THE CONCEPT OF RELIGION

 

The concept of religion, as presented by Maulana Maududi, is most clearly and comprehensively laid out in his book Quran Ki Char Bunyadi Istilahain.  (Four Key Concepts of the Quran). This book holds a significant place in the literature generated under this school of thought because it is the only text in which an intellectual effort has been made to substantiate this thought. It is the scholarly foundation of this ideology. In the Tarjuman al-Quran, Special No. Mansab-e-Risalat (September 1961), this book was introduced with the following words:

 

“Truly, it is the key to understanding the Quran. Read this book and then read the Quran; the doors of understanding will open.”

To understand Maulana Maududi’s concept of religion, Quran Ki Chaar Buniyadi Istlahein (Four Key Concepts of the Quran) is the most suitable and credible source among all his works. Therefore, I have selected this book as the basis for the discussion in this chapter.

This book provides an explanation of the four fundamental Quranic terms—Ilah (God), Rabb (Lord), Ibadah (worship), and Deen (religion). It is argued that within these four words lies the essence of the revolutionary message presented in this interpretation. However, for a long time, the comprehensive meaning of these terms has remained unclear in the public mind; as a result, the broad and revolutionary vision of Islam remains largely misunderstood.

“When the Quran was brought to Arabia, everyone understood what Ilah meant and whom Rabb referred to, because these terms were already common in their daily language. They knew the extent to which these words applied. So, when they were told that Allah alone is the Ilah and Rabb, with no partners in divinity and lordship, they understood the message fully. They were clear, without any confusion, about what was being rejected for others and what was being affirmed for Allah alone. Those who opposed did so, understanding the consequences of denying other deities’ divinity and lordship, while those who accepted did so, aware of what they would have to give up and what they would gain by this belief. Similarly, the terms Ibadah and Deen were also commonly used in their language. They understood what it meant to be a servant, what state defined servitude, what behavior worship implied, and the meaning of Deen. Therefore, when they were told to abandon worship of all others and worship Allah alone, and to leave all other religions to follow Allah’s Deen, they understood clearly the kind of change the Quran was calling for in their lives.

However, over the following centuries, the original meanings of these terms as understood at the time of the Quran’s revelation gradually changed. Each term became more narrowly defined and, in many cases, unclear. One reason for this was a lack of a clear understanding of Arabic, and another was that people born within Islamic society no longer held the same meanings for Ilah, Rabb, Deen, and Ibadah that existed in non-Muslim societies at the time of revelation. As a result, later lexicons and commentaries increasingly defined Quranic terms based on the interpretations of subsequent Muslims rather than their original linguistic meanings. For example:

• Ilah became almost synonymous with idols and deities,
• Rabb was equated with one who nurtures and sustains or simply a guardian,
• Ibadah was defined as worship or reverence,
• Deen became synonymous with Dharma, religion, or even just a term equivalent to “Religion” in English.
• Taghut began to be translated as idol or devil.

As a result, understanding the Quran’s original intent became difficult for people.

Therefore, the truth is that because the meanings of these four fundamental terms are unclear, more than three-fourths of the Quran’s teachings, including its true essence, have remained hidden. The shortcomings in people’s beliefs and actions, even after accepting Islam, mainly come from this. Therefore, to clarify the core teachings of the Quran and its true message, it is essential to fully explain the meanings of these terms.” (Quran Ki Char Bunyadi Istilahen, foreword)

Following this introduction, the book lays out the “complete meanings of these four terms.” However, as per my study, this very introduction itself casts doubt over the credibility of the rest of the book. Because when it is admitted that a particular meaning of the Quranic verses was derived for the first time in the present century after the earliest period, and that for most of the intervening time the written legacy of the Ummah is devoid of it, this can only be taken as evidence of its own flaw rather than its perfection. The lexicons and commentaries compiled “in later centuries” are not just the intellectual efforts of later generations; they also serve as a record of early interpretations, offering continuity through which the ideas of early generations were passed down to later ones. If the early generations truly understood these terms the way modern scholars now interpret them, the subsequent generations, who carefully preserved the sayings and actions of the first, would have likely recorded this crucial understanding as well. If this interpretation does not appear in that written record, it suggests that this understanding might not have been theirs. In such a case, this claim of historical continuity is not an assertion of historical reality; rather, it is a psychological device to resolve an inner unease—namely: “If this is the correct understanding of the Quranic verses, why didn’t previous scholars understand them this way?”

Before entering into a detailed discussion, I would like to make a brief general comment on this book to make clear the common nature of the error committed in the explanation of the four terms. These errors usually fall into three categories:

1.        Treating the core meaning and its implications as identical.

2.        Taking an implication to be the core meaning, and then deriving other matters from it.

3.        Finally, presenting this very construct as the original call of the Quran.

According to the interpretation in this book, the message of the Quran is:

“Allah alone is the only Lord and God. There is no other god or lord, nor does anyone share in His divinity or lordship. Therefore, accept Him as your only Ilah and Rabb, reject the divinity and lordship of all others, worship Him alone and do not worship anyone else, and purify your religion solely for Him, rejecting all other religions.”

This is essentially an invitation to live in a system where every aspect of individual and community life, from beliefs and worship to political and social matters, is organized according to a specific model. And if this is taken to be the Quran’s message, then even today the only way to work for it would be to strive to make this detailed blueprint prevail in the world.

The wide-ranging and all-encompassing meanings of these four terms have been justified by collecting various Quranic verses that utilize these terms in different senses (e.g., Ilah in five senses, Rabb in five, Ibadah in three, Deen in four). From this collection, it is inferred that each term encapsulates multiple meanings.

Dividing a concept into multiple parts isn’t inherently wrong; however, it becomes problematic if the importance of these parts isn’t properly distinguished. For example, if someone states that “an egg consists of three components: yolk, white, and a shell,” this technical explanation is accurate. However, if the nutritional value of an egg was then defined based on this composition, in other words, if this description is used to define the relationship between an egg and a human being, it would be incorrect, as the yolk and white are nutritionally significant, while the shell merely serves as a container.

According to the author under review, the combination of all these meanings forms what is called divinity (Ilahiyat), lordship (Rabbubiyat), worship (Ibadah), and religion (Deen). However, collecting various uses of a term from different contexts and creating a single, comprehensive meaning to portray the whole picture of Deen is like putting together scenes from a love story (e.g., Zaid’s love for Bakr, their embrace at the station, Zaid inviting Bakr into his home). Combining these excerpts into a single paragraph to define love as “embracing, inviting, and heartfelt affection” may seem comprehensive. In reality, however, a serious mistake has been made. The true essence of love and its outward expressions have been placed on exactly the same level. It is as though love becomes genuine only when a person gathers all three of these elements within himself. Yet it is much possible that, in a given case, only the last element—heartfelt affection—is present, while the other two are neither found in that person nor consciously pursued, and even then the love may still be complete in the fullest sense.

The difference between reality and a requisite is that reality is, as the direct demand of the essential thing, absolutely necessary, while a requisite is not required in such an absolute sense. Instead, it is needed through another means: if the relation to that means exists, then it becomes necessary; if not, it does not. For example, when it is said that “the requisite of faith is that a person should give truthful testimony,” this does not mean that every believer must, in some way, appear in court and give truthful testimony—and that without this, their faith is incomplete. It simply means that when called to testify, he should not lie but tell the truth about what he knows.

This is why, when the author considers a single term to cover various meanings, aside from certain exceptions, each meaning may indeed appear separately, but no single verse states the comprehensive meaning that is collectively presented from different references. In other words, it’s like finding in different places phrases such as: “Zaid has heartfelt love for Bakr,” “When Bakr met him, Zaid embraced him out of love,” and “When Bakr came to Zaid’s village, he gave Bakr a sincere invitation.” Yet nowhere in the entire book is there a sentence saying: “Love consists of three things—loving from the heartfelt love, embracing, and offering hospitality.” The verses cited to establish the comprehensive meaning will be examined in detail, word by word, in the following pages.

The error goes even further. Alongside it, another common mistake appears, to a greater or lesser extent, in all four terms under discussion. When the mind failed to find satisfaction in placing the essence and its requirements on the same level, it turned the entire matter upside down. What should have remained merely a requirement was elevated to the status of the essence itself, while the true essence was reduced and made subordinate to it. This is akin to someone who favours hosting over genuine affection, he won’t be satisfied by giving equal weightage to hosting amongst the three aspects of love. Instead, he would like to keep it above the other two. They would say, “The essence of love is hosting”. And, as there is a meeting during hosting, a friend is also embraced. And over time in hosting and embracement, love also gets developed during this course.^[1]

To clarify this error, I will cite the example of Ibadah. Worship essentially describes a particular state that arises in a believer’s heart because of extreme fear  of and love for God. When this state emerges, it leads the person to devotion, obedience, and submission to God’s will in all matters. However, the mindset under discussion did not find this picture of worship appealing. This was because, in it, acknowledging supreme authority and establishing a system of obedience under that authority were treated merely as external requirements of the core meaning. As a result, it turned the very concept of worship upside down. In the discussion of worship, after undertaking a lexical analysis of the term, the writer goes on to write:

“This explanation clarifies that the core meaning of the root ‘abd is to recognize someone’s dominance and superiority, to relinquish one’s freedom and independence in comparison, to abandon defiance and resistance, and to submit to him. This embodies the true nature of servitude and slavery. Thus, the first thing an Arab would likely think of from this word is servitude and slavery. Then, because the primary duty of a slave is to obey and follow his master’s commands, the idea of obedience naturally accompanies it. The example of love that I mentioned earlier does not mean that the requirements listed in the book for the four terms are necessarily requirements of the same level. It is simply an example I used to illustrate the nature of the issue, as it is well known that requirements are not all of equal importance.

When a slave, in his servitude and obedience to his master, not only fully surrenders himself but also, in belief, acknowledges his superiority, admits his greatness, and is filled with gratitude for his kindnesses, he then goes to great lengths in showing him honour and reverence. He expresses acknowledgment of favours in various ways and performs acts of service and devotion in many forms. This is called worship, and this concept becomes part of the meaning of ‘ubudiyyah only when the slave’s heart is bowed before his master as well as his head.” (Quran ki Char Bunyadi Istelahien, Second Edition, pp. 71–72)

Thus, the book ends up reversing the definitions of these four key terms. The other ‘aspects’ of of Ilah (God) and Rabb (Lord) are derived from the notion of “authority,” whereas, in fact, it is the sense of human need and divine providence that constitutes the common denominator between all their facets. In discussing Ibadah (worship), acknowledging supremacy and then adopting obedience in response is considered the foundation of its other “components,” even though the essence of worship is the servant’s humble and passionate relationship with God. From this, other aspects arise as its demands or consequences. Similarly, the concept of “system” is deemed the unifying cause of other elements within Deen (religion), even though in its essence, Deen is a state of inner submission and subjugation, from which other aspects manifest.

This difference in the interpretation of the four terms is not merely a matter of wordplay. It distorts the fundamental essence of Deen. Despite defining a comprehensive meaning for Quranic terms, the true and highest purpose of the Quran is obscured.

It is indeed true that the greatest benefit a believer receives after accepting the Quran is ta’alluq billah (connection with God). This is the greatest gain of a believer in this world. This connection with God does not imply a belief in God as merely the intellectual basis of a specific “code of life.” Instead, it refers to a profound attachment that forms on a vital psychological level between God and the servant. It signifies the psychological state of a servant who has developed an intense love for God (hubb-e-shadeed, as referenced in the Quran, 2:165); who begins to experience closeness to God through the prayer of “prostration of nearness” (Sajda-e-Qurb)(Quran, 96:19); who calls upon God with both “fear and hope” (Quran, 7:56); and upon whom descends such a state of presence (of God), described in Hadith as the semblance of seeing. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 50)

However, in this book’s portrayal of the Quran’s intended purpose, this most important aspect seems lost. It no longer remains intact in its true form. This is similar to photographing someone from the back instead of the front; while the photo may appear complete, the face—the true representation of a person—remains hidden.

According to this interpretation, Ilah refers to a type of relationship where a person regards God as the possessor of “supreme authority”: first, as the sovereign ruler over the heavens and the earth; second, as the ultimate authority over political and social life. Similarly, faith in Rabbubiyah (Lordship) means believing that “He alone is your supernatural lord and also the moral, social, and political lord” (p. 64). The purpose of Ibadah is seen as following God’s commands in everyday life and performing acts of worship solely for Him. Deen is understood as the detailed structure of life on earth, covering “intellectual and ideological, moral and educational, social and cultural, as well as economic and political dimensions.”

I acknowledge that the aspects discussed in the interpretation of the four terms are indeed included to some extent. However, the overall picture presented is such that the original and main essence is obscured, or if it remains, it appears faint and unclear.

However, it is known that the Quran is a book whose most notable quality is: “falsehood shall not reach from before or from behind.” (41:42)

No falsehood can enter the Quran from either the front or the back. Any statement that does not fully align with the core of this book simply cannot be attached to it. The Quran will reject every interpretation that does not resonate with its inherent truth, much like a person with a refined sense of taste will reject unsuitable food and discard it. Therefore, the various interpretations offered in defining the four terms—although mostly correct in some respects—cannot be aligned with Quranic verses in the way intended by the interpretation. The Quran, it appears, completely denies accepting this perspective.

For example, one might say that “Islam has provided guidelines for economic matters,” and this claim would surely be supported by Islamic sources. However, if someone claims that the Prophet was sent specifically to establish a specific economic system based on divine economics, this claim does not hold—even though Islam addresses economic issues. Framing it as the purpose of prophethood is unfounded, and the Quran and Hadith will clearly reject this idea.

In the book, one of the five meanings of Rabb (Lord) is interpreted as “the center of gathering” (p. 63), or “the central entity around which people gather” (p. 29), the “central authority whose sovereignty serves as the foundation for the unity of all citizens of a state” (p.40), and “the central personality that forms the basis of a land’s civilization and unity” (p. 51). Accordingly, the interpretation of God as Rabb would mean:

“His allegiance is the natural foundation on which we rightly build the structure of our collective life. Association with His central personality creates a bond of unity among the scattered individuals and groups, forming a single community” (p. 68).

In other words, God being Rabb implies that He is the centre of our social and civil life, around whom our collective life is constructed—like how in a democratic society, the nation or homeland is the common point that unites people within a territory into a single nation, preparing them for a shared state institution. In this sense, referring to God as Rabb suggests that He is the foundation of our collective formation, organizing us as a Ummah (community).

Fundamentally, I do not disagree that belief in the One God provides Muslims with a shared identity as a community and binds them in a common relationship. However, presenting this type of social and cultural view as the “third meaning” of Rabb is entirely un-Quranic. Consequently, the references provided to support this interpretation are completely irrelevant to the primary issue; none of them substantiate this “third meaning.”

The references include five verses, the first of which is:

“He is your Lord, and to Him you will be returned.” (11:34)

This is a verse from Chapter Hud, and the return towards God mentioned in this is for the life Hereafter and not for this world. The entire passage is as below:

“Noah,’ they replied, ‘you have argued with us, and argued to excess. Now bring down upon us what you threaten us with, if you speak the truth. He said, It is God who will bring it down upon you if He wishes, and you will not be able to escape. And my advice will not benefit you, no matter how sincerely I want to advise you, if God lets you go astray. He is your Lord, and you will all return to Him.’ (11:32-34)

The essence of this verse is that Prophet Noah (u) continued his mission of preaching for a long period, yet his people rejected his message. Finally, when they had enough, they challenged him by demanding the punishment he warned of. In response, the Prophet clarified that it is Allah alone who brings punishment, and a time will come when they will all be seized and returned to Him, forced to endure whatever consequences are decided for them. This return to Allah is unrelated to any concept of “civil and social lordship.”

The second verse states: Thumma ila rabbikum marji’ukum, (39:7) “then, to your Lord is your return.”

This verse also pertains to the Hereafter. The entire passage is as follows:

“If you are ungrateful, remember that God has no need of you. He is not pleased by ingratitude in His servants; if you are grateful, He is pleased [to see] it in you. No soul shall bear another’s burden. You will return to your Lord in the end, and He will declare to you what you have done: He knows well what is in the hearts of men.” (39:7)

Clearly, the “return” mentioned in this verse relates to the Hereafter. It indicates that if, during worldly life, you serve with gratitude, Allah will be pleased with you. But if you choose disbelief, you cannot avoid the consequences. Ultimately, all people will return to God, Who is fully aware of even the innermost thoughts, and He will reward everyone accordingly. What, then, is the connection of this “return” and this being “called to account” for one’s deeds with the social organization of this world?

The third verse is:

“Say, ‘Our Lord will gather us together.’” (34:26)

This verse also refers to the gathering in the Hereafter. The entire passage is as follows:

“Ask them, ‘Who provides you with sustenance from the heavens and the earth?’ Say, ‘It is God’; either you or we are rightly guided or in manifest error.’ Say to them, ‘You will not be called to account for our sins, and we shall not be called to account for what you do.’ Tell them, ‘Our Lord will gather us together; then He will judge between us with truth and justice. He is the Just Decider, the All Knowing.”  (Quran, 34:24-26)

In this passage, the Prophet addresses his people, emphasizing that both cannot simultaneously be on the right path. Either one of them is on the path of truth, or in profound misguidance. Each person is accountable for their own deeds, and no one will share in the reward or punishment of another’s actions. A day will soon come when both of us will be gathered before God. On that day, God, Who knows the condition of both you and me, will deliver a just and precise judgment.

What connection does this have with social and communal order under divine guardianship?

The fourth verse is:

“Then they will all be gathered to their Lord.” (6:38)

This verse also does not pertain to the gathering in societal or civil terms. The complete verse reads:

“there is not an animal that moves about on the earth, nor a bird that flies on its two wings, but are creatures like you. We have left out nothing in the Book – they shall all be gathered before their Lord.” (6:38)

The “gathering” referenced here indicates that both humans and all living beings will face a gathering, often interpreted by commentators as either death or the Day of Judgment. In both cases, it implies that all creatures will ultimately return to God. However, the “gathering” referenced is that which occurs after death. There is no mention here of any form of gathering before death.

The fifth verse is:

“And the Trumpet will be blown, and at once, they will rise up from their graves, and hasten to their Lord.” (36:51)

This verse, too, evidently pertains to the Hereafter. It references the gathering when people are resurrected and, rising from their graves, assemble before God. Attempting to derive a concept for a social collective center from the Great Gathering on the Day of Judgment is much like when the proponents of the ‘Quranic System of Rububiyyah’ cite verses about life in Paradise (such as 20:118-119) to justify the principle of state ownership of farms and factories.

Following this preamble, each of the four terms will be examined individually.