Does Islam Present Allah As A Deceiver? Lexical Justification (PART I)

A highly controversial and contentious issue between some rival apologists and/or linguists is whether the Islamic deity is capable of deception, and if he is, whether this is a moral act. But even more specifically does the Scripture of Islam, namely: the Qur'an or any other authoritative Islamic source explicitly identify Allah as a deceiver or an entity that participates in deceit?

Germane to the topic is one of the key Arabic words that appears in the Qur'an "makr". The meaning of which is frequently contested or debated among these individuals. The Arabic noun: Makr comes from the triliteral root meem, kaaf, raah (Arabic: م ك ر) and occurs 43 times in the Quran. Nearly every English translation of the Qur'an whether made by Muslims or Orientalists translate the term and it's derivatives, primarily (or most often) as plotting, planning, devising or scheming. At minimum these words could appear to be taken as morally neutral translations and do not in themselves denote any nefarious intent that could be ascribed to the subjects/objects identified. I will propose that this rendering in English is not an adequate reflection of the word or it's derivatives. These translations have left it a little open ended in that they have not conveyed the full meaning of the term. In the future I will also provide an important explanation for why I think these terms are so often translated inadequately. 

Makr occurs in the Qur'an in three derived forms: 

  1. 22 times as the verb makara (مَكَرَ)
  2. 19 times as the noun makr (مَكْر)
  3. Twice as the active participle mākirīn (مَٰكِرِين)

In due time, I will cover every usage of makr in all of the passages, and in the next post I will cover some pertinent examples. Before I move into investigating the usage in some of the essential passages that will help us ascertain the meaning, firstly it may be helpful to provide the Arabic-English dictionary definition.

LEXICAL DEFINITION


Our first lexicon gives us the straight forward meaning of makr from classical Arabic, and it's meaning/applicability to all 43 usages in the Qur'an:

"Miim-Kaf-Ra = To practice DECEIT OR GUILE or circumvention, practice evasion or elusion, to plot, to exercise art or craft or CUNNING, act with policy, practice stratagem.
makara vb. (1)

perf. act. 3:54, 3:54, 7:123, 13:42, 14:46, 16:26, 16:45, 27:50, 40:45, 71:22
impf. act. 6:123, 6:123, 6:124, 8:30, 8:30, 8:30, 10:21, 12:102, 16:127, 27:70, 35:10

n.vb. 7:99, 7:99, 7:123, 10:21, 10:21, 12:31, 13:33, 13:42, 14:46, 14:46, 14:46, 27:50, 27:50, 27:51, 34:33, 35:10, 35:43, 35:43, 71:22

pcple. act. 3:54, 8:30 
LL, V7, p: 256 (Project Root List)"

Here are a few excerpts from Wiki explaining Lane's Lexicon. The Arabic–English Lexicon is an Arabic–English dictionary complied by Edward William Lane (died 1876). It was published in eight volumes during the second half of the 19th century. It consists of Arabic words defined and explained in the English language. But Lane does not use his own knowledge of Arabic to give definitions to the words. Instead, the definitions are taken from older Arabic dictionaries, primarily medieval Arabic dictionaries. Lane translates these definitions into English, and he carefully notes which dictionaries are giving which definitions.Lane's lexicon is based on medieval Arabic dictionaries plus the dictionary Taj al-ʿArus ("Crown of the Bride") by al-Zabidi which was completed in the early 19th century. In total, 112 lexicographic sources are cited in the work. Lane also read widely in order to provide examples for the entries.The lexicon was designed to consist of two "Books" or Divisions: one for the common, classical words, another for the rare ones. Volume I of the First Division was published in 1863; Volume II in 1865; Volume III in 1867; Volumes IV and V in 1872. A total of 2,219 pages were proofread by Lane himself. Lane's great-nephew Stanley Lane-Poole published Volumes VI, VII and VIII from 1877–1893 using Lane's incomplete notes left behind him. Lane's work focuses on classical vocabulary, thus later scholars found it necessary to compile supplements to the work for post-classical usage. Therefore Lane's Lexicon offers us insight into both the classical and post-classical usage of the noun:

1 مَكَرَ ذ , aor. مَكُرَ , (Msb, TA,) inf. n. مَكْرٌ; (S, A, Msb, K;) and ↓ امكر ; (Msb;) He practised deceit, guile, or circumvention; or he practised deceit, guile, or circumvention, desiring to do to another a foul, an abominable, or an evil, action, clandestinely, or without his knowing whence it proceeded; syn. خَدَعَ; (Msb;) and of the inf. n. خَدِيعَةٌ: (S, A, K:) he practised an evasion or elusion, a shift, an artifice, or artful contrivance or device, a machination, a trick, a plot, a stratagem, or an expedient; he plotted; or he exercised art, craft, cunning, or skill, in the management or ordering of affairs, with excellent consideration or deliberation, and ability to manage according to his own free will; syn. of the inf. n. إِِحْتِيَالٌ: (S, TA:) or to this explanation, conveyed by احتيال as the syn. of the inf. n., should be added secretly, or privately: (Lth, TA:) مَكْرٌ is praised or dispraised according to the nature of its object. (El-Basáir.) [For further explanation, see what follows.] ― -b2- It is trans. by means of بِ: and also, accord. to Z, by itself: (MF:) [but I know not any instance of its being trans. by itself: except as meaning he plotted a thing: see مَكْرَ السَّيِّئ in the Kur, xxxv. 41, cited voce سَيِّئٌ:] you say مَكَرَ بِهِ, (S, A, TA,) aor. and inf. n. as above, (S, TA,) meaning, He deceived, beguiled, or circumvented, him; or he deceived, beguiled, or circumvented, him, and desired to do him a foul, an abominable, or an evil, action, clandestinely, or without his knowing whence it proceeded: &c.: (S, A, TA:) syn. كَادَهُ: or it differs [somewhat] from كاده, accord. to Aboo-Hilál El-'Askeree: (TA:) some say, that مكر به signifies as above with the addition of feigning the contrary of his real intentions; which كاده does not imply: or this latter signifies “ he did him harm, ” or “ mischief; ” and the former, he did him harm, or mischief, clandestinely. (MF, voce كاد.) See art. خدع. ― -b3- مَكَرَ also signifies He managed with thought, or consideration, or acted with policy, and practised stratagem, in war. (TA.) ― -b4- مَكَرَ ا@للّٰهُ and ↓ أَمْكَرَ are syn., (IKtt, Msb,) signifying, (tropical:) God recompensed, or requited, for مَكْر [or the practising deceit, &c.]: (Lth, * Msb, TA: *) or مَكْرُ ا@للّٰهِ signifies God's granting a man respite or delay, and enabling him to accomplish his worldly aims [so as to bring upon himself the punishment due to his evil actions]: (Er-Rághib, TA:) or, accord. to IAth, God's causing his trials to befall his enemies, exclusively of his friends: or his taking men by little and little, so that they do not reckon upon it, bestowing upon them renewed favours for acts of obedience which are imagined to be accepted whereas they are rejected. (TA.) An Arabic-English Lexicon. London. Williams and Norgate. 1863.

As recorded by Lane, while some of the later commentators attempt to tone or water down the direct linguistic meaning, ultimately they merely succeeded in offering theological speculation that is intended to account for how Allah is suppose to have participated in human affairs with deception e.g. whether he deceives directly and/or indirectly. However this has no direct import or bearing on the original meaning itself, but rather it points to a later theologically refined rendering of the term. This eventually influenced or caused many Islamic theologians to render makr into English based on a theological disposition rather than a purely linguistical analysis. More on this issue in a future post.

Even in our post-modern period, nothing has changed the directly deriving meaning of the term, that is the practice of guile, deceit or trickery. The classical and even modern Arabic, (as confirmed by Al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary) both attest to this usage:

In Modern Standard Arabic. Al-Mawrid is a bilingual Arabic-English dictionary, the most commonly used dictionary for English language learners, now in its
22nd edition. In Arabic word ‘makara,’ literally means to deceive, delude, cheat, double-cross, dupe. 


Raymond Ibrahim an author for the the Middle Eastern Forum (and JihadWatch) says the following: 

"In the original Arabic, the word translated (actually, euphemized) into English as "planner/plotter"—makar—most literally denotes (and, to Arabic ears, connotes) deception. Moreover, according to the definitive Hans Wehr Arabic-English dictionary, the trilateral root "m-k-r" means "to deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross." One who takes on the attributes of "m-k-r"—such as Allah in the Koran—is described as "sly, crafty, wily, an impostor, a swindler." In colloquial Arabic, a makar is a sly trickster." (MEF)

Hans Wehr, author of the leading Arabic-English dictionary, defines "makara" as "deceive, delude, cheat, dupe, gull, double-cross." (Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (London: Macdonald and Evans LTD, 1974), 917.

An updated version (1979) of the same dictionary is available online. (see the above right). The 4th edition is also available here. Here is a the definition provided in text format:

"makara u (makr) to DECEIVE, DELUDE, CHEAT, DUPE, GULL, DOUBLE-CROSS… 
III to try TO DECEIVE… 
makr cunning, craftiness, slyness, wiliness, double-dealing, DECEPTION, 
TRICKERY… 
makr ruse, artifice, stratagem, wile, trick dodge 
makkar and… makur cunning, sly, crafty, wily, shrewd, artful; sly, crafty person, IMPOSTER, SWINDLER 
makir pl.… makara sly cunning, wily (Hans-Wehr, P. 1076)

From Lissan Al Arab 

"مكر مكر : الليث : المكر احتيال في خفية  
Makara Makara : trickery, deceiving, tricking in secret/ hiddenly 
جري مجرى هذا القول قوله تعالى : يخادعون الله وهو خادعهم و الله يستهزئ بهم ، مما جاء في كتاب الله - عز وجل . ابن سيده : المكر الخديعة والاحتيال ، مكر يمكر مكرا ومكر به . وفي حديث الدعاء : اللهم امكر لي ولا تمكر بي
 "And it can go as Allah says: They trick Allah and he tricks him and Allah mocks them"
Which came from the book of Allah the most high Ibn Sayda: Makir:  Trickery and Slyness Makara, Yumakar, Makran and Makara behi And in the Hadith Duaa (Prayer): "O  Allah deceive for me and do not deceive me."" Or as Google Translate has it: "Jerry course of this to say the verse: He Khadahm deceive Allah and God mocks them, which came in the Book of Allah - the Almighty. Son of his master: cunning deceit and fraud, deceit plotted subtle and cunning it. In an interview to pray: God Amkr me nor my Tmkr"

In addition there are two online Arabic dictionaries that report makr as as guile, trick, deception, conniving and sly in Arabic (1,2).

A literal rendering of the Qur'an into English is made by several Muslim speaking Arabic-English translators of the Qur'an: "And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers." 3:50 - Revealed in Madinah (English: Literal).

A Lexical Quran with a literal translation by Muhammad Ahmed and his daughter Samira Ahmed also translate many of the passages containing the word: Makr, literally and explicitly. e.g. "And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers." (3:54).

Google translate (along with 10 other Arabic-English translation websites; see below) whether translating, the noun, verb, or adjective have makr exactly the same as the authoritative dictionaries and lexicons:

Note: what is interesting, is that occasionally , when certain Qur'anic passages are put into the translator, the translation is often changed into planned/plotted/devised, a meaning not attested to any where by the usage in and of itself or else-where in the translator. Hence standard usage is completely unanimous. This demonstrates that possibly certain Muslims used the "suggest an edit" function in order to alter the translation when Qur'anic passages are inserted into the translator itself. This modification would be to help sustain or reckon the translation as compatible with many of the "official" mainstream English translations made by Muslims themselves, who in turn influence many orientalists to cohere as part of tradition and agree with such renderings.

Here are all of the Website Dictionary Translators:


Finally while nearly every mainstream translator of the Qur'an has not translated makr as deceit many Muslim translators, have no problem translating Arabic words as deceitful in passages of the Qur'an, outside of official translations of the Qur'an. Perhaps the most obvious reason for this is because other Islamic literature is read much less often by English speaking non-Muslims, hence soft renderings are not as required. In sources outside the Qur'ran there is no set rule, no such standardization, regulation or conformity is as perfectly required by the more "official" and common translations. These other sources that cite verses from the Qur'an and translate them more reliably/accurately with the lexicons above include commentaries, books, ahadith, and history, more on this in the coming post.

3 comments:

  1. in your last paragraph you cited all the various sources ie types of commentary etc and it just seems so strange that the translation of the Quran into English should carry a grading of the source, as though, there is someone out there determining what is "official" and too, what the Quran says is so ambiguous that that determination is apparently necessary. so who is it that gets to determine what is the accepted translation of the Quran? it isn't so with the bible and Christianity. there the text is clear that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died to save us from our sins, no "official" view exists, it is plainly and simply the gospel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Deborah said: "As though, there is someone out there determining what is "official" and too... so who is it that gets to determine what is the accepted translation of the Quran?"

      I don't think groups of Muslim scholars sit around at a secret confence determining what ought to be understood as the most "official" or standardized translated readings of the Qur'an. I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy in *that* sense. However you do have a point here that needs to be brought out. Historically, I think there is a "pressure" (even for Western Orientalists) translating the Qur'an in English to *conform* with the previous English translations of the Qur'an already provided by Muslim translators. These orientalists tend to appease the later developed Islamic theological rendering or understanding of the words with their own translated into English, rather than going to the root or original usage which is the attempt made within Biblical translation committees. I think the mainstream Biblical translations are much more progressive in that sense, where as Qur'anic translations seem to be captivated by tradition and orthodoxy.

      Deborah said: "what the Quran says is so ambiguous that that determination is apparently necessary."

      This is actually quite the issue when it comes to classical Qur'anic Arabic. The earliest exegetes struggled with many variant conflicting traditions describing the meaning of even single Arabic terms. The dispute didn't seem to ever be unanimously settled. Each of these traditions citing variant meanings of even single Arabic terms had arguments for/against it's validity. One such example Deborah, is the famous Surah of the Qur'an (that is viewed by Mohammed and/or his companions to constitute 1/3 of the entire Qur'an), Surah Ihklas (112). Verse 2 uses the word "As-Samad" which I noted Al-Tabari alone cited about 15 variant traditions offering variant meanings by various scholars and/or companions of Mohammed.

      Deborah said: "it isn't so with the bible and Christianity. there the text is clear that Jesus was the Son of God and that he died to save us from our sins, no "official" view exists, it is plainly and simply the gospel."

      In Biblical translation we have translations that are authorized/official or more standardized translations of the Bible. In general scholars take lone isolated translations with less authority, they are also less popular or standardized. Mainstream translations of the Bible are often made by entire committees of Christian (and non-Christian) scholars to ensure objectivity, neutrality and proper translation takes place. No textual variant (or translation of such) has effected an essential doctrine or pillar of the Christian faith. The problem is distinct for Islam on the other hand, because they have a wide variety of ambigious meanings to choose from, none completely verifable, and they are confined by tradition and orthodoxy rather than approaching scholarly academia as Biblical translation committees have done.

      Delete
  2. thank you for clearing up the category error i made comparing "view" to "translation" and for the understanding that the Quran clearly represents Allah as a deceiver even though many of the translations of the Quran render that point obscure.

    i am confident that another question i have regarding the interpretation of the Quran will be answered in your upcoming articles, that is, do you think that the the Quran is possibly being misinterpreted to say that Jesus did not die on the cross, that somehow the references to the cross and Jesus' resurrection are actually NOT contradicted in the Quran? i look forward to future exposition on commentaries, books, ahadith, and history of the Quran, and also on the translation of the Quran having been influenced by theological disposition rather than purely linguistical analysis.

    ReplyDelete