Why Does the Quran Promise Terrifying and Horrific Punishments in the Hereafter?

The punishments of the hereafter promised in the Quran to disbelievers, polytheists, atheists, and sinners have been described as harsh, terrifying, or horrific. In the Quran itself, these punishments are considered frightening. Burning in the fire of hell, wearing clothes made of fire, drinking bitter and burning beverages, and being shackled in chains are just a few of the promised punishments in the holy book of Muslims. Why are such punishments mentioned in the Quran? This week on Taboo, we host Reza Alijani, a religious researcher, and Mehdi Jalali Tehrani, a former researcher of religion and state studies at Columbia University. Let’s start this week’s discussion with Mr. Alijani, the guest of this program, and the question of why the existence of punishments in religion, many of which relate to issues like polytheism or disbelief, is justified. The existence of such punishments cannot contradict the freedom of religious choice, or what is also mentioned in Islam as 'there is no compulsion in religion'? Reza Alijani: Apart from the fact that the language of rewards and punishments in the Quran is metaphorical, I believe it is not correct to solely refer punishments to individuals' beliefs. As you pointed out, the Quran mentions 'there is no compulsion in religion' in various places, or in the context of certain revelations, there were individuals who would mockingly change their religion morning and night, or children of some Arabs who were financially better off lived in other countries, accepted the religion there, and when they returned, they were pressured by their parents to choose Islam. The Prophet forbids this. This contradicts all these verses and traditions. When the Prophet is merely faced with belief, he says: 'Say, O disbelievers'... at the end of the famous Surah 'Disbelievers', he says: 'For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.' However, at some point, the discussion returns to polytheism and disbelief and related issues and social conflicts and political confrontations. There, the story differs. It should also be noted that punishments in the Quran are expressed in metaphorical language. That is, the afterlife, which is discussed in various religions, has been presented more metaphorically, and it was first introduced in Zoroastrian thought, then entered Judaism, and later in Islam. For example, the Quran says: 'The example of the paradise that is promised to the pious.' The perception of reward and punishment is seen by some as occurring in another world and by God or the angel of punishment, while others see it entirely as internal. That is, it is an action and reaction that arises based on our beliefs, behaviors, and actions within us. It is a state that arises within us and can even extend into the post-life period. Our other guest in this discussion is Mr. Jalali Tehrani. Mr. Jalali Tehrani, you heard Mr. Alijani's viewpoint. My question is specifically whether it is true that many of these punishments mentioned in the Quran, as Mr. Alijani said, are actually related to various issues or sins or behaviors, but many of them are closely related to belief issues, and the discussion is that if you deny God [you will be punished]. Or those referred to as polytheists are promised these punishments. Can we argue that due to the beliefs of the servants, God decides to include them in the hereafter punishments; those terrifying punishments mentioned in the Quran? Mehdi Jalali Tehrani: Yes, undoubtedly, from my perspective, the Quran is contradictory in many places. Similarly, the behavior of the Prophet of Islam is contradictory to what is stated in the Quran. We have 'there is no compulsion in religion', but on the other hand, punishments are not only for actions but also for beliefs. This is explicitly stated in the Quran. When the Prophet of Islam conquers Mecca, he goes to the Kaaba and breaks the other idols. That is, he explicitly insults the beliefs of others and does not tolerate that others can have their own religion. Furthermore, Mr. Alijani referred to the metaphorical nature of punishments; the question is, very well, metaphorical, but why are these metaphors so harsh and terrifying? That is, metaphors that resemble more to those of ISIS—now looking at it from today's perspective. For this reason, many people observing the events caused by ISIS or the Islamic Republic say this is exactly what is mentioned in the Quran. ISIS itself also claims this and says that we are acting according to the text. Punishments, the law of Islamic punishments, etc., all originate from the Quran. Mr. Alijani! The point that Mr. Jalali Tehrani raised and referred to Islamic punishment law brings me to the question of which one influences the other? Do the Islamic punishment laws, some of which are not compatible with today's human rights standards and are described as very harsh, stem from such a system of hereafter punishments in the holy text of Muslims? Alijani: Initially, we cannot judge all types of human thought and products of human thought with the error of anachronism and by displacing historical time. Many thinkers whom we now respect had anti-women thoughts. If we separate them from their history, or if we look at the course of rights, legal systems, and punishments that have been formulated in human history, we should also compare the punishments of the French Revolution with ISIS—for example, the beheadings with the guillotine. This is more of a political confrontation and is not very academic and methodical. Even ontological, cultural, historical discussions, and so on, should be viewed in a historical process. For example, if we compare the 'Vendidad' of the Avesta regarding the level of violence that exists or the 'Old Testament' with the Quran, we see that it has significantly decreased. In the Vendidad, punishments are executed with two means, both with a stick and with a whip, and the number of punishments is a multiple of one hundred. While in the Quran, it decreases to a multiple of ten. It is not that we can view history and the historical past through the lens of the 21st century or from the era of the formulation of human rights. We should compare the Ten Commandments of Moses with the Code of Hammurabi, which are almost from a similar time period. In the Ten Commandments of Moses, slaves are considered human beings, while in the Code of Hammurabi, slaves are regarded as animals, and their price and value are equivalent to that of a quadruped. Here we can make a real judgment. Mr. Jalali Tehrani, you heard Mr. Alijani's words. He refers to the historical process and the evolution of violence in the world, and what has transpired to reach the present moment where we see the hereafter punishments as terrifying and horrific, or that you compare it with what ISIS does. What specific response do you have to Mr. Alijani's point? Jalali Tehrani: Very well, in this way, we are getting closer to a common point, and that common point is that, as Mr. Alijani says, we should not fall into anachronism and consider the issue of history. If we want to bring the issue of history into the matter, the academic view of Islam is that Islam is a historical phenomenon of fourteen hundred years. That is, what we see before our eyes today is Islam. Therefore, it is a historical phenomenon that has evolved and transformed over fourteen hundred years, and the result of that is what we see today. However, regarding the issue of comparing it with Hammurabi and others; yes, I also hold such a belief. Therefore, I can call the Quran a human-written text, which is more logical. These are actually, in my opinion, justifications. The main issue is that when polytheistic religions existed, we see human coexistence in the era of polytheism. Of course, in that era, human sacrifice existed, without a doubt. But apart from this, other punishments that are for an act and under the title of religion existed to the extent of severity that exists in monotheistic religions. It was these monotheistic religions that destroyed coexistence. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam considered others invalid. For this reason, punishments became clear, rewards became clear, and they were very harsh. But if we consider those punishments metaphorical and say that this part of the Quran is metaphorical, which part can we say is not metaphorical? Here a gray area is created where it is not clear what we can agree on. Let me pose this question to Mr. Alijani, and I also want to ask you this question, Mr. Alijani, that even if we accept in this discussion that the punishments are metaphorical, why are these metaphors so terrifying? Our listeners may want to know the answer to this question. Many of the punishments mentioned in the religion are filled with infinite violence and horror. Why would God want to torture even the sinners to such an extent, and the tortures also seem eternal according to the Quran? Alijani: You see, first let me make a point regarding Mr. Jalali's remarks. He accepted the error of anachronism and then retracted it and then accepted it again. That is, he said yes, we should not fall into this error, but then he fell into this error himself. This similarity I mention is not from myself. It is the exact verse of the Quran. Surah Muhammad, verse 15 says, 'The example of that paradise which...'. Those who are familiar with the literature of sacred texts know it is metaphorical. Now even outside of sacred literature, in the ancient literature of all countries, metaphor is a central issue. The Quran itself believes that the world after this world is a new creation. Religions, with the same mythological language they present, say that all the heavens and the earth will be transformed, and a new creation will come into existence. Now in various theologies, this new creation is essentially a place beyond space or time. A place where space, time, matter, and these things have no meaning. Essentially, these bodily examples are only for approximation. These metaphors arise from their time. We now consider corporal punishment torture, but until two or three generations ago, in pre-revolutionary Iran, a teacher would hit his student. The master of the workshop, 'Osta', would hit his apprentice. In families, corporal punishment of children by parents existed. If we look at history, a large generation has not passed, many centuries have not passed since slavery was abolished. The issue of slavery was a major part of the North-South wars in America. If we look at history today, our judgments will be confused. What relationship exists between today's world and the ancient world? In my opinion, there are three views. Some see it as continuous. Some of the clergy, because they see the past and present as continuous, want to repeat the same punishments. Some believe there is a rupture between our world and the ancient world. Therefore, religion belongs to that world and cannot cross the trench that exists between the two worlds. And another view is that it is a ruptured-continuous view. In any case, I believe that these concepts are formed in the context of myths and then entered religions, and in this period, for example, in Zoroastrianism, we see that your good deeds will appear as very beautiful angels for you. That is, the 'Houri' that is mentioned in Islamic literature, in Zoroastrian literature says these are your good deeds that manifest in this way. Or your bad deeds manifest as demons or darkness. This is a metaphor embedded in literature and religious literature, and we must pay attention to the historical and educational role of these. In any case, a large part of the refinement of human ethics and the preservation of social cohesion has occurred with religious literature and with this view of resurrection. On the other hand, Mr. Jalali Tehrani, God in the Quran refers to Himself with phrases like 'the Avenger' or 'the Avenger'. Why should God place Himself in the Quran, in the holy book of Muslims, in the position of the one who takes revenge on His servants? Jalali Tehrani: Yes. Look, let’s go back about six hundred years before the advent of Islam. Earlier, during the time of Christ. Why does God show a loving face of Himself there? Why does the messenger of God speak of forgiving sins? But six hundred years later, suddenly God becomes extremely harsh and vengeful? On the other hand, Christianity, at least in its theology and its narrative, treats others with more love and affection. It mentions love and things like that. The third argument regarding this rupture and continuity that Mr. Alijani refers to is who has the authority over this rupture and continuity? Who should I refer to now? I am currently living in a life where ISIS exists, the Islamic Republic exists, and this has affected our fate. Who is the authority? I wish Mr. Alijani were the Supreme Leader, and we would be very happy. But when we want to refer to the Quran and Sharia, it is clear who the authority is. Does Mr. Mesbah Yazdi understand the Quran and jurisprudence better than you and me? Therefore, do we derive this continuity and rupture from ourselves?