After hearing a Democracy Now story last year linking suicide bombings in Pakistan to poverty and hopelessness, I posed what seemed an obvious question. "If poverty causes extremism, why are there no suicide bombers from among Pakistan's poorest of the poor? Where are the Christian Suicide Bombers?"
A similar question came to mind today after hearing this NPR story about the pirates of Somalia. Poverty and lawlessness, claimed the author, are the main reasons for the piracy. The question that came to my mind probably never even crossed the mind of the author, "If Somalia were a traditionally Christian country, like Uganda or Ethiopia, would international piracy even be an issue?"
From year one of the Muslim Hijri calendar, which began when Muhammad traveled as a Muhajir, or migrant from Mecca to Medina in about 623 AD, two Arabic words became an important part of the lexicon of the language. These are Ghazawat, the raids of the Prophet, and Anfal, the spoils of war. Muhammad had only been in Medina a few months when he realized an easy and effective way to meet the economic and financial needs of his growing community was to attack trade caravans passing through the area. Rather than combine the desert expertise of Medina's Arabs with the agricultural and industrial success of the Jewish tribes who had lived there for centuries to develop caravans of his own, Muhammad found it easier to simply condemn the Jews for not accepting him as a Prophet and attack the caravans of others. Literally hundreds of pages of the earliest biographies of the Prophet are devoted to accounts of these raids, and most of the second part of the Quran, those suras authored in Medina, are related to the same subject.
The death of Muhammad ten years later did not signal the end of the Ghazawat, but only their beginning. In swift order his warriors swept north, south, east, and west, continuing the raids (which had by now developed into full-scale attack and conquer) and reaping the benefits. Christian societies (Egypt and the Copts) were given the choice of conversion or subjugation. Societies containing "pagan idolaters" - the Zorastrians of Persia and the Buddhists of Afghanistan - simply saw their religious traditions wiped out. Those who were strong enough to resist Arabization as well as Islamization - Turkey, Iran, etc - were able to maintain their traditional languages. Weaker societies - Egypt and the countries of North Africa - saw their traditional languages obliterated and replaced by Arabic.
The Muslim pirates of Somalia are simply carrying on a time-honored tradition hallowed by the example of their Prophet. In their mind, they really deserve the wealth of the people they plunder.
Do poverty and lawlessness, as suggested by the NPR reporter, play a role? Of course. Are the "Christian" countries I mentioned, Uganda or Ethiopia or others in the region, glowing examples of Christ-like character and behavior? Not by a long shot. But at the same time I think it is a mistake not to acknowledge the fact that it is the life of Muhammad, not Jesus, that provides a model for attacking the wealth of others and appropriating it as something that you deserve. And that, not only poverty and lawlessness, is at the heart of Somali piracy.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Georgetown's Common Word Conference
I recently attended John Esposito's Common Word conference at Georgetown University. Listening to charismatic and eloquent speakers took me back three decades to being mesmerized by the lectures of Dr. Ismail Al Farouki and Sayyid Hossein Nasr as a student of Islam at Temple University. And now as then, it was only afterwards that I realized I was left with many more doubts than assurances.
One of the speakers was Bob Roberts, who blogs here and is pastor of the Northwood Church in Dallas. He engages the Muslim community there, and is going turkey hunting with the Imam this Saturday. He informed us that when he meets Muslims who remind him that according to their religion he is going to hell, his response is that according to his religion they are hellbound as well. "Now that we've gotten that behind us," he urges them, "Let's be friends."
Does Pastor Roberts really believe that, or was he just being cute? If he does, it stands to reason that his desire is for Muslims to escape hell by accepting what he believes about Jesus. I wonder how successful he has been. How many of his 2000-plus congregation are ex-Muslims? What would happen to his vaunted relationship with the Muslim community were he to appoint an ex-Muslim from that community to a position of leadership within his church? Would he have the courage to do so?
Another participant was Nigerian diplomat John Gana, a Christian whose ancestors converted from Islam as a result of Christian missionaries. Emphasizing the fluidity of Muslim and Christian relationships in his country, he informed us that his younger brother had converted to Islam to marry a Muslim woman. He seemed not at all concerned that his brother was forced to change his religion to marry the woman he loved, nor that their children would be raised Muslim without the freedom to change their religion back to Christianity even if they wanted to.
Henry Izumizaki, a Japanese American who is CEO of the One Nation Foundation, told us about the millions of dollars his foundation spends to improve the image of Muslims in America. He said he is neither a Muslim nor a Christian, and that one of the early productions of his company was the movie Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet.
Am I the only one who found it ironic that the man who produced the Legacy of a Prophet does not believe that Muhammad was a Prophet? As not even part of the Ahl Al Kitab, the People of the Book, does Henry Izumizaki know what Muhammad said about him? Does he realize that none of his Muslim co-panelists would allow their daughters to marry his sons?
Shamil Idriss of Soliya described the Muslim-non-Muslim relationship as akin to people throwing sparks into a tinder dry forest. He was not the only person to bring up the TJ factor - no, that is not Terrorist Jihadi but Pastor Terry Jones. Shamil did not bring up the more appropriate analogy that a spark dropped in a tropical rain forest causes no reaction at all. Why is attention focused on the person dropping the spark rather than changing the nature of the forest?
"As I condemn Terry Jones for burning the Quran," continued Shamil, "I condemn President Karzai in Kabul for exacerbating the situation." It seems that even when Muslims criticize the response of other Muslims, they draw a moral equivalence between the initial act and the riposte. I draw a cartoon you don't like, you respond by killing my son, but in your mind the two acts are morally equal? Ya Shaikh!
Other panelists assured us that "studies all show" that poverty breeds extremism, and that "nobody in America" wants Sharia law. It is simply not true that the hundreds of Jihadi foreign fighters in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and a host of other locations are there because of poverty. And if the panelists truly do not want the path of Allah and his Apostle to be followed in the West, it is only because they have become "Westernized, Christianized Muslims" who have strayed a long way from their Prophet.
Three freedoms I grant my daughters are to be whoever they decide to be (including lesbian), believe whatever they want to believe (including atheism), and marry whomever they choose (regardless of religious creed or lack thereof). Islam grants women none of those choices. If the panelists truly granted their daughters those freedoms, I might believe they were free from the binding grip of Sharia. I might question, however, if they were still Muslim.
Professor Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina grew up as an evangelical Christian. He attended the best fundamental and evangelical Christian schools, the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Somewhere along the way he lost his faith. He no longer describes himself as a Christian, and does not believe the Bible is the Word of God nor that Jesus is the Son of God.
Would John Esposito have the courage to bring a "Muslim Bart Ehrman" unto the staff of his Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding? Someone who like Bart Ehrman had really believed and attended the best Muslim universities, but who like Ehrman "let the scholarship take them where it would" and reached the conclusion that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God, the Quran was not a book from God, and Islam was not true? I would like to believe the answer was Yes, but I have my doubts.
In spite of the considerable amount of money spent to bring in speakers from all over the country the conference seemed sparsely attended with many empty seats. Was the lack of attendance due to a lack of interest, or did others sense as I did that conversations would only go in one direction and not very far at that?
If I were to summarize my take-away for the entire day, it would be that there is an increasing problem in America betweeen Muslims and non-Muslims, but always to be blamed is the ghayr Muslim - the non-believer. It's the fault of Pamela Geller, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama for flipping on Afghanistan and Guantanamo, birthers and anti-mosquers, Tea Partyers and Terry Joneses. The list is endless. Am I the only one asking the question, "Who's this big guy sleeping in the hallway that everyone is gingerly stepping around but no one is talking about? I think his name is Muhammad."
One of the speakers was Bob Roberts, who blogs here and is pastor of the Northwood Church in Dallas. He engages the Muslim community there, and is going turkey hunting with the Imam this Saturday. He informed us that when he meets Muslims who remind him that according to their religion he is going to hell, his response is that according to his religion they are hellbound as well. "Now that we've gotten that behind us," he urges them, "Let's be friends."
Does Pastor Roberts really believe that, or was he just being cute? If he does, it stands to reason that his desire is for Muslims to escape hell by accepting what he believes about Jesus. I wonder how successful he has been. How many of his 2000-plus congregation are ex-Muslims? What would happen to his vaunted relationship with the Muslim community were he to appoint an ex-Muslim from that community to a position of leadership within his church? Would he have the courage to do so?
Another participant was Nigerian diplomat John Gana, a Christian whose ancestors converted from Islam as a result of Christian missionaries. Emphasizing the fluidity of Muslim and Christian relationships in his country, he informed us that his younger brother had converted to Islam to marry a Muslim woman. He seemed not at all concerned that his brother was forced to change his religion to marry the woman he loved, nor that their children would be raised Muslim without the freedom to change their religion back to Christianity even if they wanted to.
Henry Izumizaki, a Japanese American who is CEO of the One Nation Foundation, told us about the millions of dollars his foundation spends to improve the image of Muslims in America. He said he is neither a Muslim nor a Christian, and that one of the early productions of his company was the movie Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet.
Am I the only one who found it ironic that the man who produced the Legacy of a Prophet does not believe that Muhammad was a Prophet? As not even part of the Ahl Al Kitab, the People of the Book, does Henry Izumizaki know what Muhammad said about him? Does he realize that none of his Muslim co-panelists would allow their daughters to marry his sons?
Shamil Idriss of Soliya described the Muslim-non-Muslim relationship as akin to people throwing sparks into a tinder dry forest. He was not the only person to bring up the TJ factor - no, that is not Terrorist Jihadi but Pastor Terry Jones. Shamil did not bring up the more appropriate analogy that a spark dropped in a tropical rain forest causes no reaction at all. Why is attention focused on the person dropping the spark rather than changing the nature of the forest?
"As I condemn Terry Jones for burning the Quran," continued Shamil, "I condemn President Karzai in Kabul for exacerbating the situation." It seems that even when Muslims criticize the response of other Muslims, they draw a moral equivalence between the initial act and the riposte. I draw a cartoon you don't like, you respond by killing my son, but in your mind the two acts are morally equal? Ya Shaikh!
Other panelists assured us that "studies all show" that poverty breeds extremism, and that "nobody in America" wants Sharia law. It is simply not true that the hundreds of Jihadi foreign fighters in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and a host of other locations are there because of poverty. And if the panelists truly do not want the path of Allah and his Apostle to be followed in the West, it is only because they have become "Westernized, Christianized Muslims" who have strayed a long way from their Prophet.
Three freedoms I grant my daughters are to be whoever they decide to be (including lesbian), believe whatever they want to believe (including atheism), and marry whomever they choose (regardless of religious creed or lack thereof). Islam grants women none of those choices. If the panelists truly granted their daughters those freedoms, I might believe they were free from the binding grip of Sharia. I might question, however, if they were still Muslim.
Professor Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina grew up as an evangelical Christian. He attended the best fundamental and evangelical Christian schools, the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Somewhere along the way he lost his faith. He no longer describes himself as a Christian, and does not believe the Bible is the Word of God nor that Jesus is the Son of God.
Would John Esposito have the courage to bring a "Muslim Bart Ehrman" unto the staff of his Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding? Someone who like Bart Ehrman had really believed and attended the best Muslim universities, but who like Ehrman "let the scholarship take them where it would" and reached the conclusion that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God, the Quran was not a book from God, and Islam was not true? I would like to believe the answer was Yes, but I have my doubts.
In spite of the considerable amount of money spent to bring in speakers from all over the country the conference seemed sparsely attended with many empty seats. Was the lack of attendance due to a lack of interest, or did others sense as I did that conversations would only go in one direction and not very far at that?
If I were to summarize my take-away for the entire day, it would be that there is an increasing problem in America betweeen Muslims and non-Muslims, but always to be blamed is the ghayr Muslim - the non-believer. It's the fault of Pamela Geller, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama for flipping on Afghanistan and Guantanamo, birthers and anti-mosquers, Tea Partyers and Terry Joneses. The list is endless. Am I the only one asking the question, "Who's this big guy sleeping in the hallway that everyone is gingerly stepping around but no one is talking about? I think his name is Muhammad."
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Miral
It's been a weekend of emotionally-draining movies. First was Of Gods and Men, about which I wrote here. That was followed by Miral, the story of four Palestinian women whose lives intersected in Jerusalem over a period of several decades.
The movie literally left me speechless, but with a strange feeling of hope. It took a day or so for my emotions to process to the point that I realized why a movie that was depressing in many ways would leave me hopeful. I then understood it was the emphasis that was placed upon the education of women in general and Palestinian Muslim girls in particular. One of the main characters of the film is a Palestinian Christian who dedicated her life to the education of these girls including the main character Miral.
Dr. Izzaldin Abuelaish, about whom I write here and here, argues that the key to a successful future for the Palestinians is the education of Palestinian girls, and Miral presents a visual example of that argument.
By coincidence - although I don't believe in coincidence - I had a most interesting conversation today with a young woman from a Brahmin family in India who is now an American citizen. One of the formative experiences of her life was being taught by Catholic monks as a young girl in Bombay. Again, it's the story of young girls being influenced and benefited by dedicated Christian educators.
The movie literally left me speechless, but with a strange feeling of hope. It took a day or so for my emotions to process to the point that I realized why a movie that was depressing in many ways would leave me hopeful. I then understood it was the emphasis that was placed upon the education of women in general and Palestinian Muslim girls in particular. One of the main characters of the film is a Palestinian Christian who dedicated her life to the education of these girls including the main character Miral.
Dr. Izzaldin Abuelaish, about whom I write here and here, argues that the key to a successful future for the Palestinians is the education of Palestinian girls, and Miral presents a visual example of that argument.
By coincidence - although I don't believe in coincidence - I had a most interesting conversation today with a young woman from a Brahmin family in India who is now an American citizen. One of the formative experiences of her life was being taught by Catholic monks as a young girl in Bombay. Again, it's the story of young girls being influenced and benefited by dedicated Christian educators.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Of Gods and Men
Cet apres-midi j'ai vu le film francais Des Hommes et Des Dieux, l'histoire incroyable des pretres en Algerie qui etaient tues...oops, sorry, I'm reliving my days of college French. Anyhow, this afternoon I saw the movie Of Gods and Men, the story of French monks in Algeria who were killed during the uprising of the 90s. It is a powerful film, and I encourage everyone to watch it.
The sadness I felt watching the film was probably different than the emotions experienced by most of the others in the theatre. What caught my attention as much as the devotion of the monks was the concentrated effort made by the film producers to make a distinction between "Islam" (good) and the "Islamism" (bad) of the extremists who murdered them. The pattern is so common it is predictable. Verses quoted from the Quran are peaceful, references to non-Muslims are positive, and terrorists are presented as people who know nothing of Islam, the Quran, and their Prophet Muhammad.
It is simply not true. Even grammatically the distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism" does not exist. Islam is an Arabic word meaning "to surrender". (Muslims who argue that it comes from the verb meaning "peace" are not quite telling you the truth; in Arabic the "peace" arrives after the surrender has been made; peace is a result of surrender). The Arabic verb is Aslama, to surrender, and the gerund or verbal noun is Islam, the act of surrender. Although neither the verb nor gerund originally had a religious meaning, by extension they have come to mean surrender to Allah. Since Muhammad never told anyone to obey or follow Allah without adding on himself as well, Islam now means to surrender to the will of Allah and his Apostle. The word "Islamism" does not exist in any original Arabic text.
The Salafis and the Jihadis, not the moderates, are the ones who have the Quran, the Hadith, the life of Muhammad, and Islamic history on their side. The distinction to be made is not between "Islam" and "Islamism", but between Islam and Muslims. It is peaceful Muslims who do not really understand Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad, not the extremists. The greater the distance between these moderate Muslims and the Prophet they think they follow, the better off we all are.
The sadness I felt watching the film was probably different than the emotions experienced by most of the others in the theatre. What caught my attention as much as the devotion of the monks was the concentrated effort made by the film producers to make a distinction between "Islam" (good) and the "Islamism" (bad) of the extremists who murdered them. The pattern is so common it is predictable. Verses quoted from the Quran are peaceful, references to non-Muslims are positive, and terrorists are presented as people who know nothing of Islam, the Quran, and their Prophet Muhammad.
It is simply not true. Even grammatically the distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism" does not exist. Islam is an Arabic word meaning "to surrender". (Muslims who argue that it comes from the verb meaning "peace" are not quite telling you the truth; in Arabic the "peace" arrives after the surrender has been made; peace is a result of surrender). The Arabic verb is Aslama, to surrender, and the gerund or verbal noun is Islam, the act of surrender. Although neither the verb nor gerund originally had a religious meaning, by extension they have come to mean surrender to Allah. Since Muhammad never told anyone to obey or follow Allah without adding on himself as well, Islam now means to surrender to the will of Allah and his Apostle. The word "Islamism" does not exist in any original Arabic text.
The Salafis and the Jihadis, not the moderates, are the ones who have the Quran, the Hadith, the life of Muhammad, and Islamic history on their side. The distinction to be made is not between "Islam" and "Islamism", but between Islam and Muslims. It is peaceful Muslims who do not really understand Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad, not the extremists. The greater the distance between these moderate Muslims and the Prophet they think they follow, the better off we all are.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Izzaldin Abuelaish and a Palestinian Activist
Dr. Izzaldin Abuelaish, about whom I write here, recently gave this talk at the Sixth and I Historic Synagogue in Washington DC to a standing ovation. I encourage everyone to watch his moving speech.
When it was over, the Jewish moderator said to the spellbound audience, "Let us take a minute of silence to absorb the powerful and beautiful message of love, faith, hope, and action that Dr. Abuelaish gave us. Let's sit quietly for a minute before we ask our questions."
A minute later the floor was opened to questions, after the moderator reminded the audience, "Please ask only questions and keep your speeches to a minimum."
The first person to the microphone was a Palestinian woman. She knew she would be on c-span TV watched by the nation, and was conspicuously wearing her chic keffiyeh. Her "question", which begins at 43:15, was as follows, "Thank you, doctor, for your very profound message. I believe in your message of love and peace and everything you were saying tonight. I want to know your opinions on the following. First of all, the practicality of the colonization of Palestine. I'm working with a group of Arab-American activists who are calling for the dissolution of the Palestine Liberation Organization because they are helping the Israelis manage the occupation. I also want to know your opinion on boycott divestiture and sanctions of Israel. I want your thoughts about why the Palestinians are not taking to the streets to demand their freedom and their rights from their occupiers and oppressors and colonizers. Why aren't prominent Jewish Americans coming forth all across the world demanding as they did for South Africa and apartheid. Why aren't Jewish Americans, Jewish European, and Jews all over the world demanding peace and justice for the Palestinians? Thank you."
I can't imagine how this woman could have made a greater tactical blunder. It has famously been said that the Palestinians never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity, and she blew this one. For the past forty-five minutes, Dr. Abuelaish had been speaking directly to the conscience of his Jewish audience. His simple but powerful message was, "I am a Palestinian doctor from Gaza, the first to work in an Israeli hospital. I have devoted my life to the care and healing of both Israeli and Palestinian patients. My life changed forever on January 16, 2009, when an Israeli bomb struck our Gaza family home and instantly killed my three lovely daughters. But I will not stop doing all I can do bring our two peoples, Palestinian and Israeli, together in peace."
It was a hard-hitting message to the heart, but the self-described "activist" didn't hear it. She was probably rehearsing her own speech the entire time he was talking, waiting for her opportunity to rush to the microphone. She wanted to talk about boycott divestiture! And in her two short angry minutes she completely undid all that the doctor had worked for 45 to accomplish in the hearts of his audience. The sad part is that she is completely unaware of what she did.
For six decades the Palestinians have fought the Israelis with wars, demonstrations, boycotts, United Nations and Arab League resolutions, skyjackings, suicide bombers, and Qassam rockets. As Dr. Phil often says on his TV show, "So how's that working out for you?" The simple reality is that Palestinians in Gaza are living worse today than ever, and as long as those rockets keep coming over or they have dreams of retaking Jerusalem, the Israeli government won't give a damn. And when someone comes along like Dr. Abuelaish, to plant a message with humility and dignity that can touch hearts and bring change, activists such as this young woman in her keffiyah chic and angry rhetoric rip out the seed before it can even begin to grow.
When it was over, the Jewish moderator said to the spellbound audience, "Let us take a minute of silence to absorb the powerful and beautiful message of love, faith, hope, and action that Dr. Abuelaish gave us. Let's sit quietly for a minute before we ask our questions."
A minute later the floor was opened to questions, after the moderator reminded the audience, "Please ask only questions and keep your speeches to a minimum."
The first person to the microphone was a Palestinian woman. She knew she would be on c-span TV watched by the nation, and was conspicuously wearing her chic keffiyeh. Her "question", which begins at 43:15, was as follows, "Thank you, doctor, for your very profound message. I believe in your message of love and peace and everything you were saying tonight. I want to know your opinions on the following. First of all, the practicality of the colonization of Palestine. I'm working with a group of Arab-American activists who are calling for the dissolution of the Palestine Liberation Organization because they are helping the Israelis manage the occupation. I also want to know your opinion on boycott divestiture and sanctions of Israel. I want your thoughts about why the Palestinians are not taking to the streets to demand their freedom and their rights from their occupiers and oppressors and colonizers. Why aren't prominent Jewish Americans coming forth all across the world demanding as they did for South Africa and apartheid. Why aren't Jewish Americans, Jewish European, and Jews all over the world demanding peace and justice for the Palestinians? Thank you."
I can't imagine how this woman could have made a greater tactical blunder. It has famously been said that the Palestinians never miss the opportunity to miss an opportunity, and she blew this one. For the past forty-five minutes, Dr. Abuelaish had been speaking directly to the conscience of his Jewish audience. His simple but powerful message was, "I am a Palestinian doctor from Gaza, the first to work in an Israeli hospital. I have devoted my life to the care and healing of both Israeli and Palestinian patients. My life changed forever on January 16, 2009, when an Israeli bomb struck our Gaza family home and instantly killed my three lovely daughters. But I will not stop doing all I can do bring our two peoples, Palestinian and Israeli, together in peace."
It was a hard-hitting message to the heart, but the self-described "activist" didn't hear it. She was probably rehearsing her own speech the entire time he was talking, waiting for her opportunity to rush to the microphone. She wanted to talk about boycott divestiture! And in her two short angry minutes she completely undid all that the doctor had worked for 45 to accomplish in the hearts of his audience. The sad part is that she is completely unaware of what she did.
For six decades the Palestinians have fought the Israelis with wars, demonstrations, boycotts, United Nations and Arab League resolutions, skyjackings, suicide bombers, and Qassam rockets. As Dr. Phil often says on his TV show, "So how's that working out for you?" The simple reality is that Palestinians in Gaza are living worse today than ever, and as long as those rockets keep coming over or they have dreams of retaking Jerusalem, the Israeli government won't give a damn. And when someone comes along like Dr. Abuelaish, to plant a message with humility and dignity that can touch hearts and bring change, activists such as this young woman in her keffiyah chic and angry rhetoric rip out the seed before it can even begin to grow.
Monday, March 28, 2011
The Experiment
Here's an interesting two-part experiment. It can be conducted by anyone at all, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof.
Part 1: Choose a Muslim neighbor, friend or colleague, and ask three simple questions. Although the answer to the first question might appear obvious, ask it anyway, "Are you a Christian?" Without hesitation she will reply she is not a Christian but a Muslim.
Question number two: "Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for our sins, so I assume you don't believe that. Is that correct?" Again without embarrassment she will inform you she does not believe Jesus is God, nor did he die on the cross for our sins.
Now the final question: "Could you give me a few reasons you don't believe that?" She won't have to think a minute before giving them. They will probably include the fact that Islam does not believe Allah can be associated with any created being, no individual can bear the sins of another, and the Quran says that Jesus did not die.
Now it's time for part 2. Ask a non-Muslim the same questions but with a slight twist, "Are you a Muslim?" When he says that he is not, continue with, "Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God, so I guess you are saying you do not believe he was a Prophet. Is that right?"
Chances are you will already sense some discomfort, some hesitation in the reply. Your interlocutor might explain that he is an agnostic, that he knows Muslims believe Muhammad is a Prophet, or that he's not really sure. If he does agree that he does not believe Muhammad to be a Prophet, proceed with question number three.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?" I doubt if one American in a hundred could give an intelligent, cohesive reply.
If you do carry out this experiment, I'd love to learn the results. Leave a comment or send me an email.
PS - There are variations to the experiment. For example, ask the Jewish professor of religious studies at your local university (or any Jewish friend) if she is a Christian. When she replies she is not, confirm it is correct that she does not believe Jesus was God and learn her reasons. Then ask her if she is a Muslim. Again when she replies she is not, confirm it is correct she does not believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and again inquire about her reasons. The purpose of the experiment would be to see if she was as forthright in her second response as she was in her first.
Part 1: Choose a Muslim neighbor, friend or colleague, and ask three simple questions. Although the answer to the first question might appear obvious, ask it anyway, "Are you a Christian?" Without hesitation she will reply she is not a Christian but a Muslim.
Question number two: "Christians believe that Jesus is God and died on the cross for our sins, so I assume you don't believe that. Is that correct?" Again without embarrassment she will inform you she does not believe Jesus is God, nor did he die on the cross for our sins.
Now the final question: "Could you give me a few reasons you don't believe that?" She won't have to think a minute before giving them. They will probably include the fact that Islam does not believe Allah can be associated with any created being, no individual can bear the sins of another, and the Quran says that Jesus did not die.
Now it's time for part 2. Ask a non-Muslim the same questions but with a slight twist, "Are you a Muslim?" When he says that he is not, continue with, "Muslims believe that Muhammad was a Prophet from God, so I guess you are saying you do not believe he was a Prophet. Is that right?"
Chances are you will already sense some discomfort, some hesitation in the reply. Your interlocutor might explain that he is an agnostic, that he knows Muslims believe Muhammad is a Prophet, or that he's not really sure. If he does agree that he does not believe Muhammad to be a Prophet, proceed with question number three.
"Could you give me a few reasons why you don't believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God?" I doubt if one American in a hundred could give an intelligent, cohesive reply.
If you do carry out this experiment, I'd love to learn the results. Leave a comment or send me an email.
PS - There are variations to the experiment. For example, ask the Jewish professor of religious studies at your local university (or any Jewish friend) if she is a Christian. When she replies she is not, confirm it is correct that she does not believe Jesus was God and learn her reasons. Then ask her if she is a Muslim. Again when she replies she is not, confirm it is correct she does not believe Muhammad was a Prophet of God, and again inquire about her reasons. The purpose of the experiment would be to see if she was as forthright in her second response as she was in her first.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Quranic Numerology
For centuries the main Muslim argument for the Muajezat Al Quran, the miracle of the Quran, has been the challenge thrown out by Muhammad 1400 years ago, "You produce poetry this good if you don't think mine is from God (Quran 10:38)".
I've always thought the Prophet's argument (or Allah's depending on your perspective) was quite juvenile. Determining the best poet is like choosing the best musician on American Idol - it's all subjective. Not only that, in Muhammad's version of Saudi Arabian Poet the runner-up lost not only the contest but her head as well. Muhammad was so threatened by the poetry of the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan that he sent one of his brave Mujahidin to kill her at night as she laid in bed with her nursing child. Can you imagine what he would have done to someone who wrote poetry claiming it was from God and equal to his?
Actually, we don't need to imagine. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, the city from which he had fled 10 years earlier, he had a list of people who were to be killed "even if they were seeking protection behind the curtains of the Kabah". One of these was Abdallah bin Saad, who had previously copied Muhammad's revelations but then left Islam. According to these sources, Abdallah made suggestions to improve Muhammad's recitations, but when Muhammad accepted the improvements, Abdallah gave up all belief that the recitations were from God. The Prophet certainly didn't want to take a chance Abdallah would produce poetry similar to that he had heard from Muhammad, or spread the news of how he had improved Muhammad's recitations, so he was killed. A woman named Fartana committed the crime of "singing satirical songs about the Apostle", and she was killed as well. I find it interesting that on the one hand Muhammad would challenge people to produce poetry like his, and then on the other certainly kill anyone who tried. And I find it amazing that Muslims today see this as evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.
It's not really that difficult to produce poetry equal to the Quran. Surah 108 describes a mythical river in paradise named Kauthar and the first ayah is Innana Ataynaka Al Kauthar (We have given you Kauthar). In a conversation between a Kafir and a Mumin (a non-Muslim and a Muslim), the Kafir said, "I can produce poetry as good as the Quran, and here is an example: Innana Ataynaka Al Fauthar." When the Mumin asked, "What is Fauthar?", the Kafir replied, "It's the river next to Kauthar!"
With non-Muslims around the world beginning to examine not the poetry but the content of the Quran, and Muslims unable to respond to that criticism, they are increasingly resorting to other techniques to prove its miraculous nature with websites like this one. One of these techniques is numerology, or assigning spiritual significance to the repitition of a word in the Quran. Many online articles emphasize that the word Al Yaum, which means the day or today, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran.
I find it quite impressive that Allah would choose the calendar of the Kuffar rather than that of the Mumineen to express his miracle. It is the pagan Julian calendar that has 365 days, not the Islamic lunar calendar with ten days less. Muslims, of course, argue this only increases the validity of the miracle - it was intended to persuade the unbelievers!
Speaking of numerology, the word Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the Quran. Guess how many times Khanzeer (pig) is mentioned? You are absolutely right. Now there's a miracle for you!
I've always thought the Prophet's argument (or Allah's depending on your perspective) was quite juvenile. Determining the best poet is like choosing the best musician on American Idol - it's all subjective. Not only that, in Muhammad's version of Saudi Arabian Poet the runner-up lost not only the contest but her head as well. Muhammad was so threatened by the poetry of the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan that he sent one of his brave Mujahidin to kill her at night as she laid in bed with her nursing child. Can you imagine what he would have done to someone who wrote poetry claiming it was from God and equal to his?
Actually, we don't need to imagine. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, the city from which he had fled 10 years earlier, he had a list of people who were to be killed "even if they were seeking protection behind the curtains of the Kabah". One of these was Abdallah bin Saad, who had previously copied Muhammad's revelations but then left Islam. According to these sources, Abdallah made suggestions to improve Muhammad's recitations, but when Muhammad accepted the improvements, Abdallah gave up all belief that the recitations were from God. The Prophet certainly didn't want to take a chance Abdallah would produce poetry similar to that he had heard from Muhammad, or spread the news of how he had improved Muhammad's recitations, so he was killed. A woman named Fartana committed the crime of "singing satirical songs about the Apostle", and she was killed as well. I find it interesting that on the one hand Muhammad would challenge people to produce poetry like his, and then on the other certainly kill anyone who tried. And I find it amazing that Muslims today see this as evidence of the inspiration of the Quran.
It's not really that difficult to produce poetry equal to the Quran. Surah 108 describes a mythical river in paradise named Kauthar and the first ayah is Innana Ataynaka Al Kauthar (We have given you Kauthar). In a conversation between a Kafir and a Mumin (a non-Muslim and a Muslim), the Kafir said, "I can produce poetry as good as the Quran, and here is an example: Innana Ataynaka Al Fauthar." When the Mumin asked, "What is Fauthar?", the Kafir replied, "It's the river next to Kauthar!"
With non-Muslims around the world beginning to examine not the poetry but the content of the Quran, and Muslims unable to respond to that criticism, they are increasingly resorting to other techniques to prove its miraculous nature with websites like this one. One of these techniques is numerology, or assigning spiritual significance to the repitition of a word in the Quran. Many online articles emphasize that the word Al Yaum, which means the day or today, is mentioned 365 times in the Quran.
I find it quite impressive that Allah would choose the calendar of the Kuffar rather than that of the Mumineen to express his miracle. It is the pagan Julian calendar that has 365 days, not the Islamic lunar calendar with ten days less. Muslims, of course, argue this only increases the validity of the miracle - it was intended to persuade the unbelievers!
Speaking of numerology, the word Muhammad is mentioned 4 times in the Quran. Guess how many times Khanzeer (pig) is mentioned? You are absolutely right. Now there's a miracle for you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
