Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Martyrs, Virgins and Grapes

This is the kind of article that would never appear in our papers, and since you need to register with the New York Times website to read it, I have posted it here for your reading pleasure. Discussions after class!

Martyrs, Virgins and Grapes
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


The virgins are calling you," Mohamed Atta wrote reassuringly to his fellow hijackers just before 9/11.

It has long been a staple of Islam that Muslim martyrs will go to paradise and marry 72 black-eyed virgins. But a growing body of rigorous scholarship on the Koran points to a less sensual paradise - and, more important, may offer a step away from fundamentalism and toward a reawakening of the Islamic world.

Some Islamic theologians protest that the point was companionship, never heavenly sex. Others have interpreted the pleasures quite explicitly; one, al-Suyuti, wrote that sex in paradise is pretty much continual and so glorious that "were you to experience it in this world you would faint."

But now the same tools that historians, linguists and archaeologists have applied to the Bible for about 150 years are beginning to be applied to the Koran. The results are explosive.

The Koran is beautifully written, but often obscure. One reason is that the Arabic language was born as a written language with the Koran, and there's growing evidence that many of the words were Syriac or Aramaic.

For example, the Koran says martyrs going to heaven will get "hur," and the word was taken by early commentators to mean "virgins," hence those 72 consorts. But in Aramaic, hur meant "white" and was commonly used to mean "white grapes."

Some martyrs arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown. But the scholar who pioneered this pathbreaking research, using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for security reasons, noted in an e-mail interview that grapes made more sense in context because the Koran compares them to crystal and pearls, and because contemporary accounts have paradise abounding with fruit, especially white grapes.

Dr. Luxenberg's analysis, which has drawn raves from many scholars, also transforms the meaning of the verse that is sometimes cited to require women to wear veils. Instead of instructing pious women "to draw their veils over their bosoms," he says, it advises them to "buckle their belts around their hips."

Likewise, a reference to Muhammad as "ummi" has been interpreted to mean he was illiterate, making his Koranic revelations all the more astonishing. But some scholars argue that this simply means he was not "of the book," in the sense that he was neither Christian nor Jewish.

Islam has a tradition of vigorous interpretation and adjustment, called ijtihad, but Koranic interpretation remains frozen in the model of classical commentaries written nearly two centuries after the prophet's death. The history of the rise and fall of great powers over the last 3,000 years underscores that only when people are able to debate issues freely - when religious taboos fade - can intellectual inquiry lead to scientific discovery, economic revolution and powerful new civilizations. "The taboos are still great" on such Koranic scholarship, notes Gabriel Said Reynolds, an Islam expert at the University of Notre Dame. He called the new scholarship on early Islam "a first step" to an intellectual awakening.

But Muslim fundamentalists regard the Koran - every word of it - as God's own language, and they have violently attacked freethinking scholars as heretics. So Muslim intellectuals have been intimidated, and Islam has often been transmitted by narrow-minded extremists.

(This problem is not confined to Islam. On my blog, I've been battling with fans of the Christian fundamentalist "Left Behind" series. Some are eager to see me left behind.)

Still, there are encouraging signs. Islamic feminists are emerging to argue for religious interpretations leading to greater gender equality. An Iranian theologian has called for more study of the Koran's Syriac roots. Tunisian and German scholars are collaborating on a new critical edition of the Koran based on the earliest manuscripts. And just last week, Iran freed Hashem Aghajari, who had been sentenced to death for questioning harsh interpretations of Islam.

"The breaking of the sometimes erroneous bonds in the religious tradition will be the condition for a positive evolution in other scientific and intellectual domains," Dr. Luxenberg says.

The world has a huge stake in seeing the Islamic world get on its feet again. The obstacle is not the Koran or Islam, but fundamentalism, and I hope that this scholarship is a sign of an incipient Islamic Reformation - and that future terrorist recruits will be promised not 72 black-eyed virgins, but just a plateful of grapes.

10 comments:

  1. Islam is a religion based on education, the first and second word that the Prophet received from God was read.

    So the concept of studying the Koran and reading it and learning from as well as analyzing and interrupting is something fundamental.

    When I see clerics banning and issues fatawas on education I see them as not being Muslims for they are against one of the major points of Islam and just really protecting their own necks in not chaning the status quo that we are living with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This grape theory reminded me of a joke, but its too much to handle on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Virgins? Grapes? that's nothing, I've heard 'hur' means pink elephants.

    Now that is something I'm not looking forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Come on people. People made the Koran and God, not the other way around. And this happened 1400+ years ago. So enough with trying to "interpret" and find your own meaning in an ancient text, we don't need it. Some of the language is so obscure and abstract that you can make anything mean anything if you really want to. Enough with the nonsense people, come on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you guys really think, that God, the multiverse's supreme "being", 3alim al'3ayb as they say, creator and manipulator of all things, would release 3 main holy books to EARTH that would EVENTUALLY cause more problems than they would solve? Wouldn't the knower of all things see that coming? Don't u think the supreme being would be a little more direct and specific than sending his msg to a guy and have him preach a message memorized by followers and then COMPILED after his death? Wouldn't God see that his Quran would eventually spawn the fundamental islamists that the world has learned to hate? Wouldn't he see holy wars and lives lost over books that he has "published". I just think that for a perfect being who created everything, religion is the least perfect thing in this universe, the thing in least harmony with its surroundings, and religion is that LAST thing a perfect being would have created.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon.. Just for the sake of argument, who said "god" intended this world to be perfect or good?

    I'm an agnostic myself, but I can definitely see what attracts people to religion. It's not all bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A perfect being has no needs or desires. Why would an perfect being create an imperfect world of suffering. Why would a perfect being test humans if he would know the results of the taste, and last bu tnot least, why would a perfect being create humans to worship him. Why would a perfect being have the need to have someone worship him. Now I never said I am agnostic. I believe in God, but I don't believe that God created religion and silly rules to govern mankind.

    To make things clear when I refer to religion I am referring to organized religion. I agree with your point that religion has a useful purpose, but only when it is between a person and his God and people do not try to enforce a standard of religion on others. This is organized religion which I see no different as a cult.

    I believe that organized religion is commercialized sale of God worship. Religion should be between a person and whatever higher power he/she answers to, not a cult following where thousands of people conform to one standard, especially during modern times. In ancient times, organized religion served as a tool that transcended borders and brought people together and facilitated peace. In modern times, it is doing the opposite. I argue, dear Shurouq, that God did not create organized religions. Muhammed was a great man, a genius of his time, and he brought more unity to the arabian peninsula than any man before him... but I do not think that his word was the word of God to be implemented on all people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was being the devil's advocate there, and it worked
    I rest my case :)

    Thank you, Anon

    ReplyDelete
  9. Continuing anonymous' line of questioning, what you should be asking is, why would a perfect being create an imperfect being? Does this mean there is no perfect being?

    Wait a sec.

    Unless, that was the intention all along !

    I just blew my own mind! I didn't know I could reach such a depth in thought. Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why would God have that intention to create an imperfect form to worship him? God is perfect and has no needs, no desires, no insecurities. Surely God couldn't have a Napolean's complex. If there were a perfect being, aka God, he would not need man's worship nor create a complicated elaborate and cynical heaven-hell system to enforce their behavior, or "test" them. God is all knowing, He knows the past, the present, and the future. Indeed God transcends time, sees in all dimensions. If he were to test us he knows the results of the test, and we would be in heaven or hell this instant. But let me ask you this, would God, the perfect being, punish you for questioning modern religion? Would God punish you for using your brain and logic to make sense of the nonsense that is organized religion? Of course not!

    Islamists try to sell you their ludicrous garbage by telling you that your human brain can not possibly understand God's intentions and/or motives and that thinking about those things will lead to Kufr. Thats just putting a spin on the fact that their teachings defy logic and reason, and that logic and reason, the foundations of the universe, should be abandoned and not applied to what they teach you so that you will be one of their sheep. They also have the nerve to claim that God's gift to humans is the mind and that we should make use of his gift to us. As long as it does not threaten the existence of the Islamists.

    Islam literally means surrender.

    Surrender: To give up in fathor of another.

    To give up THOUGHT and REASON in favor of STUPIDTY.


    Einstein once said that science without religion is lame, and that religion without science is BLIND.

    And Abdusalaam, I make it a habit not to argue with people about their own personal beliefs because they have already set a "model" for their thinking. Instead of seeing the world as it is, they have a set code of beliefs and interpret the world through those beliefs. Those beliefs are often unchangeable out of their own desire for comfort, insecurities, or making sense of the world. You may have a personal story behind your faith in Islam, and thus you interpret the world through that filter. You reason that God just intended to create imperfect beings, because he wants to. The same way he wanted to create all the violence and chaos in the world today because of the religions he created. Sure, you reason, everything is just one big plan and test for mankind. I have the guts to question why he would do that, you, in your "surrender" do not even believe you have the ability to. Your sarcasm does not make you right, it just makes you look foolish when you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it clean, people!