Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

The Qur'an (9:33) states:



The same sign/indicator (ayat) appears in (61:9):




and a very similar sign/indicator (ayat) appears in (48:28):



What I find particularlyinteresting about these signs/indicators (ayaat) is that they all contain the phrase deen-il-haqq as well as the word ad-deen. According to basic rules of Arabic grammar, the construct phrase (idaafa), of which the phrase deen-il-haqq is an example, is used to represent the association of one noun with another. It very frequently shows the possession of one thing by another, wherein the first word in the construct phrase, in this case deen, is possessed (mudaf) by the second word, in this case al-haqq, which is the possessor (mudaf-ilayh).

By contrast, the construction ad-deen il-haqq, which does not appear in these signs/indicators (ayaat), consists of a noun (asma) followed by an adjective (siffat).

According to Farid Esack, author of Qur'an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious SolidarityAgainst Oppression (Oxford: Oneworld, 1997), "the way to serve truth (deen al-haqq) ... is significantly different from 'the true deen' (al-deen-al-haqq)" (p.133), citing the view of Jane Smith, author of A Historical and Semantic Study of the Term 'Islam' as seen in a Sequence of Qur'an Commentaries (1975) in this regard:
Although I consider this argument to have some merit, it is important to appreciate that according to the rules of Arabic grammar, the first word (that is, the mudaf/possessed) in a construct phrase must agree with the indefiniteness or definiteness of the second word (that is, the mudaf-ilayh/possessor). This means that in the phrase deen il-haqq (or deen al-haqq), the word deen, even if rendered as "obedience, submission, service" must be understood as having a definite sense, i.e. THE "obedience, submission, service".

However, I would argue that the word deen is better rendered as "power-relation" and/or "life-transaction" since this more readily encapsulates the manifold semantic dimensions of this word. (In support of this view, I refer interested readers to Chapter 4: Deen in Syed Abul-'Ala Maududi's Four Basic Qur'anic Terms and Chapter III: Islam - The Concept of Religion and The Foundation of Ethics and Morality in Syed Naquib Al-Attas' Islam and Secularism.)

On this basis, I think that the phrase deen il-haqq (or deen al-haqq) is better rendered as:


It is also important to determine what is meant by The Truth/Real (al-haqq). According to Lane's lexicon, the following are included among the meanings of the word haqq in Arabic: "just, proper, right, correct, or true; authentic, genuine, sound, valid, substantial, or real; established, or confirmed as truth or fact: and necessary, requisite or unavoidable: and binding, obligatory, incumbent or due." However, we should turn to (13:17) to see how the meaning of this word is clarified through the use of metaphor (mathal):



From this sign/indicator (ayat), it would seem to follow that among the characteristics of The Truth/True/Real (al-haqq) is (1) that it persists ("it remains in the earth") and (2) that it is of benefit to people. On this basis, one might refine the rendering of the phrase deen il-haqq (or deen al-haqq) as follows:

The power-relation (and/or life-transaction) belonging to that which is of lasting benefit to the people

Crucially, among that which is of lasting benefit (manf'a) to the people (naas) is justice in the sense of giving people their due/rights (huqooq) as per (4:135) and (5:8).

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. Shunning and Fighting Tyranny

The Qur'an (7:104-105) states:



This sign/indicator (ayat) makes for interesting reading since it appears to provide a prophetic pattern (sunnah) for breaking free from and/or abandoning oppressive pyramidical/hierarchical systems. (In this connection, I refer interested readers to the Ramadhan 2011 - Day 4: The Durability of Pyramids (and Pyramidical Systems) in this journal.)

In a number of signs/indicators (ayaat) in The Qur'an, those securely commited to the deen (power-relation and/or life transaction) are ordered to reject or shun tyranny/domination (taaghoot). Consider for example (2:256) and (4:60), where reference is made to rejection (takfeer) of the taghoot, and (16:36) (39:17), where reference is made to shunning/discarding/keeping away from (ijtinaab/tajannub) the taghoot. On this basis, one might argue that Moses' statement to "let my people go, Pharaoh" should be understood as a case of takfeer (rejection) and/or ijtinaab (shunning) of the taghoot, the taghoot in this instance being Pharaoh/Fir'awn and the Pharaonic/Fir'awnic pyramid system. (It is interesting to note that Pharaoh/Fir'awn is not explicitly referred to as a taghoot in The Qur'an; rather he is described as one guilty of taghaa, i.e. tyranny or domination. I am inclined to think that this is because, by virtue of the fact that as a person or 'self' (nafs) he contains the 'breath' (ruh) of God/Allah, and so must be extended the option of self-purification and self-development as per (79:17-19). However, it is clearly the case that Pharaoh/Fir'awn is guilty of shirk from the perspective of the ma'bood, that is, the one to be served, since he orders his people to take him as their ultimate authority/god (ilaah) and supreme lord as stated in (28:38) and (79:24), and thereby, by implication, functions as a taaghoot, one of the characteristics of which being that people seek judgement/ruling from it as per (4:60).)

However, in addition to signs/indicators (ayaat) mandating the rejection and/or shunning of the taaghoot, The Qur'an also states, in (4:76),



In this sign/indicator (ayat), those who fight in the way of the taaghoot are explained to be the allies/supporters of the alienated and alienating personality (ash-shay'thaan). Crucially, those who are securely committed to God/Allah (alladheena-aamanoo) are told to fight (qaatiloo) the allies/supporters of the alienated and alienating personality, that is, those those who fight in the way of the taaghoot.

What is the relation between rejecting/shunning the taaghoot and fighting it? Does rejecting/shunning it necessitate fighting it? Or is it merely the case that it may become necessary to fight it because of historically-contingent circumstances, such as the need to defend the community against attack from the taaghoot? I'm inclined to the latter view, whereas most so-called 'jihadists' and/or "Islamic imperialists" (sic) are probably inclined to the former view. In this regard, I see the use of physical force - or violence - as justified only in defense of the polity. I think there are abundant signs/indicators (ayaat) in The Qur'an to substantiate this position, viz. in favour of a purely defensive position and against an "expansionist" and/or "imperialist" perspective. In this regard, I should like to point interested readers to the following article appearing on the Bandung2 blog which draws attention to the prophetic method of social change and advocates a similar position vis-a-vis disengaging from, rather than engaging with, the tyrant/dominator/oppressor (taaghoot): Jawdat Said on Justice, Tyranny and Monotheism.

2. Power and The Pyramids

The Qur'an (7:137) states:



This sign/indicator (ayat) is interesting since it states that God/Allah destroyed (dammarna) what Pharaoh/Fir'awn and his people were building and constructing, however some of the relics of the Pharaonic system - specifically, the pyramids - remain intact. I take this to mean that while the power and authority of the Pharaonic system were destroyed, some of the structural symbols of this system were preserved for posterity, a sign that oppressive pyramidical/hierarchical systems of domination are ultimately abandoned. It should bo noted, in this regard, that the word for building (y'arishoon) in the rendering of the above sign/indicator comes from the same root as the word 'arsh which means throne, which is used in The Qur'an metonymically to symbolise power, control and dominion. By God/Allah stating that He destroyed what Pharaoh and his people had been producing (yasnaf'o) and building (y'arishoon), it appears that what is meant is that the power/control/authority associated with the Pharaonic "pyramid project" was shattered.

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. Inferiority Complex of The Alienated and Alienating Personality Type

The Qur'an (7:13) states:


I find this sign/indicator (ayat) to be extremely significant since The Qur'an states at a number of places, including here, that Iblees, literally one "overwhelmed with grief and despair" or the desperate/despairing personality type, was proud/sought greatness (istikbaar). Yet here, in the same sign/indicator, Iblees is referred to as from among the debased/subjected/abjected/subdued/lowly/despised/contemptible (saaghireen).

This leads me to wonder whether we have an instance here of what is described in contemporary psychological terms as an "inferority complex" - the word saaghireen comes from the verbal root saghora/saghira meaning "to be small, little" - masked by the pretense of superiority/greatness - the word tatakabbara meaning "you make yourself great, i.e. act arrogantly" being derived from kabura/kabara meaning "to become great, to be older". In this connection, consider the statement of Iblees in (7:12) to the effect that he/it is better/superior than (khairim-min) 'Adam on account of having been created from fire (naar) while 'Adam was created from clay (th'een).

2. The Tribe of The Alienated and Alienating Personality Type

The Qur'an (7:27) states:




I find this sign/indicator (ayat) to be extremely significant it makes reference to the 'tribe' (qabeela) of the alienated and alienating personality type (ash-shayth'aan), while (18;50) but refers to the offspring/descendants (dhurriyaat) of Iblees, the despairing personality which The Qur'an identified as from the jinn (or hidden).

Although I take the view that the terms jaan and insaan refer to personality types and their associated behaviours*, I should like to draw the attention of interested readers and researchers to two interesting and controversial works - an unpublished book entitled Of Jinn and Men by Imam Alauddin Shabazz and the article JINN appearing on kushite.webs.com.

* In this connection, see the blog post REFLECTION: The Spectre of Racism on the Bandung2 blog.

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. The Flexibility of Islamic Law

The Qur'an (5:101-102) states:




The Ahmadi scholar, 'Maulana' Muhammad Ali, in his translation entitled The Holy Qur'an (1973), provides a fascinating commentary on these signs/indicators (ayaat) in a footnote which I reproduce below in full:


2. Wisdom and The Prevention of Harm

The Qur'an (6:18) states:



According to 'Abdul Mannan 'Omar, author of The Dictionary of The Holy Qur'an (2005), the word al-qaahir (also al-qahhaar) means "All-dominant; The Supreme; The Master" and comes from the root qahara which means
The root in its five forms appears at 10 places in The Qur'an, viz. (6:18), (6:61), (7:127), (12:39), (13:16), (14:48), (38:65), (39:4), (40:16) and (93:9). In 8 of these 10 occurrences, a word derived from this root is used in reference to God/Allah, and in (93:9) it appears in connection with a command from God/Allah to not oppress/dominate/subdue/treat harshly orphans (faamma alyateema fala taqhar). However, its use in (7:127) is particularly interesting since it appears in connection with the power of Pharaoh/Fir'awn, the Qur'anic archetype of tyranny (taaghoot):
If we interpret (93:9) and (7:127) from the vantage point of the other 8 signs/indicators (ayaat) in which reference is made to the supremacy of God/Allah, then I think the following picture emerges:

The most vulnerable people in society are those who are alone, i.e. the 'orphans' (al-yateem). At the other end of the scale, are those who are most irresistable on account of their power, i.e. the rulers. The Qur'an in (93:9) mandates that the most vulnerable not be oppressed/dominated, and in (7:127) is referring to the Pharaonic/Fir'awnic oppressors/dominators who have supremacy in the land and who manufacture 'orphans' by slaying the male children and sparing the females. Between these two extremes, the first which constitutes a prescriptive law (kitaab) and the second of which presents a descriptive account (kitaab), fall the signs/indicators (ayaat) wherein God/Allah asserts His ultimate supremacy (as qaahir/qahhaar), thereby undermining the descriptive situation (7:127) while upholding the prescriptive law (93:9).

In short, take together these 10 signs/indicators (ayaat) constitute a rejection (takfeer) of tyranny/domination (taaghoot) and a mandate for justice (qisth' wa 'amal), as per (2:256), (4:135) and (5:8).

I also find it interesting to note that (6:18) ends with the statement: "And He is The Wise, The Acquainted [with all]." According to Eric Winkel, author of Islam and The Living Law: The Ibn Al-Arabi Approach (1997), the verb hakama, from which is derived al-hakeem (The Wise) means "to prevent or avert (harm or injustice)". In the context of a discussion of politics, state and Islam, Winkel states that "the very word government (hukumah) in Arabic, as recorded by the lexicographer Ibn Manzur below conveys a negative role for government, not a positive one."

From this, Winkel concludes that

the government's role is simply to prevent oppression, because positive political benefits arise directly from practising the shariah. There is no place in this Arab conception of hukumah for massive bureaucracies, governmental spending and taxing, standing armies and governments. This conception suggests that government is quite an incidental affair, necessary only to stop the oppressor, and that the real political activity of the community shall be found elsewhere - and I suggest that place is the communal arena of the fiqh. (pp.3-4)

Drawing these points together, I should state the following:
 

The supremacy of God/Allah entails the prevention/aversion of oppression.

3. The Pattern/Law (Sunnah) of Cause and Effect

The Qur'an (6:59) states:


 

And with Him are the keys of the unseen (al-ghayb); none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record.

The Ahmadi scholar, 'Maulana' Muhammad Ali, in his translation entitled The Holy Qur'an (1973), provides a fascinating commentary on this sign/indicator (ayat) in a footnote which I reproduce below in full:

The clear book is the great law of cause and effect. The falling of the leaf indicates that its power to draw nourishment has come to an end; thus do individuals and nations fall. The grain in the darkness of the earth stands for the mission of the Prophet, for that grain was destined to sprout forth, growing into a tree of exceptional proportions. The “green” indicates those people that prosper and the “dry” those that must fall off. 

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

The Qur'an (5:25) states:




This sign/indicator (ayat) is interesting since it provides an example of how, in this world (ad-dunya), it is possible for individuals to have control/power/authority over other individuals, and that this applies even in the case of the messengers of God/Allah. Compare this with what is stated in (82:19):



Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. Death, Cowardice and Courage

The Qur'an (4:78) states:



This must be understood against the backdrop of earlier signs/indicators (ayaat) such as

and
2. The Patterns/Laws of God and Their Outcomes

The Qur'an (4:79) states:




The apparent contradiction with what is stated in (4:79) - and it is apparent since (4:83) states that if The Qur'an had been from other than God/Allah it would contain a number of contradictions (ikhtilaafan katheeran) - is readily resolved once it is appreciated that the patterns/laws (sunan) which determine the outcomes of actions have been established by God/Allah, and that while good comes from God/Allah by way of his attribute of rahmaniyyah (nourishing compassion and beneficence), evil results from the voluntary deviation of human beings away from the normative good. (It is interesting to note in this connection that according to Eric Winkel, author of Islam and The Living Law: The Ibn Al-Arabi Approach (Oxford: 1997), (13:11) was traditionally understood to mean that God/Allah does not change the condition of a people from good to bad until they change themselves by doing bad and so becoming deserving of punishment. This interpretation, which is somewhat contrary to the contemporary view, is supported by a similar construction in (8:53).)

In short, (4:79-80) should be understood as complementary signs/indicators (ayaat) with the former describing the Divine origin of the patterns/laws (sunan) regulating human behavioural outcomes, and the latter explaining the initiating or immediate causes instantiating such patterns/laws. (In this regard, I would refer interested readers to the book Kitab at-Taqdeer by G A Parwez.)

3. Non-Coercive Warfare

The Qur'an (4:84) states:


According to my understanding, this sign/indicator (ayat) supports the opening statement in (2:256), viz. "There is no compulsion/coercion in the power-relation/life-transaction (of Al-Islam)..." and provides yet further evidence of the bottom-up, non-hierarchical, non-coercive, non-statist, 'anarchist' nature of the Islamic polity.

4. The Motivation for Justice

The Qur'an (4:135) states:




I take this sign/indicator (ayat), which is paired with (5:8), to invoke a principle of substantive justice that is concretely manifest or instantiated in a commitment to a schedule (or bill) of human rights (huqooq al-insaaniyyah). Crucially, I take this sign/indicator to be asserting that such a commitment should not be motivated or mandated by either socio-political (tribal, familial etc) or economic (rich, poor) concerns, but rather by a transcendent concern to serve God/Allah, the ultimate source of substantive and procedural justice (qisth' wa 'adl). In this way, the rights of the servants of God/Allah (huqooq al-'ibaad) are related to the rights of God/Allah (huqooq-Allah).

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. The Durability of Pyramids (and Pyramidical Systems)

The Qur'an (3:137) states:





Marmaduke Pickthall renders this as:

I don't think this rendering is entirely accurate since the word sunan is the plural of sunnah which according to Lane's Lexicon means "a way or rule or manner of acting or conduct or life or the like". (The verbal root of this word is sanna and it appears in 4 forms and occurs 21 times in The Qur'an.)

In my opinion, this sig/nindicator (ayat) should be interpreted relative to others which refer to the various 'traces' (in the sense of physical structures) left behind by previous peoples who denied (the truth). In this connection, consider the following:

(27:69) Say: Travel in the earth and see what was the end of the guilty.
 

(24:34) Verily, We have sent down for you revelations that make plain, and the example (mathalan) of those who passed away before you. An admonition unto those who wish to be secured from the pitfalls in the way of life.
 

(40:82) Have they not travelled in the land to see the nature of the consequence for those before them ? They were more numerous than these and mightier in power and in the traces (which they have left behind them) (aathaaran) in the earth. But all that they used to earn availed them not. And when their messengers brought them clear proofs (of the consequences of their doings), they exulted in the knowledge they themselves possessed. And that which they were wont to mock, befell them.
 

(30:9) Have they not travelled in the land and seen the nature of the consequence for those who were before them ? They were stronger than these in power and they dug the earth and built upon it more than these have built. Messengers of their own came to them with clear proofs. Surely Allah wronged them not but they did wrong themselves.

(22:45) How many a city We have destroyed while it did wrong, so that it lies to this day in ruins, and how many deserted wells and lofty towers (qasrin masheed).

One 'example' (mathal) that I want to consider here is that of Pharaoh/Fir'awn, who The Qur'an describes as dhul-awtaad (89:10). Although some translators have rendered this expression as "firm of might" or "lord of hosts", a more accurate, albeit literal, rendering is "lord of the stakes" or "lord of the tentpegs". According to 'Abdul Mannan 'Omar, author of The Dictionary of The Holy Qur'an 2005), the verbal root of awtaad is watada which means

Although I think there is much to commend this understanding of "lord of the tentpegs" metonymically as "lord of mighty hosts" or "lord of mighty dominion" - and as "lord of the stakes" given that (7:124, 20:71, 26:49) state that Pharaoh crucified a (large) number of his opponents - I don't think this rendering is comprehensive.

In this connection, I refer interested readers to an essay entitled Pharaoh - Lord of The Stakes or Pyramids? by Joseph A. Islam which uses the Qur'anic principle of tasreef (inter-relation of signs/indicators) to connect (89:10) and (38:12) to (78:7) in which mountains are described as tentpegs. Islam argues that

In verse 78:7, the mountains are described as 'Awtad'. Many traditional commentators connect this to verse 16:15 where the stabilising nature of the mountain is referred to. However, the 'Awtad' in 78:7 to describe mountains could also be a specific reference to the projection from the earth in the shape of 'tent pegs'. This certainly seems to be the case if 78:7 is read in context with the previous verse where the Earth is referred to as being spread out or a wide expanse and the mountains as 'Awtad' (i.e. a projection).

Certainly the Quran’s primary audience were the Bedouins and any reference to mountains serving as pegs into the ground stabilising the Earth is far fetched as this would not have been visible to the Pagan Arabs who had no recourse to modern 21^st century geology. The reference is almost certainly therefore an allusion to a ‘projection’ from the Earth in the shape of tent pegs, i.e AWTAD ...

Relying solely on passage 78:7; Pharaoh can be thus referred to as 'Pharoah of the Mountains' as mountains have been referred to as ‘Awtad’. However, the only 'mountains' or ‘projections’ that the Bedouin Arabs were going to see in Egypt which alluded to the Pharaoh’s might in terms of physical constructs would be the pyramids which looked like 'pointed tent pegs' i.e. 'Awtad' projecting from the surface of the Earth. Thus a more consistent rendering from a Quranic perspective would be 'Pharaoh, Lord of the Pyramids' which would also take into account Surah Fajar (89) where Ad and Thamud's man-made constructs are being alluded to.

I consider the above analysis to be sound and want to draw attention to what might be described as the structural durability of pyramidical systems such as the contemporary globally operating system of White Supremacy (Racism) as contrasted with the ideological instability of such systems as per the 'rotten ideology' (kalimat-khabeeth) mentioned in (14:26).

In this connection, Daniel Quinn's Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure (1999) makes for fascinating reading. Quinn maintains that civilizations are fundamentally hierarchical and oppressive, a position which arguably derives support from the Qur'anic account of what might be understood as the pyramidical caste system of Pharaoh/Fir'awn (28:4). Quinn advocates "walking away from the pyramid", abandoning top-down hierarchical civilization in favour of bottom-up tribal living; in short, a form of retribalisation. (The Qur'anic discourse on tribes and tribalism and their standing vis-a-vis the deen (or power-relation/life-transaction) of Al-Islam requires serious consideration; Robert D Crane, Jeremy Henzell-Thomas and Ali Mazrui are contemporary thinkers that have blazed the trail in this regard.) I find this idea to be worthy of consideration given the apparently non-statist/anti-statist 'anarchist' conception of deen presented in The Qur'an.

According to Quinn, numerous peoples who built civilizations (pyramidical/hierarchical systems) including the Maya, the Olmec, the people of Teotihuacan ended up abandoning them. On his view,


2. The Alienated Personality, Its Allies and Fear

The Qur'an (3:175) states:


This sign/indicator (ayat) asserts that it is the alienated and alienating personality type (ash-shayth'aan) who causes the believers to fear his/its allies/supporters (awliyaa), the latter of whom fight in the way of tyranny (taaghoot).

3. Muhammad, The Proclaimer

One of the perennial misconceptions surrounding The Messenger Muhammad (pbuh) concerns the rendering of what is allegedly the word first revealed to him, viz. iqra. Generally, this is rendered as "read" or "recite", but I am inclined to think that in the light of (74:2) and (3:193), this is better rendered as "read out" or "proclaim".

The Qur'an (3:193) states:




The word munaadi means "caller" or "crier". On this basis, The Qur'an is best understood as "The Proclamation" as in "The Challenge or Gauntlet laid down before a tyrannical system".

 Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

The Qur'an (2:258) states:

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

The Qur'an (2:193) states:




I would argue that this sign/indicator (ayat) must be understood against the backdrop of (2:256) which states:


I understand this to entail not only that non-Muslims cannot be coerced into becoming Muslims (that is, those who self-surrender to God/Allah), but that Muslims cannot be subject to coercion within the fold of Al-Islam itself; in short, I consider (2:256) as constituting what might be described, perhaps somewhat problematically, as a radical libertarian principle, a type of voluntarism or voluntaryism. Clearly, this has profound implications for issues such as the legitimacy (or otherwise) of institutions such as the state, the nature of government and the politics of the polity. Consider, for example, Max Weber's definition of the state as that entity which possesses "a delegatable monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force [i.e. violence or coercion]". On the basis of (2:256), I would argue that Muslims are required to reject the legitimacy of the state - at least in its contemporary Weberian form - since in its self-proclaimed ultimacy, it is nothing other than a false god (ilaah) or taaghoot and (2:256) goes on to state that Muslims are mandated to reject (that is, make takfeer) of the taaghoot.

Peace

Peace Be Unto Those Who Follow Right Guidance.

1. Who are the Muttaqeen?

The Qur'an (2:2) states:




The word muttaqeen in the above sign/indicator (ayat) is variously translated as "those who ward off (evil)" (Marmaduke Pickthall), "those who guard (against evil)" (M A Shakir), "the God-conscious" (Muhammad Asad), "the God-fearing" (Muhammad Mohar Ali), "those who fear God" (Yusuf Ali) and "the pious and righteous persons who fear Allah much (abstain from all kinds of  sins and evil deeds which He has forbidden) and love Allah much (perform all  kinds of good deeds which He has ordained)" (Khan and Hilali).

In The Message of The Qur'an, Muhammad Asad maintains that

In arguing for an interpretation incorporating both positive and negative content, Asad may be on to something and his view clearly influenced Shabbir Ahmad's rendering of muttaqeen as "those who wish to journey through life in blissful honour and security". However, is such a view warranted on linguistic/etymological and intra-Qur'anic grounds?

According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, citing Lane's Lexicon, the root of muttaqeen is waqaa which conveys the sense of saving, guarding or preserving. As he goes on to state,

In reading this sign/indicator, it is important to try to understand the expressions contained within it in the way that its original recipients might have understood it. In order to effect this, I would argue that one must attempt to 'bracket' post-Qur'anic and/or Islamic theological glosses on the meaning of words and engage with the sign/indicator as would a jahili (or pre-Islamic) Arab hearing The Qur'an for the first time.

On this basis, I am led to wonder whether the renderings of Pickthall and Shakir (and Maulana Muhammad Ali) are not more accurate, in that they present a more 'secular' - in the sense of atheological and/or non-theological - understanding of taqwa, viz. as simple self-preservation.

Is (2:2) merely stating that people who want to preserve themselves from harm, their theological (non-)committments notwithstanding, will benefit from the guidance contained in The Qur'an?

Perhaps, but (2:3) goes on to mention those who are securely committed to and/or at peace with (yu'minoona) that which cannot be perceived and/or is absent (al-ghayb) and who maintain salaat (focus on God/Allah) and share/keep open from the resources (rizq) granted them by God/Allah, while (2:4) mentions imaan in previous and contemporary revelation (inzaal) as well as certainty (yaqeen) in the next/after-life (al-aakhirah). On this basis, I think it is clear that (2:3-4) provide a (partial) clarification of who the muttaqeen mentioned in (2;2) actually are: They are those who wish to preserve themselves from harm by dutifully acting in accordance with the dictates of God/Allah.

(2:5) goes on to link the term muttaqeen to the term muflihoon, and the latter refers to "those who are successful" in the sense of "those who reap the harvest" (as you sow, so shall you reap). To the extent that (2:4) refers to the next/after-life, it follows that the outcome of such harvesting must ultimately manifest in the next-after-life.

On this basis, while it might true that any people wanting to preserve themselves from harm, theological (non-commitments) notwithstanding, will indeed benefit from the guidance contained in The Qur'an, such guidance will have merely utilitarian/pragmatic value and in a purely 'secular' or dunyaawi context.

Only through a comprehensive commitment to/security with God/Allah, the 'unseen' (or the "long-term" since "one cannot reap the harvest immediately") and the continuity of revelation, and only a certainty in the next/after-life, can the self-preservation result in ultimate success.

In short, while taqwa might indeed originally have had the 'secular' (or immanent) meaning of preserving oneself from harm, by connecting it to imaan in the 'unseen', revelation and certainty in the next/after-life as well as the actions of focusing on God/Allah and sharing resources, The Qur'an forges a connection between taqwa and falaah that is, ultimately, transcendent.

It is interesting to note also that (91:7-10) forges a connection between taqwa, falah and tazkiyyah, the latter term of which derives its meaning from the verb zaka meaning "to grow; cultivate through pruning". Is it possible that what is referred to in (2:3-4) in connection with imaan and amaal, viz. secure commitment in the 'unseen', maintenance of salaat (focus), sharing of resources (rizq), secure commitment in the continuity of revelation (inzaal) and certainty about the next/after-life, constittute elements of tazkiyyah? Certainly, there is a connection between tazkiyyah (self-growth or self-development) and the giving out of wealth (eeta-al-maal) mentioned in (92:18).

2. Ibaadat, Khalq and Taqwa

The Qur'an (2:21) states:



Does this mean that serving ('abudoo) one's Lord (Rabb or Nourisher to perfection) may result in (la alla) self-preservation? Or does this mean that human beings were created that they may perhaps (la alla) preserve themselves from harm? Was the purpose of creating the human being to create a type/kind of being (khalq) capable of self-preservation in the sense of preservation of a transcendent 'self' (nafs), to be contrasted with the merely biological survival of non-human animals?

In this regard, I find the following remarks by Dr Hasanuddin Ahmed, author of A New Approach to The Study of The Qur'an (Goodword: 2004), to be extremely significant:


3. Forgetfulness of God/Allah and The Primal Covenant

The Qur'an (2:26-27) states the faasiqoon are those who break the covenant (ahd) of God/Allah after it has been ratified (min b'adi meethaaqihi), and cut asunder what God/Allah has ordered to be joined, and spread chaos/disorder in the earth. (59:19) clarifies that the faasiqoon are those who forgot God/Allah and so He caused them to forget themselves. On this basis, it might be argued that there is a connection between being oblivious to God/Allah and being oblivious to the primal covenant of peace among people.

Peace