In part 1 and part 2, Sardar moves on to verses 2:40-141. Once more, he seems to be talking about some parallel version of the Qur'an, where everything in the garden is lovely.
Yes, Madeleine, I think you have got it exactly right - this passage is emphatic that the overarching duty of religion is the same for everyone, and therefore provides a means for people of faith and good conscience to work together.
And therein lies the clue. Remember, the religious talk in code. Faith and good conscience means something precise. It means them, and not us.
This supposed ringing endorsement of diversity is nothing of the kind. The key to the passage is the retelling of the story of the golden calf. As you probably remember from school, while Moses was away talking to God, or epilepsy as we know it, some of the Jews made a statue of a golden calf and worshipped it. In spite of worshipping the golden calf, a cardinal sin in monotheism, they were forgiven, says Sardar.
He's omitted a rather crucial bit of the narrative, though. So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker (2:54). In other words, once the Jews had murdered the calf worshippers, then and only then were they forgiven.
Right there. The savagery at the heart of pre-industrial, desert-born, Abrahamic monotheism. Standing out on the page to those with the eyes to see, and mocking Sardar's attempts to tiptoe round it.
I know another name for calf worshipping. Religious diversity. The same quality Sardar claims is respected in the Qur'an.
In fact, when Muslims conquered large parts of polytheistic India they mainly ruled with tolerance, by the standards of the time. There was the odd mad monarch (Islamic societies have been as plagued by them as any other), but despite militant Hindu claims to the contrary most of the communal violence which still plagues the subcontinent is rooted in the British era.
Which is a neat reversal of the usual claim. Far from falling short of the Qur'anic message, the Moghuls defiantly rose above it. Faced with millions of golden calves, they turned a blind eye. Most Jews and Christians are much better than their books, as well.
Now there is some religious tolerance in this passage, but it falls within carefully defined boundaries. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (2:62). Which is nice for some. I don't seem to be on the list though, and neither are two thirds of my fellow citizens.
Sardar tries to claim that verse 62, and the whole passage, amount to some kind of general amnesty for different beliefs. It is a timeless summons to an open, tolerant approach not just to Islam but to living with diversity and difference in a multifaith society, he gushes. The examples from history, it seems to me, cannot be read only as admonitions to Jews and Christians, for that would be to repeat the exclusivist failings the Qur'an is at pains to point out, he says, referring to the moaning about other faith's shortcomings that makes up most of the text. Having defined the text as pluralist, he then uses his own definition to refute the text itself. This is circular reasoning, and not in a good way.
In fact, the text clearly spells out God's limits on acceptable diversity. Any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, it says, plainly enough. It says it again in sura 5 (5:69), and nearly the same in sura 22 (22:17).
That last reference is slightly different, though. Let's quote it in full. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things.
Did you spot the difference? This is the one version where polytheists are included, and look, it's the one version where forgiveness isn't promised. There's no on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve here. Instead, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment.
A clearer refutation of Sardar's claim couldn't be found.
And even for the other monotheistic faiths, it's not exactly complimentary. Nay, Allah's curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe, it says (2:88). I've been on diversity training courses, and I don't remember that bit.
Here's one for all of us.
Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. We have sent down to thee Manifest Signs (ayat); and none reject them but those who are perverse (2:98-99).
Perverse? Really, it's hard not to feel slighted.
And as usual, there's the flames.
And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do not know?" Nay, those who seek gain in evil, and are girt round by their sins,- they are companions of the Fire: Therein shall they abide (For ever).
Not that the passage is entirely bereft of good advice. After a fashion.
Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things.
Apparently religious debate proceeds from selfish envy. Jews and Christians are to be forgiven their disputatiousness, though. I'm sure they're duly grateful. Sardar seizes on the bit about forgiveness, and rather skips over the imputation of selfishness and envy.
Sardar's grabbed hold of all the positive bits in an attempt to spin the passage into something a modern liberal could live with, and you can see how it's a step up from the Bible. It's just that it's still ten steps down from Bertrand Russell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think you have got a couple concepts -- religious diversity and kufr -- mixed up.
Religious diversity is a Qur'anic virtue, as we see in Sardar's latest post. Like many other Qur'anic virtues, such as equality, patience, and justice, it is self-evident. But you're right -- the difference comes in with polytheism, or kufr. The sin of kufr is not tolerated in Islam.
Do research on the word and you will find that it means more than simply "disbelief". It comes from a root in Arabic meaning "farmer". Muslims do not believe that kaafirun are essentially wicked or stupid, as they imagine believers to be. We believe that deep down, they possess the fitrah, like all people. If they would only cease the act of kufr and be grateful for their food and water, they would cease to be a kaafir. But it's a vicious cycle. They're trapped. Some of them will never escape [2:6-7]. Hence the verses about their various punishments.
You mention that you find ten times as much wisdom in the writings of Bertrand Russell than in any holy book. Here are some quotes from the man:
"Life is nothing but a competition to be the criminal rather than the victim."
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
So far as I can see my point survives your comment entirely intact, Noah. My point is that religious diversity in the Qur'anic sense is extended to other monotheists, and to nobody else. This excludes all polytheists, including for instance Hindus, and also atheists and agnostics.
With regard to Bertrand Russell, it isn't possible to prove that an author isn't interesting with a few negative quotes. It's only possible to prove that they aren't God.
Also, I think you may find the second quote has an element of humour in it, although I will concede that it's a bit unfair to expect someone who thinks polytheism is a terrible human failing to see it.
Incidentally, we don't think Muslims are essentially stupid or wicked either. As I've said about Sardar several times, his tragedy is that he's far too intelligent and humane for the book his upbringing has shackled him to.
Jon,
if you investigate the primary Hindu religious texts, I think you will find a strong element of monotheism. For example, in the Rigveda (oldest and most sacred Hindu text) you will find the statement "He is the substance of every great eternal law. And He can be perceived in the universal forces of life." And if you investigate the form of Hinduism practiced by the Brahmin caste, I think you will find them worshipping in a style similar to Islam. I am speaking entirely from hearsay.
But you can go out into an airport for yourself and find the Hare Krishna guys. They have literature with them -- open up one of their books and you will find a theology and philosophy, backed up amply by passages from the Vedas, that is strikingly monotheistic. I am speaking this time from experience.
You may not believe in Allah swt or the Last Day, and you may even regard it as superstition. But say that there is a man who decides one day, out of nowhere, to set up plastic or wooden gods to worship, and that he urges other people to do the same. Are you seriously going to defend this man's act? On what grounds can you defend it? How can this act of shirk benefit anyone?
Even if it is all just a joke or a game to him, how can this man's act not plunge people even further into darkness and superstition?
Now, coming back to Islam:
"The life of this world is but a play and amusement. If you believe and follow the way of piety, He (Allah) will grant you your rewards and will not ask you to give up your possessions." [47:36]
Does that sound like a humorless way of life to you?
Yes, polytheism and monotheism aren't as neatly separated as one might think. Even the Greek and Roman religions had chief gods, whereas Christianity, Judaism and Islam have all kinds of angels, demons and so on.
You could even make a case that there is no genuine polytheism in the world today at all, as Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, and so on all actually believe in a kind of cosmic oneness.
I wouldn't defend worshipping a plastic thing any more than I'd defend worshipping a superpowerful creator, but the point is that if you believe in the toleration of religious diversity as a matter of political principle, then that should be extended to all religious practice.
Personally, I think that polytheism is far less dangerous than monotheism, because if you believe there's lots of gods there's less need to bicker over the characteristics of any one of them. This, for instance, explains why far more Christians died in the persecutions that followed after the Roman Empire had become Christian.
But that's a question for debate rather than a basis for public policy. In any secular pluralist society worthy of the name, monotheists, polytheists, atheists, agnostics and any other variation on the theme have the right to hold their beliefs, to practice any rituals that may be appropriate and to argue the case for those beliefs, and against other beliefs. Including the worship of golden calves.
This basic principle is why we put up with Jehovah's Witnesses going round people's houses bothering us all. It's why we have thousands of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, the whole dreary parade.
We say this with little real enthusiasm. We don't say 'practice as much religion as you possibly can'. We say 'if you must, you can', and hold our noses as we look the other way. But we say it, because it's a part of free speech, which we prize.
When I say 'we', I mean the British, about two thirds of whom say they have no religion at all. To most of us, it's just another tedious hangover from the past, best ignored and left to its private gangs. My vigorous debating of religion is thoroughly Unbritish, by the way.
Thanks for the quote, but there didn't seem to be a joke in it. I read the whole sura, and there didn't seem to be any jokes in that either. Or am I missing something?
British, eh? One of my favorite books of cultural studies comes from a Brit.
A word of caution: he has a few interesting things to say about Bertrand Russell.
Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't read the book, but if the review describes its central theses accurately, I couldn't disagree with it more strongly.
For instance, apparently Appleyard argues that science denies the conviction that value and meaning can be found in the facts of the world and, worse still, defines all truths as provisional, as hypotheses yet to be verified or refuted.
Well of course it does. To understand that all knowledge is provisional, open to the refutation of future superior evidence, is philosophy 101. To assert otherwise is equivalent to saying the voices in my head are real.
But to build towering edifices of moral conclusion based on that is simply to ignore the available empirical evidence on the subject. If science undermines ethics, why are scientists so ethical? If unsubstantiated metaphysical assertion is the only basis for ethics, why do secular humanists spend so much time on the subject? I spend much time on the Internet with both types, and I am constantly amazed by their ethical strengths.
Many religious people are also concerned with ethics. Zia is. My friend Debbie the vicar is. You are. The point is that ethical concern isn't a direct function of belief, but is born of a person's character.
The important thing with any ethical code isn't that it correspond to any metaphysical assertion, but that it not demand that good people do bad things. This is why the Abrahamic holy books are such a problem - the foundation myths, the stories of Abraham, the murder of the calf worshippers and so on - contain so many morally atrocious acts.
Obviously, academically fixating on ethics and debating about it on the Internet is not the same as actually being ethical.
And with your insistence on moral relativism as a self-evident truth, I wonder how you can even pretend to build an argument. But then I remember, it's all a joke to you.
Science is a useful tool for increasing knowledge, but it has brought man no peace-- only more and more earthly glitter, and more and more instruments of war. Allah swt is the Peace, as-Salaam. Looking at your latest post, I am ashamed now to have debated with you this long but I will mention one last Qur'an verse: 26:33-35.
Oh dear - was it something I said?
Bye, Noah. This was his Parthian shot.
And he drew out his hand, and behold, it was white to all beholders!
(Pharaoh) said to the Chiefs around him: "This is indeed a sorcerer well-versed:
"His plan is to get you out of your land by his sorcery; then what is it ye counsel?"
Frankly, I'm baffled. Any ideas?
Actually, this is bugging me a bit. It's like being insulted by surrealists.
I checked out the context, and as I thought, it's Moses doing magic tricks in front of the Pharaoh. I did wonder if he was calling me a sorcerer, but that would be to put me in the shoes of Moses, and I'm fairly certain he can't have meant that. I've been called many things by the religious, but 'Founding Figure of the Jewish Nation' isn't one of them.
Come on, Noah. I know you've stalked off in a huff, but you can't tell me you're not peeking. What do you mean?
Post a Comment