of Nokounam, (Session 1304)
The dialogue between prophets and their peoples in the Holy Quran functions as a mirror reflecting the confrontation between reason and prejudice, faith and denial, and truth and superstition. Among these, verses 70 to 72 of Surah Al-Arf portray a scene of epistemological confrontation between the Prophet Hud, peace be upon him, and the tribe of Ad. These verses are not merely historical narration but serve as a profound contemplation on the nature of faith and epistemological challenges. The commentator, with a mystical and logical perspective, views this dialogue as a battle between two conceptions of divinity: one relying on innate heartfelt certainty, and the other dependent on inherited customs. This treatise, relying on this viewpoint, analyses these verses and explores fundamental issues of faith. Its aim is to guide the reader, through an eloquent language and coherent structure, towards reflection on the essence of God-worship and the necessity of a clear conception of the Divine Essence.
Verses 70 to 72 of Surah Al-Arf narrate a dialogue between the Prophet Hud, peace be upon him, and his people, in which Hud invites his tribe to worship the One God and abandon the deities of their forefathers. The Ad tribe, in response, demand a proof and challenge Hud to substantiate his promises. These verses are rendered in the Quran as follows:
They said: Have you come to us to worship God alone and forsake what our fathers used to worship? Then bring us what you promise if you are among the truthful.
He said: A curse and wrath have already fallen upon you from your Lord. Do you dispute with me concerning names which you and your fathers have invented, for which Allah has sent down no authority? So wait; indeed, I am among those who wait.
Then We saved him and those who were with him by Our mercy, and We cut off the roots of those who denied Our signs, and they were not believers.
These verses illuminate the dispute between faith and denial like a lamp in the darkness of ignorance. The Ad tribe, out of prejudice for their ancestral traditions, refuse to accept the intangible God and call Hud to provide tangible evidence. The commentator regards this dialogue not merely as a historical dispute but as a representation of humanitys epistemological challenges in comprehending the Divine Essence.
The Ad were a powerful and civilised people dwelling in the land of Al-Ahqaf (southern Arabian Peninsula) who were punished by divine wrath due to their arrogance and polytheism. The Quran mentions Ad and Thamud as peoples who denied divine signs and were ultimately destroyed. In these verses, Hud, peace be upon him, is introduced as a wise prophet who calls his people to abandon idol worship and to worship the One God. Yet the Ad, relying on inherited habits, reject this invitation. The commentator perceives this resistance as the consequence of habituation to the perceptible and the incapacity to conceive of the invisible God, which forms a barrier against the truth of monotheism.
Key Point: The Ad tribe, due to their attachment to the tangible deities of their ancestors, failed to comprehend the intangible God and demanded proof from Hud. This challenge reflects the difficulty of perceiving the invisible Divine Essence in opposition to habitual tangibles.
The commentator, with a profound gaze into the verses, views the dialogue between Hud and the Ad tribe as an epistemological struggle between two contradictory perspectives: the theists who resort to the threat of punishment and the atheists who cling to ancestral customs. Both groups, in his view, lack definitive reasoning; the theists do not present a clear conception of God, and the atheists depend on baseless traditions.
In response to Huds invitation, the Ad tribe argue based on habit and tradition, demanding he forsake their ancestors deities. They regard the One God as incomprehensible due to His invisibility, and prefer their tangible deities for their historical and emotional precedence. The commentator considers this logic reasonable since the Ad were accustomed to the familiar tangible and demanded Hud provide perceptible evidence.
Key Point: The loyalty of the Ad tribe to their forefathers deities stemmed from habit and the tangibility of these objects, creating a psychological and epistemological obstacle against the intangible God.
Relying on the logical principle that affirmation is consequent upon conception, the commentator emphasises that the absence of a clear conception of God renders acceptance of monotheism difficult. He terms Huds God as undefined in the sense that He lacks a clear and comprehensible conception. The Ad tribe, by requesting proof (Bring us what you promise if you are among the truthful), challenge Hud to substantiate his promises, but Hud resorts to warning of divine punishment rather than rational proof.
Key Point: The lack of a clear conception of God complicated the acceptance of monotheism for the Ad tribe and led Hud to resort to threats of punishment instead of argumentation, which provoked fear rather than conviction.
Hud replies: A curse and wrath have already fallen upon you from your Lord. The commentator interprets curse (rijs) as moral impurity and wrath (ghadab) as divine punishment. Although wise, this response failed to convince the tribe due to the absence of a clear conception of the One God.
Key Point: Huds warning of impurity and punishment could not guide the Ad tribe towards monotheism because it lacked a clear conception of God.
Hud critiques the tribes idolatry: Do you dispute with me concerning names which you and your fathers have invented, for which Allah has sent down no authority. The commentator considers these names as powerless and unreal, lacking divine legitimacy.
Key Point: The deities of the Ad tribe were self-constructed names without divine legitimacy, which Hud rejected for their lack of reality and power.
The phrase So wait; indeed, I am among those who wait signifies a deadlock in the dialogue between Hud and his people. The commentator regards this stalemate as the result of the absence of definitive argumentation from both sides:
