IT has been said by a modern Muslim that ‘Allah is the essence of Islam.’
This is to be expected for in every system of theology the nature of the deity
worshipped must determine the details of the entire system and impart to that
system its specific characteristics. Allah’s distinctive nature determines
the range and interests of Islamic theology and, just as every Christian doctrine
— whether of man or of holiness — is based upon what we know of God in Christ,
so every Muslim doctrine is related to Allah. We must remember this, as we
now proceed to discuss man and his destiny according to Muslim theology.
Before we begin to discuss the details of Muslim teaching we must first remind
ourselves that, although Allah is said to have created man and the Jinn in
order that they may worship Him (Surah 51 v. 56), yet Muslim theology will
not admit that Allah has any fixed purpose which might condition or restrict
the operation of His will. But when the Christian thinks of the creation of
man, he sees it in the light of God the Father’s purpose through and in His
only Son, to bring ‘many sons unto glory’ (Hebrews 2:10). Islam prefers to
think of Allah as One who does as He wills, the working of Allah’s will being
entirely unconditioned. Christian soteriology, however, cannot find its source
in an indifferent and unconditioned Divine will; the hope of salvation is anchored
in the gracious will of God the Father, who has sent His Son to redeem the
world by His divine self-oblation. On the other hand, it would be nonsense
to speak of Allah as One who is working out a purpose of salvation, and has
sent His prophets over the centuries in order to prepare men in the fullness
of time for a great sacrificial act of self-emptying and self-giving. Allah
does not work out such a plan, or submit to the conditions which such a purpose
of grace and righteousness imposes; He does ‘as He pleases’.
We must keep all these facts in mind as we study the subject of Allah’s creation of man and of man’s destiny. We have already remarked that there are passages in the Quran where there is some suggestion of Allah having acted from design in creating man. We have noted one such passage, and there are others which speak of Allah as One who formed his creatures in order to fill hell with men and Jinn (Surahs 11 v. 120; 7 v. 178), or in order to cause others ‘to enter into His mercy’ (Surah 76 v. 31). We also read in Surah 3 v. 188, that Allah has not created the heavens and the earth ‘in vain’, and believers therefore ask that they be kept ‘from the torment of the fire’.
We also find that the initial act of the creation of man is described in the Quran and the Bible in almost the same terms (apart from the additional elements found in the Quran). They diverge, however, not so much in their accounts of that initial act, as when the Bible defines the destiny of man in terms of man’s ‘participation in the divine nature;’ and here we see most clearly the difference between the Quranic and Biblical doctrines of man.
Let us now consider the Quranic teaching concerning man and his nature. We read in the Quran that Allah created Adam from the crackling clay of black mud (Surah 15 v. 26). ‘Allah created man from earth, then He said to him “BE”, and he was (Surah 3 v. 52).
Then, after the creation of the first man, Adam, all men were called into existence. This pre-existence of the whole human race is referred to in Surah 7 v. 171. Muslim tradition tells us that they were drawn out of their ancestor’s loins in the form of small ants endued with understanding. They were given the opportunity to acknowledge Allah as their lord, and then returned again to their ancestor’s loins. After forming man, Allah is said to have given His spirit to man (Surahs 15 v. 30; 32 v. 8). Our previous study of the significance of the word ‘spirit’ will have made it clear to us that the giving to man of a spirit only means that Allah infused into man a created thing.
At his creation the angels were ordered by Allah to adore Adam (Surahs 7 v. 10; 15 vv. 25-44); and, as we have also noted, Satan was reprobated because the refused to adore any other than Allah. Islam regards Adam as the first prophet, and declares that he had writings delivered to him in the form of ‘leaves’ (suhuf; see pp. 16 f). Allah has subjected creation to man (Surah 31 v. 19), and man is preferred by Allah over many things which He has created (Surah 17 v. 72). Man was created weak (Surah 4 v. 32), and is hasty and rash by nature (Surahs 17 v. 12; 21 v. 38; 70 v. 19), but his intelligence is superior to that of the generality of angels (Surah 2 v. 32).
Allah created woman from the first man (Surahs 7 v. 189; 39 v. 7). Adam and Eve sinned in obeying Satan and were expelled from the Garden, but Allah accepted Adam’s repentance (Surah 2 v. 35); thus, in the light of this and other considerations, Muslims hold that there was no taint of original sin which could be passed on by Adam to his descendants. All that is in man is the direct and immediate creation of Allah, and He it is who fashions each soul and teaches it its sin and its piety (Surah 91 v. 8). The Quran declares that each soul is responsible for its own actions, and that no soul can bear the burden of another (Surahs 6 v. 164; 17 v. 16; 35 v. 19). This position is somewhat modified by the statement in Surah 5 v. 32, where Abel is said to have allowed Cain to kill him, in order that Cain might draw upon himself the sins of Abel.
Man is composed of body and soul (nafs); the soul being a subtle body which is infused into the physical body ‘as water permeates the rose.’ Islam believes that, when the body dies, the soul leaves it for the first judgement, and then returns to the body in the tomb and is questioned by the two terrible angels Munkar and Nakir. Apart from the souls of prophets and martyrs, which go directly to Paradise, the souls of men stay in the grave until the Resurrection. In this latter connection the Quran teaches that there will be a resurrection of the physical body.
As we have already noted, the spirit is given by Allah, and in the Quran this giving of spirit (ruh) and the creation of the soul are different operations. When the spirit is given, something extra is bestowed on man, and some Muslim theologians have argued the Allah may give as many as seven spirits to a man. (Here too, we must remember that the spirit is a created thing which is bestowed by Allah.)
The above is a brief statement of the Quranic and Muslim teaching about the creation of man and his constitution. There is, however, another important factor to be taken into consideration, which follows from the central and fundamental doctrine of Allah’s nature, namely, that all is as Allah wills, and all that each man does and is, is related to Allah’s decree.
The Christian student may be puzzled by the fact that orthodox Muslim theology is able to conceive of Allah as One who is entirely free in the exercise of His will, and yet the Muslim theologian thinks of Allah’s unconditioned will as having decreed all thing in the beginning. The Christian will naturally ask: If all is decreed by Allah in the beginning, then how does Allah enjoy afterwards a complete and unconditioned liberty in the exercise of His will?[1] Muslim theology has not specifically wrestled with this problem, and the only hint that we have of Islam’s awareness of such a problem is to be seen in the attempt to relate the eternal decree to the detailed working-out of the decree. This distinction between the eternal decree and its detailed operation is made clear, say the Muslim theologians, by the use of two verbs in the Quran. The root Q D ’ is, they hold, used of the eternal provision of Allah, and the root Q D R is used of the operation of Allah’s will in its details.
From a study of the passages in the Quran, we see that Q D ’ is used of Allah’s decree (Surahs 2 v. 111; 3 v. 42; etc). It is also used of both Allah’s and the prophet Muhammad’s decree (Surah 33 v. 36), and, in the sense of ‘fulfil’, it is used of Moses (Surah 28 v. 29). It is used of man fulfilling vows (Surah 33 v. 23). When it is used in its important technical sense of Allah’s act, it means that He decreed something or ordained it. In a standard work by Tahanawi, called Kashshaf Istilahat al Funum, there is an article in which he discusses the usage of this word, and quotes Imam Razi’s Tafsir al Kabir as stating that Q D ’ refers to that which was purposed originally and Q D R is that which follows it (Razi’s comments on Surah 33 v. 37). Q D ’ is therefore used of Allah’s original purpose and Q D R of its detailed implementation. The well-known word taqdir is derived from this latter root, and when used of Allah it means that, in His omnipotence, He ‘decreed, appointed, ordained, or arranged and portioned out’. It is interesting to note that this root Q D R is only used of man in a non-technical sense, in connection with the casting off of restraint when measuring out wine in Paradise (Surah 76 v. 16).
As is usual, the teaching of the Quran takes more formal and definite shape in the books of Traditions. In such books there is always a section dealing with Allah’s decree, and in the famous Mishkat al Masabih (already referred to on pages 29 and 33) there are many Traditions dealing with this subject.[2] We read for example: ‘Allah wrote the fates of created things fifty thousand years before He created the heavens and the earth.’ We also read: ‘It is related from Muslim bin Yasar that he said: Umar bin al Khattab was asked concerning the verse of the Quran (Surah 7 v. 171): And when thy Lord brought forth their descendants from the backs of men.[3] Umar said: I heard the apostle of Allah questioned concerning this verse, and he replied: Verily, Allah created Adam and then stroked his back with His right hand and brought forth Adam’s descendants from it, and He said: I have created these for Paradise and they will perform the acts of people of Paradise. Then Allah stroked Adam’s back and brought forth (other) descendants from it and He said: I have created these for the Fire and they will perform the acts of people of the Fire. Then a man said: Of what use, O apostle of Allah, will deeds of any kind be? Then the apostle of Allah replied: When Allah creates a servant for Paradise, He bids him perform the actions of the people of Paradise until he dies doing the actions of the people of Paradise and thereby He causes him to enter Paradise. And when Allah creates a slave for the Fire, He bids him perform the actions of the people of the Fire until he dies doing the actions of the people of the Fire, and thereby He causes him to enter into the Fire.’
In the above Tradition there are a number of points which merit attention. We find therein reference to human acts — a question that we shall shortly deal with in detail — and we also note the important place which is given to the question of Allah’s decree. There is no lack of material in books of Traditions to illustrate this doctrine, and also to throw further light on the study of Satan which we made in Chapter 3. We have already remarked that all acts (human and Satanic) are directly related to Allah’s decree, and now we must consider the significance of this dogma in connection with human action.
The question of man’s responsibility for his acts was raised in the early days of Islam, in the period when Muslims were first challenged by Christian thought in Damascus. The explanation which orthodox opinion offers is related to a dogma which is fundamental to Muslim theology. Orthodox theology expresses the significance of the doctrine concerned in this way: If man is the creator, or generator, of his acts, then there are many creators in the Universe. This cannot be, for there is only one Creator, and that is Allah. The activities of the wicked and of the saint, of the generous and the grasping, are all Allah’s creation. Certain unorthodox Muslims, known as the Mutazila, in objecting to the orthodox position, declared that, if Allah creates evil, then He Himself is vile. The orthodox replied that it is false to assume that, because Allah is the creator of evil, He is thereby tainted by the imperfections which proceed from Him. This doctrine of Allah’s sole creativeness became the doctrine of orthodoxy, and it is of particular interest to the Christian, both from the point of view of the protesting voices raised within Islam itself, and also because it cannot be divorced (in Muslim thought) from the conception of Allah’s sovereignty and His decree.[4]
In India modern Islam has been influenced by Christian thought to some extent,[5] and possibly for this reason many Muslims are ignoring the theological implications of the doctrine of Allah’s decree. There is the well-known saying of Muhammad Iqbal that a Muslim should be a man of such character that, before Allah writes down his destiny, He will ask, ‘What shall I write?’ The equally well-known Muslim author, Nadhir Ahmad, in his book Huquq wa’l Fara’id,[6] paraphrases the credal statement which affirms Allah’s predestination of evil and good, in the following words: ‘Allah knew from eternity the good and evil of all things,’ He thus makes it a matter of foreknowledge, not of decree.
Muslims are thus uneasy about the doctrine of Allah’s decree, possibly because it has been objected to by Christians. We may contrast the modern attitude to this question with that which produced Islam’s Traditions about predestination. Modern Islam modifies, and, where it dare not modify, it removes intractable materials from its works of theology. For example, a small book called Risalat i Diniyat, the work of a modern writer, Maulana Maududi, (published at Rampur, U.P.), deals with the Muslim creed known as the Iman al Mufassal. The book, however, contains no reference to an important item of belief, namely, Allah’s creation of good and evil. When the present writer pointed this out to one of the Maulana’s followers, he replied that that item had been excluded because it cannot be understood! There are many modern Indian Muslims who refuse to trouble themselves with such problems, but the omission of such vitally important doctrines from the Islamic system of thought ultimately breeds weakness therein.
It also presents the Christian Church with an opportunity to preach the whole Gospel of God, particularly so, since this theological weakness in Indian Islam has been produced by the challenge of Christian thought.
The authors quoted above ignore or re-interpret the Muslim doctrine of Allah’s decree and His creation of man’s acts. Others make shift with a truncated and imperfect theology, or with no systematic theology at all (as in the case of the modern Ahmediya), because they are not interested in theology, but wish to bring about a political and social strengthening of Islam. Practical considerations have taught them that they cannot hope to do this by setting forth a complete system of theology, and so, although many things have been retained, the doctrine of Allah’s decree, with its corollary of His creation of human acts, has been abandoned, since it is refractory material for the social reformer to deal with. Thoughtful Muslims of a more orthodox type (and there are very many such) are, however, still very ready to echo the clichés of the old orthodox theology and to declare that man’s acts are ikhtiyari (chosen, adopted). Nevertheless they, like the great al Maturidi before them (who first used this word in this connection over 1,000 years ago), are very unwilling to discuss the relation between man’s choice (ikhtiyar) and Allah’s decree. Allah remains the decreer, the creator of human acts, and a mere form of words is employed (whether it be the word iktisab[7] employed by al Ashari, or the ikhtiyar of al Maturidi and al Ghazali), in order to suggest that man is in some way to be associated with the acts which Allah decrees and creates for His slaves.
What bearing does this orthodox dogma of Allah’s decree have on the Muslim doctrine of sin? The connection between Allah’s decree and men’s acts, both good and evil, has already been mentioned in this chapter and illustrated by the Tradition based on the authority of Muslim bin Yasar. When we enquire further concerning the Muslim conception of sin, we find that Islam is interested primarily in the mere classification and cataloguing of human acts. We also find that human sin is not, as in the Bible, examined and interpreted in the light of God’s unvarying righteousness, but that in Islamic thought men’s acts are given whatever value the Divine will may impute to them.
An illuminating illustration of this latter feature may be found in the account (referred to in the Quran, see Surah 33 v. 37) of the prophet Muhammad’s marriage to the wife of his adopted son. Here we find that Allah’s will overrides Muhammad’s reluctance to be a party to such a marriage. The Arabs of his time regarded such a connection as incestuous — in this they would be supported by both Christian and Jewish opinion — and the prophet Muhammad was therefore reluctant, until Allah sent down the verse of Surah 33 already referred to and sanctioned such a marriage. Tabari in his account of this incident (Vol. 1, pp. 1460 ff) tells us that, when the prophet saw his son’s wife, Zainab, and wished to marry her, he exclaimed, ‘Praised be Allah who changeth the hearts of men.’ In Mohammad: the man and his faith,[8] Tor Andrae describes the account given of this incident in Muslim Traditions, and also records that when Ayesha, the prophet Muhammad’s child wife, learned that the revelation found in Surah 33 v. 37 had been given sanctioning the marriage with Zainab, she (Ayesha) said to Muhammad: ‘Truly thy Lord makes haste to do thy pleasure.’
Christian preachers throughout the ages have used this story in attacking the character of the prophet Muhammad, but that is to miss the point. The real significance of this event lies in the fact that the question of the validity of such a marriage, just as every other question, is referred to Allah’s will. Only those acts are sins which Allah decrees should be so regarded, and if Allah decrees that His prophet should marry his adopted son’s wife, then such an act is not a sin.
There are, it is true, many sins and transgressions listed in the Quran which a Christian conscience would also condemn. Islam has also followed the practice (found among certain Christian theologians) of classifying sins as being ‘great’ or ‘small’. When attempting to interpret the significance of the Christian position to our Muslim friends, we should not allow such similarity of language to obscure for us the fact that, according to Islam, even sin is ‘as Allah wills’ and is His creation. According to Christian thought, sin is utterly alien to God, it is neither of His will nor His creation. Possibly we can best explain the teaching of the Bible to our Muslim friends by asserting the God is ‘limited’ by His own righteousness and truth. Allah is not limited in any way in the exercise of His power and will. When David sinned with Bathsheba,[9] he cried before God in his repentance: ‘I have sinned against the Lord (2 Sam. 12:13). Such a confession would be meaningless within the context of Islam, for Allah’s power and will cannot be resisted.
Man’s sins are breaches of rules, but even those breaches are Allah’s creation, and man cannot interfere with Allah’s ordering of the universe. Sin and evil are part of Allah’s created order; if Allah wills, He leads aright, and if He wills, He leads astray; if He wills, He forgives, and if He wills, He punishes (Surahs 2 v. 284; 3 v. 124). An unconditioned will lies at the centre of His being, and no permanent disposition of mercy, justice, love or truth may limit or condition its operation.
The Quran and Muslim theology regard the association of other deities in the worship of Allah as the unforgivable sin (Surah 4 v. 51; etc.). Yet, once again, this sin of ‘shirk’ (as it is called) is related to Allah’s will. If Allah willed, all men would be believers (Surah 6 v. 107; 10 v. 99 f), and all men would be ‘one’, but He leads astray or guides aright as He wills (Surah 16 v. 95). Allah even sends devils against the unbelievers in order to drive them into sin (Surah 19 vv. 86 ff); and one cannot think of the sin of the world as grieving the heart of Allah or calling forth His self-sacrifice or self-committal in order to save men. Why should sin grieve Allah, when it is all His creation?
This summary of Islamic belief would fitly apply to a follower of al Ashari, but there are others, equally orthodox, who, like the great jurist Abu Hanifa, would add that, although sin is of Allah’s creation, it is not performed ‘with His good pleasure’.[10] Since, however, orthodox Islam is not agreed upon the question as to whether anything may be done which gives Allah pleasure (see, for example, the statement of al Kharraz on Satan on page 35 above, and also the statement on Allah’s satisfaction on page 113 ff), we may leave the discussion of such problems to Islam. The fact remains that all that occurs, of evil and crime, of goodness and virtue, is not only as Allah ordains, but is also His creation.
A Christian student of the Quran may inquire why Allah is called ‘the Holy’ (al Quddus) if He is the creator of evil. Muslim theologians would reply that this term, when used of Allah, denotes His transcendent nature. The epithet ‘Holy’ means, according to Islam, that Allah’s nature is essentially different from ours, and is free from the physical weakness of human nature. This interpretation of Allah’s holiness is alone sufficient to rob the Muslim conception of sin of any real significance from a Christian point of view. The Biblical teaching concerning the defilement of sin follows from its doctrine of the holiness of a God who abhors evil. According to the Bible, the action of God expresses His righteousness and undimmed moral perfection, and man is called to be holy as God is holy. Sin therefore is that attitude or act which alienates man from God. To deem Allah holy and righteous in the Biblical sense would be to place limits to His power. Moreover, no Muslim could dare to hope to share in Allah’s holiness, since this is the very condition of exalted superiority which marks Him off from man. This clearly indicates one of the main tasks of the Christian preacher as he speaks to his Muslim friend. He must proclaim the holiness of Almighty God as essentially a righteous holiness; for only when a man accepts this and believes that the moral destiny of mankind is to share in the holiness of the divine nature, can he also recognize the true nature and tragedy of sin.
In the Quran there are also numerous references to righteousness, and various
terms are used which may be classified under this heading. Once again, as
in the case of the Quranic conception of acts which are classified as sins,
we would agree for the most part with the teaching of the Quran that certain
acts of man are to be thought of as ‘righteous’ from an ethical or legal
point of view, just as other acts already referred to may be justly described
as ‘sins.’ Christian theology, as we have already noted, interprets the tragedy
of human sin in the light of God’s righteous holiness, and describes it in
terms of the frustration of man’s true destiny, since man, through the grace
of God, is called to participate in the Divine nature. The Quran expressly
repudiates any hope that man may participate in the Divine nature, and therefore,
in the Muslim mind, there is no thought of true righteousness as that which
is bestowed upon man through the Divine life and sacrifice. The Christian
seeks to be clothed upon with a righteousness not his own, the righteousness
of the Holy One, whereas, as we shall now see, the Quranic teaching about
righteousness (even where the same root is used of Allah as of man) rises
no higher than the levels of conduct and beneficence.
Allah is called ‘al Barr’ in Surah 52 v. 28, and this means that He is ‘the
Bountiful’. The same root is also used for human benevolence, almsgiving,
and piety on the Islamic pattern. An excellent example of the use of this
root, and a definition of such piety, is to be found in Surah 2 v. 172, where
we read: ‘Piety is not that ye turn your faces toward the East or the West,
but piety is: one who believes in Allah and the last day and the angels and
the Book and the prophets, and who gives wealth for his love to kindred and
orphans and the poor and the wayfarer and beggars and those in captivity;
and who is steadfast in prayer and gives alms;. . .’
There is a similar use of another root H S N; see, for example, Surah 28 v. 77, where man is commanded to do good (exercise generosity) just as Allah has done good to him. The root S L H may also be rendered ‘righteous’, and there is an echo of Psalm 37:9 and the Beatitudes in Surah 21 v. 105, where this root is used, and we read: ‘My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.’
The Christian reader may feel that the ideas which he finds in many such passages of the Quran are similar to those which he finds in the Bible. They set forth a not unworthy standard of conduct from an ethical or legal point of view. It is however doubtful whether the Christian who attempts to compare Muslim teachings on righteousness with those of his own theology will be helped by making that comparison merely on the basis of an ethical or legal standard. The Muslim himself from the legal point of view might question the Christian’s right to evaluate such acts of righteousness, since he would maintain that they have value only as acts of Muslim faith. They have no religious significance outside Islam, for (as we have seen from the Tradition quoted above on pp. 43f.) only the people destined for Paradise perform the actions of the people of Paradise. Moreover, does not the Christian deny his own heritage, if he admits a legal standard of righteousness? St Paul writes of ‘not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness of God by faith’ (Phil. 3:9). From an ethical point of view also, the Christian will find it difficult to understand how the Islamic doctrine of divine creativeness could permit any ethical comparisons at all to be made, since according to Islamic doctrine Allah is believed to be the continuous Creator of all man’s intentions, his will and his actions.
There remains another apparent similarity between the two views of righteousness. On the one hand, the Muslim believes that Allah creates men’s righteous acts and, if He wills, brings men to Paradise; on the other hand, the Christian holds that God can ‘impute’ righteousness to men, Moreover for Muslim and Christian theology alike man is an ‘unprofitable servant’.[11] The difference is however considerable, both as regards the status of man (‘slave of Allah’ or ‘son of God’), and as regards the conception of God. Allah creates even men’s acts of sin and is glorified thereby, but the God of the Bible is magnified for His moral holiness; his truth and righteousness are His glory. Furthermore Allah’s glory is His unconditioned creative will, and Islam magnifies Him for His power and dominance (Surah 13 v. 17). The distinctive Biblical emphasis is upon God’s righteousness; it is an assertion that God is Truth. This righteousness is that which is imputed to man by faith in Christ, and indeed on no other terms could the Christian hope to participate in the divine nature. The Muslim does not have this hope, nor is there any such righteousness in Allah.
Before proceeding to discuss the question of the destiny of man, there is another matter to which we must give some attention, namely, the Christian doctrine of justification. Orthodox Muslims assure us that they regard this Christian doctrine as both false and artificial. The Muslim will inform the Christian that, if Allah wishes to forgive a man, He does so, and therefore none need die for the sins of men. Moreover, to think of the Deity as being committed to a method of redemption which involves self-committal, self-emptying, suffering. and death, is blasphemy in the eyes of Islam. The Christian can understand such a point of view and admit its reasonableness, if the Deity is regarded as a sovereign unconditioned Power, acting at will. Allah’s holiness is not a righteous holiness, but an infinite aloofness from the demands of human weakness and human nature, and therefore a Muslim cannot believe that he is called to be holy as Allah is holy. Sin does not grieve Allah, nor is it something He does not will. Islamic thought prefers to think of Allah and man as being, by nature, in ‘opposition’ to each other, and therefore cannot admit that man must be reconciled to his Maker, or that the end of man is sonship, fellowship with God, and a partaking in the Divine nature. Quite naturally therefore, the Muslim finds no reason for a doctrine of reconciliation with God, for the Divine Sacrifice, or for man’s justification by faith. Allah stands at the centre of Islam, Allah is the essence of Islam, and, in accordance with His unconditioned omnipotence, He creates and disposes of all things.
We have now come to the stage in our study where we may consider Islamic teaching about salvation and damnation. We have already noted that Islam connects both doctrines with Allah’s decree, and may now look more closely at the Quranic teaching concerning Allah’s pre-damnation of some to Hell and pre-ordination of others to Paradise.[12]
In the 25th chapter of St Matthew’s Gospel we read of the division of men at the day of judgement, some being placed on the right hand of the Son of Man, and others on the left. Those on the left, says Christ, shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. Similar teaching concerning ‘the fellows of the right’ and ‘the fellows of the left’ is also to be found in the Quran (see Surah 90 v. 15 ff) and, although there is no suggestion of man’s inheriting eternal life (in the Biblical sense of the term), yet descriptions of Paradise and Hell are set forth in great detail.
Hell has its seven doors (Surah 15 v. 44), its pit (Surah 101 v. 7), and the al Hutamah of Allah’s fire which extends like an archway on long columns (Surah 104 v. 5 f). Hell’s prison is called Sijjin (Surah 83 v. 6), and its keepers are the angel Malik (Surah 43 v. 77) and the nineteen angels (Surah 74 v. 30). There in Hell is the bitter tree Zaqqum (Surah 37 v. 60, etc), and the food which chokes (Surah 73 v. 12) when given to sinners is liquid pus (Surah 14 v. 19), corrupt sores (Surah 69 v. 35 f), the boiling spring and the foul thorn (Surah 88 v. 5 f). Those whom Allah has led astray (Surah 17 v. 99; see below), the unbelievers (Surah 2 v. 22) and those who devour the property of orphans (Surah 4 v. 11), shall burn in that fire whose fuel is men and stones. The inhabitants of Hell, shall neither die nor live (Surah 87 v. 12), but will be beaten with maces of iron (Surah 22 v. 20). They will be bound in fetters in shirts of pitch with fire covering their faces (Surah 14 v. 50), and not only men but the Jinn and the hosts of Satan will burn there (Surah 26 v. 95). In the Quran Allah declares: ‘I will surely fill Hell with Jinn and mankind’ (Surah 32 v. 13), until that time comes when Allah shall say, ‘Art thou full?’ and Hell will ask, ‘Are there more?’ (Surah 50 v. 29). There, amid the flash of fire and molten copper (Surah 55 v. 35) and in the shade of pitchy smoke (Surah 56 v. 41), the skins of the damned will be burned and then changed for other skins, so that they may taste the torment (Surah 4 v. 58f) of a fire which scorches the flesh (Surah 74 v. 26f). ‘He whom Allah guides, he is guided indeed, and he whom Allah leads astray, thou shalt never find patrons for them beside Him. And We (says Allah) will gather them upon the resurrection day upon their faces, blind and dumb and deaf. Their resort is Hell; whensoever it grows dull we will give them another blaze!’ (Surah 17 v. 99).
The lucky ‘fellows of the right hand’ (Surah 56 v. 8), who are ‘forced away from the Fire’ and brought into Paradise (Surah 3 v. 182), will congratulate themselves that Allah has been gracious to them and rescued them from the torment of the hot blast (Surah 52 v. 26). Surah 55 gives a long description of the flowing springs of Paradise and its fruits, of the fortunate reclining on brocade-lined beds with the fruit of the two gardens within their reach (v. 54ff). The books of Traditions supply further descriptions of Paradise.
It is true that certain eminent Muslim scholars (such as al Ghazali and the Indian scholar Shibli Numani) have modified the literal interpretation which other equally eminent Muslim scholars have given to these descriptions of Hell and Paradise. Perhaps because of the challenge provided through contact with Christian thought, it has been suggested by some that such descriptions symbolize states of mind, and that these Quranic passages should be given an allegorical interpretation. Such matters however do not concern us here, and we must leave the Muslims to debate upon them. It is unprofitable for the Christian to discuss such questions. The Christian should rather remember that, even though it be maintained that the Quran does not teach that man’s enjoyment or suffering in the world to come is experienced through his bodily senses, nevertheless, the Muslim has no hope of an eternal life which involves participation in the divine nature. At the most a Muslim may hope to be vouchsafed a vision of Allah in Paradise, but even that vision stuns and blinds, and only its memory can be enjoyed.
In this brief study we have made of the Muslim and Christian conceptions
of man and his destiny, we have had occasion to touch upon a number of topics,
but, as we have noted in our earlier studies, we have been made to realise
at every point that all doctrine springs from the doctrine of God. Whatever
we may say about man depends upon what we first say about the Deity.
This study has also revealed the important point of which, as preachers,
we must be aware, that Islam does not admit that sin separates man from man,
and man from God, and indeed declares that sinful acts are created by Allah.
To the Muslim it will seem strange that we recognise a limited and temporary
sphere wherein God’s kingdom has not yet come — ‘the world lieth in the evil
one’; and that we believe that man’s enthralment to sin is the miserable
condition from which he must be redeemed, so that the righteousness of God
in Christ may be found in him, and he may become God’s new creation. Moreover,
since self-giving and self-emptying are impossible to Allah, we bring to
Islam the ‘foolishness’ of the Cross, when we speak of God’s self-giving
in His Son and of His self-committal in sacrifice for the sins of the world.
Finally, to return to the theme of this chapter once more, we should also remember that, although the Biblical doctrine of man entertains (in certain respects) a much lower estimate of man as he is ‘by nature’, yet, by comparison with the positions of Islamic theology, it sets before us an infinitely higher hope of eternal life which man may gain ‘by grace’.
Notes
1 That Allah’s will is thought to be dominant may be seen from a study of the uses of the root SH ’ ’ (‘to will’) in the Quran. Out of the 202 cases in which this root is used, it is only used of man in 10 cases, and the important qualification of Surah 81 v. 28 determines how all such uses of the word in man’s case must be interpreted: ‘But will it ye shall not, unless as Allah the Lord of the worlds should will it.’ Also see Surah 76. 29: ‘Whose willeth, taketh the way to his Lord. But will it ye shall not, unless Allah wills it.’
2 See Selections from Muhammadan Traditions: Goldsack’s translation (C.L.S.), pp. 7ff; Arabic edition (Kanpur) pp. 17 ff.
3 This verse (Surah 7 v. 171) has already been referred to on p. 40, in connection with the Quranic teaching about the pre-existence of the human race.
4 Bertram Thomas in his book Arabia Felix (London, 1938, p. 150) points out the effect of the doctrine of Divine omnipotence and sole creativeness, where he writes: ‘In the acceptance of destiny there is comfort (for the Muslim), the doctrine of man’s free will is a disturbing heresy. Unless the beast which the Arab thief steals becomes his by the will of Allah, a man could not enjoy killing the master and riding away upon her. War would become wicked, blood feuds impious and the practice of religion impossible.’
5 The modern journal Yaqeen (pub. Karachi, Dec. 22, 1953) reveals a type of ‘bazaar theology’ which is very common in modern Indian (and Pakistani) Islam. It echoes a Christian concern for the world’s sin, ignores the orthodox doctrine of Allah’s creation of evil, and then proceeds to attack the Christian Church in the following words: ‘Modern Christianity has taught man that sin — in every shade and colour — is not worthy of being shunned, because atonement has already been made by Jesus Christ for all the sins that humanity is to commit till eternity.’ This is but another example of Islam’s traditional perversion of Christian truth as a prelude to attack.
6 (Delhi, 1952) Part I, page 9.
7 This word iktisab was used by al Ashari in order to relate Allah’s punishment and reward to human acts. Allah gives man the power to appropriate (iktisab) the act which He has decreed and created for him.
8 (London, 1936) pp. 215 ff.
9 A garbled account of this is to be found in Surah 38 vv. 20 ff.
10 The Hanifite school of law is very influential in India. In a Muslim Tamil book of Hanifite Fiqh (Hajji Shah ul Hamid, Fath ur Rahman fi Fiqh ul Nu‘man, Madras, 1950, p. 25), we read: ‘Along with (good and evil) actions Allah has created knowledge and power (of appropriation in man). Therefore reward will be given for good actions and punishment for evil actions. Anything which Allah accepts, loves and urges will be that which is good, not that which is bad.’
11The Quran does not regard man as being incapable of a good because of his sin. It ‘has more faith in human nature’, and men are even called ‘helpers of Allah’ (3 v. 45; 22 v. 40).
12 The Quran is not concerned with salvation from sin (Allah in fact ‘rescues’ those who refrain from evil: Surah 7 v. 165), but with salvation from the evil circumstances of Hell to the better circumstances of Paradise. The idea of salvation-rescue is denoted by the use of two roots in the Quran: (1) N J ’ is used where Allah rescues whom He will (Surah 12 v. 110). Allah rescues prophets (Surah 10 v. 103), Jews and Christians (Surah 21 v. 9), the pious and believers (Surah 11 v. 61); He also saves the unthankful and evil from physical dangers (Surah 17 v. 69). (2) F W Z is a synonym of N J ’. This is seen in Surah 39 v. 62; ‘And Allah shall rescue (N J ’). those who fear Him into their place of safety (F W Z). This root suggests felicity in being saved from Hell (Surah 3 v. 182) to Paradise (Surah 4 v. 17). Such happiness is found in belief (Surah 33 v. 71) and from Allah’s bounty (Surah 4 v. 75) and in the covenant made with Allah (Surah 9 v. 113).
Table of Contents
Answering Islam Home Page