The Last of My Notes on 'Muhammad' by Karen Armstrong

My final notes from this book, Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong. Forgive me as they are rather scattered in nature, but since they are things that took my attention and I took the time to type, I will just stuff them all in this post to get them out of the way! I left some questions for you throughout. :) 

 

 

While speaking of the Quran, Karen Armstrong tried to convey how lovely it is to hear recited. How it mesmerized listeners, made them reflective and "enter a different mode of consciousness"  as they "had an immediate encounter with Allah."  Indeed the Quran was meant to be read aloud or recited in Arabic.  She stressed the Quran loses its 'punch' if translated into another language and indeed I recall my Syrian friend being dismayed at how ordinary the Quran seemed when he read parts of it in English for my sake.   

 

Armstrong makes note that "Biblical Hebrew is experienced as a holy tongue in rather the same way." However there is "nothing holy about New Testament Greek" so Christians don't understand sacred languages in the same way that Jews and Muslims would.  Indeed our Scriptures present "Jesus as the Word spoken by God to humanity."  (emphasis mine) Hey, it's a tradeoff I'm willing to take!  No learning classical Arabic or Hebrew for me. I can experience all the sacred language I want by looking to Jesus!  

 

Indeed Armstrong writes next, "Like any scripture, the Quran thus provided an encounter with transcendence, bridging the immense gulf between our frail, mortal world and the divine."  Weird because that is essentially what Jesus did for us in our Christian worldview.

What irritates me about the Quran rather Armstrong's praises of it, is that she stresses the need for it in Arabic.  I don't think the majority of the world's residents are going to bother learning classical Arabic so they can experience this wondrous feeling they are supposed to get upon hearing the Quran recited. I can hear the Quran recited and find it lovely although I do not understand the words.  Are we supposed to be moved by the beauty much as we are moved to joy or tears by a song?   Songs makes me cry sometimes...does this mean God touched my heart? Just musing out loud.

 

I believe God speaks in a universal language so that all of His creation can know Him without having to learn some strange, difficult language.  (Speaking from the back of my throat is hard work.  I've tried, but I only use those muscles for clearing gunk out of my throat usually! Yes, I have a weak throat!) For me, Jesus is universal. He is a life we can see and follow ... no words necessary.  Reminds me of that saying, "Preach a sermon every day. If necessary use words."  Jesus is that. He preached a sermon wherever he went. Sometimes he used words.  Most of the time, his sermons were actions. I like that.  Actions are more easily understood by all than are languages.

 

Question:  What do you think?  Does God speak so all can hear Him or only those willing to learn an ancient language like Hebrew or Arabic?   Or do you believe one who truly wants to know God will do whatever it takes - including learning a difficult foreign language - to know God better?  The Apostle Paul said God is evident in nature - which is universal - so we are without excuse.  Thoughts?

Karen Armstrong notes that many of the earliest suras invited the listeners to question themselves and left "the audience with an image on which to meditate but with no decisive answers."  Almost as if God wanted them to reflect and find their own answers rather than have set rules.  (pg. 61)

 

Question: Do you think God left some things purposefully vague so we would reflect and seek answers and maybe mutual understanding instead of being dead-set in one way and not willing to budge? Or do you tend to believe God has rules set in stone that no on should seek to modify or update as centuries pass?

The Quran didn't believe people were "inherently evil, but they were forgetful" and "all too eager to push [any] uncomfortable ideas to the back of their minds."  So the Quran was a reminder for them to do good deeds - remember the poor, be humble instead of proud, be generous instead of greedy.

 

Question:  Do you prefer and/or agree with this view that people are just forgetful instead of evil?

Something that did strike me as really good is when Armstrong told how putting your head to the ground was a sign of humility that was missing among the Quraysh who were a proud people. Actually all the bedouin tribes were proud, I'd say.  (Are we not all proud?) This seeming groveling and making oneself a slave to Allah was hard for many of them to accept. But for those who did, it was a reminder five times daily of their submission before God.  "It taught their bodies at a level deeper than the rational to lay aside the self-regarding impulse to prance and preen arrogantly."  (pg. 65)

Armstrong mentions "most people objected to the day of reckoning" idea promoted by Muhammad. They thought this was "an old wives' tale" because they didn't understand how rotting bodies could be resurrected to live again.  (pg. 67)

Question:  Do you see how these actions and ideas could be hard for people to come to terms with?  What do you think of them personally?

Karen Armstrong believes the "story of the night journey reveals Muhammad's longing to bring the Arabs of the Hijaz, who had felt that they had been left out of the divine plan, into the heart of the monotheistic family."  This, she claims, is a story of pluralism of the monotheistic kind. "In Jerusalem, he discovered that all the prophets, sent by God to all peoples, are 'brothers.'  Muhammad's prophetic predecessors do not spurn him as a pretender, but welcome him into their family.  The prophets do not revile or try to convert each other; instead they listen to each other's insights."   (pg. 97)

Armstrong believes one verse quoted often to "'prove' that the Quran claims that Islam is the one, true faith and that only Muslims will be saved," in fact teaches the opposite because the word "islam" here was used prior to that word being the official name of Muhammad's religion.  When read in context, Armstrong believes this is a very pluralistic verse which includes all who surrender to God regardless of their official religions.  Here is the verse she means:

"For if one goes in search of a religion other than self-surrender (islam) unto God, it will never be accepted from him, and in the life to come, he shall be among the lost." (pg. 99)

 

Question:  Do you agree with Armstrong that Islam is very pluralistic ... at least it was meant to be? Is it still or do you find it not as Armstrong has described? Do you agree that this verse should be translated to include all who submit to God regardless of religious labels (Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims) or do you believe it means only Islam is the way to God?

In this chapter the author explains that hijrah (migration) from Mecca to Yathrib was "absolutely unprecedented."  She said abandoning kinfolk for the "permanent protection of strangers" in a land where "the tribe was the most sacred value of all... amounted to blasphemy."   She said this was "far more shocking than the Quranic rejection of the goddesses."  (pg. 108-109)

 

 

I just thought that information was interesting and makes sense! I guess it would be like me abandoning my family to take up with some Chinese people and fighting my people!  Strange!

 

Thoughts on any of this?