Random Dozen

Yay, so I finally finished another book (the Muhammad one) and posted my last notes on it yesterday.  Thanks to all who have commented on those posts. As always, you made the reading more interesting and informative! I returned the book to the library and ended up with three more plus a couple others on my list to get another time.  I got one about Paul, a fiction one fleshing out the story of Matthew (despised-by-his-own tax collector for Rome turned disciple of Jesus and writer of the first gospel) and another that deals with Noah having a son who drowned. Actually it discusses some of the similarities and differences of the Quran and Bible - I think. I didn't check it out too thoroughly there since I planned to read it.  

In the meantime, I read this Random Dozen on another blog and decided to fill in my own answers just for fun.  I hope you all are having a great week/weekend!

1. Is there a word which you initially mispronounced? Were the circumstances in which you made the faux pas embarrassing? By the way, that's not "foax pass." (I know you know that. Just jokin' with ya.)

I pronounce a lot of things the Southern way so I'm not usually embarrassed unless it's just a word I've seen in books many times and know what it means, but when I go to say or read it out loud I'm like, "Errr, how exactly is that said?" I think the most embarrassing one was saying facade like "fuh CADE." At least that's the one that comes to mind now.

2. How do you feel about the use of texting shortcuts and trends? (ex: "I've got ur notes. Get them 2 u 2morow.")

It annoys me sometimes. Is it that much harder to write "your" than "ur"?  However, I do use a few of them from time to time on blogs (e.g. BTW for "by the way") so I guess I shouldn't complain.

3. Tell me about your high school senior picture. Please feel free to post.

It was me in a drape-type thing...utterly cute (not!)

5. Share a high school or college homecoming memory.

High school homecomings were just basketball games and seeing some old friends. Nothing overly-memorable.

6.  Do you prefer sunrises or sunsets?

Sunsets. They both are pretty, but I see more sunsets so I have more of those in my mind.

7.  What is something you have not done that you desire to do?

live in another country for a while -- I think it would be neat to experience another culture and people for a while, see what I can learn from them, what I miss from home and so forth. I think it would be a wonderful learning experience.

8. If you could come back [in another life] as an animal, which would it be?

maybe a marine creature so I could explore under the sea and see the beauties way down deep

9. Where were you 10 years ago? Please feel free to elaborate more than just your physical location.

let's see...we lived in a mobile home in a cow pasture that we bought prior to our marriage (we bought the mobile home, not the cow pasture, that is); Andrew lived in it a month or so before we married; we were preparing to buy the house we are in now ... or at least start looking; this was pre-Michael so those days don't stand out so much to me now except for the little I shared; boring, yes.

10. When you are proven to be correct in any contentious discussion, do you gloat?

If I could remember any "contentious discussion" where I've been proven to be correct, I'd tell ya. Usually any contentious discussions just stop with our points being heard and each satisfied with her own understanding of things.  I don't think I'm much of a gloater because I realize there is soooooooooo much out there I don't know and so many people much smarter than I.

11. What is your favorite food which includes the ingredient "caramel?"

sundaes and those little caramel candies with the white centers

12. If you could be part of any fictional family, which family would you choose and why?

The Huxtables from The Cosby Show -- they all seemed successful and had fun together; laughing together is a good thing

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? 

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.