* * *

Question:
Do an exegetical experiment with the Basmala. How can it be understood grammatically? What does the term al-Raḥmān mean in the three different possibilities of reading the Basmala? Why is there such a strong qurʾānic emphasis on the idea of the mercy in God, who is called Allah in the most nameless way possible? With the help of your exegetical exercise, can you show how the tradition of al-Raḥmān for God’s name became integrated into the Qurʾān and united with the nameless God, Allah, in the Meccan phase of Muḥammad’s qurʾānic proclamation?

Answer:

Introduction

The basmala, or the phrase bismillāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm, is one of the most oft-recited phrases in the life of every single observant Muslim. It occupies a key place in the Qurʾān itself, for it is the only non-Qurʾānic phrase that all copies of the Qurʾān included, apparently as a ‘marker’ between the Sūrahs. Numerous works have been written specifically about the basmala.¹ In this response, a brief linguistic and grammatical explanation will be offered, followed by a discussion of the name al-Raḥmān.

The Basmala as Portrayed in Early and Medieval Islamic Sources

The first verse of the Qurʾān has almost unanimously been portrayed as being Q. 96:1, ‘Recite in the name of your Lord who created.’ From this, some derived that the status of a rudimentary basmala was established, as the ‘name of your Lord’ is invoked. In another early Meccan Sūrah, Noah is told to ride the Arc ‘…in the name of God’ (Q. 11:41), and in yet another Meccan Sūrah, reputed to have been revealed after this one, Solomon writes a letter to Queen Sheba, in which her advisors tell her, “This (letter) is from Solomon, and it (says): In the name of God, the Raḥmān, the Raḥīm” (Q. 27:30).²

The fact that the basmala in its present form was introduced to the Meccan Arabs by the Prophet is quite explicitly mentioned in many sources. One incident, recorded in some canonical works of ḥadīth and the Sīrah of Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767), mentions that during the writing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 6 A.H., one of the emissaries of Mecca, Suhayl b. ʿAmr, refused to allow the Prophet to begin the treaty with the basmala. His reputed reason was, “As for this ‘al-Raḥmān’, I do not know who He is, but rather, write as we are accustomed to write, ‘In your name, O God (bismik Allahum).’”³

There are quite a few prophetic traditions that expound upon the blessings of this phrase and when it should be said.⁴ It might also have served a more mundane role: Ibn ʿAbbās is alleged to have said that the Prophet was not able to recognize the end of one Sūrah from the beginning of the next until the basmala was recited by Gabriel.⁵

The basmala is the only phrase of the Qurʾān that Sunnī scholars have disagreed about: is it a verse of the Qurʾān or not? There is agreement that it is a part of Q. 27:30, where it is mentioned in Solomon’s letter to Sheba, and there is also agreement that it does not form a part of Sūrah 9. But there was disagreement over its status at the beginning of all other Sūrahs, and especially the first Sūrah, al-Fātiḥa. This disagreement is found amongst the four canonical schools of law as well as the ten recitations (qirāʾāt) of the Qurʾān. Some of them opined that the basmala was a separate verse at the beginning of every Sūrah, others said it was part of the first verse. A third group claimed it was only a verse at the beginning of the al-Fātiḥa, while a fourth denied that it was a verse in any of these instances. And a fifth group posited that it was a verse by itself, not connected to any Sūrah, which had been placed there as a ‘divider’ to separate two consecutive Sūrahs. This difference of opinion had a direct impact on certain rituals, such as whether one was obliged to recite the basmala out loud in every prayer or not.⁶

A Grammatical Breakdown and Exegetical Explanation of the Basmala

The basmala consists of four words, the first of which has a prepositional letter attached to it. All of these words are nouns; no verbs or verbal nouns are present.

The first letter of the basmala, the ‘b-’ is a prepositional letter (ḥarf jar), thus causing the first word (‘bism’) to be in a genitive state The preposition b- has many uses, but over here appears to be for seeking help (istiʿānah).⁷ The word ism is the Arabic for ‘noun’. Linguists differed whether it originated from sumuw (s-m-w), meaning ‘to elevate’, or from wasam (w-s-m), meaning ‘to brandish’; the Basran school opted for the former, whilst the Kufan preferred the latter.⁸

Due to the fact that the phrase bism is in a genitive state, it needs some actor (ʿāmil) to which it can be attached (taʿalluq). The Kūfan school of grammar typically assumes that all missing actors must be verbs, as that is the basis of words for them. In contrast, the Basran school considers all missing actors to be nouns due to their position that nouns are the basis of words. The Kufans then split up amongst themselves in three specific issues regarding the basmala. Firstly: what was this missing verb? Was it, ‘I recite,’ or ‘I begin,’ or perhaps a verb that varied depending upon the action being done at that time? Secondly, what was the tense of the verb: was it a command or was it in present tense? In other words, is the recitor saying, ‘I recite with the name of God’, or is God saying ‘I command you to recite with the name of God?’ Thirdly, what was the position of this missing verb: before the ‘bism’ or after?

Most of the Kufans, and also al-Zamakhsharī in his al-Kashshāf, came to the conclusion that the verb is specific to the context of invoking the basmala (hence it can be used for any permissible act), that it was in the present tense (since the purpose of the basmala is to obtain God’s blessings upon the recitor), and that the missing verb’s place was after the ‘bismi’ (since it is more blessed to begin with the name of God, and since it reminded one that the purpose of doing any act was for God, and because it is a clear refutation of the pagans who would begin by saying ‘In the name of al-Lāt’).

The Basrans, on the other hand, generally held that the missing noun was ‘My recitation’ (qirāʾatī), or ‘My beginning’ (ibtidāʾī), and that it was placed before the genitive. ⁹

The question also arose: what does it mean seeking help from the ‘name’ (ism) of God? Specifically, the issue concerned the theological controversy over the implication of the Divine Names: are these Names God Himself, or do they belong to God, or originate from Him, or is the noun ‘ism’ superfluous (zāʾid) and only needed for emphasis? The Ashʿarites, Muʿtazilites and Ahl al-Ḥadīth (to name the more prominent groups) each had their own positions.¹⁰

The next noun in the basmala is the divine name ‘Allah’. This name raises a whole slew of questions, of which only a few will be dealt with here.

There is no doubt that the name ‘Allah’ was the primary name of the Islamic divinity. The name appears more than 2,700 times in the qurʾānic text, and there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that this name was used for many centuries by the pagan Arabs to refer to a Supreme God – a god that even they, with their permissive idolatry, refused to draw or carve images of.¹¹

The linguistic meaning and origin of this name has always been a topic of much discussed in Muslim scholarship. Although a minority of Sunni theologians and linguists considered this name to be a proper name, devoid of any meaning,¹² the majority of them considered it to be derived from some three letter root.¹³ Some suggested that it was a rare transmutation from walaha, which means ‘to confound and confuse’, as if the nature of God (‘Allah’) confuses and befuddles the minds of all those who try to grasp or understand Him.¹⁴ Others suggested that it is from lāhā, which means ‘to conceal and cover’, since the true nature of God is concealed from all.¹⁵ However, the most prevalent opinion, amongst linguistics, theologians, and exegetes, is that the name is derived from alaha, which means ‘to show servitude and worship’; hence God (‘Allah’) is the only Being that is worthy of servitude and worship.¹⁶

Some Western Islamicists have posited Aramaic, Syriac or Hebrew origins for this name; strong evidence to substantiate this claim, however, remains lacking.¹⁷

To summarize before moving on, the first two words of the basmala translate as, ‘My recitation is with the name of Allah’ for the Basrans, and as, ‘With the name of Allah I recite…’ for the Kufans.

This name (viz., ‘Allah’), is then followed by two other nouns, al-Raḥmān, and al-Raḥīm. Both can be derived from the root r-ḥ-m, which means ‘to have mercy, to be compassionate.’ Both utilize known and common morphological forms: faʿlān for the first and faʿīl for the second. Before translating the basmala, it is crucial to understand the grammatical role of these two nouns, as that will decidedly determine the understanding of the basmala. We shall discuss the alleged origins of ‘al-raḥmān’ in the next section.

Almost all classical works that I was able to reference (including works of theology, exegesis, and shurūḥ al-ḥadīth) appear to understand these two nouns as adjectives of the first noun, viz., ‘Allah’. Many books of grammatical analysis do not even mention any other opinion. If these two nouns are understood as adjectives (i.e., naʿt), this would then imply that both al-raḥmān and al-raḥīm are describing and characterizing God (‘Allah’). So it is as if the basmala translates as (according to the Kufan understanding), “With the name of Allah, who is ever Merciful (al-rahmān) and extremely Compassionate (al-raḥīm), I begin this recitation.”

Numerous opinions are found in classical sources regarding the difference between these two names. Most scholars (but not all) are in agreement that the two names are not synonymous or even as efficacious as each other, but rather that al-Raḥman is more indicative of God’s mercy than al-Raḥim. Some opine that al-Raḥman is indicative of God’s mercy to believers and unbelievers in this world, and al-Raḥim is indicative of His special mercy to believers in both worlds. Yet another opinion is that al-Raḥman indicates that God’s Mercy is an essential part of His character, whereas al-Raḥim indicates that God’s actions are always merciful.¹⁸

Quite a few scholars sought to understand the wisdom of this particular order of names. Al-Ṭabarī posited that the reason these three names are in this order is that the Arabs typically start off with the primary name and then with its descriptions. God’s primary name is ‘Allah’, hence it was used here. And since al-raḥman was more specific to God than al-raḥim, it was given precedence to it.¹⁹ It is interesting to note that some researchers have offered parallels of such a rendering in Jewish liturgy.²⁰

So far we have considered both nouns to be adjectives, and this is by far the ‘standard’ opinion. There seems to be another opinion, rarely expressed, that considers these two nouns to be substitutes (badal).²¹ As a substitute, the basmala would translate as (according to the Basran opinion this time, for ease of understanding), ‘My recitation begins with the name of Allah; my recitation begins with the name of al-Raḥmān; my recitation begins with the name of al-Raḥim.’ The purpose of these reiterations would obviously not be to express three distinct deities but rather to express three of God’s 99 names. A modern theologian, Muḥammad ʿAbduh, who appeared to lean towards such an explanation, claimed that this reiteration was meant as a refutation of the Trinity of the Christians, who began their rites with ‘In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ By mentioning three of His Names, God intended to demonstrate to the Christians that even if He has many attributes, He is still One in His essence.²²

Some modern Islamicists posit a third position, and that is that only the first of these two nouns is a substitute (badal), and the second is an adjective (naʿt) of it. If this understanding is taken, the basmala would translate as, ‘My recitation begins with the name of Allah, the merciful al-Raḥmān.’²³ I was not able to find any scholar within the Muslim tradition who understood it in this manner. Additionally, since both al-Raḥmān and al-Raḥīm are placed after the first noun, in the same grammatical context, one would have to show why one of these nouns should be given a different grammatical role than the other, as this would be an awkward rendering of the Arabic expression.

To summarize these three opinions, the following chart will prove helpful:

If this third position is taken, then obviously the question arises as to why two names are emphasized (‘Allah’ and ‘al-Raḥmān’), and what the relationship is between them. In order to do this, we need to first discuss the opinions regarding the origins of the name ‘al-Raḥmān’.

The Origin of the Name al-Raḥmān

The discussion regarding the origins of the name al-Raḥmān is an ancient one. The Qurʾān itself quite explicitly states that this name was unknown to the Quraysh (as in Q. 25:60).²⁴ Most scholars are of the opinion that al-Raḥmān is a unique name of God, and so cannot be used to describe the creation, unlike most other Divine Names, including al-raḥim. This is due to 17:110, where the two names ‘Allah’ and ‘al-Raḥmān’ appear to be equivalent in sanctity. There is also a tradition in the canonical works, a ḥadith Qudsī, in which God is reported as saying ‘I am al-Raḥman; I created the ties of kinship (al-raḥm), and from it derived one of My Names.’²⁵ This was one of the primary evidences used by those who claimed that this name is derived from r-ḥ-m. On the other hand, a number of early Islamic authorities, such as al-Mubarrad, considered al-Raḥmān to have a Jewish origin. Quite a few authorities are on record as stating that this name was a name given to ‘ancients’ as well.²⁶

It is clear that the Qurʾān itself considers the name al-Raḥmān to be an ancient name. Apart from the reference in Solomon’s letter (already given), this name is used as the God of all previous nations in Q. 43:45; Abraham beseeches God with it (Q. 19:44); Aaron uses it to remind the Israelites of their God (Q. 20:19); it appears on the tongue of an Israelite community (Q. 36:15); and it appears on the tongue of Mary, mother of Jesus twice (in 19:18 and 19:26).

Modern research has shown that this name was indeed used by certain Jews (and perhaps Christians) in Southern Arabia.²⁷ This group would praise Raḥmānān as the ‘Lord of the Jews’, ‘Master of Heaven’ and the ‘Praiseworthy One’. They would invoke Him to ask for His mercy, to answer their prayers, to grant them a life of justice, and to bless them children who will fight for Rahmānān.²⁸ Nöldeke as well considered it to have been ‘borrowed’ from the Jews.²⁹ Arthur Jefferey acknowledges that al-Raḥmān originated from the common Semitic root r-ḥ-m and that there is little doubt that it was imported from S. Arabia. Whether from Christians or Jews, Jeffery says, ‘the matter is uncertain’.³⁰

Greenfield documents some references to similar divine names found in Akkadian and Aramaic sources from the mid-ninth century BCE, which of course pre-dates Hebrew usage in Southern Arabia. He also shows some usage of the term in Jewish liturgical chants. However, he concludes, “There remains, nevertheless, doubt that rḥmnn was the source of al-Raḥman, since the impact of South Arabian culture on cities like Mecca and Medina seems to have been limited. There is evidence that al-Raḥman was used in Arabic itself before Muhammad.”³¹

It is claimed by some that this name was a Meccan name that was later not emphasized as much, and perhaps even sidelined by later Muslims as a primary name of God.³² However, the name is mentioned in quite a few Medinan verses as well (for example, Q. 2:163, and 59:22). In addition, every single Sunnī theologian who discussed the Divine Names considered the name ‘al-Raḥman’ as being one of those 99 names.³³

Conclusion

To conclude, as with many issues dealing with the academic study of religion, how one chooses to interpret the basmala has a lot to do with one’s basic theological and historical premises. If one believes that Muḥammad conjured up a new monotheistic system in order to unite the Arabs, then it is plausible to suggest that he might have wished to unite various factions of Arabia under the deities that they would be familiar with, hence ‘Allah’ for the Arabs of Ḥijāz and ‘al-Raḥmān’ for the Arabs of Southern Arabia. And this is indeed the position of many modern Islamicists. But such a position does lead to other questions, such as: why did he only choose the name of the god of one faction of Arabia (Southern Arabia), and not other areas and provinces? And why was he so stubbornly opposed to all the Meccan (and Ḥijāzite) pagan deities, allowing no compromise with those deities whatsoever?³⁴ Also the question arises as to how the name of this obscure divinity reached him. The claim that Muḥammad was reaching out to convert Arabs in Southern Yemen while he was still in the early stages of his career at Mecca presupposes that he was envisioning this new religion to be a dominant force in the farthest corners of Arabia, even while being persecuted and rejected in his own city.

From a Muslim theologian’s perspective, the fact that ‘al-Raḥmān’ was similar to the name that some Jews in southern Arabia used to refer to God is not problematic in the slightest. Firstly, since the name clearly has an Arabic root (r-ḥ-m), and is completely consisted with a standard morphological form (al-faʿlān), there is no need to assume foreign influence, especially in light of the fact that some pre-Islamic poetry exists mentioning this name. Secondly, the similarities between Aramaic/Hebrew rḥmnn and al-Raḥmān could possibly be ascribed to common Semitic roots between Aramaic or Hebrew on the one side, and Arabic on the other. Thirdly, even if foreign influence is assumed, since Judaism and Christianity are seen as being the theological predecessors of Islam, there is no problem for a Muslim to posit that al-Raḥmān was a Divine Name given to them as well. The fact that this opinion (viz., that the name has a Hebrew origin) is expressly found in many classical sources (even being attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās), and yet no controversy arose, shows how little this opinion perturbed Muslim scholars. Even if they linguistically did not agree with this position, the fact that a divine name had been used by the Jews or other previous nations did not raise any theological alarms for them.

It is relevant to conclude this response with a quote from the Encyclopedia Of Islam:³⁵

“That al-Raḥmān should have been the name of a single God in central and southern Arabia is in no way incompatible with the fact that, when adopted by Islam, it assumes a grammatical form of a word derived from the root RḤM.”

1. These include classical works, such as those by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Aḥkām al-Basmala, and the Ṣūfī ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Jīlanī (grandson of the famous ʿAbd al-Qādir), al-Kahf wa al-Raqīm fī Sharḥ Bismillāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm, and many modern works as well. There are also numerous unprinted manuscripts (some of them at Yale) dealing with the basmala.
2. EI2, s.v., ‘Basmala’
3. Ibn Hishām, Sīrah, v. 3, p. 439. The same phrase (bismik Allahum) is recorded to have been written at the top of the pact of the ‘Boycott’ that the Meccans employed against the early Muslims. See, ibid., v. 1, p. 325.
4. Various ḥadīth explicitly mention that the basmala blesses every action that begins with it and confounds and angers Satan; that it should be mentioned before entering a mosque or house, before eating or drinking, before hunting or sacrificing an animal, before traveling or engaging in battle, before reciting Qurʾān, praying or performing ablutions, and even before intercourse – in fact, it should be said before performing any permissible act; its accidental absence causes about a lack of blessings, and intentionally avoiding it makes sacrificial meat unlawful and, according to some, nullifies ablution. For a detailed discussion of all of these ḥadīths and legal points, refer to Mukhtār Marzūq ʿAbd al-Raḥīm, al-Subul al-Mudhallala ilā Asrār wa Fawāʾid al-Basmala (Cairo: 1999), p. 121-213.
5. Reported in Abū Dāwūd’s Sunan, and other works. There are many other traditions to this effect, some of them allegedly from the words of Prophet himself. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī has collected most of them in his Aḥkām, p.25-27.
6. For details of this, see: al-Rāzī, Aḥkam al-Basmlah, p. 17-18; Qadhi, An Introduction, p. 157-60; EI2, s.v., ‘Basmala’ . The latter half of al-Rāzī’s work is a very detailed legal discussion pertaining to whether the basmala should be recited out loud in the prayer or not.
7. One of the types of b- is known as ‘bā al-istiʿānah’ or the prepositional letter to indicate seeking help and support. See: Ibn Hishām, Ḍiyāʾ al-Sālik (explanation of Alfiyyah of Ibn Mālik), v. 2, p. 258. Due to this technical meaning, I prefer to translate this type of b- as the English ‘with’ rather than the conventional ‘in’, as the meaning implied is to invoke the memory and blessings of God, as if God is ‘with’ the invoker.
8. Khalīl b. Aḥmad, Kitāb al-ʿAyn, v. 7, p. 318.
9. See: al-Kashāf, v. 1, p. 17-19; al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, p. 21-24; al-ʿUthaymīn, Tafsīr Sūrat al-Fātiḥa, p. 51-53.
10. The theological controversy over the relationship of the ism to the musammā is discussed in great detail in the works of al-Rāzī and Ibn Taymiyyah. See, for example, al-Rāzī’s Lawāmiʿ al-Bayyināt, p. 24, and Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, v. 6, p. 201.
11. Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān, s.v., ‘God and His Attributes’.
12. The most famous of them being Ṣībawayh (d. 180/797) and the Mālikī scholar Ibn al-ʿArabī. Numerous other scholars disagreed, amongst them Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Zajjāj, Ibn Sīdah, al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Athīr and al-Zamakhsharī. Ibn al-Qayyim has a good discussion of these opinions in: Badāʿi al-Fawāʾid (Beirut: 1991), v. 1, p. 22-3.
13. In my own research, I have come across eight opinions about this issue.
14. Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, v. 13, p. 561.
15. Ibid., v. 13, p. 539.
16. Ibid., v. 13, p. 466. Also, for these and other opinions, see al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, v. 1, p. 24-7; Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʾi al-Fawāʾid, v. 1, p. 22-3.
17. Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān, s.v, ‘Attributes of God’
18. See: al-Tabarī, v. 1, p. 38-40; al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Maṣūn, v. 1, p. 30-32; Ibn al-Qayyim, Badāʿi al-Fawāʾis, v. 1, p. 23.
19. Al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, v. 1, p. 45. This opinions seems to have found preference amongst many exegetes, such as al-Rāzī and Ibn Kathīr.
20. J. C. Greenfield, “From ’LH RḤMN To AL-RAḤMĀN: The Source Of A Divine Epithet,” in B. H. Hary, J. L. Hayes & F. Astren (Eds.), Judaism And Islam: Boundaries, Communication And Interaction - Essays In Honor Of William M. Brinner, (2000), p. 390
21. See: al-Samīn al-Ḥalabī, al-Durr al-Masṣūn, v. 1, p. 30, who attributes this position to a linguist known as al-Aʿlam al-Shantamirī (d. 446/1054), and then refutes it.
22. Ibn ʿĀshūr narrates this from Muḥammad ʿAbduh in his al-Muḥarrar al-Wajīz, v. 1, p. 151. I was not able to find anyone before ʿAbduh who held a similar position.
23. Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān, s.v., ‘Attributes of God’.
24. However, many exegetes do not seem to take this at face value; al-Ṭabarī, for instance, claims that he who claims the Arabs did not know the name ‘al-Raḥmān’ is being foolish (ghabāʾ), as what the verse indicates is that they rejected God out of arrogance, and not this name. As proof, he quotes other verses (such as Q. 43:20) and also lines of pre-Islamic poetry which shows that the Arabs new this name.
25. Reported in Aḥmad, Musnad, v. 1, p. 498.
26. Al-Qurṭubī, Tafsīr, v. 1, p. 141; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab, v. 12, p. 284; Jefferey, Foreign Vocabulary, p. 140.
27. Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān, s.v., ‘Attributes of God’
28. J. C. Greenfield, “From ’LH RḤMN To AL-RAḤMĀN: The Source Of A Divine Epithet,” in B. H. Hary, J. L. Hayes & F. Astren (Eds.), Judaism And Islam: Boundaries, Communication And Interaction - Essays In Honor Of William M. Brinner, (2000), p. 388.
29. Theodor Nöldeke, “The Koran” in Ibn Warraq, The Origins Of The Koran: Classic Essays On Islam’s Holy Book, (1998), Prometheus Books
30. Jeffery, Foreign Vocabulary, p. 141.
31. Greenfield, op. cit., p. 387, 389.
32. Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān, s.v., ‘Attributes of God’
33. There has been a lot of research done in modern times regarding the opinions of classical and medieval Sunnī scholars on the 99 names of God. The most comprehensive of these works is a massive study undertaken by my own master’s dissertation advisor, Dr. Muḥammad al-Tamīmī, in his Muʿtaqad Ahl al-Sunnah fī Asmāʾ Allah al-Ḥusnā (Kuwait: 1996). In it, he compiles the lists of around twenty classical and medieval scholars who wrote about this topic, and compares their opinions, one by one, regarding the Divine Names. There are a few names that are common to all of these lists without exception; al-Raḥmān is one of them.
34. Even if one understands the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident as being such an attempt, the fact remains that he did not persist in allowing any compromise in worshipping these other gods.
35. EI2, s.v., ‘Basmala’

After her tragic death, her father Abu Shoiab wrote up this beautiful article. I’ve asked his permission to post it on our website.

Nabihah My Love

But a Person is With the One Whom They Love

Even before we start to write about this glimpse into the life of our dear daughter, it is necessary to purify our intentions, hence the reason for the delay. This must not be for Shuhrah or fame or some Nahiha fan club, but it must be for, as Allah has said, “Ya ayyuha ladhina amanu itaqullaaha wabtaghoo ilayhil waseelah” (Oh you who believe fear Allah and seek out the means of approach to him). Great effort and attention must be paid in trying to purify our intentions and knowing precisely why we are doing this. It may be a wake up call for a lazy or sleepy Muslim. It may help someone to realize how short and fleeting this life is; how precious it is that we must take every opportunity to do good, no matter how small, and we must seek every opportunity to invite people to Allah and use all the resources available to us in that cause, even if that means the life and death of our dear baby.

How do we begin to describe the love of our life? If Allah had given us someone for one or two years and took her away, it would have been easier because of her short life. Or if she had been married with children and away from the home it would have softened the loss. But our baby girl was in the prime of her life, just at the age of marriage, and the decision is with the Lord of the universe. As our Prophet (SAW) said at the moment of his death, when he was given the choice to go or stay, “Balir-rafeequl-’alaa, Balir-rafeequl-’alaa - certainly the highest companionship, certainly the highest the companionship.”

It was late 2004 when Nabiha discovered a non-healing ulcer on her tongue which became exceedingly painful and was preventing her from eating. In March 2005, she had her first operation for the removal of the ulcer and a biopsy, which showed a presence of malignancy. In retrospect, when a Muslim is faced with the news of cancer, he begins to think of the options available to him. Seeking treatment and medical care is encouraged in the Sunnah (called: “at-tadaawee - seeking treatment”). So over the next two years, we followed the full gamut of treatment of up to seven or eight surgeries together with radiotherapy in far away India, a return there for a review, then on to chemotherapy back in Trinidad. Despite huge setbacks, we were to see the Hand of Allah in everything that challenged us. He tested us but walked us through to the very end. Allahumma laka wa minka; O Allah to you and from you. Laa malja’a minallahi illa ilayhi; There is no refuge from Allah, except in Him. (more…)

“And if We had made this a foreign Qur’ān, they would have said, ‘Why are its verses not clarified? What! A foreign [book] and an Arab [prophet]?!’” Al-Qur’ān 41:44

Question:
It is an indisputable fact that the Qur’ān uses ‘foreign vocabulary’, that is to say, vocabulary that was adopted into the Arabic language of the Qur’ān as loanwords derived from Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Hebrew, Greek, and other languages, but already understood in the Meccan and Medinan environment of Muhammad’s time. Many of these loanwords are taken from their liturgical usage in the Jewish-Christian tradition. It is equally indisputable that the Qur’ān includes many passages that have their parallels in biblical or extra-biblical narratives. How do you critically assess these phenomena of the Qur’ān in view of the claim that the Qur’ān is divine revelation, word for word?

Answer:
Due to the multi-layered question, this response will be divided into three parts.¹

1. The Issue of Foreign Words

The controversy regarding the presence of foreign words in the Qur’ān is an ancient one, and although modern scholarship can claim that this fact is indisputable, it was certainly not so in the eyes of some early Muslims.

The famous Andalusian exegete, Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubī (d. 671/1272), summarized the controversy in the introduction to his Tafsīr. He stated that the scholars of Islam have unanimously agreed that there are no non-Arabic sentences or phrases in the Qur’ān, and they have also agreed that there are non-Arabic proper names such as ‘Jesus’ (‘Īsā), Gabriel (Jibrīl) and ‘Noah’ (Nūh). However, they differed into two groups regarding the presence of solitary foreign words in the Qur’ān.²

The controversy, of course, pre-dates al-Qurtubī by a few centuries. On the one hand were those who claimed that there were no foreign words in the Qur’ān, the most prominent amongst them being the jurist al-Shāfi’ī (d. 204/819), and also the exegete al-Tabarī (d. 310/922). They claimed that any word found in another language did not necessitate its origination in that language, for it could be the case that the other language took it from Arabic, or that both languages used those words simultaneously.³ The former, in his famous al-Risālah, has some harsh words for the followers of this opinion, and considered those who claimed that the Qur’ān has foreign words in it as being ignorant, bereft of wisdom and knowledge.⁴ Their concern, as they quite clearly delineate, was that the Qur’ān describes itself, in almost a dozen verses (e.g. Q. 16:103, 12:2, and 42:7) as being in pure Arabic, hence how could it be claimed that it contained foreign words? They also felt that, in accordance with the Qur’ānic principle that all prophets are sent speaking their native tongues, an Arab prophet would have to speak in Arabic to them. A third reason why such great consternation was felt, as the grammarian Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004) stated, was due to the fact that if there were non-Arabic words in it, it would be unfair to challenge the Arabs to produce a work similar to it, as the Qur’ān does.⁵

It is poignant to note that there does not seem to be any indication in the writings of these early and even medieval scholars that admitting the existence of foreign vocabulary in the Qur’ān might somehow challenge its claim of Divine origin or expose it to allegations of ‘foreign’ influence. Rather, for them, it was a matter of reconciling specific verses that they presumed contradicted the assertion that foreign words existed in it.

On the other hand, quite a few early authorities seemed to have no problem acknowledging the foreign vocabulary of the Qur’ān. In particular the Companion Ibn ‘Abbās has much narrated from him in this regard (whether it can be deemed authentic or not is another question). The prolific al-Suyūtī (d. 911/1505) wrote the largest work of its kind in Arabic, entitled al-Muhadhab fī ma waqa’a fī al-Qur’ān min al-mu’arrab, in which he compiled around five dozen such examples. For al-Suyūtī, the few examples of non–Arabic words found in the Qur’ān did not negate its overall Arabic nature, hence there was no conflict with this and the verses describing it as being an Arabic revelation.

A third group of scholars tried to reconcile the two positions by claiming that there was an element of truth in both of them. The early linguist Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (more…)

The article demonstrates, inter alia, the reason why orthodox scholars of the past (viz., the Ahl al-Hadīth and those who followed them) disapproved of kalām. The obvious Hellenistic roots of kalām, the cosmological premises that it posited, and the theological positions that were derived from such roots and premises, do not have any basis in the Sacred Texts, and in fact in most instances contradict them.

Additionally, it is simply preposterous to presume that the Companions themselves, or even the Prophet salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, knew of these concepts or based their theology on them (and even the Ash’arites do not claim this). And surely, if the Prophet and Companions were not using such tools, then there is no need to use them, especially since they lead to positions that appear to contradict the Qur’ān and Sunnah.

Introduction of the Concept

The concept of all matter being composed of small, indivisible particles called atoms most likely goes back to the fifth century B.C., when a young contemporary of Socrates, known as Democritus, first formally introduced the idea (most likely under the influence of his teacher Leucippus). He claimed that if one continually kept dividing matter, eventually a particle would be reached that could not be divided anymore: an a-tom, i.e., ‘not divisible’. He also posited the existence of empty spaces between these atoms within which they could move - a pure ‘void’. He believed that all of the workings of the universe were the result of the vibrations of these atoms through voids and their collisions with one another.

Plato, and in particular his student Aristotle, strongly disagreed. The latter, in his Physics, wrote quite extensively against the existence of both the ‘atom’ and the ‘void’, claiming that not only were Democritus’ evidences lacking, but also that the existence of atoms and voids violated physical principles. In turn, Plato posited the ‘four natural elements’ theory: fire, air, earth and water form the basis of all else.[1]

These Greek philosophers - both the atomists and antiatomists - were attempting to explain natural occurrences and daily phenomenon without the need of resorting to supernatural explanations and believing in heavenly (or earthly) deities.[2] It is, therefore, rather ironic that this tool was then adopted by a faction of a monotheistic faith (i.e., the mutakallimūn) in their attempt to prove the all encompassing efficacy of an omnipotent God.[3] However, in their adoption of this cosmological view, they ensured that they sufficiently modified it so as to conform with and eventually support their theological positions.[4]

Kalām Atomism

From its earliest inception in the second century of the hijra, kalām has always been (more…)

Part One: The Islamic Beliefs Regarding Salvific Exclusivity

It is a fundamental belief of Muslims that Islam is not only a divinely revealed religion from God, but rather that it is the only acceptable religion and the sole legitimate path to His pleasure. Such a belief is not an abstract, minute, theological frivolity, relegated to the more finer points of obscure works, but rather a foundational premise that is explicitly mentioned throughout our Divine Texts and upon which our religion is based. To deny it is simply the demolition of the entire religion. In other words, one cannot seriously and earnestly make such a claim and remain a Muslim (unless ignorance is accepted as an excuse on Judgment Day – and that is an exception that only God can allow).

These are bold claims, no doubt. Many will find them unpalatable. Yet they are claims that are clearly substantiated throughout the entire Quran and in the teachings of the Prophet, salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam. These beliefs have been held unanimously by all the major theological branches of Islam, throughout its history (except for a handful of exceptions, to be discussed in part two of this series). These beliefs also make complete rational sense; in fact to hold the contrary position is illogical. Hence, the salvific exclusivity of Islam is proven extensively by the Quran, the Sunnah, ijmāʿ (to such a level that ijmāʿ exists with groups whose opinion does not count), and human rationality (ʿaql).

But before even quoting one verse, this belief can be proven from the very crux of the faith, the testimony upon which the religion stands. The kalimah, which is the essence of Islam and by which a person enters the faith, states, “I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger.” No one can claim to be a Muslim until he or she believes in both parts of the kalimah.

For our subject matter, if any person were to claim that another being (Jesus Christ, for example) is worthy of worship, it would be a direct negation the first half of the testimony, even if he himself were not to worship Jesus. The mere theoretical acknowledgment (more…)

Introduction

As Muslims living in the West, we are faced with a myriad of legal, religious and political problems that our brothers in the East are relatively free from.

One of the more controversial issues – an issue that intersects politics and religion – is the Islamic attitude towards ‘the other.’ Many questions are raised, including: what does Islam say about other faiths? What is a Muslim’s obligation vis-à-vis people of other religions? Is it morally and legally acceptable to reject Islam and believe in another system of beliefs? What about the fate of such people in the Hereafter?

It is my intention to elaborate on some of these issues in future articles, in particular the issue of the relationship that Islam posits with people of other religions (or, to be more precise, the issue of al-walā wa al-barāʾ, which I believe has been greatly misunderstood by certain segments of society). In this series of articles, however, I will concentrate on a very crucial theological tenet of Islam: the issue of salvific exclusivity. Salvific exclusivity is the belief that the only way to achieve salvation, and hence Paradise (or the Hindu moksha, or the Buddhist Nirvana, or whatever else one believes in), is through one’s own system of beliefs. This topic is one that seriously deserves attention in our times for a number of reasons.

Firstly, due to allegations by sincere, concerned non-Muslims, and also by Islamophobes, that this belief is a dangerous belief that leads to a religious hatred of others, which in turn leads to extremism and acts of violence. Sadly, it is undeniably true that some elements within Islam have indeed gone to extremes in this regard. Yet, this is obviously not the message that the vast majority of Muslims derive from this belief. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to prove that the one (i.e., belief in exclusive salvation) does not and should not lead to the other (i.e., violence and terrorism).

Secondly, in the politically correct climate of the era that we find ourselves in, it is getting more and more difficult for any religion to (more…)

Synopsis: This article seeks to discuss, in moderate detail, the fiqh ruling on giving zakāt al-fiṭr in the form of money instead of staple food item. In this author’s opinion, although it is best to give zakāt al-fītr in staple food, there is no unequivocal evidence to suggest that giving it in the form of money makes it invalid. Therefore, taking into account the situation of most Muslim communities in the Western world, there is no problem giving zakāt al-fītr in the form of money, even though it would be meritorious to follow the letter of the law and give it in the form of staple food items if possible.

Zakāt al-Fiṭr: The Basics

Zakāt al-fiṭr is one of two obligatory charities that have been obligated in the Sharīʿah (the other one being regular zakāt). The fact that it is obligatory has been unanimously agreed upon amongst the scholars. It was legislated when the fast of Ramaḍān was legislated, meaning the second year of the hijrah. Hence, zakāt al-fiṭr was actually legislated before regular zakāt.

It is obligatory on all Muslims who have more than the amount of food that they and their immediate families require on the day of Eid. Hence, its nisāb is considerably less than the niṣāb of regular zakāt (which is 612 grams of silver or 87.48 grams of gold).

Zakāt al-fiṭr is paid on behalf of every single member of one’s household, even if that member did (more…)

What really inspired me - more than the story of this orphan teenage convert who memorized the Quran in the midst of a civil war, which in iteslf is a beautiful story - is that the percentage of Muslims in Rwanda has doubled following the horrible massacres of 1994-6. Why? Because Muslims did not participate in the massacres, established a reputation of peace, and were active in humanitarian aid in the aftermath. Hence, Rwandans actually respect Islam for its beautiful image.

It’s just nice to know that somewhere, someplace, Muslims are doing a good job and actually giving the correct image of Islam .

DUBAI, 30 September 2007 — The life story of Umugwaneza Sulaiman, a contestant for the Dubai International Holy Qur’an Award, is truly inspirational since he has risen from (more…)

In the Name of Allah, the Ever-Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy

All Praise is due to Allah, and may the salutations of Allah be upon the Beloved Messenger.

Alhamdulillah, a very blessed and important step was recently taken by a number of du`aat and students of knowledge in the Western world. This was done in order to achieve a more cooperative spirit and foster a greater degree of harmony amongst Sunni Muslims. A mention of this momentous event was made in another MM post here.

The attached ‘Pledge of Mutual Respect and Cooperation’, signed by people of diverse theological backgrounds, all of whom have historically used the label of Ahl al-Sunnah (or ‘Sunni’ for short), is intended to be a guideline for mutual interaction (a modus vivendi of sorts), primarily for themselves, and also for those who might look to them for guidance.

Primarily, it states that:

- The fundamental issues of creed, as embodied in the famous Hadeeth of Jibreel, are simple, and it is not a requirement of Islam that every single Muslim be cognizant of the more abstruse issues of theology.

- The situation and times we live in warrants an even more concerted effort to achieve unity amongst Muslims, and avoid splintering to the greatest extent possible.

- Disputations of more complex issues of theology need to be conducted by people who are trained in these sciences, and not by lay-Muslims. Additionally, even when such discussions take place, they should be done in accordance with proper Islamic etiquette.

- No charges of takfeer should be labeled against (more…)

Yes, it’s that time of the year again when brothers and sisters frantically begin calling family and friends, asking, “What did Shaykh so-and-so say?” and “Did they see the moon yet?” and, the single most effective question that seals the fate of one’s own fast, “What are YOU going to do?” In this post, I don’t want to go into a detailed tangent regarding which opinion is ‘correct’ or not, but rather lay out some of the issues surrounding the controversy, and offer some practical advice.

The precise conditions required to sight a credible hilaal is just one of the many hundreds and thousands of issues of fiqh that our scholars have differed over, since the time of the Companions. And, in the multi-madhab milieu of North America, we are exposed to many such fiqh differences on a regular basis, to the extent that most of us have come to live with and accept the rich diversity of opinion present in our traditional legal schools of thought. However, what makes the issue of the moon-sighting stand out from the usual run-of-the mill fiqh issues is that it affects a joint and communal festival of the Ummah. Other issues, such as whether zakat should be given on jewelry, or whether the qunut be prayed in witr or Fajr, or the finer details of how one prays, do not affect the Ummah as a whole. Typically, these other differences can be left to one’s individual preference with little or no detrimental effect on fellow Muslims. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said of the date of the two Eids and the beginning of the month of Ramadan, as this difference will affect entire communities, and form fault lines between two neighboring masjids, or even within the worshippers of the same masjid.

But why is there such a controversy in the first place? (more…)