Stonehenge against the backdrop of a starry night.

Introduction.

Ever noticed that a discussion of religion by interlocutors is often one where the parties are speaking past one another?

While it is audacious to suggest that an easy solution to this problem exists, we can achieve more meaningful exchanges if we recognize the implicit assumptions that we each bring to the table. Downstream discussions which rely on common foundations are destined to be fraught with discord when we cannot agree on common starting points.

We must start with the null hypothesis, agree on relevant epistemology, and determine upon which key facts we first diverge. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? In reality, this is of course, difficult to achieve. For each party in the dialogue, each assumption to be explored brings with it years of personal baggage, bias, and associated “truths”. Reconciling these constituent assumptions starts the process down a recursive path with no clear endpoint. It is no wonder that dialogue evaluating religious truth claims tends to jump straight to the more obvious and surface level disagreements.

In this essay, I suggest a more practical middle path between the ideal method of dialogue and the all too common way our conversations often go. We’ll explore foundational axioms that are often not explicitly stated by Muslims and their apologists, but which are nonetheless, implicit in their worldview. In this essay, these foundational axioms are referred to as the postulates. To varying degrees, each postulate embodies one or more of the following ingredients:

1. It is implicit to Islamic apologetics, whether directed internally at believers or projected outwardly in the pursuit of spreading the faith (dawah).
2. It speaks to our human intuitions and the human condition.
3. It is a logical consequence of religious axioms or generally accepted truths.

The postulates and their explanations which I present will at times sound like Islamic apologetics. This is no accident. I have resurrected and refined these postulates from The Things We Think but are too Afraid to Say, where I first introduced them as a questioning teenager, earnestly seeking a reconciliation with my inherited faith.

In this exploration of the postulates, I am not looking to alienate Muslim readers. I want to lay down some foundations for a common vocabulary and for productive discussions to come. I want to steel man the Islamic position before asking Muslims to evaluate Islam using these very same postulates.

This essay does not make an attempt to “debunk” Islam or Islamic apologetics. Instead, the primary goal of this piece is to assemble a toolbox of common principles and criteria with which to evaluate religious teachings. The fruits of these clarified assumptions will appear in future works. That said, I do present an outline of rebuttals and disputed thinking in a couple of instances to underscore that the perfection implied by these postulates is in fact, contested. You’ll find these in the green callout boxes entitled “Disputed Reasoning…”. I suspect that most Muslims will agree with the postulates presented here, especially the embedded Islamic apologia that illustrates each idea.

I also suspect that this congruence will eventually dissolve when these criteria—the postulates—are carefully laid over Islamic scripture, teachings, practices, and beliefs beyond the illustrative archetypes presented here. In this process, some beliefs previously held as true by Muslims will inescapably, be rejected. On the other hand, some Muslims will decide that in order to hold fast to Islam as they know it, one or more of these postulates must in retrospect, be flawed. They just missed it the first time around.

If you’re a Muslim, which kind of Muslim will you be?

If you’re the kind of Muslim who finds this conflicted process already unfolding in your own religious journey, ask yourself whether moving the goalposts is indicative of (a) the facts leading you to a conclusion, or (b) a predetermined conclusion leading you to dismiss evaluation criteria which you yourself just a few moments earlier, had felt reasonable.

These postulates represent the often-unspoken assumptions about how to evaluate and understand the merits and truth claims of a religion such as Islam. Postulate One makes specific reference to the Qur’an, but the rest of the postulates would equally apply to the evaluation of other religions, beyond Islam.

Postulate 1: Timeless Universality.

The Qur’an is final, universal, and comprehensive.

This is to say that if one tried to explain a verse in the Qur’an that on the surface appeals directly to sensibilities from the seventh century, it is not right to put it aside with the reasoning, “…that was only meant for then, it’s not meant for now…”.

Point 1: Flexible Framework.

Modern Islamic apologetics assert that while certain elements of the Qur’an may appear dated, they are in fact, not. This is because:

• The verses themselves have a deeper meaning and are capable of a broader interpretation. 

• Other verses exist which deal with similar or overlapping subject matter. This enables some latitude in the possible course of action or overall interpretation.

The underlying claim is that from inception, Qur’anic scripture has provided a flexible framework for living in any current or future time.

How this works within progressive Islamic exegesis can be gleaned from an example. For this postulate on universality, we’ll consider the punishment for theft in Islam.

On the surface, we’re told that those who commit theft face the punishment of having their hands cut off (Qur’an 5:38). At the same time, Islamic apologists suggest that the Qur’an provides an alternative recourse for one who repents and reforms (Qur’an 5:39). Some apologists argue that the amputation could be waived given this repentance and reform. Elsewhere, the principle of retribution for an equal amount, or forgiveness—or anything in between—is made available (Qur’an 42:40).

Furthermore, according to some Islamic apologists, the words used to describe cutting off the hands can also be interpreted in Arabic as removing one’s means. Today, most societies have prisons for this purpose. Imprisonment would fit the spirit of what this verse on punishment is advocating when we open up the Qur’an to readings that employ secondary and tertiary word meanings.

We now have an injunction which at first glance seems specific and perhaps dated—yet the Qur’an viewed in totality has provided a framework (for punishing theft) that is flexible and viable for the foreseeable future.

Point 2: Reasonable Concordance.

The second point implied by this postulate is that within the comprehensive and universal nature of Qur’anic Sharia, everything should fit together in a reasonable way.

The Islamic way of life and even descriptions of natural phenomena found in the Qur’an should never run counter to clear scientific truths. Of course, the unknown, or the little known is always debatable.

For that which is clearly understood about the natural world however—gravity on a Newtonian scale or the heliocentric nature of our solar system for example—there should be no contradiction.

Point 3: Most Perfect Rendering.

The third point implicit in this postulate is that the wording of every teaching is the most perfect and comprehensive rendering possible, for that teaching.

Stated another way, a perfect book for all time and peoples must possess the property of lending itself to the extraction of all reasonable options and interpretations in any applicable situation that might arise.

For example, the verse (Qur’an 42:40) concerning punishment of an equal amount—or forgiveness—implicitly allows varying degrees in-between these options. There’s lots of flexibility in this scenario and thus, a greater chance that this teaching can be applied to different peoples in different times and in different circumstances.

The punishment-for-theft scenario given above has served as an illustrative example for this postulate on universality. However, this postulate only has merit if the demonstrated viability holds for all Qur’anic teachings. Not just the ones which deal with theft.

Point 4: Relevance of Hadith.

The spirit of this postulate encompasses and extends to the Hadith—the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad. Practicing Muslims treat authentic Hadith as relevant since the Qur’an alone does not constitute the entire Islamic framework of theology for the vast majority of Muslims worldwide.

Continuing with the punishment for theft example, it is in the Hadith that we learn that amputation is not to be performed if the thief has stolen food. The Hadith can often contextualize and soften the Qur’an. Therefore, ahadith graded as authentic by Muslim scholars should be included in our efforts to contextualize and evaluate the Qur’an. This doesn’t mean we’ll consider all sahih hadith; only those for which an argument can be made that they support, compliment or otherwise elucidate what is stated in the Qur’an.

We’ll only drop the ahadith if a specific argument is being made suggesting that the “Qur’an is all we need” or that “the Qur’an can argue a point in self-defense without the aid of anything beyond its own text”.

Point 5: Comprehensiveness.

On comprehensiveness, in addition to the punishment-for-theft example, it is worth stating that the Qur’an does not claim to explicitly hit upon every subject under the sun. That would of course, be impossible. Islamic apologists maintain however, that where the Qur’an doesn’t address a specific topic, concepts that are covered in the Qur’an will provide the raw ingredients for Muslims to build upon. How? Muslims will employ their own reasoning firmly rooted in religious principles, the pursuit of justice, and through examining the consensus of the righteous.

Consider an example. Even though the Qur’an does not speak directly to stem cell research or GMOs, this postulate on comprehensiveness, still stands. Muslim scholars are able to refer to general principles found in the Qur’an from which they would then formulate through extrapolation, what the Islamic way of looking at these novel issues should be.

Point 6: Finality.

On finality, Muslims claim that the Qur’an is the last codification of divine law that will be given to humankind. While Islamic denominations like the Ahmadiyya maintain that personal revelation continues, they do so clarifying that no new book and no new law can come from Allah—ever. The Qur’an was it.

Consider that while donkeys have been replaced by cars and water wells by modern plumbing, we cannot simply exclaim “anachronism!” whenever we encounter an historical event, teaching, or practice that we do not like. Had the Qur’anic verse to lash fornicators and adulterers¹ not been revealed, then the Prophet’s earlier example of having adulterers stoned to death would have been the sunnah for Muslims to follow. The Prophet ordered that adulterers be stoned to death prior to the revelation of Qur’an 24:2. This is because many elements of Judaic Law were used as stand-ins until new guidance specific to Islam was revealed. Fortunately, new instructions arrived which downgraded the punishment from stoning to death, to one hundred lashes.

Consider also, that the Qur’an does not explicitly call out the five daily prayers or how to perform them. Muslims derive these details from the Sunnah. Although not baked into the Qur’an, Islam does not permit us to simplify the five daily prayers into just one daily prayer. You might be a busy Muslim professional who chooses to privately rationalize such simplifications for yourself. However, the underlying philosophy and DNA of Islam does not lend itself to this level of innovation.

It is the Prophet’s actions and utterances which provide Muslims with plenty of practical examples on how to live and conduct oneself in the world. Often, lessons in ethics and morality can be gleaned from the Sunnah and Hadith of the Prophet. To a lesser extent, the example of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen in the period immediately following Muhammad serve a similar function. The manner in which the Prophet interpreted Allah’s guidance is still relevant for Muslims today. We may no longer make restitution with the payment of camels, sheep, or pieces of silver, but we can still be called upon to face the consequences of our moral transgressions. Society at large sometimes has a claim on what those consequences might be. Often, it’s a blend of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence. We might make an argument for paying fines in the near future with crypto currency instead of credit cards or pieces of silver, but we will never be able to make an Islamic argument for punishing an adulterer with 100 push-ups instead of 100 lashes.

The finality aspect of this postulate underscores the need for the Qur’an to speak to all future times, people, and circumstance—in addition to our own.

Allah could have chosen to deploy a temporary local prophet in 7^th century Arabia in lieu of Prophet Muhammad. Then, Prophet Muhammad’s actual and first appearance to provide the final religion of Islam could have been timed for perhaps the late 20^th century. However, Allah did not choose to approach it this way.

Islam should hold up to scrutiny, notwithstanding Allah’s timing decisions regarding the final law-bearing revelation to humankind.

Point 7: Parting Wisdom.

Religious rules are sometimes phased in gradually. In a religion like Islam, with its final, comprehensive, and universal nature, the parting wisdom of the founder informs the final marching orders for adherents of the faith. In any perceived progression of pronouncements, we cannot advance beyond the final ruling. This concept is not to be confused with the controversy of naskh (abrogation). Muslims who reject that any verses in the Qur’an could be abrogated can still appreciate that the Sunnah of the prophet evolved as the Qur’an itself was revealed.

For example, Qur’an 4:43 advises Muslims not to arrive for prayer in an intoxicated state. This is because prior to the prohibition on alcohol, such a directive ensured Muslims did not engage in prayers mindlessly while drunk. Even with the later prohibition on alcohol, a lax Muslim who partakes in drinking alcohol might now still think twice before showing up at the mosque intoxicated.² What was the Prophet’s parting wisdom on this issue? Revealed in Qur’an 2:219, it is that alcohol and other intoxicants are now forbidden. Had Qur’an 2:219 not been revealed, then it would have been invalid to conclude that alcohol was forbidden across the board and for all future generations. It is with the parting wisdom which the Prophet leaves us, that we understand what is now permitted and what is now forbidden.

Says Allah in Qur’an 5:3 on having completed His favor on the believers:

Consider next, the implicit permission to own slaves. Islam did not issue a ban on slavery as it eventually did on alcohol. Muslims are permitted to acquire, own, buy and sell slaves. However, Muslims are advised in Qur’an 90:13 that freeing a slave is a good deed. Thus, it is possible to imagine that in a world where devout Muslims are continually freeing slaves, and assuming no new slaves are procured through warfare, we might eventually see a world without slaves.³ We could not assert however, that because slavery is no longer common in the Muslim world, that somehow, slavery is now forbidden by Islam. Nor could we assert that slavery is an irrelevant anachronism. However unlikely, slavery could theoretically return to relevance through warfare. If it did, Islam would be well positioned to regulate it, just as it did in the 7^th century.

Point 8: Perfect DNA.

There is an unspoken assumption that Islam is perfect. Muslims may falter, but Islam itself, is perfect. The underlying belief here is that Islam has the ability to speak to and guide every contingency and every condition faced by humankind.

I call it the Perfect DNA theory of Islam. It’s as if Islam is a seed that flowers into a tree which bears fruit, provides shade, and is a source of stability. All at the same time. All in one package. The genetic code—the DNA of Islam it is argued—is perfect. 

We are told that if a fault is seen in the Muslim world or even with Muslims in the West, it is not a shortcoming of Islam. Why? Because Islam itself is perfect, actually. In fact, it is not Islam that needs to be reformed. Rather, it is Muslims who must reform themselves. We are told that unfortunate events carried out in the name of Islam are due to the weakness of individual Muslims who have failed to appreciate and follow the beautiful and perfect teachings of the true Islam. We are also told that where religious ideology may appear at fault, it is actually culture, geopolitics, disenfranchisement, or lack of economic opportunities that is to blame. Again, the teachings of Islam itself, are perfect.

The flip side of this Islam-is-never-wrong narrative is the belief that Islam is in fact, the answer to all that ails us. If you plant the seed of true Islam, society will flourish. Embedded in the genetic code of Islam, we’ll find the perfect solution to all of life’s challenges. Every teaching of Islam, every shade of meaning of every verse of the Qur’an—all of it bears deep wisdom, though few may be skilled enough to unlock its treasures. Every example, every utterance of the Prophet Muhammad represents perfection and the model example of how to conduct one’s self in various situations.

Further, if any particular hadith appears nonsensical or unflattering, even though it be categorized by Muslims scholars as sahih (authentic), it is either a fabrication, a mistranslation, or it is missing critical context. Everything that flows from true Islam is perfect, desirable and just. Islam’s underlying DNA is perfect.

Postulate 2: Reasonable Injunctions.

All religious commandments and injunctions are based on reasoning agreeable to an open mind.

That is to say that we human beings ought to be capable of reasoning about scripture and religions which make extraordinary claims about the nature of reality and how we ought to live our lives.

Point 1: Human Comprehension.

Any religious law, edict, injunction, or accommodation should in the final analysis, appeal to human reason. While it may very well be the exclusive domain of the Divine to create the perfect theological framework, it must be humanly possible to comprehend its inherent justice. Only then can such teachings ever successfully be applied and recognized as both moral and just.

Point 2: Objectivity.

Human intellect is not perfect. We know this. Nor is an objective assessment from a human being possible in any absolute sense. Looking for absolute certainty is a red herring. Outside of the hard sciences, the evaluation of what is objective is often a subjective endeavor. This does not mean however, that we should abandon efforts to converge upon such an ideal. We may approach it asymptotically.

Consider a mathematical analogy. We may find ourselves migrating from local maximum to local maximum—but this endeavor still constitutes progress. This is still far better than abdicating our responsibility to understand and evaluate the merits of any assertion—human or divine—which claims to have taken us to the global maximum with regards to the moral landscape.

Point 3: Innate Justice.

Notwithstanding the problems we face in the absence of absolute certainty, I believe that we share a common moral and ethical code. It is intrinsic to our humanity. If you’re religiously inclined, you might say that God has written this innate sense of justice on our hearts. In addition, or in lieu, you may also understand concepts like emergent complexity and reciprocal altruism as phenomena that contribute to understanding the foundations of our innate sense of fairness, cooperation and justice.

This innate code provides a basic apparatus for discerning right from wrong, and for acting with justice. Even without the appeal to a divine agent, we can anchor a very functional morality atop the assumption that we seek to maximize the wellbeing of conscious creatures (notably, homo sapiens). With an understanding of the delicate ecosystem of life on this planet, this wellbeing necessarily includes our stewardship of the planet’s resources, which includes both plant and animal life.

Religious laws should appeal to this, our innate sense of justice. This assumes of course, that the God in question is one who embodies both truth and justice. Since we can split hairs on definitions and labels, this postulate is certainly one that needs to be followed in spirit.

Point 4: Complexity and Clarity.

Promoting truthfulness, charity, patience, kindness to others—many religious ideologies would pass the test of providing for the basics when an evaluation of their teachings is curated by proponents of said faith. But what do we make of complex or controversial social injunctions which cannot so easily be reduced, given our respective cultural preferences, tribal tendencies to regress towards identity politics, and a disputed historical context for religious injunctions that we might seek to defend?

If we probe inside even these, the more complex social injunctions, teachings, and historical events, the underlying merits of a religion’s teachings should be something that we can ascertain. We should be able to make a fair assessment in order to weigh-in on the merits of any particular religious teaching.

We embark on this process by stating our assumptions about history, context, and consequences. Where we cannot find common ground or even an appreciation for our differing perspectives, we have at the least, demonstrated that the merits of a particular injunction or commandment are not clear. And this, notwithstanding religious proponents proposing that these directives are reasonable.

Postulate 3: Repercussions of a Fundamental Nature.

Commandments with repercussions of a fundamental nature are not dangerously ambiguous.

Any religious teaching bearing with it serious consequences to human life and well being should be reasonably clear. It should be the case that rational and well-intentioned people will find agreement or at least considerable overlap in their positions when evaluating such religious directives. If we have to resort to supporting context from secondary sources which are themselves disputed, then we have just conceded that the original teaching is insufficiently clear.

Point 1: Dangerous Readings.

Injunctions on punishments and injunctions dealing with the status and rights of members of society should be clearly articulated in any scripture that is truly divine. There should be no ambiguity from which the abuse and deprivation of various members of society could reasonably be argued. Truly divine scripture would not plausibly lend itself to such a dangerous reading.

To clarify, consider the hypothetical example of the following vignette.

Point 2: Artistic Elements.

A corollary to the first point is that in the pursuit of ascertaining the moral veracity of a religion’s teachings, there is little value in splitting hairs over purely artistic elements.

Consider that while the Qur’an itself claims to be a superior piece of writing in the Arabic language, the poetic aesthetics of the Qur’an are less relevant to the question of scriptural universality, morality, and justice.

If the Qur’an is describing the beauty of the stars with artistic and imprecise phrasing, such would pose no problem for the Qur’an, nor would it for Islam. The beauty of the stars, even if described ambiguously, has no real impact on life or liberty here on Earth. Nor does it have the potential to compromise the rights or perceived status of any members of society.

Point 3: Phraseology.

Scriptural phraseology should only be given consideration where the discussion turns to whether God has in fact chosen the best possible wording to communicate the intent most advocated for by a religion’s apologists and adherents.

For Islam, we can set these expectations upon the Qur’an because of its claim to be the literal word of God. Conversely, it would not be fair to apply the same level of linguistic scrutiny to the phraseology of the Hadith.

Postulate 4: Limits of Interpretation.

Interpretations must limit themselves to being only that. They cannot start attributing meanings to words which they are incapable of bearing.

Simply put, we cannot suggest that words and verses which say one thing, really mean another. We can explore a word’s connotations, its roots, its commonly understood meanings at the time of revelation and so forth. There are however, limits. For example, we could not interpret an injunction to speak the truth to actually mean that God wants us to speak falsehoods so deceptively that they appear true to an unsuspecting listener. Similarly, we don’t want to argue what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is, as Bill Clinton infamously did. Interpretations have limits.

Point 1: Attributed Meaning.

It may be possible to explain one’s way out of a controversial verse by adding all manner of hypothetical context that is not borne out by the scripture itself. Proponents of a particular religion may resort to pulling out obscure meanings to words in the original revelation so as to construct an interpretation that is more palatable to modern sensibilities.

If such a process results in ascribing meanings to words that they just do not lend themselves to, then we can no longer call the process an interpretation. We would have to admit to it being a reconstruction.

Such a manipulation of scripture would not be of service to the sincere exploration of religion. Furthermore, a truly divine scripture should not need this kind of acrobatic wizardry in order to liberate it from hard pressing, legitimate scrutiny of questionable commandments with life and death consequences.

Point 2: Rich Roots.

In the case of the Qur’an, we know that Arabic words are based on root letters—three consonants that define the underlying meaning of a word. These roots can have a rich set of meanings. Today, we can consult resources such as the Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane to explore definitions and the rich set of meanings for these roots.

When we take a verse of the Qur’an with many words, and thus, many Arabic roots in play, there are myriad meanings and connotations possible, if we are determined to go searching.

Deriving a meaning for a verse in hindsight however, will not aid us in evaluating whether the Qur’an or a scripture like it, is a useful tool for prescribing what is moral.

Interestingly, this approach of spelunking for root meanings is often taken to retrofit Qur’anic verses to provide consilience with scientific understanding. This is in contrast to proponents of the faith making scientific predications based on an a priori analysis of Qur’anic verses and their roots. If we have many roots to play with, each with numerous meanings or connotations possible, then we have to admit that most Qur’anic verses could have lots of meanings. If we use common sense to reject the nonsensical or disproven meanings, are we obliged to accept all possible connotations which remain?

Whether you are a devout Muslim or an ardent atheist, it should be clear that in the realm of moral prescriptions and justice, looking to possible meanings not evident to native speakers at the time of revelation can be a problematic exercise.

If we open up textual analysis of root meanings to shift a Qur’anic verse away from a more superficial reading that we happen to find problematic, then equally, we have no recourse for when a neutral sounding verse is translated in an unflattering light using the same appeals to possible root meanings also at our disposal.

Justice demands that we should be able to derive a valid interpretation for a verse before it need be consulted for a verdict—especially in matters of human life and death. Similarly, claims of miraculous concordance with modern scientific knowledge make sense if they are boldly and clearly asserted well before confirmation by science.

If modern sensibilities open up a verse to new meanings for how to conduct our lives in the 21^st century, then these options should have also have been legitimate choices to believers in the 7^th century—and all times between. 

Postulate 5: The Logic of Truth and Falsehood.

A false ideology may contain many truths, but a truly divine ideology can only be composed of truths.

This is another way of stating the logical axiom that there is no room for something that is true to contain something that is false.

If we are to view a religious ideology—hypothetically, one in its pristine purity—then such a religion cannot be from a divine agent if in its doctrines is contained a single falsehood or a single injustice. For our purposes, the theistic God is defined to be an omniscient agent who is also the fullest embodiment of truth and justice.

From classical theism, we inherit the belief that a perfect religion does in fact, exist. So how do we know that we’ve arrived at the ultimate and overall truth? How do we know that we’ve found The One, True Faith? ™

To serve the functional spirit of this postulate, the following philosophical axiom will serve us well:

In like manner, we may never reach full certainty that we’ve arrived at a truly divine religion, but we do have the capacity to discredit any religion that claims to have been sent from a divine source if we can find falsehood or injustice within its scripture, doctrine or the actions of its founder.

In more general terms, a religious set of beliefs cannot be said to be pure and true if contained within its teachings we find an injustice or an untruth.

Postulate 6: The Balance of Realism and the Ideal.

A virtuous society based on divine scripture is one whose safeguards and protection mechanisms are in place because the religious law is realistic although it simultaneously directs us toward attaining the ideal.

It may be that we live in backwards times. If however, we are to frame philosophy and guidance for the future of mankind, it would be folly of us to frame it around our current limits. We should articulate it in a way that our current backwardness doesn’t hold future societies back. It would be irresponsible of us to “hard code” our own limitations into a framework for future generations to ponder in confusion.

Point 1: Balance.

A worthy framework for organizing society would encourage its members to do the right thing while also protecting its constituents from those who might seek to do them harm.

Islamic apologists will notice that this postulate is consistent with Islamic injunctions on modesty, also known as covering, veiling, or purdah. In fact, the Islamic concept of modesty is the archetype for this postulate.

Although Muslims are not supposed to commit adultery nor fornication, the Islamic perspective suggests that people cannot walk around in public dressed immodestly without degrading the moral fabric of society. Islam does not assume that Muslims are above temptation. Consequently, a physical component to veiling or covering is mandated by Islam; even for an Islamic society composed exclusively of believers. According to Islam’s proponents, this emphasis on modesty is an example of Qur’anic injunctions being realistic.

Likewise, in the Islamic ideal, no one would commit theft, but the Qur’an still lays out a punishment for theft as a strong deterrent.

Beyond injunctions promoting the ideal, a truly wise law, and certainly one that is divine in origin, would provide mechanisms to deal with the at times, unfortunate failings of human beings. A just God would provide a reasonable recourse for imbalances and imperfections in human society.

Perfect guidance must point us towards the ideal, allow for its attainment, yet protect us from where we fall short. If this sounds divine, then our expectations are in the right place. Only something truly divine could supersede that which is human engineered. Theists implicitly accept this argument when contrasting the nanotechnology of our human biology with the current limits of human engineering.

Point 2: Non-Conflation.

The relationship between the ideal and the realistic deserves elaboration.

Forward thinking scripture should not conflate the status quo with the desired ideal. Speaking to the specifics of a society at the time of revelation is one thing; implying that any discrimination prevalent in that same society somehow defines the boundaries of what would ever be valid, is another.

Point 3: Divine Leapfrogging.

Muslims are right to hold up Islam as an example of this postulate in action when they cite women’s voting, employment, and property ownership rights. We are right to expect a universal law of professed divine origin to leapfrog towards the ideal when contrasted with laws fashioned by human beings. “Man-made” laws not inspired by scripture have to evolve on their own, absent divine direction.

Conclusion.

If you’ve been raised a Muslim or have converted to Islam, no doubt you’ve heard these postulates or a variant of them, expressed in literature and in sermons.

You’ve heard that the Qur’an is timeless and universal (postulate one).

You’ve been acquainted with claims that Islam’s injunctions and guidance are all very reasonable (postulate two).

You’ve been advised that Islam is focused on justice, human rights and that important matters are in fact, expressed clearly (postulate three).

You instinctively know that a scripture cannot mean the opposite of what it says (postulate four).

You understand that a perfect religion like Islam could not contain a single untruth (postulate five).

You also realize that Islam’s guidance points us to what is ideal, but protects us from the imperfection of human nature (postulate six).

If you are a believing Muslim, do you disagree with any of these postulates? If yes, why?

If you do disagree with one or more of these postulates, what does that say about the nature of God? What does that say about how we might objectively evaluate the claims of religion?

Food for thought.

1. Fornication and adultery come under the term zinā, which does not distinguish between these two forms of illegal sexual activity.
2. Showing up to the mosque inebriated would be to disrespect the sanctity of the mosque. It would also cause embarrassment for the one intoxicated and by extension, embarrassment for their family. This is why the two verses in the Qur’an (4:43, 2:219) that discuss intoxicants do not require the concept of abrogation to explain away the presence of both verses in one Holy Book.
3. At least none owned by Muslims.