Here, I want to critique the Qu'ran/Koran in much the same way the Bible has been critiqued in the last four centuries, seen not as the work of a god, but clearly of men. Composed and nurtured in fierce hierarchical societies where Islam and the Koran has long been free from revision or criticism it has become an unassailable totem/icon surrounded by superstition, ignorance and intolerance. I have also undertaken this as a consequence on two separate occasions of Moslems work colleagues attempting to convert me. On the one hand I was deeply offended by their actions as I had pointed out to both that I am not religious or interested in religion, and on the other they employed the same lame, to me, arguments. I suspect they heard both in Mosques from similar uneducated imams, men who know nothing of other religions, science, literature, philosophy, but only know the Koran. Their arguments? One: that the words within the Koran (found in the Cow) are not replicated anywhere else. This apparently proves the text is from God/Allah. In fact, most of the Koran appears to come from Hebrew religious literature, some Christian literature, including the Gnostics, and is not by any means original. Two: that you can find evidence of modern science in the Koran, a book replete with warnings against sorcery, evil, angels and demons!
Unfortunately, many otherwise intelligent people have bought into the idea that the Koran is inviolate and any criticism of it must be avoided. I have read the Koran twice and I am reading it a third time. I find it backward, repetitious and full of borrowings. It seems in fact, see above, to possess little genuine originality except in some organisational aspects.
The Koran (Quran)even though edited by numerous hands, remains something of a mish-mash betraying its likely original oral composition. It begins with The Cow that defines relationships to god, what is a believer, who is a believer, and the consequences of disbelief. It declares the originality of the message, while at the same time shifting between Mohamed and the voice of god (233).
Moslems have proudly told me that the originality of the text proves it is directly from god, it is without contradiction, although it fails from the outset to be clear as to who is propounding the expressed views within it. 284-5, discussing those who only act according to part of the message, slaying and acting cruelly towards others, seems absurdly contradictory when placed beside the behaviour of Mohamed.
It then begins one of many rehashes from the Old Testament (Christian) or from parts of the Talmud (Jewish), talking about Egypt, Israel, parting of the Red Sea. There is, by this method, a synthesis of YHWH and Allah. They become one. The language comes from the Exodus and also, via the Exodus, from the Gospels. The text then refers to Moses and Jesus, indicating Mohamed's lineage.
Gradually, a martial thrust enters the text, referring to unbelievers as evil and as enemies. In reality, if you're not with us, you're against us.
Through what seems a maze of confusion, by 2.136 it emerges that Mohamed wants to take YHWH, Allah worship back to its beginnings in Abraham-although this surely presents problems of its own? In terms of virtue and continuously correct behaviour, with respect to Hebrew, Christian and Islamic religions, both Abraham's and Mohamed's behaviour rarely reflected their message or supposed message. Mohamed's message professed moral dimensions but of a particular kind.
2.102 talks of sorcery.
I have particularly identified this part below, as it clearly follows ancient Mesopotamian laws/instructions/kingly advice seen in Hammurabi law codes, which can also be seen in ancient Hebrew laws. I have problems with this kind of religious instruction because 1) it comes from ancient secular laws and 2) it is far inferior to Christian decrees as seen in the New Testament.
[2.178] O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
2.183/2.184. Here he gives instruction on fasting.
2.185-He formulates Ramadan as being when the message was revealed.
In one sense this is sufficient to be going on with, providing as it does clear evidence of readings from the Torah and Talmud. Very little evidence of his having any acquaintance with Christianity even though he had Christian relatives. There are sections that are very repetitious. It seems likely it was composed to be incanted to an audience, following a very ancient practice, rather than read. It does not have any of the literary qualities of the Talmud/Toran or of the Christian writings, poor as some of those were.
I left this at the above point, but then read more of the Koran. Here, pasted below:
2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Those Moslems who declare that Islam is a religion of peace surely do not read their own book. Now, this passage reflects Mohammed's fighting with the pagans in Mecca. Nevertheless, this is not acceptable in a religion and at such points it moves away from Christianity providing a more ancient, pre-Christian understanding of god and behaviour that in fact predates many Axis thinkers over a thousand years before. This passage also connects evil with those who do not accept Mohammed's message-non-Moslems become the Other-in sociological terms. Oppressors are those who simply oppose/disagree with Mohammed. There are indications here of early and late composition-speaking of ongoing conflict with disbelievers, although that might mean Byzantines and Persians, and of the Great Mosque. I suggest this composition is much later than Moslems believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment