Psa 51:2  Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!

Psa 51:3  For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.

Psa 51:4  Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

Psa 51:5  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (English Standard Version)

As verse 1 says, this Psalm is believed to have been written by David after his adulterous affair with Bathsheba. While Christians generally accept this incident in King David’s life just as it is written in the Biblical accounts, Muslims seem to generally deny the validity of the accounts. They consider it a slander against the character of one of God’s great Prophets. And as a matter of fact, there were Christians going back to the late 1^st century C.E. (or very early 2^nd century) who repudiated such vulgar stories about God’s Prophets as spurious. In a couple of writings attributed to the late 1^st century bishop of Rome named Clement, Peter is quoted as affirming that such stories are among the “falsehoods of the Scriptures”.

If the stories are indeed spurious, then one must say about this Psalm one of these things: (1) David did not in fact write it; or (2) David wrote it, but the situation in which it was written was different. Perhaps David just recognized in himself a strong temptation toward adultery with Bathsheba, and toward using an abuse of power to attain her as his wife; and he was so depressed by this inward temptation and the struggle involved in overcoming it, that he confessed it as sin to God.

Whatever may be the truth about the “David and Bathsheba” event, my concern is with verse 5. What does it mean when David says he was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me?

Apparently there have been people who imagined that David here was either saying that sex is evil, or he was making an accusation that his mother had conceived him as a result of an adulterous affair. I myself (and from my experience, Christians generally) deny such an inference. David was saying that he himself had been sinful from the time of his conception. Whatever may be the truth concerning the affair with Bathsheba, David was so overwhelmed with a sense of his sinfulness that he affirmed he could trace his sinful desires all the way back to his birth (and even further, back to his conception).

How is it, then, that a person could be born sinful? I don’t know how Jewish theologians have understood this idea. The Christian teaching in which I was raised affirmed the doctrine of “original sin” based primarily on a statement by the apostle Paul in Romans 5. This teaching says that all of the descendents of the first man Adam were considered by God to be guilty of Adam’s “original sin”; and as a result, a sinful nature is passed down to all of those descendents.

I have written an article on Romans 5, so I won’t go into detail on that here. I will just say here that Romans 5 merely asserts that the death Adam brought into the world passed on to his descendents because they themselves followed his example and sinned. We’re not condemned for Adam’s sin, but for our own in following Adam’s example. This is in keeping with the teaching in Jeremiah 31:29 and 30, and Ezekiel’s teaching in the whole of chapter 18, that no one dies for anyone’s sins other than his own. We won’t be charged with our parents’ sin, and they won’t be charged with ours. Neither will we be able to inherit the rewards of the good done by anyone else.

Many Christians throughout the centuries have denied the current “orthodox” teaching of “original sin”; but since the time of Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) anyone who denies this teaching has become known as a “heretic”.

Muslims agree with those Christian “heretics” that no one can be charged with the guilt of anyone else’s wrongdoing, nor given the rewards of anyone else’s righteousness. This is the clear teaching of the Qur’an, which affirms more than once that no person can carry another person’s “burden” (meaning burden of sin and guilt). So Muslims affirm that everyone is born into this world “innocent”. In Muslim thought (at least traditional Islam) there is no such thing as being born sinful.

Muslims generally will not feel any need to explain such verses of the Hebrew Scripture as Psalm 51:5. They affirm that the previous revelations have been greatly corrupted; and that while some truth remains in them, there is also much falsehood (just as the Christian apostle Peter is supposed to have said, according to the Roman bishop Clement). So they will probably just shrug their shoulders and say obviously David’s Psalm at some point became corrupted so that it now teaches a falsehood. They will deny that the Prophet David ever taught such a thing, just as they will deny the adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.

I, however, would like to offer another suggestion – whereby it is true both that we do not bear the guilt of Adam’s sin, and yet we may perhaps be born sinful.

In the “apocryphal” book known as “the Wisdom of Solomon” (8:19 and 20), we read this (Revised Standard Version): (19) As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to my lot; (20) or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body. (This is not the “Biblical” book “Song of Solomon”, but one of the Jewish books contained between “Malachi” and “Matthew” in the Catholic Bibles, but Protestants don’t consider them “inspired” or “canonical”). Obviously, it will be noticed immediately that there is a contrast between David’s despairing cry that he was born sinful, and his son Solomon’s (if this book actually contains Solomon’s words or teachings) statement that he was good from birth.

But notice that Solomon said that it was because his soul was good that he entered into an undefiled body. This is the teaching of karma and reincarnation. Solomon did not affirm that he was born “innocent” – without any previous background whether good or evil. He affirmed that he was already positively “good”, and because of that he entered into a body without any “negative” karmic consequences – an “undefiled” body. As the following verses, and the next chapter, say though, despite the fact that he was born “good” he was still lacking in the wisdom he needed to rule; he needed to seek that wisdom from God, the Giver of wisdom.

Despite the obvious contrast between being born “in sin”, and being born “good”, the teaching of the preexistence of souls, multiple incarnations, and the ‘fruit’ known as ‘karma’ accrued over the course of multiple lifetimes, ties these two statements together. When David said that he was conceived in sin, and born in iniquity, he was affirming that he entered this life bearing the consequences of a former lifetime (or former lifetimes) in which he had developed evil propensities.

Was David correct in believing he was born wicked? Or did he just overstate the case due to his despair over his sin (or inclination to sin)? Well, of course I’m in no position to make any dogmatic statements about that; but I tend to believe his despair led him to overstate his situation. It does not seem to me likely that a person who was so corrupt from birth would be a Prophet of God. I’m inclined to believe that God’s Prophets come into this world very morally and spiritually developed, as Solomon said concerning himself. They may not be “perfect” from birth, but they are definitely “good”, vessels already molded by God and prepared for their role as Prophets. But as Muslims like to say, “God knows best”.

There are many degrees between “morally corrupt” and “good”; and each of us comes into this world at differing stages of development. God apportions the circumstances of our birth and life in keeping with where we are on the path of life. He does not just arbitrarily assign “defiled” bodies to some, and “undefiled” bodies to others. He doesn’t just decide that person “A” will be born with a natural tendency to evil “mischief”, and person “B” will be born with a natural inclination toward gentleness and kindness. God is just in all His ways, and gives to each person what he deserves or is prepared for.

This does not mean that we can automatically assume that someone who is born with a birth defect must have been particularly “sinful” in a previous life. It may mean that; but it could also mean that the person was so spiritually mature that he would be able to bring praise to God by means of the defect. This was apparently the case with the story in John 9 about Jesus (peace be with him) healing the man who was born blind. Jesus is recorded to have said that the blindness was not the result of sin – either his or his parents – but was in order that God might be “glorified” by his healing. This man was so spiritually mature prior to birth that he was able to accept such a birth defect willingly in order to give Jesus Christ an occasion to show the power of God.

So although we may be sure that our situations in life do not come by “chance” (“good luck” or “bad luck”), nor by mere arbitrary decree of God; we must still not jump to conclusions about a person’s spiritual state because of his physical circumstances. God knows why we are in our circumstances; and sometimes God may grant us the knowledge at least concerning ourselves (as it would appear was the case with Solomon); but unless and until God grants us illumination, we have no right to make our own judgments – particularly about other people.

This weekend a news article appeared about a US Navy ship rescuing 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates. This, of course, was a praiseworthy action – and may there be many more such praiseworthy actions by US agencies.

We are told that this is what America is all about; would to God that were true! No doubt this incident will be used as propaganda to say: “See – Americans are the good guys! Why in the world would those evil Iranians hate the USA so much?” But let’s not lose sight of the fact that, unfortunately, this is a pretty isolated event. Despite this act of ‘good will’, the USA and its “friend” Israel have not backed off even a little bit from their lies about Iran, sanctions against that country which will hurt (and probably result in the deaths of) large numbers of innocent Iranian citizens, and threats of war in which “all options are on the table”. And I seriously doubt there will be any backing away from such war mongering.

With the type of vicious threats the USA and Israel are making against Iran, is it any wonder that Iran would not be exactly thrilled about the presence of US warships in the waters not far from their coast? And when a US ship departs from those waters that Iran should “aggressively” say “and don’t come back”?

There are basically only two things that Iran has done, because of which they are being “sanctioned” and threatened with war: (1) they are enriching uranium for the production of nuclear energy – which the USA and its allies malevolently insist is “really” to produce nuclear weapons; (2) and Iran’s leaders have firmly insisted that the Zionist regime in Jerusalem needs to vanish from the pages of time, just as the Communist regime vanished from Russia and the regime of the Shah vanished from Iran. This, of course, has been slanderously twisted to be a statement that the nation of Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth (perhaps with nuclear weapons ).  Of course, neither of those things is cause for war or threats of war.

If one wishes to bring up “civil rights abuses” in Iran, the USA is certainly not the one to do so! With the way the civil rights of US citizens have been trampled on by the “Patriot Act” and the recent National Defense Act just signed into law by President Obama; the order to assassinate a US citizen without benefit of charge or trial; the use of torture in military prisons; the indefinite detention without charge or trial of people “suspected” of terrorist connections, etc.; the USA is in no position to be ‘virtuously’ talking about what is going on in some other country.

Can we ever forget the wars of aggression the USA has been carrying on in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Libya – and maybe Syria in the not too distant future)? Or the Orwellian language used to justify those wars? “War is peace!” (We’re going to bring peace to your people by invading your country). “Destruction is liberation!” (We’re going to set you free by destroying your land, houses, and businesses, and by killing your citizens).

The saying attributed to Jesus Christ (peace be with him) is certainly applicable here: first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye (Matthew 7:5).

So by all means honor the US Navy for its rescue of the Iranian fishermen; but be sure you don’t let this action cause you to turn a blind eye the all of the other atrocious policies and actions of the USA.

This past weekend there was another series of bombings of Christian churches, this time in Nigeria. An “Islamist” group called “Boko Haram” is being blamed (reportedly, they have claimed responsibility).

The question is, how is it possible that muslims – those who submit to and obey God and His prophets – could be involved in such an atrocity? If you’ve been reading my blogs, or muslim sites like The American Muslim, you will know that muslims consider such things to be completely contrary to Islamic teaching from the Qur’an. As the above quoted verse says, even abusive speech aimed at the ‘false gods’ of unbelievers (and by implication at the unbelievers themselves) is prohibited by God. No matter how clear it is to a muslim that things or beings which people worship other than God are being worshiped wrongfully, and no matter how much we might despise such worship, we must be careful to remain polite and inoffensive in our speech to ‘unbelievers’.

How much more so, then, is violence against ‘unbelievers’ and their places of worship prohibited! If we are not to even speak abusively, how in the world can we justify physical harm and murder of those we consider ‘unbelievers’ – and destruction of their buildings?

Although this is a clear implication from the above verse, fortunately we are not left to draw conclusions simply from seemingly clear implications. As I have previously shown there are explicit verses in the Qur’an not only prohibiting violent attacks against places of worship, but calling on muslims to fight to protect such buildings.

(2:114, Yusuf Ali English version) And who is more unjust than he who forbids that in places for the worship of God, God’s name should be celebrated?-whose zeal is (in fact) to ruin them? It was not fitting that such should themselves enter them except in fear. For them there is nothing but disgrace in this world, and in the world to come, an exceeding torment.

(22:39 and 40) To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, God is most powerful for their aid;- (they are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God”. Did not God check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of God is commemorated in abundant measure. God will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily God is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).

And if those verses aren’t explicit enough, consider this charter Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) gave to representatives from St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mt. Sinai:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

That charter can be found easily with an online search; but I have copied it from an article by Sheila Musaji at “The American Muslim”.

The prohibitions against aggressive warfare, murder, and harming places of worship, are so clear and explicit, that it becomes plain that whoever does these things are not ‘devout muslims’ simply following the commands they believes God has given them in the Qur’an. They are in fact the enemies of Islam, and of all mankind.

I feel sure that I’m not the only one who is deeply suspicious whenever I read of such atrocities attributed to “Islamist terrorists”. Such anti-Islamic actions stink to high heaven not of “Islamists” but of “false flag” operations of “Intelligence” Agencies (Israeli, British, or USA for instance). The public has been so brainwashed with propaganda about the inherent violence of Islam – which supposedly teaches that all ‘infidels’ must be killed – that those “Intelligence” Agencies know that hardly anyone will even raise an  eyebrow when false evidence is placed to implicate “muslim terrorists”. One of their chief aims is to keep piling up ‘evidence’ of how evil Islam is in order to keep up support for continuing invasions and warfare against those barbaric muslim countries.

In this case, the news reports inform us that “Boko Haram” has claimed responsibility. But any thinking person will understand how easy it is to fake such a claim.

However, admittedly, all I have is my suspicion. I have no access to real evidence that this is a ‘false flag’ operation – other than the fact that the actions are so plainly contrary to Islam that it’s very difficult to imagine muslims doing such a thing. So assuming that these bombings of Christian churches in Nigeria were in fact actually done by an “Islamist” organization known as “Boko Haram”, I’ll just repeat that they are in reality the enemies of Islam, not its devout adherents. All those who are in truth devoted and submitted to God and His prophets (especially the “final prophet” Muhammad – peace to him and his family) wholeheartedly denounce those terroristic acts of violence and those who did them, and say with the Qur’an (2:114): For them there is nothing but disgrace in this world, and in the world to come, an exceeding torment.

]]> http://mystic444.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/islamist-terrorism-in-nigeria/feed/ 3 mystic444 http://mystic444.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/whos-afraid-of-shariah/ http://mystic444.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/whos-afraid-of-shariah/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:50:04 +0000 mystic444 http://mystic444.wordpress.com/?p=840 ]]> Taking terms from one language, and transferring them untranslated into another language, can create problems. The untranslated term sounds strange and perhaps scary.

Take the word “Allah”. That’s an Arabic term; it sounds like a strange, false god to English ears. But when the term is translated, it just means “The God”. “Allah” is the one and only God Who is the Creator and Sustainer of all worlds, the Beneficent and Merciful, the All Powerful, All Knowing, All Wise. In other words, “Allah” in English is just “capital G” God.

Again, consider the terms “Islam” and “Muslim”. The untranslated use of those Arabic words tends to strike fear in our hearts over that ‘strange’ and ‘vicious’ religion which is really not a religion but a political ideology. But when the terms are translated into English, we find that “Islam” means “submission or devotion to God”; or even more accurately, it means this “mouthful” of a definition: “the attainment of peace by means of submission or devotion to God”. But besides being such a “mouthful”, that phrase is just not scary enough, is it? And “Muslim” means “a person who is seeking to attain peace through submission/devotion to God”. But it’s much easier to create suspicion and fear if we just use the Arabic term “Muslim”.

Then again, there’s the term “jihad”. We’re all familiar with that term these days, aren’t we? We’re told it means “holy war”: the obligation to attack and kill (or enslave) everyone who refuses to convert to that fearful religion of Islam! Yet in reality, “jihad” just means “struggle”; and in a religious sense, it means “struggle in the cause of God”. It can refer to one’s personal struggle to overcome evil thoughts, words, and actions in his/her own life; or it can refer to struggle within society to overcome prevalent evils by means of teaching/preaching (verbally or in writing), good works such as feeding the hungry and providing shelter for the homeless, peaceful protests, and seeking government legislation in some cases. When it refers to actual physical and military fighting, it is always to be in defense against those who have first attacked you or your nation – or against existing oppression and tyranny. It seeks to establish “freedom and justice for all” in opposition to oppressive violence and attacks. This is something which almost everyone recognizes as legitimate; but it’s a whole lot easier to frighten people if we just use the Arabic term “jihad”. “Jihadist” is a whole lot more evil-sounding than “freedom fighter”!

So what about “Shariah”? There’s another strange sounding Arabic term that many people love to use to stir up fear and hatred. When we hear that term, we have come to think of vicious and oppressive laws that limit our freedom. But what does the term itself actually mean when translated into English?

Literally, it means “the way to a watering hole”. In desert countries like Arabia, locating a watering hole can be a matter of life or death. Water literally represents life and health. When an Arab or Muslim refers to “Shariah”, he or she is saying that God’s instruction and guidance is a great favor and blessing, which brings life and health to the individual and to society. It is an oasis for people travelling in a desert land. It delivers from harm and is refreshing, rather than being oppressive.

I am certainly no expert on Shariah; to be expert would require years of intensive study of the Qur’an primarily, and the “hadith” (sayings) and “sunnah” (practices) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) secondarily. One would come face to face with disagreements within the Muslim community, on occasion, as to some of the things which some Muslims consider part of Shariah and others don’t. (Did you know that Muslims do disagree about some of the things involved in Shariah? I know of some of the disagreements, but I’m a long way from being “expert”).

However, here are some examples of what is included in Shariah. Sura (chapter) 2 verse 177 of the Qur’an says this (Abdel Haleem English version):

Goodness does not consist in turning your face towards East or West. The truly good are those who believe in God and the Last Day, in the angels, the Scriptures, and the prophets; who give away some of their wealth, however much they cherish it, to their relatives, to orphans, the needy, travelers and beggars, and to liberate those in bondage; those who keep up the prayer and pay the prescribed alms; who keep pledges whenever they make them; who are steadfast in misfortune, adversity, and times of danger. These are the ones who are true, and it is they who are aware of God.

Shariah calls for justice, even when acting justly may not be to one’s own benefit, or the benefit of one’s family or friends (4:135):

You who believe, uphold justice and bear witness to God, even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives. Whether the person is rich or poor, God can best take care of both. Refrain from following your own desire, so that you can act justly – if you distort or neglect justice, God is fully aware of what you do.

Shariah forbids murder, and is designed to protect and defend life. After recounting the story of Cain killing his brother Abel, the Qur’an says this (5:32):

On account of [his deed],We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind…

Even when capital punishment is prescribed for murder, the intent is to preserve life. Even the murderer may have his life saved if the family of the victim is willing to pardon him – accepting a monetary payment in place of the life of the murderer (2:178, 179):

(178) You who believe, fair retribution is prescribed for you in cases of murder: the free man for the free man, the slave for the slave, the female for the female. But if the culprit is pardoned by his aggrieved brother, this shall be adhered to fairly, and the culprit shall pay what is due in a good way. This is an alleviation from your Lord and an act of mercy. If anyone then exceeds these limits, grievous suffering awaits him. (179) Fair retribution saves life for you, people of understanding, so that you may guard yourselves against what is wrong.

Prior to the Revelation God gave to Muhammad (peace be with him and his family), feuds and vendettas might arise among the Arabs when someone was killed. If a member of a tribe was killed by someone in another tribe, the tribe of the victim might go on a rampage against the tribe of the murderer. Or if a slave killed a free person, it might be considered insufficient to retaliate merely against the slave who did the murder; he wasn’t ‘valuable enough’ to make up for the loss of the free person. Therefore the offending tribe might be required to hand over someone more ‘valuable’, or several people, to make up for the ‘value’ of the person who was killed. Consequently, God issued this requirement that only the person who committed the murder was subject to retribution: the free man was responsible for the murder he committed; the slave was responsible for the murder he committed; and the female was responsible for the murder she committed. They are commanded: Do not exceed these limits. In this way, lives are saved.

Another basic feature of Sharia is this: (2:256) There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. God is all hearing and all knowing.

Or as Sura 109 says: (1) Say [Prophet], ‘Disbelievers: (2) I do not worship what you worship, (3) you do not worship what I worship, (4) I will never worship what you worship, (5) you will never worship what I worship: (6) you have your religion and I have mine.

An Islamic (Shariah) government does not compel its subjects to embrace the religion of Islam!

Shariah doesn’t seem so frightening, does it? It does sound like something good and life-giving! But of course, that’s not what we think of when we hear the word “Shariah”, is it? We think of a supposed command to kill all non-Muslims; the “command” for husbands to beat their wives; female circumcision; stoning adulterers to death; death for apostasy, etc.

Would it surprise you to find out that most of those evil things which we think of in association with the word “Shariah” are either not at all to be found in the Qur’an, or else there is disagreement among Muslims concerning whether or not those things are there when the Qur’an is correctly understood?

For instance, the command to kill all non-Muslims is simply not to be found in the Qur’an. What is authorized is the killing of non-Muslims who first attack the Muslim community and seek to kill Muslims. That is, self defense is authorized. I have written several blog articles about this: “Does Islam Proclaim That All Infidels Should Be Killed?”; “Islam: A Religion of Hate???”; and “Slay The Infidels Wherever You Find Them”.

The “command” for husbands to beat their wives is not a command; at most it’s a permission. And Muslim scholars are not in complete agreement about the meaning of this permission. While probably most do believe the word we think of as “beat” does indeed mean to “hit” or “strike”, all of those who understand it that way insist that the word means to strike lightly in such a way as to do no harm and cause no pain. One might use a handkerchief or a toothbrush to strike lightly as a symbolic punishment. It would be similar to the way a ‘chivalrous’ person of bygone years might strike someone with a glove or handkerchief as an insult or challenge.

In justification of this viewpoint, one might compare the “wife-beating verse” (4:34) with an instruction to Job in 38:44:

Take a small bunch of grass in your hand, and strike [her] with that so as not to break your oath.

As Muhammad Asad comments on that verse in his English version of the Qur’an: In the words of the Bible (The Book of Job ii 9), at the time of his seemingly hopeless suffering, Job’s wife reproached her husband for persevering in his faith: “Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.” According to the classical Qur’ān-commentators, Job swore that, if God would restore him to health, he would punish her blasphemy with a hundred stripes. But when he did recover, he bitterly regretted his hasty oath, for he realized that his wife’s “blasphemy” had been an outcome of her love and pity for him; and thereupon he was told in a revelation that he could fulfil his vow in a symbolic manner by striking her once with “a bunch of grass containing a hundred blades or more.” (Cf. 5:89 – ‘God will not take you to task for oaths which you may have uttered without thought.”)

So God gave Job a way to technically fulfill his oath, while not actually causing pain or harm to his wife. This is how most Qur’an scholars seem to view the permission to strike one’s wife as a last resort.

However there are also many Muslims who point out that the word translated “beat”, “strike”, or “hit” also can have the meaning of “leave” (as in “beat it”, “strike out on a journey”, or “hit the road, Jack”). They point out that there is no evidence in the “sunnah” of the Prophet that he ever struck any of his wives or encouraged anyone else to do so. In fact, as I understood it, there are “hadith” that prohibit such a thing. There are also verses in the Qur’an which insist that husbands must always treat their wives with honor, respect, and love. And the very next verse (4:35) instructs the believers to act to try to preserve the marriage if it appears the couple is about to break up. Divorce is not encouraged, though it is allowed as a last resort if couples just can’t get along any more.

So the verse may mean that the couple should separate or begin the divorce process. But even if the word means “hit”, all Muslim scholars (to the best of my knowledge) insist that it does not mean “beat” as we ordinarily think of it; it is a light painless slap, symbolic in nature – and it is a last resort, not the first thing one does if his wife irritates him.

There is simply nothing in Shariah about female circumcision. In the few places it is practiced, it is a matter of a local custom – completely unrelated to any Law of God – working itself into the practice of a particular group of Muslims.

What about stoning of adulterers? Certainly that was the teaching of the Torah given to the Hebrew people under Moses. And it is also plain that some of the most ‘conservative’ of Muslim states believe in such a punishment (such as Saudi Arabia and Iran). But is this the teaching of God’s Shariah as given in the revelation of the Qur’an? The answer to that question is a resounding “NO!”

The Qur’an is as plain as can be as to what the punishment for adultery should be (24:2): Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times… Some want to contend that this is the punishment for fornication between two people both of whom are unmarried, but that the punishment for adultery is that which is contained in the Jewish Torah. But the context of the passage is quite clear: it is referring specifically to adulterers. Perhaps the word may refer to both fornication and adultery; but in the context it is adultery (where at least one of the sexual offenders is married) which is referred to.

Besides the fact that the case of a man accusing his wife of adultery is specifically brought up, the particular situation which serves as the context for this regulation was when Muhammad’s wife Aisha had been falsely accused of adultery. God issued a reprimand to the Muslim community for even being willing to listen to such an accusation in the absence of 4 witnesses.

When the Qur’an itself specifically calls for public whipping – in an obvious intent to abrogate or ease the punishment provided in the previous revelation of the Torah – how is it that some Muslims began to believe that the Jewish Law was still applicable? Why would they choose the harsher punishment of the Mosaic Law over God’s benevolent lightening of the punishment?

Apparently there are a few ‘hadith’ (sayings) of the Prophet which claim that he took it upon himself to change the punishment back to death. This, however, is completely unacceptable. The Prophet had no authority to contradict or change what God has revealed in the Qur’an.

It is a dangerous thing for a Muslim to appeal to ‘hadith’ or ‘sunnah’ in support for anything for which there is not also Qur’anic authorization. There were huge numbers of “hadith” attributed to the Prophet which all scholars recognize to be spurious. They are simply lies put into the mouth of God’s Prophet by someone needing ‘authority’ for his own ideas and desires. Of approximately 600,000 “hadith”, only about 1% (6000) are accepted as ‘authentic’. And even of those 6000, as I understand it only about 10% or less (600 or fewer) are considered absolutely beyond question by followers of the sunnah.

When a ‘saying of the Prophet’ is produced which is a flagrant contradiction to what the Qur’an says, the Muslim is honor bound to reject it as one of the spurious hadith. And that is precisely the case with the few ‘sayings’ concerning putting adulterers to death. What has almost certainly happened is that some of the Jewish converts to Islam could not accept the idea that God’s Prophet could abrogate the punishment law of the Torah; so they falsely attributed those ‘sayings’ to the Prophet (or to someone else supposedly quoting the Prophet). They then invented the idea that the punishment in the Qur’an was for fornication, while the ‘hadith’ gave the punishment for adultery.

Concerning the punishment of 100 lashes, it is very tempting (for me at least) to refer back to the instruction God is said (in the Qur’an) to have given to Job: take a handful of grass (100 or more blades of grass) and hit the adulterer and adulteress once with that bundle! I don’t know that any Muslim scholar or “school of interpretation” has taken that stance though.

But even though a punishment is given in God’s Qur’anic Shariah, the Beneficent and Merciful One made it almost impossible to actually find anyone guilty of the crime – so the punishment is almost impossible to carry out. First, God has required that there be 4 eyewitnesses to the act of adultery. Circumstantial evidence leading to suspicion is simply not acceptable. Even if one has 4 witnesses to the circumstantial evidence, it is not sufficient. They have to be present and witness the act itself.

Now how is it that 4 people will be able to be eyewitnesses to an adulterous act? 24:27 of the Qur’an forbids anyone to enter someone else’s house without permission; and 49:12 forbids spying on others. (The testimony of “peeping Toms” is not allowed). In a society in which a punishment such as provided for in 24:2 is called for – or the even worse punishment of death called for by the Torah – who is going to invite 4 people in to observe the adulterous affair? And if the 4 witnesses were not invited guests, they must have been spying – in which case their testimony would be disallowed and they themselves might be subject to punishment for “invasion of privacy”.

There are other ‘evil things’ which we tend to think of when we hear the word “Shariah”; but what I have given should be sufficient to show that such things are not necessarily actually a part of that “way to a watering hole”.

So Muslim people believe that Shariah is kind guidance from God which directs one to an oasis of life giving water – for thirsty people in a desert land. Because we believe that there is only One God, Who is the Creator and Sustainer of all worlds and is All Knowing and All Wise, we believe what the Qur’an says in 5:50 – … Is there any better judge than God for those of firm faith? God is the best of law givers and judges for both the individual and for society.

Naturally we desire to see all nations willingly submit to God’s guidance; but it is not intended to compel people to accept this wise instruction. Those who refuse do so to their own detriment.

The interesting thing is that Muslims in the USA find that the Constitutional law of this land very closely resembles God’s Shariah – so they do not have any wish to renounce the Constitution in favor of Shariah. They believe that, so far as the Consitutional law is concerned (not necessarily the way of life actually practiced however), the USA is already virtually ‘Islamic’ without realizing it. Even though they might not in general much care for the Christian apostle Paul, they would apply what he said about Gentiles who didn’t have the Mosaic Law to the situation in the USA (Romans 2:14 and 15, New Revised Standard Version): (14) When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. (15) They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts… Should the present 1% or 2% of the US population which is presently Muslim somehow become a ‘super majority’, they would probably not find it necessary to call a Constitutional Convention to revise or replace the current Constitution. If a few things were changed, they would be relatively minor.

Shariah is simply not the evil thing some people imagine it to be; and it provides no ‘threat’ to our nation. It might ‘threaten’ present government policies (both foreign and domestic); but so would the current Constitution if it were adhered to.

“It was only perhaps three weeks ago that the president of Iran once again said that Israel should be eradicated off the face of the Earth.  As you recall, it was about in 2005 when he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] said before that Israel — he would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”

 Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), September 19, 2011

The problem with the supposed Ahmadinejad statement about obliterating Israel, though, is that he never said it! As the above linked Washington Post article containing the Bachmann quote shows, as well as this detailed article, what the Iranian President actually said was:

“The Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.

You’ll notice, first of all, that the statement was not original with Ahmadinejad; he was quoting the former spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini. Secondly, both Khomeini and Ahmadinejad said that “the regime occupying Jerusalem” (not “Israel”) must vanish from time. And it was not “from the face of the earth” or “from the face of the map”, but from “the page of time”.

Actually, Ahmadinejad made a very slight error in the quotation. Khomeini had said “arena [‘sahneh’] of time”, whereas Ahmadinejad rendered it “page [‘safheh’] of time”.

The context of the statement was that just as the Communist regime in the Soviet Union had vanished, and the regime of the Shah of Iran vanished, so the Zionist regime in Jerusalem must vanish. In neither of the other two cases was a military slaughter carried out, nor were nuclear weapons used to obliterate a country. Neither was an obliteration of a country being called for by Iran’s spiritual leader or President. The idea was that the Jewish government in Israel must pass away, and the people of Palestine be allowed to choose their own government representing equally all of the inhabitants of the country (Jews, Christians, Muslims, and anyone else).

Now that’s quite a different thing than the idea we usually get, isn’t it? Nevertheless the misquotation (and consequent misperception of meaning) went viral immediately, and it seems no amount of effort to correct the misapprehension will be successful. Both private citizens and public officials repeat the slander against Iran’s President over and over, keeping us constantly worked up over the supposedly vile and insane character of Ahmadinejad.

As a matter of fact, Iran has not attacked another country in over 200 years, and has made no threats to attack anyone. But they were attacked, with the support of the USA, by Iraq in 1980. (The USA had instigated a coup overthrowing the elected Iranian government of Mosaddeq in 1953, making the Shah an authoritarian king and US puppet; so when the Iranian people successfully overthrew the Shah’s regime in 1979, the USA wasn’t very happy. They were quite willing to support Iraq’s aggression against Iran in order to ‘get back’ at the Iranian people.)  And the USA and Israel are constantly making threats to attack Iran; they are probably the two most war-mongering countries in the world. Who are really the “bad guys” here? The USA is constantly at war with someone (always Muslim countries these days, it seems), and we have military bases in countries all over the world. Who, indeed, is the biggest threat to the world? I’ll give you a hint: it “ain’t” Iran! Iran is under a much greater threat from Israel, than is Israel from Iran. Iran is no threat to anyone who doesn’t attack Iran first.

But what about Iran’s attempts to manufacture nuclear weapons? We can’t let that madman Ahmadinejad (who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth) have such powerful weapons, can we?

Well, who has probably the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world? The USA. And who is the only nation in the world to actually ever use atomic weapons against another country? Once again, the “good” USA, against Japan in 1945, in perhaps the worst act of terrorism in the history of the world.

What hypocrisy it is for 2 nuclear armed countries (the USA and Israel), which are the most war-mongering countries on earth, to think they can ‘righteously’ declare that another country is not allowed to have the kind of weapons they themselves possess. And the most amazing thing is that we gullible US citizens are so blind that we can’t see the absurdity of this situation!

And adding to the absurdity of the situation is the fact that Iran doesn’t even desire nuclear weapons; much less is there any evidence that they are in practice attempting to manufacture them. All we are presented with is hypothetical situations. “If” Iran takes such and such a step, they “could/might” then have the capability to “possibly” produce nuclear weapons “if” they should decide they wanted to. As a wise man once said: “Gimme a break!”

Yes, the most recent report on Iran’s nuclear aspirations produced some diagrams which we are assured clearly indicate an “interest” in nuclear weapons. And we’re told of a huge containment chamber that “could be” used to contain experimental explosions of nuclear weapons. Surely there’s no other feasible reason for such a chamber!

This reminds me so much of the rationale given for attacking Iraq under the George W. Bush administration. We were assured – without any evidence being produced – that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” which they were hiding but had ready to use at any moment. Our “Intelligence” Agencies had hard evidence proving this; but we must trust that this was so, because they couldn’t make the evidence public. But it was supposedly known where at least some of the chemical weapons were being hidden. Of course, as it turned out, this claim was a lie; those WMDs simply didn’t exist.

However, eventually photographs were produced showing a couple of mobile trailers; and it was asserted that these trailers were beyond any doubt mobile biological weapons trailers – there was no other feasible use for them. Then of course it turned out that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of any sort, much less biological weapons; and the Government already knew this before they even went public claiming they were weapons trailers. In fact, Dick Cheney was still claiming that’s what they were several months after they found out the trailers had nothing to do with weapons!

Then of course we knew beyond a doubt that Iraq was interested in developing nuclear weapons capabilities; and the mere interest in nuclear weapons was surely sufficient reason to engage in preemptive warfare! Then the source of our knowledge about this active interest in nuclear weapons (the infamous “yellowcake memo”) turned out to be fabricated. Another lying false alarm.

Can we not see that our present Government is doing precisely the same thing regarding Iran and their supposed secret desire to produce nuclear weapons? Or are we still so gullible that we’ll believe any hypothetical accusation our leaders make?

In addition, as I understand it, our source of information about Iran’s diagrams and containment chamber came from “another country”. Now I wonder who that “other country” might be? Would I be unreasonable to think it’s Israel – a country which is expert at deception and false flag operations? Those people who say they are Jews, but are not; they are a synagogue of Satan? Their father is “the devil”, who was a liar and murderer from the beginning, and they love to follow the footsteps of their “father”.

Am I disgusted and angry with my Government – and its idolization of Israel? You bet I am! And I am disgusted with people who will allow themselves to be led along by the hand by an agenda driven mass of lying propaganda! It is so plain to see for anyone with open eyes that we are just being set up so we’ll support another war action against another Muslim country.

I am reminded of Sura 41:15 of the Qur’an (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem version): The people of ‘Ad behaved arrogantly throughout the land without any right, saying, “Who could be stronger than us?” Did they not realize that God, who created them, was stronger than them?

However, there are some people within Christianity and Islam who insist that it was Paul who introduced the concepts of the Deity of Jesus Christ (peace be with him), the Trinity, and vicarious/substitutionary atonement – in contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ himself and the other apostles; and thus he founded a ‘heretical Church’ which has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Is this accusation true?

Well, it should be pointed out that Trinitarian Christianity defends its teachings at least as much from the four ‘Gospels’ as it does from the writings of Paul. I believe their arguments from both the ‘Gospels’ and from Paul are based on distortions of the meaning of those writers; but nevertheless they use all of the ‘New Testament’ to support their claims.

For instance, they will point out that people ‘worshiped’ Jesus (peace be with him), and Jesus did not rebuke them for doing so (see my article, Worship of Jesus?). Or they’ll point out that Jesus was called “lord” (Greek: “kurios”), which they correctly point out is the word used for the Hebrew name for God: YHWH (or Yahweh). (They tend not to point out, though, that “lord”/“kurios” was also commonly used for human authorities, and that Jesus’ lordship was given to him, as a man, by God. Peter, in Acts 2:22 said that Jesus of Nazareth was a man, of whom God showed His approval; and in verse 36 he said that God had made this Jesus – the man approved of God – both lord and Christ).

And of course the Gospel of John is a favorite for quotations supporting the Deity of Jesus Christ (PBUH). This Gospel begins with the famous statement that Jesus is the Word which was in the beginning, was with God, and “was God”. It calls Jesus “the only begotten son” of God (or “only” or “unique” son); and records such statements of Jesus as I and my Father are one” and he who has seen me has seen the Father. Then again, there is the famous statement of Jesus: before Abraham was, I am.

So it is clearly misleading to pretend that the Trinitarian churches based their teaching on Paul rather than on Jesus Christ (PBUH). Sure there are a few passages in the letters of Paul which may sound as if he was attributing Deity to Jesus – such as Philippians 2:6 which the King James Version renders as: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; and the New International Version translates as: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. (But see my article Bible Verses That Seem To Teach That Jesus Is The One True God, Part 3 -). But those verses are certainly not more favorable to the Trinitarian cause than are the recorded statements of Jesus and the Gospel writers.

All of those statements – of Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles – are quite capable of being understood in a way that does not flatly contradict the many other clear statements that Jesus was a man whom God approved because he was always voluntarily subject to the will of God his Father. One either accepts or denies those alternate explanations. Either all of the New Testament writers taught the Deity of Jesus (and consequently the idea of a “Godhead” containing multiple “Persons”) or none of them did.

The same is true for the teaching of the “atonement”. Matthew (20:28) and Mark (10:45) record Jesus saying that he, the “son of man”, came to give his life a ransom for many. Matthew 26:28 has Jesus saying: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (and Mark 14:24 records the same statement, but leaving off the phrase for the remission of sins). The Gospel of John speaks of Jesus as the “good shepherd” who lays down his life for his sheep (10:11, 15, and 17). So again, it is very misleading to pretend that Paul was the author of the concept of atonement, supposedly in opposition to the teaching of Jesus.

As with the teaching of the Deity of Jesus, there are legitimate alternative ways of understanding those passages, which would for instance see Jesus’ “sacrifice of himself” as an example to follow (metaphorically, or course, not literally) – and by doing so being delivered (ransomed/redeemed) from one’s sins – rather than being a sacrifice offered to God as a substitute for men in order to deflect God’s wrath from them. One either accepts or rejects the alternative understanding. Whichever explanation one follows, is applicable to the teaching both of Jesus and of Paul.

I, of course, follow understandings of the statements of Jesus and Paul which are quite different from the Trinitarian beliefs. Since I have written a number of articles on the question of the Deity of Christ (for instance, a series beginning with Is It Necessary To Believe That Jesus Is The One True God In Order To Be A Christian?), I won’t attempt to deal with all of the passages (either in Paul, or the ‘Gospels’) which appear to teach the Trinitarian dogma.

But recently a Muslim, commenting on the Loonwatch site, brought up a couple of passages from Paul which seemed to contradict my assertion that Paul never departed from the strict unitarianism of Judaism; and I’ll give brief explanations of those 2 passages as examples of how such statements can be understood.

Paul opened his letter to the Galatians (1:1, English Standard Version) with this phrase:   Paul, an apostle–not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. This would, at first blush, seem to be a clear statement that Jesus is God along with the Father, since Paul said his calling to apostleship was not from men but from Jesus Christ and God the Father. Reading Paul’s statement with that understanding, though, proves too much – because that makes Paul state that Jesus is not a man; and that’s more than any Trinitarian would be willing to say. As all acknowledge, Paul clearly taught that Jesus was and is a man who was and is subject to his Father, God. He said in 1 Timothy 2:5 that it is the man Christ Jesus who is mediator between God and men – just as Peter had said in Acts 2:22 and 36 that Jesus was a man approved by God, and had been made lord and Christ.

I would compare Paul’s statement here with statements in the Qur’an such as 33:36 (Yusuf Ali version):  It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. No one will pretend, I’m sure, that Muslims believe that Muhammad (peace be to him and his family) is a “Person” in a “Godhead” because of such juxtapositions of Muhammad and God, and calls for men to obey “God and His Messenger”. Islam clearly teaches that Muhammad was just a man whom God had honored to be His Prophet and Messenger to men. When Muhammad spoke (at least in giving the Qur’an) it was God speaking through him; but that did not mean that Muhammad was a “God-man”. So when Muhammad recited the Qur’an, it was not “just a man” speaking; it carried the authority of God Himself even though Muhammad was personally “just a man”.

So it was with Paul’s apostleship: his apostleship did not derive simply from human authority. It was God Himself, speaking through His Prophet and Messenger Jesus Christ (PBUH) who had appointed him for that service and authority. As John 5:19 and 30 says, Jesus did nothing on his own; he did only what his Father showed him to do, and his judgment was simply what the Father had willed. Perhaps Paul could have expressed himself in a better way so that he wouldn’t run the risk of being misunderstood; but it is clear in his writings that he considered Jesus to be a man, despite how Gal. 1:1 may sound, and did not consider Jesus to be God.

The other objection came from Colossians 1:19 and 2:9, in which it is said that “all the fullness of the Godhead” (or of Deity) dwelled in Jesus. It is usually assumed that the meaning of the fullness of Deity dwelling in Jesus is that Jesus is Deity. It is easily shown, though, that such an understanding is incorrect. Immediately after saying, in 2:9, that all the “fullness” (Greek: pleiroma – the underlined letters indicate that the two together represent one Greek letter) of deity was dwelling in Christ, Paul said in verse 10 that the believers were “complete” (Greek: pepleiromenoi); or as the New Revised Standard Version says, the believers have “come to fullness” in him.

The meaning is fairly clearly that the believers also come to have the fullness of deity dwelling in them, just as was the case with Jesus Christ. This is made explicit, though, in the letter to the Ephesian believers (3:19) in which Paul said he prayed that the believers may be filled [pleirotheite] with all the fullness [pleiroma] of God. The fullness of deity which Paul said dwells in Christ is also given to believers, according to Paul. Yet who will say that all believers become “Persons” in the “Godhead”? The Bible speaks frequently of people being “filled” with the holy spirit; but who will assert that this means that people become the Holy Spirit?

My contention concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is that, Biblically speaking, it was meant not as a “substitutionary sacrifice”, but as an example to be followed in a spiritual sense. Jesus said in Luke 9:23, for instance: And he said to all, If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me; and the apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 2:21 – For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. This meaning comes out clearly in the letters of Paul. In particular, Paul developed this idea in Romans 6. For instance: Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Rom 6:4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life…Rom 6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.  By “taking up our cross daily”, and considering ourselves to be crucified with Christ and dead to sins, we turn from our old sinful way of life in repentance, receive God’s forgiveness and blessing, and come to “walk in newness of life”. Therefore Paul said in Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Paul considered that Jesus had given himself for him, as an example; Paul had followed that example; and now he no longer lived (his old way of life) but the life of Christ was manifest in him. In this way, Jesus Christ by his example had redeemed him from his old way of life, and the punishment that would have resulted.

One can either accept or reject this type of alternative explanation of the Biblical passages; but whichever way one goes, he should be consistent in applying his understanding to the statements of both Jesus and Paul.

Since I follow a non-Trinitarian manner of understanding the Bible, I believe that the modern Trinitarian church is neither Christian nor Pauline. It has departed from the teachings of both the Christ and his apostles (including Paul). It was not Paul who apostatized from the teachings of Jesus Christ, but the “Christian” church which apostatized from the teaching of Jesus and his apostles.

Below is an example of one such e-mail I received this morning. My response follows afterward.

I for one, am thankful for the power of the Internet. I would never see this in or on any of this country’s main media outlets. Shame on them.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS IS?  OR WHERE THIS IS? 

This statue currently stands outside the Iraqi palace, now home to the 4th Infantry
Division.   It will eventually be shipped home and put in the memorial museum in
Fort  Hood , Texas

The statue was created by an Iraqi artist named  Kalat, who for years was forced
By Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that
Dotted Baghdad  

Kalat was so grateful for the America ‘s liberation of his country; he melted 3 of the
Heads of the fallen Saddam and made the statue as a memorial to the American
Soldiers and their fallen warriors 

Kalat worked on this memorial night and day for several months.   

To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort  as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms. 

Do you know why we don’t hear about this in the news?  The media avoids it because
It does not have the shock effect. But we can do something about it.   

We can pass this along to as many people as we can in honor of all our brave military
Who are making a difference.

And please pass this on! 

Now here is the response I sent:

As usual, I did a Snopes search to determine the validity of this e-mail; and as usual, it turned out to be not entirely true, to put it mildly. You can find the Snopes write up here.

Snopes labels it: “Real photograph; inaccurate description”. To summarize their write up: the things that are true in the e-mail are that the statue is real, and it was made by the Iraqi artist named Kalat – who had also made several statues of Saddam Hussein.

What is false is that Saddam Hussein had forced him to make the statues of Hussein; the statue of the soldier was the idea of Kalat; Kalat melted down the heads of the Hussein statues in order to make the soldier statue; and Kalat made the statue because he was so grateful for the American forces “liberating” his country. All of that is simply a pack of lies.

The truth of the matter is that Kalat helped in the construction of the Hussein statues because he desperately needed the money for his family. (It was need for money that “forced” him to do it, not Saddam Hussein). It was the same desperation for money that “forced” him to construct the soldier statue at the request of the U.S. military (it was not his own idea). He certainly did not make that statue because of “gratitude” for the highly immoral invasion of his country, based on multiple lies, by American troops .

Here’s a quote from the Snopes article about Kalat Alussy’s feelings toward the American troops and the invasion:

“The officers didn’t question Mr. [Kalat] Alussy further about his political views. Had they pressed him, they might have learned that he’s harshly critical of the U.S. and bitter over an American rocket attack during the war that killed his uncle. In an interview, he says he thinks the war was fought for oil and holds the U.S. responsible for the violence and unemployment that have plagued Iraq since.”

Kalat Alussy was paid several hundred dollars for his work on the Hussein statues; he wound up being paid $8,000 for the soldier statue. He had initially demanded a much higher price from the U.S. military because of the high price of bronze he would have to purchase to do the statue. The military decided that since they were going to destroy the Hussein statues anyhow, they would just melt down the bronze and give it to Kalat for the soldier statue. Since he was getting the bronze free from the military, Kalat reduced his asking price to $8,000. He still managed to ‘soak’ the U.S. military to reward himself for doing something for the troops he despised.

Now that’s quite different from the lying e-mail, isn’t it? Whenever you pass on such e-mails without “ascertain[ing] the truth”, you just wind up making a fool of yourself in the eyes of anyone who IS willing to find out the truth of the matter. Is that what you want?

Jesus (peace be with him) himself, although stating that his message was ultimately for all people, had not left instructions concerning how the non-Jewish people who received his message should be treated. But as he himself had said, as recorded by the apostle John in John 16:12 and 13 (English Standard Version): John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. John 16:13  When the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (“The things that are to come” are not necessarily predictions of future events; rather, this simply refers to the things which Jesus left unsaid because the disciples weren’t ready for them yet.)

This coming messenger, as I have pointed out in articles here and here, I believe to be Muhammad (peace be with him and his family). However, he would not be born until 570 C.E., and he would not receive his first revelation until 610 C.E.; so Jesus promised that he himself would be with his disciples “until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

Jesus’ continued presence with his disciples was seen in various ways, such as dreams, visions, angelic appearances, and even personal appearances such as to Saul of Tarsus. In this way, God and His Prophet gave the Christian believers partial, step-by-step directions as required during the interim.

I’m stepping out on a limb here – as I don’t believe I’ve seen this interpretation in any of my reading – but I believe this is what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 when comparing the partial revelation with “that which is perfect/complete”: 1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 1Co 13:10 but when the perfect [complete] comes, the partial will pass away (English Standard Version). In the Qur’an (5:3, toward the end of the verse – Yusuf Ali’s version), God said to and through Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) shortly before his death (a few months, I think it was): This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam [submission or devotion to God] as your religion.

The various visions, appearances of angels, and miracles relating to the conversion of Gentiles to Jesus (PBUH) as God’s anointed led up to the decision of the apostles and elders (and the whole church) at Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 15: that the Gentiles should be welcomed without troubling them with requirements to accept circumcision and the ritual regulations of the Law of Moses. In this way, Paul and Barnabas were absolved from any charge of heresy or unlawful innovation in their teaching and practice.

However, the peace that resulted from this decision was not to last. Unfortunately, some of the Jewish believers soon found the Jerusalem Council’s decision to be unacceptable, and they proceeded to stir up schism among the believers. The letters of Paul frequently refer to the attempts of the preachers of circumcision to sow discord in the Church and draw away the Gentile believers from the message of God’s free kindness.

The letter to the believers in Galatia in particular concerns this issue. These Gentile believers were being troubled by ‘Judaizers’ (those Jewish Christians who couldn’t be satisfied with the decision of the “Jerusalem Council” concerning the Gentiles), so Paul wrote this letter to counteract their divisive effect.

In chapter 2 of the letter called “Galatians” Paul told them about an occasion – apparently after the Council in Jerusalem – when Peter himself visited Antioch (where Paul and Barnabas were ministering). Peter was eating and associating freely with the uncircumcised Gentile believers, until some of those ‘Judaizers’ came down from Jerusalem (claiming to represent James). Then the unthinkable happened: Peter himself succumbed to their divisiveness and started separating himself from the uncircumcised believers in Antioch! Here was one of the foremost of the apostles of Jesus Christ, who had himself been a leader in acknowledging that God was accepting Gentiles without the requirement of circumcision. He had told the household of Cornelius that God had shown him that no person was to be considered ‘unclean’, and that people in every nation who believed in God and did righteous deeds were accepted by God. He had been criticized by the Jewish believers for eating with the uncircumcised, and had responded that he couldn’t resist God! At the Council, he asked why some of the Jewish brothers were putting God to a test by seeking to put this “yoke” of circumcision and other rituals on the Gentiles. God had made very clear that He was making no distinction between the Jewish and Gentile believers; it was pure arrogance on the part of those ‘Judaizers’ to assume they were more pure than God!

But now here was Peter, turning his back on everything he had been shown by God concerning Gentile believers; and even Barnabas was being carried away by this hypocrisy. So Paul openly rebuked Peter for his actions. He pointed out that Peter was building again what he had torn down (the division between circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles), and thus making himself into a transgressor before God (Galatians 2:18). Paul sought to ease the rebuke by using himself as an example: For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor; but it is clear that this is just an indirect charge against Peter. If there was any charge of ‘apostasy’, to be made, it would have to be against Peter and Barnabas instead of Paul.

I believe, though, that we can charitably say that this defection (which I believe to have been very temporary) simply is an illustration of how difficult it is to completely separate oneself from convictions in which one has been raised from a child. And I believe, as I said, that it’s fairly certain that this defection was very brief.

Concerning Barnabas: after Paul and Barnabas had been in Antioch for some time following the Jerusalem Council – and presumably after the episode of Peter and Barnabas being swayed by the Judaizers – Acts 15:36 tells us that Paul asked Barnabas to go with him to visit the churches they had established on their previous “missionary” journey. Paul almost certainly would not have asked Barnabas to accompany him if Barnabas had actually defected to the viewpoint of those preachers of circumcision. Paul considered the freedom of the Gentiles from those rituals to be an essential part of the gospel message he preached, and he would have considered Barnabas an apostate enemy of the gospel if he disagreed on that point.

They did have a falling out; but that was concerning whether or not they should take Barnabas’ relative (cousin or nephew), John Mark, with them on the journey. Paul didn’t want to; Barnabas did want to. They decided to split up; Barnabas took John Mark with him, and Paul took Silas. Whatever bad feeling existed between them was later healed, though. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul asked Timothy to bring Mark with him when he (Timothy) came to visit Paul in prison: for he is very useful to me for ministry. And in Colossians 4:10, Paul spoke of Mark being present with him, and told the Colossians that if Barnabas should come to them they should receive him.

Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15, commended the writings of Paul, and spoke of him as “our beloved brother”. This I consider would not have been possible if they had remained divided over something which Paul considered so basic a part of his message of good news to the Gentiles. (And yes, I accept the letters attributed to Peter as actually being written by him. I have never trusted the ability of our modern scholars to be able to discern the style and vocabulary of a writer from one or two very brief letters or ‘gospels’. And due to the content of the letters, they appear to me to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 C.E. Peter, in this second letter, spoke of that event as being very near, using the highly metaphorical and hyperbolic language common to the Hebrew prophets and apostles.)

What kind of Scriptural arguments did Paul use to defend his teaching concerning circumcision? For one thing, he pointed out that the commandment of circumcision was first given to Abraham (Genesis 17); and that did not occur until at least 13 or 14 years after God was said to have declared that He considered Abraham righteous because of his trust in God (Genesis 15:6). [Of course, Abraham was a righteous man considerably before that – for instance consider God’s promise to bless Abraham, and to bless all the world through his offspring, given in Genesis 12:1-3. And there were many other righteous men before Abraham (Noah for instance). Then there was that very interesting and mysterious man named Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and a priest of the Most High God. He is said to have blessed Abraham in the name of the Most High (Genesis 14:17-20). And he was a priest of the Most High, and blessed Abraham, before the command of circumcision. But he was not of the household of Abraham, so presumably he was not included in the command to Abraham to circumcise all the male members of his household.]

Obviously, therefore, circumcision was not necessary to be considered righteous before God and be blessed by Him. Again obviously, if it had been necessary, women would have been excluded from God’s blessing!

If physical circumcision was not necessary to be considered righteous before God, what then was its purpose? It was a symbol or metaphor of the inner purity and cleanliness – characterized by love for God, trust in Him and obedience to Him – which is necessary to be righteous in God’s sight. This spiritual meaning of the outward sign was emphasized in the Torah (Law of Moses) itself. For instance, consider these 2 verses in Deuteronomy:

Deu_10:16  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

 Deu_30:6 And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

The Hebrew prophets proclaimed the spiritual meaning behind the outward sign. For instance, Jeremiah made this statement:

Jer 9:25 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh (or as the Revised Standard Version renders it more literally, who are circumcised but yet uncircumcised)– Jer 9:26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart.”

And the disciple and “deacon” in the early Christian Church, Stephen, is quoted as making this accusation against his Jewish hearers:

Act 7:51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

So Paul was by no means inventing some novelty when he insisted on the spiritual meaning of circumcision, and that it was quite possible for the Gentile believers to have the reality without the sign.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. Rom 2:26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Rom 2:27 Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. Rom 2:28 For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. Rom 2:29 But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Paul, recognizing the symbolical and spiritual meaning of the outward signs and rituals, called them “school teachers”. The purpose of those rituals was to ‘instruct’ people until they grasped and put into practice the meaning. After the meaning has ‘come alive’ within us, the teacher is no longer needed to instruct us.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (King James Version).

And God is certainly free to move beyond the physical signs and impart the reality directly to people without the outward signs. This is what Peter, James, Barnabas, and Paul had all seen made manifest in the works of God and His Prophet, Jesus Christ.

In the late 19^th century, an English Baptist Pastor and Evangelist, named Charles H. Spurgeon, wrote a hymn about the Christian rite of “the Lord’s Supper” (“Communion”) which contains these words:

“If now with eyes defiled and dim,
We see the signs but see not Him,
Oh, may His love the scales displace,
And bid us see Him face to face!”

This is the problem the ‘Judaizers’ had concerning the ritual practices of Judaism: they were so focused on the outward symbol, that they lost sight of the inward meaning. And this outward focus led them to miss or reject the “surprising” work of God among the Gentiles. If we must speak of “heretics” or “apostates”, it was these Judaizers who were the guilty parties, not Paul/Saul of Tarsus.

What caused this controversy originally? The division arose over the question of whether or not the ‘Gentiles’ who were gladly receiving the message about Jesus as God’s anointed must fully embrace (or convert to) Judaism in order to be accepted into the Church. Must they be circumcised, start observing the Jewish holy days, and observe all of the ritual laws of Moses?

Jesus (PBUH) himself had not said much about circumcision. He mentioned it when he explained why he healed people on the Sabbath day: the Jews did not consider it a violation of the Sabbath to perform circumcisions on the day of rest, so why should they complain when Jesus healed people on that day? But although he said on some occasions that his message was meant to embrace the whole world (for instance, John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself), he is not recorded to have given any instructions as to what requirements were to be made concerning the non-Jewish people who would be drawn to him.

In fact, for whatever reason, despite the recorded instructions of the “Great Commission” which Jesus is said to have given just prior to his ascension into heaven – in which the disciples were told to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation – the disciples for some time did not seem to be making any great effort to do that. Acts 8 tells us that the “deacon” Phillip went to Samaria and preached there; but the Samaritans were of Jewish heritage (even though they were considered ‘apostates’ and ‘heretics’), and believed in and practiced the Torah (Law of Moses). Then an angel instructed Phillip to go down the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza, and Phillip met an Ethiopian eunuch in the service of the Queen of Ethiopia. But this eunuch was apparently already a convert to Judaism, as he was on his way to Jerusalem to worship and was reading from the prophecy of Isaiah. Phillip explained to the eunuch that the passage in Isaiah, as well as other Scriptures, referred to Jesus and told him about that holy and truthful servant of God. The eunuch believed and was baptized.

Then, following the record of the conversion of Saul of Tarsus in Acts 9, the account is given (in chapters 10 and 11) concerning something which came as a great shock to the disciples of Jesus Christ: the conversion of a household of unquestionably Gentile people. These people (the household of a Roman centurion named Cornelius) were neither Samaritan ‘apostates’ nor Gentiles who had converted to Judaism.

Cornelius and his household were what the Jews considered “righteous Gentiles”: they “feared” and prayed to God, and did good and charitable deeds. But they were still uncircumcised Gentiles who had not actually embraced Judaism.

One day, Cornelius got quite a surprise when he had a vision in which an angel told him to send messengers to the city of Joppa and ask a man named Simon Peter to come to his house in Caesarea. Then he should listen to whatever Peter said to him. So Cornelius did as he was told.

When those messengers were approaching Joppa, Peter had his own vision. Three times he saw a great sheet being lowered from heaven; and on this great sheet were all kinds of animals which were considered ‘unclean’ under the Law of Moses. Then Peter was given this incomprehensible instruction: Rise, Peter, kill and eat. Peter gave the good and correct Jewish response that he couldn’t do that, he had never in his life eaten anything ‘unclean’. But the voice he heard responded that Peter shouldn’t call ‘unclean’ that which God had cleansed!

While Peter was still pondering about what such a vision could possibly mean, the messengers from Cornelius arrived, and “the Spirit” instructed Peter to accompany them without any hesitation. The messengers then explained about the vision Cornelius had seen, and Peter went with them to Caesarea.

When Peter and Cornelius’ messengers arrived at Cornelius’ house, each explained to the other about the vision he had seen. Peter explained that, as Cornelius knew, it was unlawful for a Jew to associate with people from other nations; but now he understood that the meaning of his vision was that he should not call any man unclean.

Then as Peter began to preach, he said that he now saw that God truly does not show partiality; those in every nation who ‘fear’ God and do what’s right are accepted by God. Then he proceeded to tell them about Jesus, God’s anointed man who did good things and healed those who were sick. He explained about the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus; and that now God has given him (Jesus) authority as judge over all men. Those who believe in him (that is, believe his message and produce the fruit of good works) receive forgiveness of sins.

Now comes the real shocker: before Peter could finish speaking, God’s “holy spirit” came upon them, just as it had on the circumcised Jewish disciples on the day of Pentecost (in Acts 2), and Cornelius’ household began to praise God and speak in other languages which they had not previously known!

As I said earlier, even though Jesus had indicated that his message was ultimately for the world, he had left no instructions as to how believers from the non-Jewish nations were to be received. Perhaps Peter and the others believed that the Gentiles would hear the message, believe it, and convert to Judaism – including of course the belief that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Christ. Then they would receive God’s blessings. Whatever he thought, he and the Jewish believers who had accompanied him to Caesarea were completely astonished to see the spirit from God filling these uncircumcised Gentiles.

What could Peter do? God had made clear by the vision, and then by the outpouring of His spirit, that He wasn’t hindered by the fact that these Gentiles were uncircumcised. God’s mercy  knows no boundaries, and He is completely free and magnanimous in bestowing that mercy. So Peter commanded that water be brought so that the household could be baptized.

Acts chapter 11 tells us that when the apostles and brothers at Jerusalem heard about those events in Caesarea, they criticized Peter for visiting and eating with uncircumcised Gentiles. So Peter had to defend his actions by explaining the circumstances to them. After Peter explained everything, he made this wise statement (11:17): If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?

After this event, according to the rest of chapter 11, some of the Jewish believers – who had been scattered due to the persecution arising after the disciple named Stephen had been killed – went to Antioch and began preaching to the Greeks there. Many believed; and when the apostles at Jerusalem heard about it, they sent Barnabas down to check it out.  Barnabas was gladdened in spirit, went to Tarsus to find Saul (who had gone there after his conversion), and the two of them came back to Antioch.

Eventually, Barnabas and Saul/Paul went on a ‘missionary’ tour around cities outside of the Judea/Galilee/Samaria area. Their practice was to go to the Jewish synagogues in those areas and preach that Jesus was the Christ. The message would spread to Gentiles, who began to embrace the message of Jesus as God’s anointed one. In all of this time, from Peter’s experience with the household of Cornelius on through the ‘missionary’ journeys of Paul and Barnabas, there was no talk of any necessity of the Gentile believers to “be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses”. It would seem that the message was pretty clear that God was doing surprising things, and His servants shouldn’t try to interfere.

But this didn’t last. When Barnabas and Saul finally returned to Antioch, some of the Jewish believers came down from Jerusalem and started telling the Gentile believers that they needed to fully convert to Judaism by being circumcised and submitting themselves to the ritual laws of Moses; otherwise they couldn’t be saved. Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed with those Jewish brothers, and intense arguments and debates ensued.

As a result of this debate, Paul, Barnabas, and a few others from Antioch were sent to Jerusalem to take up the matter with the apostles and elders there. Both on their journey and after arriving at Jerusalem, the group from Antioch told about the wonderful things God was doing in converting the Gentiles.

But once again, at Jerusalem, some of the Jewish believers insisted that these Gentile converts needed to be circumcised and commit to keeping the Law of Moses. Therefore, what has come to be known as “the first Church Council” took place, in which the question was debated concerning circumcision for Gentile believers in Jesus as God’s anointed one.

After the debate had been going on for a while, Peter stood up and recounted once again his experience with the uncircumcised Gentile household of Cornelius. He gave his conclusion by saying:

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, Acts 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Acts 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

Then Paul and Barnabas again recounted the signs and wonders God was working among the Gentiles to whom they had ministered. Finally, James (the brother of Jesus, peace be with him) rose and gave his conclusion concerning the matter. He reminded them again of Peter’s testimony, and made reference to a statement from the Hebrew prophet Amos (9:11 and 12) which says this (as quoted by James):

Acts 15:16 ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, Acts 15:17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things Acts 15:18 known from of old.’

A major conclusion James apparently drew from this Scripture was that the Gentiles, as Gentiles (not as Jewish converts), would turn to God, be called by God’s name, and be blessed. James then concluded: Acts 15:19  Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, Act 15:20  but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.

The apostles, elders and the whole church agreed with this very reasonable conclusion, and sent a letter to the Gentile churches by means of Paul, Barnabas, Judas (also known as Barsabbas) and Silas. This brought rejoicing and peace to the churches.

This should have finally settled the matter. With this decision, it was made clear that James, Peter, and all the apostles and elders in Jerusalem stood with Paul and Barnabas in their ministry among the Gentiles. Paul was not a ‘heretic’ or ‘apostate’ for receiving Gentiles into the churches without requiring circumcision. Peace and unity were achieved. Jewish believers could remain Jewish, and Gentile believers could remain Gentiles; but they could unite together in the worship of God and in honoring that man whom God had raised to a position of supreme authority in God’s kingdom.

Unfortunately, this was only temporary, as some of the Jewish believers later renounced the Jerusalem decision and again began to stir up dissension and disharmony in the churches of God. As Muhammad M. Pickthall’s translation of the Qur’an 38:2 says: Nay, but those who disbelieve are in false pride and schism. But I’ll have to take up those further developments, and the Scriptural defense used by Paul and others for the non-requirement of circumcision for Gentile believers, in another article.

Psa 133:1  A Song of Ascents. Of David. Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity! May “peace like a river” be with all who are reading this article.

When the “foundations” of my faith were demolished (around 1987 or 1988), I deliberately began to read other (non-Christian) viewpoints: Buddhist, Hindu, and “New Age”. I rapidly reached the conclusion that the “Religion of God” embraced all of the major religions. There was a common thread of the Oneness of God which ran through them all (as well as common moral and ethical values) – even in those like Buddhism and Hinduism which are generally today seen as being polytheistic.

The “Buddha” denounced “the gods” so strongly that many believe (wrongly, it seems to me) that he was either agnostic or atheistic.

Knowledgeable Hindus consider the “gods” of Hinduism to be metaphorical representations of the characteristics and attributes of the One. The One is incomprehensible to humankind; so in order to attempt to get across some idea of His/Her/Its reality, male and female anthropomorphic images were used. But no knowledgeable Hindu considers those images to be “real”; in reality there is only the One.

I began to see clearly that there were two major divisions in “the Religion of God”: ‘Eastern’ religion which views God as impersonal ‘Beingness’, and is ‘monistic’ (meaning God is not “separate and distinct” from creation, but is “All in all” – creation is “part of” God, though God was “before” creation and exceeds creation no matter how vast that creation is); and ‘Western’ religion which is ‘monotheistic’. It tends to view God as a personal Being who is “separate and distinct” from creation. Some monotheists will consider it blasphemy to think of creation being “part of” God, and they’ll label such a belief “pantheism”. That’s a condensed and no doubt simplistic presentation of “Eastern” and “Western” religious beliefs, but I believe it gives the essential concepts.

Being a long distance truck driver, I had plenty of opportunity to think about these things while I was sitting behind the wheel of my truck rolling across the USA. The more I thought about it, the more I found myself uncomfortable with the “Western” personal monotheism and comfortable with “Eastern” monism. Nevertheless, it seemed to me that both viewpoints were valid ways of expressing the reality of God. No one perspective can give the entire truth of God. From the human standpoint, the two major views of the One were simply the result of human endeavor to understand God; from the Divine standpoint, they were the result of the kindness of the One in revealing Him/Her/Itself to humanity according to our varying capacities to receive the knowledge about Him/Her/It.

One of my favorite books was Autobiography of a Yogi by the Hindu “missionary” to the USA, Paramahansa Yogananda. I found this to be one of the most truly spiritual books I had ever read. In it, Yogananda commented that his guru, Yukteswar, was equally comfortable with either perspective in his conversations with people about God. Yukteswar used to ask people he was talking to (particularly if they were not from India) which perspective (personal or impersonal) they were more comfortable with. I found – and still find – that to be the best kind of attitude to take, and strive to attain to it.

When I began to read the Qur’an and Muslim writers, I was mostly just trying to find out if the allegations were true that Islam is vicious and terroristic, teaching its adherents to kill all unbelievers. I really didn’t expect to find Islam to be as open minded and “liberal” in its attitudes to other religions as I had become; but I wasn’t so sure that it was so intolerant that it demanded others to be murdered.

As I have shown in previous articles, I was quite right in my assumption that Islam couldn’t possibly be that intolerant. But what a pleasant surprise – amounting almost to shock – it was to find that the message God gave through Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) in the Qur’an was in fact very “liberal”. It’s true that this revelation uses the imagery found in personal monotheism; but it nevertheless embraces the validity of the “Eastern” perspective also.

There are several places in the Qur’an which speak of both east and west belonging to God. For example, consider this passage from Sura 2:111-115 (Muhammad Asad’s English Version):

[2:111] AND THEY claim, “None shall ever enter paradise unless he be a Jew” – or, “a Christian.” Such are their wishful beliefs! Say: “Produce an evidence for what you are claiming, if what you say is true!” [2:112] Yea, indeed: everyone who surrenders his whole being unto God, and is a doer of good withal, shall have his reward with his Sustainer; and all such need have no fear, and neither shall they grieve. [2:113] Furthermore, the Jews assert, “The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs,” while the Christians assert, “The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs” – and both quote the divine writ! Even thus, like unto what they say, have [always] spoken those who were devoid of knowledge; but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ. [2:114] Hence, who could be more wicked than those who bar the mention of God’s name from [any of] His houses of worship and strive for their ruin, [although] they have no right to enter them save in fear [of God]? For them, in this world, there is ignominy in store; and for them, in the life to come, awesome suffering. [2:115] And God’s is the east and the west: and wherever you turn, there is God’s countenance. Behold, God is infinite, all-knowing.

Notice that the passage begins by stating the Jews and Christians each assert that only those who belong to their party can enter paradise (just as I was raised to believe). And each asserts that the other has no foundation for their beliefs. Yet God’s Prophet clearly said that was only their wishful thinking. Everyone who wholly surrenders him/herself to God and does good will be rewarded by God. All houses of worship are to be honored and protected; and that not only applies to the “Western” religions, but to “Eastern” religions also. Both east and west belong to God, and wherever you go you will find the One.

The main point of saying that east and west belong to God is that God is everywhere and belongs to all people (or rather all people belong to Him). But I can’t help believing that phrasing it that way is deliberate, indicating that both “Eastern” and “Western” forms of religion (monism and monotheism) are recognized by God as valid and belonging to Him and His one Religion. They are just 2 ‘attempts’ to express the inexpressible.

Consider also these verses just a little bit farther along in the same Sura 2:

[2:142] THE WEAK-MINDED among people will say, “What has turned them away from the direction of prayer which they have hitherto observed?”  Say: “God’s is the east and the west; He guides whom He wills onto a straight way.” [2:143] And thus have We willed you to be a community of the middle way, so that [with your lives] you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind, and that the Apostle might bear witness to it before you.  And it is only to the end that We might make a clear distinction between those who follow the Apostle and those who turn about on their heels that We have appointed [for this community] the direction of prayer which thou [O Prophet] hast formerly observed: for this was indeed a hard test for all but those whom God has guided aright. But God will surely not lose sight of your faith – for, behold, God is most compassionate towards man, a dispenser of grace… [2:148] for every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself: for, verily, God has the power to will anything.

This passage is speaking of the direction people face when praying. According to a note in Muhammad Asad’s English edition of the Qur’an, Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) had originally been inclined to face the Kaaba in Mecca when praying. In order to express solidarity with the “people of the book” (Jews and Christians), though, while in Mecca he sought to position himself so that he would be facing both the Kaaba and Jerusalem (which “the people of the book” liked to face when praying). When he moved to Medina, though, facing both places at once was not possible, so he opted to face Jerusalem.

With this revelation in Sura 2, Muhammad was told to resume facing the Kaaba in Mecca, with which he was actually more comfortable anyway. The Kaaba was built by Abraham (“the father of the faithful”) and his son Ishmael, and facing that direction emphasized the direct connection of the message to and through Muhammad with the faith and religion of the great Prophet of God (Abraham). It also symbolized the fact that, in keeping with what Jesus Christ (peace be with him) had said, the kingdom of God would be taken away from the Jewish nation (symbolized by Jerusalem) and given to another nation – “the stone which the builders rejected”. That nation was the descendants of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, who together with his father had built the Kaaba in what is now Mecca.

This change from facing Jerusalem to facing Mecca was objectionable to some, though. According to this revelation, their difficulty was due to their weakness of faith (or being “weak minded”). God’s response was that east and west belong to God, and He grants His grace to whomever He will. God’s kindness is not restricted to one people or one region of the world. His mercy is over all, and He is very generous in His benefits to humanity – including raising up prophets from other than the Jewish nation. The Jews and Christians should not be offended by Muhammad’s direction of prayer since God is omnipresent; but neither should the Muslims get upset if the Jews and Christians couldn’t bring themselves to join them in this new direction of prayer. For every community faces a direction of its own, of which He [God] is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Don’t argue with each other about which is “the correct” direction to face; if you have to compete with each other, compete to see who can be best at doing good works. God is everywhere, so whichever direction one faces, God is the “focal point”.

One of  the intriguing things (to me) about this passage is that after saying in verse 142 that the east and west belong to God, verse 143 says that God had made the Arabic Muslim community to be a middle way, so that [with your lives] you might bear witness to the truth before all mankind. This is generally interpreted to mean that Islam, as revealed to Muhammad (peace be with him and his family), is a religion that avoids extremes (such as extremes of ‘materialism’ and extremes of ‘sprituality’ or ‘mysticism’). This is no doubt true; but I am convinced that – in this context – the idea is particularly emphasized that all people and all religions, both of the east and the west, belong to God. Islam is intended to take a middle position between east and west, in order that it can “reach out and touch” all nations and religions.

I would compare this to Sura 24:35 and 36, in which a beautiful parable about God’s light is given (Yusuf Ali’s version): 35. God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The Parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche and within it a Lamp: the Lamp enclosed in Glass: the glass as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil is well-nigh luminous, though fire scarce touched it: Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His Light: God doth set forth Parables for men: and God doth know all things. 36. (Lit is such a Light) in houses, which God hath permitted to be raised to honour; for the celebration, in them, of His name: In them is He glorified in the mornings and in the evenings, (again and again).

As Yusuf Ali said in a note on these verses, “volumes have been written” about this parable alone; and I’m certainly not going to try to explain it in detail. The point I would bring out is that God, Who is the Light of the heavens and the earth, is compared to an olive tree whose oil fuels the flames in the lamps in God’s houses all over the world. God, the Olive Tree, is neither of the east nor of the west – He is not the “exclusive possession” of any region or religion – but His truth is manifested both in the east and the west. He guides whom He wills (or as Muhammad Asad renders it, those who will) to His truth, both in the east and in the west. Whether it’s the Buddha in the east, or Moses and Jesus in the west (peace be with all of them), they’re all God’s messengers to proclaim His truth as a guide of God’s elect (or those who choose to be guided).

Just as God is the Olive Tree which is neither of the east or of the west, so Sura 2:143 says that the Arabian Islamic community was set up by God as a middle way between the east and the west, in order to bear witness to both. The message of Muhammad can confirm the truth that remains in both perspectives, and correct errors which have crept into either. It calls all to that tenet which all hold in common (3:64, Muhammad Asad): Say: “O followers of earlier revelation! Come unto that tenet which we and you hold in common: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God.”

God be praised! Or as the Arabic language expresses it, “Alhamdulillah”! I love it. I am very “liberal” and eclectic in my beliefs; yet in reality that is nothing other than “Islam” (submission to God).