Fatwa This!

by G. Richard Bozarth

Islam has become a big deal for the First World that cannot be ignored any longer. Muslims have made the Islamic nations, especially those that are the most theofascist, the most anti-Israel, and the most abundant with oil, problems the First World must struggle with. The hurt that has been put to the First World by the most radical Muslims has radically escalated curiosity about Islam. Finally I succumbed and read the Qur'an (Ahmed Ali's translation published by Princeton University Press in 1988) to find out what it says.

I'm not going to get much into the history of the book. Any person interested in that should read Chapters 3 and 4 of Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq (Prometheus Books, 2003). What he describes is a mess guaranteed to produce the kind of book I read. The helter-skelter nature of the book has been known for a long time. Gibbon wrote about it in second volume of his famous 18th-century history of the Roman Empire (p. 231 of the Great Books Of The Western World edition). Warraq discusses two other major problems: the original consonantal text was unpointed (missing the dots that will tell a reader if a consonant is, for example, a "b" or a "t" or a "th") and missing vowels. The result was inevitable. Having editors later decide how to point the consonants and which vowels to insert "led to the growth of different centers with their own variant traditions of how the texts should be pointed and vowelized" (Warraq, p. 109). Caliph Uthman (644-656) authorized a version of the Qur'an and tried to make it the official version by destroying all the other versions. It didn't work. Orthodox Muslims believe the Qur'an used today is Uthman's 7th century version, but in reality "the definitive text of the Koran had still not been achieved as late as the ninth century" (Warraq, p. 74). Like the Bible, the canonical Qur'an evolved as editors settled the points-and-vowels controversies and also added an ayah (verse) here and theologically tweaked an ayah there to deal with contemporary religious and political problems.

The first interesting thing I found in the Qur'an is how poorly written it is in the helter-skelter style of a guy who had more important things to do than sit down, organize his thoughts, and make a coherent presentation of his thinking the way many of the books in Judaism's holy scriptures (JHS) and the New Testament (NT) do. Why didn't the editors and redactors who worked on the Qur'an do a better job? Perhaps they looked at the confused collection of these "revelations" on an amazing assortment of scraps of papyrus and other objects and truly believed Allah wanted them presented in a way that "honored" their disorganized production. If so, they succeeded. The Qur'an reads exactly like the slovenly thinking of a cult leader who tossed out "revelations" "suited to the emergencies of his policy or passion" (Gibbon).

Sura (chapter) 2, "The Cow," is a great example. It is a completely unorganized collection of morality commandments, praise of believers, condemnation of unbelievers, and unique versions of some JHS stories (some to prove the new True Faith is true and others to condemn the Jews for rejecting the Qur'an and refusing to believe Allah is Yahweh). Orthodox Muslims believe Allah wrote the Qur'an. If Allah actually exists, how has he endured this insult to his intellectual prowess all these centuries: "The Qur'an is not such (a writ) as could be composed by anyone but God.…Without any doubt it's from the Lord of all the worlds" (10:37)? The harsh reality is this: the Qur'an is so intellectually inferior to JHS and the NT that it is too far behind to even eat their dust, while compared to the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon is belles-lettres!

A footnote to Sura 1, "The Prologue," states that Allah (who is also called Ar-Rahman in some suras, such as 13, "Thunder", in ayah 30) "is the same God Jews and Christians worship." Does any Muslim believe that today, almost 1,400 years after Muhammad's death? I think the obstinacy of the Jews and Christians may have worn them down. However, it is obvious this was one of the original Islamic dogmas; otherwise why do so many ayat in the Qur'an complain about how Christians insult Allah by calling him a trinity and claiming one-third sired one of the other thirds and the three thirds conspired to use a woman so the sired one-third could live for a few decades as a human being? Here's 4:171 for an example: "O people of the Book [the usual way the Qur'an refers to Christians and/or Jews], do not be fanatical in your faith, and say nothing but the truth about God. The Messiah who is Jesus, son of Mary, was only an apostle of God, and a command of His which He sent to Mary, as a mercy from Him. So believe in God and His apostles, and do not call Him 'Trinity'. Abstain from this for your own good; God is only one God, and far from His glory is it to beget a son."

Interestingly, the virgin birth of Jesus is accepted as true. The story is told in the Sura 19, "Mary," and, like all the Qur'an's stories, is extremely poorly told. Again it is declared that Jesus is just a prophet and not the Son of God. I was amused to read that Mary gave birth under a date-palm tree (23). Was that Muhammad's invention, or had he believed one of the lingering Jesus fairy tales the Christian church had not yet squelched? The latter is possible because there is a fairy tale about Jesus being born in a cave (see Chapter 1, "The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ," The Lost Books Of The Bible, Bell Publishing Company/Crown Publishers, Inc., 1979).

The essential problem of the New Testament is saving as many people as possible before the world ended. The NT text clearly proclaims the belief that this would be happening very soon even in the books written many decades after the death of the guy who started the eschatological cult that evolved into Christianity, when surely there had to be some skepticism about how far "soon" could be stretched. That is not the essential problem of the Qur'an, though obviously Muhammad assimilated the Day of Judgment, which is often mentioned, but without eschatological immediacy. The Qur'an had the same basic problem as JHS, which was converting pagan Arabs to Muhammad's new cult. JHS had to deal only with pagan Jews because the Yahweh-only cult that emerged from the polytheistic Yahweh sect was only interested in Jews. Muhammad made his problem larger because he had also assimilated from Christianity the concept that there should be only One True Faith for all humans everywhere in the world. The Qur'an is as full of angry, bitter denunciations of the stubborn pagan Arabs as JHS is full of ranting and raving about the equally stubborn pagan Jews. Stubborn Christians are condemned, but not as severely as Jews and pagan Arabs: "You will find the Jews and idolaters most excessive in hatred of those who believe; and the closest to the faithful are the people who say: 'We are followers of Christ'" (5:82).

A big part of the essential problem was getting Muhammad accepted as the final and most supreme of all of Allah's prophets, the last link in a chain going all the way back to Adam and including Jesus as a very important, but not the most important, prophet (Moses, based on how often his tale is told, is the second most important prophet). It was obviously a struggle because a lot of the Qur'an deals with the acceptance problem. The primary tactic is fairy tales about previous prophets sent by Allah and the people being punished because they rejected their divine messages. The first batch of these fairy tales, all very poorly told and not quite like JHS tells them, is in Sura 2. Sura 7, "Wall Between Heaven and Hell," has another batch, and Sura 11, "Hud," has a batch that is a very good example. Included with Hud's fairy tale are fairy tales about Noah, Saleh, Abraham, Lot, Shu'aib, and Moses (already told three or four times previously!). The JHS-style message is clear: reject Muhammad and natural punishments will be suffered by stubborn people who have ears but will not hear.

The Qur'an, JHS, and the NT threaten dreadful consequences for failing to believe, becoming apostate after being converted, or being a persistent sinner. JHS primarily threatens natural punishments like earthquakes, floods, droughts, epidemics, and conquests by foreign nations. The Qur'an, like the NT, primarily threatens supernatural punishments after death. Hell in Islam is as important as hell is in the NT, and the Qur'an, unlike the NT, is not shy about giving gruesome details of the eternal torments to be suffered by sinners, unbelievers, and apostates: "When their skin is burnt up and singed, We shall give them a new coat that they may go on tasting the agony of punishment" (4:56-57). A wicked man "will get putrid liquid to drink. He will sip it, yet not be able to gulp it down" (14:16-17). The wicked will be "bound together in chains. Of molten pitch shall be their garments, their faces covered with flames" (14:49-51). "Is this [paradise] better or the tree of Zaqqum which We have reserved as punishment for evil-doers? It is a tree that grows at the bottom of Hell. Its spathes are like the prickly pear. They will eat and fill their bellies with it, washing it down with boiling water" (37:62-67). Yummy. No wonder religionists think religionism is the best thing humans have created for themselves!

It is interesting that Muhammad rejected the Christian fairy tale about how Satan became the commander in chief of hell. According to Sura 15, “Al-Hijr”, Satan (also called Iblis) did not lead an army of discontented angels in rebellion against Allah. His great sin of pride was refusing to obey when Allah commanded the angels to bow before humans after Allah had created them. As “punishment” he will suffer all the sadistic torments of hell after “the day the dead are raised” (ayah 36). Until then he is free to seduce all the humans he can into sin, except “the chosen ones,” but who they are is not clear, though I’m sure some imam or ayatollah can provide that information by now.

The agonies of hell are balanced in the Qur’an with the pleasures of heaven, which is usually called paradise, and, again unlike the New Testament (NT), lots of details about the paradise are given. Paradise “will be in a place of peace and security in the midst of gardens and of springs, dressed in brocade and shot silk, facing one another.” Just like that. We shall pair them with companions with large black eyes. They will call for every kind of fruit with satisfaction” (44:51-57). The believers will “enter the garden, you and your spouses, and be glad. Golden platters and goblets will be passed around, and every thing the heart desires and pleases the eye will be there.…You will have fruits in abundance there to eat” (43:68-73). Paradise is a garden “with streams of water that will not go rank, and rivers of milk whose taste will not undergo a change, and rivers of wine delectable to drinkers, and streams of purified honey, and fruits of every kind in them” (47:15). Paradise will be staffed with “maidens of modest look and large lustrous eyes, like sheltered eggs in a nest” (37:48-49) and also “boys of everlasting youth” who look like “pearls dispersed” (76:19).

There are some contradictions in the details. For example, in Sura 55, “Ar-Rahman,” paradise consists of two gardens and there are only two springs plus two gushing fountains, one of each per garden I assume. The resurrected inhabitants will have to recline on carpets instead of couches. The promise of herds of virgin Houris still stands, but they are clustered in pavilions instead of the mansions promised previously. Sura 56, “The Inevitable”, adds bird meats to the menu, but Sura 69, “The Concrete Reality,” has bummer news. The dead in paradise have to pick their own fruit, but it softens the disappointment by promising that the fruit is “hanging low within reach” (23). There is one thing that is true: Islam’s imaginary paradise is a lot more appealing that the boring, asexual, imaginary heaven promised by Christianity.

The Wonders of Nature Argument (WONA) is used in Judaism’s holy scriptures (JHS) more than in the NT. The Qur’an also relies on it heavily, though it seems strange to use it. After all, every supernatural entity humans have imagined has had its existence “proved” by WONA. With no way to prove a specific wonder is caused exclusively by Allah, what’s the point of WONA? However, the Qur’an uses it a lot (see Suras 16, 22, 25, 27, 30, and 50). This makes the Qur’an very vulnerable to the destruction by science, which has proven by now that a supernatural explanation is not needed for anything. For example, 16:79: “Do you not see the birds held high between the heavens and the earth? Nothing holds them (aloft) but God.” That was probably easy to believe in the 7^th century, but science has fully explained the “wonder” of how birds fly and no scientist had to add anything supernatural to make a thoroughly accurate explanation. In other words, science mocks the Qur’an even if none of the scientists who have studied how birds fly believed their research mocked any holy scriptures.

Islam, like fundamentalist Mormonism, is a polygynous religion. The limit is four wives, and as much as humanly possibly a husband is to provide copulation equally to them. The rules of incest in 4:23 are also interesting: “Unlawful are your mothers and daughters and your sisters to you, and the sisters of your fathers and your mothers, and the daughters of your brothers and sisters, and foster mothers, foster sisters, and the mothers of your wives, and the daughters of the wives you have slept with who are under your charge; but in case you have not slept with them there is no offense (if you marry their daughters); and the wives of your own begotten sons; and marrying two sisters is unlawful.” What makes the marriage and incest commandments especially interesting is that Muhammad, like any typical cult leader, was not interested in practicing what he preached. In Sura 33, “The Allied Troops,” Muhammad is allowed to marry any woman except his mother and sisters. There was no limit on how many he could marry, and he didn’t have to provide copulation equally to his wives. In Why I Am Not a Muslim, Ibn Warraq tells about problems Muhammad had with conflicts and jealousies that upset his harem, and this probably explains why he received the “revelation” about unequal copulation (p. 100-101). One thing I am sure of is this: after he decided to consummate his marriage to Ayesha when she was 9 years old (he married her when she was 6 and he was 53), he got seriously into unequal copulation!

Child marriage is just one of the ways most people in Western culture accuse Islam of degrading and abusing girls and women. It’s in the Qur’an. Among the divorce commandments in Sura 65, “Divorce,” is ayah 4 that mentions wives “who have not menstruated yet.” The first four Caliphs who ruled Islam after Muhammad and Imams Hasan and Hussein all had child wives under 10 years old (see “Holy And Blessed Family: An Example To Emulate?” by Abul Kasem at islam-watch.org/Abul Kasem/holy_and_blessed_family.htm). So, of course, child marriage is still accepted as moral in many Islamic nations, as several news stories have reported since 9/11. Warraq mentions that France attempted to eliminate the practice during the century it ruled Algeria and other parts of North Africa, but, as a French writer admitted in the 1950s and news stories report today, “consummation of marriage with young girls continues” (p. 320).

Another degrading and abusive way is honor killing of girls and women who have sexually misbehaved or merely have done something to cause a male relative to suspect she is guilty. There is no honor killing mentioned in the Qur’an, not even for adultery. According to 65:1, the punishment is divorce and exile from the ex-wife’s home. Alas, 24:2-10, which are more commandments concerning adultery, has 100 lashes for the punishment, and, if she survives that, she faces divorce and a restriction to marrying only adulterers, because, according to 24:26, “bad women deserve bad men, and bad men are for bad women.” 4:15 teaches that after women are judged guilty of fornication, the punishment is being retained in their houses “until death, or until God provide some other way for them.” These are still cruel punishments, but not as cruel as honor killing.

For most First World people, especially Feminists, the icon of Islam’s oppression, repression, and suppression of women is the burqa, that mobile black prison that covers a woman’s body entirely and provides only a mesh with tiny holes for her to see through. The Qur’an does lay the theological foundation for the burqa, even though it does not command women to wear anything like that. Allah orders Muhammad in 33:59 to “tell your wives and daughters, and the women of the faithful, to draw their wraps a little over their faces. They will thus be recognized and no harm will come to them.” The context suggests to me that the harm is supernatural punishment. 24:31 has Allah ordering Muhammad to “tell the believing women to lower their eyes, guard their private parts, and not display their charms except what is apparent outwardly, and cover their bosoms with their veils and not to show their finery except to their husbands or their fathers or fathers-in-law, their sons or step-sons, brothers, or their brothers’ and sisters’ sons, or their women attendants or captives, or male attendants who do not have any need (for women), or boys not yet aware of sex.” 24:60 eases the clothing commands for “women past the age of bearing children, who have no hope of marriage,” but does advise that “it would be better for them” to stay covered like young, fertile women. It doesn’t require a lot of theology to move from these ayat to the burqa. Contemporary Islam—infested as it is with unrestrained fundamentalism most purulently represented by theofascists like the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Iranian and Iraqi Shi’a devoted to Grand Ayatollah Khomeini’s doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih—is sufficiently übersexist enough for the burqa to be around for a long, long time.

The Qur’an is progressive in some respects concerning women. 2: 228 teaches that “women also have recognized rights as men have, though men have an edge over them.” Women, including wives, could inherit and own property even if their male relatives had an edge over them, which was not true in Christian nations for many centuries. 4:7 teaches that “men have a share in what the parents and relatives leave behind at death; and women have a share in what the parents leave behind. Be it large or small, a legal share is fixed.” The son’s share, according to 4:10, is twice the daughter’s share. That’s not fair, but it was progressive for the 7^th century. Husbands also did not automatically inherit all their wives’ property. 4:12 tells them that “your share in the property the wives leave behind is half if they die without issue, but in case they have left children, then your share is one-fourth after the payment of legacies and debts.” Muslims in the good old days when the Qur’an was produced lusted for sons and often felt supernaturally punished if their wives delivered daughters. The Qur’an attempts to raise the status of daughters, telling fathers and mothers that Allah “creates whatsoever He wills, bestows daughters on whosoever He will, and gives sons to whom He chooses. On some He bestows both sons and daughters, and some He leaves issueless” (42:49-50).

The really bad news about the Qur'an is that jihad is an essential duty for Muslims, and there is no intellectually honest way to interpret the text to make jihad into merely a personal struggle to resist sinful temptations. Jihad is holy war, and Suras 8, "Spoils Of War," and 9, "Repentance," are loaded with commandments about jihad. 66:9 quotes Allah commanding Muhammad: "O Prophet, fight the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be severe with them"; and in 8:65 Allah commands, "Prophet, urge the faithful to fight." Muslims have a holy duty to be warriors who fight to defend and also spread Islam: "Enjoined on you is fighting, and this you abhor. You may dislike a thing yet it may be good for you" (2:216). 47:31 tells Muslims that Allah "shall try you in order to know who are the fighters among you, and who are men of fortitude, and verify your histories."

The part about the histories refers to the Day of Judgment when the dead are raised to be rewarded or punished according to their deeds during their natural lives. "What has happened to you, O believers," 9:29 asks, "that when you are asked to set out in the cause of God your feet began to drag? Do you find the life of the world so pleasing that you forget the life to come?" If a Muslim dodges jihad, the life to come will be hot! Some people cannot, of course, obey the holy duty to fight unbelievers. The commandment "is not binding on the blind, the lame or the sick" (48:17), and Sura 9 seems to allow people to avoid combat as long as they provide money and/or support services for the warriors.

Unlike Judaism's holy scriptures (JHS), the Qur'an nowhere commands genocide. In fact, a defeated enemy can escape the horrors of defeat by conversion to Islam. This is mentioned in several suras. 47:4 offers another humane consequence of defeat: "So, when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until the war shall have come to an end." The extreme aggravation caused by stubborn Christians and Jews (usually called people of the Book) did not result in a genocide "revelation" even though the command to fight them is unequivocal: "Fight those people of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not prohibit what God and His Apostle have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay protective tax [jaziyah] in submission" (9:29). (Contrast these commandments with what the U.S. government and military have done to the thousands of completely innocent detainees thrown into various prisons to be tortured and to do hard time, even though they have committed no crimes!)

Alas, the anti-genocide ayat are balanced by ayat that need only a little theologic manipulation to be inspirations for suicide bombers, though a more accurate expression would be shahid (religious martyr) bombers because dying in a holy war against unbelievers is not suicide for Muslims. (Here I am remembering having decades ago browsed through a book about U.S. servicemen who had been awarded the Medal of Honor. Most of the ones I read about had received their medals posthumously after committing suicide in an attempt to win a battle or save the lives of men in their units, but it would be very wrong to describe their deaths as suicides or their actions as suicidal.) 3:195 teaches Muslim warriors that "those who were deprived of their homes or banished in My cause, and who fought and were killed, I shall blot out their sins and admit them indeed into gardens with rippling streams." 47:4-6 makes the same kind of promise: Allah "will not allow the deeds of those who are killed in the cause of God to go waste. He will show them the way, and better their state, and will admit them into gardens with which he has acquainted them." Isn't this the essential motivation of today's shahid bombers?

The really good news in the Qur'an is that it has a lot of potential for theological amelioration of Islam by Muslims who have been secularized by the dominant cultural forces that have shaped Western culture since the Enlightenment in the 18th century: science (the passion to have accurate knowledge about reality), Freethought (the passion for civil liberties), and Secular Humanism (the passion for a humane culture where each individual is able to pursue his or her own particular happiness). The potential shows up quickly in Sura 2: "Eat and drink, (enjoy) God's gifts, and spread no discord in the land" (60); "be good to your parents and your kin, and to orphans and the needy, and speak of goodness to men; observe your devotional obligations, and give Zakat [the Islamic version of Christianity's alms]" (83); "remember, when We made a covenant with you whereby you agreed you will neither shed blood among you nor turn your people out of their homes, you promised and are witness to it too" (84). Giving Zakat is loaded much more importance than charity is in JHS or the New Testament (NT). If Allah gives a Muslim wealth, 17:26 instructs him what to do with it: "So give to your relatives what is their due, and to those who are needy, and the wayfarers; and do not dissipate (your wealth) extravagantly." It ought to be amazing that any poor people suffer the torments of poverty in the Islamic nations ruled by fundamentalists, but, of course, it isn't, because hypocrisy is endemic to all versions of religionism.

7:199 commands Muslims to "cultivate tolerance, enjoin justice, and avoid the fools," and 16:90 teaches that "verily God has enjoined justice, the doing of good, and the giving of gifts to your relatives; and forbidden indecency, impropriety and oppression." 31:18-19 commands, "Do not hold men in contempt, and do not walk with hauteur on the earth. Verily God does not like the proud and boastful. Be moderate in your bearing, and keep your voice low." 49:11 is another commandment that Freethinkers and Secular Humanists can appreciate: "Do not slander one another, nor give one another nick-names." Here is a commandment much more humane than JHS's eye-for-eye commandments all too many Jews and Christians are so eagerly willing to obey: "And do not take a life, which God has forbidden, except in a just cause. We have given the right (of redress) to the heir of the person who is killed, but he should not exceed the limits (of justice) by slaying (the killer), for he will be judged (by the same law)" (17:33).

17:31 was a very progressive commandment for the 7th century, when infanticide was common throughout the Mediterranean cultural region: "Do not abandon your children out of fear of poverty. We will provide for them and for you. Killing them is certainly a great wrong." (18:81 unfortunately gives an exception. Like JHS, the Qur'an permits parents to kill children who "harass them with defiance and disbelief.") Infanticide is still a problem today, but a bigger problem is the militancy of Islam, so it is good that the Qur'an has a door that theological amelioration can use to take Islam out of its current obsession with making all humans submit to Allah. It is 42:48: If non-Muslims who are exposed to Islam "turn away (you are not responsible); We have not appointed you a warden over them. Your duty is to deliver the message." There is even a door offering theological escape from the terrible enmity Islam has towards the two religions in which its roots are deeply buried: tell "those who came to inherit the Book" that "I believe in whatever Scripture God has revealed, and I am commanded to act with equivalence among you. God is our Lord and your Lord. To us our actions, to you your deeds. There is no dispute between you and me" (42:14-15).

There is humanistic potential in the Qur'an. The problem is how to enable the secularization that has civilized so many Christian sects to become a cultural force in Islamic nations, or even in Islamic populations in non-Islamic nations. Fundamentalist Muslims would condemn any Muslim secularized by science, Freethought, and Secular Humanism as an apostate, and the Qur'an leaves no doubt about the holy duty Muslims have to violently punish apostasy. All secularized Muslims—like Salman Rushdie—know that if they publicly espouses a moderate Islam, they are one fatwa away from being murdered or living their lives under the constant threat of assassination. Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym used for reasons of personal safety by the author of several books and articles that analyze Islam with the techniques of Western scholarship. Personal safety is also the reason why he did not show his face in public even in Western nations until 2007. Now that he is making public appearances, "his presence," Wikipedia reports, "normally requires extensive policing." Until moderate Muslims are safe enough to enable secularization to be effective in Islamic nations, Islam is going to be a global problem.

Of the holy scriptures I've read (Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism), the Qur'an is the most poorly written and greatly exceeds the others in disorganized content. Nevertheless, it is fascinating even though too often arduous and tedious to read. There is a lot more I could have discussed, but I did not want to write a 6- or 9-part article! Considering how globally important Islam has become and that the United States has essentially declared war on its fundamentalist sects (yeah, yeah, it's supposed to be a war on terror, but do you see any U.S. troops, Apache helicopters, or Predator drones attacking the fundamentalist Christian terrorists in the U.S.?), the Qur'an and books like Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim should be considered must-read by all Atheists, Freethinkers, and Secular Humanists.