What Should Follow from the Previously Described Misunderstanding of This Verse

Main Part · Full-text chapter from the book The Doctrine of Monotheism · Read as PDF

In the verse discussed above, the two opposites – Muslim and mushrik – are made exceedingly clear. The verse also explicitly mentions the reasons for this opposition: the actions of these two individuals.

One person commits polytheistic acts, while the other is completely free from them. Furthermore, the verse affirms that these two individuals are not equal. At the end, it is added that most mushrikun are unaware of this fact, as at-Tabari clearly explained.

In contrast, it has already been mentioned that many people today believe Islamic monotheism is limited merely to acknowledging the existence of a single Creator.

According to their understanding, a person could supposedly fulfil and implement the essence of Islam while simultaneously worshiping others alongside the one Creator or obeying them unconditionally.

It has already been sufficiently explained that this misconception fundamentally contradicts early Islamic theology. The concept of a polytheistic Muslim simply did not exist in the intellectual framework of the early Muslims. Even those scholars who were heavily influenced by philosophy in the early centuries generally did not conceive of such an idea.

However, since this distorted view is widely held by large masses today, this issue will be addressed here by referring back to the previously discussed verse about the parable of the Muslim and the mushrik.

The described idea of a “Muslim mushrik” – that is, a polytheistic monotheist – also directly conflicts with the mentioned Qur'anic verse in several ways, as follows⁶⁰:

• With such an assumption, the “ignorant mushrik” could not possibly be part of this parable. However, in the verse, the Qur'an explicitly states that even the ignorant polytheist possesses the characteristic mentioned in the verse.

A mushrik, whether he is aware of it or not, certainly does not worship Allah alone. Therefore, he has undoubtedly not fulfilled the basic requirement to be considered a Muslim.

• As at-Tabari clearly explained, most mushrikun are unaware of this reality. According to this distorted view, however, they would paradoxically be considered Muslims precisely because of this ignorance.
• Furthermore, according to this view, the ignorant mushrik would have to be considered equal to the Muslim, as both would ultimately be regarded as Muslims simply through their verbal declaration of Islam and acknowledgment of the one Creator.

This would, in turn, imply equal treatment for both in the Hereafter – something that is, by consensus, inconceivable in Islamic theology. This theological equality would undoubtedly also have consequences in this life, as becomes evident in matters such as ritual practices, including prayer.

According to the view described, a Muslim would have to grant a polytheist the designation of “Muslim” and consequently regard him as a Muslim in every respect, both in worldly and afterlife matters. As a result, that Muslim would have to be able to appoint this person as an Imam, meaning as the leader of the obligatory prayers, and so on.

Ultimately, one cannot escape these consequences if a person is considered a Muslim despite committing polytheistic acts. As already stated, however, this way of thinking clearly and directly contradicts the mentioned verse, or numerous other Islamic source texts.

• According to this flawed line of thinking, the early authors and Qur'anic exegetes, such as Ibnu Abi Hatim and at-Tabari – or the even earlier and most prominent scholars of Islam from whom these two narrated in their works – would all have to be accused of error. This assumption, of course, would be highly absurd.

This contradiction, too, cannot be avoided, as the statements of all these early scholars cannot be interpreted otherwise. Their statements clearly show that they certainly did not consider the possibility that there could be some mushrikun who, despite their polytheistic actions, could still be regarded as Muslims. It is abundantly clear that such an idea never even crossed the minds of these scholars.

This circumstance once again demonstrates that the early figures of Islamic scholarship regarded such fundamental questions of tawhid as completely self-evident.

As already mentioned, even the various sects of that time never considered labelling a polytheist as a Muslim, despite the fact that these groups and factions had undoubtedly deviated significantly in many other matters.