chapter twelve

idol-worship in pre-islamic arabia

religious conditions in pre-islamic arabia

kabah was built in mecca, by abraham and his son ishmael as a first-ever

monument dedicated to one god. built around the famous black stone

(probably a meteorite) in the remotest antiquity, the kabah ever remained the

holiest and the most sacred of the temples and this gave mecca an

overwhelming predominance over the other cities of arabia. with the passage

of many thousands years, the descendants of ishmael abandon worship of

one god alone and were seduced by idol worship. at the time of

muhammad’s birth, kabah was the bastion of paganism and idol-worship.

there were 360 idols, one for each day, arranged around the great god hubal,

two gazelles of gold and silver, and image of abraham and his son ishmael.

here the tribes came from all over arabia, year after year, to kiss the black

stone, and circumambulate around kabah seven times, usually naked. human

sacrifices were also frequent.

the three moon-goddesses – al-lat, the bright moon, al-manat the dark moon,

and al-uzza, the union of the two were regarded as the daughters of the high

god. the goddess uzza was represented by a tree at a place called nakhla. the

goddess lat was located in taif. manat was represented by a rock on the

caravan road between mecca and syria. arabs also worshipped animal and

plants, the gazelle, the horse, the camel, the palm tree, inorganic matter like

pieces of rock, stones, etc. belief in jins, ghouls, and oracles were rendered

by their idols, which they consulted by means of pointless arrows.

each tribe had its particular idols and temples. the priest and hierophants

attached to these temples received rich offering from the devotees. and often,

there arose sanguinary conflicts between the followers of rival temples.

besides specials idols located in the temples each family had household

penates, which exacted rigorous observations. they often carried their idols

with them when they traveled, presuming that the idol had permitted its

worshiper to travel. all these statues, whether in kabah or scattered around

the tribes, were regarded as intermediaries and a means of rapprochement

between their worshipers and supreme god. the idea of a supreme deity,

however was not unrecognized but it influence was confined to a minority.

the prestige of the kabah, the chapel of abraham and ishmael, stood

unimpeached among all. the custody of this temple was an object of great

jealousy among the tribes, as it conferred on the custodians the most

honorable functions and privileges in the sight of the arabs. at the time of

muhammad’s birth this honor was possessed by his family and his

grandfather was the venerable chief of the theocratic commonwealth which

was constituted around the kabah. the translation of the quran is presented

below in bold letters and explanation in parentheses.

polytheism verses monotheism - an islamic perspective

(6:151) say: “come, let me convey unto you what god has [really]

forbidden to you: “do not ascribe divinity, in any way, to aught beside

him.” [in the stories of pre-islamic prophets, implications have - as is always

the case with quranic stories and parables - a universal, timeless import. the

stress is on the intrinsic impossibility of reconciling belief in the one god,

whose omniscience and omnipotence embraces all that exists, with an

attribution of divine or semi-divine qualities and functions to anyone or

anything else. all religious attitudes based on a desire to bring god closer to

man through the interposition of alleged mediators between him and man. in

primitive religions, this interposition led to the deification of various forces

of nature and, subsequently, to the invention of imaginary deities, which

were thought to act against the background of an undefined, dimly-perceived

supreme power (for instance, the moira of the ancient greeks). in higher

religious concepts, this need for mediation assumes the form of personified

manifestations of god through subordinate deities (as is the case, in

hinduism, with the personifications of the absolute brahma of the upanishads

and the vedanta in the forms of vishnu or shiva), or in his supposed

incarnation in human form (as represented in the christian idea of jesus as

god’s son and the second person of the trinity). and, lastly, god is supposedly

brought closer to man by the interposition of a hierarchy of saints, living or

dead, whose intercession is sought even by people who consider themselves

to be monotheists - and this includes many misguided muslims who do not

realize that their belief in saints as mediators between men and god conflicts

with the very essence of islam. the ever-recurring quranic stress on the

oneness and uniqueness of god, and the categorical denial of the idea that

anyone or anything - whether it be a concrete being or an abstract force -

could have the least share in god’s qualities or the least influence on the

manner in which he governs the universe aims at freeing man from the self-

imposed servitude to an imaginary hierarchy of mediating powers, and at

making him realize that “wherever you turn, there is god’s countenance”

(2:115), and that god is “always near, responding to the call of whoever calls

unto him” (2:186). whenever the term shuraka (pl. of sharik) is used in the

quran with reference to beliefs, it invariably denotes real or imaginary

beings or forces to whom one ascribes a share in god’s divinity:

consequently, this concept - and its utter condemnation in islam - relates not

merely to the worship of false deities but also to the attribution of semi-

divine qualities and powers to saints (in the liturgical sense of this word), as

well as to abstract notions like wealth, social status, power, nationality, etc.,

to which men so often ascribe an objective influence on human destinies.

the following are the arguments put forth by pagans of arabia and the

quranic response to them.]

do not give god any compeers

(2:21-22) o mankind! worship your sustainer, who has created you and

those who lived before you, so that you might remain conscious of him

who has made the earth a resting-place for you and the sky a canopy,

and has sent down water from the sky and thereby brought forth fruits

for your sustenance: do not, then, claim that there is any power that

could rival god, when you know [that he is one]. [lit., “do not give god

any compeers”. this term implies any object of adoration to which some or

all of god's qualities are ascribed, whether it be conceived as a deity “in its

own right” or a saint supposedly possessing certain divine or semi-divine

powers. this meaning can be brought out only by a free rendering of the

above phrase.]

following ancestral beliefs blindly

abraham’s criticism of idol-worship, his people merely stress its antiquity,

forgetting - that ancient usage and precedence in time are no proof of a

concept soundness (see part 1, under abraham).

(5:103-105) and most of them never use their reason: for when they are

told, “come unto that which god has bestowed from on high, and unto

the apostle” - they answer, “enough for us is that which we found our

forefathers believing in and doing.” why, even though their forefathers

knew nothing, and were devoid of all guidance? o you who have attained

to faith! it is [but] for your own selves that you are responsible: those

who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right

path. unto god you all must return: and then he will make you [truly]

understand all that you were doing [in life].

(11:109, 111) and so, [o prophet,] be not in doubt about anything that

those [misguided people] worship: [do not think that their beliefs are based

on reason: a reference, primarily, to the pagan arabs who rejected god’s

message on the plea that it conflicted with their; and, more generally, to all

people who are accustomed to worship (in the widest sense of this word)

false values handed down from their ancestors and who, consequently,

observe false standards of morality: an attitude which must unavoidably - as

the last sentence of this verse shows - result in future suffering, be it in this

world or in the hereafter, or in both.] they but [thoughtlessly] worship as

their forefathers worshipped aforetime; and, behold, we shall most

certainly give them their full due [for whatever good or evil they have

earned], without diminishing aught thereof. [we shall repay them their

portion in full, undiminished.] and, verily, unto each and all will thy sus-

tainer give their full due for whatever [good or evil] they may have

done: behold, he is aware of all that they do!

(31:21-24) and when such [people] are told to follow that which god has

bestowed from on high, they answer, “nay, we shall follow that which we

found our forefathers believing in and doing!” why - [would you follow

your forefathers] even if satan had invited them unto the suffering of the

blazing flame? [as in many other places in the quran, the above verse

expresses an oblique condemnation of blindly following religion of

forefathers.] now whoever surrenders his whole being unto god, and is a

doer of good withal, has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing:

for with god rests the final outcome of all events. but as for him who is

bent on denying the truth - let not his denial grieve you: unto us they

must return, and then we shall make them [truly] understand all that

they were doing [in life]: for, verily, god has full knowledge of what is in

the hearts [of men]. we will let them enjoy themselves for a short while -

but in the end we shall drive them into suffering severe.

worshipping of idols bring us nearer to god

(39:1-3) the bestowal from on high of this divine writ issues from god,

the almighty, the wise: for, behold, it is we who have bestowed this

revelation upon you (muhammad) from on high, setting forth the truth:

so worship him, sincere in your faith in him alone! is it not to god alone

that all sincere faith is due? and yet, they who take for their protectors

aught beside him [are wont to say], “we worship them for no other

reason than that they bring us nearer to god.” [this relates not only to the

worship of saints, angels and deified persons as such, but also to that of their

symbolic representations (statues, pictures, relics, etc.) and, in the case of

defunct human personalities, of their real or reputed tombs. since all such

practices are based on the worshipper’s hope of mediation between himself

and god, they obviously conflict with the concept of his omniscience and

justice, and are, therefore - notwithstanding their widespread occurrence -

utterly rejected by the quran.] behold, god will judge between them [on

resurrection day] with regard to all wherein they differ [from the truth]:

[i.e., between those worshippers and the spiritual leaders who have led them

astray.] for, verily, god does not grace with his guidance anyone who is

bent on lying [to himself and is] stubbornly ingrate!

worship of angels and goddesses

god chosen for himself daughters

(37:149) and now ask them to enlighten you: has thy sustainer

daughters, whereas they would have [only] sons? [this reference to people

who ascribe divinity to beings other than god.]

(43:15-18) and yet, they attribute to him offspring from among some of

the beings created by him! verily, most obviously bereft of all gratitude

is man! [despite the fact that most people readily admit that god has created

all that exists, some of them tend to forget his uniqueness.] or [do you

think], perchance, that out of all his creation he has chosen for himself

daughters, and favored you with sons? [the people thus addressed were

the pagan arabs, who believed that some of their goddesses, as well as the

angels, were god’s daughters. since pre-islamic arabs regarded daughters as

a mere liability and their birth as a disgrace, this verse is obviously ironical.]

for [thus it is:] if any of them is given the glad tiding of [the birth of]

what he so readily attributes to the most gracious, [i.e., female offspring,

which implies a natural likeness to its progenitor.] his face darkens, and he

is filled with suppressed anger: “what! [am i to have a daughter -] one

who is to be reared [only] for the sake of ornament?” [one who, from the

viewpoint of the pre-islamic arabs, would have no function other than

embellishing a man’s life.] - and thereupon he finds himself torn by a

vague inner conflict. [he finds himself in an invisible inner conflict, which

he does not quite admit to his consciousness. he debates within himself, shall

he keep this child despite the contempt which he feels for it - or shall he

bury it in the dust?]

(52:39) or, [if you believe in god, how can you believe that] he has

[chosen to have] daughters, whereas you yourselves would have [only]

sons? [this is addressed to the pagan contemporaries of the prophet,

implying that you not only blaspheme by ascribing progeny to god, but you

intensify your blasphemy by ascribing to him something that you yourselves

despise, i.e., female offspring.]

god has begotten a son

(37:150-157) is it that we have created the angels female, and they [who

believe them to be divine] have witnessed [that act of creation]? oh,

verily, it is out of their own [inclination to] falsehood that some people

assert, “god has begotten [a son]”; and, verily, they are lying [too, when

they say], “he has chosen daughters in preference to sons”! [they have

invented for him sons and daughters.] what is amiss with you and your

judgment? will you not, then, bethink yourselves? or have you,

perchance, a clear evidence [for your assertions]? produce, then, that

divine writ of yours, if you are speaking the truth!

angels as female deities

(17:40-41) has, then, your sustainer distinguished you by [giving you]

sons, and taken unto himself daughters in the guise of angels? verily,

you are uttering a dreadful saying! [an allusion to the pre-islamic arabian

belief that the angels - conceived of as a kind of female sub-deities - were

god’s “daughters”, and this despite the pagan arabs’ contempt for female

offspring. in its wider implication, this rhetorical question is meant to bring

out the absurdity of the supposition that god’s divinity could be projected

into, or shared by, any other being.] and, indeed, many facets have we

given [to our message] in this quran, so that they [who deny the truth]

might take it to heart: but all this only increases their aversion.

(43:19) and [yet] they claim that the angels - who in themselves are but

beings created by the most gracious - are females: [but] did they witness

their creation? [or, who are but creatures of the most gracious stressing

their having been created and, hence, not being divine.] this false claim of

theirs will be recorded, and they will be called to account [for it on

judgment day]! [regarding the sex of the angels, who are spiritual in nature

and, therefore, sexless.]

worship of jinn

the plural noun jinn (popularly, but incorrectly, taken to denote “genii” or

“demons”) is derived from the verb janna, “he was (or “became”)

concealed” or “veiled from sight”; thus, the veiling darkness of night is

called jinn. according to arab philologists, the term jinn signifies primarily,

“beings that are concealed from man’s senses”, and is thus applicable to all

kinds of invisible beings or forces. (6:100) and yet, some [people] have

come to attribute to all manner of invisible beings a place side by side

with god - although it is he who has created them [all].

(37:158) and some people have invented a kinship between him and all

manner of invisible forces- although [even] these invisible forces know

well that, verily, they [who thus blaspheme against god] shall indeed be

arraigned [before him on judgment day]. [people who refuse to believe in

god often tend to regard those elemental forces as mysteriously endowed

with a purposeful creative power, the quran states that their votaries invent a

“kinship” between them and god, i.e., attribute to them qualities and powers

similar to his.]

mediators and intercessors

those who believe in the existence of other deities or divine powers apart

from god regard them as no more than mediators between man and him, the

argument runs thus: if those alleged divine or semi-divine “mediators”

would really exist, then it is obvious that, being no more than mediators,

even they would have to recognize him as the supreme being - which would

amount to admitting that they have no power of their own but are, in the last

resort, entirely dependent on and subject to him: and this unavoidable

conclusion implies a negation of any divinity in those imaginary mediators.

this being so, is it not far more reasonable for man to turn directly to god,

who is almighty, all-seeing, all-hearing, and has therefore no need of any

mediator.

worship of intercessors

(39:43-45) and yet, they choose [to worship], side by side with god,

[imaginary] intercessors!” [despite all the evidence of god’s almightiness,

many people tend to disregard it and choose to worship intercessors who

could not act as such independently of god’s permission.] say: “why - even

though they have no power over anything, and no understanding?” [this

is a reference to the adoration of dead saints or their tombs or relics, as well

as of inanimate representations of saints, of imaginary deities, etc.] say:

“god’s alone is [the power to bestow the right of] intercession: his

[alone] is the dominion over the heavens and the earth; and, in the end,

unto him you will all be brought back.” and yet, whenever god alone is

mentioned, the hearts of those who will not believe in the life to come

contract with bitter aversion - whereas, when those [imaginary powers]

are mentioned side by side with him, lo, they rejoice! [since cognition of

god must have a sense of moral responsibility as its correlate, the godless

shrink from it, and joyfully turn to the worship - real or metaphoric - of

imaginary powers which make no such moral demand.]

saints and angels are powerless

(17:42) say: “if there were - as some people assert - [other] deities side

by side with him, surely [even] they would have to strive to find a way

unto him who is enthroned on his almightiness?” [the term “seat of

power” is used in the quran to denote god’s absolute sway over all that

exists; the expression may be suitably rendered as “he who is enthroned in

his almightiness”.] (17:56-57) say: [to those who believe in the existence of

any divine power apart from god] “call upon those [beings] whom you

imagine [to be endowed with divine powers] beside him”- [as the

sequence shows, this relates to the worship of saints or angels] and [you will

find that] they have it not in their power to remove any affliction from

you, or to shift it [elsewhere]. [i.e., to transfer it onto themselves: obviously

an allusion to the christian doctrine of vicarious atonement.] those [saintly

beings] whom they invoke are themselves striving to obtain their

sustainer’s favor - [even] those among them who are closest [to him]

[i.e., the greatest of the prophets, as well as the angels.] hoping for his

grace and dreading his chastisement: for, verily, thy sustainer’s

chastisement is something to beware of!

(34:22-23) say: “call upon those [beings] whom you imagine [to be

endowed with divine powers] beside god: they have not an atom’s

weight of power either in the heavens or on earth, nor have they any

share in [governing] either, nor does he [choose to] have any helper from

among them.” [i.e., anybody who would mediate between him and any of

his creatures. as is evident from the sequence (as well as from 17:56- 57),

this passage relates, in particular, to the attribution of divine or semi-divine

qualities to saints and angels and to the problem of their “intercession” with

god.] and, before him, intercession can be of no avail [to any] save one in

whose case he may have granted leave [therefore]: so much so that when

the terror [of the last hour] is lifted from their hearts, they [who have

been resurrected] will ask [one another], “what has your sustainer

decreed [for you]?” - [to which] the others will answer, “whatever is true

and deserved - for he alone is exalted, great!” [i.e., whatever god decides

regarding his grant or refusal of leave for intercession (which is synonymous

with his redemptive acceptance or his rejection of the human being

concerned) will conform with the requirements of absolute truth and justice.]

god’s omniscience and intercessors

(13:33-34) is, then, he who has every living being in his almighty care,

[the term nafs has here apparently the general meaning of “soul” or “living

being”, applying both to humans and animals.] [dealing with each]

according to what it deserves [i.e., according to the exigencies of its life,

and - in the case of a human being - according to his or her moral deserts as

well.] – [is, then, he like anything else that exists]? and yet, they ascribe

to other beings a share in god’s divinity! say: “give them any name [you

please] [this phrase is an expression of utter contempt for those allegedly

divine beings: i.e., they are so unreal and meaningless as not to deserve even

a name. those false objects of worship and imaginary intercessors are but

empty names which you have invented.

the concept of intercessors directly contradicts god’s omniscience which the

next sentence refers to.] but do you [really think that you could] inform

him of anything on earth that he does not know - or [do you] but play

with words?” nay, goodly seems their false imagery [lit., “their cunning or

artful device”:] to those who are bent on denying the truth, and so they

are turned away from the [right] path: and he whom god lets go astray

can never find any guide. for such, there is suffering in the life of this

world; but, truly, [their] suffering in the life to come will be harder still,

and they will have none to shield them from god.

superstitions related to idol worship

arbitrary prohibitions due to superstitions

(5:103) it is not of god’s ordaining that certain kinds of cattle should be

marked out by superstition and set aside from the use of man; yet those

who are bent on denying the truth attribute their own lying inventions

to god. [lit., “god has not ordained anything (in the nature) of a bahirah, nor

a saibah, nor a wasilah, nor a ham.” these expressions denote certain

categories of domestic animals, which the pre-islamic arabs used to dedicate

to their various deities by setting them free to pasture and prohibiting their

use or slaughter. they were selected mainly on the basis of the number, sex

and sequence of their offspring; but the lexicographers and commentators

are by no means unanimous in their attempts at definition. for this reason -

as well as because of their inherent complexity - the above four terms cannot

be translated into any other language; these terms are rendered in the text as

“certain kinds of cattle marked out by superstition and set aside from the use

of man”: this being the common denominator of the four categories. it is

obvious that their mention at this place (as also in 6:138-139 and 143-144)

serves as an illustration of the arbitrary invention of certain supposedly

religious obligations and prohibitions.]

conjectures and artificial rituals

(6:116-121) now if you pay heed unto the majority of those [who live] on

earth, they will but lead you astray from the path of god: they follow but

[other people’s] conjectures, and they themselves do nothing but guess.

[i.e., regarding the true nature of human life and its ultimate destiny, the

problem of revelation, the relationship between god and man, the meaning of

good and evil, etc. apart from leading man astray from spiritual truths, such

guesswork gives rise to the arbitrary rules of conduct and self-imposed

inhibitions to which the quran alludes, by way of example, in verses below.]

verily, thy sustainer knows best as to who strays from his path, and best

knows he as to who are the right-guided. eat, then, of that over which

god’s name has been pronounced, if you truly believe in his messages.

[the purpose of this and the following verse is not, as might appear at first

glance, a repetition of already promulgated food laws but, rather, a reminder

that the observance of such laws should not be made an end in itself and an

object of ritual. the “errant views” spoken of in next verse are such as lay

stress on artificial rituals and taboos rather than on spiritual values.] and

why should you not eat of that over which god’s name has been

pronounced, seeing that he has so clearly spelled out to you what he has

forbidden you [to eat] unless you are compelled [to do so]? but, behold,

[it is precisely in such matters that] many people lead others astray by

their own errant views, without [having any real] knowledge. verily, thy

sustainer is fully aware of those who transgress the bounds of what is

right. but abstain from sinning, be it open or secret [this injunction

connects with the previous verse, thus: “eat, then, of that over which god’s

name has been pronounced....., but abstain from sinning” - i.e., do not go

beyond that which god has made lawful to you.] - for, behold, those who

commit sins shall be requited for all that they have earned. hence, eat

not of that over which god’s name has not been pronounced: for this

would be sinful conduct indeed. and, verily, the evil impulses [within

men’s hearts] whisper unto those who have made them their own [lit.,

“the satans whisper unto those who are near to them”'.] that they should

involve you in argument [as to what is and what is not a sin]; and if you

pay heed unto them, 1o! you will become [like] those who ascribe

divinity to other beings or forces beside god. [i.e., your own evil impulses

are trying to draw you into argument as to what does and what does not

constitute a sin in order to make you lose sight of god’s clear ordinances in

this respect; and if you follow their arbitrary, deceptive reasoning, you will

elevate them, as it were, to the position of moral law-givers, and thus ascribe

to them a right that belongs to god alone.]

dedicating shares to deities

(6:136) and out of whatever he has created of the fruits of the field and

the cattle, they assign unto god a portion, saying, “this belongs to god”-

or so they [falsely] claim – “and this is for those beings who, we are

convinced, have a share in god’s divinity.” [the pre-islamic arabs used to

dedicate a part of their agricultural produce and cattle to some of their

deities, and a part to god, whom they regarded as one - albeit the greatest -

of them. this is a false claim because everything that exists belongs, in the

last resort, to god alone. in consonance, however, with the method of the

quran, the above verse does not allude merely to this historical aspect of pre-

islamic arabian life but has a wider, more general implication as well: that is,

it refers not only to the apportioning of devotional shares between god and

the imaginary deities, but also to the attribution of any share in his creative

powers to anyone or anything beside him.] but that which is assigned to

the beings associated in their minds with god does not bring [them]

closer to god - whereas that which is assigned to god brings [them but]

closer to those beings to whom they ascribe a share in his divinity. bad,

indeed, is their judgment! [i.e., the fact that they assign a share of their

devotions to god does not strengthen their belief in him but, rather, implies a

negation of his transcendental uniqueness and, thus, makes them more and

more dependent on imaginary divine or semi-divine mediators.]

arbitrary prohibitions and questioning grant of free will

(16:35, 56) now they who ascribe divinity to aught beside god say, “had

god so willed, we would not have worshipped aught but him - neither we

nor our forefathers; nor would we have declared aught as forbidden

without a commandment from him.” [the arbitrary, unwarranted

prohibitions and taboos alluded to in the present verse are discussed in

6:136-153. the derision of god’s messages by the deniers of the truth is

implied in their questioning his grant of free will to man - that is to say, the

ability to choose between right and wrong, which is the basis of all

morality.] even thus did speak those [sinners] who lived before their

time; but, then, are the apostles bound to do more than clearly deliver

the message [entrusted to them]? [i.e., the apostles could not force anyone

to make the right choice.] as it is, they ascribe - out of what we provide

for them as sustenance - a share unto things of which they know

nothing. by god, you shall most certainly be called to account for all

your false imagery! [this relates to the custom of the pagan arabs - of

dedicating a part of their agricultural produce and cattle to their deities; and

because those deities were mere figments of imagination, they are described

here as things of which they know nothing.]

slaying children

(6:137) and, likewise, their belief in beings or powers that are supposed

to have a share in god’s divinity makes [the expression “their associates”

denotes here the evil beings or forces (shayatin) from among men and jinn.]

[even] the slaying of their children seem goodly to many of those who

ascribe divinity to aught beside god, thus bringing them to ruin and

confusing them in their faith. [this is a reference to the custom prevalent

among the pre-islamic arabs of burying alive some of their unwanted

children, mainly girls, and also to the occasional offering of a boy-child in

sacrifice to one or another of their idols. apart from this historical reference,

the above quran-verse seems to point out, by implication, the fact that an

attribution of divinity to anyone or anything but god brings with it an ever-

growing dependence on all kinds of imaginary powers which must be

propitiated by formal and often absurd and cruel rites: and this, in turn, leads

to the loss of all spiritual freedom and to moral self-destruction.] yet, unless

god had so willed, they would not be doing all this: stand, therefore,

aloof from them and all their false imagery! [i.e., he allows them to

behave as they do because he wants them to make use of their reason and of

the free will with which he has endowed man.]

arbitrary rules related to idol worship

(6:138-140) and they say, “such-and-such cattle and fruits of the field

are sacred; none may eat thereof save those whom we will [to do so]”- so

they [falsely] claim; [the pre-islamic arabs falsely claimed that these taboos

were ordained by god, as is made clear in the last part of this verse. one of

these supposed, arbitrary ordinances laid down that only the priests of the

particular idol and some men belonging to the tribe could eat the flesh of

such dedicated animals, while women were not allowed to do so.] and [they

declare that] it is forbidden to burden the backs of certain kinds of

cattle; and there are cattle over which they do not pronounce god’s

name - falsely attributing [the origin of these customs] to him. [i.e., while

sacrificing them to their idols (see 5:103). as a rule, the pagan arabs did

pronounce the name of god - whom they regarded as the supreme deity -

over the animals, which they slaughtered; in the above mentioned

exceptional cases, however, they refrained from doing so in the belief that

god himself had forbidden it.] [but] he will requite them for all their false

imagery. and they say, “all that is in the wombs of such-and-such cattle

is reserved for our males and forbidden to our women; but if it be

stillborn, then both may have their share thereof.” [god] will requite

them for all that they [falsely] attribute [to him]: behold, he is wise, all-

knowing. lost, indeed, are they who, in their weak-minded ignorance,

slay their children and declare as forbidden that which god has

provided for them as sustenance, falsely ascribing [such prohibitions] to

god: they have gone astray and have not found the right path. (6:142-

144) and of the cattle reared for work and for the sake of their flesh, eat

whatever god has provided for you as sustenance, and follow not satan’s

footsteps: behold, he is your open foe! [i.e., by superstitiously declaring as

forbidden what god has made lawful to man. all the references to pre-islamic

taboos given in these verses are meant to stress the lawfulness of any food

(and, by implication, of any other physical enjoyment) which god has not

expressly forbidden through revelation.] [his followers would have it that,

in certain cases, any of these] four kinds of cattle of either sex [is

unlawful to man]: either of the two sexes of sheep and of goats. [lit.,

“eight (in) pairs - of sheep two and of goats two” (the two other pairs are

mentioned in the next verse). this is an outstanding example of the

ellipticism often employed in the quran: a mode of expression, which cannot

be correctly rendered in any other language without the use of explanatory

interpolations. the term zawj denotes a pair of things as well as each of the

two constituents of a pair: hence my rendering of thamaniyat azwaj (lit.,

“eight in pairs”) as “four kinds of cattle of either sex”. the particular

superstition to which this and the next verse refer is probably identical with

the one mentioned in 5:103.] ask [them]: “is it the two males that he has

forbidden, or the two females, or that which the wombs of the two

females may contain? tell me what you know in this respect, if what you

say is true.” [i.e., not on the basis of guesswork but of knowledge acquired

through authentic revelation. the preceding and subsequent ironical

questions are meant to bring out the vagueness and inconsistency which

characterizes all such superstitious, self-imposed prohibitions.] and

[likewise they declare as unlawful] either of the two sexes of camels and

of bovine cattle. [lit., “and of camels two, and of bovine cattle two”- thus

completing the enumeration of the “eight kinds (i.e., four pairs) of cattle”.]

ask [them]: “is it the two males that he has forbidden, or the two

females, or that which the wombs of the two females may contain? is it,

perchance, that you [yourselves] were witnesses when god enjoined [all]

this upon you?” and who could be more wicked than he who, without

any [real] knowledge, attributes his own lying inventions to god, and

thus leads people astray. behold, god does not grace [such] evildoing

folk with his guidance. (6:150) say: “bring forward your witnesses who

could bear witness that god has forbidden [all] this!” [a reference to the

arbitrary prohibitions mentioned in the preceding passages.] - and if they

bear witness [falsely], do not bear witness with them; and do not follow

the errant views of those who have given the lie to our messages, nor of

those who believe not in the life to come, and who regard other powers

as their sustainer’s equals! [i.e., attribute divine or almost-divine qualities

to certain ill-defined natural powers - e.g., believe in spontaneous creative

evolution, or in a self-created universe, or in a mysterious, impersonal elan

vital that supposedly underlies all existence, etc.]

foretelling of future through divination

(5:3) and [you are forbidden] to seek to learn through divination what

the future may hold in store for you: this is sinful conduct. [lit., “to aim

at divining (the future) by means of arrows”. this is a reference to the

divining-arrows without a point and without feathers used by the pre-islamic

arabs to find out what the future might hold in store for them. (a

comprehensive description of this practice may be found in lane iii, 1247.)

as is usual with such historical allusions in the quran, this one, too, is used

metonymically: it implies a prohibition of all manner of attempts at divining

or foretelling the future.]

why worship one god alone and not idols

(6:19-20) say: “what could most weightily bear witness to the truth?”

say: “god is witness between me and you; and this quran has been

revealed unto me so that on the strength thereof i might warn you and

all whom it may reach.” could you in truth bear witness that there are

other deities side by side with god? say: “i bear no [such] witness!” say:

“he is the one god; and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as

you do, to aught beside him!” they unto whom we have vouchsafed re-

velation aforetime know this as they know their own children; [i.e., the

truth of god’s transcendental uniqueness and oneness stressed in all authentic

scriptures.] yet those [of them] who have squandered their own selves - it

is they who refuse to believe.

(30:35) have we ever bestowed upon them from on high a divine writ

[lit., “a warrant” or “authority” (sultan), in this context obviously denoting a

revelation.] which would speak [with approval] of their worshipping

aught beside us? [lit., “of that which they were wont to associate with us”.]

(30:40) it is god who has created you, and then has provided you with

sustenance, and then will cause you to die, and then will bring you to life

again. can any of those beings or powers to whom you ascribe a share in

his divinity do any of these things? limitless is he in his glory, and

sublimely exalted above anything to which men may ascribe a share in

his divinity!

all deities are but one god

(38:4-10) now these [people] deem it strange that a warner should have

come unto them from their own midst - and [so] the deniers of the truth

are saying: “a [mere] spellbinder is he, a liar! [although this passage

describes, in the first instance, the attitude of the pagan quraysh towards the

prophet, it touches upon the reluctance of most people, at all times, to

recognize a man from their own midst - i.e., a human being like themselves -

as god-inspired.] does he claim that all the deities are [but] one god?

verily, a most strange thing is this!” [divorced from its purely historical

background, this criticism acquires a timeless significance, and may be thus

paraphrased: does he claim that all creative powers and qualities are inherent

exclusively in what he conceives as one god?, which illustrates the tendency

of many people to attribute a decisive influence on human life and, hence, a

quasi-divine status to a variety of fortuitous phenomena or circumstances

(like wealth, luck, social position, etc.) rather than to acknowledge the

overwhelming evidence, in all observable nature, of god’s unique existence.]

and their leaders launch forth [thus]: “go ahead, and hold steadfastly

onto your deities: this, behold, is the only thing to do! [i.e., a sensible

course of action.] never did we hear of [a claim like] this in any faith of

latter days! it is nothing but [a mortal man’s] invention! [i.e., in any of

the faiths prevalent in our days: an oblique reference to christianity and its

dogma of the trinity, which contrasts with the quranic concept of god’s

oneness and uniqueness, as well as to any other faith based on the belief in a

multiplicity or multiform incarnation of divine powers (e.g., hinduism with

its triad of brahma, vishnu and shiva).] what! upon him alone from among

all of us should a [divine] reminder have been bestowed from on high?”

nay, but it is my own reminder that they distrust! [i.e., it is not the

personality of the prophet that fills them with distrust, but, rather, the

substance of the message proclaimed by him - and, in particular, his

insistence on god’s absolute oneness and uniqueness, which runs counter to

their habits of thought and social traditions.] nay, they have not yet tasted

the suffering which i do impose! [on people who refuse to accept the truth]

or do they [think that they] own the treasures of thy sustainer’s grace -

[the grace] of the almighty, the giver of gifts? [i.e., do they think that it is

for them to decide as to who should and who should not be graced with

divine revelation?] or [that] the dominion over the heavens and the earth

and all that is between them is theirs? why, then, let them try to ascend

[to god-like power] by all [conceivable] means! [i.e., do they think that

human beings are so highly endowed that they are bound to attain, some day,

to mastery over the universe and all nature, and thus to god-like power?]

god alone is your protector and not idols

(39:36-40) is not god enough for his servant? and yet, they would

frighten you with those [imaginary divine powers which they worship]

beside him! [the godless always stress the supposed necessity of paying

attention to all these imaginary forces and values, and frighten themselves

and their fellow-men by the thought that a neglect to do so might have evil

consequences in their practical life.] but he whom god lets go astray can

never find any guide, whereas he whom god guides aright can never be

led astray. [god only help those, who help themselves.] is not god

almighty, an avenger of evil? and thus it is [with most people]: if you ask

them, “who is it that has created the heavens and the earth?” - they will

surely answer, “god.” say: “have you, then, ever considered what it is

that you invoke instead of god? if god wills that harm should befall me,

could those [imaginary powers] remove the harm inflicted by him? or, if

he wills that grace should alight on me, could they withhold his grace

[from me]?” say: “god is enough for me! in him [alone] place their trust

all who have trust [in his existence].” say: “o my [truth-denying] people!

do yet all that may be within your power, [whereas] i, behold, shall labor

[in god’s way]: in time you will come to know who it is that shall be

visited [in this world] by suffering which will cover him with ignominy,

and upon whom long-lasting suffering shall alight [in the life to come]!”

[implying that surrender to false values inevitably leads to man’s spiritual

decay and, if persisted in by many, to social catastrophes and widespread

suffering.]

parable of frailty of spider’s web

(29:41-42) the parable of those who take [beings or forces] other than

god for their protectors is that of the spider which makes for itself a

house: for, behold, the frailest of all houses is the spiders house. could

they but understand this! verily, god knows whatever it is that men

invoke instead of him - for he alone is almighty, truly wise. [i.e., he

knows the nothingness of those false objects of worship, irrespective of

whether they be imaginary deities, or deified saints, or forces of nature, or

even false concepts or ideas; but he also knows the weakness of the human

heart and mind and, hence, the hidden motivation of all such irrational

worship.]

god alone is your sustainer

(10:31-33) say: “who is it that provides you with sustenance out of

heaven and earth, [the provision of sustenance is used here in both the

physical and spiritual connotations of this word, which explains the

reference to “heaven and earth” and, subsequently, “man’s hearing and

sight”.] or who is it that has full power over [your] hearing and sight?

and who is it that brings forth the living out of that which is dead, and

brings forth the dead out of that which is alive? and who is it that

governs all that exists?” and they will [surely] answer: “[it is] god.” [the

people referred to here are those who believe, firstly, that there are beings

endowed with certain divine or semi-divine qualities, thus having a share in

god’s divinity; and secondly, that by worshipping such beings men can come

closer to god. this idea obviously presupposes belief in god’s existence but it

offends against the concept of god’s oneness and uniqueness, it deprives

those people’s belief in god of its true meaning and spiritual value.] say,

then: “will you not, then, become [fully] conscious of him - seeing that

he is god, your sustainer, the ultimate truth? [i.e., seeing that, on your

own admission, he is the one who creates and governs all things and is the

ultimate reality behind all that exists (see 20:114): which implies a

categorical denial of the possibility that any other being could have a share,

however small, in his divinity.] for, after the truth [has been forsaken],

what is there [left] but error? how, then, can you lose sight of the

truth?” thus is thy sustainer’s word proved true with regard to such as

are bent on sinful doings: they will not believe. [in this particular context,

“the sustainer’s word” seems to be synonymous with the way of god (sunnat

allah) concerning deliberate sinners and deniers of the truth.]

god alone guides unto the truth

(10:35) say: “does any of those beings to whom you ascribe a share in

god’s divinity guide unto the truth?” say: “it is god [alone] who guides

unto the truth. which, then, is more worthy to be followed - he who

guides unto the truth, or he who cannot find the right way unless he is

guided? what, then, is amiss with you and your judgment?” [since the

concept of “finding the right way” cannot apply to lifeless idols and

idolatrous images, the above passage obviously relates to animate beings -

whether dead or alive - to whom a share in god’s divinity is falsely

attributed: that is, to saintly personalities, prophets or angels whom popular

fancy blasphemously endows with some or all of god’s qualities, sometimes

even to the extent that they are regarded as a manifestation or incarnation of

god on earth. as for the act of god’s guidance, it is displayed, primarily, in

the power of conscious reasoning as well as of instinctive insight with which

he has graced man, thus enabling him to follow the divine laws of right

conduct.]

idols do not answers prayers

(7:191-198) will they, then, ascribe divinity, side by side with him, unto

beings that cannot create anything - since they themselves are created -

[lit., “that which does not create anything”: a phrase expressed in the

singular, but having the plural meaning of beings - that is, either animate

beings (like saints or supposedly divine personalities) or their inanimate

representations.] and neither are able to give them succor nor can succor

themselves. if you pray to them (idols) for guidance, do not respond to

you? as far as you are concerned, it is all one whether you invoke them

or keep silent. verily, all those whom you invoke beside god are but

created beings like yourselves: [i.e., created beings subservient to god’s

will. this refers to saints, living or dead, as well as to inanimate objects of

every description, including idols, fetishes and representational images -

physical or mental - of saints or deified persons.] invoke them, then, and

let them answer your prayer - if what you claim is true! have these

[images], perchance, feet on which they could walk? or have they hands

with which they could grasp? or have they eyes with which they could

see? or have they ears with which they could hear? say [o prophet]:

“summon to your aid all those to whom you ascribe a share in god’s

divinity, and thereupon contrive [anything you may wish] against me,

and give me no respite! verily, my protector is god, who has bestowed

this divine writ from on high: for it is he who protects the righteous,

whereas all those whom you invoke in his stead are neither able to give

you succor nor can succor themselves; and if you pray unto them for

guidance, they do not hear; and though you may imagine that they

behold you, they do not see.”

deities cannot create anything

(10:34) say: “can any of those beings to whom you ascribe a share in

god’s divinity create [life] in the first instance, and then bring it forth

anew?” say: “it is god [alone] who creates [all life] in the first instance,

and then brings it forth anew. how perverted, then, are your minds!”

[the rhetorical question above is connected with the false belief that those

idolatrously worshipped beings are no more than “intercessors” between

their followers and god: and so, even their misguided votaries cannot

possibly attribute to them the power to create and to resurrect. in its wider

sense, this question (and the subsequent answer) relates to the god-willed,

cyclic process of birth, death and regeneration evident in all organic nature.]

(25:2-3) he to whom the dominion over the heavens and the earth

belongs, and who begets no offspring, and has no partner in his

dominion: for it is he who creates every thing and determines its nature

in accordance with [his own] design. [i.e., in accordance with the function

assigned by him to each individual thing or phenomenon.] and yet, some

choose to worship, instead of him, imaginary deities that cannot create

anything but are themselves created, [i.e., whether they be inanimate

“representations” of imaginary deities, or personified forces of nature, or

deified human beings, or simply figments of the imagination.] and have it

not within their power to avert harm from, or bring benefit to,

themselves, and have no power over death, nor over life, nor over

resurrection!

can idols have shared in creation?

(16:17-21) is, then, he who creates comparable to any [being] that

cannot create? will you not, then, bethink yourselves? for, should you

try to count god’s blessings, you could never compute them! behold, god

is indeed much forgiving, a dispenser of grace; and god knows all that

you keep secret as well as all that you bring into the open. now those

beings that some people invoke [this refers to dead saints invested by their

followers with divine or semi-divine qualities.] beside god cannot create

anything, since they themselves are but created: they are dead, not

living, and they do not [even] know when they will be raised from the

dead!

(46:2-6) the bestowal from on high of this divine writ issues from god,

the almighty, the wise. we have not created the heavens and the earth

and all that is between them otherwise than in accordance with [an

inner] truth, and for a term set [by us]: [the reference to the term set by

god to all creation is meant to stress the fact of its finality in time as well as

in space, in contrast with his own timelessness and infinity.] and yet, they

who are bent on denying the truth turn aside from the warning which

has been conveyed unto them. [they refuse to heed the warning not to

attribute divine qualities to any being or force beside god.] say: “have you

[really] given thought to what it is that you invoke instead of god? show

me what these [beings or forces] have created anywhere on earth! or

had they, perchance, a share in [creating] the heavens? [if so,] bring me

any divine writ preceding this one, or any [other] vestige of knowledge -

if what you claim is true!” [that is in support of your claim that there are

other divine powers besides god.] and who could be more astray than one

who invokes, instead of god, such as will not respond to him either now

or on the day of resurrection, [or will not respond to him till the day of

resurrection, i.e., never.] and are not even conscious of being invoked? -

such as, when all mankind is gathered [for judgment], will be enemies

unto those [who worshipped them], and will utterly reject their

worship? [this is symbolic “enmity” of all false objects of worship.]

can idols govern the heavens?

(35:40) say: “have you ever [really] considered those beings and forces

to whom you ascribe a share in god’s divinity, [and] whom you invoke

beside god? show me what it is that they have created on earth - or do

[you claim that] they have a share in [governing] the heavens?” have we

ever vouchsafed them [i.e., to those who ascribe divinity to beings or forces

other than god.] a divine writ on which they could rely as evidence [in

support of their views]? [30:35 - “have we ever bestowed upon them from

on high a divine writ which would speak [with approval] of their

worshipping aught beside us?” the reference to a “divine writ” makes it clear

that the people spoken of here are the erring followers of earlier revelation,

and not atheists.] nay, [the hope which] the evildoers hold out to one

another [is] nothing but a delusion. [i.e., their expectation that the saints

whom they invest with divine or semi-divine qualities will “mediate”

between them and god, or “intercede” for them before him, is based on

nothing but wishful thinking.]

multiplicity of divine powers and chaos

(23:91-94) never did god take unto himself any offspring, [this allusion to

the pre-islamic arabian belief in angels as god’s daughters and the christian

dogma of jesus as son of god.] nor has there ever been any deity side by

side with him: [for, had there been any,] lo! each deity would surely have

stood apart [from the others] in whatever it had created, [implying that

in such a hypothetical case each of the gods would have been concerned

only with his own sector of creation, thus causing complete confusion in the

universe.] and they would surely have [tried to] overcome one another!

limitless in his glory is god, [far] above anything that men may devise by

way of definition, knowing all that is beyond the reach of a created

being’s perception as well as all that can be witnessed by a creature’s

senses or mind - and, hence, sublimely exalted is he above anything to

which they may ascribe a share in his divinity! say: “o my sustainer! if it

be thy will to let me witness [the fulfillment of] whatever they [who

blaspheme against thee] have been promised [to suffer] - do not, o my

sustainer, let me be one of those evildoing folk!”

parable of several masters

(39:29) god sets forth a parable: a man who has for his masters several

partners, [a metaphor for belief in a plurality of divine powers.] [all of

them] at variance with one another, and a man depending wholly on one

person: can these two be deemed equal as regards their condition?

[nay,] all praise is due to god [alone]: but most of them do not

understand this. [in the present instance, the term mathal is used as a

synonym for state or condition, as it alludes to man’s condition arising from

either of two contrasting attitudes: a belief in god’s transcendental oneness

and uniqueness, on the one hand, and a readiness to ascribe divine powers

and qualities to a variety of created beings or supposed incarnations of god,

on the other.]

sin of idol worship

unforgivable sin (idol worship is invoking satan)

(4:116-120) verily, god does not forgive the ascribing of divinity to aught

beside him, although he forgives any lesser sin unto whomever he wills:

for those who ascribe divinity to aught beside god have indeed gone far

astray. in his stead, they invoke only lifeless symbols - thus invoking

none but a rebellious satan whom god has rejected for having said,

“verily, of thy servants i shall most certainly take my due share, and

shall lead them astray, and fill them with vain desires; and i shall

command them - and they will cut off the ears of cattle [in idolatrous

sacrifice]; and i shall command them - and they will corrupt god’s

creation!” [the pre-islamic arabs used to dedicate certain of their cattle to

one or another of their idols by cutting off or slitting the ears of the animal,

which was thereupon considered sacred. in the above context, this reference

is used metonymically to describe idolatrous practices, or inclinations, in

general. the allusion to satan’s inducing man to “corrupt god’s creation” has

a meaning to which sufficient attention is but seldom paid: since this

creation, and the manner in which it manifests itself, is an expression of

god’s planning will, any attempt at changing its intrinsic nature amounts to

corruption.] but all who take satan rather than god for their master do

indeed, most clearly, lose all: he holds out promises to them, and fills

them with vain desires: yet whatever satan promises them is but meant

to delude the mind. [the term ghurur signifies anything by which the mind

is beguiled or deceived - for instance, utter self-abandonment to earthly joys,

or the absurd belief that there is no limit to man's aims and achievements.]

all works in vain

(39:65) and yet, it has already been revealed to you [o man,] as well as to

those who lived before you, that if you ever ascribe divine powers to

aught but god, all your works shall most certainly have been in vain: for

[in the life to come] you shall most certainly be among the lost. [i.e., “it

has been conveyed to you through the divine messages revealed to the

prophets”. the above reminder is being addressed to man in general,

irrespective of time and circumstance, concerning the deadly sin of ascribing

divine powers to aught beside god.]

prayers for forgiveness not accepted

(9:113, 115) it does not behove the prophet and those who have attained

to faith to pray that they who ascribed divinity to aught beside god be

forgiven [by him] - even though they happened to be [their] near of kin

- after it has been made clear unto them that those [dead sinners] are

destined for the blazing fire. [this prohibition relates to the dead among

such sinners - i.e., those who have died without repentance - and not to those

who are still living: for a prayer for forgiveness in respect of a living sinner,

amounts to asking god that he grace him with his guidance and this is

permissible.] and god would never - after having invited them to his

guidance - condemn people for going astray [it is not compatible with

god’s omniscience and majesty that he should cause people to go astray after

he has guided them or after he has invited them to the way of rectitude.]

before he has made [entirely] clear unto them of what they should

beware. verily, god has full knowledge of everything. [the people referred

to are the believers who, before the revelation of verse 113, used to pray to

god that he grant his forgiveness to their relatives and friends who had died

in the state of shirk (ascribing divinity to aught beside god): in other words,

the believers need not fear to be taken to task for something which they did

before the prohibition laid down in verse 113 was revealed (i.e., “before he

has made clear unto them of what they should beware”). an alternative

interpretation of verse 115 is meant to explain the severity with which the

whole of this surah condemns the deniers of the truth and the hypocrites who

are going astray after god has made clear unto them of what they should

beware. this interpretation is perhaps the more plausible of the two, and

particularly so in view of the sequence (verse 116).] (18:51) i did not make

them witnesses of the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor of the

creation of their own selves; [i.e., since they are but created beings, and not

co-existent with me, how can you take them for your masters? - an allusion

to the beings, real or imaginary, to which men ascribe divine qualities, either

consciously or (as in the case of ones submission to the whisperings of

satan) by subconscious implication.] and neither do i [have any need to]

take as my helpers those [beings] that lead [men] astray [since god is

almighty, all-knowing and self-sufficient, the belief that any being or power

could have a helping share in his divinity, or could mediate between him and

man, causes the latter to go utterly astray.] (18:52) hence, [bear in mind]

the day on which he will say, “call [now] unto those beings who, you

imagined to have a share in my divinity!” – whereupon they will invoke

them, but those [beings] will not respond to them: for we shall have

placed between them, an unbridgeable gulf. [or: a barrier of perdition: an

allusion to the wide gulf of unreality that separates those sinners from the

blasphemous figments of their imagination or, more probably, the gulf that

separates them from the saintly persons whom they were wont to worship

despite the fact that the latter had never made any claim to divine status.]

(18:53) and those who were lost in sin will behold the fire, and will know

that they are bound to fall into it, and will find no way of escape there

from.

man’s ingratitude as a cause of idol worship

remembering god in hard-time and invoking idols in good-times

(16:53-55) for, whatever good thing comes to you, comes from god; and

whenever harm befalls you, it is unto him that you cry for help - yet as

soon as he has removed the harm from you, lo! some of you [begin to]

ascribe to other powers a share in their sustainer’s divinity, [i.e., by

attributing the change in their luck to what they regard as extraneous factors

and influences, they invest the latter, as it were, with divine qualities and

powers.] [as if] to prove their ingratitude for all that we have granted

them! enjoy, then, your [brief] life: but in time you will come to know

[the truth]!

(39:8) now [thus it is:] when affliction befalls man, he is likely to cry out

to his sustainer, turning unto him [for help]; [i.e., instinctively, and as a

rule] but as soon as he has bestowed upon him a boon by his grace, he

forgets him whom he invoked before, and claims that there are other

powers that could rival god - and thus leads [others] astray from his

path. say [unto him who sins in this way]: “enjoy yourself for a while in

this your denial of the truth; [yet,] verily, you are of those who are

destined for the fire!

birth of a healthy child and share in divinity

(7:189-190) it is he who has created you [all] out of one living entity, and

out of it brought into being its mate, so that man might incline [with

love] towards woman. [for an explanation of “one living entity” and “its

mate”, see 4:1.] and so, when he has embraced her, she conceives [what

at first is] a light burden, and continues to bear it. then, when she grows

heavy [with child], they both call unto god, their sustainer, “if thou

indeed grant us a sound [child] we shall most certainly be among the

grateful!” and yet, as soon as he has granted them sound [offspring],

they begin to ascribe to other powers beside him a share in bringing

about what he has granted them! sublimely exalted, however, is god

above anything to which men may ascribe a share in his divinity! [many

of them look upon the contributing factors of sound childbirth as something

independent of god, forgetting that all these contributing factors are - like the

birth of the child itself - but an outcome of god’s will and grace: a

manifestation of what the quran calls the way of god (sunnat allah).]