|
The current issue (Dec.1998) of Life Magazine sports an interesting cover
which poses the following question:
WHEN YOU THINK OF GOD WHAT DO YOU SEE?
The article by Frank McCourt of the same title could not be better timed
for the purposes of this paper. The opening paragraph reads:
America’s God is vaguely defined. Ours is not a monocultural nation
like, say
Iran, Italy or Ireland, but a proudly diverse one. In many countries, the
state, so entwined with a national religion, paints a picture of God no less
stark than a portrait of the ayatollah, of the pope, of Saint Patrick. Everyone
knows what God looks like, and accepts the image or leaves it alone - this
latter option sometimes at one’s peril. America, meantime, makes it
society’s business to support, protect and nurture minority viewpoints,
values and traditions. Within these are many different views of God (sometimes
Gods, plural; sometimes "exalted beings" possessing a divine essence). Americans
answerable only to their God, can choose.
Depending on one’s religious persuasion, people may form many different
images of God. Individuals often become so convinced that the image of God
each holds dear is the right image, religious dogma replaces what can only
be considered conjecture.
If one mentions the Quran , the holy book of Islam, it is quite likely many
people will recall images of an ayatollah intolerant towards American government.
Most people would be shocked if they were told that the Quran supports the
eight principles of western democracy as outlined in Today’s Ism’s
by William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman. Yet that is the thesis of this paper.
What currently passes for Islam as practiced by the majority of Muslims is
a form of religious dogma in contradiction to the teachings of the Quran.
It is hoped that by the conclusion of this paper, the reader will see Islam
in a new light, not as a form of religious dogma, but as a guide to making
choices based on intelligence and reason.
There are eight criteria or elements by which a democratic society can be
evaluated or judged according to William Ebenstein and Edwin Fogelman.
1. Rational empiricism
2. Emphasis on the individual
3. Instrumental theory of the
state
4. Voluntarism
5. The law behind the law
6. Emphasis on means
7. Discussion and consent in human
relations
8. Basic equality of all human
beings
1. Rational empiricism. All our
knowledge comes from experience with the confidence to apply reason to human
relations. Truth is not a given but is subject to change requiring continuous
reevaluation and verification. What may seem true today may be altered tomorrow
with the input of additional information or by changes in circumstances.
Applied to a democracy, all sides must be heard on any issue, or at least
as many as possible, thereby allowing for free speech, publication, assembly
and association.
A dogmatist believes he knows the truth with absolute
certainty and will accuse anyone who opposes his version of the truth guilty
of intellectual subversion. Therefore, the dogmatist will not inquire further
into matters. The only input he will allow is that information which will
strengthen his position. It is this certainty of knowledge that opens the
door to fanatic sentiment.
John Locke (1632-1704) believed that all our knowledge
derives from experience.
"In this conception, truth ... is tentative, changing, and subject to constant
checking and verification."
It follows that the rational empiricist believes that one never fully arrives
at the truth, or the final answer to any question. In fact, the more one
may learn about a given subject, the more ignorant one may realize he is.
New awareness almost always creates more questions to answers than answers
to questions. It is this mode of thinking that allows for scientific progress.
In principle, a democratic process allows and encourages all questions and
points of view, even those which challenge the principles of democracy, although
this is the ideal more often than the reality. When the ideal is the reality,
the process remains dynamic. In a dogmatic regime, the process becomes static,
even in a supposedly democratic regime. The truth has been declared and no
other point of view will shake it or change it.
The Quran makes the point for rational empiricism in short order:
You shall not accept any information, unless
you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and
the brain, and you are responsible for using them. 17:36
This verse describes the process of gaining empirical knowledge quite clearly.
Our knowledge is gained from the evidence of our senses. What we see and
what we hear are processed by the brain and become the foundation for what
we know. We are responsible for the interpretation of what we see and hear.
Generally, no one can ascertain the truth by one observation. If one observation
is sufficient for drawing a conclusion it is because reason has been applied
to previously gained information. For example, one might never have been
an eye-witness to an automobile exploding, yet one’s knowledge and
experience may be sufficient to know that if an automobile explodes in the
course of impact with another vehicle, the occupants inside will likely come
to be harmed, if not killed. However, in another example, a small child will
not understand that placing her finger in a fire will burn her if she has
never had any experience with fire.
The scientific method requires repeated testing with the outcomes remaining
consistent before we can accept the results with any confidence. Likewise,
truth can only be ascertained by examining all sides, or at least as many
as are available for review. As it is always likely that one may never have
all points of view at any given time, it is safe to infer that truth is always
subject to revision. So, while we are expected to use our senses to receive
information, we are also expected to apply that knowledge in a rational manner,
remaining open to the possibility that new information may expand or change
our understanding.
2. Emphasis on the individual.
Ebenstein and Fogelman contrast liberal democracy with both authoritarian
and totalitarian regimes. The latter two view the individual as the servant
of the state. The individual lives to serve the state, being only one small
part of the whole with the "concept of citizenship as duty, discipline, and
death for the state." The state is not to be questioned but is to be obeyed.
Locke first emphasized the rights of the individual when he wrote in his
essays that the individual had the right to pursue life, liberty and property;
and if the individual was not happy with the laws under which he was living,
he should be free to remove himself to a place where such laws could not
compel him into compliance. However, he also believed that if a government
usurped the rights of the people, the people had the right to revolt and
change the government. This thinking became the foundation for what was to
become the American Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, the principle
drafter of that document, slightly modified Locke’s principles of individual
rights, and Americans have come to accept that life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness are inalienable rights. Like Locke, Jefferson believed that
when a government interfered with these rights, the people had the right
to alter or abolish that government and to institute a new one which would
better secure their safety and happiness.
Locke’s contention that one should be free to move if one was unhappy
with the conditions imposed on him is supported by the Quran, as well the
right to revolt against the government if it usurps the rights of the people.
Anyone who emigrates in the cause of God will
find on earth great bounties and richness. 4:100
Those who believe, and emigrate, and strive
in the cause of God with their money and their lives, are far greater in
rank in the sight of God. These are the winners. 9:20
O you who believe, you shall remain alert, and
mobilize as individuals, or mobilize all together.
4:71
Those who believe are fighting for the cause
of God, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny.
Therefore, you shall fight the devil’s allies; the devil’s power
is nil. 4:76
While the Quran speaks of emigrating and fighting in the cause of God, it
may seem misleading in the context of politics. No specific mention of government
is made. There are several possible explanations for this. One reason is
that at the time Muhammad begin reciting the Quran, the Arabs were primarily
tribal nomads. Government as twentieth century Americans know it, or as Locke
knew it in seventeenth century England, did not exist for them. Another reason
that government is not specifically mentioned would be that these passages
do not refer only to governments, but also to any conditions that would impose
unfair limitations upon an individual or groups of individuals, as within
a family, the tribe, the community, or the larger nation state. The fact
that the term government is not specifically used does not mean that these
passages do not support the right to leave or to abolish the state. What
it does imply is a broad application. Tyranny is still tyranny be it on the
personal level between spouses or between the ruler and the ruled. When Paine
stated that he believed the Almighty would separate America from England
because of the latter’s abuses against humanity, it was no less a spiritual
plea for divine intervention. The Declaration of Independence states in part:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to
secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation
on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for
light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that
Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to
right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.
This document equates inalienable rights with God-given rights as stated
in the first sentence above.
You may fight in the cause of God against those
who attack you, but do not aggress. God does not love the aggressors. You
may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they
evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder...If they refrain, then God
is Forgiver, Most Merciful. You may also fight them to eliminate oppression,
and to worship God freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression
is permitted only against the aggressors. 2:190-193
Does it seem a stretch of reason to apply the previous verses to the human
condition of which history abounds with examples of abuse? Jefferson makes
the point that people too often accept the status quo and allow themselves
to continue suffering under oppressive forms of government rather than stand
up and fight such oppression. Are we to assume that fighting oppression has
nothing to do with God? If our inalienable rights are God-given as the
Declaration of Independence asserts, then what right does a government, a
group of individuals, or one individual have to abuse such rights? Are we
not fighting in the cause of God when we defend that which we believe is
God-given?
Why should you not fight in the cause of God
when weak men, women, and children are imploring: "Our Lord, deliver us from
this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master."
Those who believe are fighting for the cause
of God, while those who disbelieve are fighting for the cause of tyranny.
Therefore, you shall fight the devil’s allies; the devil’s power
is nil. 4:75-76
Paine echoed similar words in his pamphlet Common Sense when
"he denounced the British ruling classes for exploiting the lower classes
in America and in England, and urged the colonies to declare themselves free
and independent states so that they might establish in America a haven of
refuge for the oppressed peoples of Europe."
Ebenstein and Fogelman state that the historical roots of individualism stem
from three sources:
First, the Jewish concept of one God leads to the idea that all men, as children
of God, are brothers to each other. Second, the Christian doctrine of the
indestructibility of the human soul maintains that whatever social, economic,
and political inequalities may exist, all men posses a spiritual equality
and
uniqueness that no earthly power can override. Third, in the stoic view,
the
one principle of action that governs all things is to be at one with oneself,
to
know oneself, and to act in conformity with one’s rational principles
and
purposes. The true self of man, according to the stoics, is not flesh or
bones, but
the faculty that uses them, the reason, the part that more than anything
else
characterizes one as human.
At no time, of course, has this individualism been fully accepted, and the
counterforces of collective solidarity always threaten it.
Although the Quran is supportive of the Judeao-Christian ideas expressed
above, Ebenstein and Fogelman do not demonstrate how individualism has developed
from either of the first two sources. That all men are brothers does not
clarify the concept of individualism. That all men possess a spiritual equality
does not sufficiently support the premise for individualism. The stoic view
comes closer to establishing a precedent for individualism and it is this
point of view which is supported by the Quran:
Did they not roam the earth, then use their
minds to understand, and use their ears to hear? Indeed, the real blindness
is not the blindness of the eyes, but the blindness of the hearts inside
the chests. 22:46
The blindness of the hearts inside the chest is the metaphorical description
of the faculty of reason, and failure to use it is an individual dilemma,
although many individuals may be guilty of such failure.
3. The instrumental theory of the
state. This is the view that the state is a mechanism
to be used for ends higher than itself. In order to accept this theory, one
must reject the concept of the state as the ultimate authority. One must
also define ends higher than itself. Returning to the Judeao-Christian viewpoint,
"the highest values in man’s life relate to God and that no earthly
law can claim to supersede God’s. From the rational-humanist viewpoint,
the instrumentalist theory of the state affirms that the ability of the
individual to use his reason in discovering what is right and wrong is the
ultimate test of political authority."
The Most Gracious. Teacher of the Quran. Creator
of the human beings. He taught them how to distinguish. The sun and moon
are perfectly calculated. The stars and the trees prostrate. He constructed
the sky and established the law. He created the earth for all creatures.
55:1-10
The heavens and the earth are full of proofs
for the believers. We then appointed you to establish the correct laws; you
shall follow this, and do not follow the wishes of those who do not know.
They cannot help you at all against God. It is the transgressors who ally
themselves with one another, while God is the Lord of the righteous. This
provides enlightenments for the people, and guidance, and mercy for those
who are certain. 45:3,18-20
These verses support the premise that no earthly law is higher than God’s
law. He taught them how to distinguish affirms that the individual must use
his reason in discovering what is right and wrong.
4. Voluntarism. This
principle first meant the freedom to associate religiously with any group
the individual chose. It has since come to represent the freedom to associate
with any group of one’s choosing, be it political, educational, or economic
in nature, to name a few. Generally, it represents an association with a
smaller group that is influenced more by localized input and less by a
centralized government. As the name implies, association is voluntary, an
important principle in the concept of democracy. It is this voluntary association
which also has a charitable connotation.
They ask you about giving: say, "The charity
you give shall go to the parents, the relatives, the orphans, the poor, and
the traveling alien." Any good you do, God is fully aware thereof.
2:215
O you who believe, you shall give to charity
from the good things you earn, and from what we have produced for you from
the earth. Do not pick out the bad therein to give away, when you yourselves
do not accept it unless your eyes are closed. You should know that God is
Rich, Praiseworthy. 2:267
The following verse makes the point for freedom to associate with whomever
the individual chooses.
You are not responsible for guiding anyone.
God is the only one who guides whoever chooses (to be guided).
2:272
Any community that believes will surely be rewarded
for believing...Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have
believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers?
10:98,99
The state cannot turn evil into good or wrong into right solely because it
possesses the means of physical coercion...in the classical liberal
doctrine...the state is to step in only when the voluntary efforts of society
fail."
We then appointed you to establish the correct
laws; you shall follow this, and do not follow the wishes of those who do
not know. 45:18
O you who believe, you shall remain alert, and
mobilize as individuals, or mobilize all together. 4:71
The state is not explicitly mentioned above but the admonition to be alert
to changing conditions is apparent and the command, or authorization if one
prefers, to take action on the individual level or on the broader level,
be it on the state or national level is clear when warranted. Mobilizing
is not limited to warfare as in military-style warfare. We may mobilize to
bring aid and assistance to victims of earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes
or we may participate in a nationwide Great American Smoke Out Day.
5. The law behind the
law. This concept stems from the federal view of state
and society in classical liberalism which considers society to be basically
self-sufficient. The state is an essentially voluntary body with its authority
being derived from the consent of the governed. Because classic liberalism
has always adhered to the idea that the relations between state and society,
between government and individual, are ultimately defined by a law higher
than that of the state...the law is not the product of the state, but precedes
it.
As stated earlier in the introduction, the Declaration of Independence mentions
this higher authority as Divine Providence. The Constitution also discusses
this concept in defining due process whereby the rights of all are protected
based on the principles of reason. No laws can be legislated that violate
those basic rights.
Our God: possessor of all sovereignty. You grant
sovereignty to whomever You choose, You remove sovereignty from whomever
You choose. You grant dignity to whomever you choose, and commit to humiliation
whomever You choose. In your hand are all provisions 3:26
Have you noted those who exalt themselves? Instead,
God is the One who exalts whomever He wills, without the least
injustice.
Note how they fabricate lies about God; what
a gross offense this is!
It is they who incurred God’s condemnation,
and whomever God condemns, you will not find any helper for
him.
Do they own a share of the sovereignty? If they
did, they would not give the people as much as a grain.
4:49,50,52,53
To God belongs the sovereignty of the heavens
and the earth. He controls life and death. You have none beside God as Lord
and Master. 9:120
The founding fathers shunned the dogma of existing religions when they
established the new American government. They considered God the only moral
authority to which they owed any accounting. Consider this next verse in
light of this thinking:
God promises those among you who believe and
lead a righteous life, that He will make them sovereigns on earth, as He
did for those before them, and will establish for them the religion He has
chosen for them, and will substitute peace and security for them in place
of fear. All this because they worship Me alone; they never set up any idols
beside Me. Those who disbelieve after this are the truly wicked.
25:55
Today the American people are sovereign with respect to the government. No
one religion dominates our society. We have been a melting pot for European
and African cultures since our inception as a nation. We are increasingly
becoming a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society with the continued flow of
Asian, Middle Eastern and
Indo-European cultures. Tolerance and respect for one another is a two-way
conduit; it must take precedence in our relationships within society if our
peace and security is to continue.
6. Emphasis on the means.
The state does not have the right to achieve it’s
objectives by any means no matter how desirable the end may be. This relates
back to the rational-humanist viewpoint in determining the use of political
authority, where the individual uses his reason to determine what is right
and wrong. The state cannot justifiably force an outcome through physical
coercion just because it has the physical power to do so. Any ends achieved
must be accomplished through due process.
An example is given in the Quran that illustrates its support for due process.
King David was asked to settle a dispute:
When they entered his (David’s) room, he
was startled. They said, "Have no fear. We are feuding with one another,
and we are seeking your fair judgment. Do not wrong us, and guide us in the
right path.
"This brother of mine owns ninety nine sheep,
while I own one sheep. He wants to mix my sheep with his, and continues to
pressure me."
(David) said, "He is being unfair to you by
asking to combine your sheep with his. Most people who combine their properties
treat each other unfairly, except those who believe and work righteousness,
and these are so few." Afterward, David wondered if he made the right judgment.
He thought that we were testing him. He then implored his Lord for forgiveness,
bowed down, and repented.
O David, we have made you a ruler on earth.
Therefore, you shall judge among the people equitably, and do not follow
your personal opinion, lest it diverts you from the way of God. Surely, those
who stray off the way of God incur severe retribution for forgetting the
Day of Reckoning. 38:22-24,26,27
Although David questioned his own decision, he was reminded that his personal
biases had no place in judging between the disputes of the people. He was
admonished to judge equitably. What is equitable? The process demands evaluation
of all known
material evidence, the chance to give testimony, the right to an impartial
hearing by either a jury or an unbiased judge, and the right to appeal after
the judgment if warranted. Another verse addresses the importance of fairness
and an unbiased attitude:
O you who believe, you shall be absolutely
equitable, and observe God, when you serve as witnesses, even against yourselves,
or your parents, or your relatives. Whether the accused is rich or poor,
God takes care of both. Therefore, do not be biased by your personal wishes.
If you deviate or disregard (this commandment), then God is fully Cognizant
of everything you do. 4:135
Another verse supports the rights of the accused:
O you who believe, if a wicked person brings
any news to you, you shall first investigate, lest you commit injustice towards
some people, out of ignorance, then become sorry and remorseful for what
you have done. 49:6
Obviously, not all people who bring charges against other people are wicked.
Nonetheless, everyone, including the guilty, are entitled to have any charges
brought against them investigated and examined. This verse requires that
any information that would be detrimental to any individual or group of
individuals be thoroughly reviewed before drawing conclusions.
7. Discussion and
consent. Basically this means lay all the cards on the
table, discuss the variety of options available, and then compromise if necessary
to settle any differences. As stated earlier, truth is not a given but is
subject to change. Since it is doubtful that any one individual ever knows
all there is to know on any one issue, a democratic society operates on the
premise that all individuals have the right to be heard, all available views
must be aired followed with the necessary discussion. The reality is such
that total agreement among individuals is rare, if not impossible, but discussion
and consent allows for an exchange of information and provides for new
information to be considered. This is not entirely unlike due process, but
due process is more a guarantee for fair treatment under the law in legal
situations, whereas discussion and consent is a code of behavior for daily
problem solving in all aspects of society, from the House of Representatives
to the classroom.
Citing a different example, this time speaking to Muhammad, the need for
discussion and consent is addressed:
It was mercy from God that you became compassionate
towards them. Had you been harsh and mean-hearted, they would have abandoned
you. Therefore, ...you shall consult them. Once you make a decision, carry
out your plan, and trust in God. God loves those who trust in Him.
3:159
...Their affairs are decided after due consultation
among themselves... 42:38
The Quran has given support for the democratic principle of discussion and
consent. When oppression is present and discussion has failed, the Quran
has given society the authority to use aggression. Just as Locke suggests
that the people have the right to change the government when it abuses their
rights, the Quran supports this belief, also.
8. Basic equality of all human beings.
This democratic doctrine is frequently misunderstood
according to Ebenstein and Fogelman. People are not identical, but they have
certain inalienable rights as human beings. The Jewish-Christian tradition
states that all people are equal before God; "God’s challenge to every
human being is the same, although individual responses to it vary enormously."
The Quran states:
Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to
reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female -
you are equal to one another. 3:195
O people, we created you from the same male
and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize
one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous.
God is omniscient, Cognizant. 49:13
Tell My servants to treat each other in the
best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among
them. Surely, the devil is man’s most ardent enemy.
17:53.
O you who believe, no people shall ridicule
other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule
other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another,
or make fun of your names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after
attaining faith. Anyone who does not repent after this, these are the
transgressors.
O you who believe, you shall avoid any suspicion,
for even a little bit of suspicion is sinful. You shall not spy on one another,
nor shall you backbite one another; this is as abominable as eating the flesh
of your dead brother. You certainly abhor this. You shall observe God. God
is Redeemer, Most Merciful. 49:11-12
You shall not treat the people with arrogance,
nor shall you roam the earth proudly. God does not like the arrogant showoffs.
Walk humbly and lower your voice. 31:18-19
Thus basic equality is not the guarantee that all people will have equal
property, the same jobs with the same pay, or the same size houses. Equality
means that all individuals are of equal worth. The inalienable rights of
life and liberty does not mean that no one can take either away. It means
that all individuals are endowed with those rights just as each are endowed
with the faculties to reason and rationalize, even though many will fail
to use those faculties wisely. Individuals may be called upon singly or in
groups to defend those rights. It is incumbent upon the individual and the
society in which one operates and associates to respect the rights of all
individuals and to submit to the higher laws of Creation, to those of the
Creator. That many individuals fail to do so does not alter the fact that
those inalienable rights still exist and are there for the taking.
Our differences in color, culture, gender, skills and talents are blessings
that are supposed to enrich our lives. In the course of two hundred or so
years, we have abolished slavery, opened the doors of education and employment
to both genders and people of all ethnicity. Furthermore, we are admonished
to respect the privacy of individuals. Spying and entrapment, name-calling
and other forms of social intolerance are denounced, as is suspicion without
any basis.
There is one last point to note before concluding. The U.S. Constitution
contains what is called a necessary and proper clause, or an elastic clause.
It reads in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution
the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in
the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof.
The addition of this clause provided for future contingencies. It specified
nothing other than the right to write laws in the future as times and conditions
changed. It is interesting to note that the Quran also contains an elastic
clause for just the same reason. Islamic scholars have tried to interpret
every word of the Quran over the last fourteen hundred years based on the
prevailing knowledge and understanding of each successive generation. Thus
arose a dogma which is evident today that in no way resembles the true message
of the Quran. It is for this reason that Islam is so grossly misunderstood
and misrepresented. The Quran’s elastic clause reads:
O you who believe, do not ask about matters
which, if revealed to you prematurely, would hurt you. If you ask about them
in light of the Quran, they will become obvious to you. God has deliberately
overlooked them. God is Forgiver, Clement. 5:101.
Quoting Kassim Ahmad, a Malaysian writer,
"God does not mention some things...because such things concern the forms
their principles take at different times and different places. These forms
are therefore decided by the society’s council or by customs or by personal
preference."
He cites another writer in his book in the following:
"As Islam discouraged religious practices, such as monastic life, it also
prohibited questions relating to details on many points which would require
this or that practice to be made obligatory, and much was left to the individual
will or circumstances of the time and place. The exercise of judgment occupies
a very important place in Islam and this gives ample scope to different nations
and communities to frame laws for themselves and to meet new and changed
situations."
It was pointed out earlier in this paper that certain passages from the Quran
did not specifically mention government by name in determining the right
of the individual to revolt or change the government if it became oppressive.
Nor did it say specifically that individuals had the right to emigrate if
the government usurped the rights of the people. Fourteen hundred years is
a long time for a document to endure. Governments come and go; entire
civilizations rise and fall; scientific advances are made. In order for a
written guideline to have staying power, it is necessary that it be applicable
to as many situations as possible. The U.S. Constitution has lasted for over
two hundred years because it is a general guideline which allows for laws
to be made or phased out as circumstances warrant. Thus, as one reads the
Quran, it is up to the individual to use reason and common sense in applying
the principles it supports.
What passes for Islam today is not reliance on the Quran alone. Centuries
of myth, superstition and cultural traditions have crept into the practice
of Islam, so that a
strict religious dogma based on numerous volumes of theological interpretation
apart from the Quran have been established as part and parcel of Islam.
While the Quran might seem to be just another religious book to some, perhaps
to many, it is an endorsement for the rights of individuals and a guide to
the authoritative allocation of values and resources for a society. It provides
a way to deal with conflict without destroying society. It is a guideline
calling upon the individual to think things through and use the faculties
and the brain before making decisions or taking action. It is not a step-by-step
book with all the answers spelled out. It does not tell us by name what type
of government to form, but it does tell us how to treat one another, and
thereby we can deduce from it what is appropriate and best for all concerned.
It may be that one day no government will be necessary. Should that day ever
come, the Quran will still be applicable in determining right conduct between
individuals and societies.
Whether one accepts the Quran as God’s word or that of an unknown source,
it is hoped that enough proof has been given that the reader will come to
view Islam in a new light, as a guiding principle of reason, tolerance,
open-mindedness and fairness, which supports rational thinking, the rights
of the individual, and an open democratic process, and not the man-made dogma
that currently poses as Islam.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ahmad, Kassim. Hadith: A Re-evaluation. Translated by Monotheist Productions
International: Tucson, Arizona, 1997. California: Universal Unity, 1997,
p. 466
2. Ebenstein, William, and Fogelman, Edwin. Today’s Isms. New Jersey:
Prentiss-Hall, Inc., 1980, pp 170-178.
3. Foner, Philip S. Introduction, The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine. New
Jersey: Carol Publishing Group, 1997, pp 11-12.
4. Jefferson, Thomas. The Declaration of Independence. 1776.
5. McCourt, Frank. "When You Think of God What Do You See?" Life Magazine,
December 1998, p. 63.
6. Paine, Thomas. "A Serious Thought." Pennsylvania Journal, October 18,
1775
7. Schmidt, Steffen W., Shelley, Mack C., II, Bardes, Barbara A. American
Government and Politics Today. USA: 1997, p. 6.
8. Quran, The Final Testament. Translated by Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D., California:
Universal Unity, p. 424.
9. The Holy Quran. Editorial note, Muhammad Ali, p. 271, note 240.
10. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Massachusetts: G. & C.
Merriam Co., 1979.
|
