Center for the Study of Political Islam International

< Back to Category

Love is not a frequent topic of Islam, but it mentions negative and positive love. An example of negative love is – don’t love money. A Muslim should love his Muslim brothers, but not his blood relatives who are Kafirs. Allah does not love Kafirs.
Allah loves Muslims. The Koran says that you not truly righteous until you give what you love to charity.

The saddest part of Islamic love is that there are twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim is never a true friend to a Kafir. A Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but must always favor other Muslims.
———————-
Отражение любви в Коране
Любовь —не частая тема Ислама, однако, в нем упоминается любовь, как положительная, так и отрицательная. Примером отрицательной любви является любовь к деньгам. Мусульманин должен любить своих братьев-мусульман, а не своих родственников, которые являются Кафирами. Аллах не любит Кафиров.
Аллах любит мусульман. Коран говорит, что вы не праведны по-настоящему до тех пор, пока вы не отдаете на благотворительность то, что вы любите. Печальной частью исламской любви является то, что в Коране существуют двенадцать стихов, говорящих, что мусульманин никогда не может быть настоящим другом для Кафира. Мусульманин может проявлять дружеские чувства к Кафиру, но должен всегда благоволить другим мусульманам.

9 Responses

  1. levon425
    |

    Completely agree with TmKa and RCH’s comments, well done
    There is no way for non-Muslims to live on the same land together with Muslims.

  2. anti-statist
    |

    Wow! Thank you Dr. Warner for this very powerful presentation. I firmly believe that the negation of the “Golden Rule” by Islam, is an important point to under-score with those who are ignorant about its true nature.

  3. […] Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Sep. 20, 2015: […]

  4. TmKa
    |

    God is Great.

    God is Love.

    Which would you deny?

  5. […] The saddest part of Islamic love is that there are twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim is never a true friend to a Kafir. A Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but must always favor other Muslims. […]

  6. mikegranto
    |

    This might be the major reason that, ultimately, we will have to either destroy islam or be destroyed by it. The entire notion of love is warped by centuries of equating it with lust, or favoring muslims over kafirs. I think it’s foolish to speak of “brotherly love,” when that “brother” wishes to kill you, take your property, take your women, and thereby enrich himself. Hagar’s children were destined to have every man’s hand against them, and their hand against every man. And so it is.

    • TmKa
      |

      i hope you don’t mine me elaborating upon what you wrote.

      What you speak of is the lack of the Golden Rule. Our civilization rest upon 3 profound principles: 1) the Golden Rule, 2) the separation of religion from civics, and 3) Critical thought. Orthodox Islam, by definition does not include any of those three into its system.

      The Golden Rule was first a product of the Axial Age. The Axial Age occurred roughly around 700-300bc, but most specifically is centered on 500bc. It is called “Axial” because universal epistomological systems emerge -seprately- but -in distinct locations – through out the Eurasian periphery almost simultaneously that prescribe concept of fairness applied universally. Put another way: Multiple, but distinct civilizations developed epistomologies and philosophies of fairness all at around the same time but not really in contact with each other – thus multiple wheels (civilizations) spinning around the same Axial (universal fairness) at the same time.

      In China you had Confucius and Lao Tze, In India you had Buddha, in Iran you had Zoroaster, in Israel you had Deutero-Isaiah, in Greece you had the Socrates and the Sophist philosophers. I believe Confucius gets credit for being the first one to state the Golden Rule: do to others the way you want done to you. In essence this is the creation of a philosophy of fairness applied as a universal principle. The principle of fairness emerges either in a religious context (India, Iran, Israel) or philosophical context (China, Greece) and in the tiny village of Rome it was worked out into a legal system (the 12 tables of Rome). Other systems have developed later, and they built on to it (Christianity says to love others as you love yourself, including your enemies). Islam is the only major system that came after 500bc that subtracts from this. It does not adhere to a universal principle of fairness, instead fairness is applied only to fellow Muslims.

      The Golden Rule is the fundamental foundation for civilization. In pre-history man lived in hunting and gathering societies – and it was pretty much an age of bliss, harmony. This is demonstrated in the movie “Dances with Wolves” – which is a fictional work, but you can google CNN half hour documentary on the Hazda tribe in Africa, one of the last hunting and gathering tribes, and their life style conforms and confirms that in “Dances with Wolves.” The good was “harmony” the bad was a lack of control of the food supply/prone to starvation. The Neolithic (agricultural) revolution remedied the bad creating a food surplus. But the food surplus allowed stratification of society: farmers who provided the surplus, and elites of chiefs, warrior, priests, and accountants who consumed the surplus. The tendency was for the elites to evolve into taking too much of the surplus from the farmers, creating, increasingly over time, harsh and brutal conditions. So the Neolithic/Ag revolution fixed the bad aspect in hunting and gathering, but destroyed the good aspect, harmony. The tendency towards cruelty caused these societies to be unstable and brittle, prone to collapse and unable to last very long or grow very large. The question of the Pre-Axial Age was: how can we have the good (food surplus) without the bad (cruelty)? The answer was the axial age.

      The Axial age did not provide harmony. It was a half measure solution. It provided fairness. But almost immediately it gives birth to histories first truly great (in size and length of time) and stable Empires: Han Empire in China, Persian Archeminid Empire in Iran, Mauryan in India, eventually Greece gives us the great Hellenistic states following Alexander, and finally the Roman Empire.

      The axial age did not occur in the Americas. To demonstrate what life was like without axial age principles, I like to show my students the movie Apocalypto. That movie shows us 1) hunting and gathering societies living in harmony, then 2) Advanced Pre-Axial Age society living in cruelty and 3) the arrival (at the very end) of Axial age ethics with the Spanish landing. (Its worth noting that in reality the Spanish who ruled over the Indians were, for centuries, every bit as cruel to the ordinary Indians as the pre-columbian rulers – despite the efforts of the Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church to the otherwise).

      So for over two thousand years most of the world has pursued a better existence through fairness (and beyond fairness). Generally speaking the great civilizations collapsed under conditions of unfairness. At the time of Rome’s collapse, wealth was so concentrated that only 6 senators owned half of North Africa – the wealthy and powerful used their influence to avoid paying taxes, the Roman state lacked the resources to fund an army sufficiently large enough to protect its borders. We collapse under unfairness and grow, advance and expand under fairness (and beyond fairness).

      (by the way, I think this paradigm of thought suggest that Adam and Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden was a parable for humans entering into the Neolithic age, and given its harshness and cruelty, makes hunting and gathering look like a paradise)

      The lack of a Golden Rule is what allows the likes of Isis to inflict supreme barbarity and cruelty upon people.

      Islam is by definition a conflation of politics and religion.

      In regard to critical thought: Western religions are based upon faith. Faith implies a tolerance for doubt. Islam is based upon Certainty. The logic runs like this (Per Bernard Weiss, Western Scholar of Islamic Law see “The Spirit of Islamic Law”). That God exist is not a question of doubt, it is a matter of certainty. Creation is evidence of a Creator. God is the creator, man is the creature. God is the ruler, man is the subject. Man’s duty then is to find God’s law, and follow it dutiful. The source of God’s law is the Koran. The Koran says follow Mohammed’s example, so the Summa (Mohammed’s biography, habits and sayings) are also sources of law. Unfortunately Mohammed practiced dishonesty, banditry, extortion, murder and genocide. Islamic law, like all legal systems, follows a last in time doctrine (abbregation) which says the later in time trumps legal notions that were created earlier in time. Unfortunately Mohammed became more cruel and less inclusive over time, which makes the actions of Isis more legal than the actions of moderates.

      The emphasis on certainty at first made Islam friendly towards science. Creation is evidence of a creator. So Islam invites man to study creation because it is believed the more you examine creation the more evidence you will find concerning the creator. But Certainty also turned Islam into authoritarian system, including in regard to thought. Islamic scholar Gabriel Reynolds (at Notre Dame) notes that Islam emphasizes the majesty of God – or the notion that “God is Great” or more precisely “God is Greater” thus the absolute majesty and unapproachable of God. God’s the ruler. Man’s duty is to bow down and follow Islam unthinkingly and unquestioningly. This emphasis on certainty then leads to authoritarian thought which vanquishes the possibility of critical thought, upon which western academic tradition relies to produce progress in arts, science and society’s way of living.

      So we see that Islam is not really compatible with our Western way of life which relies upon the Golden Rule, the separation of religion from politics and critical thought. I’ve often had to tell some of my more fundamentally religious friends that if they want government that is based upon Christian principles, that forces people to act morally (as with birth control) and enforcement of that system on society, that they are really latent Muslims. Christ commands separation of church and state. Christianity does not coerce people into righteous behavior, they must choose it and choose it freely, and towards that, Christianity gives us faith instead of certainty, which provides us with doubt which allows us to question and wonder about the nature of creation which then allows one to find one’s own way freely towards God.

      In regard to love, I believe that theologically the creation and emergence of Islam was to reject the concept of God’s love for humanity as manifested in Christ. God loves humanity so much he places himself into humanity and suffers and dies to redeem humanity. This is directly contrary to the concept of the Majesty of God. A God so majestic would never allow himself to become so lowly as to take on a carbon based life form, let alone be whipped, tripped, and murdered at the hands of cruel men.

  7. […] post Love in the Koran appeared first on Political […]

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.

Get all the latest from Political Islam right in your inbox!

Click the button below to sign up for our Newsletter.
Sign Up for the Newsletter