We had not realized that Muslims disputed the fact of crucifixion itself.
While theology is not one of our strengths or interests, the site got us to thinking about ancient texts.
Bear in mind that the Colonel is not a card carrying Christian. Faith in anything that can't land on the Colonel's toe and cause pain or be swallowed and cause intoxication is difficult for the Colonel. We are decidedly literal in most matters, preferring, for example, more down to earth litanies of belief like Crash Davis's in the wonderful movie "Bull Durham."
We sure as heck do not accept ANY document as the perfect expression of Truth. The Koran isn't the word of Allah and the Bible isn't the word of God.
Everyone get OVER it!
Both works are the products of mortal men with varying degrees of intellectual ability and willingness to tell the truth. What the Koran says is just as debatable as what the Bible says.[1]
What the Koran records of supposed revelations of Allah are, in fact, merely convenient "revelations" to justify Mohammed's personal wishes, especially those stemming from the post-Medina stage of the his life.[2]
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Koran is "a book so deficient in context and chronology, it can only be understood when seen through the eyes of the Sunnah writers."[3]
See also the same source for the information that a certain Muslim gentleman summoned to record the hitherto oral Koran resisted because:
- it would be easier to move a mountain than record the Koran,
- it would not be proper to do something that the Prophet himself had not done (citing Bukhari:V6B60N201), and
- it would, in fact, be impossible because he would have "to rely upon carvings on the leg or thigh bones of dead animals, as well as palm leaves, skins, mats, stones, and bark" and "the fleeting memories of the prophet’s Companions, many of whom were dead or dying," to wit, hearsay.[4]
Who can doubt that the Koran is an imperfect human document and who has any doubt that the Bible is less than a coherent, logical document?
Whether or not specific parts of these authorities can be subjected to various kinds of analysis is another story. Certain events appearing therein may indeed be accurately recorded. On the specific issue of Christ's crucifixion, Pastor John Piper has written this refutation of the Muslim claim.[6] We think he makes a more convincing case than Dr. Hilali.
Which is not to say that Dr. Hilali did not land some good licks.
In our opinion, he makes a good point when he quotes Jesus as saying, "O God, if it is possible for You to let his cup pass from me, then let it pass." Why would Jesus say this if his crucifixion was to be the atonement for all of man's sins and this was the purpose of his life, the very essence of God's Plan of Salvation? His words make it seem like Jesus wanted to cancel the plan once it was set in motion.
The same is true of his question, "why have Thou forsaken me?" Why cry out about being forsaken? Jesus wasn’t being forsaken. This was hardly some cruel and arbitrary punishment at the hands of humans with which God had inexplicably decided not to interfere. This was the Master Plan of all Master Plans -- the Plan of Salvation for Man -- that Jesus should be crucified for man's sins. Didn't Jesus want this as much as God?[7]
We may be all wrong in what we said and maybe our fate is shortly to be (rhetorically) torn limb from limb by the Christians lions. As we have said, theology is something in which we invest very little of our time and intellectual energy. We don't plan to be drawn into further debate on these points by either Christians or Muslims, though anyone is free to comment all they want below.
The most important thing is for mankind to distance itself forever from the notion of inerrant texts.
It's fine for there to be sacred works. We should all honor beauty, truth, finesse, concision, clarity, eloquence, insight, character, heroism, courage, decency, compassion, or understanding when any human has been blessed with the gift to express it. These expressions are philosophical and literary treasures belonging to all mankind. The more these expressions can be found in a particular text, the more deserving it is of being considered sacred by man.
However, reality, the human condition, and the soul are mysteries that no one man can know and should not claim to know.
The really destructive people in this vale of tears are those through history who have claimed to know The Truth and, worse, claimed that God had chosen them, THEM, of all people, to reveal it to the world.
Is it logical to assume that -- every once in a while -- someone who makes such an outlandish claim actually is the messenger of God, a divinely inspired seer, a prophet of God, or the Son of God? Or is it logical to regard all such testimonies as symptoms of a serious mental disease or of a conniving, selfish mind bent on pleasure and power? Obviously, the latter choice is the better way to go.[8]
It would be better for the entire world if Muslims could take an honest look at the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Koran and lose the murderous belief that the Koran is perfect and the literal word of Allah and that kuffar need to be killed until they accept Islam or submit to it.
Islam is not stuck with its contradictory, rigid, and evil doctrines. Christianity had its share of these and has risen above them. If has not, no Christian church in the West has the power to force obedience to its commands.
Now it is time for Islam to change.
Both Christian and Islam can rise above a deficient past and create a spiritual experience that is in fact free of compulsion and a helpful guide to imperfect men. Slavish devotion to antiquated doctrines and texts is not the way to achieve this.
Notes
[1] We thought we'd take this additional opportunity to point out that Christians endlessly dispute the meaning of the Bible -- without fear of being beheaded by other Christians. Why does a Muslim have to risk death as a blasphemer if he or she does the same vis-à-vis the Koran? Heck, even cur dog infidels are subject to death threats and vile abuse from Muslims if they dare to analyze Muslim belief and doctrine.
[2] See our post on this here and "The Quest of the Historical Muhammad" by Arthur Jeffery.
[3] "Islam's Dark Past." By Craig Winn, Prophet of Doom.)
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] The Great Offense—Was Jesus Christ Really Crucified?." By John Piper, desiringGod, undated.
[7] Dr. Hilali is incorrect when he cites this as Matthew's saying the statement is proof of Jesus' disbelief. It clearly shows Jesus addressing someone he believed existed, namely, His Father.
[8] That said, we're not convinced that Jesus fits into either of these categories. He did not seek worldly rewards and his message was positive in every aspect. He appears to have caused a sensation in his time by his mere physical presence and we assume there was a reason for this other than mere eloquence and intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment