Surah Al-Ikhlas 112:1-4 - Quran Translation Commentary

2. The Ahad (of the text is different from Wahid and) has the added connotations of absolute, continuous unity and the absence of equals (Sayyid Qutb).

Ahad is someone who is alone in His Being and Attributes, who has no associates, no equals, no partners, who has none similar to Him.

In contrast, by popular Hindu account the Hindu gods number some 33 million (Shabbir).

The statement can also be found in “Great Religions of the World,” a National Geographic publication It states there (Hinduism, Amia Chakravarty, p. 39): ‘By popular Hindu account the Hindu gods number some 33 million.. Overarching all is Brahman, to be metamorphosed in the trinity of: Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer... Each of these have their consorts (e.g., Vishnu’s consort is Lakhshmi - who is a goddess in her own right - Shiva’s consort is Durga and Krishna’s is Radha). They all appear on earth as avatars. The triad is sometimes worshipped under the symbol of the mystic syllable Om.’

That is to say that the followers of other religions have treated God as if He belongs to a species (Mawdudi).

3. Samad: Literally the word is applied to one who has no stomach and therefore does not eat or drink. (That is, one who is not dependent on anything: Au.). That is the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Dahhak and many others. (It is also the opinion of Ibn Mas`ud: Shawkani). Yet, according to one report Ibn `Abbas has explained the term as meaning one whose attributes have reached the apex of development, and therefore, cannot be improved any further. Ibn Mas`ud (ra) has made a similar statement (Ibn Kathir).

“Eternal - One with no beginning and no end,” is another interpretation that has come from the Salaf. Another is that of someone who supersedes all and who cannot be superseded by any (Ibn Jarir, Qurtubi).

Rabi` b. Anas has said that the term samad has been actually explained by what follows, that is, “He did not beget nor was He begotten” (Ibn Jarir). This is a good explanation (Ibn Kathir). Literally, samad would also imply one who stands in no one’s need while everyone stands in need of him (Zamakhshari). In other words one before whom people put forward their needs (Razi, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir, Shawkani).

Asad comments: “Consequently, the quality of His being is beyond the range of human comprehension or imagination: which also explains why any attempt at ”depicting" God by means of figurative representation or even abstract symbols must be qualified as a blasphemous denial of the truth."

4. The first two lines of the 8 lines of the Apostolic Creed, a statement of faith used in the Roman Catholic Church, and so called because according to tradition it was composed by the 12 apostles, although actually developed from early baptism in the 3rd and 4th centuries, is as follows:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord..."

(Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 1, entry “The Apostolic Creed”) - Au.

Majid writes: “According to popular Hinduism, the creation was brought about by Brahma’s incest with his daughter (See ERE., II, p. 811).”

5. Bukhari has preserved the Prophet’s statement: “Allah the Exalted said, 'Son of Adam cries lies to Me - while it behooves him not to do that; and he calls Me names - while it behooves him not to do that. As for his crying lies, he says 'He will not give me a new life after He has created me,’ while creating him the first time was not easier than a repeat can be. As for him calling Me names, it is to say that I have taken a son while I am One, the Eternal. I have not given birth nor was I given birth. There is none comparable to Me’” (Ibn Kathir).

We have quoted Majid earlier (Al-Baqarah, note 233), where he wrote: "According to the Christians, God the Son is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is the only begotten and eternal Son of the Father. He is consubstantial with the Father'" (Au.).

A Misconstrued Controversy

Ibn Kathir has said: Ahmad has a report which says that Ibn Ma`ud did not consider these last two chapters - also called Al-Mu`awwidhatayn - as revelations. Accordingly, his own copy of the Qur’an did not include these chapters. He believed, so goes the report, that they were only meant for seeking refuge from various evils. It is also reported that he would not recite them in his Prayers. Bukhari has other reports that say that when Ubayy b. Ka`b was asked about the last two chapters and Ibn Mas`ud’s opinion regarding them, he said: “I had asked the Prophet himself about them. He told me, 'I was told: "Say", and so I said.’ And therefore", continues Ubayy, “we say as the Prophet used to say.”

[The point that is to be understood here is that the Prophet was a Messenger. No part of the Qur’an, not even a syllable, is his creation. He simply passed on what he was told, to the extent that when he was told: “Say, I take refuge ...”, he did not ask his scribes to write down: “I take refuge ...” (dropping out the word 'Say’), rather, he dictated to his scribes: “Say, I seek refuge ...” This is what he meant when he said: 'I was told: “Say,” and so I said.’ - Ibn al-Qayyim].

Therefore, (continues Ibn Kathir) it is possible that Ibn Mas`ud did not receive the information of their inclusion from sources he trusted and maybe not from enough number of transmitters that he set us as a condition. Therefore, he took the precautionary line to let them remain excluded. Nonetheless, it is also likely that he had changed his opinion after the Companions had unanimously agreed upon their inclusion in the compilation prepared in their time.

(Perhaps the change in opinion went unreported since it is the sensational that is always picked up: Au.)

Quotation from In Kathir ends here.

Ibn Hajr has said: “Some people have expressed the opinion that the report itself is a false accusation against Ibn Mas`ud, since such an opinion is unthinkable from a person of his status. But that does not seem to be likely since they have reached us through more than one chain of trustworthy narrators. Rather, the opinion of Abubakr Baqilani seconded by Qadi `Iyad is worth considering. It has some difficulties but not unresolvable. Abubakr Baqilani has said that Ibn Mas`ud did not think that the two chapters were not revelations. He did. Rather he was opposed (until the consensus of the Companions) to them being included in the Qur’an since the Prophet did not get them written down himself (as was his custom with other chapters and verses: Au.).

Further, Ubayy b. Ka`b’s statement itself does not confirm either this or that. In fact, according to one report, and even if it might be by error, the statement of Ubayy (“we say as the Prophet used to say”), has been attributed to Ibn Mas`ud himself," (which really takes the heat off: Au.) - Fath al-Bari, Tafsir Surah Al-Nas, abridged.

Qurtubi adds: If Ibn Mas`ud did not write these two chapters in his copy of the Qur’an, then, it should not be forgotten that he had also not written surah al-Fatiha in it. Obviously not because he thought it was not part of the Qur’an, but probably because he relied on his memory.

Finally, adds Alusi, it must be understood that Ibn Mas`ud did not doubt that the mu`awwidhatayn were revelations sent down from the heavens. But he doubted whether they were to be included in the compilation of the Qur’an and recited in the Prayers, since, in his opinion - although revelations - they were meant for seeking Allah’s refuge alone. (Abu Bakr Baqilani has expressed similar opinion: Shabbir). Further, it might also be kept in mind that the reports of Ibn Mas`ud not considering them part of the Qur’an have come to us through ahad (singleton) narrations, those, which cannot be treated as of equal in weight to those reports that have to come to us confirming their inclusion in the Qur’an and are of tawatur status, and which, as we know, are of irrefutable nature.

In addition to the arguments offered above, this writer would like to state that it must be understood at the outset that rejection of a part of the Qur’an is not a minor issue. Were Ibn Mas`ud (ra) to have done that, in as coarse a sense as some people believe, misled by the reports, the Companions would not have let the matter rest there. We know of `A’isha (ra) that when she heard Abu Hurayrah (ra) quote the Prophet (saws) that `ill omen is in three things: women, horses and houses,’ she censured him for not quoting the hadith in full, which she said should start with the words: “The Jews say ...” Now, if Ibn Mas`ud had not recanted his opinion - if he had held it at all - then, surely `Umar (ra) would not have appointed him instructor in the Qur’an for the Iraqi territories, nor any of his Iraqi students, who must have been in hundreds, went about with a Qur'an different from what the general public had.

Therefore, it is quite likely that he never meant what he was understood as saying by the later transmitters. We have a very good example of how confusion can arise over a long period in Ibn al-Qayyim’s treatment of the two last chapters as one, while commenting on them. Now, if it happens in the course of time, that his commentary is lost, then after a thousand years some people might draw the conclusion from the statement to the effect that 'he treated the two chapters as one,’ that he considered them one, and not two chapters, and hence, perhaps, thought that the Qur’an consists of only 113 chapters!

As for the question as to why it is that so many hadith books have recorded the reports; the answer is, this was the habit of the muhaddithin who had acquired the practice from their transmitters. The scholars those days transmitted precisely and truthfully all they had heard, without bothering about the meaning or intent. For them, authenticity of a report was enough of a qualification for it to be transmitted to the next generation. Abu Hurayrah himself, for instance, continued to transmit the hadith about omens as he had heard, despite the censure by `A'isha, because he had heard only those words from the Prophet. If `A’isha had heard those additional words, he must have thought, surely it was for her to transmit them.

Moreover, were Ibn Mas`ud to hold the opinion that he is alleged to have held, his scores of Kufi students, (many of whom were to later become, in that foremost center of learning, fuqaha’ of great repute), would have surely discussed the issue to form their own opinions. True, the Hanafiyyah do not declare a man kafir who refuses to acknowledge that the mu`awwidhatayn as part of the Qur’an. But, this is another case of extreme precaution on the part of the Hanafiyyah. They confer on the accused all benefits of doubt, and refrain, sometimes on flimsy grounds, from declaring a person kafir. They follow the famous dictum of Abu Hanifah: “Everyone who faces the Ka`bah is a Muslim.”

It is not surprising to note, therefore, that many commentators have ignored the issue altogether. Ibn al-Qayyim, for instance, fails to mention the issue in his inordinately long commentary on the two chapters. This writer had to take up the issue because its discussion by some commentators gives it the color of a big controversy among the Ummah, while, as a matter of fact, none exists but in the hidden corners of hadith books” (Au.).

Merits of the Surah

Imam Ahmad, Abu Da’ud and Nasa’i have preserved a hadith one version of which reports `Uqbah b. `Amir as saying:

“While I was leading the mule of the Prophet through a mountainous region, he asked me, 'Will you not mount, `Uqbah?’ I thought I would be sinning (so I did not). But the Prophet alighted and I climbed the beast, with him leading it. After a while he said, 'May I not tell you about two of the finest chapters that the people have ever recited?’ I said, 'Sure, do it, O Prophet.’ He taught me the last two chapters. Then, when we had encamped he recited the two while leading in the Prayers. Subsequently when he passed by me he rejoined, ``Uqbah, how about reciting them every morning and every evening?!’

Several other reports say that the Prophet said that these two were the best of revelations with which to seek Allah’s refuge. Bukhari (and Muslim also: Qurtubi) has recorded `A’isha as saying that,

When unwell the Prophet would recite these chapters, blow on his hands and pass them over the body. During his final sickness when he was unable to do it himself, she recited these, blew on the hands of the Prophet and rubbed them on his body (Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir).

Abu Sa`id has said that the Prophet was wont to seek (Allah’s) protection from the evil eye of the Jinn and mankind. But, after these chapters were revealed he began to recite them and gave up everything else. Tirmidhi has rated the report as hasan sahih (Ibn Kathir).

Tabarani has reported `Ali, in his Al-Saghir, (a hasan report: S. Ibrahim) as saying that once the Prophet was stung by a scorpion while he was Praying. When he finished the Prayer he said:“May Allah curse the scorpion. It spares neither the one in prayers nor anyone else.” Then he ordered for some water and salt. He began to rub them reciting: “Say, O unbelievers..., "Say He is Allah..., “Say, I take refuge will Allah..., and "Say, I take refuge with the Lord of men..." (i.e. the four Quls: Au.) – Shawkani.

The above proves that charms or spells (ruqyah) and blowing for cure is lawful in Islam. According to several other reports the Prophet used to blow ruqyah upon himself.

Muhammad b. al-Ash`ath recounted: “I was taken to `A’isha. She murmured a charm and blew it over me” (Qurtubi).

As for the reports that speak of ruqyah with disfavor, perhaps those are meant that (either have disapproved words or phrases, or those that) have meaningless phrases. This also applies to amulets (ta`widh) [Razi]. As for the hadith in Nasa’i which says:

“Whoever tied a knot and then blew in it, indulged in magic; whoever played magic associated with Allah; and whoever hung a thing is entrusted to it,” has been declared weak by Albani (S. Ibrahim).

(Imam Razi has an interesting overview of these last two chapters. But it is too subtle for reproduction in an attenuated from: Au.).