Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. Gen 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. Gen 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Isa 45:22 Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.

John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

John 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Acts 10:28 [The Christian apostle Peter speaking to the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius – SGP] And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean … Act 10:34 So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, Act 10:35 but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Qur’an 49:13 People, We created you all from a single man and a single woman, and made you into races and tribes so that you should get to know one another. In God’s eyes, the most honoured of you are the ones most mindful of Him: God is all knowing, all aware.

Qur’an 5:18 The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are the children of God and His beloved ones.’ Say, ‘Then why does He punish you for your sins? You are merely human beings, part of His creation: He forgives whoever He will and punishes whoever He will. Control of the heavens and earth and all that is between them belongs to Him: all journeys lead to Him.’

[Bible quotations are from the English Standard Version; Qur’an quotations are from the Abdel Haleem English Version.]

Those verses, taken from the Hebrew and Christian portions of the Bible, and the Qur’an (Koran), proclaim with utmost clarity a most basic principle of the Religion of God in all its manifestations: God is King of all the earth (indeed of all worlds), all human beings come from Him, and He has no favorites among them – except that He favors all those from every nation and tribe who believe in Him and do righteous deeds.

This is actually something which should be clear to anyone who uses the reason God gave him/her, even without any ‘Divine Revelation’. Yet the darkness of human understanding is sometimes so great that even the most clear and evident truths of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” are not seen or are ignored.

Some people have imagined that the color of one’s skin makes him/her superior to everyone else: “white supremacy” for instance – whether its manifestation in the Ku Klux Klan in the USA; or the white, blond haired, blue eyed ‘Aryans’ of Nazi infamy; or any other manifestation. And of course there was the reaction of the “Black Muslims” of the “Nation of Islam” who maintained (maintain?) that the true ‘master race’ is the race of black skinned people.

Others imagine that “God’s elect” are those who belong to a particular expression of the Religion of God. Perhaps most obvious would be some from the Christian religion (“evangelicals”, “fundamentalists”, etc.) who think that they alone belong to the family of God – because they have come to believe in the ‘right’ Prophet, and believe the ‘right doctrines’ concerning that Prophet (that he is – supposedly – “God the Son”, the “Second Person of the Trinity”, and that he died as a substitute for all believers to bear the wrath of God against them and ‘save’ them).

Such ‘supremacist’ imaginations are demolished by the above quoted verses. Even the verse quoted from the letter of Paul to the Galatians does not mean that only ‘Christians’ are God’s people. When he said that all are “one in Christ Jesus”, his meaning was that in the message and “Gospel” of Jesus Christ, all nations and classes of people are equal. Everyone who believes and obeys the message of Jesus Christ is Abraham’s offspring and an heir of the promises of God. And what is the message of Jesus Christ? Simply that one should love God with all his heart, and love his neighbor as he loves himself. This is the same message as all the Prophets of God since the creation of the world have proclaimed. A person who loves the One and Only, and loves his fellow human beings, is obeying the Gospel of Jesus Christ even if he has never heard of Jesus Christ! Even if he thinks he rejects the prophethood and messiahship of Jesus Christ (due no doubt to all the distortions of the man and his message which have been promulgated by many who call themselves his followers), if he is doing the things Jesus (and all the prophets) taught then he is Abraham’s seed and an ‘heir of God’.

But there is another group of people who believe they are “the apple of God’s eye” because of a combination of physical genealogical descent from Abraham through his grandson Jacob/Israel, and their religious faith and obedience to the Law of Moses. For many, it is the genealogical descent which at least seems to be the biggest factor. These people, of course, are the Jews – or at least some from among the Jews. I’m not one who believes that they’re all alike.

Nevertheless, even though not all Jewish people are ‘racists’, I imagine it must be with difficulty that they avoid it. It is so ingrained in Jewish thinking based on interpretations of the Bible and the Talmud, that it seems to me that one must either reject a large portion of those books as pure myth and fable, or resort to what appears to many as ‘far fetched interpretations’ of them. Still, there may be some truth to the idea that much of what are known as the ‘historical’ portions of the Hebrew Scriptures was never intended to be understood as ‘true history’, but rather as allegory. It is not “the truth” historically, but it contains a truth. And perhaps the stories were written in such a way as to be unbelievable and even atrocious, in order to ‘cue us in’ that they were in fact allegories rather than histories.

However, historically the Jewish Scriptures have been understood by much of the Jewish ‘nation’ as very literally teaching that they are “God’s chosen people”, vastly superior to the ‘dogs of the Gentiles’. An illustration of just how ingrained such thinking is in Jewish thought is the story in Acts 10 and 11 of the Christian “New Testament” concerning Peter and the household of Cornelius.

Peter would not even have considered entering the house of Cornelius – a Roman centurion – if he had not been given a vision by God showing him that God doesn’t show favoritism. This despite the fact that Peter had spent so much time in the presence of Jesus Christ; and the fact that Cornelius was considered a ‘righteous’ and ‘God-fearing’ man, even by the Jews – who respected him (Acts 10:1, 2, 22). Despite his righteousness and fear of God, he was still a ‘dog of the Gentiles’. He may have been a ‘good dog’, but he was a ‘dog’ nevertheless. He was not an ‘equal’ of the Jews, and no good Jew would think of entering his house and eating with him.

It took visions given to Peter and Cornelius to convince Peter that this notion of Jewish superiority was invalid. And when he returned to Jerusalem, he had some explaining to do – because the Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ there were horrified that Peter had done something as unthinkable as entering the house of an uncircumcised Gentile and eating with him (again despite the fact that Cornelius was respected by the Jews as a righteous and God-fearing man) [Acts 11:1 and 2].

Even with Peter’s explanation, the notion of Jewish superiority refused to die out in the Jewish Christian community. A few years later, after Saul/Paul and Barnabas had seen great success in preaching to ‘Gentiles’ – so that many turned to God from idols – great dissension arose among the Christian believers because Paul and Barnabas were treating the uncircumcised Gentile Christians as equals with the circumcised Jewish Christians. Acts 15 tells about the ‘Jerusalem Council’ which met to settle the controversy. Even after this Council had concluded that the Gentile believers were to be accepted equally without seeking to get them to accept circumcision and keep all of the laws of Moses, the Jews in general and some of the Jewish Christians refused to accept the idea; and they plagued Paul throughout his ministry.

This idea of Jewish superiority is easily seen today in what is known as ‘Zionism’ and ‘the Jewish State of Israel’. Most Jewish people seem to accept without hesitation that the land of Palestine belongs to them by ‘Divine Right’. They are “God’s chosen people”, and they just don’t seem to comprehend that there might be some problem with them ‘cleansing’ the land of its non-Jewish inhabitants, demolishing their houses and cities, burning their crops, etc.

They eagerly accept fables about the land of Palestine being uninhabited, barren, and unfruitful – just waiting for “the apple of God’s eye” to come in and make the ‘desert’ blossom like a rose! Their blind prejudice is reflected in the slogan they adopted about the land: “a land without a people for a people without a land”. Despite the fact they had to murder or drive out hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the land in order to turn it into a ‘Jewish State’, they still said it was a ‘land without a people’. I guess that’s because of the ‘fact’ that those Palestinian ‘Gentiles’ weren’t really people, but ‘dogs’!

All of those olive and orange groves (as well as other types of agriculture) which the Zionist Jews had to destroy in order to be able to plant their own crops and turn the ‘desert’ into a ‘fruitful field’ were only imaginary, I guess. After all, Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) wrote that in his travels in Palestine he found the land uninhabited and barren! (We’re supposed to ignore the fact, I suppose, that Mr. Clemens also said the same thing of Greece – in perhaps even stronger terms. Mark Twain was a great writer of fiction and humor; but it sounds like his “non-fiction” was perhaps not quite so ‘non’ fictional.)

What is truly amazing, though, is that many Christians – and even some Muslims – buy into the absurd notion of Jewish ‘chosenness’ and their ‘Divine Right’ to the land! I came to realize something like 36 or 37 years ago that the Christian Gospel absolutely repudiates this notion. Even though Paul wrote that the Gentiles were once strangers from God’s covenants of promise and ‘aliens from the commonwealth of Israel’, he wrote that this was no longer the case since Jesus, God’s Christ, proclaimed his Gospel. The ‘middle wall of partition’ dividing Jew and Gentile was now destroyed by God; and you may be sure that God will not ‘make Himself a transgressor’ by building again what he had destroyed. (See Galatians 2:18 where Paul ‘diplomatically’ applied to himself the accusation he was making against Peter – who had started separating himself from the Gentile Christians despite the fact that he had been a leader in tearing down that wall of separation: For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor.)

In the past two and a half years that I have been reading the Qur’an, I have seen that the Qur’an does indeed confirm what remains of the truth in the former revelations; and it definitely confirms the truth seen by Peter that God shows no favoritism, but those in every nation who believe in God and do good works are accepted by Him. The quotations from 49:13 and 5:18 given at the beginning of this article are quite explicit. 5:18 in particular says that neither the Christians nor the Jews are God’s special people; they’re just human beings, and God bestows His blessings on whom He will among human beings.

Sura 2:124 says this: When Abraham’s Lord tested him with certain commandments, which he fulfilled, He said, ‘I will make you a leader of people.’ Abraham asked, ‘And will you make leaders of my descendents too?’ God answered, ‘My pledge does not hold for those who do evil.’ This confirms the Biblical assertions that Abraham believed God (and showed it by his works), and this was accounted to him for righteousness; and that it is those who have the same faith as Abraham (shown by righteous works) who are his descendents and heirs. Those who disbelieve and disobey are not Abraham’s heirs.

Sura 17:4-8 says this about the children of Israel: (4) We declared to the Children of Israel in the Scripture, ‘Twice you will spread corruption in the land and become highly arrogant’. (5) When the first of those warnings was fulfilled, We sent against you servants of Ours [Assyrians and Babylonians] with great force, and they ravaged your homes. That warning was fulfilled, (6) but then We allowed you to prevail against your enemy. We increased your wealth and offspring and made you more numerous – (7) whether you do good or evil it is to your own souls – and when the second warning was fulfilled [We sent them] [“servants of Ours” - the Romans this time] to shame your faces and enter the place of worship as they did the first time, and utterly destroy whatever fell into their power. (8) Your Lord may yet have mercy on you, but if you do the same again, so shall We: We have made Hell a prison for those who defy [Our warning].

This again confirms the prophecies of the Hebrew prophets. Isaiah and Jeremiah for instance predicted the Assyrian/Babylonian captivity, while Daniel in particular (though not only Daniel) predicted the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the “last days/end” for the Jewish State. Daniel 9:24-27 predicted that from the time Cyrus the Persian freed the Jews from the Babylonian captivity there would be 490 years (70 “weeks/sevens” of years). Messiah the Prince would appear in the 69^th “week/seven” (he was ‘made manifest’ to Israel at the baptism of John ‘the Baptist’), and be “cut off” in the 70^th “week/seven”. After that, and as a result, the “people of the Prince” would come and destroy the city of Jerusalem and its Temple. When the “people of the Prince” is referred to, I believe the Prince is the same “Messiah the Prince” previously referred to who would come and be “cut off”. The Roman legions are seen as being sent at his command, by the will of God, to fulfill God’s purpose. However, others believe that this Prince whose people would destroy the Temple is Titus, the Roman General (son of Emperor Vespasian) who was the actual Roman leader.

In keeping with this prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by the Romans – and its fulfillment – the Qur’an says this in 5:78 and 79: (78) The Children of Israel who defied [God] were rejected through the words of David, and Jesus, son of Mary, because they disobeyed, they persistently overstepped the limits, (79) they did not forbid each other to do wrong. How vile their deeds were!

I believe this Qur’anic statement about David and Jesus proclaiming God’s rejection of the Jewish people who defied and disobeyed God refers in particular to a parable and statement of Jesus given (with minor variations) in 3 of the 4 “Gospels” (the “Synoptics” – Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Jesus told a parable about the owner of a vineyard leasing it out to some tenants, and then leaving on a trip. From time to time the owner would send servants to collect some of the fruit from the tenants (lease payment); but the tenants beat some and killed others of those servants. Finally, the owner sent his son, figuring that the tenants would at least honor the heir. Instead they killed him, thinking that with the heir dead they would inherit the vineyard themselves.

According to Matthew’s account, Jesus then asked his hearers: Mat 21:40 When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? Their response (verse 41) was: He will put those wretches to a miserable death and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.

Then followed this response: Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? Mat 21:43  Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. Mat 21:44 And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”

So Jesus confirmed the conclusion of his hearers, and applied it to the Jewish nation by quoting from David (Psalm 118:22 and 23) and making his own declaration of God’s rejection of Israel and replacement of them by another people.

Yes, I without hesitation adhere to what some (even Christians, interestingly) disparagingly label “replacement theology”. God honored the faithful obedience of Abraham by telling him that his descendants would bring the blessing of God to all the nations. The descendants of Abraham’s grandson Jacob were chosen to have the opportunity to fulfill that purpose and be a “light to the nations” (not to be superior to, and slave masters over, the nations). When those descendants of Jacob became arrogant and disobedient, and became a “blight to the nations” rather than a “light to the nations” (I believe I read that interesting description of today’s nation of Israel as a “blight to the nations” as a title of an article on Norman Finkelstein’s blog page some time back. See here for the actual article.), God repudiated them and gave that position to the descendants of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael. The Arabic people, beginning with the leadership of Muhammad, fulfilled the purpose of being a “light to the nations”. They did not arrogantly imagine that God had made them superior to everyone else as the Jews had done. People from all nations and races have become “Muslims” (submitted and devoted to God), and the Arabs have no superior place among that “Muslim” people. They became the “cornerstone” in the kingdom, but they are not the kingdom itself.

To conclude then: it is simply impossible that God would adopt some particular nation or tribe of people – or followers of one particular Prophet out of the many He sent – to be His “chosen” or “special” people in any sense that makes them superior to everyone else. The Jewish people were chosen to have the opportunity to bring God’s light to other nations; but when they brought instead a “blight” to the nations, God rejected them and replaced them with a people who would not be arrogant and unfaithful. And it remains true of Arab Muslims as well as all other Muslims that if they are unbelieving and disobedient, they too will be rejected by God. God simply doesn’t play favorites!

I have written two previous articles about abrogation in the Qur’an: Abrogation in the Qur’an and Intoxicants and Abrogation in the Qur’an. My views have not changed since I wrote those articles, and I don’t intend to do a lot of repeating in this present article. I’ll just reiterate that the 3 passages which speak of abrogation (2:105; 13:38 and 39; and 16:101) refer to the fact that the Qur’an abrogates some of the things in previous Revelations (that is, in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible for instance), not that later portions of the Qur’an abrogate earlier portions.

In addition, the Qur’an’s testimony concerning itself forbids the notion of ‘abrogation’ of any of its contents, in such verses as the following (quoting from the Abdel Haleem English version):

(39:23) God has sent down the most beautiful of all teachings: a Scripture that is consistent and draws comparisons…

(4:82) Will they not think about this Qur’an? If it had been from anyone other than God, they would have found much inconsistency in it.

However, there are still those who despise the religion of Islam who wish to maintain that ‘later verses’ about warfare abrogate ‘earlier verses’ about peace – despite the fact that verses about peace are part and parcel of the very (supposedly ‘later’) verses about warfare. For instance, someone recently pointed out to me that a contemporary and ‘Companion’ of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) – in fact, one of his cousins – who is highly respected by both Sunni and Shiite writers, said that “the sword verse” (9:5) abrogates another verse (said to be 8:61, a ‘verse of peace’). This very brief quote from Ibn Abbas – merely a portion of a sentence – says this: This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’. The ‘Tasfir’ (commentaries) in which the quote may be found are given at that site; and one presumes that reading the actual ‘Tasfir’ would confirm that the abrogated verse is said by Ibn Abbas himself to be 8:61. Here are the two verses:

(8:61) But if they incline toward peace, you [Prophet] must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing.

(9:5) When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they repent, maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful. (6) If any one of the idolaters should seek your protection [Prophet], grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God, then take him to a place safe for him, for they are people who do not know.

Frankly, any serious and careful reading of the two passages concerned will convince the reader that Ibn Abbas either had a very different understanding of the meaning of ‘abrogation’ from what we think, or he was seriously ‘challenged’ intellectually! And I’m not ready to accuse him of being ‘mentally challenged’, considering the high regard in which his contemporaries held him, so I opt for the first alternative.

The portion of Sura (Chapter) 8 of the Qur’an in which verse 61 is found concerns fighting against people who have violated their treaties and attacked the believers. (55) The worst creatures in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe; (56) who, whenever you [Prophet] make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of God. (57) If you meet with them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed. (58) And if you learn of treachery on the part of any people, throw their treaty back at them, for God does not love the treacherous. It is in this context of fighting treaty breakers, and abrogating any treaties made with such treacherous people, that verse 61 is given – in which the believers are told that if the enemy wishes to reestablish peaceful relations, the believers must do so.

When one reads the first part of Sura 9, he/she will see that it is precisely this kind of situation which is being addressed: the believers are told to announce the abrogation of a treaty because the other side had violated it – but nothing is said of abrogating a previously revealed verse (or previously revealed verses) of the Qur’an. That is, Sura 9 presents a fulfillment of what 8:58 had anticipated.

Now what ‘God fearing’ person can seriously imagine that, when (in Sura 9) God brings about a fulfillment of what He had previously revealed (in Sura 8), He would say: “But I made a slip of the tongue when I previously told you to establish peace if your opponents desire it. I didn’t really mean it, so you can ignore that verse!”? Anyone who would make such an accusation against God falls very far short of being ‘Muslim’ (submitted and devoted to God)!

This is not just a logical and reasonable conclusion, though. Sura 9 itself tells us that 8:61 (and similar verses in other Suras) is still valid. First, verses 4 and 7 say that those abrogated treaties are still intact (not abrogated) for those who have been faithful to them and have not supported anyone in fighting against the believers:

(9:4) As for those idolaters who have honoured the treaty you [believers] made with them and who have not supported anyone against you: fulfill your agreement with them to the end of their term. God loves those who are mindful of Him.

(9:7)… But as for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him.

So with respect to them, they have shown that they desire peace and the believers must also be inclined to peace with them. 8:61 was not abrogated with respect to them.

In addition, though, there are two ways given by which those with whom the believers are fighting may show they wish peace – and because of which the believers must grant that wish. First, naturally, if the opponents of the believers repent and embrace Islam they are to be forgiven and allowed to go their way in peace. Secondly, though, if those who have not converted ‘seek protection’, they are to be granted that protection and taken to safety so that they will have further opportunity to hear the word of God which perhaps will dispel their ignorance. (See verses 5 and 6, quoted above).

So again, if the enemy inclines toward peace, the believers must also be so inclined. This is, in fact, in keeping with the reason for fighting the treaty breaking disbelievers: to get them to stop their treachery -

(9:12) But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you and revile your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief – oaths mean nothing to them – so that they may stop.

The aim of Islam (both religiously and politically) is the establishment of justice and peace; and if the only way to get the disbelievers to honor peace treaties and uphold justice is to fight them until they cease fighting (surrender, or are subdued) then such fighting is necessary. The only ones being fought (even in Sura 9, which supposedly ‘abrogates’ all those verses of peace) are those who have first attacked the believers:

(9:13) How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first?…

It is not those who desire peace whom Sura 9 enjoins the believers to fight, but those who show no inclination to peace. How in the world does that ‘abrogate’ 8:61, or any other verse which says not to fight those who don’t fight you?

No, there is simply no way that 9:5 (the so-called “verse of the sword”) abrogates 8:61 – not, at least, by any definition of ‘abrogation’ which most people today would use.

What, then, could Ibn Abbas have meant when he said This has been abrogated by the “sword verse”? I can only speculate, since I have not read the ‘Tasfir’ in which the statement occurs – and therefore don’t know what the context of his statement might indicate concerning its meaning. I have read one ‘Tasfir’ on 9:5 and 6, and another on 8:61, which are said to be from Ibn Abbas, but the statement about abrogation was not in those selections. (I have to wonder if Ibn Abbas is being falsely accused).

The only possible meaning of his statement which comes to mind – which would be consistent with the plain meaning of both Sura 8 and Sura 9 – is that since the disbelievers have shown that they’re not interested in peace, then the verse of peace no longer applies to them (or is ‘abrogated’ with reference to them). The treaty of peace which had previously been made with them was founded on such verses as 8:61, because they had previously indicated a desire for peace. But since the disbelievers had turned away from that desire and had ‘abrogated’ their oath, the believers were instructed that the treaty based on that desire for peace was abrogated on their part as well – and consequently that the ‘verse of peace’ was abrogated so far as those particular disbelievers were concerned. (At least, that is perhaps what Ibn Abbas had in mind, if he actually made the statement). The verses which had become valid and effective were those which called on the believers to fight those who fight them.

That’s really a ‘no brainer’, though, and doesn’t require any ‘authoritative’ commentary from one of the Prophet’s Companions to make it clear. And as I have pointed out, Sura 9 says that the verses of peace are not actually ‘abrogated’ even for those whom they were being required to fight – because it still remained true that if they sought the protection of the Prophet he was to grant that protection. The fighting was only to get the disbelievers to cease their fighting; and those who converted, sought protection, or surrendered fulfilled that aim. Terms of peace could then be reestablished with them.

To conclude, then: Sura 9:5 (the “verse of the sword”) clearly does not ‘abrogate’ (or render ‘null and void’) 8:61 or any other ‘verse of peace’ – except perhaps for those who have themselves broken their treaty which was based on such verses. Anyone who says otherwise is simply not a ‘careful reader’ of the Qur’an and is not using his/her reason. Since I am not about to accuse Ibn Abbas of not being a ‘careful reader’ of the Qur’an and not using his reason, I simply do not believe he meant what some people quote him to prove.

Orthodox Jews Join the Global March to Jerusalem

When non-Jewish people make a statement like the following, we’re immediately labeled ‘anti-Semites’ (even though we’re really only ‘anti-Jewish State of Israel’). What is it when Orthodox Jewish Rabbis and their followers say it?

[Emphasis in bold print is my doing, except in one place which I have noted].

The original source for this reprinted article can be found at this Neturei Karta site.

Speech by Rabbi Dovid Feldman of Neturei Karta International, Jews United Against Zionism, at a press conference in Beirut, Lebanon on March 29, 2012, one day prior to the Global March to Jerusalem.

In the name of the Almighty we shall do and succeed. As the verse says (Psalms 121:2) “My help is from the Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth”.

As we stand at the final stage of the preparations for the Global March To Jerusalem, scheduled for tomorrow, March 30, known as the Palestinian Land Day, I would firstly like to thank the organizers of this very important march for their tireless work so far and specifically for giving our delegation the opportunity to join in and speak here in front of you.

Our delegation here today consists of rabbis from the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, who represent anti-Zionist Jewish communities who salute and support the Global March to Jerusalem. Three of us are on our way to Amman, Jordan to join the march there, and we hope to have rabbis from Al-Quds, Jerusalem to join the march in the West Bank, if they manage to make it.

The anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish community worldwide is pained and troubled by the existence of the State of Israel and all the criminal acts it has committed against the indigenous population of Palestine. The occupation of Jerusalem and all of Palestine is a violation not only of international law, but also of Jewish law.

Many myths are used by the Zionist State to confuse the masses, and not everybody is properly educated to have answers to them.

For example, people believe that there is a legitimate Biblical claim for the State of Israel to occupy the Holy Land.

The truth is quite different. According to traditional Jewish belief, Jews are in a divinely decreed exile. They are required to practice their religion and live as loyal citizens in the lands where they reside, and are forbidden to create a sovereign state of their own. This would be true even if this state had been created in an uninhabited land or in an inhabited land with the permission of its residents. But since the Zionist state was established in an inhabited land, through expelling and oppressing its people, it violates many other divine prohibitions, such as “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” etc.

People today believe that Jews are in danger from the Arab population, that the Arabs have always hated us and they just want to drive us into the sea.

The truth is quite different. Jews lived in Palestine, including the Holy City of Jerusalem, for generations. They resided in the Holy land as a peaceful minority, practicing their Jewish religion and coexisting in harmony and mutual respect with their non-Jewish neighbors. But then the Zionist movement arose with the goal of achieving rule by oppressing others, and that was when the mistrust between Jews and Arabs began. There began to be bloodshed, and the casualties on both sides continue to rise to the present day.

Jews live today in the Islamic Republic Of Iran, exercising their freedom of religion. A delegation of our rabbis visited Tehran just four weeks ago, not for the first time. They visited the Jewish communities and watched the religious Jewish classes for the youth, and they were pleased by what they witnessed.

We are a Jewish delegation today visiting here in Lebanon and we are still alive!!! How? We are protected by the people of Lebanon.

We don’t need a state of Israel to protect us and we don’t want a state of Israel to endanger us.

Next to me is Senior Rabbi Lazer Hochhouser, originally from Quds-Jerusalem. He still remembers the peace that existed in Palestine in those days. He left Jerusalem after 1967 because he was so upset with Zionist actions being committed in his name.

The late Rabbi Amram Blau, one of the leaders of the anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish community in Jerusalem a generation ago, once said: “We are brothers in suffering with our Palestinian non-Jewish neighbors.”

It is our religion that this heretical entity is uprooting; it is our community in the Holy City of Al-Quds, Jerusalem that stands up against the State of Israel and is oppressed under this criminal regime. It is the peaceful coexistence that we all enjoyed that was destroyed by these warmongers.

Jewish opposition to Zionism is not new. It is not just since the recent assault on Gaza. It is not just since the occupation in 1967, nor since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. It goes back as far as the 1890′s, at the very dawn of the Zionist movement. The vast majority of Jewish rabbinic leaders and their communities at that time opposed this new movement vehemently.

Jerusalem was always considered by Jews as a holy city, but this was never a reason for conflict. The very name “Jerusalem” means the city of peace. It was so for centuries and should remain so forever. Religion was never a reason for conflict between Jews and Arabs, despite the differences in our religions. The only reason for conflict was the invention of Zionism, and the current obstacle to peace is the state and its ongoing criminal policies.

We declare that the criminal acts committed by the State of Israel must be stopped.

We declare that the sovereignty over the entire Holy Land must be restored to its indigenous population.

We declare that the State of Israel does not speak in the name of the entire Jewish community and certainly not in the name of the Jewish religion.

It is because we are humans that we condemn the oppression in Palestine.

It is because we Jews that we are embarrassed that this is being done in our name.

It is because we are religious Jews that we are so upset that this in being done in the name of religion.

It is because we are descendents of Holocaust survivors that we feel the suffering of others.

We pray for the peaceful dismantlement of the entire State of Israel. We hope this takes place with no suffering to anyone, Arab or Jew. Then we hope to experience once again the beautiful harmony between our peoples that existed in the region prior to the invention of Zionism.

Ultimately we hope to merit to see the day when the glory of the Almighty will be revealed throughout the universe and all humanity will recognize the One G-d and serve Him in peace and harmony. Amen.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

Here are a couple of other statements made by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi concerning how to solve the current ‘Israel’/Palestine conflict (taken from this article.)

“Friends, there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no state of Israel.” (This is the only place where the bold print was in the original).

“The true Torah solution, the key to peace is the immediate return of Palestine to the Palestinians in its entirety including the Temple Mount and Jerusalem.”

Call it what you wish; I call it “the truth”, even though I am not Jewish and call myself ‘muslim in spirit’. I will of course disagree with some other things which Orthodox Jews believe, but this does not hinder me from considering them my friends and standing solidly with them in what was said in this article.

(2:278) You who believe, beware of God: give up any outstanding dues from usury, if you are true believers. (279) If you do not, then be warned of war from God and His Messenger. You shall have your capital if you repent, and without suffering loss or causing others to suffer loss. (Taken from the Abdel Haleem English version of the Qur’an).

It is really quite interesting to see the desperation some people have to prove that the Qur’an itself approves aggressive fighting by Muslim believers. Over and over in the Qur’an, believers are told to fight only defensively; to fight only those who have initiated oppression and warfare against them or against other people unable to defend themselves. Let me just quote some of these many passages.

The very first time the believers were given permission to fight was either shortly before, or shortly after, Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) left Mecca for Medina: (22:39, 40) Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – God has the power to help them – (40) those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed…

(42:41) There is no cause to act against anyone who defends himself after being wronged, (42) but there is cause to act against those who oppress people and transgress in the land against all justice – they will have an agonizing torment – (43) though if a person is patient and forgives, this is one of the greatest things.

(2:190) Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. (191) … Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve – (192) but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful. (193) Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except toward aggressors. (194) … So if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him as he attacked you, but be mindful of God, and know that He is mindful of those who are mindful of Him.

(4:75) Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?

(4:89) They would dearly like you to reject faith, as they themselves have done, to be like them. So do not take them as allies until they migrate [to Medina] for God’s cause. If they turn [on you], then seize and kill them wherever you encounter them. Take none of them as an ally or supporter. (90) But as for those who reach people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, God could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way against them. (91) You will find others who wish to be safe from you, and from their own people, but whenever they are back in a situation where they are tempted [to fight you], they succumb to it. So if they neither withdraw, nor offer you peace, nor restrain themselves from fighting you, seize and kill them wherever you encounter them: We give you clear authority against such people.

These verses do not exhaust the clear teaching of the Qur’an that fighting is to be defensive, and whenever the opposition ceases fighting and seeks peace, the Muslim must also cease fighting and establish peace. Even in Sura 9, from which the mockers of Islam – and perhaps some ‘extremists’ among professing Muslims (who are themselves making a mockery of Islam, though) – like to take a couple of verses to try to establish the opposite, this same teaching is clearly presented. But my last three articles have been about that Sura and its meaning; so I won’t go into that one further here.

But the ridiculers and haters of Islam are so desperate to prove that the Qur’an contradicts itself and actually supports aggression and terrorism in some cases, that they will come up with objections like: “what about Sura 2:278 and 279?” (quoted at the beginning of this article). “See! God and His Messenger aggressively go to war against usurers, even though they’re believers!”

This is really laughable for one who reads even just the immediate context, and uses his reason. First of all, the way I understand the phrase then be warned of war from God and His Messenger is that it is the warning of war which comes from God and His Messenger. God is issuing, by means of His Messenger, a warning about ‘war’. This is perfectly consistent with the role of Muhammad as Messenger of God: he delivers God’s message. Over and over the Qur’an emphasizes that the role of Muhammad is simply to deliver God’s message, whether that be a message of warning or a message of good news (“Gospel”).

The “war” itself is between the usurer and God. This is clear from the context: (276) … Whoever, on receiving God’s warning, stops taking usury may keep his past gains – God will be his judge – but whoever goes back to usury will be an inhabitant of the Fire, there to remain. God blights usury, but blesses charity with multiple increase: He does not love the ungrateful sinner. (277) Those who believe, do good deeds, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms will have their reward with their Lord: no fear for them, nor will they grieve… (281) Beware of a Day when you will be returned to God: every soul will be paid in full for what it has earned, and no one will be wronged.

The meaning then is that those who refuse to obey God’s prohibition of usury should take warning from God and His Messenger that God is against them. The “war” is metaphorical, not a literal call to arms and physical fighting against those who practice usury. It’s like when we speak of a ‘war against drunk drivers’ or a ‘war against speeders’. We mean that law enforcement is going to ‘crack down’ on them, and be strict in enforcement of the law.

Even if one believes that the meaning is that God and His Messenger will wage war against the usurer, the warfare is still metaphorical. It is the kind of ‘fighting’ spoken of in 25:52 – so [Muhammad] do not give in to the disbelievers: strive hard against them with this Qur’an. “Strive” is the word “jihad”, which actually occurs twice in the literal rendering: “strive [jahid]… with striving [jihadan]”.

This, of course, is an exact parallel with what the Christian apostle Paul said in Ephesians 6:10-18, when he spoke of the believers’ struggle [jihad?] against spiritual powers and rulers. One piece of the “armor of God” which they were told to take was the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (verse 17).

I might add, also, that even this ‘war’ against usurers is a ‘defensive war’: it is a defense of the poor against the greedy rich who seek to profit by their poverty. From the point of view of God, as given in the Qur’an, this seeking to make a profit from the little wealth the poor have is oppression. God warns that He (or He and His Messenger) will certainly come to the defense of such poor people – even if it’s “only” through punishment at the Day of Judgment, and blessing on that Day for those who were oppressed. Those who give simply in charity, though, not seeking to earn a profit from such charity, are promised God’s blessing.

God’s Book gives clear light to guide believers; but those who are determined to attempt to make God’s way crooked may well be left by God to stray in their blindness, deafness, and hardness of heart. For those who are left to stray, there is no one who can guide them.

My last couple of posts have been responses to a commenter who calls himself “InPeace”. His initial comment was on my article ‘Islamist’ Terrorism in Nigeria, regarding my question as to how any real Muslim could take part in bombing Christian churches and murdering Christians. Not only may it be inferred from statements of the Qur’an that such actions are ‘beyond the bounds’; such actions are explicitly prohibited in the Qur’an and in other statements of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) such as the Charter with St. Catherine’s monastery – in which the protection by Muslims of Christians “both near and far” is mandated “until the Last Day”.

Anyone who honors God and His Prophet is bound to honor these laws laid down in God’s Revelation (the Qur’an) and that Charter. The Muslim believes that there is no contradiction in the Qur’an; so he does not have the liberty of claiming that while some places in the Qur’an prohibit aggressive warfare, murdering Christians and Jews, and destroying their churches and synagogues, others permit it or command it. He does not have the liberty to pick and choose from ‘conflicting’ accounts. Whatever a non-Muslim may believe about the inerrancy of the Qur’an, Muslims insist on it. Hence my question: how can any real Muslim carry out such atrocities in defiance of the clear and explicit prohibitions of “God and His Prophet”?

In my last article Fight Christians and Jews Because of What They Believe I made the point that in all other passages in the Qur’an which concerned fighting in the cause of God (besides 9:29 which was under discussion), all fighting is explicitly required to be defensive in nature; and I stated that one surely will not expect a Muslim to believe that in this one verse God contradicted everything else He had ever said in the Qur’an on the subject (including in the immediate context of verses 1-28, verse 13 in particular).

“InPeace” replied in a comment that the Qur’an is full of contradictions, and gave one instance which he believes to be an obvious contradiction. I’m not going to get into a ‘back and forth’ discussion concerning alleged contradictions in the Qur’an, because it’s irrelevant. Whatever “InPeace” or any other non-Muslim may believe about such alleged contradictions, no Muslim will accept the idea. For him, as 4:82 says, contradictions within the Qur’an would prove that the Qur’an did not come from God; so if he finds any such contradictions, that in itself would compel him to abandon his Muslim faith. There are articles and books written by Muslims explaining the alleged contradictions. One may accept such explanations, or may believe they are rather mere attempts to “explain away” things that are legitimate discrepancies. But no Muslim can accept such internal errors without abandoning his Muslim faith. And of course if he abandons his Muslim faith, then he would no longer have a basis for attacking “people of the Book” because of what they believe, supposedly based on 9:29.

So again, no one can legitimately expect a Muslim to accept that 9:29 contradicts all other Qur’anic regulations on ‘rules of warfare’. A Muslim is bound to interpret 9:29 in a way which is compatible with all of the other teaching of the Qur’an on the matter.

This is not hard for the Muslim believer to do, though. Despite the determined efforts of “InPeace” to prove otherwise (based on his reading of such anti-Muslim sites as TheReligionofPeace.com and the writings of Robert Spencer), verse 29 of Sura 9 does indeed fit right in with the context of verses 1-28.

Although verses 1-28 are generally believed to be written at least primarily concerning the ‘idolaters’ of Mecca – and this is probably true – nevertheless neither the inhabitants of Mecca nor any of the Arab tribes (such as the Quraysh) are specifically mentioned anywhere in those verses. The initial proclamation was made by Ali ibn Abi Talib (may God be pleased with him) on “the day of the Great Pilgrimage” and was addressed to “all people” or “all mankind” because people from all over Arabia and other lands were congregated there on that day.

Those whose treaties were revoked, and whom the Muslims were called on to fight (from the Arabic root ‘QTL’) are consistently referred to as those who ‘disbelieved’ or ‘rejected’ God and His Message (based on the Arabic root ‘KFR’ – ‘kafir’ for instance), and ‘idolaters’, ‘polytheists’, ‘pagans’, ‘those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God’ (based on the Arabic root ‘ShRK’ – ‘shirk’ and mushrikun for instance). Never in these verses are those terms specifically limited to the people of Mecca or the surrounding tribes. The terms refer to all such people with whom Muhammad had made treaties, covenants, or charters, and who had violated those charters.

In verse 28, those ‘mushrikun’ (“those who ascribe partners to God”, “idolaters”, “polytheists”, etc.) are said to be unclean; and after that year they were not to be allowed to “come near the Sacred Mosque”. Remember, this was addressed to pilgrims from all over Arabia and other countries, not just the inhabitants of Mecca.

Then verse 29 and following verses introduce for the first time a specific group of “disbelievers” and those who “ascribe partners to God”: the “people of the Book” who do not truly follow the “religion of Truth” which was revealed in those portions of “the Book” which they had been given, and who had (like other ‘mushrikun’) violated their treaties or charters and either fought against the Muslims or supported invaders.

That these “people of the Book” were in violation of their charter with Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) and were in rebellion is, I believe, at least part of what is meant by who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden. Some of the things forbidden by God and His Messenger, and spoken of frequently in the preceding verses, are the breaking of oaths, oppression, and violent aggression. Whether or not that is part of what is meant by that phrase, though, it is explicitly said that they had to be fought until they paid the protection/exemption tax (‘jizya’) and that they needed to be “subdued”.

People who are quietly and inoffensively living their lives don’t need to be “subdued”; and if they were not at that time paying the ‘jizya’, they were in violation of their charter. This tax was part of the charter which was established in Medina when Muhammad first arrived there to settle the Medinans’ disputes; and it was a part of other charters established with other ‘communities’ who accepted the authority and protection of Muhammad. The very fact that they were refusing to pay this tax showed that they were in rebellion. In addition, the “people of the Book” over and over had supported and joined in with the invaders from Mecca and the Arab tribes whenever they attacked the community at Medina.

Also, although “InPeace” wishes to maintain that Muhammad Asad’s explanation concerning the threatened attack by Byzantine Christians is just “apologist spin and hearsay”, this is historical fact which I don’t believe is seriously questioned by historians. It seems to be fairly overwhelming consensus that it is this threatened invasion which formed the background for this Sura 9. The whole of the Sura was revealed shortly before, during, or shortly after the expedition to Tabuk by the Muslim army, and verses 1-37 are said to have been revealed all at one time. The efforts of the Christian man known as Abu Amir to incite the Byzantine Emperor against the Muslims are a valid part of the historical setting.

“InPeace” says that by referring to historical events, I am going outside the Qur’an to interpret it; but any reasonable person knows that a good part of interpreting any writing “in its context” is to interpret it in its historical context. Certainly with the Qur’an, every portion of the Revelation was given in a particular historical setting and was given in reference to that historical setting. Those who reject the consideration of that setting in ‘interpreting’ the Qur’an – whenever knowledge of that history is available – cannot be expected to be able to arrive with any certainty at the correct meaning of the Qur’an.

Certainly the people who first heard the recitation of the Qur’an were aware of that history; and they would understand the Revelation in keeping with that setting in which it was given. When we are able to acquire knowledge of that history, we also will have a better chance of understanding the Revelation given in that setting. The frequent attacks by non-Muslim Arab tribes, and the support given to them by the “people of the Book”, are very much a part of the historical background which explains what is meant by Sura 9 when it speaks of those who ascribe partners to God breaking their oaths, attacking the Muslims and seeking to kill them and the Prophet.

How, then, are “the people of the Book” related to those ‘disbelievers’ and ‘ascribers of partners to God’ who are spoken of in verses 1-28? “InPeace” thinks they are totally different groups of people, not at all related; so verses 1-28 don’t form a “context” for verse 29. In fact, though, the verses following verse 29 tell us that the “people of the Book” being referred to are specifically Jews and Christians; and that they are ‘disbelievers’ (‘kafirun’) and “those who ascribe partners to God” or “idolaters” (‘mushrikun’).

Verses 30 and 31 first describe the “shirk” by saying that the Arabian Jews had been heard to say that Ezra (peace be with him) was a Son of God, and the Christians of course said that the Messiah (Jesus – God’s blessings be with him) was God’s Son. Also, those “people of the Book” took their Rabbis and Monks (again, Jews and Christians – despite “InPeace” wanting to add others into the designation of “people of the Book”) as lords in addition to God – as well as Christ, the son of Mary.

Then the end of verse 31 explicitly says that what those Jews and Christians (who weren’t truly following the religion of Truth which they had been given) were doing was “shirk”: But they were commanded [“people of the Book” – SGP] to serve only one God: there is no god but Him; He is far above whatever they set up as His partners (yushrikun).

At the end of verse 32, these Christians and Jews who don’t truly follow the religion of Truth revealed in that portion of “the Book” which they were given are said to be kafirun (“disbelievers” or “rejecters of truth”): They try to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God insists on bringing His light to its fullness, even if the disbelievers [kafirun] hate it.

At the end of verse 33, they are again specifically accused of “shirk”: It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to show that it is above all [other] religions, however much the idolaters [mushrikun – “those who ascribe partners to God” or “those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God”] may hate this.

Verse 34 shows us that the Message had not suddenly shifted to the Meccan “polytheists” when it referred to “disbelievers” and “idolaters in verses 31-34: You who believe, many rabbis and monks wrongfully consume peoples’ possessions and turn people away from God’s path…

So verse 31 refers to the ‘partners’ of God which those Christians and Jews (“people of the Book”) imagined (yushrikun); verse 33 refers to them as “idolaters” or “those who ascribe partners to God” (mushrikun); and verse 32 calls them “disbelievers” or “rejecters” (kafirun). In other words, these verses specifically say that these “people of the Book” definitely belong in the category of those “mushrikun” and “karfirun” referred to in the first 28 verses; and the Muslims are told to “fight” them (QaTiL) just as they were told to fight (faQaTiL –verse 12) and “slay” (faQTuL – verse 5) the previously mentioned “karifun” and “mushrikun” who were oath breakers. All of these verses were originally revealed at the same time, and form one context concerning fighting “kafirun” and “mushrikun” who violated their oaths and either aggressively attacked the Muslim community or supported such attackers.

“InPeace” mentions the cousin of Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) named Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him), who is highly regarded for his knowledge and wisdom by both Sunnis and Shias. He (“InPeace”) asserts that Ibn Abbas taught offensive warfare against Christians and Jews – just because of their beliefs – from Sura 9:29. I would have to be able to read the actual words (in a good and accepted English version) of Ibn Abbas in order to be able to determine whether or not he actually taught such a thing. I am not willing to accept that he did simply because “InPeace”, Robert Spencer, TheReligionof Peace.com, “AnsweringIslam”, etc assert that he did. Seeing the way such people distort and twist the Qur’an which I can read and have read, I have no confidence that they are correctly ‘interpreting’ Ibn Abbas.

I tried to find a commentary on this verse by Ibn Abbas online; but all I could find was a statement that a number of medieval commentaries cited Ibn Abbas as supporting the practice of symbolically showing the subjugation of the “people of the Book” by ‘striking their necks’ when they brought the ‘jizya’ (protection/exemption tax) each year. If that is correct, it’s not the same as teaching offensive warfare just because of what the Christians and Jews believed. It was merely a way of symbolically illustrating that the rebellious “people of the book” had indeed been subdued and recognized it. Note that the Qur’an itself did not prescribe that symbolic action; all that was required was that the “people of the Book” clearly show their submission (or that their rebellion had been completely subdued).

There is no ‘abrogation’ of previous verses of Revelation in 9:29 – certainly not of 2:256 (there is no compulsion in religion) and similar verses that teach the same thing. Just as earlier verses in the chapter tell the Muslims to fight and kill the “mushrikun” (idolaters, or those who acribe divinity to others beside God), yet any of those idolaters who have not broken their oaths and fought against the believers (or supported those who fought) are excluded from this command to the Muslims; so in verse 29 and following, the “people of the Book” are to be fought – but only those who have broken their oaths by refusing to pay the tax required in their charter with Muhammad, and who have revolted against the Muslim community or supported other attackers. Their revolt must be subdued, and they must be compelled to pay the tax required by their oath and charter.

The whole of Sura 5 is recognized by Muslims as having been revealed in the 10^th year following the immigration to Medina – about 1 year after Sura 9, and shortly before the Prophet’s death. It makes no difference if some Islam-haters wish to deny this because it’s inconvenient for their position; the point is that Muslims themselves believe this to be true. Therefore, they must recognize that a year after the revelation of Sura 9, there were still “people of the Book” present in Muslim territory who were mocking and ridiculing the Muslims and their faith, and practicing their own faith; yet the Muslims were merely told that they must not take such people as allies and protectors. They were not told to fight those mocking disbelievers and ‘idolaters’ until their disbelief, mockery, and ‘idolatry’ were “subdued”.

Yes, they were almost certainly paying the ‘jizya’, as was their responsibility under their charter; and their previous rebellion had been subdued so that they were no longer fighting the Muslim community or supporting those who fought. But the disbelief and ascription of divinity to others beside God still existed. Therefore, the false beliefs of these “people of the Book” could not have been the cause of the command in 9:29 to fight them.

This has been longer than usual; but let me summarize the argument.

(1) Verses 1-28 of Sura 9 concern “kafirun” (disbelievers) and “mushrikun” (those who ascribe divinity to others beside God) who have broken their oaths and covenants, and have initiated fighting against the Muslim community.

(2) These “mushrikun” in the first 28 verses are not specifically identified with any tribe or city. The revocation of treaties was announced to all the pilgrims – from all over Arabia and other countries – who were present at this “Day of the Great Pilgrimage”.

(3) In verse 29, a specific group of people who are to be fought is mentioned: “people of the Book” who do not truly follow the religion of Truth which they had been given in that Book.

(4) These “people of the Book” are said to have broken their covenant, because they were not paying the required tax and they were in a state of rebellion which needed to be subdued. They, like the “mushrikun” mentioned earlier, initiated fighting against the Muslims or supported those who fought.

(5) These covenant breaking “people of the Book” are identified as “kafirun” (disbelievers) and “mushrikun” (those who ascribe partners to God) – first by describing their “shirk” (ascription of partners to God), and then explicitly saying they are “mushrikun” and “kafirun”. They are explicitly among those who were spoken of in the first 28 verses.

One more thing, and I promise I’ll quit! “InPeace”, in his comment on my last article, brought up Sura 8:39: Believers, fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to God alone… He considers this as obvious proof that the verses about “no compulsion in religion” and fighting only those who first fought them were either ‘abrogated’, or there is a ‘contradiction’.

His mistake is the same as when he referred to 8:35 – So taste the punishment for your disbelief; he refuses to read verses in their contexts. The context of verse 39 is the same as verse 35 (which he referred to in his original comment): the people to be fought are those who had plotted to take you captive, kill, or expel you (verse 30). Specifically, with reference to verse 39, they sought to debar people from the Sacred Mosque, although they are not its [rightful] guardians. Only those mindful of God are its rightful guardians, but most of the disbelievers do not realize this (verse 34); or as verse 36 put it: They use their wealth to bar people from the path of God, and they will go on doing so…

When verse 39 says that all worship must be for God alone, it is speaking about worship at the Sacred Mosque. This “Ka’ba” was built by Abraham and Ishmael and dedicated to the worship of God alone; things must return to that state. The “mushrikun” were currently seeking to keep the true worshipers of God out of the “Ka’ba”; fighting would continue until that ended, and only God’s true worshipers were allowed there.

Sura 9:28, which was written about 7 years after Sura 8, says that after that year, no “mushrikun” (those who ascribe partners to God) were to be allowed near the Sacred Mosque (and the following verses state that many of the “people of the Book” fit that category); worship there would indeed return to the way it was originally: dedicated to God alone.

Yet, as pointed out previously, 1 year after Sura 9, and 8 years after Sura 8, Christians and Jews were still being allowed to practice their distinctive versions of the religion of truth – and even those who didn’t really follow that religion of truth and who ridiculed the Muslim faith were permitted – and this was explicitly authorized by God. They may not have been permitted to use the Sacred Mosque for their worship, but they were not forced to ‘convert’. They could use their own churches and synagogues; and such buildings were under the protection of Muhammad and his followers. The Sacred Mosque, however, was for God alone.

Once again, my reply to a comment on one of my articles is much too long for the comment section; so I’m making it a blog article. The commenter is the same one to whom I previously replied. I very much appreciate his willingness to comment on my articles, despite the fact that he and I are strongly in disagreement. Such comments challenge me to think, and that’s always a good thing! It has in fact caused me to see and appreciate even more the beautiful way in which the verses of God’s Qur’an are related to each other. So thank you, “InPeace”; and please comment further any time you wish.

Here is what “InPeace” wrote:

Sura 9:29, which Islam bashers love to quote, also has a context; and part of that context is 9:13: How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first?

Sorry, but it DOESN’T have that context just because you say it does.

v9:29 is clearly refering to the people of the book – Jews and Christians – where v9:13 refers to the Pagans of Mecca.

The two verses are not connected.

The whole of this first portion of Sura 9 refers to those from both the polytheists and the “people of the Book” who had violated their oaths and covenants, and aggressively attacked the Muslim believers over and over.

No, it doesn’t. The first part of the sura only refers to the Pagans Muhammad ended his treaty with. Christians and Jews are first mentioned in verse 9:29. Even the context of the first 28 verses precludes Christians and Jews since the Pagans being mentioned are Meccans – Jews and Christians weren’t major players in Mecca. But it’s a moot point anyway, since you can’t find show where the first 28 verses mentions or implies Jews and Christians are the people being referred to.

However, it was explicitly stated that this rescinding of the covenant did not apply to those unbelievers (polytheists and “people of the Book”) who had not themselves violated the terms of the covenant. It only applied to those who had first attacked the Muslim believers.

Please post where “People of the Book” are referred to in the first 28 verses of the Koran. I have no difficulty quoting passages referring to Pagans and Meccans but I’m unaware of where the a single passage includes Jews and Christians prior to verse 9:29.

It was these 2 things (breaking of oaths and acts of violent aggression) which these “people of the Book” were specifically accused of doing

Verse 9:29 doesn’t say the People of the Book broke oaths or committed acts of aggression!

Here’s what it says:

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

The passage is about fighting unbelievers (Jews and Christians) because they believe differently from Muslims. It never says what you claim it does.

Just as Jesus Christ (God’s blessings on him) repudiated the “traditions of the elders” (what we know as the Talmud)

Actually, Jesus was a Talmudist. He wouldn’t preach of Heaven/Hell or quote Talmudic rabbis and follow Pharisaic interpretations of Judaism if he wasn’t.

it [Jihad] never has anything to do with waging war against people merely because they don’t believe the “right doctrine” or practice the “right rituals”

That’s simply your opinion. I can’t argue with opinion presented as fact. What is not opinion are fourteen centuries of Jihad doctrine in Islam which flatly contradict what you believe.

And here is my response:

Regarding your contention that there is no contextual connection between verses 13 and 29 of Sura 9, I’ll just have to respond in kind to you: just because you insist that there is no connection does not mean that there actually isn’t such a connection! Your inability to see the contextual connection is just a reflection of the fact that you do not read carefully and reflect on the Qur’an.

There simply can’t be any legitimate denial that verses 1-28 provide a ‘context’ for verse 29. Obviously verse 29 follows immediately on verse 28; and actually verse 28 may be seen to provide the connecting link – it speaks of the uncleanness of those who ascribe “partners” to God. Clearly the polytheists of Mecca were guilty of that; but verses 29 ff say that some among the “people of the Book” also did that very thing, in violation of the very “religion of truth” which was reflected in the portion of God’s Scripture which they had been given. Therefore it was no major surprise that such people, even though they had God’s Book, would have supported and helped the Meccans in their attacks against the Medinan community. By virtue of the fact that they were followers of God’s previous prophets, they should have been natural allies of the Muslim believers, and should have been loyal to the covenant and charter of Medina. But because they did not truly follow the ‘religion of truth’, they found affinity with the polytheists instead of the pure monotheists of Islam.

What needs to be understood is that when the inhabitants of Medina invited Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) to come to Medina, it wasn’t simply out of the kindness of their hearts – desiring to offer refuge to those who were being persecuted. That was indeed a good part of the reason, but it was not the sole reason.

Prior to the Prophet’s immigration to Medina, the various tribes of that area had been constantly bickering and fighting with each other – the Arabs, Jews, and those among them who had embraced Christianity. They had heard of the wisdom and message of Muhammad, and asked him to come as a neutral outsider and help them resolve their conflicts.

This was accomplished by God’s Prophet in an exemplary manner. I believe the ‘community’ he established there could probably be called a “federated republic”. The various tribes maintained their individual identities and religious practices; but they agreed to unite as a community for mutual protection. Each group was the equal of the other groups, and when disagreements arose they were to practice mutual consultation – with Muhammad himself being the final authority in resolving such conflicts. They were pledged to be loyal to each other when faced by outside invasion; no tribe could form a separate peace with an invader or could join in support of the invading forces.

All able bodied male Muslims were pledged to fight for the protection of the whole community; but it was recognized that non-Muslims – particularly among the followers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (God’s blessing be on him) – might be conscientiously opposed to engaging in combat. Such people (monks, for instance) were excused from fighting in defense of the community even though they might be able bodied males. As compensation for not participating in combat, and in order to support the defense of the community by the Muslims, they were expected to pay a tax (‘jizya’) which was considerably less than the ‘zakat’ all Muslim believers paid. But allowance was made for such men who were so poor they couldn’t afford to pay even that small tax.

Women, children, old men, the sick and disabled, were not expected to fight at all; so they were also excluded from paying the ‘jizya’. This was quite a fair arrangement – certainly not ‘worse’ than our system of taxation and ‘defense’ in the USA!

The problem arose when some of the Jewish and Christian citizens of the Medina community violated the Charter and their oaths of loyalty by supporting and helping the invading Arab tribes (particularly the Quraysh). Several of the Jewish tribes openly sided with the invaders at various times.

Among the Christians, one such outstanding traitor was a well known man named Abu Amir. He and his followers (particularly some hypocritical Muslims who sided with him against the rest of the Medina community) are referred to later in this 9^th Sura. I probably can’t do better than just quote a note on verse 107, concerning this man, from Muhammad Asad’s English ‘interpretation’ of the Qur’an:

• v.107 : Lit., “who have been warring against God and His Apostle aforetime” – i.e., before the expedition to Tabūk. The historical occasion to which this verse refers may be thus summarized: Ever since his exodus from Mecca to Medina the Prophet was violently opposed by one Abū ‘āmir (“The Monk”), a prominent member of the Khazraj tribe, who had embraced Christianity many years earlier and enjoyed a considerable reputation among his compatriots and among the Christians of Syria. From the very outset he allied himself with the Prophet’s enemies, the Meccan Quraysh, and took part on their side in the battle of Uhud (3 H.). [Emphasis mine, in each case – SGP]. Shortly thereafter he migrated to Syria and did all that he could to induce the Emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius, to invade Medina and crush the Muslim community once and for all. In Medina itself, Abū ‘āmir had some secret followers among the members of his tribe, with whom he remained in constant correspondence. In the year 9 H. he informed them that Heraclius had agreed to send out an army against Medina, and that large-scale preparations were being made to this effect (which was apparently the reason for the Prophet’s preventive expedition to Tabūk). In order that his followers should have a rallying-place in the event of the expected invasion of Medina, Abū ‘āmir suggested to his friends that they build a mosque of their own in the village of Qubā’, in the immediate vicinity of Medina (which they did), and thus obviate the necessity of congregating in the mosque which the Prophet himself had built in the same village at the time of his arrival at Medina (see note 145 below). It is this “rival” mosque to which the above verse refers. It was demolished at the Prophet’s orders immediately after his return from the Tabūk expedition. Abū ‘āmir himself died in Syria shortly afterwards. (For all the relevant Traditions, see Tabarī’s and Ibn Kathīr’s commentaries on this verse.)

So at the very time of revelation of this Sura 9 (during the 9^th year after the Prophet’s immigration to Medina) the community of Medina was facing a very possible invasion by the Byzantine Christian army, due in part at least to the instigation of this traitorous Christian man Abu Amir. They gathered together a large force and marched toward Syria in expectation of having to fight against an army of would-be Christian invaders.

Verse 29 of Sura 9, then, was quite appropriately put within the context of the rescinding of covenants made previously with the non-Muslim tribes. Verses 1-28 had to do specifically with the ‘polytheists’; then verses 29 ff concerned other oath breakers and violent aggressors from among the “people of the Book”. These ‘people of the Book’ had violated the message of God in that portion of the Scriptures they had received, by doing just what the polytheists did: they set up others as ‘partners’ with God (whether that was some of the Jews of Arabia going to an extreme by calling Ezra a “Son of God” just as the Christians call Jesus “God’s Son”, or believing in monks/saints and rabbis as intercessors and ‘lords’). Like the polytheists, they sought to “extinguish God’s light with their mouths” (that is, like someone blowing out a candle – verse 32); and the end of verse 33 directly equates them with the ‘idolaters’ (‘polytheists’, “those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God”).

As they had allied themselves, in past fighting, with the idolaters, and sought to get a Christian army to aggressively invade the Muslim community, the Muslim believers were called to fight them just as they were called to fight the ‘polytheists’ – and under the same ‘rules of engagement’.

It seems rather strange that you want us to believe that God’s Prophet would employ double standards with regard to ‘rules of engagement’ in warfare: he wouldn’t fight against the polytheists unless they first attacked him and the Muslim believers; but he would fight ‘innocent’ Christians and Jews simply because of what they believed (or didn’t believe). You say this despite the fact that the injunction to fight the ‘people of the book’ is in the same immediate context as the injunction to fight the polytheists because of their oath breaking and being the first to attack the Muslims. It is also despite the fact that every other passage in the Qur’an about fighting always states that it is to be done in self defense – whether it’s in Sura 2, 4, 8, 9, or 22 (or elsewhere).

If this one solitary verse about fighting Christians and Jews were indeed saying that they were to be fought solely because of their beliefs, it would be in violation of every other instruction in the Qur’an about fighting. I’m fairly sure you’ll not be able to convince any Muslim who carefully reads and reflects on the Divine Message that such is the case. We all will recognize that God has not flagrantly contradicted the whole mass of His teaching about ‘struggle’ (‘jihad’) in His cause by this one single verse.

Again, if this verse were really instructing Muslims to fight the “people of the Book” simply because of what they believed, it’s very strange indeed that about 1 year after the revelation of Surah 9 another Sura was revealed – Sura 5, believed to be the last Sura, and revealed only shortly before the death of Muhammad (God’s blessing on him and his family) – in which Christians and Jews were still living side by side with Muslims in Medina; and each group still maintained – with God’s authorization – its own distinctive beliefs and practices (Sura 5:41-49). The instruction of God in this final Sura was simply that the Muslims not take the Jews and Christians (those who ridiculed and made fun of the Muslim religion – verses 51 and 57) as allies (supporters and protectors).

Isn’t it strange that they’re still there, maintaining their beliefs and practices, and even ridiculing the Muslims – and all God says is that the Muslims should not go to them for support and protection? Why haven’t they already been killed or converted? Why isn’t God saying that the Muslim believers have failed to fulfill His command, and they’d better get busy and kill or convert those ‘people of the Book’?

No, those who carefully read and reflect on God’s Qur’an will most certainly not find in 9:29 a command to fight Jews and Christians simply because of what they believe. Perhaps some “extremists” seeking to find an excuse to follow their own Satan inspired whims will distort this verse to that end. In fact they ought to obey Sura 7:199-202: (199) Be tolerant and command what is right. (200) If Satan should prompt you to do something, seek refuge with God – He is all hearing, all knowing – (201) those who are aware of God think of Him when Satan prompts them to do something and immediately they can see [straight]; (202) the followers of devils are led relentlessly into error by them and cannot stop.

Certainly there will continue to be non-Muslims who seek to turn others from God’s way, trying to make it crooked: such people have gone far astray (14:3). I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when such people are ‘hell bent’ on misrepresenting God’s words. Robert Spencer is definitely one such, and it appears you are following in his footsteps. But I still have hope that God will be pleased to guide you “the straight way”.

One other comment, concerning Jesus (God’s blessings on him) and the Talmud (or “traditions of the elders”), though that subject is not really relevant to the main point of our discussion (but it was I who introduced it): Jesus’ denunciation of the “traditions of the elders” is explicit, and is one of the reasons the Jewish leaders of his time rejected him and many Jews still continue to do so. Whatever you may infer from his teachings about heaven/hell, it can’t counteract Jesus’ explicit, ‘no punches pulled’ statements.

Consider Mark 7:1-13 for instance. When the Pharisees (whose interpretations of Judaism you say Jesus followed) asked why his disciples defied the tradition concerning the washing of hands, Jesus said the prophet Isaiah referred to people like them when he said: This people honors with me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. He then gave an example of one of the traditions which in fact was a rejection of the Law of God; and concluded by saying: thus [you make] void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do. If you can make that consistent with your idea that Jesus was a Talmudist, and practiced the teachings of the Pharisees, more power to you; but it sure doesn’t sound that way to me.

I intended to write this as a reply to a comment on my article ‘Islamist’ Terrorism in Nigeria”; but my reply was so long that I decided to post it as a blog article instead. First I’ll give the statement of the commenter; then my reply.

To answer your question, unfortunately, it’s quite easy.

We see in the Koran a dehumanization of unbelievers like a beating drum; verse after verse deconstructs non-Muslims or those who reject the prophet.

Then there are the verses that call for actual violence against unbelievers:

8:35 – And their worship at the (holy) House is naught but whistling and hand-clapping. Therefore (it is said unto them): Taste of the doom because ye disbelieve.

and

9:29 – Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

***********

So it’s no surprise that those who read the Koran most carefully are also the world’s most violent terrorists.

Unfortunately, this violent mindset is deeply rooted in Muslim texts and teachings. As Robert Spencer has shown, Jihad warfare against unbelievers is a normative Muslim belief. These groups are simply an extension of what past Muslim armies have done to non-Muslims. Today, without a centralized Caliphate, disparate groups operate in their own way by waging war against unbelievers as per 9:29.

Muslims need to be open about what their religion has historically taught and re-interpret their religious teachings in order to peacefully co-exist with the non-Muslim world. That includes repudiating militant, mainstream Muslim teachings on Jihad and also the discriminatory laws and behaviors non-Muslims are subject to in Muslim majority nations that feeds intolerance and fills the ranks of Muslim hate supremacist groups such as Boko Haram and al-Qaeda.

Now my reply:

It’s hard to tell whether or not you actually read my article – perhaps you just read as far as the question I asked about how anyone calling him/herself a “Muslim” could bomb churches and kill the worshipers in those churches.

You wrote: “So it’s no surprise that those who read the Koran most carefully are also the world’s most violent terrorists.” I say on the contrary that it’s only those who do not read the Qur’an carefully who would be involved in violent terrorism. I gave reasons for that contention in the article, showing that the Qur’an explicitly prohibits seeking to prevent worshipers from using churches, synagogues, and mosques – and most emphatically prohibits seeking the ruin or destruction of such buildings dedicated to the worship of God. It even calls on Muslims to fight against anyone who seeks to destroy such buildings and/or the worshipers.

The way you used a couple of verses from the Qur’an to attempt to show that Islam calls for violence against unbelievers shows that you certainly are not a “careful reader” of the Qur’an. Robert Spencer knows better; he has a deliberate agenda to twist and distort the teaching of the Qur’an. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply have not read the Qur’an yourself and are just using Robert Spencer and his ilk as your sources.

Each of the verses you quoted has a context. Let’s just see 8:35 in its context then and see if it says what you quote it to prove (I’m using the Abdel Haleem version):

(8:30) Remember [Prophet] when the disbelievers plotted to take you captive, kill, or expel you. They schemed and so did God: He is the best of schemers. (31) Whenever Our Revelation is recited to them they say, ‘We have heard all this before – we could say something like this if we wanted – this is nothing but ancient fables.’ (32) They also said, ‘God, if this really is the truth from You, then rain stones on us from the heavens, or send us some other painful punishment.’ (33)But God would not send them punishment while you [Prophet] are in their midst, nor would He punish them if they sought forgiveness, (34) yet why should God not punish them when they debar people from the Sacred Mosque, although they are not its [rightful] guardians? Only those mindful of God are its rightful guardians, but most of the disbelievers do not realize this. (35) Their prayers before the House are nothing but whistling and clapping. ‘So taste the punishment for your disbelief’ (36) They use their wealth to bar people from the path of God, and they will keep on doing so. In the end this will be a source of intense regret for them: they will be overcome and herded toward Hell.

So who were those “disbelievers” whose punishment God had proclaimed? They were those who sought to capture, kill, or expel the Prophet. They sought to prevent those who worshiped God alone from using the “Sacred Mosque”, and would continue to do so. They even mockingly invited God to punish them if what His Prophet said was true. So when God says taste the punishment for your unbelief, He is saying “taste the punishment which you foolishly called on Me to send to you”. And that punishment was punishment from God – ultimately the judgment of “Hell” – not a call for the Muslims to viciously attack “innocent” unbelievers. That punishment might imply that the unbelievers would be defeated and subdued when they waged aggressive warfare against the Muslim believers; but it was most certainly not a call for the Muslim believers to wage aggressive warfare against people whose only ‘crime’ was that they weren’t convinced that the Prophet was actually speaking God’s Truth.

By the way, when verse 35 says Their prayers before the House are nothing but whistling and clapping, doesn’t that remind you quite a bit of what the Christian apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1 – If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal?

Sura 9:29, which Islam bashers love to quote, also has a context; and part of that context is 9:13: How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? The whole of this first portion of Sura 9 refers to those from both the polytheists and the “people of the Book” who had violated their oaths and covenants, and aggressively attacked the Muslim believers over and over. God, through His Prophet, proclaimed that the covenants which the unbelievers had already violated were henceforth rescinded. A state of war henceforth existed – following 4 months of leniency during which the unbelievers had opportunity to repent and return to keeping the terms of the covenants. However, it was explicitly stated that this rescinding of the covenant did not apply to those unbelievers (polytheists and “people of the Book”) who had not themselves violated the terms of the covenant. It only applied to those who had first attacked the Muslim believers.

When verse 29 refers to those who did not follow the “religion of Truth” despite the fact that they had been given God’s Book (in the Torah and the Gospel) – they did not forbid what God had forbidden – what did this mean? God had enjoined upon His people in all ages that they keep their oaths and covenants, and the Way of God forbids the breaking of oaths and acts of aggression. It was these 2 things (breaking of oaths and acts of violent aggression) which these “people of the Book” were specifically accused of doing, thus failing to forbid what God had forbidden. And they had no excuse because even if they didn’t believe that Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) was a true Messenger, they themselves had a portion of God’s Book.

You also wrote: “We see in the Koran a dehumanization of unbelievers like a beating drum; verse after verse deconstructs non-Muslims or those who reject the prophet.” Now if you are an atheist or an agnostic – or a deist who believes in God but not in prophets – I can see how you would be offended when people calling themselves God’s messengers would pronounce judgment against those who do not believe and obey their messages. But if you are either a Christian or a Jew, you have no basis to criticize Muhammad for supposedly “dehumanizing” unbelievers and “deconstruct[ing]” them. The Hebrew prophets of the “Old Testament”, as well as the “apostles and prophets” of the “New Testament” were also constantly proclaiming God’s judgment against unbelievers.

I won’t bother inundating you with Biblical quotations; just consider a couple from the “Prince of Peace” Jesus Christ (God’s blessings upon him) and a couple from the “apostle of love”, John (peace be with him). From Jesus’ “sermon on the mount”: (Matthew 7:26) And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; (27) and the rain fell, and the floods came,, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it. And verses 13 and 14 of Matthew 7 say: Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. (14) For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

From John, the “apostle of love” we have this (1 John 4:6): We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 5:19 says this: We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one. (My Bible quotations are from the Revised Standard Version).

So don’t jump on the Qur’an as if it is unique in criticizing and denouncing unbelievers. If you’re not willing to apply the same standard against the Bible, you shouldn’t say anything. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.

I acknowledge there is some truth to your last paragraph. There is a verse in the Qur’an that says this (31:6): But there is the sort of person who pays for distracting tales, intending, without any knowledge, to lead others from God’s way, and to hold it up to ridicule. There will be humiliating torment for him! The word rendered “tales” here is the Arabic word “hadith”. I believe strongly that much of the Muslim community has indeed strayed far from God’s path by paying attention to “distracting hadith”, rather than concentrating on “Our verses” in the Qur’an. I see far too often one or two token quotations from the Qur’an, and then a multitude of quotations from the hadith. Many of the hadith flatly contradict the Qur’an, and ‘scholars’ seem to think it’s okay to ‘interpret’ the Qur’an in a way which is compatible with those hadith rather than either repudiating the hadith or interpreting the hadith in a way which makes them compatible with the clear teaching of the Qur’an.

Those hadith are the sources for such abominations as “death for apostasy”, stoning of adulterers, and refusal to permit churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. Just as Jesus Christ (God’s blessings on him) repudiated the “traditions of the elders” (what we know as the Talmud) because they – in many cases at least – rendered void God’s Law; so I and many Muslims are willing to repudiate those many hadith which render void the clear teaching of the Qur’an. We say such “tales” are falsely put into the mouth of God’s Prophet Muhammad; he most certainly never said them. This does not mean that we repudiate ALL hadith; but we insist that for a hadith to be accepted as “authentic” it must not only be able to meet certain rigid standards called “chain of transmission”; it must even more importantly be clearly and unquestionably fully compatible with the clear teaching of God’s Qur’an.

The teaching concerning “Jihad” (“struggle”), though, while certainly in the Qur’an, is always in that holy Book (particularly when it refers to actual physical fighting) defensive in nature; it never has anything to do with waging war against people merely because they don’t believe the “right doctrine” or practice the “right rituals”, and it never condones the killing of noncombatants. I’m sure no Muslim will be willing to renounce the true teaching concerning “Jihad” just because certain “extremists” who call themselves “Muslims” – and certain Islam bashers – distort its meaning and “cause the name of God to be blasphemed among the Gentiles” (hold [God's way] up to ridicule).

I have said in my blog articles and comments, as well as in comments on other blogs, that I consider myself “small ‘m’ muslim” as opposed to “capital ‘M’ Muslim”; and “muslim in spirit but not in letter”. I’ve also said that I imitate Mohandas (“Mahatma”) Gandhi in considering myself hindu-muslim-buddhist-jewish-christian. Some people have asked what I mean by such statements, and I have tried to give an understandable answer. Today I have decided to devote a blog post to seeking to answer that question, hoping it will be clear enough that others can understand “where I’m coming from” even if they don’t agree with my position and perhaps believe I’m advocating “soul endangering error”.

In the first place, it means that I believe in One God – or “the One” – Who/Which is the Causeless Cause of all else. In particular, this means that God is the Source of all humankind, and is therefore “the God of all the earth”. The One has no favorites racially, ethnically, religiously, or in any other way – except to say He ‘favors’ all those in all races, nations, religions, etc. who believe in and obey Him.

Secondly, and following from that first point, it means that the Beneficent and Merciful One makes Himself known to all branches of humanity throughout all times, using various ways according to their ability to comprehend. Every religion of mankind has its origin in the God of all the earth, and Prophets and religious leaders have been raised up and sent by God to all human communities. This does not mean that all religions in their present states are “pure” and equally correct. On the contrary, distortions and corruptions have entered into each one; but their Prophetic origins were all with the One, and all of the Prophets are equally worthy of honor.

Third, again following from the previous points, I believe that there is a central and inner message which is common to all religions. There are obvious differences in the concepts, forms, and rituals used to express this message; but the underlying message is the same: there is One God; being conscious of Him, ‘knowing’ Him, and obeying Him is to our advantage – while disobedience to Him is definitely detrimental to us. God’s laws and ‘ways’ are the best, and He is the Best of Judges.

This is why I say I am “hindu-muslim-buddhist-jewish-christian”. I say in particular that I am “muslim in spirit” because this is precisely what the Revelation given to and through Muhammad (God’s blessings to him and his family), known as the Qur’an (Koran), explicitly teaches.

Now I know, of course, that it is common in some circles to consider Islam to be the most ‘exclusive’ of religions; it is even asserted that Islam teaches its adherents to kill everyone who won’t embrace that religion. However, as I’ve attempted to show in a number of blog articles, this is simply not true.

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of the teaching of the Qur’an that God is the source of the Revelations given to other religions (if we consider each ‘branch’ of the one ‘Religion of God’ as a separate ‘religion’) can be found in relation to the Qur’an’s views specifically of the Jews and Christians in Sura 5. Verses 41-45 concern the Jews. Certain of the Jews had come to the Prophet Muhammad (God’s blessings on him and his family) to ask him to judge for them about a matter; but they came with the reservation that if he didn’t give them the judgment they wanted to hear, they would reject his judgment.

Traditionally this is said to refer to an instance when a prominent Jewish man and woman had committed adultery. They were well aware that Jewish law called for them to be stoned to death, but they weren’t willing to accept that penalty. So representatives were sent to Muhammad for judgment because they knew that the Islamic law called for 100 lashes rather than death – and they were of course hoping that he would rule according to that law rather than the law of the Torah.

In verse 42, the Prophet is told that he can make his own decision about whether to render judgment in the matter; but if he did, he was to judge justly. Then verses 43 and 44 make this significant statement (from the Abdel Haleem version): but why do they come to you for judgment when they have the Torah with God’s judgment, and even then they still turn away? These are not believers. (44) We revealed the Torah with guidance and light, and the prophets, who had submitted to God, judged according to it for the Jews. So did the rabbis and the scholars in accordance with that part of God’s Scripture which they were entrusted to preserve, and to which they were witnesses. So [rabbis and scholars] do not fear people, fear Me; do not barter away my messages for a small price; those who do not judge according to what God has sent down are rejecting [God’s teachings].

The significant thing here – so far as my subject is concerned – is that according to the ‘Shariah’ given through Muhammad, the Jewish community could live right along side of the Muslim community in Medina and were free to judge according to their Torah – indeed, were even expected to. This Torah was recognized as given by God (Allah), and the Jews were not even expected to abandon it in favor of the new revelation through Muhammad (where there were differences). They were told by Muhammad to judge according to the law God had given them.

The very same thing was said concerning the Christians in verses 46 and 47: We sent Jesus, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the Gospel with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed – a guide and lesson for those who take heed of God. (47) So let the followers of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down in it. Those who do not judge according to what God has sent down are lawbreakers.

Again, although a new revelation had come from God, the followers of the old (the Christians, in this case) were not called upon to abandon that revelation in favor of the new one. They were specifically told to judge according to the Gospel which God had given Jesus.

Finally, in verse 48 Muhammad was told: We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it, and with final authority over them: so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their whims, which deviate from the truth that has come to you. We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.

Each community of believers had its own “law and path”, and they could live side by side observing their own laws in those points wherein they differed. Certainly the Jews and Christians were called upon to recognize and believe in this new Prophet, just as they believed in their own Prophets; it was expected that those whose hearts were truly open to God would recognize God’s voice in the new Prophet, just as they recognized God’s voice through Moses and Jesus (peace be with them all). This, for instance, is maintained in verses 68 and 69 of Sura 5:

Say, ‘People of the Book, you have no true basis [for your religion] unless you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and that which has been sent down to you from your Lord,’ but what has been sent down to you [Prophet] from your Lord is sure to increase many of them in their insolence and defiance: do not worry about those who defy [God]. (69) For the [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians – those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good deeds – there is no fear: they will not grieve.

Those who truly believed in and ‘knew’ God in each ‘community’ would recognize God’s voice in the other communities’ Prophets, and would believe in them. Those who rejected the Prophet Muhammad’s message were in fact not even true believers in their own Scriptures; they were rejecters of God. But for those who were true believers in God, and therefore recognized the message of God through this new Prophet (Muhammad), there was no fear and no ‘grief’ in store.

Nevertheless it was completely okay that each maintained its own “community” and continued to observe its own distinctive laws and rituals. The call of Islam to the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) was this (3:64): Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as lords.’ If they turn away, say, ‘Witness our devotion to Him.’  They could remain distinct, while agreeing to a common ‘confession of faith’ – because there was one common message which they all shared.

What the Qur’an teaches about the common ground between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (or rather, the “Muhammadan” revelation of Islam – each of the others is also considered to be a revelation of ‘Islam’), it also maintains about the other religions of the earth (or ‘branches’ in the one Religion of God – Islam): (16:36) We sent a messenger to every community, saying, ‘Worship God and shun false Gods’… This is why I say that my religious pluralism in fact makes me “muslim in spirit” in a particular way.

Now why do I say that I am not a “capital ‘M’ Muslim”, and that I’m not “muslim in letter”? I believe that in the Qur’an (and in fact in the other Scriptures as well) there are at least 2 sorts of revelation given. There is the primary message, shared by all the ‘branches’ in God’s religion; and there is supportive revelation: laws and rituals meant to enforce the primary message, impressing it on the minds, hearts, and lives of the believers. These are the laws and paths which the Qur’an says are given to each community, which make each one distinct. They are among the things that constitute the ‘packaging’, as it were, in which the primary message is delivered to each branch in God’s Religion.

Just as these laws and rituals differ from one ‘religion’ to another, so it is possible for a person to meditate on the various rituals and perceive the truth they are intended to express – and then dispense with the rituals and forms themselves while expressing the truth contained in those rituals in thought, word, and action. This is the path I have chosen – indeed, I believe it is the path on which God has placed me. I don’t seek to follow the rituals of Jewish Islam, Christian Islam, or “Muhammadan” Islam. I dispense with all ritual, while seeking to keep to “the heart of the matter”. At most, I’ll sit quietly in my chair in “meditation”, and perhaps chant “Hu” (a very old name for God, chanted in the same way as Buddhists chant “Om”). But I don’t even do the chanting very often.

But at the same time, I’m not “evangelistic” in seeking to persuade anyone else to follow my path. I certainly don’t believe the rituals are wrong, ‘backward’, or evil; and I don’t look on those who practice them as ‘less’ than me. I don’t consider that my rejection of all rituals makes me ‘more spiritual’ in a superior sort of way. I believe each person should follow that path on which he/she is comfortable and can maintain a good conscience before God. And if anyone wishes to say that I’m in serious error, it will not make me angry at him/her.

A few nights ago I was eating out with my older son – a weekly practice where the two of us get together to eat and talk about whatever may be on our minds. While we were talking, I showed him a hardback edition of the Abdel Haleem English Qur’an I had purchased recently with gift cards he and my younger son had given me as “Christmas presents”. My son pulled out his “Droid” phone, looked something up, and then looked up Sura 3:54 in Mr. Haleem’s English version of the Qur’an.

While he was looking that up, I picked up his phone to see what he had seen on it. It was a “Facebook” comment by one of my in-laws, in which he quoted the Qur’an as saying that “God is the best of deceivers”, giving 3:54 as the reference. He then compared that to John 8:44 in the Christian “New Testament” in which Jesus (peace be with him) is quoted as saying that the devil has been a liar from the beginning, and is the ‘father’ of lies. My brother-in-law’s conclusion, of course, was that Muslims worship the devil as God. Surely no Christian would ever accuse God of being a deceiver!

But, assuming that the English rendering my brother-in-law used is correct in calling God “the best of deceivers”, does that mean that Islam is obviously inferior to Christianity and is actually guilty of “devil worship”? Not at all; because the Bible also says that God deceives people! (I’m using the English Standard Version for my Bible quotations).

2Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 2Th 2:10  and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Even though the false signs, wonders, and wicked deception of the lawless one would be by the activity of Satan, nevertheless Paul said that it would be God who sent the delusion/deception. Paul obviously believed that “God is the best of deceivers”!

Examples of God using deception against unbelievers/the enemies of His people can be found in the “Old Testament”. In Judges 7 there is the story of the Israelites, under the Judge named Gideon, engaging in battle against a large company of Midianites. God had Gideon weed out unworthy soldiers from his forces until only 300 soldiers remained. Then they were told to surround the Midianites’ encampment; and at a signal from Gideon, they were to create a great racket by smashing empty jars, blowing trumpets, and shouting “For the LORD and for Gideon”.

When the Israelite soldiers did this, the Midianites were so startled, frightened, and confused that they immediately fled; and they even turned on each other, confused into thinking that their fellow soldiers were Israelites. Verse 22 says that it was “the LORD” who caused everyone to turn against his fellow and against his own army! So “the LORD” deceived the Midianites into thinking the Israelites were among them and attacking them, when the Israelites were actually still outside the Midianites’ encampment. So God sent them a strong delusion/deception, so that they believed what was false. God is indeed the best of deceivers, it would appear.

Again, there is the story in 2 Kings 6 about the King of Syria (Aramea) going to war with the Northern Kingdom of Israel whose capital was Samaria. Whenever the Syian king would set up an encampment, the Prophet Elisha would inform the king of Israel where the encampment was so the Israelites could avoid that area. When the king of Syria was informed that it was Elisha the Prophet who was giving away his location, he sent his army to Dothan (where Elisha was). But Elisha asked the LORD to ‘blind the eyes’ of the Syrian army so they wouldn’t recognize him or where they were. Then he informed the soldiers that he wasn’t the man they were looking for, nor were they even at the right city. But he said he would lead them to the right place and person. He then led them to the king of Israel at Samaria, and asked God to open their eyes again. Boy, were those Syrians surprised when they realized where they were!

So God’s Prophet, under God’s leadership – or at least with His cooperation – deceived the Syrian army and put them in a very dangerous situation (though according to the story, Elisha told the Israelite king to feed the soldiers and let them return to their home). Again, God is indeed the best of deceivers.

It seems to be usually assumed that this ‘blinding’ of the Syrian army’s eyes was literal blindness. However, if that were the case, it does not seem likely that the army would be able to follow the Prophet as he led them to Samaria. I suspect the ‘blinding’ was that figurative sort of blinding the Prophets frequently spoke of where despite the fact that the ‘blind’ ones could physically see, and ‘deaf’ ones could physically hear, they nevertheless could not perceive and recognize what they saw, or understand what they heard.

Instances of this Divine ‘deception’ using figurative ‘blinding’ can be found in modern day Christian accounts also. I remember reading, when I was in High School back in the late 1960s (and later also, after High School), books about the ‘Bible smuggling’ activities of Christian missionaries. There were accounts of rather interesting incidents where the ‘smugglers’ were carrying Bibles into Communist countries (where Bibles were forbidden); sometimes even though the border guards looked directly at the Bibles, they nevertheless failed to recognize what they were and let the missionaries enter the country with the ‘contraband’. From the missionaries’ perspective, God had ‘deceived’ the guards into thinking the books were legitimate (not Bibles).

Is it true, then, that Jews and Christians actually worship that deceiver – “the father of lies” – the devil? Certainly not. It only shows that deception is not always evil; it depends on one’s perspective. Obviously Gideon, Elisha, and those modern day Christian missionaries did not believe the deception being carried out was evil.

And it should be kept in mind that the Biblical perspective is that God is Sovereign over all things; even wicked men and the devil cannot act without God’s will or permission. So the plan of God is seen to even include Satan’s deceptions, and God is said to “do” things using the devil as his ‘tool’ (as the quote from Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians shows). Even the plots, schemes, and actions of the ‘enemies of righteousness’ against God’s servant Jesus (peace be with him) are said to have been the fulfillment of God’s plan.

Act 2:23  this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 4:27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, Act 4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

And that brings us right back to Sura 3:54 of the Qur’an; because it’s precisely this plotting and scheming of the Jewish rejecters of Jesus Christ (peace be with him) – and God’s ‘counter-plot’ – to which the Qur’an refers here. Beginning with verse 42 of this Sura, the story is told of God’s choice of Mary (peace be with her) to be the mother of the Messiah, God’s servant Jesus. Then the ministry of Jesus is spoken of, leading up to his choosing of disciples to assist him in his ministry due to the disbelief of the Jewish hearers (verses 52 and 53). Then we read this (in the Abdel Haleem version):

3:54 The [disbelievers] schemed but God also schemed; God is the Best of Schemers. 3:55 God said, ‘Jesus, I will take you back and raise you up to Me: I will purify you of the disbelievers. To the Day of Resurrection I will make those who followed you superior to those who disbelieved…’

Muhammad Asad rendered verse 54 this way: And the unbelievers schemed [against Jesus]; but God brought their scheming to nought: for God is above all schemers.

The English version of Yusuf Ali renders verse 54 this way:

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and God too planned, and the best of planners is God.

(Yusuf Ali, in a footnote to this verse, says concerning the word he renders as “plotted” and “planned”: The Arabic Makara has both a bad and a good meaning, that of making an intricate plan to carry out some secret purpose. The enemies of God are constantly doing that. But God – in whose hands is all good – has His plans also, against which the evil ones will have no chance whatever.)

Here are the renderings of a couple more fairly popular English versions:

PICKTHAL: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

SHAKIR: And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.

Actually, I checked a site that has 36 English versions, and only one of them rendered this word as “deceiver”:

Muhammad Ahmed & Samira:
And they cheated/deceived and God cheated/deceived, and God (is) the best (of) the cheaters/deceivers.

All of the rest consistently used words such as “planner”, “plotter”, “devisor”, and “schemer”. I hope it’s pretty clear that “cheater/deceiver” is not a proper rendering of the term.

Is this not precisely what the “New Testament” affirms? The Jewish and Roman leaders plotted and planned, but God also planned; and God’s planning is so far superior to the plans of men that men’s plots only managed to fulfill the plan of God. This is another proof that in essence there is unity between the message of the Qur’an and the previous revelations in the Torah, Prophets, and the Gospel of Jesus and his disciples.

There is an interesting event in the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) also, in which his enemies schemed against him, but God also schemed and delivered the Prophet. After Muhammad had been preaching in Mecca for about 11 years, the polytheists became so ‘fed up’ with him that they plotted to kill him. But Muhammad was made aware of this, and he and his faithful companion Abu Bakr (peace be with them both) fled from Mecca to Medina. On the journey, those two hid in a cave to avoid their pursuers, and a spider wove a web across the entrance to the cave. The pursuers were deceived by the spider web into thinking that Muhammad and Abu Bakr could not possibly be in the cave; so they went on their way, and the servants of God were protected and delivered.

Sura 9:40 speaks of  this event: Even if you do not help the Prophet, God helped him when the disbelievers drove him out: when the two of them were in the cave, he [Muhammad] said to  his companion, ‘Do not worry, God is with us,’ and God sent His calm down to him, aided him with forces invisible to you, and brought down the disbelievers’ plan. God’s plan is higher: God is almighty and wise. This is precisely what 3:54 claimed with regard to the rejecters of Jesus Christ (peace be with him). The rejecters planned, but God also planned; and God is the best of planners (God’s plan is higher).

This teaching that men plot and plan, but God’s plans are vastly superior to the plans of men, is strictly in keeping with other statements of the Bible. For instance, Psalm 33:10 and 11 says this:

Psa 33:10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. Psa 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations.

In Proverbs it is written: Pro 19:21  Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

It seems to me that there are those who have a deliberate and preconceived agenda to disparage Islam and the Qur’an. They will no doubt look for the worst possible translation of a text – one that plays into the hands of their agenda – and/or they will take a verse without its context (or even one short phrase out of a verse, as in this case). Then they will say: “See how evil Islam and its God are?!” All the while, of course, they are deliberately ignoring that the Bible teaches the very thing that they claim their bad translation of that verse or snippet shows the Qur’an teaches! But as the Proverb quoted above says: Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.

Or as Sura 61:7-9 of the Qur’an says (Sura 9:32 and 33 being almost exactly the same as verses 8 and 9) [Abdel Haleem version]:

(7) Who could be more wrong than someone who invents lies against God when called to submit to Him? God does not guide wrongdoers: (8) they wish to put His light out with their mouths. But He will complete His light, even though the disbelievers hate it; (9) it is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to show that it is above all [other] religions, even though the idolaters hate it.

[Where Abdel Haleem has put "all [other] religions“, the word is actually singular – religion. God’s religion – the religion of devotion and submission to Him alone – is one throughout the ages. It is the religion of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be with them all). Anything that distorts or is contrary to that religion of “God alone” is false religion; and the religion of God will triumph over it – the counsel of God triumphs, bringing the counsel of the ungodly to nought.]

Mat 15:21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Mat 15:22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” Mat 15:23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” Mat 15:24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Mat 15:25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” Mat 15:26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Mat 15:27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly. (English Standard Version)

My past two articles have made reference to people being referred to as apes, pigs, dogs, and vipers. One was concerned with the accusation that the Qur’an calls Jews “apes and pigs”; the other referred to a cartoon published by someone which pictured the USA as a rabid dog. Today I’ll do one more “dog story”, about the idea that some Jews have had – and apparently some still have – that all non-Jews are dogs to be despised.

This was certainly a prevalent attitude among Jews of the first century C. E. You may remember the story in the “New Testament” book of Acts about Peter having a vision which directed him to go to the house of a Roman Centurion. In that vision, Peter saw a sheet being lowered from heaven; and on that sheet were all kinds of ‘unclean’ animals. Peter was told to kill and eat them. Being a pious Jew, he considered that to be unthinkable. But eventually he realized that the intent of the vision was to teach him that it was improper for him to any longer consider Gentiles as no better than ‘unclean’ animals. Previously he, as a Jew, considered that it was not lawful to even eat with Gentiles; he now had to abandon that idea.

According to the Gospel writers, there were several occasions when Jesus Christ (peace to him) attacked this attitude. (Peter and the other disciples were apparently slow learners). Luke 4:16-30 tells of an instance early in Jesus’ ministry when he went to the synagogue in his home town, read from the Scriptures, and then taught the people who were present. He told them that they would no doubt quote the proverb to him, “Physician, heal yourself”; they would tell him he ought to do in his own country what they had been hearing he was doing in Capernaum. But Jesus said no prophet is without honor except in his own country; and then reminded them of a couple of instances from the Jewish Scriptures when God had sent his Prophets to minister to Gentiles instead of to the Israelites. Elijah, during a 3½ year drought and famine in the land, was only sent to a widow living in Zarephath in the land of Sidon; and while there were many lepers in Israel, Elisha was sent to cleanse only a Syrian man named Naaman. The Jewish hearers were so infuriated over this reminder that God might choose to help ‘unclean’ Gentiles while leaving the Jews to suffer that they tried to kill Jesus!

In Matthew 8:5-13 (Luke 7:1-10; John 4:46-54) the story is told of Jesus healing the servant of a Roman Centurion. The Centurion told Jesus that he was not worthy to have Jesus enter his house; but he knew it wasn’t necessary because God had given Jesus such great authority that all he had to do was speak the word and his servant would be healed. Here’s what Jesus is said to have replied to that display of faith: Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. Mat 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

In the quotation given at the beginning of this article (also found in Mark 7:24-30) a Gentile woman (Syrophoenician/Canaanite) came to Jesus on behalf of her daughter. He, having been granted great wisdom and discernment from God, and knowing this woman’s faith, was led by God to make this a “teachable moment” and allow the woman herself to teach a lesson to those among his followers, and among the Jewish leadership, who entertained this notion of Gentile inferiority. So Jesus, as it were, played the “devil’s advocate” and parroted the prevalent Jewish opinions in order to draw out the faith which he perceived in this Gentile woman. (As the writer of the Gospel of John says: John 2:24  But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people John 2:25  and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.)

At first, Jesus did not say anything to the woman. When she was persistent, the disciples grew exasperated and asked Jesus to send her away. (I believe the implication is that they were asking Jesus to heal her so she would depart and leave them alone ). Then Jesus made his first “devil’s advocate” statement: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I believe we have too much of a tendency to imagine that everything Jesus said was said in absolute seriousness. For my part, I imagine Jesus’ voice dripping with sarcasm as he asks, as it were, (in mock surprise): “why, haven’t you heard the scribes and rabbis teach that the Messiah comes only for the sake of Israelites? Surely you can’t expect me to heal an unclean Gentile! What would the Pharisees think?”

Then when the Canaanite woman continued seeking his aid, he is reported to have said to her: It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs. Again, I imagine sarcasm in his voice; but at the same time a gentle smile on his face. I do not believe he would ever have said something so seemingly rude to her had he not known (by God’s gift of discernment) what was in her heart, her strong faith, and her ready wit.

Then the woman, no doubt realizing Jesus’ gentle sarcasm as he parroted the kind of thing she had most likely heard from Jews many times before, made this amazing reply: Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table. The point had now been made: contrary to popular Jewish supremacism, this woman had proved that a person is not necessarily spiritually ignorant and blind just because he or she is not a Jew. In fact, as was shown also in the case of the Roman Centurion whose servant Jesus healed, Gentiles could have greater spiritual development and faith than the Israelites themselves! As Peter would finally later learn, no one should be called “unclean” – at least not merely because of his/her ethnicity.

I don’t know whether or not this idea of Jesus using humor or sarcasm is new to people reading this article. But I myself have no doubt of it. I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus was ever guilty of that false ‘superiority complex’ infecting so many Jews. He sought frequently to expose it for the serious error which it was. He knew very well that his ministry was meant to eventually reach out to the Gentiles, even though his primary focus at that time was the Jewish people. He sought to stir up his Jewish followers so that they would fulfill their purpose of being “a light to the Gentiles”.

Not all Jews are alike. There were no doubt Jews in Jesus’ time who did not entertain such false notions of Gentile inferiority; and I’m quite sure there are Jews today also who are not infected with that ‘disease’. May God  cause the time to come quickly when notions of racial or ethnic superiority are completely obliterated from the minds of all people; when there will be no “white supremacy”, “Jewish supremacy”, “Aryan supremacy”, or “American exceptionalism”.