Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
HVK Archives: Review of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim' (part II of VI)

Review of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim' (part II of VI) - Free Inquiry

G. A. Wells ()
1995/96 Winter

Title: Standing up to scrutinize Islam
Author: G. A. Wells
Publication: Free Inquiry
Date: Winter 1995/96

Review of 'Why I Am Not A Muslim' (part II of VI)

(Why I Am Not a Muslim, By Ibn Warraq (Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books,
1995) 402 pp., $25.95 cloth.)

(This review appeared in FREE INQUIRY, Winter 1995/96. The reviewer is a
Professor at the University of London, a member of the Academy of Humanism,
and the author of Did Jesus Exist?)

Why I Am Not a Muslim certainly deserves the epithet "courageous" with
which R. J. Hoffmann introduces it in his Foreword, not so much because of
its thesis that Islamic civilization often reached magnificent heights
despite the religion of Islam, as because almost all the fundamental tents
of Islam are here scrutinized uncompromisingly. Moreover, Ibn Warraq's
criticisms are no idiosyncrasies, but supported with very extensive
references to scholarly works. His book is particularly valuable as a means
of acquainting oneself with this scholarship.

Not surprisingly, he devotes a chapter to the inferior position of women in
Islam, and another to the undemocratic pressures applied by Islamic
immigrants in the West today. He is appalled by the willingness of British
authorities to allow incitement to murder a British citizen (Salman
Rushdie) from a public platform in Britain; and he finds the French
authorities refreshingly less permissive on such matters.

Warraq begins by showing how often politeness to less-civilized countries
has been a whip with which to lash the shortcomings of one's own society.
It was on this basis that Tacitus boosted the Germans and that
eighteenth-century Europeans looked up to "the noble savage." In the
present century, European malaise about colonialism and imperialism has
prompted belief in the superior virtue of subject nations. Attitudes to
Islam and to its history have been affected by such sentiments, although
there have of course been dissenting voices. (Schopenhauer declared, in an
essay on man's metaphysical needs, that he could not find a single valuable
idea in the whole of the Koran.) The uncompromising monotheism of Islam has
been particularly admired. It is true that Christianity is monotheistic
only in virtue of an unintelligible fiction (the Trinity), and the
Judaism's allegiance to one god was not the same as belief in only one god.
But Ibn Warraq reminds us that monotheism can readily join with exclusive
intolerance.

The religion of one day is largely a reshuffling of ideas of a yesterday,
and to this Islam is no exception. It has taken a great deal from both
Jewish and Christian traditions, but I doubt whether many Christians are
aware of in what strange guise Christianity figures in the Koran. According
to Sura 4, Jesus was not crucified: the Jews "Killed him not, they did not
crucify him, but it was made to appear that way to them." This strikes at
the heart of what is now established as Christian doctrine. If there was no
atoning death, there is no redemption, through such a death. But this was
the kind of Christian teaching that reached Muhammad; for a number of
second-century Christians had regarded suffering, which implies change and
imperfection, as foreign to the divine nature. As our author says, "what
is in the Koran about Christianity derives from heretical sects" (p. 62).

Something else made clear in this book that will probably surprise many is
how much of what has long passed for the early history of Islam has been
put in question by serious scholars. I had always believed that the swift
rise of Muhammad's religion to power - overrunning the whole of Arabia in
his lifetime and defeating Christian armies in Syria soon after his death -
meant that the evidence for its origin will have been critically sifted at
a far-earlier stage than could have occurred in the case of Christianity,
which Ion. remained a jumble of insignificant sects and took three hundred
years to attain state recognition. Also, the Koran looks much more
authentic than the Gospels, in that its author works no miracles and makes
no claim to divinity. Only in later traditions do his features become
implausibly magnified. Ibn Warraq's chapter on "The Problem of the
Sources" must give us pause here. There is not only disparate material in
the Koran, but also repetition of whole passages in variant versions; and
this looks more like belated and imperfect editing of materials from a
plurality of traditions than a collection of a single author's sayings.
Also, there are so many variant readings that it is misleading to speak of
the Koran: "The definitive text still had not been achieved as late as the
ninth century" (p. 154). As with the New Testament, the faithful are
familiar with a uniform text and know little or nothing of the variants
given in any apparatus criticus. (To take but one New Testament example,
whether Luke has a doctrine of atonement depends on which manuscripts of
his account of the Last Supper are to be taken as giving the original
reading.)

As for the Koran's contradictions, some are quite normal in a single,
individual religious writer and need not be put down to multiple
authorship. An instance is the alteration between predestination passages
("God misleads whom He will, and whom He will he guides") and others that
give mankind some kind of free will. If what happens has been
predetermined, it is futile to urge people to change their ways. Yet
Muhammad and his followers have always done this, as did St. Paul, who
combined the idea that God blinds people with the doctrine that their
errors are all their own fault. Similarly, Marxists believe that persons
in a certain economic condition will inevitably behave in a certain way,
but nevertheless abuse them for doing so.

Another striking contradiction quite normal in religious writing is that
the God of the Koran is merciful and compassionate, yet consigns those who
do not believe in him to everlasting torment. Our author notes that
"Muhammad really lets his otherwise limited imagination go wild when
describing, in revolting detail, the torments of hell" (p. 125).

Muslim commentators deal with some of the contradictions by claiming that
latter verses in the Koran may cancel earlier ones. What is early or late
is, however, largely conjecture, as the Suras are arranged in order of
length, not chronologically.

The biographies of the prophet have always been known to be relatively
late; and the traditions about the early history of Islam grow, in
characteristic legendary fashion, from one writer to the next: "If one
storyteller should happen to mention a raid, the next one would tell its
exact date, and the third one would furnish even more details" (p. 84). Ibn
Warraq sums this up with: either we conclude with a number of recent
scholars that we do not know a great deal about Muhammad, or we make do
with the traditional sources. He adds: "Muslims would perhaps be better off
accepting the former alternative," since the picture that emerges of the
Prophet from the latter is "not at all flattering. Furthermore, Muslims
cannot complain that this is a portrait drawn by an enemy" (p. 86).

There are of course morally acceptable teachings in the Koran, but there is
also much intolerance. One of its worst legacies is the notion of a Holy
War, developed "with the help of the idea of rewards in paradise for the
holy martyrs who died fighting for Islam" (p. 156). Ibn Warraq deplores the
fact that, although imperialism is now discredited, "hardly anyone bothers
to criticize the Islamic variety that resulted in such death and
destruction" (p. 346). Bernard Lewis, an Islamic scholar whom our author
rightly treats with respect, has argued that, there were indeed "exaltation
and dogmatism on both sides," yet "greater tolerance on the Turkish."
Spanish Jews after the Inquisition found refuge in Turkey, and "when
Ottoman rule in Europe came to an end, the Christian nations they had ruled
for centuries were still there, with their languages, their cultures, their
religions, even to some extent their institutions, intact," whereas "there
are no Muslims today in Spain or Sicily and no speakers of Arabic" (See
Lewis's chapter in the symposium The Legacy of Islam, Oxford University
Press, 1974). Ibn Warraq finds this stress on Islamic pluralism and
tolerance quite misplaced: Turkey was "no inter-faith utopia" (p. 187). He
emphasizes atrocities (including recent ones) in Muslim history "as a
counter to sentimental nonsense about the 'spiritual Fast', which, we are
constantly told, is so much superior to the decadent and atheistic West"
(p. 161).

Islam certainly keeps a firm grip on its people by making apostasy a
capital offense, as is also blasphemy towards God and the Prophet. "In
modem times blasphemy has simply become a tool for Muslim governments to
silence opposition, or for individuals to settle personal scores" (p. 176).
It is of course quite generally the case that religions that inculcate
obedience and submission to established authority tend to be supported by
established governments. Bernard Lewis himself has noted, in a recent
essay, how Khomeini dealt with groups and individuals opposing the Islamic
revolution: for him, insistence on open trials, defense lawyers, and proper
procedures was no more than a reflection of "the Western sickness among
us." Those on trial, he insisted, were criminals, and criminals should be
executed, not tried. Warraq notes that it was this hatred and loathing of
the West that led Arab countries to sympathize in the Gulf War even with
Saddam Hussein: he is a tyrant, but he "stood up to the West."

When Warraq speaks of science, he allows that it is in this domain that "we
come at last to the true greatness of Islamic civilization" (p. 272). I
have recently come across an illustration of this in the 1984 Princeton
University Press edition of Galen: On Respiration and the Arteries by
British scholars David J. Furley and J. S. Wilkie, who offer a greatly
improved Greek text by utilizing an Arab translation better than any of the
surviving Greek manuscripts. But Warraq argues that it was despite Islam
that Islamic science developed. He quotes Earnest Renan's verdict:

To give Islam the credit of Averroes and so many other illustrious
thinkers, who passed half their life in prison, in forced hiding, in
disgrace, whose books were burned and whose writings almost suppressed by
theological authority, is as if one were to ascribe to the Inquisition the
discoveries of Galileo, and a whole scientific development which it was not
able to prevent.

The older scholars on whom Warraq draws include D. S. Margoliouth, whose
"Mohammedanism" in the series Home University Library of Modern Knowledge
is still a useful introduction. Warraq's recent authorities include of
course Bernard Lewis, and also W. Montgomery Watt, whom he calls "by common
consent the greatest and one of the most influential living Islamic
scholars in Britain." Like Warraq, I have found Watt informative, yet
infuriating, in that he repeatedly recast traditional doctrines - Christian
as well as Muslim - into impressive-sounding formulas that are really no
more than solemn-faced nonsense. For instance, his version of "O Lamb of
god that takes away the sins of the world" is that "Jesus wag deliberately
living out an archetypal synthesis." The then Bishop of Edinburgh quoted
this in his Foreword to Watt's 1959 book (pretentiously entitled The Cure
of Human Troubles) and opined that it may "be difficult to think and
express ourselves in these new terms." There is in fact no difficulty at
all in thus "expressing ourselves." Whether we are thereby thinking of
anything other than the words is another matter.

One truth that Warraq's book brings home very forcibly is that religion has
so often been made the basis for perpetuating social injustices. Napoleon
was but voicing an almost universal attitude when he saw in Christianity
"not the mystery of the Incarnation, but the mystery of social order," in
that inequality of property can be maintained only by convincing the poor
that it is God's will and that they will be better off in kingdom-come.
Warraq allows that it may well be inhuman to tell an individual who is
suffering irredeemably that his belief in God and in an after-life when all
will be righted is sheer delusion; but he sees that the systematic
inculcation of highly suspect doctrine is quite another matter, and
certainly not to be made an excuse for storing nothing to ameliorate man's
lot (p. 162). He remains "convinced that despite all the shortcomings of
Western liberal democracy, it is far preferable to the authoritarian,
mind-numbing certitudes of Islamic theocracy" (p. 359).

Scriptures and creeds make a religion vulnerable, in that they supply the
critic and the skeptic with a hold. Nevertheless, many Christians have
managed to transcend elements in their sacred books that have been
impugned. Can we not expect the same of Muslims? Liberal Christians will
say, for instance, that God's revelation is presented in the Bible through
miracle stories because miracles were believed in at that time, whereas we
who do not believe in them are free to interpret the miracle stories in a
different way. Can we not expect Muslims to say, sooner or later, that
persecution of "infidels" is enjoined in the Koran because in Islam's earl
days only an aggressive to outsiders ensured its survival, whereas modern
believers can be open to divine counsel of moderation and tolerance? A
serious obstacle to any such development is the hatred of the West that
Muslim leaders inculcate. Leaders get the support of followers by
persuading them that they are threatened by a common enemy. Their argument
is not "Support me, because I wish for power," but "Support me to save
yourselves from these hated imperialists." Without such a basis of hatred,
the support for a leader is apt to become lukewarm; and so he must be
continually striking at the supposed enemy. This it is that militates so
strongly against any compromise. Altogether, in political argument even in
democracies, it is the appeal to moral principles that gives rise to most
of the hate, and it would be much better to talk frankly about interests.
One who resists a moral principle must necessarily be immoral, and
therefore not to be argued with but coerced. On the other hand, when an
opposition of interests is frankly faced, there is a possibility of
reaching some kind of compromise and understanding, without abuse and anger.

Warraq's book shows that the world today is very far from such a situation
and is not moving towards it.


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements