Islam to Deism: Why I became a Deist

thomas paine and the world union of deists
Deism versus Islam

Islam to Deism: Why I became a Deist

On my way to Deism, I've made pit stops in various forms of Catholicism and Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth. I've been to churches, monasteries, seminaries, temples and mosques. I've worshipped Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Krishna, Ganesha. I've flirted with Bahais and Hare Krishnas. In other words, I've been around the block.

I converted to Islam 10 years ago, and got heavily into it, and thought I would share some of my thoughts about it here.

It's funny, and some of you may be surprised by this, but one of the basic Islamic contentions is that both the Jews and Christians have messed things up by messing up -- adding to , or subtracting, or manufacturing -- their scriptures. Thus the idea that scriptures have been tampered with has a long history, and whatever else you may say about Muhammad, he at least had that part right.

He also insisted that there was only one "god", and that we should not associate "partners" with that one god. This was aimed mostly at the Trinity idea, which he abhorred and thought unworthy of God (which indeed it is).

He denied ideas/doctrines like original sin, the atoning death of Jesus, a priestly class, and many other such things, all of which I heartily agreed with. He insisted that we each had a relationship with God, that no one could come between it or "mediate" it (whether in the form of Jesus or a priest), that we were each responsible for our moral life, that men and woman had equal responsibility and opportunity in spiritual matters.

Also, interestingly enough, the Koran talks about how stories in the Old Testament reflect badly on the prophets (Lot sleeping with his daughters, for example) and that they should be rejected, and the reputation of these people restored.

At any rate, converting to Islam opened many new possibilities to me, for which I will always be grateful. But ...

While it does better on some of these issues, Islam introduces a few of its own that became major stumbling blocks for me. In particular, the "god" which the Koran describes is frightful, vengeful, arbitrary and a bit blood thirsty, among other things.

I recently read Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", and it struck me that many of the same sorts of things could be said about Islam and the Koran -- that there's a need to step back from the text, and examine the sort of "god" which the text describes, and see whether this "god" is really worth worshipping.

There are other issues, having to do with the Koran itself. If you haven't read it, then let me say it's mostly a series of stories, drawn mostly from the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), about prophets being sent to "warn" their communities, about how they were rejected, and about how Allah punished them in consequence. The Koran also contains a lot of legislation and rules about various aspects of social life along with occasional bits about God and how He acts in the world.

Thing is, the Koran was revealed over a period of 23 years, in bits and pieces, and many of these bits and pieces were made into chapters (there's more than 100 in all), each addressing many different things, or repeating/retelling certain stories (such as that of Noah).

When you read the whole thing, you discover that much of it is repetitive and awkward. The story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom, for example, is told about a dozen times. As you read through it from start to finish, you come across these stories again and again, always with the same injunction -- See what We did to those who disbelieve! See how we destroyed them! See what happened to them!

After awhile, this begins to produce feelings of revulsion -- is this how God acts in the world? Threats? Believe or be destroyed? Follow the prophet or risk being cast into hell?

The claims made for the Koran know no bounds. Some Muslims believe it is the literal word of God, straight from Heaven, delivered by the angel Gabriel and written down as soon as it was received by Muhammad's companions. They say it is a copy of the real "word of God" kept in heaven. That not a word of it can be changed or questioned or in any way tampered with. That it is all true, no contradictions, no misinformation, no mistakes.

And yet, if we were, like Paine, to sit down with the Koran and start going through it, we immediately discover these claims are simply not true. It is filled with contradictions and factual mistakes -- numbers not adding up, the details of the stories changing from one telling to the next, and so on.

I can cope with that. I can accept the idea that humans write "scripture" and there's bound to be mistakes. What concerns me is the content, and what sort of "god" is described by that content.

In the Koran, the god described is one who demands obedience and submission (Islam literally means "submission"), who must be worshipped five times daily with a certain, precise set of prayers and gestures, who (as the Koran says repeatedly) "guides whom he will and leads astray whom he will", who will destroy unbelievers, who will not allow anyone to be associated with him, and so forth.

I found myself repelled by the idea that God must resort to threats to get what He wants. Couldn't God do better than this?

My thinking in this area was influenced by reading the Baghavad Gita (which I highly recommend) as well as Buddhist texts describing what the Buddha actually said. In both these, one finds much insight and a very lofty, elevated spirituality, not simply a series of fantastic stories or a series of endless threats. If the Buddha, being human, could write things that ring true after 2500 years and after being translated from a foreign tongue into English, why couldn't God? If I can read the Gita and come away feeling inspired ("weren't our hearts burning?"), why is it that the Bible leaves me cold and that the Koran leaves me terrified and depressed?

Why indeed, if not because these scriptures are not the "word of God" ... and rather, the works of man. And if they are the works of man, well, it has been done better, with much more clarity and insight, by others who did not claim divine status.

What strikes me about both the Bible and the Koran is how little attention is devoted to spiritual matters. There's almost a total absence of this in the Koran, and in the Bible, Paul's epistles are about as close as we get to real discussions on spiritual matters that really matter (and unfortunately, most people -- myself included -- don't really understand Paul at all -- it may be impossible, in fact!).

The Koran isn't all bad (although people have said reading the English translations of it is nothing less than torturous), and it does again and again say ''God is the Most Compassionate'' and ''God is the Most Merciful'' and etc. But this is really canceled out by the negatives, by the threats, by the almost gleeful tone of which the destruction of numerous villages and communities is detailed with that constant ''See how I destroyed them'' and ''See what happens to those who are unbelievers''.

Surely God could do better ...

What do moderate Muslims think of separation of church and state? Of having it in the Muslim countries ... like Turkey?

To answer your questions, first let me say there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, spread out over numerous countries and living in various conditions as regards education and poverty.

There are two main branches to Islam: the Sunni branch, accounting for about 90 percent of Muslims, and the Shiites, accounting for the rest. Very nearly always when you read stories about Islamic terrorism, it's coming from the Shiite camp (which includes Iraq and Iran, for example), which is more hardline and less tolerant.

Islam is, indeed, supposed to be the religion of "peace", and the Koran calls for tolerance of other religions, especially for Jews and Christians. A famous verse from the Koran states: "There is no compulsion in religion."

And yet, depending on which part of the Muslim world you're in, you're going to find nothing but compulsion, where you are forced to pray and forced to obey Islamic rules and customs. These places are the exceptions, though, and usually involve the poorer, less educated countries where the priestly class exerts a great deal of control. In most Islamic countries, tolerance is the rule.

It's tempting to generalize about Islam, but that's not a good idea. Each country seems to interpret Islam a bit differently. Tolerance and freedom of thought vary.

I think it's safe to say that most Muslims do not agree with the use of terrorism to achieve supposed "Islamic" goals. I also think it's safe to say that very nearly every situation where terror is used, it's done so for political purposes by people who then wrap themselves in the flag of Islam to win support at home and lend some legitimacy to their cause.

It should also be kept in mind that most Muslim countries were once under colonial rule, and there are still hostilities going on about that. Many of these countries were only freed and established as Islamic countries in the 20th century, and memories of their colonial past are still fresh in their minds, and there's a feeling that many scores have yet to be settled. Sometimes the hostility of the Muslim world to the “West” seems more like an attempt to take pride in their own culture (again) than any real feeling about the value of Western traditions and habits or Western people. And then again, some of this hostility does have a valid basis -- there is a feeling, in some quarters, that all this industrialization and progress hasn't really been all that helpful to everyone, that too many people have been left behind, that basing one's economy on greed is perhaps not a good idea. So mixed in with this hostility is a valid concern about the effects of capitalism, the dumbing down of culture (thanks to outlets like McDonalds and Hollywood), and the West's often fascist attitudes and supposed superiority (revealed in things like the Catholic Church claiming to be the one “true” church and everyone else is going to hell, for example).

There's also a feeling of helplessness and desperation because the plain fact is that most Islamic countries are corrupt, run by dictatorships, and the rights of the people are routinely violated. There's a lot of seething anger at their own rulers, when it often gets projected onto the West, esp. America, as if it was all someone else's fault and not their own government's fault. I think some of these corrupt governments feed this sentiment to distract attention away from the real problem.

Islamic governments like the Taliban are, fortunately, the exception to the rule. Most are much more tolerant, and Muslims are not forced to pray or forced to follow their religion if they don't want to.

The Taliban is also a good example of "corrupt government", supposedly "Islamic", and yet really only about politics, money, wealth, power, control, while using Islam as a cover.

The strident tone that many Muslims take comes, I believe, straight from the Koran, which is also rather strident and uncompromising. Muslims believe their religion is the right one, and all the others are wrong, and that it's their responsibility to introduce people to Islam to "save" them from their errors. They insist on rigid adherence to whatever the Koran says, as well as to what is known as "Hadith" -- the sayings and doings of Muhammad. Thus, when a Muslim needs to settle a question or doubt, he turns to the Koran and the Hadith and tries to find something there, rather than relying on his own intuition or reason. The Koran says that "when you are in doubt over some matter, refer it to the Koran or the Messenger" (Muhammad), and that is what they literally do. With the understanding that the Koran is complete book of guidance, that all important have been addressed by it, they do not look elsewhere. If they can't settle a matter by way of the Koran, they dig into the Hadith stories, many of which are spurious and questionable.

All of this leads to an inability to think for oneself, with the result that to be a good Muslim, you must follow suit and do the same. Of course, I never could, and always thought the idea of trying to settle modern day questions and issues (cloning, for example) by what the Koran says or what Muhammad said 1400 years ago is just plain ridiculous.

Furthermore, Muslim "scholars" (read: priests) decided several hundred years ago (the 1400s?) that there was no more need to look anywhere else but to the answers they had already provided or decided upon up to that point in time. In Muslim language, this is known as the "closing of the doors of ijtihad" (closing the doors of reasoning). A hot debate these days is on the need to "open the doors" and allow modern people to come to their own conclusions on religious and spiritual matters and to maybe even re-evaluate the old answers and update them. Of course this is highly controversial and the priest class is not about to let such a thing happen, but hopefully, someday, it will.

Homosexuality is an example. The old answer is this: "Kill them wherever you find them." This is based on a supposed saying of Muhammad. "Supposed", but most serious Islamic thinkers dismiss out of hand all such statements that are so obviously un-spiritual and unworthy of a man of Muhammad's spiritual gifts.

Even so, the old answer stands, and one finds a fierce hatred of homosexuals among Muslim peoples. Indeed, the Taliban used to do just this: homosexuals were lined up against walls which were bulldozed over top of them.

The status of women is another example. The old answers don't jive very well with today's society, and yet change is hard. The veil, for example, is a Mediterranean (sp?) cultural thing, not an Islamic thing, and yet some Islamic priest somewhere in the past decided women had to be covered. Trying to change that now, since the "gates" are closed, is hard to do.

Polygamy is another example. The Koran allowed a man to have up to four wives, but one should first consider the cultural context this permission was delivered in -- a situation where most men died in blood feuds and there were far too many women who lost their husbands and had no one to support them and their children. Those conditions have changed, and again most intelligent Muslims stick with monogamy, but since the gates are closed, it's hard to argue this matter with anyone.

Since Muslims believe their scripture is the absolute literal, final, complete word of God, questioning it is not allowed. This is what happened with Salman Rushdie and the “Satanic Verses”. This is based on a well-known story in Muslim circles about how Muhammad “revealed” some verses of the Koran, but then discovered he had been duped by satan, and so the verses were withdrawn. No one knows if this is a true story or not. But to bring the matter up, which Rushdie did in his novel, was enough to get a fatwa (religious edict) issued against him stating that anyone who had the chance should kill him (there was even a reward offered by the Iranian government, which is still waiting for someone to claim).

Free speech, in this sense, is not allowed.

Another writer, a woman in Bangladesh, found herself targeted by the fanatics for writing a short novel about how Muslim men treat their wives in that country. She was run out of Bangladesh by hordes of furious men who demanded that she be killed for “defaming Islam”.

(By the way, the Internet provides an excellent forum for debate among Muslims who want to express forbidden views or explore ideas that are not permitted in print media outlets, and the more intelligent Muslims frequent these spots.)

Well, one could write volumes on these matters ...

The Koran does state something to the effect that “Islam” is the religion of mankind, and no other religion will be accepted from them. Broadly stated, Islam literally means “submission to God” and “peace”, so one could say that any valid religion must require submission to God. In other words, we can't go around believing that we ourselves are God. There is only one God. But if you want to take a more narrow view of this verse, you could arrive at the conclusion that only Muslims will be saved, and this is indeed the view that many Muslims take, viewing it as their duty to spread Islam and ensure that everyone has the chance to be saved.

But then again, it’s rather curious, because the Koran often speaks about respecting Jews and Christians, as being other “people of the book” -- those with a revealed scripture. In countries where Muslims are the majority, they are commanded to give Jews and Christians a protected status and not interfere with their religious beliefs or practices. This rarely happens, in practice, but the demands for it in the Koran are quite clear and quite numerous.

It's curious because, if Islam is the only religion acceptable to God, then why would God demand that Muslim communities protect their Jewish and Christians communities and let them practice their own religions in peace? In other words, God seems to be saying that it doesn't matter which of these three religions you follow ... which, in turns, suggests that it really isn't what you believe, but what you do, that counts with God.

Let me close this by saying that the Islamic ideal is one thing, but the reality is something else altogether. On the face of it, Islam sounds like a wonderful religion. And indeed it is. But the way it's been interpreted and put into practice, and all of the nonsense it has accumulated in the centuries after Muhammad, have made it something else altogether.

An example: Muhammad himself. Time and again the Koran points out that Muhammad is just a man, not a god, not an angel, just a man. The Shahada, or profession of faith, emphasizes this: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His slave. One comes away with the thought that Muhammad was probably a good, decent fellow, but merely human.

But then you discover that Muslims have put Muhammad on such a high pedestal, you don't dare say a word about him. When you mention his name, you have to say (according to Muslim custom) “Peace be upon him!”. If you want to see how far this goes, just try insulting Muhammad in front of a Muslim -- you can easily get yourself killed. They don't worship him as a god, not in so many words, but then again they do, perhaps more so than Christians worship Jesus.

So there are inherent contradictions between the ideals and the reality. I point this out in case a Muslim scholar comes along and takes issue with anything I've said -- that person will undoubtedly point out the ideal, while ignoring the reality, ignoring the way things really are.

The folks at Submission.org are quite interesting, and I'm glad they've been mentioned here.

They are one of several other such groups trying to get rid of Hadith -- all the sayings and doings of Muhammad, upon which Muslims base their lives and decisions. It's a sort of back-to-the-Quran movement which seeks to purge Islam of all the additions.

Now, it's interesting, because it's sort of like Christians trying to go back to the bible, discarding the 2,000 years of doctrinal add-ons (like confession, transubstantiation, and etc), tacked on by the Catholic Church (mostly), transforming Jesus' original message into a tissue of superstitions, miracle stories and perhaps outright lies.

In fact, the parallels are almost striking. Muslims today base their religion on the Quran, first, and Hadith, second, just as Catholics base their religion on the bible and "tradition". In other words, the original message wasn't good enough, so they've added and embellished, set up a priesthood, reinforcing things like male patriarchy and so forth.

So in that respect, I applaud groups like Submission.org, who are trying to reason their way out of 1400 years of tampering by Islamic scholars and priests.

On the other hand ...

Much has been made of the 'miracle of 19' in the Quran. The number of verses is divisible by 19, and everywhere you look, you come across the number of 19. There are 19 words in the opening verse, for example, and if you add up their value, they are a multiple of 19, and so on and so forth.

Problem is, this is based on the claim that 2 extra verses were added to the Quran after the time of Muhammad, so if you include those 2 verses, of course the whole scheme falls apart and the whole 19 thing doesn't work.

I've also read reports by mathematicians that it is fairly easy to do this sort of thing with any text, as long as you know what you're doing. You could sit down with a Charles Dickens novel and start searching for multiples of 16 and you could find plenty. What does it prove?

Much is also made of the scientific claims in the Quran, and I myself was taken in by them at first. The big bang theory seems to be described by the Quran, but then again this is old hat in Hindu scriptures (which describe the universe as a series of big bangs, expansions and contractions).

Man was "made" from a lump of clay, the Quran says. Further on, it says man was made from a drop of water, from semen, from dust, from a blood clot, etc ... well, which is it?

There is much to like about Islam, as I've said before. In some ways it's a vast improvement over Christianity with all its superstitious practices and beliefs. It's strict monotheism, and the emphasis is on how you live your life, how you will be punished or rewarded accordingly. The Quran talks a great deal about caring for widows and orphans, about ensuring that there is justice in society, that the rights of all people are respected, and so on.

And yet, in practice, it's something else altogether.

On another front, war is only justified in Islam when it's a matter of self-defense. If someone is interfering with your right to practice your religion, you have the duty to take up arms and fight.

That's it. That's what the Quran says. If you live in a society where your right to practice your religion is not being threatened (Britain or the US, for example), you have no right to take up arms or stir up trouble.

Of course, this matter has been twisted and the ideal lost.

Given the vicious, bloody infighting among the Arabs, this command to fight was necessary in order for Islam to get off the ground. In fact, Islam united all the many tribes into a unified whole in a quite miraculous manner (It was in everyone's interest to put an end to all the blood feuds anyway).

My Homepage Guestbook Deism and Reason

Visitors since
March 2002