I. THE RELIGION OF QURAYSH
The Qur’an was Revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in order to teach the Message of Tawhid, submission to Allah, and to purify the souls of mankind. To do so, it had to counter several groups that were misguided in one or all of these central areas. The immediate audience comprised: the Jews, the Christians, the munafiqin, and the mushrikun of Quraysh.
The Qur’anic dialogue against shirk primarily concerns this last group. While there is some criticism of the Christian trinity, deification of ‘Isa, and deification of Maryam – this is not the primary critique of shirk in the Qur’an. The primary critique of shirk is against Quraysh.
Therefore, in order to understand what constitutes shirk, we must understand the Qur’an is criticizing in Qurayshi religion. By understanding what constitutes beliefs or actions of shirk as exemplified in Qurayshi religion, we can better understand what Allah has demarcated as ‘ibadah that belongs only to Him. Understanding the religion of Quraysh is therefore the cornerstone of understanding shirk, ‘ibadah, Tawhid, Iman, Islam, Ihsan and then determining when takfir is justified.
Predictably, the Ash’aris and the Salafis disagree on the issue of Quraysh’s religion. Ash’aris, and the Hanbalis who agreed with them, postulate that Quraysh were a purely polytheistic people who believed in different Lords with power over the universe.
According to the Salafi Sa’udi scholar Sultan al-‘Umayri,
حقيقة شرك العرب:
من المتفق عليه بين المؤرخين أن العرب لم يكونوا متفقين على دين واحد، وإنما كانوا أحزابًا مختلفة وأديانًا متنوعة، ومع ذلك فلا شك أن العرب في الجاهلية كانوا مشركين في عبادة الله تعالى، وأما فيما يتعلق بربوبية الله فإن الأصل المشهور أن أكثرهم – ومنهم قريش – يقرّ بأصوله الكلية، كالخلق والملك والتدبير، ونصّ على هذا المعنى عدد من العلماء، من لدن الصحابة ومن جاء بعدهم.
The Reality of the Arabs’ Shirk (Polytheism)
It is agreed upon among historians that the Arabs were not united upon one religion; rather, they were various groups with different sects and religions. Despite that, there is no doubt that the Arabs in the Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period) were polytheists in their worship of Allah Most High. As for their belief regarding Allah’s Lordship (rubūbiyyah), the predominant and famous view is that most of them – including Quraysh – affirmed its general foundations, such as creation, ownership, and governance. Many scholars have stated this meaning, from the Companions and those who came after them. [i]
Salafis argue that Quraysh were henotheists, a kind of religion wherein a supreme Creator God is acknowledged but lesser deities are worshipped to draw closer to this God.
The debate between the Ash’aris and Salafis on this issue may be summarized as: Were Quraysh henotheists (one supreme God plus sub-deities) or outright polytheists?
a. The Ash’ari View of Polytheism
1. Polytheism defined
The definition of polytheism is: believing in a pantheon of independent gods, each governing a domain of the universe. This does not necessitate that the gods were co-equal, but simply that each major god had some kind of independent control. The Ash’aris and sympathetic Hanabila believe that Quraysh were polytheistic. This view is articulated by Hatim al-‘Awni,
فمن صرف شيئًا من خصائص الربوبية لغير الله تعالى، على وجه الاستقلال، أو منازعة السلطان، وانتقاص حكم الله تعالى، فذلك هو الشرك.
وبهٰذا يتضح أنني أريد التنبيه إلى أمرٍ مهم، وهو أن لصرف خصائص الربوبية لغير الله تعالى صورتين:
الصورة الأولى: اعتقاد استقلال أحدٍ غير الله تعالى بشيءٍ من تلك الخصائص، وهو شركٌ صريح، وهي صورة اعتقاد تعدّد الآلهة.
ومثاله: بعض الأديان الوثنية والشرْكية التي تُوزّع خصائص الربوبية على أربابٍ عديدين، كآلهة اليونانيين المزعومة.
وهذه الصورة هي الصورة المشهورة للشرك، والمستحضرة في أذهان كثير من الباحثين، وفي تأصيل كثير من المدارس العقدية المتأخرة، دون الالتفات إلى الصورة التالية.
الصورة الثانية: اعتقاد وجود من ينازع الخالق، المالك، المدبّر خلقه أو ملكه أو تدبيره بغير رضاه الكامل، وإذنه التام، أو ينتقص إرادته التامة في شيءٍ من ذلك؛ فهو أيضًا شركٌ صريح، وإن اعترف صاحبه بأن الله تعالى هو الخالق المالك المدبّر؛ لأن هذا الانتقاص يُعارض الانفراد بتلك الخصائص، وينافي الكمال المطلق.
كما كان عند كثير من عرب الجاهلية، من أنهم يقرّون بأن الله تعالى هو الخالق، الرازق، المدبّر، لكنهم يتصوّرون لآلهتهم قدرةً على التأثير في أمر هذا الرب.
قال تعالى حاكيًا عنهم:
{وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ}
وقال تعالى:
{وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّن نَّزَّلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَحْيَا بِهِ الْأَرْضَ مِن بَعْدِ مَوْتِهَا لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ}،
{قُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ}
لكنهم مع ذلك يتصوّرون أن لآلهتهم قدرةً في التأثير على أمر الرب، على نحوٍ باطل، كتصوّر الوزراء مع الملك.
فالملك هو المالك، لكن الوزراء لهم سلطاتٌ واسعة، وأوامر نافذة، لا يستطيع الملك نفسه (ولو في بعض الأحيان) أن يردّ عليهم أمرهم.
فهم وإن كانوا تحت ملك هذا الملك، لكن لهم أثرًا قويًا في تصريف المملكة.
والملك مضطر لتلبية طلباتهم، لحاجته إليهم – ولو أحيانًا.
تعالى الله عن ذلك علوًا كبيرًا.
“So, whoever attributes any lordly attributes to other than Allāh the Most High, and defines that being as being separate and unique, or having the ability to challenge Allāh’s kingdoms or rules, then he is a mushrik.
“At this point I would like to point out something critical, that this attribution can take two forms:
“Firstly: the belief that an individual is independent from Allāh concerning an attribute that is unique to his lordship, then this is clear shirk. This is the situation that necessitates the belief of numerous deities. For example, idolatrous polytheistic religions that attribute qualities of lordship to a number of different deities, similar to the Greek gods.
“This is the common image of shirk, the one that most modern polemic schools of thought base their thoughts off of, without taking the following, second image in mind.
“Secondly: the belief that there is a being present that has the ability to challenge:
- the creator in his creation or
- the owner of this kingdom in his ownership or
- the one who manages all affairs in how he manages those affairs
“Without need of his complete acceptance or permission.
- Or that being has the ability to:
- Take from his divine will
“This would also be considered shirk, even if the person that holds this belief also believes that Allāh the Most High is the creator, the owner of this kingdom and the one who manages all affairs. This is because this ability to take from His will opposes the characteristic of true sovereignty through those attributes of lordship, and nullify absolute perfection.
“This is what many of the Arabs of jāhilīyah believed, that Allāh the Most High was the creator, provider and the one who manages all affairs as in,
وَلَئِن سَأَلتَهُم مَن خَلَقَ السَّماواتِ وَالأَرضَ لَيَقولُنَّ اللَّهُ
(If you [Prophet] ask them, ‘Who created the heavens and earth?’ they are sure to answer, ‘Allāh’) (39:38)
and
وَلَئِن سَأَلتَهُم مَن نَزَّلَ مِنَ السَّماءِ ماءً فَأَحيا بِهِ الأَرضَ مِن بَعدِ مَوتِها لَيَقولُنَّ اللَّهُ ۚ قُلِ الحَمدُ لِلَّهِ ۚ بَل أَكثَرُهُم لا يَعقِلونَ
(If you ask them, ‘Who sends water down from the sky and gives life with it to the earth are it has died?’ they are sure to say, ‘Allāh.’ Say, ‘Praise belongs to Allāh!’ Truly, most of them do not use their reason.) (29:63).
“But, they believed that these deities had an effect on this lord’s abilities and commands. The conditions of the Arabs of jāhilīyah in their shirk ridden perverted image was similar to that of a king and his viceroys. The kingdom was for its owner, but the viceroys had authority and major roles in state affairs. The owner himself could not completely override his viceroys, even if it was only sometimes. Even though the kingdom was technically under his control, they still had a great influence on state affairs, and he would be compelled to submit to their requests, due to his need of them, even if occasionally.
“Allāh is greater than such a primitive need.”[ii]
Indeed, Quraysh did not regard any one idol as all-powerful or all-knowing. Some of them even doubted Allah could hear them. Allah repudiates these notions in verses such as,
إِن تَدعوهُم لا يَسمَعوا دُعاءَكُم وَلَو سَمِعوا مَا استَجابوا لَكُم ۖ وَيَومَ القِيامَةِ يَكفُرونَ بِشِركِكُم ۚ وَلا يُنَبِّئُكَ مِثلُ خَبيرٍ
If you invoke them they will not hear your invocation, and even if they heard they cannot respond to you, and on the Day of Resurrection they will forswear your polytheism, and none can inform you like the One who is all-aware.[iii]
Yet, this is still a form of polytheism – as absolute power and authority is not vested in one central God. This is contrasted with henotheism, wherein subordinate deities are ultimately at the mercy of the central God. The Ash’aris took that Quraysh were polytheistic as the Qur’an is full of reproaches to polytheism, repudiating the Quraysh for polytheism.
2. Evidences of Polytheism
To the benefit of the Ash’ari argument, there are numerous clear evidences of outright polytheism among Quraysh. Allah refutes Quraysh for assigning partners to Him,
هُوَ اللَّهُ الَّذي لا إِلٰهَ إِلّا هُوَ المَلِكُ القُدّوسُ السَّلامُ المُؤمِنُ المُهَيمِنُ العَزيزُ الجَبّارُ المُتَكَبِّرُ ۚ سُبحانَ اللَّهِ عَمّا يُشرِكونَ
He is Allah—there is no god except Him— the Sovereign, the All-holy, the All-benign, the Securer, the All-conserver, the All-mighty, the All-compeller, the All-magnanimous. Clear is Allah of any partners that they may ascribe [to Him]![iv]
This is despite the Salafi argument to the contrary. Indeed, Quraysh would chant in their talbiyya:
وَعَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: كَانَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ يَقُولُونَ: لَبَّيْكَ لَا شَرِيكَ لَكَ فَيَقُولُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «وَيْلَكُمْ قَدْ قَدْ» إِلَّا شَرِيكًا هُوَ لَكَ تَمْلِكُهُ وَمَا مَلَكَ. يَقُولُونَ هَذَا وَهُمْ يَطُوفُونَ بِالْبَيْتِ. رَوَاهُ مُسْلِمٌ
‘Here I am, no partner have You — except a partner who belongs to You; You own him and all he owns.’[v]
In response, Allah rebukes this concept:
وَقُلِ الحَمدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذي لَم يَتَّخِذ وَلَدًا وَلَم يَكُن لَهُ شَريكٌ فِي المُلكِ وَلَم يَكُن لَهُ وَلِيٌّ مِنَ الذُّلِّ ۖ وَكَبِّرهُ تَكبيرًا
and say, ‘All praise belongs to Allah, who has neither taken any son, nor has He any partner in sovereignty, nor has He [taken] any ally out of weakness,’ and magnify Him with a magnification [worthy of Him].[vi]
If Quraysh did not attribute partners in dominion to Allah, then why did Allah refute them for doing so? The authentic ḥadīth of Ḍimām b. Thaʿlaba’s conversion says:
أتى ضمام بن ثعلبة ـ رضي الله عنه ـ إلى بعيره فأطلق عقاله ، حتى قدم على قومه ، فاجتمعوا إليه ، فكان أولَ ما تكلم به أن قال : بئست اللات والعزى ، فقالوا : مَهْ يا ضِمَام !! اتق البَرَصَ والجُذام والجنون! ، فقال : ويلكم ! ، إنهما ـ والله – لا يضران ولا ينفعان ، إن الله قد بعث رسولاً ، وأنزل عليه كتاباً استنقذكم به مما كنتم فيه ، وإني أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله ، وأن محمداً عبده ورسوله ، وإني قد جئتكم من عنده بما أمركم به ونهاكم عنه، فوالله ما أمسى ذلك اليوم من حاضرته رجل ولا امرأة إلا مسلماً
“Woe to al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā!” His people cried, “Fear leprosy, fear madness!” He replied, “They can neither harm nor benefit…”[vii]
This shows Quraysh believed those idols had some independent power with which they could harm someone who cursed them. Allah rebukes them for this incorrect belief,
أَم يَحسَبونَ أَنّا لا نَسمَعُ سِرَّهُم وَنَجواهُم ۚ بَلىٰ وَرُسُلُنا لَدَيهِم يَكتُبونَ
Do they suppose that We do not hear their secret thoughts and their secret talks? Yes indeed! And with them are Our messengers, writing down.[viii]
And Allah says,
وَذٰلِكُم ظَنُّكُمُ الَّذي ظَنَنتُم بِرَبِّكُم أَرداكُم فَأَصبَحتُم مِنَ الخاسِرينَ
That misjudgment that you entertained about your Lord ruined you. So you became losers.’[ix]
The Ash’aris argue that the very meaning of shirk is the attribution of a partner to Allah with respect to control over the cosmos (tadbir al-kawn). This kind of independent power is called Istiqlal al-Fi’l. If a person doesn’t believe the object of their devotion has independent power besides Allah, then this cannot become shirk. Believing Allah has imbibed a creation with a power cannot become shirk. The worst possibility is that such a person has an incorrect interpretation about the power Allah has bequeathed. If a person has not considered whether it is istiqlal al-fi’l, then if they are Muslim it is assumed they only attribute power to Allah.
This side argues that there can be no shirk in uluhiyyah without shirk in rububbiyyah. They point to Ayat such as,
يا صاحِبَيِ السِّجنِ أَأَربابٌ مُتَفَرِّقونَ خَيرٌ أَمِ اللَّهُ الواحِدُ القَهّارُ
O my prison mates! Are different masters better, or Allah, the One, the All-paramount?[x]
Yusuf عليه السلام clearly calls his people to Allah by referring to multiple Lords (Arbab). Allah says,
لَو كانَ فيهِما آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتا ۚ فَسُبحانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ العَرشِ عَمّا يَصِفونَ
Had there been gods in them other than Allah, they would surely have fallen apart. Clear is Allah, the Lord of the Throne, of what they allege [concerning Him].[xi]
Here, Allah refers to various deities (Aliha) as having dominion over the world. Therefore, the Ash’aris argue that Uluhiyyah necessitates Rububbiyyah and there is no ‘ibadah without ascription of Rububiyyah which means tadbir al-kawn.
Furthermore, the Ashari’s argue that the Qur’an would not preach rububiyya to the polytheists if they only had shirk in Uluhiyya. They postulate that Quraysh in fact believed in other gods besides Allah, even if those gods were subordinate to His Power. They gave their idols the Attributes of Divinity. Imam al-Tabari describes an ilah as,
وان إله هو الذي يقدر على ما يشاء لا يقدر عليه شيء
This view necessitates that all forms of polytheists assign dominions to various sub-gods, even if they believe that a Supreme God is the most powerful. To the Ash’ari’s, istiqlal al-fi’l is required for ‘ibadah – even if these gods are not equal or superior to Allah.
b. The Salafi View of Henotheism
1. Henotheism Defined
Henotheism means recognizing one supreme deity while worshipping subordinate beings as intermediaries or intercessors. The Salafi argument is that Quraysh believed Allah was the only Lord (Rabb), but that their shirk was with respect to worshipping only Him – that their shirk was in Uluhiyyah but not Rububbiyyah. This is because Quraysh did not assert there were multiple partners in Allah’s dominion, but rather that their idols were merely subordinate deities which were worshipped as intercessors to Allah. This henotheistic reading of Qurayshi shirk is summarized by shaykh Mohammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wah’hab,
الذي يُقِرُّ بتوحيد الربوبية ولا يُقِرُّ بتوحيد الألوهية لا يكون مسلمًا،
لأنه ما عبد الله.
فتوحيد الألوهية هو الذي فيه الخصومة بين الرسل وأممهم،
وأما توحيد الربوبية، فهو أمر فطري قد أقرّت به جميع الأمم…
فكان المشركون يُقرّون بأن الله هو الخالق، الرازق، المدبّر،
لكنهم لا يُفردونه بالعبادة
“Whoever affirms the Oneness of Lordship (Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah) but does not affirm the Oneness of Worship (Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah) is not a Muslim, because he has not truly worshipped Allah.
“It is Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah over which the messengers disputed with their nations.
“As for Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah, it is innate and was affirmed by all nations…
“The polytheists used to affirm that Allah is the Creator, the Provider, the Manager, but they did not single Him out in worship.”
Mohammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wah’hab was asked,
سُئل الشيخ، رحمه الله: عن توحيد الربوبية، وتوحيد الألوهية، وتوحيد الصفات، فأجاب:
توحيد الربوبية: هو الذي أقرّ به الكفار، كما في قوله تعالى:
قُلْ مَنْ يَرْزُقُكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالأَرْضِ أَمَّنْ يَمْلِكُ السَّمْعَ وَالأَبْصَارَ وَمَنْ يُخْرِجُ الْحَيَّ مِنَ الْمَيِّتِ وَيُخْرِجُ الْمَيِّتَ مِنَ الْحَيِّ وَمَنْ يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ فَسَيَقُولُونَ اللَّهُ فَقُلْ أَفَلا تَتَّقُونَ} [يونس: 31].
وأما توحيد الألوهية: فهو إفراد الله بالعبادة وحده، دون سائر الخلق،
لأن الإله في لغة العرب هو الذي يُقصَد بالعبادة. وكانوا يقولون:
إن الله سبحانه هو إله الآلهة، لكنهم يجعلون معه آلهة أخرى، مثل:
الصالحين، والملائكة، وغيرهم، ويقولون: إن الله يرضى بهذا،
وأنهم يشفعون لنا عنده.
فإذا عرفت هذا معرفة جيدة، تبيّن لك غربة الدين
وقد استدلّ عليهم سبحانه بإقرارهم بتوحيد الربوبية على بطلان مذهبهم
لأنه إذا كان هو المدبّر وحده، وجميع من سواه لا يملكون مثقال ذرة،
فكيف يدعون معه غيره مع إقرارهم بهذا؟
وأما توحيد الصفات: فلا يستقيم توحيد الربوبية ولا توحيد الألوهية إلا بالإقرار بالصفات
لكن الكفار أعقل ممن أنكر الصفات. والله أعلم.
“The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah (Oneness of Lordship), Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah (Oneness of Worship), and Tawḥīd al-Ṣifāt (Oneness in Attributes), and he replied:
“Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah is what the disbelievers affirmed, as in His saying:
“Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth? Who owns hearing and sight? Who brings the living out of the dead and brings the dead out of the living? And who arranges all affairs?
“They will say: Allah.
“Say: Will you not then fear Him? [Yūnus: 31]
“As for Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah, it is to single out Allah alone in worship, excluding all creation. This is because the word ilāh in the Arabic language means: one who is intended for worship. They used to say that Allah is the God of gods, but they still set up other gods beside Him, such as the righteous, angels, and others.
“They would claim that Allah is pleased with this and that they intercede on their behalf before Him. If you understand this well, you will see how alien the true religion has become.
“Allah used their own admission of Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah as evidence against the falsehood of their beliefs, because if He alone is the one who arranges all affairs, and everyone besides Him does not even possess an atom’s weight, how then can they call upon others alongside Him while acknowledging this?
“As for Tawḥīd al-Ṣifāt (the oneness in attributes), neither Tawḥīd al-Rubūbiyyah nor Tawḥīd al-Ulūhiyyah is sound without affirming His attributes. Yet the disbelievers are more reasonable than those who deny the attributes.
“And Allah knows best.
Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Rajihi said,
«هذا التوحيد ـ أي توحيد العبادة ـ هو الذي وقع فيه الخصام بين الأنبياء والرسل، قديماً في عهد التوحيد، مع الأنبياء والرسل، لا في توحيد الربوبية؛ فإن الخلاف إنما هو في هذا التوحيد، وأما توحيد الأسماء والصفات، وتوحيد الربوبية، فكل الخلق يقرّون به، وقد فطر الله جميع خلقه على الإيمان به، وأقرب الناس إليه في هذا هم أتباع الفطرة.
ولكن حصلت انتكاسات عند بعض الطوائف، فشذّت عن ذلك، إما بعمى بصيرتها عن فطرتها، أو بتقليدٍ أعمى. فالخالقون جميعاً يقرّون بتوحيد الربوبية وتوحيد الأسماء والصفات، والأنبياء والرسل إنما وقع الخصام بينهم وبين مخالفيهم في توحيد الألوهية والعبادة، وهو التوحيد الذي دعت إليه الرسل، وهو توحيد العبادة.
“This type of tawḥīd—meaning tawḥīd al-ʿibādah (the oneness of worship)—is the one over which there occurred conflict between the prophets and messengers. That dispute in the era of tawḥīd was specifically concerning this tawḥīd and not concerning tawḥīd al-rubūbiyyah (the oneness of lordship), for all of creation agrees upon it. Allah has instilled in all of His creation a natural inclination (fiṭrah) to believe in it, and those closest to it are the people of the natural disposition.
“However, some groups experienced setbacks and deviated from this, either due to the blindness of their insight from their fiṭrah, or due to blind imitation. All of creation affirms tawḥīd al-rubūbiyyah and tawḥīd al-asmāʾ wa al-ṣifāt (the oneness of His names and attributes), and the prophets and messengers only disputed with their opponents over tawḥīd al-ulūhiyyah and worship. That is the tawḥīd to which the messengers called, the tawḥīd of worship.”
Here, absolute power and authority is vested in one central God. This is contrasted with polytheism, wherein other have independent power and authority – even if there is one God that is the most powerful. The Salafis took that Quraysh were primarily henotheistic as the Qur’an is full of reproaches to henotheism, repudiating the Quraysh for henotheism.
2. Evidences of henotheism
To the benefit of the Salafi argument, there are numerous clear evidences of outright henotheism among Quraysh. This is despite the Ash’ari argument to the contrary. The Salafis point to the Ayat,
قُل مَن بِيَدِهِ مَلَكوتُ كُلِّ شَيءٍ وَهُوَ يُجيرُ وَلا يُجارُ عَلَيهِ إِن كُنتُم تَعلَمونَ
Say, ‘In whose hand is the dominion of all things, and who shelters and no shelter can be provided from Him, if you know?’ (Q 23:88).
سَيَقولونَ لِلَّهِ ۚ قُل فَأَنّىٰ تُسحَرونَ
They will say, ‘[They all belong] to Allah.’ Say, ‘Then how are you being deluded?’’ (Q 39:3).
أَلا لِلَّهِ الدّينُ الخالِصُ ۚ وَالَّذينَ اتَّخَذوا مِن دونِهِ أَولِياءَ ما نَعبُدُهُم إِلّا لِيُقَرِّبونا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلفىٰ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَحكُمُ بَينَهُم في ما هُم فيهِ يَختَلِفونَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهدي مَن هُوَ كاذِبٌ كَفّارٌ
Look! [Only] exclusive faith is worthy of Allah, and those who take guardians besides Him [claiming,] ‘We only worship them so that they may bring us near to Allah,’ Allah will indeed judge between them concerning that about which they differ. Indeed Allah does not guide someone who is a liar and an ingrate.
أَمَّن يَبدَأُ الخَلقَ ثُمَّ يُعيدُهُ وَمَن يَرزُقُكُم مِنَ السَّماءِ وَالأَرضِ ۗ أَإِلٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُل هاتوا بُرهانَكُم إِن كُنتُم صادِقينَ
Is He who originates the creation, then He will bring it back, and who provides for you from the sky and the earth… ? What! Is there a god besides Allah? Say, ‘Produce your evidence, should you be truthful.’[xii]
أَم لَهُم إِلٰهٌ غَيرُ اللَّهِ ۚ سُبحانَ اللَّهِ عَمّا يُشرِكونَ
Do they have any god other than Allah? Clear is Allah of any partners that they may ascribe [to Him]![xiii]
وَلَقَد جِئتُمونا فُرادىٰ كَما خَلَقناكُم أَوَّلَ مَرَّةٍ وَتَرَكتُم ما خَوَّلناكُم وَراءَ ظُهورِكُم ۖ وَما نَرىٰ مَعَكُم شُفَعاءَكُمُ الَّذينَ زَعَمتُم أَنَّهُم فيكُم شُرَكاءُ ۚ لَقَد تَقَطَّعَ بَينَكُم وَضَلَّ عَنكُم ما كُنتُم تَزعُمونَ
‘Certainly you have come to Us alone, just as We created you the first time, and left behind whatever We had bestowed on you. We do not see your intercessors with you —those whom you claimed to be [Our] partners in [deciding] you[r] [fate]. Certainly all links between you have been cut, and what you used to claim has forsaken you!’
These Ayat are speaking to a people who give no dominion to anyone other than Allah. Allah is the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths.
وَيَعبُدونَ مِن دونِ اللَّهِ ما لا يَضُرُّهُم وَلا يَنفَعُهُم وَيَقولونَ هٰؤُلاءِ شُفَعاؤُنا عِندَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُل أَتُنَبِّئونَ اللَّهَ بِما لا يَعلَمُ في السَّماواتِ وَلا فِي الأَرضِ ۚ سُبحانَهُ وَتَعالىٰ عَمّا يُشرِكونَ
They worship besides Allah that which neither causes them any harm, nor brings them any benefit, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with Allah.’ Say, ‘Will you inform Allah about something He does not know in the heavens or on the earth?’ Immaculate is He and exalted above [having] any partners that they ascribe [to Him]!
إِن تَدعوهُم لا يَسمَعوا دُعاءَكُم وَلَو سَمِعوا مَا استَجابوا لَكُم ۖ وَيَومَ القِيامَةِ يَكفُرونَ بِشِركِكُم ۚ وَلا يُنَبِّئُكَ مِثلُ خَبيرٍ
If you invoke them they will not hear your invocation, and even if they heard they cannot respond to you, and on the Day of Resurrection they will forswear your polytheism, and none can inform you like the One who is all-aware.
فقد قال ابن عباس في تفسير قوله تعالى: {وما يؤمن أكثرهم بالله إلا وهم مشركون}، من إيمانهم إذا قيل لهم: من خلق السماء؟ ومن خلق الأرض؟ ومن خلق الجبال؟ قالوا: الله، وهم مشركون. وقال أيضًا: قوله: {وما يؤمن أكثرهم بالله إلا وهم مشركون} يعني: النصارى يقولون: هو ثالث ثلاثة، {ولئن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض ليقولن الله}.
Indeed, Ibn Abbas said in his commentary on Allah’s saying: “And most of them do not believe in Allah except while they associate partners with Him” [Yusuf:106], meaning their belief was that if they were asked, “Who created the heavens? Who created the earth? Who created the mountains?” they would say, “Allah,” while still associating partners with Him. He also said regarding it: “The Christians say: He is the third of three.” As in Allah’s saying: “And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say, ‘Allah.’” [Luqman:25].
{وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضِ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ} [العنكبوت: 87]. ولئن سألتهم من يرزقكم من السماء والأرض ليقولن الله، وهم مع ذلك يشركون به، ويعبدون غيره، ويسجدون للأنداد دونه
“And if you ask them who provides for you from the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah.” [Al-‘Ankabut: 87]. Even though if you ask them who provides for you from the heavens and the earth, they will surely say “Allah,” they still associate partners with Him, worship others besides Him, and prostrate to rivals instead of Him.
وقال النضر بن عربي في قوله: {وما يؤمن أكثرهم بالله إلا وهم مشركون} [يوسف: 106] قال: من إيمانهم أن يقال لهم: من ربكم؟ فيقولون: الله. ومن يبرئ السموات والأرض؟ فيقولون: الله. ومن يرسل عليهم المطر؟ فيقولون: الله. ومن ينبت الأرض؟ فيقولون: الله. ثم هم مع ذلك مشركون، فيقولون: له شريك، ويقولون: ثالث ثلاثة.
وهذا القول يدل على أن المشركين كانوا يقرّون بأصول الربوبية من حيث الأصل، ولكن بعضهم انحرف عن داعي أن لله شريكًا، ولذلك كان بعض المخلوقات تصف الربوبية
Al-Nadr ibn ‘Arabi said regarding His saying: “And most of them do not believe in Allah except while they associate partners with Him.” [Yusuf: 106] He said: Part of their belief is that if asked, “Who is your Lord?” they would say: Allah. If asked, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” they would say: Allah. If asked, “Who sends down rain upon you?” they would say: Allah. If asked, “Who causes the earth to grow?” they would say: Allah. Yet with all that, they were still polytheists, saying He has a partner, or saying: He is the third of three.
This statement indicates that the polytheists affirmed the fundamentals of Lordship in principle, but some of them deviated by claiming Allah had a partner, and thus some created things were described with aspects of Lordship
ومن نص على ذلك: مقاتل بن سليمان، حيث يقول: {وَلَئِن سَأَلْتَهُم مَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ لَيَقُولُنَّ اللَّهُ} [لقمان: 25]، يعني بذلك في إقرارهم بخلق السموات والأرض، مع ذلك كانوا يعبدون غيره، فيفضل ذلك على الحمد لله إقرارًا بذلك. وقال أيضًا: {أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ} [الطور: 35] لا يوجد شيء هم مقرون بأن الله خالق الأشياء كلها وحده
Those who stated this include Muqatil ibn Sulayman, who said regarding Allah’s saying: “And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah.” [Luqman: 25]. This means that despite their acknowledgment of the Creator of the heavens and the earth, they worshipped others besides Him, yet they would still admit that all praise belongs to Allah for that. He also said regarding “Were they created from nothing?” [At-Tur: 35], that there is nothing except they affirm that Allah is the Creator of all things, alone without partner.
ويقول ابن سلام: {وَهُوَ الَّذِي فِي السَّمَاءِ إِلَهٌ وَفِي الْأَرْضِ إِلَهٌ} [الزخرف: 84] فإذا قيل لهم: من إلهكم في السماء؟ قالوا: الله. وإذا قيل لهم: من إلهكم في الأرض؟ قالوا: الله.
وأما ابن جرير، فإنه كرر القول كثيرًا بأن كفار العرب كانوا مقرين.
Ibn Salam said regarding “And He is the One who is God in the heavens and God on the earth.” [Az-Zukhruf: 84], that if they were asked, “Who is your God in the heavens?” they would say: Allah. And if asked, “Who is your God on the earth?” they would say: Allah.
As for Ibn Jarir, he frequently reiterated that the disbelievers among the Arabs acknowledged this.
يكون الله تعالى خالقًا رازقًا مدبّرًا في تفسيره، ويقول في موضع منه: الله جل ثناؤه قد أخبر في كتابه عنها أنها كانت تقرّ بربوبيته، مع أنها كانت تشرك في عبادته. ما كانت تشرك به، فقال فيما قاله: {ولئن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض ليقولن الله}، وقال: {هذا خلق الله فأروني ماذا خلق الذين من دونه بل الظالمون في ضلال مبين} \[لقمان: 11]، فالذي هو أولى بتأويل قوله: {وأنتم تتلون الكتاب} \[البقرة: 44] إذ كان ما كان عند العرب من العلم بربانيته الله، وأنه خالق الخلق ورازقهم ومدبرهم، يشبه الذي كان من ذلك عند أهل الكتابين.
ويقول ابن أبي زمنين: {قل من يرزقكم من السماء والأرض} \[يونس: 31]، أنتم تقرّون أن الله خالق هذه الأشياء وربها، وقد كان مشركو العرب يعرفون ذلك.
ويقول ابن عطية: {من عدد هذه الآيات يقتضي كفرهم، وذلك أنهم مع اعترافهم بأنهم كانوا يقرّون بأن الله تعالى هو الخالق الرازق إلا أنه كان بعضهم اتخذ الملائكة شركاء}.
ويقول القرطبي مؤكّدًا المعنى السابع: قوله تعالى {قل من يرزقكم} \[يونس: 31] عجيب من أمرهم، من انصرافهم على الشرك وإصرارهم عليه مع إقرارهم بأنه خالقهم ورازقهم، لم يعدل إلى إله آخر ببرهان ولا حجة. بل الكلي فيهم: يقول: كانت العرب إذا دعي الرجل منهم شيئًا من دون الله.
ويقول الواحدي: قوله تعالى {وإن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض ليقولن الله} الآية \[الزخرف: 87]. السؤال والجوالب يبين أن الله خالق السماوات والأرض.
Allah the Exalted is the Creator, Provider, and Manager, as explained in his tafsir. He says in one place: Allah, Glorious is His praise, has informed in His Book that they (the polytheists) acknowledged His Lordship while they still associated partners with Him in worship. They associated partners with Him in worship, but when asked, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” they would say, “Allah.” He also said: “This is Allah’s creation, so show Me what those besides Him have created. Rather, the wrongdoers are in clear error.” \[Luqman: 11]. Thus, the interpretation of His saying “while you recite the Book” \[Al-Baqarah: 44] is that what the Arabs had of knowledge of Allah’s Lordship, that He is the Creator, Sustainer, and Manager of creation, is similar to what the People of the Two Books (Jews and Christians) held.
Ibn Abi Zaminin said regarding “Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth?” [Yunus: 31]: You acknowledge that Allah is the Creator and Lord of these things, and the Arab polytheists knew this.
Ibn ‘Atiyyah said: Among these many verses, their disbelief is evident, because even though they acknowledged that Allah is the Creator and Sustainer, some of them took angels as partners.
Al-Qurtubi, affirming the seventh meaning, said: Regarding His saying “Say: Who provides for you?” \[Yunus: 31], it is amazing that they persisted in their shirk and stubbornness despite their acknowledgment that He is their Creator and Sustainer, and they did not turn to another god with any evidence or proof. Indeed, the general stance among them was that when one of them was called to worship something besides Allah, he would do so.
Al-Wahidi said regarding Allah’s saying “And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah.” \[Az-Zukhruf: 87], that this question and its answer clearly show that Allah is the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
لقوله: {ولئن سألتهم من خلقهم ليقولن الله} [الزخرف: 87]، وقوله تعالى: {قل من يرزقكم من السماء والأرض} [يونس: 31] إلى قوله: {سيقولون الله}. فإذا أجاب النبي ﷺ عن هذا السؤال بقولهم: الله، لم ينكروا معنى ذلك، وصبر كأنهم قالوا: الله. وذكر آيات كثيرة تدل على إقرار المشركين ليس خاصًا بالخالق فقط بل يشمل الرزق والتدبير، لأن هذه الأمور مذكورة فيها.
ويؤكد النسفيّ هذا المعنى فيقول: “ثم عجب أهل العجب من حال المشركين من أهل مكة وغيرهم لم يعبدوا الله مخلصين مع علمهم بأنه خالقهم ورازقهم، فكيف يعرّضون عن توحيده؟!”.
وذكر الجصاصُ أن العرب كانوا أصنافًا في عقائدهم، ثم قال: “وصف منهم أقوامًا بالخالق، وأنبأ بإنبات الخلق نوع من الاعتراف، وذكروا الرسل وعبادتها الأصنام ودعواها الإلهية، فكانوا على ذلك الحال وأخرجوا الرسل وألحقوها بالأصنام، وآمنوا بربوبية الله لها مع إلحادهم فيها”.
وأما الزمخشري فإنه في قوله تعالى: {ولئن سألتهم من خلق السماوات والأرض ليقولن الله} [لقمان: 25] يرى أن الاحتجاج عليهم بما لا يدافعونه، لأنهم كانوا يقرّون لله بخلق السماوات والأرض ويدفعونها عن الأصنام. فهو احتجاج بما يقرّون به لا بما يجحدونه، ولهذا قال: {أفلا تذكرون} أي: أفلا تتعظون به ولا تعتبرونه؟.
Regarding His saying: “And if you ask them who created them, they will surely say: Allah.” [Az-Zukhruf: 87], and His saying: “Say: Who provides for you from the heavens and the earth…” [Yunus: 31] up to “…They will surely say: Allah.” When the Prophet ﷺ asked this question and they answered, “Allah,” they did not deny its meaning, remaining steadfast as if to say, “Allah.” Many verses indicate that the polytheists’ acknowledgment was not limited to creation alone but included provision and management, as these matters are mentioned in them.
Al-Nasafi affirms this meaning, saying: “Then it is astonishing regarding the state of the polytheists of Mecca and others that they did not worship Allah sincerely despite knowing that He is their Creator and Provider. How could they turn away from His oneness?!”
Al-Jassas mentioned that the Arabs were of various sects in their beliefs, then said: “He described among them people who affirmed creation, and spoke of causing creation to grow as a type of acknowledgment, and they mentioned the messengers and worshiped idols, claiming their divinity. They remained in that state, expelling the messengers and including them among the idols, believing in Allah’s Lordship over them while engaging in heresy concerning them.”
As for Al-Zamakhshari, regarding Allah’s saying: “And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will surely say: Allah.” [Luqman: 25], he saw that this was an argument against them with something they could not reject, for they acknowledged that Allah created the heavens and the earth and did not attribute that to the idols. Thus, it is an argument based on what they admitted, not what they denied. Therefore He said: “Will you not then take heed?” meaning, will you not take admonition and reflect upon it?
The Salafis argue that Shaytan has certain belief in Allah as Rabb. Fir’awn also believed in Allah as Rabb. Therefore, it is possible to have proper Tawhid al-Rububiyyah without Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah.
c. Epigraphic Research
Monotheism was brought to the Arabian peninsula by Ibrahim and his son Is’haq. The Arabs remained upon unicity until ‘Amr bin Lu’ayy. Safi al-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri writes in his sira,
كان معظم العرب اتبعوا دعوة إسماعيل- عليه السلام- حين دعاهم إلى دين أبيه إبراهيم- عليه السّلام- فكانت تعبد الله وتوحده وتدين بدينه، حتى طال عليهم الأمد ونسوا حظا مما ذكروا به، إلا أنهم بقي فيهم التوحيد وعدة شعائر من دين إبراهيم، حتى جاء عمرو بن لحي رئيس خزاعة، وكان قد نشأ على أمر عظيم من المعروف والصدقة والحرص على أمور الدين، فأحبه الناس، ودانوا له ظنا منهم أنه من أكابر العلماء وأفاضل الأولياء، ثم إنه سافر إلى الشام، فرآهم يعبدون الأوثان، فاستحسن ذلك وظنه حقا، لأن الشام محل الرسل والكتب، فقدم معه بهبل وجعله في جوف الكعبة، ودعا أهل مكة إلى الشرك بالله، فأجابوه. ثم لم يلبث أهل الحجاز أن تبعوا أهل مكة، لأنهم ولاة البيت وأهل الحرم
.ومن أقدم أصنامهم مناة، كانت بالمشلل على ساحل البحر الأحمر بالقرب من قديد، ثم اتخذوا اللات في الطائف، ثم اتخذوا العزى بوادي نخلة، هذه الثلاث أكبر أوثانهم، ثم كثر الشرك، وكثرت الأوثان في كل بقعة من الحجاز، ويذكر أن عمرو بن لحي كان له رئى من الجن، فأخبره بأن أصنام قوم نوح- ودا وسواعا ويغوث ويعوق ونسرا- مدفونة بجدة فأتاها فاستثارها، ثم أوردها إلى تهامة، فلما جاء الحج دفعها إلى القبائل، فذهبت بها إلى أوطانها، حتى صار لكل قبيلة ثم في كل بيت صنم. وقد ملأوا المسجد الحرام بالأصنام، ولما فتح رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مكة وجد حول البيت ثلاثمائة وستين صنما، فجعل يطعنها حتى تساقطت، ثم أمر بها فأخرجت من المسجد وحرقت.وهكذا صار الشرك وعبادة الأصنام أكبر مظهر من مظاهر دين أهل الجاهلية، الذين كانوا يزعمون أنهم على دين إبراهيم.
Most of the Arabs had followed the call of Ismāʿīl (peace be upon him) when he invited them to the religion of his father Ibrāhīm (peace be upon him). Thus, they worshipped Allah, affirmed His Oneness, and practiced His religion. However, as time passed, the message grew distant from them, and they forgot a portion of what they had been reminded of. Yet, tawḥīd (monotheism) and several rituals of Ibrāhīm’s religion remained among them—until ʿAmr ibn Luḥayy, the chief of the tribe of Khuzaʿah, emerged.
He had been raised upon a great deal of goodness: charity, concern for religious matters, and acts of virtue. The people loved him and followed him, believing him to be among the great scholars and righteous saints. Then he traveled to the Levant (al-Shām), where he saw its people worshipping idols. He admired that practice and thought it to be the truth—since al-Shām was known as the land of messengers and divine books. So, he returned with the idol Hubal, placed it inside the Kaʿbah, and invited the people of Mecca to associate others with Allah. They responded to him.
It was not long before the people of al-Ḥijāz followed the people of Mecca, since the latter were the custodians of the Sacred House and the people of the Sanctuary. Among their earliest idols was Manāt, which stood at al-Mushallal on the Red Sea coast near Qudayd. Then they adopted al-Lāt in al-Ṭāʾif, and al-ʿUzzā in Wādī Nakhlah. These three were their greatest idols.
Then polytheism spread widely, and idols became numerous in every region of al-Ḥijāz. It is said that ʿAmr ibn Luḥayy had a ra’ī (a familiar spirit or companion) from the jinn, who informed him that the idols of the people of Nūḥ—Wadd, Suwaʿ, Yaghūth, Yaʿūq, and Nasr—were buried in Jeddah. So, he went there, unearthed them, and brought them to Tihāmah. When the season of Ḥajj came, he distributed them among the various tribes, who then took them back to their homelands—until every tribe, and eventually every household, had its own idol.
They even filled the Sacred Mosque with idols. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ conquered Mecca, he found 360 idols around the Kaʿbah. He began striking them with a stick in his hand, causing them to fall, and then ordered that they be removed from the Mosque and burned.
Thus, shirk (polytheism) and idol worship became the dominant features of the religion of the people of Jāhiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance)—despite their claim to be following the religion of Ibrāhīm.[xiv]
Thereafter, the Quraysh became split in their religion. However, by the fifth century before Islam, the epigraphic evidence is nearly exclusively monotheistic. By the sixth century and until the eve of Islam, it is solely monotheistic.
Following the shift to monotheism, such a phrase would have been reinterpreted through a literal reading of the word ǧadd as fortune or lot.[xv]
Archaeological inscriptions from late pre-Islamic Arabia mention only ‘Allāh’. The old idol-gods are not present in the archeological record or were re-imagined as Allah’s daughters, the angels. Thus there was a large shift where much of Qurayshi religion developed into henotheism. Regardless, polytheism held a sway on the Quraysh. Additionally, some of the Quraysh were near-atheist. The Qurʾān refutes all of these false beliefs. The Western academic Ilkka Lindstedt notes,
God (Allāh) occurs many times in pre-Islamic Arabic poetry in a way that suggests monotheist or henotheist tendencies. The expression li-llāh, literally “to God (belongs),” followed by someone’s name, is used often in praise of that someone. Other common exclamations include bi-ḥamd Allāh and al-ḥamdu li-llāh, “praise be to God!” God is called Allāh (less often: al-ilāh), or al-Rabb, “the Lord,” or al-Raḥmān, “the Merciful.”
Connected to this topic, it should be noted that the name ʿAbdallāh, “the servant of Allāh,” is attested in the epigraphic corpus, for instance in an inscription from Ḥimā, written in South Arabian script, though the name is also found in, for example, Safaitic inscriptions, which cannot be called “monotheist.”[xvi]
A major mistake many Salafis and Ashʿarīs made is: assuming Quraysh held one homogeneous creed. They did not. Rather, there were some Quraysh that took their idols as intercessors to Allah, who was their only God, and others that believed that several gods had independent domain over the cosmos. According to the Western academic Nicolai Sinai,
“What happened was, of course, a much closer integration of Arabophone communities into the wider late antique world. Christian missionaries had been active among Arabic-speaking tribes from the fourth century onward, but the latter’s involvement in the wider political and cultural context of the late antique Near East was decisively precipitated by an escalation of Roman-Sasanian warfare from the beginning of the sixth century onward. In this conflict, both empires subsidized proto-Arab allies such as the Ghassānids and the Lakhmids to engage in proxy warfare with each other and to hold in check tribal groups beyond the imperial frontiers …
“In such a situation of cultural encounter between pagan nomadic tribes and imperial vassals with Christian affiliations, Allāh would have functioned as an expedient currency of conceptual exchange. Pagan and Christian producers and consumers of Arabic poetry patently recognized each other as referring to the same deity when invoking Allāh or al-ilāh…
“Thus, references to Allāh were intelligible both to Christians, who would have been isposed to equate him with the biblical god, and to pagans, who were able to conceptualize Allāh as the ultimate overlord over a pantheon of inferior deities and to view him as functionally equivalent (or at least intimately linked) with the impersonal notions of attritional time (dahr) and insidious doom (maniyya) that formed the lynchpin of the heroic ethics of tribal poetry.” [Rain-giver, pg. 61]
Therefore, we see many evidences for a henotheistic Quraysh. We also find evidences for a polytheistic Quraysh, proof that they worshipped multiple gods, each believed to possess dominion, power, and control independent of Allah.
The scholars who insist Quraysh were polytheists argue that their shirk lay in rubūbiyya: they say there is no meaningful split between rubūbiyya and ulūhiyya—those pedagogical categories overlap, and you simply cannot have shirk in worship (ulūhiyya) without simultaneously believing in many gods who share lordship.
By contrast, the Salafī ʿulamāʾ—following Shaykh Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb—maintain that Quraysh were henotheists. They affirmed tawḥīd ar-rubūbiyya (acknowledging only Allah as Creator). When asked, “Who created the heavens and the earth?” they answered “Allah,” as the Qurʾān records. The debate, therefore, centres on interpretation.
d. Syncretic Religion
We, therefore, have verses refuting henotheists, others refuting polytheists, and even passages against atheists:
أَم خُلِقوا مِن غَيرِ شَيءٍ أَم هُمُ الخالِقونَ
Were they created from nothing? Or are they [their own] creators?[xvii]
وَقالوا ما هِيَ إِلّا حَياتُنَا الدُّنيا نَموتُ وَنَحيا وَما يُهلِكُنا إِلَّا الدَّهرُ ۚ وَما لَهُم بِذٰلِكَ مِن عِلمٍ ۖ إِن هُم إِلّا يَظُنّونَ
They say, ‘There is nothing but the life of this world: we live and we die, and nothing but time destroys us.’ But they do not have any knowledge of that, and they only make conjectures.[xviii]
So, the Qurʾān addresses multiple strands within Quraysh—some ascribing partners, some doubting resurrection, some denying divine hearing. Any full analysis must account for all three groups, not just one. Al-Jassas mentioned that the Arabs were of various sects in their beliefs, then said:
وصف منهم أقوامًا بالخالق، وأنبأ بإنبات الخلق نوع من الاعتراف، وذكروا الرسل وعبادتها الأصنام ودعواها الإلهية، فكانوا على ذلك الحال وأخرجوا الرسل وألحقوها بالأصنام، وآمنوا بربوبية الله لها مع إلحادهم فيها”
“He described among them people who affirmed creation, and spoke of causing creation to grow as a type of acknowledgment, and they mentioned the messengers and worshiped idols, claiming their divinity. They remained in that state, yet they expelled the messengers and stuck to their idols, all while believing in Allah’s Lordship over them while engaging in heresy concerning it.”
So we find that some of the Jahili ‘Arabs were polytheists, others were henotheists, and still others were atheists. Yasir Qadhi, Hatim al-Awni, and even Sulayman b. Abd al-Wahhab incorrectly conflate henotheism and polytheism. There is an unspoken suggestion here that the Quran only condemns polytheism as shirk (association), which is inaccurate.
By the sixth century, nabateo-script has become our modern Arabic script. There are no surviving paleo-Arabic inscriptions mentioning any other gods other than al-Ilah. This then became Allah. Even in southern Hijaz, there are only surviving inscriptions to Allah. There was a shift to monotheism or at least henotheism and away from polytheism.
The other deities were reimagined as angels or daughters of Allah as opposed to separate gods, and this is what the Qur’an says. Qadhi has incorrectly assumed that Quraysh had a monolithic or organized religion. This is again wrong. Some of the Quraysh that the Quran rebuts did not believe in any god or afterlife for example, others believed in multiple gods, others were henotheists, and some were even monotheists. In fact, academic research seems to indicate a proliferation of monotheism in the Arabian peninsula before Islam.
Some Quraysh did give istiqlal al-fi’l to their gods, others did not. Qur’an pronounces takfir on all of them. Therefore, there is a kind of ‘ibadah given to an idol which is shirk regardless of belief of istiqlal al-fi’l.
Therefore, I contend that: both Salafīs and Ashʿarīs miss the mark about Quraysh’s religion. By conflating — or over-separating — polytheism and henotheism, each side builds shaky arguments.
- Reading the Qurʾān strictly as polytheism runs into verses that better fit henotheism.
- Yet restricting the discussion to henotheism alone ignores passages that do depict independent deities.
Hence, misreading Quraysh’s actual creed leads to downstream errors in the istighātha debate and other theological questions.
e. Conclusion on the Religious Landscape of Jahili Arabia
Both Salafis and their critics assume Quraysh had one organised religion. Islam today is highly systematized. It has canonical texts and established scholarship. It is easy to anachronistically project that structure backwards. However, pre-Islamic Quraysh had no central scripture or seminary; beliefs varied tribe-to-tribe, person-to-person.
Hence the Qurʾān refutes multiple strands:
- those who believed in independent gods,
- those who saw idols as mere intercessors,
- those who called the idols daughters of Allah,
- and outright skeptics who denied any deity or after-life.
Since Quraysh were religiously diverse, it is wrong to fix one definition of shirk and impose it wholesale. Even people who affirmed Allah’s unique creative power were still mushrikūn for taking intermediaries. The Qurʾān condemns both behaviours side-by-side.
While some recent scholars from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that Qurayshi religion was not monolithic, unfortunately they still based their definitions of shirk, Tawhid, and ‘ibadah on a monolithic outlook. Both sides took a broad brush stroke approach targeting what they perceived to be the majority that Allah addresses in the Qur’an and took the other religious outlooks as minority cases. Due to that, the theological systems they constructed failed to capture the full breadth of Jahili Arabia’s religious landscape.
- Muwahhid (Monotheists)
- Hanif (Allah is the only God)
- Unitarian Christians
- Jews
- Kaffir (subtractionists)
- Dahrī (no god, no afterlife)
- Jews who rejected Jesus
- Mushrik
- Soft monotheists (Allah is the true God, Lat & Uzza are just righteous intercessors or His daughters)
- Henotheists (Allah is the true God, these are just subordinate or secondary gods)
- Polytheists (Allah is the greatest god but we worship these other gods that also have power)
- Trinitarian Christians
Sultan al-Umayri,
إذ تقع أفعال مخصوصة على الربوبية لا يظهر فيها أن من فعلها يعتقد أنها شرك؛
في حين أن الشرك في الربوبية سيأتي، إن شاء الله، في مبحث خاص.
وهذا يدل على أن العرب وغيرهم من الأمم التي اجتمع فيها الشرك،
إنما وقع منهم الشرك من جهة أفعال موجبة للشرك متعلقة بمقامات مختلفة من أحوال أجناس الناس:
فبعضها متعلق بمقام الربوبية،
وبعضها متعلق بمقام الإلهية والعبادة،
وبعضها متعلق بمقام الأسماء والصفات.
فإذن، وقوع أفعال موجبة للشرك من جهة الربوبية لا يعني أنهم وقعوا في الشرك من جهة العبادة،
كما أن وقوعهم في الشرك من جهة العبادة لا يقتضي سلامة اعتقادهم من جهة الربوبية.
والمفهوم الشرعي للعبادة في النصوص يدل على طريقة صحيحة في الاستدلال،
وهو أن يُفصَل في الاستدلال بين تلك الأجناس المختلفة،
ويُقصر الصحيح منها على ما يخصه شرعًا،
فليس كل من وقع منه فرد من أفراد أفعال موجبة للشرك يُعد مشركًا بلا اعتبار لحاله،
بل تُعتبر الأدلة الشرعية المتصلة في المسألة المؤثرة والمعتبرة.
The legally consequential definition of “the ruling of worship” has been lost in the texts, as there are specific actions related to *rubūbiyyah* (lordship) that occur, without it being apparent that those who perform them believe them to be shirk. (Shirk in rubūbiyyah will be discussed, if Allah wills, in its own section.)
This shows that the Arabs and other nations in which shirk appeared did not all fall into shirk from the same angle; rather, their acts of shirk arose from different kinds of behaviors, linked to various stations in the condition of human types: some acts were related to the station of Lordship (rubūbiyyah), some to Godhood and worship (ulūhiyyah and ʿibādah), and others to the Names and Attributes (asmāʾ wa ṣifāt).
Thus, falling into actions that entail shirk from the angle of rubūbiyyah does not mean they also committed shirk from the angle of worship, just as committing shirk in worship does not imply that their belief in rubūbiyyah was sound.
The proper legal understanding of worship in the revealed texts points to the correct method of inference, which is to distinguish in argumentation between these different kinds of behaviors, and to restrict valid inferences to the appropriate domain as defined by Sharīʿah. It is not valid to say that anyone who performs a single act that entails shirk is to be considered a mushrik, without examining their particular case. Instead, one must rely on legally consequential and relevant evidences in the matter.
[i] Tahqiq al-Ifadah bi Tahrir Mafhum al-‘Ibadah, pg. 19
[ii] Worship: Gateway to Tawhid and Takfir by Hatim al-‘Awni, pg.s 17-19
[iii] [Surah Fatir, (35):14]
[iv] [Al-Hashr (59):23]
[v] citation
[vi] [Al-Isra (17):111]
[vii] Citation
[viii] [Al-Zukhruf, (43):80]
[ix] [Surah Fusilat, (41):23]
[x] [Surah Yusuf, (12):39]
[xi] [Surah al-Anbiyya, (21):22]
[xii] [Surah al-Naml, The Ants (27):64]
[xiii] [Surah al-Tur, The Mount (52):43]
[xiv] Al-Rahiq al-Makhtum, pg. 25
[xv] Pg. 60 Jallad
[xvi] Muhammad and His Followers in Context pg. 130
[xvii] [Surah al-Tur (52):35]
[xviii] [Surah al-Jathiyyah, (45):24]
