Creatio Ex Nihilo and The Literal Qur'ān
Creatio Ex Nihilo and The Literal Qur'ān
Creatio Ex Nihilo and The Literal Qur'ān
Editorial Board
Alparsalan Acikgenc, Turkey Zafar Afaq Ansari, United States
Daniel J. Christie, United States Kamada Shigeru, Japan
Mohamed E. El-Meswai, Malaysia Hazizan Md. Noon, Malaysia
Aimillia Mohd Ramli, Malaysia Hussin Mutalib, Singapore
Serdar Demirel, Turkey Kenneth Christie, Canada
Abdul Kabir Hussain Solihu, Nigeria James D. Frankel, China
Thameem Ushama, Malaysia Serdar Demirel, Turkey
Ibrahim M. Zein, Qatar Badri Najib Zubir, Malaysia
http://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Published by:
IIUM Press, International Islamic University Malaysia
P.O. Box 10, 50728 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Phone (+603) 6196-5014, Fax: (+603) 6196-6298
Website:http://iiumpress.iium.edu.my/bookshop
Printed by:
Workline Systems Sdn. Bhd.
37-1(1st Floor), Jalan Setiawangsa 11A
54200 Taman Setiawangsa, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, 25:2 (2017) 381–408
Copyright © IIUM Press
ISSN 0128-4878 (Print); ISSN 2289-5639 (Online)
Abdulla Galadari*
Abstract: In the modern age, the conflict between science and religion
manifests itself in the debate between evolution and creation. If we adopt a
creationist’s reading of the Qur’ān, we discover an interesting anomaly. Reading
the Qur’ān literally does not necessarily provide the foundation of creationism.
Creationists usually have in mind the concept of creatio ex nihilo, or ‘creation
out of nothing’. However, in the Qur’ān, one of the words used for creation,
khalaqnā, has the root khlq, which means ‘to split’ or ‘to divide’. This root
word may even apply to the biological process of cell division. Therefore, from
a scientific perspective, using the word khlq to describe this physical process
is not problematic. In addition, with close textual analysis of the Qur’ān, we
realize that the word for creation ‘be’ (kun) does not truly describe the moment
of creation, but rather that of ‘being’. The Qur’ān separates the notion of
creation from being, which poses the question as to what the text constitutes as
the ontological nature of the human being and the universe. Therefore, even if
we do adopt a literal reading of the Qur’ān, we find that it does not necessarily
support a worldview that endorses creatio ex nihilo.
Abstrak: Dalam era moden kini, konflik antara sains dan manifesto agama
berlaku dalam perdebatan antara evolusi and penciptaan. Jika sekiranya kita
mengambil penciptaan dalam pembacaan al-Qur’an, kita akan menemui anomali
yang menarik. Dengan membaca Qur’an secara literali, ia tidak semestinya
memberikan asas tentang penciptaan. Pencipta selalunya mempunyai pemikiran
bahawa terdapat konsep creatio ex nihilo atau ‘penciptaan daripada tiada apa-
apa’. Walau bagaimanapun, terdapat di dalam Al-Qur’an bahawa satu daripada
Kata kunci: Penciptaan, eksegesis, evolusi, Islam, Al-Qur’an, sains dan agama
Introduction
Sometimes the clash between religion and science is thought to be a clash
between the spiritual world and the material world. Science attempts to
understand the material world, while religion tries to connect human
consciousness with a spiritual world. Can science explain the spiritual
world, or does it deny its existence and claim the spiritual world is only
an illusion? Similarly, does religion attempt to explain the material
world, or does it equally claim its existence is an illusion (as some
Eastern religious philosophies do explicitly state)?1
What is the purpose of religion? Some would argue that religion’s
purpose is to control human minds. Karl Marx called religion the opiate
of the masses (Marx, 1982, p. 131).
Religion can be politically abused by many of its followers in order
to control people. Though religion might have been introduced by
humanity in their attempt to search for truth, religion has also been used
in the search for power.
According to the New Testament Gospels, Jesus Christ condemned
teachers of the law and the established religious order. Buddha, Moses,
Muḥammad, and many founders of religions condemned the established
religious and social orders of their time. It seems that the purpose of
CREATIO EX NIHILO AND THE LITERAL QUR’ĀN / ABDULLA 383
the many founders of the great religions of the world is to counter the
existing opiate of the masses. People believe in things due to tradition, the
inherited knowledge from parents to children. Thus, they become close-
minded and blinded, unable to seek the truth. Nonetheless, the founders
of the great religions tried to open people’s minds by questioning their
existing faiths and traditions.
What is the purpose of science? It is a method for humanity to
understand the physical environment. Science starts with an observation.
Then, it attempts to make a hypothesis of the phenomenon that is being
observed. The hypothesis is thereafter tested with controlled experiments
to ensure the circumstances in which it is valid. Science is a method of
explaining the truth or the facts of natural physical phenomena through
experimentation and evidence (Kuhn, 1962; Popper, 1983).
May we assume that the very core of the philosophy of religion
and science is to seek the truth (Farnham and Kellert, 2002)? The
difference between them is primarily in the methods used. Religion
is based on belief in supernatural or spiritual powers, while science is
based on evidence. Nonetheless, the goal of both is to allow humanity
to understand its place in this universe. Curiosity is humanity’s fuel. It
is the reason humanity developed both science and religion. The main
problem that exists between science and religion is the dispute in the
method used by each in its journey to seek the truth (Galadari, 2011).
The foundation of science and religion are different, but the process
of thought is sometimes similar. Robert Geraci has shown how the
rituals of science labs are social phenomena that are understood in light
of the relationship between science and other cultural phenomena, such
as religion (Geraci, 2002). For example, in scientific labs or surgical
rooms, people wear a specific type of outfit and need to perform certain
cleansing procedures to ensure that they are sterilized. The process
is important, even if it is known that it is not always necessary, but
those who enter must abide by the rules. How is this ritual, as a social
phenomenon, any different than those rituals performed in churches,
synagogues, mosques, or temples? Scientists need to follow the
ceremonies of the ritual of entering a lab or a surgical room, and they
need to do it religiously. Geraci (2002) states:
Although religion and science differ in their information
content, they share the significant characteristics of
384 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
evolution at first. When he did, he said that Islam does not argue against
evolution, while he maintained the special creation of the human soul
to be directly from God (Bezirgan, 1988, pp. 379-386). This is not
dissimilar to the Catholic stance today. Al-Afghānī also stated that the
theory had been known by Muslims in the past. Perhaps al-Afghānī
was pointing to al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869), who proposed some sort of
animal evolution in Kitāb al-Ḥayawān (Book of Animals), or to human
evolution from animals, as presented by Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808/1406) in
his al-Muqaddimah (The Introduction). Otherwise, al-Afghānī might
have had in mind Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī (d. 672/1274), whose theories in
Akhlāq Nāṣrī (Nasirean Ethics) distinguished living things by separate
categories or stations (Alakbarli, 2001; Shoja and Tubbs, 2007). Ibn
Khaldūn appears to have been influenced by al-Ṭūsī, whom he referred
to in his al-Muqaddimah as one of the best non-Arab scholars, which
might suggest that al-Ṭūsī had some influence on Ibn Khaldūn where
biological evolution was concerned. Al-Ṭūsī proposed some sort of
evolution of species, including humans, by adaptation in order to reach
perfection of faculties:
Beyond this station are animals in whom irascible faculty
manifests itself, so that they may be on their guard against
the repugnant: this faculty likewise varies in them, the organ
of each being constructed and adapted in accordance with
the faculty’s dimension. Those which reach this stage of
perfection in this respect are distinguished by fully developed
weapons. (Al-Ṭūsī, 2011, p. 2: 45)
and the Qur’ān (i.e., Qur’ān. 3:191). However, our interpretation of the
world around us might be fallible. I think any scientist would agree
that our understanding of science evolves as we learn and discover new
things. If we say that scriptures and the world are both revelations and
that our interpretation of the world, which is science, can be fallible,
then can we not infer that our interpretation of scriptures can also be
fallible? Thus, if we undertake a literal understanding of the Qur’ān
regarding creation, do we find the Qur’ān literally espousing the concept
of creatio ex nihilo?
Analyzing the Literal Meaning of Creation in the Qur’ān
The literal term for creation used by the Qur’ān is the Arabic root
khlq. The root has various meanings, including ‘creation’, ‘invention’,
‘generation’, ‘fate’, ‘behavior’, and ‘morality’ (Gesenius, 1979; Ibn
Manẓūr, 1994; Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1996; Hebrew Union
College). It also means ‘to split’, ‘to divide’, ‘to apportion’, and ‘to
distribute’, and the Hebrew Bible uses the same root primarily in that
definition. Another term used by the Qur’ān that is also understood as
‘creation’ is fuṭūr, which, among other definitions, also means ‘to split’
or ‘to divide’ (Gesenius, 1979; Ibn Manẓūr, 1994; Brown, Driver, and
Briggs, 1996; Hebrew Union College). Nonetheless, the Qur’ān has
also used the term khalaqa to mean splitting and dividing, as will be
seen in some examples later.
The Hebrew Bible more often uses another root for creation, which
is bra’. The same term is used in the Qur’ān for ‘creation’ (e.g., Qur’ān,
2:54, 59:24). The term means ‘to split’ or ‘to divide’, but also means
‘creation’, ‘invention’, ‘generation’, ‘fate’, ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’,
‘profane’, ‘pagan’, ‘to be strong’, ‘to be healthy’, or ‘to be free from
guilt’ (Gesenius, 1979; Ibn Manẓūr, 1994; Brown, Driver, and Briggs,
1996; Hebrew Union College). While the root bra’ means ‘to split’ or ‘to
divide’ (Gesenius, 1979; Ibn Manẓūr, 1994; Brown, Driver, and Briggs,
1996; Hebrew Union College), it is also used to mean ‘foreigner’, which
can be seen as a division between us and them. Similarly, it would mean
‘pagan’ because it differentiates between believers and non-believers.
Also, it would mean ‘to be healthy’ because it separates the healthy
from the diseased, as well as ‘to be free of guilt’ as it separates a person
from sin.
392 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
If the literal meaning of creation in the Qur’ān is ‘to split’ or ‘to divide’,
which parallels physical science and biology, then where in the Qur’ān
do creationists find the concept of creation out of nothing (creatio ex
nihilo)?
The Concept of ‘Out of Nothing’ in the Qur’ān
The Qur’ān has three significant verses that appear to prove the case
of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). The following passage
clearly states that God created the human and the human was created out
of something (‘a drop of mixed fluid’), not out of nothing. It shows that
there had been a long time when the human was nothing remembered,
although it is vague on who is the one not remembering, the human,
another being, or God.
1
Has there come upon the human a span of time in which
he was (yakun) a thing unremembered (madhkūrā)? 2 Truly
We divided [created] (khalaqnā) the human from a drop of
mixed fluid that We may test him, and We endowed him with
hearing and seeing. (76:1–2)7
He said, ‘Thus shall it be. Thy Lord says, “It is easy for Me!
I had divided [created] thee (khalaqtuka) before, when thou
had been (taku) nothing!”’ (19:9)9
This verse also seems to be related with the term ‘remember’ (dhakar).
This verse addresses Zechariah saying that Zechariah was created before
and he had been nothing. The word ‘Zechariah’ consists of zakar and
Yah. In Hebrew, zakar means ‘remember’, ‘male’, or ‘male organ’, and
is a cognate of the Arabic dhakar. The word Yah means ‘God’ (Yahweh).
Hence, ‘Zechariah’ means ‘God has remembered’, ‘the remembrance
of God’, or even ‘God’s phallus’. In addition, chapter 19 of the Qur’ān
begins with the story of Zechariah and uses the word dhikr.
A reminder (dhikr) of the Mercy (raḥmah) of thy Lord unto
His servant, Zechariah. (19:2)
According to the Qur’ān, God granted Zechariah a son. The term dhikr
is related to the male organ. The term for mercy (raḥmah) shares the
same root as womb (raḥm). What is the significance of this? To make
a child, or create the human, the sperm fertilizes the ovum, and then
it splits into a new creation. This means that the male organ (dhakar)
enters the womb (raḥm), just as the story of Zechariah starts in the
above verse. Coming back to the point, Q, 19:9 states that Zechariah
was created before and he had been nothing. So was he nothing in the
strict sense (non-existent), or was he nothing remembered (existing, but
not remembered), while keeping in mind that his name means God has
remembered (so was he not remembered by God)?
Besides using the terminology for remember (dhakar), there
is another key word, which I find even more significant in the
understanding of creation that would cover any sort of ambiguity on
whether the human was created before and had been nothing or nothing
remembered. All those three verses, stated previously, portray that the
human was created, and had been nothing. Each time the term nothing
is used, it explicitly was preceded by the term ‘to be’. Thus, the human
had been nothing. What does this mean? We must look carefully at what
the Qur’ān means when using the term ‘be’.
To Be or Not to Be
Creationists believe that God can create anything at will by simply
saying to it, ‘Be’, and it becomes. As such, the word ‘be’ has become
396 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
Looking carefully, we realize that Adam was not created out of nothing
(ex nihilo), but out of something, which is dust. We can always question
where the dust came from. Adam was created even before God uses
the word ‘Be’. Additionally, God created Adam from dust, and then
said to him ‘Be’. There are two forms of the term ‘then’ in Arabic, fa-
and thumma. The term fa- is usually understood to mean ‘immediately
after’, while the term thumma is usually understood to mean ‘after a
while’.13The above verse uses the term thumma, which implies that God
created Adam from dust, and then (‘after a while’) said to him ‘Be’.
Immediately after (fa-) saying ‘Be’, Adam becomes. Using the term
thumma implies that God’s saying ‘Be’ occurs after a while and that
saying ‘Be’ is not necessarily a direct consequence of creating from
dust. It is the term fa- that implies the ‘becoming’ (yakūn) is a direct
consequence of God saying ‘Be’ (kun). The Qur’ān explicitly shows
that God did not say ‘Be’ in order to create. The Qur’ān distinguishes
between creation and being. They are not the same. God created and then
(after a while) said, ‘Be’. Saying ‘Be’ is not necessarily a consequence
of God’s creation.
This brings us back to our first passage, Qur’ān 76:1–2 in the
previous section, which asks if there was not a long period of time (a
while) when the human had been nothing remembered. Qur’ān 19:67,
CREATIO EX NIHILO AND THE LITERAL QUR’ĀN / ABDULLA 397
from the previous section, also asks if the human remembers that he was
created before, and had been nothing. The same is also seen in the verse
about Zechariah, who was also created before, and had been nothing
(i.e. Qur’ān, 19:9). The Qur’ān could be understood as saying that the
human was created before, but had been nothing. It is not necessarily
saying that the human was created from nothing, but that the human was
created, but was not a being. This brings forth philosophical questioning
of ontological proportions.
If that is the case from the three primary verses that are usually cited
as obvious proof of creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) in the Qur’ān,
then we find them to be gravely lacking. If we take the literal meaning
and understanding of the Qur’ān, it does not seem to support such a
concept. This brings a shadow of doubt on whether the concept of
creatio ex nihilo is based on a literal understanding of the Qur’ān.
Regarding the verse that shows the creation of Jesus is similar to
that of Adam, there is a question that I would like to pose. The Qur’ān
repeatedly describes how Jesus is begotten through the word ‘Be’ (e.g.
Qur’ān, 3:47, 3:59, 19:35), but it does not mean instantaneous creation
or as stated above, not even creation at all, but being. The reason
that it is not even instantaneous creation is because even though the
Qur’ān shows God said ‘Be’ to Jesus, he was not made into an adult
immediately, but still had to undergo the evolution of a fetus in his
mother’s womb, though without a father, and still had to be born and
grown unto adulthood. Therefore, whenever the Qur’ān uses the term
kun f-yakūn (‘be and it becomes’), it should not necessarily be understood
as instantaneous creation or even creatio ex nihilo, as this is clearly not
the case of Jesus. Hence, one should not jump to the conclusion that
whenever the Qur’ān uses this term in regards to the heavens and the
earth that it is to be understood as instantaneous creation or creatio ex
nihilo either (e.g. Qur’ān 2:117, 6:73, 36:82).
In addition, if Jesus’s creation is like that of Adam’s, according
to the Qur’ān, does that imply that Adam also had to undergo fetal
development, birth, and growth unto adulthood? Classical exegetes
argue that the Qur’ān states that Jesus’ creation is like that of Adam’s, in
which both cases were miracles and not a result of a natural, biological
conception and birth (Al-Ṭabarī, 2001, pp. 6: 467-471; al-Rāzī, 2000,
pp. 8: 242-243; al-Qurṭubī, 1964, pp. 4: 102-103; Ibn Kathīr, 1999, pp.
398 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
Similar to the term khlq, bra’ also means ‘to split’ or ‘to divide’. These
terms are used to mean creation because they could be stating that
things are created through a process of division, which does not really
contradict modern science. What is interesting in Genesis is that it states
that God created the heavens and the earth, and that the earth ‘had been
(haytah) nothing’. Interestingly, Genesis might here be differentiating
between creation and being. Furthermore, if we understand that bra’
also means ‘to split’ or ‘to divide’, then we can also understand that
Genesis states, ‘In the beginning, God divided the heavens and the
earth’. This very much parallels the following verse from the Qur’ān:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth
were joined together (ratqan) and We separated them (fa-
fataqnāhumā)? We made from water every living thing. Will
they not believe? (21:30)
and the earth, they can be understood as referring to the separation of the
heavens and the earth, and not necessarily creating them from nothing
(ex nihilo). Perhaps the heavens and the earth were created through a
process of separation. However, it is even more complex than that, since
both the Genesis and the Qur’ān portray creation preceding being. This
then poses the question that if something is created, but not yet a being,
then what is it and what is the state of being? That is an ontological
question and beyond the scope of this article.
Genesis relates the creation of the human, but does not necessarily
show the method of creation:
26
Then God said, ‘Let Us make mankind in Our image,
in Our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the
sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the
wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the
ground’.
27
So God divided [created; yabra’] mankind in His own
image, in the image of God He divided [created; bra’] them;
male and female He divided [created; bra’] them. (Genesis
1:26–27)
What it means to be in the image of God is a very old debate and can
hold various meanings within various traditions. The understanding can
range from anthropomorphic descriptions of God, as it is in the Church
of Latter Day Saints in which God the Father is literally portrayed as a
physical man, to a very spiritual nature as it is in mainstream Judaism
and Christianity in which God is portrayed as a spirit devoid of any
physical being. However, if we consider young earth creationism as an
attempt to take literally the length of time in Genesis, then how could
we understand the concept of ‘in the image of God’, unless we provide
an anthropomorphic description of God?
The above verses do not give a full description of the method of
creation. Nonetheless, if we take the terms ‘to split’ or ‘to separate’ in
place of ‘creation’, we might find that it could make sense when Genesis
states that ‘male and female he divided (separated) them’ (Genesis
1:27). One wonders if humanity was simply divided from the image of
God. The second chapter of Genesis says that the method of creation is
from dust.
400 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
7
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the
ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
the man became (yhy) a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)
remember that the point is to seek the truth, whatever it may be. We
are not here to prove if something exists or not. A theologian would
consider the truth as God. A Buddhist or a scientist would define truth
more abstractly, and that is not to say that the concept of God is not
abstract in itself. Hence, we should not allow semantics to be our
obstacle. Al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) said in his Iḥyā’ that when two parties
come together for a debate, it is imperative that each party comes with
the intention to sincerely seek the truth and to be ready to change their
convictions accordingly:
The seeker of truth must be like the one looking for his lost
camel, making no difference whether he finds his own camel
or someone helping him finds it for him. As such, he sees
the one helping him as a companion and not as an opponent,
while thanking him for making him realize his wrong way
and showing him the correct path in finding his lost camel.
Accordingly, he thanks him and not curses him, while
honoring and rejoicing in him. (Al-Ghazālī, 2004, pp.1: 62-
63, my translation)
We are not here to prove one point or another. We are not here to be
defensive. We are here together in a journey to seek the truth and to
understand where we come from and where we are going, not just as
humans or human beings (as those two are not necessarily the same),
but as a whole universe. If this universe is a revelation from God, then
we must try to interpret it, and science provides a method for such
interpretation.
The astounding scientific evidence for evolution cannot be ignored.
To counter the worldview of creationists, who have a concept of
creatio ex nihilo, is not to attack them with facts, if the very basis of
science does not appease them. However, to show creationists that a
literal understanding of their own scriptures disagrees with their own
interpretation thereof provides us with a framework for dialogue.
However, school children would not be able to formulate arguments
such as these, unless a creationist worldview is taught such that its
weaknesses may be exposed. Teaching philosophy and possibly religion
in schools is important to allow children not only to learn, but also to
think and to formulate arguments. It is the free-flow of ideas that brings
forth creativity. We must not place restrictions, but allow for freedom
and objective dialogue. I reject the concept that children cannot think for
CREATIO EX NIHILO AND THE LITERAL QUR’ĀN / ABDULLA 403
themselves. Provide them with the information and let them decide on
the conclusion. Through such an interaction, concepts will mutate and
evolve. Maybe science and religion will no longer become a polarity,
but will be intertwined as a DNA’s double helix that defines the origin
of life.
I am not necessarily a proponent of a literal interpretation of
scriptures. However, if creationists use a literal interpretation as the very
basis of their belief, then we find that the Qur’ān does not provide us
with a creationist worldview. Conflicts occur due to misunderstandings
and misinterpretations of the natural world or even scriptures. We can
come to terms with each other. Whether there is such a thing as creatio
ex nihilo, the Qur’ān neither indubitably states it nor denies it. As such,
the Qur’ān does not literally provide a concept of creation out of nothing
(creatio ex nihilo). If science ever proves that there is no such thing as
creatio ex nihilo or if it ever proves that it is possible, it would not be
at odds with the Qur’ān either way. Whether or not we take scriptures
literally, science and the Qur’ān do not seem to be in conflict on the
topic of evolution. Why then are we in conflict, when there is literally
none?
Endnotes
1. The concept of māyā in Eastern traditions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism
is the concept of illusion of the world, and not that it necessarily does not exist,
but that it is relative as our perceptions of it would distort its true reality.
2. In this article, I use The Study Quran translation with changes noted; Seyyed
Hossein Nasr (ed) The Study Quran: A New Translation and Commentary (San
Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2015). I use the term ‘divide’ for khlq, while put-
ting mainstream translations [between brackets].
3. I changed the TSQ translation for al-nās to ‘humankind’ instead of ‘man-
kind’, as I find it more faithful to the Arabic.
4. I changed the TSQ translation for al-insān to ‘human’ instead of ‘man’, as I
find it more faithful to the Arabic.
5. I changed the TSQ translation for al-insān to ‘human’ instead of ‘man’, as I
find it more faithful to the Arabic.
6. I am grateful to Ulrika Mårtensson who has made a very interesting and
beautiful observation here. Since the term khalaq means ‘to divide’ and the
term ‘alaq means ‘to cling’, then this Qur’anic verse could be portraying how
404 INTELLECTUAL DISCOURSE, VOL 25, NO 2, 2017
the human, who is clinging onto the womb, is divided and split apart from this
clinging. In here I also changed the TSQ translation for al-insān to ‘human’
instead of ‘man’, as I find it more faithful to the Arabic. I also translate ‘alaq to
clinging.
7. I changed the TSQ translation for al-insān to ‘human’ instead of ‘man’, as I
find it more faithful to the Arabic.
8. I changed the TSQ translation for al-insān to ‘human’ instead of ‘man’, as
I find it more faithful to the Arabic. I also changed the translation of lam yaku
shay’ā to ‘had been nothing’ to be more consistent with similar verses.
9. I changed the TSQ translation for lam taku shay’ā to ‘had been nothing’ to
be more consistent with similar verses.
10. There have been suggestions that the root of yhwh is possibly hwy, which
means ‘to fall’(Knauf, ‘Yahwe’, pp. 467–472), and perhaps in context could
mean tajallī (‘immanence’) as it is used in Qur’an, 7:143 to denote when God
reveals Himself to Moses.
11. If it is so, then the name Zechariah does not only mean ‘God has remem-
bered’, but even more specifically, ‘Yhwh (Being) has remembered’.
12. I changed the TSQ translation for kun f-yakūn to ‘Be and he becomes’, as
I find it more faithful to the Arabic.
13. The term fa- used is grammatically known to have two meanings, ‘con-
joining’ (‘aṭf) and ‘following’ (ittibā‘). This means that the conjoining also
implies sequence (tartīb). See al-Mūṣali, Al-Khaṣā’iṣ, vol. 2, p. 198. Looking
at it from the grammatical understanding, if it says kun wa-yakūn, it would
mean ‘Be and (same time) it is’. This would imply only conjunction without
sequence. On the other hand, if it says kun thumma yakūn, it would mean ‘Be,
then (after a while) it is’. This would imply sequence, but unlike fa-, it does not
assume necessarily an immediate consequence.
References
Abdul-Baha’. (1922).The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Discourses by
Abdul Baha Abbas during His Visit to the United States in 1912. Chicago,
IL: Bahai Temple Unity.
Ahlstrom, Gosta W. (1986).Who Were the Israelites? Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns.
Aimo, E. (1952).A Philological and Literary Treatise on the Old Testament
Divine Names ‘l, ‘lwh, ‘lhym, and Yhwh. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis
Fennica.
Al-Ghazālī (d. 1111). (2004).Iḥyā’ ‘ulūm al-dīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad
Tāmir (Ed.).Cairo: Mu’assassat al-Mukhtār.
CREATIO EX NIHILO AND THE LITERAL QUR’ĀN / ABDULLA 405