Limiting God to Holy Languages

In an age when some sought communication from extraterrestrials, ruling out revelation from God appeared to be arrogant bigotry. I decided to read the world's best-known scriptures to see if the Creator had given revelation.

My professor of Indian philosophy took pains to cultivate in our class a deep respect for the Hindu scriptures.  Yet, he never asked us to read the Vedas - the primary and holiest Hindu texts.  So I decided to study them. I went to the bookstall of the Gita Press, Gorakhpur -- the Bible Society's Hindu counterpart.  To my astonishment I was told that I could buy Vedic commentaries, but the Vedas themselves had never been published in Hindi, my mother tongue and India's national language!

"Why?" I asked the bookseller.  "Don't priests want us to know God's revelation?"

The bookseller gently explained that the Vedas could never be translated because they were too sacred and difficult to understand. Besides, understanding was not necessary. They were never written to teach truth. They were mantras to be memorized and correctly chanted with careful pronunciation, enunciation and intonation.  Their magic was in the sound, not in the meaning. To learn the Vedas, I must find a competent guru and spend years at his feet practicing the art of Vedic chanting, while performing prescribed sacrifices.

Next he wanted to read the Quran, but was unable to find it published in Hindi or Urdu despite the fact he lived in Allahabad "the abode of Allah."  Too bad this was before the Internet became popular because I'm sure he could easily find what he is searching for now.*

Several things stood out to me from this excerpt.

1. I like that he wanted to read leading world Scriptures to find out if it were possible that God had tried to communicate with man.

2.  Their magic being in the sound reminds me of some who say the Quran should be read/learned in Arabic because it just loses its oomph when translated. Indeed I remember Samer and me reading some passages of the Quran in English and his admitting to me that they seem so different when translated to what my heart and mind understand.  I guess the magic of the Quran is in its hypnotic sound when recited in its original tongue.  Not that that is magical to me.  Especially if the pretty sounding words in reality are telling me I'm going to burn in hell, boil in water and eat prickly fruit because I've committed shirk.  Know what I mean?

3. I'm thankful the Bible has been translated into the common languages. Sure nuances of words and idioms are lost in translation, but I think my God is big enough that He can convey His message for humankind in the heart languages of each of the people of His creation.  No need for me to learn Sanskrit or Arabic or Hebrew to know what God really wants. He knows English and can speak to me in English if He chooses! 

 I can understand powerful priests of old wanting to keep the Bible in the "churchy language" that the silly little commoners could never understand. What power to be the ones to tell the masses what God has said!  And how corrupting this can be - and was!

People who limit God to speaking in one language or communicating best in only one language are, quite frankly, limiting the Almighty God. Do they really want to go there?  And those who say it must be so for the sake of power and control over people are gravely mistaken as far as I'm concerned.

Don't limit God to your language! He can speak 'em all!




excerpt from pg. 44-45, The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi

*And maybe this bookseller just didn't want to admit that he did not have these books in stock!   :-)

Reading's Influence on Community and Vision

This book is part of a series about the development of our Western culture.  I've kind of read them out of order since I've yet to read How the Irish Saved Civilization (the introductory volume) yet read the book about Jesus and Christianity last year (it's third in the series and you can see my numerous posts on it by scrolling this link which is a search using the author's name).  My previous post touching on The Gifts of the Jews is second in the series, and this blurb is from book four Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter by Thomas Cahill.


"Many cultural commentators have theorized that oral society -- that is, society in which writing is unknown -- is far more communal and visionary than society in which human thought is objectified by writing and that written language encourages the reader in his separateness to individualism (uncommunity) and by its sequential format to sequential, rational analysis (unvision). Though there is probably much truth to such theories, it may also be true that the type of literacy a given society enshrines may work great wonders than the fact of literacy itself.  A type of literacy that can be grasped easily by almost anyone will tend to spread some kind of proto-democratic consciousness far and wide, even if this is accomplished only in small steps over a very long period of time. ... A type of literacy that demystifies the act of reading, erasing for all time the aura of an unapproachable Sacred Brotherhood of scribes, wisemen, and potentates, will by its very nature tend to demystify additional realms of human experience."  (pg. 60)



I guess this struck me as worth sharing because of all the talk of the old Jewish and Arabian societies being oral in nature. I remember a post I did not long ago about the Quran being repeated over and over and basically perfected by Muhammad as he taught it to his followers before it was finally written in the version we have today (thanks also to Uthman who had the first Quran burning for copies of the Quran that were not the Authorized Version.  Yes, I know I'm being silly calling it the AV which is usually attributed to the King James Version of the Bible, but I'm in that kind of mood.)

So about oral societies vs. literate ones.  Do you think it's true that we readers are more individualistic and rational thus not prone so much to community ties and being visionary which I suppose means - what? dreamers?   Actually what do you think the author means by this vision vs. "unvision"? Is this why we don't have angels talking to us and bringing us fresh revelation from God?

I can see that when I read, I am being individualistic in that I am not interacting with anyone until I decide to do this -- share on my blog and ask you to discuss what I read!  So maybe blogging is getting back to community somewhat.  And for sure if you have an oral tradition of stories, it would promote interaction. It's like the entertainment of the day - hearing the stories, the family history, the battles, the struggles to survive, the victories!  Nowadays we have television.

Also what do you think about reading being demystified and this leading to more democratic movements?

Any other thoughts or observations?  Please share!

Keep Islam Healthy and Strong

Last week when I went to the library I got 8 books and one of them was Inside Islam which is a collection of essays by more than a dozen people - Muslims and nonMuslims - discussing "the faith, the people, and the conflicts of the world's fastest-growing religion."  While the book was published in 2002 some of the chapters are from earlier works because one author mentions the Soviet Union if that tells you anything!  I especially enjoyed the chapter about Islam in Afghanistan. I am not sure why, but I find myself fascinated over and over again by this country and the variety of souls living there.

"The Conflicts" section has excerpts from a Karen Armstrong book and a Bernard Lewis article. I found both of these rather fascinating as Armstrong discussed Muslims and the West and Lewis, The Roots of Muslim Rage.  It's like by reading their words I can see my people, my culture, my faith through Muslims' eyes.  Of course Armstrong and Lewis aren't Muslims so I'm not positive that they have accurately represented the situation, but I like to think these historians know of what they write. Several things were interesting, but for now I wanted to share this.  Read them and let me know your initial reaction to these words. Do you agree? Disagree?  See any contradictions or things that may be problematic? 

First this:

"It is better for the West that Muslims should be religious," Qaradawi argues, "hold to their religion, and try to be moral."  He raises an important point.  Many Western people are also becoming uncomfortable about the absence of spirituality in their lives. They do not necessarily want to return to premodern religious lifestyles or to conventionally institutional faith. But there is a growing appreciation that, at its best, religion has helped human beings to cultivate decent values. Islam kept the notions of social justice, equality, tolerance, and practical compassion in the forefront of the Muslim conscience for centuries. Muslims did not always live up to these ideals and frequently found difficulty in incarnating them in their social and political institutions.  But the struggle to achieve this was for centuries the mainspring of Islamic spirituality.  Western people must become aware that it is in their interests too that Islam remains healthy and strong. The West has not been wholly responsible for the extreme forms of Islam, which have cultivated a violence that violates the most sacred canons of religion. But the West has certainly contributed to this development and, to assuage the fear and despair that lie at the root of all fundamentalist vision, should cultivate a more accurate appreciation of Islam in the third Christian millennium.   (pg. 190, Karen Armstrong)

And then this:

There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired, in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others never exceeded and rarely equalled in other civilizations. And yet, in moments of upheaval and disruption, when the deeper passions are stirred, this dignity and courtesy toward others can give way to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred which impels even the government of an ancient and civilized country -- even the spokesman of a great spiritual and ethical religion -- to espouse kidnapping and assassination, and try to find, in the life of their Prophet, approval and indeed precedent for such actions.  (pg. 208, Bernard Lewis)

The Karen Armstrong bit I understood to the degree that ideally religions make us do right.  They inspire us to live moral lives, to be compassionate, to help the weak, to be kind and all that.  However, I think many people in the United States do not want Islam to be "healthy and strong."  This is why you often hear a "whew!" sigh of relief when you find a liberal Muslim as opposed to a conservative one.  Whereas we may be fine being conservative in our own faith, we certainly don't want Muslims to be the same.  This is because we often feel taking Islam seriously and literally means they hate us and try to take over the world imposing their ideas and way of life upon us.  Is this messed up?  Is this too much stereotyping and taking what television shows and movies have shown us "true Islam" is and, therefore, it's making us fearful? Ohhhhh, real Muslims shout "Allahu akbar!" and then blow things up!  So says the media quite often.

What do you think about the West being responsible somewhat for the development of fundamentalism?  In what ways can you see this being true?  How can Westerners "cultivate a more accurate appreciation of Islam"?

What most stuck out to you from this post?  Anything you want to address? Please feel free to share your thoughts!

Thoughts on the Quran (mostly)

I'm reading Jesus & Muhammad: Parallel Tracks, Parallel Lives by F.E. Peters. I found it on the new book shelf at the library the other day.  Peters delves more into the historical Jesus and historical Muhammad as well as the texts and extra-biblical or extra-quranic sources that speak of these men, their communities, their ministries, the stories surrounding their births, lives and deaths.  Nothing spectacular has stood out although I have found much of it good and interesting. I guess the part about Jesus that made me pause was early on when the author said "Jesus and his followers were avid students of the Bible. Isaiah and Daniel were among their favorite reading, but they were equally interested in what we - but not they - have called the apocrypha, the various works attributed to Ezra and Baruch, the Assumption of Moses, the Testament of Abraham. It was from them that both Jesus and his audience were drawing upon their understanding of the past, and the future, of the Covenant."  (pg. 5). This statement made me want to go find these Writings just to see what types of things the Jews of that day were reading!

The author talks much about Q and the Gospels, but what I found of greater interest - perhaps because it was new to me - were his thoughts on the Quran. I decided to copy some of it to see what you think and to hopefully find out what Muslims have to say about their own scriptures concerning these matters.

So what do you think of this?

The author writes:

In our bondage to written texts, we must constantly remind ourselves that, when it comes to the Quran, there can be no question of an "original."  The original of the Quran is the recitation or performance that Muhammad chose to have his followers memorize, and which is very unlikely to have been its first utterance. Thus, the "original" of our Quran is the finished sura that either Muhammad or someone else had edited and that had then become fixed by social memorization. In neither instance is there any concern to preserve what we might think of as the original revelation in the sense of the first (and only) words to issue from the Prophet's mouth on a given subject.  As we have seen, that notion, though theologically a cornerstone of belief - the Quran is God's unchanging Word - defies every convention of oral poetry and performance.  Our Quran, like the Iliad, is a fixed product standing at the end of a complex and fluid process. (pg.134)

After taking a closer look at the Quran:

We note a marked change in the suras after we have arranged them in something approximating their chronological order. The revelations delivered at Medina are quite different from the earlier Meccan ones.  The high emotion, richly affective images, the rhymes and powerful rhythms of the Meccan poetry have all yielded at Medina to something that is not only longer but far more didactic and prosaic.  The high poetic style of the Meccan suras disappears, along with their insistent rhymes and assonances. The oaths, the bold imagery, and the intense fervor of the early poems - we may even call them songs, as we have seen - have yielded to a flatter diction and a lower and more level emotional pitch.

The author realizes the suras were written to different audiences.  In Mecca Muhammad was writing to encourage people to leave idolatry and become Muslims, whereas in Medina new rules were needed for the growing ummah.  But the author suggests also that maybe Muhammad found a scribe in Medina as the suras there seem more like they were dictated.  "The Prophet could no longer recite in the earlier bardic style but now had to pronounce, and slowly and clearly enough for an unskilled scribe to catch and record it."  (pg. 135)


Earlier in the book the author had noted that "the Quran shows an ongoing awareness of audience reaction. There are ... on-the-spot explanations - introduced by "What will make you understand...?" - that are obviously cued by audience reaction (101:9-11), or in these instances, perhaps a lack of it. There are direct answers to both questions and criticisms (2:135, etc.). And there was, finally, the charge that the 'revelations' were somewhat too improvised, that Muhammad was in effect making it up as he went along, with one eye steadily fixed on the main chance (21:5, 52:33). No,he recited only what - and when - he had received from God (10:15-16). Not all of these responses had necessarily to occur in the original performance, however, since these performances were certainly, and in the case of the Quran, necessarily, repeated, and there was an opportunity for the poet, or the prophet, to make adjustments."  (pg. 76)


What do you think of what F.E. Peters wrote about the Quran? How do you explain the differing style of the earlier suras compared to the later ones? Do you think the idea of Muhammad editing the text by his supervising the memorization of the words has any truth to it? Do you agree that Muhammad made adjustments depending on audience reaction?  What do you think about Muhammad perhaps having a scribe in Medina thus the style of the Quran changed because the words could now be written down instead of merely memorized by the followers (which would require shorter, more rhyming suras)?  Any thoughts on anything else mentioned in this post or from your own understanding?

Is belief all there is to believing?

 ²⁵ About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. ²⁶ Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everyone’s chains came loose. ²⁷ The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. ²⁸ But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” 

 ²⁹ The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. ³⁰ He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16)

How often do we make being a "good Muslim" or "good Christian" or "good believer" or attaining salvation into something more than belief? How often does it come down to you must believe X, but also do Y, Z, and A, B, C?  Paul told the Philippian jailer "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

Is belief all that is needed?

Yesterday I introduced The Girl in the Tangerine Scarf by Mohja Kahf in this post.   I promised to tell you about a conversation ...

and while you read it, think about this question:  what makes one a believer?  Believing or is there more?  Are there "saved" believers and then those who believe, but, well, they don't do all the rest of the required stuff?  Read on.



Khadra and her cultural Muslim friend Chrif from Tunisia were talking about religion. He was studying Buddhism which he adamantly declared was a philosophy and not a religion.  Khadra countered that it was both "like any other religion...like Islam."

Chrif replied:

"No way like Islam.  If you believe in Islam you have to believe in cutting off hands and stoning and ..."

"No you don't. Surrender to the oneness of Reality, that's all that makes you a Muslim."  ...

"Read the fine print before you sign, woman. It's a bait and switch.  Believe in One God, or 'Divine Reality' as you put it so fancy?  Fine, now you have to believe in the Prophet."

"Peace and blessings be upon him," Khadra interjected, on purpose, just to annoy him.

Chrif went on as if she'd said nothing.  "Believe in the Prophet?  Now you have to sign up for hadith and ulema and shariah and all that shit, on some level."  Khadra winced when he called shariah and hadith "shit." But she knew what he meant.  "It's all one package, baby.  That's how the scam works. The Islam Scam."  It had a catchy ring.

Part of her agreed with him. The part that didn't pressed on, "But shariah law is elastic.  It changes. It evolved slowly, like Talmudic law." 

"Well, I'm not up for Talmudic law either. Same bullshit," he said.

"There's Sufism."

Chrif was too cynical for Sufism.  He called them snake charmers...

"Okay, there's progressive Islam," Khadra tried.

"Oh, please.There's no such thing as progressive Islam.  That is such a crock. What is that, some sheikhs who'll only flog you twenty lashes instead of eighty?"


Khadra sighed. She just wanted to make him admit that being Muslim wasn't such a straitjacket.It was the same argument she had with her mother.She didn't expect Chrif to be arguing for the same thing as her mother, that Islam was rigid and homogenous.  It's like, they both wanted Islam to be this monolith, only for her mother it was good,for him bad. She knew it wasn't that simple.

(pgs. 343,344)


I've heard people say in order to be Muslim you simply must submit to God, say the shahada and perform the five pillars of Islam. Some say only the shahada is required, but to be a good Muslim, you will do all the other stuff.  Still others say anyone who submits to God is muslim (small m...meaning one who submits to God).  No belief in Muhammad as prophet required.

Yet Chrif believes there's a whole lot more to Islam and one is wise to consider it all before leaping.  Do you agree?  I read a blog post recently of a young woman who was wishing she'd learned more about the religion before becoming a Muslim.  I got the impression she felt she could not get out or at the very least she could no longer ask questions about Islam like she could have prior to her conversion.   Why is that? Must one fully consider a religion and all possible questions before converting (to any religion...I don't mean only Islam) because there is no going back?

What makes one a believer?  Saying something? Praying something? Doing something?  All of the above?  What is special about belief if it really boils down to all these other things?

Thoughts?

Pondering the Symbolism of the Quran

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book

In chapter 14 the author mentions several people who make "cameo appearances" in the Quran:  Enoch (Idris), Job (Ayyub), Elijah (Illiyas), Jonah (Yunus) and a few others.  He said these folks being only briefly mentioned should not be taken as an "insult" to them because the nature of the Quran is such that you can take "each ayah, or verse, ... out of context as a basis for meditation." Actually I believe he only means the Quran's statements about these individuals because I often see "take this in context" stressed when reading verses most of us consider the hateful verses in the Quran.  "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" is much more tolerable in the context of ancient tribal warfare than a twenty-first century call to arms for Muslims against nonMuslims.

About these "cameo appearance" verses, the author notes:  "The use of such material out of context is actually intended and approved.   There is the presumption of additional knowledge furnished by the Hadith, or, in the case of Muslim scholars, the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, though the latter require careful exegesis because they are thought to be compilations from various sources, some of which have become jumbled."  (pg. 153)

That made me smile since most Muslims I know will just flat out tell you: your Scriptures are corrupted so we can't use much of them unless they agree with the Quran and hadith.  I found it amusing that this guy tried to make it all sound prettier by simply saying that Muslim scholars had to be the ones carefully looking at our "jumbled" Scripture.

Ever wonder why the Quran mentions Mary as Aaron's sister or puts Haman and the Tower of Babel together in a story that also mentions Pharaoh and Moses?  The author states that this means in the Quran God is using "'types' of characters." Remember how the Quran often speaks of "its words are but 'signs' and similitudes'"?  Referring to someone as 'a Haman' should be clear to us what that means just as in today's world most of us know what 'a Judas' or 'a Jezebel' are. (pg. 160)

On this topic, the author writes:  "Perhaps seeking the deeper levels should not be so difficult with the Quran, because, as noted, every page reminds the reader that much here is sign and symbol.  While the whole of Islam is inclined to meditate on the deeper meanings, one group in particular, the Sufis, have cultivated the practice of the deeper focus."  The author says people "often erroneously assumed that Muslims are literalists," but "such is not the case at all.  The sounds of the recitation are intended to lift the worshiper into an ecstasy in which the content of the passage is sometimes almost incidental to the meaning of the experience."  (pg. 161)

How much do you value ecstasy or "meaning of the experience" over what the message is actually saying? Or are both necessary to grasp the true spirit and letter of the content?

I was discussing some spiritual things with a Moroccan Facebook friend recently and I used metaphors in an effort to explain. He later came back wondering why I used such things and I got to thinking how he didn't understand symbolism and maybe the Quran did not stress this. I'm used to the Bible using parables and metaphors so I use them at times when I'm trying to explain, for instance, how we have to be like a branch attached to the Vine (or root or Jesus) in order to produce fruit (good works) such as Jesus described in John 15. (A branch lying by the side of the road will wither and die because it's been cut off from its source of power.) Zayd either didn't understand or appreciate symbolic language and that's fine. Some people are literalists completely so I was surprised by this author stressing so much the rich symbolism of the Quran.

I've seen others argue that the Quran is very literal.  One man I read said even its view of heaven is basically a "very literal sort of 'paradise'; in most respects it's the crudely concrete fantasy a very materialistic young man might come up with -- the best food, the best sex, the best entertainment, in the most comfortable setting, and all of it much more intense than anything on earth."  I see where he is coming from. When I was reading the Quran I was struck often with how opposite of extreme desert life it was -- luscious gardens, much water, delicious fruits and drinks. Even someone who commented on those Quranic notes mentioned how much of Islamic heaven was symbolic of things they wanted but could not get on earth. Thus it was a 'reward' in the afterlife....a 'reward' for having done all those good deeds and passing all those moral tests.

Do you tend to believe the Quran is more about literalism or symbolism or a mixture of both?  Do you get the impression most Quran readers understand it the same as you or do you believe it is open to much interpretation depending on the reader and the experiences each has had?

About Ezra's brief mentions in the Quran, the author wonders and states: "Ezra is important in the whole story of Abraham's family because he reconstituted Judaism following the Babylonian captivity and he supervised the Return. Muslims cannot help but meditate on this passage, and on its parallels in the Hebrew Scriptures, at this time when some kind of right of return is being negotiated between the Palestinian people.  The question being asked is, 'Where is Ezra when we need him?'"   (pg. 160)

Is this true?  Do Muslims really study Ezra (Uzair) in this way?  When talking to my Syrian friend, I've only ever gotten the impression another Saladin was desired in the region. You know...to free them from their oppressors. So to see "where is Ezra" here made me take notice.

Any thoughts?

Role of the 10 Commandments & Feminine Role Models from the Quran

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book


I'm moving on and not noting as much in each chapter although he has some pretty good information in many of them. He often introduces someone and then ends the chapter discussing some political topic or world event and relating it somehow.  I did note a few things as I read the chapters on Jacob (Yaqub), Joseph (Yusuf), Moses (Musa) and the three Israelite kings (Saul/Talut, David/Dawoud and Solomon/Sulaimon). 

The Ten Commandments are a summarization of universal codes of ethics that were passed down before them and "they endow those that come after them."   The author mentions how "Christianity sits on a Jewish foundation and Americans in particular frequently refer to a Judeo-Christian foundation of their new-world culture." Therefore, "it is not unreasonable to state that Western civilization has a Jewish moral foundation and the Ten Commandments are increasingly acknowledged as Judaism's inestimable contribution of the moral foundation to an emerging global culture." (pg. 124)

The Ten Commandments are a foundation and thus, not everything. For they need interpreting.  "Understood correctly, the Sharia is a divine abstract of the Law; the summary of the Law by Jesus is an interpretation; each person must work out his own ethical responsibilities in fear and trembling, as opposed to either merely obeying the Law or adopting the illusion that anything goes."

He states there are "both personal and communal applications of the Law to be worked out in every age" and the Ten Commandments are about "fundamental relationships." We must extend the application of these relationships to being not only between us and God and our fellow man, but to our environment and the animal kingdom.  (pg. 125)


The author notes that the Quran "gives greater place to the quest to recover the Law."

In a chapter on "Women Who Have Names" the author speaks of the feminism of the Quran which is much less patriarchal than the Bible.  For instance Pharaoh's and Potiphar's wives and the Queen of Sheba are all mentioned by name unlike the Biblical versions of their stories.  He says Hagar is "especially important" (although I honestly cannot remember her being mentioned by name in the Quran).  He states "only Mary rivals Jesus in the time and the space dedicated to individuals in the Quran.  ... They are by far the two persons most often mentioned in Muslim Scriptures."  (pg. 144)  I may be wrong, but I remember Moses being mentioned the most in the Quran though I never did a formal count of how many times people were mentioned. I just recall hearing about Moses and Pharaoh a lot.

Although the author stated in the beginning he only wanted to explore the actual Scriptures of each faith - which he said meant he was not going to explore the ahadith, he broke this "rule" a few times in order to make certain points.  He wanted to share the Muslim community's four feminine role models: Khadija, Fatima, Mary and Asiya who "together portray the feminine ideal in leadership roles in Muslim business, religion, family, and government."  (pg. 144)

Question:  If you were going to choose feminine role models from Scripture or religious history/tradition, would you have chosen these four or would you replace one or two with others?  Who would YOU choose and why?

Thoughts on anything else?

Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael & Lot

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book

The next three chapters deal with Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael. Sarah is mentioned in the Abraham chapter, but the author didn't devote a single chapter to her.

Mr. Brown commended Abraham for his total submission to God. He let nothing - not even the family he so desired - get in his way of submitting to God's will.  Thus why he was willing to sacrifice his son.  The author notes that Jews and Christians know this to be Isaac as mentioned in the Bible whereas for Muslims it is Ishmael which he says is mentioned in the Quran. I didn't see a specific son mentioned in the Quran for this, but I know in more recent traditions it is thought to be the older son.

"The test was not to see if Abraham would kill for God, as some have speculated. The test was to determine if Abraham was willing to sacrifice his life's dream of a family and the precious promise made to him regarding that family.  That test comes to every human being. Are we willing to put God first, with no rival priority?"  (pg. 75)

The author asks if Abraham's children - Jews, Christians and Muslims - can learn to submit completely to God and be in good relation with one another.

The author makes mention of the good mother Hagar was and why she is so revered by Muslims. He points out the favorable things the Jewish Scriptures say about her in Genesis.

Through Ishmael he explains the alienation of the Arabs from the rest of Abraham's spiritual descendants.  He says the Quran believes him to have nearly been sacrificed by his father whereas the Bible speaks of his being sent away from his father as a teenager. What child wouldn't feel alienated?  He then says a spirit of fearfulness is what drives the lesser jihad -- terrorism.


Chapter 8 was about Lot/Lut whom the author says was made into a "bad actor," "villain" and was deliberately slandered by the ones who wrote/edited the Torah.  In the Quran Lot is "rehabilitated" and shown in a much more favorable light - a prophet and warner to the people of Sodom.

I thought this statement was interesting:

"The Bible is not intended as either a whitewash or a slander. It is the story of human corruption and God's redemption of all, including the writers.  Sometimes, the writers were unaware of corrupting their own material, as Muslims have charged, but even that is part of the human situation with which God deals. In the case of Lot, the writers would have been very much aware of the hatchet job they were doing." 

Why slander Lot in the book of Genesis?  "As the ancestor of Israel's enemies, nothing good is said about him in the Bible, while nothing bad is said about him in the Quran. The fact that he assimilated toward the Arab side of the family did nothing for his reputation among the Jews by the time these stories were being written down in the biblical account." (pg. 96)  Actually the author notes that the New Testament is more favorable towards Lot. In II Peter 2, Lot is called a "righteous man."  We do know even from the Torah that Lot was saved from the destruction God brought down upon the people who stayed behind.

The story of Lot getting drunk and his daughters committing incest with him "was intended not only to discredit Lot, but also to cast Israel's Arab neighbors in the least favorable light, a deliberate slur on traditional enemies who claimed descent from the righteous prophet Lot."    

Note: Lot's sons by his daughters were the fathers of the Moabites and Ammonites. Interestingly enough, however, Ruth - of whom a Biblical book is named - is from the Moabites and she accepted the God of her mother in law (Yahweh) when her husband died.  She married Boaz who was the great grandfather of King David and she is an ancestress of the Messiah, Jesus.

So, yeah, God is all about redemption even in yucky situations like incest.

Details the Bible Didn't Share about Noah's Other Son

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book


Chapter 3 is about Noah/Nooh and his sons.  Most noteworthy perhaps the son whom the Bible "forgot" to mention whose story is told somewhat in the Quran. As the author put it, "The Quran does not dispute the truth of the Bible, but frequently adds details."  (pg. 50) 

According to hadith, his name was Canaan.  (In the Bible Canaan was Noah's grandson, the son of Ham.)  The Quranic Canaan was the son who drowned because he put his trust in the mountains to save him from drowning.  Mr. Brown says Canaan's story shows the familiar tale of one going his own way, exercising his freedom of choice by rebellion. Yet unlike the story of the prodigal son (see Luke 15), this story shows the consequences of going our own way and not turning back to God.

Remember after the Flood, when Noah was drunk, Ham found him and somehow later got in trouble for not covering his father's nakedness?  (It's in Genesis 9).  Some have puzzled why Noah cursed Canaan for this when Ham was the son who had offended Noah.  They came to the conclusion that sometimes "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children."  This author suggests Noah truly meant to curse Ham, but just as parents often confuse the names of their children, Noah simply said "Canaan" (meaning his son who was drowned in the Flood) instead of saying Ham.  Brown notes that "This episode provides an instance where knowledge of the Quran resolves a textual conundrum in the biblical text."  

He continues, "The Quran preserves a few somewhat sophisticated twists that had been forgotten or lost."  (pg. 53)  But remember the Quran assumes people already know the Biblical stories as it usually leaves a lot of details out.  From my understanding of the author, he believes the Bible provides the main part of the story so you have to know it first. Then you can read the Quran which might add a few interesting bits to the story that the Jewish authors didn't note when they wrote their version. 

About the numerous flood stories the author writes:  "Some stories may have borrowed material from others, as did the Hebrew version, almost certainly, but others are too widely separated for that. The common thread is water both falling down and rising up; the destruction of society and information about a few survivors who had built a boat -- a family and their animals.  There are a few hints of awareness about the wrath of the gods toward corrupt civilizations, but only the Hebrew account is focused on the cleansing and redemptive purpose of it all, the rainbow of God's love, the grace involved in second chances, and the quest for meaning."  (pg. 46)

About Noah, the author notes he is presented with a "high moral tone" in the Quran since he is on a mission to warn sinners of impending doom.  You won't find the details about Noah getting drunk and lying naked in his tent in Muhammad's version.  Brown says the Quran presents models of good character and conduct not "examples of redemption" that the Jewish authors present.


Chapter 4 deals with the Tower of Babel and how it is a warning for modern times when we build things for ourselves instead of for God and others.  The author says it's a warning that there should be no "unity among humans based on one language or on a super race of superior people."  Most of this chapter was a warning against American Christian fundamentalism and extreme capitalism which lead to wars on drugs, crime, abortion and terrorism and do not solve problems or bring peace.  A modern day Tower of Babel could be the World Trade Center towers which were also brought down.  Hmph!

Rethinking Cain and Abel: Technology vs. Nature; Role of Religion

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book

Chapter 2 is about Cain and Abel or Qabeel and Habeel if you prefer the Quranic names.  Here is a bit of what the author had to say about these brothers and what they represent.

"Abel is an ancient word for 'shepherd,' though it can also mean 'breath.' ... [He] represents the era in human history when humanity developed beyond hunting and gathering food.The era of animal husbandry is the first era of civilization." On the other hand Cain, meaning 'smith' as in blacksmith represents someone who "made tools that would actually interfere with nature." You know like putting up fences to keep out Abel's animals or trying to force plants to grow in rows, using animal waste as fertilizer and manufactured instruments to break up the soil.   The author notes that "primitive religious folk" believe Abel's offering was accepted by God because "compared to the more natural life of Abel, the shepherd breathing freely out under the stars, Cain was seen as positively decadent in lifestyle and activity, much the way we feel about farmers using herbicides and pesticides, or the possible curse of genetically modified foods."  (pg. 40)

Mr. Brown notes that both Cain and Abel had a God consciousness "which was one of the finest human instincts from the beginning." It is rather interesting to learn about more remote tribes and realize the people in those lands also have gods and ways to worship and please their deities. It seems a rather universal trait to have some awareness of higher beings out there running things.  Do you suppose it's because people long for an explanation of why things happen - why a torrential rain would flood their land and wreak havoc?  why a swarm of locust would ruin the crops? why the sun would do its job and cause things to grow?  I wonder if it's only (or mostly) in more civilized societies where technology reigns where we find people denying the existence of a god controlling at least a few things out there.

The author credits Seth as introducing 'organized religion' based on the last part of Genesis 4 which reads: 

 ²⁵ Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." ²⁶ Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
      At that time men began to call on  the name of the LORD.

Brown believes the role of religion "in addition to offering warnings in the name of God [for such things as global warming, materialism, militarism], is to provide the protection that God offered Cain in a world where risks must be taken, technological or otherwise. Preachers are not to encourage turning back the clock at every juncture, but rather to offer encouragement and wise reflection on the trends, guiding progress instead of preventing it." (pg. 43)

Then he takes about a page to explain that mainstream Christian churches are declining, but perhaps this is what civilization needs as Christianity becomes more cultural.  He even says some historic churches may be called to become 'shrines'  as centers of cultural religion.  Instead of meeting in churches, he says "serving God in the community and in the world is the new agenda." 


Now I'm curious..if you were brought up hearing the story of Cain and Abel, what explanation were you given for why God accepted Abel's offering and not Cain's?  What do you think of the author's interpretation of this story?  Do you think he shows technology in an unfair light or is he pretty balanced in his thinking that people are often resistant to change ... perhaps even God because He accepted Abel's offering and not Cain's.  Note: the author did make mention that Cain threw himself upon God's mercy after being judged for killing his brother.  Thoughts?

Rethinking Adam and Eve: Did God want them to eat the fruit?

Notes and Reflections on Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown -- see introductory post for more information on this book


In chapter one, the author fittingly begins with Adam and Eve or Aadam and Hawaa. He chooses a more metaphorical version declaring many "adams" (men) and "eves" (mothers) were "created" on the first day ... rather they developed out of the "primordial soup" which mysteriously came forth from the big bang.   The author reminds us that the Quran presumes the earlier stories of Adam are already known "because it launches into deep theological questions without any of the detailed background we might require."  He shares

how the Quran says Adam was created from clay,

how God decided Adam would be his "vice-regal representative upon the earth,"

how the "angels protested that such a person could created havoc, even resulting in bloodshed, as compared to themselves, who were programmed simply to praise and honor God,"

how God told the angels they could not grasp His purpose and explained no more to them. 

Instead God discusses animal names with Adam and appoints man as the animals' "teacher."  God wanted the angels to bow down to Adam. Of course Iblis (the devil) refused and this disobedience to God and believing he was superior to man was his great sin.

A difference between the Quranic and Biblical versions is that in the Islamic understanding, humans - with their abilities to choose freely unlike the angels who were programmed to produce "music and poetry that reflect God's glory" - were "a whole new order of creation, above even angels."  Yet the author makes note of the Jewish and Christian understanding based on Psalm 8 where David speaking of man declared him made "a little lower than the angels."

Any thoughts on this topic?  What do you think of the Quranic version of man being higher than angels because of his ability to choose? Do you think the freedom of choice is not taught in the Bible?  When I read the Quran I was often overwhelmed by a sense of predestination - that is God chose who would be His slaves and who would follow his own path which resulted in hellfire.  Yet the author's understanding of the Quran seems to show a strong sense of freedom of choice. Do you agree with his version of things? Does this seem to be how Islam is practiced when most people born into Muslim households are automatically Muslim with little choice in the matter?  Or do, in fact, "born Muslims" have a choice to become Hindu, agnostic or Catholic if they so choose?

And what do you think of the Psalmist declaring man "a little lower than the angels"?  Is this offensive to be considered lower?  Does it makes you feel inferior somehow or are you OK with that? Would you argue we are higher or lower than the angels? Why?

Furthermore, if the Quran is a mere continuation of the message of the previous books, is this conflict proof that the Jewish Scriptures had been corrupted and needed correcting? How else would one reconcile the view of David (men are lower than angels) to Muhammad's version (men are higher than angels)? Or do you simply realize David was speaking with poetic license or he was speaking of something else entirely and not freedom of choice?

The author mentions How Good Do We Have to Be? by Rabbi Harold Kushner who believes eating of the forbidden tree "was not entirely a bad thing.  We advance by pushing the limits, though we must discover the proper limits. Kushner suggests biting the apple was one of the bravest and most liberating events in the history of the human race, and in the personal development of each person, and that God planned it that way.  Its consequences are painful in the same way that growing up and leaving one's home can be painful. In the same way, marriage and parenthood can be painful and cause us to wonder, 'Why did I give up my less complicated life for all these problems?'  For the mature person who has experienced the complex, hard-earned satisfaction of seeing these things through, there is no doubt it is worth the pain.  The woman is not necessarily the villain of the story, enslaved by her appetites and bringing sin and death into the world. She can be seen as the heroine of the story, leading her husband into the brave new world of moral demands and moral decisions -- the only kind of world in which love can be found."  (pg. 36)



Do you tend to agree with Rabbi Kushner that eating the fruit was no big deal...in fact, it was exactly what God wanted Eve to do?   Maybe a little reverse psychology at work perhaps.  How does this theory work together with or tear apart the traditional thought that this act of disobedience brought death and heartache into the world? Do you agree that having these painful life experiences is really a good thing although we don't always like going through them at the time?  Does Rabbi Kushner's theory suggest God wants (or, at the very least, wanted in the beginning) people to disobey and challenge Him?


The author then ends with an alternative story from Rabbi Kushner's book where Adam and Eve did not eat the fruit though tempted by the serpent.   God rewarded their obedience like this:

"To the man he said, 'You will never work a day in your life. Spend your days in idle contentment with food growing all around you.' To the woman he said, 'You will bear children without pain and raise them without any trouble.  They will not need anything from you and never depend on you.' God told them, 'Children will not cry, nor even grieve if their parents die.  Parents will not cry if their children die; they can have as many more as they wish.  No one will ever laugh or cry, and nobody will ever receive something they have always longed for, because they will have everything.' And the man and the woman grew very old in the garden, and very fat, eating daily from the tree of life and having more and more children.  And the grass grew high around the Tree of Conscience until it disappeared from view, for there was no one to tend it." 

What's wrong with Rabbi Kushner's version of the Reward of Obedience?  What is right? Do you tend to agree with his scenario or would you write your version of Reward for Obedience differently?  Personally I find this man lacks greatly in his view of God's ability to create a perfect place.  His view is that reward is simply being able to eat and reproduce to your heart's content and there is little room for relationship and enjoyable work in a perfect world. What do you think?  After reading this view of Reward, can you see why eating the fruit would be a better alternative for humanity in Kushner's eyes?

I'd love to hear your point of view on any of these topics!

Understanding the Islamic Perspective

I'm somewhat aware that Salman Rushdie is perhaps not a huge favorite in the Muslim world, however, I read a couple paragraphs of an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post in August 2005 that I wanted to share.  Actually these paragraphs were mentioned in the forward of the current book I'm reading, Noah's Other Son, by Brian Arthur Brown a minister of the United Church of Canada.

It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.

Muhammad was also a successful merchant and heard, on his travels, the Nestorian Christians' desert versions of Bible stories that the Koran mirrors closely (Christ, in the Koran, is born in an oasis, under a palm tree). It ought to be fascinating to Muslims everywhere to see how deeply their beloved book is a product of its place and time, and in how many ways it reflects the Prophet's own experiences.

However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger's personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?

The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities.

Now I'm not saying Muslims must think of their Scriptures as mere historical documents and not sacred, however, I do think it's important to realize that everything done during Muhammad's time does not, in fact, have to be done today in the same way.  You can ride in cars instead of camels. You can use a toothbrush instead of miswak.   You can wait until your daughter is grown instead of marrying her off to some old man when she is twelve or younger.  You can have one wife instead of four. I've seen some Muslim women talking about this very thing on other blogs lately especially in regards to women's rights and roles in this world.

I've never read anything from this author before, but he said his hope is "to illustrate how much the West and the world as a whole can learn from the Qur'an, and to boldly offer the fruits of more than a hundred years of biblical criticism among Christians and Jews." He hopes this will profit Jews and Christians so they can understand a religion they may know too little about. And he hopes to inspire Muslims with "techniques of scriptural analysis" so they can "unlock the treasures of the Qur'an" for the benefit of everyone.

I've yet to get into this book's chapters because I had to first read the foreword, introduction, prologue, cast of characters and preface.    I did glean a few things from those pages worth sharing.  The author reminds us that we are no longer in a secular age like the 20th century was labeled.  The liberal Christians' idea that we are in a "post-religious" age is just not true according to this liberal Christian. 

Also this author believes Islam to be "beautiful" and will avoid speaking of leaders and followers, but the Scriptures. He will talk of the Torah, Gospel and Qur'an instead of Judaism, Christianity and Islam or even David, Jesus or Muhammad.  So this seems like it will be interesting .. hope so.

The author believes the "Qur'an is as hard to read as the books of Daniel or Revelation, and it is presented in a similar style. (pg. 9)  He had many Muslims help with this book and he addressed how they were "aghast" at how the Bible portrays the prophets and leaders as very imperfect people especially in the Jewish Scriptures.  In the spirit of understanding the other point of view, he wanted the reader to realize this important distinction between Muslims with their nearly-perfect prophets and Jews and Christians with their error-prone prophets.  Muslims, he claims, use this view of the prophets as proof the Bible has been corrupted, whereas Jews "[appreciate] God's response to the human quest" and Christians believe in grace, both of these "depend on the fact that God redeems these great prophetic characters in spite of their sins, not because of their virtues. The point is that this redemption is available to all."  (pg. 26)

The author had a new twist on the Golden Rule for his book:  "To understand others as they would want us to understand them, we must put forth the most favorable interpretation of any cherished belief, as long as it does no real damage to our own.  We would hope that others might look at our tradition through our fond eyes, rather than looking for every inconsistency and hypocrisy they can find."  (pg. 10)

So I guess this means I need to see Muhammad as a Muslim would.  O_O 

Or at least try.  Trying is good.  

Stay tuned. I'll share more if the chapters are any good! 

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? 

What does it take to get rid of all those sins?

Notes and my reflections as I read Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong

Over the last two or three years I've read a number of blogs and comments on blogs written by Muslims. I've read their thoughts on a variety of issues with interest  and have learned quite a lot. I figured it was better to learn about Islam from Muslims rather than only reading Christian sources that might have a bit of a different spin.  :)

One issue I'm not really clear on is forgiveness of sin. I recall my questions while reading the Quran since it seems to imply God can only forgive some sins. (see this post for an example). Muslims told me on other blogs that God can only forgive sins you commit against Him, but not ones you commit against others.  The offended one holds the power in this case.  He must forgive you, but God cannot. 

I recall a few months back Christians were basically laughed at for believing someone like Hitler could have been forgiven by God according to our beliefs.  "Marc" - an American convert to Islam - didn't believe it was in God's sense of justice to forgive really bad sinners.  Especially at one fell swoop.  Like something so silly as admitting your sinfulness and relying on God's mercy alone to save you. You know, that whole Jesus thing most of us Christians believe in.  Yeah, it really was quite an amusing dialog especially when a friend - not Muslim or Christian - pointed out that we were really debating whose God was more merciful! And there I was trying to prove Allah was just as merciful as Yahweh!  It was great!  :)

The reason I bring this up now is because I read this in Karen Armstrong's book yesterday in the final chapter called Salam.

She said when Khalid ibn al-Walid finally accepted Islam he was afraid of reprisals since he and his buddy 'Amr had killed many Muslims at the battles of Uhud and the Trench, "but Muhammad assured them that the act of islam wiped out old debts and represented an entirely new start."  (pg. 196) 

The solution for getting rid of those pesky sins & guilt?

I realize Khalid and 'Amr killed during battles so maybe this doesn't count the same on the sinfulness scale, but still the quote there is that the act of surrendering to God (islam) wipes the slate clean, right? Is this not the same as what Christians believe when they claim accepting Jesus' work on the cross cleanses us from sin?

So God can, in fact, cleanse people from ALL sins and not just some.  I remember when "Marc" made this mocking accusation, I mentioned hajj and didn't Muslims often believe going to Mecca and performing the rituals cleansed them. He said "good point" and others clarified that no, actually, it only cleansed you from sins against God and not others.   A Muslim woman convert spoke up and said she was told having babies cleansed her from sin. So it's all rather confusing to me still, but quite an interesting topic. I like to see what various people think.

I believe from the Bible that God can forgive all sins. When we sin against others, we are, in actuality, sinning against God because each of us is HIS creation and, therefore, His.  (I argued about that in my notes on Sura 71.) Yes, it's great to ask others for forgiveness and I believe we should seek to right all wrongs. But what if we killed someone just like Khalid and 'Amr killed Muslims? Can we go ask those deceased people for forgiveness?  Are we doomed to hell because someone else holds the power of forgiveness and is either not willing or not present to extend forgiveness?

Thoughts on any of this?  Do you believe God can cleanse all sins ... even the really bad ones? Should He? Or is it against His sense of justice?  Where does God being most merciful and compassionate come into play?  How does one balance mercy, grace, compassion and justice?  How do you make sense of all this?

Hijab's Role in Keeping Men from Harassing Women

Notes and my reflections as I read Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong

Muhammad had his wives' apartments surrounding the mosque and in order to conduct business or get advice, people would often drop by whichever wife's house he was presently staying.  Apparently they often made nuisances of themselves by overstaying their visits and some men even started harassing Muhammad's wives.  Therefore some revelations were given in order to instruct the community on good manners as they pertained to their leader and his family.  Also it gave instruction about Muhammad's wives speaking to men from behind a curtain or hijab.  Karen Armstrong agrees that hijab has become a more controversial aspect of Islam especially among those who believe it oppresses women on one hand to the other spectrum that all devout Muslim women MUST wear a head scarf at the very least.  However at the time of the revelation it was only to keep Muhammad's wives from being under the prying eyes and scrutiny of the male members of Medina.  Although Muhammad's wives were now kept a bit more separate from the men (e.g. remaining in tents when going on military expeditions), other women still went around freely.  "The hijab was not devised to divide the sexes," Armstrong writes.  



I thought this part was interesting:  "The introduction of the hijab was a victory for 'Umar, who had been urging the Prophet to segregate his wives for some time -- a somewhat superficial solution to a complex problem.  Muhammad had wanted to change people's attitudes, and the imposition of this external barrier was a compromise, because it did not require Muslims to exercise an internal control over their actions.  But he gave in to 'Umar, because of the crisis that was tearing Medina apart."  (pg. 171)

The reason I found this of interest is because I often read on blogs how women are harassed in Muslim countries even while covering their hair, faces and so forth.  Some claim the men in Muslim-majority countries are the worst at catcalling and pinching and rubbing on women.  I've also heard people argue that one reason for this is the men are never taught to control themselves because they are, in some cases, segregated from all non-related females or they expect somehow these pieces of covering clothes to be the barriers needed to ensure godly behave.   You know ...so the men won't see something that they want to touch.  No seeing equals no temptation.  Where's the test of a good Muslim deciding between right and wrong there?  So it was telling that Armstrong mentions here "it did not require Muslims to exercise an internal control over their actions."  Are men robots unable to control their actions?  Must there be a curtain (pieces of cloth) in place to discourage them from touching women?  And why for the most part is this not a huge problem among Western countries where women don't usually cover nearly as much skin?  Shouldn't one logically believe the more godly people would act, well, more godly?  

Thoughts? 

The Jihad Chapter and Muhammad's Moral Dilemmas

Notes and my reflections as I read Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time by Karen Armstrong


This 214-page book only has five chapters and the fourth that I finished the other day while driving to the mountains is simply called "Jihad."  On nearly the final page, Karen Armstrong writes "[Muhammad's] original aim had been to end the violence of jahiliyyah, but he was now behaving like an ordinary Arab chieftain. He had felt impelled to go to war in order to achieve a final peace, but the fighting had unleashed a grim and vicious cycle of strike and counterstrike, atrocity, and retaliation, which violated essential principles of Islam."  (pg. 163)

Truthfully for me much of this chapter was Muhammad doing things that were against what he desired to do or else the spirit of the Quran.  Actually the first part that took my attention wasn't so much against Muhammad's or the Quran's standards, but against mine. I just have a hard time justifying stealing from others being a God-sanctioned way of providing for yourself.  I read how the Emigrants - those who came to Medina with Muhammad from Mecca - couldn't support themselves as merchants since there were already plenty and none of them were good farmers so they supported their community by raiding from caravans.  Add to this fact, Karen Armstrong says part of Muhammad's strategy was to get the Quraysh's attention so he could bring his message from God to his people.  The Quraysh had already rejected this divine revelation -- that's why Muhammad & Co. are outside of their home city -- but Muhammad feels burdened for his people, wants them to know this truth from God ... so he raids their caravans!   Sounds about as decent as sending in the missionaries to convert the people before your powerful army comes through to steal the natural resources of a country!  Stealing from others and trying to share your faith should never go together!

Probably not the best way to share the goodness of your faith

Granted Armstrong showed us that a revelation came to give permission for these raids - a "primitive just war theory" - because when Muhammad and his followers were ousted from their homeland, they were treated unjustly.  Apparently by raiding caravans they could steal back what was stolen from them by the Meccans.

Twice in this chapter Armstrong notes the struggle, the "tragic moral dilemma" Muhammad faced as he had to expel people from their homeland. See, his whole justification for warring with the Quraysh was that the Muslims were made to leave Mecca.  But now that Muhammad was rising to power in Medina and a few tribes didn't bow to his wishes, he was doing the same thing to these people by forcing them to leave their homeland due to their rebellion.  Armstrong says, "He had wanted to cut the cycle of violence and dispossession, not continue it." (pg. 151)  Yet he did.  I suppose this shows that not even a prophet of God can change society in any sort of quick way, huh?

Armstrong quotes Ibn Sa'd  and said Muhammad never hit any slave or wife of his. According to her, Muhammad "was ahead of his time" in this matter since so many of the Muslim men did "beat their wives without giving the matter a second thought."  (pg.158)  Now Muhammad was already introducing a lot of reform. Much of which gave women rights they had never had before such as inheriting property.  This book notes that the men were outraged at how many social reforms Muhammad was making already.  So Muhammad, knowing his enemy was gathering a massive army, had to keep the loyalty of his men somehow.  Thus he permitted them to retain this wife-beating provision though he basically told them it wasn't something he wanted them to do.  In fact Armstrong notes that Muhammad "did not like" the new revelation that seemed to give men permission to beat their wives. (I guess Muhammad was more progressive than God on this topic.)    Armstrong notes: "Yet again, the conflict with Mecca had compromised his vision and forced him to adopt a course of action that, in more normal circumstances, he would have preferred to avoid.  The Quranic legislation about women is intertwined with verses about the war, which inevitably affected everything that happened in Medina at this time; Muhammad knew that he had no hope of surviving a Meccan onslaught with disaffected troops."  (pg. 158)

It's a shame that wife beating had to continue in order to keep the troops happy, isn't it?  

One social reform Muhammad made had to do with women inheriting property.  The men protested this wondering why women who do no work to earn money would get their (the men's) money.  This is such an annoying and idiotic view as if women are not contributing to the household simply because the jobs they do don't pay in cash.  While the men are out earning money, the women are staying home. It seems the men think they all sat around watching soap operas while scarfing down chocolate candies!  

Does she contribute to the household or not?

 Because we all know that babies miraculously feed, change their diapers and care for themselves while a woman simply snaps her finger and her house is instantly clean and a delicious meal is on the table ready for her family to enjoy.  Yeah, poor men out working all day and their wives not contributing one bit to the household. How dare they think they should inherit property their men have worked for!

One last thing I noted was how a spirit of individualism contributed to a more patriarchal society.  At one time both men and women of Arabia had multiple spouses.  Women lived with their families and their 'spouses' would drop by for visits.  It didn't matter which spouse fathered a child as children identified as their mothers' descendants.  This started changing as the tribes became settled and people started accumulating property and wealth.  Men suddenly wanted to pass their property on to their sons, so as Armstrong notes, "The Quran encouraged this trend towards a more patriarchal society."  (pg. 146)  It limited women to only one husband at a time and men to only four wives. Men started housing and taking care of their wives and children and now descendants are traced through their fathers' lines. Indeed I remember going into a house in Syria, seeing a picture of a group of fifty people or so and my hosts explaining that it was a family reunion.  I looked closer and then asked, "Where are the women?"    They laughed.  In my thinking if you have that many generations of people and that many people in one family, you had to have women somewhere along the way.  Alas, women are not traditionally pictured so I suppose future generations will only have adequate knowledge - or at least pictures - of their MALE descendants.  *tsk*  For shame.  You know me, I'm not used to staying out of the picture.  ;-)


Thoughts on any of this?