Truly a strange thing ...

Grammatical, logical and theological questions regarding Sura 26:77

Jochen Katz

The formulation of Surah 26:77 raises a couple of interesting questions.¹ Here is the passage in its context:

In this passage Abraham is depicted as challenging his people regarding their religion and seeking to expose the futility of their idol worship.

While thinking about this story, three questions arose in my mind, three problematic aspects that are connected to the phrase I highlighted in bold.

A) Grammatical problem:

Why does it say “enemy” instead of “enemies”, given that the pronoun “they” in verse 77 clearly refers back to “idols” (v. 71)? These idols are many and are referred to in the plural throughout the passage. The meaning (semantic) is clear and thus the singular form appears to be a simple and obvious grammatical error.

I was wondering whether the singular “enemy” could be understood as a collective noun in the sense of a “coalition” of enemy forces which are considered “one enemy” even if they are in turn made up of several entities. Could this be compared to NATO, whose armies are made up of units from many countries? Yet, if NATO sends troops to a country, NATO is “the enemy” in the singular? Could “the gods of Abraham’s people” be considered a collective enemy which may justify the use of the singular?

There are two reasons why this does not seem convincing.

1) That interpretation may have been a possibility if “They are an enemy to me” had been the complete statement. However, the sentence continues with “except the Lord of all Being”. There is a deliberate contrast in this verse, “the many” as opposed to “the one”. The many gods are to be opposed, but one is different. This one is the creator and the only true God.

To make this intended contrast one needs the plural opposite to the singular.

Moreover, the narration seems to assume a similar situation like Muhammad had in Mecca. The Meccans believed in many gods, and Allah was one of them. Muhammad did not denounce all of their gods and instead introduce another god whom they had not believed in before. No, he proclaimed that their gods are idols, except Allah, who is the only one true God. They have to get rid of all their gods, except Allah. Allah was included in their many gods, and then he was excluded from the gods which were to be opposed or discarded.

Similarly, all the gods of his people were considered enemies by Abraham, except the Lord of all Being, the Creator. However, the fact that Allah² is originally included in the entire group of gods³ and then excluded from them by “except” demands that the plural form “enemies” is used. Grammar is subject to semantics. The meaning of the statement must be expressed by and reflected in the correct form of the words.

2) Islamic theology does not believe in “coalitions of gods”. It is a major argument in the Qur’an that if there were several gods, they would inevitably fight for supremacy among themselves and the world would sink into chaos (23:91; 21:22; 12:39; etc.). That is one main argument against the logical impossibility of polytheism (and against the Trinity which is misunderstood as tri-theism in the Qur’an).

Thus, it would be rather strange to use a “coalition of gods” argument in order to defend or explain this singular in the Qur’an because it stands in tension with general Quranic theology.

Interestingly, there is a verse in the Qur’an that, although originally spoken in a different context, fits this discussion very well:

Is there any way to satisfactorily explain the singular form “enemy” in Q. 26.77? It seems to be a grammatical mistake. The meaning of the statement is clear, but the form in which it is expressed is wrong.

B) Logical problem:

The statement, “They are an enemy to me,” does not only have a grammatical problem, there also appears to be a logical one. Here is my question: Who is an enemy to whom?

The property of “being an enemy to” or “being hostile towards” is not automatically reciprocal. Person A can be hostile to person B, but B is patient, long-suffering, friendly, and even loving towards person A. In fact, that is how God calls us to behave as followers of Jesus!

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

Already King Solomon taught:

And the Apostle Paul exhorted believers in the same way:

Therefore, returning to our example, if person B acts like he is commanded in the Bible, then person A would be an enemy to person B, but B not an enemy to A – at least not from the perspective of B, and not from the perspective of an outsider who observes the behavior of the two.

Sometimes one person loves the other, but the other hates the first. This may occur between neighbors, or happens even within some families, when a child turns against the parents who nevertheless continue to love their child.

Since these idols have not harmed Abraham in any way, how can they be validly be called Abraham’s enemies? On the contrary, it is Abraham who fights them.

In this very passage he fights the idols of his people with words, but in another passage he is even said to have destroyed them (Q. 21:51-67). Therefore, Abraham is their enemy, in an active and even violent way, but they are not an enemy or enemies to him. In fact, that is Abraham’s own argument in this very passage when he says in verses 72-73, “Do they hear you when you call, or do they profit you, or harm?” In other words, they are unable to do anything!

Qur’an translator and commentator Rashad Khalifa may have been bothered by the grammatical or by the logical problem, or even by both, because he (mis)translated this verse in the following way:

i.e. “I am against them” instead of “they are an enemy to me.” This is an attempt at covering up the problem(s), but it is obviously not a solution. Clearly, the author of the Qur’an could have formulated this verse the way Khalifa chose to render it, but he did not.

When there is disagreement or conflict, many people try to blame the opponent for it, and that includes pinning negative words (like “enemy”) on the other party, and attempting to put themselves in the role of the victim, but is that how a prophet of God should act? Twisting the truth in order to make himself appear better?

He could have said, “It is wrong, it is an abomination, it is a horrible sin to worship idols instead of or in addition to the true God. Therefore I am utterly opposed to these idols. I am going to fight idolatry. I will be forever their enemy.” Such a statement would have been clear and honest. But how can those idols be enemies to Abraham when they have no power to do anything? The formulation “they are an enemy to me” seems to be objectively wrong and inappropriate for a prophet of God.

C) Theological problem:

In a nutshell, the logical problem is that, between Abraham and the idols, Abraham is the only party who acted hostile in word and deed. Thus, he is an enemy to them. They have not acted hostile to him, so they are not enemies towards him. This logical problem exists whether or not these gods were actually able to do anything. It is a fact that they have not done anything, therefore the statement used in Q. 26:77 is not correct.

The theological aspect is closely related to the logical problem just discussed, but it goes one step further. The word “enemy” personalizes, it ascribes personhood.

It is hostile behaviour – whether by words or deeds or mere thoughts – that makes one an enemy. In many cases, hostility and enmity is reciprocal, but that is not necessarily so. If one party is far more powerful than the other, the weak party may not say or do anything, even though he is regularly bullied by the other. Nevertheless, he may harbour hatred in his heart. Such silent hatred might still justify calling him an enemy, because he would behave aggressively if he had the power. But a “thing” that can neither think nor feel nor speak nor act, can hardly be called an enemy.

Let me illustrate this: A table is an inanimate object. It can’t do a thing. It may be annoying to me because I cannot stand its shape or colour, I may consider it ugly, or it is taking up space that I urgently need for something else, but it cannot be an enemy to me. It would be wrong to personalize it. I may be against the table, but the table can hardly be against me.

Basically, these idols are like furniture. In this encounter with his father and his people, Abraham first degrades their gods to pieces of furniture by stating that they can neither benefit nor harm, and not even hear. And then he contradicts the very essence of his message by ascribing hostility to them. That is a theological problem.

In fact, the Qur’an says elsewhere about the idols worshipped by the Meccans,

And Joseph proclaims similarly against the gods of the Egyptians,

What we can learn from this story

Despite the problematic aspects, there is still something valuable that we can learn from this passage.

The question that Abraham asks his people is important for everyone. We need to honestly ask ourselves: “Why am I a Christian?” Or: “Why am I a Muslim?” Is it only because that was the faith that my parents have raised me in? Or have I personally examined the reasons for this and other faiths? Do I know who and what I really believe, and why I believe it? Am I merely continuing a tradition, because I feel some pressure or duty, or am I truly convinced for genuine reasons?

Abraham’s question is good, but it is not only for “the others” to consider. Not only the polytheists or unbelievers need to evaluate their faith and their disbelief, i.e., what they believe in and what they rejected without ever having examined it.

The questions I raised about Surah 26:77 are comparatively minor, but they are still real. There are “questionable issues” about this verse, and there are many more questionable issues regarding other statements of the Qur’an. There are a multitude of linguistic, historical, scientific, logical, and theological problems in the Qur’an, many of them far more serious than those discussed in this article. One should not “continue cleaving to them” (i.e., the Qur’an, Muhammad, Islam) just because “we found our fathers so doing.”

Therefore, I want to leave the reader with Abraham’s question: