Can the essence of the Qur’an really be condensed into 7 short verses? Most Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of the Qur’an tell us that the Fatiha functions this way, and it will certainly be handy for us if it does. But there are some problems. First, as we have already seen, the Opening is a prayer and thus differs in form from every other sura, except the final two (113 and 114), which are also brief prayers. In these three short suras the reciter or worshipper seems to be speaking rather than God. When this happens the command “Say” (Qul) routinely precedes what is to be recited so that we are left with no doubt that the voice is God’s. Suras 113 and 114, for example, begin with “Say.” But not the first sura. Muslim commentators were bothered by this, and insisted that the command “Say!” must be implied so that the voice really is God’s, instructing believers how to pray. But it takes work not to see that this sura stands apart and the real body of the Qur’an begins with the second sura. Another more substantial problem is that the the oneness of God, Tawḥīd, gets no clear mention here. Again, Muslim commentators argue that it is implied. But for a succint and emphatic affirmation of the oneness of God we have to jump to the end of the book to sura 112, Surat al-Ikhlas:
Say, ‘He is God the One, God the eternal. He begot no one nor was He begotten No one is comparable to Him
The Christian reader is likely to see in this powerful little sura (take the time to listen to it) an unambiguous and emphatic rejection of the Incarnation and Trinity. Many Muslims will agree. But Christians, along with Jews, affirm just as confidently, that God is One, and the Shema (Dt 6:4-5; Mk 12:29) makes this point just as powerfully as Surat al-Ikhlas:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Both the Qur’an and the Bible tell us “God is One.” Both Christians and Muslims affirm that God is One. Do we mean the same thing?
He is God the One
Here in Sura 112 and throughout the Qur’an, the oneness of God means two things. First, “No one is comparable to Him”, he is unique, “there is no god but God,” and thus there is only one (wāḥid) God who alone is to be worshipped. For the Qur’an the single unforgiveable sin is shirk, “associating” anything with God (in plain language, idolatry). Isaiah would have had no trouble with this, nor do any of the New Testament writers, nor does any Christian I know. On this point the main challenge that we all face, whether Christians or Muslim, is a shared one: Saying “there is no god but God” is easy, living a life free of associating lesser things with God is harder.
Second, “He is God the One” also tells us that God is One (aḥad) in himself. This is also standard issue monotheism:
God has never had a child. Nor is there any god beside Him – if there were, each god would have taken his creation aside and tried to overcome the others. May God be exalted above what they describe! (Q 23:91)
At its most basic, this verse is a simple rejection of a family of gods, a pantheon – for even in a mostly harmonious family, as John of Damascus argues, “difference introduces strife. And if any one should say that each rules over a part, what of that which established this order and gave to each his particular realm? For this rather would be God.” But we can go a step further. A pantheon is just the crudest way of talking about a divided God, but for monotheists there can be no division of any kind in God. God is not composed of parts, or puzzle pieces, so that once correctly assembled we have a complete god, or that, should a puzzle piece be missing, we would somehow be be left with a lesser god. This is why John of Damascus repeatedly insists that God is “uncompound” because “all that is composed of imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect subsistences no compound can arise.” Another way that Christian theologians have sometimes expressed the oneness of God: “There is no number in God.” Or as Denys Turner says, with regard to God, there is no counting to be done, of any kind. God is simply God: perfect, transcendant, needing nothing.
To be fair, as soon as we start talking like this we have entered territory that will sound more familiar to Christian theologians than to Muslims. The Qur’an does not invite theologizing of this kind. God is ultimately ineffable, unknowable, beyond human understanding, and the Oneness of God is not something that needs explanation. It simply is. As creatures we simply accept what he says about himself. Christians also agree that God is incomprehensible, but Christians find the Bible, and their experience of prayer and worship, forces theology on them. To treasure and understand our experience of the grace of God the Father, the love of God in Christ and the fellowship of God the Holy Spirit, while also affirming the Oneness of God, we have no choice but to do some hard thinking, and to struggle with language that is inadequate to express what we affirm.
Thoughtfully written. Does “this” in the phrase “Isaiah would have had no trouble with this” refer to the oneness of God or the one unforgivable sin (the closest referent)? If the latter, I’m not sure that this is so (Mar 3: 28-29). I suspect you mean the former.
I meant the response to idolatry, not the unforgivableness. I think I’m on safe ground to make that connection, but I suppose I need to find a way to clarify that I don’t mean to imply agreement about the unforgivable nature of the sin, just its seriousness.
Listening to the Qur’an audio is useful and reinforced some of what you said elsewhere.
“When this happens in other places in the Qur’an, the command “Say!”” – In this sentence, I wasn’t able to be sure whether the final 2 surahs also lacked the command “say” or just the first one. (Checking was easy though.) Maybe the wording could be adjusted a bit?
I’m also wondering if it might be useful to question whether we mean the same thing by ‘begotten’. I’ve been told multiple times that at least for many Muslims here the expectation is that by ‘begotten’ we mean that God had actual physical relations with Mary. I don’t know if that is typical elsewhere, but it seems potentially significant as well.
This statement seems to me to deserve a textbox of its own and bold font: “On this point the main challenge that we all face, whether Christians or Muslim, is a shared one: Saying “there is no god but God” is easy, living a life free of associating lesser things with God is harder.”