Who Will Be Saved: The Right or the Upright?

Abstract

There is a growing body of literature on the Islamic theology and philosophy of salvation. This literature can be loosely grouped into three main groups: there are those that link the right path of salvation to a specific Muslim group, others that link it to believing in the Prophet Muhammad regardless of the theological group that a Muslim may follow, and there are those that link it to the belief in God and doing good. Despite this variety, what largely unites those various interpretations is that they all emphasize the “rightness” of one’s theological path, i.e., asking the question, what is the “right” track to God? However, what received scant attention so far is the question of “uprightness” as opposed to “rightness”, i.e., Is salvation primarily about being “right” (muḥiqq), or rather about being “upright” (ṣādiq/mukhliṣ)? Drawing on Q. 5:116-119, which presents a conflict between “rightness” and “uprightness” embodied in Jesus’ conversation with God regarding the fate of those who did not have the right theology, and taking its cues from Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) who attempted to rejuvenate Islamic theology through spirituality, this article takes “uprightness” as the primary requisite for one to attain salvation and argues that the Quran, despite the emphasis it places on pursuing the “right” path, gives primacy to the “uprightness” of one’s position instead. Uprightness in the article is used in reference to the quality of being honest, responsible, and moral, as opposed to being merely “right” or “correct” theologically.

1. Introduction

The question of salvation is not only common but is also essential to many, if not all, faith traditions. In the modern world, where people intermingle in every nook and cranny, the question gained more momentum and led to the emergence of a new field of study that is specifically dedicated to generating and consolidating conversations about this question, namely the field of theology of religions.

However, much confusion exists not only as to what Islam teaches about salvation but also whether or not salvation is a central question to it. While Mohammed H. Khalil, the author of Islam and the Fate of the Others (2012), argues that salvation is “arguably the major theme of the Qurʾan” (Khalil 2012, p. 1), Ismāʿīl al-Fārūqī (d. 1986) takes the opposite direction, contending that “In the Islamic view, human beings are no more ‘fallen’ than they are ‘saved’. Because they are not ‘fallen’, they have no need for a savior. But because they are not ‘saved’ either, they need to do good works—and do them ethically—which alone will earn them the desired ‘salvation’” (al-Faruqi 1979, p. 9).

However, regardless of the disagreement implied between the two positions, both positions emphasize the Muslim’s need to be following the “right” track. Traditionally, defining this “right” track was the primary business of Islamic theology, where theologians stipulated the necessary requirements for salvation and the indispensable means for escaping hell (Abdelnour 2022a; Abdelnour 2022b). While Muslim theologians did disagree on the theological requirements for salvation, the necessity of the “rightness” of the track as such was barely compromised.

This article finds issues in this approach and charts a more holistic path. While it commends the emphasis it places on the “rightness” of one’s track, it condemns its marginalizing of one’s “uprightness”. A common response is that “uprightness” is not the strict business of theology as such but rather that of Sufism/spirituality. Nevertheless, separating those two realms somehow generated two types of discourses: one that is often seen as being more epistemic and systemic, while the other is seen as being more sympathetic and sanctifying when the Quran does not seem to be endorsing this duality, as shall be seen later. This article attempts to chart a new approach to the question by linking theology to Sufism, certainty to sincerity, and rightness to uprightness. It argues that prioritizing “rightness” over “uprightness” or “certainty” over “sincerity” largely reduces Islam’s aim to “salvation” alone and forsakes another important goal that Islam aims to achieve, i.e., sanctification. Without shedding some light on the concept of sanctification, the Quran’s theology of salvation reduces Islamic theology to a code of creedal beliefs, and hence, its emphasis on good works alongside right faith does not make much sense. In doing so, it shifts the focus from being on the “certainty” of the rightness of one’s path to being on the “uprightness” of one’s position.

To structure the discussion and see where we are in the literature, three questions will be explored: What has been going on in terms of how Muslims understood salvation? Why has this been going on? What ought to be going on? As the questions themselves suggest, the first one is descriptive in nature, the second is interpretative, and the third is normative and, hence, prescriptive.

2. What Has Been Going on? And Why?

Muslims’ considerable engagement with the question of salvation resulted in a diversity of views. Those views can loosely be categorized into three key views. First, the denomination-centered salvation. Second, the Prophet-centered salvation. Third, the God-centered salvation. We will briefly look at each of those views and offer some critical insights as we go; then, we will end this article by proposing the concept of “uprightness” as an alternative analytical tool to mere “rightness”.

2.1. The Denomination-Centered Salvation

The first view takes its cue from a tradition attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, who says, “There will befall my community what befell the children of Israel. The children of Israel divided into seventy-two religious groups and my community will divide into seventy-three religious groups, one more than they. All of them are in hellfire except one religious group” (Ibn Mājah n.d., Sunan, fitan 68). In light of this tradition, many theological groups within the Islamic tradition claimed to be the saved group.

Perhaps nothing better exemplifies this orientation than the work of the early Ashʿarite theologian Abū Manṣūr ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī (d. 429/1037). In his al-Farq bayna al-firaq wa-bayān al-firqah al-nājiyah minhum (Characteristics of Muslim Denominations and Identifying Those To-Be-Saved), he uses the concept of al-firqah al-nājiyah (the to-be-saved denomination) to identify this group and denigrate its opponents. Explaining the importance of this denomination-centered framework, he wrote to his questioner, “You asked me to draw the distinction between the religious group that saves, the step of which does not stumble and from which grace does not depart, and the misguided groups which regard the darkness of injustice as light and the belief in truth as leading to perdition; these are condemned to everlasting fire and shall find no aid from God (al-Baghdādī 1988, p. 21). While one would naturally expect al-Baghdādī to be referring to world religions by this description, he, in reality, is referring to intra-Muslim theological schools.

Having set the context of this question, al-Baghdādī engaged in a lengthy answer where he stated that there were groups that professed the two primary creeds of Islam, i.e., There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Prophet, yet despite this, they are not of the saved community as such. As he enumerates the tenets of salvation, he cites points of contention among Muslim theological schools, chief among these is, by way of excluding the philosophers from the plan of salvation, the belief that the world is created, and, by way of excluding the Ismailis, the belief in the infallibility of figures beyond the Prophet Muhammad. While the heresies of the Muʿtazilites and the Khawārij are less severe (hence, they would be entitled to be buried in the Muslim cemeteries and to pray in Sunni mosques), no prayer should be allowed over their dead bodies, nor any animal slaughtered by them is a lawful food, nor may they marry a Sunni woman, and vice versa if the woman subscribes to their belief (al-Baghdādī 1988, pp. 29–31).

While this view is not mainstream today, it is still alive across the Muslim world to varying degrees, more particularly in the Wahhabi tradition, which contends that “he who grasps this seventy-three scheme, grasps the essence of Islam” (Duwayyish 2002, 1424 H, p. 152). They get their cues from Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328), who, like al-Baghdādī, dedicated an entire book to the identification of this group, namely, his Kitāb iqtiḍāʾ al-ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm mukhālafat aṣḥāb al-jaḥīm (The Book of Discerning the Straight Path from the Companions of Hell) (Abdelnour 2024).

However, this view is problematic for various reasons. First, it goes against the Quranic philosophy of individuality when it comes to salvation, as opposed to collectivity, which is emphasized in Q. 19:95. The verse states, “Every one of them will come to Him singly on the Day of Judgment”. In his Reconstruction of the Religious Thought in Islam, Muḥammad Iqbāl (d. 1938) contended that this verse must be taken as an evident insight into the Islamic philosophy of salvation. Whatever one’s fate is, they will always come to God as individuals, not as groups (Iqbal 2012, p. xxi). Henceforth, thinking about salvation in terms of groups and denominations somehow goes against the Islamic overarching narrative.

On the contrary, a quick perusal of Islam’s spiritual tradition, Sufism, swiftly reveals the individualistic nature of one’s journey to God and, hence, to salvation, as opposed to this collectivizing one. By this, I refer to the axiom that says, “The ways of access to God are as many as the number of human breaths”. The 13th-century Khwarezmian scholar Najm al-Dīn Kubrā (d. 1221) records this principle as the first foundational principle in one’s journey to experiencing God (Najm al-Dīn Kubrā 2014, p. 15).

Another issue with this denomination-centered framework is that it does not offer much engagement with the Quran. It assumes that traditions attributed to the Prophet have the capacity to qualify the generalities of the Quran and particularize its fluidities. In his Miftāḥ al-Jannah fī al-iʿtiṣām bil-Sunnah (The Key to Paradise is in Adherence to the Sunnah), Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 1505) cites al-Awzāʿī (d. 774), who states, “the Sunnah came to be a judge over the Book [the Quran]; it is not the other way round” (al-Suyūṭī 1987, p. 24). The problem with this paradigm is that it subdues the primary and the most authentic source of the Islamic tradition, i.e., the Quran, to the Sunnah, which, despite its undeniable importance to the Islamic tradition, not only cannot match the Quranic authenticity but it is also much more contextually contingent, while the Quran primarily speaks in principles and goes far beyond historical contexts.

2.2. The Prophet-Centered Salvation

Nevertheless, al-Ghazālī (1993, d. 1111) charted a new path by replacing the centrality of al-firqa al-nājīya with the centrality of the Prophet Muhammad and, hence, furnished a more inclusivist understanding of the Islamic plan of salvation. In his Fayṣal al-tafriqa bayna al-Islām wa-a’l-zandaqa (The Decisive Criterion between Islam and Masked Infidelity), al-Ghazālī problematized this denomination-centered framework (see Abdelnour 2021, pp. 86–101) and instead placed the Prophet Muhammad at the middle of the discussion. Discussing the fate of non-Muslims, he wrote,

I am referring here to those who reside in the far regions of Byzantium and Anatolia who have not come in contact with the message of Islam. These people fall into three categories: (1) A party who never heard so much as the name ‘Muḥammad’. These people are excused. (2) A party among those who lived in lands adjacent to the lands of Islam and had contact, therefore, with Muslims, who knew his name, his character, and the miracles he wrought. These are the blasphemous Unbelievers. (3) A third party whose case falls between these two poles. These people knew the name ‘Muḥammad’, but nothing of his character and attributes. Instead, all they heard since childhood was that some arch-liar carrying the name ‘Muḥammad’ claimed to be a prophet, just as our children heard that an arch-liar and deceiver called al-Muqaffaʿ falsely claimed that God sent him (as a prophet) and then challenged people to disprove his claim. This group, in my opinion, is like the first group. Even though they heard his name, they heard the opposite of what his true attributes were. And this does not provide enough incentive to compel them to investigate (his true status).

(Jackson 2002, p. 126)

In the above quotation, al-Ghazālī’s concern is not Muslim denominations but rather non-Muslims. Given that all Muslim denominations accept the Prophet Muhammad, they are somehow included in Islam’s plan of salvation. The question that now became pressing is the fate of non-Muslims who do not accept the Prophethood of Muhammad. Do they qualify for salvation? Al-Ghazālī classifies non-Muslims into three main camps based on how they related to the Prophet Muhammad. The first camp is that of those who never heard of him. This camp will likely be forgiven as their ignorance of Muhammad is through no fault of their own and for the fact that they have not rejected him out of arrogance. On the contrary, the second camp encompasses those who have heard of him, learned about his character, and examined his miracles; yet, they reject him and resist his message out of arrogance. Al-Ghazālī argued that this group has no excuse, for their resistance is not based on innocence but rather on stubbornness. In the middle, there is the third camp, which includes those whom Muhammad’s name has reached, yet they do not know much about his true personality. Al-Ghazālī believed such people would likely be excused like the first camp, for while they had heard of Muhammad, what they heard did not really encourage them to understand and accept his message.

A Comparative History of Catholic and Ašʿarī Theologies of Truth and Salvation (2021) shows how al-Ghazālī’s modified framework gained currency across the Sunni tradition and that it largely influenced the shape of the pre-modern Sunni theology of salvation. Within the same framework, in his Islam and the Fate of Others (2012), Khalil studies the positions of four major classical Muslim theologians who centralized Prophet Muhammad in their understanding of salvation: al-Ghazālī as a Sunnī theologian; Ibn Taymiyyah as an Atharī (traditionist) theologian; Ibn ʿArabī (d. 1240) as a Ṣūfī theologian; and Rashīd Riḍā (d. 1935) as a modern Salafī theologian. While they differ in the details of their positions, they all centralize the Prophet Muhammad in God’s plan of salvation and view Islam through the lens of the abrogation theory, i.e., believing that Islam abrogated non-Islamic faith traditions (Abdelnour 2023).

Despite the relative openness that this paradigm promised, it had its own issues. Chief among these is the fact that the Quran seems to centralize God instead. Q. 3:64 states, “Say, ‘O People of the Book, come to a word that is common between us and you—that we will not worship except God and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.’ But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]’”. The verse, as it stands, places God, not the Prophet Muhammad, as a meeting point between the People of the Book. More distantly, this paradigm does not engage much with verses that leave much space for a more inclusive plan of salvation, e.g., Q. 2:62, which says, “Indeed, those who believe and those who are Jews or Christians or Sabeans—anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and does good—will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be for them, nor will they grieve”. However, this is understandable given that promotors of this paradigm often read the Quran in the light of the Sunnah, as stated earlier in the denomination-centered section.

2.3. The God-Centered Salvation

The advent of modernity, which brought Muslims to much deeper contact with non-Muslims, acted as a precursor to a deeper conversation about the question of salvation. Chief among thinkers who engaged with this question is the renowned Egyptian reformer Muhammad ʿAbduh (d. 1905), who constituted a critical milestone in the discussion. With the centrality of the Quran to ʿAbduh’s thought, he appealed to various Quranic references that placed God in the middle of the equation. A common scriptural reference in his works is Q. 4:123–125, which says,

Paradise is not earned by your wishful thinking nor by that of the People of the Book. Whoever does a wrong will be recompensed for it, and he will not find besides God a protector or a helper. And whoever does good deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer—those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, even as much as the speck on a date seed. And who is better in religion than one who submits himself to God while being a doer of good and follows the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth?

Unpacking those verses, ʿAbduh provides the context in which those verses are revealed and ends up with a number of important conclusions. As for the context, he cites various early authorities saying that these verses were revealed in Medina following a disagreement between a group of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with each group asserting their monopoly on paradise. Henceforth, the verses were revealed to challenge each group and offer a more God-centered view of salvation. Stemming from this, ʿAbduh calls such attitudes ones of “theological racism”. While we are familiar with skin-based racism, ʿAbduh applies this concept equally to religion/theology. Namely, one can be theologically racist. What follows from this is a more emphasis on good acts, as Q. 4:124 makes clear, whether performed by male or female, given that they are accessible to anyone and do not require any form of unearned privilege. What is more is that instead of defining Muslims and Islam as the religion of the Prophet Muhammad, ʿAbduh argues that Muslims have largely altered the meaning of Islam and confused islām here with Islam. Namely, they have understood the references to Islam as ones that refer to themselves as the followers of the Prophet Muhammad, when the term should be understood in its broadest sense, i.e., submitters to God, as it is more consistent with how the Quran uses the term (Abdelnour 2021, p. 143).

Many other theologians and Quran commentators have made similar arguments. The previously quoted work, A Comparative History of Catholic and Ašʿarī Theologies of Truth and Salvation (2021, pp. 149–57), explains how Al-Azhar, ʿAbduh’s alma mater, received his paradigm shift and how it charted a new path to understanding what it means to be a Muslim according to the Quranic definition. Similarly, Fazlur Rahman argues along the same lines in his masterpiece Major Themes of the Qurʾān (1994) and Khaled Abou El-Fadl in his The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists (Abou El Fadl 2005).

Having said that, one may safely argue that the common thread among the above three paradigms is an emphasis on “rightness”, i.e., having a certain absolutist belief in the rightness of one’s chosen position. While “rightness” is naturally linked to religious truth and, hence, understandably important, those positions, to various degrees, end up measuring salvation according to some formalistic measures, which leaves little room for concepts that are not less important to Islamic theology, i.e., uprightness and honesty, which are accessible to God alone.

In arriving at those conclusions, I take my cues from al-Ghazālī. By the end of his Fayṣal al-tafriqa bayna al-Islām wa-a’l-zandaqa, he, despite his Muhammadan-centered view, which he promoted in the same book, reminds us of the limits of our definition of what is “right”. After grappling with the subtleties of theology and the limits of orthodoxy and borders of heresy, he wrote, “Think, then, of God’s mercy as being as vast and as all-encompassing as it actually is. And do not measure divine issues with the adumbrative scales of formal reasoning” (Jackson 2002, p. 129). He then goes on to advise his readers to know that the Hereafter is ever so close to this world. Namely, like the vast majority of people in this world enjoy health and material well-being, so, too, will it be scarce for one to dwell in the Hellfire forever, “compared to the number of those who will be saved outright and those who will ultimately be taken out of the Hellfire” (Jackson 2002, p. 129). He then links this position to divine mercy, stating that if such was not the case, there would be no meaning to the statement of the Prophet that says, “The first thing God inscribed in the First Book was, ‘I am God. There is no god but Me. My mercy outstrips my wrath’ (Jackson 2002, p. 129). He then ended the conversation saying, “So delight in the good news of God’s mercy and unconditional salvation if you combine faith with good deeds, and of unmitigated perdition if you are devoid of these” (Jackson 2002, p. 129).

Another observation is that the previous discussions seem to have reduced the Quranic view of salvation to its negative function, i.e., being saved from hellfire. As a natural concomitant to that, it sidelined its positive function, i.e., tazkiyah (sanctification), which is no less central. When the Quran speaks of the function of the Quran and that of the Prophet Muhammad, it does not limit it to mere salvation from hellfire, but rather, and probably more primarily, as one of sanctification. A case in point is Q. 62:2, which states, “It is He who has sent among the unlettered people a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses, sanctifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom—although they were before in clear error”. According to the Quran, this sanctification is not only a matter of the Here and for the Here, but also of the Hereafter. Q. 3:77 says, “Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of God and their own oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and God will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He sanctify them; and they will have a painful punishment”.

3. What Ought to Be Going on? From Rightness to Uprightness!

Those who endorse exclusivist views of salvation, as well as those who endorse inclusivist ones, equally appeal to the fifth chapter of the Quran. Endorsers of the inclusivist paradigm often cite Q. 5:48, which clearly states that it was God’s intention to diversify our paths of salvation for us all to vie in virtue. Proponents of exclusivist positions often cite verses such as Q. 5:13, which states that the People of the Book have tampered with their scriptures, and, hence, such scriptures can barely be trusted. Even more dangerously, verses 72 and 73 of the same chapter have commonly been understood by exclusivist interpretations to be placing Christians out of the monotheistic camp due to their flawed understanding of God. It is worth citing the whole passage here:

72 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah—Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. 73 They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment. 74 So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. 75 The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

(Saheeh International 2011)

The above quotation from the Quran deals with the important question of taking gods besides God. One may observe here that the Quranic passage views this as a form of shirk, inviting those who believe in Jesus and Mary in this way to look at Jesus and his mother as mere humans who have been privileged with prophethood and sainthood but not as divine figures. I used here one of the most popular Quran translations today, Sahih International, which views those problematic aspects as ones that would render those who believe in this not only mistaken in their beliefs but rather as deniers of God completely. Instead of translating the verbs kafara in 72 and 73 as “defied” (which is Muhammad Abdel Haleem’s choice in his Quran translation Abdel Haleem 2004), it rather translated it as “disbelieve”.

Nevertheless, with the Quran’s critique of such beliefs, the questions that remain to be asked are, “How does the Quran view the fate of those who remain committed to such mistaken creeds according to the Quran’s own internal logic? Do they have a chance of salvation?” It is here where the key contribution of this article lies. Here, I invite Muslim theologians to consider a passage at the end of this chapter, which seems to endorse uprightness, as opposed to rightness, as God’s criterion for judgment on the Day of Judgment. These are verses 116–119 of the fifth chapter, which say,

116 When God says, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, was it you who said to people, “Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God”?’ he will say, ‘May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen—117 I told them only what You commanded me to: “Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them. Ever since You took my soul, You alone have been the watcher over them: You are witness to all things 118 If You punish them, they are Your servants; if You forgive them, You are the Almighty, the Wise.’ 119 God will say, ‘This is a Day when the upright will benefit from their uprightness. They will have Gardens graced with flowing streams, there to remain forever. God is pleased with them and they with Him: that is the supreme triumph’.

(My own translation)

Here, we are presented with a situation where Jesus is encountered by God on the Day of Judgment, and Jesus is asked whether he asked his followers to associate him and his mother as partners with God. After absolving himself from this charge, Jesus leaves the decision to God. What is more enlightening and of particular relevance here is that God introduces a new criterion that goes beyond the specific subtleties of truth, i.e., uprightness. Namely, the question on the Day of Judgment will primarily be whether one was “upright” in their faith or not. While all Quran translators translate ṣādiqīn here as “the truthful ones”, I find this a remote translation/interpretation, for the Quran commonly uses the term ṣidq in reference to uprightness or honesty, not in reference to the truth as such. Additionally, if the Quran leaves the final decision to “truth” (rightness) here as opposed to “uprightness”, verse 119 would be superfluous, given that the Quran already stated its own unfavorable view of those creeds.

Centralizing uprightness as opposed to rightness should naturally help address and redress religious fanaticism, as it encourages theists to avoid entitling certain people to paradise or assigning others to hell by emphasizing that such judgments are God-alone matters, as may be understood from the end of Q. 5:48, “To God you will all return, so God will let you know that in which you differed”. Similarly, Q. 5:118 may attest to this, where after absolving himself from Trinitarianism, Jesus says to God, “If You should punish them—indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them—indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise”. Commenting on this, Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373) wrote, “This statement implies that [we must] defer judgment to God -the Almighty” (Ibn Kathīr 1999, p. 223).

Along the same lines goes the Sunna. Muslims reported that the Prophet Muhammad was once told of a man saying, “I swear by God that God will not forgive so and so”. In response, God said, “Who is this who swears that I will not forgive so and so? On the contrary, I have forgiven so and so and have made your deeds to come to nothing” (al-Nawawī 1930, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Book 45, ḥadīth 178). Al-Bukhārī (d. 870) reported that a Medinan Muslim woman with the name of Umm al-ʿAlā’ narrated that the Meccan Muslim emigrants were distributed among the Medinan Muslims by drawing lots, and her household had a man with the name of ʿUthmān ibn Maẓʿūn in their share and he was granted a stay with them in their house. When ʿUthmān suffered a fatal disease and died in their house, the Prophet came to see him off. In the presence of the Prophet, Umm al-ʿAlā’ (addressing the dead body) said, “May God be Merciful to you! I testify that God has now honoured you.” The Prophet immediately said, “How do you know that God has honoured him?” Umm al-ʿAlā’ replied, “On whom else shall God bestow His honour [if not on a devout Companion like ʿUthmān]?” The Prophet replied, “As for him, by God, certainty has come to him. By God, I wish him all good (from God). By God, although I am God’s Apostle, I do not know what God will do to me”. Umm al-ʿAlā’ commented, “By God, I will never assert the righteousness of anybody after that” (al-Bukhārī 1997, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 91, ḥadīth 21).

On the other hand, uprightness tends to lead to a sense of curiosity and openness to learning from the other, while rightness alone tends to lead to a sense of complacency with what one knows. Ibn Mājah (d. 887) narrated that the Prophet Muhammad had said, “Wisdom is the lost property of the believer, so wherever he finds it, he is most deserving of it” (Sunan Ibn Mājah, Book 37, ḥadīth 70). On the contrary, centralizing rightness seems to have led many contemporary Muslims to a sense of complacency in how they understand a central Islamic concept such as the concept of fiṭrah “natural disposition”. To give some context, the Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, “Every child is born on the fitra (uprightness), and it is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian” (al-Bukhārī 1997, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 82, ḥadīth 6). Many contemporary Muslim preachers equate the notion of fitra with Islam. Hence, many converts today dismiss the term “converts”, using “reverts” instead, driven by the conviction that the so-called “converts” were originally born Muslims and their affiliation with religions other than Islam was more of a deviation, leading to a common conviction among Muslims that “unless there is a cause for deviation, their fiṭra will lead humans to become Muslims” (Griffel 2012, p. 3). On the contrary, al-Ghazālī, driven by his burning aspiration for sincerity and uprightness, did not exclude Islam from this prophetic statement and took this report as his prime motive for the pursuit of truth outside the fold of Islam. In his al-Munqiḏ min al-ḍalāl (The Deliverer from Error), he wrote,

I saw that Christian youths always grew up to be Christians, Jewish youths to be Jews and Muslim youths to be Muslims. I heard, too, the 70 Tradition related of the Prophet of God according to which he said, “Everyone who is born is born with a sound nature; it is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian.” My inmost being was moved to discover what his original nature really was and what the beliefs derived from the authority of parents and teachers really were. The attempt to distinguish between these authority-based opinions and their principles developed the mind, for in distinguishing the true in them from the false differences appeared.

(Watt 1996, p. 21)

Within this context, the Quran considers it a sin of arrogance to be certain of one’s salvation in the Hereafter. Q. 46:9 establishes this in the following way, “Say, “‘I am not the first Messenger. I do not know what will be done to me or to you. I follow only what has been revealed to me and my duty is only to give clear warning”. The Prophet Muhammad further confirms this when he says, “None can enter Paradise through his good deeds alone”. The Prophet’s companions said, “Not even you, oh Prophet of God”. He said, “Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favour and mercy on me”. He then said, “So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah” (al-Bukhārī 1997, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Book 75, ḥadīth 33). God’s standard is too high, and man’s sinfulness is not only inevitable but also too great. Thus, every good work of the human is tainted with sin, and the best of his efforts would naturally fail to be good as God defines. Hence, instead of relying on one’s deeds, which are inherently flawed, God invites us to have trust in His mercy and to stay hopeful and optimistic, knowing that He is loving and forgiving. Hence, we access salvation from God not primarily by works but by our faith in Him. All these meanings can primarily be cultivated within the context of uprightness and sincerity, not self-styled rightness.

What remains to be asked, however, is what the value of good works is. Within this framework, doing good deeds is primarily a “sign” of our thankfulness to God and our recognition that we accept Him and His grace. As the popular proverb goes, a human being is like a tree whose fruits are the signs of being alive, and doing good deeds is the sign of faithful living. Hence, there is a dialectic relationship between faith and doing righteous deeds; receiving salvation requires good deeds, and good deeds are signs of coming close to grasping salvation. Al-Ghazālī, in his short treatise, Ayyuhā al-walad (O My Beloved Disciple), explained the dynamic between faith and good deeds in a most poetic way. It is worth quoting him at length here,

O disciple, be neither destitute of good deeds nor devoid of spiritual states, for you can be sure that mere knowledge will not help. It is as though a man in the desert had ten Indian swords and other weapons besides the man being brave and a warrior, and a huge, terrifying lion attacked him. What is your opinion? Will the weapons repel this danger of his from him without their being used and being wielded? It is obvious they will not repel unless drawn and wielded! Likewise, if a man studied a hundred thousand intellectual issues and understood them, but did not act on the strength of them, they would not be of use to him except by taking action … [E]ven if you studied for a hundred years and collected a thousand books, you would not be eligible for the mercy of God the Exalted except through action … [F]aith is a verbal declaration, consent by the heart and action in accordance with the [five] pillars; and the evidence of deeds is incalculable; even though the worshipper attains Paradise by the bounty and grace of God the Exalted, nevertheless [this is] constituent to him being predisposed through obedience to him and worship of him, since “The Mercy of God is near to those who do good”.

(al-Ghazālī 2005, pp. 8–10)

4. Conclusions

This article challenges the common epistemic separation between theology and Sufism with regard to the question of salvation. Muslim theologians have often disagreed on the minimum requirements for salvation, but they always emphasized the element of “rightness” when it comes to theology. Hence, takfir was rampant among various Muslim schools of theology, as opposed to Muslim schools of law. Al-Shāfiʿī’s (d. 820) advice to his student al-Muzanī (d. 878) confirms this, “Stick to the study of Islamic law and avoid Islamic theology, for to be told you are mistaken is much safer than being told you are a kafir” (al-Shaʿrānī 2018, p. 15). On top of that, there existed a common presumption that theology addressed the mind alone while Sufism addressed the heart. Hence, both subjects barely worked together in terms of defining a believer theologically. The Higher Objectives of Islamic Theology (2022, pp. 31–36) addresses this disconnection more fully and shows how this separation does not fully capture the Quranic philosophy of salvation.

Taking my cues from the Quran, I appeal to Q. 5:116–119, which somehow shows a conflict between “rightness” and “uprightness” embodied in Jesus’ conversation with God on the Day of Judgement regarding the fate of those who did not understand their theology correctly. Resolving this, this article highlighted the concept of “uprightness”, which is mentioned in Q. 5:119, as opposed to “rightness”, as the most indispensable requirement for salvation and sanctification. In doing so, this article hopes to have helped reconnect some of the institutes of Islamic theology to those of Islamic spirituality, a disconnection that has largely contributed to the drying out of the sources of Islamic theology.

While the classical position emphasized that, in the absence of right faith, an individual’s good deeds and good intentions lack religious merit (Khalil 2013, p. 46), this article contends that “uprightness” instead should take the front seat. Ideally, one should strive to combine both, but one’s attempt is not futile if he/she does not understand it correctly, especially given the limitations that accompany one’s journey in the pursuit of truth (Abdelnour 2022b, pp. 63–65).

Finally, this article largely dispels the popular claim that Islam teaches salvation solely by deeds and shows how this understanding is a flawed one. If the Quran proposes works-based salvation, salvation would probably be impossible, as our good works can never be good enough to meet the divine standard, let alone the fact that humans are inherently prone to sinning and susceptible to missing the right track, if not in belief, then in practice.