Another Look : One God and Three Faiths 9780761862093, 9780761862086

Citation preview

ANOTHER LOOK

_________________________ One God and Three Faiths

_________________________ A. J. Abraham

University Press of America,® Inc. Lanham · Boulder · New York · Toronto · Plymouth, UK

Copyright © 2014 by University Press of America,® Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 UPA Acquisitions Department (301) 459-3366 10 Thornbury Road Plymouth PL6 7PP United Kingdom All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America British Library Cataloging in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Control Number: 2013949232 ISBN: 978-0-7618-6208-6 (paperback : alk. paper) eISBN: 978-0-7618-6209-3

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992

Another Look:

One God and Three Faiths A. J. Abraham

This book is dedicated to the memory of Rev. Dr. George I. Haddad, Ph.D. His faith and knowledge encouraged this work and is joyfully remembered.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

xiii

Introduction

xv

Chapter 1: First Contact

1

Chapter 2: Keeping the Faith

7

Chapter 3: The Only Son

13

Chapter 4: The Commission

25

Chapter 5: The Last Messenger

37

Chapter 6: The Call

51

Chapter 7: Crossroads

65

Chapter 8: Ideas in Faith

75

Chapter 9: Some Final Thoughts

95

Bibliography and Reference Works

97

PREFACE This book is a study in sacred history and a primer for monotheism. Sacred history may be defined as a record of God’s interaction, intervention, intercession or involvement with His creation in our own space-time continuum—that is our lives. Sacred history radically differs from our own conventional history which is based upon our own experiences and records of existence. In sacred history God is the source, and verification of events is accepted on faith and the veracity of His witnesses, transmitters and adherents, as recorded in their scriptures, the Holy Writ of each faith. But, conventional history in its own records, monuments, and eye-witness based accounts lends even more credence to the monotheistic beliefs and their scripture. In all three western monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam their faith and revelations remain totally valid for each religion. Each faith is complete for its followers and should be regarded that way by the others as if God sent each community a separate message for the salvation of its members. (In theory at least, it is doubtful or downright impossible for a monotheist “to covert” to another monotheistic faith. He/she may change to a non-monotheistic faith such as Buddhism, Hinduism or Shintoism etc., but all three monotheistic western religions remain totally committed to the same One True God. If monotheists change affiliations between Judaism or Christianity or Islam they may add additional beliefs, practices, rituals or join a group that espouses a combination of the two such as the Jews for Jesus and other Messianic groups.) While it is true that Christianity grew out of Judaism, Islam’s origin is unique. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his wife’s cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawful, about his desire to be a monotheist. Waraqah asked the future prophet of Islam why he would not join the Jewish or Christian faith. Muhammad replied that those two religions were complete for their own followers in their own languages and traditions and should be left so. Then, Waraqah suggested that Muhammad join the Arabian monotheists, the Hanif community, of which Waraqah had once been a member before converting to Christianity. The prophet answered him saying that the Hanifite faith was not based on God’s (Allah’s) revelation; and that he would wait for a revealed religion in the Arabic language for his people. Indeed, the Prophet of Islam had no negative predisposition towards Judaism or Christianity. Those religions were completed, in his view, in a different language and space-time continuum, and were to be left to their followers as such, according to the Islamic oral tradition. Thus, Muhammad’s main focus was the pagans of Mecca and, later, of all Arabia who

viii

PREFACE

opposed him from the beginning of his holy mission. (Also, according to the companions of the Prophet Muhammad he seems to have opposed the terms “Son of God” and “Mother of God” (theotokos) in reference to the Virgin Mary (the mother of Christ), but not to the divinity of Jesus as the Word of God which only belongs to God; And, if God has a son, then this could imply that Allah could have daughters as stated in the Quran but, later, repudiated, as the Satanic Verses.) Everyone is free to believe as they choose, to defend their faith as they understand or interpret it; but, no one has the right to call another person’s faith false or wrong or to make fun or ridicule someone’s beliefs in word or depiction or as a form of freedom of speech because that is insulting and hurtful and will only create hate. ⋯ Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the three great western religions, began and grew to maturity in the fertile soil of the Near and Middle East. All three of them are desert religions initiated by a “desert” God who speaks from high places. He is, indeed, an authoritative God who teaches His will to mankind. The three faiths claim a common Semitic High God and all prayer goes directly to Him alone. (He alone is worshiped by His followers, although veneration by prayer to religious figures exists-prophets in Judaism, and saints in Christianity and Shi’ite Islam.) The three faiths also differ greatly in intent, Judaism is a national-legal religion; Jews are to be a “nation apart,” a separate tribe, from all others. Christianity is, however, a total commitment to God and Jesus Christ devoid of national, tribal, or political intent; Christianity is a Universalists faith that may interact with all peoples. Islam is a political-legal religion that establishes a separate Community (ummah) and seeks political power to implement Islamic Law. Perhaps for this reason, the pagan Meccans attacked the Moslem community but not the Jews or Christians, although they supported the Islamic community. (Note, The separatism in Judaism (a nation apart) and Islam (a community apart) originally referred to only religious practices, not the rest of humanity. But, some extremists later proposed a permanent separation from, and hostility to, all other faiths and peoples. At first the Meccan Ummah included Jews and Christians as well as some Pagans (presumably the monotheistic Hanif). But, later, these communities separated since Muhammad believed that the Jews and Christians had a completed revelation. And the Hanifs and pagans were at times forcefully incorporated into the Moslem community. However, at present, Judaism, Christianity and Islam allow their followers to observe and attend the festivals and ceremonies of other faiths but not to participate in them or to eat food dedicated to other gods. Thus, Passover, Christmas and Easter, and id al-Adha and id al-Fitr may be attended by members of all three monotheistic faiths.) These three religions greatly resemble each other in many ways; the similarities are extraordinary yet also they differ by interpretation over key issues, and beliefs. Despite the many differences in their monotheistic origins

PREFACE

ix

and beliefs, the three faiths often parallel one another. Judaism, Christianity and Islam absolutely and uncompromisingly uphold their faith in the One True God, the Lord of the Worlds, Jehovah (Judaism), God the Father (Christianity) and Allah (Islam). Over the centuries, these three faiths that emerged from the same region and at first lived cordially together have now grown apart and even reject some of each other’s beliefs with “astonishment, disbelief or disdain.” Centuries after the three western religions parted company and began to contradict one another, religious scholars began to reinterpret and criticize scriptural statements to justify revisionist theories regarding the central characters of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Fraudulent deceptions attacking the validity of the original scriptures produced a series of “substitution theories,” “cases of mistaken identities,” and “impostors” to justify differences of belief. These fanciful notions became part of the creeds of the detractors and, later, entered the polemics between those three faiths. For Judaism, they ask if the Moses who went up the mountain to get the Ten Commandments was the same Moses who came down with a different appearance and thus was rejected by so many faithful followers awaiting him. And, furthermore he had enough time to carve the Tablets himself. For Christianity, to explain away the self-resurrection of Jesus (a feat that no other prophet could do) the Jews claimed that Jesus had a “secret twin brother,” an evil impostor, who was brought into play for the resurrection scenario. Islam’s substitution theories for Jesus rejects His death on the cross preferring someone else to have died in His place, a case of mistaken identity. This is a more sophisticated version of the Jewish “evil twin” theory. And, lastly, was the Prophet Muhammad of Mecca, a peaceful preacher, the same Muhammad of Medinah, a warrior prophet, or one of his disciples with a different style of revelation and action. And, why was Muhammad rejected in Mecca by some, and, later, in other parts of Arabia after his death. Since the Medinese did not know Muhammad, and he looked like his companions, could the Muhammad of Medinah be one of his companions taking his place or as some Shi’ites believe his cousin and son-in-law, Ali. Some Jews said that Muhammad was a Jewish impostor who failed to be declared the Messiah and therefore initiated the Islamic faith. Similarly, in Medieval Christian Europe, some said that Muhammad was a cardinal of the church who failed in his attempt to become pope, and, consequently, went off to Arabia to found a new religion, Islam. All of these theories were launched to justify interpretations as a polemic against each other’s faith to justify one’s own beliefs as the only absolutely true faith. But in reality they are all products of sick minds, and are totally ludicrous. To deny an eye witness based historical event long after it occurred, sometimes centuries after the event to discredit the scripture is intellectually unacceptable or untenable and foolish. (The original witnesses to the events are rejected but the “new” theories that have no witnesses to validate their claims should be accepted as truth. The above arguments have no historical reality—a “what if” in place of substantiated facts.) It’s all fictitious arguments of interpretations to

x

PREFACE

be hurtful to all who believe in a God who can do anything and loves mankind. But that was not always the case! In the face of extremely hostile paganism, these three faiths were allies and actually supported and reinforced each other in common defense of their monotheistic beliefs. They were, indeed, the “atheists” of their own day for rejecting the pagan religions and cults that permeated the cities and the countrysides. The monotheists were attacked and despised as the outsiders, and vilified by the authorities, intellectuals, and the common man for disbelief in the given gods of their day. (Eventually many pagans began to lose faith in the myths and religions of their time, but some remained “spiritual” although “unsure” about their beliefs (perhaps the original agnostics); even today many people remain “highly spiritual” but not associated with any organized religion. Their admitted problem is an “uncertainty principle”—a belief that recognizes nothing but a spiritual world and belief that has no objectives in this world or the next. The system has no rational or logical support; Spiritualism without a God is intransitive so that it leads nowhere and grants nothing and cannot interact in our existence nor explain it.) ⋯ The Jews had to defend their faith against the mighty powers that overwhelmed them. Finally, the Romans forced them into exile. During Roman rule over Palestine, the Jewish believers in Christ (Jesus of Nazareth) grew to extremely large proportions among the Jewish community of Jerusalem and Palestine. In Jerusalem they had a significant presence so much so that it forced the Romans to elicit a response against them in the still of the night in the arrest of Jesus, to avoid a national-political disturbance or full scale uprising. The Romans did their utmost to eradicate the Christian sect of Judaism but, instead, it grew to alarming proportions in their empire as early as 50 A.D. The Christians continued to worship in the Jerusalem Temple and at local synagogues well into the first century A.D. Those Jewish believers in Christ as the Messiah, the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity were still accepted in the Jewish faith until 135 A.D, when they became marginal and then rejected by the Jewish authorities. No doubt, the new sect of Judaism proved to be valuable allies to the Jews until the Bar Kokhba revolt (135 A.D.) separated them from one another over the issue of the Messiah. Islam, the religion of the Moslems, came under sustained attack by the pagans of Mecca, Arabia, who opposed the Prophet Muhammad and his political goals. The Arabian prophet’s first allies were his family which included the Christian scholar Waraqah ibn Nawful who supported Muhammad, his teachings, and his opposition to the pagans. When the nascent Moslem community found itself in extreme danger in Mecca, the prophet sent a group of his followers to the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) for safety and protection. The Abyssinian king, the Negus, defended them; he refused to surrender the Moslems to the pagans and referred to them as his “brothers in Faith.” As the Arab Empire expanded and captured Damascus in Syria, its Syrian Christian inhabitants welcomed the Moslems; and, they even worshiped together

PREFACE

xi

at the cathedral/basilica of Saint John of Damascus. (The shrine later became the Grand Mosque of the Umayyad Dynasty.) At first, some of the Arabian Moslem invaders worshiped in churches and synagogues in the absence of mosques which were later built upon permanent occupation. Also, some pagan temples were rededicated to Allah and converted into mosques. In July of 1099 A.D., the European Crusaders took Jerusalem defeating both the Moslems and the Jews and Christians who fought against them; and they all suffered the same fate, according to some recent Arab studies on the Crusades. As the enemies of monotheism began to dwindle and disappear from the Middle East, and at the hands of some radical theologians in the Middle Ages, the three western religions would eventually turn against one another. Today, Judaism considers itself to be the only true revelation, seeing Christianity and Islam as either approximations or abominations of its own creed; thus, its sister religions, Christianity and Islam are “forgeries” of Judaism akin to paganism, and Jesus and Mohammad are no more than “bogus” reformers or outright “charlatans.” Christianity maintains that it is the only true faith, claiming that the Jews lost the covenants that God had made with them when they rejected the divine nature of Jesus, the Trinity and His new covenant. And, in the tenth century when Islam rejected the divinity of Jesus, His crucifixion, and the Trinity, the Christians responded by saying that Muhammad was a “false prophet” with a “falsified message” that he copied from the Bible and the Gospels, in part. Lastly, Islam only recognizes a very limited validity in Jewish and Christian scripture and revelation, claiming that both the Jews and Christians have “falsified” (tahrif) those earlier works. The Quran is, therefore, the only totally valid scripture, rejecting the “errors” in the Bible and the Gospels; thus, Islam is the only true faith. And, that’s the way the three monotheistic faiths stand at present, a long way apart from their cordial stand when they faced a hostile pagan world. Over the centuries, they have foolishly made enemies of each other currently reflected in the religiously and ethnically hostile environment of the Near and Middle East. We need to return to the moderate climate that originally prevailed between Judaism, Christianity and Islam to ease the recent tension existing in the world that only sponsors violence and hate, the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the crisis in Syria and Iraq and in Afghanistan and, of course Islamic Terrorism (fundamentalism). This book is a basic text on Judaism, Christianity and Islam for both undergraduate and graduate students and lay persons. It presents the three monotheistic faiths as their early followers understood them. Many Jews have very little knowledge of the Christian faith or Islam. Christians usually have a brief or sketchy glimpse of Islam drawn from texts on World History. The Moslems, on the other hand, posses a more disjointed or rudimentary view of Judaism and Christianity essentially extracted from some remarks about them in the Quran. And, lastly, for the students we instruct from other religious

xii

PREFACE

traditions, there is a need for them to gain some knowledge of the world’s three great monotheistic faiths. This study is suitable as a supplementary or auxiliary text for courses in World History, Western Civilization, or in Near and Middle Eastern History or Islamic studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT In the preparation of this book, I wish to express my thanks to Mr. John A. Cardello and to my wife, Esther, for editing the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION No sooner had our forbearers emerged from the caves to ponder the world about them and to gaze at the vast sky above them millenniums ago, it can be said that the search for God or the gods began, either out of fear, or the realization that man is not his own supreme lord or master of the universe. To placate the mighty forces about them, or to plead for favors from the great unseen powers, our Homo sapien ancestors began what may be properly called religion. The ancient Greeks created a matrix of faith and reason to search out the mighty force or forces that guided the universe, seeking a “prime mover” or “first cause” to all that followed in the heavens and on Earth. Their great achievements in theological speculation culminated in some well known philosophical proofs for the existence of God, as sanctioned and understood in the Middle Ages and in recent times. It is not our aim, nor do we presume, to debate the wisdom of those great thinkers, or their arguments—the Cosmological, the Ontological, the Teleological—or any other proofs of somewhat more recent vintage, for the existence of God. Theology, rational discourse about God, His existence, characteristics, attributes and relationship to our world and its inhabitants was clearly a product of Greek civilization, as was science itself. Theology is based in part upon Aristotle’s logical principles (logos/reasoning) as opposed to the limitless imagination of the myth makers (mythos). For Aristotle, God was some kind of pure thought or intelligence/mind (nous) or energy, which can never be created or destroyed. The Bible refers to this as the “power;” God is the agent of positive evolution whose activity (energy) creates matter. (This is almost an exact reversal of Einstein’s mass-energy transformation. Thus, it can be said that “science” and “theology” are not truly incompatible.) The Cosmological argument—”there cannot be a design without a designer”—leads us to the concept of a “prime mover” and the argument for “intelligent design.” The Big Bang Theory, the order in our solar system, the DNA structure, and the construction of the Genomes are believed to be far too complex and precise for a “mindless accident of chaotic origins.” If we begin with a void (the absence of everything and nothing) as the Bible states, then we would end up with a void. If everything we need for life already existed, it would still not be designed for our specific, exact needs for our existence, unless a supreme being put it in that order. We may impose some order on what appears to be chaos, as in Fractal Geometry, but chaos cannot impose order on itself.

xvi

INTRODUCTION

Science is not an alternative or anti-thesis to faith in God or Theism. Science is theory and experimental methodology to help us understand our world and its composition. It began before philosophy when the pre-Socratics tried to explain natural phenomenon (a sort of earth science) and it remains a modifiable truth based on scientific methods, but we must also avoid selfdeception. We still cannot, and may never be able to, create a molecule from nothing, determine if light is transmitted by electromagnetic waves or as particles, or explain how the suns in the Big Bang Theory arrived at the specific or exact velocity, trajectory, and exacting force to create our solar system. In the Big Bang Theory of creation the explosion, according to the basic principles of Einstein’s relativity theory and quantum mechanics, produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter which should have annihilated each other producing nothing. But it appears such explosions produce more matter positive particles (muons) than matter negative ones (anti-muons). Some scientists have concluded that this cannot be accidental. And, furthermore, the interaction of two parallel universes remains unexplained if it results from chaos. Recent Black Hole Theory cannot account for evolutionary or spontaneous creation. It is enough to note that philosophy and science in the service of religion has had its adherents and detractors or critics for each new idea on the nature and existence of God. It is suffice to say that faith remains integral to believing in God (or the gods) and that the shortcomings of philosophy and science cannot remedy that problem, for the present. Nevertheless, reason dictates and implies that it is, perhaps, more logical to believe than not to, for modern science, as the handwriting of God, tends to support the idea of a pre-existing designer of the universe, rather than a cosmic origin in chaotic evolution. Even positive evolution, if not canceled out by negative evolution, is only an intermediate state of existence and could be seen as a component and compliment to the design process. But non-belief has some very powerful arguments, as well. “Seeing is believing” is an old adage and for some people, despite the eye witness base accounts of scripture, there exists a degree of skepticism. There is no theology or rational proof or evidence for non-belief; but, unbelief (atheism) has several theories that have some degree of world-wide support. They can be classified into three groups, social, economic and political. Social alienation from God and a lack of “God consciousness” or awareness of God, and the loss, absence or rejection of faith may be the result of a lack of knowledge about God or an abandonment of hope in this world or the next. Some people have no need for God in their lives, they fill their life or time with only material and public pursuits or affairs; they find it somewhat humiliating to admit to something (a personal God) that is far greater than one’s self—they have a bloated ego problem. Other people have no need for religion (meaning ethical or moral laws or teachings) that could inhibit their total freedom of action. And, there are still some people who have never had an experience of God in their lives and deny it in cases of others (individual nullification), such as answered prayers. Finally, some people blame God for their ill health or other

INTRODUCTION

xvii

problems and thus refuse to worship Him. Economically, many people reject God and prayer because they have not obtained economic success or great wealth, desired employment, fame, gambling success or other pleasures of life. These people are totally materialistic; they have no interest in anything spiritual. And, lastly, there are political movements that reject God and religion in favor of their own version of national or social justice. In the case of Fascism (like Nazism) faith in God and His teachings weakened man’s faith in the socialist nation state; and in Marxism (as in any of the various forms of Communism) faith in God or religion is seen as the “opium of the masses” reducing the will of the people to struggle for its form of “social justice,” against the wealthy exploiters of society. ⋯ Religion has been an integral, intrinsic and intuitive part of all great civilizations. And, to some extent, all religions have similarities, that is they all possess someone or something to believe in, a set of sacred rituals or words to be used, and a way of life or culture to guide the adherent from the cradle to the grave. (All religions seek peace of mind for their followers, some sociologically as in Buddhism and Confucianism through a tensionless society; others are more psychological such as Hinduism which seeks peace of mind through the acceptance of a Caste system and the concept of rebirth (reincarnation). However, Judaism, Christianity and Islam find it through faith in a personal God and salvation awaiting them in the world to come (heaven/paradise) for the moral person.) If we were, however, to classify the great religions of the world into three primary categories we can see some fundamental differences emerge. Some would form ethical philosophies such as Buddhism or Confucianism, making no claim to divine intercession or any scientific evidence of their authority; others are purely mythologies of human construction, expressing man’s limitless imagination, devoid of scientific or philosophical speculation to back their origins; and, lastly the religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam claim divine origins in revelations and reflect upon philosophy and scientific creation (Cosmology and Biology) as proof of the existence of the Revealer (the designer). The latter three religions successfully challenged the beliefs of their day and generated a morally superior way of life and belief to supersede the virtues of the older ethical philosophies and myths. Consequently, they won a world of disciples for their faiths. ⋯ Monotheism did not begin with Judaism, Christianity or Islam. In fact, it began long before the Hebrew prophets. According to our Egyptian sources, Pharaoh Akhnaton (Amenhotep IV, ca. 1353-1337 B.C.) is known for acknowledging a central deity whose oneness and unity was expressed by the sun. A single solar-god, called Aton, symbolized by the sun’s rays initiated all life and power. In pre-Islamic Arabia a vague concept of a single deity was achieved by a

xviii

INTRODUCTION

tribal group called the Hanifs. But whether their deity was a universal god or a tribal god is not clear. The Greek philosophers also moved away from polytheistic beliefs in animism, gods in animal form, nature gods, and planetary deities to focus on gods made in man’s image. For the Greeks, man was intellectually superior to all else except the gods themselves who were conceived of in human form. The Greek gods were all imaginary, no revelation or science or philosophy supported their existence—they were a “given.” In Judaism, Christianity and Islam the Semitic High God contacts man whom He finds worshiping many gods or not believing in any gods and, consequently, reveals Himself to us in Scripture. This was a slow and purposeful journey that began with the Jews of antiquity. In Judaism, God describes himself in unique ways. He creates man in His image or “likeness” implying that He exists in some sort of “human form,” but He is also a spiritual entity (an energy of some kind). He is physical and His existence is given in partial descriptions such as the “hand of God.” That is, He is incarnate. (Later, both Jews and Moslems minimized this aspect of God due to Christianity’s belief in His incarnation as the spirit within the body of Jesus.) For some Jewish theologians and Moslem scholars as well, God and man are totally dissimilar and can never be combined—like a square circle—and, God cannot be visualized; This implies, of course, that God has some human limitations and, in fact, does bring Him down to a human level. God also tells us that He has human traits such as jealousy, anger, love, vindictiveness, and He is mighty in war and even wrathful. Clearly, this God had a dual nature. He describes himself in terms of His powers and exists outside of His creation, our universe, or perhaps in a different dimension of space and time. (God cannot be depicted in any way but some Christian artists represent Him as an old man sitting on a throne, but that is only a mental conception of the artist, not to be confused with a real portrait.) The Jews began as polytheists worshiping many gods similar to their neighbors. There was nothing unique or special about them; they had no specific philosophical thought or scientific reasoning to guide them in faith. The origin of their belief must have come from “fear” or “shock and awe” of a great unseen power who, later, revealed Himself to them and intervenes in their lives. We can discern four stages in the evolution of Judaism leading to an uncompromising monotheism: 1. 2.

3.

In the first stage, the Jews began as polytheists. The second stage is referred to as monolatry (henotheism) (ca. 1250-750 B.C.) initiated by the Prophet Moses, this ideology accepted the exclusiveness of God for the Hebrews but did not deny the existence of other gods. Yahweh (Yhwh) was the tribal and national deity of the Jews and no one else; He was both anthropomorphic and spiritual. The third period of Judaism is the prophetic stage (ca.750-550 B.C.) which enforced the notion of monotheism, with God only responding to those who believed in Him.

INTRODUCTION 4.

xix

And, the final stage comes after Babylonian Captivity (ca. 537 B.C.) in which the concept of an end time (eschatology), a Messianic Hope, and a doctrine of the resurrection of the dead are alluded to in the Jewish tradition.

Although belief in the One True God became dominant in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there remained a lingering problem of the “plurality” of God in all three religions. In the Bible there are numerous references to God as, El-Shaddai, El and Elohim which is a plural form of El, and El-Elyon, and Yhwh or (Yahweh) which came to be understood as different names/references for the same God, not different gods, as first thought to be by some Jews. Also, God speaks in the third person plural in the Bible and holds a “divine council/assembly” of gods (Psalms: 82). These phrases were later interpreted as God speaking in the form of a “royal plural,” although He is the absolute I. And, the divine council is now understood to represent the “personality” of God or “His angles.” And, lastly, in Genesis 1: 26, God says, “let us make man in our likeness” when He should have spoken in the first person singular, as the eternal I. In Christianity, the concept of the plurality of God is restricted to the Trinity; The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, unified as one by the Holy Spirit that permeates all three beings (or entities), now reunited in heaven. This is in reality an intimate, internalized, deeper or closer view and understanding of the One True God, a personal God in our own lives, Jesus is the reality of God on Earth. He said, “I and the Father are One” and His followers sat, ate, talked and touched Him both before and after His resurrection from death. Christianity brought mankind into direct contact with God. In Islam, the plurality of God (Allah/al-ilah) is cited in Q 53: 19-20 as the daughters of Allah, al-Manat (allotted fate/ the goddess of destiny), al-Uzza (the most mighty/the morning star), and al-Lat (al-Ilahah (f.)/the goddess). But, the daughters of Allah were later repudiated by the Prophet Muhammad as the Satanic verses. Also, according to the Moslem scholar Hisham ibn al-Kalbi (d. 819) in his book entitled, Kitab al-Asdam (The Book of Idols), in central Arabia, Allah was worshiped as the One True God of Mecca, and Allat (Allath), a moon goddess, was proclaimed the chief goddess of Arabia. In pre-Islamic south western Arabia, inscriptions referred to a “unique” god called al-Rahman as “the Lord of the Heavans;” while in south eastern Arabia, another deity al-Rahim, the Merciful, was worshiped as a supreme god. Through a process called tawhid (unity/oneness) al-Rahman and al-Rahim were “harmonized” into the attributes (Sifat) of Allah or into His character (Q 17: 110) or into His qualities. And, once again, in numerous verses of the Quran, God speaks in the third person plural, essentially the same royal “we” of Judaism. In the western tradition of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the Revealer, the God of Abraham, the Father who called Jesus His Son and Allah (al-ilah) is one and the same with the following characteristics:

xx

INTRODUCTION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

He is real, not an abstraction of man’s imagination or a virtual reality or image of the mind. He is spiritual, that is, metaphysical, possessing a soul. He is a living person or being with self and universal awareness. He is physical in human form (anthropomorphic) and He created man in His physical and spiritual likeness. He is one and unique, all knowing (Omniscient) and all powerful (Omnipotent), and He has no limitations (Infinite). He is the Creator of the universe (by scientific laws which only He may alter, suspend or abrogate), and He transcends His creation (is outside of our universe) He functions in a different dimension of time and space. He is perfect in His justice and goodness and wishes that mankind will live by His precepts out of free choice.

In order for man to live in accordance with God’s will, He has chosen messengers or prophets in this world. Those men were individuals who acted as mediators and interpreters of God’s will. The prophet’s mind, discourse, and at times, his whole bodily existence became a path, conduit or way for the Lord’s message. The prophets spoke for God in the mode of future predictions and revelations that occurred, sometimes against all odds. The revelations of the prophets were recorded in the scriptures (the holy writings), the Old Testament (the Torah), the New Testament (the Gospels) and the Quran. It is in those scriptures that man’s quest to find and know God may be best sought, although theology (the logic for believing in God) and Christology (the logic for believing in the divinity of Jesus) remains heavily indebted to Greek philosophical thought as does the scholastic theology (Kalam) of Islam. The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that is the accepted Bible, Gospels and Quran became the canonical works of their respective faiths. They are believed to be traceable to the time and place of their revelations and to be eye-witness or eye-witness based accounts. But, there are other “scripture” or sacred writings that did not pass the test of time and place and have been left out of the accepted works. They are referred to as pseudopigrapha or false writings of dubious origin, although they often bear the names of accepted religious figures; clearly, these later writings differ in some content from the accepted beliefs. The rabbis at the Jabneh council rejected some highly controversial literature that was ascribed to or bore the name of Abraham and Moses or others hoping to gain some credence and or creditability. There are also numerous Gospels, medieval forgeries, such as the Gnostic Gospels that were rejected as heretical works; they include the Gospels of Barnabas, Judas, Thomas, Peter and others. In Islam we have the Quranic “forgeries” found in North Africa in the Middle Ages. The Berghawata chief, Salih (al-Mu’minin) was proclaimed a prophet and preached a Berber Quran. Salih’s grandson Yunis continued to win supporters and converts to the faith well into the Middle Ages. In the Rif region of Morocco, a new Islamic prophet called Hamim received a new Quran from

INTRODUCTION

xxi

Allah while in a trance-like state. All of those works are of some academic value in the study of monotheism even though they were later works and unsupportable. There were also false prophets referred to in the Bible, Gospels and the Quran who at one time or another threatened the Jewish, Christian and Moslem faiths, but those prophet were more akin to the Greek concept of a prophet who was a person who spoke for others with some degree of wisdom or insight but not for God. The prophetic tradition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam show marked distinctions in the prophets physical and psychological state when under the influence of the One True God. The other prophets did not. This study will concern itself with the revelations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, building upon the monotheistic belief of the Hebrew religion implying God’s direct intervention in human history. Christian revelation was primarily an outgrowth of the Jewish tradition and prophecy regarding God’s Word. It is the manifestation of God’s plan for the salvation of the human race, not just the Jewish nation; and it was realized fully and completely in the coming of Jesus Christ. Although Jesus did come into a Jewish milieu, His message transcended its localization to become a message of universal redemption and salvation. But first, He had to fulfill a Bible prophecy, the prescription for Messiahship, in order to validate His mission. The Jews do not see Jesus as fulfilling the conditions for Messiahship believing instead that He “abrogated” the commandments rather than modifying them to make them more humane. In contrast, Christianity believes that Jesus did indeed complete the required prescription for Messiahship while the Quran clearly identifies Jesus as the Messiah. In Judaism, there are just too many views of what the Messianic Hope entails; consequently, confusion produced too many failed Messiahs in history. To date, Jesus of Nazareth is the only claimant who has succeeded to the present. In Jesus Christ, the Word of God became flesh (as the Son) and, thus, Jesus represents the “summit and fullness of revelation.” The kingdom of God can only be fully comprehended in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, for in Christ “the kingdom of God is present and at work,” in our world. The Apostles of Christ were then commissioned to spread His message of peace, hope and the total equality of mankind to the world. Jesus said, “All power is given to me in heaven and on earth.” Go ye, therefore, … and Baptize all mankind “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The New Testament as a source of revelation was seen by the early Christian community as a new covenant that inherited the old, became superior to it, and superseded it, to a considerable extent. In Islam, the Holy Spirit is identified with the angel Gabriel as the agent of revelation, and Muhammad became the last messenger and prophet. The Quran uses two distinct terms to express the sacred character of its revelation—the word wahy implies “inspiration” in its recipient, and the word tanzil indicates the “sending down” of a message from heaven. Hence, revelation in Islam, as interpreted from the Quran, is the descending of the Words of God in an

xxii

INTRODUCTION

inspired form through Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad as a guide for the human race. But what is its relationship to Jewish and Christian revelation? The Quran speaks of revelation in a manner that created four great schools of thought on the subject. First, the Quran was transmitted in Arabic, in the Prophet’s dialect, to warn his people in the cities about him, and to clarify its (the Quran’s) meaning to them (Q 42:7). Thus the early Moslem commentators on the Quran believed that the Quranic message was only for the Arabian community. It was a direct response to Muhammad’s quest from his God for a Holy Book to guide his people. Other Quranic phrases imply that Muhammad was not to be an “innovator” bringing a new message (Q 46: 9; 46: 43) but, rather, one who “recast the substance of the teachings given to Jews and Christians, perfecting and completing them.” That is, the Quran was basically a harmonious synthesis and interpretation of preceding revelations, having never intended to establish a new or separate religion, or deny the previous revelations. The Quran also speaks of the Islamic community as one that is a “middle community,” or “in the middle,” or “in the center or midst” of something (Q 2: 143). Islam, consequently, forms a “mean” or “medial (medium/median) community on a “middle road” or path, one that is midway in a divine journey. This places Islam in between Judaism and Christianity, making it a “half way religion,” more than Judaism (believing in Christ as the Messiah) but less than Christianity (not accepting the divinity of Jesus or the Trinity) but, nevertheless, still proceeding towards the complete understanding and summit of God’s revelation. Other interpreters of the term “middle nation” depict Islam as a “justly balanced” community “avoiding the extravagances” of life; Islam is thus a “balanced synthesis” of life whose “intermediacy” produces as “integrative moral balance and action.” Some other scholars understand “middle nation” to mean a religion “balanced between a God of love and a God of justice and wrath,” or between “revelation and reason,” or “luxury and asceticism,” or “earthly life and the world to come.” The most recent interpretation of the phrase “middle nation” seems to take on a geographic or political connotation in that Arabia lies midway between East and West, and that Islam can be an a alternative between “communism” and “capitalism” or dictatorship and democracy and, finally, Islam is a compromise between national Judaism and international Christianity. And, lastly, as Islam became a world-wide religion, it is believed today that Islam was initially God’s plan for the World (Q 9:32), continuing and completing the process begun by God in the Old Testament, passing through the New Testament, and culminating in the Quran. As evidence of this, it is said that Muhammad wrote to the world leaders of his time inviting them to submit or join his faith. ⋯ The conditions for sin in Judaism, Christianity and Islam are, consequently, similar. One must be aware that they are violating a religious precept; one must commit a sin intentionally, with the aim of harming one’s self or someone else; and, lastly, one must believe and understand that they have committed a sin,

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

transgressed the word or law of God. All three conditions must be present for moral guilt to occur and to place the individual outside the community of the faithful, and to subject the person to divine punishment, castigation. The revelations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are intended to set man free from sin, or ethical and moral malpractice. In observing the teachings of the Bible, Gospels and the Quran, man can live a life in “God’s light,” according to “God’s will,” and thereby inherit a place in His kingdom, upon death. Not to obey God’s laws is to fall into error. However, God did not enslave His creation and, therefore, man possess freedom of conscience and religion, during one’s life. In order to understand one’s responsibility towards God, as a Jew, Christian or Muslim, it is necessary to study the concepts, themes and motivations of those three great world religions from both a historical and literary perspective, and to understand them in a way similar to their early followers, and in a way that is compatible to one another.

CHAPTER 1: FIRST CONTACT There once was a tribe, a small and insignificant tribe, no great philosophers, mathematicians, or scientists emerged from it, and it produced no great literary figures for its time. But that tribe did hold one original, unique, and unusual concept. It believed in one universal God for all mankind who was the author of all creation and who had, indeed, made first contact with them. And, thus, in time, this one tribe would forever alter the way the western world would think about God. The impact of the Hebrews on Western Civilization occurred in only one field, moral and ethical religion. This was the genius of the Hebrew people whose Bible (Gk., biblia/books) or Scripture remains at the nucleus, the heart and soul, of the Jewish faith. The Bible is a collaborative or collective body of separate books in one volume. They include, The Pentateuch; The Historical Books; The Wisdom Books; and The Prophets. This material has been exemplified by “selection, elimination and editing” with various interpretations over a long period of time, culminating in its final form. (Some Biblical scholars have shown that the Bible stories about the Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Tower of Babel, and the Great Flood may have originated in Babylonian mythology, but given a new moral perspective in the Jewish Holy Book.) Originally composed in Hebrew with Aramaic passages or entries added, the Bible was, eventually, translated into Greek for the Jews outside of Palestine and for the non-Hebrew, Greek speaking, peoples of the Near and Middle East and North Africa. The authoritative Greek version, completed in Alexandria, Egypt, in the middle of the third century B.C., is called the Septuagint meaning seventy or seventy-two for the number of Jewish scholars involved in its final rendition. Aramaic translations were also available with added commentaries known as the translations (targums). The Pentateuch referred to as the Torah (the Law) consists of the five books of Moses. Orthodox Jews believe these books were dictated by God to Moses who copied them down. The Bible includes God’s Laws for human conduct, Prophetic writings (Nebi/ Nebi’im), the books of history, and the section of the Bible that includes psalms and proverbs (moral concepts and philosophy). This is known as the Writings (Ketubim). Taken together, these books are also known by the acronym Tanak—Torah, Nebi’im, Ketubim. The Bible includes the history of the Jewish people but it does not begin with them. It begins with a void, the absence of everything and anything; it

2

CHAPTER 1

begins before our recorded time; it all begins in God’s time which is different than our measurement of time. It centers on the One True God who created all things, consequently the first book of the Bible is aptly entitled, Genesis. It is God, called Yahweh or Jehovah that speaks to man and reveals Himself and His will to mankind. The recipients of His message were the prophets, His link to us. It is God who grants us His revelations; He finds us and tells us! The first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were all written by Moses. The Prophet Moses called the “Law Giver” is the “mouthpiece” for Jehovah in the belief that “God spoke and Moses wrote.” (But, this fact is not held today by all Old Testament or Biblical scholars.) The main concept of the Bible is that man is not a free and frivolous creature. Our freedoms are limited. This idea was developed and nurtured over a long period of time with the establishment of some fundamental concepts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Jehovah (Yahweh) demands absolute loyalty to Him alone. The agreements (Covenants) between God and the Jews are binding and eternal. Jehovah’s laws (Commandments) are immutable, but they can be reinterpreted to fit new conditions and ideas. God is nameless and both spiritual and physical; He is real and He made man in His likeness (image) with each person having an earthly purpose.

The covenants (berits) are indeed a contract to know, love, obey and serve God in return for His blessings and protection. These are clearly stated in the three major covenants in the Bible: I. The Covenant with Noah (Gen: 6-9): The epic of the Flood describes how God destroyed the Earth because of man’s disobedience to Him, leaving Noah and his family and two of each creature to survive in an Ark. Restoring life upon the Earth, after the flood receded; God renews mankind promising never to send a flood again if mankind obeys His laws. He allows man to sacrifice or slaughter creatures for food in an appropriate manner (read painless). The rainbow is the symbol of this covenant, briefly summarized as the “Noahide Laws” or the Noachian Covenant. It calls for: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Belief in God/against idolatry. Respect for God/against blasphemy. Respect for human life/against murder and theft. Respect for family/against sexual immorality. Respect for the rights and property of others. Respect for all living creatures/do not eat the flesh of live animals. Establish a legal system (a court) for justice.

FIRST CONTACT

3

II. The Covenant with Abraham (Abram) (Gen. 12: 14; 17: 14): The Abrahamic covenant involves male circumcision, a common practice among others as well but now seen for Jews as a sign of commitment to the faith; And, more importantly, God gives the Land of Canaan to the Jewish people as a residence for some indefinite time. Lastly, the covenant calls for the end of human sacrifice. III. The Covenant at Sinai (Exodus 20: 2-17, Deut. 5: 6-22): After Moses leads the Jews out of slavery in Egypt, He is seen as ratifying all earlier agreements. The Hebrews are now God’s “chosen people,” a light on to others, an emblem of moral and ethical behavior. This covenant, The Ten Commandments, is summarized as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I, the Lord, am your God. You shall not have other gods beside me. You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not kill (murder). You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You should not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

There were, of course, other major and minor prophets among the Jews whose task was to keep the religion on a straight and narrow path, and to extend the Ten Commandments to about 613 other rules with at least 77 regulations, and to give some new moral concepts to the faith. And, finally, the prophets elevated the concept of Yahweh above all existence creating a truly monotheistic faith. Although the Bible is a historical work or at least is presented that way, it was composed by a variety of teachers who contributed to its laws and themes. One of these teachers was the temple priest (Kohen/Kohanim/ Cohen/Cohaim) who taught the law, performed the rites, and officiated at God’s alter. He is the mediator between God and man. In Judaism, he holds a restricted heredity or post drawn from the family of Aaron, the brother of Moses. There was also a group of wise men who acted as advisors to the individual. This group helped to produce the Wisdom Literature of the lyric poets, and some odes and psalms. The book of Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are unique examples of that. The most important contributors to the Bible were the prophets who spoke for God and were responsible for the concept of one and only one supreme deity for all mankind (Deuteronomy 6: 1):

4

CHAPTER 1 Hear O ‘Israel, the Lord our God is one (and alone).

Prophetic literature emerges between 750-550 B.C. This proved to be a long road to monotheism; both Moses and David were henotheist that is they believed that Jehovah was only the God of the Jews, a tribal and national God, whose jurisdiction was over the Land of Israel. Other people could have their own gods, in any way, shape or form that they wished. Monotheism begins for the Jews with the prophet Amos who believed in a single universal deity. He proclaimed that message about 750 B.C. and his belief was that God favors social justice (righteousness). Isaiah, a contemporary of Amos began preaching about 732 B.C., totally rejecting the gods of other people as “worthless” creatures of man (Is. 2: 8; 18: 10); gods who could not intervene for anyone. The Holiness of Jehovah was supreme over all (Is 6: 3). For this prophet, world peace would occur upon the coming of the anointed one, the “Prince of Peace,” that is a Messiah (Is. 9: 6-7; 2: 2-4; 11: 1-9). At that time, swords will be beaten into ploughshares and wolves will dwell with lambs.

Jeremiah, whose career lasted from about 625-586 B.C., wrote down his own noble concepts on the heart and soul of mankind. A convincing writer, he was a monotheist who saw the other religions as myths, “the product of man’s limitless imagination.” His vision stressed social morality, but not individual salvation; it included “individual responsibility” in faith. Starting with Jeremiah we see a new direction emerge in Hebrew literature, a direction which includes Hoesea’s emphasis on God’s love; Micah as a spokesman for humility and modesty and for the poor and, finally, Ezekiel calls for ethical behavior on a personal level. In addition to the Bible, the Jews composed and developed other major works to analyze, explain (exegesis), and illuminate their scripture. The unwritten (oral) exposition and laws that elucidate the Bible and its implications were collected and arranged in the Repetitions (Mishna(h)), between 30 B.C. and 220 A.D. Commentaries and interpretations or discussions of the Mishna produces the Completion (the Gemara/Gemarot), in this long process. Finally, both Mishna and its Gemara were incorporated into two Talmuds (Studies), The Palestinian (Yerushalmi) Talmud (PT), and the Babylonian (Babli) Talmud (BT). The BT is the longer of the two and the more authoritative work; they both provide moral and ethical conduct or guidance on a variety of subjects for all times and places. These topics include agriculture, holy days, women, property, holy objects, penalties and purity. The Bible and the Talmuds together form the basis for Jewish Law called God’s Law (halaka/halakat) from which binding legal concepts hold the Jewish community and nation together, and apart from secular states or “the kings laws” while in exile from Israel. The Rabbinic legal tradition formed the

FIRST CONTACT

5

concepts and precedents for Jewish behavior and the administration of justice in their community in the synagogues (the houses of prayer) that substitute for the Temple. (This is still the position taken by the pious Jews (Hasid/Hasidim) to the present. For them, the laws of the State of Israel are only the rules and regulations of the government, for law comes only from God.) The Bible, Gospels and the Quran lack a clear view of life after death or better yet life after life, but there is an idea of a place below the Earth that awaits the souls of the departed in Judaism. This is the Sheol, a holding place (Dan 12: 2). Eventually, a concept of the resurrection of the dead, a refusion of body and soul, would occur at some yet uncertain end of time. The description of heaven or hell, the garden of paradise or the abyss of hell, may be physical or not, yet it is given in powerful physical terms in the Quran, at least more so than in Christianity or Judaism. The afterlife could be in some other time and space or beyond our universe, as some scientists think. In any case it could be physical or an emotional state (a form of metaphysical existence). Judaism provides a very powerful basis for ethical and moral life on both a social and individual level. No other religion of ancient times, or even new concepts for the present, has reached that level of speculation. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostle Paul were the only ones that surpassed this ideal. And, later, the Prophet Muhammad adopted ethical monotheism for his people; he stressed the faith of Abraham who totally submitted himself to God. But for Judaiem, its greatest achievement from its inception remains the emphasis of Faith in God, The One True God that will sustain them, always and forever.

CHAPTER 2: KEEPING THE FAITH Large scale tribal migrations, like today’s extensive immigration, changes the history and character of a people, land, country or nation. One such ancient group was the Jewish tribes who followed the Canaanites, Amorites and Aramaens into western Syria from Mesopotamia (Iraq and Kuwait of today). The Canaanites moved into the western region of geographic Syria and eventually settled along the Mediterranean coast forming small kingdoms in what is today known as Israel/Palestine. The Canaanites were the first to establish geographic sovereignty over the entire region including Lebanon (Phoenicia). Their language gave rise to the Hebrew, Phoenician, Amorite, Mobite, and the Edomite vernaculars. They excelled in trade and agriculture; the Canaanites never established a unified state but, rather, an alignment of citystates: Gezer, Lachish, Megiddo, Hazor, Beth-shem, Jerico, Shechen and Jerusalem. These states formed a unified League in times of danger. Hazor acted as a sort of capital or leader because of its prominence. In a series of lightning campaigns a new group of seaborn invaders, known as the Sea Peoples, attacked Egypt and the eastern Medirerranean coast. This obscure tribal group originated in the Aegean Sea region; they were not Semites but actually came from south-eastern Europe. Their place of origin, according to Egyptian records and the Bible, was Pelest (Paleste)-Epirus to the ancient Greeks. In southern Canaan which they quickly conquered, they were known as the Philistines (ca. 1190-700 B.C.), whence the name Palestinians. South Canaan became their homeland; they installed themselves over all other groups all the way up the coast and into the interior. Their city-states or kingdoms—from Gaza to Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath—prospered and grew. They assimilated the people they conquered. Ashdod held hegemony over the group acting as a Palestinian capital and political and military leader and center. In their new homeland, they established the Palestinian Pentapolis and by the eleventh century B.C. reached the zenith of their power facing only the independent Hebrew tribes who occupied an area in the hills of eastern Canaan. The early history of the Hebrew tribes is shrouded in semi-obscurity; and is a bit enigmatic. But, if we accept the Bible as a history of these tribes, then we have a major source of information about them. The Hebrew entrance into Canaan came in three ill-defined migrations. The first started in Mesopotamia about the eighteenth century B.C.; the second came in the fourteenth century B.C., and the last from Egypt came under Moses and

8

CHAPTER 2

Joshua in the thirteenth century B.C. The term Hebrew for those migrating tribes is best used to designate or distinguish them from their contemporaries until the sixth century B.C. when they became known as the Jews (Judeans), which included the name for all the Children of Israel or the Israelites. (Hebrew may have been an appellation of Habiru, a term indicating a social group that included the non-Jewish ex-slaves of ancient Egypt, rather than a religious or ethnic name for a people. (In any case the Jews of today represent many tribes, nations and groups of all races and ethnicities.) The first of the two major incursions into the Land of Canaan came with the elusive Abraham (Abram), a patriarch of one of their ancient Semitic tribes, leading them from Ur in Mesopotamia via Haran into Canaan. Sometime later, the Jews migrated into Egypt where they were enslaved by the Pharaohs. Later, Moses led them out of captivity into the Sinia. With the exodus from Egypt (ca. 1290 B.C.) the history of the Israelites begins. Under Joshua, who succeeded Moses, a reconquest of Canaan begins with a ruthless campaign that began the ethnic-religious cleansing of the area to purify the Land of Israel from all non-Jews, by God’s will (Joshua 10: 26-27; 6:16-17). This land (Eretz Yisrael) was promised to the Jews in several revelations (Genesis 12: 7, 13: 5; 15: 18; 28:13; and in Exodus 34:11-12; and the Jews are warned not to conclude agreements or negotiations with the pagans (non-Jews). (The Joshua Ideal is still the term used by Israel’s West Bank settlers in regard to the Christian and Molsem Palestinians.) For Jews, this covenant over the land is irrevocable and everlasting but, clearly, it remains vague in regard to the extent and time involved. The Palestinian-Hebrew rivalry over the land of Canaan continued and led to the creation of a Hebrew monarchy. The anointment of Saul of the tribe of Benjamin (1026-1004 B.C.) as king displaced the former rule of the judges and unified the tribes. Saul took a military initiative that proved to be moderately successful. The true founder of the Jewish monarchy was King David (1004962/963) who terminated Palestinian rule over the Jews and then David extended his domain. David’s son, Solomon (962/963-923/924 B.C.) pushed the Palestinians back into the south-western region of Palestine. After Solomon’s death, the unified kingdom split into two smaller kingdoms, Israel (924-722 B.C.) containing ten tribes and Judah (924-586 B.C.) with two tribes. Both kingdoms remained unstable over political and religious issues. About 722/721 B.C., the Assyrians under Sargon II destroyed the Kingdom of Israel and its ten tribes disappear from history. Judah became a vassal of Assyria until 586 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylonia, attacked Judah destroying Jerusalem and enslaving the Jews (the period of Babylonian Captivity begins). In 538 B.C. Babylon was captured by the Persians with Jewish assistance and the Jews were allowed to return to Palestine and rebuild their Temple (520515 B.C.). They reestablished their presence in and around Jerusalem, and also established frontier fortresses. Under Persian rule, Judah and Palestine were

KEEPING THE FAITH

9

jointly administered by local governors as Persian vassals. Until this point in history, it can be said that the Jews defended their “promised land” from foreign, pagan, conquerors. While this remains a dominant theme, these conflicts were mainly political and national in nature, but soon would become ideological and, then, also legal in context. These future conflicts would begin with the Hellenization and, later, the Latinization of the region. The Jews, of course, reacted defensively to keep their faith and culture free of contamination from the non-Jewish Greco-Roman World. Both the Greeks and Romans cared little about the “peculiar” religion of the Jews; they had their own fine gods and goddess that could be easily worshiped alongside the other deities of the world. But for the Jews, God was the One True God of the Hebrews, all other religions and cultures were nonsense that could pollute the true faith of the Jews and their way of life. This all began in 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great of Macedonia conquered the region and began the Hellenization of its people. After the death of Alexander, his successors in Persia, the Selecuids (ca. 302 B.C.-226 A.D.) gained the upper hand in the Near East with the Palestinians accepting a modified form of Hellenism; however, the Jews resisted this overpowering cultural imposition or intrusion by the Greeks. (The attempts by Jewish scholars to reach an accommodation with Greco-Roman Hellenism met with absolute failure. Beginning with Philo of Alexandria (Philo Judaeus; ca. 25 B.C.-50 A.D.), an intellectual familiar with Greek thought in the Diasporia (Jewish exile), he could only accept in a limited way Aristotelian logic as a bases for the understanding of Jewish thought. This was also true for Christianity. The Church Fathers often expounded Christianity in logical terms and concepts. The first groups of them were contemporaries of the Apostles of Christ and known as the Apostolic Fathers. They helped to incorporate Aristotelian rationality into a new study called Christology. But, in general, it can be said that both the Jews and the special Jewish sect called Christians held an aversion to the pagan religions that had become cults in the major cities. With the Seleucids in control of Syria, Hellenization spread like a wildfire. Under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) an arrogant attempt to eliminate Jewish practices and enforce Hellenization precipitated an uprising. It began with a minor incident, the assassination of an agent of the state, while trying to impose pagan cults and regulations on the Jews; that, of course, angered the Jews and drove them beyond control. That action at Modin, north of Jerusalem, led to a full scale revolt. Led by a zealot named Mattathiah of the Hasmon family, he sought and killed the agent. Mattathiah’s sons (Simon and Judah), known as the Maccabees, organized a guerrilla war against the occupiers. The leader of the revolt was Judah Maccabeeus; and, his forces liberated Jerusalem in 165 B.C. The Temple was quickly rededicated and Judaism revived under the Hasmonean dynasty for nearly a century. That is, until the Roman conquest of the region. Masters of The Earth, the Romans called themselves; a piece of subjugation

10

CHAPTER 2

had fallen over the known world and its peoples. The conquest of the East by the Romans advanced the Hellenization of Latin culture, the application of Roman Law, and the administration of Roman rule over Palestine and Judea. A new clash of civilizations between the Jews and the invaders was in the making. The Jews quickly rejected both the Hellenization of the Romans and the imposed “superior” Roman Law, in favor of only Jewish Law. The Romans did try to reach an accommodation with the Jews. They agreed to allow the Jews to have their own king who would report to the Roman governor of Palestine; not to place a statue of Caesar in the Temple; and to allow the Jews to police the sacred areas so that the presence of Roman soldiers would not “pollute” the Temple grounds. Despite these concessions to the Jews, they remained absolutely hostile to Roman rule over their tiny dependent domestic enclave. Nevertheless, the Romans took total possession of both Judea and Palestine, between 63 B.C. and 135 A.D. Vespasian’s legions began their assault but the famous general’s campaign was cut short when he was proclaimed emperor. His son Titus destroyed the city of Jerusalem in 70 B.C., and reduced the outlying Jewish outposts and fortresses to rubble. The famous fortress of Masada fell in 73 B.C. when the Jews there chose to commit suicide rather than negotiate with non-Jews over the Land of Israel. No compromise with non-Jews over this area is permitted then or now. The last great Jewish revolt occurred between 132-135 A.D., during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). He tried to terminate the Jewish practice of circumcision and to prohibit other rituals. Once again, the Jews became infuriated and revolted against Rome under the leadership of the enigmatic Simon Bar Kokhba (Kokba/Cochba) who was proclaimed as the expected Messiah by the most prominent leader of the Jewish religious academy at Jebneh. Rabbi Akiba’s endorsement enabled the Jews to proclaim a holy war against the Romans which lasted about three years. It proved to be disastrous for the Jews; it was reported that more than ninety towns and villages were destroyed and over five hundred thousand people killed. At first, the Jewish believers in Jesus supported the revolt but, then, they refused to help the Jews when Bar Kokhba was declared the Messiah. Jesus was not the first or last to be proclaimed the Messiah; the convoluted Messianic movement fostered many candidates, all of whom failed with the exception of Jesus of Nazareth. When the revolt ended, the city of Jerusalem became a Roman colony called Aelia Capitolina and the Temple was replaced with a new one dedicated to Jupiter Capitlolinus. The Jews were exiled from the region; only a few remained in Palestine. When the Roman Empire collapsed in the West in 476 A.D. its eastern half continued for almost one thousand years as the Byzantine Empire. Greek in language and Orthodox Christian in faith, it ruled the Near East through governors from its capital in Constantinople. Its main adversary for the trade routes and the lands of the Near East was the Persian Empire (the Sasanids, 226-

KEEPING THE FAITH

11

651 A.D.). The Jews of Palestine in the Byzantine Empire did not fare well since the Byzantines believed that the Jews held sympathy for and supported the Persian Empire. Under Emperor Justinian humiliating burdens were imposed upon the Jews as a suspected community. Some Jews converted to Christianity but others were pressured to convert as a symbol of loyalty to the theocratic state. The local or national churches were likewise pressured by the powerful official Orthodox Church to accept its lead and theological stand on some issues, thus religious controversies between them greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire. The Persians took full advantage of those conditions and invaded Byzantine territory and temporarily took Jerusalem in 614 A.D. More than 20,000 Jews fought with the Persians in that campaign and scores of Christians were massacred by the Persians for rejecting the pagan gods of Persia and by the Jews in retaliation for their lack of support in the Bar Kokhba revolt. However, in 629 A.D. the Persians were defeated and a similar massacre of Jews followed as the “Christ Killers” but more importantly as traitors to the empire. In the sixth century A.D., the Semitic High God decided to reveal His will and laws to mankind, one more time. This time the recipient of His message was as Arabian, named Muhammad, of the Hashimite clan of the Quraysh tribe. In a very short period of time, his mighty following conquered the Near East. And, its subsequent empires (the Caliphates) stretched out from the Middle East to the vital limbs of Europe and the confines of China. The Arabians conquered Palestine in 638 A.D. and gave the pagans the choice of conversion or extinction; but the Moslems tolerated the Jews and Christians. Out of respect for those revealed religions, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Church of the Nativity were not violated and left in the hands of the Christians. And, the Jews were allowed to return from Roman exile in Tiberius to the city of Jerusalem and renew their worship at the Temple site. With the conquest of the east by the Arabians and the Arabization and Islamification of the population and region, Semitic civilization and Syrianization of the area diminished the hold and influence of Greco-Roman culture; the clash of eastern and western civilizations, faith, thought and culture ended with a spectacular victory for the Semitic Arabs and the Moslem faith.

CHAPTER 3: THE ONLY SON Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Christ (Christos) was born in the full light of history, when Rome was master of the known World. The city of His birth was Bethlehem, in the Roman province of Palestine; He lived there for most of His life; He preached, taught, worked miracles, and gained a small following. His short career ended tragically. He was arrested and tried by a Jewish court for blasphemy; He was turned over to Pontius Pilate, the Procurator of Judea, for a second trial as a seditionist. He was condemned to death by the Roman authorities, during the reign of Tiberius Ceasar. He was crucified among criminals, on a hill named Golgotha (Skull Place), outside the city of Jerusalem. After His death, His followers claimed that they saw Him on numerous occasions; they sat, talked, and ate with Him; and they physically touched Him. Death claimed no victory over Him! His disciples believed that He was the expected Messiah and the one and only Son of the Living God. The events described above, the entire life, death, and subsequent resurrection of the Christ, were an inconsequential, perhaps even, a trivial occurrence, if seen from the imperial seat of power in Rome. It was a routine execution of a conspirator against the state or of an agitator in a far flung province of a vast empire. As such, our Roman archives yield little about Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples. The Roman historians provide us with only a sketchy glimpse of the life of Jesus and the early Christian community. From the writings of Suetonius, Lives of The Twelve Ceasars, the Letters of Pliny the Younger, and the Annals of Tacitus, it is clear that a man named Jesus was executed near the city of Jerusalem approximately 28 A.D., and that He was the leader of a small band of followers. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the events that took place in Palestine during the time of Jesus. In a work entitled The Jewish War, Josephus wrote, “It was about that time that a “man” appeared-if “man” is the right word-who had all the attributes of a man but seemed to be something greater. His actions, certainly, were superhuman..., for he worked such wonderful and amazing miracles that I for one cannot regard him as a man...” In another longer Greek manuscript by Josephus entitled The Jewish Antiquities (Antiquities, 17.3.3/Antiquities of The Jews) Josephus states: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a

14

CHAPTER 3 man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as (who) accepted the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the gentiles. He was the Messiah. When Pilot...had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not cease… On the third day he appeared to them restored to life.

And, lastly, there were some interpretative references to Jesus in other Jewish sources, some quite unflattering at best. This brief description of the life of Jesus, His execution, and the existence of His disciples is sufficient, however, to enable us to say that Christianity is a historical religion. The events in the life of Christ took place in a specific spacetime continuum, they are real historical events, they did not take place in a mythical time or location; but, rather, they occurred in a historical reality or frame of reference, whose precise dates, however, may not be ascertainable. Nevertheless, the events are real and the locations are identifiable in our world today. The first Christians were Jewish believers in Christ, and as Jews they possessed an aversion to mythology and paganism. They considered the pagan religions and myths to be a variety of useless and meaningless superstitions. The early followers of Jesus sought to preserve their knowledge of the Christ and His teachings for the future generations. Jesus left no written records of His own life and teachings, and it was apparent that the early disciples, His Apostles, believed that He would soon return (His parousia/ second coming) after His ascension, some forty days after the resurrection. Consequently, the written records of His life and teachings came many years after the actual events had taken place; they were written between 64 and 105 A.D., when His return was no longer considered imminent. They were recorded in the Gospels (the Good News/Evangelion/Evangelium), also called the New Testament (New Covenant). The Gospels were a proclamation (kerygma) of His Messiahship and more; they were written for the existing Christian community as a record for future generations. The Gospels are unique among the Hellenistic literature of their time. They had “no model, precedent,” or analogous source to follow. They remain inimitable! The Gospels were never intended to be copies of one another, and the fact that they differ does not indicate any error in composition. There are four Gospels in the New Testament, attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Although they may not have been written by those men, they bear their names as the source of the revelations. The Gospels are believed to be eyewitness accounts that may have been dictated to the actual writers or scribes. Each of the four Gospels was written for a different community, and that fact bears witness to the differences in style and emphasis. Mark’s Gospel is the oldest and, apparently, Matthew and Luke relied upon Mark’s account in their Gospels. Those three Gospels are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels for they give a “synoptic view of the life of Jesus,” and possess a similar construction, approach, and a “harmony” of sorts. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke also relied upon another source, a collection of the sayings of Jesus called by modern

THE ONLY SON

15

Biblical scholars Q (Quelle/source), possibly written in Greek or repeated in oral form and, then, at a later date, written down. The Gospel of John appears to be an independent construction. Greek, the language of the Hellenistic East, was the language of the Gospels. They were written in Koine, the common idiom, easy to understand, clear and precise. Since each Gospel was written for a different community, they each emphasize or reflect a different historical tradition. It is believed that Mark’s Gospel was largely written for the non-Jewish (Gentile) population of Rome and its empire. Matthew’s Gospel was directed towards the Jewish Christians (Jewish believers in Christ) and for the Gentiles of Asia Minor. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts which he authored were addressed to the Roman administration and the educated pagans in the empire. And, John’s Gospel seems to have been aimed at the Greek intellectuals, the theologically and philosophically oriented. The Gospels reached out to a wide variety of people emphasizing different events and themes that would be more meaningful to each community. Appended to the Gospels are the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation (The Apocalypse) which together forms the complete New Testament (Diatheke). The Acts and the Epistles record the early history of the Christian community and the letters and instructions given to the early church to resolve some of the pending problems it faced. The last entry is a prophetic piece of literature with Christ as its central figure, in a newly redeemed world, ushering in a new order or age to come. The central figure of the Christian faith is Jesus of Nazareth. Who was He? What did He teach? The remainder of this chapter will attempt to answer those questions, at least in part. It is obvious from the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus that His Apostles grew slowly but surely in their knowledge of the Christ, as it was revealed to them, during the brief years of His ministry. The gradual awareness of the Nazarenes’ identity did not in any way lead to confusion about who He was but, rather, it was a cumulative process that led them, step-by-step, to an astonishing conclusion. So startling was their final realization that the twelve demoralized Apostles regained their faith in Him, and set upon a path that would shake the mightiest empire in the world to its very core, and win it for their Lord. The Gospel writers refer to Jesus of Nazareth in several terms which apparently were quite clear in meaning to them. It must be understood, however, that the twelve Apostles of Jesus were Jews and saw things from a uniquely Jewish tradition and perspective. They, later, expanded their vision of the Christ to encompass and envelop the pagans who knew little about, and cared less for, Jewish tradition, scripture, law or beliefs. Their genius lies in their ability to clearly articulate who they believed Jesus to be without compromising their monotheistic beliefs or associating the Christ with any pagan understanding of the terms they used to describe Him. The Apostles believed their leader to be a new prophet (nebi), one who came in the Jewish tradition of an intercessor between their God and His

16

CHAPTER 3

creation. In reference to Himself, Jesus used the term prophet several times in regard to His mission among His own people, and in the vicinity of Jerusalem. That He came in the older line of prophetic succession is also clear from the question He put to His followers, regarding His identity. Some of them identified Him with the Judaic Prophets of the past—John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah and others, but, obviously, always within the prophetic tradition of the Hebrews. This association was a necessary first step for the fulfillment of a more important Jewish prophecy, that of Messiahship. The proud and glorious civilization of the Jews of antiquity had fallen upon hard times. As the possessors of the only true covenant between God and man, as His people and nation, the Jews believed that as long as they kept the faith and laws of their forefathers, God would work through the nations about them to confuse their enemies and, thus, protect them. The Jews were never capable of accepting the rule of pagans over the nation of God. And, lastly, they blamed themselves for the catastrophe of Roman rule, a consequence of either their lack of faith or their failure to observe the Laws of God (the Mosaic code). They awaited the coming of a savior, the Messiah, who could have been either a military-political figure capable of fomenting a successful rebellion against Rome or a religious, prophetic, figure who could renew their faith and lead the Jewish nation to salvation from Roman barbarism. The Christ fulfilled the second condition, as the awaited Messiah. It is obvious that Jesus, as well as many others, was well versed in the Old Testament’s prophecies regarding the coming Messiah. In fact, a community of pious Jews waited, in preparation, for the Messiah’s appearance. Those Jews had formed the Essene community of which John the Baptist may have been a member. Some scholars believe that Jesus could have lived among the Essenes during the years of His life that are not chronicled in the Gospels. In either case, whether He did or did not live among them is not extremely important for this study. What is important, however, is that there may have been many others who attempted to pose as, or really believed that they were, the Messiah. (None of them successfully pressed their claim.) Thus, even if Jesus had been an Essene, why did He, and He alone, succeed in convincing others that He was the Messiah? What lends even more credence to the Apostles’ claim that Jesus is the Messiah is the apparent fact that both the Jewish and Roman authorities attempted to discredit Him and His Messianic mission, for it was seen by them as a threat. But each obstacle they placed in His path was overcome in a manner that encouraged His followers to believe more strongly in Him as the awaited Messiah. For His Apostles and followers, the obstacles placed in the way of Jesus only served to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning Messiahship. Jesus may have set out to complete the prescription given for the Messiah, but it was, in fact, the Jewish authorities and Roman administration that made them come true, against their own best interests and their vigorous, utmost, efforts to do the opposite—to cast Jesus as an unsuccessful pretender to Messiahship.

THE ONE SON

17

The Apostles saw in the life of Christ the fulfillment of the prophetic formula for the Messiah, if one accepts the premis that the Messiah is an individual, a person, who is to be the suffering servant of the Lord (God). (On this see chapter six.) Some scholars, however, have interpreted the suffering servant to mean the Jewish nation as a whole and, therefore, they have discounted the role of a person in the Messianic hope. The Gospel accounts indicate that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Anointed One that was expected to come. Jesus asked His disciple Peter who he believed He was and Peter affirms His claim to Messiahship, a revelation for Him. At His trial before the Sanhedrin (the Jewish High Court), Jesus confirms His role as the Messiah, in clear, explicit, terms that His accusers understood. Jesus uses the term Son of Man in self-description, as well. That title has several implications; the most obvious is its reference to His human nature, or possibly in regard to all mankind. As such, the title depicts the humanity of Jesus or identifies Him more fully with the rest of the human race. It is, in that case, a reference to the biological Christ, His human nature. The term is also rendered understandable as a Messianic title, in regard to Old Testament literature. Jesus uses the title in connection with His prophecies, life, death and resurrection, in numerous passages. It is, in fact, used more often than any other title for the Nazarene. The Gospels, however, lead us to an even more astonishing understanding of the Christ. Thus far, we have briefly discussed the titles given Jesus in the New Testament by His followers, as they comprehended them or were capable of understanding them, from their own Jewish perspective. But, a more startling claim would be made, one that tore the monotheistic Jewish community asunder. That claim was not of human origin, for the newly born Christian community. It was God’s own description of Jesus; it was revealed on at least two separate occasions, to His followers. The first incident occurred early in Jesus’ career, at His baptism. During that ceremony Jesus is identified as the Son of God, by God’s own voice saying, “This is my beloved Son”/ “Thou art my beloved Son.” It is both an affirmation of the divinity of Jesus and the Fatherhood of God. And, once again, the voice of God would be heard. The second occurrence took place on the Mount of Transfiguration; God’s voice called out to the Apostles Peter, James and John saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased...” The Apostles were, apparently, to reach an even more astounding conclusion that left no doubt in their minds regarding the Messiah’s identity. The culmination of the revelations they had been receiving transpired after their discountenance, upon seeing the death of their leader. It came in the most peculiar and spectacular way. Huddled together in fear and frustration after witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus, the Apostles awaited a sign of what was to come. Their master had promised them something, but they could not come to grip its full meaning, as yet. They hid in fear and trepidation but also in hope. It was then that Jesus appeared to the Apostles, not as an illusion of the mind or some form of hallucination, but in the flesh. The resurrection was not

18

CHAPTER 3

simply a spiritual or mental event but, rather, a biological reality. The Gospels record that the Apostle Thomas doubted what he saw until he physically touched the wounds of the risen Christ. The Apostles and followers of Christ witnessed His bodily resurrection. But, it was Thomas who proclaimed the final revealed truth in saying, “My Lord and My God.” This was, and is, the Gospel’s inescapable conclusion! The title Lord (Kurios) in the Gospel is a Greek word that has many meanings and uses. The Gospel’s use of that word is, however, clearly in the same meaning, sense and intent that it has in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). It was used in that text to refer to Yahweh or Jehovah, the name given to the Hebrew God. In using the term, Thomas establishes the final link in the chain of revelation identifying Jesus of Nazareth clearly, directly and irrevocably with the Lord, the God of Abraham, the Semitic High God; the Lord of the Worlds; the God of the Universe. The context of the Gospels shows that the titles referred to in the foregoing pages are not titles in the sense of a common usage, such as the terms president, king, doctor, saint or professor. They are neither earned nor ascribed titles applied to Jesus but, rather, descriptions of Him. They tell us who He is, in essence and nature and His “titles” Lord and Son of God are not transferable or applicable to anyone else. They should be understood as they were in the first century A.D., by the Apostles and their disciples. Those men were neither fools nor hypocrites; they communicated precisely what they saw and believed. While we may interpret the Gospels as we choose, we cannot lose sight of what they are trying to say, to tell us. Thus, when the Gospels speak of Jesus as the Son of God or the Lord, the Apostles believe that He was unique, not a child of God (in a spiritual or human sense, as we all are) or one of the children of God (meaning a member of the Jewish nation or community, or the children of Israel), but that He was the Son of God, one in being with the Father in Heaven, and, the only one. Thomas’ verbalization of Christianity’s fundamental creed was not a matter of a single instantaneous revelation. Jesus had been establishing His claim to divinity throughout His ministry, and He did it in no uncertain terms, so that it would be unmistakably clear to His followers. He guised that identity in phrases that the Jews of antiquity would understand and would not confuse with similar titles of the time, used by non-Jews. That may be precisely why Jesus did not make a simple declarative statement of His divinity such as “I am God,” or I am God’s Son,” or “I am the Son of God,” for those expressions were in common usage at the time by Caesars’, Pharaohs, kings, and others. Confusion could have arisen between a ruler who took himself seriously to be a god, or the son of such a ruler. The Apostles did not take the claims of those pagans seriously, in fact, no Jew did, but others in the Roman Empire, the non-Jews, were accustomed to those assertions. It is apparent from the Gospels that Jesus used phrases that established His spiritual identity and divinity using basically Hebraic ideas, and in regard to the God of the Jews and no other deity. The Gospels inform us that Jesus claimed to exist before the Patriarch Abraham saying that “before Abraham came to be

THE ONLY SON

19

(was), I am.” He claimed eternal existence. He further clarified His position in regard to God, the Father, as well, saying “I and the Father are One,” and, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father,” thereby upholding Hebraic monotheism. And, lastly, of Himself, Jesus said, “I am the Resurrection and the Life” using the terms “Resurrection” and “Life” to depict two properties that the Jews believed belonged only to their God. It is true, however, that some people possess the power of life and death over others, as the ancient rulers could order the death of any of their subjects or could release one from the penalty of death. But, only God has the power of resurrection of the dead and eternal life. In this case, Jesus identified Himself with the Pharisee sect of Judaism which believed in the resurrection of the dead. (Jesus condemned the Pharisees as well. It seems possible that Jesus criticized one branch of that sect, the more orthodox Shammai School, while He may have favored the more liberal Hillel branch.) Nevertheless, Jesus demonstrated His divine power by the resurrection of the dead on several occasions, but particularly in regard to His friend Lazarus who had been dead for several days and had begun to “stinketh” in the grave. Jesus restored life to others as well. In all those instances, the actions of Jesus were done by His own power, that is, the power contained within Him! So firmly convinced were the Apostles of the divinity of Jesus that later generations attempted to reject the human nature of Jesus (the biological Christ) as unnecessary or unimportant, while others even denied His physique, altogether. There is little doubt that Jesus taught in the general pattern of the rabbis of the first century A.D. His Apostles often called Him Rabbi; the method He employed in teaching was the parable, often used by rabbis, to illustrate a principle or to help the listener arrive at a specific conclusion. (In the Gospel of John, the allegory, a Greek educational tactic, is used.) A parable is an example used by a teacher; it is non-historical and applicable to present and future circumstances. Its objective is to make a, more or less, general point of view manifest. As such, it is a creation of its author, fictitious in nature and, consequently, that fact lent credence to those who claim that the Gospels are composed of myths. The parables should be understood as examples or stories used like any other illustrative educational device, and not as a special case of myth making. (Even as fiction, the parables and allegories do not affect the historicity of anything else in the Gospels.) The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are many, comprehensive, generalized to some extent and lastly meaningful for all times, places and human conditions. They are, in fact, too numerous for even a brief listing here, thus only some of the more important ones will be recalled. Among the basic teachings deduced from the Christ and the Gospels are: 1. 2. 3.

The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all mankind-a humanism of the highest caliber applied to Christian and non-Christian alike. Jesus taught the repayment of evil with good. He asked His followers to sincerely forgive their enemies and sinners, and

20

CHAPTER 3 even to love them as much as they loved Him and one another. He taught His followers to treat others as they themselves wished to be treated. 5. He condemned hypocrisy, especially in religious matters, as well as the accumulation of wealth resulting from greed. 6. He opposed ceremonialism and the fulfillment of the Law (religious law) as the center or essence of religion, by replacing that center with faith and love. He took the Law into a higher three dimensional sphere consisting of the Word, the mind, and the spirit, thus perfecting it. 7. He favored self-denial to avoid sin; and He favored the repentance of the sinner. (Jesus forgave every manner and nature of transgression if the sinner truly repented.) 8. He spoke of the resurrection of the dead and life in another dimension (heaven), in His Father’s kingdom. 9. He spoke of the end of this world as we know it, at some imprecise time to come. 10. He taught the true meaning of love, perhaps the most unique aspect of Christianity. 11. And, lastly, He taught His followers to pray and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Jesus had no need for either but; rather, He participated in those events to instruct His disciples.) 4.

Some of the above teachings must be further elaborated or expanded upon because they involve in depth patterns of human behavior. The weak, sick, and helpless are the responsibility of the Christian community, even if the afflicted are not Christians The poor are God’s special concern and although they may be with us forever, their suffering, however, should be lessened; and, the lack of wealth, prestige, or power should not be considered a sign of God’s disfavor with anyone, nor should the burden of illness or disease. Also, after the resurrection, Jesus was seen with only the marks of crucifixion on His body, for an exacting identification. None of the bruised and battered flesh resulting from His passion was visible. His body was perfect again, so much so that when He encountered some of His disciples along the road to Jerusalem, they did not immediately recognize Him. This event gives us one of the fundamental teachings of the Christ, for none of the symptoms of our sufferings in this world exists with God in heaven and a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Sin was related to poverty and illness in Old Testament times, and only God had the power to forgive sins. For the Christian, sin can result from thoughts or deeds, or the lack of compassion, or the refusal to aid others. Sin is the failure to act according to the faith; it is the inability to respond positively to others. Sin is the failure to show love and mercy. Sin is the lack of pity and respect for the less fortunate. It is the rejection of the common humanity of mankind by indifference or the establishment of a religious, racial or gender caste. Sin is a denial of God and Jesus Christ. It leads to hypocrisy which is most damned in God’s eyes. That man can fall into sin is only human nature. It must be viewed as part of our universal human existence. Sin can be forgiven, should be forgiven, upon a pledge of redemption and reform by the sinner.

THE ONLY SON

21

Jesus came into this world to call the sinner back to God and to show that the God of wrath and punishment is also a God of forgiveness, for the believer; and, a God of love for His creation. Anything that was base or unclean, Jesus could make noble or clean again. Thus, the teachings of Jesus are totally compatible with human nature; they do not call for the impossible and they make room for the weak among us. The teachings of Christ cause no pain or suffering but, rather, they bring redemption and salvation. The punishments for sin in the Old Testament are no longer enforceable; stoning for adultery, for example, is inhuman, unjust and far in excess of the guilt. Now, redemption and moral reform is the path to please God, to find favor with Him, and to return to the fold. Jesus entered a community that already believed in God, and those believers even if taken in sin continued to believe in God. The penalties of old, in fulfilling the law, applied to the backslider who was a pagan at heart, not a believer who succumbs to human weakness. Hope is the message of Christ. (Jesus did not intend to ignore the law; He made it more just and forgiving, and He gave it new meaning. He freed the sinner from the fear of punishment in belief and gave both saint and sinner the hope of eternal salvation. Jesus made the law more humane.) Jesus summarized His message in the Sermon On The Mount, by going far beyond the Law to create a new positive relationship for all mankind. He said: Blessed are those conscious of their spiritual need, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Blessed are those hungering and thirsting for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God. Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness sake, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them. Blessed are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lieingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven. Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.

And, later, He added, Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.

The sermon is simple and clear, yet in its own right, it is profound, for it was love, of God and mankind, which is the cementing force, the fuel, of Christian thought. That love transcended all human bonds and barriers; it summarizes the Savior’s faith in the whole human race, without exception. Saint Paul said it eloquently in his letter to the Galatians. He said, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male

22

CHAPTER 3

nor female; for you are all one (person) in union with Jesus Christ.” Persecution and prejudice of race, religion or sex—of every ilk—is stricken dead with that statement and a commitment to Jesus of Nazareth, if one truly is a Christian. That is Jesus’ gift of love to the whole human race—absolute freedom and equality within mankind. Freedom and equality is the message of Christ. Jesus accepts the burden of the cross voluntarily; free from coercion, for it is not a humiliating death of a prophet or Messiah, but a victory for God. Jesus made this clear in saying “I lay down my life that I may take it again.” Without the resurrection, it would have been an ignoble death. With His resurrection, man has been renewed, revived and redeemed and all can live free from sin, in order to achieve salvation and paradise. Lastly we must ask ourselves what is the significance of the bodily death of Jesus. Could God not have achieved the same results and objectives otherwise, since He has the power to do all things? If so, why did God, the Holy Spirit, become man, and inhabit the body of Jesus, in the Incarnation. Firstly, Jesus had to live as a full and complete human to demonstrate that His teachings could be followed by mortals, thereby ending, once and for all, the excuse that the laws of God could not be followed by mere men. Jesus would be the model human for the human race. And, He also wished to draw mankind closer to Him by participating in our humanity. Secondly, there were many people in the ancient world who ridiculed the belief in gods, saying that the prophets were mad men hearing voices in their heads. The philosophical skeptics only believed in what they could touch and see. The Incarnation was the strongest evidence, proof, for the existence of God, in a skeptical world. The nascent Christian community saw their God and testified to it, unto death itself. Lastly, until the coming of Christ both Jews and pagans held a highly negative view of the human body. The Greek philosophers, in particular, believed it was a hindrance and embarrassment to man, a prison for the soul. It was the instrument for human sexuality without love, for lust and individual pleasure. In Jesus, the naked human body is sanctified, no longer an object of shame, guilt or embarrassment; no longer an object for amusement, recreation, or suffering in the Roman Circus. Love in the male-female relationship changed human sexuality from a vice to affection, to caring, and to devotion, not a mere contractual agreement. Then, the bodily resurrection came three days after the crucifixion, showing that death is an empty victory, as empty as the tomb (a cave) into which the body of Christ was placed. It convinced His Apostles that the impossible task that He gave them was possible. The disheartened, frightened, men were now transformed into a dynamic force that could not be stopped. They were filled with joy in seeing the risen Christ. Happiness is the message of Christ. The Apostles were transformed by their faith and happiness; they were convinced that Jesus had died and was now alive. He remained with them for forty days and He was seen by scores of people. And, when He departed from our world, Jesus promised them He would always be with them whenever they gathered in His name, and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles in all that they would do. He promised to return, once again. Until then, Jesus passed the

THE ONLY SON

23

message of faith on to them. Faith is the message of Christ. In His own words, Jesus had said it many times. “Your faith has saved you.” Paul tells us that love is patient; love is kind. Love is not jealous, it does not put on airs, and it is not snobbish. Love is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not prone to anger; neither does it brood over injuries. Love never fails. Love is the message of Christ. Love is what led Jesus to pay the ultimate price for the sins of man. No one took his life; He gave it freely, out of love for mankind. He proclaimed His own death as part of His eternal mission. It was the conclusive sacrifice, in human agony, so that all who believed in Him may have life everlasting. Jesus paid for the sins of disobedience, the transgression of Adam and Eve, against God the Father, for which man in his inferiority could only make an inadequate compensation, at best. While God did forgive Adam and Eve, the divine dignity of God demanded an appropriate and equal counteraction for absolute justice to prevail; and that required atonement by someone of equal stature to God to remove the sin, the insult, to the divine being. Jesus was the stainless, perfect, sacrifice demanded by God for Himself. Thus, God the Father gave up His Son’s life (the Father’s own sacrifice as well) for the love of His creation. And, Jesus submitted His life willingly out of love for His Father and the whole human race. The cross is the symbol of victory over death and sin. But, its message also represents much more. It is a message of the courage, the triumph, and the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. We see His love of mankind in the forgiveness of His tormentors. He is at all times at peace with Himself and His enemies. Jesus is the “Prince of Peace.” Peace of mind and body is the message of Christ. The Apostles of Jesus, who were extraordinarily faithful, conservatives, and quite knowledgeable followers of Judaism, had come to believe that their Master, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived among us in our world, possessed and demonstrated the seven powers of God derived from several books of the Bible. He is the only person to have ever done so! The seven powers of God included, Creation, Immortality, Redemption, Resurrection, Prophesy, Wrath (Anger/Punishment) and Domination (Possession), all of which Jesus had control over. Jesus left mankind with a precious gift and an eternal inheritance, yet unmatched by anyone or anything since then. He said, “whoever believes in me will live even though he dies, and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.”

CHAPTER 4: THE COMMISSION It all began in Roman Palestine; it all began in Judea. It all began in the vicinity of Jerusalem. It began with a commission given by the resurrected Christ to His Apostles commanding them to go forth and baptize all mankind in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and to make His name known to the World. The missionary movement in Christianity began with the twelve Apostles and St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus, of the tribe of Benjamin). It carried the Good News (the Gospels) of Jesus of Nazareth into the Greco-Roman World and well beyond, but, first, it began with the church of Jerusalem. By the end of the first century A.D., Christianity had bridged the gap between Hebrew tradition and Greek philosophy, with its preoccupation with “being,” its creeds, and its dogmas. Travelling further West, into the Roman World, Christianity impacted upon and absorbed the Roman tradition of law emphasizing ethics, morals and human nature. By the second century A.D., Christianity had established a very solid foundation to build upon, and a world-wide potential. Not much is known about the early church in Jerusalem; what we do know is that it became increasingly untenable in the face of hostility by the Roman administration and the Jewish authorities. Of the original twelve Apostles, Simon (Peter), Andrew, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thomas, James (the son of Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the Canaanite) and Judas Iscariot, even less is known. (Judas committed suicide and was succeeded by Matthias, according to the Acts.) Those men continued to worship at the local synagogues and preached among the Hebrew community whom they believed to be their first priority and primary responsibility. The going was rough. James was the first to officially head the Jerusalem community. His tenure, however, was cut short, for he was martyred, being stoned and clubbed to death in Jerusalem in the year 62 A.D. Thus, James, “the Righteous,” the first Bishop of Jerusalem died in service to his Lord. He was succeeded by Simon since the Apostle John had departed having become a companion to St. Peter. Of the remaining Apostles, with the notable exceptions of Peter, Paul, Bartholomew and, later, Luke, less is known. It is believed that Thomas took the message of the Lord to Persia and India; Andrew to the Scythians of southern Russia; Philip died in Phrygia; and John in Ephesus. The later Apostle Mark is associated with Egyptian Christianity and the North African church; James with Compostella in Spain; and Joseph of Arimathea with Gastonbury. However legendary these accounts may be, a dispersion of the Jerusalem church did take place, thus spreading the Christian

.

26

CHAPTER 4

faith far beyond its original confines. Within Jerusalem, the Christian community established the first (universal) church (ekklesia/ekklesia katholike). The departure of Peter and, later, John had left James in charge of the nascent Christian community. A committee of seven men were chosen or appointed to direct the social activities of the new church, since it was being increasingly isolated from the social life of the Jewish community. And, new converts to the faith from the Hellenized Jewish groups outside Jerusalem had put a tremendous strain on the center of Judaism. Those Hellenized Jews were part of the Diaspora and as such their perspective had changed under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. Stephen appealed to them directly by preaching in their synagogues and, then, he proceeded to attack the Law and the Temple, replacing both with belief in Christ, as the center of a redeemed Jewish faith. He was called upon to respond to the charges against him before the Sanhedrin and, shortly afterwards, Stephen was stoned to death in 34 A.D. The climate in Jerusalem became enflamed; the future of the church was in grave danger. The initiative remained with the Temple authorities. The new “heretical” sect of Judaism had to be extinguished before it took firm root among the Hellenized Jews. One person was particularly, specifically, well suited for the task, a highly educated Hellenized Jew, Saul of Tarsus (a city in Cilicia). The spread of Christianity into Syria and Cilicia provoked the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem to send for that famous student of Rabbi Gamaliel, to crush the movement among the Jews of the East. Saul was a Roman citizen (he inherited citizenship). He spoke Greek and Aramaic as well as Hebrew, and he had studied Judaic Law under the renowned Gamaliel. Like his teacher, Saul was a Pharisee, convinced of the completion and perfection of the law. He had studied Greek philosophy and the oriental religions of the East. Saul was, without a doubt, perfectly suited for the task set before him. His abiding hatred for those who minimized or rejected the law was clear from his role in the death of Stephen. Saul had proven to be an energetic and uncompromising defender of (orthodox) Judaism. With the threat to Judaism subsiding in Jerusalem, Saul was assigned the task of rooting out and destroying the new heresy in the East. According to his biography in the New Testament, Saul was travelling towards Damascus when he was stricken blind but, first, he saw the image of Christ before him asking him why he persecuted Him. The voice ordered Saul to complete his journey. (Saul’s companions heard only the voice in the wilderness.) During his stay in Damascus, Saul was visited by a leader of the new sect, a man named Ananias, who instructed Saul in the teachings of Jesus and, apparently, baptized him, giving him the name Paul. Paul saw the light of day again. Paul became an eloquent and articulate disciple of the Christ. He was, in fact, so persuasive in his preaching that a plot was hatched to kill him. But fortunately he escaped from the city at night, having been lowered over its wall in a basket. Paul made his way back to Jerusalem and from there; he carried the message of Christ into the major cities of the empire, in the East.

THE COMMISSION

27

The defection of Paul was Judaism’s greatest loss. For Paul the Incarnation was the “final revelation,” the end of the divine plan for salvation “from all eternity” to the present. But, it was still largely a Jewish phenomenon, not clearly understandable to the rational “Greek mind.” That bridge had to be crossed, and it was, in the Syrian city of Antioch. Antioch, lying north-east of Damascus on the Orentes River, was the third largest city in the Roman East. It had a diverse and sophisticated population, representing a wide variety of beliefs and practices. Among the pagan population, the Hellenized Jews had assimilated Greek ideas but rejected the pagan religions which they saw as nothing more than “evil” cults. The pagans, themselves, had begun to regard their myths with suspicion and skepticism; they were old and tired beliefs that yielded nothing; the old gods no longer satisfied the rational Greek mind. Among the educated elite, the myths were being ridiculed, but, nevertheless, they were engrained into the cultural and social life of the city. They had become habits, customs or popular cults, but could no longer answer any important questions about life, its purpose, its meaning or its origins. Mythology was dying slowly but surely. In its place the Greek mind had discovered the logos (“logic”). The Greek term “logos” means “word” or “reason.” But, it has many other meanings besides the literal one. It had come to imply the “ultimate rational principle regulating the universe;” “the will of God;” “the universal law of reality” (“the law that determines the movement of all reality”); for the Stoics, “it was divine power,” or “the divine seed;” and for others, “moral law,” or “theoretical reason,” and, finally, the “self-manifestation of God,” and His “work.” The term became associated with the Jewish scholar Philo Judaeus and his systematic theology, in an attempt to apply philosophical rationality to Jewish thought. The next step was to apply the logos to Christian concepts. That was, perhaps, the major contribution of the Apostle John and his Gospel. Clearly, John specifically set forth to utilize the idea of the logos in his writings which were directed towards the theologically and philosophically sophisticated readers in the Roman Empire. For John the logos takes on specific meaning. It is the divine purpose in both the creation and the redemption of the world; the logos is both God and Christ, co-eternal. The logos is the “Word” (the reason) becomes flesh in Jesus Christ—it is the Incarnation. In John’s own words, he begins his narrative saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” (Logos) “and the Word was God”...and...”was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (as the Christ). Thus, John facilitated the understanding and conversion of the nonJewish communities to the Christian faith in his Gospel, in terms they could more easily understand. By adopting Philo’s concept of the logos to the life of Christ, John succeeded in opening the door of Christianity to the Gentiles, but the door was not wide open, as yet. Other issues had to be reconciled or resolved first. At Antioch, Peter was the first bishop and this was the church’s second Apostolic see. Peter’s activities there were a bit obscure, but his prominence had

28

CHAPTER 4

been well established, for Jesus had entrusted the future of the church to him. The early church traced Peter’s authority to Christ’s command giving that apostle the “keys to His kingdom.” The church, however, could not locate Peter easily as he wandered throughout a vast empire and, apparently, as the church spread from its nucleus in Jerusalem, it underwent a new top level reorganization. Both Apostolic succession and a highly organized church date from the earliest beginnings of Christianity. The simple home meeting place provided the much needed secrecy and, with that, security, for the nascent church, surrounded by a hostile world; but, within the church itself, three distinct orders emerged. Early in their travels, Peter, Paul and James saw the need for organization in the church. At Jerusalem, a body of elders (presbyteroi) assisted Peter, James and John. In their travels, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders or overseers (episkopoi/bishop’s) who acted as the presbyters had done and who were aided by a deaconate (diakonos). Church membership was, however, the key issue that plagued the church. How should a non-Jew (Hellenized or otherwise) become a Christian. The issue raged within Antioch and also between the Christian leadership there and in Jerusalem, and it centered around two key problems. The first is whether or not the new male candidates for the faith should be circumcised and the second involved the eating of food sacrificed, or dedicated, to the pagan gods (idols). These issues revolved about an even larger issue—observance of the Judaic Law. The church hierarchy split on these questions as did the Antiochian community. There emerged four specific groups ranging from the need to observe both circumcision and the law, to only the need for the dietary laws, to those who saw no need for either one and, finally, those who saw no need to associate Jewish cult practices or festivals with the new community (the separatists). Paul and his friend Barnabas together with the support of Peter favored a Gentile Christianity with baptism replacing the right of circumcision and the dietary laws; James and the Jerusalem church did not. In the end, Paul’s group or faction won and he became the “Apostle to the Gentiles.” Food sacrificed to pagan gods, however, was still forbidden to Christians and, thus, a compromise ensued. In the long run, the Jerusalem church declined in power; some of its early followers disbanded, after the execution of James. Many of the remaining Hebrew believers in Christ were thought to have travelled east, to Syria, where they became known as the Ebionites, or they could have become a new sect called the Nazaraeans. They were eventually accused of heresy in not accepting the virgin birth of Jesus. The once proud church of Jerusalem fell into semiobscurity between 80-85 A.D., with anathematization by the Synagogue, “May the Nazaraeans and hereticts be suddenly destroyed and removed from the Book of Life.”Apparently, they were, but the church did survive, and it continued to flourish in Antioch where the name Christian was first given to the followers of Jesus, both Jew and Gentile alike. During the Apostolic Age (the first two-thirds of the first century) and the

THE COMMISSION

29

Sub-Apostolic Age (the last one-third of the first century), the church settled down, as the Apostles and their new converts travelled about the empire and beyond making additional converts from among all ranks, races, and creeds. They were rapidly becoming a social force that the Roman authorities had to contend with, but internal dissension was visible as well. This development was not unexpected and, perhaps, it was the Apostles’ rationale for the centralization of the teaching authority of the church in the episcopate and the Holy See’s. The Gospels warn their readers of false prophets, apostles and teachers to come. As long as Peter and Paul were alive, however, the church had recourse to their counsel. In the Apostolic Age, the existence of Peter and Paul are clearly illuminated. Peter’s life was one of suffering, arrest, trial, and a miraculous escape from Herod Agrippa’s prison. He travelled to Antioch and Corinth and, finally, he undertook the seemingly impossible task of carrying the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth into the heart of the Roman Empire. Peter is credited with the founding of the Universal (Catholic) Church there; his impact must have been great, perhaps, enormous, for the Roman authorities feared his infectious message. He was arrested and, soon afterwards, Peter suffered martyrdom, being crucified head down, for he believed that he was unworthy of dying in a manner similar to his Lord. He perished during the Neroian persecution in 64 A.D. Paul’s career also ended on a sharp note. Paul’s life mirrors that of Peter’s. He extended the message of Christ throughout the eastern world, preaching and teaching in Cyprus, Asia Minor, Ephesus, and Corinth. He was arrested in Jerusalem, imprisoned, and tried. Paul was then sent from Caesarea to Rome on a galley which became shipwrecked; he found himself in Malta, having survived that catastrophe. A few months later, Paul set sail for Naples and, later, he arrived in Rome. He resumed his task of teaching and preaching but soon ran afoul the Roman authorities. As a citizen of Rome, he was tried and, consequently, suffered extinction, by the Roman executioner’s axe. It is believed that Paul died by decapitation, according to tradition. The lives of the Apostles Peter and Paul were filled with heroism, courage and unbounded faith. When they worked miracles, they did so in the name of Jesus Christ and by His power alone. Their martyrdom, therefore, should not be regarded as a failure of sorts but, rather, as a “spiritual victory,” by laying down their lives for their Lord, who had given His life for them and all mankind. With the Apostles gone from the historic scene, the church (that is the Christian community) had to rely more heavily upon the Gospels. Mark, a disciple of Peter, noted down Peter’s teachings and his biography of Christ for his Gospel, shortly after Peter’s demise. Luke and Matthew drew upon that account, to produce their “eyewitness based” works. Thus, Mark’s Gospel was the earliest Gospel (70 A.D.), while Matthew produced his account in Syria, probably at Antioch, between 80-90 A.D. Matthew’s Gospel reflects the church’s problems at Antioch and the Christian moral tradition that had developed in an apparent vacuum from the Jewish community in Jerusalem.

30

CHAPTER 4

The four Gospels are not complete biographies of the life of Christ, although they contain much biographical information and material. Apparently, it was only natural for the followers of Jesus to want to know more about His life, and this led to the rise of numerous gospel accounts or tracts. Many were produced, some well into the Middle Ages. But only the four accounts attributed to the Apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts, the Letters, and in the East, the Apocalypse of John, were fully accepted by the early church as canonical, for having “an authentic apostolic base” and a high degree of “reliability.” The contents of other historic fragments may have contained some valid oral traditions about the life of Christ, but verification problems led to their exclusion, for heightened accuracy. The Gnostic Gospels which circulated in the Near East were likewise rejected, although they claim to possess “hidden” or “secret” knowledge given by Christ to His Apostles, beyond what was already given by Him to them as insights. None of those non-canonical works were adopted by the church; only the well established writings were approved to form the orthodox texts of the New Testament. Between the death of the Apostles of Christ and the end of the first century, a Christian literary tradition was already in progress. The early church held several Christian writers in high esteem, and to this day they remain extremely important for they give us many insights into the evolution of the early church and its traditions. That group of writers included Clement (Clemens Romanus, bishop of Rome), Ignatius Theophorus (bishop of Antioch), Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas, Papias, and the writers of The Epistle to Diognetus, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache (a text dealing with the Christian way of life which included a church manual). The first three authors were, indeed, disciples of the Apostles (Clement with Peter and Paul in Rome; Ignatius and Polycarp with John in Ephesus), but the others were certainly not. And, a problem of exclusion of scriptures had to be dealt with as a consequence of the rise of traditional Christian literature. What value or role should the Christian establishment assign to the Old Testament and its literature? A controversy arose over the issue of including the Old Testament with the Gospels. Maricon, an analytical writer from Asia Minor who was also a bishop’s son, believed that the Old Testament was no longer central to the Gospels. He wrote a major work entitled Antitheses in which he contrasted the God of the Old Testament, as a God of law, vengeance, and wrath, with the God of the New Testament, as a God of love, mercy, and compassion; and he rejected the importance of the birth and childhood of Jesus. The church rejected Maricon’s philosophy upholding the Old Testament as a preface or introduction to the coming of Christ and the New Testament and, therefore, a compromise occurred. For all the church’s efforts to obtain a high degree of uniformity in the Gospel tradition, not much can be shown, for heresies based upon the interpretations of the sacred text soon appeared. The heresies were many and could be found throughout the Roman Empire, particularly in North Africa and in the Near East. In this study, we are concerned with those that flourished in the East, specifically those affecting the church of

THE COMMISSION

31

Antioch. We shall, therefore, refer only briefly to the Church Fathers and the Christian community of North Africa. From Egypt, Christianity spread towards the major cities and centers of North Africa. The Coptic church of Egypt, founded by the Apostle Mark, flourished and Alexandria became a vibrant intellectual center of the expanding church. Among the Latin Fathers of the North African church were Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome was the first person, it is believed, to have translated the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) And, Augustine wrote his famous Confessions and The City of God which became two classics of early Christian prose. Clement of Rome harmonized Hellenistic culture with Christian beliefs; and Origen wrote an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Other defenders of the church included Justin of Samaria, Tatian the Syrian, Athenagoras the Greek, and Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch. (Those men were all Hellenizers of the second century A.D. who sought to give the church a renewed meaning while expressing their diverse ethnic backgrounds and heritages.) During the persecutions of the North African church an attempt was made to collect and destroy all Christian writings. In the fourth century, Donatus, one of the bishops of Carthage, refused to surrender his holy texts to the pagans. He maintained that to do so was apostasy. His followers, who were also disciples of Cyprian, Tertullian’s student, broke away from the universal church maintaining that only their own sacraments were valid. That validity depended upon “the proper standing of the minister.” The Catholic response was that the sacraments could not be polluted by the status of the priest or anyone else. Pope Stephen’s position, in 256 A.D. was that the sacraments belong to Christ, not the minister; and the Council of Aries (314 A.D.) upheld that view. The sacraments— Baptism, Penance, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Anointing the sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony, to use their modern names—were all visible in the early church. They were understood then as they are now as certain acts or actions that were instituted by Christ or administered to Him, in the establishment of His ministry on Earth. As such, they are extremely important, sacred, and directly traceable to the Gospels. Of course, they differed in form and presentation from place to place, and time to time, yet they were considered indispensable, as part of the works and teachings of Jesus, in primitive Christianity. Baptism was practiced as it was in Judaism and the Eucharist (Eucharistia) was reminiscent of the Last Supper of the Lord, distributed either before or after the main meal of the day. Other heresies emerged regarding the person of Christ, His divine and human natures. Those controversies led to major Christological doctrines that infested the entire East. They are too numerous to be fully discussed here, however, some of the major disputes that impacted upon the Eastern Church will be briefly mentioned. Those contentions may be categorized into three primary groups, the Monarchists, the Docetists, and the Monophysites. There was also a claim to a new prophetic tradition which, in effect, challenged the growth and dominance of the apostolic tradition, and the role of the bishops.

32

CHAPTER 4

Montanism, a heresy of the last third of the first Christian century, was based upon the claim of Montanus to “private” revelation, depicting himself as the Paraclete. He claimed prophethood and a new tradition aimed against the “worldly church;” and with the support of two followers, Pricilla and Maximilla, he became a major “disruptive” force to the church hierarchy. He and his movement were condemned by a Synod of Bishops for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the only true Paraclete. (Other interpretations of the Paraclete as an individual include mediator, helper, friend, consoler, and defender; but, the Christian Paraclete is a divine person or manifestation of divinity, first as the Christ and then as the Holy Spirit.) The above incident, however, served a higher objective, that is, it established the Church Councils (the Synods) as the final arbitrator of church doctrine. The bishops, however, were not always in complete agreement. Paul of Samosata, a bishop of Antioch, began a Christological dispute among the church hierarchy. Paul believed that Jesus was one in will and love with the Father and, only later, He received the Holy Spirit to become divine. For Paul, the logos of John and the Holy Spirit were not persons but, rather, eternal powers and forces that were “qualities of God.” The church synod of 286 A.D., held in Antioch, condemned the Samosatain and his views for declining the logos from being “substantially” in the body of Christ, from His conception. The logos continued to plague the church leaders and it spawned a variety of beliefs that can be treated under the general subtitle of Monarchianism. The Monarchists doctrine bears a heavy tint of Judaic monotheism applied to the logos as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The name implies the unity and majesty of the Hebrew God, but the thoughts reflect a Hellenic or Hellenistic understanding. The Monarchian doctrine criticized the Logos of John’s Gospel preferring to have, in a general way, “God the Father on Earth” as Jesus Christ. This school of thought proliferated into Modalism (in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit are modes of the same being); Sabellianism (founded by Sabellius who said that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same divine reality using different “names,” “manifestations,” “faces,” or “appearances,” but they are not truly three beings); Emanationists (who implied that Jesus emanated from the Father, as are all things); and lastly, the Adoptionists (who believed that Jesus was filled by the logos (as the Holy Spirit) and, therefore, He was adopted as God’s son.) In all its diverse forms, Monarchism did not deny the divinity of Christ but, rather, it attempted to understand the relationship between Him and His Father in several different and often amusing ways, in the hope of avoiding any misunderstandings that might lead to tri-theism (belief in three separate gods). The Monarchists were unsuccessful in the long run, nevertheless, the idea of restricting the humanity of Christ continued, unabated, in the East. Some heresies completely denied His humanity. Docetism (Dokesis) is derived from the Greek word meaning “semblance,” or “appearance.” The Docetists believed that Jesus, the biological Christ, was man in appearance only and that He only appeared to suffer and to die on the cross. In this way, the Docetists avoided the “degrading” or “humiliating” death

THE COMMISSION

33

of the Messiah, as a divine person. Thus, the Docetists, also called the “Seemists,” proclaimed the body of Christ to be an “optical illusion,” a form of “phantomism”. And hence, they completely denied His humanity; for them, Jesus was only a pure spirit. From pure spirit it was a simple step to Gnosticism. The term Gnosis means knowledge. It is not rational knowledge but mystical knowledge obtained from prayer and reflection upon the scriptures. (The Gnostic movement in the second century A.D. may be traced back to Simon Magus of Gitta, in Samaria; its thesis was propagated by Maricon, Basilides, and Valentinus.) Gnostic knowledge is obtained by “participation” in the divine mystery, to grant its followers spiritual “union” with God and, consequently, “salvation.” It goes beyond “simple faith” and “reason” to avoid all reality and, thus, it was, in effect, another side of Docetism. Gnosticism as a doctrine died out but it left a relative behind, monasticism, with which the church could live. About 250 A.D., Egyptian Christians fleeing persecution established an ascetic way of life in the depths of the desert. They rejected the worldliness about them in favor of what has been called “the hermit ideal;” and they set about physical and intellectual labor to honor Christ and to help the needy. Many of them were non-Hellenized Copts and thereby avoided the usual brands of heresy. Another major heresy to upset the early church was Arianism. In 321 A.D., Arius was appointed to the priesthood in Alexandria, and he came under the influence of Origen’s writings. For Arius, only God (the Father) is “eternal” and “unoriginated” and, thus, Jesus could not be co-eternal with Him, for there was a time when Jesus (the biological Christ) did not exist on Earth (prior to His birth). Therefore, Jesus is not fully God or man to Arius but, perhaps, something in between. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (328-373 A.D.), vehemently opposed the doctrine of Arius by calling for a church council at Nicaea to meet in May of 325 A.D., to discuss the issue. The church leaders upheld the doctrine that Jesus is of one substance (homoousios) with the Father and in no way inferior to Him. While the biological Christ was indeed born in time, the spiritual Christ was eternal. Arius was condemned for heresy, but his thoughts lived on in the East, in somewhat modified form. The last major attempt to reconcile the divine nature of Christ with His human nature came from the pen of Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. ca. 390 A.D.). In a major attempt to utilize Neo-Platonic concepts which saw human nature as composed of three elements—a body (physique), a soul (which activates/energizes), and a spirit (which grants man reason/intellect)— Apollinaris confirmed the truly human body and soul of Christ, but explained His divinity in terms of the spirit which occupied Him as the Logos or Word. Neither Apollinaris nor his theory resolved the problem. The Nicaean Council also established a new precedent. Since the third century, the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, three major Holy See’s, were accorded great prestige and honor, and their authority extended well beyond those cities. By the fifth century, the church recognized that reality; and,

34

CHAPTER 4

in a new attempt to consolidate authority over the other bishops and more effectively fight local heresies, the office of patriarch was developed and approved. A patriarchate for Jerusalem was created as well, but the most prestigious patriarchate in the East remained at Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire. The patriarchs became the heads of several national churches and rites within the Catholic (Universal) Church. This development, the reconstitution of the Holy See’s, did not, however, end the theological disputes. One last and powerful struggle had to be waged. Nestorius, a Cilician educated at Antioch, became patriarch of Constantinople (428-431 A.D.) and taught that the divine and human natures of Christ were in absolute harmony, but not in one person. Antioch opposed this view and Nestorius was condemned at the Council of Ephesus, in 431 A.D. His concepts underwent some modification and affected the rise of Monophysitism. Syria became the stronghold of the Monophysite heresy. Basically, that movement maintained that Jesus possessed only one true nature, the divine one, with His human nature subordinated to practical non-existence. The term “mono-physite” means “one nature,” in this case, the divine one. (The antecedent of this heresy has been traced back to Apollinaris and, perhaps that explains its strong base in Syria.) This heresy denied the complete humanity of Jesus emphasizing His divinity, and soon after its appearance the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) condemned both the Nestorian and the Monophysite doctrine. After completing its investigations, the council proclaimed the two perfect and separate natures of Christ as “orthodox” Christian belief; it is still considered so by the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. In a final attempt to bring the un-orthodox Christians back to mainstream Christianity, a new doctrine was propagated by Orthodox Patriarch Sergius, a Syrian with Jacobite leanings, in the seventh century, to try to bridge the gap between the remaining Monophysites and the Diphysites of the Universal Church. The new Monothelite creed was a compromise, accepting the two separate natures of Christ, but only one divine will (thelema). In effect, Monthelite theology proclaimed the “oneness” of Christ’s divine and human will which were “identical, unchanging, and harmonious.” This doctrine was ingenious but unsuccessful. It was condemned by both the Lateran Council of Rome in 649 A.D., and by the sixth ecumenical council of Constantinople between 680-681 A.D. Although it died a double death, Monothelite doctrine was revived again. In the Near East, the Syriac using church split into two groups, the Eastern Syrian Church which was as off-shoot of Nestorianism, and the Western Syrian Church which retained a Monophysite base. In the sixth century, the West Syrian Church was also known as the Jacobite Church, named after Jacob Baradaeus, Bishop of Edessa (approx. 543-578 A.D.). The Jacobite Church was also called the Old Syrian Church. Many of the remaining churches in the Near East remained faithful to the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, such as the Malkite Church (royal or king’s church) which became part of the Orthodox Church; and, the Maronite Church

THE COMMISSION

35

of Lebanon which maintained its independence from Byzantium and upheld its theoretical purity to later become part of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. (They were once charged with accepting Monophysite or Monothelite tenets, but those accusations have been firmly refuted.) The Maronite Church traces its origins to Saint Maron (Mar Maroun) an ascetic monk who founded a “monastery” in the fourth century A.D. (d. 410 A.D.). He established the pious foundations of the church in the Syrian wilderness near Antioch. His disciples relocated to Qal’at al-Madiq, on the Orentes River and built a monastery in his memory. There, they ran afoul the Jacobites and many of them suffered martyrdom. Later, they moved into the mountains of Lebanon where they effectively defended themselves and spread their faith. Yuhanna Maroun became one of their most noted bishops and the first patriarch of their church, taking the title Patriarch of Antioch And All The East. He began to mold a militarily powerful, intellectually brilliant, and culturally high civilization from among the natives of Lebanon; in time, that Christian community fought defensively against both the armies of Byzantium and the mighty surge of Islam, to retain independence and freedom of religion. But it is Saint Maron, however, who is credited with the founding of a church and a nation from among the indigenous dwellers of the Lebanon. The task attained, the commission realized, the church survived its own heresies and expanded into the far-flung corners of the world. Some scholars see its success, against all forms of adversity, as a result of the genius of a few individuals, or the faith and martyrdom of many; some see it as a result of the legalization of Christianity by Galerius (311 A.D.) and Constantine (313 A.D.); some see it as an intellectual success spanning the gap between Hebrew philosophy, Hellenic Thought, and Roman legalism; some see it as a result of the legalistic prerogatives of the Christian Church; and lastly, some attributed it to the end of the era of out-dated paganism, worn-out mythologies, and worthless atheism, or to the beginning of a new age of belief. All those theories have had a place in the preceding pages, but something more is needed. The early Christians believed that the Holy Spirit, at work in their lives, would lead them and the Universal Church to victory, against bitter persecution and tremendous odds. The church could be hurt, but it would never die, for Christ had already “cheated” death, taking away its power. And, now for one last observation; perhaps, the time was right, the right time (kairos) had come for God to directly intervene in human affairs, so that His church and its doctrines would come to fruition in this world. Had the church failed in its mission, that is, succumb to the pagan world about it, then the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth would have been forgotten, or consigned to a footnote of history. It may be that the hand of God was the true force that enabled the commission to be fulfilled.

CHAPTER 5: THE LAST MESSENGER In the sixth century A.D., the Semetic High God, El/Elohim (Yahweh), who had made a covenant with Abraham, who had given His Commandments to Moses, that same God (Elah) whom Jesus had called Abba, His Father in Heaven, and He who called Jesus His Beloved Son, that self-same Lord of the Universe, al-Ilah (Allah), once again, decided to reveal His will and laws to mankind. This time the recipient of His message was to be an Arabian, Muhammad, the son of Aminah and Abd Allah (of the Hashimite clan of the Quraysh tribe), known to his companions and friends as al-Amin, the trustworthy. The life of the Prophet Muhammad was first recorded by Muhammad Ibn Ishaq (d. 767 A.D.) but his study is no longer in existence. The task then fell to Ibn Hisham (d. 833 A.D.) who edited and selected material from Ibn Ishaq fs study for his own work which remains the basic text for all biographies of the Prophet of Islam. Although compiled almost two centuries after Muhammad’s death, it is still considered the standard text on his life. Rigorous efforts were made to verify the biography’s contents from other sources, but some of the early Islamic scholars believed that the accounts were embellished with lore, legend, and miracle stories that may not be verifiable; nevertheless, there is nothing in the biography of the prophet to indicate any actions or words that could discredit his claim to prophethood, or that was contrary to it. There are, for example, stories that the prophet’s mother never felt any ill effects of her pregnancy and was not aware of her condition until told of it by an angel of the Lord; others say that the prophet’s wet nurse, long dry at the time, felt her breasts fill with milk upon setting her gaze upon him; still others relate the tale that when the infant prophet grew ill, angels extracted a blood clot or, perhaps, a gallstone from his chest to relieve the pressure. All those accounts circulated for the first time long after Muhammad’s death with, possibly, the exception of the last one which may be Quranic in origin (Q 94: 1-4). Most scholars of Islam agree that the only miracle of the prophet is the inimitability (i’jaz) of the Quran, Islam’s Holy Book. But, others cite miracles as signs associated with his mission such as the splitting of the moon; the crying of a branch of a date palm tree; the flowing of water from in between the fingers of the prophet; a greeting by the stones of the streets of Mecca as the prophet passed near them; the inability to bury the body of a Christian renegade from Islam; the trees that bowed to shade and cover the prophet for modesty’s sake; the drawing of water from the long dried well of Hudaibiyah; an increased date harvest in response to the prophet’s prayers; a wolf that spoke in praise of God’s

38

CHAPTER 5

apostle and, lastly, the prophet’s night journey to paradise. Most of those narratives were collected from the prophet’s companions through a very long line of transmitters, several centuries after the original communicant’s death. They remain, therefore, to this day a matter of individual belief or disbelief, among Moslem scholars. There is, however, much that is factual in the Prophet Muhammad’s biography. Muhammad was born in Mecca, in 570 A.D., into an Arabia that was pagan in heart and soul. Nearly every form of immorality was available for the right price. The Arabians refer to this period as the “age of ignorance,” al-jahiliyah, to denote ignorance of the one true God and His moral and ethical laws and decrees. It was an age of superstition and blood-feuds, of infanticide and mortal raids, of opulent wealth and miserable poverty. All along the western coast of Arabia, where the caravan trade flourished, were temples of prostitution where momentary pleasures could be negotiated. The center of Arabian life was the sophisticated city of Mecca where the Quraysh tribe controlled the city’s abundant wealth, the center of religious life and pilgrimage, and the Ka’bah (a cube structured sanctuary) which housed many religious fetishes and a curious Black Stone. The pagan religions of Arabia consisted of many forms from local tribal deities to complex Greco-Roman dynastic gods, to Hindu tri-theism; to astral triads but, in general, the religious atmosphere was extremely tolerant. The chief deity of the Arabians was Allah (the God) aided by his daughters al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat. Among the pagans there also lived several Christian communities, some Jews in the city of Yathrib and in southern Arabia, and a strange indigenous group of monotheists belonging to neither Christianity nor Judaism, but influenced by both of them, known as the Hanifs. One of the best known Hanifs was Waraqah ibn Nawfal who became a Christian and translated part of the Gospels into Arabic. (He was related to the Prophet Muhammad through marriage.) Of Muhammad’s birth and early life not much is known. His father, Abd Allah, died before he was born and his mother, Aminah, passed away when he was six years old. He first lived as an orphan with his grandfather, Abd alMuttalib, until he died and then with his uncle, Abu Talib. For the next seventeen years, practically nothing about Muhammad is known. Almost all sources are silent but others hint at his interest in and, perhaps, his attachment to the Hanif community—its monotheistic ideas may have impacted upon him but he waited for a personal revelation. At the age of twenty-five, we find the future prophet (nabi) and messenger (rasul) of God at work for a wealthy widow named Khadijah. He was employed in her long distance caravan trade and, later, Muhammad married her, although she was some fifteen years older than him. While on a business trip to Syria, legend states that Muhammad met a Christian monk named Bahira who recognized the light and sign of prophethood in the young man. It is quite possible that either the Hanifs, Bahira, or both of them were agents of the Lord, acting as a herald for Muhammad, just as John the Baptist had been for the

THE LAST MESSENGER

39

coming of the Christ. As a young man, Muhammad shunned the various forms of immoral pleasures available to him in the city of Mecca, preferring to meditate in the cool solitude of the caves outside the city. There, in those quite confines, he pondered the world he lived in, and particularly why his people were left in ignorance of God, without a Book to guide them, similar to the Holy Books of the Christians and Jews. He must have felt that his people were morally lost and adrift, like a powerless ship on an open sea, in their pleasure-bent society. Then, the Night of Power descended upon him! On that night, in 610 A.D., while Muhammad was deep in contemplation, he heard a voice, later identified as the angel Gabriel, commanding the semiliterate man to read and recite in the name of the Lord: Recite, in the name of thy Lord, who created, Created man from a clot of blood (meaning the embryo)

Furthermore, Read for thy Lord is most bounteous, Who teacheth by the pen, Teacheth man what he did not know.

The message was later accompanied by a resounding reverberation of bells. The first call, on that night, had summoned Muhammad to the service of the Semetic High God, the one and only true God of all mankind, the Lord of the Worlds. Filled with fear and trepidation, he did not fully understand why he, an unaccomplished speaker or writer when compared to the great literary poets of Arabia, should bear an enormous responsibility for his people. He went home and told his wife of the vision and voice in the cave, and then wrapped himself in blankets, as if to hide. But the angel of the Lord was relentless; Muhammad, now in a trance-like state, heard the voice again, saying: O’ thou, enwrapped in thy mantle, Arise and warn.

The process complete, now fully a prophet for his people, Muhammad would arise and warn them of the consequences of their behavior in a continuing message that would only cease with his death in 632 A.D. The task was not easy. The Meccans saw his message as a major threat to both their beliefs and livelihood. (They opposed him from the beginning of his mission.) The more he preached about the oneness of God, and a moral perception of life, the more dangerous Mecca became for him. He won a few converts at first. Among them were his wife, Khadijah, and his cousin, Ali, who later became his son-in-law. He attracted the lower classes

40

CHAPTER 5

and a few followers from the lower middle class, as well as those who sought a better life that was beyond their reach. As his following grew in numbers, his clan, the Hashimites, were hard pressed to cease protecting him. They refused, but the prophet saw it prudent to send some of his supporters to the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia, for protection. At Mecca, Abu Talib continued to protect Muhammad out of clan loyalty, even though he never believed in his prophethood. With the death of his uncle Abu Talib, and his wife Khadijah, the prophet’s position in Mecca became extremely precarious. Muhammad was being accused of possession by the jinn (genie/ an evil spirit or being), of magic and sorcery, and of being nothing more than a soothsayer; on a trip to Taif to preach, he was ridiculed, insulted and stoned. After that incident, the prophet decided to leave Mecca for Yathrib, to the north, where his presence was sought as an intercessor and arbitrator among the communities seeking to order a society in flux. Muhammad escaped from Mecca to Yathrib now called the city of the prophet (Madinat al-Nabi) or simply Medina, in September of 622 A.D. (The Moslem calendar begins with Muhammad’s migration, al-Hijrah.) From Medina, the prophet went on the offensive against the enemies of God. Legislation from the Lord provided for the struggle (jihad). Clearly, Muhammad became a prophet in the warrior-prophet tradition of the Old Testament. Also, from the pre-Hijrah period falls the prophet’s nocturnal journey from the Ka’bah via Jerusalem to the seventh heaven (his mi’raj). The details of this miraculous journey made Jerusalem holy to Moslems, and provided the believer with details of a paradise that awaits the fallen martyr. Some Moslems believe the sojourn to have been a dream-like state; while others insist upon its physical reality. The pagans, of course, accused Muhammad of having hallucinated but, nevertheless, he did confirm a view of paradise, and the benefits of fighting in the path of God for his followers. Soon afterwards, Muhammad’s men began harassing the Meccan caravans. In Medina, the prophet won new converts from the city (the Ansar) and he began to rely upon them, for he won little support from among the city’s Jewish inhabitants. At first, the Jews welcomed him but, later, rejected him and his mission, for Muhammad insisted that Jesus was the expected Messiah, and that he was the last prophet in the Abrahamic line, even though Muhammad was not well versed in the Jewish scriptures. As Muhammad’s ranks swelled, the Meccans decided in 624 to end his constant annoying interference with their trade. The wells of Badr were to be the scene of a climactic battle between the opposing sides. Muhammad commanded about 314 men facing an army of approximately 900 troops of the Quraysh. Without a battle plan and somewhat overconfident, the Meccans were completely defeated, put to flight, leaving the field of combat in complete disarray. Their booty fell to the Moslems, under God’s sanction. But, the Meccans regrouped for another attempt near a hill named Uhud, shortly afterwards.

THE LAST MESSENGER

41

This time, in March of 625, the Meccans prepared an elaborate battle plan. Led by Abu Sufyan, they attacked the prophet and his followers but, with the aid and intercession of angels, the prophet’s men held the hill, although Muhammad was wounded several times. The limited success of the Meccans encouraged them to try harder. The siege of Medina was a follow-up campaign to the battle of Uhud, intending to besiege the city and force it to surrender or capitulate. The city was protected by trenches, a tactic accredited to a Persian convert and, thus, the ten thousand man Meccan army was unable to breach its defenses for more than three months. Consequently, they withdrew from the field of battle, once again lacking a victory. After three unsuccessful attempts against the Prophet Muhammad, the Meccans decided to accept his leadership. For the Moslems, the victories were seen as the fulfillment of God’s will. (Only one strong opponent remained, the Jews of Khaybar. They were defeated in combat and made to pay a tribute.) Victory now complete, the prophet made his peace with his former enemies in the treaty of Hudaybiyah (named after a location 9 miles north of Mecca), in 628 A.D., on the basis of Islam as a sort of state religion. Muhammad’s political leadership was also fully recognized at that time. It is believed that in this period the prophet sent letters to the rulers of Egypt, Byzantium, and Persia requesting their conversion to Islam. Two years later the prophet triumphantly entered Mecca; he entered the Ka’bah and smashed the idols saying, “Truth hath come, and falsehood has vanished.” Only the Black Stone, associated with Judaism, remained within its walls. The sanctuary was purified and dedicated to Allah. Muhammad’s former enemies were treated magnanimously. And, the prophet rode at the head of a delegation from each of the seven major clans, circumambulating (tawaf) the Ka’bah, to demonstrate the equality of all Arabian tribes. In the following year, Muhammad received deputations from all over Arabia submitting to his God and to the new religion called Islam (submission). He made plans for further conquests, but soon after, Muhammad grew ill, complaining of headaches. He died on June 8, 632, in the city of Medina; he was buried in a simple ceremony under the floor of the mud hut of his favorite wife, A’ishah. Muhammad’s life ended as simply as it had begun; he sought nothing material from this world, only the truth motivated him, and that is precisely what he left for his followers. Muhammad wrote down nothing of his revelations. That task went to his followers. During his life, Muhammad received the revelations of God through the assistance of the angel Gabriel; and although the prophet spoke the words of the Quran, they are believed to be the Words of God, by devout Moslems. As the prophet spoke those holy words, in a trance-like state, they were recorded upon the materials at hand “palm-leaves,” “stones,” “leather,” and in the “hearts of men,” that is those who memorized them (the huffaz). Upon the death of the Prophet, many of those who had submitted to his authority and religion but were not fully convinced of his mission and

42

CHAPTER 5

prophethood were joined by some tribes that had become resentful of the new taxes imposed upon them and, therefore, they reneged upon their word and revolted against the state. Thus, the first “major war” in Islam occurred under the direction of Abu Bakr (632-634 A.D.), the political successor (caliph) of the prophet. The wars of riddah (secession or apostacy) took many lives and established the first civil law of Islam—there is no conversion from Islam. Anyone is free to become a Moslem but it is illegal for anyone to convert from Islam. (Freedom of religion is, therefore, a one way street in Islam, enter you may, leave and you will suffer extinction.) In 633 A.D., another major campaign was launched against a false prophet, Musaylima, thus ending the lives of many more of the caliph’s men who had memorized the Quran. On the advice of Umar ibn al-Khattab, Abu Bakr approached Muhammad’s secretary, Zayd ibn Thabit of Medina, to collect the available revelations into a single volume, before too many of the memorizers were killed in battle and serious gaps in the text could occur. The project took approximately five years to complete (657 A.D.), and it was plagued with many problems. The earthly Quran (recitation/reading) was first compiled in segments which separated the Meccan chapters (suras) from those revealed in Medina. Then they were combined into a complete text, and the Medina codex was “canonized.” During the caliphate of Uthman (644-656 A.D.), Omar’s (Umar’s) successor, various readings of the Quran had developed and, consequently, the caliph appointed Zayd to a committee to revise the Quran. Although the Quran was revealed in clear and concise Arabic, in the prophet’s dialect, it was recorded in a defective or “short-hand,” or unclear or “imperfect” script. Zayd, it is said, decided to try to remedy the situation by using Omar’s copy, kept with his daughter Hafsah who was also one of the widows of Muhammad, as the basic reference in his work. The “new,” “revised,” edition became the standard text. All other copies were destroyed, and the new text was duplicated and dispatched to the Arabian encampments in Damascus, al-Basrah, and al-Kufah. Some modern scholars maintain that Uthman canonized the Medina codex because it was in the prophet’s dialect (Qurayshi) and that he destroyed the others because he had tampered with the original text. (This was the charge made by some of the supporters of Ali for the caliphate against Uthman.) Others say that the varying copies were destroyed to prevent more than one Quran from existing with contradictions or different readings or varying emphasis and interpretations, charges that were later aimed at the four Gospels of Christianity. All this is, however, academic speculation. And, indeed, it did not prevent the generation of apocryphal Qurans, at a later time. The final text of the Quran was completed in 933 A.D., almost three centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, when the proper diacritical marks and vowels were added to its corpus. Translations of the Quran into foreign languages are a recent phenomenon; the Quran was revealed in Arabic, believed by the Arabians to be the language of God, for the Arabian community near Mecca. As the Arabains began to

THE LAST MESSENGER

43

conquer non-Arabic speaking peoples and to impose their faith upon them, they taught some of those peoples their language. Today, however, it is impractical to expect all Moslems to learn Arabic to read the Quran, hence, the Quran has been translated into many languages and titles that imply something less than an accurate, perfect, copy, for that, after all, is a theological impossibility. The Quran is inimitable in its Arabic form, structure, and words. There are, nevertheless, excellent translations of the scripture, such as Yusuf Ali’s The Holy Qur-An with explanatory notes to give the current interpretation of the text. Others like Mohammed Marmaduke Picktall’s The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, written by a convert to Islam, betray some extremely serious errors in, perhaps, an effort to win new converts to the faith, or to give a clearer meaning to a verse (as the title indicates) which may be lacking in the desired precision or understanding, or to change its intent. (Compare, for example, the text of verse 4: 171 in Picktall’s translation and in Ali’s translation where they have added the words “only” and “no more than” to the English text regarding the role of Jesus as a prophet. Those words are missing in the original Arabic text. This is done to give the English reader the positive impression that God, and not the translator or interpreter has limited the role of Jesus to only that of a prophet, messenger, or Apostle and, therefore, one might come to the conclusion that Jesus is certainly not the Son of God, the Lord, or a divine person. More on Quranic exegesis (tafsir) will be given in another chapter.) The structure and words of the Arabic Quran are unique. There was no prototype text or analogous book to follow. The earthly Quran is believed to be identical to a copy preserved in the seventh heaven, near the throne of God, called the “Mother Book,” or “The Guarded Tablet.” The Quran is, therefore, uncreated; it is eternal! The book consists of 114 chapters, 6,239 verses, 77,934 words and 323,621 letters; Ninety of the chapters (suras) were revealed at Mecca and deal with the oneness of God, His attributes, heaven and hell, the final judgment, and the duties of man; the remaining chapters revealed at Medina are more administrative and legislative concerning war, punishments for crime, civil rights and political, economic, social and cultural life. But Islam is much more than the above notions and, clearly, its message is far deeper, in both content and intention. The Quran stresses the oneness of God (tawhid). It opposes polytheism, pantheism, atheism, or the belief in any other god or gods than Allah. No partners, human or divine, can be associated with God. The Quran points to biological creation as evidence of God’s existence; He sent messengers to mankind to guide them, for the human race is not a free and frivolous creature. “The religion of/with God is Islam,” and, thus, the culture of God is Islamic, That means that all cultures, religions, and ideologies, are at best only semi-valid, or they are totally invalid. The semi-valid faiths/ideologies are Judaism, Christianity, Sabianism and Magianism, all of them mentioned in the Quran. All else is unacceptable in the eyes of God and the true believer. The first message of the Quran, therefore, is that “there is no God but Allah;” and that Islam is for all mankind, whether one wants it or not.

44

CHAPTER 5

Prophethood is the major instrument of God. The prophet is the tie-in to revelation; the link between the two is faith. Muhammad came in the prophetic tradition of the Old and New Testament. However, he is also “the seal of the Prophets”—originally a Persian title, but now given new meaning. Muhammad is the last in a long line of prophets; therefore, he excels all others because he has brought to fruition the last message of the Semetic High God. He is the perfect guide for the human race, he has completed and perfected God’s message, forever. That Muhammad is the messenger of God, with the final and consummate revelation, is the second message of the Quran. The proof of Muhammad’s mission was his success, and that his coming was foretold in both the Torah and the Gospels, according to the Moslem scholars who sought to identify Muhammad with words or phrases in the older revealed texts. The problem of good and evil is dealt with as a major theme in the Quran. The Quran exhorts man to “do good” and “avoid evil,” and it promises paradise for the believer and the fiery garden of hell for the non-believer. Piety is the measure of compliance since all Moslems, good or bad, go to paradise. But, punishment awaits evildoers on Earth and the Day of Judgment awaits them in heaven. In Islam, there are two major categories of sin against God. The greatest sin against God is the unpardonable act of ascribing partners to God (called shirk) or ascribing divine authority, attributes or power to someone other than God. Partnership with God may take many forms including major and minor acts to even inconspicuous events, such as ingratitude towards Him. Disbelief (kufr) is also classified in terms of major and minor sins such as denial of divine truth or excessive pride to doubting one’s own convictions, or hypocrisy. And, lastly, Islam strives for an ethical and moral code of life for all Moslems, and a world view that encourages justice. To that extent, it has its own “commandments:” 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

“Belief in One God Honoring one’s mother and father Respecting the rights of others Being generous and considerate of kin ties Avoiding unjustifiable killing Do not commit adultery Safeguarding the possessions of orphans; treating orphans kindly Deal justly and equitably with neighbors Be pure of heart and mind and give truthful testimony Be humble and unpretentious.”

To achieve and accomplish the above, highly desired results, certain mechanisms came into being, the most important of which was Islamic Law (the Shari’ah/the path) which will be discussed in more detail in another chapter. Added to the belief-system (Iman—Unity of God, Prophethood of Muhammad, the Uncreated Quran, the angels and jinn, and the final day of judgement—are the articles of faith (Ibadat/”acts of devotion”) which have

THE LAST MESSENGER

45

become the pillars of Islam (Arkan al-Din), approximately equivalent to the Sacraments in Christianity. They are: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

To bear witness (the Shahadah) that there exists only one God, and that Muhammad is His messenger. This is the fundamental creed of Islam and its basic dogma. To profess this is to be a Moslem. Prayer (Salat) is required five times a day—morning, noon, midday, sunset, and at night. The prayer must be in Arabic and one must face Mecca; proper cleanliness is also necessary. The ritual washing before prayer is symbolically similar to baptism in Christianity. Alms giving (Zakah) became a tax on Moslems for the benefit of the Moslem community (ummah), now to be separated and above all others. Fasting (Sawm) occurs during the month of Ramadan, from sunrise to sunset, as a form of penance, and to identify with the fate of poor Moslems. Pilgrimage (Hajj) to Mecca should be made at least once in a lifetime, if possible. At Mecca, the pilgrim circumambulates the Ka’bah, as Muhammad did, representing the conquest of Islam over paganism. Struggle (Jihad) in the path of God, also called Holy War, is sometimes considered a pillar of the faith, due to its significance for the fallen martyr goes immediately to Paradise.

Islam divides the world into two great, yet opposing, spheres of influence, the Moslem World (Dar al-Islam) and the non-Moslem World (Dar al-Harb/ the abode of war). To achieve the Islamification of this world, which belongs to God, its creator, and to whom all allegiance and sovereignty is due, a Moslem may struggle against the non-Moslems, by exertions (jihad) in the name of God. This can be done by open warfare, by the pen, by the word or by selfpurification (example), in order to win new converts to the faith. Islamic law, however, became the most potent of the peaceful methods aimed at converting the non-believer. Although definitely not a pillar of Islam, the veiling of women has assumed the importance of a pillar of the faith in some Islamic societies. The veiling and seclusion of women is an ancient Near Eastern custom elaborated by the Assyrians (1500-1200 B.C.) and the Medes; it is not a Jewish or a Christian or Moslem institution. But, those three religions called for modesty in dress in the presence of pagans. It must be recalled that Islam, like Judaism, was revealed in a pagan society where lust and contract regulated the male-female relationship. And, pagan Arabia ascribed to the ancient view that the human body was insightful and immoral. Therefore, in order for Moslem women to protect themselves from the lecherous gaze of pagan men, the veiling of women and their segregation from the mainstream of society came about. In time, the segregated roles reinforced the social system, but they also produced a negative sexual hypertension resulting in their continued need. Thus, the Islamic dress code for women came into existence as a device to protect women, but it is often misunderstood in the West where a very different attitude towards women and human sexuality

46

CHAPTER 5

evolved. In the western world those precautions have become meaningless for the role of women has expanded in society and the equality between men and women has been championed. Christianity entered a Hebrew culture where a strong sense of morality already existed and, therefore, the male-female relationship took on a sacramental nature, rooted in love, not lust. From a Christian perspective, however, it is more important to note that the veiling and seclusion of women violates the absolute justice of God by making Him prejudice against women or in favor of men. In Islam, the call for veiling women still exists and has increased in recent years to protect Moslem women from Moslem men who may be less noble than desired, to protect Moslem women from the “temptation of males,” and to prevent Moslem women from becoming “sex objects,” or a “turn-on.” Unfortunately, these measures have resulted in Moslem women being thought of as nothing more than a “sexual receptacle” for the male, in several Islamic states. Since Muhammad is Islam’s greatest personality, his example is to be followed in all things. His style of life should be emulated and his teachings (Hadith/speech) adhered to at all times. The unwritten customs (Sunnah) of the prophet were studied and Arabian culture was purified so that sixth century Arabia became the Islamic cultural “ideal,” for all times and places. Indeed, God would never let His community agree on an error. The traditions of the prophet, written (Hadith) or unwritten (Sunnah), became all important, as a source for Islam and to cover incidents not referred to in the Quran. The Quran consists of only the words of God devoid of any historical context. This gave rise to a special genre of literature to explain the conditions or situations that existed at the time of a revelation. Abu al-Hassan Ali ibn Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Wahidi (d. 1075 A.D.), comprised an authoritative account of the incidents entitled, Asbab Nuzul al-Quran (The Cause/Occcassions For The Descent of The Quran) from some available sources so that Quranic punishments could be applied only under specific conditions. Shortly after the prophet’s demise, the search for his legitimate sayings began, as a source of undisputed authority. It began in the city of Medina, among the pious and, soon after, the process became a science unto itself. As time passed, in the span of two and one-half centuries, more than 600,000 sayings were attributed to Muhammad. The process of collecting them, verifying the truth of each of them, and classifying them became a monumental undertaking. Every Hadith consists of two parts, the chain (isnad) of authorities leading back to the first person, and the text (matn). The reputation of each person involved was scrutinized and the text was critically analyzed to assure that it would not violate the Quran or the Sunnah. Like the huffaz (memorizers) of the Quran, only the memory of the authorities could not be tested. The best collections were classified as genuine (sahih), next came the good/fair ones (hasan) and, lastly, weak (da’if) sayings. From about 600,000 entries, approximately 7,397 sayings were accepted by Muhammad ibn Isma’il alBukhari, the leading authority on the speech of the prophet. Six canonical

THE LAST MESSENGER

47

collections have been made: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Al-Jami al-Sahih of al-Bukhari (d. 870). Al-Sahih of Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 875). Sunan of ibn Majah (d. 886). Sunan of abu Dawud (d. 888). Jami of al-Tirmidhi (d. 892). Sunan of al-Nasa’i (d. 915).

The integration of the Quran, the Sunnah, and the Hadith of the prophet became the basis for the day-to-day operation of the Moslem community. (Islamic law will be treated as the cementing force that held the system together, in the next chapter.) The social structure of Islam drew its inspiration from the above works and aimed at a moral and ethical life style and world view. In the course of time, its perspectives have been advanced to an extraordinarily high degree that has often been negatively criticized by non-Moslems as “uncivilized” or “barbaric” behavior. Islamic cultural norms are often misunderstood, because non-Moslem societies have evolved with a completely different understanding of similar but basic issues. The amputation of a criminal’s arm for theft, the flogging of persons accused of “sexual crimes” (sex outside of marriage), the stoning to death of adulterers, the blinding of voyeurs, the beating of lesbians and the death penalty for homosexuals, and the recent trend towards female circumcision to lessen female sexuality (circumcision is required for males only) are not seen as positive aspects of life to encourage morality, in the West. Even the ordering of Islamic society is often found fault with by non-Moslem observers looking at Islam from a different human rights perspective. Indeed, the rules and regulations that govern a Moslem’s life are highly structured and detailed to preserve a moral standard by legislating punishments and directives to offset attitudes not prevalent or understood in other societies. In Islam, an individual’s rights are those granted to him or her in the Quran as part of a group. There is no independent concept of human or civil rights for God’s decrees supersede all human constructs, always, everywhere, and forever. This world has been entrusted by its maker to the Moslem community to be administered according to God’s will, as indicated in the Quran. Islam, therefore, is not just one religion among many; it is for Moslems the only true and valid religion. It places the Moslem man at the top of the social structure with a maximum of rights and prerogatives and, in fact, all Moslem men are spiritually equal in God’s eyes. Next come Moslem women for “Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one to excel the other...” The Quran also sets forth the principle, “So good women are the obedient... As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.” There is neither equality of person or role between Moslem men and women, in the Christian sense. This condition exists to protect women from an immoral, unethical, world; furthermore, it is believed that

48

CHAPTER 5

women are weaker in faith than men since they comprise the majority in hell, according to a well known Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. Consequently, men are the moral guardians of women in Islam. (In contrast, Christian tradition depicts women as more faithful than men, since they were the first to visit the tomb of the resurrected Christ while His Apostles awaited a sign from Him.) The non-Moslem peoples fall into two basic categories, those who practice atheism or partnership (shirk) with God and those who are Jews and Christians but are also non-believers (kafir/kufr) in the Prophet Muhammad and his mission. For the atheist, polytheist, or pantheist the choice is either conversion or extinction: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them...”

From the Islamic perspective nothing is more obnoxious in the sight of God, or a true believer, than one whom, for whatever reason, rejects God and His messengers or ascribes partnership to God or worships a false god or gods. It is the only unforgivable sin in Islam! And, lastly, for the Jews and Christians who are considered closer to Moslems (more acceptable/preferable) than any nonMoslem community: “Fight those who believe not Nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, Until they pay the Jizya With willing submission And feel themselves subdued”

(Islam) (Jews and Christians) (a tax or fine) (humiliation) (lowly/persecuted), (Q 9: 29)

But, perhaps, the most serious criticism of Islam comes from its acceptance of slavery. The institution of slavery, it should be understood, is almost a universal phenomenon and, therefore, Moslem society was not immune to it. Slavery in the Near East was a natural phenomenon and an intra-racial affair. The ancient Jews could even enslave fellow Jews. Only Christianity forbids the practice to their community. The Arabs, Persians and Turks enslaved their own Caucasian race and treated them somewhat better than the black slaves taken by black Moslem peoples. When blacks did come under Islamic slavery, however, they were not treated any better by the Moslems than they were by the European Christians. Islam does not condemn slavery but it does consider freeing a slave as something pleasing to God. Islamic law regulated the institution to make it a bit more humane. Conversion to Islam did not necessarily free a slave, but the children of Moslem slaves were born free, as a divine incentive for conversion. The above selections from the Quran were chosen to give a general moral tone to western criticism of Islamic doctrines and practices, and to show them, in the light of the foregoing chapter, as a positive force, stressing the basic themes of Islam. For, after all, Islam has ordered society for the well-being of

THE LAST MESSENGER mankind; it is a light in the dark; and it is a path to eternal salvation.

49

CHAPTER 6: THE CALL Approximately one hundred years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the Arab armies had expanded their power into the Byzantine possessions of the Near East and North Africa, had conquered the Persian Empire, and had brought their forces to the fringes of China and the vital limbs of Europe. For the Europeans, the Arab advance was observed as the last in a series of Caucasian tribal movements that destroyed the Roman Empire in order to inherit its former possessions. Seen from the Byzantine provinces, it was liberation of sorts from the heavy-handed hold of a domineering clergy and church. Viewed from the throne of the Shah-en-Shah of Persia, it was a violent conquest by rude, unlettered, barbarians whose only redeeming quality was their religion. From the seat of the Celestial Emperor of China, it was seen as a challenge for the domination of Western Asia. All this, and more, resulted from a call to the faithful of Islam to bring the world into submission. Many reasons have been given and advanced to explain the amazing power and speed with which the Arabs carved out a vast empire, only second in size to the Roman Empire, and to explain its rapid collapse as well. It was, however, religion that acted as the cementing force that held that huge, highly sophisticated, empire together; and it was religion, again, that was responsible for its fragmentation and ultimate demise. For as long as the Prophet Muhammad was alive, he was easily accessible to his people. He served them in many roles, as their prophet, as their head of state and, lastly, as God’s (Allah’s) legal representative on Earth. Shortly after Muhammad’s triumphant entry into Mecca, he began the process of rejuvenating Arabian culture. All pagan practices were eliminated; the resulting culture became Islamic; and it was to become the “Classic ideal” for all future generations. A new state evolved. At the head of the Islamic state is God and it is to Him that all allegiance and sovereignty is due. Next came the Prophet Muhammad who received the Quran, the sacred scripture of Islam. The Quran is much more than a book of revelations; it is, and functions as, the fundamental and universal “constitution” of the Islamic World. It is theological in its Meccan chapters but administrative and legalistic in its Median chapters. Therefore, there is no separation of church and state in Islam; all warfare or conquest, whether offensive or defensive, is religious in tone, to “open” new nations to the call of the faith. War is either to protect or expand the borders of Islam. This objective is one of the major purposes of the Islamic state. The other major objective is to apply Islamic Law (the Shari’ah) to mankind. Islamic law is universal, for everyone, Moslem and

52

CHAPTER 6

non-Moslem alike, and it remains the primary source of legislation in Moslem states. It is believed that Islam came into being to replace all secular or nonIslamic nation-states, and to substitute them with Islamic states or administrations and legal systems. It should be obvious by now that secularism or secular institutions, as we understand them in the West, are viewed by Islam as meaningless concepts, at best, or as an enemy of God, at worst. Even an Islamic state cannot legislate “new” laws, for law is the domain of God, not man. Man can only apply or reinterpret laws by analogous means. Also, the concept of social sciences, subject to experimentation and critical observation, is pointless folly for the Moslem, because all human activity—cultural, social, sexual, political, economic, and even mental—must conform to Islamic norms and principles, and be regulated under Islamic law, for the benefit of the human race. And, lastly, the concept of “humanism” or better yet “universal human rights” as an aspect of the teachings of Christ, or as a secular quest, are unacceptable to Islam. For the Moslem, a person’s rights and the roles they can play in this world are only those granted to him/her in the Quran, now and forever! The law is the main instrument of the Islamic state. It insures that all who come under its sway live in accordance with God’s will, subject to both rewards and punishments in this world and in the next. It sets the standard for the Moslem state by determining what is legal and acceptable and what is not. It is all consuming. The origins of Islamic jurisprudence (usul al-Fiqh) are derived from the Quran, the customs/precedents (the Sunnah) of the prophet and his speech (the Hadith). In the course of conquest, new territories were taken and new problems emerged that needed legal solutions that the above sources of law could not resolve. New mechanisms were developed to address that situation including a form of analytical reasoning (qiyas), personal judgment (ra’y/ijtihad), and a consensus of the community (ijma). Thus, the Islamic legal system came into fruition, but it was also criticized by some Islamic scholars who rejected some of the new innovations while others saw little that was new in Islamic law but, rather, they saw the system as a reflection of Arabian customs, minus the pagan malpractices. One of the two major problems in the administration of Islamic law is that it is extremely difficult to revise, because the law is neither historical nor social in that it does not evolve from conditions that arise. It is prescriptive and, therefore, it leads the society into conformity. This feature produces tensions between divine revelation and human reasoning in the legal process, in interpretations of the Quran, and in the practical needs of the community. To characterize the Shari’ah as “God’s Law” lends itself to another problem, that of human intervention in divine will, for unless God is the sole judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, and jury, in each and every case, it is extremely difficult to understand any legal decision as being God’s, or even being based upon God’s words, due to human intercession and interpretations. The importance of the foregoing discussion can be best seen in the rise of Islam and especially in the conversion of millions of people to the new faith. In

THE CALL

53

time, Islamic law became the most potent force in the conversion of the nonMoslems living in Moslem states or under Islamic administrations. (The nonMoslems were later stripped of most of their civil and legal rights.) In an Islamic state, the ideology of the state is Islam and, consequently, non-Moslems have no real place in the system, for they are outside the ideology of the state. At first, they were used by the conquerors but, later, they were seen as disloyal to the state and replaced by Moslem administrators. If one wishes to obtain any position of power, prestige, or to live in dignity, conversion to the true faith is necessary. For Christians and Jews, there is a subordinate place in the Islamic state for them, as Dhimmis or Ahl al-Kitab (People of a Covenant or People of The Book). Their legal rights were modified, new churches could not be built nor old ones repaired, and they often faced severe problems but, in general, they were tolerated. The pagans were less fortunate. Seen as the “enemies of God,” the pagans had the choice of conversion or extinction, but this was limited in some cases and impossible to achieve in others. Nevertheless, soon after the Moslem conquest, paganism vanished from its newly acquired territories. As the Islamic state began to solidify its structure, pagan temples were destroyed and pagan practicies were declaired illegal and terminated. The pagans were persecuted by the authorities, both overtly and covertly. Thus, Islamic law became the most potent weapon in the Moslem arsenal for the faith. Moslem women also faced some discrimination in legal matters, by western standards; their testimony was worth one-half of that of a man. Women were seen, and continue to be seen in some Moslem countries, as the possession of men, and a very well known hadith of the Prophet Muhammad states that even a lady’s “milk belongs to the husband...” Polygamy was limited to four wives, but concubinage continued. Since Islam forbids sexual relations outside of marriage or slavery, temporary marriages (mut’ah) for the purposes of male sexual gratification were legalized, although the prophet opposed the practice, considering it a form of prostitution. But, contrary to popular criticism and misunderstanding, Islam did grant women more rights than they had previously enjoyed in the days of paganism. The new religion protected women from infanticide, gave them rights of inheritance, allowed them to conduct business and to maintain their own wealth. However, the rights of women have not advanced much since then under Islamic law, and the role of women, a measure of their equality, has not changed much in many Moslem societies. By the time the prophet had died, the Islamic state had been institutionalized. The question of succession to Muhammad’s political role, however, remained open. Four parties put forth nominees for election as his successor (caliph/khalif), in his administrative and legal duties. The four groups represented the Meccans, the Medinese Ansar (helpers), the Party of Ali (Shi’a/ Shi’ites), and a group favoring random selection from among all male believers. The Arabian Caliphate of the Rightly Guided (al-Rashidun) became the focus of political attention.

54

CHAPTER 6

The first party succeeded with the election of Abu Bakr, the pious father-inlaw of Muhammad, who was one of the earliest converts to the faith. His tenure in office (632-634 A.D.) was largely occupied by the wars of apostasy (riddah), and the conflicts with false prophets such as Talhah, Musaylimah, and the prophetess, Sajah. Abu Bakr must be credited with ending all secession from Islam, by surrender or extinction. Thus, conversion from Islam is illegal and remains extremely dangerous in the Moslem World. Upon the death of Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab was elected to the caliphial post (634-644 A.D.). His caliphate was primarily concerned with the Jews and Christians of Arabia. During the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, Jews and Christians remained in Arabia, although they were non-believers in Islam. (Had the prophet believed that the Christians worshiped or accepted more than one God in the Trinity, he could have easily destroyed them or evicted them from Arabia.) The Christians and Jews, however, were to pay a tax/fine (jizah) to the state and were seen as inferior to the Moslems. In return for the tax, they were protected. When Umar went to collect the tax from the Jews, they refused to pay saying that they were Moslems in a sense, since they recognized one God and believed that Muhammad was a true prophet, but not for them. Thus they did not reject Muhammad’s prophethood, but only the validity of his mission for them. Umar, according to legend, became incensed, and ordered their expulsion from Arabia. Upon going to the Christians to collect their taxes, Umar was confronted again by an attempt to end the taxation and to obtain equality for the Christian community with the Moslems. Apparently, the Prophet Muhammad was prepared to accept Christians who had acknowledged him as a prophet as Moslems who had “purified” their faith. But that was not good for Umar, for he wanted them to reject the divinity of Jesus, His crucifixion and the Trinity; that, of course the Christians would not do, because that is an inescapable conclusion of the Gospels. The Arabian Christians were willing to accept Muhammad as a prophet, in the same sense they had accepted the Jewish prophets, but in no way would they compromise the divinity of Jesus or His death by crucifixion. (For them, Muhammad was simply the last prophet in a long line of Semetic Prophets. Obviously from this perspective, if Jewish prophets were to be honored by Christians, then why not an Arabian one?) Umar could not tolerate the “arrogance” of the Christians and, apparently, he could not accept anyone, not even Jesus, being greater than Muhammad. His understanding of Islam must have precluded the divinity of Christ. Thus, the Caliph Umar reacted swiftly; the Christians of Arabia were evicted. Of the most proud Christian tribes in the northern frontier, the Banu Taghlib continued to insist that to be a Christian one must have first been a Moslem, accepting God and His prophets, and then, in addition, His son, Jesus. And, furthermore, they maintained their belief that Christianity was a complete and final revelation, separated from Islam and not subordinate to it. They saw nothing in Islam for a Christian; therefore, Umar took the sternest measures

THE CALL

55

against them. The Banu Taghlib was forbidden to baptize their children, to teach them Christian doctrines, and they were made to pay a double tax. Some sources, however, indicate that the children of the Banu Taghlib were to be given the choice between Christianity and Islam when they grew older, but, eventually, the tribe became completely Moslem since conversion from Islam is a capital offense. Umar is credited with the Islamification of Arabia and, later, his covenant was applied in the conquered territories. Succeeding caliphates ended Umar’s tolerant practices. The Christians of the Near and Middle East were taxed, the legal system did not favor them nor did it always accept their testimony, their properties could be confiscated as part of Dar al-Islam if they appeared disrespectful towards Islam or displayed Christian symbols in an unacceptable manner; new churches could not be built and, often, old ones could not be repaired. Christians in high places were eventually replaced by competent Moslems. (Only the mountains of Lebanon escaped the Islamic legal system and, thus, Christianity flourished there and it generated a highly tolerant atmosphere, until recent events.) Of the Jews in Medieval Islam, they fared much better than their coreligionists in Christiandom and, in many cases, better than the Christians under Islamic rule. The Jews, from a theological point of view at least, had fewer problems with their Moslem overlords, for both peoples had come to reject the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. And, the Quran treats them negatively on only a selective basis. The assassination of Umar by a Persian slave ended his energetic caliphate (644 AD); he was succeeded by the worldly and sophisticated Uthman ibn Affan. During Uthman’s reign (644-656 A.D.), he was accused of enjoying a life of luxury and of extreme nepotism. The opposition to his rule rallied around Ali who had been passed over three times for the caliphate. Ali’s supporters pressed his case implying that the Prophet Muhammad had appointed Ali to succeed him at the pool of Khumm (Ghadir Khumm) during his last pilgrimage to Mecca (632 A.D.) when the prophet grew ill. To this day the Shi’ites maintains that the prophet said “He, for whom I was the master, should hence have Ali as his master.” Upon the prophet’s illness, Ali did take over some of his duties. Furthermore, the Shi’ites believes that the prophet’s family should be the only legitimate rulers of the Moslem World. (They cite the Quran’s reference to kin ties (Q 8: 75) to support their position.) Uthman’s aids fully rejected the Shi’ite (Party of Ali) position believing that any Moslem could be caliph. And, in fact, if Muhammad had chosen Ali to succeed him, then future generations might conclude that the Prophet Muhammad “used” religion to create a dynasty to rule over Arabia, thus the purity of his mission would be severely compromised. In reality, the SunniteShi’ite controversy is an authority crisis, perhaps similar to the Greek OrthodoxRoman Catholic controversy over church leadership, rather than a theological issue. When Uthman appointed a commission to revise the Quran, some of Ali’s

56

CHAPTER 6

supporters accused the caliph of tampering with the text to enhance his authority (actually his family’s position). Nothing Uthman could say or do could quiet the intense opposition; the political situation deteriorated and, finally, the rebels assassinated the caliph, in his home, while he was at prayer. His wife tried to shield him and lost two fingers of her hand to the assassins. The caliph’s blood flowed over the holy pages of the Quran, soaking them. Finally, Ali ascended to the caliphate (656-661 A.D.). Ali’s involvement in the murder of Uthman may never be clearly seen or ascertained. Uthman’s nephew, Mu’awiyah, governor of Damascus, insisted upon punishing the assassins, and Ali could or would not do so. The situation between the two men degenerated. Ali faced opposition within Arabia as well; it was led by one of the prophet’s wives, A’ishah, who at one time had been slandered by Ali. With the aid of two companions of the prophet, Talhah and al-Zubayr, A’ishah led a revolt against Ali which, in the long run, failed. Encouraged by that success, Ali now became more adamant in his refusal to investigate the circumstances involved in the death of Uthman. Mu’awiyah decided on more militant action which ultimately led to another civil war in Islam. The battle of Siffin (657 A.D.) ended the controversy. Ali led an Arabian and Iraqi force against Mu’awiyah’s Syrian army. The inconclusive conflict convinced Ali to negotiate an end to the carnage and that, almost automatically, raised Mu’awiyah’s position to that of a pretender to the caliphate. Some of Ali’s forces, later to be known as the Kharijites, withdrew from the battlefield claiming that there should be nothing to negotiate. A commission to arbitrate the conflict was set up, and it is said that the judges agreed to depose both men; thereafter, Ali had to make concessions. The fourth caliph was assassinated by a member of the Kharijite group on January 24, 661. The battle of Siffin and the death of Ali had far greater significance than any clash of personalities or revenge could generate; it decided that Syria (Damascus) would rule the Arab World rather than Iraq (Kufah) and thereafter Arabia was no longer a contender for power. The death of Ali resulted in two great cataclysmic events. It shifted the political center of the caliphate to Syria under the Umayyad Dynasty (661-750 A.D.) and to Iraq under the Abbasid Dynasty (750-1258 A.D.); and, it led to a major schism in Islam between the Sunnite Moslems and the Shi’ite Moslems. The heresiographical history of Islam can now be discussed against the preceding background. It can be classified into five basic categories, apocryphal Qurans, Sunnite and Shi’ite sects, false prophets, incarnationist sects, and the Sufist (mystical) movement. All of these movements have a place in the evolution of Islam and all of them have influenced the present faith. In perhaps the most potent form of religious, cultural, and linguistic imperialism that can be recalled, the Arabians and Arabs conquered many peoples and assimilated a rich and vast intellectual heritage. They were also great scholars and innovators and, consequently, they contributed immensely to their subject peoples. Yet, they often faced revolts that were both political and

THE CALL

57

religious in nature, for they used heavy-handed tactics in the quest to establish religious and cultural uniformity as well as political control. And, they treated the newly converted Moslems as clients (mawali), rather than equals. The conquest of North Africa brought a large pagan group, the Berbers, under Arab rule. Although Caucasians like the Arabs, they were a distinct ethnic group with their own language and customs. They resented Arab domination, the attempt to impose Arabic in place of their own language and, most of all, the attitude of the Moslem conquerors who viewed them as an inferior, “low” people. Berber resentment broke out in the form of new prophets who received revealed Qurans in the Berber language. The Kharijite movement, by then a sect, had taken root in North Africa (the Maghrab), and the Berghawata chief Salih (al-Mu’minin) “the Upright and Faithful,” was seen as, and proclaimed to be, a prophet by his people; he preached a revealed Berber Quran of some eighty chapters (suras). He may have proclaimed himself to be the expected Mahdi—a messianic figure. Salih’s grandson, Yunus continued the movement after his death. In the Rif region of Morocco, Hamin, another Berber prophet received a revelation from the Semitic High God while in a trance-like state, and proclaimed a new Berber Quran to his people. He died in battle against the Umayyad forces of Spain, in 927 A.D. The Berber Qurans were an attempt to change the nature of Islam, not to do away with it or to start a new religion. To a considerable extent, they were modifications of the Arabian Quran but, perhaps, a bit more tolerant and reformist in spirit towards the non-Moslems and non-Arabians. Not much more is known about them; they were, certainly, not unique but, at the same time, they were not forgeries either. As for Salih al-Mu’minin, he was accepted by a large body of people as a true prophet with a legitimate revelation; his followers maintained his movement well into the twelfth century; political conditions alone cannot account for his wide-based support. It is doubtful that he was a charlatan. The Berber Qurans, however, are considered apocryphal (unsubstantiated) by orthodox Islam; only fragments of them remain to this day. We have already mentioned the Kharijites in connection with their revolt against Ali. They were the first major religious-political movement in Islam, opposing the caliphate of Ali in favor of a more democratic process and a more puritanical regime. They maintained that belief in God and in Muhammad was not sufficient to enter into paradise. Piety was the key; a Moslem who sinned was, in their eyes, equal to an infidel (non-believer). Kharijite doctrine has survived to this day in Oman, Tripolitania, and Algeria. (They are known as the Ibadites in Oman.) In response to the Kharijite creed which could excommunicate the sinful Moslem, the Murji’ites (irja/suspension) sect came into being. The Murji’ites refused to declare sinning Molsems infidels, preferring to suspend judgment against them. This sect’s hallmark was its tolerance of the individual and the political establishment, for only God has the right to judge Moslems, in their view.

58

CHAPTER 6

To some extent, the Murji’ite doctrine was derived from another, older, philosophical school of thought known as the Qadarites. The Qadarites stressed the ability or determination of God in shaping things, but it gave human responsibility and free will to mankind. This movement did not develop into a formal sect but, rather, it permeated many sects and orthodox Islam as well. The most important following to develop among the Sunnite branch of the faith was the Mu’tazilah. The Mu’tazilite sect began as a puritanical movement, supported the idea of free will, accepted rationalism along with revelation, favored separation of church and state to keep religion above the mundane politics of the day, and they rejected any understanding of the divine attributes of God (the 99 names of God taken from the Quran). They also took an in between position regarding the fate of sinners, neither supporting the Kharijites nor the Murji’ites. But the greatest challenge they offered Islam was the rejection of the belief in the uncreatedness of the Quran. The Mu’tazilah maintained that if the Quran was co-eternal with God that would be enough to compromise His absolute unity (just as His having a Son could do). They supported the rational concept of the creation (khalq) of the Quran and their position won a wide base of support until 848 A.D. when the caliph, alMutawakkil, refused to support them. Thereafter, orthodox Moslems would no longer be persecuted and, in fact, orthodoxy triumphed with the careers of Abu Hasan Ali al-Ash’ari and Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali. Al-Ash’ari was the founder of scholastic theology (kalam) in Islam, and al-Ghazzali proved to be Islam’s greatest theologian. While al-Ash’ari (873/4-935/6 A.D.) and al-Ghazzali (1058-1111 A.D.) were able to re-orient Sunnite Islam back to orthodoxy, the Shi’ites made an eternal rupture in the fabric of Islam. The Shi’ite sect began with the supporters of Ali for the caliphate. They maintain that only Ali and his descendents had the legitimate right to rule the Moslem community, as ordained by the Prophet Muhammad. All other caliphs were usurpers of the authority housed in the bloodline of the prophet, through Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. The Shi’ites accept the Quran, the speech of Muhammad, the discourse and sermons of Ali, and the works of Ali’s descendents as authoritative sources of the faith. Although the Shi’ites did not succeed in establishing a state or gaining control over the caliphate for long, they did, however, gain a wide following of malcontents, such as the mawali (clients) of the Arabs who were recent converts to Islam and, consequently, filled its lowest ranks. The movement expressed itself in religious terms, at all times. The line of Ali descended through al-Husayn, to Ja’far al-Sadiq (d. 765 A.D.), and then it split into two independent branches; one of them follows Ja’far’s son Isma’il (d. 760 A.D.) and forms the Seveners or Isma’ili sect. The other branch proceeds to the twelfth descendent, Muhammad al-Muntazar (alMahdi/ the Guide), who disappeared in a cave in 878 A.D., but who is expected to return to a victorious Shi’ite state. This group is known as the Twelvers or the followers of the hidden imam. All Shi’ite groups maintain the belief that during

THE CALL

59

the absence of rule by a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad, only the Islamic clergy may govern the Moslem World on his behalf. Thus, they totally reject the legitimacy of all rulers and political systems (with the exception of present day Iran). The Twelvers (Ithna ‘Ashariyah) became the main group of Shi’ite Islam and, although they swore allegiance to the caliphate of the Abbasids, they fared no better under its rule. They were distrusted because of their continued secret allegiance to the hidden imam (al-Muntazar) and their practice of hiding their true faith (taqiyah) while waiting for the return of the infallible Mahdi (also called al-Ismah) to come out of occultation (ghaybah) in the cave, in the future. The sect grew to power in Persia when Shah Isma’il of the Safawid dynasty declared Shi’ism to be the official religion of the state, in 1502 A.D. The Shi’ite clergy, however, did not accept the rule of the Shahs in place of their own and, therefore, they continued to plot against the state, achieving success in the late twentieth century. The only significant schism to emerge from this sect was the rise of Babism and Baha’ism which established the “Bab,” Sayyid Ali Muhammad of Shiraz, as a prophet with a Universalist creed. He and his followers were condemned by the Shi’ites and remain to this day a persecuted minority in Iran and the Moslem World. The Sevener sect (Sab’iyah) flourished in the Arab World in numerous denominations, known generally as the Isma’ilis. Due to space considerations in this study, we can only discuss a few representative movements but, nevertheless, these groups have greatly influenced Islamic thought to the present time. Isma’ili doctrine is based upon an inner (batini/hidden), symbolic, or esoteric understanding of the Quran. The Isma’ilis claimed that only the allegorical interpretations (ta’wil) of the Quran were valid. The plain or literal meaning (zahir) was too simplistic and insufficient at best to understand the words of God. The students of this school of thought launched several movements against the establishment. The Isma’ilis were often known as the Batinites by the “orthodox” Moslems. The first major threat to the Abbasid Caliphate of al-Mahdi was posed by a Persian, Hashim ibn Hakim, al-Muqannah, better known as the “veiled Prophet of Khurasan.” Al-Muqannah was a follower of Abu Muslim, a Khurasani, who played a major role in bringing the Abbasids to power. Ibn Hakim claimed to be a prophet and, later, to be divine. His disciples grew in number so that it took the caliph several years to defeat al-Muqannah’s forces. The new prophet, it is said, committed suicide, rather than surrender; but his followers became Batinites as he might have been; consequently, they supported several other movements against the state. Hamdan Qarmat, originally an Iraqi, was converted to Batinite ideology and began a campaign to convert people to his cause. He called for a form of equality under communal ownership which included wives and property, for the welfare of the group. He developed an allegorical text based upon the Quran,

60

CHAPTER 6

stressing tolerance and human equality, which included non-Moslems and pagans. Qarmat’s teachings reached the camp of the black slaves (the Zanj) of al-Basrah encouraging them to revolt under their leader, Sahib al-Zanj. The caliph responded to the Zanji revolt by ordering the extermination of the Zanjis. In the meantime, the Qarmations founded their own state on the Persian-Arab Gulf; in 930 A.D., they seized the holy city of Mecca and stole the Black Stone from the Ka’bah. The stone was returned after the fall of the Qarmatian kingdom. Although the caliphate succeeded in ending the Qarmatian revolt, it met with a new more potent danger from a poet and writer, Abu al-Taiyab, known to posterity as al-Mutanabi, the “self made/self styled prophet.” Al-Mutanabi is best remembered for the excellence of his philosophically oriented poems. He died in 965 A.D., and his claim to prophethood was buried with him. The Qarmatian crusade, nonetheless, had won many adherents, particularly in North Africa where an Isma’ili state was founded by the Fatimids. This sect takes its name from Fatimah, the daughter of the prophet and the wife of Ali, thereby satisfying the bloodline requirements of the Shi’ites. Originally known as the Nizaris, this group flourished until the state was defeated by the forces of the renouned Saladin (Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi). Military defeat, however, did not end the movement; it survived and resurfaced in Syria in a new form as the Assassins of Alamut. The Assassins were led by the notorious Hasan ibn al-Sabbah (d. 1124 A.D.) who propagated his beliefs from his headquarters, the “eagle’s nest,” the famous fortress of Alamut. The sect’s theological base was weak; it seemed to have stressed self interpretation of the Moslem scripture, in batini form, with little regard for the role of the Prophet Muhammad. Sabbah’s men ranged far and wide committing acts of terror and daring, derived from their use of hashish (narcotics). The movement was terminated by a succession of attacks by the Mongols and the efforts of the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, Baybers, in 1272 A.D. Today, the remnants of this sect are spread over Syria, Persia (Iran), India and Zanzibar; they are sometimes known as the Khojas or Mawlas. They follow the present day leadership of the Agha Khaan. The Nusayris (Aliwites) of Syria are another important Isma’ili sect. They were named after their founder, Muhammad ibn Nusayr, a ninth century scholar. This Shi’ite group believes in the incarnation of Ali—that is, that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, possessed the Holy Spirit and, thus, he is divine. Another similar sect is the Druze of Lebanon, Syria and Israel. The Druze are an off-shoot of the Fatimid Caliphate of Egypt. When that caliphate ended, the followers of Caliph al-Hakim, who believed in his deification, fled to Wadi al- Taym in Lebanon, to escape persecution. They take their name from his missionary, a Persian, named al-Darazi. The Druze believe that al-Hakim bi Amr Allah is in a state of occultation, and that he will return as Imam-Caliph of the community someday. In the Yemen, the Zaydi sect has survived as a moderate Shi’ite movement. Further to the East, the Shi’ite movement continues to grow. The Ahmadiya sect

THE CALL

61

in India was established by Mirza Ahmad Qadiani (d. 1908 A.D.) This sect has spread into South East Asia and into parts of Africa. It rejects the Prophet Muhammad as the “Seal of the Prophets,” claiming that the Quranic passage in question means that the prophet is the “hallmark,” of prophethood and not the last one; thus they have maintained that Mirza Ghulan Ahmed is the awaited Mahdi, and a prophet for all Islam. Other minor sects have emerged recently, some tied to Sunnite Islam and others to Shi’ism. In Nigeria, a new sect has proclaimed its leader, Mohammad Marawa, as the only true prophet of Islam. In the city of Kano, he worked miracles; he was shot at point-blank range by his enemies but the bullets passed through him without harming him, it is told. Marawa rejected the Arabian Prophet’s mission trying to substitute his own version of it that would be black and African in nature. He was, eventually, killed; however, his disciples claimed that the world was not ready for him, so God took him back. He may, of course, return. And, lastly, the Black Moslem movement in the United States has drawn large numbers. They follow their prophet, Elijah Muhammad, and the sect has a “decidedly racial tone.” Arab, Persian, and Turkish Moslems have remained cool to their “revised” movement as well, saying that they are “fugitives from a reality going into a fantasy,” assuming that Moslem slavery was somehow more benign than slavery under Christianity. This brief exposition of the sectarian history of Islam shows the religion to be vibrant, flexible, versatile and innovative; it is anything but simplistic or monolithic. This study does not presume to debate all the complicated points of theology or philosophy behind the various sects or creeds. That has been done elsewhere for each group and, in fact, quite well. What has not been studied, however, is the religious rationale for the acceptance of those movements by a large number of adherents, and the inability of the “orthodox” leadership to purge them as heresies or as an aberration of Islam. In fact, most of the movements were terminated by military defeat, after the Moslem establishment proved to be ineffective in trying to thwart their polemics. (Orthodox Moslems have maintained, nevertheless, that God granted them victory over the heretics as proof of his favor, although the heresies still exist.) The only compromise orthodox Islam made with the nonconformists was the Sufi movement. Sufism, named after the wool garment worn by its adherents, was the only approved form of mysticism or Gnosticism acceptable to the Moslem establishment and, in some ways, it is clearly related to monasticism in the Christian faith. It did generate, however, a more militant form in North Africa such as the Almoravids (1056-1147 A.D.) and the Almohads (1130-1269 A.D.). These puritanical movements grew and established cells throughout the World of Islam, under various names; but, nonetheless, they were controlled or at least regulated or directed by the orthodox Islamic establishment, in most cases. The heretics of Islam justified their beliefs from the pages of the Quran itself, by their interpretations; thus they appealed to the masses in terms they

62

CHAPTER 6

could easily understand. A look at the earliest source of Islamic heresiographical writings in Abu al-Fath al-Shahrastani’s Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal (The Book of Creeds And Sects) gives some convincing but not too detailed exposition of the rationale for the then existing heresies. The heretical movements seem to have several common denominators, taken from the Quran to justify “new” interpretations, new prophets, and the acceptance of the doctrine of incarnation. We may at least conclude for the present state of research that in early Islam these concepts may not have been considered alien or forbidden to the faithful, nor strongly opposed by the establishment. Perhaps for this reason heresies still exist in Islam, despite the orthodox establishment’s utmost efforts to terminate all heresies, when they became mass movements. Muhammad is clearly announced as the seal of the prophets in the Quran. His position remains, as always, unchallengeable but, apparently, some Moslems believed that being the seal of the prophets did not close the door of revelation within Islam. From that perspective, we can understand the rise of new prophets within the Islamic tradition, as men inspired by God to keep Islam on the proper path, after deviations occurred under the caliphates. None of the post-Muhammad prophets attacked Islam to form a new religion but, rather, they acted as modifiers of the faith, claiming authority given to them by God in the form of proper inspiration. They, in fact, acted as the lesser prophets of Judaism had done or, perhaps, as the Apostolic Fathers of the early Christian church. They were accepted because their revelations came in the mode or tradition of Islam and not contrary to it, often accompanied by a trance-like state. (From the establishment’s point of view, the false prophets were all pretenders and any Qurans other than the Arabian one were completely fraudulent. This is a matter of dogma.) The rationale for esoteric (Batinite) and allegorical (ta’wil) interpretations of Islam came from the Quran (Q 3: 7) which admits its own ambiguity: He it is Who sent down To thee the Book, In it are verses Basic or fundamental They are the foundation Of the Book, others Are allegorical. But those In whose hearts is perversity follow The part thereof that is allegorical, Seeking discord, and searching For its hidden meanings, But no one knows Its hidden meaning except God. And those who are firmly grounded In knowledge say, “We believe In the Book; the whole of it Is from our Lord,” and none Will grasp the Message

THE CALL

63

Except men of understanding.

No doubt, the heretics believed that they were “firmly grounded in knowledge” (of the Quran) and “men of understanding,” consequently; they maintained the right to interpret the sacred text. And, nowhere in the Quran does it specifically state which verses are basic (clear) and which have hidden meanings (symbolic/ allegorical intents), or how many of them are subject to interpretations for a deeper meaning. The passage itself is extremely important for it gives the Quran a degree of flexibility, although no-one, then or now can claim to fully understand what the Quran says, for “no-one knows its hidden meaning except God.” In reality, Moslems can never be absolutely sure of their beliefs but, also, this verse can act as the “elastic clause” of Islam, giving far greater flexibility to the Quranic text to resolve problems in the future and problems or controversies with other faiths. Some more modern theologians of Islam have implied that the verse was intended to temper Moslem attitudes. The problem of the “ambiguity,” “unclear,” “vague,” “obscure,” or “ill defined” characteristics of the Quran, were to be resolved through the process of exegesis (tafsir), orthodox commentary, on every page of the Holy Book, based upon the literal (Zahir’ite) explanation of the text. The men who undertook this massive work, the mutafaserun, acted in response to ta’wil, and to give a uniform understanding of Islam to future generations. Their opinions are no stronger than those of their opponents; hence, heterodoxy remains in the Moslem World. In a way, the mutafaserun responded as the church councils had done in early Christianity—they established orthodox belief. Their right to interpret the literal text was exactly the same as the heterodox leadership, which is, based upon being “firmly grounded in knowledge.” The doctrine of incarnation, meaning the possession by a human being of a divine essence or spirit, making a person divine, is contrary to Islamic belief. Muhammad made no claim to divinity; his humanity is very clear. He possessed his own spirit (ruh) like each and every one of us. A hint of incarnationist theology, however, exists in the Quran but only in reference to Jesus of Nazareth (Q 4: 171): Christ Jesus the son of Mary Was An Apostle of God, And His Word, Which He bestowed on Mary, And a Spirit proceeding From Him, so believe...

The ambiguity in the passage revolves around Jesus being the Word of God, which only belongs to God and which places Him on the same level as the Quran itself (which is eternal and uncreated), and from “... a spirit proceeding from Him” which could be interpreted as “... a Spirit of Him,” because of the imprecision of the preposition, min (of/from), in Arabic. This controversy was

64

CHAPTER 6

decided when the commentators agreed to interpret the questionable phrase to mean that Jesus was a spirit proceeding from God, and not the spirit of God, coming into existence when God spoke the word “Be.” This explanation did not satisfy the dissidents of Islam in any way and, particularly, the Alawite theologians characterized it as nonsense, since it agrees with the obvious that we are all spirits from God. If not from God, they asked, then from whom? Apparently for the incarnationists in Islam, why should the Quran state something about Jesus that was unnecessary? The Quran upholds the holiness of Jesus, continually. Thus, they gave the passage a new and deeper meaning implying the possibility of an incarnation and the Aliwites applied the theory to Ali, making him divine, possessing the spirit of God. The Druze applied incarnationist theology to several prophets including al-Hakim bi Amr Allah. However, the Quran does not admit the possibility of incarnation to anyone except Jesus of Nazareth. While the Quran was completed shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, there was at that time a wide diversity of opinion on the Quranic interpretations. Those controversies lingered on until the tenth century when Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (839-923 A.D.) completed his “official” or “orthodox” analysis (Tafsir) of the Quran entitled, al-Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran (The Collection Of Explanations For The Exegesis (interpretation) Of The Quran) which became the fundamental and universal interpretation of the Quran. Tabari was a historian and scholar who undertook the task of collecting, editing, and exemplifying by selection and elimination various interpretations and views concerning the meaning of the Quran. For this process he, analyzed a wide range of divergent opinion on the Holy Book held by the companions of the prophet including the prophet’s uncle al-Abbas (d.653); his cousin Abd Allah ibn al-Abbas; Muhammad’s wife Khadijah and her Christian cousin Waraqah ibn Nawfal. The oral and written traditions of other companions of Muhammad were consulted, Whabb ibn al-Munabbih, al-Zubair (Zubayr) ibn ‘Awwam; Talhah ibn Abd Allah; Sad ibn Abi Waqqas; Abd al -Rahman ibn Awf and, of course, Muhammad’s secretary Zayd ibn Thabit of Medinah, and many others as well. After scrutinizing a vast amount of material, Tabari chose, the traditions that were totally incompatible with the Christian view and understanding of Jesus’ life, His crucifixion, and resurrection and divine nature, making Islam totally independent of Christian theology and Christology. In this Tabari relied upon the opinion of two Yemenite Jewish converts to Islam, K’ab ibn al-Ahbar (d. 652/654) and Wahb ibn al-Munabbih (d. 654). (Apparently, the other companions held views closer to Christian beliefs but they were excluded from his work.) Tabari’s Tafsir became the trend-setter in Quranic exegesis and his work remains the basic text for understanding of the Quran. With orthodoxy redeemed, the Islamic center of gravity reestablished, Islam was set for the future; and well set it was, for it became the world’s second largest religion.

CHAPTER 7: CROSSROADS The foregoing chapters have presented three “sister” religions of the Near East which have been, and continue to be, by their natures, dynamic, flexible, interpretative, able to accommodate varying national cultures and, lastly, meaningful for all times, places, and conditions. The proliferation of sects and heresies that Christianity and Islam have spawned, at one time or another, attests to those factors and to their vitality. They represent crossroads in faith, converging and diverging in belief, yet always remaining within the monotheistic tradition of the Hebrew religion and the “heirs of Abraham.” The points of convergence, to be sure, result from their common origin with the Semitic High God, and, certainly not to eclectism; the points of departure result from the limitless intellects of their interpreters, and this too is more than just “playing with words.” But, the words of scripture are the business of religion; and that is, to a great extent, all we have to rely upon. For Judaism, Christianity and Islam the image of God in the world of man is similar, for it is the same deity; God the Father in Christianity and Allah are understandably identical but the term Holy Spirit requires further elaboration. When Christians and Moslems speak of God, they reflect upon the same being, in most cases. He is a being, to be sure, not a virtual reality or reflection of the mind or an imaginary entity. His characteristics are depicted in scripture and understood by Christians in terms of the “attributes” of God given by medieval scholars and, in Islam, by the ninety-nine “Names of God” associated with Him in the Quran. God is spiritual, as the Holy Spirit, while being anthropomorphic, possessing human physiology, seen most clearly by Christians in the Incarnation of Christ. (It is also interesting to note that only Jesus fulfills the ninety-nine names of God by word or deed/action.) The Old Testament, the Gospels and the Quran reflect upon God’s spiritual and physical natures; and of all His creations man is the closest reflection of Him, being composed of dust/clay for his/her baseness and a spirit for his/her loftiness and nobility, as depicted in the creation of Adam. Our concept of God is not only derived from scripture, but it is shaped and defined, or perhaps, refined by the scholastic theology/kalam of the Middle Ages. The methods of inquiry developed then put Judaism, Christianity and Islam on the same path or line of thought, hence, it is not surprising that the image of God in all three faiths is quite similar. The link between God and man is the prophet. From that perspective, it is clear that there have been major and minor prophets. We are concerned in this study with two major prophets, Jesus and Muhammad, because they passed

66

CHAPTER 7

through similar stages in life. Both Jesus and Muhammad have blank periods in their lives for which we have no account, or know little about. Did Jesus live among the Essenes during the missing years of His life in the Gospel narratives; was Muhammad a Hanif and did he visit or live with them for some seventeen years that are missing from his biography. Perhaps so; it seemed likely that a stage of earthly purification proceeds prophethood and its mission. And, certainly, for man to approach his God, in both faiths, a ritual washing away of this world’s sins is a prerequisite. Jesus began His earthly mission shortly after His baptism, which of course He did not need, since He did not inherit “original sin.” But He participated in that process as a form of instruction for His disciples and to announce His special relationship to God. In Islam, there is no concept of “original sin” inherited by mankind, but ritual ablution is required before prayer, to wash away the sins of this world before addressing God. Therefore, both religions require a symbolic cleansing which is both spiritual and physical. And even as prophets of the Semetic High God, both Jesus and Muhammad were at first rejected by the people to whom they addressed their message, and they both faced temptation and trial. Jesus was tempted by Satan while fasting and Muhammad was seduced into speaking the satanic verses of the Quran, during a false revelation, so as to see and praise the “daughters of Allah.” Both Jesus and Muhammad ascended into heaven and they saw the fires of Hell, as evidence for the existence and judgment of mankind, after bodily death. All that activity and much more, was to confirm the rewards for those who possess a moral outlook on life, and to punish man for his/her ethical and moral malpractices while on Earth. The view of hell in the Christian and Moslem scripture is similar—a flaming abyss; the picture of heaven differs to some extent. In Christianity, heaven is described in a spiritual sense; while in Islam, there is a more physical portrayal of paradise. In the Gospels, paradise consists of many rooms in God’s mansion, but in Islam it is seen as consisting of seven layers or levels. The distinction between one room or level and the next is, perhaps, an indication or measure of faith, piety, and love of God and mankind. Thus, nearness to God is man’s greatest achievement and it is inherited from actions and deeds done in this world, as well as faith. It is also clear from the scriptures that the location of God’s kingdom is outside of that which He created but, nonetheless, He may still intervene and interact directly within it, in order to alter His scientific laws of creation and operation, to produce what we have called miracles. Our knowledge of God and His kingdom are drawn from the sacred script of each religion. Here again, we see common problems and aspirations. The Bible, Gospels and the Quran are the basic texts for their followers and they were unique forms of literature for their time and place. In fact, they have no serious rivals today, although apocryphal “revelations” did appear, despite attempts at uniformity in all three religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are valid for their followers today, as in the past. Attempts to debunk them have come to naught. Verification of scriptural

CROSSROADS

67

events took place among the early apostles and companions of Jesus and Muhammad; today we accept those events based upon the faith, reputation and integrity of those individuals. Only the memory of the transmitters of the Bible, Gospels and the Quran remain areas that cannot be fully verified. But, we know that, those individuals made no claims or took no actions that could be construed as questionable or inconsistent with the basic dogmas of their faiths. Unfortunately for us, neither Jesus nor Muhammad wrote down their own words or revelations, so we must rely upon the virtue of their disciples for the integrity of the holy texts. Jesus did pass on the guidance of the Holy Spirit to His apostles to inspire them in their work which became the Gospel narratives (Luke 24: 44-53); and Islam relied upon the companions of the Prophet Muhammad in the composition of the Quran. And, lastly, it is possible that the “Q source” of the three Synoptic Gospels coincides with the “Book” that Jesus brought with Him that is mentioned in Islamic scripture. The atmosphere and traditions into which the revelations appeared is yet another historical-theological factor that must be accounted for and understood. Revelation is a historical fact or phenomenon in that it took place in a specific time and locale for all three monotheistic faiths. It is not in the realm of “make believe,” or “the once upon a time” of mythology. The revelations of the monotheistic faiths were witnessed by numerous observers. But, also, they could not occur at just any time or anyplace. Christianity came into a Jewish Milieu, among monotheistic believers who were already observers of the “laws of their God.” Therefore, Christianity did not emphasize or de-emphasize sacred law but, rather, it extended the law and altered the perception of the God-man relationship and human nature as well. It emphasized love, forgiveness, redemption, and freedom from earthly punishment. It changed the sexual habits of mankind from lust to love; it made the naked human body a noble receptacle of the soul, no longer an object of shame or guilt. It fit perfectly into, and even elevated, human nature as no other religion has done. But, most importantly, it gave mankind a fuller, deeper, more detailed, and clearer understanding of the nature and essence of God in the Trinity. Islam was revealed in a largely pagan atmosphere. The Jews, Christians, and Hanifi communities were not major forces in sixth century Arabian life. Therefore, like Judaism, Islam took a more legalistic tone, effecting punishments on Earth for “sinful” behavior, establishing legal codes of conduct ranging from acceptable behavior (ma’rufat) which is further divided into mandatory (wajib/fardh), recommended (matlub), and, finally, permissible (mubah) to forbidden behavior (munkarat) which is sub-divided into hated acts (makruh) and totally forbidden actions (haram). Islam maintains the possibility of the human body as a source of illicit sexual enticement and, in some sects, as an impurity for women, holding closer to ancient Jewish thought on the subject. In general, however, it can be said that Christianity establishes a set of universal principles applicable to every dimension of life, while Islam is far more detailed on specific aspects, particularly since several revelations occurred

68

CHAPTER 7

to resolve a dilemma that the prophet faced, such as the number of witnesses required to recognize and try a case of adultery. Furthermore, Christianity’s world view differs from that of Islam’s. Christianity made no distinction in attitude towards its followers and all others, for everyone must be treated alike. There is one world and all people in it are a perfect reflection of the deity. Discrimination of any kind—religion, race, sex, or slavery—is contrary to the teachings of Christ. We must all be able to play the same roles in life, as a measure of our human rights and total equality. Islam’s world view is more rigorously defined; a social structure exists based upon faith and gender. All Moslem men have equal rights on Earth and are spiritually identical in God’s eyes, in heaven. They are followed by Moslem women whose role differences establish their rights and performance capabilities. Christians and Jews follow in “nearness” or acceptability to Moslems, for they are to be, more or less, tolerated. Then come the enemies of God and the people outside the protection of Islam and, thereby, marked for conversion or extinction. Also, Islam empowers all Moslems over others—those whom “your right hand possesses,” (Q IV: 24-25) originally meant to protect and care for family members, it came to imply power over wives (and sometimes children). With Islam’s world-wide conquests, it now has been expanded to cover all nonMoslems. Therefore, Moslems can “exercise control” over non-Moslems without acquiring guilt or sin or punishment for anything they do to the nonbeliever. (In any case, some Moslem sects believe that all sins are forgiven upon saying Allahu Akbar/God is Greater.) Islam divides the world into two great spheres, the Islamic nations where all citizens are subject to Islamic law and culture, and the non-Moslem world upon which Islam has declared an eternal war. (To some extent, it is true that Islam makes war upon otherwise friendly nations and states that do not possess the true faith; and some Moslems living in non-Moslem states (regarded as Dar alSulh/Dar al-Ahd by treaty relationship) feel a degree of prejudice against them because they cannot live under Islamic law and impose it upon the nonbelievers.) Moslems are, at least in theory, if not in practice, the “keepers” or “caretakers” of “Allah’s Commonwealth,” and, as such, they have become the new “chosen people” of the Lord. From that perspective, this world belongs to its maker (Allah), and He has appointed and entrusted it to the Moslems to administer it for Him, under Islamic law. Therefore, there can be no equivalence between Moslems and non-Moslems, for there is no equivalence between Islam and any other religion or ideology. Some devout Moslems believe that eventually Islam will replace all other ideologies and religions, before the end of time. Faith and state are irrevocably tied together forever in the role assumed by the Prophet Muhammad, and in the words of the Quran itself, if they have been properly interpreted. Nor should Moslems be loyal to secular states or ideologies, for secularism is irrelevant in Moslem eyes and, actually hampers the spread of Islam.

CROSSROADS

69

Both Christianity and Islam are “mystery” (mysterion/sirr ilahi) religions in a sense that transcends Gnosticism and the institutions of monasticism and Sufism. Mystery religions and cults emerged in the Near East in the first century A.D., and slowly spread into Greece and the Roman Empire. The “Golden Age” of mystery religions and mystic cults came to fruition in the third century A.D., when there was a marked decline in both Classical Greek and Roman philosophy, witnessing a reduced emphasis on reason and logic. By that time, rational explanations of faith no longer satisfied all of man’s spiritual needs for salvation. The mystery religions were based upon the concept that knowledge of the divine and His spiritual truth was only obtainable through “intuition, insight and emotion.” Salvation was achieved through secret doctrines and rituals that would, in effect, place the individual cult member in communication or mental contact with a saving god. Thus, personal union with a savior who had lived and died would enable the adherent to join that deity and dwell with him in the afterlife. Originally vegetation deities, a form of nature worship, in which gods lived and died as plant life with the seasons, the mystery religions became Hellenized and were, thereafter, adopted in the West. Chief among them were the cult of Dionysus, a wine god; Cybele, mother goddess of Phrygia; and Isis of Egypt who was pictured nursing the infant Horus, a sketch that would eventually become a model for the Christian Madonna (with child). However, the most serious challenge to Christianity came from the Zoroastrian religion of Persia in the form of Mithraism. The Iranian deity, Mithra, fought the evil powers of darkness, and his victory over them was commemorated with the feast of Sol Invictus (invincible sun), when daylight hours begin to exceed the hours of darkness on the 25th of December. The rituals of this sect included the use of water and blood with a central ceremonial meal for the communicants. The apparent parallels between Mithraism and Christianity are, nonetheless, extremely superficial and, in fact, it seems that Mithraism borrowed from or was influenced by Christianity. The early Christians knew of mystery religions and cared very little about them; and, certainly, the common language of the time may have been a factor that influenced Mithraism. Baptism and the communal meal were already strongly established in Jewish culture. The mystery aspect in both Christianity and Islam comes directly from their roots in Judaism, from the concept of the one eternal God of all mankind. That God deliberately, purposefully, entered into human history through His revelations, and that factor was “absolutely alien to every ancient religion except Christianity and Judaism” and, later, Islam. The mystery in all three religions is derived from our own inability to fully understand or comprehend or match God’s intellect. The mystery lies within us, His creation, not in His clear and precise revelations, which only He can completely understand. Thus, we “believe” or “have faith in” our interpretation of His scripture, but only God is

70

CHAPTER 7

sure of their meanings which may still be evolving in His mind. Consequently, no human can ever claim that he absolutely understands the will of God or His actions or words, for we will always remain inferior to God whose knowledge is unfathomable! The Christian mysteries include: 1. 2.

3. 4.

The Incarnation of Christ—His entrance into human history as a human being. The Trinity—a closer or more detailed and intense revelation into the composition, nature and being of God. The absolute unity of God is upheld in the Spirit which permeates and envelops the reality of God which exists in three specific persons. The body-soul relationship within the Christ—His human and divine natures which are interwoven and eternal. The nature of Trans/Consubstantiation—the transformation of the bread and wine at the Last Supper into the body and blood of Jesus.

The Islamic mysteries include: 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

The distinction between the clear and unclear passages of the Quran (Q 3: 7), resulting in a divine ambiguity. The abbreviated letters (the muqatta’at) that precede some of the verses of the Quran. These letters were originally believed to be the initials of the early companions of the prophet who provided Zayd ibn Thabit of Medina with the revelations for the Quran, but current opinion implies a mystery awaiting a gradual unfolding of their meaning, possibly taken from Quranic texts. The anthropomorphic expressions regarding God in the Quran are to be accepted without rational explanation (bila kayf). The 99 Names of God or His attributes (sifat) are only fully known to Him and may differ from our understanding of those terms. The use of the third person plural by God in reference to Himself is some verses of the Quran when the first person singular would have been sufficient to uphold His absolute unity.

And, lastly it is clear that in the case of Christianity and Islam, the success of their respective faiths came with a victory or was associated with a triumph over a pagan city, for “God is Greater” (Allahu Akbar) than all His enemies. For Christianity it was victory in Rome; for Islam it was the complete submission of Mecca. Furthermore, the conquest of Mecca established a model for the future of our world; purified Arabian culture became the culture of God and, consequently, Islam became God’s plan for all mankind. It is against this backdrop that we can discuss some of the more significant historical aspects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and, particularly, what came to be the accepted faiths of more than half the population of this planet. There are, at least, two lines of historical thought that must be investigated in the emerging relationship of Christianity to Islam. The first, which has been, perhaps, a bit exhausted by scholars, is the relationship that emerged when East

CROSSROADS

71

and West met in the epic of the Crusades. That adventure served to heighten the already negative situation that had developed from the Arab conquest of Europe. By the time of the Crusades, the Moslem establishment had firmly rejected the divinity of Jesus, and the Crusaders, in a negative reaction or response, began to fully associate the prophet Muhammad with the false prophets to come that are referred to in the Gospels. The Crusaders took a highly negative image of Muhammad back to Europe; it was embellished there, and maintained until this century. Contact with the West, unfortunately, did not alter Islam’s attitude or scholarship on the divine nature of Jesus. Thus, the two religions drew apart, until recent efforts at opening dialogue began in the last two decades. Neither the Moslem nor the Christian positions taken in the past were ever totally justifiable, even from their own scriptures, for attitudes were derivative expressions taken from interpretations that were prejudiced by political conditions. (The nature of Jesus in Judaism and Islam will be covered in the next chapter.) The key issue at hand here is the parting of company between Islam and Christianity in the West. And, furthermore, the West remained cut off from Islam and the Eastern Christian Churches for many centuries. (After the Crusades, the West became embroiled in its own theological disputes in the era of the Reformation, totally losing sight of Islam, altogether.) In the Near East, new developments set the Islamic stage on a course of action which generated an Islamic view of Christianity. First of all, the ambiguity of the Quran required its interpretation in order to obtain uniform belief and, obviously, that process included all passages regarding the Christ and Christianity, although the final understanding of the Quran rests only with God as acknowledged by its interpreters. Secondly, the rise of allegorical (ta’wil), hidden (Batinite) and symbolic interpretations challenged orthodoxy’s control over the Moslem people. Those unorthodox interpretations, some dating back to early Arabian Islam, were used at a later date to justify the rise of Islamic sects and, in some cases, indirectly involved Christianity. If seen from that perspective, they explain Islam’s rejection of the Incarnation (tajsim), for all incarnationist movements in both Sunnite and Shi’ite Islam clearly justified their position by citing interpretations, clear or allegorical, of verses in the Quran regarding the Holy Spirit and Jesus, and no one else. Therefore, in order to reject the claims of the incarnationist sects in Islam, such as the Alawites, Druze, and others, it became imperative to reject the divinity of Jesus as well as the theology of Incarnation. This task fell to the interpreters of Islam, the mutafasirun (exegesists), but it should be stressed from the start that the opinions of those men were only one point of view that is purely human, without divine intervention or inspiration of any kind. Also, and perhaps of greater importance, there is no written evidence for the rejection of the divinity of Jesus in the Islamic tradition until some three hundred years after the completion of the Quran. The Prophet Muhammad, himself, lived among the Christians of Arabia and, apparently, never accused them of polytheism, for if he had, they would have been eliminated, rather than protected.

72

CHAPTER 7

The pre-mutafasirun interpreters included the Prophet Muhammad in his speech (the Hadith), his cousin Ali, and the oral traditions of the prophet’s cousin, Abd Allah ibn Abbas (d. 678 A.D.). Abd Allah is believed to have been the originator of Quranic exegesis. (However, according to some recent research, much of the material “related on his authority cannot be attributed to him.”) As for Omar ibn al-Khattab’s relations, views, and disagreements with the Christians of Arabia, nothing beyond the oral traditions discussed previously has surfaced. The writings of the early commentators of Islam, if they existed, have perished. What we know of the opinions of Abd Allah and the others is embodied in the work of Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari whose encyclopedic compendium was completed in the tenth century, long after many Islamic heresies were hatched. It is impossible to ascertain if al-Tabari is simply rendering an oral tradition passed on to him, or if he is reaching back to the past for justification of a then current position, or both. All subsequent interpretations of the Quran are based upon his work. The Christian response to what became the orthodox Islamic belief about Christianity in the Arab World followed one of two paths. The first involved the lively debates that ensued between Christian and Moslem scholars during the caliphates and after and were, for the most part, an apologetic polemic attempting to defend the Christian faith under intellectual attack. In the long run, the Christians failed for their scripture, by that time, was considered to have been corrupted or falsely interpreted (tahrif), by either additions or omissions; hence, in Moslem eyes, their arguments proceeded from false assumptions. There is, however, no evidence to support that accusation which arose to explain the apparent disagreements between the two great religions. Similarly, some Shi’ites have charged tahrif against the Sunnite branch of the faith, indicating that the Quran has been literally altered. The Sunnite defense is indeed similar to the Christian one, saying that the evidence is lacking. In Lebanon, however, the Maronite Patriarchate and their bishops took an altogether different approach to Islam which they saw as just another Christian heresy. They read the Quran with “Christian eyes” so as to interpret it in harmony with most of their own Christian beliefs. (That Maronite perspective enabled Christianity and Islam to flourish in amity until recently when outside interference upset the cordial atmosphere.) The Maronites did not generate a formal school of thought or any literary tradition to support their views on Islam; this may be so because they were more concerned in defending their own sect against charges of heresy by some of the other Christian churches. In regard to Islamic beliefs, the Maronites developed most of their arguments or defensive polemics in the form of patriarchal encyclicals, or letters, to be read at Mass, by the local priests on topics of Christianity. (A few sermons still exist in the patriarchal library in Bekerki, Lebanon.) What the Maronites did that was original, however, was to build a systematic theology in defense of Christianity that was taken from old and new

CROSSROADS

73

debates, in a rational manner, using the Quran itself as a source. Consequently the Maronites lost few if any of their members to Islam and in fact they won a few converts from Islam, including members of the prominent Shihabi family (who were related to the Prophet Muhammad’s tribe.) The Maronites maintained their religious integrity under a church policy of live and let live. They succeeded, to some extent, in reconciling the conflicting passages regarding the Christ in both scriptures, seeing the differences as matters of interpretation rather than substance. What is known of their arguments and systematic analysis has been retained, to some extent, in the Maronite Church’s oral traditions; they were passed on into Europe through contacts with the Vatican and the Maronite seminary in Rome. Some of their polemics were adopted by other Christian writers in the West but it is extremely difficult to know which arguments originated with the Maronites or from other eastern writers. Many of the Maronite polemics were adopted by the Dominican Order in Europe and thus facilitated the peaceful conversion of many of the Moslems of Spain and Italy to the Christian faith, during the Middle Ages.

CHAPTER 8: IDEAS IN FAITH The intent of this chapter is not to be a polemic of any sort. It will, however, touch upon and illustrate Jewish and Christian views as well as Moslem and Christian interpretations of some contested ideas from their Holy Works. The purpose and intent here is to present the opposing points of view on key issues in the three monotheistic faiths, as they are understood today. The objective is ecumenical and to generate further study in that direction to lessen tensions between them. We begin with Judaism and Christianity. Although Christianity began as a sect of Judaism and the first Christians were Jewish believers in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ and a divine being; the two religions have grown apart over a period of time over certain other issues as well including Jesus as the expected Messiah, His Sonship to God (the Father) and, later the Trinity. (Note, the Messiah does not necessarily have to be a divine manifestation of God.) These differences resulted in an acrimonious relationship between Christianity and Judaism and in a long train of largely meaningless polemics to prove one point of view over another. The Jews of today know little about Jesus and care less about Him; He is just not part of their religion anymore, even though His faith originated with them. If any additional first hand source of information about Jesus existed in later Jewish writings, they have long been destroyed, most likely by the Jewish religious establishment. (However, it is believed that Jesus of Nazareth is alluded to in two Jewish sources, the oral interpretations and the exposition of the Law, from the third and fourth century A.D., known as the Mishnah and Talmuds. He may have been referred to as a certain person called “Balaam”—a non-Israelite prophet; and again in the early Talmudic passages as “Ben Stada” or “Ben Pandira (Panthera), implying that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a woman named Miriam (Mary) who was false to her husband with a Roman soldier named Stada. Perhaps for this reason the Quran upholds the chastity of Mary the Mother of Jesus and His virgin birth as well.) Judaism has produced a series of powerful arguments in defense of its faith including some that are skeptical of and shed doubt upon the mission and claims made about Jesus by his followers. These claims were also primarily based upon Jewish interpretations of their Bible which to them remains precise, immutable, and eternal. The Messianic Hope, the long awaited “redeemer,” is presented in the Bible. But the identity of the Messiah has more than enough ambiguity and “secret, cryptic, hidden and veiled language” in describing the Messianic Hope,

76

CHAPTER 8

as either a person or the entire Jewish nation. Thus, an identity problem exists; as a person, he may have come and gone or still be hidden somewhere in the distant future. There have been numerous failed Messiahs, past and present, such as Simeon Ben Kosiba renamed Simon Bar Kokhba (son of the star as designated in Numbers 24: 17). And, more recently Sabbatai Zevi who garnered a large following, at one time. But both movements failed to uphold their claims. Today, Menachem Schneerson, the Lubavitcher rebbi, of Brooklyn, New York may be the awaited Messiah according to his followers. Also, is the Messiah to be a divine person, a military leader, or a political leader or perhaps a religious “do-gooder” and reformer. All this is “unclear” or “hazy” in Deuteronomy; but Moses did warn his people of “false prophets” or “dreamers” to come. However, there is a light of hope in the Bible prophecies about the Messiah that gives us a clue to his identity; this is, in fact, the point of controversy between Judaism and Christianity. Did Jesus of Nazareth fulfill the requirements for Messiahship and did He uphold the immutable Law—that is the essential issue. In the Jewish view the Messiah is to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

ingather exiles from the faith rise from the Davidic line to defeat Israel’s enemies build a new Temple cause the recognition by the Gentiles of the Jewish God produce peace on Earth fulfill the requirements of Isaiah 53 regarding the suffering servant of Israel.

The apostles of Jesus did, indeed, believe that He fulfilled those requirements or conditions for Messiahship, but, perhaps in a different unique and original way than expected: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

The 12 Apostles represent the twelve tribes of Israel reunited in Christ Saint Joseph was from the Davidic line Jesus himself was to be the new Temple that would never again be destroyed the pagans became Christians recognizing the Jewish God the peace Jesus gave mankind was individualistic, not a political or military peace Jesus fulfilled the requirements of Isaiah 53 as a person and not the Jewish nation.

For the Jewish believers in Jesus as the Christ, as a personal Messiah, the following paradigm may resolve the prophetic identity controversy: 1. 2. 3.

The Messiah as the Son of God, to die by method of crucifixion (Psalms 2: 7: 22, 13:19/ John 3: 16-17; Luke 23: 33; Mark 16: 19). The Messiah born into the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49: 10; Hebrews 7: 14). The Messiah is eternal and born in Bethlehem (Micah 5: 1-2; Matthew 2:

IDEAS IN FAITH 4. 5. 6. 7.

77

1-6). The Messiah is to be a descendant of David and to die for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53:5, 8; 7:14; 9: 16/ 1 Corinthians 15: 3, 4: Luke 1: 32, 33). The Messiah is to enter Jerusalem (Zechariah 9: 9/Matthew 21: 5.) The time of the Messiah’s arrival (Daniel 9: 24-26/Galatians 4: 4). The Messiah is to be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18: 15, 18, 19/John 7: 4046).

The Jewish believers in Jesus did, indeed, believe that He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies for the Messiah and for prophethood in His own special way and in an everlasting way as well. Two other issues remained central to the controversy between the two faiths. The first question is whether or not faith is secondary to the Law, or is it the other way around. Jesus did alter some dietary restrictions dismissing what was thought to be “unclean” by prioritizing faith, and making all things “clean.” He also substituted Baptism for male circumcision as the new initiation rite for all believers. The painful practice of circumcision, considered a mutilation by some, was common among some pagans, especially as an initiation rite for puberty in ancient Egypt and in East Africa. Baptism frees the Jews and others from this pagan ritual and any association it may have still held with paganism as a “copied” practice. (This was largely accomplished by St. Paul through his work and teachings.) However, Both Judaism and Islam have retained the practice only because it is believed to be a command from God directly to the Prophet Abraham, although it is unnecessary for Christians. And, lastly, some Jewish scholars maintain that Jesus violated the prohibition against work on the Sabbath. As in the case of other charges or violations of the Law, Jesus did them in emergency conditions and situations to ease the suffering of others, as in removing the punishment of stoning for adultery. Jesus could and did alter the Biblical rules to make the faith more humane, teach forgiveness and salvation and, more importantly, because “all authority/power has been given to me in heaven and on the Earth” (Mathew 28: 18). In addition Jesus said “I and The Father are One” providing Him with the authority and power to speak and act for God.” Jesus was therefore capable of altering some past commandments and providing some additional ones. In the Christian view, Jesus did not “destroy,” “minimize,” or reverse the Jewish Law or the Commandments but, rather, He made the Law more just by eliminating violent punishments and replacing them with the concept of salvation for the sinner. And, He elevated the status of women and made life easier and more bearable for all. Clearly, Jesus and His disciples kept the Ten Commandments but He changed their orientation from a negative “Thou Shall Not...” to an extended positive in the Sermon on The Mount by saying “Blessed are the...” who do good for all. In that way, Jesus did modify some religious and legal practices, with the permission and volition of God in heaven.

78

CHAPTER 8

We have said that Judaism is a religion of commandments and that it proclaims the absolute unity of One True God as indicated in its profession of faith (the Shema/hear in Deut, 6:4), “Hear 0’Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One and alone (only).” Now, if Jesus is a divine person possessing the Spirit of God within His human body, then that could, in the Jewish understanding or view, violate both the first commandment and the Shema. It could be misunderstood as a “dualism or dualistic Gods,” with Jesus as a “co-partner” or “competitor” or “companion” of Jehovah. According to Judaism, God is alone and has no name; no rendering of Him is possible and even the word God is too holy to be spoken or written. The divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, as stated in the Gospels, would or could be seen as an “internal subversion” of the Jewish faith’s “absolute monotheism.” And, some Jews ask, does God really need a son and why can He not do everything by Himself, as in the past. Obviously He can, but He chose not to. Why? The incarnation was for man, for us, to show that God exists and to show us how to live; to set an example for all those people who would not, could not or did not behave morally. There were many Jews at that time that claimed that only the prophets could live by God’s Law and the commandments. Also, there were many Jews who lost faith in their religion and left Judaism but did not join any other faith. Jesus came to call them back to God. Therefore, Jesus is the physical presence of God among us, not distant from us as in Judaism and Islam. He is also God’s revelation in the flesh; proof of God’s existence to a skeptical world. Jesus always upheld the Jewish monotheistic concept housed in the spirit of God saying, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” For Christianity, the unity of God remains absolute in the spirit of God, and in the physical manifestations of it. Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity does not violate any commandments or concept of the One True God. When Moses asked God to identify Himself so that he could tell the people, God replied “I Am,” since He is eternal and alone for there is no one with power over Him. Jesus also replied to his opposition saying “I Am” when questioned about who He was which they understood to be blasphemy. (Note, some modern-day scholars have compared the concept of the Trinity with the concept of change of state in physics: “If one solid drop of water is heated it can change its physical state from ice to a liquid and then to a gas or vapor having three different laws of existence and also appearances. Since the One True God is a living God, that is real and not a substance like water, it is proper to use the Greek term “being” for the Trinity.”

It can also be said that Christianity holds a deeper, internalized look at God as if one observes a drop of water under a microscope and sees its composition as H2O, while remaining only one drop. ) The term Trinity, it is said, can be traced to Tertullian of Carthage (160-220

IDEAS IN FAITH

79

A.D.) who was the first great Latin writer to use the word to describe The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Christianity. The expression was designed to present a clearer distinction between the Christian concept of one God and pagan tri-theism. And, lastly, many Jews considered the resurrection of Jesus “a hoax.” It has been said that the Apostles of Christ could have stolen His body from the grave, despite the Roman guards stationed there. Or, perhaps, Jesus was drugged while on the cross and, later, revived. (“Who knows what kind of potions or lotions they may have had” at that time.) While some other Jews believed that Jesus could have had “a secret evil twin brother” to be substituted for Him, with masochistic holes punched in his body, to be, later, paraded around as the risen Christ. After all none of the other prophets resurrected themselves; they are all still dead lying where they fell. The above theories all exclude the fact that the identity of Jesus had been absolutely clear at all times and places and testified to by numerous people who knew Him both in public and private. In addition the multitudes that saw Him, touched Him and ate with Him after His resurrection testified to His return, even though it was a capital offense to do so. The appearances of Jesus after His death to eye witnesses who knew Him convinced them that the resurrection was real, not a phantom or virtual image of the mind or a hallucination. Jesus appeared to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

several women Matt. 28: 9-10 to Mary Magdalene John 20 11-18 to Peter (Simon) 1 Cor.: 15: 5; Luke 24; 34 to Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus Luke 24: 13-31 to eleven disciples and others Luke 24: 33-49; John 19-23 to the ten disciples with Thomas absent John: 20: 19-29 to His disciples Matthew 28: 16-20 to seven apostles John 21: 1-14 to Thomas and the other disciples John 20: 26-30 to the Apostles before His ascension Luke 24: 50-52 and Acts 1: 4-9 to James 1 Cor.: 15: 3-11 to more than 500 followers 1 Cor.: 15: 6: 1-11.

There is little doubt that the Apostles of Christ and His large following among the first century Jews in Palestine justified their belief in Him from their own Jewish faith and traditions as expressed in the Bible. For them, Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the description of God taken from Jewish literature. Jesus describes Himself in the exact terms that God used to describe Himself—He and Jesus are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Omniscient (John 16: 30) Omnipresent (Matt: 28: 18-20) Omnipotent (Matt: 28: 18) Eternal (John 1: 1)

80

CHAPTER 8 5.

Immutable (Hebrews 13: 8)

Jesus also fulfills the 77 names of God and the seven powers of God as well: creation, immortality, redemption, resurrection, prophesy, wrath and possession. Jesus is, no doubt, the only person to have done so in our own spacetime continuum. ⋯ There is also much in agreement between Islam and Christianity; nevertheless, the Quran presents only one brief view of Jesus and, perhaps a partial one at that. (The Quran’s main thrust is directed against the enemies of God (the pagans) and not the Jews or Christians.) However, some Moslem scholars believe that the Quran is specific enough regarding Jesus for them to establish an image of Him that intersects but does not coincide with the Christian view. There is no doubt that in the Quran, Jesus appears as both a messianic and prophetic figure that preceded Muhammad. Of His birth, the Quran establishes without a doubt or question the Annunciation and conception of Jesus of Nazareth in a manner similar to Christianity; the virgin birth is reaffirmed; and the holiness of Mary is powerfully upheld. The unusual circumstances regarding the birth of Jesus, having no earthly father, is also established without doubt in the Quran, but in itself, it is insufficient to claim divinity for Jesus. Islam makes the case that the Prophet Adam had neither a father nor a mother; Eve was created without a mother and, lastly Jesus was created without a father. All this activity, it is said, is to demonstrate the ability and power of God in the creative act. The Quran views Jesus in the same light as Adam, as a pure creation from God, but not divine. Christians interpret these facts differently. Christianity agrees with Islam that God created Adam without the need of parents, the most difficult creative act; thus creation with one parent is less difficult and, hence, it adds nothing to God’s creative ability or power. Another explanation is, therefore, sought. The Quran refers to Jesus only as the Son of Mary, granting to Him no earthly father. This at least entitles Jesus to refer to God as His Father, in the absence of any other candidate; it establishes the technical competence for the use of the phrase, for Mary’s chastity is absolutely upheld in both faiths. Furthermore, the relationship of Jesus to God (His Father) in the Gospels is amplified by God’s own words calling Jesus His Son. God never refers to Adam or anyone else in that precise way. We have no right to use that title for anyone else; we may all be the children of God, as a product of the human race, but sonship is a specific and not a general term, applied only to Jesus by God. Also, St. Paul calls Jesus the “second Adam,” in the sense that He was created by the breath of God as Adam was and not by normal biological generation. The Quranic phrase about Adam may also describe the body-soul relationship as a reflection of God—the unity of the base (body) with the noble (soul), in each of us. And, perhaps, of greater importance, the Quranic passage may elicit among Christians a response that the coming of Christ signifies a new

IDEAS IN FAITH

81

beginning for the human race, in a spiritual sense, a second chance after original sin (a doctrine rejected by Islam), so that we can start over again in God’s light, like a new Adam (after Baptism)—a sort of spiritual rebirth of mankind, according to St. Paul. During the life of Jesus upon this Earth, the New Testament records that Jesus worked miracles. The Quran corroborates those miracles in numerous passages in “summary form” and as “signs,” (aya). These miracles include the healing of the blind, the sick, and the raising of the dead, as well as fashioning a bird out of clay and breathing life into it, (as God did to create Adam and an act that the Prophet Adam was powerless to do.) These are “Clear Signs” of God’s grace. The Quran states that Jesus worked them as a sign from God in support of His mission, by God’s “leave” or with God’s “permission” (ithn). In that case, God is the author and power behind the miracles of Jesus and, consequently, the miracles do not establish the divinity of Jesus or anyone else. It is quite true that miracles do not establish the divinity of anyone. Miracles are recorded among Old Testament figures and the Islamic tradition offers miracles in support of Muhammad’s prophethood. Some miracles have been attributed to the Apostles of Christ and to Christian saints, as well. Today, miraculous events and cures are still being recorded among Christian groups and communities, at Fatima, Lourdes and Medjugorje. The real issue here is whether or not Jesus invoked the miracles through His own power or whether He was only an instrument of God on Earth, and powerless to do them without God’s (the Father’s/Allah’s) power. The Gospels speak quite clearly about the miracles of the Christ. Christianity believes that Jesus worked His miracles in full agreement with God in heaven and, as an example of that, He spoke to God in prayer before raising Lazarus from three days of death. Hence, His works were always in agreement with the will or volition of God and that could be understood to mean that Jesus possessed the permission of God to do them. According to the Christian interpreters of the Quranic passage referred to, they saw them in agreement with Gospel text that said of Jesus, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.” However, Christians also believe that the power to affect those miracles came from within Jesus, Himself, from His own spiritual force, identical to the Spirit of God residing within Him. One may possess the permission of another to carry out a task, but lack the power to do it. Hence, permission and power are not identical or even equal conditions. The actual power for all miracles resides with God alone. The Gospels clearly establish, however, that the power for the miracles of Jesus is contained in Him, quite unlike all other miracle workers, past or present, who believe themselves to be the instruments of God on Earth. The distinction between the miraculous deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and all other faith healers is that the works of Jesus came from the Spirit of Christ. The Gospel records that clearly and unequivocally. When a women seeking a cure for her illness was unable to attract the attention of Jesus, she touched His outer garment and “Jesus recognized in Himself that power had gone out of Him,” to effect the cure (Mark

82

CHAPTER 8

5: 25-31). Indeed, it is the power of His spirit which Christians believe is divine (identical with the spirit of God, (the Father/Allah), that manifested itself without anyone else’s permission, leave, intercession, or intervention in this world or from the next. The greatest controversy to ensue between Moslems and Christians concerned the death and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Centuries after the Quran was completed, the Moslem commentators put forth a series of arguments denying the death of Jesus by crucifixion, based primarily upon their interpretation of chapter IV, verse 157 which reads, “...they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them.” This passage became the dominant verse regarding the death (by crucifixion) of the Christ. Some Moslem scholars see that phrase as a rejection or “reinterpretation” of a historical fact or occurrence, and even as a negation of the divinity of Jesus, and the rejection of any “type of reincarnation,” in the case of extreme Moslem sects. But, the early sources do not justify that perspective. The first major attack upon the crucifixion of Christ came from the pen of al-Tabari (d. 923 A.D.) on the grounds of the nature of martyrdom as an “unfitting” and an “unnecessary,” “blood sacrifice” for the “non-existing Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. The Quran and Islam, however, refer to both the death and resurrection of Jesus, and that should pose no problem for Moslems or Christian interpreters. We have already indicated that Islam rejects the idea of an “Original Sin” inherited by mankind or derived from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. In the Moslem view, God forgave Adam for his sin and, thus, the innocent will not pay for the guilty. For mankind to inherit the transgression of Adam and Eve would be unjust of God and contrary to His nature. Christian interpreters of the Quran agree that God forgave Adam for his sin but, also, He insisted upon an act to balance the scales of justice befitting the insult to the dignity of God, resulting from Adam’s act of disobedience; and, furthermore, a perfect sacrifice was due and it was executed by Jesus, on behalf of all mankind. For the Christian scholars, forgiveness was not enough; the insult or damage done to the dignity of God must be repaired or undone, by someone of the same magnitude as God. Man, with his imperfect nature at best, could not atone for the sin of Adam and Eve. The nature of martyrdom is a far more complex issue in Christian-Moslem relations. The Christian view of martyrdom allows the individual to be overcome by his enemies so as to win a non-physical, spiritual, victory. Jesus fit precisely into that view, and He remains the Christian martyr ideal. The Moslem conception of martyrdom is more in touch with the physical reality of dying in the path of God (fi sabil Allah), so as to expand the physical realm of God on Earth (Dar al-Islam), and to glorify the martyr (al-shahid) as a hero ideal. Clearly, Jesus did not fulfill that criteria and, hence, in the Moslem perception, His death by crucifixion would be understood as a humiliating end for the Messiah and a prophet of God. Nevertheless, by either criteria, Moslem or Christian, the death of Jesus should never be equated or associated with any

IDEAS IN FAITH

83

pagan “blood sacrifice.” The possibility of both conditions of martyrdom being acceptable to God cannot be disregarded either. In the situation of Jesus, in Roman Palestine of the first century A.D., the expected Messiah could have been a martyr capable of fulfilling either criterion described above, from the Jewish perspective. Jesus chose to be a spiritual Messiah and to be overcome by the reality of the moment for an even greater moral victory over sin and death. As the Messiah, He had to execute the plan of God and the prophecy of man, thus the road to the cross was preordained and necessary for the salvation of the human race. Not to die in the manner in which He did would have violated the Messianic prophecy as understood by His followers at that time, and to cast Jesus as an unsuccessful candidate for the role. The Quran, in referring to Jesus as the Messiah (Masih), validates the conditions of Messiahship for Jesus, as indicated in the Old Testament and, consequently, may have established the conditions for His death on the cross. Had the Quran not used the word Masih to describe Jesus, then His death could have come by another means, although crucifixion, as an option, would still be a strong possibility among them. The physical events regarding the betrayal of Jesus and His death on the cross are far more convoluted if studied from the Moslem perspective. Islam does not deny that a crucifixion did take place, at the appointed time and place. It raises the issue, however, that perhaps someone else, an Apostle of Christ, could have been crucified in the place of Jesus, in order to fit interpretations of verse 157 of chapter IV of the Quran. Since the literal reading of that passage establishes that Jesus appeared (shubbiha lahu) to be on the cross, or an appearance of Him was on the cross, several interesting hypotheses and candidates can be put forth for a “substitution theory.” The Quran does not indicate that any substitution was ever made nor does it name any individual as a candidate; it only states that an appearance (paraphrased by Moslems as a possible “look alike”) of Him was seen on the cross. The arrest and trial of Jesus possess no problem for either Christianity or Islam. Jesus was betrayed by one of His own Apostles, Judas; consequently, His identity at this point is crystal clear. After a brief trial, Jesus suffered the insults and physical violence from His tormentors and, then, He was led along a path to His place of execution. It is during the trip to the cross that Moslem intellectuals propose a hypothetical scenario for the substitution theory. Accordingly, Moslems believe that God intervened “to rescue Jesus from his enemies” by raising Him to heaven for a period of “asylum,” prior to His return to Earth. So, who died on the cross? Some Moslem scholars believe it was Judas, forced to pay for his sin against Jesus. Others say that Simon the Cyrene who helped carry the cross was mistakenly crucified. Still others replace Christ with Pilate. To a great extent, Islam cannot be held accountable for those inferences because many of them were of Christian design, and they had gained a degree of circulation in the Heresies Answered of Irenaeus. Most educated Moslems no longer hold those views. In any case, a substitution theory would invoke incredible stupidity on

84

CHAPTER 8

the part of the Romans in order to lose sight of their prisoner on the way to the cross; and how could a person be so easily substituted for the bruised, battered and flagellated body of Christ without someone, anyone noticing the difference. To explain away this obvious problem, Moslem psychologists have, therefore, assumed that either mass “hysteria” (conversion disorder) blinded the Romans and others or a perceptual “hallucination” took place, by God’s will. There is no basis for either assertion in the Quran or in anything the Prophet Muhammad ever said. There are more plausible explanations, if “the Quranic phrase in question is analyzed in a literal sense. Docetic Christology, then prevalent in the Hellenic Near East, maintained that the Lord (Jesus) was man in appearance only, and that He only appeared to suffer and die on the cross. This philosophical school of thought was an attempt to disregard or down grade the human nature of Christ in favor of His divine nature. The idea had gained some prominence among the Eastern Christian Churches. Perhaps the Quranic passage regarding the appearance of Jesus on the cross is a reference to Docetic Christology, rather than the “illusion” of a crucifixion. To some extent, Docetic Christology de-emphasized the physical nature of Jesus in that it asserts that He only appeared to be real, to suffer, and to die. Although that doctrine was condemned by the church, it did not disappear quickly, but lingered on in the East, to explain the Resurrection and refusion (restoration) of Jesus. From this perspective, chapter IV, verse 157, of the Quran does not deny the death of Jesus on the cross but, rather, it may be saying that His death was just temporary, not illusionary. Moslem scholars raised another issue regarding Q IV: 157, specifically, who is the subject of the passage which reads, “They slew him not nor crucified him...” Who does the “they” represent? There are three possibilities, the Christians (His followers), the Jews, or the Romans. The first possibility may be immediately discounted. The second group, the Jews, may be implicated by consent, but they did not carry out the execution. The Romans, on the other hand, fit the exact conditions of the sentence, and they no doubt believed that they had executed Jesus by crucifixion. Therefore, the passage does not deny the death of Jesus on the cross, but only that the Romans (who satisfied the conditions of the sentence, and thus may be its subject) believed that they had killed Jesus. His Resurrection proved them wrong. Some recent scholarship has maintained that the subject of the sentence was the Jews and the passage only denies that the Jews killed or crucified Jesus, which is also true. The Christian church often considered the Jews guilty for the death of Jesus and, in the Middle Ages, labeled them the “Christ Killers.” Perhaps the Quran is anticipating those charges and is meant to remove the blame and guilt from them, as Jesus, Himself, had done. That Jesus did die on the cross is obvious. Crucifixion, the physical process in and of itself, may not be the most efficient method of execution. And, furthermore, some Islamic scholars point out that it may take “days for a person to die on the cross.” This is remotely possible, even if it is not probable, and,

IDEAS IN FAITH

85

therefore, true. Even before Islam, however, some Jewish scholars had argued that Jesus could have been drugged (Mark 15: 23) and, later, revived by His associates. According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus did die on the cross. Death came from asphyxiation, the lungs filling with liquid from one’s inability to breathe while hanging from the crossbar. As a test of that agonizing, and deliberately inefficient, method of execution, the Gospels record that a Roman soldier, in order to ascertain that death had transpired, plunged his spear into the side of the Messiah, the Roman test to puncture the lungs and draw out the liquid. The body of Jesus was then placed in a sealed cave, and it was guarded by the Romans to prevent its theft. When Christ first appeared to His followers after His earthly demise, He was not immediately recognized by them. He had passed through a stage of transformation from death to life. He was seen in the process of fusion, body and soul. The physical Christ was indeed different, the bruised body and scourged flesh was fully healed. In that moment, when the divine spirit of Jesus picked up His human body, cold with death for three days, He rose to heaven and then returned to our world whole. This event is one of the greatest teachings of Jesus. In heaven we will know one another as on Earth, but without the physical deformities that affect us here. Illness, suffering, retardation, and deformity have no place with Christ in His Father’s kingdom. The consequences of crucifixion left no mark upon Him, other than those He chose to keep, after His Resurrection. There were, therefore, several marks left on the body of Christ, for a positive, unmistakable, identification. The nail marks in His wrists which held Him fast to the cross were still there, as were the nail marks on His feet. And, more importantly, the stab wound in His side, left there by the soldiers lance, was clearly evident. Even a doubter like Thomas could no longer doubt the physical Resurrection of His Lord and Master. But, could an identical twin brother of Jesus have been substituted for Jesus, ask some doubters. Perhaps, but there is no evidence for that assumption. How could an identical twin brother exist and be concealed for some 33 years in a small community, anticipating the crucifixion of Jesus, without anyone knowing about it. And, how could that person fool the Apostles and others who knew Christ so very well, had intimate knowledge of Him, and could have quite easily unmasked a charlatan, with or without self-inflected, masochistic, holes in his body. It is true that Jesus often referred to His cousin James as His brother, but He did so as a common term of endearment used among Semitic peoples of the Near East. And, both Jesus and James were there at the same time; and, James remained in the area after the Ascension. They could not have been confused as one person playing two roles or two persons playing one role, or anything else. The Apostles of Christ were no fools; they fully understood what was happening, so let us not make doe-eyed emotionally disturbed imbeciles out of them.

86

CHAPTER 8

Obviously, two major points of disagreement between Islam and Christianity revolve around the divinity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam vividly presents two powerful and insightful categories of polemics against the divinity of Christ. The first line of thought rejects the Incarnation (tajsim) of Jesus for that was seen as “bringing God down to the level of man,” something that is not really meant or intended by the Christian faith. In Islam, it is believed that God and man are absolutely dissimilar, they cannot be mixed or one would be confused with the other. This early Moslem argument merits greater understanding. The Jewish view is also similar, and makes a very strong case for the same point. In this respect, both Judaism and Islam share common ground and are in agreement. For Christianity, the distinction indicated above is not as clear or as simple. In Judaism, God is seen as possessing a throne, a court, and He even prays to Himself so that His mercy prevails. He created man in His image which is both spiritual and physical. The Quran, also, attests to God being seated on His throne, having eyes, hands, and a face. The implication is clearly more than just a spiritual essence and nature, for it implies a physical one (His reality) as well. But, the ultimate projection of the corporal reality of God is in the Incarnation of Christ. God is a real, living, person who is eternal. He is incarnate, already, even before the birth of Jesus. Some Moslem scholars have elaborated further, however, by accepting the physical reality of God, while rejecting the divinity of Jesus or any other earthly person. They base their polemic squarely upon a Quranic passage implying that it is below the dignity or majesty of God to take to Himself a son, for God has no need of any other person, place, or thing. From the Christian perspective, the above passage in the Quran reflects an “adoptionist” theology which they, themselves, had rejected long ago. That is why Christianity uses the term “begotten, not made, one in being with the Father...” to show the continuity in the relationship between God the Father and Jesus. The biological Christ was a unique creation of God. The Quran refers to Jesus as being “supported” by the “Holy Spirit,” and that God cast “His Word” upon Mary and gave her a “Spirit from Him.” Moslems interpret the Holy Spirit in this passage to be Gabriel. The Quran does not say that. Wherever Gabriel appears in the Quranic text, he is clearly mentioned by name. (In an early Persian commentary (sharh) on the Quran, the Tafsir-i-Husaini, the Holy Spirit is associated with the Holy soul of Jesus, the Gospels, the name used by Jesus to raise the dead, as well as the angel Gabriel.) In the Christian view, there is no theological justification to confuse the angel Gabriel with the term for the Holy Spirit, in the Quran. But, even if this substitution for the third person of the Trinity were acceptable, Jesus is still depicted in divine terms in the Quran, as the “Word of God,” which belongs only to God, and as a “Spirit from/of Him,” which also belongs to God. There is no reason to assume that Jesus was an evil spirit and, therefore, not from God; and, also, no justification to state the obvious, that He was, unless it establishes for Him, and Him alone, a special, significant, spiritual relationship to God, His

IDEAS IN FAITH

87

Father. In this case, the controversy revolves around the meaning of the words “Holy Spirit,” and the uniqueness of that spirit, as manifested within the body of Christ. And, lastly, in this regard, there is a verse in the Quran (Q 5: 17) that reads, “They have disbelieved who say that God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” Many Moslems understand this phrase to imply a direct denial of the divinity of Jesus. But, a Christian would read it as an affirmation of the Father-Son reality between God and Jesus, in order not to confuse the two beings as one. The Messiah is the Son of God, by God’s own command, “This is my beloved Son.” But, God the Father is not the Messiah. This is a technical correction aimed at the Christian heretics of the period, not a denial of the divine nature of Christ. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, by Mary. He is a divine person, therefore, also God, but not God the Father, thus they are two separate persons. God, in the passage cited, refers to Allah, or in Christian terms, God the Father. To say that God is the Messiah is confusing, creating one person for what is intended in the Trinity. In addition to the foregoing discussion on the divinity of Jesus, there are several supplementary arguments of recent scholarship that bear comment, due to their insightful nature. They, in general, relay upon Mathew’s text in the Gospel and not upon any Quranic inferences. They are, then, of course, of a different nature than the preceding thought and presume to show that the Gospels deny the divinity of Jesus. These arguments propose to show more recent commentary on the Gospels by modern Moslem scholars. The temptation of Jesus (Mt. 4: 1-11) is interpreted as an indication of the humanity of Jesus, for how could the evil force challenge God who is far superior to it. The Christians interpret the event as a temptation of only the biological, human, nature of Christ, to show His full humanity; but the rejection of the act of temptation is by His divine nature, for He says “You must not put Jehovah your God to the test,” thus identifying Jesus with Jehovah by whom the test (temptation) was rejected. In Matthew 15: 21-28, a passage describing a Phoenician woman’s request for aid from Jesus, Moslem scholars see His response as indicative of “ungodly” behavior (lacking in mercy, discriminating against her and, finally, being won over by a polytheist). Christian interpreters see in this verse a lesson to be learned against the prejudice of the times by the “closed” Jewish community towards the pagans. Faith in God can save a pagan, even if they were not members of the Jewish community. Anyone may be saved if they accept God, even those as “low as dogs.” Even though the mission of Jesus began in the Jewish community or nation, this passage illustrates that it was for all mankind, from the very beginning. In regard to the will, volition, of Jesus and God, Matthew 7: 21 is cited by Moslems to establish the subservience of Jesus to God; and Matthew 14: 23 indicate that Jesus prayed to God in supplication. However, the first citation indicates that belief in Jesus as the Lord is not sufficient to enter paradise, unless one does the will of His Father as well. The passage establishes Jesus as Lord

88

CHAPTER 8

but, also, as one who requires the commands of His Father to be upheld and obeyed. There is unity in volition within the Trinity. As far as prayer is concerned, the Old Testament tradition believes that God prays to Himself and even studies the Torah and the Mishna. In the Christian faith, Jesus prays publicly in order to instruct others in what to say and privately as speech to His Father, as any good son would do. Prayer is not restricted to “submission” or “supplication” in Christianity, but, rather, it is a man’s right to address His Creator, directly. From Matthew 27: 7-8 and 27: 46, Moslem thinkers make a case for restricting the role of Jesus to that of a prophet, subservient to God’s will. From the Christian perspective, the Gospels establish the pre-destiny of Christ as a separate person within the Trinity. Jesus, Himself, indicates that He was born for a special purpose of God. The “last hour” that Jesus spoke of also raises an important issue in theology (Mt. 24: 36). Why does God, the Father, not wish to reveal the last hour or the end time to Jesus? Jesus chooses not to question or reveal that time to His disciples so as to exercise the power of faith over human behavior. It is God, the Father’s prerogative not to reveal that hour to Jesus, for if He had then the life and mission of Jesus could become null and void, for a special few could falsely prepare themselves for the end, knowing precisely when it would come. Also, the world ends for each and every one of us on a personal level, and that may be the proper interpretation of the passage in question, Christ may well know the end date for all of us, but could not or would not relate that to the Apostles for they expected a cataclysmic end to the planet, at some yet unspoken time. (Thus we must always be prepared to meet our individual end-time, never knowing when it will occur.) It would also be contrary for Jesus not to reveal it, if He indeed knew it, for that would then lead to a divine deception. Hence, Jesus rejects that knowledge, as part of His humanity, keeping it within the realm of His Father’s intellect by choice, a choice which is clearly His. Other scholars ask why Jesus was forsaken on the cross? Was that necessary and would God really forsake those (the prophets) He loved? The crucifixion scenario involved those aspects as well as others, in order to maintain that Jesus died a lonely human death of His own free will, not participating in a fraudulent, illusionary, act of mortality. It was important because He forgave His tormentors from the forsaken position as an act of man, done by one who was divine and could have stepped down from the cross to destroy His enemies. And, along this line of questioning, one last, but extremely insightful, point has been made by Moslem scholars. In John 20: 16-17, Jesus establishes that He must ascend to heaven, to His God. This passage, according to Moslem thinkers, clearly shows that Jesus referred to God in heaven as His God, maintaining the unity of that person. Thus, Jesus has a God and, consequently, cannot be God. Christian scholars interpret that passage differently. In it, Jesus acknowledges His Father in heaven to whom He must ascend and that verse, therefore, gives a clearer, more in-depth, and precise view of the nature of God, as part of the

IDEAS IN FAITH

89

Trinity. It does not negate the divinity of Christ, but acknowledges His reunification with His Father in heaven. The Trinity now becomes the key to understanding the full nature and complete essence of God. Is it a purely Christian concept or, perhaps, “misconception,” or has it always been evident in God’s revelation to mankind? And, what does it mean? We have already referred to the term Trinity in this chapter without the benefit of further elaboration. The term itself does not appear in either the Gospels or in the Quran. It was developed to describe the essence and nature of the Semitic High God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the most exacting, in-depth, and clearest way possible, without associating Christianity with any polytheistic belief of any number. We have stated in clear and precise terms that Christianity was uncompromisingly monotheistic, as Judaism and Islam. But, stating the obvious did not automatically rule out the possibility of confusion in the human mind. Thus, to avoid any misconception regarding what Christians should believe, a short hand term, the Trinity came into existence to give the most vivid, most accurate view of God, for all mankind. In this perspective, it stands for the three manifestations (muzaharat) of God maintaining a “composite” unity (tawhid) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of one essence and nature. The Quran, as previously indicated, rejects polytheism and pantheism. It clearly states: Assuredly they have disbelieved who say, “God is one of three.” (or a third of three) Q 5: 72-77.

And, O people of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter anything concerning Allah except the Truth...So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say three—Stop (it is) better for you! Allah is only one, Q 4: 171. Obviously, there is a condemnation of polytheism in the form of tri-theism in those verses. But, why and how did they become associated with the Trinity of Christianity is extremely questionable, for there are more plausible explanations for the verses quoted. Moslem scholars included Christianity in the proscription implied in the foregoing passages, but they also raised questions anew. Who does the “they” represent? There are several possibilities. The pagan Arabian religion included the belief in astral triads, and those people could have been the subject of the passage. Also, Hindu tri-theism had manifested itself in the Arabian Peninsula, resulting from the Indian Ocean trade complex. The second passage is, however, addressed to Christians, but not necessarily against Christian beliefs. In that verse there are two historical perspectives that

90

CHAPTER 8

must be addressed. The first involves the Satanic passages (Q 53: 18-20) in which Satan put into Muhammad’s mind a few words of praise for the three Arabian goddesses (al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat), according to the historian and Quranic commentator al-Tabari. The pagans present understood the phrase to be a reconciliation attempt between themselves and the Moslems. News of that arrangement soon reached Abyssinia and the proposed reconciliation between the Qurayshi pagans and Muhammad sent the Moslem immigrants there back home, according to Ibn Ishaq. It is highly possible that the warning quoted above was addressed to the Christians of Arabia to reject an Islamic “trinity” composed of the three daughters of Allah. Other possibilities also exist. According to the prophet’s biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad warned the Christians regarding a trinity composed of God, Jesus and Mary. This heresy apparently originated with the Borborians of Armenia and/or with the Collyridians of Arabia. Obviously, Muhammad could have easily come into contact with those heretical Christians and their ideas and, consequently, the trinity Muhammad and the Quran condemn is certainly not the Trinity of Christianity. However, of even greater significance, this warning may have anticipated the rise of extreme Shi’ism which has deified a trinity composed of God, Muhammad, and Ali or among the Alawites (Nusayris) Ali, Muhammad and Salman al-Farisi (one of the companions of the prophet). The injunction, if addressed to Christians, may be a warning to them not to find common ground between the Shi’ite trinity and the Trinity of Christianity. Druze beliefs may be included in this admonition, as well. Christianity maintains that the concept of the Trinity, explicitly stated in the Gospels as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is implicitly stated in the Old Testament and in the Quran, for the Trinity is eternal. It is not meant to be solely a Christian concept. In the Old Testament, in Genesis, there is an implication of plurality in reference to God. The Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is interpreted as the plural form of Eloah. And, the oneness of God, the word for His unity, echad, has been used in the plural, according to some Hebrew scholars. Also, God said, “Let us make man in our likeness (image)” as translated from Gen. 1: 26. Thus, God speaks of Himself in the plural. The diversity within the unity of God is not clearly indicated as a Trinity here, but, obviously, the passage pre-dates the coming of Christ. In Christianity, the Gospels clearly expand and state the Trinitarian formula, thereby limiting the plurality concept within monotheism to exactly the three persons of the Trinity. Christians would probably say that their faith in the Trinity is not a break with Judaism or Hebraic monotheism but, rather, an expanded, more complete and more accurate, or more detailed understanding of the Semetic High God. Although the concept of the Trinity may always be extremely difficult to grasp, intelligence and analytical reasoning may help us on the road to understanding it in a rational way. For centuries Jews and Moslems have indeed

IDEAS IN FAITH

91

rationalized away any possibility of a plurality in their concept of God to maintain a “pure” monotheism, whereas Christians have had to deal with the concept of the Trinity from the inception of their creed. In fact, one of the fundamental differences between Judaism and Islam, on the one hand, and Christianity, on the other hand, has been the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, it is not surprising that a dysfunctional rather than a complementary view of God has existed from time-to-time between Christianity and its sister religions. The ancient Jews always believed that their God was a “living God,” meaning that He was real. The non-Jews or pagans ridiculed that belief thinking that the Jewish God was as imaginary as their own gods. For the rational Greek mind, with its constant preoccupation with “being,” a being was real if he possessed a spirit. The Christians adopted this notion in reverse, that is, the spiritual reality of God implies a being (an Incarnation) or what the Jews called “a living God.” This, however, may be just the ancient way of looking at God or the gods. The real difference between the way Jews and Moslems look at God, and the way Christians look at Him, may be the difference between the ways God reveals Himself to mankind as seen within each scripture. In Christianity, the absolute unity of God exists in His spirit which fully permeates the reality of God in all three persons of the Trinity. The Jews and Moslems externalize God, they look at Him from the “outside-in,” as if one were searching for someone and were observing Him in the distance. The Christians have already achieved that level of speculation, for to be a Christian one must already accept the monotheistic God of Judaism and Islam. Thus, the Christian has internalized God, they go beyond the speculative levels of Judaism and Islam to look at God a bit closer, from the “inside-out” and consequently see the revelation of the Trinity. Christians see a composite unity in God consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but still housed within the unity of one God—as if a person put a single drop of water under a microscope to see its reality more clearly. How we view God is what separates Christianity from its other two sister religions. In reality, the absolute unity of God and the Trinity are completely compatible, one and the same, united in the Spirit of God. In Islam, the absolute unity of God is potently upheld, as in Judaism, but the Quran, like the Torah, implies a plurality in reference to Allah: “We will make him a sign to men...” God says, We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, “and they say, If He were one he would have said I have done, I have created, and so on...”

The above question regarding the Quran was posed to the Prophet Muhammad by a Christian delegation. The Prophet’s response was a clear and concise reply emphasizing the unity

92

CHAPTER 8

of God. He did not, however, criticize the Christian Trinity. It is obvious that God spoke in the third person plural, in keeping with Christian dogma. But, He reaffirms His unity (tawhid) for God (Allah/the Father) speaks for all three persons of the Trinity in the Quran, perhaps in complete unity with one another depicting one will and one voice, now reunited in heaven. That in no way denies the three persons of the Christian Trinity. At a later date, some Moslem scholars tried to explain away the obvious literal “We” in order to eliminate any hint of a Trinity in Islam. Al-Tabari, in his authoritative exegesis of the Quran, suggests that perhaps the “We” should be understood as a singular, as in the case of a “majestic we.” When a king or president speaks for a nation, for example, he may speak as an individual but use the plural form, we. The “majestic we,” however, created a further problem, for future scholars. A king or president using the plural form of address is contingent or dependent upon those for whom he is speaking and, thus, a dependency problem exists. God is not dependent upon anyone or anything. He is the eternal “I.” The majestic “We” in this case clarifies nothing; it simply restates the composite unity of God. Subsequent Moslem scholars have abandoned Tabari’s position as “undependable” but argue, in its place, that the “We” used by God in the Quran is not intended to be a personal pronoun. In that case, it represents an authentic Moslem formula for a trinity indicated in the Holy Book of Islam, in the opening sentence of each chapter, with the exception of one. This Islamic Trinitarian formula reads, “In the name of God (Allah), the Merciful (al-Rahman), and the Compassionate (al-Rahim).” Apparently the phrase is meant to reflect the Christian profession of faith that precedes or is part of each prayer that reads, “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Thus, they may both represent manifestations of the same, eternal, Semetic High God. Furthermore, the first part of both formulas presents no problem; Allah and God the Father is understandably one and the same person. The equivalence of “Son” with “the Merciful” and “Holy Spirit” with “the Compassionate” represents a unique problem, and an ingenious one, in Islamic analytical reasoning. “God’s mercy as Rahman is limited to His faithful servants.” Therefore, one could also say that Rahman is in both this world and in the world to come or He who causes existence (as the Father caused the Son), and Rahim with regard to only this world or the ideal perfection of the human species (as were both Jesus and Muhammad, His faithful servants). If this were the case, then, perhaps, the Christian Trinity should read, In the name of the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son. However, Christian and Moslem scholars could reverse the above analogy, to conform to the original Christian Trinitarian formula. (This is not as difficult a change as it may seem because the tri-literal root of Rahman and Rahim (r, h, m) are the same.) In that case, “He is Rahman (merciful) of this world and Rahim (compassionate) of the next, because His mercy in this world included the rejecters of faith as well as the faithful and reprobates, as well as the

IDEAS IN FAITH

93

righteous, while in the next it is limited to the faithful (who are in heaven). Consequently, Rahman (in this world and in the next) would represent Jesus (who lived in both), while Rahim (in the next, heaven) is limited to the Holy Spirit. If this analogy holds, then as a reunited Trinity in heaven, al-Rahman holds the “unity of attributes” and al-Rahim holds the “unity of action” as manifested in both Christianity and Islam. An interesting analogy! In the Shi’ite branch of the faith, among the Alawites (the Nusayris), the Islamic formula, “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” represents three personalities directly associated with Ali (the mana/meaning), Muhammad (the Ism/ name), and Salman al-Farisi (the Bab/door or gate). And, for other Shi’ite sects, the formula represents Allah (God), Muhammad, and Ali. The foregoing discussion is intended to be an introduction to the fascinating and highly complex study of Christianity and Islam. It is not an in-depth review of polemics but, rather, the study is designed to show differences of interpretation and understanding. Understanding is the key, the goal, to help foster the spirit of toleration and love between Christians, Moslems and Jews. The perspective of this study is ecumenical and to generate further research and writing in the fascinating field of comparative religion and Islamics. There are many, however, who may radically disagree with the findings of this study, perhaps, heartily so, but I assure the readers that this academic exercise holds no subterfuge to fear, for it takes no side. “For God knows best.”

CHAPTER 9: SOME FINAL THOUGHTS In the preceding chapters I have tried to present the origins and original beliefs of the world’s three great monotheistic religions as they were accepted by their original witnesses. In the introduction to this work, I have tried to respond to issues and questions raised by my students and by some scholars on religious topics. Indeed, I have spent much of my adult professional career teaching the history and religions of the Near and Middle East. This study is a sort of culmination or final enterprise for me on the subject of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It takes no side and seeks to present those beliefs without any polemics. There is no subterfuge; only honest interpretations on a theme-monotheism. What is original, however, in this study is the idea that these three faiths were complementary to one another, and even supported each other in the face of hostilities from the pagan world. Then, as the pagans disappeared from the Middle East, the three religions drifted apart and, today, they rival one another. This is, I believe, an artificial condition! The conflicts in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and world-wide Islamic terrorism all point to the need to go back to the original attitudes of consensus and co-operation among the world’s three monotheistic faiths. Perhaps one way to begin such a process is for the three faiths to recognize the full and total validity of each other’s revelations for their followers, rather than argue against one another. It seems that God did, indeed, reveal Himself to each group at different times, places and in different ways to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each faith can still uphold its own covenant or creed and God’s plan for them, while ending all verbal hostility toward one another. For Judaism and Islam, the prophets were the conduit between heaven and Earth, and all prophets underwent similar psychological and physical changes in validating their revelations and missions. In the case of Christianity, God’s direct involvement in our own existence or space-time continuum was in the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, as evidence to the Jews who abandoned their faith in the face of Roman barbarism that their God exists. While those Jews did not adopt any pagan religion, their lack of belief in the face of adversity is also offensive to God, and that still exist among some people. Jesus was God’s revelation in the flesh. And, of course, Jesus fulfilled the seven powers of God and the Jewish understanding of God’s description of Himself as omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and immutable; Jesus also fulfills

96

CHAPTER 9

the 77 names of God given in Judaism and the 99 names of God given in Islam. Clearly, Jesus was condemned to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be divine without compromising Judaic monotheism. It is, therefore, not illogical or impossible for Judaism, Christianity and Islam to recognize the truth of each other’s revelations and to end the current pseudo-hostility that the extremists among them propagate and project; however, one should uphold their own beliefs and even explain them to others when asked, but no one has the right to call another’s faith false, To believe or not to believe, and what to believe, that is the question that each person must answer for themselves. This book I hope may help some people to find the faith that is acceptable to them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS Excursus on the Sources: What follows in this section is not the “usual” bibliography but, rather, a selection of references intended as a guide to further reading. The references include general treatments as well as highly specialized studies on various topics taken from “standard” works and from more recent ones; the choices are my own preferences designed for both an audience of scholars and laymen. Introduction, Theology, Revelation and Reason: Baly, Denis. Palestine and The Bible. London: LutterWorth Press, 1961. Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of The New Testament. New York: Charles Scribmer’s Sons, 1955. Cohen, Shaye, J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadephia: Westminter Press, 1987. Diamond, Malcolm L. The Logic of God, Theology and Verification. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril Co, 1975. Flew, Anthony. There Is A God. California: HarperOne, 2012. Grunebaum, G. E. von. Medieval Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1954. Herrmann, Siegfried. A History of Israel in Old Testament Times. Phildelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Hornung, E. Conceptions of God. New Jersey: Cornell University Press, 1999. Keller, Warner. The Bible as History. New York: William Morrow, 1981. Latourelle, Rene. Theology of Revelation. New York: St. Paul Publishing Co., 1966. Macalister, R.A., The Philistines, Their History and Civilization. Chicago: Argonaut Press, 1911. Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. New York: Schocken Press, 1971. Peters, F.E., The Harvest of Hellenism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. Rahman, Fazlur. Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. ———. Major Themes of the Quran. Chicago: Biblioteca Islamica, 1980. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992. Romer, John. Testament, The Bible and History. New York: Michael O Mara Publications, 1988. Sandars, N.K. The Sea Peoples, Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. 1250-

98

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

1150 B.C. London: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Sweetman, J. W. Islam and Christian Theology. 2 parts, 4 vol. London: Letterworth Press, 1945. Tcherikover, Avigdor and Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and The Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1970. Tillich, Paul, Systematic Theology. 2 vol. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1957. Tritton, A. S. Muslim Theology. Great Britain: Burleigh, 1947. New Testament Backgrounds: Gordon, Cyrus H. The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization. New York: W.W. Norton, 1965. Deepak, Chopra. The Third Jesus, the Christ We Cannot Ignor. New York: Harmony Books, 2008. Orlansky, Harry. In Ancient Egypt. New York: Ithaca Press, 1982. Redford, Donald B. Akhenaten, The Heretic Pharoah. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. Ayer Jr., Joseph Cullen. A Source Book for Ancient Church History. New York: Charles Scribmer’s Sons, 1952. The Old Testament: Ackroyd, Peter R. Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM Press, 1987. Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses, A Translation with Commentary. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Anderson, Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1986. Barrett, C.K. The New Testament Background. New York: Harper and Brothers 1961. Danby, H. The Mishnah. London: Oxford University Press, 1933. Driver, Samuel R. Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. New York: Meridian Press, 1956. Feiler, Bruce. Walking The Bible. New York: Harper Perennial, 2001. Klijn, A.F., James H. Charlsworth. The Old Testament Psudegraphia. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Klinghoffer, David. Why The Jews Rejected Jesus. New York: Random House, 2005. Rosen, Ceil and Moishe. Christ in the Passover. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. Sand, Shlomo. The Invention of The Jewish People. New York: Verso Press, 2009. Scholem, Gershon. The Messianic Idea in Judaism. New York: Schocken Press, 1971. Schurer, Emil. History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. United Kingdom: Clark Publishers, 1973. Weiser, Artur. the Old Testament, its formation and development. New York:

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

99

Association Press, 1961. The Jewish Kingdom: Barclay, William. The Mind of Jesus. New York: Arthur James, New edition (1988) Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background, Selected Documents. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981. Davidson, John. The Gospel of Jesus. Massachusetts: Element Books Ltd, 1995. Grant, Michael. The History of Ancient Israel. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984. Kac, Arthur W. The Messianic Hope. Michigan: Canon Press, 1975. Kee, Howard Clark. Jesus in History. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 1977. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1987. Mack, Burton L. The Lost Gospel , The Book of Q and Christian Origins. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993. Meyer, M. W. The Secret Teachings of Jesus, Four Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1986. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1951. Pageles, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1981. Rife, Merle. The Nature And Origin Of The New Testament. New York: Philosophical Library, 1975. Shanks, Hershel. ed. Ancient Israel, From Abraham to the Roman Destruction. Ithaca: Prentice Hall, 1985. Sheen, Fulton J. Life of Christ. New York: McGraw Hill, 1958. Soggin, J. Alberto. A History of Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1985. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. The New World Translation of The Holy Scripture. New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984 The Early Church: Ayer, J. C. A Source Book for Ancient Church History. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1952. Bainton, Roland H. Early Christianity. New York: Van Norstrand, 1960. Bracken, Joseph A. What are they saying about the Trinity. New York: Paulist Press, 1979. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction To The New Testament. New York: Yale University Press, 1997. ———. The Churches The Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press, 1984. Brown, Raymond E. and Meier, John P. Antioch and Rome. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1983.

100

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

Eusebius, The History of The Church. New York: Penguin Books, 1981. Guignebert, Charles. The Early History of Christianity. New York: Twayne Press, 1927. Hodgson, Leonard. The Doctrine Of The Trinity. London: Nisbet & Co., 1951. Josephus, Flavius. The Jewish War. England: Penguin Books, 1972. Kraft, Robert A. The Apostolic Fathers. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965. Mayer, B. F. The Early Christians. Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1986. Nock, Arthur Darby. Early Gentile Christianity And Its Hellenistic Background. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964. Peters, F. E. The Harvest of Hellenism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. New York: Perennail Library, 1958. Staniforth, Maxwell. (trans.), Early Christian Writings. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Tillich, Paul A History of Christian Thought. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968. Wand, J. W. C. A History of the Early Church to 500 A.D. London: Methuen & Co., 1953. Eastern Christianity: Atiya, Aziz S. History of Eastern Christianity. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968. Barr, Robert. Main Currents in Early Christian Thought. New Jersey: 1965. Betts, Robert Brenton, Christians in the Arab East. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1978. Bliss, F. J, The Religions Of Modern Syria And Palestine. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Dib, Rev. Pierre. History of The Maronite Church. Washington, D.C.: Unknown, 1971. Gale Group. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9., Mab Mor. Detroit: Gale Group, 2002. Hitti, P. K. The Near East in History New York: Van Norstand, Reinhold, 1961. ———. History of Syria, Including Lebanon and Palestine. New York: Macmillan and Company, 1951. ———. Lebanon in History. New York: Macmillan and Company, 1967. Jurji, Edward J. The Middle East, Its Religion and Culture. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956. Moosa, Matti. The Maronites in History. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1986. Stanley, A. P. Lectures on The History Of The Eastern Church. London: E. P. Dutton, 1924. Tayah, Wadith Peter. The Maronites, Roots and Identity. Florida: Author, 1987. Thompson, J. A. “The Major Arabic Bibles,” The Bible Translator. vol. vi. California: American Bible Society, 1955.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

101

Pre-Islamic Arabia and The Near East: Lichtenstadter, Ilse. Introduction To Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Schoken Books, 1974. Nicholson, R. A. A Literary History of the Arabs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. O’Leary, De Lacy. Arabia before Muhammad. New York: Kegan Paul et. al., 1927. Sabatino Moscotti, Ancient Semetic Civilizations. New York: Capricorn Books, 1960. ———. The Face of the Ancient Orient. New York: Doubleday Anchor Book, 1962. Muhammad and His Times: Abdu’l-ahad Dawud. Muhammad in The Bible. Qatar: Darul Ishaat, 1980. al-Bukhari, Sahih. Ankara, Turkey: Hilal Yaninlari. Ali; A. Yusuf. The Holy Qur’an. trans. Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 2001. Andre, Tor. Mohammad, The Man and His Faith. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960. Ayoub, A. The Quran and Its Interpreters. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984. Badawi, Jamal. Muhammad in The Bible. Canada: IIPH, 1997. Denffer, Ahmed von. Literature on The Hadith In European Languages, A Bibliography. Great Britain: Islamic Foundation, 2007. Dinet, E. and Ibrahim, Sliman Ben. The Life of Mohammad, The Prophet of Allah. Karachi: Studio Editions, 1992. Glubb, Sir John. The Life and Times of Muhammad. New York: Stein and Day, 1970. Goldziher, Ignaz. Muslim Studies, vol. 2. Great Britain: Allen & Unwin, 1971. Guillaume, A. The Life of Muhammad. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Hisham, Ibn The Biography of The Prophet, in Arabic. Cairo, Egypt: Al-Falah Foundation, 2002. Kelen, Betty. Muhammad, The Messenger of God. New York: Taylor Productions, 1975. Lane-Poole, Stanley. The Speeches and Table Talk of The Prophet Mohammad. London: Macmillan and Co., 1882. Mingana, A. and Lewis, A. S. Leaves from Three Ancient Qurans, Possibly PreOthmanic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Muir, Sir William. The Coran, Its Composition and Teachings. London: John Grant Publishing, 1878. ———. The Life of Muhammad. Edinburgh: Smith, 1912. Peters, F. E. Muhammad and The Origins of Islam. New York: State University New York Press, 1995. Pickthall, Mohammad Marmaduke. The Meaning of The Glorious Koran. Plume, 1997 Stephen, Kh. The Repeated Echo of The Truths Between Moses, Jesus, and

102

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

Mohammad, The Third Book Concerning Mohammad, in Arabic. New York: Atlantic Publishing, 1913. Tisdall, W. The Original Sources of The Quran. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1911. Watt, W. Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. The Quranic Message: A. S. Muhammad H. Tabatabai. Shi’ite Islam. Texas: ARM Press, 1975. A’la Maududi, Abd. Islamic Way of Life. Stutgart: The Holy Koran Publishing House, 1977. A’la Maududi, Abdul. The Moral Foundations of The Islamic Movement. Lahore: Islamic Publishing, 1978. Abdalati, Hammudah. Islam in Focus. England: Derbyshire Publishing, 1978. Abraham, A. J. and Haddad, George The Warriors of God, Jihad (Holy War) and The Fundamentalists of Islam. Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press, 1989. J. Cooper (ed). The Commentary On the Qur’an. By Abu Jafer Muhammad B. Jarir Al-Tabari, (in Arabic). London: Oxford University Press, 1990. Al-Ghafour, Ahmed abd. Humanism in Islam. Beirut: Unknown, 1980. Arberry, A. J. Sufism. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1950. Chirri, Mohammad. Inquiries about Islam. Beirut: Dar Lubnan Press, 1965. Coulson, Noel J. Conflicts and Tensions in Islamic Jusisprudence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. ———. A History of Islamic Law. Edinburgh: Transaction Press, 1964. Donaldson, Dwight D. Studies in Muslim Ethics. London: S.P.C.K, 1963. Eaton, Charles Le Gai. Islam And The Destiny of Man. New York: SUNY Press, 1992. Farah, Ceasar E. Islam. New York: Barron’s Educational Series, 1970. Fayzee, Asaf A. Outlines of Muhammadan Law. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1955. Gibb, H. A. R. Mohammadanism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963. Grunebaum, G. E. von. Medieval Islam. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Guillaume, Alfred. Islam. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1964. Jeffery, A. Islam. New York: Library of Religion, 1958. Khadduri, Majid and Liebesny, Herbert. Law in The Middle East. Washington: M.E. Institute, 1955. Khadduri, Majid. Islamic Jurisprudence, Shafi’i’s Risala, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961. Masud, Muhammad Khalid. Islamic Legal Philosophy. Islamabad: Islamic Research Institute, 1977. Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. et. al., eds., Shi’ism, Doctines, Thought, and Spirituality. New York: Beacon Press, 1989 ———. Ideals and Realities of Islam. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975. Qadri, Anwar Ahmed. Islamic Jurisprudence in the Modern World Lahore:

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

103

Ashraf Printing, 1981. Rippen, Andrew, “The Present Status of Tafsir Studies,” The Muslim World, July-October: Islam & the Modern Age Society, 1982. Sayyid Qubt, The Religion of Islam. Beirut: Holy Quran Publishing House, 1980. Schacht, Joseph. The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence. London: Oxford University Press, 1959. Schimmel, Annemarie. Islam, An Introduction. New York: State University of New York Press, 1992. Tritton, A. S. Islam, Belief and Practices. Great Britain: Hutchinson’s University Library, 1951. Von Grunebaum, G. E. Modern Islam. New York: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Wilfred C. Smith, Islam in Modern History. New York: The New America Library, 1957. The Empire and Its Creeds: Abn-Nasr, Jamil M. A History of the Maghrib. London: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Abraham, A. J. Koumani and Islamic Fundamentalism, Contributions of Islamic Sciences to Modern Civilization. Indiana: Foundations Press of Norte Dame, 1989. Arnold, Sir Thomas and Alfred, Guillaume. The Legacy of Islam. Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1952. As-Sayyid Isa al-Haadi al-Mahdi. The Ansaar Cult. U.S.A.: S.N., 1989. Betts, Robert Brenton. The Druze. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Brown, L. E. The Eclipse of Christianity in Asia. New York: Howard Fertig, 1967. Christelow, A., “The ‘Yan Tatsine Disturbances in Kano,” The Muslim World. April, 1985. Fisher, Allen G. B. and Fisher, Humphrey J. Slavery and Muslim in Africa. New York: Anchor Books, 1972. Franzius, Enno. History of The Order of Assassins. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1969. Gibb, Hamilton A. R. Studies on The Civilization Of Islam. Boston: Routledge Library Editions, 1962. ———. Mohammedanism. New York: A Galaxy Book, 1962. Goitein, S. D. Jews and Arabs. New York: Schoken Books, 1970. Hanafi, Mohammad Jamil. Islam and The Transformation of Society. New York: Asia Publishing House, 1970. Hitti, P. K. History of The Arabs. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. ———. Makers of Arab History. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1968. ———. Origins of The Druze People. New York: AMS Press, 1966. Julien, Charles-Andre. History of North Africa. New York: Preager Publishing, 1970.

104

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

Le Tourneau, Roger. The Almohad Movement in North Africa in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969. Lewis, Bernard. The Assassins. New York: Basic Books, 1968. ———. The Jews of Islam. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. ———. Race and Color in Islam. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. MacDonald, Duncan B. Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and Constitutional Theory. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903. Moosa, Matti. Extremist Shiites, The Ghulat Sects. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1992. Najla Abu Izz al-Din. The Druze in History, in Arabic, Lebanon: 1985. O’Leary, De Lacy. Arabic Thought and Its Place in History. London: Routledge and Kegan, 1958. Tritton, A. S. The Caliphs and Their non-Moslem Subjects. London: Burleigh Press, 1930. Watt, W. Montgomery. Islam and The Integration of Society. Great Britain: North Western University Press, 1961. ———. Islamic Philosophy and Theology. Edinburgh: The University Press, 1962. ———.The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazali, London: George Allen Unwin, 1953. The Ecumenical Spirit: Abbott, Walter M. ed. The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Guild Press, 1966. Ata ur-Rahim, Muhammad. Jesus, a Prophet of Islam. London: MWH Publishing, 1979. Ayoub, Mahmoud M., “Towards an Islamic Christology, I and II: The Death of Jesus, Reality or Delusion,” The Muslim World. I, LXVI (1976), and II, LXX: Macdonald Center and Wiley-Blackwell, 1980. Goddard, Huge, Christians and Muslims, From Double Standards to Mutual Understanding. United Kingdom: Curzon Press, 1995. Hicks, John and Meltzer, Edmund S. eds., Three Faiths, One God. New York: SUNY Press, 1989. ———. Islamic-Christian Dialogue. Lybia, Tripoli: The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle, New York: 1976. ———. Dialogue and Inter-faith Witness With Moslems. Pennsylvania: 1979. Katsh, Abraham I. Judaism in Islam. Pennsylvania: Bloch Publications, 1954. Lay, Thomas. ed., Jewish-Christian Relations, Proceedings of an Institute Held at St. Mary’s College. Kansas: St. Mary’s College, 1965 Parrinder, Geoffrey. Jesus in The Quran. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Peters, F. E. Children of Abraham. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1982. ———. Judaism, Christianity, And Islam. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE WORKS

105

———. Islam, A Guide for Jews and Christians. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003. Raisanen, Heikki. “The Portrait of Jesus in The Quran, Reflections Of A Biblical Scholar,” The Muslim World. Macdonald Center and WileyBlackwell, April, 1980. Ramadan, Tariq. Western Moslems and the Future of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Robinson, Neal. Christ In Islam And Christianity. New York: SUNY Press, 1991. Sheppard, William. Christian Mission And Islamic Da’wah, Proceedings of The Chambesy Dialogue Consultation. UK: Regnum Books International, 1982. Sheppard, William. “Conversations in Cairo: Some Contemporary Muslim Views of Other Religions.” The Muslim World, vol. LXX, Nos. 3-4. Macdonald Center and Wiley-Blackwell, July-October, 1980. Swindler, Leonard ed., “Jewish, Christian, Muslim Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, vol. xiv, no. 3. Dialogue Institute, Summer 1977. Troll, Christian W. dialogue and difference. Clarity in Christian-Muslim Relations. New York: Obis Books, 2009. ———. Muslims Ask, Christians Answer. Pakistan: New City Press, 2007. Watt, William Montgomery, Islam and Christianity Today, A Contribution to Dialogue. London: Routledge and Kegan, 1983. ———. Muslim-Christian Encounters, Perceptions And Misperceptions. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, Incorporated, 1991.