My Thoughts on The Koran

For this  rereading of the Koran, I read the A. J. Arberry translation. All quotations below are from that version. 

Scholars, politicians, theologians, Muslims and non – Muslims, etc. debate the meaning of the words in The Koran. A look at the way in which this book and other Islamic texts are interpreted by different individuals and groups reveals an amazing diversity of practices and views. Some argue that the Koran is a book of peace and tolerance. Others use it to justify violence and the oppression of others. There are theological disputes that are complex. Both Muslims and non - Muslims have joined in on the discussions. There is a tendency for folks to label interpretations that they do not agree with as “not real Islam”. This argument seems like it is designed to stifle communication and disagreement and to whitewash what are undeniably troubling verses in this book. 

It is common to hear folks tell non - Muslims not to draw their own conclusions about the Koran and to “ask a Muslim”. However, an examination of what Muslims throughout the world have to say about this text reveals vast disagreements. Listening to the views of Muslims is vitally important and useful, but it is not the end of the discussion. 

I am not going to explore the entire cornucopia of views out there.  Instead I am going to paint a picture of my interpretation of this book. Of course I am no expert. But I am capable of reading and drawing my own conclusions. With that, I believe in examining my own conclusions and questioning them based on the views of others, both Muslim and non - Muslim is necessary.

I read the text of The Koran as a particular viewpoint that describes the Universe. Like many other philosophical and religious works, it is an interpretation of reality. It is an attempt to make sense of the world in which we live in.

The ubiquitous underlying message behind this book is that both Old and New Testaments are the word of God. In fact, a large percentage of the Koran consists of a retelling and commentary of Bible stories. There is a particular emphasis on the destruction of cities and their inhabitants.  It is repeated over and over again: the people of various cities and regions were sinful and who ignored the prophets, they brought destruction on themselves. The stories of Lot, Noah and others are referred to numerous times as the text continually to come around to them again and again.

Jesus, who was the product of a virgin birth, was an important prophet but he was not the Son of God. The concept of the Trinity is specifically referred to. Many words are devoted to refuting it. At the same time Jesus is praised as an important prophet. 

It is important to understand the Koran’s view of Christians and Jews. The text refers to both groups collectively as “People of the Book.” 

There is another group mentioned, They are referred to as unbelievers. A simple Google search reveals that there is debate over who should be included as unbelievers. The term clearly refers to people who are neither Muslims, Christians or Jews. But does it also include Christians and Jews? In other words, does it also include People of the Book? 

The text treats unbelievers and People of the Book very differently. Thus I conclude that they are distinct groups without overlap. 

Christians and Jews are usually talked about with some respect, 

“some of the People of the Book are a nation upstanding, that recite God's signs in the watches of the night, bowing themselves, believing in God and in the Last Day, bidding to honour and forbidding dishonour, vying one with the other in good works; those are of the righteous.”

Unbelievers are talked much more negatively. In fact, the text is venomous towards them. Over and over again the text lays out the horrible punishment that they will face on the day – of -  judgment. The below passage is very typical, 

"And thou shalt see the sinners that day coupled in fetters, of pitch their shirts, their faces enveloped by the Fire, that God may recompense every soul for its earnings; surely God is swift at the reckoning."

When not burned in fire the Non – Believers are exposed to boiling water, 

“And those who disbelieve — for them awaits a draught of boiling water, and a painful chastisement, for their disbelieving.”  

Muslims are instructed to not even associate with unbelievers,

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends, rather than the believers — for whoso does that belongs not to God in anything” 

The text seems to be somewhat obsessed with unbelievers  They are mentioned scores of times, usually in similar ways to the above. 

A question arises, does this text require that Islam be forced on everyone? A famous quote seems to answer that question clearly,

"No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error."

However, another passage, which refers to adultery seems to contradict this, 

"And when two of you commit indecency, punish them both; but if they repent and make amends, then suffer them to be"

A Google search indicates that there is some dispute in regards to the above words. Some translations specifically call for flogging in the case of adultery. Either way, this is a demand for punishment for cases of adultery. How does this reconcile with the earlier passage that admonishes no compulsion in religion?  It seems that the text is specifying that no one should be forced to be a Muslim, but the rules of as specified in The Koran be enforced throughout society, through coercion. 

So much has been talked about the Koran and women. There are multiple passages that clearly declare that men are superior to women. From inheritance to court cases, women receive less benefits, less credibility and less respect then men. 

Ultimately, men are to rule over women and may use violence to control them as the below passage indicates, 

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; “

Obviously, there is no place for the above in a free and equitable society. 

There are certainly positive moral points about this work. There are numerous admonitions to be charitable. There is a lot of talk about war, but Believers are usually urged to only wage it defensively.  Infanticide, particularly involving girls, was a practice that was apparently widespread in the region in Mohamed’s time. It is mentioned at several points and is condemned and forbidden.

The Koran is a rich work that is well worth reading. It sometimes encourages its adherents to act ethically.  However, it also urges Believers to engage in immoral activity. As I have illustrated above, it is no guide to morality.  

Of course The Koran is a complex work. I have oversimplified it in the above commentary.  A survey of both serious scholarship and more casual interpretations illustrates a wide range of interpretations. Some of these opinions are not congruent with the views that I have expressed above. Thus, while the above the above is analysis of the Koran not an analysis of Islam as a whole. With that, in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, repressive regimes do use some of these morally untenable beliefs to oppress people. 

The theocrats in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran not withstanding, many folks who call themselves Muslims would likely take issue with the above interpretation. Many would disagree with my take on this text. In the end, I urge everyone to read this book and draw their own conclusions. 

Islam is a vitally important force operating in our world. Despite various interpretations of this book, The Koran is the basis of a belief system that billions of people follow.  A reading of this text is vital for anyone who wishes to begin to understand Islam. 

Talking About Islam

I have recently reread The Koran. Before I post commentary on the book itself, I wanted to write something regarding some trends that are relevant to the worldwide conversation regarding Islam. 

The main point of this entry is to discuss how folks who attempt to have any intelligent public conversation about anything involving Islam are caught between two irrational forces. 

First, there is anti-Muslim bigotry and violence directed at Muslims. For years, there has been hate and violence aimed at people of the Islamic faith. In the United States, this situation has been exacerbated by the results of the recent Presidential election. At this stage, Trump and his surrogates are talking about Muslim bans and Muslim registries. Mosques are being vandalized, and women wearing Hijabs are being attacked all over the United States (Some cases where reports of anti - Muslim  violence that have been proven to be hoaxes. However, many more instances appear to be genuine). Even before recent developments, those expressing prejudice against Muslims have used legitimate criticism of Koranic text, oppressive Islamist laws, etc. to paint all Muslims in a negative light. This very much complicates genuine conversation and criticism. 

On the other side is a movement originating out of the far Left that demands no criticism of Islam or The Koran in any way. At its worst, this movement has accused the victims of Islamist murder, such as  the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, of bigotry. They have also set their sites on people who are campaigning for human rights in the Islamic world. Amazingly, some folks who are Muslims themselves have been called bigots for campaigning against honor killings, guardianship laws, forced Islamic veiling, etc. In some cases, it can be argued that some extreme Leftist voices have allied themselves with Islamists who have murdered and threatened critics. Though inconsequential in light of the big picture, I have been called a bigot (and a Trump supporter!) for what has been respectful criticism of text in the Koran, as well as when I criticized oppressive practices imposed by the Saudi and Iranian regimes. I only mention my own experiences to help build a picture of what I am referring to. 

Another important point is that this is a not a one-sided argument. Bigots have latched on to all aspects of this issue and often try to insert themselves into real discussions. Some, who critique the Koran and Islam, while not racist, engage in scathing commentary that naturally incites strong responses. Not all emotional responses to criticism are folks trying to impose de facto blasphemy rules, some of the pushback against critics of Islam is just vigorous disagreement in of itself. Many critics, while not bigots, generalize a lot about Islam, which is in my opinion makes no sense directed at such a varied and diverse faith. There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on many of these issues.

Unfortunately, rational and decent folks, as well as human rights advocates and reformers, are caught in the middle between these groups. This issue is relevant both to people talking about human rights in Islamic societies and enclaves as well as to general discussions about Islam and Islamic texts. 

There is also a lesser version of this trend that is not nasty and uncivil and does not automatically label all criticism of Islam as bigotry. Instead it is a tendency to excuse or minimize harm done by Islamists and deny that there is anything negative contained in The Koran. Some just do not want any Islam and/or any religious beliefs critiqued but argue their case without name-calling. Though I do not agree with this line of reasoning, I consider this as an intellectual disagreement and I welcome conversation on this topic.

I should note that, in my opinion, those who disagree with particular criticisms of Islam are not part of the above. It is those who are irresponsibly throwing out the term bigot or Islamophobe that I am referring to. A vigorous, productive and intelligent discussion of various aspects of Islam invariably will involve those who criticize and those who disagree with that criticism. In fact, I often disagree with the criticism of Islam that I read. 

For those who want further reading on this topic, I have compiled a list of sources and evidence regarding this trend here . In regards to my feelings on criticizing religion in general, my post on the subject is here: Religion and Its Critics. 

The question arises as to what is the motivation and causes of what I can only describe as a hyper-defensiveness towards Islam. I will speculate based on conversations that I have had as well as on opinion pieces and blogs that I have read. First, there is an understandable reaction to the anti-Muslim Bigotry and violence aimed at Muslims. This has become even more of a concern with recent developments in the United States. 

Second, there is a streak of cultural relativism that is popular in some elements of the far Left. This leads to the belief that that non-European cultures and belief systems should be immune from moral and ethical standards and even the standards of logic and reason. I may explore cultural relativism in another post.  

Finally, there seems to be an extreme form of critical race theory operating. There are those who believe all oppression that exists in the world to be perpetuated by white men and colonialism and that any criticism of culture or acts of non-white men is invalid. 

Readers of this blog know that my criticism of religion tends to be directed at specific aspects of it. I rarely, if ever criticize an entire faith. I find all the major religions to be too diverse to generalize about.  I try to be respectful and try to listen and consider other people’s view. I also tend to praise certain aspects to religion in my commentary. I generally to do the same thing on other social media, particularly Twitter. My commentary on the Koran will not be a scathing attacking on the text. It will not be all negative, nor it will not be all positive.  I will not hesitate to express my opinions of ideas found in the Koran that I find reprehensible. 

As I have recently reread the book, I will be putting up at least one more blog on the Koran. As per the above I will include a combination of positive and negative things about the work. I believe that bigots will not likely be able to use it as a tool. As for folks on the other side, I am not exaggerating that there are some, who will label any talk of Islam or the Koran that is not One – Hundred percent positive as bigotry. Regardless of the terrible atmosphere out there, I will share my thoughts. I hope my readers find them interesting and that they spark some stimulating and lively conversations. 

Religion and Its Critics

Lately, the issue of criticizing religion has been a hot topic. On one extreme are those who want absolutely no critique of religious belief and or holy books whatsoever. On the other extreme are those who are tying criticism of faiths to their own brand of bigotry and vitriolic language. Of course, there are many folks in the middle.  In particular, the criticism of Islam has landed itself into the midst of this.

 All belief systems need criticism, including those that I hold dear. For instance, I tend to champion secularism, the scientific method and democracy, to name a few. I not only accept that these things will be criticized, but I understand that such scrutiny helps improve these thought systems. Ideas and ideologies can thrive as a result of being exposed to criticism, scrutiny and even parody. This allows invalid ideas to be discarded, paves the way for ideas that need improvement to be modified, and illuminates the strength of really good ideas. Religious belief is no exception. It is vital that in a free society, folks discuss and debate ideas. Religion touches upon our world in so many ways and must be included in the debate and discussion.

When a belief system is not open to criticism, it creates all sorts of problems. First, if I were to accept that religion should not be criticized, than I would logically insist that a whole range of other beliefs that I cherish, should also not be criticized. In addition, when folks commit irrational or immoral acts in the name of the religion, a prohibition on criticism removes the ability to examine the motivations as well as to fully expose these actions.

Ironically, though I am a nonbeliever and I often argue that we need to be free to criticize religion, I often find myself praising it as often as I disapprove of certain aspects of it. I also prefer, but do not insist, that criticism be polite and sensitive to the feelings of reasonable believers. This is not just because I like to be nice. When people’s thought systems come under scathing attack, they become understandably defensive. In addition, a one-sided view of religion, its history and how it motivates people to act does not seem reflective of reality. There is a lot of good motivated by and done in the name of religion. There are worthwhile ideas and concepts that come out of it both historically and in our present day. I wrote about the need to have a balanced view on these topics in more detail here.

  

I would be remiss if I did not mention a group that is called the “New Atheists.” Richard Dawkins is the most prominent of this group that includes Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and others. This group uses strong rhetoric and has little respect for any religious ideas. Though they seem careful not to attack individuals, their commentary on religion is often scathing.

Though I agree with much of what they say, I find that not only is their tone too harsh for my taste, but that their view of religion is too lopsided, never emphasizing the good that comes out of it. There are also those who go well beyond this group. Social media is full of people who express biting hatred of religion. Sometimes this hatred is paired with racism. Nevertheless, in a free society, such voices will inevitably speak, and unless they are calling for violence, they should not be censored.

Just because speech is permissible does not make it right. I support reasoned criticism of all belief systems. I also like to be respectful unless a belief is hateful or promoting discrimination or violence. With that, I also think that parody as well as harsh criticism is often in order. This is especially true when the subject is murder, violence, brutality, discrimination, etc. that are driven by the things written in holy books. Simply put, there are abominable things in both the Old Testament and the Koran. The fact that these holy books also include a lot of good things does not alleviate the need for scrutiny.

As of late, Islam seems to be at the center of this debate. There has been very harsh criticism of that belief system lately. There has also been outright hate, bigotry and violence directed at Muslims. There has also been lots of fair and reasoned criticism that has unfairly been labeled “Islamophobia.” Maryam Namazie, a critic of extremist violence and mistreatment of women in Islam, has been exposed to caustic verbal attacks and harassment by extremists. Even worse, violence has been aimed at religious critics. The very worst of this involved the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. The Charlie Hebdo attacks served as a stark reminder to those of us who believe in freedom of speech just how far people will go to suppress that liberty in the name of religion.

There have been cases where non – Muslim commentators, such as Emmanuel Todd, have joined in and partially blamed the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists for the violence and excoriated those who are criticizing Islam. In turn, some secularists have coined the term “Regressive Left” for liberals who they deem to be apologizing for violence and discrimination in the name of Islam. 

Folks will point out with much truth that these violent fanatics do not represent the Islamic faith. It is absolutely true that most Muslims do not support such things. However, the Koran (Since the question comes up when I discuss this topic, I have read the Koran twice), which despite containing a lot of good things is full of racism, misogyny and calls for violence, points to the fact there is some connection. The fact that many of those who perpetuate oppression and violence directly cite the text of this holy book further supports this contention. 

A popular response to criticism of Islam is that parts of Old Testament advocates terrible barbarities. This is true. Though it seems apparent that it is not driving as much violence and oppression in out current age, belief in certain aspects Old Testament ideology drives some discrimination and violence. Since it is connected to all three Abrahamic Religions, this is particularly significant.  This is another good argument as to why it is imperative that people be free to criticize religious belief systems.

Though in my opinion the New Testament does not advocate violence and discrimination like other holy books do, it is full of ideas about how people should live. It touches upon morality, human nature, the nature of existence, and even economics. Such a comprehensive set of beliefs also lends itself and must be open to scrutiny. 

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the positive actions that the various religions as well the texts of the holy books seem to motivate. All the major religions drive an enormous amount of charitable and humanitarian action. With that, such positive aspects of these faith - based systems do not exempt these systems from scrutiny and criticism. However, such activities must be considered when formulating any comprehensive view of these belief systems.

Though I have read multiple texts connected with the Eastern religions I am less knowledgeable concerning these belief systems and their impact on humanity. With that, I believe most of the issues and arguments that I raise here also apply to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.

Folks may disagree with some of my opinions on various belief systems. Such disagreement is actually part of the very important discussion that humanity needs to be having about the enormously influential  group of ideas known as religion.

No doubt religion will always be criticized, in ways that I agree with and in ways that I disagree with. There will also be folks who defend these belief systems. There will be others who insist that religious beliefs are above criticism. I have argued before that a society where folks are free and open to various ideas as well as to criticize these ideas is ideal. I have also mentioned that I am a believer in The Marketplace of Ideas. In such a marketplace, all ideas, including religious ones, must be open to discussion and  debate.

The Bible and the Koran

I have read and reread at least twice, all the books of the Bible. I have read the Koran twice and will likely go back to it at some time in the future. Since I will be sharing some of my opinions on these texts, in future blogs, I think that this would be a good time to present some of my general thoughts concerning these books.

It goes without saying that almost everything in the Bible and the Koran is of enormous significance. Much of it is brilliant literature. Many of the ideas invented and presented on its pages have played a vital part in the development of human ideas and philosophy. These works are a cornerstone in the great palace of human thinking. Both books are filled with wonderful, as well as terrible ideas. Any person, who wants to understand the world, would do well to read and to attempt to understand what is contained here.

However, as a source of truth about the physical world, I barley believe a single word contained in these works. While Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, etc. were likely real persons; their depictions in these books were fictional. These were interesting, compelling and magnificent characters; but they are essentially products of someone’s imagination.

I am essentially an atheist. Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion has a fun little scale where a person can compare their beliefs on the existence of Deities. The scale runs from 1 to 7, with a sore of 1 representing the view that one is 100% certain that God exists and a score of 7 being 100% certain that she does not.  I come out as a 5 or 6 on the scale of 7. Dawkins would classify me as leaning towards being a de facto atheist.

If there is a God, there is not doubt that he, she or it, is not the very small and petty Divinity described in most of the world’s holy books. The more one learns about the natural world, Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Cosmology, etc., the more trivial and less important the God that man created in these fictional works appears to be. In the unlikely event that a supreme being exists, it is a God of Math and Physics. He is a creator of Black Holes, Quantum Physics and the double helix. She is not likely to be helping people to walk on water or build wooden arks and she is certainly not getting angry if people do not believe in her or draw pictures of her “prophet”.

I also find it difficult to use these writings as any kind of a moral compass. There are superbly great ideas contained here, but there are just as many terrible ones. It has become almost a cliché to say now, but it is true, that Yahweh of the Old Testament was more often then not, a petty, vain, frivolous, yet often very entertaining monster. The Koran espouses some very good things, such as toleration for Christians and Jews, almost as often as it advocates horrendous things, such as intolerance for many other belief systems or the enslavement of women. The God of the New Testament is certainly more beneficent that either Yahweh or Allah, but he is has similar moral issues such as threatening punishment for dissenting opinions as well as the tendency to support slavery.

I also find it impossible to view the Bible (or the Koran if we look at the Islamic text as a “Sequel” of sorts) as a coherent work. The God of the Old Testament is obviously not the same character as described in the Gospels. The God of Saint Paul, for that matter is very different from Jesus or his father as depicted in the Gospels. The philosophy of Ecclesiastes seems to be incompatible with just about everything else found in either the Old or New Testament. Allah of the Koran is different still.

Analyzing these Holy Books as literature, philosophy, and diverse works of cultural importance, and not as absolute truth, or as a single philosophy, is the only rational and coherent way to explore them. Examining these enormously significant works as such is vitally important, if one is to gain a minimum level of understanding of the world.