|
|
April 10, 2006Muhammed turned the other cheek? UPDATEDUPDATE: JihadWatch isn’t buying Ali’s responses and responds at length. Ali, in turn, takes and opportunity to clarify some points and comment further. Let’s get the dialogue on - next up at bat, Siggy addresses both Ali and Spencer in a broader context: The fact remains that if the radicals can come to define and redefine Islam, so can the moderates. One cannot ‘talk the talk and not ‘walk the walk.’ Spenser and others cannot dismiss the Islam of Eteraz, in toto. Ali’s voice, among others, are only now making themselves heard. As with reformers before them, they may fall, they may fail. Some will get up and succeed. They may not see their visions come to fruition but in fact, they are planting the seeds. It is just as clear that of we nurture and encourage Ali Eteraz, et al, we may very well see the crop of ideas and change that result from the few seeds planted. There could be easily be another ’shot heard round the world.’ Instapundit linked to Clifford May asking, Where are the Moderate Muslims. Well, I’ve been lucky enough to be able to correspond with a “reformist” Muslim named Ali, who is very careful with his words - which is wise, in my opinion - but also very eager to dialogue. Bear in mind that there is a distinction, naturally, between a “moderate” and a “reformist.” This will be a long post, but if we’re really interested in dialoguing instead of demagoguing, I hope some will plow through it. Last week, in writing about the latest episode of South Park, I wrote the following: I’m getting a few emails from people offended that I dare praise South Park: “don’t you know that they made a horrific episode mocking the Virgin Mary?” After thinking about that, I wrote a quick note to Ali at Unwilling Self Negation remarking, “That’s kind of what Christians are told to do, what we try to do, anyway - pray for those who hate, hurt or offend us. Is this something Muslims are also taught to do? Is there a “turn the other cheek” componant to Islam?” Ali is a very pleasant and attentive correspondent and he replied quickly (I reprint our exchange with his permission): There certainly is a turn the other cheek component to Islam. You must know that Islam has grown up in close proximity with Christianity. In fact, one of the Prophet’s brother in laws was a Christian (and his first wife a Jew). There is a quick Sufi story that comes to mind. An old sufi gets beat up by a rich man. In turn, the Sufi says: May you have everything you have ever wanted. The people wonder why the Sufi would say such a thing to a man who is so rich. The Sufi replies: “If he had everything he ever wanted, he should never feel the need to beat up an old Sufi.” (Obviously this story comes from some example of the Prophet). Intrigued, I asked in response:If Muhammed himself turned his cheek and prayed for his persecutors, why is that not the common response, today? Why do jihad and fatwa seem to be the order of the day? Ali: Fatwa - There was no such thing as a fatwa while Muhammad was alive. Fatwa came about with the jurists in later centuries and means “non-binding legal opinion.” Each and every Muslim can accept or reject a fatwa based on his or her personal determination. The fact that lay Muslims simply think that a fatwa is God’s word is not because a fatwa is authoritative, but because individual Muslims have conceded their individual autonomy to the scholars. This is a very curious phenomenon because the Quran categorically states that “none shall bear the burden of another” (on the day of judgment), to suggest that each one of us is accountable for our own decisions, and that reliance upon any other person’s opinion will not free you from accountability before God. I detail this phenomenon in a post on my In other words, the problem isn’t that a person releases a fatwa, it’s that a believer doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to know, that he still has room to make up his own mind. A large part of this has to do with historical conditioning. Jurists have for the longest time controlled the “Islamic” discourse within Islam. In other words, if you want to talk about Islam, you first have to qualify for being a jurist. That’s absurd because the Prophet and the First Caliphs used to have debates in public squares with men *and* women who thought their decisions were absurd and yet were illiterate or country bumpkins. There is no clergy in Islam, yet we’ve created it. Jihad - Earlier I related you an incident from Muhammad’s life where he was persecuted but he still prayed for his attackers. That ought to remind one of the behavior of one Jesus Christ. However, Muhammad was significantly different from Jesus as well. While Christ did not acquire temporal or institutional political power — and was always in a state of persecution — Muhammad, on the other hand, was able to become the leader of a community. He in fact, created a Constitution in Medina, and was the *political* leader of the community. As any political leader he engaged in two kind of acts: personal acts and political acts. In his personal life he was generous and kind and forgiving. For example, one day as he was sitting with some friends, a Jewish funeral procession passed by. Muhammad stood up in respect. When his followers said, “but Muhammad that man is not a Muslim,” Muhammad corrected them and told them to stand. Similarly, on another occassion, there was a Jewish neighbor of his who often reviled him. He used to stand in his window as Muhammad passed by and yell insults. One day Muhammad noted that the insults had stopped. After some days passed Muhammad realized that something was wrong and he went to find out if something was amiss. He discovered that the man was on his death-bed. Muhammad stayed with him until he passed away. Muhammad was The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Muhammad was a warrior. In a sense our American Founders were warriors. Napolean with his code, was a warrior. He *was* a warrior and given the time in which he lived, there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that today’s Muslims cannot distinguish between Muhammad’s personal behavior and his behavior as a leader of a community. For example, when Muhammad engaged in war, he didn’t do it just because he was Muhammad, or because he could. He engaged in it because he was the leader of a community and that’s what the circumstances dictated (we can disagree in hindsight with his determinations). Yet today’s Muslims believe that Muhammad pretty much ran a free for all. So when they get upset at something they believe that it’s time to engage in Jihad. That is patently incorrect, otherwise Muhammad would have engaged in war *prior* to becoming the leader of the community — *which he never did.* In short, Muslims have forgotten that war (jihad) is the exclusive possession of the state. This is why OBL, despite his pietist stance, is actually (under classical islamic law), a heretic. He writes later: In my mind, Muslims have stopped thinking with nuance about the Prophet because they are so busy trying to lionize him that they forget that he was *only a person.* The fundamental beauty of Islam was supposed to be that no man, not even Muhammad, could be considered to have attributes of perfection. In fact, even the Quran *corrects* and *admonishes* Muhammad. In one particular incident, Muhammad was speaking to some tribal leaders when an old blind man came to Muhammad wanting to ask him about Islam. But Muhammad turned away. The Quran, in a chapter called “He Turns Away” tells Muhammad what a horrible thing Muhammad had done. Yet Muslims have gone and spent so much time trying to remove all flaws from their leader. I deal with his problem a little here. I too have wondered, in some threads, if the exultation of Muhammed has not sometimes crossed into Idolatry - to me the “Muhammed Cartoon” violence seemed to me to be almost elevating Muhammed - a man - to a divine sort of rank. I was very happy to read Ali’s words. Ali added one more piece of information which I include here, because I know it is a curiousity for many: the age of one of Muhammed’s brides: Fact is, this is empirically incorrect. Some scholars have done research, and reached the conclusion that she was, at worst, 16. This is from understanding-islam.com: According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha’s (ra) participation in According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in the 73rd year after hijrah[2] when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in the 73rd year after hijrah, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra) - if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH - was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage. Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she most likely got married. As I noted here, I have a problem with people actively trying to convert each other away from their beliefs - with proselytizing - but I have no problem with engaging others to learn what it is they believe, underneath all of the things we “think” we know, whether it be what I, as a Catholic, might think a Protestant believes, or what a Protestant might believe of my Church, or whatever. And while I am unhappy to see the yearly fomenting of doubt thrown at Christians every Easter, I know there is nothing threatening or “foundation shaking” about talking to others and learning what they believe. And we live in such dishonest times, in an era of such disinformation and caricature and image manipulation, that getting to know each other at our core - by what we believe - might be a very good thing. I anticipate some “Anchoress, what are you doing, trying to sell me something,” emails. I’m not trying to sell anyone, anything. In my perfect world, we’d all be at the Easter Vigil this Saturday night, listening to the Exultet being chanted in the glow of a thousand candles, and responding “Thanks Be To God” each time we hear, “Christ, Our Light!” But the world is bigger than my little heart - and God is bigger than all of it. And because I love God, I want to love his Creation and his Creatures. I can’t do that if I don’t understand them. Maybe when I understand I will still say, “I cannot love…” but that’s not usually the case, is it? At Christmastime we meditated and prayed on the beautiful and engaging Mystery of the Incarnation - God come down to us: “The Word became - and set his tent among us - we have seen his glory…” and we read the words of the prophet: HE SHALL BE PEACE. Now, at Eastertime, we remember the price He paid for his condescension - the cost of BEING peace in a world that roils and rages. The Resurrection will come - glory awaits - but it cannot come about before the Passion - and in these days, the Passion seems upon us greatly, in many ways. Worldwide. Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. Happy are we who are called to his supper. Sinner though I am, I love him. I believe He is Peace. All I can do is offer my very small, thimble-sized contribution to the idea that an engagement of the hearts and minds, between all of us, of every faith, might help to bring about His kingdom, His peace. And if that offends some, I cannot help it; I can only follow the promptings of my Lord. Amen. So be it. Ali has many interesting posts, and you’ll have to go check out his site. Here are a few: Related: WELCOME: Captains Quarters readers! While you’re here, please look around; over the past few days we’ve been discussing whether the Irish have lost their moxie,the negatives of blogging, the power of Holy Week, we’re giving advice to the American Idol gang and marveling at the wonder that is Bryn http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/04/10/muhammed-turned-the-other-cheek/trackback/ 39 Responses to “Muhammed turned the other cheek? UPDATED” |
April 10th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
On the subject of Islam, I would be exceedingly careful about whom you choose to believe, dear.
Remember taqiyya and kitman.
“What you are screams so loudly that I cannot hear your words.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
April 10th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Thanks, Francis, for the warning. I think I’m being careful. All I can go on is faith and taking people at their words. We have to try!
April 10th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
I would also be careful not to forget that we have a duty to the truth. We can be so understanding of other views that we forget that we have a duty out of love to get them to see the truth.
What we have in islamic tradition is 1400 years of spin on the life of mohammed that excuses him for a lot of what he did as “political” leader as if the two spheres political and personal bore no relation to each other.
What we have in mohammed is a step back from the standard of Jesus. Prior to Jesus it was perfectly ok for a leader/model like Moses or David to be merely human, fallible and inconsistent. If one is going make someone the final model for mankind to emulate he should not represent a step back or the status quo but rather the highest possible standard. Anything less than perfection as our model lets us off the hook too easily.
There was a pattern to mohammed’s life in that the early days were entirely different from the latter days. He was good when things were going his way and did terrible things when things did not. He was saintly when it was easy for him. He reserved for himself special rights. He alone of all the founders of religions died a wealthy man on his own bed a man with multiple wives. He gained power and wealth for himself. The others renounced and sacrificed most of what they had if not all for their whole of their careers and were in addition consistent with their peaceful teachings at cost to themselves not for a season, not to gain advantage, not just when they started out, but even in the face of death and ruin and the loss of everything.
Islam lumps together things that should not be lumped together such as church and state and splits things that shouldnt be split like the character of one they follow as the ideal.
They also split man from message. This would be fine if Jesus has never lived. But after him it is unacceptable and a lot like running under the bar once it has been raised and then claiming equal or greater credit.
This split personality at the heart of islam is like that house divided against itself that Jesus spoke of. Good decent people can make the best of it. But if there is a model and a heart at the center of another faith that one wont have to make excuses for or spin or split one thing from another, then it makes no sense to cling to the faith that is broken picking and choosing what part of that example to follow. That results in nothing less than customized religion tailored to ones own preferences and biases. One ends up believing in a faith and a God that looks just like themselves.
April 10th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
BTW, Anchoress, I am not trying to lecture you. But I know that your post will attract the attention of people who do need to hear this. I am mostly addressing them.
I think its great to try and really listen. That is what I did before I became a Christian. I often criticize islam in strong terms out of love for those who are held in its spell in hopes of snapping out of it whoever might be passing by, whether it is someone who is making the best of their family/cultural faith or someone who is tempted to leave the church for it. But i have a great deal of respect for the subtlty and attraction of its message. I can easily understand how someone decent and intelligent could fall for it. I also see people making paper tiger arguments against it that no muslim would take seriously and its frankly embarrassing. We will win noone unless we understand what islam looks like to those who believe it.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:43 am
Interfaith Dialogue
The Anchoress really gets it. Go read Ali and the Anchoross: Muhummed Turned The Other Cheek.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Thanks for this fanastic post. I still can’t trackback, but I have commented here
April 11th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Anchoress, I’m sorry to see you get suckered in by Ali. Robert Spencer covered some of the more glaring deceptions in Ali’s responses to you here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010966.php
///
Now whenever Muhammed is mentioned positively by Muslims to non-Muslims, there is one essential idea to keep in mind: Muhammed is a fundamentally immoral man who, according to Christian theology and sound historical evidence lead to the spiritual and physical damnation of more human beings than any other man in history. If it is true that he once sat near one dying heckler, it just as true that he ordered many more to executed. Even if he married a Jew, she was a Jew whose entire tribe Muhammed had just slaughtered.
///
But Anchoress, in response to your question ‘Does Islam have a version of the Golden Rule?’, it does not, as this article explains http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina50428.htm. That took me a second to google using the words ‘golden rule islam’ to search. But if you won’t take the words of faithfreedom.org to heart, read the article at answeringchristianity.com (http://www.answering-christianity.com/golden_rule_lie.htm).
Perhaps the opening headline will induce you to read it: “The Golden Rule is nothing but a lie in the bible - killing of children and non-virgin women, enslaving, maiming of enemies, and so much more!”
///
Finally though, I leave you with the words of Paul touching upon the Revelation of Muhammed: “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Corth. 11:14) and “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8-9).
April 11th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I was just looking at the article over at jihad watch. While I always approach the site with some scepticism for reasons I wont get into here, still it can at times present a reasonable argument. I think this article is one of those.
One thing stands out for me and I was happy to hear it. Something that people might not realize is that islam has its own liberal revisionists who pick and choose what to believe and craft an islam in their own image in order to stay or become a muslim. Many muslims do this and still more converts do it as well. They buy wholesale into the idea that one should divide islam into two halves. Whatever seems good to them about islam is the real original islam. Its the pure and perfect divine message uncorrupted since mohammed’s own day. All the rest is to be blamed on culture. misinterpretation, human fallibility etc. It seems like a reasonable argument when one considers the stock Christian reply to critics re its past history. (This of course ignores the fact that the NT is devoid of calls to violence and oppression of any kind while the koran does)
What these folks and their supporters fail to take into account is the other islamic paralell with the Christian situation. The majority are conservatives and are well aware of the liberal arguments and have thoughtfully concluded, like most Christians in the world, that what the liberals are doing amounts to picking and choosing. It amounts to dismembering the faith as it has been received by them after being handed down to them by their ancestors and many of the most revered scholars and saints of the past. These are people who reject the notion that we moderns know better than our elders who it just so happens were wise enough to preserve a faith for more than a thousand years. These people see the error in rejecting the texts and the testimony of those people closest in time to the original events. And they reject the revisionist agenda because it would ignore vast portions of mohammed’s own example.
They see calls for doing this as traitorious, an alignment with the West, a surrender of the entirety of islam for a mere remnant of it that is more acceptable to the modern sophisticates of the world. They see pacifism in the face of this as a betrayal of islam and disobedience to mohammed’s teachings and examples requiring muslims to defend islam in whatever way circumstances dictate and allow.
You will have as much luck convincing a traditional muslim that they should accept the ideas of a revisionist one as you would with getting a traditionalist Catholic to make up their own Christianity.
Its the same ol liberal pipe dream just dressed up in different clothes.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
PS Its the same ol liberal pipe dream and that why our liberals and revisionists are so chummy with islam. They see their own dream of eventually reforming Christianity into their own image mirrored in the liberal minority in islam. They believe in their ability to evolve islam as much as they believe in their own ability to evolve our society.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
[...] [...]
April 11th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
[...] In the midst of deflecting allegations of being a Muslim backstabber, I have engaged in dialogue with a number of non-Muslims. The most recent dialogue took place with The Anchoress, a prolific Catholic blogger and thinker. She emailed me asking whether there was such a thing as a 'turn the other cheek' principle in Islam. The email back and forth between she and I can be found here. I deal with "fatwa" - "Jihad" - the age of Aysha - and Muhammad's visit to Taif — along with mentioning a cool Sufi story. What I found interesting was that just as I have to deal with Muslims on this blog who question my intentions, she has to deal with Christians who question her for daring to engage a Muslim on equal footing. [...]
April 11th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I for one dont doubt the sincerity of Ali. The way that he approaches islam is not new and I’ve seen many other sincere and peace-loving folks do the same. But what he needs to hear is the reason why the picking and choosing approach to religious belief and practice is a bad idea.
Its a bad idea because what you end up with is a God and a faith that looks just like you and conforms to all your biases & preferences. It is a faith that is made in your own image and is ultimately no bigger than yourself.
I have often mentioned the fact that was painfully caught between islam and Christianity. I went through a terrible period where I could neither dismiss nor accept either one. Its no surprise and no accident that when I accepted Christ, I at the same time rejected any notion of pick and choose Christianity. I have realized that I could only have ended up in the fine orthodox Anglican parish where I currently worship. I rejected the pick and choose approach to Christianity because I had seen the through the error of it through studying not just the arguments for islam but also studying the testimonies of those who converted to it.
One of the many important differences between these two faiths is that in islam one is forced to pick and choose and divide and disconnect, and to selectively elevate some concepts while excusing or turning a blind eye to others.
While its true that many Christians practice pick and choose, they do so out of choice for a number of motivations. We Christians dont have to make excuses for Jesus. We dont have to spin Jesus. We dont have to pick and choose from his example. We dont have to downplay episodes from his career or try to rationalize or explain them away. We are not forced to pick and choose in order for our personal expression of faith to be in line with objective moral standards. The most Christ-like people that have ever lived have been the most peaceful and loving people that ever lived and they have also be heroes of justice for the poor and downtrodden and heroes of faith as well. The saints are the greatest testimony to Christ. They are what happens when one devotes themselves to following the whole example of Christ.
What happens to the person that is the most serious about following the whole example of mohammed??
Out of love and charity for Ali, who is a beloved child of God, someone should tell him these things. I pray that he will listen to his conscience and stop picking and choosing.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Ali,
I think its a mistake to confuse what is happening to you with some of the replies to the Anchoress.
I would like to find the regular visitor to her blog that believes that she is wrong to engage with you on an equal footing or that she is some how less of a Christian for recognizing that there are serious (if ultimately wrong) ideas in islam. Dont be so quick to read what you experience into the comments of serious and thoughtful Christians. Everyone here, even Robert Spencer to an great extent, have tried to answer and reply with thoughtfulness and respect for both you and the Anchoress. One person has warned her against taking your word for it. But that is a justified warning given the concepts that commenter mentioned. The advice in that case, duly noted by the Anchoress, amounts to the famous Reaganism “trust but verify”
We wouldnt have the Anchoress any other way. She is not and will not get any grief from us. Our only concern is to gaurd her and to help you understand our views out of all love and charity.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Peggy - I think Ali was referring to some info I had related to him privately but had not yet decided whether to bother posting about, that being the unusually angry emails I’ve received from a few Christians who are unhappy that I’ve even bothered to TALK to Ali, and a few who are worried that my willingness to engage a Muslim in dialogue indicates that I am now about to jump into a burka and face Mecca.
‘
And of course, there are the usual emails from Christians who seem to believe I have never read scripture and therefore must have it quoted to me at length - but I’m used to them - on any given day, some Christian (Catholic or non) is grabbing The Anchoress by the veil and dunking her head into the river trying to wash her clean and get her to finally understand…whatever it is they want me to understand…I don’t mind when they call me a “sinner” (I am one!) but when they tell me to “fry in hell,” I tend to push the delete button. Some of them lose me when they point me to a scripture verse they promise will “explain it all” to me, and I look it up and it’s a list of numbers of heads of cattle, or whatever…
‘
You’re very correct that I have heard nothing negative from “regular” visitors to this site. That’s not surprising because - for the most part - I have great “regulars”. But some of the “passers-by” have been harrowing!
April 11th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
[...] And finally, dearest Anchoress, BE CAREFUL! The Evil One comes in many guises, usually smooth of tongue and easy on the eyes. [...]
April 11th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Making Men(ds) With Method
The Quran, the life of Muhammad, the hadith (including the fabricated ones), and Islamic History, all offer many things that are good and noble. Rabia of Basra, Rumi, Hafiz, Iqbal and Shirin Ebadi are all believers and righteous.
The Qura…
April 11th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Peggy,
All the respect you have for Jesus, I have too.
Jesus was a lamb.
Muhammad was not a lamb. I can live with that.
Islam is merely an extension of Christianity. It’s unfortunate that Muslims try to disconnect themselves from Jews and Christians.
As to whether I have to ’spin’ Muhammad. No, I don’t have to ’spin’ him. I have to spin what people after him have said about him.
Christians have to do that too.
As do Marxists with Karl.
In my recent post I talk about this fluidity of history.
Constructing your own identity doesn’t mean your history is evil. It just means that its history.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
btw, i didn’t mean the ‘lamb’ thing as an insult.
i was using ‘lamb’ as a euphemism for innocent in the political sphere.
although i’m curious: aren’t there passages where jesus talks about the sword?
April 11th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“It is we who speak.”
Here’s a dialogue you should follow. First, The Anchoress asked Muslim “reformist” Ali Eteraz whether there was a “turn the other cheek” strain in Islam, and posted his responses, stories from the life of Muhammad in which he was forgiving
April 12th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Jesus was GOD in the flesh. Muhammed was a man. I sit with Paul - the Muslims are following a ‘gospel’ that is not of GOD at all.
.
It matters not which of them claims a kindly nature for their Prophet. He was a man soaked in blood. The Koran is a book that demands blood. The NT speaks of Love. The difference is stark.
.
As far as Jesus speaking of the Sword: yes, He did. Did He wield one, while on earth, against any man? No, He didn’t. One of the few instances of Him showing His righteous anger was at the Money-changers in the Temple. By rights, He was defending the sanctity of His Father’s own Temple. He had every right to demand blood. He did not.
.
I’m glad that Ali is speaking with Christians and Jews, Anchoress, and I’m glad you are a part of the dialogue. But Ali’s faith is a faith in a demonic book and a bloody history wrought by that book. Ali needs to come away from it and find freedom.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:43 am
[...] It turns out that Muhammed himself was actually a pretty decent guy. Yesterday, the Anchoress posted a conversation she had with Ali — a “reformist” Muslim. She started the conversation after she became curious about this question: “Is this something Muslims are also taught to do? Is there a “turn the other cheek” component to Islam?” [...]
April 12th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Ali,
When Jesus talked about the sword, it was along the lines of those who live by the sword, die by the sword. He also used it once allegorically when he said he came to bring a sword, meaning a division. Those who chose Christ will be put to the sword by their friends, by their family who do not. Christians do not have to spin what other people have said about Christ, because it is the non-believers who are trying to spin, not the believers like it is with Muhammad.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:04 am
I don’t talk about “spinning” Muhammad. I talk about acknowledging him for what he was. Both a warrior and a law giver. I’m not saying that because he is a Prophet and we think Jesus was a Prophet it means that Muhammad behaved just like Jesus. They didn’t. They came into different situations.
What I’m saying is that Muslims need to be open about the fact that their Prophet was a lawgiver.
Now you’d admit, knowing of people like Marcus Aurelius and Richard the Lionheart, that warriors can be great people too, and just people, and nice people.
Thing is: Muslims need to stop using the fact that their Prophet was a warrior to turn into warriors today, because today’s world is not a warrior’s world.
It is a writer’s world.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Muhammad’s Supplication At Taif
I was sent this from a reader of mine in Philadelphia who wishes to remain anonymous. Why do my Muslim tipster like to remain anonymous? Hello! Here is your chance to be famous. Anyway, this is the prayer that Muhammad made after he was pelted w…
April 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Do Muslims have a Golden Rule?
Via Ed Morrissey I was directed to a long and thoughtful post by the Anchoress, and a group of discussions that I found quite refreshing, RTWT here, and be sure to read the comments and follow the various links. It…
April 12th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Ali,
I dont have respect for Jesus. You can respect a man. God has a whole other claim on the heart that respect is inadequate to cover.
No you dont respect him as much as I do. You havent the slightest inkling of my feelings for him.
This talk about respecting is islamic double talk. You attempt to redefine Christianity and Christian feeling to be the same as yours. But that does not change reality. You have nowhere close to the feelings that we have for Jesus.
I could just go off on the ways that you disrespect him and us by your very rejection of him as Savior and of our faith. You cannot respect what you also believe to be a fabrication and a corruption. You cannot respect a faith that proclaims the truth of Christ’s sacrificial death and also believe that Jesus didnt die on the Cross and wasnt resurrected. You cannot respect a faith and at the same time also believe that its scriptures are corrupted except whereever they are useful to you or seem to agree with your belief.
You have no idea what the word respect means because it was redefined from its common definition to better suit mohammeds aims.
Your faith couldnt even exist without denying ours. That is not respect.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Ali,
Islam cannot be an extension of Christianity, unless Christianity is redefined to mean and be what it isnt. That is exactly what was done,very conveniently, 600 years after the fact.
There was Christianity. An historic fact. Clearly not a religion about doing good and pursuing justice and being good people. It is a religion that proclaims that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, God Himself in the flesh, who was cruxified, who died and was buried and then rose again.
Islam bears no relation to this essential and central fact of Christianity. You have to completely rewrite the facts to even think that.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Ali,
No you dont have to spin him???
Cleanly dividing his public personality from his private personality is not spinning? Separating his personal character from his message is not spinning? Accepting the word of a man whose character was inconsistently moral based on just his private conduct alone is not spinning? And how do you manage to get an ideal man in private and a normal man in public to divide so cleanly. That isnt spinning?
What you do is major surgery the likes of which wouldnt fly in any scholastic discipline. You divide the public and the private character as if they had no relation to one another. Mohammed did bad things as a political leader. Brutal things and ones that completely contradicted his “message”. This speaks to his whole character. It calls into question his whole character and everyone one of his good acts. You have only his word for all that he claimed. You have only his political and military prowess for so-called proof of his prophethood.
Mohammed was no ideal if the whole of his conduct wasnt ideal. Prior to Christ, his type might have passed muster. Moses wasnt perfect and was forced to do battle with his enemies. But after Christ, the type is obsolete.
There is a new type that exceeds the old type. Christ is the new type. His Church suceeded in a new way. After Him there is no longer any excuse for someone like mohammed who claimed necessity as the reason he became a political and military leader. There was another way that didnt involve compromise and contradiction and if mohammed had been a true prophet with a real message from God he would have known that and would have never taken up the sword.
Do not give me the situational morality crud that mohammed’s situation was different. It wasnt. That excuse works for Moses, but not for mohammed. There is not one single way that there was no avoiding violence in his situation. Christians also faced extermination. Jesus himself was put to death and God provided for them without resorting to battle. The Hebrews were helpless against Pharoah’s armies and God provided for them by splitting the sea.
Mohammed had a choice. It was wrong and immoral of him to claim both religious leadership and also be head of state. The end result is a man talking out of both sides of his head and acting out of inconsistent and erratic morals. Splitting that man down the middle so that one side is saintly and the other side excusable is nothing but spin and denial. Saying that one can and should follow only half a man and half a message is and that this is a religion that surpasses, extends and completes Christianity is madness. There is no other word for it.
You have to juggle, ignore, and divide islam and mohammed to get them to be as good and peace-loving as our faith and our Savior Jesus Christ. Considering only what is left over after the surgery, I have to ask how is it better? What are you getting out of it that you cant get out of The Church? What is the poiht?
April 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Ali,
Yes, Jesus was a lamb. There is no insult in that. We say “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain”
Jesus was all lamb. What you dont realize is that a lamb is all that anyone needs to guide them in all spheres of life. Our spirits are not divided into private and public. We are unified beings, unified by our spirits. Jesus fully addresses our spirits making his example all sufficient in all spheres without contradiction.
Of course as a muslim you think that its necessary to act one way in one situation and another way in another situation. This is the situational morality that mohammed sold you on which we Christians absolutely reject as an offense to morality. You are blind to the fact that the guide of the spirit governs all that one does. The ministry of Jesus was not incomplete or restricted because his ministry was only to the spirit. His guidance of the spirits of Christians makes him the head of all the spheres in which we move. If the guide of the spirit is consistenly moral and whole without confusing contradiction, so will the spirit be. The two separate spheres of the two separate mohammeds are entirely unneccessary not just from the historical situation in Arabia since it was no worse than anywhere else but also from the moral and spiritual point of view.
We didnt need a prophet to be both political leader and spiritual ideal. The Lamb is all that anyone needs to know about what to do and how to make the world a better place. Christians have been doing so without mohammed or anything he ever said or did for 2000 years. Mohammed is not only an obsolete model. He is also superfluous. Jesus is all that anyone needs.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
BTW,
I didnt mean to imply that Christianity is not about doing good for others. That is of course part of it. But the essence of Christianity is not that. It is centered in the Incarnation, the Cruxifiction and the Resurrection. That is its essence. Any attempt to redefine it to be just another do good religion flys in the face of its reality.
In the main we have little in common with any other faith.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Ali,
Btw not impressed with the prayer of Taif.
Not when the majority of mohammeds career was spent contradicting that.
Its nothing but a pretty sentiment if its not backed up in the real world with consistent behavior.
Its the Cross that transforms all the things that Jesus said. His death on the Cross took his teachings to completion in reality. The Cross was perfectly consistent with what Jesus said and did his whole time here. The Cross elevated those words. Without that kind of total and unswerving consistency, his words would have been mere pretty sentiments too.
What you want us Christians to believe is that some pretty sentiments trumps what actually happened and trumps the whole record of mohammeds life. His prayer is meaningless because he didnt live it. Again, maybe inconsistency would have passed muster before Jesus. But not after. Jesus lived what he taught to the letter and to the bitter end.
The muslim argument for mohammed’s prophethood is kind of like asking a jury to aquit a murderer because of some lovely speech he may have written and some nice things he did for his neighbors. Mohammed was a murderer. Real people suffered real pain because of his actions. People died and were torn from their homes. Peaceful cities were attacked and besieged and sacked because they choose freedom and self determination over surrender.
If Mohammed was a real prophet he would have known that the Truth doesnt need us to go to war in its defense. He would have known that God didnt need men to go into battle to preserve his people.
In order to defend the Truth, Mohammed asked his followers to shed their own blood and the blood of thousands of others besides. People who were just minding their own business were slaughtered and conquered.
In order to bring the Truth to the world, Jesus shed only his own innocent blood. He was the first to die and he killed noone. His followers who were weaker were only asked to also die after he did and they also killed noone. After Jesus there is no more any excuse for an example less than His. Why would anyone follow a lesser example?
April 12th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Ali,
You could say that because mohammed came after Jesus in history all that he did that was like what Jesus did was only in imitation of Jesus. Jesus was the original. It is no credit to someone to say that an idea that already exists in the world is a good one. All credit goes to the one who originated it.
Jesus originated turn the other cheek and pray for your ememies and he never did anything contrary to that.
April 12th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Ali,
One last question because I have to go now.
When it comes to sacrificing ones life, who should be the first to sacrifice?
The stronger or the weaker?
Wouldnt it be wrong for the weaker to die in the place of the stronger?
That is the very thing that muslims believe about Jesus. That someone weaker than he died in his place because God was more concerned with protecting his “prophet” than he was in protecting some poor ordinary man.
Tell me, who is the stronger? The one that cannot be moved from ideals or the man who finds endless reasons why he cant be expected to live up to them because of the situation he finds himself in?
Tell me, who is the stronger? The man that could choose to kill and cause a revolt to defend his message but doesnt and dies in the place of others instead? Or the one who faced with a threat to his message chooses to go to war?
Isnt war the same old same old? Who hasnt waged war to defend their way of life and to conquer others? War is the easiest way. The pace on non-violence is the hardest.
In Jesus’ death on the Cross we have the world set right. He is the Strongest. Not just the strong. God himself, The Strongest, suffered of Himeself for the weakest, his human creatures. The strong should die in place of the weak right? This Cross makes the whole universe morally consistent from the bottom to the top, from the highest to the lowest, from the strongest to the weakest.
God sending a dictation as his final revealation? Thats not love, or sacrifice. Denying the Cross means that God the Strongest exempted himself from paying the highest price for his creation. Embracing the fact of Cross affirms that God did not exempt even Himself for our sakes. He paid a price for us.
Tell me, what kind of love is it that comes as no cost? What kind of love does God have if it comes at no cost to Himself? That cost, paid on The Cross, was all about God living his own words and by that act his promises of love, of rescue and of provision for us were given their fullest meaning. The Cross is God backing up his Word by putting Himself on the line. Noone ever died for Him before or after Jesus without God himself reciprocating and dying The Death that tramples down Death (as the Orthodox say) God Himself rose again in the flesh with Jesus as a sign that no death is final and death’s days are numbered so that all those who died for him afterwards knew the end of the story in the way for which those who went before could only hope.
Without God’s ultimate act told in the Gospels, his claims to love us comes cheaply. What kind of love is that?
The islamic version of God and Jesus is weaker. less loving and less moral than what we Christians have received in every possible way.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:18 am
[...] [...]
June 4th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
[...] In other words Hirsi Ali was too secular for the secular Dutch. That “too-secular” atheist is going to be embraced in America by the left because that’s what the left aspires to, and now, by those in the right who put bashing Islam first and sensibility second. What no one seems to recognize is that enthroning these people as our experts on issues involving religious persecution and religious foreign affairs is going to lead to huge problems down the road, when their acolytes and students come out of the woodwork and start attacking anything that suggests or smells of religious values in modern culture and society. For example, what happens if it turns out that the best reconciliation of the Muslim world and the Western world comes through the Pope and mainstream Churches and Synagogues? That, in fact, is the most likely solution. It will be Western Muslims and Western Christians and Jews, and not Western Karl Popper’s and Sam Harris’, who will create the dialogue between Islam and West. The moment that an atheist is propped up to speak on behalf of the West (simply because he excels in criticizing Islam), the entire project is derailed. You create a situation where dialogue is impossible and only animosity exists. Some discussion about this took place at Esmay’s blog. It is notable, that my three most well received interactions related to radical Islam have been with three hardcore Christians: Dymphna’s Dialogue, Anchoress’ Dialogue, and Pastorius’ friendship. In other words: straight up evidence that the dialogue between Islam and West goes through religion. [...]
June 11th, 2006 at 6:30 am
[...] During this time I also had a couple of other contructive dialogues. One was with Dymphna, which won some kind of blogging award. The other was with the Anchoress — a discussion on the humanity of Muhammad. In fact, I felt that I had much such headway that I felt comfortable enough to pen an Open Letter To Reformist Muslims, encouraging my fellow reformists to engage the non-Muslims we had thus far been ignoring. I had in mind people like Pastorius, Dymphna, and the Anchoress, and others I had come to learn about: Shrinkwrapped and Dr. Sanity. [...]
August 12th, 2006 at 12:50 am
[...] Simultaneously, I had an email dialogue with another Christian blogger, The Anchoress, related to whether Muhammad ever “turned the other cheek.” She was surprised to find that there were examples of actions by Muhammad which were charitable and compassionate. With my permission, she put the discussion on her blog. She immediately caught a firestorm from the watch-dog group at JihadWatch (whose founders have their own ideas about Islamic Reform). They rebuked The Anchoress for falling prey to my purported dissimulation. Much to my surprise (as I did not know her too well at the time), she held her ground and rebuffed all assailants. I did not then and do not now agree with her political stance. Hell, she goes to Yankees games and I go to Mets, but that single act of hers remained with me. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
[...] Related: Benedict’s Supernatural Stand For Popes and Presidents, it feels like 1981 out there Sr. Leonella’s Victory Muhammed Turned the Other Cheek? A Roundup: Pope, Dopes and General Prattle Benedict’s “Blunder” was partly media-enhanced. Another Pope Roundup First Came The Day The Music Died, Then Came the Delusions « Sigmund, Carl and Alfred pinged back with First Came The Day The Music Died, Then Came the Delusions « Sigmund, Carl and AlfredCitizen’s Arrest! Citizen’s Arrest! « Obi’s Sister pinged back with Citizen’s Arrest! Citizen’s Arrest! « Obi’s SisterThe Random Yak tracked back with Double Standard…Party of You… Posted on: 9 Comments ? [...]
October 17th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
[...] During this time I also had a couple of other contructive dialogues. One was with Dymphna, which won some kind of blogging award. The other was with the Anchoress — a discussion on the humanity of Muhammad. In fact, I felt that I had much such headway that I felt comfortable enough to pen an Open Letter To Reformist Muslims, encouraging my fellow reformists to engage the non-Muslims we had thus far been ignoring. I had in mind people like Pastorius, Dymphna, and the Anchoress, and others I had come to learn about: Shrinkwrapped and Dr. Sanity. [...]