After I read a complaint on my FB from someone who
appears to be a Christian pastor, about how all Muslims are judged according to
the barbarisms of the few, I wondered again how it is that so many good people
persist in treating Islam on the same level as Judaism and
Christianity? Many Catholic Christians are also saying similar things. As far
as Catholic Christianity is concerned, I have been trying hard to understand
for years, because my eleven years in Saudi Arabia have prejudiced me strongly
against the religion of Islam which I perceive
to be every bit as much of a political ideology as it is a religion. In
Islam, the state and the religion are one, controlled by Sharia Law.
The
Catholic Church teaches that all goodness comes from God working through
Natural Law in the conscience of each individual regardless of whether the
person belongs to this or that religion or to none at all. It pays Islam the
compliment of agreeing its roots lie in the Judeo-Christian beliefs. CCC. But a
few roots do not make for equality. Islam's main Christian root lies in the
heretical view of a dissident bishop, Arius, who denied Christ's divinity and
whose followers dispersed their beliefs as far as Arabia before the movement
finally lost its influence.
My
thoughts in this paper are to clarify in my mind a few of the differences
between Islam and the other two faiths. I am not criticising Muslims, but
criticising their religion. The overwhelming majority are born into Islam and
have no means of learning about other religions for various reasons. The
majority of Muslims worldwide actually do not have a high enough standard of
education even to read the language of the Qur'an, Arabic, and are forbidden to
question it anyway by the Qur'an itself in sura 5:101 because questioning may
weaken their faith. The majority learn their religion at their local mosque. If
the imam who preaches there is one whom we call 'radical' or an 'extremist',
their knowledge will be coloured accordingly. The 'radicals' consider
themselves to be the real Muslims, for they take the Qur'an seriously and
consider the harsher texts condemning non-Muslims to be the correct ones,
because they arrived later in Muhammed's life and therefore abrogate the
earlier, courteous, texts.
Presently, my understanding is that caution must be
used when considering the similarities between the three monotheistic
religions. Similarity in a few respects does not mean an equal status as
far as the actual religion goes.
Only
Judaism and Christianity were revealed directly by God, and to both revelations
there were witnesses. The Israelites did not see God when He spoke to Moses but
they heard His voice and it terrified them for they became aware of their moral
laxity and egregious ingratitude towards the One who led them out of four
hundred years of slavery. Over their three thousand year history up to Christ,
they witnessed first hand the exceptional miracles worked by their various
leaders and prophets, such as the parting of the Red Sea for Moses, and the
restoration to life of a dead youth by Elijah. There were thousands of
witnesses Christ’ miracles and very many to His visits for forty days after the
Resurrection, and eleven apostles witnessed the Ascension.
Islam, however, was revealed by an angel whom no
one ever saw or heard. Muhammed worked no miracles at all, telling any doubtful
listeners that the Qur’an was sufficient. Since Muhammed was illiterate, he
appeared to have miraculously found a way to express himself in eloquent,
poetic language.
I
personally do wonder if Muhammed had the visions associated with grand mal.
I have read that even Muslim scholars agree he suffered from a sickness the
symptoms of which do coincide with epilepsy -called t"he sickness of the
gods" in ancient times because patients often had visionary experiences of
a religious nature. One of my relations was an epileptic and told me he had
extraordinarily vivid visions when in psychosis, which happened if he had
neglected his medication for any length of time. He told me he had seen amazing
‘countries’, and conversed with angels. Sometimes an ‘angel’ would tell him a
complete stranger was out to get him and then order Gordon to attack first.
(False visions are the reason why the Church plods with elephantine tread for
years to discern the truth or otherwise about a Marian apparition or a miracle
at a shrine.)
When one reads the New Testament hand in hand with
the Old Testament, scholars say one sees hundreds of examples in the texts
showing how the first Adam and other important figures prefigured the new Adam
who would redeem his people and through them redeem the other peoples of the
world. I believe them. Even with my miniscule understanding of theology I can
see how the new Eve would be the Redeemer's earthly mother; she who was
conceived without Original Sin just as the first Eve was conceived without it;
she who had free will just as the first Eve had free will; she who chose
obedience over disobedience and so could be a worthy vessel to hold the Messiah
who had to become human in every way but sin. The Old Testament and the New
Testament are linked in every way possible.
The
Qur’an’s links to them are sparse indeed. I have seen a mosque with the words,
“The Third Testament” written in gigantic letters on it. If this were true, the
writings in the Qur’an would follow on from the previous two in a logical way
and affirm all stories and teachings just as Chritianity affirms the Old
Testament. But Islam does not do this. What is more, Muslims are discouraged
from reading the Scriptures of other religions; in some parts of the Islamic
world it is actually a crime to own a Bible as we learned when we lived in
Saudi. The Qur'an relates some stories about some important figures in both
books but it air-brushes out most of their contents. While it does touch on
Jesus’ miracles it does not report them according to the Christian versions,
and even uses one example which is found in the so-called Gospel of Thomas
which is not in the Bible. It also invents a miracle said to have occurred when
Jesus was a baby. The Qur'an flatly denys the Cruxifiction of Christ and it is
worth quoting the text.
"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A
grave false charge; That they said (in
boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah';- but
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them,
and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge,
but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah
raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- Qur'an, sura
4: 156 - 159.
In its published form today, which Muslims say
has never been altered - more about that in another post some other time
perhaps - the Qur’an is a jumble of texts arranged according to their length
rather than to their subject matter and definitely not arranged according to
their age. The context of each verse is found in the Hadith, which are
commentaries written by Muhammed's contempories and Islamic scholars. The
teachings in the Hadith are considered binding on Muslims. At the beginning of
Muhammed’s mission, one finds courteous verses regarding the Jews and
Christians (whom the Qur’an calls polytheists). As Muhammed’s mission
widened and he became a successful warrior, verses fulminating against both
peoples began.
The core
messages dictated by the ‘angelic entity’ to Muhammed directly, (identified by
him as the Archangel Gabriel), contradict the revelations given to the world by
God all those centuries earlier. Islam cherry picks characters in the
Judeo-Christian Bible and interprets them according to its own understanding.
It also invents stories about some of the characters. What is written in the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke about Jesus’ birth is completely re-written by the
Qur’an. It gives many more pages to Mary than does the New Testament, yet it
does not explain why she should be given such prominence. She is after all only
the mother of a prophet according to its depiction of Jesus. Mary sits on the
pages, passively. Frank Duff, the founder of the Legion of Mary, expressed his
hope that it would be through the mysterious presence of Mary in the Qur'an
that eventually Muslims will become Christians.
Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and knew Mary
personally, and Luke was a disciple of Paul and both of them undoubtedly knew
most if not all of the disciples and had access to the personal accounts of
many other witnesses who heard the story of Christ’s birth which had to come
from the Mary herself and/or Joseph. Surely, in rational terms, these accounts
should be given preference?
When
eventually the Word took on human flesh and dwelt briefly in the world His
purpose was to round-out and finalise and perfect the old covenant of the
people He had expressly chosen to be His vehicle for transmitting as much of
the Truth about Himself that He wanted revealed. He would take them away from
the bloody sacrifices he had previously demanded from His people, and via
Christ's death on Calvary lead them into the un-bloody sacrifice - that which
is today called Holy Mass by Catholics and the Divine Liturgy by the Orthodox.
Only Calvary could bring redemption for Mankind.
The
Qur’an preaches the old type of sacrifice, that of animals who must have
their throats cut while they are alive. My GP in Saudi, a Muslim, asked a good
Catholic friend of mine in Saudi to pray for her as she was afraid of going to
Mecca on Hajj. During our time in Saudi, late seventies to late eighties, there
were frequent cholera outbreaks due to the unsanitary conditions prevailing in
Mecca and Medina but I believe things have improved. My poor GP’s premonition
came true. She and hundreds of others died that year,1986, from cholera.
The Holy
Trinity only revealed Himself in a shadow way in the Old Testament but with
hindsight Christians can recognise what the texts mean. I refer to Genesis
1:26 &3:22 & 11:7; also
Isaiah 6:8; God may
choose His own time to reveal Himself and He did. In the sayings of Jesus in
the New Testament, Our Lord makes it clear He is the Son of God, who is the
Logos, the Word who speaks and something immediately occurs and speaks of a
third person whom He will send to strengthen and encourage His followers.
Islam
vehemently denies the concept of three equal Persons in one God, and objects
equally strongly to the mere idea that God would permit Himself to suffer on
our behalf. A Muslim I spoke to last year was scathing about these beliefs. The
Qur'an also considers it blasphemous in the extreme to think of God as a
'father'. A friend of ours in Saudi was roundly rebuked at her dinner table by
a Saudi guest who worked with her husband when she said grace, addressing God
as 'father'. They sat stunned as their guest shouted at them and then left and
when she recounted the story to me she said they fully expected to be deported
any day. They were not, but the man shunned her husband's company from that day
on.
How is it possible then to equate Islam with
Chrisianity? What is more, Muslims themselves find this thinking highly
offensive. For the Qur’an, Jesus was a prophet and the greatest, yet
virtually all Muslims, and certain Islamic narrations according to one of my
sources, claim that Muhammad is the most exalted of all of Allah’s
creatures. They believe that Allah has preferred Muhammad to the rest of the
prophets and messengers. Muhammed has been divinised by Muslims to such an
extent that it is blasphemy to criticise him.
Some Qur’anic
contradictions: On the one hand, it contains many beautiful texts about Allah's
goodness, mercy, etc. etc. But on the other, it teaches ideas such as the
following.
Because
Jesus’ followers do not follow the interpretation of who He was according to
the Qur’an, they are to be persecuted and oppressed under
‘dhimmitude’ till the end of time. (Regarding the Jews, I will not soil this
page with the curses hurled against them.) I bought my copy in Saudi Arabia,
gave it to a priest a few years later and have no wish to buy one again.
I was
given a free copy at the Bull Ring in Birmingham, and I notice there are many
changes in the English translation of words that are harsh to our ears. For
example, the true translation of ‘makr’ in Arabic is ‘deceiver’,
or‘liar’. But in the Bull Ring copy, published by Saheeh International, the word has been changed to 'Planner'. Very clever, and very typical of the use of 'takkiya' to confuse non-Muslims or potential converts to Islam. In my Saudi copy which was obviously approved by the Saudi censorship
board, the translation of sura 3: 54 was clear: “Allah is the greatest Deceiver
of all”! My little studies via the Internet show this is the correct
translation. If God is Truth itself, and the Qur’an elsewhere agrees, then how
can He simultaneously be The Liar? And also, from sura 3:28 originated the
teaching of 'taqqiya', which is lying and dissimulation to defend Islam
and Muslims. Quote from Picthall: "Let not the believers take disbelievers
for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no
connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them,
taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto
Allah is the
journeying. " These are totally different views from those
taught by Christ, who says the Devil is the father of all liars and murderers.
One last
point: Under Sharia Law apostates must be executed and the relatives of
apostates who kill them or organise their murder are considered to have acted
honourably. Those who evangelise them must be punished also. This form of
punishment depends on the country and the judge, so it may be imprisonment for
years but is more usually execution. We have to try to live with Islam while
resisting all pressure for Sharia to be practiced as a parallel justice system
in our country, and we need to be brave about evangelising Muslims. How can
such contradictions place Islam on a par with Judaism or Christianity? That
Muslims be respected and welcomed among us if they are peaceable and kind,
certainly, and treated with courtesy but firmness when they are not, certainly.
I keep up
with Islam today via commentaries and explanations of ex-Muslims and others who
read Arabic and are scholars of Islam and are able to quote genuine Qur’anic
texts directly in their exegeses. I also read some English language Muslim
sites to keep me informed when I have time.
Francis 1
Benedict XVI
Re: Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 teach Sola
Scriptura? 
