Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now (New York: Harper Collins 2015)
© Edward Moore 2015
patristics@gmail.com
The notion that Islam started out as a Judaeo-Christian sect is not only not surprising to me, but makes perfect theological sense -- especially if one places the religion of Allah in a Gnosticizing milieu. In her outstanding new book Heretic: Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now, Ayaan Hirsi Ali alludes briefly to some studies published in the 1970s by John Wansbrough that argue for Islam's derivation from a pre-existing Jewish-Christian sect or sects (p. 95, and note 19). The Christological and Trinitarian debates that raged throughout the Christian world, from the earliest times through the ascension of Constantine and only settled into an uneasy consensus after the seventh ecumenical council in the eighth century, produced innumerable sects, the vague beginnings of some of which are traceable to the second century when Gnosticism flourished. It is not hard to imagine Allah -- the God "beyond being" to whom Christ and all other divine or semi-divine beings are subordinate -- finally being elevated to the status of the only God, and all other entities in the Christian pantheon demoted to angels or prophets -- blessed and / or human, but in no way divine, that attribute belonging to Allah alone. Indeed, to this day, most Christians -- even those teaching in seminaries -- are incapable of providing a coherent theological definition of the Holy Trinity. The early Muslims simply said, no such thing. There is one God, Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet. Jesus and the rest were prophets teaching at an appointed time in history, but in no way bearing eternal authority. While Islamic theology is elegant in its simplicity, this elegance has settled into a rigidity that ignores human progress and remains, as Hirsi Ali makes clear, rooted firmly in the seventh century. By contrast, the rather confused theology of Christianity -- the more mainstream sects adhering to the conciliar definition of Christ as fully human and fully divine (yet still without a clear demarcation between Monophysitism, Monothelitism, and 'orthodox' Duophysitism); the fringe offshoots describing Christ as a demi-god of sorts, or else as a human man adopted by God (rejuvenating an ancient heresy) -- has allowed that religion to modify its approach to dogma in light of unfolding human history. For example, while most Christian denominations condemn homosexuality as a sin, there is not a single recognized branch of that religion that calls for the death sentence for homosexuals. Shariah law does. And the sentence is often carried out.
To this day, Christianity is given little or no credit for advancing the concept of the person (hupostasis) as a "unique, unrepeatable entity," carrying dignity and auctoritas by the mere fact of existence. This definition was formulated and clarified in the great Trinitarian debates, and came to be applied not just to the uncreated and eternal persons of the Trinity, but to all persons creating in the "image and likeness" of God. On the practical, social level, this development had an immense impact. The ditch-digger and the centurion were seen as equal in the eyes of God, and therefore treated (at least theoretically, and for the most part practically) as equal before the law. The great codex of Roman law compiled during the reign of Justinian is a direct result of this re-thinking of the person as having value in his or her own right, by the simple fact of existence, and not solely in relation to family and state. In a chilling recounting of a contemporary shariah murder, Hirsi Ali tells of a Muslim father living in Phoenix, AZ, who crushed his twenty year-old daughter beneath the wheels of his jeep as punishment for the "sin" of wearing makeup, liking boys, and listening to Western music. This young woman did not die instantly; she suffered horrifically as her crushed body slowly suffocated her. Later, a woman in her thirties, praying at a local mosque, told a Time magazine interviewer that the man's murder of his daughter was "right," for what she had done is not permitted in "our religion" (p. 167). Totally subordinated to the religion of submission, this poor girl had no value as a person, in the eyes of her fellow Muslims. An Arizona jury sentenced the loving dad to thirty-four years in prison. Any rational person will consider this sentence to be far too light.
Lest anyone think that I am championing Christianity over Islam, let it be known that I am an atheist who believes that all religion is superstitious foolishness at best -- at worst, wilfull murderous ignorance. I only bring up the historical reality of Christianity's great contribution to humanist philosophy -- the concept of the person -- in order to show how a religion grounded in ancient, outmoded styles of thought and discourse has been able, over the centuries, to accommodate itself to the advancement of free thinking humanity and the ever more tolerant and humane societies that we are attempting, especially here in the West, to develop and maintain. Tolerance and humanitarian concern and, yes, anger is what motivated the protesters who marched and, yes, looted and destroyed, in outrage against police brutality and what amounts to state-sanctioned murder. It would be wonderful if the zeal of shariah law could be applied to our dealing with so-called law enforcement officers. Shariah law, based on the Koran and the examples set by Muhammad in the hadith, goes back to the eighth century and prescribes "punishments" such as crucifixion, burning alive, amputations, and beheadings. The "crimes" that lead to these punishments are usually "moral" in nature: apostasy, adultery, theft. Yet crimes of a vastly more serious nature, here in the West, such as police officers -- men and women entrusted by tax-paying citizens with the task of maintaining a safe environment for all -- shooting unarmed persons, and then receiving little or no real punishment, seem to me to demand a shariah-like application of emotional justice. There is rational justice -- impersonal weighing of evidence and application of predetermined sentences -- which has gone off the rails in favor of uniformed murderers, and to the detriment of the genuinely poor, neglected, and persecuted members of our society. The lack of emotional justice -- the drawing upon compassion for the helpless, and a clear understanding of the mental decay that is the result of a life of desperate struggle for survival -- is what has led to the riotous outbursts in Baltimore and other cities in our nation. A young Muslim woman getting a rim job from her boyfriend not only does not deserve to die, she deserves a hearty congratulations. A police officer who has shot to death an unarmed man deserves far more than a prison sentence. I shall leave it at that.
My disgust at Western systems of governance is highly personal; my disgust at Islam and its terrorist stormtroopers is more ... academic. Perhaps that is why I am able, in my less emotionally stable moments, to see some hearty reason in shariah, and even in the terrorism that has so shaken the West since 9/11. Quite frankly, there are people in the United States who are simply too dumb to live; there is no way to have a real debate with self-satisfied consumers of "whatever," and it is impossible to change the minds of those whose mantra in the face of our dehumanizing world is "It is what it is." Such people have already made up their minds to accept unquestioningly whatever falls in their way, and only to take up arms -- literally or metaphorically -- when ordered to do so by those in power. These passive appendages of society then berate those who have the conviction and courage to stand for an ideal. They call the Islamist fighters "whackos" and "monsters" and with an unreflecting sense of superiority feel themselves worthy of a society that they had no part in shaping. The young men and women who run off to join the Islamic State are not lunatics nor are they less-than-human (although some of their actions are indeed monstrous); they are brave human beings fighting for an ideal. We may not wish to embrace that ideal, but it is there. While I can agree to an extent with Hirsi Ali's analysis of the religious -- as opposed to economic -- basis for the jihadi movement, I feel that it is left to the genuine thinkers among us to look at both the East and the West with clear critical eyes. In a nation (the USA) in which a promising young African-American student -- if he manages to make it to adulthood without getting shot in the back by a cop -- can see his hopes for higher education and a successful career go up in smoke if he is caught with a small amount of weed, is it any wonder that hatred of the enforcers of asinine laws are hated and made into targets? The police have done it to themselves. This is not to say that violence is an acceptable method for achieving and maintaining civil rights. Dr. King taught us well that peace is the answer. (I know this sounds like lip service, but anyone who knows me well can attest that I am a dedicated pacifist.) But it is difficult for one who has lost everything, and is alone in a friendless world, to look kindly upon the peaceniks who seem more like apologists for the status quo than true defenders of the oppressed.
Commanding right and forbidding wrong. Western political systems attempt to do the latter, but refrain -- in the lofty name of freedom -- from attempting the former. Which is as it shoud be. Yet we know that there are segments of our society that find comfort and even, in extreme cases, a certain sexual gratification, in being told what to do. Men, and occasionally women, who enjoy being dominated usually do not allow that bedroom practice to spill over into their practical lives -- yet the deep-seated desire to let go and permit another to hold of the wheel is a strong psychological motivator and must be kept at the forefront of consciousness, where it can be checked -- for the sake of one's self and the larger society. "Every woman adores a fascist," wrote Sylvia Plath. Indeed, and Sylvia's serrated blade sarcasm in "Daddy" makes it quite clear that she felt that women who get turned on by violence-besotted uniformed men deserve to have their identities violently torn from them. I know a certain woman -- we dated several times in my uproarious youth -- who to this day allows her socio-political views to be shaped by her sexual attraction to high-and-tight-headed men in scrotum-squeezing uniforms. One of our last conversations before what is now, it seems, a permanent estrangement, was about Snowden and the NSA. She took the side of our government, and I, of course, that of Snowden. I sat and attempted to hold back my vomit as this otherwise well-educated and competent professional woman degenerated into a teeny-bopper cheerleader for the good ol' US of A and its barrel-chested angels of death. At the larger societal level the constant (and dreadfully tiring) celebration of our "heroes" fighting and killing overseas sets in a gentle pleasing light the horrors of war, and downplays the primitive -- indeed primordial -- brutality that is always seething below the thin encrustation of "civilization." Many people in the United States of Amnesia (to borrow Gore Vidal's apt phrase) are a mere executive order away from shedding their cloak of humanity and returning to the state of predatory beasts. The real heroes are and have always been the pacifists. We (male pacifists) have less luck wooing the ladies than the shaven-headed killing machines, but the ladies we manage to successfully court are often the most eligible bachelorettes -- or the most desirable of barflies. Pacifists lament the inability of a rational form of government to command right, while at the same time opposing efforts to command anything. The paradox is that most liberals are convinced of the moral and ethical rightness of our positions, yet we paradoxically attempt to impose our views on society through political and "grass roots" actions, monitoring of "hate speech," et cetera, while at the same time demanding limits on government intervention in our private lives, such as wire taps and cameras in public spaces. I would love to be able to effectively command police officers to use restraint when making arrests, but I oppose the proliferation of cameras, which would aid in monitoring police behavior.
Inconsistency should not worry us. As Emerson wrote, in Self-Reliance: "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do ... if you would be a man, speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon-balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day." Life is not static, and any religion that refuses to change with the times is doomed to become a monument to a dead past. One need not persecute, with war or words, such a religion; for such a religion is already doomed. Concern for consistency, a belief that God created human beings to think, believe, and do the same things from the beginning to the end of time, is indeed a belief for small minds. Small minds are dangerously seductive, for they pose no discernible challenge. They seem easily controllable, when they are actually the ones doing the controlling by virtue of their constant need for oversight and attention. Strong persons often enjoy bossing around weak, stupid persons. But we need only recall Hegel's master-slave dialectic to understand who is really in control here. I know a very attractive (physically and intellectually) woman who is attracted to very dumb men. The smallness of the minds of her lovers is more or less balanced by the largeness of something else, and that is all she cares about. I know a certain man who is attracted to immature women, and he doesn't mind insulting his own intelligence with stupid conversations if it means gaining access to something else. I know several people with tiny minds who love the lofty spaciousness of a church, and find comfort therein. I know a man with a large and expansive mind who lives in a tiny apartment and is content, so long as he learns something new every day, and retains the ability to change his mind. "The will to a system is a lack of integrity," as Nietzsche wrote. Silly people love systems, and systems support the meager aspirations of silly and inconsequential people. This includes our so-called democracy -- for the rulers of this country are as much concerned with maintaining the status quo as so-called radical Islamists are concerned with maintaining a seventh-century interpretation of the Koran.
The ancient Gnostics had a valuable insight into human existence. They divided humanity into three main types: the "spirituals" (those having a direct connect and line of descent from the highest spiritual or intellectual reality); the "soulish" (those divided between the intellectual reality and the lower, material realm); and the "materials" (those of the lowest order, living only in and through base matter). Islam divides humanity into three types as well: the Muslims (receivers and followers of the final revelation of Allah); the "people of the book" (Jews and Christians who still cling to the old prophecies, but are nevertheless "children of Abraham"); and the infidels (those who do not submit, in any way, to the commands of Allah). The main difference is that the Gnostic division of humanity proceeds from the largest-minded people to the smallest; in Islam it is the reverse. For the Gnostics were the most liberal of ancient Christians, admitting all manner of "revelation" (including pagan philosophy, mythology, Mystery cults, astrology, and alchemy); they created an inclusive environment in which no knowledge was deemed unworthy of the "spiritual" person, all experience was valid and nothing, they maintained, is harmful to the person who is aware of his or her home on high -- and this includes liking boys and music, and wearing makeup. It was only the "materials," those who are aware of nothing but the olfactory organs and the glands, that the Gnostics considered as beyond hope. Even the "soulish" people had a chance, if only they managed to turn their attention from worldly to eternal, intellectual things. In our day and age, it is the "materials" who accomplish the great things, like healing and preventing disease, and inventing new ways to lessen the impact of human proliferation on our shared environment. In the eyes of Islam, however, the truly holy are those who maintain their lives in a seventh-century style, and see everything through the lens of an ancient text which, although composed in the early 600s of the Common Era, actually has its roots in the Bronze Age. Until the small-minded ones at the "top" develop the humility to attend to the rational critique of their religion offered by those large-minded ones at the "bottom" -- the infidels! -- Islam will remain a monument to a dead past. Unless, of course, ISIS manages to restore the Caliphate -- which is looking increasingly likely.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali reveals herself as a person with a large mind, more than capable of admitting change. She also comes across as a patient person, especially when she recounts her Harvard seminar and the Islamic fundamentalists who disrupted her as she tried to conduct a Western-style, open and rational dialogue. The book, Heretic, is a worthwhile read. It is very serious, lacking some of the comic relief that one usually expects in self-reflections on a weighty topic. So the book is definitely as heavy as its topic. Well-researched and cited, this volume will appeal to academics and the educated layperson alike.
