First, a nitpick. Sura 112 isn’t called “al-Ahad”, but “al-Ikhlas”, and that’s more of a condemnation of Christianity than old-style Arab polytheism. And, like Bibliovore said, saying “You shouldn’t worship X because it can’t help you” isn’t the same as recognizing X’s divinity. It’s more of the reverse. If I say, “Your prayers to Zeus won’t do you any good”, I’m saying that Zeus isn’t a god.
Whatever the errors I might have made are not in fact relevant to the issue of discussion and so have no bearing on the arguments I have laid out. They can therefore be completetly ignored with no effect on the issue of discussion. A reading of the Koran and the biography of Muhammed makes it adequately clear that the religion of Islam is nothing more than a modified version of the religion to which Muhammed was born. Most practices and rituals of the “pagan” religion were retained including the Kaaba and the Blacl Stone and the circambulations. Worship of other deities was prohibited, but nowhere was the “existence” of other “lesser” deites denied.
As a last note I would like to quote the following from Hume which shows that it is only arrogancy on account of which people consider monotheism superior to polytheism:
And what shadow of an argument, continued Philo, can you produce, from your Hypothesis, to prove the “unity” of the Deity? A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a Commonwealth: Why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world? This is only so much greater similarity to human affairs. By sharing the work among several, we may so much farther limit the attributes of each, and get rid of that extensive power and knowledge, which must be supposed in one deity, and which according to you can only serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such foolish, such vicious creatures as man can yet often unite in framing and executing a plan, how much more those deities or demons, whom we may suppose several degrees more perfect?
To multiply causes without necessity is indeed contrary to true philosophy: but this principle applies not to the present case. Were one deity antecedently proved by your theory, who were possessed of every attribute, requisite to the production of the universe: it would be needless, I own (though not absurd) to suppose any other deity exists. But while it is still a question, whether all these attributes are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings: by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy? Where we see a body raised in a scale, we are sure that there is in the opposite scale, however, concealed from sight, some counterpoising weight equal to it: But it is still allowed to doubt, whether that weight be an aggregate of several distinct bodies, or one unified united Mass. And if the weight requisite very much exceeds anything we have ever seen conjoined in any single body, the former supposition becomes still more probable and natural. An intelligent being of such vast power and capacity, as is necessary to produce the universe, or so to speak in the language of ancient philosophy, so prodigious and animal, exceeds all analogy and comprehension.”
There are no compelling arguments in favor of monotheism as opposed to polytheism.
Not at all. You’ve made several factual errors that people have called you on, including at least one error central to your argument (i.e., the meaning of the shahada). This bespeaks a cavalier attitude toward facts, making this observor far less likely to take anything you say at face value. As I’ve told other folks, you’ll get a lot further around here if you cross your t’s and dot your i’s before posting.
As for your Hume quote–for goodness’ sake, I’m an atheist who used to be a pagan. I’m all about the polytheism: I find it far more appealing aesthetically and spiritually than monotheism. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that I’ll ever be Muslim. None of that has any bearing whatsoever on whether Islam is polytheistic. Your reading of the texts appears bankrupt, fatally flawed; you’d do well to treat this thread as an opportunity for your own education instead of as a chance to put forward an argument.
Daniel
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Sad debating tactics call for a response of “any mistakes I made can be ignored because I’m right overall”. First off, you are not right and have been shown it repeatedly and here’s why:
If I start a new faith, and I am the new prophet of this faith, and in it I state that Lionel Richie is the one true god, and only Lionel Richie, am I monotheistic? Of course. Does that mean that everyone in the whole world will suddenly give up worshipping their god/gods? No, so I say then that they are wrong, and that they have not seen the (mood) light and accepted the truth. And then when I decree that those people who worship Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or whatever are mistaken, am I accepting that they are gods too but Lionel Richie is supreme? No, I’m saying that you may want to worship those entities, but when the Holy Comeback Tour comes, and Judgement Day arrives, and Lionel Richie gets his Holy Funk back, those other gods won’t hear you and won’t be there to give you sweet soul-filled salvation. So I may acknowledge that people will worship the wrong gods (in this example), because people are flawed, what I am really saying is that those aren’t gods, at all, and they have no divinity and can’t help you. That is exactly what your quotes are saying, wisernow, not that the Qu’ran accepts other gods but that Allah is number 1. Get that through your head.
As for the translation of the shadah, I will accept the Arabic speakers over someone else any day. It’s been demonstrated pretty clearly what it means - NO other gods. None.
As for polytheism vs. monotheism, when did this become such an argument? I don’t recall it ever being proposed as a topic of debate as to whether one system of faith is better than another. And your little quote from Hume is irrelevant here. Keep on topic.
That was not my quote. It was quoted by Bibliovore
Worship A and don’t worship X because X can’t help you may also mean that X is less potent and less poweful than A, and so don’t worship X. In essence, X is there alright but can’t help you against A.
Indeed; “may also mean”. So you can’t assume either way, and must look elsewhere, not persist with semantic nitpickery. The fact that you are willing to outright deny other, conclusive evidence (“there is no God but Allah”) despite the fact that you do not speak arabic suggests that you aren’t exactly debating in good faith here.
But, even if you worship X, it doesn’t mean X is divine. Some people worship Jesus, or their ancestors, or the sun. Scule, apparently, worships Lionel Ritchie. Islam recognizes that Jesus, people’s ancestors, the sun, and Lionel Ritchie all exist. None of them is divine, according to Muslims. Islam’s monotheistic for that very reason…nothing is divine except for one God, who created the universe and who alone should be worshiped. This was a pretty big departure from the beliefs of most of pre-Islamic Arabia, because most (but not all) of the pre-Islamic Arabians were polytheists. I don’t really see how either of those things are even debatable.
Check out my earleri post #54 where I have given the links to sites that translate the shahada differently. They are Islamic sites, ask them why they do so if the translation is so easy to translate and neatly cut out! Why do they make up so many words if there are only four words? If you want I can give you more sources that translate the shahda with the “worship” clause. If Muslims cannot even make up their mind about the one true translation of the shahada, it is not my fault.
Wisernow,
The text you claim to understand completely and so much better then Muslims do, is written in Arabic while you rely only on some translations. Arabic and especially the variations named Classical Arabic, among which the language of Al Qur’an holds a separate section, cannot be literal translated in to any language and especially not in one belonging to an other language group.
And yes, the translation given to you by Bibliovore is what the shahada means to say for all Muslims on this globe.
Since we are Muslims we do know what we speak of. I don’t now if you can understand this, but the shahada is something we don’t change the meaning of simply to please people like you who claim they know it better then we do while not even being Muslim.
And no, sura 112 does not speak of the possibility of “Allah” being one God among others. The word Allah is only Arabic for the English word “God”.
I shall give you my translation of sura 112 in a try to do that for English readers.
-
Say: He is God as Only
Explanation: God is One. God is incomparable. -
God the permanent (= Or: God the eternal, absolute)
Explanation: At Him all the creatures address themselves for their needs. He is sought by all creation. -
He did not beget and is not begotten (= He has no offspring and is uncreated)
Explanation: Rejection of the Trinity (I shall come back to that here under) -
And not one is equal to Him. (= there is no other like Him)
Explanation: Glory to God, He is above all that one can describe.
Describes the differentiation between the unique Creator and His creation, between the mystery of God and the mystery of the world, between the essence of the absolute, the infinite, the eternal and the essence of the relative, the limited and what can vanish.
For your information some (shortened) of comments which again I shall try to translate in understandable English:
This sura is considered to be the very basic of the Islamic theology, the resume of its doctrine, the expression of the Islamic belief in One God who is absolute, unique omniscient, omnipotent. On its own it forms a resume of the whole Quranic message (
This sura formulates an answer to the questions of the polytheists Quraysh in Mecca who asked Muhammed to “describe his god”.
Later it was used as an answer to the similar questions of the Jews and Christians in Medina. At the first it confirmed the universality of God to whom all the beings can refuge
At the first ones it affirms the universality of God with whom all beings have recourse, without distinction, preference nor election. At the Christians sura 112 affirms the rejection of any idea of incarnation, God having children, of filiations of God. Hence also clearly the rejection in Islamic doctrine of the idea of the Trinity.
This answer formulated by sura 112 once in Mecca towards the polytheists and later in Medina towards Jews and Christians marks by this also the absolute stability of the concept of God in Islam.
Bibliography
At-Tabari Jâmi’u-l-Bayan 'an ta’wili-l-Qurân (Tafsîr) XXX, 342-348 ;
Zamakhshari/Jâr-l-lâh, Al-Kahshâf, IV, 242;
Râzi, * At-Tafsîr-l-Kabîr, XXXII, 174-185*
Ibn Kathîr Tafsîr-l-Qurân-l-'Adîm IV, 565-571
Salaam. A
I agree with Dead Badger, I’m starting to think that the OP has an agenda.
wisernow, the fact remains that Muslims consider themselves to be strictly monotheistic, including myself. That is how we interpret the teachings of the Quran, and that is how we live our lives. Muslims do not believe in more than one God, and as far as I’m concerned, that should be the end of the discussion. If you have a different interpretation, and if you insist that your interpretation is the right one, well I’m afraid you’re outnumbered.
If you still presume to tell me what my beliefs are, then I’m afraid there isn’t really much of a debate here, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
As for whether monotheism is better than polytheism, I have no idea why you brought that up, and it’s got nothing to do with the original debate.
Forgot to address the name of 112.
Yes it is mostly named Al -'Ikhlâs, which can be translated as “the pure belief” or “the devotion”.
However, names of suras can vary depending the translator.
Muslims usually don’t have the habit to use the names. We name them by their number.
Salaam. A
I had the same suspicion with my first post in this thread, but figured I’d see how it played out. At the time, I searched on wisernow’s username, and saw he’d started only two topics previously: one on how long non-Muslims had been forbidden entrance to Mecca, and the other on why Cecil was refusing to answer his question. (I’m paraphrasing here on both questions).
At the time I thought it possible that he was studying Islam in school and was coming to the board with genuine intellectual curiosity; given his responses here, however, there does seem to be an unpleasant agenda.
As I said, wisernow, you’d be wiser now to use the thread as an opportunity to learn, rather than as an opportunity to debate. You don’t seem to have the necessary information to enter this debate meaningfully.
Daniel
Wisernow,
You open this thread about the black stone, next you start discussing the collection of Al Qur’an, next you bring in your interpretation that Al Qur’an itself “defends” the existence of other gods, next you discuss the meaning of the shahada, next you bring your version of sura 112.
Which is it that you want?
On the black stone I can answer you that there are a lot of stories surrounding this issue. Reference to or mentioning of the most popular beliefs among a majority of Muslims regarding this issue were already posted here.
On the collection of Al Qur’an and its history as text:
We had previously a thread opened on that on which I contributed a little bit from my viewpoint as Islamic historian and as having written one of my thesises on this very issue. You can find it here:
On your claim that Al Qur’an mentions “other gods” as if Al Qur’an itself recognizes their existence. I think Bibliovore has said enough about that.
If you want want Tafsîr (= exegeses) of the lines you brought up as “proof” of your claim, I could always bring on mine yet I think it could be better to give you those of the most famous Muslim scholars in the whole of Islamic history. Which were and are after all my sources and those of every other contemporan scholar on this and all other issues.
Yet since translating into English isn’t exactly my strongest skill, I think you should consider thinking about it that Muslims here tell you that you read things into those quotes that aren’t remotely there.
Once again: we know what is in Al Qur’an and what is not, especially when it comes to the very core of our religion. We learn that from childhood.
About the shahada: there is no other interpretation possible as is given here to you by among others Bibliovore (and I think Agua also.)
About 112: You received enough explanation including Tafsîr coming from the most famous scholars in Islamic history.
If you want to write a whole new exegeses approaching Al Qur’an with your refreshing completely new view that relies completely on translations written by others then yourself, I wish you the best of luck with the result.
Can I get a copy please? Thank you.
Salaam. A
Yes I am new member to this board. So what are you trying to get at by saying ‘only’? Having many posts gives one an exalted status or something?
I do not think that is an essential condition. This is a forum for debating and arguing and in the process maybe learn.
There is no dearth of information. I think that is adequately clear from what I have posted considering I am not a Muslim. What I do not of course have is a “closed” mind!
I am not surprised at the foulmouthing and bitter language used in many of the posts here. Muslims are known to be intolerant to reasoning of their faith. Analysis or criticism of the Koran or its contents in any way is anathema to a Muslim in general. Healthy discussion is impossible when one is emotionally charged and refuses to see any point of view other than what he has been ingrained and indoctrinated with.
Will a moderater please close this thread! I am done!
First, I hope your request to have the thread closed is ignored: though you may be done, you’ve already retracted this promise once in the thread. And even if you are done, the rest of us may not be.
Secondly, “Muslims are known to be intolerant to reasoning of their faith”? Huh? What? Bibliovore, Angua, and Aldebaran were the primary ones here DOING reasoning about their faith. You seem to be approachig it from a position of unreasoning hostility. Remember, I’m an atheist with slight polytheistic leanings, and have no visceral love for any monotheism including Islam; nonetheless, I can recognize that the Muslims in this thread have been intellectually rigorous in a way that you have not been.
Daniel
Oh thank you very much for your appreciation of my sweat that is still running down my back because of the effort I made to make a choice in the Tafsîr of different scholars. This in order to give you the clearest information in the shortest resume possible. And next translate this masterpiece into a language I don’t master because otherwise you wouldn’t understand one word of it. And not only because this website doesn"t take Arabic characters, I suppose. 
Come again after you opened the link I gave here above and after reading my contributions there.
For your information: A historian is trained to approach his subjects idependently, critical and with disregard of everything possible that could influence his position. That includes his background and his religion.
That could be true if you were talking to people who are indeed “ingrained and indoctrinated” and indeed reacting purely" emotional".
I don’t see any Muslim or other poster here who displays signs of any of this.
I see that you are becoming emotional and you seem to display also some signs to be indoctrinated by your own truth about the issues you claim to discuss.
Salaam. A
I’d like to stay a passive outsider, but just to be sure I’m following this correctly, I’d like to ask a few questions about where we are:
The current focus of the debate is now whether or not one word in the Shahadah (alah) is in fact a noun (gods), or an adjective (worthy of worship, godlike), right? Should it be a noun, there is no more debate, and if it’s an adjective, then one side merely takes a disregard for context instead of being impossible, but there is still a debate, correct?
Or do grammatical concepts such as “parts of speech” act entirely differently in Semetic languages?
Thanks Lefty, thanks Aldie, (and salaams to you both, by the ways!).
As for wisernow, I’m sincerely sorry that you’re upset over this. I think I’ve been anything but intolerant here, and I hope I’ve shown that a Muslim can have a reasonable debate about his faith without frothing at the mouth :). Please don’t let this stop you from asking more questions about Islam, but it might be a good idea to calm down and take a deep breath before you do…
And BTW, when have I used “foul” or “bitter” language?
The debate was originally about idolatry, slid into a discussion if the Shahada, ambled on to whether Islam is strictly monotheistic, and then somehow took a temporary side-step into whether montheism is “superior” to polytheism.
But as for the Shahaada, there is no further debate, as wisernow admitted his error with regards to the translation. The word “illaa-ha” is a noun.
Wisernow You don’t speak or read Arabic. You are in no position to claim one translation is the correct one. Bibliovore, and Aldebaran can read and speak Arabic. They can translate the Quran without missing nuances, relying on transliteration, or resorting to Babelfish.
IANAMuslim ( I apologize if Moslem is the preferred spelling. I can never remember which is the proper one) Muslims are not polytheists 'There is no god but G-d, and Mohammed[sup][/sup] is his prophet’ Saying ‘One, absolute and eternal’ does not imply multiple deities any more than ‘covered in chocolate, low in cholesterol, and delicious’ implies multiple halvahs.
[sup][/sup] Peace be upon him