Logical conclusions, and the ability of the author to convince the reader with his ideology:
Aslan said,“There are those who will call it (the book) apostasy, but that is not troubling. No one speaks for God- not even the prophet (who speaks about God). There are also those who will call it apology.” I would call it none of the above; the best description of it (the book) would be a shallow analysis and a limited vision. Unfortunately Aslan could not use his talents and well-equipped facilities to see the obvious, and the reason for that is best described by Daniel C. Dennett in his bestseller “Breaking the Spell”, “We may be too close to religion to be able to see it at first. This has been a familiar theme among artists and philosophers for years. One of their self-appointed task is to “make the familiar strange,” and some of the great strokes of creative genius get us to break through the crust of excessive familiarity and look at ordinary, obvious things with fresh eyes…the remarkable autistic author and animal expert Temple Grandin gave neurologist Oliver Sacks a great title for one of his collections of case studies of unusual human beings: An Anthropologist on Mars (1995). That’s what she felt like, she told Sacks, when dealing with other people right here on earth. Usually such alienation is a hindrance, but getting some distance from the ordinary world helps focus our attention on what is otherwise too obvious to notice, and it will help if we temporarily put ourselves into the (three bright green) shoes of a “Martian,” one of the team of alien investigators who can be imagined to be unfamiliar with the phenomena they are observing here on planet earth.”
This familiarity hindered Aslan’s ability to see the big picture. Islam is not the little detailed bits and pieces that he tried to glue together, it is a whole, complete system of life. And the core of this system is the family, upon which the whole system was built. Role designation of genders was built on the tribal system of the desert. And accordingly; the responsibilities and the rights of each individual in the society were drawn. And therefore, a huge chunk of the rules of Shareea were based on that principal. Now tampering with any aspect of Shareea is like pushing a tile of dominos on which many other tiles are dependant. And modernizing Islam to make it compatible with civil human rights would definitely demolish the bases of Shareea, and the essence of Islam. And here is my concern; would traditional Moslems of both major sects accept that? If that was easy, then Mutzalas who tried to do that centuries ago would have succeeded. And Islam would have had a difference face today.
Tampering with the rules of God calls for Jihad, and the fight will never stop. We can’t compare Islam with Christianity simply because the Bible was written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, while Muslims believe that Quran is the direct word of God dictated to Muhammad. And if Christianity had to go through seas of blood to endorse reform, “protestant reform and Catholic intransigence, a violent body argument that engulfed Europe in devastation and war for more than a century”, then one can imagine what Islam has to go through with such reform.
As Daniel C. Dennett said in the same source above, “Now that we have created the technologies to cause global catastrophe, our jeopardy is multiplied to the maximum: a toxic religious mania could end human civilization overnight. We need to understand what makes religion work, so we can protect ourselves in an informed manner from the circumstances in which religion go haywire. What is religion composed of? How do the parts fit together? How do they mesh? Which effects depend on which causes? Which features, if any, invariably occur together? Which exclude each other? What constitutes the health and pathology of religious phenomena? These questions can be addressed by anthropology, psychology, history, and any other variety of cultural studies that you like, but it is simply inexcusable for researchers in these fields to let disciplinary jealousy and fear of “scientific imperialism” create an ideological iron curtain that could conceal important underlying constraints and opportunities from them,“ and this is exactly what I expected from Aslan; A thorough analysis independent of the background and devoid of prejudice. Islam’s main objective is to conquer the world, that is so obvious from all the Islamic sources, the prophet himself declared that he was Ordered by God to fight all, until the last person on earth say “no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.” And the situation is much more dangerous than to move in a circle of bloody wars that would only lead to mass destruction.
I expected from a learned person like Aslant to show that Islam is a philosophy and not a holy system from the above, since he himself does not believe in myths. For only when someone can educate the Muslim masses that this is the truth about Islam. Then, and only then, people would accept the reform and not take the scriptures literally without the fear of being punished hereafter.
Religion was part of our social evolution, it did its part of some reform in human history, and we should respect it, and place it in its rightful position in the past. But now mysteries are history, with the new age and science development, we know today a lot of things that we did not know before, and the circle of fear that engulfed us centuries before is diminishing today. It would be illogical and stupid to continue moving in the same circle when we know better today. And I believe that it’s the duty of any researcher or educator to enlighten the masses. For humanity has to move forward and not backward. The world is getting smaller, and each individual’s fate is becoming dependant on the actions of the other. One small mistake or stupidity could cost us all a dear price. (no points here)
And with this final conclusion, my overall rating for “No God but God” by Reza Aslan would be two stars out of five.
The End
Recent Comments