Understanding ‘Ilah’

command as law and considers their orders binding on themselves, they are also recognizing that being as the supreme authority. Therefore, the core of divinity is power, whether that power is seen as supernatural authority over the cosmic order or as binding authority in worldly life, making the commands of that being inherently obligatory.” (p. 17) In this argument, there is nothing beyond a play on words. Obedience to God’s commands in political and social life is indeed a necessary outcome of the belief in divinity but defining it as the direct meaning of “ilah” and asserting that “political and civil divinity” is an equivalent definition is incorrect. To understand how such a confident claim about this secondary definition of divinity was made, consider the following excerpt: “The oneness of supreme authority necessitates that all forms of sovereignty and rulership should be centralized in the single Supreme Authority, with no aspect of this authority transferred to anyone else. Since He is the Creator and none share in His creation, He alone is the Sustainer with none sharing in His sustenance, and He alone administers and manages the entire