Unholy strictures - Karen Armstrong * The Guardian

Unholy strictures

It is wrong - and dangerous - to believe literal truth can be found in religious texts

Karen Armstrong
Thursday August 11, 2005
The Guardian

Human beings, in nearly all cultures, have long engaged in a rather strange activity. They have taken a literary text, given it special status and attempted to live according to its precepts. These texts are usually of considerable antiquity yet they are expected to throw light on situations that their authors could not have imagined. In times of crisis, people turn to their scriptures with renewed zest and, with much creative ingenuity, compel them to speak to their current predicament. We are seeing a great deal of scriptural activity at the moment.

This is ironic, because the concept of scripture has become problematic in the modern period. The Scopes trial of 1925, when Christian fundamentalists in the United States tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools, and the more recent affair of The Satanic Verses, both reveal deep-rooted anxiety about the nature of revelation and the integrity of sacred texts. People talk confidently about scripture, but it is not clear that even the most ardent religious practitioners really know what it is.

Protestant fundamentalists, for example, claim that they read the Bible in the same way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in the late 19th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia, in which the faithful look up facts about God. Many assume that if the scriptures are not historically and scientifically correct, they cannot be true at all. But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat); its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.

We distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense. There has recently been much discussion about the way Muslim terrorists interpret the Qur'an. Does the Qur'an really instruct Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they find them? Does it promise the suicide bomber instant paradise and 70 virgins? If so, Islam is clearly chronically prone to terrorism. These debates have often been confused by an inadequate understanding of the way scripture works.

People do not robotically obey every single edict of their sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a tiny minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of the way people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action.

Part of the problem is that we are now reading our scriptures instead of listening to them. When, for example, Christian fundamentalists argue about the Bible, they hurl texts back and forth competitively, citing chapter and verse in a kind of spiritual tennis match. But this detailed familiarity with the Bible was impossible before the modern invention of printing made it feasible for everybody to own a copy and before widespread literacy - an essentially modern phenomenon - enabled them to read it for themselves.

Hitherto the scriptures had always been transmitted orally, in a ritual context that, like a great theatrical production, put them in a special frame of mind. Christians heard extracts of the Bible chanted during the mass; they could not pick and choose their favourite texts. In India, young Hindu men studied the Veda for years with their guru, adopting a self-effacing and non-violent lifestyle that was meant to influence their understanding of the texts. In Judaism, the process of studying Torah and Talmud with a rabbi was itself a transformative experience that was just as important as the content.

The last thing anyone should attempt is to read the Qur'an straight through from cover to cover, because it was designed to be recited aloud. Indeed, the word qur'an means "recitation". Much of the meaning is derived from sound patterns that link one passage with another, so that Muslims who hear extracts chanted aloud thousands of times in the course of a lifetime acquire a tacit understanding that one teaching is always qualified and supplemented by other texts, and cannot be seen in isolation. The words that they hear again and again are not "holy war", but "kindness", "courtesy", "peace", "justice", and "compassion".

Historians have noted that the shift from oral to written scripture often results in strident, misplaced certainty. Reading gives people the impression that they have an immediate grasp of their scripture; they are not compelled by a teacher to appreciate its complexity. Without the aesthetic and ethical disciplines of ritual, they can approach a text in a purely cerebral fashion, missing the emotive and therapeutic aspects of its stories and instructions.

Solitary reading also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others that do not chime with their own predilections. Religious militants who read their scriptures in this way often distort the tradition they are trying to defend. Christian fundamentalists concentrate on the aggressive Book of Revelation and pay no attention to the Sermon on the Mount, while Muslim extremists rely on the more belligerent passages of the Qur'an and overlook its oft-repeated instructions to leave vengeance to God and make peace with the enemy.

We cannot turn the clock back. Most of us are accustomed to acquiring information instantly at the click of a mouse, and have neither the talent nor the patience for the disciplines that characterised pre-modern interpretation. But we can counter the dangerous tendency to selective reading of sacred texts. The Qur'an insists that its teaching must be understood "in full" (20:114), an important principle that religious teachers must impart to the disaffected young.

Muslim extremists have given the jihad (which they interpret reductively as "holy war") a centrality that it never had before and have thus redefined the meaning of Islam for many non-Muslims. But in this they are often unwittingly aided by the media, who also concentrate obsessively on the more aggressive verses of the Qur'an, without fully appreciating how these are qualified by the text as a whole. We must all - the religious and the sceptics alike - become aware that there is more to scripture than meets the cursory eye.

· Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism

karmstronginfo@btopenworld.com

Good article Thanks.
Very useful to translators of scriptures.

Wow. Great stuff.

Very well spoken indeed. Thanks for this pearl, Jagat.

My favorite part:

Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.

I like this because it an be presented to the fundamentalist zealot in a delicate way. It is nice to think that scriptures can't be taken literally because the aspect of the Absolute would render this impossible. But that doesn't make hearing the scripture any less relishable, either.

I also liked what the author was getting at in regards to the easy access we have to our scriptures and how much of an impact that has. I was trying to elucidate some of these exact points in the "has Gaudiya Discussion run its course" thread.

I believe we have all been guilty at one time or another of this:

Solitary reading also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others that do not chime with their own predilections.

Some of the points the author makes are the very pitfalls that come from having an internet forum. So let us remember this and very consciously strive to avoid such problems.

I hate to nitpick, but..


This is incorrect. 'Ayat' means 'sign' or 'miracle', in that each verse of the Qur`an is a "gem" or a "pearl of wisdom" as some may say. Not that it is a "parable" that is figurative or a metaphorical pointer. It is also posisble that 'ayat' refers to charismatic people. This is why the Shia Imams are titled 'Ayatollahs' (ayat 'ullah, Sign of God). To consider every verse of the Qur`an as "symbolic" would give a very strange spin on some of the more precise and exacting sections of the Qur`an.


It is painfully evident that Armstrong has either not read the Qur`an in full, or she is unfamilair with the fact that much of Islam's practical exegesis is present in the Hadiths, the collection of witness testimonials to the sayings and doings of Prophet Muhummad. Therein can we find all of those much-debated passages regarding virgins and so forth. Granted, there is one verse in the Qur`an which states that some of its subject matter is allegorical. In this case, it is possible to say that whereas the Qur`an provides the basic outline the Hadiths fill in all the details, and anyone who has read some of the Hadith collections will be able to verify the presence of these sections. I have yet to see a Hadith passage endorsing suicide bombings, but the glorifications of martyrdom and the like are in plenty. These theological debates are ongoing and the scriptural sections fiercely disputed amongst Islamic scholars at different locations of the spectrum as is evident by the sudden increase of terrorism documentaries and interviews with Islamic scholars being broadcast on British television, arguably on the increase because of the recent terrorist attacks in London.


I have just seen Cult of the Suicide Bomber on Channel 4. I did get the impression from the reportage that the people of Palestine did indeed pay 'more'attention the sections of Qur`an and Hadith that glorified martyrdom as a way of fighting for the independence of Palestine and against Israeli aggression. Posters and paintings of the martyrs are displayed prominently in the streets and remembrance ceremonies are held in honour of the dead, so much so that the martyrs are glorified for being 'heroes'. Admittedly I saw very little scriptural justification for it (or maybe that was the fault of the programme-makers for not including it), but then it occurred to me that Islam has suffered much internal strife over the centuries. So why so much fuss when it appears that present-day Muslims seem to be engaging in acts that have arguably always been a part of their tradition? What is more surprising is how 'martyrdom' was an integral part of the Shia doctrine and was shunned by the predominant Sunni, yet the tables have been turned and Sunni suicide bombers predominate, especially in the case of the Iraq insurgency. It is very hard to track down the reasons for such measurs, but I wouldn't agree with Armstrong in that such actions are strictly political.


While this is true of human nature, the problem with this in respect to the Qur`an is that it is considered by Muslims to be the direct word of Allah and thus it is impossible to "translate". Therefore any translation is by default the interpretation of the translator. This is also true from my own experience; I have three different Qur`ans, two are 'fundamentalist' and one is 'broadminded'.

Armstrong makes good points generally about being over-literal with scripture, but I feel that she has shot herself in the foot when trying to place them in a 'London 7/7' context which was obviously her intention. Unfortunately there is a lot of these types of articles being published almost daily in the British press, most of which appear to be sadly lacking in knowledge of Islamic tradition and practical exegesis and repeating and enlarging on previous incidences of incomplete reportage.

By the way, just a disclaimer in case anyone is wondering. I do not support terrorism or suicide bombings or extremist interpretations of scripture. Speaking as someone who intensely studied Islam for a period of three years, I get tired when I read overblown and poorly-researched critique of Islam as well as simpering denials by the so called 'moderate Muslims', a committee of whom recently met with Prime Minister Blair in order to agree on ways to reduce the rise of extremism among the British Islamic population, and who were savagely criticised by the mainstream as being unrepresentative of the British Muslim diaspora. I believe it is time for the simperers (of all religions) to be honest and admit that they have sections in their scriptures that are considered by today's world to be more or less unsavoury instead of indulging in outright denial of said sections and more worried about good public relations. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, suicide is forbidden by Mahaprabhu.

Definitely not! It is clear enough that you are a peacemaker! I must add that you both (Karen Armstrong and Gourasundar) made excellent dissertations on human evolution vs. religion; it was like diving into the (deep waters) of a dramatic vision at the physical and psychological aspects of the same organism.

Great thread!

despite some good lines, the article's author is motivated in the same political way she is trying to discredit in religious people.

Aside all the political motivations, in here I found interesting support for the importance of the alive (successor) Guru, who has experienced levels of spiritual realizations and can impart knowledge into the heart; knowledge comes via sravana not reading, in other words, first sravanan then Kirtanan, not reading and then kirtanan. Therefore, once again, vapu is superior to vani.

Thanks I don't know what to say.

I was thinking a little more on this issue and also reflecting on that Channel 4 programme. I see that Armstrong criticises the ignoring of 'peacemaking' scriptural sections in favour of more trenchant sections ("Christian fundamentalists concentrate on the aggressive Book of Revelation and pay no attention to the Sermon on the Mount, while Muslim extremists rely on the more belligerent passages of the Qur'an and overlook its oft-repeated instructions to leave vengeance to God and make peace with the enemy."). It occurred to me that such selective reading is often influenced by personal circumstances rather than a question of attention. How many of us have read our favourite shastras and "spotted" a beautiful or relevant verse that has always been there but has never been noticed until that precise moment? We need to consider why that verse is of relevance to us at that precise moment; maybe we are going through a particular set of circumstances (say, financial troubles) and a verse is spotted where Krsna is either decrying those who are too attached to wealth or nonchalantly reassuring a Sudama that his troubles would soon be over.

In the same way, I believe that it is circumstances that lead to selective interpretations of texts. I daresay that we have seen the same at work in other religious organisations. In the case of Palestinian citizens and similar, they have been through much tragedy due to the fermentation of politics in the Middle East. Burning with intense grief and desires for revenge, the more aggressive sections of Qur`an will be of more relevance and inspiration for them. The same goes for the gushing glorifications of martyrdom. "Turn the other cheek" types of verses would be easily dismissed in the face of personal tragedy. It's very easy for people like Armstrong to say "oh, these terrorists follow a perverted and evil version of Islam, this is not really Islam," except for the small fact that it is.

And just out of interest, David Rosenberg's conclusion in the programme was that suicide bombing today appears to be carried out of a variety of motives, not all of them being for religious reasons. The trend seems to be increasing towards that of pure hatred and to wreak death everywhere, complete chaos.

What really chokes me is that when watching a motion picture that shows scenes of the Naz. period in Germany, the impression left is that the J. people would never repeat the same to others, however, the question stands loud and clear: “Now do you understand why we have turned into suicide killers?”

If you missed Goura's link click here.