Abdal Hakim Murad - The Cambridge Companion to Islamic Theology

Worship 219
who would like to stress human responsibility opt for ‘‘servant’’.
Others have used ‘‘bondsman’’, perhaps attempting to suggest a
subtler relationship.
In discussing worship (‘ibada), the texts often use a second gerund
from the same verb, ‘ubudiyya, which I translate here as ‘‘servanthood’’.
2 Both ‘ibada and ‘ubudiyya designate the activity denoted by the
verb ‘abada, but‘ubudiyya is more associated with the activity of an
‘abd or servant, and ‘ibada with the activity of an ‘abid or worshipper.
When discussion focuses on ritual activities, ‘ibada is typically used,
and then the plural, ‘ibadat, designates acts of worship, such as prayer
and fasting. In jurisprudence, the plural is typically contrasted with
mu‘amalat, ‘‘transactions’’ or ‘‘interactions’’. Thus ‘ibadat are required
or recommended acts done solely for God, and mu‘amalat are interpersonal
and social acts done with God’s guidance.
Although ‘ibada and ‘ubudiyya (worship and servanthood) tend to
have different usages, the line between the two is not clearly drawn, so
any discussion of one demands a discussion of the other as well. Thus,
when the Qur’an commands u‘budu’llah, this does not mean simply
‘‘Worship God’’, but also ‘‘Serve God’’ and ‘‘Be God’s servants/slaves.’’
Generally speaking, worship and servanthood are discussed in two
branches of Islamic learning: jurisprudence and ‘‘Sufism’’. As I use the
latter term, it can perhaps better be called Islamic ‘‘spirituality’’, that is,
a concern with the inner life of the soul. As such, ‘‘Sufism’’ is likely to
be found in any Muslim, whether or not he or she has links with any
institutional form associated with the name. Generally, authors with a
Sufi orientation attempt to bring out the moral, ethical, psychological
and spiritual implications of worship. In contrast, jurists delineate,
describe and codify acts of worship and the prescribed duties or recommended
behaviour of the servants.
The earlier texts discuss worship and servanthood largely in terms of
a moral imperative. Many later texts, especially from Ibn ‘Arabı
onwards, ground the moral imperative in what can be called an ‘‘ontological
imperative’’. This perspective includes discussion of the Divine
Being, the structure of the cosmos, and the reality of the human soul. In
modern times, most well-known Muslim authors have continued to
cling to the moral imperative, but they have lost touch with the ontological
imperative. Indignantly denying ‘‘the death of God’’, they nonetheless
go along with its implications by embracing the demise of
metaphysics. Instead of standing on the solid ground of Being, they
attempt to root the moral imperative in the shifting sands of empirical
science, political ideology and critical theory.
Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008