Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (II)
Section 13.
Abrogation and its affects on Islamic Doctrine and Law
Muhammad’s streamlined morality dramatically simplified his leadership responsibilities, because it allowed him to produce new messages for new situations, even if those messages contradicted previous ones.
Claiming Allah’s voice, Muhammad repeatedly declared his right to abrogate previous Koranic verses (as previously mentioned in the section entitled Interpreting the Koran). There are so many abrogated verses that the subject has itself become a field of study, which Muslims call the “science” [1] of Abrogation. Through this “science,” Islamic authorities try to identify abrogated verses and the verses that abrogated them.
The number of abrogated verses varies from 42 to 238 among Muslim authorities. Of these, the ones most important to Westerners are the peaceful ones, such as the abrogated verse:
[2.256] YUSUF ALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks…
Verses like this come from an early period in Islam’s history, when Muhammad’s followers were a Meccan minority, threatened by the polytheist and Jewish tribes around them. However, after Muhammad gained power in Medina, new verses abrogated the old ones. An example of an abrogating verse is:
[9.5] YUSUF ALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
This particular verse is especially interesting because of the way Muslims defend it. For example, after quoting this verse, The Koran for Dummies goes on to explain that the term “Pagans” is not as threatening as it sounds: [2]
The word used in Arabic is Mushrikun, meaning “those who associate partners with God,” or “Polytheists.” This verse does not apply to all “unbelievers.”
Hindus and Buddhists will find little comfort in this assurance. Neither should Christians, when they realize that Muslims accuse them of being polytheists, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran explains:
There were three major religions in West Asia during the Prophet’s lifetime: Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. The latter was a polytheistic faith that had a powerful influence on Christianity. [3]
Conventional Christianity promotes Jesus as the Son of God, thereby violating the believer’s duty not to associate anything with Allah…
In the Koran, the classical Trinity of Christianity – recognizing God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – is considered a form of polytheism:
Those who say that God is the third of the Three, have, in fact, turned to disbelief. There is no Lord but God, the only One Lord. If they will not give-up such belief, the disbelievers among them will suffer a painful torment. (5:73)
…
he practice of associating partners with Allah in worship is…known as shirk in Islam. It is portrayed over and over again within the Koran as a grievous sin. Humans who commit shirk do so at the peril of their own souls. [4]
Returning to the subject of abrogation, The Koran for Dummies makes a strange claim: “the Koran argues that if the Scripture was man-made, contradictions and omissions would crop up in the Book, rather than coherence, consistency, and completeness (4:82; 39:23).” [5] The verses on which this claim is based are:
[4.82] PICKTHAL: Will they not then ponder on the Qur’an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.
[39.23] PICKTHAL: Allah hath (now) revealed the fairest of statements, a Scripture consistent, (wherein promises of reward are) paired (with threats of punishment), whereat doth creep the flesh of those who fear their Lord…
Despite the Koran’s claims for itself, the Hadith actually testifies to the Koran’s inconsistency: [6]
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53:…Ibn Az-Zubair…said to Uthman bin ‘Affan (while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse: “Those of you who die and leave wives …” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you…leave it in the Qur’an…?” Uthman said, “O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.”
The very existence of the “science” of Abrogation indicates that the Koran does not meet its own standard of proof. However, Muslims turn a blind eye to this inconvenient fact and declare that the Koran is consistent because it says it is consistent.
Unfortunately, this circular logic still leaves the inconsistencies unresolved. In fact, Islam has at least two unresolvable conflicts regarding essential tenets other than the treatment of Infidels:
The nature of Allah: Is he anthropomorphic or indescribable? [7]
The nature of the Koran: Is it timeless or created?
At times, debates over these issues were so heated that they led the House of Islam to conduct its own series of inquisitions, which rivaled the infamous ones in Spain hundreds of years later. Ultimately, the debates were resolved by a theological tossing up of the hands, in resignation to Allah’s incomprehensibility. This surrender is described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction: [8]
The rationalist tendency held sway at the ‘Abbasid court under the Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33) who imposed an inquisition-type system, the mihna, according to which government officials were obliged to declare their allegiance to the doctrine of the Created Quran. One who refused to do so, despite imprisonment and torture, was Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the traditionist…
In 849, under one of al-Mamun’s successors, the policy was reversed. Theological underpinning for a compromise between the rationalists and traditionalists was supplied by…Abu’l Hasan al-Ah’ari (d.935)… Ultimately, for the Ash’aris, God [Allah] is inaccessible to human reason. God makes himself known only through revelation, and the terms in which he chooses to reveal himself (including his throne, his hands etc.) must be accepted “without asking how”…This phrase, a key term in Ash’ari theology, “leaves to God the understanding of his own mystery.”
In other words, one should not try to apply logic or reason to Allah, because, as The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran says, “Allah is, in the end, utterly beyond the comprehension of human beings.” [9]
While Christianity and Judaism face similar issues, the ramifications are much more severe with Islam because the Koran, which is the source of these logical contradictions, is also the source of Islamic Law. Therefore, just as with Allah, this statement implies that one should not try to apply logic or reason to the fatwas of Islamic scholars.
Abrogation is also an issue with the Hadith. Therefore, whenever one sees a verse from either the Koran or the Hadith that “proves” Islam’s peacefulness, one should always ask: Has this verse been abrogated?
Some Islamic scholars debate the concept of abrogation and deal with the Koran’s inconsistencies differently. These scholars claim that the abrogated and abrogating verses refer to specific historical situations; therefore, they do not contradict each other. They believe that changing times call for changing policies. And with these words, they try to deflect the concerns of non-Muslims over Islam’s hostile intents.
Unfortunately, the practical results of this position are the same as Abrogation. Why? Because, if the Koran’s guidance is still relevant (and every Muslim would say it is), then the most recent verses are the ones in force.
However, these scholars could be intending something more sophisticated, where they draw parallels between the conditions of early Muslims and the conditions of Muslims today. That is, when Muslims are a small minority, they should emphasize the peaceful verses, just as Muhammad did. Then, after they gain power through numbers, they will be in a position to emphasize the hostile verses, just as Muhammad did. As they say, changing times call for changing policies.
Therefore, the peaceful verses of the Koran are not what they appear to be, and the people who quote them may be, unwittingly or intentionally, misleading others about Islam’s intentions.
The Koran’s one consistent message, which does not change, and which is driven home time and again, is the requirement of absolute submission to the will of Allah and his messenger. Because Muhammad joined Allah’s will to his own, the Koran effectively teaches Muslims to surrender to the will of Muhammad.
As Allah’s spokesman, Muhammad claimed the authority to make laws, retract them, create exemptions for himself, declare Jihad, collect taxes, and extend mercy or severity with complete authority. While Muhammad may have been no more despotic than most leaders of his day, and better than some, his method of gaining authority, by declaring himself the messenger of Allah, bequeathed to his followers a legacy of turmoil.
Islamic guidance for daily living after Muhammad’s death
Islam’s centralization of religious and political authority in Muhammad ended upon his death, at age 63, as he lay in the arms of A’isha, his 18-year-old wife of nine years.
Muhammad’s death confronted Muslims with two immediate leadership questions:
Religious: How should Muslims govern their daily lives?
Political: Who should replace Muhammad as ruler of the House of Islam?
The bloody search for answers to these questions led to conflicts that have plagued the House of Islam ever since.
During Muhammad’s life, the Koran, the Hadith, and the Shari’ah did not exist as complete and authoritative documents. Muslims took their guidance for daily living directly from Muhammad, who could override existing policies and scripture at will. After his death, those desiring a faithful Muslim life sought the guidance of “the companions of the Prophet.” These were the people who knew Muhammad personally, knew his recitations, and understood Muhammad well enough to say, with authority, how he would have handled a particular situation.
The faithful sought out these friends, family members, and remembrancers to find out how Muhammad would have handled situations if he could. As time went on, however, this method of guiding the lives of Muslims became ever-more tenuous, leading first to the Koran, then the Hadith, and finally Shari’ah, as this section will explain.
In the wake of Muhammad’s death, the geographical expansion of Islam led to divergent traditions and scriptures, and these differences began to pull the Islamic world apart. Muslims on the edges of the empire began to argue over what was scriptural and what was not. This growing conflict, together with the prospect of losing Islam’s brain trust through war, prompted Muhammad’s successors to undertake a massive effort to organize and codify Muhammad’s recitations. At the time of Umar’s death, there were still several competing versions of the Koran in circulation. Caliph Uthman, the third successor, consolidated these versions to define the authoritative Koran. He then destroyed all competing versions.
While Muslims claim that the individual verses recited by Muhammad are still with us today, the manner of the Koran’s compilation confirms that it reflects the genius of the remembrancers, the compilers, and the editors nearly as much as it reflects Muhammad himself. Given the fragmented nature of the source materials, there was also an opportunity for the compilers to assemble them into forms that served their own objectives rather than Muhammad’s.
While the Koran helped Muslims find guidance on how to live, it still left many questions unanswered. In their search for guidance, Islam’s leaders naturally turned to Muhammad’s own life, as recalled by those who knew him or preserved his memory. Unfortunately, the bad blood between Islam’s different sects led them to rely on different memory chains, leading to sometimes-divergent compilations of hadiths, as previously noted in Interpreting the Koran.
A major difference between the Koran and the Hadith is that the Hadith compilations were assembled decades or even centuries after Muhammad’s death. Therefore, they created wide gates through which legends and fables could enter. This widely acknowledged issue has led to another Islamic “science,” where scholars try to determine the veracity of each individual hadith, based on the chain of people who whispered it down the lane.
As a legal code, both the Koran and the Hadith were poorly organized jumbles. As Muslims tried to apply the Koran and the Hadith to matters of law, they organized Islam’s scriptural doctrines into a formal code called Shari’ah, through a process of interpretation called Tafsir. In addition, a process called Ijtihad was used to produce rulings for specific situations.
Unfortunately, there were different schools of thought on the content of the Koran and the hadiths given authority. Therefore, it was impossible for all Muslims to agree on what was law under Shari’ah. Among Sunnis, Shari’ah’s variations proceed from four major schools of thought: Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafii. Among Shiites, the major schools are: Usuli, Akhbari, Shayki, Alawi, Bohra, Druze, Khoja, and Zaydi. Kharijites also have their own school of thought. While these schools could not be reconciled, each developed a stable philosophy, making it possible for scholars to claim that Shari’ah was well-defined by the time of “The closing of the door of Ijtihad” in the tenth century. From then on, Islamic authorities claimed to have found, through scripture, the answers to all of life’s questions, even if each school had its own set of answers.
With its authority over all of life’s questions, Shari’ah has a much broader scope than Western law. Shari’ah places every single human action into one of five categories:
Obligatory acts (such as paying taxes)
Recommended acts (such as night vigil prayers)
Permissible acts (such as marrying four wives)
Undesirable acts (such as divorce)
Prohibited acts (such as stealing)
Because of Shari’ah’s all-encompassing jurisdiction, there is no act about which Shari’ah has nothing to say. When a new situation or invention arises, Islamic scholars engage in Tafsir and Ijtihad to determine which of the above five categories it belongs to.
How important is Shari’ah to Muslims? Obviously, given the description above, it is very important. But most Westerners do not appreciate how important it is. Muslims believe that Allah is profoundly unknowable and unavailable to them on a personal basis. Therefore, the only connection they have with Allah comes through Allah’s instructions in the Koran.
This means that Shari’ah, which applies the Koran to daily living, is the primary way through which Muslims express their devotion to Allah. For them, practicing Shari’ah is a form of worship. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:[10]
Shari’a means literally “the way to a watering place”: the Quranic use of the term suggestively combines the notions of a vital means of sustenance in this world and access to the divine realm of the world to come.
Conversely, disregard for Shari’ah by non-Muslims is unbelief, and a form of rebellion against Allah. No wonder Muslims consider non-Muslims to be cut-off from Allah and severely misguided!
The compilation methods used to make the Koran, the Hadith, and Shari’ah reveal how Muslims sought a rational and God-fearing way to define Islamic living. Their methods were somewhat similar to those used for the Tanakh, the Talmud, and the New Testament. In each case, groups of religious leaders deliberated over which texts and interpretations were authoritative.
However, there is one important distinction between the Koran and the Jewish and Christian scriptures. While Jewish and Christian religious leaders retain some humility about the origins of their scriptures, saying only that the texts are divinely inspired, Islam’s leaders proclaim that the Koran is the divine word of Allah Himself. Therefore, like Allah, the Koran is perfect, immutable, and eternal, and so are Shari’ah laws that come directly from the Koran.
In addition, Muhammad’s life, as recorded in the Hadith, is considered exemplary and worthy of imitation in all ways. Just as Christians are known for the phrase “What Would Jesus Do?” (WWJD), Muslims ask the same question regarding Muhammad. The answers that come from the Hadith, however, are very different from what comes back from the Gospel.
The Sunnah is the source of one of the greatest inconsistencies in Islam, for while Muslims make a great distinction between themselves and Christians by accusing Christians of worshipping Jesus and adamantly asserting that Muslims do not worship Muhammad, one finds that Muslims indulge in a form of hero-worship that far exceeds anything seen in Christianity. For while Christians apply “WWJD” to matters of ethics and morals, Muslims apply Muhammad’s version to the minutest aspects of life. Muslims literally use the Sunnah to answer questions like “What would Muhammad eat?” “How would Muhammad wipe?” and “What kind of pet would Muhammad have?” In other words, Islam encourages its followers to emulate Muhammad’s manners and habits to levels of detail almost inconceivable to Westerners. This level of hero worship far exceeds anything Stalin or Mao ever enjoyed within their cults of personality.
Muslims believe that when Muhammad was married to Khadijah, he was the ideal husband for one wife. They also believe that later, when he was married to multiple wives, he was the ideal husband for multiple wives, even though he had at least nine at one time and the Koran’s limit is four. In the eyes of Muslims, Muhammad could literally do no wrong, because he defined proper behavior, except when he made a mistake intended to demonstrate that he was human rather than divine, and he did this with exemplary perfection.
As The Koran for Dummies says:
The Koran describes Prophet Muhammad as a mercy to mankind (21:107) and the best example to be followed in worshipping God (68:4). Muslims seek to emulate Muhammad’s nature, character, and actions on a daily basis as the best of God’s servants.
The role of Prophet Muhammad is extremely important…because his sayings and actions are considered only second to the Koran in the interpretation and development of Islamic law…Furthermore, the life example and teachings of the Prophet supplement Koranic teachings by clarifying or expanding on ideas and concepts.
…[Muhammad] never asked to be worshipped himself. In fact, worshipping Muhammad would immediately place you outside the Islamic faith. Therefore, the term Muhammadanism…is not only incorrect, but also offensive to Muslims. [11]
…
Devout Muslims express their love for Prophet Muhammad by trying to follow his life example in almost every step they take throughout the day. When they sit down to eat, they try to eat in the same manner as Muhammad; when they talk, they try to talk with the same humility that Muhammad exhibited towards his companions; and when they walk, they seek to walk with the same gentleness as their Prophet. [12]
After stating that Muhammad was a God-sent mercy to mankind, and the best example to be followed, whose daily actions are emulated by Muslims in minute detail, and then noting that Muhammad’s words and actions are used extensively to develop Islamic law, the author goes on to deny that Muhammad is worshipped.
According to the 2000 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary, the second definition of “worship” is “Ardent devotion; adoration.” [13] If this is a legitimate definition, then how can Muslims claim that they do not worship Muhammad? We, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, can only infer that Muslims “doth protest too much” over the term “Muhammadanism.” But, of course, The Koran for Dummies notifies readers that if anyone dares to conclude this, they will offend Muslims and thereby make themselves targets of Muslim outrage.
Christians have no direct analog to Shari’ah because the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles are best viewed as parables on how God wants people to treat each other. As such, they define virtues, but do not define enforceable laws, because they do not stipulate earthly punishments for violations. While Christian denominations may develop rules and guidelines for their corporate governance, there are few if any governmental laws that directly reflect the teachings of Jesus.
In contrast, Judaism does have a body of rules for living, called the Talmud, which is somewhat analogous to Shari’ah. It interprets the Torah, just as Shari’ah interprets the Koran. Jews and Muslims differ dramatically, however, in their relationships to these interpretations. Jews consider themselves Jewish by heredity as well as by faith. Therefore, a Jew does not need to adhere to the Talmud to be Jewish. For Muslims, however, the practice of Shari’ah is an essential connection to their religion.
For Muslims, inclusion is strictly a matter of belief. Therefore, a violation of Shari’ah can effectively alienate one from Islam. Such violations may be condemned as Hypocrisy, and even Apostasy, and, as such, can invoke a severe punishment.
Shari’ah is based on Koranic and Hadithic scriptures that were written over a thousand years ago. While the Koran may have contributed some ideas that were advanced for its time, the claim that those ideas are perfect and eternal is not supported by the Hadith’s own description of how the Koran was compiled.
The Koran’s claim of eternal perfection is worse than untrue; it makes Muslims unable to adapt to advances in technology and deal with problems that were not anticipated in Muhammad’s day. What would be Muhammad’s answer to overpopulation, or the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation? Undoubtedly, Muhammad would have something to say on these and other matters if he was alive today, even though the Koran and the Hadith are silent. It is also likely that his edicts would contradict many of the rulings made by clerics. Given Muhammad’s penchant for abrogating verses, it is even possible that his new declarations would contradict those of the Koran and the Hadith.
Unfortunately, the leaders of Islam are constrained to the revelations, words, and actions of a man who lived in another era. In the face of new challenges, Islamic scholars and leaders must do their best to apply his ancient guidance to times he could not even imagine.
What makes this constraint even more problematic is the extreme sanctity of the Koran. For Muslims, there is no shade of gray; either it is the word of Allah or it is not. If someone ignores even the slightest passage in the Koran, that person ignores Allah himself – an act of Apostasy. This creates a situation similar to what one would see among Jews if they still attempted to live according to the letter of Mosaic Law. Thankfully, Jews no longer adhere to commands like:
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death;
– Exodus 32:14[14]
How far does Shari’ah delve into the minutiae of daily life? A sampling of its laws will provide a glimpse. While these laws may seem strange, obsessive, or even a bit humorous to a Western reader, these are not like the archaic laws that are sometimes unearthed for our amusement in the United States. These laws are taken quite seriously by devout Muslims, particularly in nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, and northern Nigeria, where Shari’ah is the law of the land:
VI. Transfer (Intiqal) [15]
210. If the blood of a human being, or of an animal whose blood gushes forth when its large vein is cut, is sucked by an insect, normally known to be bloodless, and it becomes part of its body, the blood becomes Pak (clean). This process is called Intiqal (transition, or transfer).
But when a blood-sucking leech sucks human blood during some treatment, it will be najis (filthy), because it is not considered as part of its body – it is considered as human blood.
211. If one kills a mosquito which has sat on one’s body, and blood which it has sucked comes out, it will be considered Pak, as it was destined to be its part, even if the time gap between its sucking and it being killed be very small. However, as a recommended precaution, one should avoid such blood.
This segment comes from the section of Shari’ah that deals with preparing oneself to be clean, a process known as Wudhu. Wudhu is important for a variety of reasons, one of which is that a person must be clean before performing any of the five daily prayers. Shari’ah describes extensively, and in minute detail, what is considered clean or filthy, and how to make something that is filthy, such as one’s body, clean. The penalties for violating these rules (such as performing a prayer while in a state of filthiness) are not necessarily punished on this earth, although they may be frowned upon. No violation, however, will go unpunished in the hereafter, except by discretionary Divine indulgence.
Another example of the triviality to which Islamic Law descends can be seen in the following instructions for the Ramadan Fast. To anyone familiar with medical treatments, the potential health hazards of these instructions are obvious: [16]
The Fast of Ramadan becomes obligatory when thirty days of the preceding month, Sha’ban are past, or with the seeing of the new moon of Ramadan…If one witness is accepted, it is a condition that he must have the quality of veracity, and thus be neither a slave nor a woman…
To fast, one must rigorously avoid coition, vomiting…or introducing any substance to the “interior of the body.” Some make it a condition that there be in the body power to absorb the food or the medicine thus introduced. It does not matter if the “interior” is inside the head, or the belly, or the intestines or the bladder; all can break the fast with the introduction of a substance by sniffing or eating or injection, or through incision into the belly or the head, or the like. According to the soundest opinion, putting drops in the nose or the urethra breaks the fast. It is necessary [however] for such an introduction to be by an open passage. Thus there is no harm in oils entering the pores by absorption…
The introduction must be intended, so that if a fly or gnat or dust of the road or flour-dust entered by accident, the fast would not be broken…the fast is broken if saliva leaves the mouth and one brings it back into the mouth, or if one moistens a thread in one’s mouth and then puts it back in one’s mouth still moist…
Unfortunately, the righteous path is not always clear even to Muslims. For example, great scholars sometimes disagree on important matters, as The Koran for Dummies illustrates: [17]
Not all scholars agree on the categorization of every single ethical action. For example, some scholars feel that growing a beard is obligatory, while other say it is only recommended.
One thing is sure, though: Islam prohibits evil parlor games such as chess and backgammon:
Sahih Muslim, Chapter 2: IT IS PROHIBITED TO PLAY CHESS
Book 028, Number 5612:…Allah’s Apostle…said: He who played chess is like one who dyed his hand with the flesh and blood of swine.
Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 41, Number 4920:…The Apostle of Allah…said: He who plays backgammon disobeys Allah and His Apostle.
Malik’s Muwatta, Book 52, Number 52.2.7:…“There is no good in chess, and [Muhammad] disapproved of it.” Yahya said, “I heard him disapprove of playing it and other worthless games. He recited this ayat, ‘What is there after the truth except going the wrong way.’” (Sura 10 ayat 32).
According to the Koran, on the Last Day, each of a person’s actions during his or her life will be held on a balance, and all violations, no matter how minor, will be held against them. For each such violation, a Muslim is to suffer the tortures of Hell for a certain period of time. Because they are Muslim, though, they will ultimately be able to enjoy eternity in Paradise. Christians and Jews who have rejected an invitation to convert to Islam, as well as Polytheists, Atheists, Apostates, and Hypocrites, will not be so fortunate.
An in-depth review of Shari’ah[18] would reveal how Western lifestyles deeply offend the Muslims among us many times a day. Even worse, Westerners insult Allah with their flagrant violations of his Law. For example, there was a recent controversy in Florida where an Islamic woman insisted on wearing a veil that covered her face while sitting for a drivers’ license photo. While Westerners consider photo-IDs to be an essential form of identification for a wide variety of purposes, this person considered herself persecuted for being required to remove her veil. [19] An even more severe example of unintentional desecration is simply touching the printed word “Allah” without having gone through Wudhu. As the Shari’ah of Grand Ayatollah Sistani says, under the section entitled Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory,
325. It is haraam, as an obligatory precaution, to touch the Name of Allah or His special Attributes[20] without Wudhu, in whichever language they may have been written. And it is also better not to touch, without Wudhu, the names of the holy Prophet of Islam …
Think about the number of times you have probably violated Shari’ah if you have ever read the Koran, or even a newspaper article that discusses Islam.
How seriously do Muslims take these seemingly minute laws? Consider a recent global controversy over the treatment of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, as described in the following Boston Globe article:
Guantanamo probe finds five Koran mishandling cases
By Will Dunham, May 26, 2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. military has identified five incidents of “mishandling of a Koran” by U.S. personnel at Guantanamo Bay, but found no credible evidence that the Muslim holy book had been flushed down a toilet, the commander of the prison said on Thursday.
…
…Hood said investigators turned up 13 allegations of mishandling the Koran, with five confirmed cases of “what could be broadly defined as mishandling of a Koran”
…
Hood said the detainee, who U.S. officials have not identified, said at the May 14 interview he had not been beaten or abused but that he had heard rumors that other detainees had been.
“We then proceeded to ask him about any incidents where he had seen the Koran defiled, desecrated or mishandled, and he allowed as how he hadn’t, but he heard that guards at some other point and time had done this,” Hood said.
But Hood said investigators did not directly ask the detainee about a Koran being placed in a toilet. “I do not believe they used that word toilet,” he said.
The issue of whether the Koran had been thrown in a toilet…has generated controversy globally in recent weeks. [The] Bush administration denounced as wrong a May 9 Newsweek article, later retracted by the magazine, that stated U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet to try to make detainees talk. Violent protests erupted in some Muslim countries following the article’s publication and at least 16 people died in rioting in Afghanistan.
…
Eight allegations of mishandling the Koran were not confirmed, Hood said. These involved six in which guards either accidentally touched a Koran, touched it within the scope of their duties or did not touch the book at all, he said. Two additional incidents involved interrogators who either touched or stood over a Koran, Hood said.
Hood said the inquiry turned up 15 incidents in which detainees themselves “mishandled or inappropriately treated the Koran,” including one case in which a detainee ripped pages from his own Koran.
When I first heard about this controversy, I thought it was a joke. After all, just a few years earlier, we had seen New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani get rebuked in the press and overruled by the New York State Supreme Court because he had revoked city funding for an art exhibit that included a painting of a black Madonna with elephant dung on her breast and cut-outs of female genitals in the background. How could the press rebuke Giuliani, who committed no violence or active censorship, for simply refusing to fund this affront to his faith, and then treat the touching of the Koran as an international outrage worthy of a criminal investigation? Furthermore, at what point did “mishandling of a Koran” become a violation of U.S. law, military or otherwise? Do we have similar laws against mishandling a Bible, Torah, Veda, [21] Tipitaka, [22] or any other holy scripture?
Next, I thought “Guantanamo must be a pretty darned good place if the inmates have to resort to this kind of complaint.” But no, the Islamic world was quite serious, and their outrage was real. And the press did not ridicule this outrage as they did Giuliani’s; instead they legitimized it.
In the United States, when someone desecrates a Bible or some other cherished holy image, it can be called art, and receive government funding. Remember “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano, which, like the poop-smeared Madonna, was also exhibited at U.S. taxpayer expense? While many Christians felt deeply hurt and insulted by these acts, an international crisis did not ensue, and no one died as a result.
America’s closest analogy to Islamic outrage can be seen in its debate over desecrating the flag. However, even in this situation, Americans have been far more civil. When Americans see images of foreigners burning their flag, they may be offended, but they do not riot and kill.
Westerners are simply not accustomed to treating anything with the kind of idolization that Islam demands for its rituals and artifacts. Therefore, in the minds of Muslims, the West tramples relentlessly on Islamic icons, laws, and notions of virtue. Also, they see Christians as weak for not avenging the outrages committed against Jesus, whom they also revere. This weakness is what Muslims call Hypocrisy, which renders Westerners doubly contemptible.
Because of Shari’ah’s rigidity, the conflicts between Islamic and Western cultures will not fade away as people intermingle. Instead, the two cultures will chafe irritatingly against each other until overt aggression results, along with battles for legislative domination. To get a fuller appreciation of the depth and irreconcilability of this conflict, consider these phrases from the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,[23] which was declared in 1981 (Appendix D) as an Islamic answer to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights[24] (Appendix E):
Therefore we, as Muslims, who believe
…
in our obligation to establish an Islamic order:
…
It is the right and duty of every Muslim to refuse to obey any command which is contrary to the [Islamic] Law, no matter by whom it may be issued.
This document accurately reflects Islam’s belief that its laws and ways are universal, and apply to all nations, whether they are Islamic or not. In fact, many Muslims feel obligated to live according to Islamic law in defiance of the laws of their host countries whenever these laws conflict. The mutinous nature of Islam’s mandate can be seen in the following quote, already cited, from The Koran for Dummies:[25]
Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals who try to promote certain ideas, such as democracy, tolerance, and so on, must make Koranic teachings a focal point of their argument. Similarly, any ideas that intellectuals want to discourage, such as unjust violence, must be proven to be antithetical to the wording or spirit of the Book [Koran].
Disturbingly, this quote indicates that, with Islam, there is no opportunity for genuine inter-cultural dialogue. True Muslims are convinced that their faith has all of the answers, and that those answers are Allah-given. This conviction severs them from lines of reason that do not proceed from their Holy Scriptures, and “dialogue” ultimately leads to either a stand-off between the Muslim and non-Muslim, or capitulation on the part of the non-Muslim. Tensions will inevitably rise as Muslims and non-Muslims intermingle.
Before continuing, one must note that the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights is more of a statement of defiance against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights than a legal document adopted by any nation. It is, however, widely cited throughout the Islamic community as a proper definition of human rights according to Islam’s world view, as evidenced by the multitude of Islamic websites that laud it. If you doubt this, do a web search and verify this claim for yourself.
Does this mean that Islam’s guidance for its faithful derives strictly from its holy scriptures, with no room for new messages from the Divine? Not entirely. Despite the fact that Islam adamantly declares that Muhammad was the final and greatest prophet, meaning that God will no longer speak to the world through prophets, Muslims have developed a loophole that still allows for divine messages. The difference is that these messages now come as dreams, and they come from Muhammad instead of God. As described in Islam: A Very Short Introduction:[26]
Those to whom the Prophet appears in dreams cannot be deceived, for God will not permit Satan to take his form…To allow for imposture – a false vision of the Prophet – would undermine the unity of Islam by inviting accusations and counter-accusations of fraud. By the same logic, the Muslim mystic is denied direct access to divine revelation, for Muhammad is the “seal” of the prophets…
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 13:
[1] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Abrogating passages, page 91.
[2] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Fighting against “unbelievers, page 154.
[3] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 2, section entitled An Alliance That Never Materialized, page 19.
[4] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled No Trinity, pages 97-98. Note that the Koranic quote comes from the translation written by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar.
[5] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 21, section entitled Misconception #1: Muhammad Wrote the Koran, page 312.
[6] A similar hadith can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 60.
[7] The controversy over whether or not Allah is defined by describable physical parameters and possibly human shape arises from the numerous Koranic references to Allah sitting on or mounting his throne, such as:
[7.54] PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne.
[39.75] PICKTHAL: And thou (O Muhammad) seest the angels thronging round the Throne, hymning the praises of their Lord. And they are judged aright.
There are also anthropomorphic references to Allah in Muhammad’s famous description of his Night Journey. See the following hadiths: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 429, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 608, and Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Numbers 309, 313, & 314.
[8] Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 3, section entitled Tawhid in Early Islamic Thought, pages 58–59.
[9] The Complete Idiot’sGuide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 9, section entitled Allah, the Only God, as All-Seeing Sustainer of Creation, page 99.
[10] Islam: A Very Short Introduction , by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 4, Introduction, page 73.
[11] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 1, section entitled Guiding the Way: Prophet Muhammad, page 10.
[12] Ibid, Chapter 11, section entitled Muhammad as the best example for humanity, page 161.
[13] The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, ed. Joseph P. Pickett, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
[14] The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
[15] From Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini Al-Sistani’s Islamic Laws.
[16] Extract from instructions for observing the fast of Ramadan by Muhyi al-Din al-Nawawi (died 1277), an afaqih (leading scholar) of the school of Shafii (a Sunni school of Islam).
[17] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 17, section entitled Exploring the Contents of the Sacred Law, page 265.
[18] An example of these laws can be viewed in-depth on the website www.al-islam.org/laws/.
[19] Judge: Woman can’t cover face on driver’s license, CNN Law Center, June 10, 2003.
[20] The “special Attributes” are the 99 names of Allah. Examples: The Holy, the Sovereign Lord, the Merciful, the Beneficent, the Exalted, the Guardian of the Faithful, the Compeller, the Subduer, the Constrictor, the Dishonourer, the Avenger, etc. For a complete list, do a web search on “99 names of Allah” and see what you get.
[21] Hindu
[22] Buddhist
[23] Declared by the Islamic Council, 16 Grosvenor Crescent, London SW1, September 19, 1981.
[24] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations in General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) on December 10, 1948.
[25] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 6, section entitled Having room for interpretation, page 82. Previously cited in the section entitled Islam Opposes Free Democracy.
[26] Islam: A Very Short Introduction, by Malise Ruthven, Oxford University Press, 2000, Chapter 2, section entitled The Elaboration of Muhammad’s Image, page 46.
Recent Comments