Greetings Muslims, infidels, and the like. On October 4th of last year, I wrote my less than spectacular "ISLAM: a critical study" for the masses that inhabit the soc.religion.islam newsgroup. It was my attempt to present the Atheist view of Islam. Indeed, the locals had already seen a great deal of the Christian view, so I thought it was time for a change, time for the new name in kufr: Western Ilhad. Others may agree with this change, as, with the disappearance of Jameel and Jochen Katz, and the diminished output of Dr Heger and Mr Bannister, it would seem the Christians have passed the proverbial torch to the less respectable minions in the ranks of the kuffar: Atheists and Polytheists. All sarcasm aside, I wanted to try and present a better criticism of Islam from the Atheist point of view than I did last October. Am I patting myself on the back a little hard? Most likely yes; we Mulhidun are kinda arrogant like that.
ANTHROPOMORPHISM: MUSHRIK ZANJ REINCARNATED
At the request of Abdalla Alothman, I recently did a little bit of research on the Nation of Islam (as well as the NOI's more heterodox offshoot: The 5% Nation of Gods and Earths), and came across a book titled "Allah The Original Man Part II: Did Elijah Muhammad Teach Real Islam?" The book is written by a man who goes by the name "True Islam," and it argues that Elijah Muhammad's black nationalist, anthropomorphic slant on Islam was actually the true deen, while Sunni Islam is a recent Arab concoction. The book is actually an interesting read in some respects, though many parts will no doubt send Orthodox Muslims into fits of laughter. Regardless, Mr True Islam's points on Anthropomorphism were actually very well written, and they reminded me of my quick post from last November 15th, "Anthropomorphic Allah?"
The post, as the title implies, was meant to explore the possibility that anthropomorphic descriptions of Allah might appear in the Qur'an. After coming across the writings of Mr True Islam, which I felt were better than my post, I felt that a return to (or review of?) Anthropomorphism in Islam was a great way to start out this new "critical study."
Many Muslims, when they are defending against missionaries, or trying to revert some poor Nasara tri-theist, love to attack the Anthropomorphic descriptions of God as found in the Bible. With Christians, and with Hindus, such things are a welcome debate, as the opponent openly proclaims that God is (or once was) in the form of a man. However, when Muslims try to read anthropomorphic principles into the Jewish scriptures, they are sort of hitting below the belt.
Orthodox Jews will tell you quite plainly that God has no form. Indeed, to the kofrim (heretics, non believers, kuffar) it is quite obvious that the early, pre-Talmudic, pre-Rabbinic Jews had an anthropomorphic view of their deity/deities. However, Muslims should not, and cannot exploit this fact. While indeed a literalist interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures results in many instances of anthropomorphism (a big no-no in the realm of the Judeo-Islamic Monotheist Orthodoxies), the Rabbis demand that such interpretations are discarded, and readers instead accept the interpretations found in the Rabbinic commentaries. The same is the case with the Orthodox Muslim stance on reading the Qur'an. There are obvious anthropomorphic references in Islam's equivalent of the Torah, but Muslims claim otherwise, demanding readers accept the interpretation Sunni scholars have come to.
The aforementioned Mr. True Islam gives an interesting summary of his anthropomorphic interpretation of Islamic literature when he writes "The God of the Holy Qur'an is a 'thing' ('shay' 6:19.). This is in stark contradiction to the God which is embraced by the Muslim world today: the philosophic, abstract No-thing, the immaterial Absolute. This 'shay' of the Qur'an has a face ('wadjh' 28:88, 55:26-7) which possesses eyes ('ayn' 11:37). This face is on a body which also possesses two hands ('bi-yadayya' 38:75). The Prophet taught that Allah's hands possess palms and fingers. Allah has feet which rest on his kursi, or stool, while He sits down firmly on His Throne ('ala-'l-arsh istawa' 20:5). This 'shay' of Allah not only possesses hands, fingers, feet, a face, eyes, and legs, but it possesses a soul ('nafs' 5:116, 6:112) just as we possess a soul. The Prophet taught that the human form (sura) was fashioned after Allah's form (sura). He said: 'inna Allah 'azza wa-jalla khalaqa Adam 'ala surathihi'"
I am unable to comment on Mr True Islam's perceived ability to comprehend Arabic, or the way Sunni scholars regard the unreferenced ahadith he cited. However, I think the above writing gives us good insight into the mind of those that honestly see an Anthropomorphic description of God in the Islamic literature (a peek into the Jawidan, or some of the writings of Ismailis will also turn up some interesting results). Mr True Islam's reference to the throne of Allah is not without merit. As was stated last November, in the Qur'an (al-A'raf 7:54) it says "Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, *AND THEN HE MOUNTED THE THRONE*." It is noted elsewhere in the Qur'an (Hud 11:7) that this throne had a place, a point of origin: above the waters. This throne, with Allah sitting in it, placed above the waters, is indeed something physical, and it is held up (according to al-Haqqah 69:17) by angels. This is Anthropomorphism.
One Muslim, back in November, tried to implement an interpretation that would eliminate the anthropomorphic quality of this verse by making an analogy to a statement to the effect of the Queen of England "holding the crown." I found, and still find, such an analogy erroneous, as this would imply that angels holding the throne means they are taking part in Allah's rulership (a different type of shirk). Furthermore, there are ahadith that mention Moses holding specific parts of the throne: the leg, the side, et cetera. Of course this is irrelevant, as Muslims will always struggle to come up with new interpretations to reconcile certain aspects of their faith with the realities of their time, or to do away with apparent contradictions. This takes me to my next segment:
CONFABULATIONS: REINTERPRETATIONS REINCARNATED
As mentioned in the previous segment, anthropomorphic descriptions of God can be found in the scriptures of Judaism and Islam, though the Orthodox folds of those religions demand we accept interpretations that take us to a completely different conclusion. For example, in the Torah (Gen 1:26) it says "And God said 'Let us make man in Our image..." Rashi, considered by Orthodox Jews to be among the most authoritative commentaries on the Torah, informs us that when it says "B'Tsalmenu" (in our image), it really means "Bidfus Shelanu" (with our mold). I recently came across an Islamic parallel when I read that some Sunni commentators state that when the Qur'an makes a reference to "yad Allah" (God's hand) in Qur'an 58:10, it really means "'ahd Allah" (God's covenant).
In his book "23 years," the Iranian Marxist-Leninist apostate from Islam Ali Dashti wrote "Non-Moslem scholars have found numerous grounds for questioning the intelligibility and eloquence of the Qor'an, and Moslem scholars have found that the Qor'an needs interpretation" [pp. 47-48]. Now, as Jeremiah McAuliffe pointed out in his review of Dashti's book from last October, all things in human experience need interpretation, but this is not what Dashti is referring to. Instead, Dashti was indirectly stating that the Qur'an is rather incoherent, or unintelligible, and thus Muslims have to come forth with many interpretations (much of which is based on fabricated ahadith and tendentious sira literature) to try and make sense of it.
All religions have their share of followers who are willing to totally sacrifice their intellectual integrity, and offer any wild confabulation in an effort to salvage their cherished beliefs. In Christianity, one part of the Bible tells us that Judas died by hanging himself, while another part tells us that he "fell headlong and burst open." This is a contradiction, but Christians have reconciled it by claiming that he hung himself, but then fell on his sword, or that his bloated corpse burst open after the rope snapped, or that he hung himself over a cliff and then fell headlong (must've hung himself by the feet). The same kind of twisting of scripture can be found in Muslim attempts to reconcile apparent errors and contradictions.
One example would be the contradiction between surah 41:9-12 and surah 79:27-30. Here are the respective verses, courtesy of the scientifically conscious Ahmed Ali translation:
[Ha Mim As-Sajdah 41:9-12] Say "Do you refuse to believe in Him who created the earth in two spans of time, and set up compeers to Him, the Lord of all the worlds? He placed firm stabilisers rising above its surface, blessed it with plenty and growth, and ingrained the means of growing its food within it, sufficient for all seekers in four spans. Then he turned to the heavens, and it was smoke. So He said to it and the earth: "Come with willing obedience or perforce." They said: "We come willingly." Then he created several skies in two spans [...]
[An-Nazi'at 79:27-30] Are you more difficult to create or the heavens? He built it, Raised it high, proportioned it, gave darkness to its night, and brightness to its day; And afterward spread out the earth.
Now the errors here are numerous, such as clouds speaking (they replied "we come willingly"); talking water vapor! However, if this is not the clouds, and is instead "smoke," as the translation renders it, and is a reference to it-is-truth.org's claim that the firmament was indeed smoke, I would quote Mark Little who said "smoke [is] the product of combustion, consisting of fine particles of carbon carried by hot gasses and air. Since stars are mostly composed of hydrogen and helium (and carbon is formed in the star), there is no similarity at all." Regardless, smoke does not speak either. Also, another relevant quote would be from Sadiqi az-Zindiki's brilliant essay, "the Miracle of Reinterpretation," in which he confronts the above verses from surah Ha Mim Sajdah, and states "[t]he lower heavens are adorned after it was said the earth was in existence. Again, this is not a scientific explanation, creation by divine fiat. Allah doesn't explain gravitation and the forces molding stars, all he says is look up at the sky and give him credit, even if his description of cosmological development is at odds."
These are just the scientific problems with the first verses cited, and indeed there are wild and unsupported interpretations that some have tried to give to save them, though I am not interested in going into them at this time. The real issue I wanted to go into with regard to attempts to reconcile problematic verses from the Qur'an has to do with the CONTRADICTION between these two cited groups of verses. The first quote has the heavens being created AFTER the earth (as was pointed out by Sadiqi az-Zindiki), while the second quote claims the heavens were created BEFORE the earth. Indeed this is a contradiction, which supports my theory that the Qur'an is a work of multiple hands (which is still being debated in various Islamic newsgroups).
The Muslim response to this is quite similar to that of Christians confronted with contradictions: "one verse explains the other." The claim is that An-Nazi'at 79:27-30 explains the precise order in which the universe was created (heavens first, earth second), while Ha Mim As-Sajdah 41:9-12 just gives the amount of time it took, irrespective of order. First of all, this explanation is wrong considering that Ha Mim As-Sajdah says one thing happened, "THEN" the next thing happened, showing the order. Muslims however have tried to counter that the Arabic word for "then" in this case could also be translated as "moreover" (and indeed one translation translates it as such) making the verses even more ambiguous. However, this still will not do. Muslims expect us to believe that when Ha Mim As-Sajdah 41:9-12 lists the creation of the earth first, and then the creation of the heavens second, it really meant it in opposite order. Even with the word "then" removed from the text, why list the events in a completely reverse order from which they allegedly happened?
EXTRACANONICAL ISLAM: RASHAD KHALIFA REINCARNATED
Orthodox Islam is very similar to Orthodox Judaism in that the believers do not believe that the central text (Qur'an/Torah) can be the only thing to live one's life by, and instead the pious must also refer to extracanonical literature for further guidance. While Jews have their Talmud and various other Rabbinic writings (aggadot, targum, mishna, et cetera), the Muslims have the tafsir and the various ahadith collections. Indeed, seeing Muslims (and Jews) explain WHY they need to supplement the alleged word of God with the word of man offers the greatest example of "confabulations."
While Judaism has its Qarim (Karaites) who reject the authority of the extracanonical literature of the Orthodox, Islam also has what are called "hadith-rejecters," and "Qur'an only Muslims." The most famous group in the West has been those known as "khalifites," "submitters," and "19ers." These are the followers of Rashad Khalifa, an Egyptian hadith rejecter who was murdered in Tucson Arizona in January of 1990, quite possibly for his heretical rejection of ahadith literature. Khalifa's followers are so famous that Sunni Muslims often accuse any hadith rejectr of being a "submitter."
This stance is not without basis. Many of the ahadith are of a rather curious nature, with stories that even some Muslims find hard to accept (such as one that claims monkeys stone female monkeys who commit adultery, or the much maligned ahadith that claim Muhammad maried one of his wives while she was six years old, consummating the marriage three years later). Aspects of Sunni law based on extracanonical traditions often result in blatant contradictions (such as the hadith based law of death sentences for apostates, which contradicts the Qur'an's claim of "la ikraha fid-deen," no compulsion in religion). Furthermore, one wonders about the infallibility of a divine text that cannot be understood without the word of man. Indeed this is the major weakness of Orthodox traditionalists: they are subconsciously telling us that they do not believe God's word is complete or perfect.
AUTHORITY OF TRANSMISSION: ISNAD REINCARNATED
The issue over the rejection of hadith literature has to do with the shaky source from which they originate. Supporters of a given set of ahadith will assure us that the transmission was sound, but the reality is that in most cases even other Muslims will not accept this dogmatic claim. Of course there are the previously mentioned submitters and hadith rejecters who consider the Qur'an to be "the only hadith" they need, but there are other sectarian disputes as well. Different sects support different ahadith, only supporting the traditions that support their stance. Indeed Shias have been able to come forth with ahadith that quote Muhammad as stating that Ali should be his successor, which Sunnis reject; on the flip side, Shias reject any hadith that insinuates that Abu Bakr was chosen by Muhammad as his successor. Meanwhile, both sects have differing traditions on the mysterious "12 Caliphs" issue.
How reliable are the ahadith as sources of information? I mean this particularly with laws that are allegedly part of God's code, such as stoning of adulterers and death to apostates. Muslims consider certain ahadith authentic based on the fact that other people from a time long ago attested to the transmitter's honesty. Bukhari's collection was compiled some 200+ years after the traditional time given for Muhammad's death (632 CE). The Islamic calendar itself is a bit scrambled, as we are to believe that Muhammad was summoned to be god's prophet in 610, and this is based on the tradition that Muhammad received his call at age 40; forty years after his birth, which was allegedly during 'am-al-fil, the year of the elephant, which was allegedly in 570 CE, which was allegedly the year that birds repelled an army of elephants with stones! Furthermore, these traditions go back to Muhammad, a man who claimed he was receiving this information from an angel! So Bukhari's ahadith are information handed down orally from generation to generation over 200 years; with a web of hearsay, and the Muslims assuring us that this is the truth because so-and-so heard from so-and-so that so-and-so said they heard Muhammad got such and such information from a celestial being, and we know so-and-so is telling the truth because so-and-so said he's honest. This is the base of information from which many Islamic nations derive their structure!
PROPHET HISTORICITY: BUDDHA/GILGAMESH REINCARNATED
Riding on the previous breakdown of Islamic traditions, how reliable is the Qur'an? Consider for example the information on a person named Isa Ibn Maryam. The life of this person, with his miraculous virgin birth, his title of Masih (Messiah), and his mother named Maryam (Mary), he closely resembles the man known as Jesus Christ as found in Christian literature. Indeed all Muslims unanimously agree that Jesus Christ and Isa Ibn Maryam are the same person; but how reliable is the information about this man that is found in the Qur'an? There is mention of this man in greek texts (now canonized in the Christian Bible) that date all the way back to 60 CE, roughly 510 years before the time Muhammad was allegedly born. We are to believe that a supreme deity took this information, and relayed it to an angel, who in turn relayed it to a man named Muhammad, who in turn relayed it to his followers, who memorized it until it was finally put in written form. This is a difficult story to believe, especially when it is known that there were Christians living in the time and place where the Qur'an was written. Information that is the written record of those who claimed to have memorized the speeches of a man who claimed to speak with celestial beings is not very reliable. Indeed such a tradition begs the question.
Furthermore, while the stories of Isa Ibn Maryam closely resemble that of Jesus Christ, the story of Jesus Christ closely resembles the life of fictional characters from other folklores, such as Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Mythras, and especially Buddha, who was born of a virgin mother who was told of her miraculous conception by a celestial being! Furthermore numerous scholars, such as John Remsberg, Bruno Bauer, AG Wells, Guy Fau, Prosper Alfaric, and others have questioned the lack of evidence that this person existed. Did he really exist, or was he a continuous adaptation of characters from previous folklores? The same could be asked of Moses/Musa. As I have asked many times before, why did the Egyptians never hear of a man who turned sticks into snakes, controlled bodies of water, and even drowned a Pharaoh and his army? Why is there not a single heiroglyph that speaks of such an amazing man? Why does the story of Nuh so closely resemble the story of Noach in the Hebrew scriptures, which was an obvious copy of the Epics of Gilgamesh? What is the evidence that Abraham existed? Did he really go to Mecca and build the Kaaba? If so, why is there no mention of this prior to the 7th century? Are Abraham's foot prints really in the maqam-e-ibrahim? Has anyone tested them? What of Adam? With all nations descending from him, why did only the Jews know about him and write about him? Surely all nations would continuously praise their original ancestor Adam, and never forget his name.
MIRACLES: CHIMERA REINCARNATED
Thus far, I have spoken of miraculous events, such as angels calling men to prophethood, birds that battle elephants with stones, sticks that turn into snakes, the splitting of the sea, et cetera, with a tone that insinuates that these are all from the realm of fantasy. I apologize, but this is what I believe. I do not see how a rational person can believe in such things as virgin births, and the stories of men who claim to receive their information from unseen celestial beings. I would like to ask how it is possible for a stick to turn into a snake. Consider the "biology" of a stick, and the biology of a snake, and then imagine one forming into the other. This is impossible! How is it possible for a human female virgin to give birth to a talking baby? How is it possible for a man to understand the "speech" of ants as Suleiman allegedly did? How is it possible for a man to ride a flying horse from Mecca to Jerusalem over night?
The only reply is that anything is possible for God, and indeed that is no kind of reply at all. For an Atheist, one would first have to probe that God exists before they can make claims about what He/She can or cannot do. However, the "does God exist" debate seems to be an endless one, so we will put it aside, for now. Regardless, if we are going to assume that God can do all things, then what right does one have to say that another religion is false? Siva cut off the head of an Ganesh, and replaced it with the head of an elephant, and this is perfectly reasonable considering that anything is possible through God. Christians tell us that God came down in the form of a man named Jesus, something that Muslims unfairly ridicule. If God can do all things, one cannot claim that God cannot come in the form of His/Her creation. If God can do this, then to claim He/She did is perfectly reasonable. If God cannot do this, one would ask "who put this limitation on God?" Where do we draw the line between miracle and myth? If we are going to settle for the "God can do anything" explanation, then indeed all claims, no matter how absurd, are equally reasonable.
