Rosalind addresses me in the comments. She says this.
@jonecc: not sure if you'll get this, but you made a good point in the thread about slavery. I think you are right to say that had the Qur'an been a bit more explicit about banning slavery instead of giving slaves more rights (i.e. had Islam adopted a revolutionary rather than a reformatory approach to slavery), it may not have lingered on for 12 centuries. But I am not so sure to be honest and here's why. I think that slavery was more or less an inevitable stage in human quest for progress, it is no more than a primeval way to acquire labour in exchange of social/economic security in some form. I realise it sounds horrendous and I find slavery revolting, but if we try to look at it impartially, we may be able to recognise that were it not for industrial revolution and progress in machinery, the need for slavery would have never ceased, because human societies need labour.
In old times, people bought not the human being (at least I don't think it registered in their heads quite that way, although of course there were exceptions), but their services, but they did it in a strange way - they paid upfront and shared their homes and food with the servant. It was like a contract, except that the rights of the servant differed from society to society.
What Islam did was give servants quite a number of interesting rights. Many slaves or servants went into slavery by choice and many were not inetrested in being free, although it does sound very strange. The way the pharaoh described Moses to his wife for example was more or less how you'd describe a slave or a servant, Joseph was also a slave/servant (Chapter 12). I do think that if we deconstruct the meaning associated with the word slave or servant and fit it within the social, economic and cultural time period, we'd find many parallels with modern labour markets, especially in conjunction with technological advancement of the era which I think is quite a crucial factor. I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint on that.
I replied with this.
You say that slaves often chose their status for themselves. I wonder how many, and whether it was a free choice or the result of debt and destitution. Slave owners in the west used to say the same kind of thing.
You also say that low technology mandated slavery. There is no reason why that should be true either. The simple fact that the economic development of a society requires a great deal of manual labour to supply the basics is no justification for making some members of that society do the work, while others enjoy the return of their labours.
The problem with the way the Qur'an handles subjects like slavery is not that it is worse than other human institutions. The problem is that it is like them. If I thought a book was written by God, I would expect more from it. I wouldn't expect to have to hunt round for muddy compromises to mitigate its association with shameful human practices. I would expect it to at least rise to the moral level of say a Martin Luther King.
In general, the Quran's defenders in these debates are constantly being forced to equivocate, to invent ever more complicated ways of explaining away the actual text as it is appears on the page. You argue that certain passages were only meant to apply in the past, despite the absence of any indication of this in the text. You dismiss gloating descriptions of posthumous torture as mere metaphors. You dig out obscure alternative meanings of Arabic verbs. You insist that every verse must be read in the context of the whole, then use the most benign verses to set that context, forgetting that the reverse could just as easily apply.
You, Rosalind, you set to with a will. When David Pavett offers detailed refutations of Sardar's arguments you come back with arguments, while he merely whines and sneers. I rarely agree with you, but at least you're prepared to argue properly, and if I was the Editor of the Guardian I would give you authorship of the whole blog. I just wonder if you ever think "Why is it this much work?"
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Fasting
The latest blog is about fasting in Ramadan, as outlined in 2:183-189.
I've fasted. Not for religious reasons, obviously, but I've done 24 hour fasts. When your belly is empty, your mind is sharper, perhaps as an evolutionary adaptation, which seems to account for the general religious interest in the subject. A physical sensation, the ability to synthesise meaningful experiences in your mind, and you're away.
I'm with Sam Harris on this, if not on everything. It's important, and feasible, to bring the rational mind to an analysis of hyperconscious states, and the only real way in is to experience them for yourself. Any returns will obviously be compromised by the impossibility of excluding the placebo effect, but that doesn't mean that the attempt shouldn't be made, just that any results shouldn't be allowed to override other results derived more vigorously.
Muslims only fast during daylight, but they do it for a month. Because Ramadan is tied to the cycles of the moon rather than the sun, it can fall at any time of the year, so Muslims in Britain might be required to fast for ten hours a day in the freezing winter while we all celebrate Christmas, as happened to the Muslims where I live a couple of years ago, or to go without drink or food for eighteen hours on a baking hot June day.
Now here's a conundrum. How do Muslims manage in the Arctic Circle? There are for instance many Somali communities in Scandinavia. If Ramadan falls in winter, it must pass them by almost entirely, whereas summer Ramadan could go on for weeks.
If you know, add a comment. I'm not taking the piss, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm reduced to general enquiries because of the paucity of any actual claims to pick apart. Credit where credit's due, though. We get through an entire week without the Qur'an feeling the need to threaten anybody. There is one passing reference to the virtue of fearing Allah, but no graphic descriptions of the consequences of not doing so at all. It may only be seven verses, but still.
One slight caveat. Verse 187. Which begins, Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. All very generous and everything, but like so many passages in the Qur'an it's written from the male point of view. If the book was written with gender equality in mind, as Sardar keeps claiming, it could so easily have said approach to your wives and husbands. But it doesn't, and as in so many cases it's clear who the intended audience is.
I've fasted. Not for religious reasons, obviously, but I've done 24 hour fasts. When your belly is empty, your mind is sharper, perhaps as an evolutionary adaptation, which seems to account for the general religious interest in the subject. A physical sensation, the ability to synthesise meaningful experiences in your mind, and you're away.
I'm with Sam Harris on this, if not on everything. It's important, and feasible, to bring the rational mind to an analysis of hyperconscious states, and the only real way in is to experience them for yourself. Any returns will obviously be compromised by the impossibility of excluding the placebo effect, but that doesn't mean that the attempt shouldn't be made, just that any results shouldn't be allowed to override other results derived more vigorously.
Muslims only fast during daylight, but they do it for a month. Because Ramadan is tied to the cycles of the moon rather than the sun, it can fall at any time of the year, so Muslims in Britain might be required to fast for ten hours a day in the freezing winter while we all celebrate Christmas, as happened to the Muslims where I live a couple of years ago, or to go without drink or food for eighteen hours on a baking hot June day.
Now here's a conundrum. How do Muslims manage in the Arctic Circle? There are for instance many Somali communities in Scandinavia. If Ramadan falls in winter, it must pass them by almost entirely, whereas summer Ramadan could go on for weeks.
If you know, add a comment. I'm not taking the piss, I'm genuinely curious.
I'm reduced to general enquiries because of the paucity of any actual claims to pick apart. Credit where credit's due, though. We get through an entire week without the Qur'an feeling the need to threaten anybody. There is one passing reference to the virtue of fearing Allah, but no graphic descriptions of the consequences of not doing so at all. It may only be seven verses, but still.
One slight caveat. Verse 187. Which begins, Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. All very generous and everything, but like so many passages in the Qur'an it's written from the male point of view. If the book was written with gender equality in mind, as Sardar keeps claiming, it could so easily have said approach to your wives and husbands. But it doesn't, and as in so many cases it's clear who the intended audience is.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Interpreting the law of equity part 2
I wanted to focus on the final section of the last blog, because I think it gives an insight into the author's method, and foreshadows the coming debates on women and Islam (or homosexuality and Islam, or slavery and Islam - not scheduled, but extensively covered in the comments).
We're talking about inheritance rights for women, and in particular about 4:11-12.
4:11 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
4:12 In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
As any one can surely see, it's a sexist statement of inheritance rights. And yet Sardar says this.
Paradoxically, in terms of inherited wealth, the system worked in favour of women for a simple reason. When a man married, he took financial responsibility for the whole family as patriarchy and honour demanded - and his inheritance would be spent on all the family, wife and children. But when a woman married, her inherited wealth remained solely her own property; and her husband, or indeed her children, had no rights over it.
But this is precisely the issue at stake. Gender relationships in the Qur'an go something like this. Men run the economy, and women are dependent on them. Because of this, women are subservient to men, but in return for the obedience of women men are 0bliged to protect them, and treat them with respect.
By the standards of the time, this was a comparatively reasonable arrangement. The problem comes where Sardar takes his next step.
It is not only the case that in our time, gender roles are understood in different ways. The very nature of work as paid employment is vastly different, as are the needs of providing a sustainable way of life: therefore the law of equality has to be interpreted in a different way. If both men and women work, and carry equal financial burdens, the law demands that a daughter and a son get equal shares. Failure to admit such change would miss the implication of the idea of balance. A balance is something that shifts to ensure we remain within the boundaries of the law of equity.
So what's the problem? The problem is that nowhere in the Qur'an does it actually say anything like that. It certainly gives no indication of it in sura 4. The next two verses say this.
4:13 Those are limits set by Allah: those who obey Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, to abide therein (for ever) and that will be the supreme achievement.
4:14 But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.
If you wanted rules to be regarded as temporary, able to be changed when society changes, would you add a suffix saying that disobeying them was punishable by fire?
And if you were some kind of seventh century proto-feminist, would you immediately follow up with this?
4:15 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.
4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
What a clear statement of inequality. Unignorable, one would have thought. There's interpreting a text, and then there's rewriting it in your head to make something you can live with.
As always, Sardar's preferred reading is the one we'd prefer in the book. It just isn't the one that's there. And to avoid doing violence to women, gay people, slaves, polytheists or unbelievers, he is obliged to do violence to the text.
We're talking about inheritance rights for women, and in particular about 4:11-12.
4:11 Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases ('s) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
4:12 In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing.
As any one can surely see, it's a sexist statement of inheritance rights. And yet Sardar says this.
Paradoxically, in terms of inherited wealth, the system worked in favour of women for a simple reason. When a man married, he took financial responsibility for the whole family as patriarchy and honour demanded - and his inheritance would be spent on all the family, wife and children. But when a woman married, her inherited wealth remained solely her own property; and her husband, or indeed her children, had no rights over it.
But this is precisely the issue at stake. Gender relationships in the Qur'an go something like this. Men run the economy, and women are dependent on them. Because of this, women are subservient to men, but in return for the obedience of women men are 0bliged to protect them, and treat them with respect.
By the standards of the time, this was a comparatively reasonable arrangement. The problem comes where Sardar takes his next step.
It is not only the case that in our time, gender roles are understood in different ways. The very nature of work as paid employment is vastly different, as are the needs of providing a sustainable way of life: therefore the law of equality has to be interpreted in a different way. If both men and women work, and carry equal financial burdens, the law demands that a daughter and a son get equal shares. Failure to admit such change would miss the implication of the idea of balance. A balance is something that shifts to ensure we remain within the boundaries of the law of equity.
So what's the problem? The problem is that nowhere in the Qur'an does it actually say anything like that. It certainly gives no indication of it in sura 4. The next two verses say this.
4:13 Those are limits set by Allah: those who obey Allah and His Messenger will be admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, to abide therein (for ever) and that will be the supreme achievement.
4:14 But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.
If you wanted rules to be regarded as temporary, able to be changed when society changes, would you add a suffix saying that disobeying them was punishable by fire?
And if you were some kind of seventh century proto-feminist, would you immediately follow up with this?
4:15 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.
4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
What a clear statement of inequality. Unignorable, one would have thought. There's interpreting a text, and then there's rewriting it in your head to make something you can live with.
As always, Sardar's preferred reading is the one we'd prefer in the book. It just isn't the one that's there. And to avoid doing violence to women, gay people, slaves, polytheists or unbelievers, he is obliged to do violence to the text.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Equitable law part one
This week they're talking about verses 2:178-182. They seem to have given up spelling this out, but it tells you if you check back to the weekly plan. The part one in the title refers to mine, not his.
And once more we're back on the same question, which Sardar phrases like this. The test for those who aspire to become a middle community is to distinguish between the circumstantial, that which is specific to a particular time and place and the general principle which will always be applicable but which needs to find the appropriate form to serve the needs of another time and place.
In other words, how do you decide if a Qur'anic edict is aimed purely at Mohammed's audience of the time, or if it's meant to apply to us as well?
It's not a bad question, but Sardar seems reluctant to really address it. Instead of setting up any clear guidelines, he simply chooses. The verses that support his case, at least if they're read the way he wants to read them, are eternal, standing sentinel to God's people on their long journey to the Last Day. The verses that don't are less important, somehow, more relative to their time, more metaphorical.
And sometimes he just plain misrepresents. The Qur'an insists on absolute and total respect for human life - as emphasised in 5:45, 6:151, 17:33, and 25:68, he says. And yet if you check those verses, they clearly endorse the concept of the death penalty, in their reference to just cause.
And in any case, the contents of those verses echo today's extract. Why are those verses absolute and total, when today's extract comes with a date stamp? Because, in some frankly rather limited way, they support his case.
Remember, the fact that these verses contain an ethical element isn't good enough, because the claim isn't that the Qur'an is improving in parts. The claim is that it is perfect, written by God, and in some weird spiritual way extant with God, before the universe was made.
Today's extract from the book of the universe is short, so I'm just going to quote it.
2:178 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
2:179 In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.
2:180 It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to reasonable usage; this is due from the Allah-fearing.
2:181 If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change. For Allah hears and knows (All things).
2:182 But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
It's pre-industrial morality, pure and simple. Sardar says this. The verse "the free for a free" (178) can, of course, be read literally. And leads down the familiar cul de sac Madeleine identifies. But uncritical literalism, the kind that does not reason with the specific and the universal, would be a gross error. He hates it when you point out what the book actually says. There are two principles of equality being advocated here. The first is that the law is to be applied equally to all men and women, free or not: the social status of the murderer or the victim makes no difference. The second is that punishment should be equal to the crime.
Well, no it just doesn't say that. If there's one thing you could never accuse him of, it's uncritical literalism. Or uncritical accuracy, or uncritically embracing any scholarly virtue at all. But then, if you're stuck with a book that's permeated through and through with moral horrors, like for instance a verse which clearly differentiates between the social status of men, women and slaves and requires revenge in the absence of compensation, you're bound to have a pressing need to re-interpret things.
Like this. These verses have moral import and universal implications; we can apply the general principles to our own circumstances. The term "brother" used here to mean the victim's tribal family, could be interpreted to mean society in general.
Well yes, you could, but then you're making up new meanings that aren't in the book. Which is a brilliant idea, but one begins to wonder what work the book is doing for us.
For if the author had intended that, he could very easily have said so. There is no need to use the word brother on its own. The text could have written so as to explicitly establish the role of society as a whole in the prevention of a crime. Instead, it talks about murder as an offense, not against the community, nor against the victim, but against the patriarchal authority figure - the husband, the brother, the slave owner.
Which is hardly surprising, and considering the context it was written in it's not without merit. It's just not - well, perfect.
And once more we're back on the same question, which Sardar phrases like this. The test for those who aspire to become a middle community is to distinguish between the circumstantial, that which is specific to a particular time and place and the general principle which will always be applicable but which needs to find the appropriate form to serve the needs of another time and place.
In other words, how do you decide if a Qur'anic edict is aimed purely at Mohammed's audience of the time, or if it's meant to apply to us as well?
It's not a bad question, but Sardar seems reluctant to really address it. Instead of setting up any clear guidelines, he simply chooses. The verses that support his case, at least if they're read the way he wants to read them, are eternal, standing sentinel to God's people on their long journey to the Last Day. The verses that don't are less important, somehow, more relative to their time, more metaphorical.
And sometimes he just plain misrepresents. The Qur'an insists on absolute and total respect for human life - as emphasised in 5:45, 6:151, 17:33, and 25:68, he says. And yet if you check those verses, they clearly endorse the concept of the death penalty, in their reference to just cause.
And in any case, the contents of those verses echo today's extract. Why are those verses absolute and total, when today's extract comes with a date stamp? Because, in some frankly rather limited way, they support his case.
Remember, the fact that these verses contain an ethical element isn't good enough, because the claim isn't that the Qur'an is improving in parts. The claim is that it is perfect, written by God, and in some weird spiritual way extant with God, before the universe was made.
Today's extract from the book of the universe is short, so I'm just going to quote it.
2:178 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
2:179 In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.
2:180 It is prescribed, when death approaches any of you, if he leave any goods that he make a bequest to parents and next of kin, according to reasonable usage; this is due from the Allah-fearing.
2:181 If anyone changes the bequest after hearing it, the guilt shall be on those who make the change. For Allah hears and knows (All things).
2:182 But if anyone fears partiality or wrong-doing on the part of the testator, and makes peace between (The parties concerned), there is no wrong in him: For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
It's pre-industrial morality, pure and simple. Sardar says this. The verse "the free for a free" (178) can, of course, be read literally. And leads down the familiar cul de sac Madeleine identifies. But uncritical literalism, the kind that does not reason with the specific and the universal, would be a gross error. He hates it when you point out what the book actually says. There are two principles of equality being advocated here. The first is that the law is to be applied equally to all men and women, free or not: the social status of the murderer or the victim makes no difference. The second is that punishment should be equal to the crime.
Well, no it just doesn't say that. If there's one thing you could never accuse him of, it's uncritical literalism. Or uncritical accuracy, or uncritically embracing any scholarly virtue at all. But then, if you're stuck with a book that's permeated through and through with moral horrors, like for instance a verse which clearly differentiates between the social status of men, women and slaves and requires revenge in the absence of compensation, you're bound to have a pressing need to re-interpret things.
Like this. These verses have moral import and universal implications; we can apply the general principles to our own circumstances. The term "brother" used here to mean the victim's tribal family, could be interpreted to mean society in general.
Well yes, you could, but then you're making up new meanings that aren't in the book. Which is a brilliant idea, but one begins to wonder what work the book is doing for us.
For if the author had intended that, he could very easily have said so. There is no need to use the word brother on its own. The text could have written so as to explicitly establish the role of society as a whole in the prevention of a crime. Instead, it talks about murder as an offense, not against the community, nor against the victim, but against the patriarchal authority figure - the husband, the brother, the slave owner.
Which is hardly surprising, and considering the context it was written in it's not without merit. It's just not - well, perfect.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Turned
I think we may have pushed him over the edge. He's been the perfect liberal so far, but now the worm has turned.
What is important from the viewpoint of the Qur'an is the certainty of judgement, he says. We should prepare ourselves for our own death and our own judgement - whenever the last day comes!
I thought we weren't in Kansas any more, but I was wrong. To those who are upset with the iconoclasm of the Qur'an, I say: Yes, the Qur'an does threaten the unbelievers with hell - why shouldn't it?
Is this the same man who, just a few short weeks ago, was telling us that it is only our actions which will earn us the reward of our sustainer - the very point on which this passage concludes - not arguments about theology which ultimately reside with God alone who knows all, or that the fundamental question a Muslim will ask is not how many time fire is mentioned in the Qur'an, but why is the Qur'an using the metaphor of the fire?
It's a real transformation. He used to think it was just a question of different strokes for different folks, and love would conquer all, but since then he's had this time in our company, and now he thinks we're all going to hell.
That's not what iconoclasm means, of course. Iconoclasts smash images, they don't burn people. We aren't upset with iconoclasm, we're upset because we're sick of reading gruesome descriptions of our own posthumous dismemberment and immolation. It might work as a metaphor for smashing the graven images of the polytheists, but we're the atheists, we don't have them.
But I don't begrudge him this minor lapse. He's just upset. He's trying to square the unsquareable circle of modern liberalism and the Qur'an, and all the people who realise they aren't actually the same thing are pulling at him from both directions. It must be a strain. I expect he'll perk up again in a bit, and it'll be all sweetness and light again.
Not today though. The final paragraphs degenerate into incoherence.
Now, I do think that the complaining athletics are right to be upset with what the Qur'an says about them. The term kufr, or atheism, as used in the Qur'an is the antithesis of Islam. Those who commit kufr do much more than simply deny the Divine - they also consistently and perpetually deride those communities who believe in God and wish to live by God consciousness. The denial of God for some dogmatic atheists than emerges, as Bishop Kenneth Cragg, a celebrated Christian scholar of the Qur'an, notes, not as "metaphysical scepticism" but as a practice aimed at undermining the very existence of faith communities. Not surprisingly, the Qur'an, as a Divine text, condemns this attitude. And so do I.
I'm going to assume it means what I think it means, and isn't actually about athletics at all. I think he's saying that we're being a bit rude. He's got it the wrong way round though. The Qur'an doesn't threaten atheists with hell because of a combative atheism in the modern world. When the Qur'an was written, no such views existed, and from a historical point of view they represent a minute fraction of the history of unbelief. In fact, atheism in the modern world has become combative because of the horrors in texts like the Bible and the Qur'an.
And there's the usual can of worms hidden behind the phrase faith community. Because you're in a faith community, does that mean it's OK for you to start telling your kids what they're going to think about religion when they're six? Because you're in a faith community, if we attack your beliefs are we attacking your community? What does deride mean in this context, and when did it become OK to muddy those waters?
We believe in atheism, and we argue our case. We don't want to compel anyone against their will, but there is no-one that we don't want to persuade. In the sadly distant eventuality that we actually succeeded in persuading everyone, every single faith community in the world would cease to exist. Are we supposed to wish failure on our project, just because you're in a community? Speaking as a member of the community of people who are about to be burned, I entirely fail to see what gives you the right to be so touchy.
What is important from the viewpoint of the Qur'an is the certainty of judgement, he says. We should prepare ourselves for our own death and our own judgement - whenever the last day comes!
I thought we weren't in Kansas any more, but I was wrong. To those who are upset with the iconoclasm of the Qur'an, I say: Yes, the Qur'an does threaten the unbelievers with hell - why shouldn't it?
Is this the same man who, just a few short weeks ago, was telling us that it is only our actions which will earn us the reward of our sustainer - the very point on which this passage concludes - not arguments about theology which ultimately reside with God alone who knows all, or that the fundamental question a Muslim will ask is not how many time fire is mentioned in the Qur'an, but why is the Qur'an using the metaphor of the fire?
It's a real transformation. He used to think it was just a question of different strokes for different folks, and love would conquer all, but since then he's had this time in our company, and now he thinks we're all going to hell.
That's not what iconoclasm means, of course. Iconoclasts smash images, they don't burn people. We aren't upset with iconoclasm, we're upset because we're sick of reading gruesome descriptions of our own posthumous dismemberment and immolation. It might work as a metaphor for smashing the graven images of the polytheists, but we're the atheists, we don't have them.
But I don't begrudge him this minor lapse. He's just upset. He's trying to square the unsquareable circle of modern liberalism and the Qur'an, and all the people who realise they aren't actually the same thing are pulling at him from both directions. It must be a strain. I expect he'll perk up again in a bit, and it'll be all sweetness and light again.
Not today though. The final paragraphs degenerate into incoherence.
Now, I do think that the complaining athletics are right to be upset with what the Qur'an says about them. The term kufr, or atheism, as used in the Qur'an is the antithesis of Islam. Those who commit kufr do much more than simply deny the Divine - they also consistently and perpetually deride those communities who believe in God and wish to live by God consciousness. The denial of God for some dogmatic atheists than emerges, as Bishop Kenneth Cragg, a celebrated Christian scholar of the Qur'an, notes, not as "metaphysical scepticism" but as a practice aimed at undermining the very existence of faith communities. Not surprisingly, the Qur'an, as a Divine text, condemns this attitude. And so do I.
I'm going to assume it means what I think it means, and isn't actually about athletics at all. I think he's saying that we're being a bit rude. He's got it the wrong way round though. The Qur'an doesn't threaten atheists with hell because of a combative atheism in the modern world. When the Qur'an was written, no such views existed, and from a historical point of view they represent a minute fraction of the history of unbelief. In fact, atheism in the modern world has become combative because of the horrors in texts like the Bible and the Qur'an.
And there's the usual can of worms hidden behind the phrase faith community. Because you're in a faith community, does that mean it's OK for you to start telling your kids what they're going to think about religion when they're six? Because you're in a faith community, if we attack your beliefs are we attacking your community? What does deride mean in this context, and when did it become OK to muddy those waters?
We believe in atheism, and we argue our case. We don't want to compel anyone against their will, but there is no-one that we don't want to persuade. In the sadly distant eventuality that we actually succeeded in persuading everyone, every single faith community in the world would cease to exist. Are we supposed to wish failure on our project, just because you're in a community? Speaking as a member of the community of people who are about to be burned, I entirely fail to see what gives you the right to be so touchy.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Balance and spin
It's taken me a few days to do this, due to busy times at work. Also, the spirit wilts at times, especially when you find yourself spending precious leisure time ploughing through this kind of thing.
The first half is about the power of faith in the face of adversity. Obviously being an atheist the slightest breath of an adverse wind has me entirely flummoxed, so I'm in no position to comment on that. Fortunately he moves on to the love of knowledge, which happens to be something I do know a little about.
I would suggest that the transition from patience to prayer to the virtue of the love of knowledge in verse 164 is crucial to realising how the fortitude and endurance derived from faith becomes an active, hopeful and liberating aid - and something quite distinct from and with no connection to fatalism.
He's done it again. He's tied his comments to a particular section of the Qur'an. He should know better by now. All we have to do now is quote it, and compare and contrast.
Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.
In what way exactly is this about the virtue of the love of knowledge? At first glance it seems to be the old argument that God exists because stuff does, and where else did it come from? The last time I checked it wasn't considered one of philosophy's most convincing arguments, but that's by the bye. The point is it doesn't mean what Sardar says it means.
But perhaps it's the context. So, let's see what the context is. Again, I paraphrase, so refer to the original if you want.
2:159 Those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed are cursed.
2:160 Unless they repent.
2:161 Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers are cursed.
2.162 Their punishment shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite.
2:163 There is only one God.
2:164 See above.
2:165 Some people worship objects besides God, whilst some only worship God, and guess who's in trouble.
2:166 Oooh, they're in trouble.
2:167 And they're gonna be so sorry.
2:168 Only eat the stuff you're allowed, and don't follow Satan.
2:169 He wants you to be indecent, you know.
2:170 Do what God wants, not what your fathers did.
Lo and behold, when you see it in context, you will notice how far it is from any kind of exhortation to a genuine spirit of intellectual enquiry. In fact, there is no suggestion that these are subjects worthy of study in their own right. They are simply offered as evidence for the existence of God.
Not that you're ever going to slow him down with close textual argument once he's hit his stride, and before you know it he's throwing inverted commas round like confetti. The middle community consists of people "who use their reason" and study the natural world and think about the physical and material laws of the universe.
People "who use their reason"? Where's that a quote from? Not the second sura of the Qur'an, for certain, unless my text search is playing up.
Then he's back to fundie-bashing. I don't mind him doing this, but I can't see why he thinks the text is with him. This is what he says.
The "men who take for worship others beside God" (v165) are not just idol worshippers in the prophet's Medina. They are also those, I would argue, who have idolised their leaders, religious scholars, and the ways of their forefathers (v170). These are the people referred to in the next two verses (166-167) as "those who are followed" and are "falsely adored".
And yet it's entirely clear from the context that the bad guys in these verses aren't Muslims. Apart from anything, they can hardly be Islamic religious scholars given the time when this was written.
But that's the interpretation game, isn't it? Does it say something vile? Oh, it was only about the historical situation, you can't apply it to today, don't be so naive. Oh, but this bit, which I happen to like, this bit is timeless. If anyone tried to get away with that in the context of a proper subject, they'd be laughed out of the conference hall.
Especially with twisted quotes like this to bolster your case. "Do not follow blindly what you do not know to be true" (17:36), he says, as if the verse was a paean to iconoclasm.
Well, let's see what the online translators made of it.
YUSUFALI: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
PICKTHAL: (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
SHAKIR: And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
I challenge anyone to point to a more dishonest rendering of a Qur'anic verse in anything I've written. It just doesn't say what Sardar says it says. This is cheating.
He then goes on to talk about the dietary rules in verses 172 and 173, which by the standards of religious practices are quite reasonable. It does exclude pork for no good reason except that God apparently says so, but it also says that you're allowed to eat it if there's nothing else to eat and you're in dire necessity. Just in case we get the wrong idea, though, it gives the next two verses over to hellfire.
At one point he has a go at burgers. Ostensibly, the burger is lawful; but given the fact that it is bad for one's health, it ought to be unlawful.
I'm not sure if he's complaining that Islam doesn't have enough rules about food, or if he means it should actually be illegal, but him and Gillian McKeith can stay the hell out of my kitchen either way. If I want to eat fatty food I damn well will.
In this context, he defines halal and haram, and attempts to connect them with everyday concepts of good behaviour. The problem with that argument is that you have to ask why we need separate, religious rules. What work do they do for humanity that a simple, rational ethical system doesn't do?
When the rules coincide with a reasonable ethical position, as with prohibitions against cheating or murder, they are no better than the ethical position itself. When they are simply pointless, as with the prohibition against pork or shellfish, they are annoying but perhaps trivial. When they are morally offensive, as with the injunction to lock up 'lewd women' until they die, then humanity is massively worse off as a result.
Then there's some stuff about the poor, and an outright lie about slavery which I will return to at a future date, but after many, many paragraphs of this witless drivel my spirit has finally wilted altogether. I'm off for a triple cheeseburger and some Ovid.
The first half is about the power of faith in the face of adversity. Obviously being an atheist the slightest breath of an adverse wind has me entirely flummoxed, so I'm in no position to comment on that. Fortunately he moves on to the love of knowledge, which happens to be something I do know a little about.
I would suggest that the transition from patience to prayer to the virtue of the love of knowledge in verse 164 is crucial to realising how the fortitude and endurance derived from faith becomes an active, hopeful and liberating aid - and something quite distinct from and with no connection to fatalism.
He's done it again. He's tied his comments to a particular section of the Qur'an. He should know better by now. All we have to do now is quote it, and compare and contrast.
Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.
In what way exactly is this about the virtue of the love of knowledge? At first glance it seems to be the old argument that God exists because stuff does, and where else did it come from? The last time I checked it wasn't considered one of philosophy's most convincing arguments, but that's by the bye. The point is it doesn't mean what Sardar says it means.
But perhaps it's the context. So, let's see what the context is. Again, I paraphrase, so refer to the original if you want.
2:159 Those who conceal the clear proofs and the guidance that We revealed are cursed.
2:160 Unless they repent.
2:161 Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers are cursed.
2.162 Their punishment shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite.
2:163 There is only one God.
2:164 See above.
2:165 Some people worship objects besides God, whilst some only worship God, and guess who's in trouble.
2:166 Oooh, they're in trouble.
2:167 And they're gonna be so sorry.
2:168 Only eat the stuff you're allowed, and don't follow Satan.
2:169 He wants you to be indecent, you know.
2:170 Do what God wants, not what your fathers did.
Lo and behold, when you see it in context, you will notice how far it is from any kind of exhortation to a genuine spirit of intellectual enquiry. In fact, there is no suggestion that these are subjects worthy of study in their own right. They are simply offered as evidence for the existence of God.
Not that you're ever going to slow him down with close textual argument once he's hit his stride, and before you know it he's throwing inverted commas round like confetti. The middle community consists of people "who use their reason" and study the natural world and think about the physical and material laws of the universe.
People "who use their reason"? Where's that a quote from? Not the second sura of the Qur'an, for certain, unless my text search is playing up.
Then he's back to fundie-bashing. I don't mind him doing this, but I can't see why he thinks the text is with him. This is what he says.
The "men who take for worship others beside God" (v165) are not just idol worshippers in the prophet's Medina. They are also those, I would argue, who have idolised their leaders, religious scholars, and the ways of their forefathers (v170). These are the people referred to in the next two verses (166-167) as "those who are followed" and are "falsely adored".
And yet it's entirely clear from the context that the bad guys in these verses aren't Muslims. Apart from anything, they can hardly be Islamic religious scholars given the time when this was written.
But that's the interpretation game, isn't it? Does it say something vile? Oh, it was only about the historical situation, you can't apply it to today, don't be so naive. Oh, but this bit, which I happen to like, this bit is timeless. If anyone tried to get away with that in the context of a proper subject, they'd be laughed out of the conference hall.
Especially with twisted quotes like this to bolster your case. "Do not follow blindly what you do not know to be true" (17:36), he says, as if the verse was a paean to iconoclasm.
Well, let's see what the online translators made of it.
YUSUFALI: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).
PICKTHAL: (O man), follow not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart - of each of these it will be asked.
SHAKIR: And follow not that of which you have not the knowledge; surely the hearing and the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that.
I challenge anyone to point to a more dishonest rendering of a Qur'anic verse in anything I've written. It just doesn't say what Sardar says it says. This is cheating.
He then goes on to talk about the dietary rules in verses 172 and 173, which by the standards of religious practices are quite reasonable. It does exclude pork for no good reason except that God apparently says so, but it also says that you're allowed to eat it if there's nothing else to eat and you're in dire necessity. Just in case we get the wrong idea, though, it gives the next two verses over to hellfire.
At one point he has a go at burgers. Ostensibly, the burger is lawful; but given the fact that it is bad for one's health, it ought to be unlawful.
I'm not sure if he's complaining that Islam doesn't have enough rules about food, or if he means it should actually be illegal, but him and Gillian McKeith can stay the hell out of my kitchen either way. If I want to eat fatty food I damn well will.
In this context, he defines halal and haram, and attempts to connect them with everyday concepts of good behaviour. The problem with that argument is that you have to ask why we need separate, religious rules. What work do they do for humanity that a simple, rational ethical system doesn't do?
When the rules coincide with a reasonable ethical position, as with prohibitions against cheating or murder, they are no better than the ethical position itself. When they are simply pointless, as with the prohibition against pork or shellfish, they are annoying but perhaps trivial. When they are morally offensive, as with the injunction to lock up 'lewd women' until they die, then humanity is massively worse off as a result.
Then there's some stuff about the poor, and an outright lie about slavery which I will return to at a future date, but after many, many paragraphs of this witless drivel my spirit has finally wilted altogether. I'm off for a triple cheeseburger and some Ovid.
Monday, March 10, 2008
How many hells?
I've been meaning to do this, but Rosalind B has beaten me to it. Her email is the last one, just before the comments.
She asks why many commenters are disturbed by the constant hellfire, and to make her point she crunches some numbers. She counts all the verses which mention Hell, and all the verses which mention fire. Then, with admirable logic, she subtracts all the verses which mention both, and all the verses which mention fire but not in the context of burning people. This gives her a total of 238 references to hellfire - rather more than the 170 uses of the word fire I identified in my first casual search.
She then searches for references to Heaven and/or Paradise by the same method (I assume), and comes up with 250. This means about 4% of the Qur'an is devoted to hellfire, and perhaps a fraction more to Paradise. A total of between 8% and 9% to punishment and reward.
I can see an arithmetical problem with her method. Some of the hellfire passages run over several verses, and not all verses have the words hell or fire in them. For instance, 7:44-7:51 has eight verses which are all about punishment, in which the word fire appears three times only, and the word hell not at all.
Still, at least someone from the opposing camp, if not the author of the blog, has engaged with the seamier side of the Qur'an. I have to say I'm surprised by her conclusions, though.
Therefore the conclusion I draw is that the Qur'an seems to give at least equivalent consideration to punishment and reward. And these themes seem not to even occupy ten per cent of the total themes covered in the Quran. I am none the wiser as to why so many people have found it so threatening. Even a horror movie would leave a good feeling when the end is happy, the Qur'an seems to fail to do that for some mysterious reason.
Let's start with the reference to horror films. The main difference between horror films and the Qur'an is that everyone realises horror films are made up. The whole point of Qur'anic video nasties is that they're meant to describe actual forthcoming events. Sardar waves the word metaphor at them without explaining how that mitigates their horror or what they could possibly be a metaphor for, but no-one suggests they're a kind of medieval Day of the Dead.
That isn't half as strange as her other argument, though, which is that the threat of hellfire is mitigated by being limited to only 4% of the book. I don't know about you, but I manage to get through most days without going around threatening to put people on a bonfire anything like 4% of the time. Even the Old Testament isn't as gruesome as this.
In fact, in the Christian tradition hellfire derives from verses ascribed directly to Jesus, and occupies a comparatively small percentage of the text. When it is used it's gruesome, but that's hardly surprising, given that he's threatening to burn people on a big fire. Old Testament punishments are inflicted in this life rather than the next one.
Well, they do say the Qur'an is based on the work of the prophets, and old Mohammed certainly picked up on Jesus' eschatological Bonfire Nights.
So just to spell it out, Rosalind, the problem I have with the text is that it tells me that I'm going to burn in hell about once a page. I'm not immediately seeing why that should seem mysterious. As you may have noticed in your research, the majority of the threats are explicitly aimed at unbelievers, and that's me. Sometimes they are just passing references, sometimes they are joyous paeans to the glorious nature of my future agony.
The one thing I cannot comprehend is that, having promoted a book which does this, Sardar then feels able to accuse us of being rude. If I ever tell him it would be a wonderful thing and a sign of the mercy and wisdom of God if he was burnt in a fire until all his skin came off, then the skin was magically regrown so he could continue to taste the chastisement, then he might have some kind of complaint.
But such is not my way. In my modest way, in my own little corner of the Internet, I stand with the Oscar Wildes and the Jonathan Swifts against the Mohammeds and the Jesuses. Compared with them I have much to be modest about, but I can still find a bon mot or two for the tyrants of hellfire.
She asks why many commenters are disturbed by the constant hellfire, and to make her point she crunches some numbers. She counts all the verses which mention Hell, and all the verses which mention fire. Then, with admirable logic, she subtracts all the verses which mention both, and all the verses which mention fire but not in the context of burning people. This gives her a total of 238 references to hellfire - rather more than the 170 uses of the word fire I identified in my first casual search.
She then searches for references to Heaven and/or Paradise by the same method (I assume), and comes up with 250. This means about 4% of the Qur'an is devoted to hellfire, and perhaps a fraction more to Paradise. A total of between 8% and 9% to punishment and reward.
I can see an arithmetical problem with her method. Some of the hellfire passages run over several verses, and not all verses have the words hell or fire in them. For instance, 7:44-7:51 has eight verses which are all about punishment, in which the word fire appears three times only, and the word hell not at all.
Still, at least someone from the opposing camp, if not the author of the blog, has engaged with the seamier side of the Qur'an. I have to say I'm surprised by her conclusions, though.
Therefore the conclusion I draw is that the Qur'an seems to give at least equivalent consideration to punishment and reward. And these themes seem not to even occupy ten per cent of the total themes covered in the Quran. I am none the wiser as to why so many people have found it so threatening. Even a horror movie would leave a good feeling when the end is happy, the Qur'an seems to fail to do that for some mysterious reason.
Let's start with the reference to horror films. The main difference between horror films and the Qur'an is that everyone realises horror films are made up. The whole point of Qur'anic video nasties is that they're meant to describe actual forthcoming events. Sardar waves the word metaphor at them without explaining how that mitigates their horror or what they could possibly be a metaphor for, but no-one suggests they're a kind of medieval Day of the Dead.
That isn't half as strange as her other argument, though, which is that the threat of hellfire is mitigated by being limited to only 4% of the book. I don't know about you, but I manage to get through most days without going around threatening to put people on a bonfire anything like 4% of the time. Even the Old Testament isn't as gruesome as this.
In fact, in the Christian tradition hellfire derives from verses ascribed directly to Jesus, and occupies a comparatively small percentage of the text. When it is used it's gruesome, but that's hardly surprising, given that he's threatening to burn people on a big fire. Old Testament punishments are inflicted in this life rather than the next one.
Well, they do say the Qur'an is based on the work of the prophets, and old Mohammed certainly picked up on Jesus' eschatological Bonfire Nights.
So just to spell it out, Rosalind, the problem I have with the text is that it tells me that I'm going to burn in hell about once a page. I'm not immediately seeing why that should seem mysterious. As you may have noticed in your research, the majority of the threats are explicitly aimed at unbelievers, and that's me. Sometimes they are just passing references, sometimes they are joyous paeans to the glorious nature of my future agony.
The one thing I cannot comprehend is that, having promoted a book which does this, Sardar then feels able to accuse us of being rude. If I ever tell him it would be a wonderful thing and a sign of the mercy and wisdom of God if he was burnt in a fire until all his skin came off, then the skin was magically regrown so he could continue to taste the chastisement, then he might have some kind of complaint.
But such is not my way. In my modest way, in my own little corner of the Internet, I stand with the Oscar Wildes and the Jonathan Swifts against the Mohammeds and the Jesuses. Compared with them I have much to be modest about, but I can still find a bon mot or two for the tyrants of hellfire.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Face to Faith
In today's Guardian Pete Tobias, the rabbi at the Liberal Synagogue in Elstree, wrote this piece in the Face to Faith column.
Being perhaps slightly relieved to have the opportunity to explicitly criticise a different religion for a change, I sent in this letter.
Contrary to Pete Tobias's whitewash, the central message of the story of the burning bush is not about slavery. In fact, whilst God is speaking to Moses he goes into some detail about the rules for the correct treatment of slaves, in which the manifest inequality of the master-servant relationship is abundantly clear.
The story could just as easily be read as a paean to the bloodlust of the monotheistic God. First he hardens Pharaoh's heart to stop him releasing the Israelites, then he murders a large slice of the population of Egypt in punishment for a crime they bear no responsibility for. After that, he slaughters an Egyptian army presumably mainly consisting of conscripts, and when Moses comes down from the mountain God has him murder three thousand of the wandering Jews for worshipping the wrong God. This hideous massacre is central to the story, and is picked up in the Qur'an, where it is described as necessary for the Jews to earn divine forgiveness.
The simple fact that these events very probably never happened may mitigate our outrage, but their terror lives on in the mind and the actions of those from all the Abrahamic traditions who are inspired by them to commit horrendous acts in the world today.
The book of Exodus is not entirely devoid of virtue - theft is generally to be discouraged - but to come away from it feeling on balance cleansed and edified would require a strong stomach and a highly developed ability to look the other way when necessary.
At some point, monotheists have to address the vicious psychotic savagery that runs through their tradition, parallel to the struggle for a recognisable ethical system. To be fair, many have, and I suspect that Pete Tobias is one of those. However, reinventing horror stories as morally uplifting tales suitable for inclusion in diversity training programs is not helpful.
Being perhaps slightly relieved to have the opportunity to explicitly criticise a different religion for a change, I sent in this letter.
Contrary to Pete Tobias's whitewash, the central message of the story of the burning bush is not about slavery. In fact, whilst God is speaking to Moses he goes into some detail about the rules for the correct treatment of slaves, in which the manifest inequality of the master-servant relationship is abundantly clear.
The story could just as easily be read as a paean to the bloodlust of the monotheistic God. First he hardens Pharaoh's heart to stop him releasing the Israelites, then he murders a large slice of the population of Egypt in punishment for a crime they bear no responsibility for. After that, he slaughters an Egyptian army presumably mainly consisting of conscripts, and when Moses comes down from the mountain God has him murder three thousand of the wandering Jews for worshipping the wrong God. This hideous massacre is central to the story, and is picked up in the Qur'an, where it is described as necessary for the Jews to earn divine forgiveness.
The simple fact that these events very probably never happened may mitigate our outrage, but their terror lives on in the mind and the actions of those from all the Abrahamic traditions who are inspired by them to commit horrendous acts in the world today.
The book of Exodus is not entirely devoid of virtue - theft is generally to be discouraged - but to come away from it feeling on balance cleansed and edified would require a strong stomach and a highly developed ability to look the other way when necessary.
At some point, monotheists have to address the vicious psychotic savagery that runs through their tradition, parallel to the struggle for a recognisable ethical system. To be fair, many have, and I suspect that Pete Tobias is one of those. However, reinventing horror stories as morally uplifting tales suitable for inclusion in diversity training programs is not helpful.
Stung
Madeleine Bunting has been stung. Someone implied that she only appreciated Islam's tolerance of diversity because I was a Christian and the Qur'an explicitly recognises this as an Abrahamic faith of the book, as it does Judaism. The post argued that mine was a sort of - "I'm alright then" response. That was a complete misreading of what had impressed me.
She doesn't say who this someone was, or provide a link to their remarks, so it's impossible to comment on the specific remarks, but I posted this in the comments on the general subject.
One clear demonstration that the Qur'an doesn't extend its (limited) endorsement of diversity beyond Jews and Christians is the praise offered for the judicial murder of calf worshippers, for no other crime than following a different religious practice (2:54).
She doesn't say who this someone was, or provide a link to their remarks, so it's impossible to comment on the specific remarks, but I posted this in the comments on the general subject.
One clear demonstration that the Qur'an doesn't extend its (limited) endorsement of diversity beyond Jews and Christians is the praise offered for the judicial murder of calf worshippers, for no other crime than following a different religious practice (2:54).
The text specifically says that this murder was required by God before he would forgive the Jews for worshipping an idol. If Mohammed (or God, the hypothesised author, or the seventh century collating committee) had had any intention of distancing himself from that bloodstained Jewish and Christian tradition, he could easily have rejected it there, yet he did not.
Alternatively, one can compare 2:62, 5:69 and 22:17. The text in these verses is very similar. The difference is that 22:17 is the only one of the three which also refers to polytheists, and it's also the only one where the reference is to God's judgment, not God's forgiveness.With regard to the imagined forgiveness for atheists, one only has to point to the simple fact that the much vaunted 2:62 limits the divine dispensation to 'any who believe in Allah and the Last Day’, combined with the many, many vitriolic descriptions of the torments awaiting for unbelievers in the afterlife. Despite attempts to argue to the contrary, a close reading of the text shows that in most instances it is the twin 'crimes' of polytheism and unbelief that require the human bonfires.
I think you are influenced by the fact that it would be wonderful if the Qur'an was on Sardar's side, because his version of religion is so much more humane and thoughtful than the illiberal alternative.Unfortunately it is not, or at least is not so unequivocally. It is fact a mixture of the sublime, the banal and the horrific, like the Bible. It may be possible to draw inspiration from specific sections of it, but the perfection claim is only tenable by stepping carefully through the text, clinging to the ennobling verses whilst stepping carefully round the moral atrocities like a computer game of Minesweepers.
Which analogy works on another level. Because the claim is that the book is perfect, by definition that means it should be defensible in detail as well as in total. Step on one unexploded verse, and for the perfection claim it's game over.That would be a great result for secularism, but also for religion. There is actually no hypothetical reason why world religion has to be disfigured by misogyny, homophobia and the stench of burning flesh. Many religious people are working very hard to move away from those traditions. It’s just that the ancient grimoires stand in their way.
All that’s needed is a little perspective. Simply redefine the books as humanity reaching out to God, rather than God handing perfection down to humanity, and there is no problem. The sublime bits remain sublime, whilst the mines are defused by historical perspective.Those of us who disbelieve would still disagree, but the discussion would no longer be about defending civil rights and basic human liberties.
It kind of turned in the typing, from a specific discussion of the post into a more general statement on the whole topic. Although that wasn't my original goal, I decided it worked in the situation, and left it as it was.Thursday, March 6, 2008
Questions, but no answers
Yesterday, in his misleadingly titled Answers to Questions, Sardar addressed the vexed problem of rude atheists. They are motivated not by any notion of rationality - although they mistakenly think they are great rationalists - but by the irrational force of hatred and their own arrogance. They are convinced that their ideology has all the answers and everything else in the universe is utter nonsense.
As is usual with this kind of sweeping statement, he apparently feels no need to back his accusations up with any kind of evidence. For instance, he cites no arrogant statements, and offers no explanation why arguments offered here by atheists deviate from the standards of rational argument.
It's also a strange argument to hear from someone engaged in a detailed analysis of Sura 2 of the Qur'an, the very first line of which reads This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt. How that's more rational than a school of thought which emphasises the role of evidence is a mystery to me. But that's by the by.
It's not the first time he's done this.
But I have another problem with your analysis: I think you assume, as many atheists do, that your own position is rational and objective while those who believe in God are by definition irrational and subjective. Moreover, even if they are "intelligent and educated", there must be something wrong if they believe in nonsensical things as "sacred texts, divine beings, heaven and hell". I think this position is more than slightly arrogant.
Whatever that may be, it clearly isn't an argument. This is because it simply describes a position and then acribes a negative personality trait to it, without trying to refute it in any way. Unless, to the religious mind, ascribing a negative personality trait to an argument is refuting it.
However, given that these people are part of the diverse landscape of human opinion and folly, I think, Heather, we have to learn to endure them!
The Heather in question is Heather Plant, who I wrote about before (Unhappy). They seem resolved to tolerate us, which from a historical perspective comes as a relief.
Tolerate us, but not apparently debate us. Many of us have submitted detailed arguments, which are simply brushed off or ignored. David Pavett's thorough (and entirely courteous) demolition of the blog before last has received no answer. My own experience annoyed me so much it made me start this blog.
The brush off goes like this. You're taking verses out of context (in what context exactly is it OK to murder lewd women or calf worshippers?). This from a man who builds an entire philosophy from the word middle.
You're taking it literally, when it's just a metaphor (again, for what? What is burning the skins off unbelievers a metaphor for? Fairy dust?) .
You can't just focus on the horror, you have to read it in the context of the Qur'an as a whole. Yes, except that every time he tries to establish a context, the verses he himself quotes are chock full of horrors. There are so many horrors that by his own argument horror becomes a crucial part of the context. In other words, you have to read any statements about religious diversity in the context of the judicial murder of the calf worshipping religiously diverse. You have to read the references to God's mercy in the context of the many, many posthumous human bonfires. When you find positive references to the role of women, you have to remember that's not including the lewd ones, who have all been locked up and left to die by now.
And my personal favourite brush off, a direct quote against my argument, If that were so, it would have been refuted by now - not least by great Muslim thinkers and rationalists themselves. The simple fact that they claim things somehow becomes evidence in favour of the claim.
David Pavett, in the comments, is annoyed. This post by Ziauddin Sarder seems to reveal an approach to discussion that is unhelpful, he says, later adding, I sincerely hope that this Qur'an Blog can move away from this sort of ad hominem stuff and try to stick to the real issue which is to consider ways of understanding the Qur'an.
I sympathise with his annoyance, as he's always put his argument in an entirely reasonable way, but personally I don't really care about the ad hominem stuff as such. If you spend time arguing with the religious on the Internet, it often goes that way. He hasn't suggested that we should be killed and our bodies stripped down for transplantable body parts, so as far as I'm concerned he'll always be among our milder critics.
No, what I mind about the ad hominem stuff is that it's offered, on its own, as the argument. He's dismissed us without feeling the need to address our arguments in detail. If you refer back to my original debate with him, a crucial part of my case was that because the claim of perfection is an extraordinary claim, therefore it requires extraordinary evidence, and that every verse has to be defendable in detail, to the point where it cannot be said of any verse that a minor tweak would have made it obviously better. I am still waiting (though not with bated breath) for a proper response to that. All I got was the usual stuff about metaphor, and some remarks (also ad hominem) about my failure to engage with the Qur'an properly.
Since then, I've taken great pleasure in analysing his remarks about the Qur'an in as detailed a way as I can possibly make the time for. When they've really annoyed you, don't get personal, get analytical.
Not that I've entirely avoided the ad hominem myself. I've always done it positively, though, trying to differentiate between the positive qualities of the man himself and the mediaeval horrors of the book he defends. I also back such remarks up with detailed argument, rather than throwing them out in the world on their own.
And there's another important difference. I'm talking about one man, he's talking about an entire group. I would never generalise in that way about Muslims.
Still, we should take pleasure in small mercies. At least he seems to have given up on metaphors borrowed from chaos theory and quantum physics. He may not argue properly on his own turf, but at least he's stopped mangling other people's.
As is usual with this kind of sweeping statement, he apparently feels no need to back his accusations up with any kind of evidence. For instance, he cites no arrogant statements, and offers no explanation why arguments offered here by atheists deviate from the standards of rational argument.
It's also a strange argument to hear from someone engaged in a detailed analysis of Sura 2 of the Qur'an, the very first line of which reads This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt. How that's more rational than a school of thought which emphasises the role of evidence is a mystery to me. But that's by the by.
It's not the first time he's done this.
But I have another problem with your analysis: I think you assume, as many atheists do, that your own position is rational and objective while those who believe in God are by definition irrational and subjective. Moreover, even if they are "intelligent and educated", there must be something wrong if they believe in nonsensical things as "sacred texts, divine beings, heaven and hell". I think this position is more than slightly arrogant.
Whatever that may be, it clearly isn't an argument. This is because it simply describes a position and then acribes a negative personality trait to it, without trying to refute it in any way. Unless, to the religious mind, ascribing a negative personality trait to an argument is refuting it.
However, given that these people are part of the diverse landscape of human opinion and folly, I think, Heather, we have to learn to endure them!
The Heather in question is Heather Plant, who I wrote about before (Unhappy). They seem resolved to tolerate us, which from a historical perspective comes as a relief.
Tolerate us, but not apparently debate us. Many of us have submitted detailed arguments, which are simply brushed off or ignored. David Pavett's thorough (and entirely courteous) demolition of the blog before last has received no answer. My own experience annoyed me so much it made me start this blog.
The brush off goes like this. You're taking verses out of context (in what context exactly is it OK to murder lewd women or calf worshippers?). This from a man who builds an entire philosophy from the word middle.
You're taking it literally, when it's just a metaphor (again, for what? What is burning the skins off unbelievers a metaphor for? Fairy dust?) .
You can't just focus on the horror, you have to read it in the context of the Qur'an as a whole. Yes, except that every time he tries to establish a context, the verses he himself quotes are chock full of horrors. There are so many horrors that by his own argument horror becomes a crucial part of the context. In other words, you have to read any statements about religious diversity in the context of the judicial murder of the calf worshipping religiously diverse. You have to read the references to God's mercy in the context of the many, many posthumous human bonfires. When you find positive references to the role of women, you have to remember that's not including the lewd ones, who have all been locked up and left to die by now.
And my personal favourite brush off, a direct quote against my argument, If that were so, it would have been refuted by now - not least by great Muslim thinkers and rationalists themselves. The simple fact that they claim things somehow becomes evidence in favour of the claim.
David Pavett, in the comments, is annoyed. This post by Ziauddin Sarder seems to reveal an approach to discussion that is unhelpful, he says, later adding, I sincerely hope that this Qur'an Blog can move away from this sort of ad hominem stuff and try to stick to the real issue which is to consider ways of understanding the Qur'an.
I sympathise with his annoyance, as he's always put his argument in an entirely reasonable way, but personally I don't really care about the ad hominem stuff as such. If you spend time arguing with the religious on the Internet, it often goes that way. He hasn't suggested that we should be killed and our bodies stripped down for transplantable body parts, so as far as I'm concerned he'll always be among our milder critics.
No, what I mind about the ad hominem stuff is that it's offered, on its own, as the argument. He's dismissed us without feeling the need to address our arguments in detail. If you refer back to my original debate with him, a crucial part of my case was that because the claim of perfection is an extraordinary claim, therefore it requires extraordinary evidence, and that every verse has to be defendable in detail, to the point where it cannot be said of any verse that a minor tweak would have made it obviously better. I am still waiting (though not with bated breath) for a proper response to that. All I got was the usual stuff about metaphor, and some remarks (also ad hominem) about my failure to engage with the Qur'an properly.
Since then, I've taken great pleasure in analysing his remarks about the Qur'an in as detailed a way as I can possibly make the time for. When they've really annoyed you, don't get personal, get analytical.
Not that I've entirely avoided the ad hominem myself. I've always done it positively, though, trying to differentiate between the positive qualities of the man himself and the mediaeval horrors of the book he defends. I also back such remarks up with detailed argument, rather than throwing them out in the world on their own.
And there's another important difference. I'm talking about one man, he's talking about an entire group. I would never generalise in that way about Muslims.
Still, we should take pleasure in small mercies. At least he seems to have given up on metaphors borrowed from chaos theory and quantum physics. He may not argue properly on his own turf, but at least he's stopped mangling other people's.
A middle community part two
In my previous post, I talked about the claim that verse 148 was a celebration of religious diversity. Now I want to move on to the main substance of Sardar's blog, which is the word middle. It appears here.
2:143. Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.
Having told us over and over again that we shouldn't build dramatic conclusions on the basis of one verse, Sardar then does exactly that. The qibla (the direction of prayer), he says, isn't the essence of Islam. The real spirit of Islam lies elsewhere. It lies in the Qur'anic description of Muslims as "the middle community".
Based on what? Based, apparently, on the one reference in this verse, which is in itself ambiguous. He claims that there are other references in the Qur'an, but fails to cite them.
He also claims that this means a moderate approach to religion, but there is no evidence of moderation in the surrounding verses, which call other religions foolish, assert that the Qur'an is beyond doubt and praise the murder of polytheists. There are other, more popular Islamic interpretations of of the reference to the middle. It is interpreted either as referring to the central geographical position of the Islamic world, poised between Europe, Africa and Asia, or as a mark of superiority.
As usual, Sardar justifies his liberal, moderate interpretation on the basis of his own previous interpretation of other parts of the Qur'an in that way. It emerges from the Qur'an's frequent reminder to Muslims to be modest and moderate, he says. Say what?
And what a tower he builds on this single brick, on this one, highly contested and ambiguous verse. It suggests moderation in our approach to religion per se so it does not become the sole marker of our identity, a totalitarian obsession that undermines common human values, and eventually leads to self-destruction. It points towards a balanced approach to reason and revelation, science and values, ethics and morality. It argues for a more respectful and humble approach to nature, how we look after and preserve the environment for future generations. It demands fair play, equity and justice in our economic activity and moderation in our politics.
He has to say it suggests it, because it certainly doesn't come right out and say it. And when set in context it doesn't really suggest it either. The suggestion comes not from seventh century Arabia, but from Sardar's private life in the modern, secular world, where such sentiments are more generally admired.
But now we're back to the circular argument. All that we learnt about diversity and its continuity in the last blog is relevant and continues to apply to reading this passage. I understand that. In particular, I'm remembering that the judicial murder of calf worshippers, for no other crime than following their own religious choice, is an integral part of the Abrahamic faiths, and that the Qur'an, far from distancing itself from this bloody heritage, describes these atrocious acts as required for God to forgive the Jews.
Of course, our outrage is mitigated by the complete lack of any historical evidence that the Jewish flight from Egypt, the revelation at the burning bush, and therefore the judicial murder ever actually happened. Fortunately for the Jews of the time, Moses very probably never existed.
But the horror show lives on, thousands of years after it probably didn't happen, in the minds of those who celebrate it and the actions they base on it.
While we're here, have a look at this.
2:145. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong. In other words, once you're in the Muslim community it's a sin to leave it.
And this isn't leaving it to be a polytheist or atheist. This is leaving to become a Jew or (more likely) a Christian. And it's especially problematic when you consider what a low percentage of Muslims become Muslims as a result of adult decisions.
For when you're considering Islam, it's crucial to remember - you're mainly dealing with people who have been told what to think about metaphysics since they were five or six. Once they grow up, they do the same to their own children, in the belief that it's the correct thing to do. So it's not like membership of the Muslim community is something decided on after a mature, considered weighing of the facts.
And there are penalties in Islam for leaving the faith. Yes, I'm referring to the death penalty for apostasy. And yes, I know it's not as simple as that. For instance, there is no reference to it in the Qur'an - it's all in the hadeeth - and scholars disagree about whether women should be murdered or just locked up, and so on. A few even argue that there is no such proscription, although to the mainstream that's considered lunatic.
But the whole subject would never have arisen if the Qur'an wasn't so full of references to the wrong of Muslims changing their mind about their religion. And you will notice that this is not because it makes them less ethical, in the sense that they treat other people worse, but simply because they've changed their belief.
It's this idea, that to abandon your religious belief is inherently a sin (and the Qur'an is extremely vocal about the posthumous torments awaiting such sinners) which makes traditional monotheism such a problem in secular pluralist societies. There are two million Muslims in Britain, and given the massive turning away from religion in Britain as a whole it's very likely that many thousands of these would abandon it altogether if they felt themselves at liberty to do so. I certainly know from private conversations with official Muslims who don't believe in any of it that the threat of coercion is uppermost in their minds. Although not actively proposing acts of violence against such people, the Qur'an bears a heavy responsibility for creating the climate in which such violence takes place.
2:143. Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.
Having told us over and over again that we shouldn't build dramatic conclusions on the basis of one verse, Sardar then does exactly that. The qibla (the direction of prayer), he says, isn't the essence of Islam. The real spirit of Islam lies elsewhere. It lies in the Qur'anic description of Muslims as "the middle community".
Based on what? Based, apparently, on the one reference in this verse, which is in itself ambiguous. He claims that there are other references in the Qur'an, but fails to cite them.
He also claims that this means a moderate approach to religion, but there is no evidence of moderation in the surrounding verses, which call other religions foolish, assert that the Qur'an is beyond doubt and praise the murder of polytheists. There are other, more popular Islamic interpretations of of the reference to the middle. It is interpreted either as referring to the central geographical position of the Islamic world, poised between Europe, Africa and Asia, or as a mark of superiority.
As usual, Sardar justifies his liberal, moderate interpretation on the basis of his own previous interpretation of other parts of the Qur'an in that way. It emerges from the Qur'an's frequent reminder to Muslims to be modest and moderate, he says. Say what?
And what a tower he builds on this single brick, on this one, highly contested and ambiguous verse. It suggests moderation in our approach to religion per se so it does not become the sole marker of our identity, a totalitarian obsession that undermines common human values, and eventually leads to self-destruction. It points towards a balanced approach to reason and revelation, science and values, ethics and morality. It argues for a more respectful and humble approach to nature, how we look after and preserve the environment for future generations. It demands fair play, equity and justice in our economic activity and moderation in our politics.
He has to say it suggests it, because it certainly doesn't come right out and say it. And when set in context it doesn't really suggest it either. The suggestion comes not from seventh century Arabia, but from Sardar's private life in the modern, secular world, where such sentiments are more generally admired.
But now we're back to the circular argument. All that we learnt about diversity and its continuity in the last blog is relevant and continues to apply to reading this passage. I understand that. In particular, I'm remembering that the judicial murder of calf worshippers, for no other crime than following their own religious choice, is an integral part of the Abrahamic faiths, and that the Qur'an, far from distancing itself from this bloody heritage, describes these atrocious acts as required for God to forgive the Jews.
Of course, our outrage is mitigated by the complete lack of any historical evidence that the Jewish flight from Egypt, the revelation at the burning bush, and therefore the judicial murder ever actually happened. Fortunately for the Jews of the time, Moses very probably never existed.
But the horror show lives on, thousands of years after it probably didn't happen, in the minds of those who celebrate it and the actions they base on it.
While we're here, have a look at this.
2:145. If thou after the knowledge hath reached thee, Wert to follow their (vain) desires,-then wert thou Indeed (clearly) in the wrong. In other words, once you're in the Muslim community it's a sin to leave it.
And this isn't leaving it to be a polytheist or atheist. This is leaving to become a Jew or (more likely) a Christian. And it's especially problematic when you consider what a low percentage of Muslims become Muslims as a result of adult decisions.
For when you're considering Islam, it's crucial to remember - you're mainly dealing with people who have been told what to think about metaphysics since they were five or six. Once they grow up, they do the same to their own children, in the belief that it's the correct thing to do. So it's not like membership of the Muslim community is something decided on after a mature, considered weighing of the facts.
And there are penalties in Islam for leaving the faith. Yes, I'm referring to the death penalty for apostasy. And yes, I know it's not as simple as that. For instance, there is no reference to it in the Qur'an - it's all in the hadeeth - and scholars disagree about whether women should be murdered or just locked up, and so on. A few even argue that there is no such proscription, although to the mainstream that's considered lunatic.
But the whole subject would never have arisen if the Qur'an wasn't so full of references to the wrong of Muslims changing their mind about their religion. And you will notice that this is not because it makes them less ethical, in the sense that they treat other people worse, but simply because they've changed their belief.
It's this idea, that to abandon your religious belief is inherently a sin (and the Qur'an is extremely vocal about the posthumous torments awaiting such sinners) which makes traditional monotheism such a problem in secular pluralist societies. There are two million Muslims in Britain, and given the massive turning away from religion in Britain as a whole it's very likely that many thousands of these would abandon it altogether if they felt themselves at liberty to do so. I certainly know from private conversations with official Muslims who don't believe in any of it that the threat of coercion is uppermost in their minds. Although not actively proposing acts of violence against such people, the Qur'an bears a heavy responsibility for creating the climate in which such violence takes place.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A middle community part one
It turns out I've got so much to say about this that I'm splitting mine into two as well. Both my sections refer to both of Sardar's, though.
In this blog (A middle community part one and part two) he doesn't precisely specify the verses he's talking about, but it seems to be roughly verses 2:142-150.
Madeleine Bunting draws our attention to verse 148. To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good. Wheresoever ye are, Allah will bring you Together. For Allah Hath power over all things.
They both interpret this as a message of religious tolerance. It doesn't matter which religion you follow as long as you do good things, that kind of thing. Sardar justifies this on the basis that the preceding text (which he analysed last week) said exactly that, which might be reasonable if it actually said anything of the kind.
I poured scorn on that idea in a previous post (Diversity and difference), and one of his regular correspondents, David Pavett, dismembers his argument with admirable thoroughness. Pavett is to date unanswered, yet the assumption of Qur'anic diversity continues here.
The verses immediately preceding verse 148 don't help him much either. Let's summarise them.
What do you make of the verse now? When viewed in context, does it sound anything like a statement of religous tolerance? Does it even sound as if it's addressed to all monotheists? Or is it actually aimed specifically at Muslims, telling them Allah has different goals for each of them?
As Bunting points out, the next two verses appear to contradict the interpretation they are trying to put on verse 148.
2:149-150. From whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; that is indeed the truth from the Lord. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither: that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided.
Oh look, we're back to the usual monotheism. God is great, do as he says, which means do as I say. There's nothing here that David Koresh would be nervous about.
In this blog (A middle community part one and part two) he doesn't precisely specify the verses he's talking about, but it seems to be roughly verses 2:142-150.
Madeleine Bunting draws our attention to verse 148. To each is a goal to which Allah turns him; then strive together (as in a race) Towards all that is good. Wheresoever ye are, Allah will bring you Together. For Allah Hath power over all things.
They both interpret this as a message of religious tolerance. It doesn't matter which religion you follow as long as you do good things, that kind of thing. Sardar justifies this on the basis that the preceding text (which he analysed last week) said exactly that, which might be reasonable if it actually said anything of the kind.
I poured scorn on that idea in a previous post (Diversity and difference), and one of his regular correspondents, David Pavett, dismembers his argument with admirable thoroughness. Pavett is to date unanswered, yet the assumption of Qur'anic diversity continues here.
The verses immediately preceding verse 148 don't help him much either. Let's summarise them.
- 142. Pray my way, not the Jewish way.
- 143. I've made you a middle people, without apparently feeling the need to explain that in any way, so there's something else for you to bicker about.
- 144. You've still got to pray my way, not the Jewish way.
- 145. If you turn into a Jew or Christian, you're a sinner.
- 146. Some of those Jews are a right bunch of liars, anyway.
- 147. There's no doubt I'm right.
What do you make of the verse now? When viewed in context, does it sound anything like a statement of religous tolerance? Does it even sound as if it's addressed to all monotheists? Or is it actually aimed specifically at Muslims, telling them Allah has different goals for each of them?
As Bunting points out, the next two verses appear to contradict the interpretation they are trying to put on verse 148.
2:149-150. From whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; that is indeed the truth from the Lord. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do. So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither: that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided.
Oh look, we're back to the usual monotheism. God is great, do as he says, which means do as I say. There's nothing here that David Koresh would be nervous about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)