I recently watched Muslim Christian Dialogue About the Quran, between a Christian lawyer and Muslim Nouman Ali Khan. Nouman argued that God always gives a miracle to his prophets to validate their message, and cited the Arab prophet Saleh who produced a live camel from a rock. The miracle given to Muhammad was the perfect Quran.
Having recently spent three days at Madayn Saleh in Saudi Arabia, where Saleh allegedly lived, the video caught my attention. Is it possible that these two ideas (Saleh and the Magic Camel; Muhammad and the Perfect Quran), instead of proving the infallability of the Quran, prove that it is a flawed document? Impossible, you say? Let's look at the story in four stages: what the Quran says, why it says what it says, what history and archeology say, and how Muslims resolve the difference.
The Quran repeats the story of Saleh in numerous places. He is usually placed within a trinity of ancient prophets (sorry, "trinity" is the wrong word; perhaps we should say "trilogy") that include flood survivor Noah, Hud from the tribe of Ad, and Saleh from the tribe of Thamud. Most Muslim historians and Quranic commentators, including Ibn Kathir and Al Tabari, place Saleh about two centuries after Noah. They believe that the "generation after Noah and its messenger" (Quran 23:31,32) refers to Ad and Hud, and the "people of the century after that" (Quran 23:42) refers to Thamud and Saleh. The following verse, Quran 23:44, indicates that many more prophets were sent before Moses (Quran 23:45). This is in agreement with Quran 14:8,9, where Moses stated that these three prophets (Noah, Hud, and Saleh) lived long before him. So Saleh and the Thamud tribe, according to the Quran, lived many thousands of years ago.
Quran 7:73-78, 15:80-84 and several other texts tell the basic story. The Thamud lived in a rocky area called Al Hijir (which means rock in Arabic), and carved their houses out of rocks. They were idolaters, and Allah sent one of their own, the prophet Saleh, to call them to himself. When the Thamud challenged Saleh to produce a live camel from a boulder if he wanted them to believe, he did so. An immense pregnant camel appeared, and soon gave birth to a calf. Following Saleh's instructions, the people set up a system where only the camel could drink from their wells every other day. The people in turn would all drink the milk of the camel. Some of the tribespeople rebelled and killed the camel. Allah then sent an earthquake to destroy them in their homes.
When Muhammad passed through the area on his way to raid Tabuk, he warned his army not to enter the rock-carved homes unless they were in tears, lest they meet the same fate as the original inhabitants. For this reason, some members of the Saudi ulema still oppose any tourist development of the area (that really makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?).
Now comes the interesting part; where did the story come from?
Umayya ibn Abu al-Salt was a poet and one of Muhammad's relatives. Numerous hadith refer to Muhammad's appreciation of Umayya's poetry. Sahih Muslim tells the story of Muhammad asking one of his followers if he remembered any of Umayya's poetry. After the man recited a few verses, Muhammad asked him to continue, until the man had recited one hundred couplets.
Early Muslim historian Ibn Hajar Al Askalani wrote that Muhammad would often sit with Fariah, the sister of Umayya, and she would recite to him her brother's poetry. Much of this later appeared in the Quran. Umayya's lines:
The God of the heavens and the earth
And lord of the mountain peaks
Created them and planted them firmly
Without visible pillars or cords
Are repeated almost word for word in Quran 31:10: “He created the heavens without visible pillars, and planted mountains firmly on the earth.”
The famous story of angels opening the chest of Muhammad to remove a "clot of impurity" (as if sin is a physical clot!) first appeared in Umayya's poetry.
Included in Umayya's poetry was the local folk legend of Saleh and his Magic Camel. Umayya even gave more details than did Muhammad; he described the camel emerging from the boulder, as well as the camel's newborn calf.
(An interesting aside is that Umayya ibn Abu al-Salt, like most of Muhammad's relatives, never became Muslims. According to one hadith, when Umayya was passing by the cemetary where those killed in the Battle of Badr were buried, he commented, "If Muhammad were really a prophet, he would not have killed his own people.")
Muhammad was well aware of the structures carved out of the rocks in the area now known as Madayn Salah. It was directly on the caravan routes between Mecca and Syria, and he had probably seen them on his trips as a young man. He simply took the legends, gave them a location, added his usual warning of, "What happened to them will happen to you if you don't follow me," and put them in the Quran.
Part three: what do history and archeology say? This will be really short, because anyone interested in further research can find much available online.
The abundant archeological remains available in western Saudi Arabia, as well as documents from ancient Greek and Roman historians and geographers, make it easy to determine with great certainty who lived where when.
An Arab tribe known as the Lihyans occupied the area of Al Hijir in the 4th century BC. About three centuries later, the area was overtaken by the Nabateans who came from Petra in Jordan. The Nabateans in turn were conquered by the Romans in the 2nd century AD. The Nabateans carved tombs for their deceased out of the rocks, and these tombs still exist today.
The Thamud tribe first appeared in history when they were defeated by King Sargon II in 715 BC. They remained as an Arab tribe until they disappeared in the 5th century AD. Although they lived in various parts of Saudi Arabia, there is no evidence the Thamud ever lived in Al Hijir. Remnants of Thamud writing have been found in the southern Tabuk region, but that is still some distance north of Madayn Saleh. Saudi archeologists agree with their non-Muslim counterparts that the ruins from Madayn Saleh are one-hundred percent Nabatean.
A quick review of the differences between archeology and the Quran indicates the following:
1. The Quran says the Thamud lived soon after Noah and before Moses; archeology places them from the 7th century BC to the 5th century AD.
2. The Quran says the Thamud lived in the area of Al Hijir; archeology says the Lihyans and other tribes lived there.
3. The Quran says the Thamud built their houses out of rocks; archeology says these were tombs built by the Nabateans (and Muhammad, who knew nothing of the Nabateans, did not realize they were tombs, not houses).
Now we come to the final part: how do Muslims reconcile the differences between the Quran and archeology? That's easy. At the hotel where I stayed in Al Ula, there were two kinds of tourists. The first were groups of Westerners, who were interested in the archeology of the region. The second were busloads of Muslim pilgrims from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and other Muslim countries who spent a day at Madayn Saleh as part of their hajj or umrah package tour. Our (Muslim) tour guide told us the archeological history of the area. We learned about the Nabateans, their stone carvings, their engravings, and their history. The Muslims pilgrims didn't learn anything about that. Their tour guide told them about Saleh and the Magic Camel, the camel who was created from a rock. They went home to tell their children about the thousands of Thamudians who lined up to drink fresh milk from the udder of Saleh's Magic Camel.....and the legends continue, generation after generation.
If you are a Muslim, I have a question for you. Which group of tourists would you have preferred to be with? What would you have wanted to hear from your tour guide? The history of the Nabateans, or the story of the Magic Camel?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Still Thinking Out Loud - Part 2
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to visit Madain Saleh (the cities of Saleh) in Saudi Arabia. It's an collection of Nabatean tombs from 2000 years ago. Although not as well-known as the more spectacular similar tombs of Petra, Jordan (one reason is that Saudi Arabia is just now tentatively beginning to grant tourist visas), it's still an impressive place to visit.
It was therefore with great interest that I noticed that my favorite Arabic TV program, "Daring Question" with host Rashid, recently hosted an episode on "Saleh and the Camel and the People of Thamud". Rashid is an ex-Muslim who challenges Muslims in their understanding of the Quran. He and his guest first relayed the story of Saleh as it appears in the Quran. In his usual ignorance of history, Muhammad claimed that the area now known as Madain Saleh was occupied by the Thamud tribe soon after the time of Noah. A prophet named Saleh was sent to warn them against idolatry. The people, wanting a miracle to prove that Saleh was from God, dared him to produce a giant camel from a huge rock. Saleh prayed, the rock moved, and turned into a pregnant camel. The people then set up a system in which the camel would drink water one day, and they would all drink the camel's milk the following day. Eventually they killed the camel, and God in turn destroyed them.
When Muhammad passed through the area on one of his raids, he commented that because the people had been destroyed, no-one could enter their ruined city unless in tears. For this reason, some conservative Saudi scholars still oppose tourists visiting the area.
After Rashid and his quest presented archeological evidence that it was the Nabateans, and not the Thamuds, who built the tombs that remain till this day, they gave viewers the opportunity to call in. Most viewers insisted that the Quranic account was correct, for the simple reason that the Quran is from Allah and can never be wrong. When Rashid asked, "Give me one piece of evidence from history and from archeology that it was the Thamud tribe who built those tombs, just one piece of evidence that is not from the Quran," they not only were unable to do so, but were not even interested in the question. The Quran said it, and that settled it.
As I was listening to Rashid, I thought, "But don't we do the same thing with the Bible?" Conservative Christians believe, for example, that Jonah really did spend three days in the stomach of a fish. If you ask them, as Rashid asked his viewers, "Give me one piece of evidence apart from the Bible that this really happened," there is no answer. Again, the Bible says it and that settles it.
Rashid is now a Christian, who calls Muslims to leave Islam and become Christians. He recently did two extensive interviews with Wafa Sultan, who is also an ex-Muslim. She also challenges Muslims to rethink many of their assumptions, although as a non-religious person she does not call them to Christianity. The fascinating thing about the interviews is that Wafa and Rashid are both on the same page in their understanding of Islam and its negative impact on its followers. One is a believing Christian, the other a non-religious atheist or agnostic, and yet they share the same values, opinions, and perspectives. The similarities between them were much greater than their differences. They are both calling people to become better human beings, to treat others better, and to leave the world a better place then when they arrived. I thought that was really interesting.
It was therefore with great interest that I noticed that my favorite Arabic TV program, "Daring Question" with host Rashid, recently hosted an episode on "Saleh and the Camel and the People of Thamud". Rashid is an ex-Muslim who challenges Muslims in their understanding of the Quran. He and his guest first relayed the story of Saleh as it appears in the Quran. In his usual ignorance of history, Muhammad claimed that the area now known as Madain Saleh was occupied by the Thamud tribe soon after the time of Noah. A prophet named Saleh was sent to warn them against idolatry. The people, wanting a miracle to prove that Saleh was from God, dared him to produce a giant camel from a huge rock. Saleh prayed, the rock moved, and turned into a pregnant camel. The people then set up a system in which the camel would drink water one day, and they would all drink the camel's milk the following day. Eventually they killed the camel, and God in turn destroyed them.
When Muhammad passed through the area on one of his raids, he commented that because the people had been destroyed, no-one could enter their ruined city unless in tears. For this reason, some conservative Saudi scholars still oppose tourists visiting the area.
After Rashid and his quest presented archeological evidence that it was the Nabateans, and not the Thamuds, who built the tombs that remain till this day, they gave viewers the opportunity to call in. Most viewers insisted that the Quranic account was correct, for the simple reason that the Quran is from Allah and can never be wrong. When Rashid asked, "Give me one piece of evidence from history and from archeology that it was the Thamud tribe who built those tombs, just one piece of evidence that is not from the Quran," they not only were unable to do so, but were not even interested in the question. The Quran said it, and that settled it.
As I was listening to Rashid, I thought, "But don't we do the same thing with the Bible?" Conservative Christians believe, for example, that Jonah really did spend three days in the stomach of a fish. If you ask them, as Rashid asked his viewers, "Give me one piece of evidence apart from the Bible that this really happened," there is no answer. Again, the Bible says it and that settles it.
Rashid is now a Christian, who calls Muslims to leave Islam and become Christians. He recently did two extensive interviews with Wafa Sultan, who is also an ex-Muslim. She also challenges Muslims to rethink many of their assumptions, although as a non-religious person she does not call them to Christianity. The fascinating thing about the interviews is that Wafa and Rashid are both on the same page in their understanding of Islam and its negative impact on its followers. One is a believing Christian, the other a non-religious atheist or agnostic, and yet they share the same values, opinions, and perspectives. The similarities between them were much greater than their differences. They are both calling people to become better human beings, to treat others better, and to leave the world a better place then when they arrived. I thought that was really interesting.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thinking Out Loud (a most dangerous thing)
I've been thinking lately about two related questions: What is a Christian, and am I one?
These questions would have been too simple to even ask for most of my life. The world was divided into two kinds of people. There was a small minority who were saved, of whom I was one. Our destiny was paradise with Jesus. Then there was the much larger group of the lost, who were going to hell. They would be cast into an everlasting furnace of fire with weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), tormented forever in the flames (Luke 16:24). The punishment is similar to the hell of Islam, where skins will be burned off only to be replaced with new skins (Quran 4:56), and whose inhabitants are forced to drink boiling water (Quran 14:16). The difference, of course, is that the Muslim hell is for all who did not accept Muhammad, and the Christian hell is for all who did not accept Jesus.
These descriptions of the Christian hell, by the way, were those preached 50 years ago when I was a child. Preachers shy away from them today, preferring to describe hell as "eternal separation from God." Apparently even most of them don't want to think too much about the literal hell of the Bible. Larry King never passes up an opportunity to ask his evangelical guests - whether James Dobson, Billy Graham, or Joel Osteen - about hell. Their answer is always to just say that this is a heavy question, but God will work it all out.
Interestingly enough, the way to escape hell in both Christianity and Islam is to make a statement. The statement in Islam is "I testify there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet" (this should be done in Arabic which, if not the only language God understands, is far and away his favorite). The Christian counterpart is, "I accept Jesus as my Personal Lord and Savior." Unlike Islam, this can be done in any number of ways. My favorite was the Christian camp I attended as a teen-ager, where the speaker encouraged us around the campfire to clasp the finger of one hand in the palm of the other if we wanted to make that momentous decision. We didn't even have to say a word!
Following the decision, of course, in both Islam and Christianity, are things to be done. The first thing in Christianity is to be dipped for a few seconds under water. This is considered to be of such significance that churches have divided over whether it is essential, or subsequant to, the initial born-again experience (which is another way of describing "the statement"). Then one is to tell others what happened to them, pray, read the Bible (daily is best), and go to church. The sequence in Islam also includes reading the Quran, saying prayers at the mosque, and describing your experience to others (called "witnessing" in Christianity, this is "dawah" in Islam).
Having never been a Muslim, I'll leave the parallels for now and concentrate on the Christian experience. The first thing the new Christian learns is that everyone in the entire world is bad. They are all going to hell, unless they make the statement. This poses many intellectual problems for Christians, especially for those who are strongly pro-Israel, since all those Jews are going to hell as well. I've heard Christians come up with some unique solutions to this dilemma. One was that all Jews who were killed in the holocaust got a free pass. Others think that Jews - but no-one else - will be given a second chance after death. The most common view is that things are going to get really bad for Israel over the next few years, and boatloads of them will accept Jesus. That takes care of the Jews in the future, but doesn't give much hope to those who die now.
One of the cracks in the wall came for me a few years ago. Wafa Sultan, a courageous ex-Muslim, says she refuses to believe anything that goes against her reason. I was watching the documentary "Born into Brothels", a story of children born into prostitution in India. The film maker not only made a beautiful film, but put much effort into rescuing the children from their tragic lives (just as Wafa Sultan, who is non-religious, does into liberating Muslim women). I realized as I was watching the film that I could not believe that a person (religious or not) who would devote herself to freeing children from prostitution would suffer the same eternal fate as the man who practiced child prostitution or sold his children into it.
The next thing the Christian is expected to do - at least the Christianity of my youth - is believe the Bible is all literally true. Our earth is in a solar system, including the sun and its nine planets, but God did not create it that way. He first made the earth, and four days later made the sun and the other planets (there were some good explanations of how you could have several days without a sun!). The possibility that a writer thousands of years ago might have based the story upon the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe was not to be taken into consideration. Next comes the story of the walking snake who suddenly loses his legs. Some time ago Aayan Hirsi Ali, another courageous ex-Muslim who is now an atheist, was asked why she had given up all faith. Her response was, "I refused to go from the Allah of Islam to stories of gardens and snakes." At the time I thought that by going from "Allah is not god" to "there is no god", she might have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Now I'm not quite so judgmental.
So where am I now in all this? I'm not sure. I began by saying I've been asking myself questions. I didn't say I have answers.
These questions would have been too simple to even ask for most of my life. The world was divided into two kinds of people. There was a small minority who were saved, of whom I was one. Our destiny was paradise with Jesus. Then there was the much larger group of the lost, who were going to hell. They would be cast into an everlasting furnace of fire with weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), tormented forever in the flames (Luke 16:24). The punishment is similar to the hell of Islam, where skins will be burned off only to be replaced with new skins (Quran 4:56), and whose inhabitants are forced to drink boiling water (Quran 14:16). The difference, of course, is that the Muslim hell is for all who did not accept Muhammad, and the Christian hell is for all who did not accept Jesus.
These descriptions of the Christian hell, by the way, were those preached 50 years ago when I was a child. Preachers shy away from them today, preferring to describe hell as "eternal separation from God." Apparently even most of them don't want to think too much about the literal hell of the Bible. Larry King never passes up an opportunity to ask his evangelical guests - whether James Dobson, Billy Graham, or Joel Osteen - about hell. Their answer is always to just say that this is a heavy question, but God will work it all out.
Interestingly enough, the way to escape hell in both Christianity and Islam is to make a statement. The statement in Islam is "I testify there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet" (this should be done in Arabic which, if not the only language God understands, is far and away his favorite). The Christian counterpart is, "I accept Jesus as my Personal Lord and Savior." Unlike Islam, this can be done in any number of ways. My favorite was the Christian camp I attended as a teen-ager, where the speaker encouraged us around the campfire to clasp the finger of one hand in the palm of the other if we wanted to make that momentous decision. We didn't even have to say a word!
Following the decision, of course, in both Islam and Christianity, are things to be done. The first thing in Christianity is to be dipped for a few seconds under water. This is considered to be of such significance that churches have divided over whether it is essential, or subsequant to, the initial born-again experience (which is another way of describing "the statement"). Then one is to tell others what happened to them, pray, read the Bible (daily is best), and go to church. The sequence in Islam also includes reading the Quran, saying prayers at the mosque, and describing your experience to others (called "witnessing" in Christianity, this is "dawah" in Islam).
Having never been a Muslim, I'll leave the parallels for now and concentrate on the Christian experience. The first thing the new Christian learns is that everyone in the entire world is bad. They are all going to hell, unless they make the statement. This poses many intellectual problems for Christians, especially for those who are strongly pro-Israel, since all those Jews are going to hell as well. I've heard Christians come up with some unique solutions to this dilemma. One was that all Jews who were killed in the holocaust got a free pass. Others think that Jews - but no-one else - will be given a second chance after death. The most common view is that things are going to get really bad for Israel over the next few years, and boatloads of them will accept Jesus. That takes care of the Jews in the future, but doesn't give much hope to those who die now.
One of the cracks in the wall came for me a few years ago. Wafa Sultan, a courageous ex-Muslim, says she refuses to believe anything that goes against her reason. I was watching the documentary "Born into Brothels", a story of children born into prostitution in India. The film maker not only made a beautiful film, but put much effort into rescuing the children from their tragic lives (just as Wafa Sultan, who is non-religious, does into liberating Muslim women). I realized as I was watching the film that I could not believe that a person (religious or not) who would devote herself to freeing children from prostitution would suffer the same eternal fate as the man who practiced child prostitution or sold his children into it.
The next thing the Christian is expected to do - at least the Christianity of my youth - is believe the Bible is all literally true. Our earth is in a solar system, including the sun and its nine planets, but God did not create it that way. He first made the earth, and four days later made the sun and the other planets (there were some good explanations of how you could have several days without a sun!). The possibility that a writer thousands of years ago might have based the story upon the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe was not to be taken into consideration. Next comes the story of the walking snake who suddenly loses his legs. Some time ago Aayan Hirsi Ali, another courageous ex-Muslim who is now an atheist, was asked why she had given up all faith. Her response was, "I refused to go from the Allah of Islam to stories of gardens and snakes." At the time I thought that by going from "Allah is not god" to "there is no god", she might have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Now I'm not quite so judgmental.
So where am I now in all this? I'm not sure. I began by saying I've been asking myself questions. I didn't say I have answers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Why I Believe in God - or Why Bill Maher Would Really Think I'm Crazy
In the film Religulous, a Christian Jew named Steve Burg explained to Bill Maher that he believed in God because God did miracles. As an example, Burg said he once held a cup out the window and asked God to fill it with rain. In a few minutes, it started pouring. Maher's reply was that if that happened to him, he wouldn't think it was a miracle; he would just think it was raining.
If Maher thought Burg was naive, he would really think I was incredulous. Why do I believe in God? Because of the stuff that keeps happening to me, like the other day. I'm back from Saudi Arabia now, hanging out in Monterey CA, and I've been driving my wife and daughter to work in the morning. Last Friday, daughter says she will drive herself and mom to work, because she wants to have lunch with mom. Then daughter asks if I will drive mom to work first and come back, and then daughter will leave with the car (giving daughter a few minutes extra sleep). I say fine, drive wife to work, and come home. As daughter is about to leave with the car, wife calls to say she she needs the car later in the morning; can I drive daughter to work, leave the car off at wife's location, and walk home? I again say fine. So I'm driving daughter to work, and she wants to go through Starbucks drive-thru to get a cup of coffee. I suggest we don't have time, because wife needs the car in just a few minutes; maybe we can just stop off at the East Village Cafe which is closer, and daughter can run in and get her brew. She does so, and while I'm waiting for her I scan my way through the AM radio channels and hear the local station interviewing a musician named Mike Beck. He sings a song he wrote about an Army girl in Iraq called Amanda Come Home. I really like the song, and after it's over the interviewer says Mike and his band will be playing at a local bar that night. Wife, daughter, and I go to hear them and stay until midnight. It gives me a chance to do two things I love; listen to good live music and support small town American talent.
And that's why I believe in God. If any of the elements of the story above had fallen out of sync, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
OK, Bill, I know it's so weak you could poke holes through it with a garden rake. But that's the way it is.
If Maher thought Burg was naive, he would really think I was incredulous. Why do I believe in God? Because of the stuff that keeps happening to me, like the other day. I'm back from Saudi Arabia now, hanging out in Monterey CA, and I've been driving my wife and daughter to work in the morning. Last Friday, daughter says she will drive herself and mom to work, because she wants to have lunch with mom. Then daughter asks if I will drive mom to work first and come back, and then daughter will leave with the car (giving daughter a few minutes extra sleep). I say fine, drive wife to work, and come home. As daughter is about to leave with the car, wife calls to say she she needs the car later in the morning; can I drive daughter to work, leave the car off at wife's location, and walk home? I again say fine. So I'm driving daughter to work, and she wants to go through Starbucks drive-thru to get a cup of coffee. I suggest we don't have time, because wife needs the car in just a few minutes; maybe we can just stop off at the East Village Cafe which is closer, and daughter can run in and get her brew. She does so, and while I'm waiting for her I scan my way through the AM radio channels and hear the local station interviewing a musician named Mike Beck. He sings a song he wrote about an Army girl in Iraq called Amanda Come Home. I really like the song, and after it's over the interviewer says Mike and his band will be playing at a local bar that night. Wife, daughter, and I go to hear them and stay until midnight. It gives me a chance to do two things I love; listen to good live music and support small town American talent.
And that's why I believe in God. If any of the elements of the story above had fallen out of sync, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
OK, Bill, I know it's so weak you could poke holes through it with a garden rake. But that's the way it is.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Why Don't We Do This With Islam?
I'm probably one of thousands of people who never heard of Dr. Bart Ehrman until I saw his new book "Jesus Interrupted" in the bookstore a few days ago. It caught my attention immediately, and as I read it I became aware of the similarities between his background and mine. We both attended fundamentalist Christian schools, and later in life began to question beliefs we had always assumed to be true. As Dr. Ehrman puts it, you've got to go where the scholarship takes you.
Recapping Ehrman's life as he describes it in his book, he was a devoted believer who wanted to dedicate his life to studying the Bible. Knowing that Greek was the language of the New Testament, he became a Greek scholar. Inconsistencies in the ancient texts caused him to doubt they were "divinely inspired" in the evangelical Christian sense, and also caused him to question the "divinity of Jesus". He is now head of the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
The thought that came to mind as I read Ehrman's book and listened to a few of his speeches and interviews available online is, why don't we do this with Islam? Ehrman's argument is powerful because he began as a believer. Imagine someone with the exact same background, but who grew up Muslim in an Islamic country. Someone who really believed, and wanted to dedicate his or her life to Allah and Muhammad. Perhaps they even went to university to study Islam, and graduated with a PhD from the most famous Islamic university in the world (as Mark Gabriel - not his true name - did from Al Azhar University in Egypt). But along the way their faith was challenged, they began to question it, and concluded they no longer believed the Quran was inspired by Allah and Muhammad was a prophet from God. Not only that, they became convinced that their religion as envisoned by its prophet was incompatible with life in the 21st century.
Suppose I wanted to study with one of these people. Where would I go? Georgetown, UNC, Princeton? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Rather than being accepted by American academia for professorships, they have been marginalized. Again I could be wrong, but I think there are two reasons for this. First is the fear of Muslim reaction. Second, and even worse, is that universities have prostituted themselves to receive millions of dollars from individuals such as Prince al-Walid bin Talal and the Emir of Qatar for Islamic studies departments. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I've noticed an interesting phenomenom over the years - Americans who are very critical of their own religion are equally defensive of others. A few years ago I had a conversation with a coworker who grew up in the Bible Belt of Tennessee. He'd even been leader of his church youth group before life and its events caused him to become extremely critical of anything remotely Christian. In our conversation, I mentioned a few ideas I was developing about Islam. His astonished reply was, "But you're putting down the whole religion!"
I've got no problem with Dr. Ehrman continuing his research, and I wish him success. But it would be nice to look at the list of graduate courses in the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina, as I've done, and see something like:
Islamic studies 505 - fall, 2009. Examining the empirical evidence that Muhammad was a prophet of God or that the Quran was inspired by God.
And with a professor from a Muslim background who would use the same methodology in examining Islam as Ehrman does in examining Christianity. There are people out there who could do it, but there's a cost to be paid for hiring them (and I don't mean paying their salaries). I hope we have the courage to do it.
Recapping Ehrman's life as he describes it in his book, he was a devoted believer who wanted to dedicate his life to studying the Bible. Knowing that Greek was the language of the New Testament, he became a Greek scholar. Inconsistencies in the ancient texts caused him to doubt they were "divinely inspired" in the evangelical Christian sense, and also caused him to question the "divinity of Jesus". He is now head of the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
The thought that came to mind as I read Ehrman's book and listened to a few of his speeches and interviews available online is, why don't we do this with Islam? Ehrman's argument is powerful because he began as a believer. Imagine someone with the exact same background, but who grew up Muslim in an Islamic country. Someone who really believed, and wanted to dedicate his or her life to Allah and Muhammad. Perhaps they even went to university to study Islam, and graduated with a PhD from the most famous Islamic university in the world (as Mark Gabriel - not his true name - did from Al Azhar University in Egypt). But along the way their faith was challenged, they began to question it, and concluded they no longer believed the Quran was inspired by Allah and Muhammad was a prophet from God. Not only that, they became convinced that their religion as envisoned by its prophet was incompatible with life in the 21st century.
Suppose I wanted to study with one of these people. Where would I go? Georgetown, UNC, Princeton? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Rather than being accepted by American academia for professorships, they have been marginalized. Again I could be wrong, but I think there are two reasons for this. First is the fear of Muslim reaction. Second, and even worse, is that universities have prostituted themselves to receive millions of dollars from individuals such as Prince al-Walid bin Talal and the Emir of Qatar for Islamic studies departments. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
I've noticed an interesting phenomenom over the years - Americans who are very critical of their own religion are equally defensive of others. A few years ago I had a conversation with a coworker who grew up in the Bible Belt of Tennessee. He'd even been leader of his church youth group before life and its events caused him to become extremely critical of anything remotely Christian. In our conversation, I mentioned a few ideas I was developing about Islam. His astonished reply was, "But you're putting down the whole religion!"
I've got no problem with Dr. Ehrman continuing his research, and I wish him success. But it would be nice to look at the list of graduate courses in the Department of Religion at the University of North Carolina, as I've done, and see something like:
Islamic studies 505 - fall, 2009. Examining the empirical evidence that Muhammad was a prophet of God or that the Quran was inspired by God.
And with a professor from a Muslim background who would use the same methodology in examining Islam as Ehrman does in examining Christianity. There are people out there who could do it, but there's a cost to be paid for hiring them (and I don't mean paying their salaries). I hope we have the courage to do it.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Abbas ibn Ubada Got it!
People who argue that Islam is a religion of peace often justify the raids and battles carried out by Muhammad as being defensive. After years of suffering persecution without retaliation in Mecca, they say, Allah finally allowed Muhammad to defend himself against the continued attacks of his enemies after he and his followers immigrated to Medina.
The Quran itself does not seem to make that distinction. In the first and most authoritative biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of the Apostle of Allah”, the author notes that the first passage given to Muhammad authorizing fighting was Quran 22:39-40, “Permission is given to fight against those who have wronged you. Allah will give victory to those who were expelled from their homes only because they said, Our Lord is Allah.” The emphasis is clearly not that Muslims were only allowed to defend themselves from attack in Medina, but were authorized to attack those who had been their opponents in Mecca.
One person who understood this was Abbas ibn Ubada. Ibn Ishaq explains the background as follows:
Yearly fairs were held outside Mecca where people came from as far away as Medina, 250 miles to the north. Muhammad regularly went to these fairs to try to convince visitors to accept him as a prophet, and on one occasion met some men from the Khazraj tribe in Medina. The Khazraj, who were illiterate idolaters, often raided their wealthier, better educated, more skilled Jewish neighbors who formed over one-half the population of Medina. The Jews used to warn them that a prophet would soon be sent to them, and when he came they would gain revenge on the Khazraj for their constant raids. When six Khazraj men heard Muhammad’s message, they concluded he was the prophet the Jews had been talking about. It was better to align themselves with him, they decided, before the Jews got to him first. The Khazraj tribe was also notorious for its lack of unity and internecine hatred. If Muhammad could unite them, they reasoned, they would be mightier than all the other tribes. For these reasons, says Ibn Ishaq, they accepted Islam. (It is interesting that their motivation for becoming Muslim was not spiritual in any sense, but based on a desire to become strong militarily and overpower the Jews).
The six returned to Medina, and told their fellow tribesmen about Muhammad. The following year they came back to the fair with some others, and twelve of them pledged themselves to Muhammad. Muhammad sent a man from Mecca named Musab back with them to read the Quran to them and give them instruction in their new religion. The next year 75 of them attended the fair and gave their allegiance to Muhammad.
One of their leaders was Abbas ibn Ubada. Before they gave their pledge to Muhammad, he warned of the seriousness of what they were about to do. “Oh men of Khazraj,” he said, “Do you realize what you are committing yourselves to when you pledge support to this man? It is to war against one and all.” He reminded them that it would be shameful for them to make the pledge, only to rescind it if they lost their leaders and their property in the wars that were to come. If they took the pledge they needed to keep to it, no matter what the consequences. Faced with the significance of their oath, they asked Muhammad what they would get in return for their loyalty. He promised them paradise, and they accepted the bargain. Ibn Ishaq notes that at least 20 of the 75 were killed in the battles of the next few years.
As soon as they completed the pledge by shaking hands with Muhammad, he told them to go back to their caravan. Abbas ibn Ubada told Muhammad they would gladly attack the Meccans with their swords the next day if the Prophet wanted them to. Muhammad’s reply was simply that he had not yet received the command to fight.
The following morning the leaders of the Meccan Quraysh tribe came to the Khazraj, saying they had heard they had invited Muhammad to leave Mecca for Medina, and had pledged themselves to him in war against them. The Quraysh leaders said they had no interest in going to war against the Khazraj, and in fact there was no Arab tribe they would fight with more reluctance. Abbas ibn Ubada noticed that one of the young Quraysh men was wearing a new pair of sandals. He said to an associate named Abu Jabir, “Why can’t you get me a pair of nice sandals like this young man has?” When the young men heard that, he took off his sandals and threw them at Abbas ibn Ubada. Abu Jabir told him, “You’ve made that young man angry, so give him back his sandals.” “By Allah, I will not,” Abbas ibn Ubada retorted, “It is a good omen and if it proves to be true I will plunder him.”
Soon afterwards Allah gave Muhammad the verses noted above authorizing war. Ibn Ishaq records that “when Allah gave permission to his apostle to fight, the Khazraj bound themselves to war against one and all for Allah and his apostle, while he promised them the reward of paradise”. Another of the Khazraj leaders said, “We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to the apostle come what may.” Ibn Ishaq concludes the episode by noting, “When Allah had given permission to fight, the apostle ordered his companions from Mecca to immigrate to Medina and link up with their brethren there.
A careful reading of the text prepares one for what came next. Muhammad was only in Medina a short time before he began the raids against the Quraysh trade caravans that would mark the rest of his life. Far from being defensive battles against those who were attacking him, they were offensive forays against his own people who had chosen not to accept him as the prophet he claimed to be. And Abbas ibn Ubada had all the opportunity he wanted for plunder. He undoubtedly ended up with a whole lot more than a pair of new shoes.
The Quran itself does not seem to make that distinction. In the first and most authoritative biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of the Apostle of Allah”, the author notes that the first passage given to Muhammad authorizing fighting was Quran 22:39-40, “Permission is given to fight against those who have wronged you. Allah will give victory to those who were expelled from their homes only because they said, Our Lord is Allah.” The emphasis is clearly not that Muslims were only allowed to defend themselves from attack in Medina, but were authorized to attack those who had been their opponents in Mecca.
One person who understood this was Abbas ibn Ubada. Ibn Ishaq explains the background as follows:
Yearly fairs were held outside Mecca where people came from as far away as Medina, 250 miles to the north. Muhammad regularly went to these fairs to try to convince visitors to accept him as a prophet, and on one occasion met some men from the Khazraj tribe in Medina. The Khazraj, who were illiterate idolaters, often raided their wealthier, better educated, more skilled Jewish neighbors who formed over one-half the population of Medina. The Jews used to warn them that a prophet would soon be sent to them, and when he came they would gain revenge on the Khazraj for their constant raids. When six Khazraj men heard Muhammad’s message, they concluded he was the prophet the Jews had been talking about. It was better to align themselves with him, they decided, before the Jews got to him first. The Khazraj tribe was also notorious for its lack of unity and internecine hatred. If Muhammad could unite them, they reasoned, they would be mightier than all the other tribes. For these reasons, says Ibn Ishaq, they accepted Islam. (It is interesting that their motivation for becoming Muslim was not spiritual in any sense, but based on a desire to become strong militarily and overpower the Jews).
The six returned to Medina, and told their fellow tribesmen about Muhammad. The following year they came back to the fair with some others, and twelve of them pledged themselves to Muhammad. Muhammad sent a man from Mecca named Musab back with them to read the Quran to them and give them instruction in their new religion. The next year 75 of them attended the fair and gave their allegiance to Muhammad.
One of their leaders was Abbas ibn Ubada. Before they gave their pledge to Muhammad, he warned of the seriousness of what they were about to do. “Oh men of Khazraj,” he said, “Do you realize what you are committing yourselves to when you pledge support to this man? It is to war against one and all.” He reminded them that it would be shameful for them to make the pledge, only to rescind it if they lost their leaders and their property in the wars that were to come. If they took the pledge they needed to keep to it, no matter what the consequences. Faced with the significance of their oath, they asked Muhammad what they would get in return for their loyalty. He promised them paradise, and they accepted the bargain. Ibn Ishaq notes that at least 20 of the 75 were killed in the battles of the next few years.
As soon as they completed the pledge by shaking hands with Muhammad, he told them to go back to their caravan. Abbas ibn Ubada told Muhammad they would gladly attack the Meccans with their swords the next day if the Prophet wanted them to. Muhammad’s reply was simply that he had not yet received the command to fight.
The following morning the leaders of the Meccan Quraysh tribe came to the Khazraj, saying they had heard they had invited Muhammad to leave Mecca for Medina, and had pledged themselves to him in war against them. The Quraysh leaders said they had no interest in going to war against the Khazraj, and in fact there was no Arab tribe they would fight with more reluctance. Abbas ibn Ubada noticed that one of the young Quraysh men was wearing a new pair of sandals. He said to an associate named Abu Jabir, “Why can’t you get me a pair of nice sandals like this young man has?” When the young men heard that, he took off his sandals and threw them at Abbas ibn Ubada. Abu Jabir told him, “You’ve made that young man angry, so give him back his sandals.” “By Allah, I will not,” Abbas ibn Ubada retorted, “It is a good omen and if it proves to be true I will plunder him.”
Soon afterwards Allah gave Muhammad the verses noted above authorizing war. Ibn Ishaq records that “when Allah gave permission to his apostle to fight, the Khazraj bound themselves to war against one and all for Allah and his apostle, while he promised them the reward of paradise”. Another of the Khazraj leaders said, “We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to the apostle come what may.” Ibn Ishaq concludes the episode by noting, “When Allah had given permission to fight, the apostle ordered his companions from Mecca to immigrate to Medina and link up with their brethren there.
A careful reading of the text prepares one for what came next. Muhammad was only in Medina a short time before he began the raids against the Quraysh trade caravans that would mark the rest of his life. Far from being defensive battles against those who were attacking him, they were offensive forays against his own people who had chosen not to accept him as the prophet he claimed to be. And Abbas ibn Ubada had all the opportunity he wanted for plunder. He undoubtedly ended up with a whole lot more than a pair of new shoes.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Thomas Hamill Effect
Thomas Hamill, the Haliburton truck driver who was kidnapped in Iraq in 2004 and escaped 3 weeks later, probably doesn't even know that his story was instrumental in the conversion of a Muslim from Morocco named Sayf to Christianity.
Sayf told his story on the Arabic Christian television channel Al-Hayat on a program entitled "Daring Question". When asked about his name, which means "Sword", Sayf commented that Islam is the only religion in the world that has the word sword as a common first name. Even Col. Gadhaffi has a son named Sayf al-Islam, "the Sword of Islam".
Sayf was a very religious Muslim until the age of 54. He wore a robe and beard, prayed 5 times a day, and in addition to the month-long fast of Ramadan fasted every Monday and Thursday. He allowed no music in his house, no movies, no TV serials. He would not greet nor shake the hand of a woman, and even gatherings in his house did not contain both men and women.
All that changed in 2004. Here's how Sayf tells the story:
RASHID: So you were 54 years old, and very religious. What attracted you to the Gospel? A lot of people won't be able to understand how a person of your age and experience could make such a change.
SAYF: It will be hard for some people to understand. I hadn't been searching for Christianity or reading the Bible. Some times I picked up a Bible but I always had this feeling that I was touching the corrupted book of the infidels. But what drew me to the Gospel was Jesus Christ himself.
RASHID: How?
SAYF: In April, 2004, I was in America. In early April I was watching the news and saw a news item watched by millions of people around the world. It was about an American truck driver named Thomas Hamill who was kidnapped in Iraq. There was nothing unusual about my watching the story, but what happened some days later was arranged by Jesus. I saw another news story about his wife and children and relatives in a church. The church was filled with people who were praying to Jesus to release Thomas. You can imagine what I thought as a Muslim of people asking this of Jesus. I laughed at their prayer; I mocked and scorned them. I thought, "How can these people ask Jesus who is only...."
RASHID: A prophet...
SAYF: God married Mary and had a son named Jesus...that is what we think Christians believe and it is a big problem for us. It made no sense for them to ask Jesus to release Thomas. I laughed at them. But several days later I was watching the TV again and there was Thomas free and standing with American soldiers.
RASHID: So you were laughing at the Christians' prayer, and in the end it came true.
SAYF: I was listening to the TV announcer, and all of a sudden I heard the voice of Jesus. He said, "Sayf, you were mocking the Christian prayer. But I set him free." It was as if someone turned a switch in my heart from off to on. And from that moment I began to search.
RASHID: To search for the truth.
SAYF: I took a Quran in one hand and a Bible in the other and began to compare them. I did this for 40 days. The Quran was in one hand, the Bible in the other, and the computer in front of me. I would perform my ablutions for the Muslim prayer, and then I would pray as Christians do. After 40 days, Jesus spoke to me again...
RASHID: How did he speak to you? Many of the viewers can't understand this. Was it a voice or an impression?
SAYF: It was a beautiful voice. I literally heard it. He spoke to me first in Arabic and then in French. He said, "I am your Lord, and I know all languages...."
RASHID: Because Allah of the Muslims only knows Arabic...
SAYF: That was on June 11, 2004, and I have been following Jesus ever since.
Sayf told his story on the Arabic Christian television channel Al-Hayat on a program entitled "Daring Question". When asked about his name, which means "Sword", Sayf commented that Islam is the only religion in the world that has the word sword as a common first name. Even Col. Gadhaffi has a son named Sayf al-Islam, "the Sword of Islam".
Sayf was a very religious Muslim until the age of 54. He wore a robe and beard, prayed 5 times a day, and in addition to the month-long fast of Ramadan fasted every Monday and Thursday. He allowed no music in his house, no movies, no TV serials. He would not greet nor shake the hand of a woman, and even gatherings in his house did not contain both men and women.
All that changed in 2004. Here's how Sayf tells the story:
RASHID: So you were 54 years old, and very religious. What attracted you to the Gospel? A lot of people won't be able to understand how a person of your age and experience could make such a change.
SAYF: It will be hard for some people to understand. I hadn't been searching for Christianity or reading the Bible. Some times I picked up a Bible but I always had this feeling that I was touching the corrupted book of the infidels. But what drew me to the Gospel was Jesus Christ himself.
RASHID: How?
SAYF: In April, 2004, I was in America. In early April I was watching the news and saw a news item watched by millions of people around the world. It was about an American truck driver named Thomas Hamill who was kidnapped in Iraq. There was nothing unusual about my watching the story, but what happened some days later was arranged by Jesus. I saw another news story about his wife and children and relatives in a church. The church was filled with people who were praying to Jesus to release Thomas. You can imagine what I thought as a Muslim of people asking this of Jesus. I laughed at their prayer; I mocked and scorned them. I thought, "How can these people ask Jesus who is only...."
RASHID: A prophet...
SAYF: God married Mary and had a son named Jesus...that is what we think Christians believe and it is a big problem for us. It made no sense for them to ask Jesus to release Thomas. I laughed at them. But several days later I was watching the TV again and there was Thomas free and standing with American soldiers.
RASHID: So you were laughing at the Christians' prayer, and in the end it came true.
SAYF: I was listening to the TV announcer, and all of a sudden I heard the voice of Jesus. He said, "Sayf, you were mocking the Christian prayer. But I set him free." It was as if someone turned a switch in my heart from off to on. And from that moment I began to search.
RASHID: To search for the truth.
SAYF: I took a Quran in one hand and a Bible in the other and began to compare them. I did this for 40 days. The Quran was in one hand, the Bible in the other, and the computer in front of me. I would perform my ablutions for the Muslim prayer, and then I would pray as Christians do. After 40 days, Jesus spoke to me again...
RASHID: How did he speak to you? Many of the viewers can't understand this. Was it a voice or an impression?
SAYF: It was a beautiful voice. I literally heard it. He spoke to me first in Arabic and then in French. He said, "I am your Lord, and I know all languages...."
RASHID: Because Allah of the Muslims only knows Arabic...
SAYF: That was on June 11, 2004, and I have been following Jesus ever since.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
