Friday, June 22, 2012

Allah's final message - part deux

You may remember that we've been playing God and are considering what our final message to mankind should be. (Sorry, Allah - such behaviour is no doubt punishable by an excruciating eternity having our nether regions nibbled by scorpions or something, but heh-ho...)
We have already agreed that our final message to mankind will:
a. NOT be delivered to a chap in a cave with a tendency to imagine he's going bonkers
b. NOT dwell too long on how great We are
c. NOT threaten and terrorise (counter-productive with a certain sort of bloody-minded reader, I've heard...)
d. NOT give exceptions to the basic rules about not killing each other (infidels are human beings as well)
e. NOT be dull and repetitive.
f. NOT be easy to misinterpret by homophobes, misogynists and other intolerant lunatics
g. NOT be edited in an illogical, anally retentive way that leaves all sensible people wondering who the *!*! got their hands on it.
h. NOT be used for political and financial advantage by the person we decide to give it to

In other words I think we need to state from the outset that our book is there to help. If we come across as at all jealous or psychotically disturbed or sadistic then we risk losing intelligent, thoughtful readers.
As an omnipotent know-all we may want to tell them exactly how to live their lives down to the tiniest detail (like blowing their nose every morning) but seeing as we made them in Our image and gave them at least a degree of intelligence and common sense, I think we need to show mankind that we trust them to tie their own shoe-laces and wipe their bottoms the right way.
Of course we can tell them it's wrong to steal, for example - although most of them seem to have grasped that - but I think it would be a mistake to be too proscriptive on the punishment. I've heard some mutterings at the back about chopping off hands and feet... but on reflection I think we agree we'd come across as a bit ming-the-merciless if we said that.
Can we now consider the vexed question of language? We could go for Aramaic again, but I think a language which is easily translatable and understood would be the most sensible, don't you? It would be a bit of a nightmare if we chose a language whose written form was liable to various conflicting readings, for example. So let's dismiss that straight away. I'd hate to think that in the future there would be interminable debates about the meanings of certain words because the language we chose was so "difficult". So are we all agreed that we need to communicate with our creation in the clearest and easiest way possible? Good.
Given that we've already sent down two Revelations to a small corner of desert bordering the eastern Mediterranean, should we perhaps consider a different part of the world this time? Obviously we know (that omniscient thing again - can be a curse as much as a blessing sometimes, can't it?)  should we decide to send it down to Mecca - as I've heard a few suggesting - the ruling family there is going to be a bit problematic, if I can put it like that. It just seems to be lacking in foresight if we let a family of glorified camel traders get their mucky hands on the Holy City and thus allow them to think they're in some way special. Especially if we then give them access to unimaginable wealth and riches. Some people might even accuse us of a massive balls-up.
So I think definitely not Saudi Arabia then.

I'm a bit tired, now - perhaps we ought to rest for a second or two - which of course may be days, weeks, years or centuries for them. Creation is such a strange business...


  1. fantastic - I loved it!

  2. I think the points you raise are generally very valid. However, you should be aware that nose-blowing appears in the hadith and not the Qur'an.