A translation of this fatwa from Naseem al-Sham
Question:
To the honourable scholars, al-salam ‘alaykum.
Recently, an English translation and commentary of the Quran entitled
‘the Study Quran’, was published. It was undertaken by a group of western
academics. The work includes Shia, Sunni, Sufi tafsir, in addition to several
essays as appendices. Unfortunately, in spite of some benefits in the work, the
authors have, while commentating on certain verses, presented interpretations
that accord with the belief in the universal validity of religions. For instance,
during the discussion on the tafsir to the verse: Truly the religion
in the sight of God is submission (3:20), it says:
Many Muslims say that this verse shows that the
only religion acceptable to God is the one revealed to the Prophet of Islam, but
the most universal meaning of it, which been emphasised by many Islamic
authorities over the ages, is that Islam in this verse refers to submission to
God even if it is not in the context of Islam as the specific religion revealed
through the Quran ... [p. 135]
The reader is then referred to the essay at the end of the book entitled
‘The Quranic View of Sacred History and of Other Religions’ in which it is argued
that previous scriptures and religions are not abrogated by Islam:
The notion that previous scriptures have been
abrogated in the sense of being nullified or excessively distorted to such an
extent that the message no longer reflects
the particularity of the original teachings, as some Muslims maintain,
would seem to be contradicted by verses such as 5:43: And how is it that
they come to thee for judgement … It
would be contradictory for the Quran to speak of the efficacy of judging by the
Torah and the Gospel if it were to also maintain that these Scriptures have
been abrogated or excessively distorted … If the previous religions were abrogated
by the revelation of the Quran, it will be implausible to tell the Prophet
Muhammad to seek their counsel when it says, Ask the people of the Reminder,
if you know not. [p. 1767]
Regarding the verse: Whoever seeks a religion other than submission
it shall not be accepted of him… (3:85), it says:
However, the idea that 3:85 abrogates 2:62 is
connected to the interpretation expressed by some commentators that this verse
denies the “acceptability” of any form of religion other than that brought by
the Prophet Muhammad. This opinion is not without its inconsistencies, however,
since it does not take into account the more general and universal use of
Islam and muslim in the Quran to refer to all true, monotheistic
religion… [p. 153]
Moreover, regarding the interpretation of the verse on the Christian
trinitarian belief: They certainly disbelieve, those who say, “Truly God is
the third of three,”… [5: 73], it says:
However, the verse clearly threatens punishment only
for those among them who disbelieved, suggesting that it is not for all
Christians. Moreover, an interpretation that considers all Christians to be
barred from the garden in the next life would openly contradict both v. 69 and
2:62 where Christians and anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and
works righteousness shall have the reward with their Lord. No fear shall, upon
them, nor shall they grieve, and is not consistent with the description of
Christian virtue in vv. 82-85. [p. 316-17]
The same author says in the above-mentioned essay as he speaks about the
concept of trinity criticised in the Quran:
And say not “Three.”
Refrain! ... (4:171) … They certainly disbelieve, those who say,” Truly God is the
third of three…” This, however, is not a direct condemnation of Christian
theology, for trinitarian theology does not make God one of three, but rather
speaks of the triune God, Who is both one and three in a manner that transcends
human understanding. Viewed in this light, 5:73 does not oppose the various
forms of orthodox trinitarian doctrine that have prevailed for most of
Christian history. Rather, it appears to oppose crude misunderstandings of it
that would lead one to believe that there are three gods instead of one. [p.
1779]
Similar notions to the above are frequently found throughout the work.
The author of another essay, also within the work, states the following
on the matter of perpetuity of hellfire:
During the early period of Islam, scholars differed
about the duration of Hell. The majority of them argued that Hell is perpetual
and an actualised state that never ends. But some groups argued otherwise,
citing verses that hinted at an end to Hell’s torment and arguing that this was
more consistent with God’s saying, ‘My Mercy exceeds My Wrath.’ Thus the
scholars fell into three camps. The first believed that although Hell did not
end, its punishment and torment did. The proof for this was the verse: Truly
Hell lies in ambush, a place unto which the rebellious return, to tarry therein
for ages (78:21-23). This was the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim,
and Ibn al-ʿArabī; a similar opinion that the majority of Hell’s denizens are
ultimately released also appears to have been held by al-Ghazzālī, as is
evident in his Fayṣal al-tafriqah (Decisive Criterion). [p. 1849-50]
The work would probably not have gained much popularity were it not for
certain popular Muslim preachers in West who promoted and endorsed the work
unconditionally without any caution against its absurd interpretations and
false beliefs; one of them went to the extent of describing it as ‘A major
victory and a gift from god’, and another said, ‘It is probably the best work
in English to date’ and called it ‘A mercy from God.’ This latter individual
made the matter worse by allowing the hosting of an event in his Islamic
institute in America wherein one of the translators of the work was invited to
speak about the book. None of the panel attendees refuted or challenged his
claims. Instead, they encouraged the
attendees to purchase a copy of the book at the end of the session and get it
signed by the translator. Since the book
has gained much popularity and is increasingly bought we fear that it will
pollute the minds of readers and therefore seek your guidance and fatwa in
regards to the following questions:
(1) What is the status of those who believe in the
validity of all religions other than Islam, claiming that it does not abrogate
the previous religions: does it take them out of the pale of Islam even if they
an interpretation (ta’wil) for such a belief?
(2) What is the ruling on believing that Hellfire or
its torment will eventually extinguish? Is there a valid scholarly disagreement
over the issue?
(3) What is the ruling on promoting, endorsing, and
encouraging people to buy and read such a work, knowing full well its contents,
without cautioning readers against the problematic points?
(4) What is the ruling on laymen reading such a work?
Answer: (Imam Muhammad Tawfeeq Ramadan al-Bouti)
In
the Name of Allah, the
All Merciful, the Most Merciful
Praise be to Allah, the Unique, the
One, the Singular, the Everlasting Sustainer, who has not given birth and was
not born, and no one is comparable to Him, and blessings and peace be upon our master
Muḥammad and upon his family, all of his companions and
those who follow them on the path of truth until the Day of Repayment. To
proceed:
I
have looked at the explanation (tafsīr)
of certain verses from the Book of Allah which offends what the people of truth
are upon and contradicts the Qurʾānic
texts with interpretations that are inconsistent with what is correct. I
believe that whoever stated them is upon misguidance in his theology and
whoever has followed him is obliged to return to the path of truth. If not,
then one becomes one of those whom Allah, may His affair be manifest, described
by saying: “Do you, then, believe in one part of the Book and reject the
other? What repayment will there be for any of you who do that except disgrace
in this world? And on the Day of Standing, they will be returned to the
harshest of punishments. Allah is not unaware of what you do.” [Sūrat
al-Baqarah 2:85]
Indeed
the Book of Allah the Exalted has commanded us to debate kindly with the People
of the Book
whom we differ with regarding what they believe about our master ʿĪsā (Jesus), peace and blessing be upon him or ʿUzayr
(Uzair), peace and blessings be upon him. The Book of Allah calls on the People
of the Book to have faith in our master Muḥammad,
may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and it does not consider those who
disbelieve in our master Muḥammad to be
from the people of salvation nor does it consider those who believe Allah to be
the third of three or that the Messiah is the son of Allah to be from the
people of salvation.
Our theology is not taken from those who are suspect in their theology nor from
those who flatter those who contradict the truth, seeking to ingratiate
themselves while having certain interests, or something similar, in mind.
Indeed
a tafsīr
like this aims to ruin the Muslims and to take them away from the true paths of
knowing their religion and their theology. Indeed, treating the People of the
Book kindly is one thing and presenting relinquishments to them in violation of
our theology and our Revealed Law is something else. The obligation to debate
with the People of the book in the kindest of ways is one thing and violating
what is clear in the Book of Allah, seeking to ingratiate oneself with them, is
something else.
Indeed
the belief that the People of the Book, with the beliefs that they currently
hold, are not disbelievers contradicts what is clear in the Book of Allah, and
the circulation of such publications is one of the waves of misguidance that
Muslims are exposed to, in addition to their other afflictions.
Likewise,
the belief that the people of the Fire are not in there eternally is
inconsistent with the Exalted’s statement: “As for those who disbelieve in
Our Signs, We will roast them in a Fire. Every time their skins are burned off
We will replace them with new skins so that they can taste the punishment.
Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.” [Sūrat
an-Nisāʾ 4:56] and other verses that clearly show that the
people of the Fire are therein eternally and that the people of Paradise are
therein eternally, and this is aside from what this tafsīr ignores
from the clear, authentic Prophetic ḥadīths
on this matter. This shows that the authors of this tafsīr have
shunned the Exalted’s statement: “And we have sent down the Reminder to you
so that you can make clear to mankind what has been sent down to them so that
hopefully they will reflect.” [Sūrat
an-Naḥl 16:44] Al-Bukhārī
has related on the authority of Abū
Saʿīd al-Khudrī,
may Allah be pleased with him, who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, said, {Death will come in the form of a black
and white ram and then a caller will call out, ‘O people of Paradise’, and at
that point they will stretch their necks and look. He will say, ‘Do you know
what this is?’ They will respond, ‘Yes. This is death.’ and all of them will
have seen it. Then he will call out, ‘O people of the Fire’, at which point
they will stretch their necks and look. He will say, ‘Do you know what this
is?’ They will respond, ‘Yes. This is death.’ and all of them will have seen
it. It will thus be slaughtered and then he will say, ‘O people of Paradise,
eternity and thus no death, and O people of the Fire, eternity and thus no
death.’} Then he recited, “Warn them of the Day of Bitter Regret when the
affair will be resolved. But they take no notice [i.e. the people of this
worldly life]. They do not believe.” [Sūrat
Maryam 19:39]
Indeed
circulating books like this is to take part in misguiding and in serving the
plan to disrupt the thinking of the Ummah away from the right path. And Allah
knows best.
The
servant of knowledge: Muḥammad Tawfīq
Ramaḍān
[Translated
by Mahdi Lock]
Related Posts:
