Is Islam Cool with Me?: The Law of Abrogation

 Freedom of Speech - Norman Rockwell

Scott Sturman

Is Islam cool with me?  I mean, is it the Religion of Peace or am I hosed, because I don’t see things quite that way?
---W.R. Priskna

Mr. Priskna echoes many of the concerns of Westerners.  One one hand he hears the religion is all accepting and benevolent, while on the other non believers either convert or die.  Which of these two diametrically opposed views are true?  Understanding the Law of Abrogation helps settle the matter in a logical, clear-minded fashion.

The lessons of the Qur’an, listed in its suras or chapters, are contradictory, and for the outsider it is difficult to determine which ones take precedence.  Unlike the Bible which is written chronologically, the Qur’an is ordered by the size of the chapter with the longest first and the shortest last.  The tone and commandments of the suras vary to such an extent that at times it seems implausible they are part of the same book.

The Qur’an by definition is perfect in all respects, since all of its suras are the product of Mohammed’s divine and direct revelation from Allah.  The dilemma of conflicting messages, which must be all correct, is impossible to resolve and requires Muslim scholars to invoke the Law of Abrogation.  Abrogation is the process by which one sura takes precedence over another, and for the most part suras which were written later supersede earlier ones.

Among the believers it is heretical to suppose Muhammed matched the suras to correlate with his power at the time they were revealed.  All of the suras are the word of Allah, so his only Prophet simply relayed the message to the faithful.  Nevertheless, Western scholars make the following observations:  When Mohammed lived in Mecca from 610 - 622 A.D., he had few followers and was politically and militarily weak.  Suras from this period of Islam were conciliatory and inclined to compromise.  From 623 - 626 A.D. Mohammed returned to Medina and fought a series of defensive campaigns against old adversaries.  Consequently, the text of the Qur’an takes on a more aggressive posture as Mohammed’s power waxed.  From 626 A.D. until his death in 632 A.D., Mohammed’s armies embarked on vigorous, proselytizing campaigns meant to forcibly subdue all non believers.  Suras generated from this period tend to be written in an aggressive tone consistent with Islam’s growing militancy.

Since the Qur’an’s text does not follow a timeline, the sunna, the rules of life demonstrated by Mohammed, and the hadith, accounts of the Prophet’s life as told by others, are used to mark the time each sura was added to the Qur’an.  Logically, chapters added later to the Qur’an which conflict with earlier entries must abrogate or cancel them.  Otherwise, in order to keep the Qur’an perfect, Allah through his intermediary Mohammed, would not add flawed chapters.  Previous suras which were no longer valid or perfect could be abrogated by newer faultless ones.  These later sublime additions necessarily supersede their progenitors.

The Qur’an and its supportive literature are written is a style which allow clerics to interpret it flexibly, and this interpretation can be adapted to fit the political needs of the Muslim community.  In this regard the Qur’an is used as a taqiyya-like document which means one thing, but according to the mullahs quite another.  Enemies or outsiders are left uncertain as to what is the true meaning and what is not.  Just as Sir Richard Burton used taqiyya to conceal his identity from the Arabs during his 1853 haji to Mecca, religious scholars interpret the Qur’an to dissimulate true intent from non believers. 

Sura 3:20 states “there is no compulsion in religion” and insures non Muslims of Islam’s peaceful intent.  Sura 9:5, either the last or penultimate of Mohammed’s revelations, is the only chapter which does not begin with the incantation, “in the name of God, most benevolent, ever-merciful.”  It abrogates the earlier verses extolling peace, tolerance, and forgiveness and commands the faithful to “slay the idolaters,” to fight the non believer, and establish God’s kingdom on earth.  So which of these two unambiguous but contradictory proclamations takes precedence?  Priority rests with the more perfect of the two–Allah’s sura revealed to Mohammed at a later date.

So there you have it, Mr. Priskna.

The Good German

Raining in Fresno - photo by JoAnn Sturman

by Scott Sturman

“You’re so German!” my wife reminds me.  This non compliment, which imputes stubbornness and aloofness, is directed my way when I don’t agree with her, or when I assume the incommunicado mode to avoid putting myself at a greater disadvantage.  I am ethnically German, culturally American, and behaviorally far removed from the Central European people noted for producing one of the shortest books ever written, A Thousand Years of German Humor.  Despite the dour outlook on life, the home of my ancestors is known for its work ethic, advancement of science, and contributions to Western culture.  Eighty years ago it seemed unlikely this sophisticated society with a Judeo-Christian heritage and governed by the rule of law would stoop so low during the experiment with National Socialism.

Where were the Good Germans while trouble was brewing in the Fatherland in the 1920s and 1930s?  In denial of the threat or in fear of harm, since there is much to lose once hooligans possess all the guns and control the streets, security agencies, and religious institutions.  At this point the shield of human rights becomes theoretical and survival dependent upon whim.  As the process generates its own momentum, one only hopes the threat is fleeting or the thugs turn their eyes and inflict havoc on a less obedient neighbor.  Dying anonymously does not make one a martyr just one less problem for the authorities.  It takes a very brave man or woman to stand up to this level of danger.  Sons disappear like their fathers, while wives and daughters are beaten and raped. 

One could make the same argument for the moderate Muslim living a sectarian tinder box in the Middle East.  Vastly out numbered in a society without human rights, with no self protection, and publicly espousing thoughts contrary to the Mullah make for a shortened life expectancy.  This concern for personal safety or fear of criticism from other Muslims, however, is no excuse in America or Western Europe, where religious freedom is protected and rule of law is the norm.

At some point a religion is a religion in name only.  This limit is approached when monsters like the Tsarnaev brothers are not condemned by Islamic clerics and the faithful.  When Tamerlan Tsarnaev visited the mosque to vet plans for his personal jihad, rather than receiving encouragement, an imam aware of even the rudiments of civilized society would offer counsel more like the following:

“Brother Tamerlan, I understand your frustrations, but your intentions are evil and misguided.  First of all, no one made you leave Dagestan.  You came to America as a guest, where you were fed, clothed, and educated.  For a guest to attack a host in his home is a violation of one of the basic tenets of our culture.  If you don’t like America, then go back home to that hellhole in the Caucasus Mountains, where no one disagrees with you.”


"When you die in the aftermath, you leave your son without a father and your wife without a husband.  What kind of cowardice is this?  It is the height of irony that the Americans, despite your hatred and brutality toward them, will care for your family–something you were unable or unwilling to do."

“Furthermore, the Quran does not condone the slaughter of People of the Book, particularly when it involves women and children.  If you persist with this madness, seventy-two virgins will not await you in Paradise.  You’ll be sleeping in pig shit for all eternity, because no true religion condones the indiscriminate massacre of the defenseless, particularly if they are succoring you.  You’ll be no martyr, Tamerlan, just a mass murderer used for political purposes.  So what’s it going to be, the Brotherhood of Man or the sty?” 

Last week the Tsarnaevs stole a bit of freedom from every man, woman, and child in America.  It will be difficult to recapture it.  Their vicious acts only can mean more security and less openness for all of us.  While the politically correct debate when Dzhokhar should be given legal counsel, they ignore the source of the problem:  Justifying murder and exhorting Muslims to commit heinous crimes in the name of religion is a perverted ideology which does not merit protection as a First Amendment Freedom.  Imams who advocate mayhem are demagogues, who distort the message of Islam.  Their purpose is to poison and spread hate, and if they are not called to task, their influence will grow, and we will be the ones hiding behind closed doors just like the Good Germans.