Monday, February 11, 2008
Blog 8: the pursuit of paradise
This blog is mainly about how nice heaven would be, and it seems futile to disagree. In the middle of it, there's another of his usual logical knots for us to unpick.
And I have to admit I find it curious that, on one hand, people find Muslims too focused on religion in this life, fanatic about wanting Islamic states and Islamic law. And then, on the other hand, consider us too paradise obsessed, determined to get away from this world too quickly and destructively thereby bequeathing the task of state building to those unscathed and left behind.
This would only make sense if it were necessary to choose one or the other to focus on. He is describing two beliefs: that turning states into theocracies and organising your life around trying to get to heaven are both bad ideas. Like Bertrand Russell with the barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves (but who shaves the barber?), he manages to construct two statements which sound contradictory, when it's the description itself that generates an illusory paradox. Unlike Russell, he isn't doing it on purpose.
In fact, both beliefs fit together rather well. It amounts to saying that Muslims are too focused on religion in this life and the next, because they're too focused on religion full stop.
Then he goes on to point out that there's nothing in the Qur'an about seventy two virgins, and this is true. That's because it's in the hadith - testimonies of acts and sayings attributed to Mohammed. The particular collection isn't on the USC-MSA website, but I've been able to find it quoted here.
It was mentioned by [a string of unreliable sources], who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.
Frankly, I'm rather more shocked by the 80,000 servants. I mean, that's more than the queen's got. You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to crash yourself into a skyscraper on the basis of that kind of third hand gossip, anyway.
If you think the Qur'an's got some weird shit in it, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen the hadith. Here's one of my favourite chunks, from Imam al-Bukhari, talking about those lucky enough to make it into heaven.
Everyone will have two wives from the houris, who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh.
Each to their own, I suppose. I've always been attracted to opaque women, myself. The surreality of it reminds me a little of the bit in the New Testament where Jesus is being crucified, and the dead rise and walk through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew, 27:52-53). Without apparently earning a mention in any Roman text of the period, which might seem a strange omission in a major provincial capital of a highly literate and news-hungry empire. Keep it in the afterlife, guys, that's my advice. No-one expects independent verification if you keep it in the afterlife.
Anyway, after entirely failing to mention the correct source of the seventy two virgins he goes on to say that in the everlasting bliss of the eternal we will all, male and female, be restored to our pure state, ie virginal innocence. The only antidote to the misogyny marshalled by Muslims in their history is reading and understanding the words of equality presented in the book.
He bases this feminist vision on the fact that the Qur'anpassage quoted describes the residents of heaven as companions, and uses the Arabic word azwaj, which can be male or female. He quotes 2:25, 4:13 and 56:34 in support of this.
As always, though, his own book shoots him in the back. Sura 56 says of the companions that they will have beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes, and be Like unto Pearls well-guarded. I defy you to read that as a unisex description. Worse, a few verses later Allah has made them virgin - pure (and undefiled). Oh yes, the virgins. So that's where they'd got to. I wonder which gender they are.
Having set up an indisputably male fantasy of heaven, the sura then goes on to describe hell. I can't face copying and pasting the usual dreary tortures - just read them for yourself.
The text following 4:13 throws up a lovely sample of Islamic feminism though.
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
Now that's just disgusting. I remember the first time I read the Qur'an, and was nauseated by the constant repetition of misogynistic vileness, and it never gets any easier. In fact, it's so vile I'm walking away from this post now, so if there's typos you'll just have to live with them. It was fun up to that point, but I'm just not finding it amusing anymore.
And I have to admit I find it curious that, on one hand, people find Muslims too focused on religion in this life, fanatic about wanting Islamic states and Islamic law. And then, on the other hand, consider us too paradise obsessed, determined to get away from this world too quickly and destructively thereby bequeathing the task of state building to those unscathed and left behind.
This would only make sense if it were necessary to choose one or the other to focus on. He is describing two beliefs: that turning states into theocracies and organising your life around trying to get to heaven are both bad ideas. Like Bertrand Russell with the barber who shaves everyone who doesn't shave themselves (but who shaves the barber?), he manages to construct two statements which sound contradictory, when it's the description itself that generates an illusory paradox. Unlike Russell, he isn't doing it on purpose.
In fact, both beliefs fit together rather well. It amounts to saying that Muslims are too focused on religion in this life and the next, because they're too focused on religion full stop.
Then he goes on to point out that there's nothing in the Qur'an about seventy two virgins, and this is true. That's because it's in the hadith - testimonies of acts and sayings attributed to Mohammed. The particular collection isn't on the USC-MSA website, but I've been able to find it quoted here.
It was mentioned by [a string of unreliable sources], who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.
Frankly, I'm rather more shocked by the 80,000 servants. I mean, that's more than the queen's got. You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to crash yourself into a skyscraper on the basis of that kind of third hand gossip, anyway.
If you think the Qur'an's got some weird shit in it, you ain't seen nothing until you've seen the hadith. Here's one of my favourite chunks, from Imam al-Bukhari, talking about those lucky enough to make it into heaven.
Everyone will have two wives from the houris, who will be so beautiful, pure and transparent that the marrow of the bones of their legs will be seen through the bones and the flesh.
Each to their own, I suppose. I've always been attracted to opaque women, myself. The surreality of it reminds me a little of the bit in the New Testament where Jesus is being crucified, and the dead rise and walk through the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew, 27:52-53). Without apparently earning a mention in any Roman text of the period, which might seem a strange omission in a major provincial capital of a highly literate and news-hungry empire. Keep it in the afterlife, guys, that's my advice. No-one expects independent verification if you keep it in the afterlife.
Anyway, after entirely failing to mention the correct source of the seventy two virgins he goes on to say that in the everlasting bliss of the eternal we will all, male and female, be restored to our pure state, ie virginal innocence. The only antidote to the misogyny marshalled by Muslims in their history is reading and understanding the words of equality presented in the book.
He bases this feminist vision on the fact that the Qur'anpassage quoted describes the residents of heaven as companions, and uses the Arabic word azwaj, which can be male or female. He quotes 2:25, 4:13 and 56:34 in support of this.
As always, though, his own book shoots him in the back. Sura 56 says of the companions that they will have beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes, and be Like unto Pearls well-guarded. I defy you to read that as a unisex description. Worse, a few verses later Allah has made them virgin - pure (and undefiled). Oh yes, the virgins. So that's where they'd got to. I wonder which gender they are.
Having set up an indisputably male fantasy of heaven, the sura then goes on to describe hell. I can't face copying and pasting the usual dreary tortures - just read them for yourself.
The text following 4:13 throws up a lovely sample of Islamic feminism though.
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
Now that's just disgusting. I remember the first time I read the Qur'an, and was nauseated by the constant repetition of misogynistic vileness, and it never gets any easier. In fact, it's so vile I'm walking away from this post now, so if there's typos you'll just have to live with them. It was fun up to that point, but I'm just not finding it amusing anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment