The fine art of spin

It's just amazing, what a book can be made to say, if you try hard enough.

Here's Ishmael, having a go.

The Qur'an states that the bare minimum for salvation is to not associate any partners with God (4:116). According to this criterion even the bulk of agnostics will attain salvation. The Qur'an is adamant that salvation is not the sole property of any one community and repudiates other beliefs that hold this doctrine (2:111).

Here are the verses he refers to.

(2:111) And they say: "None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if ye are truthful."

(4:116) Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

(2:111) simply claims that the statement that only Jews or Christians will get into Paradise is untrue. The idea that the invitation extends to agnostics or atheists is refuted by the next verse. Nay,-whoever submits His whole self to Allah and is a doer of good,- He will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

People who submit part or none of themselves to Allah can derive no comfort from this, as the text requires you to submit your whole self, as well as doing good. And notice that the text makes no attempt to define doing good in a human context. It could equally mean promoting the correct beliefs about Allah.

(4:116), meanwhile, doesn't say that you will be forgiven your sins, it simply says that you may be, if Allah pleaseth. That's a minimum in the sense that everyone who does worse is without hope, but it isn't a measure of compassion, as implied, as lots of people will have done better, and still not have been forgiven, if Allah didn't pleaseth. And what a strange set of priorities. Sardar previously said in defence of the concept of divine punishment that Stalin shouldn't receive the same treatment as St Francis of Assissi. Judging by this passage, he's got a far better chance than any Hindu.

Which leads me back to the central ethical objection to the Abrahamic religions. Their morality isn't about the correct treatment of human beings, it's about believing the right things. When reference to correct behaviour is made, it's always in the context of behaving well because God wants you to, rather than simply because it's the right thing to do.

Atheists and agnostics are excluded from God's grace by their beliefs, and behaving well doesn't come into it. Modern worshippers can see a problem with this, so they try to redefine the words to mean things they don't say.