Beside ritual prayers and the ritual worship practices, the religionists who invented the religion also mandated religious laws that have nothing in common with God and His prophets.
God’s way has a benchmark here on earth: the Reading. He called His book the Criterion.1 It is a book among books, a criterion, a standard by which all else is measured. With this benchmark, one can decisively discern whether something is good or bad, true or false, sacred or profane, real or imaginary. Having given us a rule by which all can be measured, it is assumed that a person will use this God-given benchmark often. The Devil, of course, will try to make it inaccurate. He has already done this by obscuring the original intent and limits of the Criterion.
For example, in 2:224-242 we find eighteen verses, which outline amicable justice on the subject of marriage and divorce. They further illustrate the guidelines and methods for resolving marital disputes. These guidelines are self-explanatory and can be put into practice by anyone. In other words, God has directed His people to apply a behavioural etiquette that does not include priests or any religious authority whatever. Thus, there is no need for any new, independent body of lawmakers to formulate ‘Islamic’ religious laws on marriage and divorce.
The very existence of supplementary human laws to ‘augment’ the word of God is horrifyingly arrogant. It places the justice of People on the same level as the decrees of God.
Even in vernacular law, the essence of the law is paramount. We cannot go beyond the limits set. For example, if the minimum wage for a worker is ten dollars per day, we are free to pay him anything as long as it is not less than the stipulated sum. This concept is not man-made. Any individual who believes in God and the Hereafter is free to observe God’s guidelines as long as they do not exceed the limits prescribed by God. If they transgress the limits, God will judge them. If He be the Judge, it is redundant to have God’s guidance anointed with the title ‘Islamic’ law, religious law or ‘shari’ah’ law.
The purpose of Scripture is not to impose religious laws but to replace unjust human law. The Scripture is a law unto itself. It is complete in form and function.
We have sent our messengers with clear revelations and We sent down with them the Scripture as the measure (mizan) to spread justice among the people. (57:25)
Let us take this concept a little further along and consider the following:
Legislators and lawmakers of any civilised government (not including, naturally, the lawmakers of the Arab religion) will agree that no man or woman who commits adultery should be executed.
The same servants of Justice (except for the religionists and their cohorts and dupes) will agree a person is free to believe or disbelieve in God, and that he or she is free to change their belief anytime without being punished by priests (or anyone else) for their decision.
Similarly, the legislators (except the same people mentioned above) will agree that a divorced woman should not be deprived of her freedom and she should have reasonable provisions until she is able to find other alternatives or reconciliation.
These are just some instances of guidance which are humanely spelt out in the Reading. They are correct principles, which work together for the advancement and cohesion of society. Civilized countries have come to practice them after many years of experimentation and observation. They have come to implement them because they are fair and because they work. The Reading gives us a shortcut to a generative rule of law. The basis is not religion. The basis is Life. The basis is rooted in providing a plan for a way of life, designed to accommodate the human condition fairly and firmly. All prophets taught this.
The question arises: if the Arab lawmakers were so keen to ‘legalize’ the law of God, why did they not then legislate requirements for other equally important aspects of the Reading like civility, politeness, consideration, respect, empathy, patience, humility, charity on human welfare, temperance and mercy? Shouldn’t the Arab version of God’s law appear God-like in nature instead of tyrannical? The only conclusion any student of Islamic law can arrive at is that ‘Islamic’ laws originating from the religionists are not found in the Reading and are far from divinely inspired.
It is no wonder that the Arab world is in confusion and chaos. The religious laws of the Arab religion vary from country to country: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Oman, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and many other places have differing laws all claiming to be inspired by God. How is it that a divinely inspired law varies so much by geographical location? It can only mean that each location has a different ‘religious god’ at the helm. This has reduced Islamic ‘shari’ah’ law2 to a comical position. No two ‘Islamic’ countries have the same ‘Islamic’ laws. If it weren’t so sad, it would be hilarious.
Let us now examine what God intended before people started meddling.
It is the incumbent duty of everyone to make a will for the benefit of their parents and children or their next of kin before death approaches any one of them (2:180-182)
This is a simple decree observed by most people with any common sense. It encourages planning and pre-meditation. It solves problems before they are created. It makes the bereavement less difficult on the grieving. It is just plain civil.
The religionists and their courts tell us that it is forbidden (or Haram) to make a will in the Arab religion. The religious priests or religious authority will decide what, how, and to whom a dead person’s assets should be distributed. And, of course, a certain portion of the assets may well be reserved for some invented religious purpose.
Any person who believes in God, then disbelieves, and then believes and then disbelieves and persists in disbelieve will not be forgiven by God (4:137)
People are given the absolute right to believe or disbelieve in God. If they reject belief and persist in doing so, God will not pardon them in the Hereafter. That is all.
There is no compulsion in the deen. Truth is now distinguished from falsehood. Thus, those who reject idol-worship and believe in God have grasped the strongest bond that never breaks. God is hearer, omniscient. (2:256)
The people can exercise their right and freedom to accept or to reject God’s revelations3, yet He will not punish them in this world if they choose to reject His Scripture:
You can believe therein or disbelieve. (17:107)
The religionists, in their contorted wisdom, have declared that anyone who renounces the ‘religion’ must be sentenced to death. It is very much Jewish in nature.
A person is expected to use his or her intellect and reason.
God will not guide those who defy their common sense (10:100)
Yet, somewhere along the line an adherent of the Arab religion declared:
Those who use their common sense will be burned in Hell. (Sahih Bukhari4)
Many of these ‘new’ decrees in the Arab religion are diametrically opposed to the wisdom of the Reading. How could the system have erred to such a degree? One supposes that religious centrism and insecurities have been the primary drivers for this movement. After all, only the Supremely Confident would have allowed people total freedom of choice. People, on the other hand, seek to impose control and likes to do so through laws. It is even better when that control is manifested in ‘religious’ garb which makes these laws incontestable.
God tells us that Sol-laa is the fulfilling of commitments through righteous deeds. The Arab religion tells us, however, it means doing the regimented prayers five times a day in the prescribed direction of their homeland where their god apparently lives. Of course, those wishing to commune with God must first consult with the Arab masters who have mastered the art of the prayer ‘procedures’, actions, precursors, etc. For the benefit of the more than five billion people on earth who would have no idea what the author is referring to, the Arab prayer ritual is outlined below.
1 According to the Chambers Encyclopaedia English Dictionary, the word ‘criterion’ means: a standard or principle on which to base a Judgement. The word furqan is used when Moses was given the Torah (2:53 & 21:48), and to Jesus in 3:4. The Quran is called the furqan or ‘criterion’ in 2:185 and 25:1. In the Arab religion the man-made ‘syari’ah’ is the ‘criterion’ not the Qur’an.
2 42:21 forbids instituting any religious laws. Every man has the full right and freedom to conduct his personal way of life. The law of Justice and matters of crimes and security of a state is to be formulated through consensus by the experts of each field, which can be amended to suit circumstances.
3 There must not be any court of law to deny a person’s right in matters of faith.
4 Bukhari’s collection of some several thousand of nonsensical ‘traditions’ are considered Sahih, that is ‘good and reliable’.