39. Entering the Palace of Glass (4)

Previous page

(43)

For her throne to signify anything truly important to the queen, it must have meant more for her than what it was by itself – just an expensive, elevated chair. It must have been a symbol of an absolute value, some divine quality manifesting itself in human affairs. There is ample reason to believe that her throne symbolizes authority, from which the power and legitimacy of kings and queens are derived. This is why Sulaiman (peace be upon him) has it transported and changed, thus undermining her attachment to it.

He cannot, of course, transport and alter what she worships, namely the sun. The inference, however, should be clear enough: the sun, like her throne, is something that moves in space and changes over time, and is therefore subject to a higher power. But if the throne symbolizes authority, what does the sun symbolize? Suppose it symbolized AL-LAH; could worshipping it then be justified? Why should reverence for anything we condemned if we consciously identify it as yet another sign of GOD?

Almost all religions have utilized this association of holy objects with Ultimate Holiness to justify practices that look like idolatry or pantheism. Educated Hindus and Buddhists, for example, assert that they do not ‘worship’ the images that they make, sell, enshrine, and bow and prostrate themselves to in their temples. Rather they believe that GOD Himself is present before them in those objects, since He is Immanent in all things, or that the images and icons and statues are there merely as aids to contemplation and devotion.

An idol or an image of a deity is just a symbol, or a form, which serves as the object of worship or concentration and meditation and helps the devotees to connect to him. When you greet a person, you actually greet the body or the form of that person. You assume that the body is the person although the person is hidden in the body. The same holds true in case of idol worship. Ignorant people see the idol. The devotees see the deity. It is a matter of perspective or belief. The devotees know that the ultimate reality is beyond the senses, beyond names and forms and beyond the field of Maya or illusion. They know that although the objective reality does not truly represent God, it has its own value and importance in our understanding of truths, in our worship of God and in our experience of transcendental states.²

In terms of ritual and worship, Buddhists do not worship the physical images that they employ, rather they meditate upon the meaning and symbolism represented by them. Often Buddhists will bow before statues, but this is understood as an evocation of faith and respect rather than an act of worship. However, given the emphasis on detachment in the Buddhist tradition, there is still an understanding of “idolatry” as the identification with or attachment to the physicality of an object rather than understanding its fundamental impermanence. As a result, it is considered a transgression to worship one of these statues or, more seriously, to risk one’s life (or the life of another) to preserve a statue’s material form.³

AL-LAH is not unaware of this type of reasoning.

By saying AL-LAH will judge, GOD is wisely permitting us to suspend our judgement concerning these beliefs and practices. We do not know what He knows, namely the true motivations and intentions of people who employ this kind of argumentation. It is clear enough, however, that the overall tone of this verse is disapproval, as excuses of the type cited facilitate rejection of the straightforward path, which is simple, direct submission to the imageless Absolute.

I call this tendency to theological backsliding reificatory slippage, a regression from abstract purity to increasingly concrete manifestations or incarnations – something that happens in all civilizations that lose their theistic focus in blooms of sensuality and licence. I discussed this before in Chapter 22, based on three examples from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. However ingenious the explanations may be, such as those in the two previous quotes from Hindu and Buddhist thinkers, the common people have neither time nor capacity for metaphysical subtleties – they worship what they see. It is mainly for their benefit that religions are founded and scriptures revealed (while the philosophers among us manage – or think they can manage– well enough on their own). But most devotees, unless forcefully guided by clear theistic teachings reinforced by their religious leaders, tend to feel confirmed in their habitual idolatry, and soon do not give it the second thought it always requires.

This is why, in Q27:43, the queen is referred to as among the people in denial. State religions are not individual, intellectual affairs. They function as commonalities, utilizing a consensus on what their symbols should be and what they mean. Because of their shared nature, they tend to operate close to the lowest common denominator, the simplest understanding of the crowd. Without a clear prohibition, the excuses for crossing the line eventually move the line. This can even happen with Sufi shrines, where people may end up praying to the saints and forget AL-LAH. If the hudhud mentioned finding her and her people making their prostrations to the sun, it does not matter what private, sophisticated rationalization the queen might have had for this apparent idolatry. Given her actions, regardless of her intentions, the people would see this as nothing but idolatry, and so follow it into denial of any higher authority.

Reificatory slippage is far more likely to occur if the starting point set up for the worshipper is already a thing. In all such cases, the fundamental mistake is to attribute godlike permanence to something that is inherently ephemeral. The Hindu is supposed to see “beyond . . . the illusion”, and the Buddhist is supposed to be “understanding its fundamental impermanence.” But AL-LAH goes straight past the suppositions to the actual situation: She was hindered by what she was worshipping . . .

Fortunately, having seen the contradiction between its being a thing and her worshipping it as if it were “the ultimate reality”, the queen is almost ready to acknowledge the Unchanging and Unseen as the only Authority worthy of worship. She is, however, missing one last piece of the puzzle: self-awareness.

² https://www.hinduwebsite.com/idols.asp

³ https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Idolatry

Next page