Muhammad once again appeals to ‘natural theology’ in this sura. The usual opening:
In the name of God, the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy.
He begins with reminding his hearers that God created the heavens and the earth. He ‘created man from a drop of fluid.’ Which seems a bit strange since in the previous sura he said God made man out of dirt (as in the Bible). He created livestock which are so useful to people. He sends down rain to grow your crops. He made day and night and the sun and moon and stars for us. As discussed in previous posts, the problem with this reasoning is that there is no way to demonstrate that all the things we see in nature originate from a supernatural being, but even if it did: which one? Allah? Jesus? Brahma? Some unknown god? Who’s to say?
“If you tried to count God’s blessings, you could never take them all in: He is truly most forgiving and most merciful.” (16:18) I often hear Christians say the same sort of thing: look at how good God is! But I always wonder, in Muhammad’s day how did the leper watching his body waste away feel about such a statement? Even today there are many people around the world who are suffering on a daily basis, whether from natural disease or disaster or man-made ones. What if they don’t see any of ‘God’s blessings’ to count? People say, “How can you look at all the wonderful things in the world and not believe in a good God?!” Others might respond, “How can you walk through a children’s cancer ward and believe in a good God?” Muhammad’s statement only seems to work for those who have blessings to count.
A child cancer patient in Syria.
Muhammad goes on to say: “When they are asked, ‘What has your Lord sent down?’ they say, ‘Ancient fables.’” (16:24) I find this statement kind of ironic. ‘Ancient fables’ is all the Abrahamic religions seem to offer, including Muhammad and Islam. Muhammad offered his recitations about 1300 years ago and that is all that can be passed down to us today (in various surahs he specifically refused to perform any ‘signs’). The Jewish religion has writings from perhaps 3,000 years ago, but there is no substantial evidence to accompany those stories, to verify them. The Christian religion’s stories originated about 2,000 years ago. I think all these writings qualify as ‘ancient’ but I suppose many would feel insulted if I referred to them as ‘ancient fables.’ However, if you take a simple definition of a fable as a short story that illustrates a moral lesson then I think you have to agree that what the three historic monotheistic religions offer us is ‘ancient fables.’ And frankly, that seems to be enough for most people.
As usual, Muhammad promises Hell for those who refuse to believe, but ‘perpetual Gardens graced with flowing streams’ for the righteous. (16:29-31) He chastises those who ‘worshipped others alongside God,’ apparently referring to the polytheists in Arabia, and possibly the Christians who of course worshipped Jesus as God. He says, “We sent a messenger to every community, saying, ‘Worship God and shun false gods.’” (16:36) This is a problem that Muhammad and many religious people seem to miss: there have been lots of people throughout history and still today claiming to speak for God: how is one to know which one, if any, is truly speaking for God? It’s the Homer Simpson conundrum: What if we choose the wrong religion? Going to church each Sunday might just be making God madder and madder! Religious people seem to be strong on pronouncements of Heaven and Hell, but a little thin on solid evidence to back up their claims. ‘Ancient fables’ seems to be all we have to go on.
Going back to polytheism, he notes that God Himself said, “Do not take two gods.” (16:51) Polytheism was common among the Arabs before Islam, and of course the Christians elevated Jesus to the level of God (the Muslims see him only as a prophet). So he may be criticizing both groups. He then mentions an interesting paradox among the Arab pagans. They believed the angels were ‘daughters of God’ yet when they themselves had a female child they were ashamed and some would even dispose of their unwanted daughters (16:57-59) I think we can agree with Muhammad that this was a contemptible attitude. And it was not just an ancient problem: female infanticide has occurred in modern China where sons are valued over daughters, and this infanticide was exacerbated by the one-child policy adopted in 1979. Even today in the U.S. there is a movement to roll back women’s rights, such as abortion but even voting! Weird how people can consider half the human race to be inferior, less capable or less desirable.
Let’s get ahead to the bee: the birds and the bees, actually. (No, not what you’re thinking!) Muhammad resorts once again to natural theology, using the bee as his example:
And your Lord inspired the bee, saying, ‘Build yourselves houses in the mountains and trees and what people construct. Then feed on all kinds of fruit and follow the ways made easy for you by your Lord.’ From their bellies comes a drink of different colors in which there is healing for people. There truly is a sign in this for those who think. (16:68, 69)
Bees are certainly fascinating and important creatures, but they are hardly proof of Allah or any other god. He makes a similar argument with the birds:
Do they not see the birds made to fly through the air in the sky? Nothing holds them up except God. There truly are signs in this for those who believe. (16:79)
Well, we have studied birds quite thoroughly and I think we have a good idea of how they achieve flight. Amazing in its own way, but not supernatural. I think many people would see it as a sign of evolution, not a sign of God. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there are two basic problems with natural theology: first, when we examine this world we invariably find natural, not supernatural explanations for the phenomena we see, and second, even if you think something in nature indicates the existence of a god, which god? Not just which god, but exactly who is accurately speaking for this god? Lots of people claim to be speaking for the creator God but they can’t all be right. (Although they could all be wrong.) Of course, Muhammad thought he was the one speaking for the true god: “The day will come when We raise up in each community a witness against them, and We shall bring you [Muhammad] as a witness against these people, for We have sent the Scripture down to you explaining everything, and as guidance and mercy and good news to those who devote themselves to God. (16:89)
Muhammad then goes on to give good advice:
* God commands justice, doing good, and generosity towards relatives and He forbids what is shameful, blameworthy, and oppressive. (16:90)
* Fulfil any pledge you make in God’s name and do not break oaths after you have sworn them. (16:91)
* Do not use your oaths to deceive each other. (16:92)
* To whoever, male or female, does good deeds and has faith, We shall give a good life and reward them according to the best of their actions. (16:97) (I like this one because he specifically makes it clear women are equally rewarded, not just the men.)
* This is because they love the life of this world more than the one to come, and God does not guide those who reject Him. (16:107) Doesn’t this sound a bit like Jesus when he said, What does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36)
* So eat of the good and lawful things God has provided for you and be thankful for His blessings, if it is Him that you worship. He has forbidden you only these things: carrion, blood, pig’s meat, and animals over which any name other than God’s has been invoked. But if anyone is forced by hunger, not desiring it nor exceeding their immediate need, God is forgiving and merciful. (16:114-115) I still find it strange that many religions have food restrictions, but at least Muhammad cuts his followers some slack: if you have to eat something generally forbidden you can be forgiven.
Muhammad proceeds to use Abraham as a model of faith to be emulated. I would refer you to my Bible post #4 (Was Abraham ‘Just Plain Nuts’?) for my take on whether this is good advice or not.
Near the end he makes an odd comment: “The Sabbath was made obligatory only for those who differed about it.” (16:124) Apparently Friday was commonly used as a day of rest among the Arabs. The Christians ended up using Sunday (first day of the week) as their ‘Sabbath.’ But Muhammad thought the Jews made an argument out of it, so God commanded them to observe the Sabbath (seventh) day. It sounds like Muhammad thought God wasn’t concerned about which particular day you used as a day of rest, but because the Jews got picky about it God made it into a law for them, almost like a punishment. Interesting take on that, I think.
I want to quote the conclusion of this sura and make an observation:
[Muhammad], call [people] to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good teaching. Argue with them in the most courteous way, for your Lord knows best who has strayed from His way and who is rightly guided. If you [believers] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is best to stand fast. So [Muhammad] be steadfast: your steadfastness comes only from God. Do not grieve over them; do not be distressed by their scheming, for God is with those who are mindful of Him and who do good. (16:125-128)
Can Muslims and Jews (and Christians) argue ‘courteously?’
Militant Muslims today are very aggressive in spreading Islam, using force and violence as necessary (remember 9-11, of course). Does that sound compatible with “Argue with them in the most courteous way?” Do they seem to “make their response proportionate” when they kill people who have not attacked them? Does “standing fast” equate to “go out and convert them with the threat of death?” I don’t think so. But just as we see with the Christian nationalism movement in the U.S. today what a religious text says is not necessarily what the supposed followers of that text actually do. And so violence and even war in the name of religion continues… I know Jesus would not approve, and I do not think Muhammad would, either.