Understanding ‘Ilah’
The very first word is ‘Ilah’ (إله).
The root A-L-H (ا ل ه) in the Arabic language is used for a state in which there is wonder combined with eagerness and longing.
“‘Aliha ya‘lahu idha tahayyara” means he became bewildered or astonished. (Lisan al-‘Arab by Ibn Mazur, Vol. 13, p. 467)
“‘Alahahu: ‘Ajarahu, wa-‘amanahu” means He granted him refuge and provided him with security. (Al-Qamus al-Muheet by al-Firuzabadi, p. 1242)
“‘Aliha al-fasilu idha wuli‘a bi-ummihi” means the young camel becomes passionately attached to its mother. (Tafsir al-Baydawi, Vol. 1, p. 26)
Thus, ‘ilah’ is someone who is seen as entirely different from oneself, with a sense of awe, and who is sought for protection. It also refers to the one toward whom a person feels a strong desire. This term essentially expresses the deep feelings that a humble servant should have for their Creator and Master. When the distinctive feelings of a humble and earnest human being come to be centered on a particular being—when he begins to place his trust in that being and attaches all his hopes to it—such a person is said to have made that being his God “ilah.”
This concept of “uluhiyyah” (divinity) necessarily requires that the entity considered an “ilah” possess power, because an entity without power cannot serve as a refuge or provider. The Quran’s rejection of the divinity of idols and spirits is specifically based on the argument that they lack the powers needed to qualify as “ilah.” The first aspect thus relates to the original meaning of “ilah,” and the second relates to what this meaning logically entails.
In the book under discussion, while the original meaning of “ilah” is acknowledged linguistically (p. 10), the distinction between its core meaning and its logical entailments is subsequently overlooked. Instead, a list of various “meanings” is provided, blending both the original meaning and its entailments:
“It becomes clear that the term ‘ilah’ refers to a deity based on several ideas: the ability to provide relief, offer protection, bring peace, and demonstrate superiority and authority, along with owning powers that inspire trust in the deity’s ability to meet needs and offer refuge. Additionally, there is a sense of mystery surrounding its nature or its secrecy from the public, as well as a feeling of longing toward it.” (p. 11)
In this explanation, the ideas of superiority and authority, placed in the middle, are requirements for true divinity but are not part of the literal meaning of “ilah.” That is, the linguistic meaning of “ilah” does not imply power. Instead, it is only an entity endowed with power that can be rightly regarded as worthy of divinity. Since the perspective under discussion could not accept viewing power as a matter of this kind of “requirement,” it ignored the distinction between the essence and its requirements and placed everything together in a single list, assigning them all equal status.
Even this, however, did not fully satisfy the author’s desire. The mere inclusion of power and authority among the meanings of “ilah” was insufficient. True satisfaction could only be achieved if this meaning were established as the foundational concept. Thus, the entire interpretation was reversed: power was made the fundamental meaning of “ilah,” with all other connotations flowing from this central concept. However, the true essence of “ilah” is yearning and seeking refuge, with power being an additional quality that legitimizes this sense of yearning. To comprehend this distinction, consider the following passage in the book under the heading “The Core Concept in the Realm of Divinity”:
“All the connotations of ‘ilah’ discussed above are logically interconnected. Whoever, in a supernatural sense, regards an entity as a supporter, problem-solver, responder to prayers, and a source of benefit or harm, does so because they attribute some level of control over the universe to that entity. Similarly, if someone holds reverence and fear toward an entity, believing that its displeasure could bring harm and its pleasure could bring benefit, then this belief stems from a perception of the entity’s power. Furthermore, when someone approaches beings other than the Supreme Lord to fulfil their needs, despite having believed in God Almighty, it is because they consider those beings as sharing some aspect of divine power. … Thus, the true essence of divinity is power.” (p. 17)
Here, however, the matter has been completely reversed. The essence of divinity was initially described as a sense of yearning and the desire for protection; the concept of power was included only as a quality, possessed by that being, justifying this yearning. However, in the above explanation, the essence of divinity has shifted to power itself, with all other meanings stemming from it. In other words, the logical connection among the various connotations of “ilah” has been established based on the notion of power, even though this is merely a requirement of the original meaning rather than the core meaning itself.
On the basis of this “logical connection,” the author under discussion cites more than a dozen verses from the Quran as evidence, and then goes on to write:
“In all these verses, from beginning to end, a single central idea is present: that divinity and power are mutually inclusive and, in essence and meaning, the same thing.” (p. 23)
However, in all these verses, power and authority are mentioned alongside divinity as proof that God is the true “ilah” (deity), not as a claim that “divinity and power are identical in essence and meaning.” I will quote just one verse:
“People, remember God’s favour to you. Is there any creator other than God who provides for you from the heavens and the earth? There is no God save Him. How, then, are you turned away from the truth?” (Quran, 35:3)
Clearly, in such verses, the mention of power alongside divinity does not imply that “divinity and power are inherently the same in essence and meaning.” Rather, all such verses mention power as evidence that Allah alone is the true deity. The verse does not assert that “ilah” means “possessor of power,” nor does it question “Why would you call a being without power by the name ‘ilah’?” Instead, the argument is framed as follows: Only a being with command over the universe can fulfil the expectations people have of a deity. Since such power belongs solely to God, He alone is worthy of being called “ilah.” In other words, this discussion revolves around need, not power.
But even then the argument did not hold. This was because the primary concern of the perspective under discussion is political authority, whereas—even after this shift in the “logical connection”—what was established was only supernatural authority. All the matters connected with the divine being on the basis of which the concept of authority was included in its direct sense are matters that have no relation whatsoever to legal or political authority. The reasons linking the concept of power with divinity have no connection to legal or political authority—things like hearing prayers, fulfilling needs, helping in times of difficulty, and bringing benefit or harm are all actions requiring dominion over the cosmos, necessitating a power that governs the natural order. Clearly, this authority exists in a supernatural sense. However, authority of a purely supernatural kind could not serve the purpose of the political revolutionary mindset under discussion.
At this point, another adjustment was made. Taking advantage of the semantic overlap of the word “power,” the author under discussion introduced the notion of political and civil authority alongside supernatural power. Arguing that anyone who designates a being as ilah (deity) in a supernatural sense must also attribute power and authority to it, the author under discussion writes:
“Similarly, if a person views someone’s command as law and considers their orders binding on themselves, they are also recognizing that being as the supreme authority. Therefore, the core of divinity is power, whether that power is seen as supernatural authority over the cosmic order or as binding authority in worldly life, making the commands of that being inherently obligatory.” (p. 17)
In this argument, there is nothing beyond a play on words. Obedience to God’s commands in political and social life is indeed a necessary outcome of the belief in divinity but defining it as the direct meaning of “ilah” and asserting that “political and civil divinity” is an equivalent definition is incorrect.
To understand how such a confident claim about this secondary definition of divinity was made, consider the following excerpt:
“The oneness of supreme authority necessitates that all forms of sovereignty and rulership should be centralized in the single Supreme Authority, with no aspect of this authority transferred to anyone else. Since He is the Creator and none share in His creation, He alone is the Sustainer with none sharing in His sustenance, and He alone administers and manages the entire cosmos, with no partner in His governance—therefore, He alone must also be the Sovereign, Commander, and Lawgiver. There should be no partner even in this domain of authority, just as it is incorrect to regard anyone but Him as a refuge, provider, or protector within His dominion. Similarly, considering anyone else as an independent ruler, self-governing sovereign, or autonomous lawmaker is equally erroneous. Creation, provision of sustenance, giving life and death, subjugation of the sun and moon, the cycle of night and day, decree and destiny, command and kingship, regulation and legislation—all are different facets of one complete authority and sovereignty. This authority is indivisible. If anyone considers a command binding without the endorsement of Allah, they are engaging in the same kind of polytheism as someone who seeks aid from other than Allah. Similarly, if someone claims the title of ‘Sovereign of the Realm’ or ‘Supreme Authority’ in a political sense, this claim to divinity is just as erroneous as one claiming to be a provider or protector. Therefore, where the Quran negates any partnership in God’s creation, sustenance, and governance, it also states that He is the command, He is the dominion, and He has no partner in sovereignty. This clearly indicates that rulership and governance are part of the concept of divinity. Thus, monotheism in divinity requires that even in this aspect, no partner be accepted alongside Allah.” (pp. 24-25)
This excerpt claims that “sovereignty and authority are indivisible; therefore, it is essential that the One who has authority over the universe should also hold authority over human social and political life.” However, this interpretation does not match the verses cited to support it. The Quran indeed stresses the indivisibility of sovereignty, such as in the verse quoted in the book.
“If there were other deities in the heavens and on the earth besides God, both the heavens and the earth would be destroyed. God, Lord of the Throne, is far above what they ascribe to Him.” (Quran, 21:22).
In verses like this, the concept of indivisibility pertains to the governance of the universe or, in other words, to the metaphysical dimension, not in the sense that the God who holds ultimate sovereignty over the universe should also be the ultimate authority in political domains. These verses refer to the factual reality that a single God exercises authority over every part and every element of the universe. They do not state that the same God whose sovereignty is established in the realm of creation also exercises sovereignty in the realm of legislation. Although it is indeed proper for humans to submit to God in their political and legal life, this is not directly mentioned in this verse.
The second basis for the reasoning in the passage comes from phrases like “lahu al-hukm” (for Him is the judgment), “lahu al-mulk” (for Him is the kingdom), and “wa lam yakun lahu sharik fi al-mulk” (and He has no partner in sovereignty), found in verses about God. However, interpreting these words in a political context involves inferring meanings that are not directly present in the verses themselves. Although these words mean “judgment” and “sovereignty” in a linguistic sense, their context in these verses does not suggest political or social sovereignty but rather refers to the same metaphysical sovereignty mentioned earlier.
Three verses from the Quran are cited in the book in this context. The first is from Chapter Al-Qasas, where the phrase “lahu al-hukm” appears, translated in the book as “Master of Judgment and Sovereignty” (p. 19). To understand this verse, it is essential to examine the entire relevant passage. In verses 68-70 of chapter 28, which describes the Day of Judgment when all people will be gathered, those who associate partners with God will find no helper. The verse states:
“Your Lord creates whatever He wills and chooses whomever He pleases. They have no choice. Praise be to God—exalted is He above anything they associate with Him! Your Lord knows what they hide in their hearts and what they reveal. He is God: there is no deity but Him. All praise is due to Him in this world and the hereafter. His is the judgment, and to Him you shall return.” (Quran, 28:68-70)
The entire context here indicates that there is no reference to social or political authority. The truth is that the word “hukm” (حكم) here appears in the sense of judgment or decree. It either refers to the judgment that is supernaturally enforced upon all things in this world or the judgment that will be enforced between people in the Hereafter. Scholars have considered both interpretations, though the majority lean towards the latter. A few opinions are as follows:
“Wa lahu al-hukmu” (وَلَهُ الْحُكْمُ)
He says: “And to Him belongs the judgment”— meaning: “And to Him belongs the decree among His creation.” (Tafsir Al-Tabari, Vol. 19, p. 612)
- “Ayy al-qada‘u bayna ‘ibadihi wa’l-faslu” (أَيِ الْقَضَاءُ بَيْنَ عِبَادِهِ وَالْفَصْلُ)
(Tafsir Al-Bahr al-Muheet, Vol. 8, p. 321)
That is, the decree between His servants and the judgment.
- “Al-qada‘u bayna ‘ibadihi” (القَضَاءُ بَيْنَ عِبَادِهِ)
(Al-Kashshaf by al-Zamakhshari, Vol. 3, p. 428)
The decree between His servants.
- “Yahkumu li-ahl ta‘atihi bi’l-maghfirah, wa-li-ahl ma‘siyatihi bi’l-shaqawah” (يَحكُمُ لأَهلِ طاعَتِهِ بالمَغفِرَةِ، ولأَهلِ المَعصِيَةِ بالشَّقاوَةِ)
(Tafsir al-Khazin, Vol. 3, p. 370)
He judges for the people of obedience with forgiveness, and for the people of disobedience with wretchedness.
- “Al-qada‘u bayna ‘ibadihi” (القَضاءُ بَينَ عِبادِهِ)
(Madarik al-Tanzil, Vol. 2, p. 655)
The decree between His servants.
- “Ayy al-qada‘u al-nafidh fi kulli shay‘in min ghayri musharakah fihi li-ghayrihi ta‘ala” (القَضاءُ النّافِذُ في كُلِّ شَيءٍ مِن غَيرِ مُشارَكَةٍ فيهِ لِغَيرِهِ تعالى)
(Ruh al-Ma‘ani by al-Alusi, Vol. 10, p. 313)
That is, the absolute decree in everything, without any sharing in it by anyone other than Him, Most High.
- “Al-qada‘u al-nafidh fi kulli shay’” (القَضاءُ النّافِذُ في كُلِّ شَيء)
(Tafsir al-Baydawi, Vol. 4, p. 184)
The absolute decree in everything.
The view that “lahu al-Hukmu” refers to judgment in the Hereafter is preferred because it is reported from the famous Companion and exegist ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (RA): “Wa ‘an Ibn ‘Abbas: ayy lahu al-hukmu bayna ‘ibadihi ta‘ala, fa-yahkumu li-ahl ta‘atihi bi’l-maghfirah wa’l-fadl, wa-li-ahl ma‘siyatihi bi’l-shaqa’i wa’l-wayl.” Meaning, from Ibn ‘Abbas (RA): That is, to Him belongs the judgment between His servants. He judges for the people of obedience with forgiveness and bounty, and for the people of disobedience with misery and woe. (Ruh al-Ma‘ani, Vol. 10, p. 313)
Another verse in Chapter Al-Zumar uses the phrase “to Him belongs sovereignty” (له الملك), which in the book is translated as “governing power.” At the start of the Chapter, there is criticism of the worship of certain “guardians” (awliya) whom the polytheists worshipped, believing they would bring them closer to Allah. This is followed by a rejection of the belief that Allah has offspring who share in the heavens and earth. Then the verse states:
“He created the heavens and the earth for a true purpose; He causes the night to succeed the day and the day to succeed the night; He has subjected the sun and moon so that they run their courses for an appointed time; He is truly the Mighty, the Forgiving. He created you from a single soul, then produced its spouse from it, and He has provided for you eight heads of cattle in pairs. He creates you stage by stage in your mothers’ wombs in a threefold darkness. Such is God, your Lord. Sovereignty is His. There is no god but Him. So, what has made you turn away? (Quran, 39:5-6)
These words suggest that the “sovereignty” (ملك) mentioned here refers to the power over the motion of the sun and moon, the mastery of creation and control, not social or political authority. The commentators have interpreted it this way as well. I will cite the words of the commentator, al-Razi:
Then Allah (Exalted) said, “To Him belongs sovereignty” (له الملك), which signifies exclusivity—meaning that sovereignty belongs solely to Him and no one else. Once it is established that sovereignty belongs only to Allah, it naturally follows to say, “There is no deity except Him” (لا الٰہ الا ھو). This is because, if there were another deity, that deity would either possess sovereignty or not. Therefore, if more than one center of power existed in the universe, conflict between them would be unavoidable, as stated in the Quran, “Had there been in them [the heavens and the earth] gods besides Allah, they both would have been ruined” (Quran, 21:22). This is impossible. If the second deity lacked sovereignty, it would be incomplete and thus unworthy of being called a deity. Therefore, the evidence proves that only God possesses sovereignty, making it necessary to declare there is only one God and deity for all creation. There is no other God or deity besides Him. (Tafsir al-Kabir, Vol. 26, p. 425)
In the third verse, from Chapter Al-Furqan, the words “He has no partner in sovereignty” (لم يکن له شريک في الملک) appear. In the book, this is translated as, “In governance, He has no partner.” However, there is no reference here to social or political rule. The relevant portion of the verse is as follows:
Blessed be He who has revealed the book of criterion to His servant that he may warn the nations. Sovereign of the heavens and the earth, who has begotten no children and who has no partner in His sovereignty, it is He who has created all things and measured them out precisely. Yet they have taken, besides Him, deities who create nothing and are themselves created, and who have no power to harm, or benefit themselves and who control neither death, nor life, nor resurrection. (25:1-3)
This context clearly shows that the meaning of “dominion” (ملك) attributed to God here does not relate to social or political rule but rather to creation, control over benefit and harm, decision-making, and authority over life and death. As a result, this is how the commentators have understood it. One reference states:
“To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth” (له ملك السموات والارض): the dominion of both realms is His, indicating that He exercises authority over them and all within them. Thus both kingdom and dominion are His alone without any other partner or entity having any share in it. (لم يکن له شريک في الملک) reinforces the previous statement (له ملك السموات والارض) and rebuts those who ascribe partners to Allah. ( Al-Bahr al-Muheet, Vol. 6, p. 480)
In addition to these three verses, four more verses are referenced at the conclusion of this discussion, where the author under review suggests more explicitly that the concept of “sovereignty” or “rulership” is included within the meaning of divinity (Uluhiyyat) itself.
The first verse is as follows:
“Say, ‘Lord, sovereign of all sovereignty, You bestow sovereignty on whom You will and take away from whom You please; You exalt whoever You will. All that is good lies in Your hands. You have the power to will anything.”—(Quran, 3:26)
I accept that in this verse the word “mulk” (sovereignty) is also used to refer to worldly authority. But is the mere occurrence of the phrase “worldly authority” in a sentence sufficient to prove the concept under discussion? The message from this verse is straightforward: Allah, through His supreme authority, grants worldly dominion to whom He wills and takes it away from whom He wills. He has power over everything—this is a core belief for every Muslim. What this verse establishes is that worldly power is a divine gift, not that gaining worldly authority is the goal of the Muslim community.
The second verse is:
“Then, exalted be God, the true King. There is no deity except Him, the Lord of the Glorious Throne.” (Quran, 23:116)
This verse, too, establishes Allah’s transcendental divinity. The concluding part of the verse makes it clear that what is referenced here is His lordship over the Majestic Throne, not a political throne. The matter of political rule is an entirely separate issue and is not addressed in this verse.
The term “sovereign” (ملک) appears in the first part of the verse, typically meaning “king.” However, the surrounding context suggests that this term does not refer to a “political king” but rather to the Sovereign or Ruler of the Universe. Two references clarify this:
In this verse, the term “Sovereign” (ملک) signifies ownership and authority over all things, a power and dominion that never diminishes or fades. (Tafsir al-Razi, Vol. 23, p. 300)
The meaning of “The True Sovereign” is that only Allah is entitled to absolute ownership. He alone grants existence and brings it to an end, initiates creation and repeats it, gives life and death, and can alone reward and punish. Everything besides Him is subjugated and under His supreme authority. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 9, p. 269)
It is evidently clear that these attributes are supernatural and transcendental in nature, rather than political or social. Consequently, this verse cannot be used to argue that the term “God” (الٰه) refers to a political or social ruler.
The third verse is:
“Say, ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of people, the King of people, the God of people, from the mischief of every sneaking whisper, who whispers into the hearts of people, from jinn and men.” (Quran, 114:1-6)
This chapter is a prayer for protection (ta‘awudh). It seeks Allah’s refuge from the hidden whispers and harmful influences of both jinn and human beings who instil doubts and detrimental suggestions in people’s hearts. Clearly, protection from such whisperings is unrelated to “political or social governance.” Instead, this matter pertains to a Supreme Being with supernatural control over both jinn and humans, possessing access even to the innermost thoughts. In this Chapter, we are taught to seek refuge in such a Being, with no indication of any supposed political aspect of divinity.
Ibn Kathir, in his explanation of these verses, writes:
The attributes of lordship, sovereignty, and divinity are essential qualities of Allah. He is the Lord, Sovereign, and God of everything. All things are His creation, His property, and His servants. Thus, it is commanded to seek refuge from Satan in the One characterized by these attributes, as every human has a qarin (companion) who attempts to beautify evil in their sight and lead them to destruction. Only those whom Allah protects are safe. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 539)
The fourth verse, which the author under review considers the clearest of all, is:
“The day when they shall rise up [from their graves, and nothing about them will be hidden from God. ‘To whom shall the kingdom belong that Day?’ It shall belong to God, the One, the All-Powerful.” (Quran, 40:16)
This verse does not directly mention “political or social governance.” Its meaning simply is that, compared to Allah, everyone is helpless and powerless. While everything may be hidden in this world, it will all be revealed in the Hereafter. Commenting on this, commentator Alusi writes:
Sovereignty is attributed to Allah because only He possesses the power to reward or punish each individual for their deeds, and His justice is complete, free from any injustice. He is in full control, undistracted by multiple responsibilities, and quick to settle accounts. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 12, p. 312)
From the analysis above it is evident that the term “God” (الٰه) essentially refers to the Being who is the centre of human longing and need. This concept indeed requires that the true God must be one of ultimate power. However, this power is fundamentally supernatural, as fulfilling the expectations that lead a person to worship necessitates supernatural control, not legal or political authority. Nevertheless, as will be further elaborated, there are numerous implications for recognizing someone as divine (الٰه), which may vary based on the circumstances of the believers. This necessarily includes the expectation that those who believe in God align their collective affairs with His will and do not adopt an attitude of rebellion in any of their matters.
