Introduction
In this article my aim is look at themes of love and purity in Islam and contrast them with the essential tenets of Christianity in order to emphasize the differences.
PART I: Is there Love in Islamic Relationships?
Who is a Muslim to Allah?
The question of being able to call God “Father” was never a question of our being of the same substance as him, merely one of our relationship with God, whether the attitude of God toward us is paternal or not. Both in the Old Testament as well as in the New, Christians call God Father. For example we see: “Yet you, LORD, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.” (Is. 64:8)
Biological parenthood is substantial in that we share half each of our parents’ DNA, but apart from that we share humanity with all humankind. The human genome is approximately 99.9% identical between any two people. This means that only 0.1% of the genome varies between any two individuals and is responsible for all the variation between individual. As is well known, we share 98-99% of the same genome as chimpanzees and bonobos, 9-98% with orangutans and gorillas, and the percentage decreases with other vertebrates, but still at 85% for mice, and 60% for birds and reptiles.
So identicality of substance is hardly the mark of paternity, rather it is going to be origin, that is, our DNA originates in the most direct sense from our biological parents. Of course, it might be argued that were origin the creiterion then mothers are more paternal than fathers since we physical emerge from them having literally been conceived and nurtured to wholeness within them. So when we speak of “father” in the case of God we really mean “parent” and are combining any positive paternal and maternal attributes.
But obviously biological parentage does not guarantee care or affection, because we know that biological parents might up and leave, be selfish and emotionally disconnected and even abusive toward their offspring. So obviously when we say “God is our Father” Christians and Jews are referring not to substantial origin, but rather to the mode of the relationship, being love, care, protection and beneficence. What we really refer to can most closely be called adoptive filiation (eg. Ephesians 1:15).
Paternality or parentage is linked to the genuineness and unconditionality of care/affection/attitude of beneficence, and this cannot be expressed in any other type of near relation like “uncle” or “sibing” to anything nearing the same degree. On the other hand, denial of such relation is ultimately a denial of the possibility of absolute care and solicitude, of the kind that one can expect from a parent, or even of family (obviously Islam does not call Allah “uncle” or “brother” either, so that’s hardly an issue).
Ultimately of course, that beneficence of God transcends the beneficence of any human parent, and that transcendence makes it unconditional, all human “conditions” are removed in the beneficent relationship. So if care and beneficence are the criterion of fatherhood or parentage, then God is the paradigm, and we are the analogue, as we have shown that mere biological criteria will miss the mark.
But if Muslims are going to say “that’s what we meant, Allah transcends fatherhood”, this would hold water if the Qur’an had at least given some sugesstion of such an intent, rather if anything we see the contrary, a seeming intention to curtail the notion of family tie and limit the kind of intimacy that is typical in Christian scripture which we find suffused with terms of literal “indwelling” (too much to go into here).
Dr. David Wood points out in his typical style: “Allah has 99 names, but ‘Father’ ain’t one of them”. The following verses reflect the Qur’anic claims of Allah’s visceral reactions to the tought of having children.
First up, in 5:18 he denies the Jews and Christians’ claims of being God’s beloved children. Any reasoning offered is rather vague, possibly a concern that this belief might lead them to think themselves immune from perdition “No!..he forgives whom he will and he chastises whom he will”. Or perhaps the Qur’anic author believes that did God have chilren, they would be immortals like Hercules, not humans, thus: “no, but you are mortals of his creating”. This is strange, the Christians’ claim is not that they are god-like, but merely as to whether God can consider us as a father considers their children, and have a paternal attitude toward us. But Whatever the reasoning, the Qur’anic author finds the claim objectionable, this much is clear:
“Say the Jews and Christians, ‘We are the sons of God, and His beloved ones.’ Say: ‘Why then does He chastise you for your sins? NO; you are mortals, of His creating; He forgives whom He will, and He chastises whom He will.’ For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them; to Him is the homecoming.” (Q 5:18)
Allah allegedly finds “taking a son” to be “inappropriate”. We are not told just who find this inappropriate if God chose to do it, nor given any other reasoning why it would be inappropriate a priori. What is clear is that the Qur’anic author does judge it to be inappropriate, period:
“And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son” (Q 19:92)
Then in what in my opinion is one of the most obviously misogynistic verses in the Qur’an, in this rant at the pagans, “Allah” expresses a distaste for having daughters, but then expressing a preference for having sons over daughters, clearly contradicting his express sentiment against having sons in other places. The words “would be choose daughters rather than sons” is clearly a rhetorical question, implying the answer “no, he would choose sons!”. It seems like in penning this verse to address the immediate issue of the pagan daughters of the gods, the Qur’anic authors were not concerned about what they had said in other places and times. It’s quite bizarre, really a verse that is both misogynistic and self-contradictory. There is even more emphatic corroboration at the end as if to say-“how can you possibly have judged God so poorly, obviously he would prefer sons!”:
“Ask the unbelievers if it be true that God has daughters while they themselves choose sons. Did we create the angels females?…Would he choose daughters rather than sons? What has come over you that you should judge so ill?” (37:149)
And in a passage referring to the prophets of old and an obvious reference to Jesus he has to say this. As an aside, this “taken to him a Son” is not orthodox Christianity, rather the adoptionist heresy:
“They say:’ ‘The All-merciful has taken to Him a son.’ Glory be to Him! Nay, but they are honored servants” (Q 21:26)
In contrast, and as we have said, a concerted effort to curtail the family analogy, Muslims are slaves There’s no point of a Muslim trying to argue that Allah is still a Father to them in the form of a metaphor, when first of allt the use of that exact metaphor is prohibited and on top of that the metaphor that is provided is one of slavery:
“None is there in the heavens and earth but he comes to the All-merciful as a servant (abd)” (Q19:93)
We do not hear any of the themes of God’s desire to draw people towards him, into his presence, which pervade the Biblical narrative, rather there is an effort to push people away. Even the Biblical story of Moses’ intimate relationship with God is given a contrarian Islamic twist, and when he attempts to approach God’s Presence, Islamic Musa is slam-dunked, as it were. Again, this is obviously not what occurs when children approach their parents, so the metaphor is really struggling, if it ever existed. But certainly trying to approach a king unsolicited might have deleterious results (this gets contradicted in hadith which then employ the Biblical phraselogy and admit that Moses spoke to God “face to face”):
“And when Moses came to Our appointed time and his Lord spoke with him, he said, ‘Oh my Lord, show me, that I may behold Thee!’ Said He, ‘Thou shalt not see Me; but behold the mountain — if it stays fast in its place, then thou shalt see Me.’ And when his Lord revealed Him to the mountain He made it crumble to dust; and Moses fell down swooning…’” (Q7:143)
Can Love be Deterministic?
Anything that can be called “Love of God” in Islamic belief is already severely compromised to the point of being annihilated through the hard pre-determinism that pervades it which we have seen here Pre-Programmed and Pre-Damned: Hard Determinism in Islam. We should make no mistake, there is no room for free will with pre-determinism (by definition) and therefore certainly no room for love. This alone is sufficient for the argument against love in Islam.
Whom does Allah love?
Basically it sounds like Allah manages to love whoever follows Muhammed’s teachings. That’s what it sounds like to an outsider, at least, here’s some verses that support that. Obviously one would have to understand the complex relationship between Muhammed and his God in more detail to appreciate this, which I have addressed in other articles like here ().
- Those who fight for religion with unity: “Indeed, Allah loves those who fight in His cause in a row as though they are (single) structure joined firmly.” Quran (61:4).
- Those who follow the Prophet: Say, ‘If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, and Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful. (Q 3:31).
- Those who are stern towards other religions and fight with them: “O you who have faith! Should any of you desert his religion, Allah will soon bring a people whom He loves and who love Him, humble towards the faithful, stern towards the faithless, waging jihad in the way of Allah, not fearing the blame of any blamer. That is Allah’s grace, which He grants to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing.” (Q 9:24)
Apart from this, there are also of course, various assurances that Allah loves good people in general for eg., those who do good (2:195), repent (2:222), fear and obey him (Q 3:76), purify themselves (2:222), are steadfast (3:146), rely on him (3:159), act justly (5:142). Unfortunately in Islam “goodness” and “obedience to Allah” is usurped by sharia. Being good is sharia-good, so to speak, that’s the standard. Sharia-bad is no good, Allah no love you.
Allah does not love Disbelievers
It seems from a plain reading of the text that Allah only loves those who come into Islamic belief. The Qur’an is quite obsessed with the “kafirun” and mention them upwards of 500 times, obviously never with kind intentions, and in these two verses it is explicitly asserted that Allah “does not love” non-Muslims:
“Say [O Muhammad]: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Obey Allah and the Apostle; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.” (Q 3:31-32)
A Muslim once objected to my asserting that this “two-tier” form of love in the deity, whereby persons are loved only upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, asking whether it was not possible to love one’s own child whilst hating people who lie, as an example of this. I replied that were I to say to my child that I loved them but hated liars, that child would forever think “will my daddy one day hate me too, if he thought that I lied to him?”. What is a lie is that love can have have two tiers. For someone to truly love they must love all mankind, not just those whom they choose to love out of mankind.
These are some of the verses:
“They were commanded only to serve God, making the religion His sincerely, men of pure faith, and to perform the prayer, and pay the alms — that is the religion of the True. The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures.” (Surah 98:5,6)
That He may reward those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), and do righteous good deeds, out of His Bounty. Verily, He likes not the disbelievers. (Q 30:45)
(Q 3:32) “Say: ‘Obey God, and the Messenger.’ But if they turn their backs, God loves not the unbelievers.”
(Q 2:98) “Whosoever is an enemy to God and His angels and His Messengers, and Gabriel, and Michael – surely God is an enemy to the unbelievers.“
Muslim counter-argument
On the face of it, it is reasonable for a Muslim to argue that when it is said “does not love”, Allah only means that he does not love their actions, for after all does he not allow them to go on living and give them the chance for repentance. This argument is however weakened for various other reasons. One is the verses that speak of misguiding disbelievers. This too might not be seen as a strong argument, however, the main problem for this “Allah really loves” argument is the the verses exhorting differential treatment of hostility towards disbelievers which we see a few sections later. There seems to be no real sign of act or word of Allah loving disbelievers, nor is a loving attitude recommended towards them. Given this, it is hard to take “does not love disbelievers” anything but literally. Speaking as a “disbeliever” in this hypothetical God- model, the love is certainly not coming through for me.
Just to prove that he really hates some classes of persons, Allah confirms that he misguides them
In these God is telling Muslims of the futility of preaching to those that he has chosen to condemn, since he misguides them himself: 14:4; 4:88; 3:26; 39:36-37; 16:37 and 93, 42:44-46; 17:97; 74:31; 40:33-34.
“And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He sends astray WHOM HE WILLS and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do.” S. 16:93
“And if we had willed, We could have given every soul its guidance, but the word from Me will come into effect [that] “I will surely fill Hell with jinn and people all together.” (Q 32:13)
This misguidance of Allah is “makr”. Google translate gives the top usages in order as: “cunning, wiliness, deceit, guile, deception, craftiness, slyness, artfulness (like artful dodger in Charles Dickens), trick, foxiness, craft”
There are very specific instances in which similar sounding “deceiving” language is used in the Bible, but therein it is always related to specific contexts and persons and therefore in these cases it readily lends itself to being read as God actually permitting those persons to be deceived by others or by demons (Jer.4:10, 1Kin.22:20-22, Ez.14:9-11, Is.37:6-7, 19:14) and just as the verse in 2Thes.2:11 is related to those who have definitively rejected God.
The Qur’an’s revisionist history aims to present previous prophets as examples of hatred, and stresses on how they were merciless, hateful and bound to the promise of violence.
- Violent Abraham and other Prophets: Abraham is said to hate all unbelievers with the exception of his pagan father. This, is a “goodly pattern”.
“There has already been for you an excellent pattern in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, “Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone” except for the saying of Abraham to his father, “I will surely ask forgiveness for you, but I have not [power to do] for you anything against Allah. Our Lord, upon You we have relied, and to You we have returned, and to You is the destination.” (Q 60:4)
“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ- “battled strenuously”?- this tha-kha-na root is used only in one other place in the Qur’an in 47:4 which is another well-known slaughter verse that begins with “smite their heads….” etc.) in the land.” (Q 8:67)
“And if it were not for Allah repelling some people by means of others, the earth would have been corrupted, but Allah is full of bounty to the worlds.” (Q 2:251)
2. Violent Gospel and Allah: Here Mohamed states that the Gospels and Torah too, like him preach compassion only toward believers: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are harsh against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves (…) Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel” (Q 48:29, this is also repeated in 9:111 below)
Here he asserts that the Gospel is a “binding promise” (on Allah!) that he must always be violent! (Q 9:111): Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an.
3. Violent Jesus and David: Here Mohammed pretends that Jesus also was involved in some violence: (Q 61:14) “…As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: we aided the believers against their enemies and they triumphed over them”
Those of the Children of Israel who went astray were cursed by the tongue of David, and of Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they rebelled and used to transgress. (Q 5:78).
This sort of language is uncharacteristic of Jesus. No one is cursed except on Judgement Day “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels…” (Matt. 25:11).
Human Beings are loved to the end, to the point that they can be loved no more, when they have placed themselves definitively beyond God’s reach through their final perseverance in sin unto death.
Is Love commanded among Muslims?
Sharia is primarily applicable to Muslims rather than non- Muslims. Under sharia, capital punishments are pronounced against them, which preclude forgiveness towards one’s own neighbour due to their permanence. Let’s look at some of these to see whether there is love and mercy towards Muslims enshrined in Islamic Law:
Conditional Love, Unconditional Divorce
Conditional love is precisely what is criticized in the Bible:
“For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” (Matthew 5:46,47)
When a parent has a child, they do not say to themselves. “let’s wait and see whether this child grows up to be a good person or a bad person and then we’ll decide whether to love it or not”, rather they love it first. Conditional love is the love that a master has for a slave.However in the case of our own relation with God, “We loved because he loved us first” (1Jn.4:19)– God did not love us because we loved him first, that would have been conditional. However conditional love leads to the absurdity of an infinite regress- God to love us because we loved him, but we to love God because of- what? This is why not only is the unconditional love of God aesthetically more desirable, it is necessary.
While love is conditional in Islam, divorce is unconditional. A husband does not need a particular “reason” to divorce his wife. Neither does a woman for that matter, but that’s a whole other story, its’ always harder when you’re a woman…
In the case of polygamy, the Qur’an itself states that it is not possible to treat all one’s wives “fairly”. This is an incredible by the author of the Qur’an itself that polygamy is not fair, yet “divinely ordained”:
” You will not be able to be equitable between your wives, be you ever so eager; yet do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as it were suspended. If you set things right, and are godfearing, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q 4:129)
Marriage is the most intimate and trusting relationship given to human being, by which they were as it were, given that in whose arms they will die. In the Qur’an there is not even a single verse about attempting to preserve the marriage bond. This is why we get arbitrary stipulations with regards to marriage for example the numbers of polygamous wives and female slaves and captives. This in addition to a long list of verses adverse to women which I enumerate here (Misogyny in Islam).
Islamic marriage is not primarily an institution in which one strives to one’s utmost to love one’s spouse, there is no concept of “marital jihad”. One tolerates the other human being to the extent that it is possible to do so, there is no sin in not having tried hard enough.
Further, we can look at man’s other primary relationship like those with non-Muslims, children, apostate Muslims, homosexual persons, and this completes the picture of interpersonal relationships. So a Muslim it would appear balances the general rule to “be good” that is found in all religions and primary school text books, and finds the right balance with the other verses and that is morality in Islam in a nutshell.
If marriage is no more than a transaction between individuals, then whether divorce is right or wrong will merely depend upon the terms of that transaction. In that case if divorce is written into the deal at the outset, then it cannot be wrong as per the terms of the deal.
But that says nothing of whether marriage is to have any eternal significance or not. If it is to have eternal significance, then it must be that which inculcates a spirit of self-sacrifice and self-control. How are divorce and polygamy conducive to these values? Rather do they not offer the option and temptation to seek satisfaction, companionship and pleasure in other than the one that they are with?
Isn’t polygamy on the same spectrum as divorce, whereby one can continue pleasure seeking in successive partners, ignoring the ones that displease them? Put put is bluntly, polygamy and divorce and not conducive to self-control and self-sacrifice because of the a “revolving door” mentality they entail. In addition, children are not raised with the experience of a mother and father that are wholly devoted to them, in a similar sacrifical manner. In such joint family settings, it is the mother that must defend the rights of her children, because it is only her love that is not shared. The Qur’an makes it clear to Muhammed that he need not apportion equal amounts of his attention to all his wives and he is free to have favourites among them (Surab 33:51).
I’ve heard Muslims try to reply that polygamy also can be a sacrifice because the man must look after the needs of so many women! Again, monogamy entails the element of sacrifice precisely due to the reason that there being no other person in which one’s needs may achieve fulfilment, they must simply be renounced should the spouse for whatever reason be unable to fulfil them. Thus since the relationship is not conditional on what is or is not received, it creates the real possibiliy of unconditional loving. On the other hand in a polygamy-divorce setup, it is a simple matter to gratify one’s desires through availaling the three-fold option of spouse-hopping/increasing/replacing.
IN SUMMARY, divorce and polygamy are only problematic if one’s religion has a “virtue-building” ethic, as the purpose of the earthly life. They cannot be shown to be wrong in an Islamic paradigm in which virtue-building is not the focus.
Love for your own family that apostatize?
You don’t love disbelievers even if they are your own family. Obviously this is precisely the kind of teaching that would encourage “honor killings” that we see in some communities:
“Thou shalt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day who are loving to anyone who opposes. God and His Messenger, not though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their clan. Those — He has written faith upon their hearts, and He has confirmed them with a Spirit from Himself; and He shall admit them into gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein to dwell forever, God being well-pleased with them, and they well-pleased with Him. Those are God’s party; why, surely God’s party — they are the prosperers.” (Q 58:22)
Treatment of Unbelievers
Muslims to Discriminate against Unbelievers
It seems a clear distinction is being made between the attitude towards believers and disbelievers. We’ve already read 9:24 above. Here many more. First, mirroring Allah’s attitude, the affections are partial towards those of one’s own faith. “The believers are but brothers, so make settlement (fa-aslihu- peace) between your brothers…” [Quran 49:10]
(Q 48:29) “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless (strong, hard, forceful, firm of heart, stern, severe or hard, depending on the translator) to the unbelievers but merciful (compassionate, kind) to one another.”
“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn back (turn back, several occ. = tawallaw- تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (Q 4:89)
“O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” (Q 4:144)
(Q 5:51) “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.”
(Q 5:56) O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, – whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed).
60: 1 Believers, do not make friends with those who are enemies of mine and yours. Would you show them kindness when they have denied the truth that has been revealed to you and driven out the apostle and yourselves, because you believe in God, your Lord?..
When you say that you cannot love your enemies you basically arrived at the difference between our religions and the reason Christ died for us. And if you do not love your enemies, how do you really love anyone? You would hate the wife you divorce. You are divorcing her because of your inability to love her. You cannot love any unbeliever, since Allah is pretty clear that he does not love them either. Even among the believers you cannot love anyone whom you somewhat disapprove of, because you cannot love your enemy. And those whom you love you only do so because they give you back something in return. So basically there’s no love. It’s not surprising, Allah works the same way. We define love differently in our religions. Love is not just a tingly feeling for someone who is favorable to you. Love is a hard road, and it is being there for someone even when you don’t feel anything tingly for them.
…and Curse those disagreeing with them
“ The truth is from your Lord, so do not be among the doubters. Then whoever argues with you about it after knowledge has come to you – say, “Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars.” (Q 3:61)
We’ve covered the disastrous male-female relationships here Misogyny in Islam and violence in general here () and in Muhammed here Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammed which taken to together completes the picture of inter-personal “relationships”.
Good Works, but toward whom?
To be fair, there are many verses which advise the doing of good-works ih-sanan, about 40 verses and that “Allah loves the doers of good”. All this has to be weighed against the ruling to treat unbelievers harshly. In contrast the word that is used in relation to the manner that Muslims treat each other (eg. Q48:29) is the classic word for “mercy”- rahma, one of the names of Allah himself.
“Every man has his direction to which he turns; so be you forward in good works. Wherever you may be, God will bring you all together; surely God is powerful over everything.” (2:148)
“Kind words and forgiveness are better than charity followed by injury. And Allah is Self-Sufficient, Most Forbearing.” (Q 2:263)
“Who spend during prosperity and adversity and who restrain anger and who pardon the people – and Allah loves the doers of good (l-muhsinina)”(3:134)
But as for the believers, who do deeds of righteousness, He will pay them in full their wages: and God loves not the evildoers. (Q 3:57)
Be kind to everyone including your slaves:
“Serve God, and associate naught with Him. Be kind (or “do good to”- ihsanan) to parents, and the near kinsman, and to orphans, and to the needy, and to the neighbour who is of kin, and to the neighbour who is a stranger, and to the companion at your side, and to the traveller, and to that your right hands own. Surely God loves not the proud and boastful (Q 4:36)
“[Prophet], have you considered the person who denies the Judgement? It is he who pushes aside the orphan and does not urge others to feed the needy. So woe to those who pray but are heedless of their prayer; those who only show off, And (refuse and) prevent (small) kindnesses (الْمَاعُونَ al-mauna, only 1 occ.)” (Quran 107:1-7)
When it comes to other faiths, its more like “Allah does not forbid you from being kind to them” in this verse, rather than “Allah forbids you form being harsh with them”:
“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Q 60:8)
Finally, two verses about your wives- one to be affectionate toward them, and one to divorce them equally affectionately:
“And of His signs is that He created for you mates from your own selves that you may take comfort in them, and He ordained affection (l-wadud- love) and mercy between you. There are indeed signs in that for a people who reflect.” (Q 30:21)
Kindness to the wives that you divorce:
“And if you divorce them before consummating the marriage but after deciding on a dowry, pay half of the dowry, unless the wife graciously waives it or the husband graciously pays in full. Graciousness is closer to righteousness. And do not forget kindness (l-fadla- 84 occurences, every other time is “bounty”) among yourselves. Surely Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.” (Quran 2:237)
This is a summary of the Qur’anic verses that seem to advise universal kindness. “Secure Justice” for all social classes. “Justice” can actually be quite menacing, especially if this is talking about sharia punishments:
“O believers, be you securers of justice, witnesses for God, even though it be against yourselves, or your parents and kinsmen, whether the man be rich or poor; God stands closest to either. Then follow not caprice, so as to swerve; for if you twist or turn, God is aware of the things you do.” (Q 4:135)
The benchmark for the love of God in true religion is undoubtedly the Shema: “ Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6;4,5).
“Deuteronomy 6:4-7“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength”
In the Qur’an, the section dealing with the love of God is missing to any verse that might parallel the Shema. When love for God is mentioned, the love of the Prophet is mentioned along with it. A Christian or a Jew would view this as discrepant, as those two traditions would define “monotheism” as not just a numerical belief, rather it is also to have a radically unified object of one’s devotion, seen also in the manner preached by Paul:
“But whatever was gain to me I count as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things as loss compared to the surpassing excellence of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ ” (Phil.3:7,8).
Further, that which is sought for in the after-life, as is in this life is not simply God, but sensual pleasure too. Islam from a Judeo-Christian perspective only fulfils the numerical requirements of monotheism without fulfilling the spiritual requirement for it. Such a manner of speaking as “love God and the prophet” would be unthinkable even in the Old Testament and is never commanded of any prophet, nor are Jews called to bless the names of their prophets on uttering them.
Say, ‘If your fathers and your sons, your brethren, your spouses, and your kinsfolk, the possessions that you have acquired, the business you fear may suffer, and the dwellings you are fond of, are more beloved to you than Allah and His Apostle… (Q 9:24)
When Jesus references the Shema, far from interjecting the name of any prophet in it, what he does do is to enjoin along with it the love of mankind as well:
““Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?” Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’…” (Matthew 22:36-39)
Summary: an “Us and Them” Mentality
Islam has an “us and them” view of morality in the large part. Many of the verses of kindness are applicable primarily to the relationships between believers. This is natural, in one sense, since an army of any kind cannot have infighting. A military leader would demand unquestioning loyalty to the nation while not being overly concerned about the million little niceties that make up the intimate inter-personal relationships. So we have a surface-level kindness with the focus being on the nation as a whole rather than primarily upon the individual.
Muslims on the other hand are called to hate those humans that Allah hates, and the call to universal love that is inclusive of sinners is missing as a central theme, in stark contrast to well-known Biblical verses like “turn the other cheek”, “love your enemies”, do good to those who harm you, and so on. This is about as cordial as Islam gets, even between believers, because one might judge any given person as being hated by Allah for the same reasons that Allah hates them himself- being “doers of evil” would be the prime candidate, anyone can be judged in that category.
Because the relationship model, that which is the very concept of “relationship” is not primarily set up as a loving dynamic, so there is room for the opposite feeling. The problem is primarily the dynamic of the relationship of God with human beings which is then obviously the template and aspirational epitome of relationship of human beings with one another.
Morality of Islam a contrast between these and the verses of kindness on the one hand being juxtaposed against the verses of harshness specifically against unbelievers on the other. How kind a Muslims will then be towards an unbeliever is down to the individual’ own judgement of the balance between the two. All that put together and being the best that one can be is the best Muslim, in whatever way their personal interpretation of that balance is.
The very fact that the major schools of Islam teach the death penalty for apostasy seems to corroborate the contention that the God of Islam was never trying to make you feel loved by being with him, only afraid to leave him. Islam is not meant to foster love in the heart of the believer, rather obedience and any servile feeling that might be roused in a state of fear. It is exactly what Jesus states is not the case: (John 15:15) “No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you.”
PART II: Purification and Heaven in Islam
OT Faith similarities to Islam
The OT God does seem quite violent at times. If someone commits serious crime him he would seemingly readily have them killed and end their story right there, and this action can be extended to entire nations.
A Second important further similarity is the demand for ritual purity. Purity in Islam as it is in Judaism is related to ritual observance, like fastidious washings prior to prayers, various rulings on involuntary bodily functions that can invalidate those rituals and various other edicts that enter into every aspect of daily living.
The difference between the OT and Islam is that in Islam these acts are integrally what takes the believer to Heaven while in Judaism the ultimate end of the believer remains shrouded in mystery. Further, while in Judaism, towards he later prophecies we start to see verses that begin to deter from placing value solely on ritual, whereas in the Islam the primacy of ritual is never challenged or questioned. I’ve quoted one such lengthy OT verse in a following section.
Islamic “Purity”
Some commentators state that the following hadith implies that Allah wants people to sin, because he loves it when they subsequently repent. The purpose of narrations like this however, would seem only to undermine abhorrence of sin and to trivialize evil.
“Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah said: By Him in whose hand is my soul, if you did not sin, Allah would replace you with people who would sin and they would seek forgiveness from Allah and He would forgive them.” (Sahih Muslim 2749)
The problem in all this is that sin and virtue is not really the focus here. The focus is adherence to prescriptive law and ritual. This is manifested in the preoccupation with various washings and other idiosyncratic actions during prayer and other daily activities, all of which are a sign of purifying the exterior, because it is obvious that the purification wrought by water is only skin deep.
Muslims always state that God can “just forgive sin, that’s not a problem for him”, by which they are indicating the fact that there is no elaborate atonement theology in Islam in the manner of the Christian model. It is obvious why forgiveness is not a problem for Allah, and the reason is that true purity is not his concern either. A creator of imitation jewelry does not demand a high price, since purity was not their objective when they made it. As we have already seen, all Muslims go to Heaven, however bad they might have been on Earth as long as they had the “atom of faith” spoken of in hadith and the narration about the “last man” that enters Heaven. It is thought that there be some spend a period of time in Hell wherein they “pay for their sins”. The entire focus of “purification” on Earth if any, is following prescribed practices.
In the Christian model, one truly chooses God when you choose to love on Earth. After that your Judgement is permanent, because choices are a temporal concept, and the purpose of earthly life in the first place. That is to say, purification is the entire reason for the earthly life and the meaning of it.
In the Islamic paradigm on the other hand, Muslims might expect some form of betterment in virtue instilled in them after death.
Q 3:77 is the only verse that even seems to speak of purification, and that too in a negative reference “nor will he purify”. That gives an idea of the seeming lack of importance of this term for the Qur’anic author, which is certainly not the focus of the book. :
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify [يُزَكِّيهِمْ yuzakkīhim, root- ز ك و)] them; and they will have a painful punishment.” (Q 3:77)
Q 3:77 is the only verse that even seems to speak of purification, and that too in a negative reference “nor will he purify”. That gives an idea of the seeming lack of importance of this term for the Qur’anic author, which is certainly not the focus of the book:
“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify [يُزَكِّيهِمْ yuzakkīhim, root- ز ك و)] them; and they will have a painful punishment.” (Q 3:77)
The Qur’an here states that mutual hatred will be “removed”, it seems involuntarily. Or at least, as we have been saying, no process is identified, unlike with Christianity:
“And We will remove whatever is in their breasts of resentment, [so they will be] brothers, on thrones facing each other.” (Q 15:47)
A second word used purification, the t-h-r root, is used three times with respect to “purified spouses” (2:25, 3:15, 4:57) received as reward, and twice each in relation to the purity of the scriptures (8:14, 98:2) and ritual ablutions (2:222, 9:108)
In the case of the “purified spouses”, it is obvious that this is speaking of wives, for example in 3:15 the very verse before that is enticing the men with the reward of women, which is a strong Qur’anic theme anyway.
The overall tally would indicate that external purification is at least as much the focus as internal, going just by the word usage, and going by the practise based on the Sunnah, even more so.
A moderately spiritual life
Now “moderation” through prudence is not looked down upon in Christianity. However when we examine the Islamic teachings, we do not really see the kind of radical love that we find expected of Christians. We find moderate sacrifice. The reason at this point should be obvious from the foregoing. Material pleasures are also seen as part of the spiritual life.:
For example, I got this in discussion with a Muslims who stated the basis of such beliefs stating that all the mufasireen (Tafsir writers) of the Qur’an like ibn katheer, baghawi, razi, tabari and others have unanimously said that God created this life with the balance of pleasure and hardship, so whatever you were granted by Allah from riches to knowledge to power use it wisely and benefit yourself from it do not let it go away wastefully. This is based upon Qur’anic verses like:
“Ask, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Who has forbidden the adornments and lawful provisions Allah has brought forth for His servants?” Say, “They are for the enjoyment of the believers in this worldly life, but they will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Judgment.This is how We make Our revelations clear for people of knowledge, Say, “My Lord has only forbidden open and secret indecencies, sinfulness, unjust aggression, associating ˹others˺ with Allah ˹in worship˺, a practice He has never authorized and attributing to Allah what you do not know.” 7:32-33
Or
“Rather, seek the ˹reward˺ of the Hereafter by means of what Allah has granted you, without forgetting your share of this world. And be good ˹to others˺ as Allah has been good to you. Do not seek to spread corruption in the land, for Allah certainly does not like the corruptors.” 28:77
It is worth checking commentaries on hadith such as:
Narrated ‘Amr bin Shu’aib: from his father, from his grandfather who said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Indeed Allah loves to see the results of his favors upon His Slaves.'” Jami’ Attirmidhi 2819
Purification through torture?
Muslims always state that God can “just forgive sin, that’s not a problem for him”, It is obvious why forgiveness is “not a problem” for Allah, and the reason is that true purity is not his concern either. A creator of imitation jewelry does not demand a high price, since purity was not their objective when they made it. As I discuss here: The Problem of the Paths to Jannah, all Muslims go to Heaven, however bad they might be.
It is thought that some spend a period of time in Hell wherein they are tortured, presumably as “payment” for their sins (I haven’t seen the specific phrase used but I might have missed it). This does not serve to clear the matter of purity because there is no apparent reason that torturing someone should make them a better person. Bear in mind that these are persons who have completely failed in the very reason for their existence and died unrepentant of heinous crime, possessing the single “qualification”, which is that of being a Muslim.
In fact Muslims believe by this that there is a “price to pay” for sin, they are just unprepared to accept that this price might be paid for them out of his Mercy by God himself. Are such persons who die not realizing the point of their existence, to make a genuine choice to be better persons upon coming face to face with Allah? Islam would have us to believe this is the case, however it would fly in the face of everything that Christians believe about Free Will- you only truly choose God when you choose to love on Earth. After that your Judgement is permanent, because choices are a temporal concept and the purpose of earthly life anyway. It really is that simple.
Purity of Angels is Lack of Free Will
The angels are actually pure in Islam, with a purity that is above that of men and even the prophets including Muhammed. This is quite evident in verses like.
“And when thy Lord said to the angels, ‘I am setting in the earth a viceroy (khalifatan).’ They said, ‘What, wilt Thou set therein one who will do corruption there, and shed blood, while We proclaim (nusabbihu) Thy praise (bihamdika) and call Thee Holy (nuqaddisu) ?’ He said, ‘Assuredly I know that you know not.’” (Q 2:30)
“And to Allah prostrates (yasjudu) whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels , and they are not arrogant.” (Q 16:49)
“O you who believe, safeguard yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones. Over it are stern and powerful angels who do not disobey God in respect of what He commands them, and they do what they are commanded to do.” (Q 66:6).
“To Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth; and those who are with Him wax not too proud to do Him service neither grow weary, They celebrate His praises night and day, nor do they ever slacken.” [Q 21:19,20]
“. . . For in the presence of your Lord are those who celebrate His praises by night and by day. And they never become tired (nor feel themselves above it).” [Q 41:38]
And you see the angels surrounding the Throne, glorifying their Lord with praise. Judgement was passed among them equitably and it was said, “Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.” (Q 39:75)
Humans in contrast, require every kind of pleasure in Heaven, while even the best of them are not free of sin on Earth. Almost as “remedy” for this uncomfortable discrepancy, it has been the mainstream belief that angels do not have free will. This is important- Muslims will rather believe that angels are non-rational beings than hold that it is possible to remain in constant worship of Allah. On the other hand, there is very little reference to human beings worshipping in Heaven as a predominant or even a significant activity, it receives only a passing reference in the Qur’an.
The Ultimate Goal of Islam
We’ve already seen that the angels’ constant worship and praise gets downplayed in Islam. In one verse the Qur’an states:
“And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me” (Q 51:56)
This verse can mean a number of things, but I think it is mainly meant to indicate exclusivity of worship, rather than worship as an exclusive activity, for were this so then there would be no other activity in Heaven, which is the Christian concept of it. In Islam there are quite obviously other things to do in their Heaven and Allah says so himself.
There is this other verse which speaks of worship and a few that indicate that Muslims might have a vision of him there, but nothing of the clarity and focus that we find in the Bible.
Surah 10:10 states that the “call” of those entering Heaven will be “Exalted are You, O Allah ,” and that their “last call” (whatever that means) will be “Praise to Allah , Lord of the worlds!”
On the other hand some verses might be seen to indicate that worship is an activity engaged only until the point of Heaven:
“And worship your Lord until there comes to you the certainty” (Q 15:99)
The hadith typically fill in some of what outsiders might perceive as shortcomings in the Qur’an and as in this example, furnish some spiritual experiences in Heaven. However one is left wondering why what should be the focus of Heaven is our of focus in the text of the Qur’an. This is not just a polemical comment. It is very clear that the Qur’an not using vision of God but that of the vision of women to allure listeners, as though the former would be a poor sales pitch. Here is the hadith:
“Narrated Suhaib: from the Prophet (ﷺ), regarding the saying of Allah Most High: And for those who have done good is the best and even more (10:26) – He (ﷺ) said: “When the inhabitants of Paradise have entered Paradise a caller will call out: ‘Indeed there remains for you a promise with Allah, and He wants to reward you with it.’ They will say: ‘Have your faces not been made bright, have we not been saved from the Fire, and have we not been admitted into Paradise?'” He said: “So the Veil will be lifted.” He said: “By Allah! Nothing given to them [by Allah] will be more beloved to them than looking at Him.”” ( Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3105, graded Sahih [Darussalam])
What of the verses that speak of seeking God?
In these the motive is given as “seeking the countenance of Allah”, at face value. But the Qur’an typically has competing themes and so when it says “for the sake of the face of Allah”, it could be read simply as seeking Allah’s approval.
The Qur’an does not have any verses that tell of the pleasure of just being in Allah’s company.
In the Old Testament, King David states:
“One thing have I asked of the Lord,
that will I seek after;
that I may dwell in the house of the Lord
all the days of my life,
to behold the beauty of the Lord,
and to inquire in his temple.” (Ps 28:4)
The Bible has tantalizing encounters between man and God, the sheer awe of which completely obviate and relegate to triviality any need for questions as to “what else” is on the menu (the stand-out examples are those of Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel). Also resulting from this and corroborating the former assertion, the Bible is so bereft of sensual offerings that when a couple of tmes “feasting” is referred to it is not hard to see this as allegory. The manner in which these seeming material delights are sparse, out of focus and unstressed in the Bible. For example, Psalm 36:8,9 would seem to come closest, but even here, it is not evdent that the quality of physical experiences is what is in view, judge for yourselves:
“They feast on the abundance of your house,
and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light we see light.”
Rather, the Old Testament is largely completely silent on the topic of the specific pleasures of the afterlife and carries the obvious implication that in the light of the majesty of God these did not even merit discussing- which is precisely the Christian view. Do we really turn up at Heaven’s gate only to inquire about the menu?
The New Testament on the other hand builds and enriches this theme, being founded upon the notion of the developement of virtue and purity in imitation of Jesus’ life, in preparation for our meeting with God. It is this meeing with God which is the reward and the sufficient motivation for the renunciation of every other pleasure. As Jesus says, we will receive “…a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life…” (Mk.10:30, Lk.18:30)
On the other hand, Islam is unclear as to whether Allah is even really present in Janna, rather his location is given as “over the throne”, from certain Qur’anic verses that use this. This means that there’s no question of being in his company or presence any more than you are on Earth. In Islam there always remains a distance between Allah and the believers.
These are the verses that speak of “seeking the countenance of Allah”. One can, not unreasonably, conclude from all of the foregoing that this phrase is a literary device rather than literal. It is given to mean “seek the pleasure of the deity”. The act of turning the face toward the suplicant can be seen as a gesture and sign of the pleasure of the king. Whether the face if seen or not is not the issue.
“So give to the kinsman his due, and to the needy, and to the wayfarer. That is best for those who seek Allah’s Countenance. And such are they who are successful.” [Surah al-Room 38:30]
“A spring of which the [righteous] servants of Allah will drink; they will make it gush forth in force [and abundance]. They [are those who] fulfill [their] vows and fear a Day whose evil will be widespread. And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive, [Saying], “We feed you only for the countenance of Allah . We wish not from you reward or gratitude.”” (Surah al-Insaan 76:9)
“[He] who gives [from] his wealth to purify himself And not [giving] for anyone who has [done him] a favor to be rewarded But only seeking the countenance of his Lord, Most High.” [Q.92:19-21]
“do not drive away those who call upon the Lord morning and evening, seeking nothing but his Face (wajhahu- his face)” (Q 6:52a)
This is in the sense seeking to do that which pleases that person, rather than specifically for the pleasure of that person’s company. Thus “seeking the countenance” refers to seeking the good pleasure. When the kind is pleased with a subject he turns benevolent gaze toward them in approval.
I am not speaking of secondary pleasures at all, that’s the whole point of my post. I’ll say this in conclusion, and in the end I think it all comes down to this. In Islam the concept of the pleasure of Allah’s company is not explicit, nor is the concept of being in Allah’s company a focus, and certainly there is no concept of a unity between creature and creator, even in the sense of simply existing in the same realm together, so the motivation of doing things “for the sake of God” cannot be implied, because God is never obtained, rather because of what we have just said, a certain distance remains. The motivation is primarily secondary pleasures, and this is quite clear from several Qur’anic verses.
Morality as a second-tier aspirational goal
The first-order aspirational goal in the practise of the Islamic religion is the prescriptive deeds, like following the prescribed prayers, fasts and personal habits, and rituals surrounding those prayers and fasts, jihad, which had special significance, and various paraphernalia like memorizing the Qur’an, that can take up a significant part of one’s waking time. all of this comes under the umbrella of the Sunnat, which is the practices of Muhammad, the exemplar for Islamic practise. One could say that Muhammad was the best possible Muslim since being a Muslims implies being him. The importance of being good to others, works of kindness (ihsaanan) is definitely mentioned several times and Allah’s displeasure in those who neglect this. However salvation is not attached the intentions of the heart to goodness, in the manner it is in several OT and NT Biblical verses. Neither also it is indicated that the practices and rituals that the religion is simply suffused with lead to the betterment of human conduct toward fellowmen or that they are beneficial to human moral behavior.
There is only one emotional that can be called impartial and it is love- love it doing the right thing irrespective and this is why it is impartial. The Islamic deity as a result, cannot be impartial, unlike the Christian deity that loves unconditionally. This is why it is possible for the “invincibly naïve” to be saved in Christianity, because God gauges the intentions of their hearts impartially.
Islamic teaching is pervaded by partisan notions, conditions under which kindness might be shown and to whom it might be shown. That invitation to experience the power of love is absent in Islam “by this will all men know that you are my disciples- if you have love one for another” the most that we get is traditions where there is some kindness directed at war captives (sorry, I haven’t got the reference just now).
The Islamic concept of Sin
The Qur’an does not have the conception of sin as being an offence against God, rather:
“…he who commits sin does so against his own soul…” (Q 4:111)
This is the reason that there is not seen to be a requirement for atonement.
PART III: Sexuality in Islam
The Sexual Relationship Model in Islam
-is it the Harem model
-or the Free Sex model.
One of these would have to be true.
If it were not true that multiple women (ex and present wives, houris, slaves) were linked in to one man as their eternal sex-provider,
then it seems that the alternative is eternal interchangeability of partners without limit- so a particular man or woman can dip into other harems.
There needs, I feel to be a minimum requirement of a loose “harem” as there are verses that state that a man will have “wives”- this means that a relationship does exist,
what is perhaps not clear is how exclusive that relationship will be. At least one of the reasons to believe that the relationship will not be exclusive is the presence of the mysterious “houris”.
The other reason is that the model of a large number of women looking to one man as their eternal sex-provider has a ring of idolatory to it. That man does not provide anything else except sex to those woman since obviously Allah is the provider for all. It’s not like he would wield the finances or anything.
Another issue is the question of “how many”. It seems obvious that in the Islamic psyche a man is not satisfied with one woman, and so the question arises “how many women”. Since the time we’re dealing with is infinity, it would make sense that the math required the number of women to be infinity too. Or at least more than just a few.
Finally the exclusive harem model necessitates that there be a larger (and probably a much larger) ratio of women to men in Janna. This goes against some of the other literature which states that the opposite is the case.
You just… kind of feel that if a woman was in charge of the socializing in Heaven things might have been a bit different.
The Location and time of Prayer in Janna?
Since the entire premise of sex being a heavenly activity is that we continue to perform our bodily functions in the afterlife, one must therefore also assume that this activity requires a location and a time. In the case the following possibilities arive
With respect to the place of sex:
- Is it in the presence of Allah
- Or concealed from his presence
It would seem absurd to conceal this activity from a god who can see everything anyway, which must lead one to conclude that sex is basically happening everywhere and at everytime, including the place and time of worship. Unless of course there are also fixed and discrete times for prayer and sex and food. Remember that sex is a timed activity. The whole point of any enjoyment in sex is that it lasts for more than an instant. In which case:
- There is actually a food-sex-entertainment-worship timetable in Heaven OR
- The individual decides how much time he allocates to Allah and how much to sex.
Islam doesn’t have a moral teaching about marriage. “Divorce on demand” is license. Should one only love a woman that pleases them, then one didn’t love them at all; rather one loved their own pleasure. That’s why one would divorce a woman who did not please them. Sex is an issue similarly with any illicit and non-consensual relationship. And where is mercy and love in a law that has amputations for stealing, death for homosexuality and apostacy and illegal sex. These forms of punishments for non-capital offenses preclude forgiveness towards one’s own neighbour due to the permanence of their effects. But mercy is really being able to love when it is hard to love, not when its easy to love. the reason Christ died for us. And if you do not love your enemies, how do you really love anyone? You would hate the wife you divorce. You are divorcing her because of your inability to love her. you cannot love anyone whom you somewhat disapprove of, because you cannot love your enemy. And those whom you love you only do so because they give you back something in return. So basically there’s no love. Love is not just a tingly feeling for someone who is favorably to you. Love is a hard road, and it is being there for someone even when you don’t feel anything tingly for them.
Women as Tools?
Further with Islam, the edicts regarding sex all seem male oriented- man can divorce, man can be polygamous, man can marry underage, man gets all the women (and jinni women?) in heaven, and man can avail of legalized prostitution, have sex slaves, beat their…and so on, the list is eternal.
This again is a simple contradiction (there’s so many!). If a “man gets what he desires”, and like you say “Men and women are wired differently”, and men want unlimited sex with women, then the woman becomes the tool of the man’s desire. How then can the woman’s desire be fulfilled if she is being used as a tool?
Further, there is the issues related to the sexual “houris”. The problem of created-for-purpose sexual creatures is that they’re zombies. Rational creatures are not “created for sex”, no intelligent person would see themselves that way. That a person be created solely for the purpose of the pleasure of another is the definition of a “tool”. In this sense both women and houris are in danger of being tools.
PART IV: The Problem with an “Amoral” Islamic Model
The question of morality is not an Islamic one. In Islam God does not establish an objective moral paradigm, rather Islam has “Divine command theory”. What God commands is to be submitted to, and morality is “objective” only insofar as it can be inferred by the deposit of the Qur’an and other Islamic Scriptures, best summarized and most widely followed in the four schools of sharia or “fiqh”, the four madhabs.
The problem with an amoral or hateful God
It is not coherent for a merciful God that desires that people stop sinning to also hate those very people. If God truly hated sinners he would simply have strived to distance them from himself even further, in which it case it is absurd to state that he is also merciful or desiring of repentance and conversion. There seems to be a total logical disconnect here. In the Biblical narrative we are able to metaphorize this because the overall narrative can be viewed effectively from the New Testament lens. However in Islam, firstly there is no New Testamental confession of unconditional love “I have come not to save the righteous by sinners” and “I have come not to judge the world but to save it” and “God so loved the world (not just some persons in the world)” and so on. On the contrary, we have quite the opposite extreme which actually fits the hate narrative. First we have hard predetermination discussed here Pre-Programmed and Pre-Damned: Hard Determinism in Islam, whereby God might truly hate those he created with a fixed destination of damnation anyway, and further rather than give those outside his revealed religion the opportunity to convert to it or to those that have de-converted to reconvert, he would simply end their lives. Further several times it is iterated that Allah misguides these objects of his hatred which we have looked at already in the section of that title.
Can God command military religious expansionism?
Could it really be that violent religious expansionism is the will of God? A Muslim friend recently explained that he indeed does believe this, and this is how he justifies it: if a country does not conquer/ dominate its neighbours, it in turn would end up being conquered, bullied and dominated by them. Sure, politics and nationalism are nothing new on this earth, it is practiced universally anyway since the dawn of civilization, but thanks to the Qur’an now, we can justify practising it in God’s name.
My response to him was that if God wanted to bring change by correcting our errors, then rather than just give us a divine mandate to go on doing whatever we were doing anyway, is it not more likely that he teach us a different way?
You already admitted that it is a fact that human societies have been attempting to dominate each other from the dawn of civilization anyway, perhaps at least partly as a means to bolster their own security. However there is no doubt that this leads to endless cycles of violence, as we see played out in the world today. If there is at least relative security in some of the developed countries today, but even though factors are complex, it certainly cannot be shown that this is an effect of the increase in religiosity, can it. On the other hand it certainly is not the case that it can be shown that religous states are more peaceful than secular ones either.
If God were to desire to change our errors, then surely the cycle of violence would rank among the greatest, if not the greatest of those. One would therefore expect that God provide us a way to live that does not involve conpulsive aggression, and the kind of “pre-emptive striking” that makes lasting peace impossible. Godless persons fight because they lack security, but religious persons would only resort to unprovoked agression if they thought that God could not provide another path by which we can improve our virtues and therefore become worthy of being with him when we die.
Thus also the mandate for the use of violence in the propagation of religion is contrary to spirituality itself, creating conditions whereby the notion of choice is removed from religion is spreading the message that the service of God is not a choice, since that is literally what is being carried out in practise.This is going to directly contardict any notion of love of God being part of that message. Again, when a wife needs to obey the husband at the pain of a beating it negates any notion of the inculcation of love in human relationships too. Loving relationships are then localised to the relationships between men who are going out to fight so as to avoid them fighting each other, beyond that there is no room for love.
Islam simply does not have the notion that merely believing without acting in charity and justice ends up in risking one’s soul to damnation. In contrast already in the OT, the Bible is making it clear that merely sacrificing without leading a holy life is an empty gesture which is despised by God:
“I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals. I will not look upon.
Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Isaiah 1:22,23)
And:
“Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your worthless assemblies. Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals I hate with all my being. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow. “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the Lord. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isaiah 1:13-17)
Jesus gives his Blood in a show of love, in order to enamour our souls to him, thus “purchasing” or “ransoming” them to himself through the payment of this “price”. We can see a contorted version of this quintessentially Christian paradigm in the Islamic writings where the spirituality seems to have been stripped out of the concept. Allah sounds like he is paying mercenaries to fight for him- he “purchases” their service in “killing and being killed”, through no cost to himself, but rather the temptation of Paradisal pleasure. It’s quite clear in the verse:
“God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.” (Q 9:111)
Teaching us Love v/s Forcing it
I heard a Muslim ask “can a man’s brother suffer in his place for the brother’s wrongdoing?” I’m surprised that anyone would even ask this question, we suffer for our loved ones and make up for their shortcomings all the time, this is a natural loving instinct. The sentiment is that through our actions they might experience an inner conversion themselves. This and nothing else is precisely the sentiment at the heart of the Atoning Sacrifice that expiates our sins. Without God demonstrating his holiness man does not have the chance of an “icicle in Hell” of becoming holy, and certainly not through his voluntary choice. The “Way” of the Christian Faith is choosing voluntarily the Holiness of God, and this being made possible by the Sacrifice of God for us.(mind you “holiness” and “purity” in Christianity is related specifically to the virtue of love and nothing else). Without this, there is no means for a man to effectively repent for his moral shortcomings. A man cannot repent for his moral shortcomings, if he does not have the insight to see that they are shortcomings in the first place.
This is why there is not effective means of repentance in Islam. In Islam you can only repent for what you think you did wrong in your subjective opinion. This will always be inadequate and when compared to God’s knowledge of your imperfections, grossly inadequate.
This will lead to the inevitable outcome, that holiness or purification would need to be forced upon you. This does not mean that it works, rather that the genuine option that does work is not available, that of Sacrifice. In life it is forced upon you through the means of threat, coercion, subjugation of women and so on… In the afterlife it is through the “punishment” of Hell.
Punishment however, does not make anyone holy. God holiness is not experienced under torture, this would be bizarre, needless to say. On the other hand, evil is very easily experienced in this state. Torture is like a front-row ticket to the Superbowl of evil. In this sense it is erroneous to state that Allah “just forgives” sins. Torture is hardly “just forgives”, this too is a bizarre claim.
So one can picture the difference in the two models one in which (picture this) God, in Heaven and never coming down to Earth says “Go… and kill for me” and the other with God coming to us and saying “love for me”. This is the root of the reason why Islam flounders in its moral teaching. There is no real example of love, I’m not sure is persons realize that there is not a single commandment to love or respect the weaker sex except for an oblique reference to “affection”, and various sexual options too many to go into in this article. Nor is there a commandment to love one’s children, in the only verse that deals with a youth, that youth is killed for disbelief, and neither anything about the old. So there is not love ordained for those closest to you, nor to those philosophically farthest from your which is the unbelievers. All we have is verses about forgiving Muslims their offences, and the “golden rule” that is found in every other religion is not in Islam. On top of that Muslims who apostatize are to be killed, and Muhammed is to be loved more than one’s family.
Atoning Sacrifice in Judaism, and its Qur’anic Shadow
It is not as though atonement is a novel concept in Abrahamic religions. The greatest festival of Judaism is Yom Kippur- the Day of Atonement. Here burnt offerings atone for the sins of the people.In Islam as in everything, a shadow of Trinitarian Abrahamic Faith is preserved. In this case it is the surah which goes “Allah ransomed him with a great sacrifice” in relation to preventing the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham- Allah offers one thing in place of the life of another. In fact in a hadith it is said that Jews and Christians will go to Hell “in place of Muslims”. Same principle, but rather in caricature.God bless, Jesus loves you THAT much.
PART III: The Christian Paradigm of Sin and Sensuality
The Islamic promise of Heaven consists seemingly of an abundance of things that could be bought off eBay or the local superstore. Consider verses like:
“And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, “This is what we were provided with before.” And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally.” (Q 2:25- SI)
The Qur’an is not even attempting to state that there is a difference in heavenly pleasures from earthly ones. Various other pleasures like couches, silk sheets, pavilions, women, serving boys, gold ornaments, items of food and others follow in the same vein. A tradition even states that the first food that will be given to those entering Heaven is fish liver!
It’s the classic error of paganism- sensual paradise. Do you not think every single pagan religion taught this? Why do you think Gautam Buddha left Hinduism to found the greatest spiritual religion the world has seen before Christianity? It’s a simple contradiction- that your desire on earth, as it is in Heaven will be “divided” between God and things of the flesh. But you know the verses- Yahweh is a jealous God, he wants all our desire for him alone.
This is why Jesus teaches as he does:
“Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” Luke 9:23
“Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” John 12:25
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45.
“But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” Matthew 19:30.
The Cause of Evil is a heart divided before God: It is not hard to see that the only cause of impurity is that man chases after sensual desire. What else is purity, are you able to answer this? What is the point of religion if it is not to show man the higher virtues of hope love and charity are supremely more rewarding than the pleasures of the flesh that are the cause of every evil upon Earth? And were this to be disputed can anyone state the cause of evil upon earth?
Man chases after many things while he is alive. In Islam he desires those same things in Heaven. There is no line drawn between the things of God and the things that take us away from God. There is no doubt that sensual pleasures constitute that very thing. It is the Mercy of God that through the Incarnation of his Son he teaches us and gives us the grace to reject the things of this Earth in preference for the things of God. The reward of Heaven is not fleshy desires, it is freedom from those desires so that we can have what our soul truly desires. What a lame excuse to state “we have genitals so obviously we will follow them in Heaven too”!
Listen to St Paul: “Those who are unspiritual[e] do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny. “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (2 Corinthians)
“…so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit (οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται), to God’s law—indeed it cannot (οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται), and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:4-8)
This is the reason, if anything, that sex is out of place in Heaven. It is not fitting to the glory of God that man’s pleasure should be in anything in Him. In monotheism, God is Almighty, “omnipotent”, which means that he is at least potent enough to be the sufficient cause of all our pleasure. To assert additional pleasures as essential in the afterlife would seem to undermine God himself.
Out of the context of an earthly monogamous godly and fruitful relationship in which alone it has a perfect purpose, sex itself assumes the form of corruption. We have no trouble accepting that this is the case with every other form of pleasure known to man- that if not enjoyed in their correct form, are deleterious, so why would it not be true of sex? Everything loving that exists in sex is of godly origin and thereofore to be found in the manner that God intended it. Sex taken out of its righteous context is like the use of a person for pleasure like food, where you can’t the the feelings of food items, but you can hurt a person’s.
It is not difficult to see why sex could not possibly be essential to love, were this the case then we could never love our parents, friends or siblings. So what is sex meant for? Well we can easily enumerate all the possible things it might be useful for on Earth: babies, pleasure and hormonal bonding. One could not possibly be needy for anyone of these in Heaven from other persons, and thus we can start to see why sex loses its relevance in the afterlife. Sex is a biological requirement like food and all the biological requirements when fulfilled produce hormonal responses which are obvious evolutionary adaptations, to induce the organism to seek these sensations.
Thus the sensual pleasures and pursuits are indispensable in eartlhy life because we require a functioning biology simiar to anything else that lives. Their appreciation serves to help us appreciate the pleasure of the coming glory in God’s Presence that cannot be described in the manner of any of these. We call this “spirituality”, that by which all earthly pleasures and experiences assume an eternal signification that goes beyond those sensations and pleasures themselves, and rise above the literal to assume true transcendance.
In Christianity sin is exactly defined precisely by the following of our animal instincts for their own sakes. As Paul puts it:
“So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh craves what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are opposed to each other,” (Galatians 5:16,17)
“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:5-7)
Sexual Heaven typical of Pagan Myths
There is typically sexual cavorting among the gods and demi-gods of the pagan pantheon. In fact in various creation myths the Universe might be created through such sexual activity, or the genesis of demi-gods (think Hercules) might be from sexual activity between gods and humans. This does not mean that humans expected to have similar lifestyles, this is because the pagan myths were not focused on human outcomes, rather they were composed as celestial narratives, they hardly ever extend upto an elaborate eschatology.
Aquinas: Difference b/w Sensual and Intellectual Pleasures
St Aquinas addresses this in Question 31 in the Second Part of the Summa Theologiace (Prima Secundae). I mirculously happened to be listening to this very section on the day that I had commenced a debate on the topic with some Muslims. I thought this miracle was worth documenting here, to the Glory of God.
St. Aquinas first describes the sense of “delight” that is found in an animal. He states that it is that movement which occurs in the soul (or mind) of the animal when it perceives an achievement of a “natural perfection”. So for an animal examples of achieving natural perfections would be like going from hungry, or desiring sex to having had food or sex, or water, or the completion of any bodily felt “natural” desire.
“we must observe that just as in natural things some happen to attain to their natural perfections, so does this happen in animals. And though movement towards perfection does not occur all at once, yet the attainment of natural perfection does occur all at once. Now there is this difference between animals and other natural things, that when these latter are established in the state becoming their nature, they do not perceive it, whereas animals do. And from this perception there arises a certain movement of the soul in the sensitive appetite; which movement is called delight (…) It is therefore evident that, since delight is a movement of the animal appetite arising from an apprehension of sense, it is a passion of the soul.” [ST II-1, Q.31,Art,1,co.]
St Thomas then makes a distinction between delight and joy, stating that irrational animals are capable of the the former while the latter requires the rational appreciation of that delight:
“…as Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 13) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. xviii.] put it, “some delights are of the body, some are of the soul”; (…) For we take delight both in those things which we desire naturally, when we get them, and in those things which we desire as a result of reason. But we do not speak of joy except when delight follows reason; and so we do not ascribe joy to irrational animals, but only delight.” [a.3,co.]
Now this is a really fine point. There are some bodily pleasure that we do not take joy in. I had to think about it for a while, but it is precisely what we would call “guilty pleasure” that would fall into this category- those pleasures that we know are bad for you:
Now whatever we desire naturally, can also be the object of reasoned desire and delight, but not vice versa. Consequently whatever can be the object of delight, can also be the object of joy in rational beings. And yet everything is not always the object of joy; since sometimes one feels a certain delight in the body, without rejoicing thereat according to reason. And accordingly delight extends to more things than does joy.” [a.3,co.]
However St Aquinas states that the intellectual delight is only in the mind, which alone can delight in God:
It is written (Psalm 36:4): “Delight in the Lord.” But the sensitive appetite cannot reach to God; only the intellectual appetite can. Therefore delight can be in the intellectual appetite … a certain delight arises from the apprehension of the reason. Now on the reason apprehending something, not only the sensitive appetite is moved, as regards its application to some particular thing, but also the intellectual appetite, which is called the will. And accordingly in the intellectual appetite or will there is that delight which is called joy, but not bodily delight. However, there is this difference of delight in either power, that delight of the sensitive appetite is accompanied by a bodily transmutation, whereas delight of the intellectual appetite is nothing but the mere movement of the will. [a.4,s.c,co.]
He then goes on to point out that this is the manner of the Joy of God himself, and his Holy Angels:
Delight has the character of passion, properly speaking, when accompanied by bodily transmutation. It is not thus in the intellectual appetite, but according to simple movement: for thus it is also in God and the angels. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 14) that “God rejoices by one simple act”: and Dionysius says at the end of De Coel. Hier., that “the angels are not susceptible to our passible delight, but rejoice together with God with the gladness of incorruption.” [a.4,ad.2]
Finally, in articles 5 and 6 he tells us why intellectual pleasure are superior
“If therefore we compare intellectual pleasures with sensible pleasures, according as we delight in the very actions, for instance in sensitive and in intellectual knowledge; without doubt intellectual pleasures are much greater than sensible pleasures. For man takes much more delight in knowing something, by understanding it, than in knowing something by perceiving it with his sense. Because intellectual knowledge is more perfect; and because it is better known, since the intellect reflects on its own act more than sense does. Moreover intellectual knowledge is more beloved: for there is no one who would not forfeit his bodily sight rather than his intellectual vision, as beasts or fools are deprived thereof, as Augustine says in De Civ. Dei (De Trin. xiv, 14).
If, however, intellectual spiritual pleasures be compared with sensible bodily pleasures, then, in themselves and absolutely speaking, spiritual pleasures are greater. And this appears from the consideration of the three things needed for pleasure, viz. the good which is brought into conjunction, that to which it is conjoined, and the conjunction itself. For spiritual good is both greater and more beloved than bodily good: a sign whereof is that men abstain from even the greatest bodily pleasures, rather than suffer loss of honor which is an intellectual good. Likewise the intellectual faculty is much more noble and more knowing than the sensitive faculty. Also the conjunction is more intimate, more perfect and more firm. More intimate, because the senses stop at the outward accidents of a thing, whereas the intellect penetrates to the essence; for the object of the intellect is “what a thing is.” More perfect, because the conjunction of the sensible to the sense implies movement, which is an imperfect act: wherefore sensible pleasures are not perceived all at once, but some part of them is passing away, while some other part is looked forward to as yet to be realized, as is manifest in pleasures of the table and in sexual pleasures: whereas intelligible things are without movement: hence pleasures of this kind are realized all at once. More firm; because the objects of bodily pleasure are corruptible, and soon pass away; whereas spiritual goods are incorruptible. [a.5,co.]
Finally, Aquinas state that the sensual desires are more “vehement” by which he means that although they are inferior, they appear to us more pressing:
“On the other hand, in relation to us, bodily pleasures are more vehement, for three reasons. First, because sensible things are more known to us, than intelligible things. Secondly, because sensible pleasures, through being passions of the sensitive appetite, are accompanied by some alteration in the body: whereas this does not occur in spiritual pleasures, save by reason of a certain reaction of the superior appetite on the lower. Thirdly, because bodily pleasures are sought as remedies for bodily defects or troubles, whence various griefs arise. Wherefore bodily pleasures, by reason of their succeeding griefs of this kind, are felt the more, and consequently are welcomed more than spiritual pleasures, which have no contrary griefs, as we shall state farther on (I-II:35:5.
[a.5,co.]
The reason why more seek bodily pleasures is because sensible goods are known better and more generally: and, again, because men need pleasures as remedies for many kinds of sorrow and sadness: and since the majority cannot attain spiritual pleasures, which are proper to the virtuous, hence it is that they turn aside to seek those of the body. [ad.1]
St Thomas finally brings this all home in Article 6, where he says that “it is proper itself to man to apprehend knowledge itself as something good”, and that “sight is the handmaid of the mind,… the pleasures of sight are greater, forasmuch as intellectual pleasures are greater than sensible.” and “The sight is loved most, “on account of knowledge, because it helps us to distinguish many things,” as is stated in the same passage (Metaph. i, 1).” [a.6,ad.3]. Animals value that most which to them is most useful and take the greatest delight in those things. Animals will delight in food and sex, while man the rational animal will delight in knowledge and its infinite source, God himself.
As stated above (I-II:25:2 ad 1; I-II:27:4 ad 1), everything gives pleasure according as it is loved. Now, as stated in Metaph. i, 1, the senses are loved for two reasons: for the purpose of knowledge, and on account of their usefulness. Wherefore the senses afford pleasure in both these ways. But because it is proper to man to apprehend knowledge itself as something good, it follows that the former pleasures of the senses, i.e. those which arise from knowledge, are proper to man: whereas pleasures of the senses, as loved for their usefulness, are common to all animals. Animals are programmed by instinct to experience joy in those things that are beneficial to them, while man is not a programmed animal:
“If therefore we speak of that sensible pleasure by which reason of knowledge, it is evident that the sight affords greater pleasure than any other sense. On the other hand, if we speak of that sensible pleasure which is by reason of usefulness, then the greatest pleasure is afforded by the touch. For the usefulness of sensible things is gauged by their relation to the preservation of the animal’s nature. Now the sensible objects of touch bear the closest relation to this usefulness: for the touch takes cognizance of those things which are vital to an animal, namely, of things hot and cold and the like. Wherefore in this respect, the pleasures of touch are greater as being more closely related to the end. For this reason, too, other animals which do not experience sensible pleasure save by reason of usefulness, derive no pleasure from the other senses except as subordinated to the sensible objects of the touch: “for dogs do not take delight in the smell of hares, but in eating them; . . . nor does the lion feel pleasure in the lowing of an ox, but in devouring it” (Ethic. iii, 10).
Since then the pleasure afforded by touch is the greatest in respect of usefulness, and the pleasure afforded by sight the greatest in respect of knowledge; if anyone wish to compare these two, he will find that the pleasure of touch is, absolutely speaking, greater than the pleasure of sight, so far as the latter remains within the limits of sensible pleasure. Because it is evident that in everything, that which is natural is most powerful: and it is to these pleasures of the touch that the natural concupiscences, such as those of food, sexual union, and the like, are ordained. If, however, we consider the pleasures of sight, inasmuch sight is the handmaid of the mind, then the pleasures of sight are greater, forasmuch as intellectual pleasures are greater than sensible.
Part V: The True Joy of Heaven
The Cardinal Error- “God is not enough”
Sacrifice is the best witness of love, while dominant aggression is the fruit of lust. It is only the pagan gods like those of the Romans and oriental mythologies who cavorted in Heaven and those modern day followers who have focused on these aspects have invariably become cultic. There is no reason to think that God will require man to engage in constant sex to be able to derive pleasure, or that this is the predominant means available to God with which to infuse man with pleasure. There is no reason to believe that God is bound to take what is the most loving act and expression of love on Earth, and require it to be performed in an unfeeling manner in Heaven, in order to make the stay there pleasurable.
The cardinal error of Islamic eschatology is this assumption: “God is not enough”. So I repeat, that the cardinal error of Islamic eschatology is to assume this: that God is not enough. You can see how even the Old Testament is much more sophisticated than Islam even though it is two millenia older than it, and that’s what’s so great about it. It is a spiritual oasis has opened up in the midst of ancient world-wide paganism. And the reason is not purely that it is monotheistic, but rather the reason is the substance of the teaching. A Muslims asked “why would God deny us sensual pleasures”, but this is already answered- because he is Infinite. What is a little spark in your brain compared to the experience of God himself. To assume that you will be tortured by these desires is again the same error of Islam: that God is not enough.
If we are eternal, reproducing and the life cycle would no longer be a consideration. But we can hope for that “which eye has not seen nor ear heard what God has prepared for those who love Him”. We would therefore take any references in the Bible to biological pleasures (which there are not many) in Heaven metaphorically really. It would be like having the in-flight food on a plane journey. I don’t see why you would need that in heaven. Imagine that God offered you a woman for sex while you were in his Presence in order to “enhance the experience”. This will be a blasphemous thought in Christianity. I mean I struggle to even say those words, but I’m stating it for the sake of argument. I would much rather remain in the Lord’s Presence.
If our enrapturement with God far surpassed any enrapturement of sexual attraction, why would we need the latter in Heaven? Think of the pleasure you feel at the very sight of a physically attractive person of the opposite sex: If the pleasure of God far exceeded this, what use is there for it? Isn’t the mere company of that person sufficient without the sexual aspect? If the aspect of spiritual pleasure in God’s presence far exceeds the sexual aspect of pleasure in man’s presence what use is there for the latter? To distract you from the former? Why? “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25) It is truly exhilarating to be loved by God. Why would we ever doubt this, and who can convince us otherwise?
The Soul is fed only by God
The reason that these are a passing temptation and the offer of false fulfilment is precisely because God himself is the true and complete fulfilment of our souls. But the soul and the intellect are not fed and fulfilled through the pleasures of the senses. These pleasure leave no mark on the soul whatsoever save when God is invisible to us they serve as a foreshadowing of what is to come, the goodness of the pleasure on Earth enjoyed in the right manner, serve to show is the greatness of what is to come, when we are unable to physically see that is to come itself.
In Heaven there is no need for “sexually drawing closer to a woman”. The pure cannot be closer to anything than they already are, we will be the “spirits of the righteous made perfect” (Hebrew 12:13) not “being made perfect”, that part occurs prior to entry into Heaven. Sex is not an act which inherently brings purity, except in sex cults, when we stand before the very Presence of God, this would be a bizarre contention.
It’s an interesting contrast though. It seems impossible for a creature to be fulfilled and complete without sex in Islamic metaphysics. This gives the impression that metaphysics in Islam is reducible to mere physics.
What is the pleasure of food, is it not in certain chemicals causing dopaminergic or endorphin surges in the brain? What is the physical pleasure of sex? Is it not the proximity to beauty, even the intimate proximity to beauty, that includes touch, taste, smell of beauty, Accompanied by primal emotions like trust, friendship, ownership , security which then produces an endorphin surge in the brain as well? The brain identifies this as pleasure. When we are spiritually united to God as we are in the Christian Heaven one would struggle to see the relevance of these.
End of the day isn’t the pleasure of sex reducible to friction against a beloved object? Touch primarily. A blind man can experience sexual pleasure, but the other senses supplement it. Without touch (say someone paralysed the waist below) one would struggle. But in a wet dream, it is purely intellectual, none of the physical senses are involved. Interesting isn’t it?
How will our senses be satisfied in Heaven? Spiritual sight, these will be satisfied by God directly, that’s why we call Heaven the “Beatific vision”. I suspect all the other senses are fulfilled in this Vision without requiring separate objects for their fulfilment (if sight is fulfilled by God then why not all the senses?) But the purpose of our resurrected bodies is to experience God, not to experience food. How would food actually be served in heaven? Does God need a “kitchen project” where he creates food platters ex nihilo in order to pleasure us and then send them floating towards us? Would God not be able to simply pleasure us By cutting out the middleman? why does God need to undertake table-service in addition to his pure Presence as a source of our pleasure.
A soul by itself is capable of nothing good in the absence of God and hence nothing holy, and utterly incapable of achieving holiness. A wild dog does not tame itself. A Soul in the absence of God can never achieve anything pure, let alone Purity itself. Without God’s help it would fall into sin, and an ever-worsening cycle of Evil. No amount of external ritual can change this, as Jesus warns: “”Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of impurity. In the same way, on the outside you appear to be righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” (Matthew 23:26-28)”. The CCC on Original Sin states (409): “…By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil…”
Heaven is Purity, as a Divine Attribute
Here’s how it is different:
“…You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5: 43-48)
When Jesus dies for us he shows us his Mercy, and thereby enables us and empowers us to have that mercy toward others. This way evangelisation itself is a sacrifice of ourselves rather than us sacrificing others in the name of it. That is Christian martyrdom. The reason for doing that is because it is the nature of God. We are called to be like God “who makes his son to shine on both the righteous and the unrighteous”. This is what it is to be called a “child of God”. In being merciful we are truly sharing in a divine attribute. God’s mercy is in this- that he enables us to love freely. You can’t have this in Islam because even Allah is not free in his love. The God of Israel gave the Israelites his Law after he had saved them from the Egyptians, not before. His love was not conditional on their following his Commandments, he made the first move. Allah is the other way round, so there’s a total disconnect seemingly in our approach to morality.
A common Muslim polemic refrain is that if in Christianity God “did everything”, then there’s nothing for the Christian to do, and they can live whatever kind of life they want. I replied once to such an assertion: “That’s because the standards are different in Islam and Christianity. In Islam the standard is not the purity of God, its the purity of Muhammed. You can aspire to that without any help from God, its human after all. But the purity of God is infinite and man is nothing. This is why whatever we may try, God must still do everything. Of course when we do allow God to work in us, then the morality that we can accomplish far transcends anything than the practitioner of any other religious tradition can ever hope to aspire to, and this is reflected in the manner that Christian communities conduct themselves. The reason that our actions in the faith are as nothing is not because we make any less efffort toward morality than practitioners of other religions, rather it is the fact that our aspirational goal is nothing like anything our own strength can achieve anyway. That is what a Christian is called to.
The Pleasure of Rationality is Contemplation
A rational creature derives pleasure to a far greater degree and different quality than the beasts precisely because it is rational. This is the reason for example that animals do not enjoy sex in the manner that man does. And God is the source of knowledge, the fount of all rationality. A rational creature enjoys sex for being able to conceive all the elements that go into the sexual act, the most powerful of these elements is love, something that in the beasts is no more than a hormonal instinct. This is the reason that sex without love for a rational being is not pleasurable and sex without consent is traumatic and injurious, whereas an animal would merely be indifferent to such acts which for example are what animal husbandry entails. And God is the source and fount of all love as well. There is no pleasure that man will lack in the knowledge of the love of God. We would do well to read with St. Paul, who describes “everything as rubbish for the surpassing value of KNOWING Christ”. Such will also be the pleasures of Heaven, everything else will seem as loss compared to the surpassing pleasure of the Presence of God:
“Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ…” (Phil.3:7,8)
Peter Kreeft concludes in his inimicable style in his artible “Is there Sex in Heaven” from his blog https://www.peterkreeft.com:
“I think there will probably be millions of more adequate ways to express love than the clumsy ecstasy of fitting two bodies together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love. If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. The question of intercourse in Heaven is like the child’s question whether you can eat candy during intercourse: a funny question only from the adult’s point of view. Candy is one of children’s greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant? Only if you know both can you compare two things, and all those who have tasted both the delights of physical intercourse with the earthly beloved and the delights of spiritual intercourse with God testify that there is simply no comparison.”
To Love is the Joy of Heaven
Why is it important to be able to love freely? Because that is what it is to share in the Life of God. That is what Heaven really his, if you think Heaven is eternal Happiness, then that eternal happiness of a divine emotion and God can have that “emotion” because he is unhindered by obstacles and conditions. “So that my joy may be in you, that your joy might be complete”. Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” If you cannot love, you cannot be pure. This basically proves that we are talking about different Heavens and a very different God. You would not be able to stand before the Christian God if you cannot love your enemies…because He did. And that love is the joy of Heaven. Because it is truly joyous to love freely. Why do you think God is joyous? Because there is no impediment or obstacle to his love. Irrespective of what men do, He can love them. After all is not happiness the absence of negativity? Nothing can give God a reason to have a defective emotion, or a “put-me-down”. Read Matthew 5:43-48. what stops you from loving your enemies and praying for their good is the same as that which stops you from going to Heaven. When you have not loved freely you have not loved at all.
The Transformative Presence of God
God creates man knowing that a free-will creature will sin because it is imperfect. He hates sin, but he creates man all the same because he loves man more. God will remedy that and make him perfect through his own action in human history. There will be no more sin in Heaven through this act of God. Sin is a problem for God. He hates the foul stench of it. God is a moral agent. He destroys sin precisely because it is his problem, and his personal Mission to get rid of it. It is Love which not a problem for God. He has an unlimited supply of that- how could he, he is Love.
Jesus’ entire Mission is an inter-personal interaction, one in which he directly faces the consequences of being perfectly good to those that he is primarily related to, and in being perfectly good also setting up an example for that interaction. It’s not right to say “God created us to know him”. That’s because it’s a partial truth, and a partial truth is dangerous to the unknowing. God created us to know his Love, which in turn, is what it is to know God.
The Christian truth is that when you accept God, “as God is”, not as he is not, that “acceptance” is God really coming to live in you. That “in-dwelling” of God is the beginning of one’s purification. There is no more requirement for the external “ritual purifications” of the old religions, because the New Covenant is here.
But the Christian model takes it one step further- God not only loves you so much that he shows us his holiness as an example, rather he comes to us. God does not “give us his only son” in the form of a DVD-movie or a mere memory of tradition. God actually “gives” himself to us, he comes to us and dwells with us. This indwelling is the closest ontological proximity conceivable, impossible for man or creature.
In fact even the Quran makes a peripheral reference to this act of God, which is the Atoning Sacrifice, here made in relation to the story of Abraham sacrificing his son: (Q 37:107) “And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice,” God ransoms a human through a great sacrifice? This means that God make a greater sacrifice than a human beign is ever capable of.
There are many verses in the Qur’an which recommend that humans must “doers of good” and a verse which states that forgiveness is superior to revenge. However elaboration is minimal, and it is really not clear who these acts of kindness are to be directed at, because there is plenty of invective agains those of other religions and even women, so one presumes that these notions ar intended to be partisan. There is minimal elaboration upon these themes.
In Christianity we are called to love each other because we are made with the dignity of the Image and likeness of God himself, are not servants or slaves but sons and daughters of God and as a result brothers and sisters ourselves. God loves us sacrificially as being willing and able to give himself for our sake. As a result we can define the human person from this, as that which possesses the dignity of bearing the image of the Deity and the emotional value of being it’s child, while the Deity is that which was generous enough to create beings to bear his own exalted Image, and granting them this real and familial relationship with him and with each other. This is that from which originates the moral dimension in the Universe- a Deity of Love that creates in Love. There is no attempt to denigrate or intimidate us. We are creatures, and yet not caricatures, rather children, for it is the children that bear the image of their parents. And our parent is not morally ambivalent towards us, nor in himself.
The Bible, on Fulfilment
Even in the OT, devotion to God is merely to “be in God’s Presence”, to worship, to serve…if you read the Psalms. there’s no notion of “I’m coming to enjoy the physical stuff”, that’s not really an onus. In the NT, going through to John, the focus is on achieving oneness with God, which is the theme that continues through St. Paul’s writings, of being “in Christ”, transformation “into the image” of God (2 Cor. 3:18), participating in the life of God (2 Pet 1:4). You can Even see the scene as it plays out in Revelations where the activity is worship singing praise, prostrating before God. There’s no ongoing biological activity. Jesus effectively contradicts any interpretation of angels as sexual creatures in mark 12:25. The whole “sons of God” incident is a one-off in Genesis 6, it doesn’t really colour Christian theology in the manner that the sexual jinn colour Muslim metaphysical universe (even Muslims believe angels are sexual creatures, they don’t even have free will for you, how are they supposed to consent? Yes we will have bodies, but not necessarily sexual.
There is not a single verse in the Bible that talks about the quality of the food or the scenery or the women. Read the Beatitudes in three Gospels and tell me what you find: “Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall SEE God”. God alone is enough. What does Jesus say “that my Joy might be in you so that your JOY might be complete” (John 15:11). God himself is our joy “that my joy might be in you”, “completing” our joy. “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master!’”(Matthew 25:21) Even in the Psalms of King David this comes through clearly “In the Lord’s own house shall I dwell all the days of my life” (Psalm 23) or “One thing I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: to live in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to inquire in his temple.” (Psalm 27:4)
