Review of Sayyid Qutb's Milestones (Part 4) Distortion of the Meaning of Uluhiyyah

 بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

اللهم صلى على محمد وآل محمد

In the fourth instalment reviewing Sayyid Qutb’s infamous text Milestones we shall discuss his innovated and wrong concept of monotheism and divinity. Qutb writes:

فلقد كانوا يعرفون من لغتهم معنى اله ومعنى لا اله الا الله كانوا يعرفون ان الالوهية تعنى الحاكمية العليا. وكانوا يعرفون ان توحيد الالوهية وافراد الله سبحانه بها, معناه نزع السلطان الذى يزاوله الكهان ومشيخة القبائل والامراء والحكام

كانوا يعلمون ان لا اله الا الله ثورة على السلطان الارضى الذى يغتصب اولى خصائص الالوهية

“They [Arabs] knew their language well and knew the meaning of Ilah and they also knew the meaning of La ilaha illa Allah. They knew that Uluhiyyah means sovereignty, and they also realized that ascribing sovereignty only to Allah meant that the authority would be taken away from the priests, the leaders of tribes, the wealthy and the rulers, and would revert to Allah.

They knew very well that the proclamation La ilaha illa Allah was a challenge to that worldly authority which had usurped the greatest attribute of Allah, namely, sovereignty.” (Ma’ālim fīl-Tarīq; p.22):

It is critical to understand that Qutb, like Mawdudi prior to him, altered the actual meaning of Ilah (god, deity) and the significance of Uluhiyyah (divinity), with an unsound linguistic argument, and with the impure motive to entirely transform Islam’s central tenet and narrative.

Linguistically, the word Ilah is the generic word for deity or god, but really connotes “worshipped object” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Quranic Usage; p.40). Therefore, the true significance of La ilaha illa Allah is ‘there is none worthy of worship except Allah’. To put the meaning of sovereignty, dominion, authority or rule for the word Ilah is linguistically unsound. It is also a revisionist attempt to distort the reality of prophetic ministries, particularly the prophetic ministry of the most holy Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم whose preaching was aimed at putting an end to the idolatry in worship, and not necessarily the establishment of a political order or divine sovereignty. Sayyid Qutb has wrongly asserted that the Pagan Arabs were threatened by the message of La ilaha illa Allah because they perceived it as a threat to the political authority of their priests, tribal chieftains, wealthy people and rulers. On the contrary, the Pagan Arabs were hostile to the message of La ilaha illa Allah because they correctly perceived it as a threat to the continued worship and veneration of their idols, false gods, and the shrines, temples and altars dedicated to them. If there was any threat to the priests it was not to their political power – for historically they did not wield any – rather a threat to their continued role and influence as carrying out the rites associated with Pagan worship and idolatry. In other words, their religious authority was threatened by the appearance of a Prophet preaching a message of radical monotheism.