Surat al-Ikhlas (The Purity/Sincerity)
Surat al-Tauhid (The Oneness)
Title
Surat al-Ikhlas means the “Chapter of Purity (or Refining).” It is also referred to as Surat at-Tauhid for the simple reason that it is a brief description and summation of the divine essence and unity of God.
Date
There is a debate among scholars whether this a Meccan or Medinan sura. It seems likely that the sura was composed in Mecca since according to some of the traditions, this was Muhammad’s reply to the pagans who had inquired about the nature of his god.
Introduction
Surat al-Ikhlas, or Surat at-Tauhid, is considered to essentially be the heart of the Muslim faith since it is a brief outline, or summary, of the Islamic conception of God.
According to certain reports attributed to Muhammad, this particular chapter is said to be a third of the Quran in value since, as some Muslim scholars have pointed out, a third of the Islamic scripture deals with the issue of monotheism. And, yet, it happens to be one of the most incoherent of all of the chapters found in the Quran, as we shall explain in the notes.
Other traditions claim that this surah was composed in response to some questions which the Jews and/or pagans posed to Muhammad concerning his understanding of God and the nature of his deity. They specifically asked him whether his god eats food or inherits, to which he replied with the verses of this chapter.
Surah 112
- SAY, God is one GOD;
- the eternal GOD:
- he begetteth not, neither is he begotten:
- and there is not any one like unto him.
112:1 Say God is one (Qul huwa Allahu ahadun). Literally, the verse says, “say he is Allah, one of,” since ahadun is used in reference to one among others or a group. It would have been more proper to have used the word wahidun, as indicated by the following scholar:
“ahadun: The rules of the `Arabiyya [i.e. Classical Arabic] require wahidun here.” (Michael B. Schub, “True Belief – a New Translation and Commentary on Sura 112”, ZAL, 22 (1990), p. 81)
In fact, apart from this one verse, the Quran never employs ahadun once in respect to Allah’s unity. The word which the Quran normally uses is actually wahid(un).
Interestingly, according to Ibn Abi Dawud, the codex of Muhammad’s companion Abdullah ibn Masud actually contained the word wahid instead of ahad (Kitab al-Masahif, p. 113).
1:2 the eternal God (Allahu al-samadu). The word samad is another term which baffled the Muslim expositors. Some understood this to refer to Allah’s aseity, underscoring the fact that Allah is completely self-sufficient and the one who provides for everyone. Others took this to mean that, unlike the idols worshiped by the pagans which were hollow inside, Allah is solid. This is reflected in those translations that render the term as absolute. Still others understood this in reference to Allah’s pre-eternal existence, that he is without beginning and without end.
One scholar actually proposes that the term is an archaic word, stemming from pre-Islamic times, and may in fact be a reference to the semitic god Baal:
… There is enough room for suspicion to permit us having a look at some outside evidence.
There, we encounter a noteworthy phenomenon: the not infrequent religious connotation of the root smd.
In Ugaritic, smd appears as a stick or club that is wielded by Ba’l. In the Kilammu inscription, line 15, we find b’l smd, apparently, b’l as the owner of his divine club. In the Bible, the adherence of the Israelites to Baal of Peor is expressed by the nip’al of the root smd. The verb is translated by the Septuagint heteleuse (Numeri 25:3, 5; Ps. 106:28). The use of the verb doubtlessly reflects North Canaanite religious terminology.
From Arabic sources, we learn that an idol of ‘Ad was allegedly called samud, which brings us rather close to the environment of Muhammad…
In view of this material, the suggestion may be made that as-samad in the Qur’an is a survival of an ancient Northwest Semitic religious term, which may no longer have been understood by Muhammad himself, nor by the old poets (if the sawahid should be genuine). This suggestion would well account for the presence of the article with the word in the Qur’an, and it would especially well account for the hesitation of the commentators vis-a-vis so prominent a passage. Such hesitation is what we would expect if we are dealing with a pagan survival from the early period of the revelation. (What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, & Commentary, “Some Minor Problems in the Qur’an”, edited with translation by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, October, 2002, Hardcover; ISBN: 157392945X], part 5.2, pp. 336-337; bold and emphasis mine)
1:3 he begetteth not, neither is he begotten (lam yalid walam yooladu). The traditions indicate that this statement was intended as a direct response to the question posed to Muhammad concerning whether his god inherited. The response given here implies no since Allah neither begets, nor was he himself begotten, but is ever-living. As such, he neither inherits from anyone nor is he inherited by anyone. Muhammad reasoned that only those who are born and die receive and leave behind inheritance. What makes this assertion perplexing is that the Quran itself in several places states that Allah actually does inherit (cf. Q. 15:23; 19:40; 19:80), and is even said to be the best of those who inherit (Q. 21:89)! Moreover, according to Islamic tradition, one of the ninety-nine names of Allah happens to be al-Warith, “the Inheritor/Heir”. Thus if Muhammad’s reasoning were sound then this means that Allah must have been born and will inevitably die!
Ibn Abi Dawud states that, instead of the reading lam yalid walam yooladu, Abdullah ibn Masud’s Quran actually read lam yulad walam yulid, in place of (“he is not begotten nor does he begte” [Kitab al-Masahif, p. 113]).
Answering Islam Blog 