A philosophical Reflection on Some Verses of the Quran
When I read the Quran now as a believer in God, my take is completely different from the time that I was atheist and didn’t
have even enough patience to read it to the end. The language seemed harsh and repetitive to me. I couldn’t reconcile myself with the fact that the Quran is a “warning” book that repeats its message. I couldn’t agree with its Hell (punishment) and Heaven (reward) arguments. It seemed excessive to me. I wasn’t patient enough to reflect on its logic, as I was moving along with my own confirmation bias. After teaching World Religions for a few years, I got a better understanding of the Quran. I have to confess that I don’t know and didn’t research the Hadith (the collection of sayings and actions of Muhammad) and the Shari’a (Islamic law). I have been reading the Quran for the last few years with a fresh mind, without the influence of later historical development and different interpretations. And I hope I could connect to the text at some deep level, hopefully with the divine guidance.
In this reflection, first I will pause on one of the strangest element of the Quran: the fact that guidance and misguidance and the outcome of everything is already determined by God, the question of predestination. Second, I will relate the Quran from this point of view to Carl Rogers, Carl Jung, and Parker Palmer's analysis of a constructive and healed self as embracing a broken (dark side) wholeness. And finally, I will discuss freedom of speech and ideas, war, and violence in the Quran.
God’s Predestination
The truly religious person has this attitude. He [or She] knows that God has brought all sorts of strange and inconceivable things to pass and seeks in the most curious ways to enter a man's heart. He therefore senses in everything the unseen presence of the divine will. (Carl Jung)
As Ali Ganji mentions: “Islamic fundamentalists, non-Muslims, and those who oppose Islam consider the Quran a book of laws. This is incorrect. The Quran has 6,236 verses, but according to the commonly-held view, including those of many well-known theologians . . . there are only about 500 judicial verses regarding the Quranic rulings. That is less than one-twelfth of the Quran.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-quran-of-pacifists-an_b_4628581.html
Moreover, Hell and Heaven, each one, repeated 77 times; the word "payment or reward" is repeated 117 times, while the expression "forgiveness" (mughfirah), which is one of the basic morals of the Qur'an, is repeated exactly twice that amount, 234 times. Reading the Quran requires heeding the warnings, along the interconnected ideas, which like a glue ground the warnings, into human nature as divine, transcendental ethics, and worshipping God as the nexus of Being, the Ineffable Merciful. The word “merciful” (Rahman) has been mentioned 57 times and the word “beneficent or forgiving” (Raheem) has been mentioned 114 times. The word RAHMAN and RAHEEM come from the word RAHAM. RAHAM in the Arabic language does not mean mercy; it is the womb of the woman when she is pregnant. All surahs (except surah 9) in the Quran starts in the name of God, the Rahman (merciful) and the Raheem (forgiving).
My general
hypothesis now, as a lover of religions and as a Muslim, is that God has complete
awareness of good and evil happening in the world, from the beginning (the immemorial
womb) of the universe. The
Quran has a strange language: it ascribes all the event -- including those who
are misguided -- the falling astray of Satan, those whose hearts are sealed from
understanding and relating to the religion, and those who are guided, all and
every event -- to the will of God. There
has been a long philosophical discussion about freedom of the will and
determinism, rationalism and the problem of evil, in the tradition, between Mu'tazilah
(who tried to resolve paradoxes of Islam and the problem of evil by rational
reasoning) and Ash’arriyah (who rebelled against the rationalism of Mu’tazilah
and gave priority to revelation rather than to reason).
In my fresh reading (not having a background in Hadith, Shari’a, or Islamic philosophy), the logic of the Quran seems
intelligible to me.
The first point is the evolution of a rational divine self to be worthy of conversing with God, a being who has freedom of the will. God doesn't want to create a perfect automaton, but one who can earn his or her perfection.
It makes sense to me that all good and evil are ascribed to God’s will, because the Quran is clear that if God wanted, God would guide all with a clear miracle or by declaring God's own presence openly. For example, the Quran contends:
The first point is the evolution of a rational divine self to be worthy of conversing with God, a being who has freedom of the will. God doesn't want to create a perfect automaton, but one who can earn his or her perfection.
It makes sense to me that all good and evil are ascribed to God’s will, because the Quran is clear that if God wanted, God would guide all with a clear miracle or by declaring God's own presence openly. For example, the Quran contends:
“To each community among
you has been prescribed a Law and a way of life. If God had so willed He would
have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given
you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it
is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you differ. (5:48)
“These are the
revelations of God, which We recite to you with the truth, and you truly are
one of the messengers. We favored some of these messengers above others. God spoke to some; others He raised in rank;
We gave Jesus, son of Mary, Our clear signs and strengthened him with the holy
spirit. If God has so willed, their
successors would not have fought each other after they had been brought clear
signs. But they disagreed: some believed
and some disbelieved. If God had so
willed, they would not have fought each other, but God does what He will”
(2:252).
Or: “You [Prophet]
cannot guide everyone you love to the truth; it is God who guides whoever He
will: He knows best those who will follow guidance” (28:56).
Or: “So where are
you going? This is a message for all people; for those who wish to take the
straight path. But you will only wish to
do so by the will of God, the Lord of all people.” (81:26).
Or: “Say, ‘Only
what God has decreed will happen to us. He is our Master: let the believers put
their trust in God’” (9:63).
Or: “God controls
the outcome of all events” (22:41).
And this one:
“No misfortune can happen, either in the earth or in yourselves, that was not set down in writing before We brought it into being––that is easy for God–– so you need not grieve for what you miss or gloat over what you gain. God does not love the conceited, the boastful” (57:22-24).
These passages and more indicate that God has complete control over everything, good and evil, destruction and construction, guidance and misguidance. Even in the story of creation, after his disobedience to God for arrogance, Satan indicates his falling is God’s will: “But Iblis [Satan] said, ‘Because You have put me in the wrong, I will lie in wait for them all on Your straight path” (7:16). And in the story of Cave, Satan is used by God to guide Moses to meet Khidr, a divine teacher to Moses, by the rock:
“Moses said to his servant, ‘I will not rest until I reach the place where the two seas meet, even if it takes me years! But when they reached the place where the two seas meet, they had forgotten all about their fish, which made its way into the sea and swam away. They journeyed on, and then, Moses said to his servant, ‘Give us our lunch! This journey of ours is very tiring, and [the servant] said, ‘Remember when we were resting by the rock? I forgot the fish—Satan made me forget to pay attention to it—and it [must have] made its way into the sea.’ ‘How strange!’ Moses said, ‘Then that was the place we were looking for.’ So the two turned back, retracted their footsteps, and found one of Our servants—a man to whom We had granted Our mercy and whom We had given knowledge of Our own” (18:60-65).
To clarify my point, let’s use this thought experiment: imagine we want to save an endangered species, and so we create a special habitat for them to be secured from excessive danger. We know that these animals will deteriorate if we turn them into pets. They have to move and have a natural life style, thus we let some of the predators in to stimulate them to be active for survival. Some of them may die due to their frail predisposition, but based on our probabilistic calculations, we know the species as a whole will flourish and survive. In this thought experiment, though the analogy is barely similar to our love relationship to God, we can see that the predator (evil or Satan) is used as the condition of survival and growth of a species. In our thought experiment, we are the master of process and know the outcome, and in this process the species will prosper and flourish. And it doesn’t mean that the predator and the endangered species are the same, on the contrary, the ultimate goal is to save the endangered species from the domination of predators.
"The term intensional orientation (the “s” is intentional) refers to the tendency to view people, objects, and events in terms of how they’re talked about or labeled rather than in terms of how they actually exist. Extensional orientation is the opposite: It’s a tendency to look first at the actual people, objects, and events and then at the labels—a tendency to be guided by what you see happening rather than by the way something or someone is talked about or labeled." http://tcbdevito.blogspot.com/2011/07/communication-strategies-six-guides-to.html
Offer yourself to the world — your energies, your gifts, your visions, your heart — with open-hearted generosity. But understand that when you live that way you will soon learn how little you know and how easy it is to fail.
To grow in love and service, you — I, all of us — must value ignorance as much as knowledge and failure as much as success… Clinging to what you already know and do well is the path to an unlived life. So, cultivate beginner’s mind, walk straight into your not-knowing, and take the risk of failing and falling again and again, then getting up again and again to learn — that’s the path to a life lived large, in service of love, truth, and justice.
Palmer’s second point of counsel speaks to the difficult art of living with opposing truths and channels his longtime advocacy for inner wholeness:
"As you integrate ignorance and failure into your knowledge and success, do the same with all the alien parts of yourself. Take everything that’s bright and beautiful in you and introduce it to the shadow side of yourself. Let your altruism meet your egotism, let your generosity meet your greed, let your joy meet your grief. Everyone has a shadow… But when you are able to say, “I am all of the above, my shadow as well as my light,” the shadow’s power is put in service of the good. Wholeness is the goal, but wholeness does not mean perfection, it means embracing brokenness as an integral part of your life.
As a person who … has made three deep dives into depression along the way, I do not speak lightly of this. I simply know that it is true.
As you acknowledge and embrace all that you are, you give yourself a gift that will benefit the rest of us as well. Our world is in desperate need of leaders who live what Socrates called “an examined life.” In critical areas like politics, religion, business, and the mass media, too many leaders refuse to name and claim their shadows because they don’t want to look weak. With shadows that go unexamined and unchecked, they use power heedlessly in ways that harm countless people and undermine public trust in our major institutions."
In his third piece of advice, Palmer calls for extending this courtesy to others and treating their shadowy otherness with the same kindness that we do our own:
As you welcome whatever you find alien within yourself, extend that same welcome to whatever you find alien in the outer world. I don’t know any virtue more important these days than hospitality to the stranger, to those we perceive as “other” than us.
http://www.couragerenewal.org/living-from-the-inside-out-parker-palmers-naropa-university-commencement-address/
"Those who are patient, seeking the countenance of their Lord, and establish prayer and spend from what We have provided for them, secretly and publicly, and repel evil with good, for those will have the good end." (13:22)
"Those will be given their reward twice for what they patiently endured and they repel evil with good, and they spend from what We have provided them." (28:54)
"Repel evil with what is better. We are most knowing of what they describe." (23:96)
"They are those who spend in charity during ease and hardship and who restrain their anger and pardon the people, for God loves those who are good." (3:134)
One can find this message in all religions, including in Islam and Christianity, which unfortunately have been smeared somehow by excess, prejudice, and schism of fanatics and fundamentalists. Or to put it differently, religions have to balance each other out to perform a realistic healing miracle, neither unrealistically pacifist, nor purely condemnatory and dogmatic or sectarian. The Quranic message about “repelling evil with good” is juxtaposed with the fact that if a group are offending and oppressing others, then “just war” is allowed, similar to St. Augustin’s “just war” theory. The point is how to keep balance and draw a clear line between these two so as not to be excessive in war and aggression, and always always prioritize repelling evil with good to retaliation as long as and as much as it is possible.
From these verses, it is obvious that suicide bombing and killing people indiscriminately has nothing to do with Islam. Obviously, the above verses make it clear that a defensive war is justified but nowhere in the Quran is an offensive war accepted. Also, time has changed and the modes of punishments mentioned above are not acceptable anymore, and this doesn’t mean that the spirit of the above verses are rejected. It means that keeping the kernel of the Quran, some aspects such as cutting the hand of thief, hitting the rebellious wife, or crucifixion of the offender and the corrupt are cruel and not applicable anymore in our time and, I hope and suppose, in the second coming of Jesus, God will make amends and bring about reforms in some aspects of Islamic punishment system, as the Quran rectified some aspects of the Old and New Testament.
Clinging to what you already know and do well is the path to an unlived life. So, cultivate beginner’s mind, walk straight into your not-knowing, and take the risk of failing and falling again and again, then getting up again and again to learn — that’s the path to a life lived large, in service of love, truth, and justice.
http://www.couragerenewal.org/living-from-the-inside-out-parker-palmers-naropa-university-commencement-address/
The Quran holds: “It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you. Some of its verses are definite in meaning—these are the cornerstone of the Scripture—and others are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning. Those firmly grounded in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it: it is all from our Lord’—only those with real perception will take heed” (3:7)
Fanatics such as ISIS, who indeed violate major tenets of the Quran and indiscriminately kill the innocent, might hold onto the ambiguous verses about war and killing. Just war in the Quran is related to the context of aggression, with somehow clear jus in bello (justice in war) and jus ad bellum (justice of war). Groups, similar to ISIS, who declare a universal war against other people, by all means possible, violate the Quranic verdicts that a just war should be defensive, proportional, and protective of non-combatants and innocent people.
“Moses said to his servant, ‘I will not rest until I reach the place where the two seas meet, even if it takes me years! But when they reached the place where the two seas meet, they had forgotten all about their fish, which made its way into the sea and swam away. They journeyed on, and then, Moses said to his servant, ‘Give us our lunch! This journey of ours is very tiring, and [the servant] said, ‘Remember when we were resting by the rock? I forgot the fish—Satan made me forget to pay attention to it—and it [must have] made its way into the sea.’ ‘How strange!’ Moses said, ‘Then that was the place we were looking for.’ So the two turned back, retracted their footsteps, and found one of Our servants—a man to whom We had granted Our mercy and whom We had given knowledge of Our own” (18:60-65).
In this case, obviously Satan is used to hint to Moses
where to meet Khidr. And
in all other cases, evil has an instructive value, in a peculiar way.
I don’t see any serious problem of evil in this narration. Evil is the tool of cultivation. One either goes through the experience and gains God-consciousness, or loses his or her soul and falls into the pleasures of the world and disbelief. In both of these cases, God is aware of the outcome. But we grow by being exposed to this dual experience. My point is not that good and evil are the same for God. Completely the reverse. There is a clear line between them in the Quran. However, God has a comprehensive understanding of the working and direction of events. So, in this sense even if Hitler and Satan are wrongdoers, they are used to bring a message home. God teaches us through reward and affliction. Although the outcome is clear to God, it is us, human beings, who will be cultivated in loving God in God-consciousness (taghva).
I don’t see any serious problem of evil in this narration. Evil is the tool of cultivation. One either goes through the experience and gains God-consciousness, or loses his or her soul and falls into the pleasures of the world and disbelief. In both of these cases, God is aware of the outcome. But we grow by being exposed to this dual experience. My point is not that good and evil are the same for God. Completely the reverse. There is a clear line between them in the Quran. However, God has a comprehensive understanding of the working and direction of events. So, in this sense even if Hitler and Satan are wrongdoers, they are used to bring a message home. God teaches us through reward and affliction. Although the outcome is clear to God, it is us, human beings, who will be cultivated in loving God in God-consciousness (taghva).
To clarify my point, let’s use this thought experiment: imagine we want to save an endangered species, and so we create a special habitat for them to be secured from excessive danger. We know that these animals will deteriorate if we turn them into pets. They have to move and have a natural life style, thus we let some of the predators in to stimulate them to be active for survival. Some of them may die due to their frail predisposition, but based on our probabilistic calculations, we know the species as a whole will flourish and survive. In this thought experiment, though the analogy is barely similar to our love relationship to God, we can see that the predator (evil or Satan) is used as the condition of survival and growth of a species. In our thought experiment, we are the master of process and know the outcome, and in this process the species will prosper and flourish. And it doesn’t mean that the predator and the endangered species are the same, on the contrary, the ultimate goal is to save the endangered species from the domination of predators.
In Surah 41: (Made Distinct) the Quran says: “Good and evil cannot be equal. Repel evil with what is better and
your enemy will become as close as an old and valued friend, but only those who
are steadfast in patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness,
will attain to such goodness” (41: 34). This
is an example of how, despite the fact that good and evil are separate, in
repelling evil with good, we grow and purify ourselves from evil by doing good. However, one may ask, God here doesn’t say
“kill” the enemy. So, why does God later
(in Surah 8 and 9, for example) allows taking up arms and killing? These are two completely different affairs
and I will come to war and violence in the Quran at the end of this reflection.
Obviously, the Quran is saying that even if good and evil
are separate, God has complete knowledge about how things will unfold and
through affliction and reward, God examines us and lets us grow. What is the direction of cultivation? Worshipping God and having
God-consciousness. What is the point of
having God-consciousness? Overcoming
duality, by arriving at home in loving God, because our disposition is
divine. We learn to repel evil from our
divine constitution by worshipping God and doing good, and arriving at the
beginning and the end, which is the love of God, but meanwhile we mature into
absorbing the intrinsic value of having a divine self, the intrinsic value of being
moral, and the intrinsic value of being ethically creative: “Keep up the prayer
at both ends of the day, and during parts of the night, for good things drive
bad away—this is a reminder for those who are aware” (11:114). And human beings desire the process and the end for its intrinsic value, and this is possible only through earning it: “God would never change a favor It had conferred on a people unless they changed what was within themselves.” (8:53)
In relation to the mastery of God over good and evil, over the
outcome of events, and God’s acknowledgement
that everything from light to darkness, from being to nothing, everything is
under God’s control, I came across a strange point. Psychological well-being, to be at the service of love, truth, and justice, according to Parker Palmer, Carl Rogers, and Carl Jung, we have to let go of our defenses and acknowledge ALL of our experiences, good and bad, light and dark. In the Quran, indeed God sets an example for us. God doesn't bring excuses, doesn't say that Satan, for example, is responsible for evil, or disobedience could ever exist without God's preordain. God takes charge of everything. And this is the place where also one might fall astray, because one might think there is no line between good and evil, but God's point is exactly the reverse: God allows things unfold in the way they are, through disobedience and fall, darkness and light, to teach us the difference between good and evil. God is the greatest teacher.
I will quote Carl Rogers, Carl Jung, and Parker Palmer, about the logic of becoming “whole”, and how in becoming whole, we defy evil and embrace love. Strangely, all these psychologists and educators come up with the same conclusion, to become whole (loving and constructive, rather than hateful, egotistic, and destructive) we need to lose our defenses and own up to all of our experiences, the dark side as well as the light.
I will quote Carl Rogers, Carl Jung, and Parker Palmer, about the logic of becoming “whole”, and how in becoming whole, we defy evil and embrace love. Strangely, all these psychologists and educators come up with the same conclusion, to become whole (loving and constructive, rather than hateful, egotistic, and destructive) we need to lose our defenses and own up to all of our experiences, the dark side as well as the light.
Carl Rogers
In Towards a Theory of
Creativity, Carl Rogers argues that in delineating the conditions of
creativity, we cannot easily dissociate the “good” (constructive) and “bad”
(destructive) creativity from each other, due to the fact that, first,
creativity is a sense of individual self-actualization, and secondly, we know
that some creative works, such as the work of Galileo and Copernicus, were considered
wicked and blasphemous in their own time, and later we found out they were
constructive and good. So, it is
difficult and not always desirable to draw a line between “destructive”
and “constructive” creativity. However,
he asks:
“Must we then give over any attempt to discriminate
between creativity which is potentially constructive, and that which is
potentially destructive? I do not believe this pessimistic conclusion is
justified. It is here that
recent clinical findings from the field of psychotherapy give us hope. It has been found that when the individual is "open" to all of his [or her] experience ([emphasis mine] a phrase which
will be defined more fully), then his behavior will be creative, and his
creativity may be trusted to be essentially constructive.”
“The differentiation may be put very
briefly as follows. To the extent that
the individual is denying to awareness (or repressing, if you prefer that term)
large areas of his experience, then his creative formings may be pathological,
or socially evil, or both. To the degree that the individual is open to all
aspects of his experience, and has available to his awareness all the varied
sensings and perceivings which are going on within his organism, then the novel
products of his interaction with his environment will tend to be constructive
both for himself and others.”
“To illustrate, an individual with
paranoid tendencies may creatively develop a most novel theory of the
relationship between himself and his environment, seeing evidence for his
theory in all sorts of minute clues. His theory has little social value,
perhaps because there is an enormous
range of experience which this individual cannot permit in his awareness. Socrates, on the other hand, while also
regarded as "crazy" by his
contemporaries, developed novel ideas which have proven to be socially
constructive. Very possibly this was because he was notably non-defensive and open to his experience. [emphases mine]”
Below, I will mention only one of the factors that Rogers discusses about the constructive creativity which is related to my discussions in this
reflection:
“What are the
conditions within the individual which are most closely associated with a
potentially constructive creative act? I see these as possibilities.
A. Openness to
Experience: Extensionality. This is the opposite of psychological defensiveness,
when to protect the organization of the self,
certain experiences are
prevented from coming
into awareness except
in 
distorted fashion. In a person who is open to experience
each stimulus is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being
distorted by any process of defensiveness. Whether the stimulus originates in
the environment, in the impact of form, color, or sound, on the sensory nerves,
or
whether it originates in the viscera, or
as a memory trace in the central nervous system, it is available to awareness.
This means that instead of perceiving in predetermined categories ("trees are green,"
"college education is good," "modem art is silly") the
individual is aware of this existential moment as it is, thus being alive to many experiences which fall outside
the usual categories
(this tree is lavender; this college education is damaging; this
modern sculpture has a powerful effect on me).”
Carl Rogers expresses two major points above: first, openness requires we let go of our psychological defenses to let creativity flow in us through seeing things as they are. The second point is that through this openness, we let go of predetermined categories and stereotypes and so will become alive to many experiences that fall out of usual categories and sensitive to the existential moment as is:
distorted fashion. In a person who is open to experience
each stimulus is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being
distorted by any process of defensiveness. Whether the stimulus originates in
the environment, in the impact of form, color, or sound, on the sensory nerves,
or
whether it originates in the viscera, or
as a memory trace in the central nervous system, it is available to awareness.
This means that instead of perceiving in predetermined categories ("trees are green,"
"college education is good," "modem art is silly") the
individual is aware of this existential moment as it is, thus being alive to many experiences which fall outside
the usual categories
(this tree is lavender; this college education is damaging; this
modern sculpture has a powerful effect on me).”Carl Rogers expresses two major points above: first, openness requires we let go of our psychological defenses to let creativity flow in us through seeing things as they are. The second point is that through this openness, we let go of predetermined categories and stereotypes and so will become alive to many experiences that fall out of usual categories and sensitive to the existential moment as is:
“This last suggests
another way of describing openness
to experience. It means lack of rigidity and permeability of boundaries in
concepts, beliefs, perceptions, and hypotheses. It means a tolerance for ambiguity where ambiguity exists. It means the ability to receive
much conflicting information without forcing
closure upon the situation. It means what the
general semanticist calls the "extensional orientation."
Now, in the below, pay attention to the relation between creativity and being open to ONLY one phase of experience or havin sensitive awareness of ALL phases of one's experience:
“This complete openness of awareness to what exists at this moment is, I believe, an important condition of constructive creativity. In an equally intense but more narrowly limited fashion it is no doubt present in all creativity. The deeply maladjusted artist who cannot recognize or be aware of the sources of unhappiness in himself, may nevertheless be sharply and sensitively aware of form and color in his experience. The tyrant (whether on a petty or grand scale) who cannot face the weaknesses in himself may nevertheless be completely alive to and aware of the chinks in the psychological armor of those with whom he deals. Because there is the openness to one phase of experience, creativity is possible; because the openness is only to one phase of experience, the product of this creativity may be potentially destructive of social values [emphasis mine]. The more the individual has available to himself [or herself] a sensitive awareness of all phases of his [or her] experience, the surer we can be that his creativity will be personally and socially constructive.” [Towards a Theory of Creativity]
“This complete openness of awareness to what exists at this moment is, I believe, an important condition of constructive creativity. In an equally intense but more narrowly limited fashion it is no doubt present in all creativity. The deeply maladjusted artist who cannot recognize or be aware of the sources of unhappiness in himself, may nevertheless be sharply and sensitively aware of form and color in his experience. The tyrant (whether on a petty or grand scale) who cannot face the weaknesses in himself may nevertheless be completely alive to and aware of the chinks in the psychological armor of those with whom he deals. Because there is the openness to one phase of experience, creativity is possible; because the openness is only to one phase of experience, the product of this creativity may be potentially destructive of social values [emphasis mine]. The more the individual has available to himself [or herself] a sensitive awareness of all phases of his [or her] experience, the surer we can be that his creativity will be personally and socially constructive.” [Towards a Theory of Creativity]
Parker Palmer
In his Naropa University Commencement Address, The Six Pillars of the Wholhearted Life, Parker Palmer has exactly the same message. In his first piece of advice, Palmer calls for living with wholeheartedness. Maria Popova elaborates: "inherent to which— as Seth Godin has memorably argued — is an active surrender to vulnerability. Echoing Donald Barthelme’s exquisite case for the art of not-knowing," he urges:
"What I
really mean … is be passionate, fall madly in love with life. Be passionate
about some part of the natural and/or human worlds and take risks on its
behalf, no matter how vulnerable they make you. No one ever died saying, “I’m
sure glad for the self-centered, self-serving and self-protective life I
lived.”Offer yourself to the world — your energies, your gifts, your visions, your heart — with open-hearted generosity. But understand that when you live that way you will soon learn how little you know and how easy it is to fail.
To grow in love and service, you — I, all of us — must value ignorance as much as knowledge and failure as much as success… Clinging to what you already know and do well is the path to an unlived life. So, cultivate beginner’s mind, walk straight into your not-knowing, and take the risk of failing and falling again and again, then getting up again and again to learn — that’s the path to a life lived large, in service of love, truth, and justice.
Palmer’s second point of counsel speaks to the difficult art of living with opposing truths and channels his longtime advocacy for inner wholeness:
"As you integrate ignorance and failure into your knowledge and success, do the same with all the alien parts of yourself. Take everything that’s bright and beautiful in you and introduce it to the shadow side of yourself. Let your altruism meet your egotism, let your generosity meet your greed, let your joy meet your grief. Everyone has a shadow… But when you are able to say, “I am all of the above, my shadow as well as my light,” the shadow’s power is put in service of the good. Wholeness is the goal, but wholeness does not mean perfection, it means embracing brokenness as an integral part of your life.
As a person who … has made three deep dives into depression along the way, I do not speak lightly of this. I simply know that it is true.
As you acknowledge and embrace all that you are, you give yourself a gift that will benefit the rest of us as well. Our world is in desperate need of leaders who live what Socrates called “an examined life.” In critical areas like politics, religion, business, and the mass media, too many leaders refuse to name and claim their shadows because they don’t want to look weak. With shadows that go unexamined and unchecked, they use power heedlessly in ways that harm countless people and undermine public trust in our major institutions."
In his third piece of advice, Palmer calls for extending this courtesy to others and treating their shadowy otherness with the same kindness that we do our own:
As you welcome whatever you find alien within yourself, extend that same welcome to whatever you find alien in the outer world. I don’t know any virtue more important these days than hospitality to the stranger, to those we perceive as “other” than us.
http://www.couragerenewal.org/living-from-the-inside-out-parker-palmers-naropa-university-commencement-address/
Carl Jung
In Psychotherapists or the Clergy, Jung
raises a similar point. He contends
that when the individual acknowledges and becomes open to the whole of one’s
experience, good and bad, dark and light, then that individual is ready to grow
in love and overcome the negative part of one’s experience and to achieve a
sense of wholeness. In this regard, Jung criticizes the
general religious attitude, when it becomes dogmatic and sees evil all around
itself, which consequently repels the “sinner” and the person who is dominated
by the negative energy and psychological disturbances. What should be done? Should we reject religion? In my experience and so many others, religion
is the solution that has to be de-problematized, not to be or become a problem
as it were, because like all other solutions, i.e., the Freudian
“solution” in reducing everything to sexual libido and ignoring the impulses of
the soul, or even the Jungian “solution”-- the religious solution can also become a
“problem”. So, we need to find a way out
for “religion” to let the individual share their mistakes and aberrations
without the feeling of being excluded and rejected. Here is Jung’s suggestion:
“The patient feels
my [Jung’s psychoanalysis] attitude to be one of understanding, while the
parson's hesitation strikes him as a traditional prejudice, and this estranges
them from one another. He asks himself: "What would the parson say if I
began to tell him of the painful details of my sexual disturbances?" He
rightly suspects that the parson's moral prejudice is even stronger than his
dogmatic bias. In this connection there is a good story about the American
president, "silent Cal" Coolidge. When he returned after an absence
one Sunday morning his wife asked him where he had been. "To church,"
he replied. "What did the minister say?" "He talked about
sin." "And what did he say about sin?" "He was against
it."
“It is easy for the
doctor to show understanding in this respect, you will say. But people forget that
even doctors have moral scruples, and that certain patients’ confessions are
hard even for a doctor to swallow. Yet
the patient does not feel himself accepted unless the very worst in him is
accepted too. No one can bring this about by mere words; it comes only
through reflection and through the
doctor's attitude towards himself and his own dark side. If the doctor
wants to guide another, or even accompany him a step of the way, he must feel
with that person's psyche. He never feels
it when he passes judgment. Whether he puts his judgments into words, or
keeps them to himself, makes not the slightest difference. To take the opposite
position, and to agree with the patient offhand, is also of no use, but
estranges him as much as condemnation. Feeling comes only through unprejudiced objectivity. This sounds
almost like a scientific precept, and it could be confused with a purely
intellectual, abstract attitude of mind. But what I mean is something quite
different. It is a human quality, a kind of deep respect for the facts, for the
man who suffers from them, and for the riddle of such a man's life. The truly religious person has this
attitude. He knows that God has brought all sorts of strange and inconceivable
things to pass and seeks in the most curious ways to enter a man's heart. He
therefore senses in everything the unseen presence of the divine will. This
is what I mean by "unprejudiced objectivity." It is a moral
achievement on the part of the doctor, who ought not to let himself be repelled
by sickness and corruption. We cannot change anything unless we accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it
oppresses. I am the oppressor of the person I condemn, not his friend and
fellow-sufferer. I do not in the least mean to say that we must never pass
judgment when we desire to help and improve. But if the doctor wishes to help a
human being he must be able to accept him as he is. And he can do this in
reality only when he has already seen and accepted himself as he is.”
“Perhaps this sounds
very simple, but simple things are
always the most difficult. In actual life it requires the greatest art to
be simple, and so acceptance of oneself
is the essence of the moral problem and the acid test of one's whole outlook on
life. That I feed the beggar, that I forgive an insult, that I love my
enemy in the name of Christ all these are undoubtedly great virtues. What I do
unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ. But what if I should
discover that the least amongst them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most
impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself that these are within me,
and that I myself stand in need of the alms of my own kindness, that I myself
am the enemy who must be loved what then? Then, as a rule, the whole truth of
Christianity is reversed: there is then no more talk of love and
long-suffering; we say to the brother within us "Raca," and condemn
and rage against ourselves. We hide him
from the world, we deny ever having met this least among the lowly in
ourselves, and had it been God himself who drew near to us in this despicable
form, we should have denied him a thousand times before a single cock had
crowed. [emphases mine]”
As we see, Rogers,
Palmer, and Jung, each share a common view that we have to own up to all of
our experience, put aside our self-defenses, embrace our weak points, or if you
wish, accept and acknowledge our “sins” and in this way, and only in this way, we can
be redeemed, rather than sweeping our dark side under the rug. For some strange reasons, that I can’t
articulate clearly here, the Quranic depiction, which owns up to both good
and evil and refers everything back to God’s will, has some similarities to the
way we can heal ourselves and become whole, that is to acknowledge our own good
and evil so that to become whole, a broken whole though, unlike God. Let’s see.
Repel Evil with Good
This is my peculiar
reflection about God in the Quran. In
the Quran, God acknowledges that everything, good and bad, despicable and
adorable, suffering and joy, is being allowed by God and that God knows the
outcome of all events.
If this is the case, then one may say, why should I not as a sinner
acknowledge my own dark side, and feel I am secure to express it without being
judged by believers? I assume the Quran
leaves this possibility open, provided the sinner comes with good will or a
desire to improve, to be good, to become whole, to heal, to be guided, to find
a way to salvation, in religious terms: to repent. If I have done something bad, and you hate me as bad, how can
I become good? Is it not the case that
God in the Quran is using evil and Satan and angels and prophets and all and
all to train me to be good? And if I
open up to ALL my experience, not only the part of experience that makes me
nice or acceptable or the part that makes me arrogant, egotistic, and lascivious, while repentant, would I be accepted by God? It seems to
me religions in their original and authentic sense don’t exclude this option.
One may ask, does
the Quran itself not open the door for this transformation in some of its
verses? For example, look at these
verses:
“Far
better and more lasting is what God will give to those who believe and trust in
their Lord; who shun great sins and gross indecencies; who forgive when they
are angry; respond to their Lord; keep up the prayer; conduct their affairs by
mutual consultation; give to others out of what We have provided for them; and
defend themselves when they are oppressed. Let harm be requited by an equal
harm, though anyone who forgives and
puts things right will have his reward from God Himself—He does not like
those who do wrong. There is no cause to act against anyone who defends himself
after being wronged, but there is cause to act against those who oppress people
and transgress in the land against all justice—they will have an agonizing
torment—though if a person is patient
and forgives, this is one of the greatest things. (42: 36-43)
We should be careful to take realities
into account. If people are coming to
oppress me, the enemy, for example, if they are racists and are coming to lynch me, I
have no choice but to defend myself. I
can’t stay in my “unprejudiced objectivity” and “accept” the offender as Jung
suggests, if a client is about to harm me. It doesn’t work that way; I
will die before doing any good. So, it
makes sense that the Quran says that if I am attacked and oppressed, I have the
right to defend myself. However,
immediately, the Quran suggests that if the “client” (say sinner) is not
attacking the therapist (say, religious person) to kill or oppress him or her,
then it is better to “forgive” and be “patient” rather than to condemn and reject him or her. Repelling evil with good, to let people be and express themselves freely without feeling judged and damned, and healing them with good rather than retaliation, resentment, and revenge, is essential for the practice of love. There
are so many verses in the Quran that imply this approach:
"Who speaks
better than someone who calls people to God, does what is right, and says,
‘I am one of those devoted to God’? Good and evil cannot be equal.
[Prophet], repel evil with what is better and your enemy will become as
close as an old and valued friend, but only those who are steadfast in
patience, only those who are blessed with great righteousness, will attain
to such goodness. If a prompting from Satan should stir you, seek
refuge with God: He is the All Hearing and the All Knowing." (41:33-35)
"Those who are patient, seeking the countenance of their Lord, and establish prayer and spend from what We have provided for them, secretly and publicly, and repel evil with good, for those will have the good end." (13:22)
"Those will be given their reward twice for what they patiently endured and they repel evil with good, and they spend from what We have provided them." (28:54)
"Repel evil with what is better. We are most knowing of what they describe." (23:96)
"They are those who spend in charity during ease and hardship and who restrain their anger and pardon the people, for God loves those who are good." (3:134)
One can find this message in all religions, including in Islam and Christianity, which unfortunately have been smeared somehow by excess, prejudice, and schism of fanatics and fundamentalists. Or to put it differently, religions have to balance each other out to perform a realistic healing miracle, neither unrealistically pacifist, nor purely condemnatory and dogmatic or sectarian. The Quranic message about “repelling evil with good” is juxtaposed with the fact that if a group are offending and oppressing others, then “just war” is allowed, similar to St. Augustin’s “just war” theory. The point is how to keep balance and draw a clear line between these two so as not to be excessive in war and aggression, and always always prioritize repelling evil with good to retaliation as long as and as much as it is possible.
My hypothesis is that ANY religion can turn
into a dry legalistic approach in which goals justify means. I agree that
the Quran sometimes is read in such a way: the
punishment or reward, the hell or heaven. But I can gather so many verses where God clearly shows that glorifying God is heaven, and a joy in itself (has intrinsic value). It took a long time for me to understood this. And also
it is in the Quran that all humans have fitra,
which means they have a divine nature: “So direct your face toward the
religion, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah of God upon which God has created [all] people. No change
should there be in the creation of God. That is the correct religion, but most
of the people do not know. (30:30). Fitrah is the divine
nature that all humans share. So, in the Quran, it is said, similar to the Old and New Testament, that
if one kills one innocent person it is as if he or she has killed the whole
humanity:
“On account of [Cain’s deed], We decreed to the
Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person—unless in retribution for
murder or spreading corruption in the land—it is as if he kills all mankind, while
if any save a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs,
but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. Those who wage war against God and His
messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by
death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot, or banishment
from the land, a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible
punishment in the Hereafter, unless they repent before you overpower them—in
that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful” (5:32-35).
From these verses, it is obvious that suicide bombing and killing people indiscriminately has nothing to do with Islam. Obviously, the above verses make it clear that a defensive war is justified but nowhere in the Quran is an offensive war accepted. Also, time has changed and the modes of punishments mentioned above are not acceptable anymore, and this doesn’t mean that the spirit of the above verses are rejected. It means that keeping the kernel of the Quran, some aspects such as cutting the hand of thief, hitting the rebellious wife, or crucifixion of the offender and the corrupt are cruel and not applicable anymore in our time and, I hope and suppose, in the second coming of Jesus, God will make amends and bring about reforms in some aspects of Islamic punishment system, as the Quran rectified some aspects of the Old and New Testament.
I think Muslims have to read Jesus's parables
and reflect on them. Muslims along with Christians believe that Jesus
will come again before the Day of Judgment. Why? Well, Muslims and
all religions have to reflect again about Jesus's message. Jesus brings
back everything to the soul of the individual and calls for dealing with one's
own sins, similar to Rogers, Palmer, and Jung’s analysis of embracing a broken
wholeness, rather than judging others, and in the spirit of love implementing
God's commands. I was delighted to see that the Quran mentions "to
repel evil with good" repeatedly and unpredictably in different
places. This was the message of Jesus. Humanity has to go a long
way to understand and be able to implement it. I
assume these reforms in religions will bring non-violent movements to the fore
which are practically and ethically prior to violent methods, as the Quran also
recommends repelling evil with good is ethically prior to lex talianis (eye
for eye). But in the last analysis, we can’t completely exclude the possibility of just war at the time of
aggression of enemy, as St. Augustin and the Quran also approved a defensive just
war.
Just War
Just War
When we read a book, we usually
consider it as being a coherent whole.
We try to connect the dots together to make a sense of the book which,
like an organic life, is not a simple sum of parts. A book has a spirit, even a book of
aphorisms, and we should try to capture that spirit.
In our confirmation bias, we want
to prove our point at any price, even if it ends up to the falsification of the
text and truth. We are inclined to find
sentences that fit our description and happily declare our triumph. I discussed so far some aspects of the
Quran. Given these aspects, the Quran is
not an aggressive and offensive religion.
The spirit of the Quran, in so many places prioritizes patience and
forgiveness. This is the messianic ideal
towards which we are tending, where we learn to shake ourselves off of excessive self-righteousness
and moral indignation to see all of
our experiences first, and then the truth, at least to some extent. And if we can’t, then, Katherine Anne
Porter’s verdict would be applicable to us.
In an interview, she was asked:
- INTERVIEWER: I remember your writing once—I
think in the preface to “Flowering Judas”—of an effort to understand what
you called the “majestic and terrible failure” of Western man. You were
speaking then of the World War and what it signified of human folly. It
seems to me that Ship of Fools
properly belongs to that investigation of betrayal and self-delusion—
- PORTER: Betrayal and treachery, but also self-betrayal and self-deception—the way that all human beings deceive themselves about the way they operate. . . . There seems to be a kind of order in the universe, in the movement of the stars and the turning of the earth and the changing of the seasons, and even in the cycle of human life. But human life itself is almost pure chaos. Everyone takes his stance, asserts his own rights and feelings, mistaking the motives of others, and his own. . . . Now, nobody knows the end of the life he’s living, and neither do I. Don’t forget I am a passenger on that ship; it’s not the other people altogether who are the fools! We don’t really know what is going to happen to us, and we don’t know why. Quite often the best we can do is to keep our heads, and try to keep at least one line unbroken and unobstructed. Misunderstanding and separation are the natural conditions of man. We come together only at these prearranged meeting grounds; we were all passengers on that ship, yet at his destination, each one was alone.
- http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4569/the-art-of-fiction-no-29-katherine-anne-porter
How can we overcome this
self-congratulatory self-deception? As I
am myself one of the passengers of this Ship
of Fools, I can tell you a bit about myself. No matter what, we all have confirmation
bias. We are not inclined to look at the
other side, other arguments, other points of views. It took a long time I realized that if I am
about “to keep at least one line unbroken and unobstructed” beyond
misunderstanding and delusion, I have to welcome counterarguments and principle
of charity. This means if I agree or disagree
with certain arguments, interpretations, religions, or ways of life, I have to
look into their arguments and interpretations and religion, as much as I can,
from their point of view, i.e., to apply the Golden Rule even in evaluating
arguments and ideologies, to listen and read a counterargument with
a sympathetic consideration. This is called the principle of charity. Why should
I do that? First of all, it is ethical
and closer to truth. And for
me the ethical has intrinsic value, it is a condition of my soul. If I don’t act ethically, even if no one sees
me, even if God forgives me, still I know I am doing something to my own
soul.
I know right now by writing these
words, I am creating a furrow of seeds in my memory and soul, even if seemingly,
it is imperceptible and minuscule. I
know now if I close myself off and disconnect from the universe and the divine, it is highly probable I uproot my resort to the charity principle. Because in seeing myself disconnected and as a chance event, or adhere to an
ideology to please certain group and act on certain sociogenic impulse, I will disregard the weight of this distortion on my soul, and prone to turn a blind eye to the ethical truth of charity. Purity is real
and heading to a perfection as embracing a broken wholeness, as Parker Palmer
puts it, makes sense. One danger with
the theory of contingency of life—that we are just an accident and that the survival
of fittest gene is the highest value-- is that it loosens our sense of
connection to ourselves and to the universe and God. Even our scientific honesty, as Karl Popper
puts it, is founded on ethical truth, rooted in religious and Socratic values.
Secondly, opening up to counterarguments and stepping out of our comfort zone is the condition of growth and attaining enlarged mentality. Again, as Parker Palmer says:
Clinging to what you already know and do well is the path to an unlived life. So, cultivate beginner’s mind, walk straight into your not-knowing, and take the risk of failing and falling again and again, then getting up again and again to learn — that’s the path to a life lived large, in service of love, truth, and justice.
So, I need to overcome my
confirmation bias, to listen to the other side, and to apply the principle of
charity. When we read any text, we should try to respect it and try to read it as a coherent whole, with
some degree of sympathy and courtesy. And in this context, we can raise our critical views about religion, as I
did about some verses of the Quran above.
In the last section of this reflection, I wish to briefly discuss ‘violence’ and ‘war’ in the Quran. The usual method is that people find certain verses about war and killing in the text and decontextualize it and jump into the conclusion that the Quran promotes violence. I don’t think this way of reading the Quran accords with the principle of charity and/or helps us to overcome our confirmation bias.
In the last section of this reflection, I wish to briefly discuss ‘violence’ and ‘war’ in the Quran. The usual method is that people find certain verses about war and killing in the text and decontextualize it and jump into the conclusion that the Quran promotes violence. I don’t think this way of reading the Quran accords with the principle of charity and/or helps us to overcome our confirmation bias.
I am curious to see how the Quran
talks about the self, and the relation of this self to the world and other
people. Does it really promote
sectarianism? Does it promote violence
against those who don’t believe in Islam?
1. The Self
1. The Self
Ø Let’s start with the notion of self. Any person who is a bit familiar with the Quran knows that the Quran speaks of three general levels of self or nafs: these are the nafs that ‟commands to evil” (12:53), the ‟nafs that blames” itself (75:2), and the ‟nafs at peace with itself” (89:27). The Quran also tells us that the nafs is one of the places where God discloses Itself to human: “Soon will We show them our signs on the horizons, and within their own nafs, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth.” (41:53)
Ø It is generally understood that resisting and
fighting the self that commands to seek pleasure, disregard justice, and
disconnect with the divine is called the highest
jihad (jihad means strife or
effort). If we look into these three
levels of the self, we can see that the first self or nafs includes the one that urges us to ignore our excess,
selfishness, hedonism, and cynicism. It
is the self that turns a blind eye to counterarguments and contrary evidence,
it is the self that Jung and Rogers invite to see itself as it is.
The second self is the suffering conscience, which is indeed a sign of
divine presence in the soul. It is the
self that Jung and Rogers don’t talk about or kind of dissolve it in pure
“acceptance” of wrongdoings, which seems a bit unrealistic and excessive to
me. We can invite ourselves and people
to open up and share, but we shouldn’t tell ourselves and others, "don’t feel
shame and guilt if you have done something wrong," because after all there is a
difference between wrong and right. The
third self is the self that has resolved its issues, has accepted its mistakes,
shadow, and darkness, has lost defensiveness (and consequently repented) and has set himself or
herself free to re-connect with the divine, and hence he or she arrives at a
calm and assured heart.
2. Freedom of Ideas
2. Freedom of Ideas
Ø The Quran holds that “there is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become
distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believe in God has grasped
the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break” (2:256). Does it say whoever doesn’t believe in Islam
should be banned, excluded, or killed? The
Quran states: “Truly those who keep the faith, and
the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabaeans — whoever believes in God and
the Last Day and performs virtuous deeds — surely their reward is with their
Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve” (2:62).
If the meaning of the words, “there is no compulsion in religion” is clear, it means we cannot force anyone to believe as Muslims believe. If you look at the passages after rejecting compulsion in religion, you will see that the Quran talks about a man who disputed with Abraham about the power of God, and Abraham didn’t kill him for disagreement but argued how God is powerful by challenging him to bring the sun from the west instead of the east. Next, the text brings the example of another dispute about the possibility of the Day of Judgment and again God didn’t kill or burn the man who questioned It in Hell for disagreement but instead put him to sleep for a hundred years to see for himself how the resurrection after death was possible, and the man agreed with God after that and said: “Now I know that God has power over everything” (2:259). Third, Abraham argued with and asked God “show me how You give life to the dead.” And again, God didn’t punish him for disbelief and instead showed him how four trained birds on different hill tops, similar to souls, come back to Abraham.” These and more verses show that in the Quran dispute and disagreement are not sins and people can express their views openly.
3. War and Violence
If the meaning of the words, “there is no compulsion in religion” is clear, it means we cannot force anyone to believe as Muslims believe. If you look at the passages after rejecting compulsion in religion, you will see that the Quran talks about a man who disputed with Abraham about the power of God, and Abraham didn’t kill him for disagreement but argued how God is powerful by challenging him to bring the sun from the west instead of the east. Next, the text brings the example of another dispute about the possibility of the Day of Judgment and again God didn’t kill or burn the man who questioned It in Hell for disagreement but instead put him to sleep for a hundred years to see for himself how the resurrection after death was possible, and the man agreed with God after that and said: “Now I know that God has power over everything” (2:259). Third, Abraham argued with and asked God “show me how You give life to the dead.” And again, God didn’t punish him for disbelief and instead showed him how four trained birds on different hill tops, similar to souls, come back to Abraham.” These and more verses show that in the Quran dispute and disagreement are not sins and people can express their views openly.
3. War and Violence
Now
with regard to surah 8 and 9 in which the command to kill enemies is expressed, a proper way to see how violence is permitted
in the text is to read it within the “spirit” of the whole text, as we
discussed it so far, and understand it in that context. So far, we noticed that while permitting a
defensive just war and lex talianis (qisas, eye for eye), the Quran
prioritizes patience and forgiveness to resentment and revenge, which is the
ideal towards which we should direct ourselves: “A kind word and forgiveness is
better than a charitable deed followed by hurtful [words]; God is
self-sufficient, forbearing” (2:263). The
Quran clearly contends freedom of speech and ideas. And my hope and prediction is that the second
coming of Jesus will bring the spirit of “repelling evil with good”, "non-violent movement", and
“complete freedom of ideas” into fruition, leaving just war as the last
option.
Now, let’s briefly look at just
war in the Quran, and how it talks about killing and war. These are some verses about war:
“Those who have been attacked are
permitted to take up arms because they were wronged” (22:39).
“Fight in the way of God those
who fight you, but do not begin hostilities; God does not like the aggressor”
(2:190).
And Reza Aslan explain verses in
surah 9 in this way:
“It is true that some verses in
the Quran instruct Muhammad and his followers to ‘slay the polytheists wherever
you confront them’ (9:5); to ‘carry the struggle to the hypocrites who deny the
faith’ (9:73); and, especially, to ‘fight those who do not believe in God and
the Last Day’ (9:29). However, it must
be understood that these verses were directed specifically at the Quraysh and
their clandestine partisans in Yathrib—specifically named in the Quran as ‘the
polytheists’ and ‘the hypocrites,’ respectively—with whom Ummah (Muslims) was
locked in a terrible war.”
“Nevertheless, these verses have
long been used by Muslims and non-Muslims alike to suggest that Islam advocates
fighting unbelievers until they convert.
But this is not a view that either the Quran or Muhammad endorsed. This view was put forth during the height of
the Crusades, and partly in response to them, by later generations of Islamic
legal scholars who developed what is now referred to as ‘the classical doctrine
of jihad’: a doctrine that, among other things, partitioned the world into two
spheres, the House of Islam (dat al-Islam)
and the House of War (dar al-Harb),
with the former in constant pursuit of the latter”. (No god but God, p.84-5)
The Quran holds: “It is He who has sent this Scripture down to you. Some of its verses are definite in meaning—these are the cornerstone of the Scripture—and others are ambiguous. The perverse at heart eagerly pursue the ambiguities in their attempt to make trouble and to pin down a specific meaning of their own: only God knows the true meaning. Those firmly grounded in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it: it is all from our Lord’—only those with real perception will take heed” (3:7)
Fanatics such as ISIS, who indeed violate major tenets of the Quran and indiscriminately kill the innocent, might hold onto the ambiguous verses about war and killing. Just war in the Quran is related to the context of aggression, with somehow clear jus in bello (justice in war) and jus ad bellum (justice of war). Groups, similar to ISIS, who declare a universal war against other people, by all means possible, violate the Quranic verdicts that a just war should be defensive, proportional, and protective of non-combatants and innocent people.
Conclusion
“The Quranic rulings are divided into worship and non-worship types. The non-worship rulings are about individual affairs, family affairs, assets, judicial affairs, etc. The word jihad and its derivatives, which are repeatedly invoked and used by those who are opposed to Islam and Muslims, are mentioned 32 times in the Quran. According to one accepted view most of the verses about jihad are meant to be about defending people, and according to another view all of them are. At the same time the following two verses supersede all other verses about jihad:
“God may still bring about affection between you and your present enemies—God is all powerful, God is most forgiving and merciful—and He does not forbid you having relationship with those who have not fought you on the account of religion and have not driven you out of your homeland and he does not forbid you from doing good and regarding justice to them: verily, God likes those who consider justice towards other people. But, God forbids you from having friendship with those who fought you on the account of religion and drove you out of your homeland; and helped one another in driving you out; you are forbidden to have friendly relation with them; and whoever among you does so, then he is regarded as one of the disbelievers” (60: 8-9).
In this context, I go back to the beginning of
this reflection that God knows the outcome of everything, as well as the
unfolding and excess of fanatics such as ISIS and Bin Laden and their take on
ambiguous verses. God knows the
excessive reactions of fundamentalists such as ISIS, and the aggressions of Bush and generally U.S. administration, and
the rising xenophobia and racism, and even through these very excesses, God moves
both Muslims and non-Muslims to the right direction, which means, according to
the Quran, everything, including the distortion of the perverse at heart and
fanatics of ambiguous verses, and the arrogance of Bush and Trump, happen for a
reason, and the outcome is all good and in God's good hands.
In this textual and contextual
whole, we can relatively form a right judgment about a religion which is
followed by billions of people. The
Quran holds that there is no compulsion in religion and prioritizes forgiveness
and reconciliation and peace over war, but in the context of aggression, it
permits Muslims to take up arms, without excessive hostility and always leaves
room for forgiveness and peace. As Akbar
Ganji puts it:
“God may still bring about affection between you and your present enemies—God is all powerful, God is most forgiving and merciful—and He does not forbid you having relationship with those who have not fought you on the account of religion and have not driven you out of your homeland and he does not forbid you from doing good and regarding justice to them: verily, God likes those who consider justice towards other people. But, God forbids you from having friendship with those who fought you on the account of religion and drove you out of your homeland; and helped one another in driving you out; you are forbidden to have friendly relation with them; and whoever among you does so, then he is regarded as one of the disbelievers” (60: 8-9).
