Up to this point I have been focusing on Christianity and the Bible. While of course there are significant differences, theologically and in terms of religious practice, between Islam and Christianity (and Judaism), the world outlook that each expresses and the social content each embodies—what they say about how human society is and ought to be—are not only similar in many ways but are fundamentally in the service of the same kinds of systems of exploitation and enslavement. In the holy book of Islam, the Qur’an, no less than in the Christian Bible (and the whole “Judeo-Christian tradition”), all kinds of oppressive relations are upheld and even celebrated.¹

The historical origins of Islam provide a context for, and further insight into, the content and role of Islam, as a religion and as a geopolitical force in the world, historically and down to today. The pivotal, and seminal, figure in Islam is, of course, its founder, Muhammad, who was born about 1500 years ago in Mecca and spent his early years there. Muhammad (Muhammad bin Abdullah) was from a relatively minor subgroup within the dominant tribe in the area of Mecca, the Quraysh. His status became somewhat more elevated when he married a wealthy widow, Khadijah; but, although more or less financially secure, he was still not a prominent figure among the Quraysh in Mecca. At that time, Mecca was becoming an increasingly important trade site and center of commerce. Along with this, it was a significant religious center; and the shrine in the city, the Ka’ba, was a holy site for the many tribes, with their differing local religions, who travelled to, and traded in, Mecca. This too was a source of wealth for the Quraysh. But, at the same time, this role of Mecca as a growing commercial center was in some significant ways undermining the traditional tribal way of life and the superstructure—the politics and political structures, the ideology and the culture expressed to a large degree in religious terms—that more or less corresponded to that traditional mode of life.

It was in these circumstances that Muhammad began to spend long periods alone in the desert and the mountainous areas around Mecca. And it was during these solitary periods, when he would often fast for several days, that, according to Muhammad, he began to hear revelations from God (Allah), as spoken to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, which Muhammad memorized and recited. These recitations would continue throughout the rest of Muhammad’s life and would come to constitute the foundation of the Islamic religion, set down in the Qur’an and other holy works of Islam.

Now, of course, it is impossible for me (or, really, for anyone at this point) to say whether (or to what degree) Muhammad actually believed that he was receiving revelations from Allah, or whether (or to what degree) he was conscious that he, himself, was the source of these supposed revelations. There are some places in the surahs (chapters) of the Qur’an (such as Surah LXVI, “Banning,” where instructions from Allah are relayed by Muhammad to his wives, telling them not to be jealous, to be more obedient and cause less trouble for Muhammad, and warning them that otherwise Allah may appoint better wives for the Prophet—see verse 5 in particular) which are, to say the least, rather convenient for Muhammad and seem more likely to have been consciously contrived by him. But it is quite probable that, for the most part and in essence, Muhammad was himself convinced that he was receiving, and conveying, the word of the one true God, Allah. And it would not be surprising if, in the course of spending days in the desert or the mountains while fasting, and probably with very little water, Muhammad would hear voices and would come to believe that he was hearing the voice of the angel Gabriel in particular, relaying revelations from Allah. What is clear is that Muhammad became familiar with at least some of the doctrines and beliefs of Christians and of Jews, and this is reflected in the Qur’an—both in what Muhammad seems to have adopted from these religions and in what he came to reject and even denounce. And what is also clear is that, out of these various influences and experiences, Muhammad created, over the course of several decades, what became the Qur’an and the new religion of Islam.

Now, of course, it was not predetermined that Muhammad’s recitations would come to be invested with the aura of divine revelation—they could have been ignored or dismissed as the ramblings of a lunatic. In fact, this is how the elders and powerful forces in the Quraysh tribe in Mecca treated this, for some time. When Muhammad persisted and, moreover began to challenge the established rulers and religious beliefs and practices, and to denounce them as corrupt, he was forced to retreat to Yathrib (which was to become known as Medina). There, Muhammad found more favorable circumstances and, over a period of time, was able to establish himself as both a religious and political authority.

Not only was Muhammad a skillful politician—in Medina he helped to settle disputes among the population there, including a number of Jews who lived in the area, although these Jews ultimately rejected Muhammad and his new religion of Islam—but he also proved to be a skillful military leader. From Medina, once having consolidated his rule, he began to lead his forces in raids against the trading caravans headed for Mecca, which caused significant losses for and put a lot of pressure on the Quraysh in Mecca. Finally, after a series of battles in which Muhammad was able to inflict damage on his Meccan enemies and to avoid death or capture himself, Muhammad was able to march triumphantly back to Mecca and, combining military presence with adroit diplomacy—promising to spare the lives and the property of his adversaries—he was able to achieve the capitulation of the leaders of the Quraysh. Mecca became the center of the new religion of Islam, and the Ka’ba became a holy shrine of that religion.

In all this, once again, we can see the role of accident (or contingency) as well as causality, and the interplay between the two. Had certain events turned out differently, at a number of points, this new religion might never have been brought fully into being, or in any case would never have become a major force in the world. Muhammad could have died much earlier than he did—and in particular he could have been killed during the years when he was in Medina and engaged in warfare with powerful enemies then centered in Mecca. But this was not all a matter of accident. The new religious doctrine and the new religious and political institutions that Muhammad forged and developed over several decades, including during his reign in Medina, had an attractive power not only because of the military force that Muhammad was able to marshal on behalf of this, but because this religion provided a cohering set of beliefs and practices for the growing and diverse groups of people drawn to Mecca, which could unify them beyond more narrow tribal interests and customs. Not simply in some linear and mechanical sense, but in a larger and more overall way, Islam conformed to the new conditions that had been brought into being as a result of the growth of Mecca as a commercial center, drawing together people from many different areas and tribes.

Here we see the dynamic—or, in Marxist terms, the dialectical— relation between the economic mode of life and the superstructure of politics and ideology (including religion), a relation in which changes in the economy (in this case the development of Mecca as a commercial center and accompanying transformations) give life to new modes of thinking, and in turn these new ways of thinking become formulated in doctrines and programs around which people are organized and for which they fight, in opposition to those forces (in this case, the Quraysh rulers in Mecca) seeking to uphold and enforce the old way of life, even in the face of major changes. Of course, as emphasized here, this relationship is not one where changes in the superstructure follow directly and automatically from changes in the economic mode of life, nor are the forces representing a new superstructure, conforming more or less to those changes in the economic mode of life, bound to prevail, in some predetermined sense, or in the short run. As has been discussed, there is the role of accident in all this, but it is not all accident, there is causality as well—there are real material factors, in particular changes in the economic mode of life and relations among people, which are providing an impetus toward and a more favorable basis for corresponding changes in the superstructure of ideology and politics—and there is the continual interplay between changes in the economic base and developments, and struggles, in the superstructure. All this is illustrated in the way in which Muhammad and the new religion of Islam was not bound to but did in fact develop and eventually triumph in the new circumstances that were coming into being as a result of changes in Mecca (which were themselves, in turn, related to changes in the larger world, beyond Mecca and beyond Arabia, which gave further impetus to the development of Mecca as a commercial center).

The same basic principles and dynamics apply to the spread of Islam after the time of Muhammad. Through a combination of military conquest and often skillful diplomatic and political-administrative means, Islam and institutions of Islamic rule were spread over a very large area in the centuries after Muhammad. And, even where an Islamic caliphate as such no longer is the form of state (as well as in places, such as Iran, where an Islamic Republic now exists), Islam and its religious-political institutions have continued, down to the present time, to exert powerful influence among large numbers of people in the Middle East and other parts of the world. 

In all this, we can also see a fundamental similarity with the development and spread of Christianity, from its origins among small sects in one geographic area to its emergence as a major force exerting its power and influence in large parts of the world and among huge numbers of people. In both cases we see the crucial role of certain key individuals—such as Jesus himself, but also Paul and Constantine in the history of Christianity, and Muhammad and the early caliphs in the history of Islam—and we see how this is situated, in an overall sense, in the larger dynamics (the living, dialectical interplay) between accident and causality and between the economic base and the superstructure of ideology and politics (including military struggle). It is as a result of all this—and not because of the existence and will of one or another god, or incarnation of god, (whether Yahweh, the god of the ancient Israelites; or Allah; or the Christian Trinity; or any other supernatural being or force)—it is because of material and earthly factors that people today still believe in and worship a god (or gods), or other supernatural beings or forces, but do not all believe in the same god or gods, and in fact often denounce the gods and religions of others as false and even blasphemous.

Returning specifically to Islam, a reading of not only historical accounts of the life and teachings of Muhammad, but of the Qur’an in particular, makes clear that Muhammad’s views—what he understood and what he was ignorant of, what he upheld and praised, as well as what he opposed and condemned—all this reflected the society and world in which he lived, and involved many unequal, cruel and oppressive relations, and the corresponding values, views and customs which Muhammad regarded as necessary, legitimate and just. This includes: slavery; the notion of children, as well as women, as essentially the property of men; the subordination of women to men; the right and indeed the duty of the believers to make war on unbelievers and to carry off plunder, including women, as prizes of war; and overall relations in which some are raised above and exploit and oppress others—all in the name and under the banner of the merciful and beneficent god, Allah.

The following are just a few selections from the Qur’an that clearly—and in many cases graphically—illustrate all this. In looking at these passages from the Qur’an, keep in mind that according to the Qur’an, it is Allah who is speaking to Muhammad, usually through the medium of the angel Gabriel.

They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you…. Your women are a tilth [tillage] for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. (From Surah II, “The Cow,” verses 222–23, The Glorious Qur’an, Text and Explanatory Translation by Mohammad M. Pickthall, 10th Revised Edition, 1994, Library of Islam. All citations from the Qur’an are from this edition; unless otherwise indicated, all words and phrases in parentheses are in the original. The word in brackets [tillage] has been added here.)

In this, there is a striking similarity to the Bible, and the laws and commandments in the Old Testament in particular, which portray women who are menstruating as something unclean which must be avoided by men. In both cases, this is part of a tradition which treats women in general as a source of contamination and as inferior and unworthy in relation to men.

So we read in the Qur’an:

If two men be not (at hand), then a man and two women of such as ye may approve as witnesses [may testify] so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. (“The Cow,” v. 282—the phrase within brackets [“may testify”] has been added here.)

Here we see that the testimony of women is considered to be only half as reliable and valuable as that of a man in legal proceedings: it takes two women to substitute for or replace one man in such a proceeding.

This view of women is also illustrated in the following from the Qur’an:

Beautiful for mankind is love of the joys (that come) from women and offspring, and stored-up heaps of gold and silver, and horses branded (with their mark), and cattle and land. That is the comfort of the life of the world. Allah! With Him is a more excellent abode. (Surah III, “The Family of Imran,” v. 14)

Here the point is being made that worldly things, while they may have their value, cannot compare to the glory of Allah and a life of service and submission to Allah—which is what Islam means: submission. But the view here of what is beautiful for mankind reflects social relations in which women, as well as children, along with horses that are branded and cattle and land, are, in effect or literally, possessions of men. Again we notice a striking similarity with the Bible—for example, the Ten Commandments, and the tenth in particular, where women are listed, along with slaves, houses and farm animals, as things of “thy neighbor’s” which “thou shalt not covet.”

Another passage from the Qur’an presents this view of women even more graphically: “And all married women (are) forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.”

Here women as captured slaves or concubines of the faithful (men) is upheld and celebrated. (See Surah IV, “Women,” v. 24.) 

And there is the following:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [whip] them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great. (Surah IV, “Women,” v. 34—the explanatory word “whip” was added here, in brackets.)

The meaning of this—and the unequal and oppressive social relations this embodies and promotes between men and women—are all too familiar.

“As for the thief,” the Qur’an instructs, “both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise. But whoso repenteth after his wrongdoing and amendeth, lo! Allah will relent toward him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (Surah V, “The Table Spread,” v. 38–39)

Women thieves as well as men will have their hands cut off—here we see women finally receiving equal treatment. [Laughter]

Another passage from the Qur’an:

They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers. (Surah VIII, “The Spoils of War,” v. 1)

The emphasis here is on regulating the distribution of the spoils of war, and on the priority that must be given in this distribution to Muhammad, the messenger of Allah, and to the developing state that Muhammad headed, in which he ruled as the representative of Allah. And, it should be kept in mind, the spoils of war to be distributed among the faithful (men), include women who are captured and carried off (see above in relation to the surah “Women,” v. 24).

And in the following passages from the Qur’an, the owning of slaves, as well as treating wives as the possessions of their husbands—and spoils of war—is upheld, and extolled as well:

Successful indeed are the believers/Who are humble in their prayers,/And who shun vain conversation,/And who are payers of the poor-due/And who guard their modesty—/Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy. (Surah XXIII, “The Believers,” v. 1–6)

And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maidservants. If they be poor, Allah will enrich them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means, Aware. (Surah XXIV, “Light,” v. 32)

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah has given thee as spoils of war. (See Surah XXXIII, “The Clans,” v. 50.)

Elsewhere in the Qur’an, Allah, speaking through Muhammad, says:

Each do We supply, both these and those, from the bounty of thy Lord. And the bounty of thy Lord can never be walled up. See how We prefer one above another, and verily the Hereafter will be greater in degrees and greater in preferment. (Surah XVII, “The Children of Israel,” v. 20–21)

So here we see that, along with slavery, and the plundering of women, the exalting of some over others is the way and the will of Allah.

Or, again:

We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the life of the world, and raised some of them above others in rank, that some of them may take labour from others; and the mercy of thy Lord is better than (the wealth) that they amass. (Surah XLIII, “Ornaments of Gold,” v. 32)

Worldly worth is considered a value in one context but as nothing compared to the glory and the largesse of Allah. According to the Qur’an, Muhammad is relaying the words of Allah here, who is angry at the ingratitude of some who doubt the word of Allah as told to his messenger, Muhammad. But there is also expressed here, on the part of Muhammad, and in the name of Allah, a clear approval and advocacy of worldly divisions in which some are elevated above and exploit others.

The same outlook and view of what the relations are, and ought to be, between different groups of people (men and women, masters and slaves, and so on), which I have cited so far from the Qur’an (and these are only a few representative examples) is projected by Muhammad from this life into the promised afterlife:

Lo! the doom of thy Lord will surely come to pass;/There is none that can ward it off…. Then woe that day unto the deniers/Who play in talk of grave matters;/The day when they are thrust with a (disdainful) thrust, into the fire of hell….Lo! those who kept their duty dwell in gardens and delight,/Happy because of what their Lord hath given them, and (because) their Lord hath warded off from them the torment of hell-fire....Reclining on ranged couches. And We wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes….And there go round, waiting on them menservants of their own, as they were hidden pearls. (Surah LII, “The Mount,” v. 7–8, 11–13, 17–18, 20, 24)

And shortly after that, the Qur’an further elaborates on and embellishes this vision of paradise, including the following:

Therein are those [women] of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni [spirits capable of assuming human form] will have touched before them. (Surah LV, “The Beneficent,” v. 56—“women” and “spirits capable of assuming human form” have been added here, in brackets.)

Here are the much talked about virgins who are rewards in paradise for the faithful—men. And then this vision is repeated, and further elaborated on:

Fair ones, close-guarded in pavilions—/Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny?—/Whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them—/ Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny?—/ Reclining on green cushions and fair carpets. (“The Beneficent,” v. 72–76)

And again in another surah:

There wait on them immortal youths....And (there are) fair ones with wide, lovely eyes,/Like unto hidden pearls/Reward for what they used to do. (Surah LVI, “The Event,” v. 17, 22–24)

In light of all this, the questions are very sharply posed: Are the words and commandments and the vision of Islam anything that people should submit to and carry out? Is the Allah of Islam any different, in any meaningful way, from “God the Original Fascist” of the “Judeo-Christian” religious tradition? Is it not the case that, like the Bible and the religion(s) based on it, Islam and the Qur’an embody and advocate horrors that humanity no longer can afford to, or needs to, endure—and, instead, can and must move forward to cast off and finally bury in the past?