeed they were near to seducing thee from that We revealed to thee,
that thou mightest, forge against Us another, and then they would surely
have taken thee as a friend. And had We not confirmed thee, surely thou
were near to inclining unto them a very little; then would We have let thee
taste the double of life and the double of death; and then thou wouldst
have found none to help thee against Us. [Isra, XVII: 73-74].
does not need to see a person coming to life again. It is enough to see other
dead bodies coming to life.
And of His signs is that thou seest the earth humble; then, when we send
down water upon it, it quivers and swells. Surely He who quickens it is He
who quickens the dead; surely He is powerful over everything. [Fussilat,
XLI: 39]
Was he not a sperm-drop ? Then he was a blood clot, and He created and
formed and He made of him two kinds, male and female. What! is He not
able to quicken the dead? [Qiyama, LXXV: 37-40]
ii. Why is resurrection desirable?
Simply because without it, God would not be the Just and Wise and
merciful God He is. God created men and made them responsible for their
actions; some behaved well but others did not. If there is no future life in
which the virtuous are rewarded and the vicious are punished, there would
be no justice and the creation of men in that way and the sending of
Prophets to them would be to no purpose at all. But this kind of behavior is
not expected of a man known to be rational and just, let alone the Perfect
Creator.
What! does man reckon he shall be left to roam at will! What! did you
think that we created you only for sport and that you would not be returned
to Us? [Muminun, XXIII: 115]
Surely for the God, fearing shall be gardens of bliss with their Lord.
What! shall we make those who have surrendered like to the sinners? What
ails you then, how you judge? [Qaf: LXVIII: 34-36]
We have not created the heavens and earth, and what is between them, for
vanity; such is the thought of the unbelievers. [Sad, XXXVIII: 27]
iii. Is the real and only motive for denying the reality of a life after death
that which is expressed by the arguments which the deniers put forward,
and to which the Quran replies! By no means, says the Quran. The real
motive is often a psychological one. Those who do evil do not wish to be
punished and it is this wishful thinking that leads them to deny the reality
of a time when such punishment shall take place.
Does man reckon We shall not gather his bones! Nay, but man desires to
continue on as a libertine, asking, When shall be the Day of
Resurrection! [Qiyama, LXXV: 3-6] And none cries lies to it (the day of
judgment) but every guilty aggressor. [Mutaffifin, LXXXIII: 12]
A question that is often raised in connection with reward and punishment
in the hereafter and which causes some people to doubt the desirability if
not the truth of such a life is, Do we do what is good because it is good or
for fear of punishment and expectation of reward! If we do it for the
former, then what is the use of believing in the hereafter, and if we do it for
the latter we will not be acting morally. The answer to this question
depends on whether God enjoins us to do an act because it is good, or
whether it is this Divine injunction which makes the action good. And it
seems to me to be very clear that the goodness of an act is logically prior
to its being an object of a Divine injunction. Otherwise it would be a
tautology to say God enjoins what is good because it would only mean
God enjoins what He enjoins. But the Quran abounds in statements like
the former, and it is very clear that they are not intended to be tautological.
The answer to our original question then is that we do what is good
because it is good. But since to give good for good is itself good, there is
no contradiction in saying that one does good because the God whom he
loves and in Whom he puts his trust tells him to do it, and because he
expects to be rewarded by Him for doing it.
According to the Quran God created man in an original nature
-called fitra which possesses what we might call a moral sense, which
enables man to recognize without any external aid certain acts like telling
the truth and being grateful as good, and by reason of which he is inclined
to do good once he comes to know it. True religion is built on the basis of
this original human nature. Religion strengthens nature and brings to
fruition the seeds of virtue that reside in it. That is why Islam is said in the
Quran to be fitrat-Allah and why the Prophet says that he was sent only to
perfect good conduct. The Quran praises those in whom this moral sense
is sharp and condemns those in whom it has become so blunt that the
ugliness of vice becomes in their eyes the model of beauty:
But God has endeared to you belief, decking it fair in your hearts, and He
has made detestable to you unbelief and ungodliness and disobedience.
Those they are the right minded, by Gods favour and blessing, God is Allknowing, All-wise. [Hujurat, XLIX: 7-8]
Say: Shall we tell you who will be the greatest losers in their works.
Those whose striving goes astray in the present life while they think that
they are working good deeds. [Kahf, XVIII: 103-104]
And when he turns his back, he hastens about the earth, to do corruption
there, and to destroy the tillage and the stock; and God loves not
corruption. [Baqara, 11: 205]
So a Muslim does good because he is endeared to it, and eschews vice
because it is detestable to him. But since a Muslim surrenders himself to
God and loves and fears Him, and since God loves virtue and enjoins it
and hates vice and forbids it, he does the former and avoids the latter in
obedience to his Lord. And since those who do good shallin the
hereafterlive a life of bliss, the highest type of which would be the state
of being near to God and enjoying His sight, while those who lead an evil
life shall suffer all kinds of chastisement the most terrible of which shall
be the state of being deprived from that sight, a Muslim would be wise to
always have that future and eternal life in mind and endeavor to do here all
kinds of work that would help to elevate his position there.
Say: Is there any of your associates who guides to the truth? Say: God
-He guides to the truth; and which is worthier to be followed- he who
guides to the truth, or he who guides not unless he is guided? what then
ails you, how you judge? [Yunus, X: 35]
Say. If you love God, follow me and God will love you, and forgive you,
your sins; [Al-`Imran, III:31]
Surely the pious shall be in bliss, upon couches gazing (at their Lord);
thou knowest in their faces the radiancy of bliss as they are given to drink
of a wine sealed, whose seal is musk. So after that let the strivers strive.
[Mutaffifun, LXXXIII: 22-26]
Why should one who did good live in such bliss, one might ask? and the
Prompt Quranic answer is:
Shall the recompense of goodness be other than goodness. [Rahman, LV:
60
BELIEF IN QADAR
The original meaning of the word Qadar is specified measure or amount
whether of quantities or qualities. It has many other usages which branch
out from this core. Thus yuqad-dir means, among other things, to measure
These in resume are the basic truths to which the Prophet Muhammad
invited his people. The best proof -besides the foregoing arguments- of
their being truths, and very important truths for man, is the good effect
which they produce in mans internal state, and thus his outward behavior.
We have already, in dealing with belief in God, pointed to some of the
feelings towards Him, brought about by belief in His existence and His
attributes of perfection. Since mans attitude in relation to his fellowhuman beings is very much connected with his attitude towards God, that
belief in God with resulting feelings towards the Divine, is bound to
produce in mans heart feelings towards other men that are appropriate to
it. And since mans outward behavior regarding God and other men is
generated by his real beliefs about and feelings towards them, it is only to
be expected of true religion to call for a set of behavior that is both a
natural outcome of its set of beliefs and a factor of strengthening them.
The internal state to which Muhammad invited men is called eman (faith
or belief). The external behavior based on it is called Islam. At the Makkan
period he concentrated mostly on the first, without entirely neglecting the
second, which he elaborated at Madina when the first Muslim independent
community was formed. Even at Makkah the Prophet Muhammad was
directed by God to invite people to the following acts of worship and
moral behavior.
1. To keep their faith alive and strengthen it Muslims were told to recite
the Quran and study it carefully, to learn from the Prophet and say as
often as possible, and especially on some specified occasions, certain
prayers, and to perform prayer in the manner which Gabriel demonstrated
to the Prophet. All this is salat in its widest sense.
2. After salat the serving of God, comes zakaat which in its broadest sense
includes any act of service to other men. Being good to men is the fruit
and therefore the proof of the tree of faith. He is not truthful who harms
men and yet claims to believe in and love God.
Hast thou seen him who does not believe in retribution (in the hereafter)?
That is he who repulses the orphan and urges not the feeding of the needy.
So woe to those that pray and are heedless of their prayers, to those who
make display and refuse charity. [Maun, CVII].
Tile first three verses of this Sura were revealed at Makkah and the rest at
Madina. The Madinan verses speak about the hypocrites who perform
outward acts of worship that do not originate from any sincere faith. But
their behavior betrays them, since it is the same as that of the Makkan
professed unbelievers.
Acquisition of wealth for its own sake or so that it may increase the worth
of its collector is condemned. Mere acquisition of wealth counts nothing in
the sight of God. It does not give man any merit whether here or in the
hereafter.
Who gathered riches and counted them over thinking that his riches have
made him immortal. [Humaza, CIV: 2-3].
Those who amassed and hoarded wealth in this life are to he called in
the hereafter by a furnace that scathes away the scalp [Maarij, LXX: 1518]. Wealth for its own sake is among the vices of men which can be
eradicated only by the kind of belief and practices which Muhammad
taught. [Maarij, LXX: 19-27].
Man should acquire wealth with the intention of spending it on his own
needs, and the needs of others. Man, the Prophet tells us, says: My
wealth! My wealth! Have you any wealth except that which you wear and
tear, eat and consume up, give as alms and thus preserve! Wealth should
be spent on the needy (specially if they are parents or relatives), on
orphans and those who ask owl ng to poverty, on the freeing of slaves etc.
The following verses were among the earliest that were addressed to the
Prophet.
As for the orphan, do not oppress him, as for the beggar, scold him not.
[(Dhuha, XCIII: 9-10]
There is on the way to success in the hereafter a steep path that can be
attempted only by one who performs the following deeds:
The freeing of a slave, or giving food upon a day of hunger to an orphan
near of kin or a needy man in misery
And then become of those who believe and council each other to be
steadfast, and counsel each other to be merciful. [Balad, XC: 13-17].
Besides helping his fellowmen in this way man should also be truthful and
honest with them and fulfill his promises to them. [Maarij, LXX: 32-33].
He should not infringe upon their rights especially those of life [LXXX:
83], and of decency. [Maarij, LXX: 29-31].
[1] The reference is here to a Jewish sect who lived in Arabia and who
used to hold such a belief.
knowledge. The religious belief can, however, have such an effect even if
it were false, in which case what the believer sees would not be a
reflection of reality, but a figment of his imagination caused by that false
belief. But beliefs are not things like our brains which we cannot do
anything about. If our religious beliefs cannot condemn us to see the facts
differently, no other elements of our culture can. But all of this is a far cry
from the extreme relativistic claim which makes us live in different worlds
among which there can be no communication, and no commensurable
standards.
The statement truth is relative suffers from the paradox of self-reference:
if it is true that truth is relative, then the statement truth is relative is
itself relative. But if truth is relative is not relative then it is false,
because there is at least one truth that is not relative, namely, truth is
relative.
Also, if it were true that every human society is locked up in a cultural
compartment which makes it impossible for it to see truth except through
its own windows, then it would be impossible for anyone to know that the
truth is relative. To know this one must be able to have a trans-cultural
vantage point which enables one to see how different cultures or contexts
determine the way that one sees reality, whether it be the reality of spatiotemporal things or the reality of meanings. The very fact that we are able
to communicate with people who differ with us culturally, and even
translate what they say into our own language, is itself a proof that truth is
not relative in any absolute sense.
The best evidence against relativism is the very activity of
anthropologists, while the best evidence for relativism [is] in the writings
of anthropologists In retracing their steps [in their works],
anthropologists transform into unfathomable gaps the shallow and
irregular cultural boundaries they had not found so difficult to cross [in the
field], thereby protecting their own sense of identity, and providing their
philosophical and lay audience with just what they want to hear. [Sperber,
Rationality: 180, as quoted by Geertz in Relativism:29]
Belief in relativism is sometimes seen as a means of justifying and
encouraging tolerance towards other cultures. The motive behind the
belief can be commendable, but the fact remains that if relativism is taken
to its logical conclusions, it will breed nothing but intolerance. If what is
true or right or beautiful is determined for me by my cultural environment,
then I cannot help but see that which is different from mine as false or
angels exist.) After deciding that the language of science must be literally
understood, we can still say there is no need to believe good theories to be
true, nor to believe ipso facto that the entities they postulate are real.
[Image: 11]
If you really believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you should try
to do your best to find out what God is saying. The last book you would be
inclined to tamper with is a book which you believe contains Gods word.
If, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion that it is not, or not every
word in it is, the word of God, then you should leave those expressions
which you do not approve of as they are and declare your unbelief in them.
You cannot with any honesty attribute to God words which you know to be
your own.
As to the Quran, literal interpretation of its verses is a must. It is a
fundamental requirement of being a Muslim to believe that the Quran is
the word of God in the literal sense; if you believe that any verse of it is
not the word of God, or if you doubt its being the word of God, or if you
do not approve of it, then you are no longer a Muslim. If this be
fundamentalism, then everyone who professes to be a Muslim is bound by
the religion itself to be a fundamentalist; there is no room for liberals. The
Quran, like genuine Divine books before it, is a message from God to His
servants; its words, like the words of any speaker, are the vehicles which
carry that message. The intended meaning of the message is therefore as
objective as any object of the external world; the task of the believer is to
endeavor to find that meaning. God does not convey to His Messengers a
string of hollow words and leave it for human creatures to fill it with the
meanings they deem to be fit according to their times and places and
personal whims. He might as well not send a Message or a Messenger at
all, but leave it to humans to do what they want the way they want. No, the
words of the Quran, and also those of Prophet Muhammad, do hold
objective meaning. It is a meaning the Quran urges us to try to understand
and hold fast to, and never be swayed from:
Hold fast to what has been revealed to you; you are on the right
path. [43:43]
It warns believers in it against being like some of those before them who
knowingly distort the meanings of divine words even after they understood
them [2:75; 4:46].
always right, but they do enable them to enter into rational discussion with
others who abide by them, and thus to correct or be corrected.
The rules enable one to understand what might be called the basic
meanings of the texts; they are not an alternative to reflection, further
understanding, deduction, ijtihad, and so on, but a prerequisite to all of
this. It is only after one has grasped the basic meaning of a text that one
can comment on it or compare it with other texts, or compare what it says
with reality, or use it to issue Islamic rulings on new issues. Ijtihad in
particular is not, and cannot apply to the basic meanings of Islamic texts
since it is based on them. How can one who has no basic knowledge of
Islamic texts start to make even the rudiments of ijtihad?
All of this is in sharp contradiction to that vulgar relativistic approach to
the interpretation of texts. Vulgar relativism in particular, and unlike
some sophisticated forms of relativism, makes havoc of texts if taken
seriously. This is because, while the sophisticated relativism which is
advocated by some anthropologists, historians of science or other social
scientists, whether they be ethical or cognitive or aesthetic, is one which
relates these matters to factors like natural environment, social context,
language or form of life, all of which apply to human societies. Vulgar
relativism (of the kind which is assumed by the people I referred to at the
beginning of this paper), on the other hand, relates cognition or
interpretation to individuals. Advocates of sophisticated relativism do not
take the barriers between groups of human beings to be forever
insurmountable. Once can put oneself in the natural environment of an
Eskimo and understand why they have thirty words for snow (if indeed
they have), or one can learn the language of a people, or study their
culture, and thus be able to put oneself in their place and see things from
within that culture as they do. But if I am not the individual you are, and I
do not have the faintest clue as to why you see things the way you do, and
cannot therefore put myself in your place or be you, then we cannot at all
communicate, let alone argue about or appreciate each others standpoints,
unless something miraculous happens to me that makes me identical with
you or vice versa.
Vulgar relativism is not and cannot be taken seriously by any thinking
person. It is often used by people who do not really believe in the message
conveyed by the Islamic texts, and therefore resort to relativism only as a
pretext to reject them or trim and truncate Islam to fit into the molds of
References
The Holy Quran.
Bloom, Allan (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. Simon and
Schusster. New York.
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1980). The Scientific Image. Clarendon Press.
Oxford.
Krausz, Michael (ed.) (1989). Relativism: Interpretation and
Confrontation. U. of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame.
M. Hollis and S Lukes (eds) (1982). Rationality and Relativism. MIT
Press. Cambridge, Mass