The Humble "I"

Knowing, Doing, Becoming

Archive for the category “consider Islam”

Islam’s Rational Monotheism in a Nutshell

oxforduniShaykh Abdal Hakim Murad explains: ‘In the Western milieu, converts to Islam claim that they are attracted to what they regard as its clear, rationally-accessible teachings, unobscured by elaborate mysteries. It is not only insiders who wish to take this view. Non-Muslim academic accounts … now frequently draw attention to the central role of reason in Islamic theology.’1

He cites Leaman in his The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia, saying: ‘The Qur’an does indeed display an unusual commitment to argument and logic in its self-explanation.’2

Earlier in the same volume, Leaman says that whereas Judaism is strongly linked with ethnicity, and Christianity with a leap of faith, Islam, he says, has successfully grown by stressing its rationality and evidentiality.3

With that being said, let us now consider a few examples of how the Qur’an employs a universal rationalist discourse – especially in terms of its theology and its invitation to monotheism:

1. One of its rational arguments confronts atheism. Here the Qur’an interrogates the belief of atheists by asking: Were they created out of nothing, or were they the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? No, they have no certainty [52:35-6] Thus, either we created ourselves: which is inconceivable; or we were created from nothing: another impossibility. Logic just leaves us a third possibility: that we were created by a creator. This simple argument doesn’t only posit a creator, but given the remarkable diversity and complexity of life and the universe, this creator must possess power, will, knowledge, wisdom and intent. That is, creation must have a wise, intelligent and purposeful Designer.

One detects the sheer eloquence and potency of the original Arabic (undoubtedly, lost in translation) in the conversion story of Jubayr b. Mut‘im. He says that he once heard the Prophet, upon whom be peace, recite the chapter containing this verse during the sunset prayer. When he reached the actual verse, Jubayr said, kada qalbi an yatir – ‘I felt as if my heart would fly out [of my chest].’ He then went on to embrace Islam.4

2. Another logical argument the Qur’an uses is: Have you not heard of he [Nimrod] who argued with Abraham about his Lord, because God had given him the kingdom? Abraham said: ‘My Lord is He who gives life and death.’ He replied: ‘I give life [by sparing people] and death [by executing them]!’ So Abraham replied: ‘God causes the sun to rise from the east, so cause it to come from the west!’ Thus was the disbeliever confounded. [2:258]

Nimrod initially feels smug in his response to Abraham that he too has power over the life and death of his subjects. Hence, having seen the way Nimrod is prepared to twist the issue, Abraham takes the argument to another level by challenging him to alter the movement of the sun as it courses through the sky. Nimrod is silenced and stupefied; his pretences shattered; and he is made to realise that divinity cannot be claimed merely by having sovereign power over a people in some tiny corner of God’s earth.

3. In addressing the Christian claim of Jesus’ divinity, the Qur’an says: The Messiah son of Mary was no more than a Messenger, before whom other Messengers had passed away. His mother was a saintly woman. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear for them; then see how they are deluded from the truth. [5:75]

The ordinary human life which Christ lived has troubled those who wish to make him into a deity, in spite of evidences to the contrary in the Gospels. The Qur’an’s logic is clear. Food is eaten to satisfy an unquestionable physical need. Whoever needs to eat earthly food cannot, therefore, be a true deity possessing absolute perfection and thus be worthy of worship. The saintly Mary and her son, Jesus, both ate; thus they cannot be divine.

In fact, based on the likes of this verse, many theologians went on to rationally define a true deity, or ilah, as: ‘One who is independant of all needs beyond Himself, while all else is totally in need of Him (mustaghni ‘an kulli ma siwahu wa muftaqir ilayhi kulli ma ‘adahu). Now this is less a definition of ilah  – which is unanimously defined as al-ma’bud, or “that which is worshipped” – as it is the least common denominator which would rationally qualify something to be worthy of being the true deity.5

As for condemning the attitude which deifies Jesus – see how they are deluded from the truth – can this be a justification for Muslims to not respect the beliefs of others? Well that all depends upon how we define respect. Respect can mean to admire, honour or approve of a thing. It may also be used in the sense of being polite, civil, courteous and considerate. If a belief is blasphemous or idolatrous (which for both Jews and for Muslims Jesus’s alleged divinity is), it is inconceivable that believers could respect it in the sense of honouring, admiring or approving it. If, on the other hand, respect refers to a call to tolerate other peoples’ beliefs – along with civility, courtesy and dignified engagement, whilst remembering that faith must be freely chosen, since: There is no compulsion in religion [2:256], then this must surely be the mandate.

We may not respect a particular belief, but we must be respectful of those who hold it. Call to the way of your Lord, asks the Qur’an, with wisdom and kindly exhortation and reason with them in the most courteous manner. [16:125] And speak kindly to people [2:83] is another Quranic prescription.

4. The Qur’an employs the “logic of Lordship” to clarify to the pagan Arabs (mushriks) the folly of idolatry – of worshipping gods alongside the One true God. It says: If you were to ask them: ‘Who is it that created the heavens and earth, and subjected the sun and the moon?’ they will say: ‘God!’ Why then are they lying. [29:61] Another verse declares: Say: ‘Who is it that provides for you from the sky and the earth? Or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? Or who is it that brings forth the living from the dead and the dead from the living?And who is it that directs all affairs?’ They will say: ‘God!’ Then say: ‘Will you not then fear Him?’ [10:31]

Thus, having affirmed the role of God as sole Lord, Creator and Sustainer, the Qur’an demands that the pagan Arabs take the logic of this Lordship to its logical conclusion: that nothing else must be worshipped besides God. Ibn Kathir wrote: ‘The pagans who worshipped others along with Him affirmed that God is the sole, autonomous creator of the heavens and earth, sun and moon, alternating night and day; and that He alone is the Creator and Provider of His servants, meting out for them their livelihoods and life spans … Despite this being so, why worship others, or depend on others? For just as dominion and sovereignty is exclusively His, then likewise, He alone deserves to be worshipped.’6

5. One final example of Islam’s rational invitation: Hasn’t man seen that We created him from a drop of sperm, then he becomes an open opponent? And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own creation, saying: ‘Who can revive dry bones after they have rotted away?’ Say: ‘He who created them the first time will again give them life!’ [36:77-79] The Qur’an is eager to demonstrate the plausibility of the resurrection to many of the Arab idolators who rejected the actual notion, by simply reminding them of “the first creation” of man. The fact that every individual has been brought into existence once before by the Creative Will of God, should be proof in itself that the same Creative Will is capable of doing so a second time: Do they not consider how God begins creation, then repeates it? That is easy for God! [29:19]

The Qur’an also alludes to how the phenomenon of resurrection is prefigured in this world. “Mini-resurrections” take place all the time in the natural world: flowers and foliage die partial deaths in winter, only to be brought to life again in spring.

The Qur’an also gives the simile of a desert whose scorched dead earth springs to lush green life with each merciful drop of rain: He it is who sends the winds as glad-tidings to herald His mercy, till, when they bear a cloud heavy with rain, We drive them to a dead land and then cause the rain to descend, thereby bringing forth fruits of every kind. Thus shall We raise up the dead. Perhaps you will remember. [7:57]

The above are a few samples of how the Qur’an uses a rational discourse to vindicate its key theological truths, without having to revert to a circular argument (i.e. it is true because the Qur’an says so). So whilst the Qur’an does insist upon it being the revealed truth and the Word of God, and that it should be accepted as such, it permits a defence to be made of itself and its core metaphysical claims based on rational arguments and sound reasoning. As for how the Qur’an vindicates itself, that shall be the concern of a future posting; God-willing.

1. Reason as Balance (CMS Paper 3), 2, at – drawing from Anne-Sophie Roald, New Muslims in the European Context (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004), 116-24.

2. Leaman, The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia (London: Routledge, 2008), 65.

3. ibid., 55.

4. Al-Bukhari, no.4573; Muslim, no.463.

5. Bayjuri, Tuhfat al-Murid ‘ala Jawharat al-Tawhid (Cairo: Dar al-Salam, 2006), 208. As for its agreed-upon definition of ma‘bud – “that which is deified,” it can be found in: Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1996), 2:128; al-Suyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Riyadh: Dar al-Salam, 2002), 33; al-Raghib, Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur’an (Damascus: Dar al-Qalam, 2002), 82.

6. Tafsir Qur’an al-‘Azim (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifah, 1987), 3:431.

Does Allah Love Everyone?

Red heart shaped treePeople can mean quite different things when they speak of love. For some, love means desire, passion or lust: it is often used as a byword for self-gratification. To some, love is compassion, mercy, tenderness. To others, it is soppy, sugary, gooey sentimentality. For others still, it is devotion, longing and yearning.

Then there is passionate love and platonic love. There is love between friends; love of family; love among brothers in arms; and love for the family pet.

So the answer to whether or not God loves everyone, or only certain people, is tied to what we mean by “love”. The Qur’an speaks of two types of love, as it relates to God: a general, all-encompassing love; the other, a more exclusive love. The two types of love are expressed by the following Arabic terms respectively: rahmah and hubb.

One of God’s Names is al-Wadud – “the Loving”, “the Affectionate”. He is Forgiving, the Loving, states the Qur’an [85:14] From a general perspective, God loves everyone in the sense of rahmah – His loving mercy, care, kindness and compassion. Indeed, after the two Shahadahs – the two “Testimonies” of Faith – the formula most frequently on the lips of a Muslim is the Basmalah – “In the Name of God, All-Merciful (al-Rahman), the Compassionate (al-Rahim)” – and it is with this formula that every chapter or surah of the Qur’an (excepting one) commences. The Qur’an says about God: He has prescribed mercy upon Himself. [6:12] An almost identical expression of God inscribing mercy on Himself – kataba ‘ala nafsihi’l-rahmah – is repeated again later: Your Lord has prescribed mercy upon Himself. [6:54] That no other divine attribute has been described like this in the Qur’an is indeed revealing about God’s nature.

In Arabic, rahmah is formed from the three consonants r-h-m, which have the primary meaning of “womb”. This indicates the maternal nature of God’s mercy, as it were, in that it nurtures and protects the helpless human creature in its gentle embrace. Once, on seeing a mother frantically search for her lost child and then, on finding it, clasped the babe to her chest, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘God is more merciful to His creation than that mother is to her child.’ [Al-Bukhari, no.5999; Muslim, no.2754]

Muslim exegists and theologians tell us that al-Rahman is an eternal attribute of God, and circumscribes the quality of mercy inherent in, and inseparable from, the Divine Essence. Al-Rahim, on the other hand, refers to an aspect of God’s acts, signifying the manifestation of that mercy in, and its effects upon, the entire creation.1

Painting it in more picturesque terms, it has been said that al-Rahman is like the clear blue sky, calm and peaceful and full of light, that stretches over us and over all things; while al-Rahim is like the warm rays of light coming from that sky, bathing the lives of individuals and events, and animating the earth and all life upon it. The sun shines for all; the rain falls for all. The rays of God’s loving compassion, kindness and care touch everything and everyone: Muslim and non-Muslim, saint and sinner. God says in the Qur’an: My mercy embraces all things. [7:156]

Further insight into the divine mercies offers itself in the following hadith: ‘God made mercy into one-hundred parts. He withheld ninety-nine parts and sent down one part to earth. It is because of that one part that creatures show mercy to one another, such that a mare will lift her hoof over her foal, for fear she may cause it harm.’ [Al-Bukhari, no.6000] In another narration: ‘God has kept back ninety-nine parts of this mercy for His worshippers on the Day of Resurrection.’ [Muslim, no.2752] Here again we find rahmah,  mercy, not in the sense of forgiveness shown to someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm (although that is one of its meanings), but as lovingness, kindness, compassion and protecting care – in other words, loving mercy. Interestingly, in Aramaic and Syriac, r-h-m as a root, and rahmah its derivative, signify love, rather than mercy.

The hadith concerning ninety-nine mercies reveals to us something else about the divine rahmah, which is that the greater part of it is reserved for believers (mu’minun) in the Afterlife. Going back to the Basmalah formula, our scholars have explained that Rahman and Rahim are both intensive forms of rahmah, with a distinction between the two. The first denotes comprehensive mercy which brings things into existence, then provides, protects and cares for them. While the second denotes selective mercy reaching those who accept faith and bring the will to worship God.2 Which brings us nicely on to the second type of love:

Not withstanding other words in the Qur’an that depict love (like mahabbah, wudd, rahmah, mawaddah and also lutf), the second type of love is hubb. God, as mentioned at the start, only has love, in terms of hubb, for the believers: Upon those who believe and work righteousness, the All-Merciful shall bestow love. [19:96] In contrast to such a comforting declaration, the Qur’an says: God loves not the disbelievers. [3:32] To be clear then, God’s love in terms of rahmah is impartial, universal and unconditional, while God’s specific love in the sense of hubb is conditional on faith in Him, love of Him and acceptance of His will.

Christians, and others beside, tend to assume that since Islam advocates inna’Llaha la yuhibbu’l-kafirin – that “God does not love the disbelievers” – this says something very unbecoming about God. For how can the One true God not love His creation. But as the post hopefully shows, the assumption is wrong and rests on not recognising the distinctions between the various shades of love embedded in the Quranic language. It seems to me that if we Muslims wish ourselves and our faith to be better understood, the critical question about God’s loves, as depicted by the Qur’an, must be articulated in a far better, nuanced and broader manner. Indeed, it is the right of non-Muslims to hear such nuances; and the call to Abrahamic monotheism demands from us nothing less. Wa’Llahu wali al-tawfiq.

1. See: al-Baghawi, Maalim al-Tanzil (Riyadh: Dar Taybah, 2010), 1:3.

2. Consult: al-Qurtubi, al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1996), 1:74.

Look! And Ye Shall See: On Science & Meaning

quantum_corral_niseOne may often hear Muslims say how it is understandable for someone to not believe in Islam, but not how one can disbelieve in God. For we have, the Qur’an states, all the evidence for God’s existence we need in our immediate experience, and that it is only a deliberate refusal to look that’s responsible for atheism of any shade or colour: We shall show them Our signs in the creation around them, as well as in their ownselves, till it becomes manifest to them that this [Revelation] is the Truth, proclaims God in the Holy Qur’an [41:53].

Science prides itself at “looking”. For science is the attempt to understand our world through observation and reason. In other words, the scientific method works through the rational examination of evidences (which involves: observing and collecting data; forming a hypothesis or initial explanation from that data; performing experiments to test the hypothesis; working out a theory to account for the experimental results; then making predictions based on that theory; and finally testing out the theory by devising further experiments).

Science (Galileo) looked at Jupiter through a telescope and noticed moons orbiting it, thus revolutionising our understanding of the solar system.

Not long after, science (Newton) looked at how objects fell to the ground, giving us the theory of gravity.

Science (Faraday) looked at a magnetic field around a conductor carrying an electric current, offering electromagnetic induction.

Then science (Einstein) looked at the nature of light, gravity, space and time and gave us the time-bending theory of relativity.

At about the same time, science (Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Planck, Pauli, Dirac) looked at the wave-particle duality of light and shimmering truth of the sub-atomic world, bestowing upon us the mind-boggling, mystifying theory of quantum physics. The more science looked, the more we marvelled at its brilliance and authority.

Contrary to popular notions, modern science, rather than laying to rest belief in God once and for all, has actually invigorated it. The cheerful atheism which characterised much of the twentieth century (at least, as far as Western Europe was concerned), has given way to an aggressive atheism. For it was assumed that with the progress of science and the technological revolution it birthed, faith in cold reason, and in man being the measure of all things, would outgrow faith in God.

For a time, these augries of atheism seemed to be correct. Religion retreated; progress continued. The 19th century English Poet, Mathew Arnold, penned what’s possibly its most memorable imagery when he describes in his Dover Beach the ‘melancholy, long, withdrawing roar’ of the retreating ‘Sea of Faith’. Yet as offensive as it was to atheists, by the end few decades of the last century, it was clear the Sea of Faith had returned: the religious tide was roaring back in (many contend that the tide hadn’t really ever gone out).

Although the factors for the persistence of religion are multi-faceted,1 as far as its link to science is concerned it may be whittled down to two reasons. The first is related to what modern science has revealed to us about the quantum or sub-atomic realm. The other has to do with the things science is silent about concerning the Big Questions.

The first. By the 1930s, science had established a new branch of knowledge: quantum physics. This was unlike anything that had preceded it – not even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. For the first time, scientists had encountered an area of the universe which our brains just aren’t wired to understand. Or as Brian Greene stated about quantum physics, ‘it undeniably shows that the universe is founded on principles that, from the standpoint of our day-to-day experience, are bizarre.’2

Niels Bohr, a founding father of quantum physics, once remarked that anyone who is not stupified or boggled by quantum physics, hasn’t understood it.

So let’s have a stab at trying to be stupified:

In the quantum world, electrons in atoms jump orbit without travelling the space in between; light particle will pass through two slits simultaneously without actually splitting-up; photons, electrons and other elementary particles “know” when they are being observed or not, and then adjust their behaviour accordingly; pairs of particles fired in opposite directions at near light speed instantly know what the other is doing, even when separated by significant distances; and some elementary particles need to turn, not 360 degrees, but 720 degrees, so as to come “full circle.”

In the quantum world we learn that photons, electrons and other subatomic particles are not actually particles; yet neither are they waves. Instead, they behave as waves, or as particles, depending upon the circumstances. This wave-particle duality allows us to talk about wavelengths of light and light particles: yet they are neither and they are both. (In fact, experiments have been carried out which show that a single photon can behave as a wave and as a particle at the same time.)

In the quantum world, uncertainty (or indeterminacy) rules the roost. Here we may know the path an electron takes through space, or may know where it is at any given instance; but we cannot know both. To be clear, this is not a matter of needing better measuring instruments, it is a built-in feature of the quantum universe. In practice, this means that you can never pin-point where an electron is at any given moment in time. You can only point to the probability of its being there. Put slightly differently, until it is observed, an electron can be regarded as being everywhere and nowhere!3

In what way does this help the religious discourse? Well, Gai Eaton once quipped after listing some of these counter-intuitive, weird quantum oddities: ‘After this, no one has any excuse for obscurities or improbabilities in the higher reaches of theology and metaphysics.’4

In other words, the paradoxes we encounter in Islam’s monotheistic theology – God is transcendent beyond the confines of creation, yet immanent in it; God is omniscient, omnipotent and all good, yet there exists the presence of evil in the world; that human destinies have been pre-decreed, yet we still have free-will and can still choose what to do or not to do; or that being God’s servants demands passive acceptance, while being His vicegerents (khalifahs) requires actively working for social justice and also battling tyranny – should not be that surprising. For if the quantum world defies being pinned down by human language and rationalising, but instead leaves gaps unfilled, mysteries unexplained, and minds perplexed, then moreso the paradoxes related to God and the nature of divinity.

This is not to say Muslim theologians have shyed away from seeking to resolve these paradoxes or to explain them through reasoned arguments. They have been relentless in this task.5 And yet, as fruitful and exacting as the labour has been, our theologians acknowledge that, at bottom line, these are only glimpses into the true nature of God. La tablughuhu’l-awham wa la tudrikuhu’l-afham – ‘Imaginations cannot conceive Him, nor can comprehensions understand Him’ – is what Muslim orthodoxy holds.6 As for the role of reason in religion, I hope to discuss it in a future posting, God-willing.

If science is bugged by quantum quirkiness, it faces other nagging concerns too – in particular, about the bigger picture; the deeper questions. Human consciousness, for example, and what gives rise to it? Why there exists what some term, “the moral law:” an intuitive knowledge about the basic rules of right and wrong shared by all people (our voice of conscience, so to speak)? And then there is the grandest conundrum of them all. Life on Earth aside, how did the universe come into existence, and so finely-tuned in a form hospitable to life?

The fact that these issues cannot, by definition, be tackled by science (for it basis itself on emperical observation, and does not speculate about realities beyond the physical, observable, measurable cosmos), is a significant cause for more and more people, who once erringly put their faith in science to answer the big issues, to recognise its limits. Instead, people are increasingly turning to religion to engage with questions which lie beyond the scope of the scientific method – such as God’s existence, the meaning of life, and why the universe is here; why is there something rather than nothing? For it is in the nature of science to take things apart to see how they work, while it is in the nature of religion to put things together to see what they mean.

1. For an exploration into the reasons behind Religion’s resiliance to secularisation, cf. Jonathan Sacks, The Persistence of Faith (New York: Continuum, 2005); Wooldridge & Micklethwait, God is Back (London: Penguin, 2010); McGrath, Why God Won’t Go Away (Great Britain: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2011).

2. The Elegant Universe (Great Britain: Vintage, 2000), 108.

3. A delightful, lively, non-specialist account of the birth, development and weirdness of quantum physics is given in J. Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat (Great Britain: Corgi Books, 1988).

4. King of the Castle (Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1999), 147.

5. One can see the Muslim theological project at work, with all its attendant theatre, in Winter (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Classical Muslim Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

6. See: The Creed of Imam al-Tahawi (USA: Zaytuna Institute, 2007), §.8.

God: the Ultimate Concern

amour-allahAt the heart of Islam stands the reality of God: Allah, the One, the Absolutely Perfect, Unique, Eternal, Beautiful, Loving, Infinitely Kind and Compassionate, All-Knowing, All-Hearing, All-Seeing, beyond what man can ever conceive, yet nearer to him than his jugular vein. [50:16]

Islam does not demand blind faith in God. The Qur’an tells us a great deal about Him. There it depicts God by certain “names” and “attributes” to help us understand something about His nature. In fact, in Islam, the most precious type of knowledge is that which lends itself to comprehending God’s names and attributes. This is the key to truly knowing God and becoming devoted to Him. The received wisdom here is: sharaf al-‘ilm bi sharaf al-ma‘lum – “The excellence of [any] knowledge depends upon what it is concerned with.”

‘The best knowledge is knowing God’s Names (asma), Attributes (sifat) and Acts (af‘al). This leads a servant to experiential knowledge (ma‘rifah) of Him; love of Him; awe and reverence of Him; devotion, trust and intimacy with Him; and to being occupied with Him to the exclusion of all else.’1

The Qur’an describes God as al-Haqq – “the Truth (the Real)”, and so to deny Him is to be far removed from truth at every level of reality. Living amidst delusions, the denier of truth is estranged from reality till the Day when, with his illusions stripped away, he comes face to face with al-Haqq; his hand empty, his past life meaningless.2

God is also al-Nur – “the Light”. For God is the light of the heavens and the earth. [24:80] Islam insists that the entire universe is a tajalli; a manifestation, of the divine names, attributes and acts by which God reveals Himself and makes Himself known. If He weren’t light, there would be no light anywhere; neither physical nor spiritual. When we look at the creation and take in its awe, beauty, enchantment and magnificence, it is but a reflection of God’s divine light and names.

He is al-Khaliq – “the Creator”, al-Bari – “the Producer”, al-Fatir – “the Maker” and al-Badi‘ – “the Originator” who, without resemblance, or anything external to Himself, creates and gives to every creature the light of existence by His command: “Be!”

He is also al-Musawwir – “the Fashioner” who shapes each creature according to the nature He wills it to have. Each creature has its purpose and is moulded to serve that purpose.

When we have been brought into existence, and fashioned as per that divine purpose, we aren’t forsaken, left to fend for ourselves. For God is al-Razzaq – “the Sustainer” who nourishes and nurtures us: mind, body and soul.

He is al-Rahman – “the Most-Merciful” and al-Rahim – “the Mercy-Giving”. The one describes God as He is in His eternal Essence and nature; while the other describes the outpourings of His mercy upon the entire creation.

Despite such outpourings we still sin and stray, for man was created weak. [4:28] But for God being al-Ghafur – “the Forgiving”, al-Tawwab – the Relenting” and al-‘Afuw – “the Effacer of Sins”, our situation might seem hopeless.

Sinning, however, has no clear meaning if God had not shown us “the Straight Path”. One of God’s Names is al-Hadi – “the Guider”, and we have been assured that He has never left any nation or people without sending to them a Messenger with a message of hope and guidance.

Ultimately He is al-Ahad – “the One”; Absolute Oneness. The One cannot be divided, nor diminished and nor can it be “humanised” via incarnation into any created form. God does not become His own creation. In fact, God does not become anything: He simply is (as He was and always will be). Lord of the heavens and the earth and all that is between. So worship Him and be constant in worship. Do you know of anyone similar to Him? [19:65]

He is God besides whom there is no other god; Knower of the seen and unseen; He is the
All-Merciful, Mercy-Giving. He is God besides whom there is no other god. The
Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Security, the Guardian, the August,
the Compeller, the Proud! Transcendent is He above what they
ascribe to Him. He is God, the Creator, the Producer, the
Fashioner. To Him belong the most beautiful names.
All that is in the heavens and the earth
glorifies Him. He is the
August, the Wise.

1. Ibn Rajab, ‘Warathat al-Anbiya’, in Majmu‘ Rasa’il al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab (Cairo: al-Faruq al-Khadathiyyah, 2002), 1:41.

2. This entire section is adapted from Gai Eaton, The Concept of God in Islam (Great Britain: The Islamic Foundation, 2004), 9-11.

The Modern Pursuit of Happiness or Chasing Your Own Tail?

man-chasing-money“Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” seems to best express the only kind of happiness modern man has made available to himself; and we know where such gross hedonism leads to. Our current culture of greed, of instant-gratification and of turbo-consumerism may deliver us short term ‘highs’, the momentary ‘buzz’, but these soon wear-off, and all too often leave in their wake anxiety, depression and despair.

Knowing what happiness or the good life truly is has occupied philosophical minds since antiquity. It is, as one might expect, a theme also taken-up by the Qur’an. In one of its verses, it promises: Whoever does good, be they male or female, and has faith, We shall cause them to live a goodly life. [16:97]

In contrast to this hayatan tayyibah or “goodly life”, God proclaims in the Qur’an: ‘But whoever turns away from My remembrance will assuredly have a life of narrowness, and on the Day of Resurrection We shall raise him up blind.’ [20:124]

Echoing this Quranic declaration, the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘God says: O son of Adam! Free yourself for My worship and I shall fill your heart with sufficiency and remove your poverty. But if you do not, I will fill your hands with preoccupations and your poverty will not cease.’ [Al-Tirmidhi, no.2466] Poverty, here, as our scholars have duly explained, refers to spiritual poverty: i.e. unhappiness, disaffection and the absence of contentment – even when basking in the midst of material abundance.

No doubt, some minimum level of materialism is required for our happiness and well-being. But beyond the basics, or above what is termed ‘subsistance living’, an increase in wealth or material goods in no way ensures happiness, contentment or fulfilment. In Islam, happiness and fulfilment are profoundly bound with obedience, worship and God’s remembrance and recollection: Indeed, in the remembrance of God do hearts find tranquility. [13:28]

So as believers commit to the worship of God and reconcile themselves to His decree, inner peace begins to diffuse within their souls, till it permeates all their thoughts and actions; bringing happiness, fulfilment and, ultimately, salvation. Those who pursue a life of greed, self-gratification and neglectfulness of God, choosing instead to expose themselves to a plague of inner demons, shall ultimately be cast into perdition with hellish devils!

The Qur’an & Science: Match Made in Heaven?

blue-binary-code-jigsaw-puzzleMuslims are quick to point out that the Qur’an is remarkably free of the scientific inaccuracies found in other religious texts. Many go one step further and point out how astonishingly in tune the Qur’an actually is with modern science. And while it is true that some believers have thrown caution to the wind in their zeal to wed Muslim scripture to the scientific cause, there is cogent reason to believe that signficant passages in the Qur’an are in fact addressing the scientific mind in modern man. Seeking to be as dispassionate as possible, let me illustrate the point with a few such verses:

(1) The Qur’an is silent about the age of the Earth and, for that matter, when life first appeared on it; although it does say: And We made from water every living creature. Will they not believe? [21:30] Is this a reference to the primordial soup in the Earth’s early waters, perhaps? Or to the evidence which suggests that life first emerged onto dry land some four-hundred million years ago, from sea-creatures and other aquatic life forms?

(2) Another intriguing verse declares: We built the heaven with might and it is We who are expanding it. [51:47] This does seem like a highly probable pointer to cosmology’s modern belief that galaxies are flying apart from each other as the universe expands.

(3) The fact that galaxies are flying apart from each other, say cosmologists, there must have been a time when galaxies were closer together; and a time earlier still when all the galaxies and material in the universe was crunched-up together into an incredibly small space. This infinitely-compact universe, for some reason, suddenly expanded, in an event cosmologists call “The Big-Bang”. Interestingly, the Qur’an insists: Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were at first joined, then We split them apart. [21:30]

(4) The final example is the vivid Quranic account of how a human embryo forms in its mother’s womb: We created man from a product of clay. Then We placed him as a drop in a safe lodging. Then We fashioned the drop into a clot of blood that clings, then We made the clinging clot into a chewed-like lump, then We turned the lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it as another creation. So blessed be God, the Best of Creators! [23:12-14]

What is significant here, as in the previous three examples, is that at the time of their revelation these Quranic assertions ran completely counter to the science of the day. In fact, science was only able to uncover the truth of these claims within only the last century or so!

One must not be tempted by these verses into thinking that the Qur’an is a text-book on science or a catalogue of scientific facts. These verses are primarily asserting the i‘jaz, the “miraculous” and “inimitable” nature of the Qur’an, thereby demonstrating it truly is the Word of God. Turner, I think, captured the essence of the matter when he wrote:

‘The Koran describes God, the principles of belief and the fate of man in the world to come, but it is no work on theology; it contains accounts of past prophets and faith communities of old, but it is no history book; it contains invocations and words of inspiration; but it is no book of prayer.

Legal issues are discussed in it, but it is no book of law; it tells us how the Creator fashions the cosmos and makes the world turn, but it is no treatise on cosmology; it describes the alternation of day and night, and the development of the foetus in the womb, but it is no compendium of natural science.

It examines the heart and mind of man, and the existential dilemma of being human but longing for the divine, yet it is no work on popular psychology.

It is all of those things and it is none of those things: more than any other book can it truly be said of the enigmatic Koran that it is far more than simply the sum of its com- ponent parts.’1

1. Collin Turner, Islam: the Basics (London & New York: Routledge, 2006), 41.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: