Toward Islam as a Religion

The use of Islam as a nationality can be clarified by republishing the

Koran more accurately than usually has been done. This essay proposes
such a republication because it would prevent suicide bombings caused by
confusion of religion with nationality.

By John Michael Williams

jwill1000000@gmail.com

v. 2.3 2010-10-16

Abstract
Islam, from the time after Mohammed, has been both a religion and a basis of
law. However, this combination confuses some practitioners, causing displacement
of faith by intolerance, which latter then is enforced by violence, hatred, and death.
Books representing the Koran have not been written with these practitioners in
mind, and, so, these books do not represent it well to them.
It is suggested that books representing the Koran be written in a complete form
which should include, as best possible, the actual words of Mohammed in the third
person. This change from an imperative to an indicative mood would put books
representing the Koran grammatically on a par with other religious documents and
would free devout practitioners of Islam to advance conceptually and peaceably into
the modern world.

Copyright (c) 2010, John Michael Williams

Permission is granted to reproduce this work in any medium for any reason, provided such
reproduction is complete, with nothing omitted or changed. This work originally was written in
2004; previous versions were posted to USENET groups and elsewhere.
Williams Islam as a Religion 2

Preface
Lament of a Suicide Bomber
This man, he made a Koran book
In words that I could read.
He wrote the roots, the trunk, the limbs,
The every twig to heed.
But he gave me winter's work:
A Tree that stood me cold.
A Tree that stood forever bare
A Tree already old.
Now, why did not this writer work
A book to catch the sun?
A Koran book to bring me light,
To shade me when I'm done?
With leaves on twigs, the Tree's the same
In every branch and bough.
The trunk's the same, the root's unchanged --
The words to tell me how.
But a living Koran book would show a living way --
Would seed my mind to read and live for yet another day.

The author is not a religious scholar. This essay is meant to be primarily

political in nature, not religious. However, after the suicide attacks of September
11th, 2001, on New York and the Pentagon, it became a serious question as to what
was the difference? Religion seems little different from politics when religious
people practice religion as soldiers or pawns of misguided politicians.
The suicide attackers apparently all were trained as soldiers and believed that
committing suicide was a path to salvation. Supposedly, these beliefs were
according to teachings of Islam. The suicide attackers thus seemed to believe that,
selfishly, they could achieve a passage to paradise while at the same time
accomplishing an altruistic mission of vengeance in the name of Islam. But, under
the latter condition, they acted for Islam as a nation, not as a religion.
The September suiciders may be presumed to have shared the goals of the Al
Qaida leader, Osama bin Laden: Resettlement of displaced Palestinian Arab
refugees; removal of nonIslamic military presence from the Saudi Arabian nation,
which, as it happens, at present surrounds the holiest sites of Islam; and, revenge
for the 1998 Clinton assassination attempt on the Al Qaida and Taliban leaders.
Williams Islam as a Religion 3

In September of 2001, these suiciders developed fully their plans, accomplished

their mission, and now, happily, all are dead.
The purpose of the present work is to recognize that the threat of other such
attacks is not really gone, and that some action by Muslim leaders is called for to
help ensure that a similar group of such persons never again might be formed.
In the present work, the author suggests that confusion of religion with politics
(or, law), caused the irrational and self-destructive behavior exhibited by the
September suiciders. The source of this confusion seems to be the way the primary
Islamic authority, the Koran, currently is presented to believers.
The author suggests a relatively minor change in the way the Koran is presented,
so as to preserve untouched the religious teachings of the Koran, but to provide a
rationale allowing Islamic worshippers to adopt Islam truly as a religion.
Much of the information in this essay is from various Islamic web sites,
Encyclopedia Britannica (2001 CD edition), and from E. H. Palmer's 1880
translation of the Koran, as distributed on the 2001 Swift Platinum Deluxe Bible
CD. The Palmer translation was checked against the online translation by Rashad
Khalifa at www.submission.org, which is an Islamic religious site; verse numbers
were added from the Khalifa text. Other translations were used for spot-checks of
the quotes below. The Today Show quotation below is from a 2003-01-13 interview
as transcribed and posted at the Saudi Arabian U. S. embassy web site. The author
has no reason to assume any significant inaccuracy in these sources.

Introduction
Several nations in the world have adopted the teachings of Islam as a body of law.
The base document of this law is the Koran, a collection of revelations dictated by
Mohammed, put in writing after his death, and believed to be the words of God.
Other core beliefs are built on the Koran, and the whole collectively are known as
the Shariah. The most notable of such nations in the modern world are Saudi
Arabia, part of Pakistan, Iran, and Sudan. Conversely, the nation of Islam thus
consists at least of these lands.
Islamic scholars and clerics have extended the Shariah based on their
understanding of the Koran; so, in the present work it is assumed that Islamic law
can be changed, depending on such understanding. Also, it is assumed that one can
believe in, and obey, the Koran without any thing in the law or politics explicitly
referring to the Koran.
The depth of the problem of the combination of religion and law may be
understood in words recorded in a recent NBC Today Show interview of Crown
Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. In defending his country against charges that it
has been a hatchery of suicidal terrorists, Prince Abdullah is quoted as having said,
Williams Islam as a Religion 4

"I would suggest that the American people study the

holy Quran and the Islamic faith. Our Quran and our
faith reject the taking of lives. . . . Our Islamic faith
is a forward-looking faith, a faith of learning and a
faith of science."

But, is this claim true? Or, is this only the wishful thinking of a peaceful ruler?
Is the Koran a book of faith, primarily, or a book of law? And, if a book of law, does
it truly reject the killing of human beings?

The Koran on Human Lives

The present author has taken seriously the advice of Prince (now King) Abdullah.
Below are a collection of quotes from the Koran. None of these quotes is believed
taken out of context, although much intervening text has been omitted. The quotes
are selected to contradict the Prince's words above; the reason for this will be
explained later.
Chapters (Sura) in the Koran are named vividly; this presumably is because the
Koran originally was an unwritten work, words spoken by Mohammed, memorized
by his listeners, and eventually written down:
According to the Koran, Mohammed, speaking for God, wants believers to do this:

The Heifer:
178: O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you for the slain: the free for
the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female; yet he who is pardoned at
all by his brother, must be prosecuted in reason, and made to pay with kindness.
--jmw: So, vengeance is justified; but, a pardoned offense should not be avenged.
190 - 192: Fight in God's way with those who fight with you, . . .. Kill them
wherever ye find them, and drive them out from whence they drive you out; . . . but
fight them not by the Sacred Mosque until they fight you there; then kill them, for
such is the recompense of those that misbelieve. But if they desist, then, verily, God
is forgiving and merciful.
216: Prescribed for you is fighting, but it is hateful to you. Yet peradventure
that ye hate a thing while it is good for you, and peradventure that ye love a thing
while it is bad for you; God knows, and ye, -- ye do not know!

Women:
88 - 90: Do ye wish to guide those whom God hath led astray? Whoso God hath
led astray ye shall not surely find for him a path. They would fain that ye
Williams Islam as a Religion 5

misbelieve as they misbelieve, that ye might be alike; take ye not patrons from
among them until they too flee in God's way; but if they turn their backs, then seize
them and kill them wheresoever ye find them, and take from them neither patron
nor help, -- save those who reach a people betwixt whom and you is an alliance -- or
who come to you while their bosoms prevent them from fighting you or fighting their
own people.
91: Ye will find others who seek for quarter from you, and quarter from their own
people; . . . but if they retire not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their
hands, then seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them; -- over these we
have made for you manifest power.
92: It is not for a believer to kill a believer save by mistake; and whosoever kills
a believer by mistake then let him free a [Islamic slave]; and the blood-money must
be paid to his people save what they shall remit as alms. But if he be from a tribe
hostile to you and yet a believer, then let him free a [Islamic slave]. And if it be a
tribe betwixt whom and you there is an alliance, then let the blood-money be paid to
his friends, and let him free a [Islamic slave]; but he who cannot find the means,
then let him fast for two consecutive months -- a penance this from God, for God is
knowing, wise.
93: And whoso kills a believer purposely, his reward is hell, to dwell therein for
aye; and God will be wrath with him, and curse him, and prepare for him a mighty
woe.

The Table:
33: The reward of those who make war against God and His Apostle, and strive
after violence in the earth, is only that they shall be slaughtered or crucified, or
their hands cut off and their feet on alternate sides, or that they shall be banished
from the land; . . ..
--jmw: This kind of punishment is prescribed in other passages, too.

Spoils:
39 - 41: Fight them . . .. But if they turn their backs, . . . know that whenever ye
seize anything as a spoil, to God belongs a fifth thereof, . . ..
65; 67: O thou prophet! urge on the believers to fight. . . . It has not been for
any prophet to take captives until he hath slaughtered in the land! . . ..
--jmw: These passages justify killing in battle and the theft of goods from the loser.
Williams Islam as a Religion 6

Repentance or Immunity:
2; 5: Roam ye at large in the land for four months, . . .. But when the sacred
months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them; and take
them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every place of observation; but if
they repent, and are steadfast in prayer, and give alms, then let them go their way;
verily, God is forgiving and merciful.

Night Journey:
33: And slay not the soul that God has forbidden you, except for just cause; for he
who is slain unjustly we have given his next of kin authority; yet let him not exceed
in slaying; verily, he is ever helped.

The Koran as Law

There is considerable militarism in parts of the Koran; after all, Mohammed in
his later years was a military leader as well as a religious one.
The text from Women above can explain why so many Islamic believers preface
their speech with invocations of the Grace of God, the Merciful, and so forth: The
Koran has authorized the killing of nonbelievers; and, such invocations reassure
listeners that the speaker is Islamic and thus should not be treated as an infidel.
Because of the way the Koran is read to combine religion and law, a faithful
believer, a lover of Mohammed and God, can not be distinguished from a selfish
unbeliever merely fearing death at the hands of Islamic listeners.
Although not presented here, the parts of the Koran not advocating killing greatly
predominate. A Koran translation totals about 70,000 English words, and the
present author had to search hard to find the violent quotes above.
The Koran, while not representing the present author's beliefs, is not evil or
hateful: As currently realized in the writings, it presents a faith and a code of law
from the Arabian peninsula of the Middle East during the era of the life of
Mohammed. Many passages demand mercy, tolerance, generosity, and forgiveness
of offences. The problem, as shown above, is that some of the Koran requires that a
believer kill or steal in God's name. And, the Koran is considered by believers to be
both the word and the supreme law of God.
The issue here is not one of intelligently balancing some passages of the Koran
with others. Somehow, all passages must be protected from malicious
misunderstanding. It makes little difference that a compassionate or moderate
Islamic believer would not kill anyone merely because of their faith. Good
judgement, tolerance, or humanity is not the issue. The issue is that anyone
reading the Koran might be led to such killing because of correct reading of the
words in the Koranic text. There is no possible argument that certain passages of
Williams Islam as a Religion 7

the Koran do not require such killing, at least according to the translations the
author has seen.
This point can not be over-emphasized: The issue is not religious. The author
does not understand Arabic. It is not the present author's intention to alter the
Arabic words of the Koran; nor is it to prefer one English translation over another;
nor to pass judgement on religious meanings. The issue is that a certain fraction of
all believers in Islam do read the text to mean what Palmer translates it to mean,
and to accept this as a rule of their lives, a governance that they must follow. The
ordinary Islamic reader, reading Arabic, can not be expected to understand the text
better than the translator Palmer. The proof is the existence of Osama bin Laden,
Mohammed Atta, and others bent on self-destruction. These were educated
persons, and they and persons like them have been making mistakes because of the
way they have been reading the Koran.
Even though such persons may be relatively rare in Islam, a dozen is too many.
The goal should be to make them rarer yet. The question is, How?

Reforming the Law Without Changing the Koran

In the present author's opinion, the best solution would be, somehow, for Islam to
avoid political goals and dedicate itself primarily to the morality of its members.
But, the Koran is believed to be the word of God. Can Islam preserve the words
of God in the Koran while giving the reader the choice of peace, the choice of
disobedience to a reading of the law of Islam, but obedience to the religion of Islam?
How is this done in other religions? Perhaps the answer might be found by
considering the holy books of other religions? Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are
the major monotheistic religions in the modern world. In the past, Jewish and
Christian regimes combined religion and politics; this led to "holy" wars and
unnecessarily violent internal ideological strife. If Islam can preserve its beliefs
while separating law from them, it truly will be forward-looking.
But how? The Koran clearly is presented, in recent translations at least, as both
religion and law.
The present author thinks the answer lies in the grammatical mood of the Koran.
This, the intent, may be changed without losing any of the meaning.
Compare the Bible. A major difference is that the Bible is descriptive
(indicative). The Bible reports what Jesus or Moses did, said, or told others to do; it
never says "Do this!" Even the Ten Commandments are described as inscriptions
on a set of stone tablets handed down to Moses. The handing-down is described; the
Commandments are described; but, the reader is not told in the Bible to do
anything.
The Koran in current books as a whole is not indicative: It is imperative. The
words in the Koran tell the reader what they should do, and when, and how to act to
Williams Islam as a Religion 8

reach Heaven. There are descriptive passages, but the Koran seen by this author
mostly is in the mood of a book of laws or regulations.
It is this handing down of orders from God, through Mohammed, that creates a
confusion of religion and politics in the minds of the faithful; and, it leads, in the
present author's opinion, to the irrational belief that removing onesself from the
world in a suicide attack, for ones own selfish salvation, must be an act of obedience
to God. Hidden behind a veil of holiness, the suicide attacker can not see the
anarchistic politician, issuing the orders and sharing this confused interpretation of
the Koran. It is the orders from God and state, inextricably commingled, which
lead to the impossibility that a well-meaning political leader, such as Prince
Abdullah, might describe accurately any book representing the Koran as a religious
work.
Rewriting books representing the Koran as a description of what Mohammed did
and said, would be a forward-looking act of learning.
For example, the Koran, The Feast 3 says:
"Prohibited for you are animals that die of themselves, blood,
the meat of pigs, . . .. Also prohibited is dividing the meat
through a game of chance; this is an abomination." (Khalifa
translation)

The reader thus must not eat these things; a believer must take this as the word
of God.
Rendered indicatively, with context made up here by the present author for
illustration, perhaps this might appear as,
And while walking in the marketplace in Medina with his
disciples, Mohammed turned to them and said, "Prohibited for
you are animals that die of themselves, blood, the meat of pigs, .
. .. Also prohibited is dividing the meat through a game of
chance; this is an abomination."

Of course, only a knowledgable Islamic scholar could supply the actual context of
such a passage of the Koran; the actual context, except the location in Medina, may
be lost. In the second quote, the reader nevertheless understands that Mohammed
said this about 1400 years ago, in a marketplace in Medina. If the reader is devout,
he or she will emulate the disciples of Mohammed and refrain from eating such
things. Clearly, though, although the words of God are identical in both passages
above, in the second example, the behavior of the reader is not directly dictated by
the words in the text.
This illustrates the proposed solution of the present author: Just as King James I
convened in 1604 a collaboration of scholars to bind accurately the Bible, so also
should a similarly erudite meeting of Islamic scholars be convened, so as to record
accurately the Koran, to describe what Mohammed did and said, and when, and to
Williams Islam as a Religion 9

whom. By leaving out nothing, the Koran's religious meaning would not be
changed; however, passages describing what Mohammed said about killing infidels
could be interpreted in terms of the actual intentions of God in the modern world.
After all, is not this what Mohammed would have wanted? To be remembered as
a prophet, as a messenger of God?