The Collective Demand
The type of unscholarly reasoning you observed in the previous discussion of Ilah and Rabb was only necessary for the author under review because he aimed to establish the social aspect of Islam as an essential, foundational concept in the understanding of Ilah and Rabb. And since this was not actually the case, he had to rely on weak arguments. Nevertheless, it is not as if social issues bear no connection to Islamic beliefs. While “political divinity” or “political lordship” are not intrinsic to the meanings of Ilah and Rabb, and are therefore inappropriate extensions of these terms, it remains a fact that acknowledging God as God necessarily entails recognizing Him as the ultimate guide and authority over one’s life. Anyone who acknowledges God as the Ilah and Rabb of the heavens and the earth is insincere in that acknowledgement if they adopt a rebellious attitude towards God in their practical life. The essential requirement of accepting God as one’s Deity and Sustainer is complete surrender before Him—placing one’s entire will and one’s whole life under His pleasure. However, there is a profound difference between establishing this surrender as the inherent meaning of the terms Ilah (Deity) and Rabb (Lord), and treating it merely as a practical consequence that follows from those meanings.
What constitutes the original and direct meaning of a word is required absolutely in all circumstances; there is no escape from it in any situation. A requirement, by contrast, is demanded only in relation to a particular intermediary. Therefore, it is not obligatory in every case. If the intermediary is present, the requirement will certainly apply; otherwise, the person bears no responsibility for it at all.
This difference can be better understood with a practical example. When a person believes in God and accepts Him as their Ilah and Rabb, they must recognize God as the sole Ilah and Rabb in a supernatural sense, place all trust in Him, acknowledge His greatness, feel gratitude for His blessings, and make Him the centre of all their highest feelings. Following this, in social and political spheres, their faith will demand only as much as relates to those actual social and political circumstances. If they are alone on an isolated island, they will have no such responsibility. If they are within a community, their responsibility will only extend as far as they are legally obligated by the Shariah (Islamic Jurisprudence) in their circumstances. Meanwhile, the essential and primary meanings of divinity and lordship are always binding upon them and can never be removed.
If one fails to maintain the distinction between the primary meaning and its attendant demand, and instead interprets Islam in a manner that either elevates the demand to primacy or treats the two as equivalent, both will inevitably be dislocated from their rightful place in one’s understanding. The result is that the political demand associated with divinity and lordship will assume an exaggerated importance, while the true, fundamental meaning will be diminished in stature.
Indeed, if this approach is influenced—consciously or unconsciously—by a political atmosphere or mindset, it is quite possible that the latter aspect will dominate the mind rendering the former aspect merely a nominal idea, like a lifeless phrase added to complete a preferred verse.
