The Restoration of Natural Religion

8/8/2019 The Restoration of Natural Religion

1/15

www.martinsbenperrusi.com

1

THE RESTORATION OF

NATURAL RELIGIONBen Martins

I

One of the most popular assumptions which ultimately found the contemporaryscepticism claims that religion, on revealing itself incapable of proving theexistence of God through reason, ends up emptying of significance. The facts,nonetheless, prove quite different. First of all: whether or not the existence ofGod can be logically demonstrated still remains the subject of an endlesscontroversy1. Second: even admitting hypothetically such a sort of impossibility,science itself has already been obeying since the 20s a methodologicalprinciple which anyhow prevents it from determining things with absolute

precision or certainty2

. This is the main reason, by the way, why any scientificdiscovery has thenceforth conformed to the condition of a theory in the end, amere opinion: that is, a kind of belief.

Therefore, even under these terms, God could well correspond for instanceto nothing less than the concept whereby religion prefers to explain or describereality as such3. In truth, an approach of this genre would even come to imposenot only as valid as any other but also quite more advantageous. On the oneside, as often observed, it would permit the perfect integration of things such asmind, values and quality into a whole which has until now persisted in frustratingall attempts of some conventional materialism to reduce it to quantity alone4. On

1 Such a controversy could well be seen as more directly related to the mode of describing things as alinguistic disagreement than to the very validity of the contending propositions in itself therefore, as apolitic dispute about who decides how, under which terms, to debate.2 Indeterminacy or uncertainty or Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (1925 -30); as well as Poppersdeniability principle (1935-40).3 Such a proposal could well be denominated, depending on the given perspective, either pantheism oridealism and ultimately translates the pertinent position of not only all Platonic outlooks in general butalso all mysticisms in particular obviously, the Christian one included. As for the way it is formulatedhere, pay special attention to Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77) and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969).4 Surprisingly, there are some who believe this is a reason to deny the reality of the [] subjective aspectof the mental; they call themselves eliminative materialists. But this is an irrational and, I might add,unscientific attitude. The first role of science is not to ignore the data, and the existence of

phenomenological features of mental life is one of the most obvious and unavoidable categories of datawith which we are presented. To regard it as unreal because it cannot be accounted for by the methods ofcurrent physical science is to get things backwards. The data are not determined by our methods; rather


2/15


2

the other, as seldom emphasized, while the others in especial, materialismare obliged to maintain an intrinsically endless effort to furnish their claims withdue evidence, it could well give itself the luxury of not only discarding thenecessity of taking such a sort of trouble but also unveiling totally self-evident.After all, be named and defined as it may, nobody would ever dare to dispute

the very existence of reality in itself5

.However, regardless of such a notable argument6that is, even assuming justthe contrary: that religion is not capable of demonstrating the existence of Godin a logically irrefutable manner still, if science does not lose its legitimacy onaccount of the fundamental uncertainty of its own propositions, why shouldreligion do? This is the motive why the religious standpoint succeeds in provingfar more satisfactory than the sceptic one7.

Another presumption which bases the disbelief of today sustains as a kind oflast resort that all major religions on record, save perhaps Buddhism, havingalready been completely scrutinised by modern philosophy, ended up being

deemed hence not natural that is, not founded on pure reason as well, but onarbitrary revelation alone. According to a paradigmatic voice of thecontemporary academy,

The problem about appealing to revelation is that the argument only works withthose who are already believers. [] This is why the arguments of naturaltheology (which forms part of philosophy of religion) are of more generalinterest. For they purport to be based on premises which it is hoped anyreasonable person would accept. The arguments of natural theology are thosethat are based on reason alone, which has traditionally been assumed to benatural and common to all human beings, in contrast with revelations, which are

imparted only to a chosen few. An argument, based on the Koran or the Bible,[for instance,] which concluded that there was a moral order in the universecertain behaviour that is good, other behaviour that is bad, reward for the good,punishment for the bad, etc would probably be unnecessary for those insidethose religious traditions and carry no connection for those outside. What isneeded is an argument whose premises would be accepted by any reasonableperson. And many reasonable people are outside any religious tradition. Whatis needed is an argument in natural theology [].

Open University, 2002.8

Even so:

Christian, Jewish and Muslim philosophers and theologians [, for example,]have historically found common ground in discussing the arguments of natural

the adequacy of our methods is determined by whether they can account for the data. To admit to realityonly what can be understood is a sure recipe for stagnation. Thomas Nagel (1937), Consciousnessand Objective Reality, The Mind-Body Problem: A Guide to the Current Debate, ed. by R. Warner and T.Szubka (Blackwell, 1994), pp. 63-8, paragraph 16.5 Such a proposition, by the by, somewhat invokes the ontological argument of Anselm (1033- 1109): Godis that than which a greater cannot be thought.6 Which extends far beyond the scope of such an essay.7 Idealism would come out as one of the most popular philosophies of all times Robert Wilkinson,Minds and Bodies (Milton Keynes, The Open University, 2002), p.57 a book forming part of the Open

University course A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation.8 Stuart Brown, Destiny, Purpose and Faith (Milton Keynes, The Open University, 2002), pp. 78-79 abook forming part of the Open University course A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation.


3/15


3

religion. But they largely disagree when it comes to revelation since their mostcharacteristic beliefs are founded upon different sets of writings. [] Sincethese beliefs conflict, the claim of these texts to speak from God poses thisfundamental problem: they cannot all be right. [] It remains to be seenwhether natural religion could provide a basis for accepting a particular religious

authority as reliable and rejecting others.Ibid.9

In other words: if natural religion really is possible, why do the scriptureswhereby the major religions justify their authority not reflect this? Why do thesewritings not unveil explicitly logical, coherent? Why do they not base the validityof their proposals just upon reason, rather than mainly upon events ofsupernatural character such as allegedly divine revelations whoseauthenticity can never be appropriately verified?

Nonetheless, such an incredulous assumption as well is nothing but completelyfalse. Not all major creeds have already come to be properly examined byrationalism10. There exists a sacred book which, despite pertaining to one ofthese faiths, happens to advocate natural religion expressly. The meresubjection of such an unique scripture to the appropriate interpretation namely, that governed by logic alone involves as a necessity the radicalrevision of the very religion historically associated with it and hence thefoundation of an unprecedentedly revolutionary ideology: a Weltanschauung11capable, among other virtues, of reconciling faith and reason to each other.

II

The effort to demonstrate the veracity of such an audacious claim does not atall require the appeal to the legitimate evidence indirectly furnished by whatmany has already been denouncing for more than half a century12 concerningthe alleged pretensions of Western science to the monopoly of rationality inthis case, that they anyhow betray a complete lack of consistency and thus afundamentally arbitrary, authoritarian and ethnocentric character13. Quite thecontrary, a summary exposition of the sacred opus mentioned above, jointlywith the subsequent disclosure of its identity, will be more than enough for thepurpose. After all, except the text in question, no other of the genre whatsoevernor even the Buddhist one comes to vindicate natural religion to such an

9 Ibid, pp.111-112.10 Rationalism, in the most general sense, means the principle or habit of accepting reason as thesupreme authority in matters of opinion, or conduct.11 That is, a world-view, a particular mode of seeing reality as a whole.12 Particularly, those related to structuralism and contra-culture; and even Karl Popper (1902-1994) in hislate work.13 What means that there are valid ways of being effectively rational other than that embodied by Western

scientism like that, for example, employed by the symbolism of some religious literature. In this sense,pay special attention to Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), Thomas Kuhn (1922-1995), and Noam Chomsky(1928- ).


4/15


4

extent as to satisfy indeed all the pertinent requisites precisely and in order ofimportance: (1) maintaining the adequate view, (2) submitting the validity of itsown proposal to the supreme criterion of reason and (3) detailing this generalposition with sufficient coherence.

Well, the outlook aimed by the first exigency should thus coincide with that

already presented here as a rational justification for theism, since it in the endrepresents the single one of the kind which imposes logically irrefutable.However, such a viewpoint14 happens to be customarily identified with noscriptural proposal other than that of Buddhism an erroneous conception thesacred book under consideration then throws itself into correcting not only bysustaining the same posture in fact but also on performing this task with asunrivalled an explicitness as follows:

God is the Reality (22:6). God is the only Reality (31:30). It is He thatencompasses all things (4:126). Whithersoever you turn, there is the presenceof God. For God is All-Pervading, All-Knowing (2:115). All things are from

God (4:78). To God we belong, and to Him is our return (2:156). It is to Godthat the End and the Beginning of all things belong (53:25). He is the First andthe Last, the Evident and the Immanent (57:3). He is the Living One (40:65).To your Lord is the return of all (96:8). Everything that exists will perishexcept His own Face (28:88). To Him is the final goal (40:3). God is witnessto all things (85:9).My Lord comprehends in His knowledge all things (6:80).

As regards the second condition, no opus of the class even comes near tocomply with it in effect apart from that at issue. All of them, for their ownconceptual validation, limit themselves to the referent norm: resorting to theirsupposedly divine origin. Only a charitable interpretation would be able to detect

them professing rationalism somehow that is: only in implicit terms, to say themost. Quite in contrast, the sacred writing under debate not only subjects forsure its own propositional legitimacy to the supreme authority of reason but alsorealizes such an unequalled deed in the most express way possible:

God proves the Truth by His words (42:24). God has revealed []the mostbeautiful Message in the form of a Book consistent with itself (39:23). Here aresigns self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge (29:49).Thisis the Truth as much as the fact that you can speak intelligently to each other(51:23). My Lord! Show me how [] !He said: Do you not then believe? Hesaid: Yea! But to satisfy my own understanding! (2:260). This is a Messagefor any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly

witnesses the truth (50:37).

Dispelling any doubt about the intentionality of such an extraordinarycommitment to natural religion, the sacred text in question does not hesitate togo further still and challenge its own interlocutor to verify its self-proclaimedconsistency himself:

Do they not consider this Book with care? Had it been from other than God,they would surely have found therein much discrepancy (4:82). See you if thisRevelation is really from God, and yet do you reject it?(41:52). Let them thenproduce a recitallike unto it, if it be they speak the Truth (52:34).Have We

14 Namely, pantheism.


5/15


5

give them a Book from which they can derive clear evidence? (35:40). Therehave already come to them Recitals wherein there is enough to check them(54:4).

With respect to the last of the three requirements, once more, no scripture otherthan that under consideration proves capable of meeting it in fact at least,

without allowing a margin for dispute. Yet, never would the said opus succeedin such a task of providing the unfoldment of its own view with the due level ofcongruity, were it not to add to its two previous positions an approach toknowledge so antireductionist15 as that of contemporary philosophy, nor toprescribe explicitly unlike any congener again this sort of conceptualelasticity to its own interpretation.

Thus, its language ultimately assumes some symbolic character:

Behold!in this are signs for those who by tokens do understand (15:75). Wehave explained in detail in this Book, for the benefit of mankind, every kind ofsimilitude (18:54). We have sent down Signs that makes things clear (24:46).In it are verses basic or fundamental of established meaning; they are thefoundation of the Book: others are allegorical. []but no one knows its hiddenmeanings except God. []and none will grasp the Message except men ofunderstanding (3:7). And such are the Parables We set forth for mankind, butonly those understand them who have knowledge (29:43). In this are Signs formen endued with understanding (20:128). He does propound to you asimilitude from your own experience (30:28). Thus does God set forth for mentheir lessons by similitudes (47:3).

And indiscriminate literalism should be entirely repudiated:

Move not your tongue concerning the Book to make haste therewith. It is for Usto collect it and make you recite it. []It is for Us to explain it and make it clear(75:19). Some say they were three, the dog being the fourth []; others saythey were five, the dog being the sixthdoubtfully guessing at the unknown[]. Say you: My Lord knows best their number; it is but few that know theirreal case. Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on amatter that is clear (18:22).God does blot out or confirm what He pleases;with Him is the Mother of the Book (13:39).Say: If the ocean were inkwherewith to write out the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean beexhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if We added another oceanlike it, for its aid (18:109). Nor be like those who say, We hear, but listen not.

The worst of beasts in the Sight of God are the deaf and the dumbthose whounderstand not (8:21-22). God will establish in strength those who believe,with the word that stands firm, in this world and in the hereafter (14:27). This isa Glorious Book, inscribed in a Tablet Preserved (85:21-22). They wish toextinguish Gods light with their mouths; God will not allow but that His lightshould be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detestit (9:32). Dothey not earnestly seek to understand the Book, or is it that there are locks upontheir hearts? (47: 24).

15 An antireductionist approach to knowledge should reject the belief that things in general can becompletely reduced to a mere concept. It is related to that principle of contemporary science alreadymentioned here. See also Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).


6/15


6

Quite the opposite, the sacred book at issue actually recommends maximizingwithout hesitation the meaning of its own propositions:

Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best meaning in it: those are theones whom God has guided, and those are the ones endued withunderstanding (39:18).And follow the best of the courses revealed to you from

your Lord (39:55).And We ordained laws for him []in all matters, bothcommanding and explaining all things, and said: Take and hold these withfirmness, andenjoin your people to hold fast by the best in the precepts(7:145). To God applythe highest similitude (16:60). The most beautifulnames belong to God (7:180). The Word of your Lord does find its fulfilment intruth and in justice (6:115). Verily this Book does guide to that which is mostright or stable (17:9).And Our Command is but a single Word like thetwinkling of an eye (54:50). Such was the practice approved of God amongthose who lived in foretime; no change will you find in the practice approved ofGod (33:62). No changes can there be in the Words of God (10:64). This

was Our Way with the Apostles We sent before you: you will find no change inOur Ways (17:77).We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and Wewill assuredly guard it from corruption (15:9).

For its proposal by all means rejects the mould of a novelty of such aknowledge as does not exist in the mind prior to and independent of experience,as does not prove naturally deducible16. Only within the context of what hasalways been thought about God and can anyhow be so does the scriptureunder consideration permit a correct comprehension of its true message:

Do they not ponder over the Word of God, or has anything new come to themthatdid not come to their fathers of old? (23:68). I am no bringer of new-

fangled doctrine (46:9). Nothing is said to you that was not said [] beforeyou (41:43). This is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding(39:21). It is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand, when it isrecited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration (17:107). Noneof Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitutesomething better or similar (2:106). This isa Book [] confirming theRevelations which came before it (6:92). This is in the Books of the earliestRevelations (87:18). It is announced in the mystic Books of former peoples(26:196). God made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance toyour hearts (3:126).

After all, the real nature of no thing whatsoever can ever be properly perceived

when isolated from reality as a whole17namely, God:

[...] It is God who gives guidance towards Truth (10: 35). With Him are thekeys of the unseen, the treasures that none knows but He. He knows whateverthere is on Earth and in the sea. Not a leaf does fall but with His knowledge;there is not a grain in the darkness or depths on the Earth, nor anything fresh ordry, green or withered, but is inscribed in a Record clear to those who can read(6:59). Certainly all Signs are in the power of God (6:109). To God do allquestions go back for decision (2:210). Say: The Guidance of God is the only

16 That is, an a posteriori knowledge, as contrasted to an a priori one that we possess beforehand,regardless of anything else, as a constituent of our own mind, like mathematics, for instance.17 Such a claim rather summarizes the antireductionist posture.


7/15


7

Guidance. Were youto follow their desires after the knowledge which hasreached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against God(2:120). He knows what appears to His creature as before or behind them. Norshall they encompass of His knowledge except as He wills (2:255). But Godbears witness that what He has sent unto you He has sent from His own

knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is God for a witness(4:166). And []never could we have found guidance, had it not been for theguidanceof God (7:43). Of knowledge we have none, save whatYou hastaught us (2:32). The Truth comes from God alone; so be not of those whodoubt (3:60).

With such devices, the sacred book in question ends up eliminating by the rootany possibility of discrepancy whatsoever. Therefore, no further evidence will benecessary in order to obligate a reasonable person18 to admit once for all that,as the present paper has just sustained, such a surprising scripture does notonly in fact but also in an explicit manner advocate natural religion.

This no doubt constitutes a historical conclusion at least, as far as concernsthe official knowledge of the Western academy19. And its implications areequally important to wit: that not all major creeds has already been definitivelyscrutinized by a rationalist approach; that the due interpretation of theabovementioned text by necessity entails the revision of the very religionhistorically identified with it and hence the establishment of an incomparablyrevolutionary ideology; and finally that the last assumption founding thecontemporary scepticism in effect reduces to a mere fallacy. All this, of course,providing that the given description of the said opus truly conforms to fact.

However, contrary to the expectation, the sacred writing under debate manages

to elaborate its standpoint in such a consistent manner as even contributes to acertain formulation of the referent world-view20 which, by surmounting thetypical weaknesses of the classical models21 without discarding their respectiveadvantages, proves to be the best logically possible22. This is the reason, forinstance, why the sacred book in question unlike almost all its congenersrefuses to confer a negative character on materiality:

Lawful unto you are all things good and pure (5:5). Make not unlawful thegood things which God has made lawful to you (5:90).Who has forbidden thebeautiful gifts of God, which He has produced for His Servants and the things,clean and pure, which He has provided for sustenance? (7:32). See you whatthings God has sent down to you for sustenance? Yet you hold forbidden some

things thereof and some things lawful. [] Has God indeed permittedyou, or doyou invent things to attribute to God? (10:59).

To the shock of the orthodox puritanism, even the pleasures of the flesh sexincluded are subsequently sanctified:

18 Who, according to that quotation from an Open University textbook, should already be content since thefulfilment of the first prerequisite.19 As exemplified by the aforementioned citation from an Open University textbook.20 That is, pantheism idealism.21 Those adopted by Buddhism and Christian mysticism, for example.

22 To demonstrate whether or not the scripture at issue expands the pantheist view in a way which reallyis either relevant or the best extends far beyond the scope of this essay and does not threaten the validityof the aforementioned conclusions at all.


8/15


8

Our Lord! Give us good in this World and good in the Hereafter! (2:201).Enjoy of the Sustenance which He furnishes (67:15).Dwell you and your wifein the Garden, and enjoy its good things as you wish (7:19).Eat of the goodthings We have provided for you (2:172). Eat you and drink you to your heartscontent (77:43). He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you

may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy betweenyour hearts (30:21).Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilthwhen or how you will (2:223). Seek you to please your consorts (66:1).

For religion must accept human nature as such23:

Establish Gods handwork according to the pattern on which He has mademankind (30:30). For the present, God has lightened your task for He knowsthat there is a weak spot in you (8:66). God does wish to lighten yourdifficulties: for men was created weak in flesh (4:28). God intend every facilityfor you; He does not want to put you difficulties (2:185). No burden do Weplace on any soul, but that which it can bear (7:42). Your Lord will shower His

Mercies on you and dispose of your affair towards comfort and ease (18:16).And We will make it easy for you to follow the simple Path (87:8).

Actually, the very concept of religion24 itself summarizes nothing less thanadaptation to natural order:

Do they seekfor other than the Religion of God?while all creatures in theheavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (3:83).Dothey not look at Gods creation, even among inanimate things, how their veryshadows turn round [], prostrating themselves to God, and that in thehumblest manner? And to God does obeisance all in the heavens and on earth,whether moving living creatures or the angels: for none are arrogant before their

Lord (16:48-49). Whatever beings there are in the heavens and on earth doprostrate themselves to God with good-will or in spite of themselves (13:15).To Him belongs all creatures in the heavens and on earth: even those who arein His Very Presence are not too proud to serve Him (21:19). It was We thatmade the hills declare, in unison with him [certain prophet], Our Praise, ateven tide and at break of day, and the birds gathered in assembly: all with himdid turn to God (38:18-19). See you not that it is God Whose praises all beingsin the heavens and on earth do celebrate []? Each one knows its own modeof prayer and praise (24:41).

After all, nature is intrinsically good:

Contemplate the wonders of creation in the heavens and on the earth, with thethought: Our Lord! Not for naught has You created all this! (3:191). Not foridle sportdid We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between(21:16). It is He Who sends the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going beforeHis Mercy (7:57). We created the heavens, the earth, and all between them,but for just ends (15:85). Itis We who created the heavens and the earth intrue proportions (6:73).Nowise did God create this [nature] but in truthand righteousness (10:5). Our Lord is He Who gave to each created thing its

23 Such a program rather coincides with that of Humanism.24 Besides, in the original language of the scripture at issue, the word usually translated as religion intruth means something like natural mode of living.


9/15


9

form and nature, and further, gave it guidance (20:50). He has created theheavens and the earth in just proportions, and has given you shape, and madeyour shapes beautiful (64:3). And cattle []: from them you derive warmthand numerous benefits, and of their meat you eat. And you have a sense ofpride and beauty in them as you drive them home in the evening, and as you

lead them forth to pasture in the morning. And they carry your heavy loads tolands that you could not otherwise reach except with souls distressed (16:43-44).

And all creatures have rights of their own man must not violate anyway25:

Here is a she-camel: she has a right of watering, and you have a right ofwatering []. Touch her not with harm, lest the Penalty of a Great Day size you(26:155-156). There is no animal that lives on earth nor a being that flies on itswings, but forms part of communities like you (6:38).This she-camel of God isa Sign unto you: so leave her to graze in Gods earth, and let her come to noharm, or you should be sized with a grievous punishment (7:73). The produce

of the earthwhich provide food for men and animals []: the people to whomit belongs they thinkthey have all powers of disposal over it (10:24). We didindeed offer The Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains; butthey refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;hewas indeed unjust and foolish (33:72). When the Earth is shaken to her utmostconvulsion, and the Earth throws up her burdens from within, and man criesdistressed: What is the matter with her? on that day will she declare hertidings: for that your Lord will have given her inspiration(99:1-5).

So, asceticism as denial of human nature, not as discipline should for surebe condemned:

The monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe forthem: We commanded only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God (57:27).Make not unlawful the good things which God has made lawful for you, butcommit no excess: for God loves not those given to excess (5:90). Commit notexcess in your religion (4:17) Exceed not in your religion the bounds of what isproper, trespassing beyond the Truth (5:80).Make not your own handscontribute to your destruction (2:195).

And quietism26 as well:

Man can have nothing but what he strives for (53:39). Verily never will Godchange the condition of a people until they change it themselves with their own

souls (13:11). God will never change the Grace which He bestowed upon on apeople until they change what is in their own souls (8:53). One day every soulwill come up struggling for itself (16:111). It is your actions that God [] willobserve (9:94).Be with those who are true in word and deed (9:119). Hemay try you by your deeds (7:129).[Who are the Believers?] It is these whohasten in every good work, and these who are foremost in them (23:61).

25 The sacred writing under consideration no doubt constitutes the first one of any kind in history todelineate explicitly the notion of natural rights for beings other than humans. Only since the 70s has

Western philosophy commenced to consider the matter seriously. See Peter Singer and Tom Regan animal liberation movement, anti-speciesism.26 In this case, that aspect of asceticism which absolutise passivity and non-violence.


10/15


10

When you are free from your immediate task, still labour hard (94:7).Dowhatever you can (39:39).

Quite the reverse, activism is imperative:

Only those are Believers who []have striven with their belongings and theirs

persons in the Cause of God (49:15).Those who believe fight in the Cause ofGod (4:76). Let those fight in the Cause of God who sell the life in this worldfor the Hereafter (4:74). Those who believed and those who suffered exile andfought and strove and struggled in the Path of God, they have the hope of theMercy of God (2:218).Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive withmight and main, in Gods cause, with their goods and their persons, have thehighest rank in the sight of God (9:20). Not equal are those believers who sitat home and receive no harm and those who strive and fight in the Cause ofGod with their goods and their persons (4:95).If it be that your fathers, yoursons, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that you have gained, thecommerce in which you fear a decline; or the dwellings in which you delight

are dearer to you than God[]or the striving in His cause;then wait untilGod brings about His Decision (9:24).Why should you not fight in the Causeof God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed?men,women, and children, whose cry is: Our Lord! [] Raise for us from You onewho will protect [] and help! (4:75). God will certainly aid those who aid HisCause (22:40). Do your duty to God, seek the means of approach unto Him,and strive with might and main in His Cause: that you may prosper (5:38).Those who strive in Our Cause, We will certainly guide them to Our Paths(29:69).

And socialism if not even communism also:

If you believe and guard against evil, He will grant you your recompense, andwill not ask you to give up your possessions. If He were to ask you for all ofthem, and press you, you would covetously withhold, and He would bring out allyour ill-feeling. Behold, you are those invited to spend of your substance in theWay of God: but among you are some that are niggardly. But any who areniggardly are so at the expense of their own souls (47:36-38). God hasbestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others:those more favoured are not to throw back their gifts to those whom their righthand possesses, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny thefavours of God? (16:71).When they are told, Spend of the bounties withwhich God has provided you, the Unbelievers say to those who believe:

Should we then feed those whom, if God had so willed, He would have fed,Himself? (36:47).To those weak of understandingmake not over yourproperty, which God has made a means of support for you, but feed and clothethem therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice (4:5). [As tothe righteous,] in their wealth and possessions was remembered the right of theneedy (51:19).Not misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you (8:27).God has permitted trade and forbidden usury (2:275). O you who believe!Fear God, and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if you areindeed believers. If you do it not, take notice of war from God and His Apostle:but if you turn back you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly and you

shall not be dealt with unjustly. If the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it iseasy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is the best foryou if you only knew (2:278-280). We wished to be gracious to those who


11/15


11

were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders in faith and make themheirs, to establish a firm place for them in the land (28:5-6). God haspromised, to those [] who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of asurety, grant them in the Land, inheritance of power []; that He will establishin authority their religionthe one which he has chosen for them [: the natural

mode of living] ; and that He will change their state, after the fear in which theylived to one of security and peace (24:55). Soon will He guide them andimprove their condition (47:5). We made a people considered weak and of noaccount inheritors of land (7:137).

For, challenging in particular some distinctive genre of sanctimonious delicacy,natural justice may sometimes require the unpleasant but inevitable use offorce. As a consequence, the importance of self-defence and retaliation shouldnot be underestimated for the mere sake of inconsistency or hypocrisy or evencowardice:

Stand firm for justice (4:135). Hold to forgiveness; command what is right

(7:199). [Who are the Believers?] Those who, when an oppressive wrong isinflicted on them, are not cowed but help and defend themselves. Therecompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto in degree: but if a personforgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for God lovesnot those who do wrong . But indeed if any do help and defend themselves aftera wrong done to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame isonly against those who oppress men with wrong-doing and insolently transgressbeyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice. But indeed if anyshow patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous willand resolution in the conduct of affairs (42:39-43). We ordained [] : Life forlife, eye for eye, nose for nose, tooth for tooth, and wound equal for equal.But

if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement forhimself (5:48). To those against whom war is made, permission is given tofight, because they are wronged (22:39-40). Those who believe []defendthemselves only after they are unjustly attacked (26:227). Fight in the Causeof God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits (2:190). Let not theUnbelievers think that Our respite to them is good for themselves (3:178). Letnot those who covetously withhold of the gifts which God has given them of HisGrace, think that it is good for them (3:180). Let not the Unbelievers think thatthey can get the better of the godly: they will never frustrate them. Against themmake ready your strength to the utmost ofyour power []. But if the enemyincline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace (8:59-61). Fightthem and God will punish them by your hand (9:14). Fight you the Unbelieverswho gird you about, and let them find firmness in you (9:123). Fight isprescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thingwhich is good for you and that you love a thing which is bad for you (2:216).Those who believe in God [] ask you for no exemption from fighting (9:44).Let not compassion move you [] in a matter prescribed by God(24:2).When at length the order of fighting was issued to them, Behold! A section ofthem feared men asor even more thanthey should have feared God(4:77). There are among men such as say, We believe in God; but when theysuffer affliction in the Cause of God they treat mens oppression as if it were the

Wrath of God (29:10).


12/15


12

And the spontaneous character of a genuine consensus must not bedesecrated by any sort of authoritarian practice dogmatism, paternalism,interventionism, sectarianism, et cetera:

If it had been your Lords will, they would all have believed, all who are onearth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! (10:99). Let

there be no compulsion in religion [in the natural mode of living] : Truth standsout from Error (2:256).You are not one to overawe them by force. Soadmonish with the Book such as fear My Warning (50:45).Its is true you willnot be able to guide every one whom you love; but God guides those whom Hewill (28:56). No faith will the greater part of mankind have, however ardentlyyou does desire it (12:103).And if there is a party among you who believes inthe Message with which I have been sent, and a party which does not believe,hold yourselves in patience until God does decide between us: for He is thebest to decide (7:87).If it were Gods will, He could gather them together untotrue guidance (6:35).Dispute you not [] except with means better than mere

disputation (29:46). Invite all to the

Way of your Lord with wisdom andbeautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and mostgracious; for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and whoreceive guidance (16:125).Verily man is in loss, except such as have faith anddo righteous deeds and join together in the mutual teaching of Truth, and ofPatience and Constance (103:3). Those who hearken to their Lord []conduct their affairs by mutual consultation (42:38). Take mutual counseltogether, according to what is just and reasonable (65:6). It is not required ofyou O Apostle, to set them on the right path, but God sets on the right pathwhom He pleases. Whatever of good you give benefits your own souls, and youshall only do so seeking the Face of God. [] Charity is for those in need

(2:273). Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed toadminister the funds; for those whose hearts have been recently reconciled toTruth; for those in bondage and in debt; in the Cause of God; and for thewayfarer (9:60). You are held responsible only for yourself (4:84).Nor can bea bearer of burdens bear anothers burden (35:18).We have not sent you as aguard over them, your duty is but to convey the Message (42:48). Now havecome to you [, says the Apostle,] from your Lord proofs to open your eyes: ifany will see, it will be for the good of his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be tohis own harm: I am not hereto watch over your doings (6:104). [The otherreligions say:] believe no one unless he follows your religion [your mode ofliving] . Say: True guidance is the guidance from God [] (3:73). If you

think that you are friends to God, to the exclusion to other men, then expressyour desire for death, if you are truthful! (62:6). We [] made you into nationsand tribes, that you may know each other not that you may despise each other(49:13). But those who dispute concerning God after He has been accepted,futile is their dispute in the sight of their Lord (42:16).The Believers are but asingle Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your []contending brothers (49:10).

As a result, anarchism27 becomes fundamental:

27 Anarchism rejects by design any inorganic kind of power structure like a bureaucratic state, forinstance.


13/15


13

We worship none but God; [] we associate no partners with Him; [] weerect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God (3:64).They [the other religions] take their priests and their anchorites to be theirlords in derogation of God(9:31). Keep your soul content with those who callon their Lord[] , seeking His Face; and let not your eyes pass beyond them,

seeking the pomp and the glitter of this life; nor obey any whose heart We havepermitted to neglect the remembrance of Us (18:28). Everyone acts accordingto his own disposition: but your Lord knows best who is best guided on the way(17:84). It is not for us to bring you an authority except as God permits. And onGod let all men of faith put their trust (14:11).Take not other than Me [God]as Disposer of your affairs (17:2). Enough is God to carry through allaffairs (4:132).You are not one to manage mens affairs (88:22). To eachamong you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willedHe would have made you a single people, but His Plan is to test you in what Hehas given you: so strive in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He thatwill show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute (5:51). O my Lord!

[complains a prophet] They have disobeyed me but they follow men whosewealth and children give them no Increase but only Loss (71:21).Have they ashare in dominion or power? Behold, they give not a farthing to their fellow-man? Or do they envy mankind for what God has given them of His bounty?(4:53-54).

But not always does such a world-view happen to differ from the respectiveconvention. Accordingly, reality itself mind included is thought to consist ofvarious planes or dimensions which interrelate: Praise be to God, theCherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds(1:2); The seven heavens and the earth[] declare His Glory(17:44). Time is relative: A Day in the sight of your Lord

is like a thousandyears of your reckoning(22:47); It[the Hereafter] will bea Day when He will call you [] and you will think thatyou tarried but a littlewhile!(17:52). All creatures are subjected to a process of evolution: It is Hewho begins the process of creation(10:4);Do not the Unbelievers see that theheavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before Weclove them asunder? We made from water every living thing(21:30).

Anyway, developments such as these no doubt evoke some of the ideas mostcherished by the very Western intelligentsia nowadays. Few would dare todeem them unreasonable at first glance. Although the scripture at issue doesnot need them to corroborate its already once for all established adherence tonatural religion, they well illustrate the possibilities nevertheless thusengendered by its radically non-mechanistic rationalism especially when itsidentity comes to be known as follows.

III

Incredible as it may seem, the sacred book under discussion happens to be no

other than the so-called Koran. Exactly. The very same historically associatedto the Muslims.


14/15


14

Therefore, the first question so unexpected a revelation immediately raises inthe contemporary mind is: If this is true, how or even why has such a fact notcome to be noticed before?

As anyone may well suspect without delay, the answer for so pertinent aninterrogation must for sure relate to (1) the obviously revolutionary character of

the world-view involved. However, only History itself proves able to elucidate inits entirety the origin or cause of such a mystery, whose existence no doubt isalso due to (2) some kind of hermeticism the own Arabic complexion of Koranended up assuming in the course of time. For, in reality, such a astonishing facthas already come close to be definitively revealed to the world twice: first, bythe cultural movement which took place in the twelfth and thirteenth centurysMuslim Europe and which, ironically, brought to an end the medievalobscurantism of its Christian counterpart28; and, second, by the congeneroccurred in the sixteenth centurys Muslim Indiawhen, besides, by the firsttime in the pos-Palaeolithic civilizations history, was established a legal order

founded on pure rationalism

29

.In brief, the main reason why the contemporary man has never heard beforethat Koran advocates natural religion and socialism is so simple like that: justbecause, except during those two periods, the very same has never come to beinterpreted nor translated in an authentically rationalist manner30, beingmeanwhile concealed by the growing barrier of a culture under somestagnation31 and, hence, of an almost dead language32 the self-proclaimedscientific West itself very, very suspiciously has never made the smallesteffort to surmount33. In other words: just because the man of today did not stillchance to have access to acceptable translations of Koran.

After all, those available leave much to be desired. (1) They often allow somekey-terms to remain in Arabic: what ends up distorting considerably theiroriginal meaning. Among others: AllahGod, the God, the Truth, the Reality;Islamsubmission to Gods Will, or to truth; Muslimthat who submitted toGods Will, or to truth; Jinnsspirits, or intelligent beings of othersdimensions; Koranbook of poems, or simply book; Surachapter, orstep, or stage; Ayatverse, or sign, or warning. This, not to mention (2) themisinterpretations resulting from the cultural differences between West andEast. Thus, what is usually translated as religion means nothing more thanmode of living, philosophy of life; and believer mostly applies to any adherentof idealism in general not just to Muhammads followers in particular. In

28 For instance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?-74) so to speak, the father of the modern Europeanphilosophy did himself graduate from a Muslim university. Besides, it was the Muslins who created thevery concept of university.29 This, during the ruling of Jalal-ud-Din Muhammad Akbar (1542-1605), the then Mogul emperor of India,who happened to have been also the very mentor of the said movement.30 Since the 10th Century, the majority of Muslims follow a literalist approach which compromises not onlythe rationalism of Koran but also its own consistency.31 The failure of the Islamic culture to maintain the hegemony of rationalism in its bosom if any otherdoes so no doubt is deeply related to its draining effort to preserve itself against the relentless siege ofthe West since the Crusades.32 Not even the majority of Muslims are able to understand the archaic Arabic in which Koran is written,

just like the Catholic Christians until the sixties in relation to the Latin.33 The unifying potential of the ideology vindicated by Koran and its socialist posture certainly threatensany empire.


15/15


15

3:1934, for instance, such discrepancies can even assume a dramatic character:The religion before God is Islamthe wrong translation, sustainingdogmatism and sectarianism; in contrast to: The religion [or philosophy of life]before God [or the Truth, or the Only Irreducible Reality] is submission to HisWill [or Its Holistic Purpose, or Meaning]the correct one, maintaining

rationalism and universalism.If the mere translation of the Bible whose rationalism, universalism andsocialism are not explicit, whose reading is not easy into vernacular languageprovoked all the revolutionary changes which succeeded the advent of theProtestantism in the Sixteenth Centurys Europe35, imagine what would happenif Koran could be read by anyone in a world like that of nowadays where themajority of the population, just by having already absorbed rationalism, does notanymore content itself neither with the conventional dualisms nor much lesswith materialism36. The first step given in this direction, I think, was taken by theversion I have used here: Abdullah Yusuf Alis, 1934 probably, the best one

ever made in a Western language, if not even in a non-Arabic language.At least for the sake of the very science itself, Koran should be immediatelysubjected to an appropriate and definitive examination.

Olinda, 20th November 2008.

34 Even the numeration of Koran was not yet subjected to standardization.35 The industrial era is but a fruit of the Protestant Reformation. This is, in summary, what Max Weber(1864-1920) postulates in his classic of modern sociology The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of TheCapitalism (1904).

36 Even though the contemporary masses are able to recognize the inconsistencies of the traditionalexplanations, they persist in refusing a materialist world-view not to understand this has been the mainfailure of the Western socialist movement.

Documents

The Restoration of Natural Religion