Surah Al-Baqara (2) — Ayah 258

258. Have you not considered the case of the one [368] who argued with Abraham about his Lord, because Allah had granted him kingship? When Abraham said, "My Lord is the One Who gives life and causes death," he replied, "I too give life and cause death." [369] Abraham said, "Indeed, Allah brings the sun from the east, so bring it from the west." Thus, the disbeliever was confounded. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people [370].

[368]
What Kind of Divinity Did Nimrod Claim?

This person, Nimrod, was the king of Iraq and his capital was Babylon, where present-day Kufa is located. He claimed divinity. He himself and his subjects were all polytheists. What kind of divinity did Nimrod claim? To understand this, a little detail seems necessary. There are three types of shirk (polytheism):

Types of Shirk: Shirk in Lordship:

Such shirk is generally not committed by anyone. Whether it is the polytheists of Makkah, Nimrod, or Pharaoh, if any of them are asked: Who created the heavens and the earth? Who causes produce to grow from the earth? Who created the universe and who runs the system of the sun and the moon? They will all answer that it is Allah, the Exalted. However, deniers of Lordship have certainly existed, i.e., people of the materialist type or astronomers who consider the entire universe to be transformed forms of matter and the result of evolutionary production. The second type is shirk in attributes. This too has two further types: one is related to supernatural causes, for example, hearing prayers and accepting them, fulfilling needs and removing difficulties, causing constriction or expansion in someone’s sustenance, sending rain, granting children, etc. Such shirk is commonly found. Whether among the polytheists of Makkah, Iraq, Egypt, or India, they had created countless goddesses or gods for such tasks, and the above-mentioned tasks were assigned to them, and their idols and images were worshipped. This type of shirk is also commonly found among us Muslims. The only difference is that we have assigned these matters to our saints, ascetics, and those whom we consider to be friends of Allah, whether they are alive or have passed away. Which type of shirk is found in democracy? The third type of shirk is the one related to the second type of shirk in attributes, and that is through natural causes. In other words, it is through taghut or tawaghit, which was mentioned in the previous verse, who, in opposition to Allah, have their sovereignty accepted. In today’s language, this is called “sovereignty.” Nimrod was also this type of god, and so was Pharaoh, and many others like them have made and are making claims to divinity. Then, even sovereignty has two types: legal sovereignty and political sovereignty. Both types of sovereignty are only with such rulers. Every word of such people is law, and no one dares to speak against their command. In those countries where democracy is prevalent today, this type of shirk is also often found, because in these countries, political sovereignty is with the people, i.e., the source of power is the people. They can, by their vote, make anyone their representative or ruler, and legal sovereignty is with the assembly or parliament. (It should be kept in mind that in democracy, sovereignty is with the assembly or parliament. In democracy, sovereignty can only be with a human or an institution.) Whereas from the Islamic point of view, neither legal nor political sovereignty can be with any individual or institution. Such sovereignty belongs only to Allah, the Exalted. In democratic countries, even the highest court cannot stand against the law made by parliament. In this respect, there is no difference between the divinity of Nimrod and the divinity of democracy.

Introduction of Azar:

In the very court of Nimrod, the father of Prophet Ibrahimؑ was the royal priest, who was also an idol-maker and idol-seller, and was among the close associates of Nimrod. On this basis, the father expelled Prophet Ibrahimؑ from the house, and when Prophet Ibrahimؑ broke their idols, it was this father who presented his son’s case in the court of Nimrod.

[369]
The Dialogue Between Sayyiduna Ibrahim and Nimrod:

When the case was presented in court, the issue under discussion was “divinity” itself. During the debate, Prophet Ibrahimؑ said that my Lord is the One who gives life and causes death. Nimrod replied that I can do both these things as well. Accordingly, he had an innocent man killed without reason and set free a prisoner who had been sentenced to death.

[370] Prophet Ibrahimؑ could have replied to Nimrod’s action by saying: Bring back to life the one whom you have killed, then we will see. But Prophet Ibrahimؑ left that field and moved to the field of Lordship, saying: My Lord brings out the sun from the east, so bring it out from the west. Now, since Nimrod understood that he had no role or authority in the system of the universe, he was immediately left speechless. Although, if he had thought, he could have said: If I cannot bring out the sun from the west, then ask your Lord to bring it out from the west and show us. And in that case, it is quite possible that Allah, the Exalted, might have shown such a miracle. But since Nimrod had a firm belief that the system of the universe is run by Allah alone, and if He wills, He can do so, therefore, except for silence and astonishment, he could do nothing. In this way, Ibrahimؑ made it clear to Nimrod in the full court that my God is not you, but the true God is the One who has authority and control over the entire universe. Despite being left speechless in this debate, Nimrod was not willing at any cost to give up his claim to divinity or to pay attention to the guidance of Prophet Ibrahimؑ, and those who have advanced to such an extent in misguidance are not granted the path of guidance.