Holy smoke 9

No god, or supernatural messenger of a god, ever wrote a single word or dictated anything to any human being.

Persons who set down “God’s word” may have thought that a god told them what to write; felt that a god told them what to write; believed that a god told them what to write, but they themselves, mortal inhabitants of this natural world, wrote every line, every sentence, every law, every commandment, every story, every poem, every prophecy, every proverb in every “holy book” that ever was. If those who wrote were not the same as those who composed what they wrote, it is certain that the composers were also mortal men.

This must seem so obvious to atheists as to be hardly worth saying. It is so clearly a fact. Incontrovertible.

But billions of people do not accept the fact. And among the billions are thousands, possibly millions, of intelligent, erudite, and even reasonable people!

One such intelligent, erudite, and reasonable man is Maajid Nawaz, a Muslim and reformed “Islamist”, who founded Quilliam, “a London-based think tank that focuses on ‘counter-extremism’, specifically against Islamism, which it argues represents a desire to impose any given interpretation of Islam on society”.

In conversation with atheist Sam Harris,[1] Nawaz argues for a reformation of Islam through constructive interpretations of its “holy scripture”. [We are concerned here only with Nawaz’s side of the discussion. What Sam Harris says is well worth reading.]

The chief “holy book” of Islam is the Koran. Muslims believe it is “God’s final revelation to humanity”. They believe it was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, who first appeared to him when he was forty years old as he lay in the Cave of Hira in the year 609, and that the full “revelation” was delivered at intervals through the rest of his life, a period of 23 years. Muhammad was illiterate. He recited to his companions what he said the angel Gabriel recited to him, and they wrote it down.

Nawaz asserts – for which we applaud him: “Islam is, after all, an idea; we cannot expect its merits or demerits to be accepted if we cannot openly debate it.”[2]

And he argues: “Any given subject has multiple interpretations, which demonstrates that there is no correct one. [His emphasis.] If we can understand that, then we arrive at a respect for difference, which leads us to tolerance and then pluralism, which in turn leads to democracy, secularism, and human rights.”[3] And: “My organization … [takes]  the unequivocal view that no place on earth should seek to impose any given interpretation of religion over the rest of society.”[4]

He sums up his mission thus:

A complete overhaul of cultural identity patterns and a reformed scriptural approach is required. … Such scriptural reform must involve denying those who approach texts vacuously … from absolute certainty that theirs is the correct view …[5]

The greater part of his contribution to the discussion is concerned with differences of interpretation of the “holy scripture” by the learned men of Islam: his point being that the Islamic texts have been and still can be subject to interpretation; and that new interpretations can assist a reform of Islam for this age, when bad interpretations are inspiring or causing evil actions by large numbers of Muslims banded together in terrorist organizations.

Maajid Nawaz has bravely assumed “the responsibility to counter” the “scriptural justification” for Islamic “extremism”.[6] He sees this as a way to make Islam compatible with the values of the West. We take his word for it that such interpretations are possible, and that spreading them through the Islamic world may help to bring about his obviously meritorious ends.

Let us assume – wishing him well with his project – that his interpretations of Islamic “holy scripture” (the hadith as well as the Koran) are enormously and wonderfully attractive and persuasive; that hundreds of millions Muslims come to accept them, perhaps even a majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. The very case he demonstrates, that the texts are forever open to interpretation cannot but mean that there will still be bad interpretations, still likely to inspire evil actions. 

How likely is it that a reformed Islam will become so prevalent that “extremist” interpretations inspiring “Islamism” will be completely and forever abandoned, totally superseded, obliterated? If likely, then that would be, of course, a good result of Maajid Nawaz’s movement. But if unlikely, then his proposed remedy for the savagery, the cruelty and mass murder being carried out by such organizations as al-Qaeda and ISIS, is no remedy at all. It is worth trying. It may lessen the effects of Islamic “extremism”. But it is no remedy.

As long as there are multitudes who believe that they are in possession of “the word of God”, and that God tells them to harm others who do not believe the same as they believe, there will be no remedy.

In time, perhaps, religion will die out as a motivating force of human activity. We long for that to happen. But we cannot see that it will happen any time soon.

 

NOTES

1. Islam: A Dialogue, Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz, Harvard University Press, 2015.

2. page 88

3. page 105

4. page 109

5. pages 116,117

6. page 121

Posted under Islam, jihad, Muslims, Religion general by Jillian Becker on Saturday, March 26, 2016

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 9 comments.

Permalink
  • Extreme caution should be taken when listening to Maajid Nawaz. It almost seems as if he believes there might be some problems with his religion. But, is he a taqiyya artiste of the most dangerous kind? How can he be questioning key aspects of Islam and at the same time telling us that he is still a Muslim? This doesn’t make any sense. His narrative is so seductive that even an outspoken critic of Islam like Sam Harris can be drawn into his web. Take his views with a large pinch of salt.

    • I suspect that he’s an atheist. His co-founder is an Islamic scholar, who writes their learned papers. Nawaz has to say he’s still a Muslim to carry out his plan. No Muslim would listen to him if he didn’t.

  • Proof read:

    “He recited to his companions what the angel Gabriel recited to him, and they wrote it down.”

    It should say:

    “He recited to his companions what he claimed the angel Gabriel recited to him, and they wrote it down.”

    • PS. This is an example of what I’m talking about. You talk too long with Mr. Nawaz and you start making little slip-ups like this. Inadvertently describing the sayings of Mohammed as truth.

      • Okay. I’ve put in “he said”. But I think most readers would know I was being dry about what “they believe”.

  • liz

    Yes, his efforts are to be applauded, but how effective?
    Muslims seem to be trapped in a vicious cycle in which, if they tend toward progress, their religion drags them back down – the “retrograde” effect noted by Churchill.
    The only way for a Muslim to make any progress would be to break free of the religion completely, but that can only be done by individuals, thinking rationally, and most Muslims are not – thanks to Islam – free to think rationally or act as individuals.

    • Nawaz is a product of our dumbed down media who are desperate to protect Islam from outspoken anti-Islamic criticism. His ideas would not survive in an open debate. He is carefully protected by the BBC and other leftist media. He does at least say things that they dare not, but nobody is allowed to openly criticize HIS point of view.

      • liz

        Interesting. Ayan Hirsi Ali also advocates reforming Islam (although she herself is an atheist), yet she’s been banned from speaking on campuses by Leftists who pretend to champion free speech.
        Maybe because she’s more of an outspoken critic of Islam than Nawaz.
        Theres a big problem with his idea that we must “deny those” with “absolute certainty that theirs is the correct point of view” – namely, you cannot persuade anyone with “absolute certainty” to deny that which they’re absolutely certain of! That’s the whole reason they will kill you for disagreeing with them – they’re absolutely certain you deserve to die for not believing what they believe!
        In the end, it boils down to killing them before they kill you.

        • “Maybe because she’s more of an outspoken critic of Islam than Nawaz.”

          Exactly. Nawaz is feted whilst Ayaan Hirsi Ali is vilified.

          I saw Hirsi Ali interviewed on BBC Newsnight and the presenter Emily Maitlis whole attitude was as if she was interviewing a member of the BNP..

          “deny those” with “absolute certainty that theirs is the correct point of view”

          Yes because of course no point of view could possibly be correct, everything must be uncertain so that Islam can make sense even though it doesn’t make any sense.

          Holy smokescreen more like!

          Waste of time listening to this man.