A Brief History Of Heaven & Hell

FOOTNOTES & APPENDICES:

{1  “Shamayim” was based on the Assyrian term for sky (“samu”) plus the Old Semitic term for “waters” (“mayim”): hence “waters of the sky”.  (Similarly, the Hebrew term for sun, “shemesh”, derives from “samu” and the Assyrian term for fire, “ish”: hence “fire of the sky”.)  Meanwhile, the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon term “heaven” has its origins in lexemes for “sky”: Celtic (hevin), Norse (himinn / hifinn), and Germanic (himil / heban).  This is roughly the equivalent of “An” in Sumerian; “Tian” in Classical Chinese; or “Gok” in Old Turkic.}

{2  For the descriptions of “Jannah” in the Koran, see 2:25, 3:136, 4:57, 9:72, 13:23-24, 15:45-47, 18:31, 22:23, 25:10, 29:58, 35:33, 36:55-58, 37:41-49, 38:50-52, 39:20, 43:71-73, 44:51-55, 47:15, 52:17-24, 55:45-77, 56:11-38, 69:21-24, 76:5/12-21, 77:41-44, 78:31-34, 83:22-28/34-35, and 88:10-16.  The picture that is painted is a strikingly tawdry one–far more bawdry than bucolic.  What with the bevy of voluptuous vixens, the venue is more of a bordello than a seraglio.}

{3  The notion of SEVEN heavens–and even seven Earths–goes back thousands of years.  Sumerian inscriptions dating back to the late second millennium B.C. read: “An imin bi; Ki imin bi” [the heavens are seven, the earths are seven].  “An” is Earth; “Ki” is the heavens, “bi” is seven.  The Vedic version of Seven Heavens was: Deva-loka, Yama-loka, Svarga-loka, Brahma-loka, Vaikunth[a]-loka, Shiva-loka, and Para-loka (not to be confused with the seven levels of the world: Bhu-loka, Bhuvar-loka, Indra-loka, Mahar-loka, Jana-loka, Tapar-loka, and Satya-loka).  The Islamic claim that heaven has seven levels (ref. 71:15 in the Koran) derives from Judaic cosmology: Vilon (alt. “arafel”), Raki’a, Shehaqim, Zebul, Ma’on, Machon, and Araboth (in which can be found god’s throne).  This view was explicated in medieval Judaica like the Merkabah and Heic[h]alot; and was also referenced in the third Book of Enoch.  Even Dante adapted the leitmotif in his “Paradiso”.  One might wonder: Why the elaborate design of heaven?  God only knows.  Either way, it serves as an after-death destination for the chosen: resembling a celestial luxury resort–replete with concubines and sumptuous buffet.}

{4  A coterie of nubile virgins with large, beautiful eyes and bodacious bosoms?  Gosh-golly.  Apparently, god is a fan of anime.  Shall we suppose that the “houri” have pig-tails, pleated mini-skirts, and thigh-highs too?  (God willing!)  It was no feat of genius to peddle enticing blandishments before an audience of hungry, horny Bedouin men.  The gimmick was merely a matter of engineering incentives.  Once a man is promised blow-jobs on-demand…for all eternity (but ONLY IF he follows certain instructions), he will be less inclined to consider alternative options.  Throw in a sumptuous, all-you-can-eat buffet in shaded pavilions…every day, in perpetuity…and one will be sure to command a medieval desert-dweller’s attention.}

{5  In Islamic cosmogony, one of the rivers in heaven even has a name: “al-Kawthar” (108:1).  Meanwhile, “Salsabil” came to be the name for its main river.  Due to the presence of the “Lote Tree”, abundance is guaranteed.  The endless supply of fruit will ensure there will be no hunger.  Meanwhile, 37:62-68, 44:43-46, and 56:52 tell us that there is also a special tree IN HELL (the “Tree of Zaqqum”), from which the inmates will be forced to eat putrid fruit.  (Yikes!)  The idea of being forced to eat poisonous produce in hell came from the Zoroastrian hell.}

{6  Such gloating is nothing new.  Some Christians insist that the screams of the damned can be heard from purgatory–and that observing their anguish from Paradise will be one of the most gratifying perks of the heavenly life-after-death: “akhira”.  Shall we suppose that schadenfreude is an integral part of heavenly bliss?  Alas, gloating is a common theme in eschatology that fixates on the exalted status of “the chosen” vis a vis everyone else.}

{7  See 14:49-50, 34:33, 40:70-72, 44:47-50, 69:30-32, 73:12-13, 76:4, and 96:13-16.  There is no remorse.  In fact, the Koran’s protagonist seems to derive a perverse satisfaction from the fact that billions of humans will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into hellfire to burn for all eternity…for failing to toe the line.}

{8  Shall fornication to one’s heart’s content be our highest aspiration?  According to the authors of the Koran: YES.  (Bear in mind: The Koran is addressed exclusively to men.)  The telos of life is not love or probity or wisdom; it’s getting pussy.  As for myself, I have no desire to fuck an angel.  So far as love-making goes, I prefer fellow homo sapiens, thank you very much (with all the idiosyncrasies, wonder, and quirks germane thereto).  Cumming is tons of fun; but emotional bonding is also key.  Without a shared humanity, it would be a rather empty experience.  Moreover, it would seem that orgasms would lose their punch if they were achieved on-demand every day, day in and day out, for trillions of years…with angelic concubines that offered limited human connection.}

{9  And he will actively FORCE them there–as is made clear in passages like 31:24, 52:13, and 72:17.  In a side note: It might also be surmised that, in “prepping” hell, god was required to provide an atmosphere with just the right amount of oxygen, somehow sustained indefinitely…considering the perpetually burning people would need to be BREATHING so as to remain conscious; and the fact that fire also uses up oxygen.  A perpetual infusion of oxygen, presumably without vegetation present, entails some kind of magical ventilation system.}

{10  See 2:61, 2:90, 4:102, 4:151, 6:66, 6:124, 22:57, 31:6, 33:57, 34:5, 34:14, 37:18, 37:98, 39:26, 40:49, 41:16-17, 45:9, 46:20, 58:5, 58:16, 58:20, 88:2, and 89:16.  Needless to say, the material found in the Koran would make for a VERY bad movie.  Even “Iblis” says some strange things.  (Note 14:22.  Really?  THAT’S what Satan said?  Verbatim?  In Arabic?)  37:24-32 even goes so far as to give us a future dialogue with the damned (putting words into their mouths during an alleged interrogation after they’ve been condemned) in which god TAUNTS those who are consigned to perdition.  One can’t help but wonder, though: In what language do these attendants speak?  Not in Arabic; as the vast majority of inmates wouldn’t be able to understand these sophomoric taunts (unless, that is, one of the perks of damnation is that–magically–one is suddenly made fluent in Arabic).  So these attendants have to be omni-lingual.  They must communicate with each inmate in his native tongue.  How does one say “hellfire” in Inuit?}

{11  The Nordic version of hell was a dark realm of ice.  The ancient Norse did posit a realm of fire (“Muspell-heim[r]”), associated with destruction.  “Muspell-heim[r]” (the realm of fire) was not for the damned, though; it served as home of the nefarious jötunn, “Surtr”.  Meanwhile, “Nifl-heim[r]” was a neutral realm of the dead.  Also note: In ancient Norse cosmology, Myrk[r]-heim[r] (alt. “Nidavellir”) was seen as the house (realm) of darkness, to which the dishonorable were consigned (ref. the “Voluspa”).  Darkness is scary, as it represents unknown dangers, coldness, ignorance, and even shame; so it is the natural condition to associate with bad things.}

{12  Especially sadistic are verses like 4:55-56, 10:4, 13:5, 14:16-17, 14:49-50, 18:29, 22:19-22, 23:104, 25:11-14, 34:33, 36:63-65, 37:63-68, 38:55-58, 40:71-72, 44:43-48, 47:15, 54:47-48, 56:41-44, 56:51-56, 56:93-94, 73:12-13, 74:27-30, 76:4, 78:24-26, 88:2-7, and 101:9.  Each of these is a graphic description of the horrific repercussions (i.e. endless torture) in store for those who fail to curry favor with the cosmic overlord–a pathologically vindictive super-being with the temperament of a petulant child.}

{13  The gold medal for the most ridiculous–and deranged–hell probably goes to the Siamese version of “Naraka”, dubbed “Maha-norok”.  In this version of perdition, a giant, fiery phallus impales those deemed guilty of sexual transgressions.  And unfaithful wives have giant swords shoved into their vaginas for all eternity.  The other Narakas are just as macabre.}

{14  At no point in the entire book is the term “empathy” used.  This is rather perplexing, as empathy is the ultimate basis for both morality and human bonding.}

{15  See 2:58, 4:154, 7:40/161, 13:23, 15:14/44, 16:29, 23:77, 39:71-73, 40:76, 54:11, and 78:19.}

{16  Passages like 41:31, 42:22, 43:72-73, and 44:51-57 reiterate that in heaven each one of us can have “all that we desire”.  Satiating primal cravings as the sine qua non of human existence?  Is that what the ultimate state of being is really all about?}

{17  See 2:29, 17:44, 23:17, 23:86, 65:12, 67:3, 71:15, and 78:12.  For other versions of seven heavens, see footnote 3 above.}

{18  See 9:72, 13:23, 16:31, 18:31, 19:61, 20:76, 35:33, 38:50, 40:8, and 61:12.}

{19  The guards of the gates are called “Zabaniyah”.  One wonders whether these are more like Praetorian Guards, Grenadier Guards, or the Swiss Guards.  See 41:12, 72:8, and 96:17-18 for heaven’s gates; 15:43-44, 39:70-72, 40:49, 66:6, and 74:31 for hell’s gates.  The name for the gates of “Sheol” in Judaic lore were “Sha’are-i Mavet[h]”, meaning gates of death.}

{20  On this point, see especially 4:57, 37:48-49, 44:51-54, 52:20, 55:54-56, 55:70-76, 56:22-24, 56:35-38, and 78:33.}

{21  See 5:65, 9:21, 10:9, 22:56, 31:8, 37:43, 52:17, 56:12, 56:89, 68:34, 70:35/38, 74:40.}

{22  See 27:67, 36:78-79, 54:7, 75:3-4, and 79:10-11.}

{23  See 56:8/27/38/90-91, 69:19, 74:39-40, and 90:18.}

{24  Tellingly, the people on the respective rosters are referred to as the “winners” (e.g. 28:67) and the “losers” (e.g. 23:34 and 39:15).  This is a taxonomy that reveals much about the authors’ mindset.  Meanwhile, the people THEMSELVES are also given their own personal verdict.  The saved receive it in their right hands (84:7-9) while the damned receive it behind their backs (84:10-12).}

{25  In Asgard, there are two great structures.  “Valhalla” is reserved for the bravest warriors; while “Gim-lé” / “Gim-li” is where the worthy will go after the apocalypse (“Ragnarök”).  In some versions, there are three levels of heaven: Asgard, Andlang[r], and Vidblainn.}

APPENDIX 1:

Notions of pre-destination go back to the earliest civilizations.

The earliest Canaanites worshipped the goddess of fate, “Ashima”–who was herself based on the Assyrian concept of fate, “shimti”.  (Ashima’s Nabatean counterpart was “Manat”, a goddess that would appear in Arabian theology.)  Certain Hindu sects posited “kismet”, most notably, the practitioners of “Ajivika” (which started in the 5th century B.C.)  There was also the notion of “niyati-vada”.  In Persia, there emerged sects that posited fatalism–as with “Zurvanism”, a divergent sect of Zoroastrianism.  So the ideation was nothing new when it cropped up in Abrahamic cosmogony.

(Meanwhile: The ancient Anglo-Saxons and Celts posited “wyrd”.  And the ancient Turks adopted the Vedic notion of “kismet”–though with a more romantic connotation.)

The hardening of someone’s heart (to ensure they perpetrate evil) was lifted from the Torah.  Exodus is suffused with this peculiar trope (4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1/20/27, and 11:10).  Why did the godhead do this?  So that he would then have an excuse to punish the perpetrator (4:21-23).  Indeed, throughout the Hebrew Bible, the Abrahamic deity was known to deliberately lead people astray–as with Second Kings 19:7 and Second Chronicles 18:20-22.

Thus one’s fate is “sealed” from the day of one’s birth.  A way out of this predicament is the Judaic approach: Revising one’s fate on a yearly basis.  Such annual updates allow for the possibility that one can have a say in one’s own destiny (by deliberately altering one’s behavior).  As the story goes, once per year (Yom Teruah; a.k.a. “Rosh Hashanah”), the Abrahamic deity inscribes each person’s fate in a celestial register (the Book of Life); but only for the ensuing year.  He then waits ten days–during which people are enjoined to engage in repentance (“viddui”).  Consequently, wrongs can be ameliorated via contrition.  Then, on the day of atonement (Yom Kippur), the Abrahamic deity “seals” the verdict for the coming year (which might be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how one fared in the register).  One’s fate is thereby set in stone…but only for the next year.  So one’s fate is time-bound and provisional.

The notion of “fate until the next year” is a rather peculiar one, as fate is not supposed to have a statute of limitations; nor is it supposed to come in yearly installments.  One might think of this as temporary eternality–an oxymoron that offers solace.  Of course, destiny isn’t supposed to be iterative.

But no matter.  At least this (extremely accommodating) arrangement gives one the chance to alter one’s destiny…which effectively means that there REALLY IS NO destiny.  The problem, of course, is that if one can–at any point in one’s life–erase one’s sins by repentance (a tenet known as “antinomianism”), even the most iniquitous are let off the hook.  Ergo salvation via Faith, not works.  Such a theme (“sola fide”) is prevalent in Nicene Christianity (though eventually jettisoned by Calvinists and Jansenists).

When, in his letter to the Romans, Saul of Tarsus averred that salvation depends not on human will or effort, but rather on god (9:18), what was he getting at, exactly?  He reiterated the point in his letter to the Ephesians (2:8-9).  Yet he contradicted himself on the matter of “sola fide” in his letter to the Galatians (5:6) as well as his first letter to the Corinthians (13:2); so the matter seems to have been a point of confusion.  Note that in his letter, James makes the claim that salvation is through DEEDS (2:17-34).  Of course, benevolent ACTS are rather intractable insofar as one’s heart has been “hardened” by forces beyond one’s control.  So we come back to god’s dictation of any given person’s moral intuitions.

In the end, one’s fate is sealed by what is in one’s heart…a state that is, as it turns out, determined by GOD rather than by personal initiative.  Passages in the Koran about god hardening the hearts of certain people are likely derived from the same trope as did Saul’s assertion that god “has mercy on whomever he chooses, and hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.” {A}  In the next verse, the rhetorical question is posed: Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” ?  This passage is suffused with intimations of pre-emptive divine ordinance. {B}

In the Koran, Biblical stories are retroactively modified to (retroactively) reflect pre-destination.  For example, instead of Lot’s wife turning around OF HER OWN VOLITION to see the destruction of Sodom (and being turned to salt for her impudence), the Koran tells us that god INTENDED for her to look back (11:81).

The Koran propounds pre-destination (“Qad[a]r”).  Thirty passages tell us that there are certain people god does not want to guide / help: 3:86, 4:118-119/143, 5:67, 6:25/122-123, 9:37/80/109, 13:27/33, 14:4, 15:12, 16:107, 17:46, 18:57, 23:44, 27:4, 32:13, 36:7-10, 37:22-23, 38:82-83, 39:23, 40:33, 42:46, 45:23, 46:10, 61:7, 68:44, and 91:7-10.  Who might they be?  Well, those who are pre-ordained to be non-Muslims… and are consequently destined for hellfire.  In other words: Everyone who will end up in Jahannam has been pre-selected for damnation.

It gets worse.  In twenty other passages, we are notified that non-believers are doomed to be non-believers from the beginning, regardless of what one might tell them…even as others are “chosen” for Faith: 2:6, 3:74, 6:39/125, 7:37/155, 11:33-34, 16:9/36-37, 24:46, 28:56, 30:56, 37:40/55-57/74/98/128, 48:11/15, and 68:50.  In other words: The game is rigged from the get-go.  (And for any to whom god does not give light, there is no light–as 24:40 states.)

Thus god pre-selects whom he will guide–as a dozen passages inform us–4:49, 6:144, 10:11/25/99-100, 14:21, 16:93, 17:13, 18:17, 35:8, 74:31, and 81:28-29.  Such people are even given immunity from going astray–as specified in 39:37.  15:39-42 and 34:21 even indicate that Muslims are immune to Satan’s diabolical machinations…and so are protected from being misled.  Thus FIFTEEN MORE passages tell us that the game is rigged.

In 35:32, the Koran’s protagonist declares that–historically speaking–he caused ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE to inherit the scriptures.  (Also ref. 42:14.)  This was an odd game to play…for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.  Alas.  The Koran’s protagonist openly describes himself as a deceiver.  To what end?  It seems he revels in his power to AFFLICT.  (6:17 even dubs him THE AFFLICTER.)

And as for the mis-guided?  God has deliberately mis-guided them!  2:26, 4:88, 6:137, 7:100-101/178, 11:33-34, 14:27, 17:97, 30:29, 35:8, 40:74, and 47:1 tell us that god intentionally misleads (i.e. sends astray); and thus dooms to perdition.  Who does he send astray?  Non-Muslims, of course.  Why are they non-Muslims?  Because he sent them astray.  What shall happen to them as a result?  They shall be punished.  Hence the devious protagonist of the Koran does not guide non-Muslims.  But wait.  Aren’t they non-Muslims BECAUSE they’re not guided?

This is a catch-22.  In effect, Hell is a gigantic torture chamber (equipped with shackles, chains, poisonous fruit, and lots of boiling water) to which all non-Muslims are sentenced FOR BEING non-Muslims.  After they’ve arrived in hell, they will be INTERROGATED…just to ensure they understand WHY they are there.  (21:39-40 notifies us that they will NOT understand why they are there.  So much for a convict having his indictment explained to him.)

Tellingly, the damned are referred to as “the rejected” (by god) in 17:18 and the “abandoned” (by god) in 17:39.  This is in stark contradistinction to Christian theology, in which god is said to never reject / abandon or “give up on” his children; he is always ready to forgive.  Such forbearance in inimical in the Koran.

Still don’t believe the Koran’s protagonist is vindictive?  In 6:137, he proudly announces that he deliberately made the slaughter of children “pleasing” to certain groups of people.  Why?  In order to make a point.  6:140 even makes clear that it’s not killing children per se that’s bad; it’s doing so foolishly and without knowledge of the Final Revelation that’s the problem.

This begs the question: Insofar as they are wrong-doers, is it not BECAUSE they are not guided?  We are thus faced a conundrum.  Wouldn’t a beneficent deity want to (try to) HELP such (misguided) people, GUIDING them so that they might become better?  Nope.  He only guides those who have been pre-selected to be Muslims (27:81, 49:7, and 49:17).  What a swell guy.

{A  Harden our hearts, you say?  This is certainly different from the deity found in the Judaic “Nevi’im” [scripture of the Later Prophets]–that is: a deity that seeks to uplift us, and help those who are errant.  In the Book of Ezekiel, it is stated: “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you.  I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a real heart” (36:26).  Behold a godhead that seeks to guide.  This is a super-being that stands is stark contrast to the Koran’s ornery protagonist: proudly known as the deceiver.}

{B  It is not for nothing that Calvinists–who believe in predestination–routinely cite this passage as justification for the supposition that god has divvied mankind up AB OVO.  Of course, such thinking is concerning for several reasons.  Most disturbingly, it rebukes supplicants for engaging in inquiry.  Saul of Tarsus asks: “Would the pottery ask the potter why it was made in the way it was?” …as if this half-baked analogy made the point less objectionable.  Thus humanity is abjured to act with no more agency than would a piece of clay.}

APPENDIX 2: The Logistics Of Paradise

Consider the decree: “You are encouraged to do in the most perfect place imaginable (in an after-death life) some things that you are prohibited from doing (during your life) on Earth.”  How does this make sense?  The only explanation could lie in a theology based on deferred gratification.

A thorough discussion of the (highly problematic) logistics of the (cartoonish) Koranic heaven would take volumes.  The enjoyment of slaking hunger or quenching thirst or satisfying libidinal impulses or finding reprieve from a sweltering sun under pavilions or resting one’s legs by sitting on thrones…such things make NO SENSE in a place that such discomforts would never afflict its blessed denizens.  Ergo the grapes and the wine / milk and the houri and the shaded grottos and comfy couches are provided in order to alleviate non-existent physical impositions (i.e. the yearning to remedy recurrent bouts of neural, carnal, muscular, and gastric privation).

Generally speaking: Any gratification derived from satiation can only be secured by ending some sort of antecedent deficiency.  It is for this reason that an un-ending orgasm is tantamount to no orgasm at all.  Thus Paradise as described in the Koran would involve no gratification whatsoever.  Perpetually euphoria, it turns out, is the epitome of mundanity.

Suffice to say, after thinking it through for a minute, even a child can recognize that (Koranic) heaven would be the most boring place imaginable.  In effect, it would be a kind of hell.  No aspiration, no anticipation; just the same thing…forever.  Intolerable listlessness would surely set in after a few weeks.  After a few centuries, everyone would surely be insane.  But, hey, at least one would get to see grandma again.  (FOREVER.)

In Jannah, there is nothing to look forward to; nothing to shoot for; nothing to accomplish.  Harps or no harps, the “afterlife” would be an utterly pointless existence.  This is especially the case for women, as the litany of inducements is designed explicitly for men.  What, pray tell, do WOMEN get (for slaking their libidinal impulses) in heaven?  An entourage of hot studs?  Endless cunnilingus?  Hardly.  The Koran is silent on the matter.  For it’s all about enticing the target audience: males who are presumably straight.  (The large breasts are not there for extra lactation capacity.)

But isn’t much of the sublimity of love-making the intimate human bond (i.e. love) anyway?  Evidently not.  Indeed, the coitus in Jannah is all about the fucking; there is nothing about love stipulated.  (Large breasts?  Indubitably.  Forging a deep connection?  Not so much.)  This appeals to most mens’ deep-seated desire to be a virile stallion with a coterie of beautiful muses at his beacon call.  In Jannah, EVERY man gets to be Lothario.

Simply reading the relevant passages in the Koran makes it quite plain that the authors–in their glaring lack of sophistication–were simply appealing to men’s basest impulses when offering their descriptions of Paradise.

For a Muslim to reject that (sophomoric) vision of the hereafter is IPSO FACTO to reject the portrayal of Jannah in the Koran.  While the exact number of “houris” is not specified in Islam’s holy book (72 is from the Hadith), had they simply read the book, they would not be bewildered by how Salafis come to believe what they believe.

Amongst Islamic apologists, the disconnect between something iniquitous, X (say, slavery or theocracy or corporeal punishment for imaginary crimes) and the contents of the Koran (which clearly endorses X) is astounding.  Hence the ubiquity of PIA unabashedly indicting X as reprehensible in one breath, then blithely apologizing for the magnificence of Islam’s holy book in the very next breath.

In any case, enduring a “life” (if we could even call it that) of chronic bliss would be quite difficult–even with comfy couches and pavilions and plenty of wine with a bevy of hot chicks–knowing that billions of misguided humans were incurring unimaginable pain–RELENTLESSLY.  No decent person derives gratification from such extreme retribution; no matter how “bad” the condemned may have (allegedly) been during life.  Abiding the existence of hell whilst IN HEAVEN would be unconscionable for anybody with a conscience (assuming one’s conscience remained fully intact when transported to the blissful hereafter).

Regarding the present discussion, the question might be posed: If sex is permitted during life (as it obviously is, per the Koran’s discussion of the topic), then why in heaven’s name WOULDN’T it be permitted in an after-death life (“akhira”), which–after all–is located in a Garden of Pleasure?  Apparently, our craving for scrumptious fruit remains active.  So why not our libidos too?

The problem about the “no commissioning of sin” comment in 52:23 is that it is makes no sense when pertaining to a place in which moral responsibility no longer attains.  (Are we still obligated to CONTINUE TO follow orders in Paradise?  Is there still a pressing need to routinely worship god and to constantly sing his praises?  Is “iman” necessary?  Does the Sunnah still apply?)  Is there sharia in heaven?  Does the Sunnah still attain?  How?  Why?  It would seem not, since we’ve already arrived at the destination of the PATH we’re supposed to follow.  (We’ve reached the oasis; path no longer required.)

If we grant that there are no more moral responsibilities in Jannah, then another problem arises.  We humans are–by our very nature–moral agents.  Therefore, to deprive us of moral culpability is to deprive us of (part of) our humanity.  (Much of what it means to be fully human is to devote ourselves to trying to do something GOOD, however that may be defined.)  Consequently, we are forced to be less-than-human during our exalted existence in “akhira” (the hereafter).  When no more self-discipline is warranted, then no act can be moral.

But, then again, OF COURSE there can be no sinful behavior in heaven.  It’s a perfect place; it is the epitome of purity; and–after all–we’re so close to god.  The venue may feature unbridled gluttony; but it is IMMACULATE gluttony.  So the proper interpretation of 52:23 is quite simply: There is no sin in heaven.  Lots of fucking; but no sin.

APPENDIX 3: The Limits of Metaphor

Upon reading the Koran for the first time, most people (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) are taken aback by how puerile its depictions are of the best and worst possible outcomes for sentient beings.  Many Islamic apologists protest that “this is not REALLY how most Muslims think of heaven and hell.”  For them, heaven is being (eternally) in communion with the divine (i.e. God) …while hell is being (eternally) disconnected from the divine (i.e. God).  The only response to this is: “Splendid.  So you are completely disregarding what is actually written in the Koran.”

“No,” they typically retort, “We’re just not taking it so literally.”

But this is an unacceptable plea.  For it rests on the highly dubious assumption that the authors of the Koran intended for all that graphic description to be taken metaphorically.  Consequently, the question arises: Did the authors REALLY devote so much ink to such detailed descriptions of both heaven and hell merely for didactic reasons?  Is this REALLY meant to be taken as an elaborate metaphor?  At the risk of countenancing a cosmic scheme that is utterly insane, Islamic apologists are forced to answer: “Well, uh, yes” …and then hope nobody takes the time to read what the Koran actually says.

Thus: All the “forced to swallow boiling water” stuff was just to make a point…but they didn’t REALLY mean it.  And the declaration that god casts terror into the hearts of non-Muslims (59:2) REALLY means that god wants to welcome everyone into his arms (and is presumably only saddened by those who have not yet come to see the light).  It’s all FIGURATIVE, you see.

So is the Koranic hell just a metaphor?  That is to ask: Should the graphic descriptions be read allegorically?  This seems unlikely, given the lack of didactic value to the lurid details provided.

Is hellfire literal?  Surah 111 of the Koran tells us that the derided Abu Lahab will “soon” be burning in the blazes of “Jahannam”; and that his wife will accompany him.  How so?  She will be following him into hell carrying the requisite firewood…with a rope [“masad”] tied around her neck.  (So no need to carry your own sticks; your wife–in tow–will do it for you.)  Such a petty slight is rather peculiar for a book that is supposed to be eternal.

Here, the use of “soon” could mean one of two things.  Either Abu Lahab was about to die soon (and immediately go to hell) or Judgement Day was immanent (at which point he would promptly be sent to hell…along with all the other damned from history).  In either case, we are expected to believe that this personal vendetta had existed since the creation of the universe; and this gripe had been inscribed on celestial tablets since the beginning of time.

Think about it: As the galaxies formed across the lightyears, the cosmic impresario decided to inscribe a celestial table (the most important text ever composed) in which he felt the need to broach the topic of a insolent Bedouin from the 7th century A.D.  In other words: God was thinking about Abu Lahab BILLIONS of years ago…as well has his wife with a rope around her neck.

Thus everyone on the planet needed to know about this for all eternity.

Needless to say, if the graphic descriptions of hell were intended as metaphor, the authors of the Koran would not have found the need to specify the precise length of the chains used to fetter the damned. (!)

In fashioning a decent metaphor, SALIENT features are articulated in order to convey key points.  After all, the logic of symbolism is quite different from that of literal description.  The former depends on analogical thinking; the later does not.  Gratuitous details can only serve to compromise the integrity of a metaphor (even if an elaborate allegory).  (This is as opposed to the other vehicle for symbolism, myth–in which painting a detailed picture abets the narrative.  Unlike narratives, metaphors aren’t supposed to be a FULLY IMMERSIVE experience.  With regard to the portrayal of hell, the authors of the Koran are plainly going for full immersion.)

Meanwhile, why all the superficial details about heaven?  If this was a metaphor, then why the need to describe all the amenities (essentially, just elaborate creature comforts), right down to the color and specific material of the garments and anatomical features of the angelic concubines?  To wit: What is the POINT of this metaphor?

Let’s perform a brief thought experiment.  If the book’s (comically obsessive) detailed depiction of hell were truly intended as mere metaphor, then the authors could have conceivably said to themselves something like the following:

“Hmm.  Maybe shackles and chains were not the best image for conveying what we’re trying to ‘get at’ here.  Perhaps we could have gone with ‘yokes’ instead…or with ‘dungeon’ or some kind of stiflingly hot immurement (or even a horribly COLD one).  In order to make our point, we could have used, say, impalement via large spikes instead of scalding by boiling water.  For that would be terrifying as well, would it not?  After all, what we’re attempting to do is convey a general idea of grave consequences should someone reject our deity.  Torture chambers can take many forms.”

Alas, this is clearly not how the Koran was authored.  It is very particular about the details of both hell AND heaven; far more than it would need to be if it were merely being metaphorical.  From the graphic depictions provided, it is quite obvious that the lurid descriptions of hell are NOT meant merely as a didactic tool.  The same goes for the puerile depiction of the afterlife paradise.  The cosmic seraglio portrayed in the relevant passages is clearly NOT intended as a mere symbol of some exalted spiritual state.  Communion with the divine does not require shaded pavilions and wide-eyed, large-breasted concubines.

To make the present point, a juxtaposition is in order.  Here is what a (well-crafted) metaphor involving CHAINS looks like:

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.  The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions.  The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.  Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain; not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation, but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.”

Incidentally, directly preceding this metaphor (involving an embryo, a vale, a halo, and flowers…as well as chains) is another metaphor (involving sigh, heart, spirit, and opium): “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.  It is the opiate of the masses.”

THAT is what metaphor looks like.  (We can thank Karl Marx for this illustration.)  The discerning reader can surely tell the difference between the above (eloquent) prose…and the (crude) prose found in the Koran about shackles and chains and fire and boiling water.  Note that Marx did not have to specify the precise length of the chain in order to make his metaphor work.  Why not?  Because it was a METAPHOR.

The Hadith don’t help the matter, as we encounter further elaborations on the already absurd Koranic depictions of “Jahannam”.  According to some of the material, the gates of hell are guarded by an angel named “Maalik” (initially mentioned in 43:74-77), captain of the guard.  (In case you’re wondering, the guards are a cadre of 19 angels called “azabaaniyah”.)  As it turns out, “Maalik” is just an updated version of “Moloch”, an ancient Phoenician / Canaanite god that was adopted by early Hebrews in composing the books of Moses (i.e. in its allusions to hell).

When considering the overwrought Koranic portrayals, we should bear in mind that a comical degree of specificity was nothing new–whether describing the precise length of the chains in Jahannam or the style of upholstery on the couches in Jannah (silk, brocade, etc.)

In the Book of Revelation, note the oddly-specific descriptions of heaven: “The foundations of the wall of the city [recall heaven has WALLS] were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.  The twelve gates [recall, heaven as GATES] were twelve pearls: each individual gate was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass” (21:19-21).  Splendid!

In the Islamic description of heaven, we also encounter a preoccupation with gems–as with rivers flowing in valleys of pearls and rubies.

More sophisticated conceptions of the hereafter are, of course, easy to formulate.  The two possible “destinations” aren’t really PLACES, they are STATES OF BEING.  Heaven is simply a matter of closeness to (being connected with) the divine; hell is simply a matter of being separated from (being disconnected from) the divine.  This makes sense; but this is CLEARLY NOT what the relevant Islamic scripture says.  In the Koran, hell is not merely being separated from god (to god’s great disappointment).  Verses like 25:11 and 25:37 explain that god actually PREPARED hell for the condemned.  There is no reluctance involved in damnation for the Koranic version of YHWH.  He actively sends people to hell without remorse.

The Koran reminds us over and over and over again: This is not simply a matter of “being disconnected from the divine”; it is about PUNISHMENT.  So the question naturally arises: Is this all supposed to be METAPHORICAL?  The bizarre fixation on forcing people to drink scalding water (mentioned ad nauseam throughout the Koran) is a bizarre way to teach (what is purported to be) a noble lesson.

Felicitously, not EVERYONE in Dar al-Islam takes Koranic depictions literally.  According to the Ahmadiyya sect, much of the imagery presented regarding heaven and hell is metaphorical, a claim that can only be taken seriously by those who have not actually read the Koran.  So, the argument goes, the condemned will not LITERALLY be forced to eat poisonous fruit (44:43-46 and 88:6-7), drink boiling water (18:29, 22:19-22, 37:62-68, 38:57, 44:43-48, 47:15, 56:51-56, 88:5, etc.), and eat pus from their wounds (69:36-37).  Their skin won’t LITERALLY be melted off over and over again (4:56).  The wives won’t LITERALLY be carrying firewood.

But if all THAT is a metaphor (an instance of “majaz”), then how do we know where the metaphor ends?  Perhaps the ENTIRE BOOK is just a metaphor.  The boundary conditions for what is to be taken metaphorically inevitably become arbitrary.

APPENDIX 4: A Sadistic Deity?

Upon reading the slew of Koranic passages describing the torture occurring in hell, one can’t help but wonder: Would a divine being–allegedly bursting with boundless love–really devote so much of his magnum opus to such hateful exposition?  Can such sadism be squared with claims by the Koran’s protagonist that he is infinitely “rahim”?

A theology that involves a celestial concentration camp seems not to be a theology born of an even marginally merciful impresario…let alone a MOST merciful one.  It might be noted that “X is merciful except to those who have displeased him” means “X is NOT MERCIFUL”.  For mercy [“rahim”] means nothing if not extended to those whom one is otherwise inclined to condemn.  “Merciful only to those I favor” means “NOT merciful”.  Analogously, being “just to some but not to others” is the definition of “unjust”.  (The definition of “injustice” is SELECTIVE justice.  “Fair only to some” is just another way of saying “unfair”.)

The attitude and deeds of the Koran’s protagonist do not accord with his professed nature (“most merciful”).  Bear in mind who the damned are, in large part.  They are well-meaning people who, as it were, failed to toe the line.  Does this default warrant incurring unmitigated agony without end?  Such a penalty seems to be–to put it mildly–rather excessive.  Once we take into account this deity’s peculiar preoccupation with trivialities (eating ham, insufficient praise), we find that the punishment is not proportional to the (alleged) transgression.  It would be safe to assume that such petty concerns would be “beneath” a super-being.  Would he be so inordinately rash when such trifling demands were not met by otherwise good people?  Only if he was EAGER to punish.

Burning people who have gone astray is not the way that a compassionate ruler would handle things.  Moreover, wouldn’t a cosmic “father” not rest until ALL his “children” were “saved”?  It is odd that an omni-benevolent super-being would be fine with the majority of mankind–creatures that HE created–being damned.  Would this not reflect some sort of failure on his part?

Make no mistake: The protagonist of the Koran REVELS in the idea that hell is being filled up.  The deity portrayed in Islam’s holy book seems to crave retribution.  Such vengefulness is not exactly the hallmark of an even mildly beneficent being.  In fact, the pathological vindictiveness so flagrantly exhibited by the Koran’s protagonist constitutes the opposite of an entity that is “the most merciful”.  Compassion is anathema to the deity we encounter in every Surah.  (“Mercy”, in this scheme, is defined rather queerly as the withholding of wrath; thereby vitiating the concept beyond recognition.)  Couple this with the GLOATING he exhibits as the prospect of condemning BILLIONS to hellfire, and we find that no only is this deity not “MOST merciful”, he is not even REMOTELY merciful.

Creating an intelligent species only to consign most of them to eternal doom: this seems not to be the ideal scenario.  In fact, it couldn’t be anything other than the master plan of a pernicious super-being.  For what sort of entity would create a race of sentient life-forms only to derive some perverse gratification from punishing the portion of them that failed to live up to his expectations?  What sort of entity revels in the suffering of other entities?  What sort of entity is inclined to GLOAT when he subjects parts of his own creation to agony simply because he was not given sufficient tribute?

It is safe to assert that positing a deity hell-bent on retribution is a rather harebrained idea.  Such a pathologically vindictive entity is certainly nothing close to beneficent.  Would an omni-benevolent entity be inclined to carry out heinous acts of violence on members of his own creation simply because they displeased him?

Suffice to say, the celebration of suffering does not jive with a deity that is characterized by boundless mercy.  It is vulgar to pass such brazen sadism off as a corollary of boundless compassion.  Progressive Muslims need to come to terms with the fact that IF they are worshipping a beneficent deity, then it does not even remotely resemble the deity that is depicted in their holy book.

PostScript:

It is rather uncanny.  After posting this essay (at the end of February 2020), the very next week, renown Biblical scholar, Bart D. Ehrman published a book on “Heaven and Hell” (billed as “a history of the afterlife”).

This was not exactly serendipitous; as I may have been better off having read that particular book prior to composing my own commentary.  After all, nobody is more knowledgeable than Ehrman when it comes to early Christianity and the development of its first texts.  Understandably, he focused almost entirely on the three major Abrahamic traditions–as they lay within the ambit of his expertise.

In my piece, I stepped back to survey eschatology / teleology on a global scale–that is: from the widest possible perspective.  Thus I treated heaven and hell as mythemes.  I found that, while these two afterlife destinations are universal (in their most generalized form), the manner in which they are portrayed is invariably a product of circumstance.  In other words: How they are depicted is largely determined by the immediate physical environment (esp. climate) and a panoply of local concerns.  Hence, in any given dogmatic system, the features of heaven and hell say more about the theologians than about the imagined hereafter.

Whether Scandinavian or African or Meso-American or European or Asian or Polynesian, heaven / hell is a reflection of the full compliment of hopes and fears of a people.  Such aspirations and apprehensions are projected through a lens of myriad prejudices and superstitions (which happen to be salient at that time and place).  This is a reminder that one cannot conduct a study of religion without delving into world history, anthropology, sociology, and evolutionary psychology.

While I touched upon the fact that this carrot-and-stick regimen constitutes a very effective incentive structure (for believers), I did not explore the repercussions of living a life that is primarily concerned with getting into heaven and avoiding hell–specifically as it relates to how well one follows orders.

In Christian and Islamic theology in particular, this inquiry is especially salient–as the process is largely a matter of placating a cosmic figure that resembles a petulant child–a fussy adolescent more than a sagacious master.  Given this set-up, life is (almost entirely) about pandering to a petty, narcissistic, vindictive deity…who will punish you if you fail to appease him; and shower you with spoils if you show adequate fealty.  This is, to put it mildly, a queer cosmogony.  In considering it, certain questions arise: When it comes to day-to-day life, what does seeking such an enticing cosmic carrot entail?  And what does averting such a terrifying cosmic stick entail?

More specific queries are worth posing: In the grand scheme of things, does participating in this charade somehow make one a better person?  (Does it engender virtue?  Does it facilitate arete?)  Does it tend to make one’s life any better?  (Does it foster eudaimonia?  Does it alleviate suffering while enhancing joy?)  Does it in any way make the world a better place?  (Is it conducive to the commonweal?  Does it help facilitate justice?)  In virtually every conceivable case, the answer to all these questions is: NO.  Quite the contrary: Scrambling to gain admission into an after-death paradise (while gloating over the fact that those who aren’t toeing the line shall be consigned to eternal hellfire) leads to grave dysfunction in almost every way imaginable.  After all, piety is not probity.

A life of groveling before a temperamental overlord is not exactly a recipe for existential bliss.  Moreover, this fevered scramble does not contribute to our understanding of the universe, nor to our ability to effect civil society. Yet there it is: cropping up over and over and over, in virtually every corner of the world.

This is a reminder that certain motifs resonate with all humans due to our shared nature (as homo sapiens).  I will explore the variegated incidence of mythemes in a forthcoming piece. Suffice to say here: Mankind’s timeless treatment of heaven and hell is an reminder that we are all dealing with the same basic psychical mechanisms; which is simply to say: Beliefs in heaven and hell are an illustration of an eminently human nature–replete with a set of innate proclivities that transcend culture.