Islam Terrorem Potius Quam Religionem

In his Penseés, Blaise Pascal wrote: "The conduct of God, who disposes all things gently, is to put religion into the mind by reason, and into the heart by grace. But to will to put it into the mind and heart by force and menace is not to put religion there, but terror, terrorem potius quam religionem.*

The invocation of terror as a tool of conversion is an integral part of historical Islam, and it is simply disingenuous to disregard this. A small sampling in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sirat, the three sources of Muslim doctrine, will show this handily:

Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220	"Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"
Qur'an 8:12	"I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."
Qur'an 8:57	"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."
Ibn Ishaq 326	"If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."
Qur'an 8:67	"It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Tabari IX:42	"We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized."
Ibn Ishaq 326	"Allah said, 'No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.' Muhammad said, 'I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.'"

Don't be fooled, these three sources are the fundamental sources of Islam. It is Islam by definition.

__________________________________________
*The Latin phrase is "a terror[ism] more than a religion." The original French: (Laf. 172 | Br. 185) «La conduite de Dieu, qui dispose toutes choses avec douceur*, est de mettre la religion dans l’esprit par les raisons et dans le cœur par la grâce, mais de la vouloir mettre dans l’esprit et dans le cœur par la force et par les menaces, ce n’est pas y mettre la religion mais la terreur. Terrorem potius quam religionem.»

Muhammad and the Marian Anachronism

Muslims hold the Qur'an to be the revealed word of Allah given through Muhammad, the alleged seal of the prophets. For a Muslim, the Qur'an by definition cannot contain any errors.

Unfortunately for the Muslim, the Qur'an contains a number of errors. Perhaps one of the most obvious relates to Muhammad's confusion of two people who lived hundreds (perhaps as much as 14 centuries) of years apart, Mary (in Arabic, Maryam [مريم]) the mother of Jesus, and Miriam (in Arabic, Maryam) the sister of Aaron (in Arabic, Harun [هارون‎] and Moses (In Arabic, Musa [موسىٰ]) and daughter of Amram (in Arabic 'Imran [عمران]).

Unquestionably, Miriam is identified as the daughter of Amram and the sister of Moses and Aaron in the Jewish scriptures. For example, 1 Chronicles 6:3 states that the children of Amram were Aaron, Moses, and Miriam. In Numbers 26:49, we learn that Amram's wife was called Jochebed, and that she bore Aaron, Moses, and Miriam to Amram. Cf. Exodus 15:20; Numbers 12:1-5; 10-15; Micah 6:4.

"And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron,

took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her

with timbrels and with dances." (Exodus 15:20).

Unquestionably, the Qur'an 19:27-28 refers to Maryam the mother of Jesus as the "sister of Aaron (Harun)" and the "daughter of Amram ('Imran)"

Then she brought him to her people, carrying him. They said, "O Mary [Maryam], you have certainly done a thing unprecedented. O sister of Aaron [Harun], your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste."

Cf. Qur'an 3:35-36; 66:12 (which identify Mary as the daughter of 'Imran).

The error was apparent to the Christians of Muhammad's day. A hadith (Sahih Muslim, 25:5326) relates a situation where the Christians of Najran were aware of the error and challenged a Muslim follower of Muhammad, Mughira bin Shu'ba, as well as the authenticity of the Qur'an. According to the hadith, bin Shu'ba asks Muhammad to explain the apparent error:

Mughira b. Shu'ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read "O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.

Confronted with the error, Muhammad comes up with a frivolous defense. Instead of owning up to the error, Muhammad's excuse is based on the alleged practice where persons were given honorific names of the prophets, similar in the sense to how Jesus was called the "son of David." The reference is to be understood metaphorically based upon an ancient custom.

There are problems with Muhammad's excuse.

First, there is no evidence contemporaneous to the time of Mary that would suggest that women were called "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram" as a sort of honorific title. There is no such record of such a practice. Mary had never been known by Christians as "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram" like Jesus was known as the "son of David."

Mary, daughter of Sts. Joachim and Anna

There is an instance of Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah, who is called one of the "daughters of Aaron." (Luke 1:5) But being called a "daughter of Aaron," is a reference to Elizabeth being a part of the priestly (Aaronic) caste, i.e., a Levite. Elizabeth was not called "daughter of Amram" (who was not a priest) or "sister of Aaron." Moreover, Mary was not part of the priestly caste, as she was part of the kingly caste, a member of the tribe of Judah, of the house of David.

Interestingly, the hadith is inconsistent with commentary that indicates that Muslims believed, based upon the Qur'an, that Maryam the mother of Jesus and Maryam the sister of Aaron were the same historical person. Ibn Kathir, for example, relates in his commentary on 19:28 that Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife, grew angry and accused a certain man named Ka'b of lying when he suggested that Maryam the mother of Jesus was not the same person as Mary the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amram.

It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, "O sister of Harun (Aaron)!" (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka’b, "You have lied." Ka’b responded, "O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years." He said that she remained silent.

There are efforts by Muslims to evade or avoid this embarrassing anachronism. But the excuses--which seek to identify Mary with the Levitical priestly tribe or which seek to argue that in fact there was a practice to call women "sister of" and "daughter of" important figures and that Mary was customarily called "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram"--are simply untenable. The Qur'an understands the word "sister" literally, not figuratively. The Muslims and Christians both understood the Qur'an to mean this, hence the hadiths. Nowhere in Christian tradition is Mary referred to as "sister of Aaron" or "daughter of Amram."

The conclusion is that Muhammad, the illiterate and unschooled prophet, got it wrong. And the Allah, who supposedly revealed truths to him, seems to be equally illiterate and unschooled as his alleged prophet.

Allah's Loneliness

"If there were not a plurality of persons in the divinity," St Thomas Aquinas states in his Summa Theologiae, "it would follow that God would be alone or solitary." (S. T. Ia, q. 28, a. 4). It is well-known that the Qur'an rejects any notion of the Trinity. We have for example, the following in the Qur'an (4:171):

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

Or the following (5:72):

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

Or, finally, this (5:116):

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

Islam's Allah is not a Trinity engaged in an eternal communion of love. He is therefore relegated to a lonely, solitary existence. And everyone knows that a lonely, solitary being has no one to love and no one to love him. Love requires at least two persons. Hence Allah is not a God of love, but a bitter, lonely, solipsistic being.

Two eyes, one eye, or none?

Recently, the Saudi Arabian news website Bikya Masr reported that Saudi women with attractive eyes may be forced to cover them up. A spokesman for Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, explained that the the committee had the right to stop women revealing "tempting" eyes in public. This, one must suppose, is based upon Muhammad's enlightened teachings. Three or so years ago, there was a little controversy caused by a similar view by Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan who announced that said that showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive, and so one eye ought to be covered.

Though there is some debate among the Muslims, the requirement for women to veil themselves, including their eyes, is unquestionably Qur'anic in origin. The precise requirement--e.g., whether the eyes need to be covered (as in the burqa), or whether one eye may show (e.g., a one-eyed niqab) or whether two eyes may show is the result of conflict in the ahadith and the preferences of commentators trying to ascertain their validity or authenticity and their role in defining the Shari'a.

The Qur'anic sources are the following verses:

Surah Al-Ahzaab, ayat 59 (33:59) (Pickthall trans.)
O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognized and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Surah An-Nur, aya 30-31 (24:30-31) (Pickthall trans.)
And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

How are these vague Qur'anic injunctions to be interpreted?

For this, we must turn to the Sunnah and the ahadith or reports which compose it. Unfortunately, there is no unanimity in the ahadith. These conflicting authorities are the source of the various views of how strictly to construe the requirement of veiling.

A little background. The ahadith or reports relate to Muhammad's statements and those of his companions and followers (in the aggregate known as the as-Salaf as-Salih (السّــلف الصّــالح), or "pious predecessors,"and composed of three groups: the "companions" or as-Sahabah (الصحابة‎), the "followers" or at-Tabi'un (التابعون‎), and the "followers of the followers" the Tabi' at-Tabi'un (تابع التابعين‎)). There is a conflict among these on this issue of the veil and how much of the face it ought to cover. The ahadith, of course, are the source documents that compose the Sunnah and are part of what is revealed, along with the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are the source of the laws that govern the entirety of the Muslim's world, i.e., the Shari'a.

Good?

Better? (wrong eye, by the way)

Best?

The matter is quite intricate. There are debates on which ahadith or reports are authentic, and much of this depends upon the testimonial chain or isnad (he said to him, and he told him, that he said . . .) that relates to those. There are also distinctions made between the reports of the so-called Sahabah or companions of Muhammad (those who saw him, believed in him, and never left Islam), that so-called Tabi'un or followers of Muhammad who followed Muhammad after he had died but who lived while the Sahabah were alive. Finally, there is the testimony of the so-called Tabi' at-Tabi'un, which is the generation after the Tabi'un and are defined as Muslims who had seen at least one of the Tabi'un, was rightly-guided, and died in that state. There are also distinctions that are made in the quality of the individual speaker and the quality of the witnesses in the hearsay chain.

On the issue of two eyes, one eye, or none, there seems to be conflict between the witness of the as-Salaf as-Salihin. The whole thing is hopelessly confused, and rather tedious to explore in its entirety. One ends up straining at gnats. One would have thought Allah or his alleged prophet would have been a little more precise about this sort of thing if he's going to go through the trouble of forcing women to wear the veil.

In any event, to give you the flavor we might turn to the witness of Muhammad bin Sirin, a member of the Tabi'un or follower of Muhammad, and generally considered to be one of the more reliable witnesses of the early Muslim practice and Muhammad's will. He reported that he spoke with Ubaida bin Sufyan bin al-Harith, one of the Sahabah or companions of Muhammad.*

Muhammad bin Sirin states:

"When I asked Ubaida bin Sufyan bin al-Harith the meaning of this verse about "Alaihinna" and how the jalbaab was to be worn, he demonstrated it to me by pulling a sheet of cloth over his head to cover his entire body, leaving the left eye uncovered. This was also the explanation of the word 'Alaihinna in this verse"

But there are other ahadith that suggest that the entire face ought to be covered, and there are some that seem to allow for either one eye or two eyes to be covered.

I suppose that we shall never know with any certainty whether Allah's will is that a woman veil in public in such a manner that two eyes, one eye, or none may be seen.

With hell in the balance, doesn't this present a problem?

_____________________________________
Islamic source for these, see The Niqaab in light of the Holy Quran and Sahih Hadith and in the Opinions of the great scholars.