The religion of false peace

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, religion, islam, muslims

A friend suggested that I read Muslim: What You Need to Know about the World's Fastest Growing Religion, by Hank Hanegraaf. It led to a shift in my attitude, in two directions. We'll get to that…

Muslim examines Islam from a Biblical Christian perspective, and a sympathetic treatment of Jewish concerns. I recommend that every Christian and Jew read it. For one thing, "The peoples of the Book" are stated targets for Muslim abuse, conquest, and annihilation. But even the more, you may not be a Christian or a Jew, but if you are not a Muslim, the intention of the Muslim world is to bring all the earth under Sharia law. (Note, I leave out the apostrophes in words derived from Arabic. I can seldom remember where most of them go). Thus I recommend this book to every non-Muslim.

The author discusses the person of Muhammad, his character, and his principal actions; the Quran and how it originated; Sharia law; the principle of the Caliphate; and how the beliefs and practices of Islam square with the Bible.

To me Chapter 3 is crucial, "Sharia is State, and State is Sharia". I confess that I had fallen prey to the misleading propaganda of Islamists, and of President Obama (whom I now consider to be much more a friend of Muhammad than a "Christian"). I thought that "radical Islam" was an aberration, not supported by the Quran. I thought that the things Muslims believed were comparatively innocuous, and no threat to the rest of the world. In each case I was wrong.

Mr. Hanegraaf presents extensive quotes from the Quran, backed up by many quotes from the hadith (historical writings about Muhammad and the Quran, with many interpretations of Quran passages).

• He shows that Islam is far from peaceable, that Jihad is definitely commanded against all non-Muslims. Contrary to many English-language apologetical articles stating that Jihad is primarily an "inner struggle", the great majority of jihadist texts in all Muslim literature, and particularly the Quran, explicitly demand the military subjugation of everyone, particularly Jews and Christians, and requires that any who will not submit by quoting "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet" and paying a poll tax must be killed.
• He shows that Islam is not just a religion, it is a political system that is entirely theocratic. The statement "Sharia is state and state is Sharia" encompasses it. No "right thinking" Muslim will submit to any other legal system except as a temporary measure to gain favor until that system can be overthrown.
• He presents several passages, and indicates that many more exist, in which Muhammad is given permission by Allah to engage in behaviors that other Muslims were forbidden, or that most people find abhorrent. Chief among these is his marriage, in his fifties, to a six-year-old girl, and his consummation of the relationship only three years later. Others permit slavery, particularly the taking of women as sex slaves.
• The Sunni-Shia schism is outlined in an Appendix. It is rooted in the murder of Muhammad by either one or two of his wives. It is known that Muhammad was poisoned. But who did it? According to Sunni tradition, it was a Jewish woman: Muhammad led the slaughter of some Jews, and he himself killed the husband of the most beautiful of the women. Then he raped the woman and later made her his wife. She poisoned a bowl of broth, after which Muhammad suffered greatly for about three years and then died. But according to Shia tradition, two wives conspired together, and one of them was Ashia, the "baby bride" mentioned above.
• He compares the compilation of Biblical books with that of the Quran. Thousands of early copies of Bible manuscripts exist, but none of the originals. The discipline of Literal Criticism compares all the copies of each passage so as to determine which variation is closest to the original. Interestingly, I have a book that details all the important variations in New Testament manuscripts, and none impinges on the meaning of critical doctrines of the Christian faith. As to the Quran, Caliph Uthman ordered a massive project to gather all copies of the Quran. Once his scholars had put together a definitive copy, he had all other manuscripts burned. All copies since then have been from this "official" document. This is behind the contention of Muslims that the Quran is pure, that no variations exist. Apparently, though, from other sources I've read, a number of manuscripts that were never sent to Uthman do exist. But there is no Literal Criticism for the Quran, nor could there be.

A second turn in my thinking was a welling up of enormous pity for Muslims. I think we all have heard stories of how safe it is to go about in Saudi Arabia or one of the Emirates, for example. This is generally true, though a colleague of mine was beheaded on the street in Riyadh because he wore shorts to exercise, running in public. The reason for such peacefulness is Sharia law, which is terrifying. The beheading just mentioned was carried out on the spot, by a Saudi who saw my friend running by; he just whipped out his sword and did the deed. The populace in these countries is totally subjugated by such draconian laws and practices.

In its way, Islam can be a paradise…for a man. It is much more likely to be a hell on earth for a woman. Women who want the high extremity of "protection" that Islam offers are OK with it. But the slightest infraction can be met with beating, by her husband, and if continued, her life is at risk.

I am reminded of Medieval Cathlocism, which was similarly totalitarian. In a similar fashion, the leaders lived in luxury and the populace was kept in utter subjection to their whims. The church leaders and the royalty cynically ignored the tenets of the religion that they used (and abused) to subjugate the population, but they delighted in the willing submission of many, who truly believed the religion. If anything, Islam is even more onerous, and their leaders, equally cynical.

These are just a few things I learned from reading Muslim. I suspect Muslims don't like any of them to be known by a non-Muslim. The matters discussed in the book are not hearsay. Every item is backed up by quotes from the Quran and the pertinent hadith. A few times there are citations from the biography by Sahih, but those are always backed up by references from the Quran.

What does all this mean to a non-Muslim? If you happen to live in an Islamic country, it means that, while your life may not be in danger today, one day when the political circumstances allow, your life may depend on your willingness to accept Sharia, say the "Muhammad prayer" and pay a poll tax for non-Muslims. Do or die. Countries that are currently non-Muslim may become so in the future. This is the intent of the leadership of every Islamic country, every mosque. They will not rest until no religion but Islam is to be found anywhere on Earth.

Don't take my word for it. Read Muslim for yourself.

I won't be holding my breath

kw: religion, islam, provocation

The proposed mosque near "ground zero" in NYC is back in the news, getting much play in the talk shows, and so forth. Yeah, these guys have a First Amendment right to practice their religion, but remember that we jail people for crying "Fire" in a crowded room. Their proposal is just as damaging. Here are my two cents' worth to America's moderate Moslems:

Please wait until we put al Qaeda and the Taliban permanently out of business; in fact why don't more of you go to Afghanistan and Pakistan and help us do just that?

When a church or synagogue is permitted to be built within sight of the Ka'aba in Mecca, then I'll be ready to allow a mosque to be built within sight of "ground zero". OK, let's get real: When a church or synagogue is permitted to be built anywhere in Saudi Arabia!

Clash of worldviews

kw: politics, islam, christianity

I think the latest is that the Florida Quran burning is off again, but time will tell. I personally hope the burning does not happen, but for another reason:

"Pastor, instead of burning all those Qurans, give them out to your parishioners to read so they will know what Moslems are talking about. They can learn for themselves how un-peaceable the 'religion of peace' really is!"

Then again, who needs books? I have an English version of the Quran I downloaded to my computer. It is smaller than the Old Testament, and certainly not harder to read. My advice to all: get it, read it, so you'll know instead of just supposing.

The three "Peoples of the Book"

kw: book reviews, nonfiction, religion, judaism, christianity, islam, manuscripts

F. E. Peters, Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University, has recently published The Voice, the Word, the Books: The Sacred Scripture of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, a survey of the development of the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Quran.

This relatively recent illuminated manuscript of Psalms in Hebrew shows how the decorative styles of manuscript production had developed even among the image-averse Jews, by Renaissance times. This is a late subject in Dr. Peters's work. He begins with a comparative history of the three collections. The Hebrew Bible—which he consistently calls "the Bible", reserving that term for the Book of the Jews—came first, its earliest sections dating before the first millennium BCE. The contention of "higher critics" who late-date the books to periods long after the events they record, are given the lie by fragments from the book of Numbers and others dating prior to 700 BCE. The familiar prayer, "The LORD bless thee and keep thee" is one of these.

The Hebrew Bible, as distinguished from the Christian Old Testament—they are substantially different—was gathered together in stages covering at least a thousand years. Ezra is traditionally considered to have fixed it in text and form, as its last significant editor.

Editors, ah, the neglected conservers of Scripture, for all three Books. Every "book" and chapter in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Testament, and the Quran, show clear signs of editing, to the point that some writers have called them "a pastiche".

To a believer, of course, it makes little difference whether Samuel wrote the chapters containing his life and experiences, in the form we see them today, or if an Isaiah or Ezra edited the work; editors can be just as inspired as authors. I happen to believe that Genesis, in particular, was stitched together by Moses, partly from family records and journals of the patriarchs, and perhaps pre-Flood generations, and partly from sagas and poems. He would then be the first Bible editor.

That Moses's work has been further edited is shown by such things as the "camels" in Genesis 24; in the times of Abraham and Moses, they would have been asses. A later writer translated the work for a people whose language and culture had changed over centuries. I care little if the Hebrew of Moses no longer exists, being replaced by a later tongue, the Hebrew still learned by Jewish children. God knows how to take care of His message.

This image, from the Bodmer manuscript known as P66, was written in the 2d Century CE, probably shortly after 150AD. It is in the Greek of the time, often called "koine", which a Greek friend tells me is synonymous with "street", as in "street talk".

Though the New Testament was produced over less than a century, it is similarly a collection, and it may be that Matthew in particular was edited from two or more older Gospels, now lost (unless one of them was Mark, which is likely). It may be that other NT books were similarly produced, and perhaps the last section of Mark is an addendum. Again, this doesn't matter to a believer; God knows how to transmit what He wants us to know.

This illuminated Quran sheet (suras 1-3) is also from a later time, when decoration of the page had become common. Muslims are much more image-averse than Jews, so while they may decorate with plants and birds, no mammal images, and of course no human figures, are used. To play it safe, geometric figures are the norm.

The Quran, meaning "recitation", is also a collection, but from a single person, covering a known span of 22 years. The suras were initially memorized, and the production of a written Quran was instigated by the observation that large numbers of those who had memorized the whole were dying, mainly by warfare. A written or printed Quran has the suras in order by length, except for an opening short prayer/poem. (Note that most books of the New Testament are also roughly in length order, longest first.) The only indication of relative age is the indication Mecca or Medina, as the place of first speaking.

A lot of scholarship has gone into ordering the suras chronologically, and to producing a biography of Muhammad that is more than a legendary epic. Unlike the other two Books, the Quran entirely obscures its reciter, consisting of instruction, liturgy, and devotional poetry.

These surveys of the books' historical development go in parallel in The Voice, the Word, the Books. The author dwells on the creative tension between oral and literate cultures, noting in particular the weakening of memory that results from reliance on writing! Whereas most today quail at memorizing just one Psalm or chapter of Matthew, thousands of Muslims in the generations following that of Muhammad memorized the entire Quran, which is about half the size of the New Testament (78,000 words versus 138,000).

Once a shift had occurred from an oral to a literate society, societal changes followed. Now a student could line up Kings and Chronicles, or the four Gospels, and compare them. The mandate at the end of Deuteronomy, that all Israelites essentially wallpaper their houses with Scripture, and read from it daily, was closer to fulfillment, though phylacteries and mezuzahs are a poor substitute. But God essentially mandated 100% literacy upon a people largely illiterate, and the change took centuries (I think this mandate largely underlies the Jews' excellence in education).

There is a charming section near the end of the book about oral use of Scripture, such as lectio divina of the Catholic tradition and devotional reading of some christian groups (and pray-reading among my people). The point is well made that much prayer, historically, consisted of reciting God's words back to God, particularly those containing promises one hoped God would rapidly fulfill.

It seems to me Dr. Peters strives to show the similarities among the three "Peoples of the Book". However, their great differences stand out. The Hebrews were given the Law, initially at Mount Sinai, then further stipulations later on. Later prophets, such as Jeremiah, hinted at a law to be "written on the heart" that would supersede the Levitical Law. The Christians claimed this in the teachings of Jesus, and the book of Hebrews is the fullest development.

Though the Quran gives minimal lip service to the older two Books, Muslims claim that Jews and Christians have "misused" their Scriptures, even to the point of editing out references to Muhammad that they claim were originally there.

The reference I see to Muhammad's people is in the ambiguous "blessing" on Ishmael, of whose descendants the LORD God said, "[they] shall live in defiance of all his brethren." We see this in spades today! Yet multitudes of Muslims live in peace with their neighbors; only a radical few genuinely believe they are called to take over the world. With such no peace is possible.

As I have written before, not only Judaism and Christianity went through jingoistic periods of military conquest (the invasion of Canaan, the Crusades), so did Buddhism and Hinduism. They all settled down about the time they reached an age of 2,000 years. This seems to be the time it takes a religion to mature. Islam, being but 1,300 years old, has a way to go. The clearly insane ferocity of some indicates definitely how insecure they are in their own faith. They are in mortal terror that their children...or some of them!...will be converted to another faith. Like any cornered animal, they fight. We have a long road ahead.