Dialectics in society

Dialectics in society

 

Dialectics in society as understood by Marxism

Marxism developed out of three roots: German dialectical philosophy, Karl Marx’s analysis of French politics and class struggles during the 19th century, and his analysis of the then capitalist economic system in England.

The branch of Marxism that applies the dialectical principles in history and sociology is called historical dialectics (historical materialism). It is made of the following concepts:

  • People are divided into classes by their relations to the means of production – land and capital. The class that controls the means of production expectedly exploits, with surplus value (i.e. profit created by the unpaid labour of workers), the other classes in society.
  • It is this conflict of opposites in the society, i.e. the class struggle between the rich (capitalist and landowning classes) and the poor (proletariat and peasantry), which creates all the dynamic of history, i.e. all historical growth, change and development, which tends to drive the society towards a final uniformity. In fact, it is the same universal law of dialectical development, manifested in social level.
  • Since human beings create the forms of social life solely in response to economic needs, the social, political and intellectual life of society (superstructure) reflect only the economic structure (infrastructure).
  • History inevitably follows certain deterministic laws which are so powerful that individuals have little or no influence on its development.

Historical dialectics and the Quran

Interestingly, some of the concepts of historical dialectics, including ‘class struggle’, appear to resonate with the Quran. Take these famous verses, for example:

Say: O God, Owner of all dominion/ ownership! You grant dominion/ ownership unto whom You will and take away dominion/ ownership from whom You will; and You exalt whom You will and humble whom You will. In Your hand is all the good. Indeed, You are the Possessor of power over all things.

You merge the night into the day and merge the day into the night; and You bring forth the living from the dead and You bring forth the dead from the living; and You give sustenance to whom You will without reckoning. 3:26-27

The above starts with a reminder that the real Owner of all ownership, and the ultimate Possessor of all power and resources and means, is none but God alone (‘O God, Owner of all dominion/ ownership! …’).

Then we are told that it is the divine directive that has made the process of political empowerment and acquiring economic ownership by an individual, group or nation follow certain natural laws (‘You grant dominion/ownership unto whom You will and take away dominion/ownership from whom You will …’). Obviously, as God has appointed ‘a due measure’ or unchangeable law for everything in the Universe, including the society (17:30, 30:37, 39:52), and as His Rule is therefore the Rule of law, here as well as many other places in the Quran, ‘divine will’ infact means ‘divine laws’ (or what we humanly perceive as ‘natural laws’), and should not be misconceived in mortal terms as the erratic whim of a muddle-headed despot. These laws are dialectical and deterministic as we will observe below.

Now, while the first verse illustrates dialectics in political dominion and economic ownership (‘You grant dominion/ownership unto whom You will and …’) and then dialectics in social class and status (‘and You exalt whom You will and …’), its following verse goes on depicting dialectics in physical nature (‘You merge the night into the day and …’) and also dialectics in living world (‘You bring forth the living from the dead and …’).

Please note how this dynamic duality in socio-politico-economics is mentioned here within the greater context of universal dialectics, which involves perpetual coiling of the opposites through ‘negation of the negation’ (e.g. ‘night and day’ and ‘living and dead’). And note how this indicates that ‘class struggle’, i.e. the interaction between the rich and the poor, also generates a similar ‘thesis-antithesis cycle’ leading to dialectical development, as conceived by historical dialecticians.

In other words, the mutual interpenetration of dominion/ ownership/ class into its opposite creates a dialectical cycle through ‘union and conflict of opposites’, like nature’s other similar dialectical cycles, such as night and day and living and dead.

This universality of dialectics is idiosyncratically expressed here in terms of dualities, by recurrent mention of ‘pairs of opposites’ (grant … and take away …, exalt … and humble …, night and day, living and dead, etc). This further implies that everything in the Universe, from galaxies to living organisms to socio-economics to human thoughts, is interactive and in constant flux that results from the struggle between two disputing forces – thesis and antithesis – the opposition being resolved by their synthesis (cf. 13:3, 35:11, 36:36, 39:6, 42:1-12, 43:12, 51:49, 53:45, 75:39, 78:8).

Finally, this description of various ‘dialectical cycles’ comes to an end with a rebound of the initial ‘socio-politico-economic’ topic, with a reassurance about the possible bestowal of God’s unlimited provisions to man (‘and You give sustenance to whom You will without reckoning’), something the Quran is very positive about (65:3, 17:20). This reminds us of the tremendous potential for humanity’s growing prosperity as an outcome of the increased amount and fairer distribution of resources through the dialectical development of society, as predicted by historical dialecticians.

Further reflections

It is interesting to compare the above passage on discussion, 3:26-27, with its related passages like 42:1-12 and 53:42-48, where social dialectics is similarly mentioned within the greater context of universal dialectics.

Some Marxists who consider ‘revolution’ as a necessary step towards social justice may find a bit of resonance in 22:60-61, which sanction a proportionate response, when it becomes essential in order to remedy great injustice and oppression (cf. 2:191, 2:217, 4:75). Interestingly here, once again, the Quran expounds the struggle between the darkness of oppression and the light of freedom in terms of the dialectical cycle of night and day:

Thus shall it be. And whoever responds to aggression only in proportion to what he is afflicted, and then is further transgressed, God will certainly aid him. For God is Pardoning, Forgiving.

That is because God merges night into day, and merges day into night, and that God is Hearer, Seer. 22:60-61

According to the Quran, the same deterministic principles, which govern the physical Universe, also govern the society, including all its provisions and conditions (39:52, 30:37, 13:26, 17:30, 65:3; cf.15:21, 25:2, 41:10). This clearly conforms with the Marxist tenet that history inevitably follows certain very powerful deterministic laws.

The Quran disapproves all hadiths other than the Quran

the-quran-disapproves-all-hadiths-other-than-the-quran

 
The Quran exposes hadith by negatively spotlighting the exact word ‘hadith’

The word ‘hadith’ has a plethora of meanings: saying, utterance, word, speech, statement, narration, story, discourse, opinion, account, etc. In its traditional usage, it describes the alleged sayings of the Prophet or narrations about him.

The word ‘hadith’ in the Quran, on the other hand, mainly refers to fabricated teachings that illegitimately claim divine status besides the Quran.

It is interesting to observe that the Quran constantly uses the exact word ‘hadith’ in statements that strongly disapprove any ‘hadith’ as a co-authority along with the Quran.

Thus, whenever the word ‘hadith’ appears in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran – in all the 20 instances – it is always used in a negative sense and in a tone of strong disapproval. See The Quran prohibited hadiths.

Also, whenever a statement in the Quran disapproves all ‘hadiths’ other than ‘God’s hadith’ (4:87), i.e. the Quran, it always appears in a context that condemns ‘shirk’ or ‘association with God’, the only unforgivable sin in Islam (4:48; cf. 4:116, 39:65, 6:88).

Please note that, while the Quran thus exposes hadith by unfavourably spotlighting the exact word ‘hadith’ (saying, narration), it chooses it out of dozens of Arabic words that convey a similar meaning. For example, qawl (word), khabar (message, news), hikma (wise saying), athaar (teaching, tradition) and so on.

Curiously, this Quranic condemning of ‘hadiths’, by using the exact word ‘hadith’, was centuries before any of the alleged sayings of the Prophet or narrations about him was ever referred to as hadith! This is another example how the divine wisdom invariably selects the right word.

Later on, the transmitters and collectors of hadiths, while mocking the messages of the Quran, followed the destiny when, ironically, they cherry-picked this particular word ‘hadith’ to label their hearsay materials as the second divine source of Islam. This demonstrates not only the falsity and self-deception of hadithism, but also its lack of understanding of a very central Quranic message that strongly disapproves any ‘hadith’ other than the Quran.

Please mark this tacit consensus among the hadith narrators on the use of the same word ‘hadith’, i.e. the exact word that the Quran chose to expose hadith, out of so many Arabic synonyms with a similar meaning!

Appearing to be more than a mere coincidence, this points to an important prophetic vision and one of the many ‘literary miracles’ of the Quran.

The word ‘hadith’ in the Quran has specific meaning and intent

The Quran creates its own lexicon by attaching specific contents and intents to specific words, expressions, metaphors and parables through its interactive explanatory process.

Thus, certain terms and narrations used by the Quran have their precise meanings that often transcend their popular renderings and do not necessarily or entirely conform with the conventional lexicons or earlier scriptures. These precise meanings cannot be properly grasped unless we read the texts contextually and holistically, keeping our mind free from the shackles of traditions.

For example, the term ‘colours’ in the Quran consistently implies pluralism and multifacetedness of the truth. And ‘bird’ in the Quran invariably refers to self or life-processes. In the same way, the word ‘hadith’, when occurs in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran, contains specific meaning that surpasses the traditional dictionaries.

If we reflect on all the 20 instances where the Quran uses the word ‘HADITH’ to denote anything besides the Quran, we find that the word actually refers to manmade sayings and narrations that have the following specifics:

They are hearsays – invented, transmitted and collected by those ‘upon whom the devils descend’ (6:112; cf. 26:210-213, 221-226).

They are forged teachings that will be accepted and called by Muhammadan polytheists as ‘hadiths’ (7:185, 12:111; 31:6; 33:38; 35:43; 45:6; 52:34; 77:50).

They are ‘decorative speech’, inspired by ‘satanic whisper’, where falsehood is colourfully dressed up with deceptive half-truths to misguide people (6:68, 6:112).

They pretend to be another divine authority besides the Quran (e.g. 52:34, 4:87, 12:111) and as true as the Quran (39:18-23, 52:34, 4:87, 18:6, 77:50, 53:59).

They are ‘Devil’s babble’ that tries to silence the Quran (6:112; cf. 41:26-29, 33-36; 7:182, 185, 200-204; 16:98).

They distort and mock the actual messages of the Quran (6:68, 6:112; cf. 4:120, 140; 15:95; 31:6, 21), which is otherwise ‘a different HADITH 6:68, 4:140 ’, ‘God’s hadith 4:87’, ‘this hadith 77:50, 18:6, 53:59, 56:81’, ‘the best hadith 39:23’, ‘inimitable hadith 52:34’ and ‘not a fabricated hadith 12:111’.

They pollute the mind, interfering in its way to understand the Quran (56:79-82). One should not listen to them (33:53) and should not share, report or spread them (66:3).

They are fabricated, unlike the Quran, which therefore openly distances itself from them (12:111) and challenges the idea that it needs them as a supplement (45:6-9, 26:222).

They are baseless narratives, which will be ‘purchased’ by some people to mislead others from the divine path and import corruption into Islam (31:6). Obviously, one needs to keep away from them (4:140, 6:68).

They will degrade the Muslims and split them up into sects (23:44-54, 34:19, 68:35-44, 7:182-194).

In brief, the word ‘hadith’, when occurs in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran, refers to fabricated teachings that illegitimately claim to be a divine authority besides the Quran. 

Looking into the above, we wonder what other thing could fit into all these descriptions, if not hadith, i.e. all those alleged sayings of the Prophet or narrations about him, traditionally accepted as the second authority of Islam?

So, what better English word could the Quranic term ‘hadith’ be translated to, if not ‘hadith’?

Why we should keep the word ‘hadith’ in Arabic

When translating the verses, we preferred to keep the word ‘hadith’ in Arabic. This is not really because ‘hadith’, like ‘quran’, has now become such a universal household word that it otherwise requires no translation! The actual reasons we left the word ‘HADITH’ in Arabic are the following:

  • The word ‘hadith’, when occurs in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran, has a very specific meaning. This consistently alludes to the fabricated teachings, based on half-truths and hearsays, i.e. all what we traditionally know as hadith. We can acknowledge this specific meaning of ‘hadith’ by leaving the word in Arabic.
  • The word ‘hadith’, when occurs in the Quran to denote anything besides the Quran, has a very specific intent. By negatively spotlighting the exact word ‘hadith’, the Quran presagefully exposes the whole hadith corpus as an illegitimate source of religion, which would be concocted mainly to invade the integrity of the Quran. We can acknowledge this specific intent, and also highlight the related prophetic message, by leaving the word in Arabic.
  • The word ‘hadith’, when left in Arabic, can expose the evil scheme of Hadith and denounce the corruptions it brought in Islam, as anticipated in the Quran (6:112-116, 6:150, 7:182-185, 16:20-25, 16:89, 17:45-46, 25:30-31, 28:62, 28:74-75, 39:45, 68:35-44).

What was the actual age of Noah

what-was-the-actual-age-of-noah

 
Based on the findings from modern methods that can evaluate the age of human remains with a fair degree of precision (e.g. through radiocarbon dating of bones, mummies, fossils etc), and also considering the greater fragility of earlier man, now it is an established fact that the average life-expectancy of our human ancestors was definitely LESS, and never more, than average ours.

Thus, whether any member of human species during the last 10,000 years could have survived several hundred years, is out of the question!

Could Noah, or any of those great patriarchs, have lived several hundred years?

THE QURAN DOESN’T CONFIRM NOAH’S ACTUAL AGE

The Quran re-narrates Noah’s story as one of “the PARABLES, the meaning of which can be grasped by none except the knowledgeable. 29:43” (cf. 29:41, 11:24-25)”. See Understanding the Flood Parable of Noah

“Parable is a short story that uses familiar events to illustrate a moral or religious lesson.”

In this parabolic story, Noah’s actual age is irrelevant.

There is a general misconception among traditional Muslims that, by re-narrating various biblical stories, the Quran confirms them literally and so no deeper understanding of these accounts is allowed or necessary.

To our observation, however, this is not the case. As the Quran attaches its own moral imports and intents to these ‘stories of the ancients’, they function in the Quran purely as parables rather than factsheets of literal or historical accounts (24:34-35, 25:33, 39:27, 12:111; cf. 12:7, 12:111, 15:75, 23:30, 54:15). Thus they actually belong to the veiled corpus of the Quran, which comprises literary devices like symbols, idioms, metaphors, allegories, stories, parables, analogies etc whereby the scripture presents deeper, complex and abstract ideas.

In other words, as these Quranic re-narrations are idiosyncratic in both contents and intents, they do not confirm any literal understanding of their Biblical parallels.

We will take the AGE OF NOAH as an example.

First, why should we discuss this at all? Is the actual age of Noah really important, or even relevant to us? If not, then what purpose would it serve in a handbook of divine enlightenment?

In our opinion, it is inconceivable that the Quran, with its sole purpose to guide, would be concerned about any actual age or any historical biography of a character of the remote past.

And this should explain why the Quranic wisdom gently BYPASSES (cf. 5:15) this specific focus of this Genesis myth on Noah’s age as immaterial, while attaching to it a very different dimension:

And certainly We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand YEARS except fifty years. 29:14

Please observe how this Quranic description significantly differs from its Biblical counterpart, “Noah LIVED a total of 950 years, and then he died. Genesis ix, 29”.

Here one may ask: If the Quran really wanted to confirm a literal understanding of the Biblical narration of Noah’s age, why doesn’t it directly repeat the exact number “nine hundred and fifty” as mentioned there, but rather uses this brainstorming expression “a thousand less fifty” instead?

Again, if the Quran doesn’t somehow intend to differ from this Biblical account of Noah’s longevity (“Noah lived a total …”), why doesn’t it simply repeat it ad verbum, but rather rephrases it in such an oblique way (“he remained with them …”) instead? Why ‘remained’, instead of ‘lived’?

Also, why does the phrase “a thousand YEARS less fifty years” use two contrasting terms, ‘YEARS’ (sana) and ‘years’ (‘aam), if not with a purpose to highlight some key differences between their connotations?

Why does the Quran need to use an expression so distinct from the Biblical, after all?

THE QURAN DOESN’T EVEN MENTION NOAH’S ACTUAL AGE

Let us read the statement once again:

And certainly We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand YEARS except fifty years. 29:14

On a closer study of the above, and the highlighted words in particular, we get the following findings:

Here we have two different time units: ‘YEARS’ (sana) and ‘years’ (‘aam)

Though not noticeable in English translations, there are infact two different time units being used here: ‘YEARS’ (sana) and ‘years’ (‘aam).

Often translated as ‘years’, the word sana in Arabic vaguely refers to season, crop or year as a non-specific period of time. Hence it doesn’t necessarily mean a year (365 days), just as yawm does not necessarily mean a day. In contrast, translated as ‘years’, the word ‘aam often more specifically refers to a calendar year.

Moreover, while sana generally indicates a period of hard work and hardship (12:47-48; 7:130), ‘aam usually indicates a year of ease and blessing (2:259, 12:49).

While there is thus some contrariety between sana and ‘aam, the Quran uses these two analogous words in 29:14, in one sentence, obviously to highlight some key difference between their connotations.

‘Thousand YEARS’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘thousand calendar years’

Usually translated as ‘thousand’, the word ‘alf’ in Arabic doesn’t invariably or necessarily mean ‘thousand’ in the literal sense. As ‘alf’ often stands for a certain well-rounded number or a large number, it may also simply mean ‘many’ or ‘too many’ (2:96; 8:9, 22:47, 32:5, 97:3).

With this, if we consider that ‘sana’ vaguely refers to season, crop or year, often accompanied by hardship, we can understand ‘alfa sanat’ (‘thousand YEARS’) as a very long, non-specific period of time, of long waits and difficulties, which doesn’t precisely or necessarily mean ‘thousand calendar years’.

“A thousand sana except fifty ‘aam” doesn’t mean 950 years

As noted above, the Quran uses these two contrasting time units to highlight some key difference between their connotations. In order to better understand the verse, we need to appreciate the fact that the Quran does this deliberately, with some real purpose.

Thus the phrase “A thousand sana (years/ months/ periods/ time-cycles) less fifty aam (years)” contains two dialectical categories – two different types/natures/lengths of time – where one is more specific than the other.

Now, we cannot do simple arithmetic between two different dialectical categories. We cannot from thousand sana just numerically deduct fifty aam and calculate the instant result 950. If we could, then in what unit would we express our resultant number – in sana or aam?

Thus it is impossible to derive from the Quran any mention of Noah’s actual age.

THE QURAN HERE CONVEYS A MESSAGE

Then, let us read the statement in its context:

And certainly We sent Noah to his people, and he remained among them a thousand YEARS except fifty years; so/then the deluge overtook them while they were transgressing.

But We saved him and the people of the Ark, and we set it up as a sign for the worlds. …

And these are the PARABLES We propound unto man, but none grasps their meaning except the knowledgeable. 29:14-15, 43

Since this story is a parable, we need to read it figuratively through the symbols to get its deeper meaning and moral.

Here Noah is an archetype who personifies the human longing for divine illumination that guides the soul throughout this challenging journey of life (23:29). He constructs a moral system, ‘a simple craft made of planks and nails’ (54:13), which is ‘built gradually, under divine inspiration (11:37-38, 23:27). …

Now, as Muhammad parallels Noah, his Quran parallels the Ark. Also, like Noah, the age of his prophetic dispensation among the people spans many centuries (‘thousand years’). Out of it, the first few decades (‘fifty years’) were the years of spiritual progress, which were followed by many centuries (‘thousand years’) of spiritual degeneration (29:14).

Throughout the ages, however, the messenger’s true followers remain spiritually alive, preserved in the Ark of his teachings as incorporated in the Quran (11:23-25, 29:15). …

While others become spiritually dead (11:21-25), drowned by the overwhelming deluge of mental shallowness and worldly desires (11:15-25, 29:14, 71:11-12, 71:21-25).

FINAL THOUGHTS

The re-narrated ‘stories of the ancients’ function in the Quran purely as parables, rather than factsheets of literal or historical accounts. As they thus belong to the veiled corpus of the Quran, they do not confirm any literal understanding of their Biblical parallels.

The same applies to the Parable of Noah, where Noah’s actual age is irrelevant. Here we have carefully observed how the Quranic wisdom gently bypasses this specific focus of this Genesis myth on Noah’s age, and how it attaches to the narration a very different dimension (5:15, 29:14-15, 29:43).

The Quran not only doesn’t confirm Noah’s actual age, it doesn’t even mention it.

Understanding the Flood Parable of Noah

understanding-the-flood-parable-of-noah

 
The Quran re-narrates the Biblical flood myth in its own way (11:25-48, 23:22-30, 29:14-15, 54:9-15, 71:1-28), as a ‘parable’ of earlier generations (‘mathal’; 24:34, 25:33, 29:43; cf. 3:3-7; 5:27). See Why the flood story of Noah is similar to the Hindu flood legend of Manu

Interestingly, while Noah’s story in 11:25-48 and 25:37 is introduced by reminders of its allegorical nature (parable, 11:24; parable, 25:33), the story in 7:59-7:69, 17:3-17, 71:1-26 and 29:14-15 is accompanied by similar reminders (parable, 7:176; parables, 17:89; covering, 17:89; covered, 71:7; parable, 29:41; parables, 29:43). Also, 29:43 directly calls Noah’s story “one of the parables, meaning of which can be grasped only by the knowledgeable.”

Since this story in the Quran is a parable, intended mainly to serve as a moral lesson with some deeper message (24:34-35, 25:33, 39:27, 12:111; cf. 12:7, 12:111, 15:75, 23:30, 54:15), it is not meant to be understood as a literal, historical account. That is, we need to read it figuratively through the symbols to get its deeper meaning and moral.

The Quranic Noah is an archetype who personifies the human longing for divine illumination that guides the soul throughout this challenging journey of life (23:29). He constructs a moral system, ‘a simple craft made of planks and nails’ (54:13), which is ‘built gradually, under divine inspiration, despite ridicules from critics’ (11:37-38, 23:27). …

Now, as Muhammad parallels Noah, his Quran parallels the Ark. Also, like Noah, the age of his prophetic dispensation among the people spans many centuries (‘thousand years’). Out of it, the first few decades (‘fifty years’) were the years of spiritual progress, which were followed by many centuries (‘thousand years’) of spiritual degeneration (29:14). See What was the actual age of Noah

Throughout the ages, however, the messenger’s true followers remain spiritually alive, preserved in the Ark of his teachings as incorporated in the Quran (11:23-25, 29:15), which takes them to the ‘blessed destination’ (23:29) that is situated in ‘an elevated setting’ (11:44).

While others become spiritually dead (11:21-25), drowned by the overwhelming deluge of mental shallowness and worldly desires (11:15-25, 29:14, 71:11-12, 71:21-25).

Pairing God with Muhammad violates holistic logic

(Reason 11 of24 serious reasons shahada should contain no name except God’s’)

pairing-god-with-muhammad-violates-holistic-logic

 
Pairing God with Muhammad

We have observed how the Quranic shahada ‘There is no god but God’ was gradually distorted into the present day ‘extended shahada’, ‘There is no god but God, Muhammad is God’s messenger’.

With this association of Muhammad’s name with God in shahada, Muhammad-worshippers of earlier generations somehow perceived God + Muhammad as two reciprocal halves of a divine pair.

Then, by binding, coupling, interweaving and mingling Muhammad with God in countless occasions, they gradually concocted in their unrestrained fantasy an idolatrous conception of a very intimate, special, dual relationship between their fictional, mocked God and their imaginary, legendary Muhammad.

And with time they eventually transmuted Muhammad into a demigod and a terrestrial counterpart with God, and therefore an associate in divinity and a shareholder in divine legislation (Warning! And God has said: Do not take two gods, two. There is only One god. So Me, only Me, shall you revere. 16:51). …

Are God and Muhammad so vitally interconnected and hence so mutually interdependent that God’s unity constantly needs to be paired with Muhammad in the core testimony of faith, and so in all the duties and rituals (Warning! God has no counterpart: And in everything have We created pairs, so that you might bear in mind (that God alone is One). 51:49)?

Is the Creator not independent enough that He should continuously require, to be conjoined along with His divinity, a mere creation, a human (Warning! God is the Independent the Absolute. 112:2; 6:133, 17:111)?

God’s oneness in holistic reasoning

The Quran narrates the famous story of Abraham’s observation of the Universe during his quest for God (6:75-79, 37:88, 14:33-35). This is an allegory of mankind’s spiritual journey in search for the ‘Ultimate’ behind the laws and harmony of nature, manifested in the absolute unity within its infinite diversity (6:75-79).

While deeply observing the world – this transitory world, where ‘being’ exists only through ‘becoming’ and where everything is ephemeral and nothing lasts – Abraham’s holistic reasoning refuses to sanctify anything that is mortal or temporal (6:75-79; ‘I love not setting ones 6:76’) and thus eventually settles in and submits to the ‘changeless and eternal’, the ever-living One God alone (6:78). See Abraham’s observation of the Universe and Understanding chapter 6 from Abraham’s perspective.

As Abraham of the Quran epitomises all monotheists (4:125, 22:78), this HOLISTIC REASONING – which helps perceive the absolute unity and indivisibility of the Divine – remains essential for anyone who truly seeks to attain logical certainty in their monotheistic path (6:75).

No wonder the Quran places a constant emphasis on the all-inclusive study of ‘the whole’ that considers everything and every part within the grand, unified context of the totality of the Scripture, and so of the Book of Nature, up to ‘the End’ (‘al-akhirat’, 17:45-46; 6:92, 112-113). See Importance of holistic reading.

It is the same holistic observation that led the greatest scientists like Galileo to stand against the clerical establishment; Newton to reject the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus by arguing it to be polytheistic and contradictory to the first Commandment of the Bible; Darwin to conclude that all life forms are mutually related as they all share a unitary origin from a common ancestor; Einstein to dream unifying all laws of physics into one single law that motivates modern quests for a ‘theory of everything’, such as string theory; and so on.

It is this holistic observation that makes reflective minds bear witness to the absolute oneness and wholeness of The Reality, based on their awareness of the perfect harmony and unity in the governance of the Universe (6:79; 3:18; cf. ‘knowledge, upright with equity’ 3:18; cf. 21:22, 23:71).

This indivisibility of God’s absolute oneness implies the absolute indivisibility of His sovereignty which in turn leads to the conception of the Universe as a coherent, moral singularity rather than a disjointed, moral chaos, as misconceived by polytheism (21:22; cf. 23:71).

Associating God with ‘others’ violates this holistic awareness

Now, despite the overwhelming signs of God’s oneness evident throughout the Universe, there is a polytheistic inclination in the majority of humans that cannot accept the Divine without setting up associates (The majority of them will not acknowledge God without setting up associates. 12:106).

The ‘extended shahada’ is just one of the countless modes whereby this idolatrous inclination displays itself.

This violates the holistic logic that understands God as Infinite and Unsplittable and, therefore, absolutely One and Independent (112:1-4), who cannot be associated by anyone or anything in any way whatsoever (4:36, 18:110).

Thus people who lack this holistic awareness, i.e. ‘who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic)’, fail to accept God’s oneness without associating Him with ‘OTHERS’:

When God Alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic) are filled with aversion; and when OTHERS are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice! 39:45

So it is due to their lack of holistic awareness that the pagans venerate various natural forces as divinities and intermediaries:

And to God belongs the END (whole, holistic) and the Instant.

And how many Forces there are in the Heavens, who have no power to intercede, except after God has given leave for whom He wills and is pleased with.

Only those who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic) have given the Forces female names. 53:25-27

Again, though In all worship we should remember only the ever-living One who never dies, it is due to this lack of holistic awareness that the devotees revere dead messengers, holy persons and sanctified images as idols, often as mediators and intercessors (cf. 7:191-194):

And those they call on besides God, they can create nothing, while they are themselves created!

They are dead, not living, and they even know not when they will be raised.

Your god is One god. Those who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic), their hearts are denying, and they are arrogant.…

Whenever they are asked: What has your Sustainer sent down?, they answer: Fairytales of the past.

They will carry their burdens in full on the day of Resurrection, and also from the burdens of those whom they misguided without knowledge. Evil indeed is what they bear. 16:20-25

With this same fragmented, non-holistic mind-set, and through its offshoot, the ‘extended shahada’ – where a dead human is constantly named and remembered along with the ever-living God as His earthly EQUAL – clergymen and their blind following Muhammadans have complicated the simple divine directives with man-made rules and prohibitions:

Say: “Bring your witnesses who bear witness that (through His associate/s, 6:19) God has forbidden this (cf. 16:35).” If they bear witness, then do not bear witness with them, nor follow the desires of those who have given the lie to Our messages, and those who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic); and they make EQUALS with their Sustainer! 6:150

Who is more wicked than one who fabricates lies about God? They will be brought before their Sustainer, and the witnesses will say, “These are the ones who lied about their Sustainer.” Alas, God’s rejection is the due of all evildoers.

Those who repel others from the divine path and seek to twist it; and regarding the END (whole, holistic) they are in denial. 11:18-19

Summary

Pairing God with Muhammad violates holistic logic

With association of Muhammad’s name with God in the ‘extended shahada’, Muhammad-worshippers of earlier generations somehow perceived God + Muhammad as two reciprocal halves of a divine pair.

Then, by binding, coupling, interweaving and mingling their fictional, mocked God with their imaginary, legendary Muhammad in countless occasions, they gradually transmuted Muhammad into a terrestrial counterpart with God, and therefore an associate in divinity and divine legislation (16:51).

Are God and Muhammad so vitally interconnected and hence so mutually interdependent that God’s unity constantly needs to be paired with Muhammad in the core testimony of faith, and so in all the duties and rituals (51:49)? Is the Creator not independent enough that He should continuously require, to be conjoined along with His divinity, a mere creation, a human (112:2; 6:133, 17:111)?

While deeply observing the world, Abraham’s holistic reasoning refuses to sanctify anything that is mortal or temporal (6:76; cf. 6:75-79) and thus eventually settles in and submits to the ‘changeless and eternal’, the ever-living One God alone (6:78). See Abraham’s observation of the Universe and Understanding chapter 6 from Abraham’s perspective.

As Abraham of the Quran epitomises all monotheists (4:125, 22:78), this HOLISTIC REASONING – which helps perceive the absolute unity and indivisibility of the Divine – remains essential for anyone who truly seeks to attain logical certainty in their monotheistic path (6:75).

No wonder the Quran places a constant emphasis on the all-inclusive study of ‘the whole’ that considers everything and every part within the grand, unified context of the totality of the Scripture, and so of the Book of Nature, up to ‘the End’ (‘al-akhirat’, 17:45-46; 6:92, 112-113). See Importance of holistic reading.

It is this holistic observation that makes reflective minds bear witness to the absolute oneness and wholeness of The Reality, based on their awareness of the perfect harmony and unity in the governance of the Universe (3:18, 6:79; cf. 21:22, 23:71).

Now, there is a polytheistic inclination in the majority of humans that cannot accept the Divine without setting up associates (12:106). The ‘extended shahada’ is just one of the countless modes whereby this idolatrous inclination displays itself. This violates the holistic logic that understands God as Infinite and Unsplittable and, therefore, absolutely One and Independent (112:1-4), who cannot be associated by anyone or anything in any way whatsoever (4:36, 18:110).

Thus people who lack this holistic awareness, i.e. ‘who do not acknowledge the END (whole, holistic)’, fail to accept God’s oneness without associating Him with ‘OTHERS’ (39:45).

So it is due to their lack of holistic awareness that the pagans venerate various natural forces as divinities and intermediaries (53:25-27). Again,though In all worship we should remember only the ever-living One who never dies, it is due to this lack of holistic awareness that the devotees revere dead messengers, holy persons and sanctified images as idols, often as mediators and intercessors (16:20-25; cf. 7:191-194).

With this same fragmented, non-holistic mind-set, and through its offshoot, the ‘extended shahada’ – where a dead human is constantly named and remembered along with the ever-living God as His earthly EQUAL – clergymen and their blind following Muhammadans have complicated the simple divine directives with man-made rules and prohibitions (6:150, 11:18-19; cf. 6:19, 16:35).

Does the Quran really support the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

does-the-quran-really-support-the-virgin-birth-of-jesus

 
The Virgin Birth is the doctrine that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God through the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary without the agency of a human father.

Traditional Muslims, while sharing this common belief with traditional Christians, derive it from Quranic texts misinterpreted by Islamic secondary sources that were impregnated with Christian influences during the earlier Islamic centuries.

But does the Quran really support the virgin birth of Jesus?

Let us go through a few observations 

The Quran makes an analogy between the nature of Jesus and the nature of Adam (a mythical name for all humans), both being ‘created out of dust’ (3:59).

However, contrary to popular belief, this is not exclusive to Jesus since the Quran also speaks of every human (Adam) as created in the same way, ‘out of dust’ (18:37, 22:5, 30:20, 35:11, 40:67). Thus this stress on the Adamness (humanness) of Jesus – with no reference to any special birth – simply reminds us of the common humble origin of all humans, including Jesus.

The Quran maintains that Jesus resembled Adam, both being created through the process of “kun fayakoon” (“‘Be’, and it becomes”, 3:59).

But this too is not specific to Jesus since the Quran also speaks of all humans (Adam) as created through the same process of “kun fayakoon” (40:67-68). Please note that, while the divine command “Be” is beyond the physical dimension of time, its effect “and it becomes”, when actualized in the domain of temporal succession, cannot be instantaneous or mutually exclusive from the concept of evolution.

The Quran uses the term ‘word’ (‘kalimah’) for Jesus (3:45, 4:171).

But this again is not unique to Jesus. The same term is used also for John (3:39) as well as for everything in the world (18:109, 31:27). In fact, ‘word’ (‘kalimah’) is often used in the Quran to denote an announcement from God, or a statement of His will, or His promise (e.g., 4:171, 6:34, 6:115, 10:64, 18:27).

The Quran describes Mary as one ‘who guarded her chastity’ (21:91, 66:12).

But once again, as opposed to the traditional misunderstanding, this doesn’t indicate ‘virgin birth’. While confirming Mary’s purity and abstinence from immorality (e.g. by marriage, which is another meaning of ‘ahsanat’, guarded, protected, married, 21:91, 66:12; cf. 4:24, 4:25, 5:5 etc), this is no more than a rejection of the calumny that the birth of Jesus was the product of an illicit union (4:156, 19:27- 28).

The Quran uses the expression ‘We breathed into her of Our spirit’ as a reference to Mary’s conception of Jesus (21:91).

However, widely misinterpreted, this too is not relating only to the birth of Jesus. The Quran uses the same expression ‘breathed into … of Our spirit’ in three other places with reference to the creation of man in general (15:29, 32:9, 38:72), thus making it clear that God ‘breathes of His spirit’ into every human. This also clarifies that the divine spirit (‘OUR SPIRIT’) that was ‘sent’ to Mary in a male human form, in fact refers to a real, mortal man (19:17; cf. 4:171).

The Quran states that Mary expressed surprise at the announcement of Jesus’ birth to her (“How can I have a son when no man has touched me, nor am I a desirer?” 19:20; cf. 3:47).

But this too, once again, is not exclusive to Jesus. This surprise expressed by Mary is exactly parallel to the surprise expressed by Zachariah at the announcement of John’s birth to him, only in a few verses earlier (“How can I have a son when my wife is infertile, and I became so old?” 19:8). Also the description around Mary’s surprise (19:16-34) is similar and parallel to the description around Zachariah’s (19:2-15).

Both these instances are meant to emphasize God’s unlimited creative power, specifically His power to create the circumstances whereby divine will can manifest itself, however unexpected or seemingly improbable at the time of the announcement. Clearly, God creates these circumstances through a causally determined sequence of events, i.e. through His ‘laws of nature’, which are made perfectly accurate and absolutely immutable to avoid any chaos in the natural order (17:77, 33:38, 33:62, 35:43, 40:85, 48:23; 6:34, 6:115, 10:64, 18:27; cf. 4:26, 3:137).

For example, in the case of Zachariah’s wife, her infertility was treated that made her fit for childbearing (21:90). And in the case of Mary, the hurdles were removed for her to go out of the convent (3:44): thus she abandoned monasticism in response to the divine direction (3:42-47, 66:12) and entered a conjugal relationship (19:16-22), like others, bowing together to the natural design that is ordained for normal humans (3:43).

The Quran confirms this real, spousal relationship of Mary with a mortal man, in various ways, e.g.: ♦ The Quran insistently maintains that creation is invariably through the union of opposites (6:101, 7:189, 36:36, 42:11, 51:49, 53:45-46, 76:2). This same natural process, where no one can have a child without having a sexual counterpart, also involves the birth of Jesus: “Originator of the Heavens and the Earth, how can He have a son when He never took a mate?” 6:101. ♦ The Quran narrates events when Mary left behind her monastic life (3:42-47). ♦ The Quran graphically portrays, with remarkable sophistication, how Mary’s pregnancy was initiated by her meeting with ‘a full-grown man’ (19:17), who ‘gifted her a pure son’ (19:19; 19:16-28; note the prelude of the pregnancy required an ADULT MALE, not a child or a female). ♦ The Quran overtly mentions JESUS’ FATHER: “And Zachariah and John, and Jesus, and Elias … and from their fathers” 6:85-87.

Conclusion

We cannot get in the Quran any support for the Virgin Birth of Jesus unless our minds are preconditioned by the influence of secondary sources that were impregnated with conventional Christian ideas during the earlier Islamic centuries.

The Quran relates the testimony ‘Muhammadur rasulullah’ to rejection and hypocrisy

(Reason 10 of24 serious reasons shahada should contain no name except God’s’)

the-quran-relates-the-testimony-muhammadur-rasulullah-to-rejection-and-hypocrisy


We cannot bear witness to something without really having it witnessed

One cannot bear witness about the mission of a messenger who belonged to a past generation. It is because, to bear witness to something, one has to really witness it, i.e. to be present during its happening. Apparently, even Muhammad himself was not in a position to bear witness about the messengership of his predecessors, as he was not present during their lifetime:

And you were not present on the western slope when We decreed the command to Moses, nor were you among those who witnessed. 28:44 (cf. Or, were you then witnesses when death approached Jacob …? 2:133).

Likewise, though Muhammad’s mission was witnessed by many of his contemporaries including Jews and Christians (3:70, 81, 86; cf. 33:7), it cannot be witnessed by post-Muhammadan generations, simply because they did not live during his prophetic ministry.

Therefore, while we can easily acknowledge Muhammad’s messengership, we are not supposed to bear witness to it, as we did not actually witness it.

Now, from a legal perspective, bearing witness to something without really having it witnessed is pretence and dishonesty. This may explain why the Quran itself relates bearing witness about the messengership of Muhammad to hypocrisy, as we will observe below.

Hypocrites bear witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger

Among the companions of the Prophet there were all sorts of people, including hypocrites. Because not all the hypocrites were known to the Prophet (9:101), the Quran provides him with a clue about how to identify them:

The Quran informs that hypocrites can be readily recognized since they are ‘marked out’: Most certainly God marks out those who acknowledge and MARKs out those who are hypocrites. 29:11.

However, their MARK, whereby hypocrites are exposed, is not their look but their ‘twisted SPEECH’: And if We wished, We would show them to you so you would recognize them by their looks. However, you can recognize them by the TWIST of their speech. 47:30.

Eventually the Quran even discloses this ‘twisted SPEECH’ – this mark – which exposes the hypocrites (63:4). Revealed in an elliptical way, this is, precisely, ‘Ashhadu anna muhammadan rasulullah’ (‘I bear witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger’):

When the hypocrites come to you they say, “We bear witness that you are indeed God’s messenger.” And God knows that you are indeed His messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars. 63:1

Thus when ‘hypocrites’ come to Muhammad (or, figuratively, come across the issue of Muhammad) and insist that they ‘bear witness that he is God’s messenger’, they in fact expose themselves as hypocrites. The verse argues that what the hypocrites proclaim is vain talk, because God – who indeed knows and suffices as witness that Muhammad is His messenger – does not need anyone affirm back to Him, with any uncalled-for pseudo-confession of faith, what He already knows about His own messenger.

Oddly, this testimony about Muhammad’s messengership, this ‘twisted SPEECH’ of the ‘hypocrites’, constitutes the second part of the so-called ‘full shahada’, which, also known as Abu Hurairah’s shahada, is at present recurrently recited by most of the Muhammadans!

Now, if hypocrites could be recognized by their public declaration of this fake testimony, then this must have differentiated them from the true Muslims who felt no necessity of a similar verbal, public declaration, since they showed their allegiance to Islam by simply following its messages.

In other words, it was not the genuine companions of the Prophet who were proclaiming this unnecessary shahada, but it was only the hypocrites who were doing so in order to mask their deception. Let us read this verse, once again:

And if We wished, We would show them to you so you would recognize them by their looks. However, you can recognize them by the TWIST of their speech. 47:30

Rendered above as TWIST , the word ‘lahn’ has a plethora of meanings: intent, inaccuracy, twist or distortion in speech; oblique or ambiguous mode of speech; an inclining of speech to obliqueness, etc (Lane’s lexicon). If we apply these connotations to the speech of hypocrites as stated in 63:1 (“We bear witness that you are God’s Messenger.”), it becomes evident that it is not the correct shahada but a distorted and incorrect speech made by the hypocrites with devious intent.

A closer look into the twisted shahada of the hypocrites

The verse 63:1 is the only instance in the Quran where Muhammad is included in ‘shahada’, and this is, ironically, as a speech uttered by the hypocrites.

Here we observe three important phrases, interconnected in a curious syntax:

  • The hypocrites … say, “We bear witness that you are indeed God’s messenger.”
  • God KNOWS that you are indeed His messenger
  • God bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars

One may ask: Why does the verse – where ‘bear witness appears at the start and the end – use the verb ‘knows’ in the middle?

In other words, why does it say ‘God knows that you are indeed His messenger’ instead of saying ‘God bears witness that you are His messenger’, i.e. in the way the hypocrites say?

Clearly, this choice of the word ‘knows’ here is deliberate, and not a coincidence. It is certainly used to refute the ‘bear witness’ part of the forged testimony “We bear witness that you are indeed God’s messenger”.

If the verse stated that ‘God bears witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger’ in this particular context – which deals with ‘the testimony of hypocrisy’ (‘I bear witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger’) – it would suggest that the latter is a part of the actual testimony of faith. However, this careful choosing of ‘God knows’ here, instead of ‘God bears witness’ (cf. 4:166), indicates that the testimony ‘Muhammadur rasulullah’ is in fact related to hypocrisy and is not part of the divinely authorized shahada.

The Quran asks the followers of Muhammad to know the veracity of his messages (47:2). But nowhere does it ask them, not even once, to publicly bear witness to his messengership, because God is enough as witness that Muhammad was God’s messenger

This supports our observation that, in the Quran, ‘Muhammad is God’s messenger’ is a statement of fact (a part of one of the ‘articles of iman’, i.e. recognizing all messengers as equal; 4:136, 2:177, 2:285), but not a part of the shahada (the testimony about God’s oneness, which is the core of Islam or submission to one God alone; 3:18, 3:52-53, 3:81-83, 5:111, 7:172, 33:7).

The added shahada means ‘rejection and hypocrisy’

Now let us read the verse 63:1 in its immediate context:

When the hypocrites come to you they say, “We bear witness that you are indeed God’s messenger.” And God knows that you are indeed His messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars.

They have made their proclamation as a cover, thus they repel from the way of God. Miserable indeed is what they do.

That is because they acknowledged (by bearing witness that there is no god but God. 3:18), then rejected (by bearing witness that along with God there are other gods. 6:19, e.g. by bearing witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger 63:1; cf. they bear witness over their own rejection. 9:17). Hence, their hearts are sealed, so they do not understand.

And when you see them, you are impressed by their look; and when they speak, you listen to their eloquence. … These are the enemies, so beware of them. May God condemn them; how devious they are. 63:1-4

Please observe how this description about the hypocrites – who ‘bear witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger’ and thereby ‘acknowledged, then rejected’ – refers to the same hypocrites who ‘bear witness over their own rejection’ (who presently maintain sectarian mosques founded on shahada with human idol/s!):

It was not for those who set up associates to maintain God’s temples while they bear witness over their own rejection (i.e. they bear witness that along with God there are other gods, 6:19, e.g. by bearing witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger 63:1). For these, their works have fallen (cf. 2:38, 3:151, 39:65, 6:88), and in the fire they will abide. …

And those (hypocrites) who establish a temple of worship to create mischief and cause rejection, to cause division among those who acknowledge, and as an outpost for those who fought God and His messenger before. They will swear that they only wanted to do good, but God bears witness that they are liars. 9:17, 107

It is interesting to read the above together with a few other related texts, e.g.:

Then who is more evil than they who attribute their own fabrications to God or give the lie to His messages? … They will say, “Where are those whom you used to call on besides God?” they will say, “They have abandoned us!” and they bore witness against themselves that they were rejecters. 7:37

Then, keeping in mind 63:1-4, which relates the testimony about Muhammad to ‘rejection and hypocrisy’, please read the following:

The Arabs are harder in rejection and hypocrisy, and more liable to ignore the limits of what God has sent down upon His messenger – but God is Knower, Wise. 9:97

The above verse, rendered allegorically (cf. 18:54), seems very prophetic, as it is also partly illustrative of our current world situation. Though revealed in a different historical context, it appears to be criticizing the rejection and hypocrisy of even some of the today’s Arab bigots. Instead of upholding the simple, universal messages of Oneness, as summarized in the original shahada of Islam – these stubborn sectarians are trying to dominate the Muslim world by maintaining a rigid, distorted, Arabized version of Islam, which is a byproduct of the un-Quranic, extended shahada that associates ‘others’ with God (39:45).

Understanding the verse in further context

Then let us look into 63:1 through some of its further correlations:

And We have sent thee as a messenger to the people but God is ENOUGH as witness (so, no one else needs to bear witness about you).

Whoever OBEYS the messenger has obeyed God; and whoever turns away, We have not sent you as a guardian over them.

And they say, “OBEDIENCE,” but when they go away from you a group of them spends the night in devising (teachings) other than what you tell them; and God records what they devise. So turn away from them and put your trust in God. God is enough for your trust.

Do they not study the Quran? And if it were from any other than God they would have certainly found therein many contradictions. 4:79-82

And when you see those who engage in mocking Our messages, then turn away from them until they move on to a different HADITH; and if the DEVIL lets you forget, then, after recollection, do not stay with those unjust people. 

And thus We have appointed to every prophet an enemy – DEVILS from humans and invisibles, inspiring one another with decorative speech, as delusion. Had thy Sustainer willed, they would not have done it. So disregard them and all they fabricate. 6:68, 112

The ones who break their pledge to God after making the covenant (shahada about God’s oneness, cf. 7:172), and cut asunder (the unity of humankind) what God has bidden to be joined, and spread corruption on Earth; these will be the losers. 2:27

Finally, please read the following passage carefully. While emphasizing that God is enough as witness that Muhammad was God’s messenger (‘Say: What is greatest as witness? Say: God: a witness between me and you’), it forbids to ‘bear witness that along with God there are other gods’ (note the allusion to bearing witness about Muhammad):

Say: What is greatest as witness? Say: God: a witness between me and between you, and this Quran has been revealed to me that I may warn you thereby and whomever it reaches. Do you then bear witness that along with God there are other gods? Say: I do not bear witness! Say: He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you associate (i.e. the idol you make of me by associating me with God in shahada; cf. 41:6, 18:110)!

Follow what has been revealed unto you from your Sustainer: There is no god but He; and turn away from those who set up associates.

Say: “Bring your witnesses who bear witness that (through His associate/s, 6:19) God has forbidden this (cf. 16:35).” If they bear witness, then do not bear witness with them, nor follow the desires of those who have given the lie to Our messages, and those who do not acknowledge the End; and they make equals with their Sustainer! 6:19, 106, 150 (the context goes on describing the sectarians as polytheists, 6:159-164)

Summary

The Quran relates the testimony ‘Muhammadur rasulullah’ to rejection and hypocrisy

Although Muhammad’s mission was witnessed by many of his contemporaries (3:70, 81, 86; cf. 33:7), it cannot be witnessed by post-Muhammadan generations as they did not live during his prophetic ministry (28:44, 2:133). And probably because bearing witness to something without really having it witnessed is pretence and dishonesty, bearing witness about Muhammad is obliquely discouraged by the Quran as hypocrisy.

It is important to note that the only instance in the Quran where Muhammad is included in ‘shahada’ is, ironically, a speech uttered by the hypocrites (63:1). This is apparently that ‘twisted speech’ (47:30), or that specific ‘mark’, whereby hypocrites can be recognized and differentiated from the true acknowledgers (29:11). Oddly, this ‘testimony of hypocrisy’ (‘I bear witness that Muhammad is God’s messenger’) constitutes the second part of the so-called ‘full shahada’, which, also known as Abu Hurairah’s shahada, is now recurrently recited by most of the Muhammadans!

The Quran argues that what the hypocrites proclaim is vain talk, because God – who indeed knows and suffices as witness that Muhammad is His messenger – does not need anyone affirm back to Him, with any uncalled-for pseudo-confession of faith, what He already knows about His own messenger (63:1).

The Quran asks the followers of Muhammad to know the veracity of his messages (47:2). But nowhere does it ask them, not even once, to publicly bear witness to his messengership, because God is enough as witness that Muhammad was God’s messenger

While the Quran relates the testimony about Muhammad to ‘rejection and hypocrisy’ (63:1-4; 9:17, 107; 7:37; cf. 2:27, 3:18, 4:79-82, 4:166, 6:19, 6:106, 6:112, 6:150), it appears to prophetically condemn the ‘rejection and hypocrisy’ of some of the today’s Arab sectarians (9:97) as they are trying to dominate the Muslim world by maintaining a rigid, distorted, Arabized version of Islam, which is a byproduct of the un-Quranic, extended shahada that associates ‘others’ with God (39:45; cf. 41:6, 18:110).