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? 

How do YOU view God?

Someone posted this earlier today on Facebook. It shows four ways Americans view God and how this view of God shapes the way they see issues such as homosexuality.

Even if you aren't an American, check this out if you want. How do YOU view God?

Click Here

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?

A Little Beauty

Happy 10-10-10!  Yesterday we went for a short visit to the North Carolina mountains.  We hiked a trail at Stone Mountain on Saturday and today we drove several miles along the Blue Ridge Parkway before heading home.

Blue Ridge Parkway, NC

I have a few other pictures at this public Facebook link if you want to see Stone Mountain and some people climbing it.

Grace in Islam and Christianity

Several days ago I posted a link to Facebook of a religious quiz that prompted many replies as people posted their results. One young Moroccan friend whom I've never met and know only in a very small I-met-you-on-Facebook way stated he didn't do well and said the question about Islam was too easy.  He proceeded to give me a super-short quiz (2 questions) on the Quran and I told him I read it this past year.  Anyway, a local friend -- someone two years ahead of me in high school -- started asking Zayd a few questions about his Islamic beliefs.  Mercy, grace, ways to please God .. good topics like this came up.  One day I thanked them both for their discussion and posted how I see grace in Islam and Christianity.  I figured I'd copy and paste it here for your critique.  I am curious if I understand "grace" correctly according to your views of it.  Please let me know.

This is what I wrote  ...


In Islam there is grace and it is God's grace and mercy that permits one to enter His heaven. While we may never be assured that we will be there, we can hope our chances are good because we have obeyed the rituals laid out for us in the Quran and ahadith. Since Muhammad was supposedly the best example of a Muslim (literally, submitter to Allah), this is why most Muslims strive very hard to follow the ways of Muhammad. (Some take it to an extreme like the Taliban outlawing toothbrushes in Afghanistan since the Prophet used a miswak. They think most modern inventions are unlawful.)

Just as Christians often say they follow Jesus and seek to live their lives according to his teachings ("no man comes to the Father except through me"), Muslims will strive to be like the perfect Muslim - Muhammad - so they may live a life pleasing to God. Both are following someone in order to please God. While Christians will want to glorify God because He has already saved us and we were created to do good works and as we follow Jesus, our lives will reflect his actions and teachings (ideally!), Muslims want to do good deeds and follow Muhammad (their best example) because they hope to obtain salvation on Judgment Day.

So in Islam grace is present in that God allowed you into heaven, however, you try to please Him by overcoming tests on earth and proving yourself worthy of His choosing you. In other words, you strive (the greater jihad) to overcome your sinfulness, you strive to have inward and outward expressions of piety whether that is your willingness to forgive someone who has wronged you, putting up with polygyny although you don't really love being one of four wives, caring for your children or ailing parents or even how you dress and practice modesty (e.g. covering your hair, face, or just from chest to knees).

In Christianity we realize we can never do enough to make us worthy of God's heaven so we recognize we are sinners in need of a Savior. God's grace is demonstrated in that while we were in our sinful conditions (NOT all prettied up by religious observation and rituals), He sent Jesus into the world to pay for our sins. It's a gift from God...not something we work for which would be payment/wages for our work. As Chris quoted from the verse this is so we can't boast in that we earned our salvation and good standing before God somehow. All the glory goes to HIM - the Creator, the Sustainer, the Savior of mankind!

It's only when we recognize our neediness, our complete inability to save ourselves or earn our spot in heaven and cry out to God for His mercy, that we realize what grace is: God's gift to undeserving sinners. As the old song goes...that's why grace is so amazing. :)

Kafiri and Jahili Tendencies In Us All ... maybe?

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

I was slightly amused as I read Karen Armstrong's description of the kafirun of Muhammad's day.  She notes instead of "unbeliever," kafir "implies a discourteous refusal of something that is offered with great kindness and generosity."  (Like God's offer of free salvation as a gift, not earned by your works, perhaps?) According to Muhammad, God had revealed himself to the people and some of them rejected God, therefore, the Quran scolded them not for their "lack of religious conviction, but for their arrogance."   Instead of realizing their dependence upon God, they regarded themselves as "self-reliant" and refused to submit to Allah or anyone else. 

That's not really what amused me, but this did.  "The kafirun are bursting with self-importance; they strut around haughtily, addressing others in an offensive, braying manner, and fly into a violent rage if they think that their honor has been impugned. They are so convinced that their way of life is better than anybody else's that they are particularly incensed by any criticism of their traditional lifestyle."  (pg. 79)

Armstrong notes that the "chief vice of the kafirun was jahiliyyah" -  not how it is usually translated as the "age of ignorance" that supposedly characterized the pre-Islamic period.  Rather she notes the jahili had "an acute sensitivity to honor and prestige; arrogance, excess, and above all, a chronic tendency to violence and retaliation." 

Um, does this not seem very much like a number of self-called Muslims today who are quick to issue death threats, burn tires and hurt or kill others when they perceive their honor or religion has been slighted by the evil West?  Are these who consider themselves followers of Muhammad not demonstrating these kafiri and jahili traits?

Indeed Armstrong admits it wasn't easy for the Muslims at this time to give up the traditions in which they were raised. It wasn't always easy to moderate ideal bedouin standards to "act like a slave ('abd), praying with ..nose on the ground and treating the base-born like equals."  I think this attitude still lingers and is why the descendants today can mistreat Filipino maids for instance.   These "base-born" servants certainly aren't on equal footing in society with the powerful Saudi, right?

Armstrong said the Quran "urges Muslims to behave with hilm, a traditional Arab virtue. Men and women of hilm were forbearing, patient and merciful."  OK, wait, I thought the pre-Islamic Arabs had few virtues, but these hilm traits are fantastic!  In fact as she went on to describe such things as being slow to retaliate, controlling anger, remaining calm in difficult circumstances, leaving revenge for Allah instead of hitting back (what?!) and turning the other cheek, I thought I was reading a description by the Apostle Paul or Jesus!  (pg. 80-81)

By the way, I'm not casting stones. I realize there are plenty of so-called Christians - myself included more times than I care to admit - who don't act according to Jesus's wonderful traits.  That's why I noted the information from the author about it not being easy to give up the traits in which we were raised.  Not that anyone had to teach me how to be selfish or want to retaliate when I feel wronged or threatened.  It all came very naturally.  And it's why living like Christ is difficult and can only be done through his power.  (see John 15)

I think the point of this post is that we all have a bit of kafirun in us, don't we?  We all have a bit of those jahili tendencies so let's not be so quick to judge fellow humans and let's encourage each other to walk the way Jesus taught us by example: in love, serving others.