www.martinsbenperrusi.

com

THE RESTORATION OF
NATURAL RELIGION
Ben Martins

I
One of the most popular assumptions which ultimately found the contemporary
scepticism claims that religion, on revealing itself incapable of proving the
existence of God through reason, ends up emptying of significance. The facts,
nonetheless, prove quite different. First of all: whether or not the existence of
God can be logically demonstrated still remains the subject of an endless
controversy1. Second: even admitting hypothetically such a sort of impossibility,
science itself has already been obeying since the 20‟s a methodological
principle which anyhow prevents it from determining things with absolute
precision or certainty2. This is the main reason, by the way, why any scientific
discovery has thenceforth conformed to the condition of a theory —in the end, a
mere opinion: that is, a kind of belief.
Therefore, even under these terms, God could well correspond —for instance—
to nothing less than the concept whereby religion prefers to explain or describe
reality as such3. In truth, an approach of this genre would even come to impose
not only as valid as any other but also quite more advantageous. On the one
side, as often observed, it would permit the perfect integration of things such as
mind, values and quality into a whole which has until now persisted in frustrating
all attempts of some conventional materialism to reduce it to quantity alone4. On

1 Such a controversy could well be seen as more directly related to the mode of describing things —as a
linguistic disagreement— than to the very validity of the contending propositions in itself —therefore, as a
politic dispute about who decides how, under which terms, to debate.
2 Indeterminacy or uncertainty or Heisenberg‟s uncertainty principle (1925-30); as well as Popper‟s
deniability principle (1935-40).
3 Such a proposal could well be denominated, depending on the given perspective, either “pantheism” or
“idealism” and ultimately translates the pertinent position of not only all Platonic outlooks in general but
also all mysticisms in particular —obviously, the Christian one included. As for the way it is formulated
here, pay special attention to Benedict de Spinoza (1632-77) and Karl Jaspers (1883-1969).
4 “Surprisingly, there are some who believe this is a reason to deny the reality of the […] subjective aspect
of the mental; they call themselves eliminative materialists. But this is an irrational and, I might add,
unscientific attitude. The first role of science is not to ignore the data, and the existence of
phenomenological features of mental life is one of the most obvious and unavoidable categories of data
with which we are presented. To regard it as unreal because it cannot be accounted for by the methods of
current physical science is to get things backwards. The data are not determined by our methods; rather

1
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

the other, as seldom emphasized, while the others —in especial, materialism—
are obliged to maintain an intrinsically endless effort to furnish their claims with
due evidence, it could well give itself the luxury of not only discarding the
necessity of taking such a sort of trouble but also unveiling totally self-evident.
After all, be named and defined as it may, nobody would ever dare to dispute
the very existence of reality in itself5.
However, regardless of such a notable argument6 —that is, even assuming just
the contrary: that religion is not capable of demonstrating the existence of God
in a logically irrefutable manner— still, if science does not lose its legitimacy on
account of the fundamental uncertainty of its own propositions, why should
religion do? This is the motive why the religious standpoint succeeds in proving
far more satisfactory than the sceptic one7.
Another presumption which bases the disbelief of today sustains as a kind of
last resort that all major religions on record, save perhaps Buddhism, having
already been completely scrutinised by modern philosophy, ended up being
deemed hence not natural —that is, not founded on pure reason as well, but on
arbitrary revelation alone. According to a paradigmatic voice of the
contemporary academy,
“The problem about appealing to revelation is that the argument only works with
those who are already believers. […] This is why the arguments of natural
theology (which forms part of philosophy of religion) are of more general
interest. For they purport to be based on premises which it is hoped any
reasonable person would accept. The arguments of natural theology are those
that are based on reason alone, which has traditionally been assumed to be
natural and common to all human beings, in contrast with revelations, which are
imparted only to a chosen few. An argument, based on the Koran or the Bible,
[for instance,] which concluded that there was a moral order in the universe —
certain behaviour that is good, other behaviour that is bad, reward for the good,
punishment for the bad, etc— would probably be unnecessary for those inside
those religious traditions and carry no connection for those outside. What is
needed is an argument whose premises would be accepted by any reasonable
person. And many reasonable people are outside any religious tradition. What
is needed is an argument in natural theology […].”
Open University, 2002.8
Even so:
“Christian, Jewish and Muslim philosophers and theologians [, for example,]
have historically found common ground in discussing the arguments of natural

the adequacy of our methods is determined by whether they can account for the data. To admit to reality
only what can be understood is a sure recipe for stagnation”. —Thomas Nagel (1937), “Consciousness
and Objective Reality”, The Mind-Body Problem: A Guide to the Current Debate, ed. by R. Warner and T.
Szubka (Blackwell, 1994), pp. 63-8, paragraph 16.
5 Such a proposition, by the by, somewhat invokes the ontological argument of Anselm (1033-1109): “God
is that than which a greater cannot be thought.”
6 Which extends far beyond the scope of such an essay.
7 “Idealism would come out as one of the most popular philosophies of all times” —Robert Wilkinson,
“Minds and Bodies” (Milton Keynes, The Open University, 2002), p.57 —a book forming part of the Open
University course A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation.
8 Stuart Brown, “Destiny, Purpose and Faith” (Milton Keynes, The Open University, 2002), pp. 78-79 —a
book forming part of the Open University course A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation.

2
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

religion. But they largely disagree when it comes to revelation since their most
characteristic beliefs are founded upon different sets of writings. […] Since
these beliefs conflict, the claim of these texts to speak from God poses this
fundamental problem: they cannot all be right. […] It remains to be seen
whether natural religion could provide a basis for accepting a particular religious
authority as reliable and rejecting others.”
Ibid.9
In other words: if natural religion really is possible, why do the scriptures
whereby the major religions justify their authority not reflect this? Why do these
writings not unveil explicitly logical, coherent? Why do they not base the validity
of their proposals just upon reason, rather than mainly upon events of
supernatural character —such as allegedly divine revelations— whose
authenticity can never be appropriately verified?
Nonetheless, such an incredulous assumption as well is nothing but completely
false. Not all major creeds have already come to be properly examined by
rationalism10. There exists a sacred book which, despite pertaining to one of
these faiths, happens to advocate natural religion expressly. The mere
subjection of such an unique scripture to the appropriate interpretation —
namely, that governed by logic alone— involves as a necessity the radical
revision of the very religion historically associated with it and hence the
foundation of an unprecedentedly revolutionary ideology: a Weltanschauung11
capable, among other virtues, of reconciling faith and reason to each other.

II
The effort to demonstrate the veracity of such an audacious claim does not at
all require the appeal to the legitimate evidence indirectly furnished by what
many has already been denouncing for more than half a century12 concerning
the alleged pretensions of Western science to the monopoly of rationality —in
this case, that they anyhow betray a complete lack of consistency and thus a
fundamentally arbitrary, authoritarian and ethnocentric character13. Quite the
contrary, a summary exposition of the sacred opus mentioned above, jointly
with the subsequent disclosure of its identity, will be more than enough for the
purpose. After all, except the text in question, no other of the genre whatsoever
—nor even the Buddhist one— comes to vindicate natural religion to such an

9 Ibid, pp.111-112.
10 Rationalism, in the most general sense, means the principle or habit of accepting reason as the
supreme authority in matters of opinion, or conduct.
11 That is, a world-view, a particular mode of seeing reality as a whole.
12 Particularly, those related to structuralism and contra-culture; and even Karl Popper (1902-1994) in his
late work.
13 What means that there are valid ways of being effectively rational other than that embodied by Western
scientism —like that, for example, employed by the symbolism of some religious literature. In this sense,
pay special attention to Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989), Thomas Kuhn (1922-1995), and Noam Chomsky
(1928- ).

3
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

extent as to satisfy indeed all the pertinent requisites —precisely and in order of
importance: (1) maintaining the adequate view, (2) submitting the validity of its
own proposal to the supreme criterion of reason and (3) detailing this general
position with sufficient coherence.
Well, the outlook aimed by the first exigency should thus coincide with that
already presented here as a rational justification for theism, since it in the end
represents the single one of the kind which imposes logically irrefutable.
However, such a viewpoint14 happens to be customarily identified with no
scriptural proposal other than that of Buddhism —an erroneous conception the
sacred book under consideration then throws itself into correcting not only by
sustaining the same posture in fact but also on performing this task with as
unrivalled an explicitness as follows:
“God is the Reality” (22:6). “God is the only Reality” (31:30). “It is He that
encompasses all things” (4:126). “Whithersoever you turn, there is the presence
of God. For God is All-Pervading, All-Knowing” (2:115). “All things are from
God” (4:78). “To God we belong, and to Him is our return” (2:156). “It is to God
that the End and the Beginning of all things belong” (53:25). “He is the First and
the Last, the Evident and the Immanent” (57:3). “He is the Living One” (40:65).
“To your Lord is the return of all” (96:8). “Everything that exists will perish
except His own Face” (28:88). “To Him is the final goal” (40:3). “God is witness
to all things” (85:9). “My Lord comprehends in His knowledge all things” (6:80).
As regards the second condition, no opus of the class even comes near to
comply with it in effect apart from that at issue. All of them, for their own
conceptual validation, limit themselves to the referent norm: resorting to their
supposedly divine origin. Only a charitable interpretation would be able to detect
them professing rationalism somehow —that is: only in implicit terms, to say the
most. Quite in contrast, the sacred writing under debate not only subjects for
sure its own propositional legitimacy to the supreme authority of reason but also
realizes such an unequalled deed in the most express way possible:
“God proves the Truth by His words” (42:24). “God has revealed […] the most
beautiful Message in the form of a Book consistent with itself” (39:23). “Here are
signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge” (29:49). “This
is the Truth as much as the fact that you can speak intelligently to each other”
(51:23). “„My Lord! Show me how […] !‟ He said: „Do you not then believe?‟ He
said: „Yea! But to satisfy my own understanding!‟” (2:260). “This is a Message
for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly
witnesses the truth” (50:37).
Dispelling any doubt about the intentionality of such an extraordinary
commitment to natural religion, the sacred text in question does not hesitate to
go further still and challenge its own interlocutor to verify its self-proclaimed
consistency himself:
“Do they not consider this Book with care? Had it been from other than God,
they would surely have found therein much discrepancy” (4:82). “See you if this
Revelation is really from God, and yet do you reject it?” (41:52). “Let them then
produce a recital like unto it, if it be they speak the Truth” (52:34). “Have We

14 Namely, pantheism.

4
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

give them a Book from which they can derive clear evidence?” (35:40). “There
have already come to them Recitals wherein there is enough to check them”
(54:4).
With respect to the last of the three requirements, once more, no scripture other
than that under consideration proves capable of meeting it in fact —at least,
without allowing a margin for dispute. Yet, never would the said opus succeed
in such a task of providing the unfoldment of its own view with the due level of
congruity, were it not to add to its two previous positions an approach to
knowledge so antireductionist15 as that of contemporary philosophy, nor to
prescribe explicitly —unlike any congener again— this sort of conceptual
elasticity to its own interpretation.
Thus, its language ultimately assumes some symbolic character:
“Behold! in this are signs for those who by tokens do understand” (15:75). “We
have explained in detail in this Book, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of
similitude” (18:54). “We have sent down Signs that makes things clear” (24:46).
“In it are verses basic or fundamental of established meaning; they are the
foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. […] but no one knows its hidden
meanings except God. […] and none will grasp the Message except men of
understanding” (3:7). “And such are the Parables We set forth for mankind, but
only those understand them who have knowledge” (29:43). “In this are Signs for
men endued with understanding” (20:128). “He does propound to you a
similitude from your own experience” (30:28). “Thus does God set forth for men
their lessons by similitudes” (47:3).
And indiscriminate literalism should be entirely repudiated:
“Move not your tongue concerning the Book to make haste therewith. It is for Us
to collect it and make you recite it. […] It is for Us to explain it and make it clear”
(75:19). “Some say they were three, the dog being the fourth […]; others say
they were five, the dog being the sixth —doubtfully guessing at the unknown
[…]. Say you: „My Lord knows best their number; it is but few that know their
real case‟. Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a
matter that is clear” (18:22). “God does blot out or confirm what He pleases;
with Him is the Mother of the Book” (13:39). “Say: „If the ocean were ink
wherewith to write out the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be
exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if We added another ocean
like it, for its aid” (18:109). “Nor be like those who say, „We hear‟, but listen not.
The worst of beasts in the Sight of God are the deaf and the dumb —those who
understand not” (8:21-22). “God will establish in strength those who believe,
with the word that stands firm, in this world and in the hereafter” (14:27). “This is
a Glorious Book, inscribed in a Tablet Preserved” (85:21-22). “They wish to
extinguish God‟s light with their mouths; God will not allow but that His light
should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest it” (9:32). “Do
they not earnestly seek to understand the Book, or is it that there are locks upon
their hearts?” (47: 24).

15 An antireductionist approach to knowledge should reject the belief that things in general can be
completely reduced to a mere concept. It is related to that principle of contemporary science already
mentioned here. See also Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

5
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

Quite the opposite, the sacred book at issue actually recommends maximizing
without hesitation the meaning of its own propositions:
“Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best meaning in it: those are the
ones whom God has guided, and those are the ones endued with
understanding” (39:18). “And follow the best of the courses revealed to you from
your Lord” (39:55). “And We ordained laws for him […] in all matters, both
commanding and explaining all things, and said: „Take and hold these with
firmness, and enjoin your people to hold fast by the best in the precepts‟”
(7:145). “To God apply the highest similitude” (16:60). “The most beautiful
names belong to God” (7:180). “The Word of your Lord does find its fulfilment in
truth and in justice” (6:115). “Verily this Book does guide to that which is most
right or stable” (17:9). “And Our Command is but a single Word —like the
twinkling of an eye” (54:50). “Such was the practice approved of God among
those who lived in foretime; no change will you find in the practice approved of
God” (33:62). “No changes can there be in the Words of God” (10:64). “This
was Our Way with the Apostles We sent before you: you will find no change in
Our Ways” (17:77). “We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We
will assuredly guard it from corruption” (15:9).
For its proposal by all means rejects the mould of a novelty —of such a
knowledge as does not exist in the mind prior to and independent of experience,
as does not prove naturally deducible16. Only within the context of what has
always been thought about God and can anyhow be so does the scripture
under consideration permit a correct comprehension of its true message:
“Do they not ponder over the Word of God, or has anything new come to them
that did not come to their fathers of old?” (23:68). “I am no bringer of new-
fangled doctrine” (46:9). “Nothing is said to you that was not said […] before
you” (41:43). “This is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding”
(39:21). “It is true that those who were given knowledge beforehand, when it is
recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration” (17:107). “None
of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute
something better or similar” (2:106). “This is a Book […] confirming the
Revelations which came before it” (6:92). “This is in the Books of the earliest
Revelations” (87:18). “It is announced in the mystic Books of former peoples”
(26:196). “God made it but a message of hope for you, and an assurance to
your hearts” (3:126).
After all, the real nature of no thing whatsoever can ever be properly perceived
when isolated from reality as a whole17 —namely, God:
“[...] It is God who gives guidance towards Truth” (10: 35). “With Him are the
keys of the unseen, the treasures that none knows but He. He knows whatever
there is on Earth and in the sea. Not a leaf does fall but with His knowledge;
there is not a grain in the darkness or depths on the Earth, nor anything fresh or
dry, green or withered, but is inscribed in a Record clear to those who can read”
(6:59). “Certainly all Signs are in the power of God” (6:109). “To God do all
questions go back for decision” (2:210). “Say: „The Guidance of God is the only

16 That is, an a posteriori knowledge, as contrasted to an a priori one —that we possess beforehand,
regardless of anything else, as a constituent of our own mind, like mathematics, for instance.
17 Such a claim rather summarizes the antireductionist posture.

6
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

Guidance‟. Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has
reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against God”
(2:120). “He knows what appears to His creature as before or behind them. Nor
shall they encompass of His knowledge except as He wills” (2:255). “But God
bears witness that what He has sent unto you He has sent from His own
knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is God for a witness”
(4:166). “And […] never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the
guidance of God” (7:43). “Of knowledge we have none, save what You has
taught us” (2:32). “The Truth comes from God alone; so be not of those who
doubt” (3:60).
With such devices, the sacred book in question ends up eliminating by the root
any possibility of discrepancy whatsoever. Therefore, no further evidence will be
necessary in order to obligate a reasonable person18 to admit once for all that,
as the present paper has just sustained, such a surprising scripture does not
only in fact but also in an explicit manner advocate natural religion.
This no doubt constitutes a historical conclusion —at least, as far as concerns
the official knowledge of the Western academy19. And its implications are
equally important —to wit: that not all major creeds has already been definitively
scrutinized by a rationalist approach; that the due interpretation of the
abovementioned text by necessity entails the revision of the very religion
historically identified with it and hence the establishment of an incomparably
revolutionary ideology; and finally that the last assumption founding the
contemporary scepticism in effect reduces to a mere fallacy. All this, of course,
providing that the given description of the said opus truly conforms to fact.
However, contrary to the expectation, the sacred writing under debate manages
to elaborate its standpoint in such a consistent manner as even contributes to a
certain formulation of the referent world-view20 which, by surmounting the
typical weaknesses of the classical models21 without discarding their respective
advantages, proves to be the best logically possible22. This is the reason, for
instance, why the sacred book in question —unlike almost all its congeners—
refuses to confer a negative character on materiality:
“Lawful unto you are all things good and pure” (5:5). “Make not unlawful the
good things which God has made lawful to you” (5:90). “Who has forbidden the
beautiful gifts of God, which He has produced for His Servants and the things,
clean and pure, which He has provided for sustenance?” (7:32). “See you what
things God has sent down to you for sustenance? Yet you hold forbidden some
things thereof and some things lawful. […] Has God indeed permitted you, or do
you invent things to attribute to God?” (10:59).
To the shock of the orthodox puritanism, even the pleasures of the flesh —sex
included— are subsequently sanctified:

18 Who, according to that quotation from an Open University textbook, should already be content since the
fulfilment of the first prerequisite.
19 As exemplified by the aforementioned citation from an Open University textbook.
20 That is, pantheism —idealism.
21 Those adopted by Buddhism and Christian mysticism, for example.
22 To demonstrate whether or not the scripture at issue expands the pantheist view in a way which really
is either relevant or the best extends far beyond the scope of this essay and does not threaten the validity
of the aforementioned conclusions at all.

7
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

“Our Lord! Give us good in this World and good in the Hereafter!” (2:201).
“Enjoy of the Sustenance which He furnishes” (67:15). “Dwell you and your wife
in the Garden, and enjoy its good things as you wish” (7:19). “Eat of the good
things We have provided for you” (2:172). “Eat you and drink you to your heart‟s
content” (77:43). “He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you
may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between
your hearts” (30:21). “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth
when or how you will” (2:223). “Seek you to please your consorts” (66:1).
For religion must accept human nature as such23:
“Establish God‟s handwork according to the pattern on which He has made
mankind” (30:30). “For the present, God has lightened your task for He knows
that there is a weak spot in you” (8:66). “God does wish to lighten your
difficulties: for men was created weak in flesh” (4:28). “God intend every facility
for you; He does not want to put you difficulties” (2:185). “No burden do We
place on any soul, but that which it can bear” (7:42). “Your Lord will shower His
Mercies on you and dispose of your affair towards comfort and ease” (18:16).
“And We will make it easy for you to follow the simple Path” (87:8).
Actually, the very concept of religion24 itself summarizes nothing less than
adaptation to natural order:
“Do they seek for other than the Religion of God? —while all creatures in the
heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will” (3:83). “Do
they not look at God‟s creation, even among inanimate things, —how their very
shadows turn round […], prostrating themselves to God, and that in the
humblest manner? And to God does obeisance all in the heavens and on earth,
whether moving living creatures or the angels: for none are arrogant before their
Lord” (16:48-49). “Whatever beings there are in the heavens and on earth do
prostrate themselves to God with good-will or in spite of themselves” (13:15).
“To Him belongs all creatures in the heavens and on earth: even those who are
in His Very Presence are not too proud to serve Him” (21:19). “It was We that
made the hills declare, in unison with him [—certain prophet—], Our Praise, at
even tide and at break of day, and the birds gathered in assembly: all with him
did turn to God” (38:18-19). “See you not that it is God Whose praises all beings
in the heavens and on earth do celebrate […]? Each one knows its own mode
of prayer and praise” (24:41).
After all, nature is intrinsically good:
“Contemplate the wonders of creation in the heavens and on the earth, with the
thought: „Our Lord! Not for naught has You created all this!‟ ” (3:191). “Not for
idle sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between”
(21:16). “It is He Who sends the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before
His Mercy” (7:57). “We created the heavens, the earth, and all between them,
but for just ends” (15:85). “It is We who created the heavens and the earth in
true proportions” (6:73). “Nowise did God create this [—nature—] but in truth
and righteousness” (10:5). “Our Lord is He Who gave to each created thing its

23 Such a program rather coincides with that of Humanism.

24 Besides, in the original language of the scripture at issue, the word usually translated as “religion” in
truth means something like “natural mode of living”.

8
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

form and nature, and further, gave it guidance” (20:50). “He has created the
heavens and the earth in just proportions, and has given you shape, and made
your shapes beautiful” (64:3). “And cattle […]: from them you derive warmth
and numerous benefits, and of their meat you eat. And you have a sense of
pride and beauty in them as you drive them home in the evening, and as you
lead them forth to pasture in the morning. And they carry your heavy loads to
lands that you could not otherwise reach except with souls distressed” (16:43-
44).
And all creatures have rights of their own man must not violate anyway25:
“Here is a she-camel: she has a right of watering, and you have a right of
watering […]. Touch her not with harm, lest the Penalty of a Great Day size you”
(26:155-156). “There is no animal that lives on earth nor a being that flies on its
wings, but forms part of communities like you” (6:38). “This she-camel of God is
a Sign unto you: so leave her to graze in God‟s earth, and let her come to no
harm, or you should be sized with a grievous punishment” (7:73). “The produce
of the earth —which provide food for men and animals […]: the people to whom
it belongs they think they have all powers of disposal over it” (10:24). “We did
indeed offer The Trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains; but
they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it; —he
was indeed unjust and foolish” (33:72). “When the Earth is shaken to her utmost
convulsion, and the Earth throws up her burdens from within, and man cries
distressed: „What is the matter with her?‟ —on that day will she declare her
tidings: for that your Lord will have given her inspiration” (99:1-5).
So, asceticism —as denial of human nature, not as discipline— should for sure
be condemned:
“The monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for
them: We commanded only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God” (57:27).
“Make not unlawful the good things which God has made lawful for you, but
commit no excess: for God loves not those given to excess” (5:90). “Commit not
excess in your religion” (4:17) “Exceed not in your religion the bounds of what is
proper, trespassing beyond the Truth” (5:80). “Make not your own hands
contribute to your destruction” (2:195).
And quietism26 as well:
“Man can have nothing but what he strives for” (53:39). “Verily never will God
change the condition of a people until they change it themselves with their own
souls” (13:11). “God will never change the Grace which He bestowed upon on a
people until they change what is in their own souls” (8:53). “One day every soul
will come up struggling for itself” (16:111). “It is your actions that God […] will
observe” (9:94). “Be with those who are true in word and deed” (9:119). “He
may try you by your deeds” (7:129). “[Who are the Believers?] It is these who
hasten in every good work, and these who are foremost in them” (23:61).

25 The sacred writing under consideration no doubt constitutes the first one of any kind in history to
delineate explicitly the notion of natural rights for beings other than humans. Only since the 70‟s has
Western philosophy commenced to consider the matter seriously. See Peter Singer and Tom Regan —
„animal liberation‟ movement, anti-speciesism.
26 In this case, that aspect of asceticism which absolutise passivity and non-violence.

9
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

“When you are free from your immediate task, still labour hard” (94:7). “Do
whatever you can” (39:39).
Quite the reverse, activism is imperative:
“Only those are Believers who […] have striven with their belongings and theirs
persons in the Cause of God” (49:15). “Those who believe fight in the Cause of
God” (4:76). “Let those fight in the Cause of God who sell the life in this world
for the Hereafter” (4:74). “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and
fought and strove and struggled in the Path of God, —they have the hope of the
Mercy of God” (2:218). “Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with
might and main, in God‟s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the
highest rank in the sight of God” (9:20). “Not equal are those believers who sit
at home and receive no harm and those who strive and fight in the Cause of
God with their goods and their persons” (4:95). “If it be that your fathers, your
sons, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that you have gained, the
commerce in which you fear a decline; or the dwellings in which you delight —
are dearer to you than God […] or the striving in His cause; —then wait until
God brings about His Decision” (9:24). “Why should you not fight in the Cause
of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed? —men,
women, and children, whose cry is: „Our Lord! […] Raise for us from You one
who will protect […] and help!‟ ” (4:75). “God will certainly aid those who aid His
Cause” (22:40). “Do your duty to God, seek the means of approach unto Him,
and strive with might and main in His Cause: that you may prosper” (5:38).
“Those who strive in Our Cause, —We will certainly guide them to Our Paths”
(29:69).
And socialism —if not even communism— also:
“If you believe and guard against evil, He will grant you your recompense, and
will not ask you to give up your possessions. If He were to ask you for all of
them, and press you, you would covetously withhold, and He would bring out all
your ill-feeling. Behold, you are those invited to spend of your substance in the
Way of God: but among you are some that are niggardly. But any who are
niggardly are so at the expense of their own souls” (47:36-38). “God has
bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others:
those more favoured are not to throw back their gifts to those whom their right
hand possesses, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the
favours of God?” (16:71). “When they are told, „Spend of the bounties with
which God has provided you‟, the Unbelievers say to those who believe:
„Should we then feed those whom, if God had so willed, He would have fed,
Himself?‟“ (36:47). “To those weak of understanding make not over your
property, which God has made a means of support for you, but feed and clothe
them therewith, and speak to them words of kindness and justice” (4:5). “[As to
the righteous,] in their wealth and possessions was remembered the right of the
needy” (51:19). “Not misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you” (8:27).
“God has permitted trade and forbidden usury” (2:275). “O you who believe!
Fear God, and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if you are
indeed believers. If you do it not, take notice of war from God and His Apostle:
but if you turn back you shall have your capital sums. Deal not unjustly and you
shall not be dealt with unjustly. If the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time till it is
easy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is the best for
you if you only knew” (2:278-280). “We wished to be gracious to those who
10
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders in faith and make them
heirs, to establish a firm place for them in the land” (28:5-6). “God has
promised, to those […] who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a
surety, grant them in the Land, inheritance of power […] ; that He will establish
in authority their religion —the one which he has chosen for them [: the natural
mode of living] ; and that He will change their state, after the fear in which they
lived to one of security and peace” (24:55). “Soon will He guide them and
improve their condition” (47:5). “We made a people considered weak and of no
account inheritors of land” (7:137).
For, challenging in particular some distinctive genre of sanctimonious delicacy,
natural justice may sometimes require the unpleasant but inevitable use of
force. As a consequence, the importance of self-defence and retaliation should
not be underestimated for the mere sake of inconsistency or hypocrisy or even
cowardice:
“Stand firm for justice” (4:135). “Hold to forgiveness; command what is right”
(7:199). “[Who are the Believers?] Those who, when an oppressive wrong is
inflicted on them, are not cowed but help and defend themselves. The
recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto in degree: but if a person
forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God: for God loves
not those who do wrong . But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after
a wrong done to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is
only against those who oppress men with wrong-doing and insolently transgress
beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice. But indeed if any
show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will
and resolution in the conduct of affairs” (42:39-43). “We ordained […] : „Life for
life, eye for eye, nose for nose, tooth for tooth, and wound equal for equal.‟ But
if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for
himself” (5:48). “To those against whom war is made, permission is given to
fight, because they are wronged” (22:39-40). “Those who believe […] defend
themselves only after they are unjustly attacked” (26:227). “Fight in the Cause
of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits” (2:190). “Let not the
Unbelievers think that Our respite to them is good for themselves” (3:178). “Let
not those who covetously withhold of the gifts which God has given them of His
Grace, think that it is good for them” (3:180). “Let not the Unbelievers think that
they can get the better of the godly: they will never frustrate them. Against them
make ready your strength to the utmost of your power […]. But if the enemy
incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace” (8:59-61). “Fight
them and God will punish them by your hand” (9:14). “Fight you the Unbelievers
who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you” (9:123). “Fight is
prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing
which is good for you and that you love a thing which is bad for you” (2:216).
“Those who believe in God […] ask you for no exemption from fighting” (9:44).
“Let not compassion move you […] in a matter prescribed by God” (24:2).
“When at length the order of fighting was issued to them, Behold! A section of
them feared men as —or even more than— they should have feared God”
(4:77). “There are among men such as say, „We believe in God‟; but when they
suffer affliction in the Cause of God they treat men‟s oppression as if it were the
Wrath of God” (29:10).

11
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

And the spontaneous character of a genuine consensus must not be

desecrated by any sort of authoritarian practice —dogmatism, paternalism,
interventionism, sectarianism, et cetera:
“If it had been your Lord‟s will, they would all have believed, —all who are on
earth! Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!” (10:99). “Let
there be no compulsion in religion [—in the natural mode of living] : Truth stands
out from Error” (2:256). “You are not one to overawe them by force. So
admonish with the Book such as fear My Warning” (50:45). “Its is true you will
not be able to guide every one whom you love; but God guides those whom He
will” (28:56). “No faith will the greater part of mankind have, however ardently
you does desire it” (12:103). “And if there is a party among you who believes in
the Message with which I have been sent, and a party which does not believe,
hold yourselves in patience until God does decide between us: for He is the
best to decide” (7:87). “If it were God‟s will, He could gather them together unto
true guidance” (6:35). “Dispute you not […] except with means better than mere
disputation” (29:46). “Invite all to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and
beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most
gracious; for your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who
receive guidance” (16:125). “Verily man is in loss, except such as have faith and
do righteous deeds and join together in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of
Patience and Constance” (103:3). “Those who hearken to their Lord […]
conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” (42:38). “Take mutual counsel
together, according to what is just and reasonable” (65:6). “It is not required of
you O Apostle, to set them on the right path, but God sets on the right path
whom He pleases. Whatever of good you give benefits your own souls, and you
shall only do so seeking the Face of God. […] Charity is for those in need”
(2:273). “Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to
administer the funds; for those whose hearts have been recently reconciled to
Truth; for those in bondage and in debt; in the Cause of God; and for the
wayfarer” (9:60). “You are held responsible only for yourself” (4:84). “Nor can be
a bearer of burdens bear another‟s burden” (35:18). “We have not sent you as a
guard over them, your duty is but to convey the Message” (42:48). “Now have
come to you [, says the Apostle,] from your Lord proofs to open your eyes: if
any will see, it will be for the good of his own soul; if any will be blind, it will be to
his own harm: I am not here to watch over your doings” (6:104). “ [The other
religions say:] „believe no one unless he follows your religion [—your mode of
living] ‟. Say: „True guidance is the guidance from God […]‟ ” (3:73). “If you
think that you are friends to God, to the exclusion to other men, then express
your desire for death, if you are truthful!” (62:6). “We […] made you into nations
and tribes, that you may know each other not that you may despise each other”
(49:13). “But those who dispute concerning God after He has been accepted,—
futile is their dispute in the sight of their Lord” (42:16). “The Believers are but a
single Brotherhood: so make peace and reconciliation between your […]
contending brothers” (49:10).
As a result, anarchism27 becomes fundamental:

27 Anarchism rejects by design any inorganic kind of power structure —like a bureaucratic state, for
instance.

12
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

“We worship none but God; […] we associate no partners with Him; […] we
erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God” (3:64).
“They [—the other religions—] take their priests and their anchorites to be their
lords in derogation of God” (9:31). “Keep your soul content with those who call
on their Lord […] , seeking His Face; and let not your eyes pass beyond them,
seeking the pomp and the glitter of this life; nor obey any whose heart We have
permitted to neglect the remembrance of Us” (18:28). “Everyone acts according
to his own disposition: but your Lord knows best who is best guided on the way”
(17:84). “It is not for us to bring you an authority except as God permits. And on
God let all men of faith put their trust” (14:11). “Take not other than Me [—
God—] as Disposer of your affairs” (17:2). “Enough is God to carry through all
affairs” (4:132). “You are not one to manage men‟s affairs” (88:22). “To each
among you have We prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If God had so willed
He would have made you a single people, but His Plan is to test you in what He
has given you: so strive in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that
will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute” (5:51). “O my Lord!
[—complains a prophet—] They have disobeyed me but they follow men whose
wealth and children give them no Increase but only Loss” (71:21). “Have they a
share in dominion or power? Behold, they give not a farthing to their fellow-
man? Or do they envy mankind for what God has given them of His bounty?”
(4:53-54).
But not always does such a world-view happen to differ from the respective
convention. Accordingly, reality itself —mind included— is thought to consist of
various planes or dimensions which interrelate: “Praise be to God, the
Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds” (1:2); “The seven heavens and the earth
[…] declare His Glory” (17:44). Time is relative: “A Day in the sight of your Lord
is like a thousand years of your reckoning” (22:47); “It [—the Hereafter—] will be
a Day when He will call you […] and you will think that you tarried but a little
while!” (17:52). All creatures are subjected to a process of evolution: “It is He
who begins the process of creation” (10:4); “Do not the Unbelievers see that the
heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We
clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing” (21:30).
Anyway, developments such as these no doubt evoke some of the ideas most
cherished by the very Western intelligentsia nowadays. Few would dare to
deem them unreasonable at first glance. Although the scripture at issue does
not need them to corroborate its already once for all established adherence to
natural religion, they well illustrate the possibilities nevertheless thus
engendered by its radically non-mechanistic rationalism —especially when its
identity comes to be known as follows.

III
Incredible as it may seem, the sacred book under discussion happens to be no
other than the so-called Koran. Exactly. The very same historically associated
to the Muslims.

13
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

Therefore, the first question so unexpected a revelation immediately raises in

the contemporary mind is: “If this is true, how or even why has such a fact not
come to be noticed before?”
As anyone may well suspect without delay, the answer for so pertinent an
interrogation must for sure relate to (1) the obviously revolutionary character of
the world-view involved. However, only History itself proves able to elucidate in
its entirety the origin or cause of such a mystery, whose existence no doubt is
also due to (2) some kind of hermeticism the own Arabic complexion of Koran
ended up assuming in the course of time. For, in reality, such a astonishing fact
has already come close to be definitively revealed to the world twice: first, by
the cultural movement which took place in the twelfth and thirteenth century‟s
Muslim Europe and which, ironically, brought to an end the medieval
obscurantism of its Christian counterpart28; and, second, by the congener
occurred in the sixteenth century‟s Muslim India —when, besides, by the first
time in the pos-Palaeolithic civilization‟s history, was established a legal order
founded on pure rationalism29.
In brief, the main reason why the contemporary man has never heard before
that Koran advocates natural religion and socialism is so simple like that: just
because, except during those two periods, the very same has never come to be
interpreted nor translated in an authentically rationalist manner30, being
meanwhile concealed by the growing barrier of a culture under some
stagnation31 and, hence, of an almost dead language32 the self-proclaimed
“scientific” West itself —very, very suspiciously— has never made the smallest
effort to surmount33. In other words: just because the man of today did not still
chance to have access to acceptable translations of Koran.
After all, those available leave much to be desired. (1) They often allow some
key-terms to remain in Arabic: what ends up distorting considerably their
original meaning. Among others: “Allah” —God, the God, the Truth, the Reality;
“Islam” —submission to God‟s Will, or to truth; “Muslim” —that who submitted to
God‟s Will, or to truth; “Jinns” —spirits, or intelligent beings of others
dimensions; “Koran” —book of poems, or simply book; “Sura” —chapter, or
step, or stage; “Ayat” —verse, or sign, or warning. This, not to mention (2) the
misinterpretations resulting from the cultural differences between West and
East. Thus, what is usually translated as “religion” means nothing more than
mode of living, philosophy of life; and “believer” mostly applies to any adherent
of idealism in general —not just to Muhammad‟s followers in particular. In

28 For instance, Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?-74) —so to speak, the father of the modern European
philosophy— did himself graduate from a Muslim university. Besides, it was the Muslins who created the
very concept of university.
29 This, during the ruling of Jalal-ud-Din Muhammad Akbar (1542-1605), the then Mogul emperor of India,
who happened to have been also the very mentor of the said movement.
30 Since the 10th Century, the majority of Muslims follow a literalist approach which compromises not only
the rationalism of Koran but also its own consistency.
31 The failure of the Islamic culture to maintain the hegemony of rationalism in its bosom —if any other
does so— no doubt is deeply related to its draining effort to preserve itself against the relentless siege of
the West since the Crusades.
32 Not even the majority of Muslims are able to understand the archaic Arabic in which Koran is written,
just like the Catholic Christians until the sixties in relation to the Latin.
33 The unifying potential of the ideology vindicated by Koran and its socialist posture certainly threatens
any empire.

14
www.martinsbenperrusi.com

3:1934, for instance, such discrepancies can even assume a dramatic character:
“The religion before God is Islam” —the wrong translation, sustaining
dogmatism and sectarianism; in contrast to: “The religion [or philosophy of life]
before God [or the Truth, or the Only Irreducible Reality] is submission to His
Will [or Its Holistic Purpose, or Meaning]” —the correct one, maintaining
rationalism and universalism.
If the mere translation of the Bible —whose rationalism, universalism and
socialism are not explicit, whose reading is not easy— into vernacular language
provoked all the revolutionary changes which succeeded the advent of the
Protestantism in the Sixteenth Century‟s Europe35, imagine what would happen
if Koran could be read by anyone in a world like that of nowadays where the
majority of the population, just by having already absorbed rationalism, does not
anymore content itself neither with the conventional dualisms nor much less
with materialism36. The first step given in this direction, I think, was taken by the
version I have used here: Abdullah Yusuf Ali‟s, 1934 —probably, the best one
ever made in a Western language, if not even in a non-Arabic language.
At least for the sake of the very science itself, Koran should be immediately
subjected to an appropriate and definitive examination.

Olinda, 20th November 2008.

34 Even the numeration of Koran was not yet subjected to standardization.

35 The industrial era is but a fruit of the Protestant Reformation. This is, in summary, what Max Weber
(1864-1920) postulates in his classic of modern sociology “The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of The
Capitalism” (1904).
36 Even though the contemporary masses are able to recognize the inconsistencies of the traditional
explanations, they persist in refusing a materialist world-view —not to understand this has been the main
failure of the Western socialist movement.

15