Christian Meditations on the Koran: Notes on Sura 5, about Jesus

Monday, December 26, 2011

Notes on Sura 5, about Jesus

Sura 5:68a 'Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Torah, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come from your Lord."'
v.72 They do disbelieve who say "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But Christ said ... whoever joins other gods with Allah-Allah will forbid him the Gardens, and the Fire will be his abode."
No, He never said that. He said "I and the Father are one." And the Jews picked up rocks to stone him because He was making himself equal with God. (But he walked away.) He called himself the Son of God, as well as refering to Himself as the Son of Man. The Gospel of John calls Him the Word (of God) as well.

V. 73 They disbelieve who say:Allah is one of three (in a Trinity). V. 75 Christ and Mary had both to eat daily.
V.116 Allah will ask Jesus, "didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah'?" (I am copying the Koranic punctuation.) Which of course, Jesus denies. V. 117 "Never said I to them aught except what thou didst command me to say"... (worship Allah)

V.110 lists the favors Allah gave to Jesus and his mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit... I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel.
By the power of God, Jesus made a clay bird and when he breathed into it, made it alive ...he healed the blind and the lepers and brought forth the dead "by my leave."

v.114 And he asked for a solemn festival with wine and bread (communion) and Allah protected him from Jews' violence, gave Jesus clear signs. (Summary)

It is incorrect to say Trinity is Father, Son, and Mary. Even among Catholics (or as some good Protestants say "Mary worshipping Catholics"), they acknowledge the Trinity as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Now Catholics do pray to saints and to Mary, but not as gods. They explain that these are mere mortals who are in heaven that pleased God, so they are just asking for someone with good connections up there to put in a good word.
But that would be unnecessary if they remember what the Christians told Mohammed.

"And they say they have an intercessor." Hebrews, along with many other books in the Bible, emphasizes that Jesus became a man, that He could better understand our needs. So, in addition to providing forgiveness for our sins, "he everlives to make intercession for the saints according to the will of God." He is always putting in a good word for us, asking for help or favors for us. When you've got the top person, the top card, why would you play a lower one? But they think they may not be important enough for Jesus' attention, so they hope the others help.
If he were only a man, they might be right. But as the Son of God, having the same nature as the Father, his resources are unlimited.

So who is Jesus? The Koran says he was just a messenger, a warner, a man who had to eat his daily meals. (That is, mortal.) But it says many other things about him as well.
And what kind of people were these Christians that Mohammed was talking to?

v.82 Men devoted to learning, men who have renounced the world, who are not arrogant. (Some were hermits, monks.)
68b It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy.
So does he want them to stand by their Scriptures or not? For if they do, they will not repent or convert. The Bible is very clear on who Jesus is.

Sura 3 also has some things to say describing Jesus. In 3:45 He is a Word from Allah, Christ Jesus. (Christ meaning Messiah.) 3:59 another Adam (ours says Second Adam and explains why). 3:49 repeats list of signs for Jesus (clay bird, heal blind and lepers, raise the dead.)
3:78 said some kind of gibberish and then said that was from Adam. In 3:110 they (Muslims) were the best of people, similar to "holy priesthood" that Paul called the Church.
In 2:253 Jesus is strengthened with the Holy Spirit. 2:165 says they take for worship others besides allah as equal with allah, they love them as they should love allah. Men worshipped Jesus, loving Him as they did the Father. (After all, why should you love someone who suffered and died to set you free from sin?) But the Koran denies He did that.
I note that a word is the exprssion of one's thought, of the mind put out to be heard. The Holy Spirit is the divine ministering power to act among mankind, anointing and equipping to do the work. Both terms are used in both the Old Testament as well as the Koran, so they are not mutually exclusive to the New Testament. Why the Jews and the Muslims can get away with saying they worship only one god, while Christians are accused of polytheism, I do not understand.

We only claim Jesus to be the Word of the Father, the Son of God who came to express the Father and accomplish His will. I have in other places shown where the OT shows an expression of Godhood who came to visit Abraham, or was mentioned by David. The Koran also calls him the Word, and attributes the ability to create life or restore it. You do not have to believe Him to be the Son of God, or equally God- of the same essence. But you will be held accountable for being informed of it, even if it was denied, that that was what the claim was. Beyond that, I ask what kind of a god who can form universes could not be able to present himself? Or be able to make himself into a baby. Merry Christmas.

No comments:

About the traffic

In all the years I have had this blog, only two people posted comments. Most of the time I felt this was writing for myself, if only for therapy. When I got off topic of meditations on the Koran, whether it was discussing politics or family, it did not seem to matter if no one was reading this. However, I have checked the statistics and am overwhelmed by the number of folks who have visited.

Whether they enjoyed it or hated, it I do not know. Hopefully they got something to think about. Anyway, it would be great to hear from some of you. If you have comments that I can read and think about, perhaps your thoughts could be reported. (I did not want to allow carte blanche in letting everyone post. I have seen this explode in other places.)

Just to let you know, I have finished a lot of writing and illustrating for several age groups and genres. I still have much more to do. I had planned to publish under a pseudonym, if for no other reason than to protect my family.

However, it seems foolish to waste what contacts have already been built. Perhaps my work can be announced to those already familiar with my efforts. Regardless, let me thank you for your time and effort to consider what I have written.

About my husband

Having discussed several times the ups and downs of my marriage, I find it only right to address the issue of what my huband was doing that bothered me. (Don't worry no great revelations nor exposing of skeletons here.) He loved the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength and he did not want to settle for just making money. He wanted his life filled with significance. Which meant serving the Lord, forgiving those who sinned against us instead of fighting them, or suing them, or even worrying about their machinations. This just drove me crazy at times, because I wanted justice, revenge, and protection.

The other thing he did was not agree with me about parenting. Before you laugh, consider this. Anyone who has not said, "You told them they could do what?" is probably not a parent. Again, I wanted justice, backing, and spankings when they outraged me so that a "wait until your father gets home" had some meaning to it. But he wanted mercy, love, grace. If by the time he got home they had warrented two spankings, they got two pops, if that. And he would trust the little brats instead of being able to see what they were up to. This got more serious as they became teenagers.

I just got incredulous at the naivety of the man. Not that he had never gotten into trouble, but he had waited until he was in college to get involved with political things. Talking back, skipping classes, even forging a parent's signature was beyond his comprehension of what a kid might do.

He worked diligently at whatever job he had, though it might pay little and offer no benefits. He did not drink, smoke, or chase women, do drugs, or in any way provide reprehensible behavior. Though he did not always get involved as much as I'd of liked, he was always available. He might be in the back room reading, but he was there.

He did not have a June Cleaver background. He was wonderful with small children and babies. But he did not have a nurturing mom or a dad who knew how to bond well. He did what he could from what he knew. And what he knew was to teach his children of the Lord and to show them His grace. He trusted the Lord to provide the rest. And my partly materialistic heart got dragged along for the trip.

I could not completely fault him as those were the values I stated I had. It just wasn't fun to be held accountable to them. Now, however, I can state the Lord is faithful and I should have trusted Him more.

On my jokes

Having posted a couple of pictures with words underneath quite a while ago, I have worried that others would not understand those jokes. Here are the explanations.

Selling the signs. We are accused of selling the signs if we do not accept the Koran, supposedly for taking their proof and not taking it seriously. Thus the signs for sale picture. Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver, and that amount is used as a reference for betrayal.

Mohammed found his daughter-in-law attractive, and needed to marry her. He got a prophecy giving him permission and Zaid divorced her so his adopted father could have her. Thus Zaid looking for a love interest of someone who was not influenced by power or position.

A couple of the violent verses refer to cutting off the fingertips of those who will not believe, along with their necks, etc. Some mention being crucified on palm trees, in a string of possible consequences. Others were having alternate arms and legs removed. Therefore I have the listing about having too many palms being cut down, about work being available for those who are missing fingertips, etc. and about Hamid being killed. Just a generic Hamid, not anyone real. (I had written a piece about a guy who liked to joke about racing, so I used that name.)

The sin of shirk. I have forgotten whether that is believing in the Trinity and the sin of calling Jesus the Son of God, or God, or whether it is the other unforgivable sin of claiming to have an intercessor in heaven-which is of course the Savior who died for us. Either way a Christian is guilty of it, and it is unforgivable according to the Koran. The Desert Arabs were maligned as those who feigned belief when around Mohammed, but returned to their own sytems when not. Captain Shirk was kind of a Star Trek joke, so I placed him living with the Desert Arabs.

The Koran claims we race to sin, we race to mischief and unbelief, and we race to rancor. I have written more on that subject but now is not the time to indulge my speculations or opinions on that. Anyway, All Day Races was referring to this picturesque imagery. And yes, to be accused of racing to sin and unbelief was to risk your life. Others might observe (and bet) but to run that race was extremely hazardous. The Kafar/kafir were those who were labelled unforgiveable for holding to their beliefs, so the races were listed as on Kafar Road next to Peter's (one of the 12 disciples.) These are the meanings of my jokes.

Oh, and the Koran also notes the question do you say Abraham, Ishmael, Jesus, etc. were Muslims, which I find preposterous. So I listed it as a want ad, wherein one could call Mo to tell him what they thought. I think that concludes all of the things that might appear mysterious to those unversed in the book to pick up my inuendoes.

(Addition) Geez! Don't you folks ever laugh? We have jokes that are Biblically based. Such as "Who is the smallest man in the Bible?" Some say Zaccheus because a wee little man was he. But the answer has to be Peter because he slept on his watch. (Double entendre-Jesus was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane and asked Peter to watch and pray right before the soldiers came and arrested the Savior.) You have to have some knowledge of your Scriptures to be able to appreciate the jokes. We do not take these as lessening the value of them. They are merely lighthearted ways of saying, I am not so seriously minded I cannot be fun. An accusation some are held to- such as the expression "He is so heavenly minded, he is of no earthly good."

I went into the Dar Es Salaam bookstore to get info. One was to verify which was the sin of shirk, for one. The other question was whether Waraqqa was a man or woman. ( Khadijah-Mohammed's first wife had a cousin who was a Christian, supposedly, who told Mohammed that he had seen an angel not a demon and that his vision must be true.) The sin is for associating gods with the Creator.

The man was impressed with the detail of my questions and asked if I was studying Islam. He thought perhaps I was questionning and interested in further instruction. I quickly dispelled that image by saying firmly, no I am a Christian. Later I thought that was too nebulus, as any westerner might say such a thing without clearly understanding the meaning. He did get that I was a person of firm faith. But I thought later of the answer I should have said. Declaring I associate would have been more clear. While babysitting, I told my daughter what I thought should have been said, she sat there. My message was not comprehended.

Adding partners to the deity, I explained. Jesus as the Son of God, the Holy Spirit-you know, the whole Trinity thing which you were instructed about while growing up. She told me she did not think they woud have known what I was talking about if I said the other.

So I have to ask, don't you folks read your book cover to cover? Granted I rarely do myself. I prefer a few books that I reread.(Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, the gospels, etc.) But at least I have done so previously. I have enough knowledge that if someone refers to a parable of Jesus, or a story of King David, or something the prophet Samuel did, I know what they are talking about. More so about Jesus, less about the minor prophets -the back part of the Old Testament is full of three or four page stories about prophets and what they taught that are called the minor ones because they are not fifty or sixty chapters long, not for lack of significance in their day. Some have major prophecies including about where the Messiah would be born, or about the last days, etc.

Anyway, how are you going to understand what I am saying, much less my jokes, if you do not know your book? The original explanations were for the unbelievers (Christians or other) who might stumble into the blog without having detailed knowledge of the Koran. The jokes were supposed to be a lighthearted way of adding humor to an overserious blog, and hopefully to say, see, I know enough about your book to be able to use it for more than arguing.

Oh, and lighten up. Jokes, minor things like cartoons or teddybears, or the most recent, expelling a little girl for mispelling a word and wanting to hunt down her family really do not reflect well on your people.

Meditating on the kaffir

The reason for the vagaries of the post titled Partial Mistake is that I had been in the midst of writing a novel about the Kaffir. Kafar, Kafir, Kufar, I have seen it spelled several ways. I have already explained how they have caught my imagination since the days I was first reading the Koran. These are the brethren who refused to confess Mohammed as the Messenger of God, whose arguments included explaining they had an intercessor, the Son of God who died for them.

Having spent several years contemplating what the Suras actually say of them, along with what their reactions would reasonally be if other Christians were having their homes taken, their wives enslaved or married, the men slaughtered who dared to oppose, I desired to present them honorably. Little in history told me of a mass exodus, though it is recorded some were banished, but many of these were Jewish.

The Heirs of the Prophet Mohammed records actual names of Christian tribes, and their princes. Some paid the jizyah -the tax for not converting. Others fled, and they were brought back, probably under threat for the rest of their families and tribes. (One of the Jewish wives of the prophet agreed to marry him after her father, husband, and 700 men of her tribe were slaughtered. Another one it is said freed her kinsmen because he wanted to be kind to her family and the marriage accomplished this. Thus hadith is clear that this type of negotiations were ongoing.)

Anyway, the similarity of pictures of St. Anthony eating with another saint which is famous for the monks of Scotland, is found nearly identical to one from the monks of Egypt. This set my mind whirling that those who would not bend the knee had fled. It was not inconsistent with the testimonies of Muslim authors who reported the flight of men who were forced back. Their reports were based on in-depth knowledge of the hadith, which they referenced.

Knowing many more died, I did not want to present them as cowards. Yet once it was clear that war would not resolve the issues, that they had lost, it was also clear they needed to find new allies, or flee for the sake of protecting their families. Thus I was debating how others would perceive such a flight if the book were ever published, not merely being maudlin over what would I do if....

Partial Mistake

I wrote it is better to be poor than dead, and a lot of other simplifications as well. Whatever happened to Patrick Henry's "give me liberty or give me death?"

Sometimes it is better to die than to submit to indignities. For me that would include accepting a sharia state, in my own country I mean. To move to another place where that is their law, and I cared about the people, that would be a different situation. Kind of like the Christians who sold themselves into slavery so that they could reach a population to minister to. They embraced the indignities for a higher goal.

Of course, I would still have international law behind me, and the protection of being an American. I would still have limitations based on the rights of that country, and would have to mind my p's and q's (be careful what I did). But I would still know some justice was available.

But in my own land, that would not offer protection. This would be true for you in your lands, as well as me in mine. And I would have to seek the Lord over what I should do. I'd rather die than live to see such tyranny. But would I be able to offer hope to others instead if I lived? Would I in other times leave for other lands, and freedom? I do seriously believe in being willing to die to defend one's beliefs. If not, then they do not mean much to you. But weighing the options seems equally reasonable. Because if you must give account for how you invested your life on Judgment Day, you had better not have thrown it away.

My personal philosophy-don't rock the boat

In case any of my latest posts have offended, let me explain. Despite all my blustering, I am a coward and avoid pain at all costs. My marriage has been full of risks because my husband is not risk averse. But I have shaken to my very roots in the process.

Yes, I am blunt. I am an American, and raised in Texas. What else would you expect? But the mere threat of loss, financial or physical upsets me. Not that I have an abundance. In my country, compared to many others, I own very little. But storing old and used items that might be needed later provides comfort that what I need will be available.

Yes, I do trust my Lord to provide for me, because frankly without Him, I could have so much less. I have also watched so many movies, and news programs over the several decades of my life, that I am aware of possible costs. I have watched the burning of Atlanta as rebels leave, and chaos enters, where Scarlett and Rhett had to lash those who would steal their transportation. Though fiction, it reflected realities experienced by real folks.

In books I have seen people starve, and read of those whose hunger forced them into cannibalism in America as well as Russia. On tv (movies, news, and the history channel), I have seen rebellions and protests behind the Iron Curtain which promised freedom but led to strong putdowns and prisons for those who hoped for too much in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the USSR itself, and China.

People in Cuba yearned for freedom, yet could not possess it without a freedom flotilla to the States. Ernest Hemingway, in For Whom the Bells Toll via Gary Cooper, spoke of the cost of war. She is a goddess in the beginning, he said, then a mistress, and finally she becomes a whore. The analogy was speaking of the deterioration of ideals in the midst of the reality of war.

During the Vietnamese War, pictures of men with arms and legs blown off, bleeding faces or heads were nightly features in the news. And later, even as I cheered the idea of freeing people from oppression, I wavered over the cost to our sons who really were not so interested in a world half a globe away.

And I have become a cynic. Somehow it doesn't seem right. No one has a revolution by merely protesting a few nights, throwing a few rocks, and demanding the leader step down. Most leaders have more balls than that, and will provide some opposition. Even just losing a few dozen or hundred men is not usually sufficient. Marrakech once suffered a siege for seventeen years before they gave way. The Almohads finally triumphed over the Almoravids, and brought a purged Islam to the land of Morocco. (And later Spain and Timbuktu.)

Something is wrong, I think. Yes, injustices have made for a weary people, all over the Magreb and Middle East. Yet they have been frustrated for quite some time. Why now? Why so peacefully. Not that there is no violence, but it so little for a revolution. This is only the beginning, though, and I worry for what is to come.

The accusations of foreign intervention, of schemes and motives of a variety of groups seem more plausible. Are people being paid off to stand down, as were tribes in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Are others being paid to stand up and protest?

Of course, not all persuasion is financial. Promises of spiritual victory and houries waiting in heaven are also great motivators. But even allowing for this, why are the governments so peaceful? Where are all the armies. Libya is only doing what I would expect: what China did, Russia, Poland, etc., etc. Not in their defense, but in considering actuality. Never in the history of the world have governments lain down so quickly.

That is good, I suppose, if it allows for peaceful transitions. But the abnormality of it scares me. And I am not merely worrying about what I might have to pay at the tank. I hope this might lead to our own return to drilling, and providing jobs for us here. So my concern is not for myself, my country.

I worry for you. Because being poor is better than being dead. Working hard with your children beside you is better than being in a refugee camp. Having a little electricity and water is better than scourges caused by lack of sanitation and disease. And I have seen letters from those who serve in those camps for years. They ask for money to help. I have given.

But when I see the possibility of more genocides, of more fleeing their villages, of losing their children or husbands, I count the cost to you. Is it really worth losing your homes to get rid of one man? It is the same question I asked myself when others were complaining that America was being bought out. Do I really care who I pay my bills to? One rich person or another, I won't get to keep it.

Do I accept some indignities in order to keep my family? Without going into the trivialities of my life, I can say yes, I have accepted injustices in order to stay with my children. Not that I object if you decide to pay a deeper cost, but you should know. I am a coward. I look for the worst case scenario and evaluate the cost. If I counsel caution, it is for that reason.

Do not depend on us

A year or so ago, the Iranian people protested their elections, the results of which appeared to be fraudulent. In the middle of the protests, besides the police, there were informers, men of the secret police who dragged others off to who knows where. I thought at the time the freedom lovers should take the ones they outnumbered and beat them down, with bats or sticks or whatever they could find. I realize baseball isn't a game likely played there, but if they had shepherds with sticks, or rugby players, or 2x4's, those should do as good or better a job than those ubiquitous rocks.

George W. Bush had pushed for democracy in the Middle East, but he was no longer president. Obama took the side of the government, giving credence to those who thought he sided with Islamist movements who wanted sharia, and oppression of opponents did not matter. For Egypt he sometimes took the side of the people, but he did at least say the government should allow protests.

Now it is beginning again in Iran. But I must warn them/you. Do not trust to the US government to come to your rescue. This is especially true since Obama is president. He just wants to look good, and have people be able to look back and praise him for being freedom loving. He is looking to being reelected -not for an opportunity to help anyone else.

Even George Bush, either of them, used the Kurds to help their own interests. Then when they had accomplished the goals did not help them gain their independence. Whether that was ever feasible, I do not know, because Turkey, Georgia and Russia, Iran, any of those groups with Kurdish people, did not/do not want to lose their own blocks of people and territory.

They would oppose any Kurdish country and work to crush it. So perhaps the Bushes were not so cruel after all, but the American people wanted to reward the Kurds, wanted to grant them their freedom after they had helped us. Now frankly, after Iraq both times, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan, we are tired.

The message that we need to mind our own business makes sense, one that our people over two centuries have embraced from time to time. But given that, we also want to keep our money unless it is for Unicef or helping fight disease or natural disasters. It is a hard decision, that we are unsure of. Not that we desire to be ungenerous but we do not want to become insolvent. In addition, we do not appreciate people telling us to stop stepping in to help, when at the same time they keep their hands out for donations.

Ignoring the writings in the Koran would be tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand while an enemy plans our destruction. For, you see, while I wanted to avoid politics and only discuss religion, the messages in the Koran do make clear that we are considered an enemy. While we care for the oppressed women and children we find represented in books documenting the horrors of living under Islam, we also do not want to have it forced on us. Since the Koran does not leave out politics, for the processing of those who do not believe wherever they might be found, neither can I omit it. That is my dilemma. Though it may seem I have seriously deviated from the title and purpose of this blog, I have not. Choices have consequences and what culture and government one has flows from the ideology and precepts his people embraces.

Some of the earliest posts relate the violent verses. I refer the reader to them. And per the title of the article, if you need help, you should wait until we have a president who gives a damn. One who will support and stand by our allies, and puts his money and his army where his mouth is. Give us another year or so, and stay safe waiting. However, even then it is questionable if we would take on the expense of anything. We are too much in debt. At least take whatever risks now on your own heads, without depending on someone who will not come to your rescue.

Be careful what you wish for

I do not know if this posting will seem like pontification. Surely you who have lived in other countries know more of dictatorship than I. Having already described the values requisite for a democracy, that should be sufficient. However I keep hearing from CNN and Fox news experts that the extremists are not in charge, that the moderates and nonpolitical folks just want freedom. Great, but it is naive to believe that everyone is being completely honest about their motivations or goals.

What chance does a populace have who are merely responding to stimulae, against those who have strategized over years of laying in wait for the proper time? Who have their networks organized, their teams trained. Who know how to stimulate a mob into frenzy. Furthermore, even your plans for offering limited involvement to terrorists holds great danger. Pol Pot comes to mind. After they were defeated, the "generous" offered them a return in a minority position in the governing of Cambodia. They had to be fought off again, more murderous, genocidal campaigns rebuffed all because they were trying to be tolerant and all-inclusive.

One cannot hold fire in his hands and not get burnt, a proverb says. You should be aware that Hitler was not voted in by a majority. For that matter, neither was Caesar. Nor did everyone who wanted relief from the czar support Lenin. Actually Hitler only received something like 33% of the vote. But once he and his co-workers had some power, the opposition began to get arrested, be tortured, killed or merely disappear.

Dissent began to dissipate and caution turned to fear of reprisal. Communists had to wait a couple of generations to recover some freedom, with literally millions murdered in the process as well as their culture eviscerated. Sharing of power is a good tool for those who respect the rule of law, and the values of democracy, not for dealing with the ruthless who have no appreciation of the rights of others. Though this also is unoriginal, the following proverb is true. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

As a post script I note that Mubarak has been driven from power, and even his Vice President has been discredited because of the delay. Perhaps not a bad thing as he was the one responsible for detainment and torture. The character of the noble protesters has been revealed by the admission of a victim. One newscaster was taken from her crew and gang raped. Not an unusual event by Islamists who are assured of protection under sharia law. A woman must have four eyewitnesses in order to prove guilt. Maybe this is the reason few women were out in the streets during this time, especially those who were not veiled. Perhaps the soldiers who rescued her will testify for a foreigner against their countrymen, but I would not bet against it. One of the many benefits of men campaigning for sharia, the freedom to reign over others in the name of Allah, against anyone they desire for whatever reason. Oh, don't get me wrong, I know there are laws and some protections. However, frequently women and children are not the recipients, unfortunately. It would not be so unfair except these rights are upheld in the name of god. That stench is what makes it rise to the winds and extend to the ends of the earth. Many another woman or child is imprisoned, raped, and/or killed while trying to seek justice. I pray to God that this will lead to freedom, and secular justice for the people of that land. And even flow to other lands, as the protests arise in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Algeria, and beyond. I wish peace for these people.

A blessing

The news has had me and many in the world upset. Because of the various uprisings I have seen over the years (on tv), I worry about repercussions. Some have claimed this inspired by Tunisia, others have blamed George W. Bush and Condolessa Rice for setting this in motion. Exactly how that transpired is unclear and seriously questionable. I thought the protests in Tunisia had bounced over. But the ongoing struggle in the entire Muslim world has made me cynical. And Biblical prophecy can also make us hysterical.

In the seventies, Americans were told that the clerics would lead Iran and Afghanistan into freedom away from corruption. That backfired horribly into religious oppression. Thus, many of us have been fearful of how these activities could be parlayed into strict regime change of draconian proportions. Even Geraldo asked if the United States gave 1.3 billion dollars a year if that didn't give us the right to tell them what to do.

Answer, no, it doesn't. We have the right to give or not give the money. We have the right to offer suggestions, give counsel. But the Egyptian people have to decide themselves what they will do. We also have the right and need to be concerned, if not downright scared, over the possibilities. But then again so do their people, who are watching for gangs looting the neighborhoods.

Yet as I was studying the Psalms (18) tonight, a thought occured to me. A month or so ago, a horrific incident brought terror to eyes of the entire country of Egypt. With the murder of Christians for simply having the courage to celebrate their faith, the country-or a majority of it, stood up and said no. They formed lines around the churches to protect further services for the orthodox Christmas.

When they (Muslims and others) chose to stand up to the terrorists and declare it evil to destroy the worship in churches, I believe the Lord opened the windows of heaven to grant them freedom. A verse in the Bible declares "where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." So I pray that this will be a peaceful transition. One that brings calm and greater prosperity to this land. Let us also hope that the attention removed from Tunisia and the Sudan does not allow the tyrants to return.

Be Advised

I have not wanted to address political issues very much. And though you may not be able to tell it, I have avoided being critical as much as possible. I pray for your lands. I mourn every time I read of another example of honor killings, or women/children being forced into arranged marriages.

Today I read of a nineteen year old girl whose stoning was videotaped. She had refused to enter into such a marriage, though her father/brothers profited $9000. She and her lover had escaped, but were told to return and promised safety. He was already married and a father, but she must have decided it was better to be a second wife of someone she trusted than someone she did not. As for trusting, though she might have been right about whom to marry, she/they were clearly naive in trusting her family. (And how could you trust someone who would sell you for their own profit without concern for your desires?)

The text gave a brief description for those such as I who did not have the stomach to watch it. Other stories have introduced me to your trials such as the book of the 8 year old who sought and miraculously received a divorce. So much more oppression we read of: torture, murder, and the rape of virgins so that they will not go to heaven when they are executed.

You protest for freedom. I desire it for you. But democracy is not merely majority rule. It must also protect the interests of the individual and the minority. This your Muslim states do not provide. If you let the Muslim Brotherhood manipulate your protests into revolutions that bring them to power, you will have less freedom. That is not what is the worst, nor what I wished to warn you of.

You will get your Muslim revolution. And if it is approaching the end of the world, which many speculate is true, you will win for awhile. You will take over Israel, killing and oppressing as the Koran envisions. The Bible clearly states that armies from many directions will come to attack Israel, and will swarm over her, with many atrocities.

When you are allowed temporary victories, you will imagine that your side is winning. However the Lord is only allowing His Word the Bible to be fulfilled. As unlikely as it appeared for centuries that Jews could return to the Holy Land to reclaim the land, God brought to pass against overwhelming odds. In the same way, this too must occur. But be aware of the ending. When Jesus returns, He will defeat all the enemies arrayed in battle with just one word from His mouth.
Though I would like to live in peaceful days, I cannot say it is wrong for God to end the torment of men over others. And if He does not return soon then this oppression will continue. I say, come Lord Jesus, no matter what has to happen first. (And much that is horrendous is part of that.) But I admonish others to be careful to be on the right side. For when He returns it will be too late to change your position.

Sudan

The complete nerve of those who came and murdered, raped, pillaged, and burnt villages for years and who sent millions to either death or refugee villages. For you now to complain of the injustice of being left out of the property being given to their victims as they form their own country apart from your control. If you wanted them in your country you should not have performed these atrocities.

You wanted to take their lands and wealth for yourselves. How can you now complain that you won't receive their taxes? You did not care that the fields were destroyed, that trees were destroyed for firewood for miles around the UN camps. That women daily faced rape merely to obtain wood for cooking and heat.

You hoped the oil would be left for you after they all died. You gambled that you would win. But you have lost. The world has stood against you to protect their rights. You deserve nothing. Unfortunately you will probably be bought off.

And they are even telling their people to just forgive and not hate those who have hated them and .... I am sorry, but put them through hell is just not adequate enough words. True hell might be, but the expression does not convey the horror of what you have done. Fortunately, I do believe in a real hell, and I cannot think of others who deserve to be there more than you, beside some Nazis. And though this world may have terror based countries sitting on human rights councils, and unfair judgments that favor oppressors, my heavenly Father will judge you. You will not escape the punishment for your evils.

Your Mind is a gift from the Almighty

Are you not insulting Allah by refusing to analyze the Messenger? By making it illegal to question the life of the Prophet, have you not locked up your neighbors and selves to irresponsibility? Works approved by Muslim devout have noteworthy points that must be examined. The Koran as well as the hadith, not works of unbelievers but of the faithful cry out for you.

Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Yet you fail in this, throwing your minds away. Souls and hearts, even with great strength and determination is not enough. Your mind is a gift from the Almighty, use it.

Regular reports of the imprisonment or deaths of those who have questioned those sources come to light. We are dismayed that your own tomes cannot be studied objectively. And if you do not believe them sound, why believe at all? If you do, why is it forbidden to discuss them. Wishing not to insult but to express serious concern, I warn. I believe that you stand on sinking sand. Struggling, you are sucked more deeply under.

TO BURN OR NOT TO BURN

To burn or not to burn, that is the question. Shakespeare speaks of what is nobler-to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or by opposing end them. Not being qualified to analyze the Bard, or desirous of misquoting him, I nevertheless bring up the current dilemma, the burning of the Koran. And this does have something to do with the subject of being, as the Koran does not recognize the right of others to be if they will not convert.

A church has made a controversy of saying they will burn the Koran. Book burnings are old hat in the western world, amusing, sometimes outrageous, always questionable for efficacy. They draw attention to the content of said books even for those who haven't noticed them prior to this. People have burnt controversial books over the centuries, some considered so mild now, that the concept of censoring them seems humorous. Christians have had to tolerate Bible burnings, cross burnings (of various kinds), and other such as the "artwork" of inserting crucifixs into urine.

Flags burnt, other sacred or honored items have suffered similar fates. We no longer react. For one thing it lets the rude, crude, and crass members of society feel they've won. For another, the believer knows that his theology has not suffered. The concepts are just as strong, powerful to millions if wasted on the idiots who fail to appreciate them. Their loss, not ours. Our God is not lessened by the fact that He has chosen not to smite the blasphemer. We know a punishment will come, and He has instructed us to wait. After all, a god who cannot defend His own deity is not of much use to anyone. So we confidently await, sure that He has everything under control.

I, for one, have contemplated whether the Christians in our society have failed by refusing to riot when Bibles were burnt, by not screaming when priests and preachers, and the religious were portrayed in the media as idiots. We did, somewhat, but not with sufficient violence to cause anyone to take us seriously. But that is the beauty of our society, along perhaps with its weakenss.

Where else but in Christendom do opponents have the right to question, to express even outlandish views? The Bible records that God is patient with the sinners and the scorners, giving them time to repent. It tells us that we should reflect His character by waiting patiently. We should not get ahead of Him as He has it all under control. And so we allow freedom of religion, of the press, of speech-even to the KKK, communists, and now to Muslims, knowing that they do not wish to extend it back to us. Being confident in the superiority of our own beliefs, we allow others the right to be wrong. We hope they will live within our society to see how fair our system works, and be won by it.

The much quoted (by me) sura and verse tells us it is the message that is given to Mohammed that causes our wrath. Having read the Koran twice, I have to admit that I cannot think of another book so worthy of burning: Perhaps the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf, neither of which I've read, or Darwin's The Origen of the Species, which I have. Apparently others are not allowed to express anger or be offended, except solely the Muslim. Everyone else is merely intolerant. Arousing their wrath is insignificant and they must just deal with it.

But let one Muslim be offended, or one group fail in their dhimminess, and the entire ummah (the Muslim world) erupts. Imams the world over, leaders of countries, and others threaten us with riots if they do not get their way. It would be tragic if it were not so laughable. And it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

The real tragedy is that so many in power in our societies have succumbed to the pressure. The beauty is that so many others have had their eyes opened and are now willing to speak up. The greater victory would be to read it rather than burn it. Read it, study it and point out the sura and verse to those who apparently do not when they "rehearse" it. The greater embarrassment is for Muslims to be caught believing or not denying something of mindnumbing foolishness. For they apparently do not have the confidence in their beliefs to ignore someone else's rejection, nor in their god to be able to defend himself.

"Suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" would be to submit when told to swallow our pride and make no comment. The outrage is the fact that those who tell us to shut up are guests in our countries, using our laws against us. "By opposing to end them" is what we are now waking up to do. Answering and challenging is as much our right of free speech and of religion as it is for them. Whatever one chooses, burning or not, we have the freedom to do so.

Repetitions

I forgot to note that when a word is used over again, usually it instructs us to pay extra attention. It is an important word. So the word mercy/merciful or love is woven throughout the passage. Also, that these things are available to those who fear the Lord. I have already explained the term, so its meaning isn't as important as the fact that it is a qualification to receive certain things/promises. This expression is used throughout the Psalms, not just this one. And Proverbs says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Putting one's own life and desires down and submitting to (as you acknowledge) His will, is part of this.

Observations on Psalm 91

Part of examining a Bible passage includes a word study. Noting which ones are used and repeated. There were several that jumped out at me. And when looking at poetical or allegorical points, one should employ picturing what is being said.

The term Most High refers to the deity, but from a physical point of view, I considered the mountains. Jesus had instructed his disciples that when destruction came to Jerusalem to run to them. The higher up one goes, the further away he usually is from others, so that makes a good place for a refuge. I thought of the shelters on Djebel Toubkal in Morocco. Haven't been to them, but had studied the placements. (The week I was supposed to go, I got deathly sick, by the time I even somewhat recovered, it was time to head back to the U.S.) They are a welcome relief from hiking all day, from the heat and the cold. At the top, there is no shadow, nothing else to protect you from the elements. But in the shelter of the most high, one rests in the shadow of the Almighty. Strong protection.

I will say- I have been known to whine and grumble, sometimes almost constantly. I know God loves me, but sometimes I've let my fears overwhelm me. However, I can choose my response. "I will" is a choice. It also releases faith and does not have me saying untrue things of the Almighty. And it is true that he is my shelter and rampart, the older I am, the more practice I've had of experiencing His deliverances. So now I can advise someone else, who does not have years of depending upon the Lord-go ahead try it, this is what you will find.

He will deliver you from the fowler's snare. First I thought of the fact that that is intentionally set. I'm out walking around and it's not a natural hazard that has to be there, someone placed it there and hid it so it would be effective. Second thought on that was that it might not have been intentionally set for me, it was made to catch a bird. Life has its risks. Third: It might hurt my foot but it wouldn't kill me, so it was a smaller threat. The deadly pestilence was a more severe threat. So large or small, I'm covered. I am feeling safe, but still scared of risks out there.

Another point, the manmade things was man trying to catch a bird-the fowler's job. But here (He will comfort us with his feathers, etc.) we have God having caught us, so to speak, the bird taking care of us. Strange to compare the Almighty to a bird but it is a picture that we can comprehend.

I am allergic to feathers, so I do not own down pillows or blankets, but wow, these are awesome. After I am rescued, I am covered with down feathers. And it is with him, so it's warm, heated down. I'm not venturing out from this safety. A wing has a curve in it which folded provides a side. Wind and rain are not coming in. I am secured beneath his protection. Now I am not afraid. Not of dreams, night sounds, whatever dangers might intrude in the night, or any imaginations. Nor of things actually present such as arrows I can see in the daylight. The use of the word stalks was intriguing. Conveys being hunted, and that sometimes includes the enemy hiding, hunting in the darkness. The plague is observable by the bodies that are being removed, by whatever is happening while the disease is rampaging the bodies before death. But I am told, that it will not come near me. I will only see what is happening around me. And it will also be observable as the punishment of the wicked.

The next part is very encouraging, because I can assure you that if anyone dropped by my side, one or two, I would be panicking. A thousand, ten thousand, I would be running away.

The security is not for all, it is for those who make the Lord their dwelling. That means their life. They live in Him. Make sure you got the right one- even the Lord who is my refuge, he clarifies. Don't follow the wrong one, it will lead you down the wrong path, and leave you without protection. But if you get it right, no harm shall befall you. No disaster shall come near your tent. (That is usually when people do call upon God.)

Let me add, the word tent shook me. When I have a disaster coming upon me, I do not want to be in a tent, a mobil home, or a shack made of straw or wood. I am a brick home, castle sort of person. Although, I grant that a tent will not crush your skull or body if it falls on you-something we've seen on tv too many times in the last few years from earthquakes and other disasters. But in comparison, all shelters are frail compared to the safety of the Lord as our refuge.

Speaking of those words, refuge and shelter provide comfort from cold and rain, haste of the world. A fortress on the other hand, is stronger, more stable to provide added safety while being attacked. Shields and ramparts as well are not just being wrapped up in a blanket safe from others. They entail warfare and engaging my enemy. Remember Lord of the Rings, the Two Towers-the villagers escaped to their mountain fortress to face their opponents there. However the opponents did not run away merely because the others hid. They still attacked.

The reason you are safe is that God has given specific instructions for angels to watch over you-in all your ways not just sometimes. They will hold you in their hands (firmly) lifted up so that you cannot hurt your foot even if you are clumsy while hiking. If you aren't paying attention, they still are. I point out it is important to abide in Him, as if you aren't dwelling in Him, if you're ignoring Him and taking Him for granted, your toes might get scraped up. The pain gets your attention real fast. Now I am comfortable with being lifted up into the air. It removes me from hazards. But see, I'd stop there.

You will tread upon the lion and the cobra. I think not. My feet are up in the air. But, after being protected we have to go back to fighting the battles we are called to engage in. With the angels help, I'll be able to step on these threats. Large and obvious-a lion. Even if it stalks for awhile, it is very visible. A cobra might be in the grass or sand. Snakes are in trees, under rocks, etc. -hidden and not so obvious until too late. I wouldn't take them on unless I was going to have serious help.

Now my first thought about the lion was, what size? The next part increases the risk. The great lion, the daddy not a baby. Serpent I thought just left it to any kind of snake. But the devil was called the serpent some places. And so much larger threats will not only be given me but I can trample on them. Wow. Why?

"Because he loves me," says the Lord, "I will rescue him." The Almighty hears from every created being whenever they are in trouble, but scarcely hears anything from most when things are going great. Not thanks for the food, not hey, that's a great cave, not wow that mate looks awesome. So He appreciates the person who truly loves Him and takes the time to show it.

Next is a progression of words. loves-rescue, protect-acknowledges. He will call and I will answer. (Lots call who don't get answered.) I will be with him in trouble. It's not a remote controlled, far away thing. He'll be right there with you in the middle of whatever you are facing (which is only what He has allowed anyway.) He will deliver and honor-no lectures about getting into trouble, necessarily. If you are worthy of His time, it is because He cares. (We aren't talking about those who did get themselves into trouble by living for themselves, who do occasionally get rescued but that is the beginning of the relationship. We are talking about His faithful servants, though they are still imperfect and need help from time to time too.

How is He going to honor this person? He already has by going to so much trouble. But it says, in addition, or in consequence of being rescued repeatedly, with long life will I satisfy him and show him my salvation. Salvation of small deliverances again and again, and more importantly salvation of soul and eternal life.

Lord, I ask you to help all of us walk with you so that we choose to dwell in you. Not only would we appreciate all the comforts of those deliverances, but we also desire to have such an intimate relationship with you who are so loving and gracious, unworthy though we are. Thank you that you offer it, and I am not foolish enough to turn the opportunity down. For those who do not have a relationship with you, I ask that you would lead them to you that they would know and experience how truly merciful and gracious you are.

Btw, the devil quoted part of this Psalm to Jesus. He will give his angels charge over thee to guard thee in all thy ways (KJV) -won't stubb foot against a stone, etc. It was part of his tempting of Jesus. Seems rather foolish, as the next couple of verses mentions how with the angels' help, the person of faith will trample the serpent. But Satan must not have remembered that part!

Why?

Christmastime this year brings up the similarities of what the Koran and the Bible both state about Jesus. I reviewed this in part to be careful of what I could legitimately get away with sharing with my granddaughter Nora. They both mention a virgin birth. That God has provided Jesus as a gift to mankind. That the holy spirit (Holy Spirit) taught and guided Him. They both call Him the Word.

Nora is very fixed upon the fact that Muslims do not celebrate Christmas. In one very brief conversation at a mall while they were playing Carols, I explained it was just Jesus' birthday. (I say "just" because I was trying to say, it's nothing mysterious or strange.) She understands the idea of birthdays. And while it probably is not the actual anniversary of His birth, it is a celebration of the event. Her reply was, "oh, it's just his birthday?" Yes, I replied, and she was satisfied. It was a very short discussion, about three sentences altogether.

The Koran of course, claims Jesus was only a man. A prophet, sinless, who was able to do miracles, but no more. The question of why comes to me. Why would God take the time, and trouble to do a miracle so profound as a virgin birth for someone who was just going to be a prophet? Moses, Elijah, and others were able to accomplish a lot without that. Elijah raised the dead. Mo separated the sea. However they did not require special parenting if God was behind their missions.

Daniel entered the lions den and came out safely. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went into a fiery furnace, and came out without any burns. They all had regular parents. The Koran doesn't even list Jesus as the top prophet. Mohammed is way more important in what he accomplished, according to it. (All the times it says no one can intercede for another, etc. is to answer claims from Christians that He is their intercessor.To put them in their place, and remove claims it doesn't recognize.)

Of course, Christians marvel at Jesus' birth, as the time when part of the eternal deity deigned to come down to earth to live as a man. The Eternal Word that is the expression of the Father. (Just as Muslim's believe that the Word is infinite and separate from Allah. But then they mix it all up in some hodgepodge of the Mother of the Book, which I don't really want to get into.) Anyway, Emmanuel-that is, God with us, who was already pre-existant from before the creation of the world, mysteriously was knitted together in the womb of Mary into an embryo so that he fully became incarnate. Not just taking the form of a man for a temporary appearance.

How can that be? I do not know. How can God make any baby? How could He have made a world, a solar system, a universe? And could not a God who could create universes be able to figure out these things?

And more importantly, why would He do this? Jesus claimed in the gospels, that He came so that we could know the Father. He loved us enough to sacrifice Himself for us. Both of them loved us beyond our comprehension. So at Christmas we marvel at the babe in the manger, God's richest gift to mankind. As the angels told the shepherds,
"for unto you is born this day, ...a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Something funny

All who have lived in or visited Muslim countries are aware of the fact that like it or not, they will be awakened by someone singing to tell them to get up and go worship. It is not just a few seconds, it continues for long enough to interrupt one's sleep. They tell you God is great. That He is worthy of praise and that it is more important to come pray than to sleep. The other prayers during the day also instruct in the need to pray. If one doesn't already have that on his agenda, the guilt of hearing this and disregarding it probably has some effect.

The neighborhood in which I visited had an old man, devout I am sure, but one who could not sing on key. I had actually looked forward to hearing the calls to prayer, as I thought it might be a spiritual experience of beauty. Even disagreeing with whom one prayed to, or what name, I found it honorable to mention the importance of keeping one's priorities straight. Several times throughout the day, one was forced to listen to his moaning. Five times, every day, not just when you were awake, but while sleeping or trying to go to sleep. And this is forced on all in the society, of every Muslim society.

So, in merry old England, some immigrant who is living on the fruits of their culture, sued because once a week he was forced to listen to bells. Not words proclaiming the suprimacy of Christ, or of witness to His suffering and death for all, or the need to repent or come to know Him, but mere bells to announce that church was open. He sued for the noise interfering with his peace. And he won!

Why I was frustrated

On my facebook account I had responded to several posts by my daughter and others. I had ignored some for a while, but it just seemed like me allowing them to proselize and at the least seek sympathy, thus shutting up anyone who complained. My responses were, I believe civil, but truthful.

For this, my eldest and my father sent me messages that all this hateful stuff should cease and desist. My gosh, if they thought that were hateful, they would fall apart reading this blog. In my defense, I believe that those two, who have little regard for religion of any sort, would object to anyone bringing up religion and causing controversy.

Instead, we are all to get along, speaking only of the weather, sports or travel. Politics is tolerated, as long as folks agree, mostly. However, my dad is not known for being short in expressing his opinion even if it makes someone in his presence, or listening uncomfortable. But that is because what he has to say is of importance. What I believe or what Muslims believe is not.

I suppose we are supposed to leave them in ignorance, until they die and go to hell if we are right, not worrying about the consequences. Dad has always objected to my mother or others witnessing to him so that he might get saved. He feels rejected by being singled out as different.

Of course, given his life's exposure to a variety of religions, one cannot fault him completely on this. He's had Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons in the family as well as Baptists, Jews and Muslims. I believe the only ones who did not try to convert him were the Jews. He has shown a worthy regard for others' beliefs, in that he was willing to wear a skull cap when he went into a synagogue for weddings, bar and bat mitzvahs. He is the perfect example of political correctness in this. My son emulates him. Mostly a good thing.

The problem in our society, in western society in general, is that there are limits to how far this can be stretched. For someone who just wants to be left alone to practice his own religion, those policies are a godsend. Jews and atheists have been left alone, by and large to not suffer severe persecution. Homosexuals, and others have been allowed to live their lifestyles. After all, one cannot force someone to be born again.

However, Muslims have not shown similar tolerance when they were in control. In Egypt a woman is fighting to have her name established as a Christian, because at one point her father was listed as a Muslim-temporarily in order to win in a divorce argument. Her marriage to a Christian man will be disallowed, if the court decides she is a Muslim. She was raised Christian, believes as a Christian, but the court can decide how she may live.

In Florida a girl ran away in order to avoid her own honor killing. She cried in the video trying to express that if her father doesn't kill her, it would be an admission that he doesn't love Allah enough to do so. Again, a court will decide against the person's will what will become of her.

In other countries, entire villages are pillaged. One news report found on Townhall told of a family of eight burned to death, with the admission that many others in the village were killed, but they'd have to wait for the clearing of the destruction of other homes, to know how many others also died. These also were not allowed to be protected, while the police looked on and did nothing. (That is only the news that I accidentally encountered in the last week or so.)

It is encumbent upon us to mention this is what jihad means, what is required, and what is planned for us. At the very least is djimmitude. And all the political correctness, gentleness of spirit, and tolerance will not protect us from what they would do to us. Our only answer, our only hope, is truth. Speaking the truth is not evil. It is not unkind. In fact, it is loving to dare to upset someone, to rock their boat until they face reality. I, for one, will have nothing to apologize for. I will not have to look my family in the eyes, acknowledging that yes, I knew what the plan was but said nothing.

About my frustration

The Israeli-Palestinian thing was several months ago, so that was not about it. Of course, there will always be new updates surrounding those issues. But this is more generic. This is about selective editing, about me-only thinking.Or maybe it is concern that we don't do it as well as your side.

We fall victim to guilt about how unfairly you have been treated. While huge injustices worthy of world court rulings are completely ignored. Occasionally I see coverage about the Congo, of course about Iran recently, or the church in Lebanon, that I do not usually seek out.

I do not get a daily paper. Nor do I even search for it on the internet. I have a news overload that has wearied me. Best to ignore reality in order to get along. But open the paper I do, to read various news sources on the net. Not because I am searching for ammunition to hit someone with, but just to know what is going on.

I continue to find things in Africa, Middle East, wherever that burdens me. And I don't even go to Voice of the Martyrs website most of the time (rarely), wherein I could feed a thirst for stories about how Christians are persecuted all over the world-by communists, muslims, atheists, whatever and wherever. I do not seek out Christian legal sites that tell about how oppressed we are by various American governments, school districts, or whatever who have tried to shut down free speech. (And ask for donations.)

Really, I have not looked for problems. Kids kicked out of schools, jobs lost. I could work myself up to a frenzy. Which is kind of what I feel your networks do. At least some of your websites, and some of your blogs, facebook walls, and wherever you can send videos of how mistreated you are.

Yet if I post a response, I, and I alone am labelled hateful. The selfserving pityparty which is very misleading and anti-western, anti-Christian, against any one who dares oppose you, is of course only the complaints of the faithful victims. This is no-win, submit thinking that I have mentioned before.

Guess I could give in and shut up, just for the peace of mind. But the failure of having a reasonable argument proves to me the weakness of your positions. And I feel I must continue, if only to defend those who were burnt to death for their refusal to give in.

While I do not accuse any particular person of being so violent that they would approve of burning opponents, and do not wish to malign all for the sake of a few--still, it is the same old thing that has happened consistently wherever the Koran went. For those in Muslim lands, I do not condemn you for not questioning.

I cannot read your minds. It may not be safe for you to do so. But for the others, and for you too, please, please, please-if you truly value non-discrimination, let it start with you. And considering the cost of submission, stop complaining when I do what you cannot.

your hypocrisy

If you will recall, early on I said that I did not desire to discuss politics, as this might be controversial enough as it is. However I must break my rule a bit here. Again I do not desire to insult, but offend I will. Some things are necessary to be said.

A few weeks ago, my daughter tried to force a video on me that would proclaim the great innocense and injustice against the Palestinians. Then a few days after that she tried to tell me that the reason sharia was so wonderful is that it is a society looking out for all, even if they do not have the wisdom to appreciate it. These issues must be addressed. or you might believe that we do not care about injustice, that we only favor our friends-with total disregard for righteousness. Or for our side, because we just embrace our own, prejudiced against those who are different.

At the time Hamas had been bombing Israel for months, causing great distress, killing women and children, old and young who happened to be on a bus, at a market, in a school. None of this was ever treated with repentance, or even regret in your countries. I seriously doubt that your media played and replayed ad nausea the cries of a child for its mother, the moaning of the injured, or the pictures of those mildly in shock. (As they do to hype up emotions whenever the bombed return the favor.) Instead this is dealt with in a matter of fact presentation-"of course we oppose the enemy. Accidents happen, and even planned attacks are necessary."

Those accomplishing the tasks are heroes whether suicide bombers or those who bravely send up mortars and go hide in their homes surrounded by their children, or lodged in a mosque amongst the faithful. The moral dilemma you leave to your enemies of how to strike back when they do not desire to kill innocent worshippers, much less infants, is another weapon in your arsenal. But of course, that's okay as long as you believe that you deserve to win.

Any state has the right to defend itself. We were supposed to cry for the innocents you chose to hide amongst. We may be sad for them, but not to the point we're willing to reward you for your ruthless and callous behavior. We will not reject our friends to give you our support. You do not want war? Do not attack. You want to protect your children, hide them away from your rockets and do not go home after the attacks. Being a soldier has always had its requisite forms of identification. Uniforms and barracks being part of that. It distinguishes those who are willingly taking a part in the battle from those who are not.

At the time of dealing with this, the Sudan was back in the news. And I was rereading The History of Islam, Part II. As brutally as Islam was forced on the world, and continues to be even to this day-with no complaints from the "moderates" who believe Islam is a religion of peace, let me boldly state that I will never feel sad about those who fight it using whatever steps are necessary to win. Islam has no basis for asking for mercy when they are opposed, when they show none when they win. (And when the Koran ordains such behavior. )

As for sharia, indubitably it has its benefits as all efforts at social control do to establish social order. We also have our laws, mores, folkways, customs, and so on which add to ours. (If only the courts would leave them alone, we'd have a better social order.)

First of all, sharia doesn't protect all in its society. It leaves any who might disagree victims to be killed, brutalized in slavery, prostitution, left in dire poverty having lost homes and goods that would have provided for them. Instead those are given to the monsters who steal rather than work, capture rather than woo, in short those who cannot make it on their own without violence.

Yet you tell me of the injustice and evil of my society because it just wants to degrade your women. By letting them expose their arms or faces, or make their own decisions about whom to love, we are corrupting them? Somehow societies who approve of the methods in the Koran for subjugating others do not get to claim innocence and victimhood for their women. It is downright hypocritical. And I might add, neither do they get to act as if men who do these things are holy! (Remember, the teaching of Jesus-the man who lusts in his heart is guilty, not the woman who was seen.)

And about the superiority of sharia because it protects those too foolish to understand their need for protection-for those who make foolish choices? My daughter, I am astounded at your complete idiocy. Had I accepted the premises of sharia, that it is the family's right to protect their honor, I would have at the minimum taken your car the first summer you met your mate. When you let us know of your relationship with him, we would have shut you away from him. When you announced you'd married, we could have killed him. When you announced you'd converted to Islam, we would have killed you.

Yet you live, and we have loved and accepted him. Not because we held no shame, nor because we had no wounds. But because faith must be held by choice, not force. We give you life, because it is the Lord's right to withhold it, not ours. We pray and believe, that while you live, you still have the opportunity to think and change. We believe in Jesus and trust that one day you will too, along with your husband and children.

Afterthoughts
You will object that you were right in your choices, and that we just do not understand. Sharia is not about understanding. Nor is it about being right. It is about outnumbering your opponent and forcing your opinions on them. It is about as fair as our Salem witch trials of long ago. Even if they were innocent, an oops doesn't help. Someone who was not having an affair is just as dead as one who did.(And btw, what about the Koran's offer to just let someone swear four times that they did nothing? Doesn't seem that your law is even following the Koran on that point.)

The priests who fed the pilgrims coming into Mecca and watered the animals exhausted from the desert may have been completely righteous in their acts of faith, but the murderers who raided caravans motivated from greed and called it Islam still won the first round. By sheer numbers and force, they were able to eliminate their opposition. They just didn't get to find out who was right until after they died.

Relationship

The term religion is usually meant to define a system of beliefs and actions with which men seek to find meaning in life. Or try to find some way to prove themselves worthy of the Almighty's attention. Sociologists emphasize the need of men to try to attribute meaning, when of course there is none. So they declare all systems equal. None of greater truth because their truth is there is no truth.

Even amongst religions, usually they are systems of trying to reach a level of spirituality whether to please a personal deity, or attain some level of purity. But it depends upon the person being good enough, reaching across the infinite chasm that separates us from genuine contact.

Unfortunately, none are good enough. Some are much better than others. But facing a chasm, when you try to jump across it, would you rather fall five feet from the edge you stepped off of, or would you feel much better having enough momentum to get half way across before you fell? As long as you are not going to make it, does it make a difference?

You say, I am better than that other fellow. I exercized, worked on my routine, see how much further I got than he! True, but we are both going down to our deaths, having both failed. I would rather be lame and stumble across a bridge. My pride does not demand that I take credit for something beyond my power to accomplish.

I do not have the knowledge, technology, or resources to build the road over the gorge. I do not need to thankfully. A generous patron has provided the path I so desperately needed. And I am not foolish enough to refuse to cross over, until I can build it myself!

You see Christianity is not a system of rules, or even beliefs that if I work hard enough at, I will cross over. I might get halfway compared to someone else's third, but efforts won't take me across. Only the sure hands of the Lord Jesus, the person, can take me there. Only knowing Him, not beliefs but a relationship will do. He said only those who knew Him could know the Father also. He, being God, came down to be the bridge to bring me across. When I hear this, and give up my struggling to jump, then I can find the only way to get across at all-not to mention safely.

At some point the teachings of Jesus and His apostles lead me to a system of knowing His ways, of assuring my faith is based on accurate information. But if I do not have a personal relationship, friendship, enduring encounters with Him, I will never be able to please the Almighty.

Apology

I realize this is a little late. Okay, a lot late, but I seriously need to correct some of my words. They have been extreme because the comparison to the behavior of Jesus is also extreme. Neither He nor his disciples ever raided caravans for money. He pulled a gold coin out of a fish, and a couple of times He took a few fish and loaves of bread to feed the people with him (multitudes-thousands).

At other times, they relied on the donations of their followers, staying at their homes as they traveled through various areas. Neither did they assault their enemies-by war, though the disciples and the peoples would have been happy to stand up to the Romans! With Jesus' ability to do miracles, that would have been one useful way to deliver them. In fact, they were expecting that the Messiah would do that for them. So understandably for me, a man or group who claim to represent God would not do otherwise.

However, making my comments was only after reading the Koran. A majority of my study in the last thirty years has been reading and rereading of the New Testament. Mostly the letters of Paul, John, and Peter, with occasional visits to the gospels. Oh, the Psalms and Proverbs too. But after immersing myself in the Koran, in its entirety twice, I was challenged to renew my knowledge of the complete Bible. So far I have read from Genesis to Second Chronicles, which covers from the creation of the world through Abraham, Moses, and David down through to the removal of the tribes to Babylon or Assyria. With some other trips to the Psalms and Proverbs, and asides to Luke, and the letters as needed. I had previously read the Bible twice in its entirety, but it had been at least three decades since I'd done it.

On doing so, I was struck by some of the behaviors that had appalled me in the Koran. And it wasn't only done by the enemies of Israel. Now I knew that when God told them to go in and take the land, they were occasionally instructed to kill all the people, including women and children, even livestock. I rationalized, well that was a special situation. It's different when God tells you to do it, to erase the evil of a people. (And I believed it when it said God told them, but not when Mohammed said Allah told him. For one thing, Allah did not rebuke him enough, as He did Moses and David.) Later, even David and Solomon wipe people out. They take captives, and have a forced labor of other peoples they've conquered to help with the building of palaces, etc. They have many wives and concubines.

Understand the Bible being a book of truth, not all that is done is approved of, but it does not hide the blemishes, sins and failures of even its main characters-its heroes. Usually they are chastised for those flaws, and punished. So in my self-righteousness, I could still maintain those standards. Jesus is the one we compare ourselves with, and to Him we all fail. But it would be vastly unfair to say David, as the Lord said of him, was a man after God's own heart, and claim what David did was fine, while what Mohammed did, if it was the same was evil.

I do believe much of what Mo did was wrong, but then again quite a bit of what Solomon did was too. Even David failed. But some of what they did, God approved of, I do not know why. And it would be unfair to lay the accusations I have against your side, and not acknowledge the same from those I applaud. Apparently God looks at the hearts of men, not only their actions, but their reactions, their repentance, the humility with which they try to walk before the Almighty, and their deeds when they try to serve others. And does not consider repentance to be hypocrisy.

I am not saying that I do not still find the comments about Jesus in the Koran to be maligning of His majesty, and at the very least misunderstanding of His identity, His teachings, and so on. Or that I accept its view of who has the right religion. But I do note that God apparently, for some period of time, and I do not know when it was acceptable, allowed those behaviors for the survival of tribes, and for the elimination of others. So my labelling your heroes as murderers, thieves, rapists, and slavers has to be duly modified. I merely say I do not feel those activities to be acceptable for godly men, for examples to others. But my knowledge is limited. And I will leave them to be examined before the Lord, not before me. Please receive this as an apology for having offended you, weak though it is.

Not apart from your culture

I was suddenly struck by the need to address the accusation that we want to change you, that we'll never be satisfied until you are as we. And I realized that the reverse was at least as true. Because it is disingeneous to proport that Muslim countries had never been Christianized. From your earliest histories there were Jewish and Christian tribes and presence within your lands. Because your own people accepted and believed them. This is so important, because it is not merely us trying to force some westernized religion on you.

The sources of our religion is Semetic, not western, Roman, or Greek. Yes, they were transmitted to those locations who embraced them-eventually. They, as you no doubt recall, had their own idols- if you refer back to their mythologies. The language was recorded in Aramaic, and spread during the Pax Romana. But it was Hebrew prophecy, Hebrew culture that was fulfilled. It was from the Middle East that the message came to evangelize us!
It was in Antioch that we were first called Christians. The Bible stories take place throughout Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. From the first days when the apostles started out to share the story of Jesus, men from North Africa, Arabia, and beyond were there. And the church under persecution escaped to disperse throughout your world.

This far before Constantine forced it. Because he only put a stamp on what was already happening: acknowledging that the persecution of Christians had had a reverse effect. Torture and martyrdom had proven the worth of the believers and drawn others to it. In fact, his approval probably corrupted the influence more than it helped.
Even so, wherever Rome was, the Christian church was established. The area of Tangier was part of one diocese, mixed with the church in Spain some of the time. But attendance was voluntary, at least mostly. Look throughout North Africa, and you will find ruins of monasteries, churches, tombs of great Church fathers. Not products of our cultures, but of yours. Augustine. John of Damascus. There are many more, but unless you've read church history their names would mean nothing to you, so I won't waste time on research to appear more scholarly.

The book of North African history by Barnaby Rogerson records them, though as a Muslim, he discounts their efforts. But in accuracy he is forced to report they were present. You've only to read the Book of Acts (right after the gospels in the New Testament part of the Bible) to find the testimony of the work throughout the Middle East.

Volubulis has records of Christians living there, as I am sure every Roman colony throught all your lands does. Meknes had many slaves, Christians who were taken who chose to be enslaved or die rather than convert, who helped build the city and then were martyred. The Amezig village I visited had people who came, not merely finding a nice place by a waterfall, but where you had to climb to to even find them.

Making it difficult to reach seemed to be a characteristic of the Berbers who just wanted to be left alone, safe to carry on their own cultures. This had enabled them to survive the Phoenicians, the Romans, and all those who chose to try to colonize since then. If my memory is right, I believe they came right about the time of Moulay Ismail.

You recall what I think of his tolerance of those who believed differently than him! But even if it was at a different time, it is true that throughout Arab cultures, many people either settled in difficult to reach areas or became nomads. I will grant some of this may have been caused by geography-such as the desert or mountainous regions. But other continents have mountains and deserts who have not had to adjust as you have. We do not have windows in the inside of our homes where no one can see in, nor doors that obscure which family lives there. By and large we have allowed differences in communities-although with the pogroms we are not free of charges of persecution either. And, to be fair, there have been times when your cultures were more tolerant than ours.

I address this, not in accusation-of your culture is worse than mine so therefore mine is okay. Not at all. All cultures, as all people, have failures and weaknesses. Mine certainly is full of its share. But your countries have had a history of those proud enough of their Lord to not deny Him. The Church of the Martyrs in Marrakech is one such example. Others were perhaps wise enough to work under cover in order to continue under persecution.
If you read the History of Islam, vol II. which I advise even if you have to special order it, you will find just to what extent Islam was spread by killing or oppressing the native peoples of their lands. Oddly, the author denies it, usually right after he has praised some king, sheikh, or caliph of being rightly guided, cleansing his land of infidels, or of their influence. But he does record it. He also reveals the completely audacious way in which brothers, sons, and uncles murdered their ways into power.

Sometimes the replacements lasted only a year before another brother or son would kill them and keep on going. And whenever the native populations would become strong enough to overcome them, the Muslims would send off for other believers from abroad to come suppress them. He would praise the ones who extended their borders and bemoan those who lost land for Islam. As if to say, it is completely fair for us to do whatever it takes, but it is sad, tragic, for us to lose lands that we had once owned. Need I mention the utter hypocrisy of holding those positions while bemoaning "colonialism" of Europeans? He did not mourn the loss of lands of Christians throughout the Middle East at the coming of Islam. Or in any other place or time either.

I will add, we have had our history of those who tricked their way into power, as well. However their families usually stood by them for a few years, five ten or twenty before they got around to trying anything. And these usurpations were not continuous. Or rampant.

Closer to home perhaps, many of your lands have been colonized by European powers during the last couple of centuries. Some of your ancestors worked with the Christians, going to their schools, listening to their messages, and believing. But, as has often been the case in your lands, they were persecuted by their families for their own hard fought, heart chosen beliefs.

As one woman once told me, "we remember. We know who was there, who was part of it." And though their families removed them from the influence of those foreigners, perhaps sending them away to other cities to distance them, or marrying them off safely to a Muslim believer, the Lord knows who they are. And He knows what they have suffered, and the pressures they've withstood. And He loves them. He will always be there for them, though they cannot go out to church, to visit publicly with others who love Him. He will never forsake or forget them. But you should not forget their courage-for this is part of your heritage. Not mine.

This woman and many others have made their way into western lands. As such they have been free to speak. I have several books, and have seen many others who give testimony of the lack of freedom of Christian converts. Some have been killed, or left for dead. Others have been disowned, and separated from their families. Many others are left over there without freedom to move or worship, and must live a lie. The Lord still loves them, for He cannot deny Himself.

What Muslims Teach Us

I cannot begin to explain how deeply I've been touched by many of the Muslims I've met. Some of this I know is only a result of seeing persons from outside of my culture. I've encountered this with Mexicans and others from Latin America. There is sometimes a purity, a lack of pretension, that either poverty or a lack of living amongst our hardened, secular, and pagan culture has produced. These pople are mostly Christian, so it cannot merely be Islam. Not that all have this simplicity of heart. Certainly not, I have also met with prejudice, deceit, and the awareness of a criminal element replete with gangs and drugs.

And just as these, the Muslims have devout and corrupt. I've read of some practices in Saudi, and other countries where lying and deception are considered wise. Fortunately, I've only met those who appear kind, gracious, and sincerely seeking God.
I am challenged to put aside, as our Scripture so beautifully states, all the sins that so easily entangle us, and run with patience the race that is set before us. To not let my own or my culture's pride make me arrogant, hollow, or insensitive. But to seek first the kingdom of heaven, and later all the physical things I might need. To entrust to the Lord my needs. To not merely think about what I want God to do, if I get around to asking, but to seek His face, and to ask for them. To dedicate myself anew to the spiritual fight. How can I say that I care when I do not set priorities in keeping them at the fore of my mind? Without this, we say we see and are rich, when in truth we are blind, poor, and do not know to discern otherwise. We may be saved, but we are no use to the Saviour.

To All

Though it may seem unfair that I not allow you to post your opinions here, it is not that I am disinterested in hearing those thoughts. It is simply that this is very long and intense. I do not desire to make it too difficult for someone to find the essence of my research, which has cost me dearly for the time and work required. If you have something you want to respond to, an answer to what I have said, if you send it, I will consider posting it. At the least, email me, and we can communicate that way.

On Arguing and Accuracy

Reading an article by J. I. Packer, a respected Christian theologian, about the Anglican community, I noticed a small paragraph amongst the many. Anglican theology, he said, was to be based on Scripture. Any doctrine held by the church not consistent with the Bible should be eliminated. Any in the Bible not included in their teachings should be added.

A few days later, I heard another preacher of a different denomination say, "If you ever hear me speak anything contrary to Scripture, please nail me on it." (I.E. point it out vigorously and don't let me off the hook/let it go.) This is the foundational belief system to which I was indoctrinated. Any church teachings not included at this level might be tolerated, but they must not be considered equal or worthy of such stringent standards.

These debates may be incisive, cutting to the heart of the matter (error, disagreement.) But they are not personal. Our egos should be set aside, as it should be the goals of both parties to achieve the truth-or at least aim for it. These may be lovingly respectfully argued.

Sometimes they may be argued more "macho-ly," with egos involved, and sometimes jesting or using ridicule to question the other. Even here, amongst friends, men know and understand each other. (I say men, as I really haven't overheard that many arguments among women over theology.)

Of course, the discussions can devolve into much worse. Which is why, in a country founded by Separatists and Pilgrims forced to a new world by intolerance of one group to another, it is considered polite within certain situations not to discuss religion or politics. This has unfortunately led us to a secular and shallow society where folks discuss trivial and vain issues instead. For lack of practice or relevance, some have ceased to consider the issues at all.

I mention this standard of accuracy over nicety, because I must continue to debate you. Questioning Islam and, yes, the Messenger. Unfortunately, I will cross lines of propriety, and rudeness, but hopefully I will do so with some civility.

ZAID'S PERSONAL ADS

LOOKING FOR A MATE?

Need a good woman
dowry unnecessary
must not be impressed
with power or position!

send details to cautious
___________________

Palm trees cut down recently?
Will sell at discount to those
who qualify

Call for Capt. Shirk
located near the
desert Arabs
____________________
HAMID'S DATES

looking for new workers
with both hands and feet
fingertips necessary

also positions available
to those missing body parts
easy work-sorting
free room & board

ask for Hamid's mother
(Hamid has been promoted
to a higher place)
____________________

QUICK QUIZ

Do you say that Abraham,
Ismail, Isaac, Jacob and
the tribes were Jews or
Christians?
Or would you call them
Muslims?

Call 2:140, ask for Mo

Be Who You Were Made to Be

Mohammed wrote that we would not be content until we made you just as ourselves, as if conforming to uniformity were the only thing we were about. Not so. Even among the believers in Jesus, there are differences. Some have certain gifts and abilities, others have others. We are to have unity in showing respect to one another, rather than disdain for being different and having other gifts, but we are not supposed to all be the same.

Our desire and commission is to be ambassadors for Christ, so that others may be reconciled to God (have their sins-which offend a righteous God, forgiven so that access to Him may be opened.) But we remain ourselves, only more so. We become through the process of being sanctified (made holy, and cleansed from all the garbage that degrades us) more who He created us to be.

If you are born in Mexico, you will still speak Spanish and like futbol. You do not have to learn to love American football. If you're born in the Middle East or North Africa, you will still be a person shaped by your culture. You'll still speak Arabic, and maybe French, and do not have to become westernized. Or can, as your life experience demands-such as living here and learning what is rude or acceptable behavior to us. The point is freedom to choose, as the Spirit leads.

I am a person shaped by the 50's and 60's culture. I love the America that used to be. (Not that I do not love my country now.) I grew up watching Leave It to Beaver, Yogi Bear, Bugs Bunny, Gunsmoke, and John Wayne. Those of us who did were shaped by it. Thus we are appalled by the changes in values, in the flagrant immorality, in the evil forced upon us in today's television shows and movies. But when we try to explain that it is indeed possible to have interesting dialogue without cussing, romance with tender kissing rather than simulated sex, our kids roll their eyes indicating how out of date we are. In fact, in some ways I feel closer to you, to your culture, than I do to the changed one in which I find myself.

Christian believers live in Asia, Europe, Africa, and all of the continents. Each place has shaped the persons there in culture and language. But we should be able to go to any country in the world and find unity with the believers there, though the hymns be different in language as well as type of music. In fact, it is good to experience the Bible translated into other languages because the wording sometimes gives fresh revelation of original intent.

Listening to songs with Hebrew music adds a flavor to it making westerners pause to realize that this is an oriental based religion. Sometimes we have misunderstood things taken literally or logically which should have been received poetically or symbolically. Listening to Spanish or French music lets us appreciate others' worship of the same God, with their own creativity. Or sometimes we hear the same music just translated into another language. Either way, it makes for a richer experience letting each group and person reflect who they are.

The point is to know and love the Father, and become the person He made you to be. Jesus said He was the Door. Anyone trying to come to the Father without going through Him was a thief and a robber. He who has the Son has life. If you have not the Son, you will not. And you must love the Son before the Father will love you and make you part of His family. (Well, He'll love you but you won't be able to receive it until you are willing to change your mind. God does not force Himself on people.) It is noted that He loved us before we first loved Him. The question is what will you do with the expression of His love, at an extreme cost to Himself?

What Does It Mean to Disrespect the Prophet?

If I speak of actions that are recorded in the Koran or the hadith-books that praise Mohammed, can it be considered slander? These are actions of which he was not ashamed, and which your books do not condemn. Slander by definition, means stating that which is untrue. (Or libel-writing of such.) I refer to what is recorded. Do you condemn the Koran for slandering the prophet? How about Abu Bakr or Aisha?
So I ask, is it true that Mohammed married his adopted son's wife? Yes. Is it true he married his cousins? If you believe the Koran's verses, yes-both on paternal and maternal sides. Is it true he married Aisha? Yes. And the hadith records the details. Is it true he took captives and made concubines of them, if not wives? Yes. Or that he recommended the capturing of women from the raids, and gave permission to his men for what "their right hands" and other body parts could do? Again yes.

If so, then the ones to question are those who partook of this behavior, not me. It is not evil, but righteous to defend the oppressed. The only way for evil to be good is if the deity were satanic. Either good is good, and the system not from god, or the god is the devil-as far as I can see. Doing evil in the name of a good god is not righteous. While it may be done by fanatical believers, it certainly should not be incorporated into a holy book whose author is from god, with the action endorsed by the scripture.
As for me, I do not draw conclusions about Mohammed. I was going to say make assumptions, but I do make a few. Since I believe Jesus to be the Son of God, I do assume Mo is wrong. Since he has many errors in his references to Biblical events, I note the inaccuracy and remember not to rely on mistaken history.

I ask the questions recorded in the Koran. Was this sheer forgery (and making up something) or is it spiritually influenced by ungodly influences (sorcery, etc.) The first time I read the Koran, I believed that Mohammed genuinely believed what he wrote. Noting his fear (listed in accounts from the hadith), I leaned towards the demonic influence position. This entails him being an unwitting and therefore innocent participant, though I did note many usages of Biblical terms and analogies.

Later I fluctuated into innocence leading to speaking out in faith, committing himself before the public. Once this had occurred and he (and others) had started profiting from the social movement, did he embellish to provide further leadership to keep it going? Perhaps he felt strong enough in assurance, to keep writing and working on his assignment without further "angelic" appearances. Perhaps it was pure fraud with someone intentionally deceiving a naive people. Don't criticize, the Koran asks these questions too.

It has been asked, "How can you love the Muslim people and be so strongly against their teachings?" A Moroccan proverb, if not misquoted answers this. "Believe the person who makes you cry, instead of the one who makes you laugh (or be happy.)" The one who speaks the truth, though harsh, cares for you more. "Speak truth one to another" and "owe no man anything except to love one another" are two Bible verses that may apply.
A point from the Koran further explains. God has put love in our hearts for you. (Sura 8:63, S. 5:85) Look, I do not claim to be saintly (innately) or to have a pure heart (without the work of God in it.) To hate or stereotype would be much easier, or just to not care and ignore social issues.

Several precepts from the Bible answer the question.
1) We love because He first loved us.
2) He who says he loves God, whom he has not seen and loves not his brother whom he has seen, is a liar.
3) The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts.
4) We are to be ambassadors for Christ, begging you (and every person) to be reconciled to Christ (whether Jewish, Muslim, or from any place in "Christendom" or anywhere else.)
Not to mention, "the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, self-control..." or the entire chapter describing love in First Corinthians chapter thirteen also instructs us. So I really have no right to choose otherwise. If you catch me on a bad day, please try to be forgiving. I do try, but I am as human as the next.
However, in all honesty, I cannot say it has been difficult (once I got past the politics.) Those Muslims I have met have been kind and gracious, humble, lovers of God, of truth and mercy. Or desirous enough of being so that they trained themselves to act it. How can I not love them?

Disagreeing pains me. Perhaps you could understand if while reading the Koran, you reversed every line to praise Christians and denounce Muslims. Then you would notice the number of times the Koran refers to the faith of others. You will see how they might perceive the comments as hate filled. After that, you would not object to the comments of others as they discuss Islam if you remember even your own holy book insults them.

We have a saying, "turnabout is fair play." It means if one side does something, it is fair for the other to do so too. It is unfair for you to denounce Jesus and disallow us to question Mohammed. Let the lives of both be open for study. Scaring people into silence is intellectually dishonest.
One last point. You have sent your sons and daughters into the western world, not just to get an education or make a new life where better economies rule. You desire to spread Islam. Fear tactics that work to isolate dissent in your cultures may not work in ours. Even if some can be intimidated into shutting up-either in fear of explosions or out of an overzealous commitment to multiculturalism, the rest of us are used to the right to think for ourselves.

Free press, free thought, the right to dissent are powerful beliefs and rights in our societies. If you cannot stand, if your belief system cannot withstand the onslaught of questioning, then shouldn't you reconsider your faith in it, rather than screaming and threatening? Cartoons, blogs, and Michael Savage should be an opportunity for you to show your strength rather than weakness. Threatening to kill Salmon Rushdie and others, or trying to drive people off the air discredits you in our eyes.

On typing and spelling

Originally, I've typed these in Word, and retyped them here. I've checked most every paragraph as I type it, and after as I scan over or reread it. I try to correct every mistake. And after that, I reread as I preview. I am not sure what happens, if I find another mistake while previewing if it goes back to the original draft. If so I miss errors that I've previously corrected. And when I've gone back to correct other errors, I've gotten posts out of order. At this point, though I know of several mistakes that have gotten through, I am choosing not to re-edit the posts for October. Please forgive me, and know that it is as distracting to me to see mispellings, typing errors, and so on as it is to you. I will however, try to be more thorough in the future.

Whistling and snapping fingers

The Koran mentions that the worship of the Unbelievers is mere whistling and snapping of fingers, or something like that. I realize that is supposed to be insulting. I suppose a Muslim would assume it meant that it was empty, or shallow, frivolous instead of serious. But the truth is, if it is an accurate report of what Mohammed saw or knew of, then he did indeed see righteous worship.
We are told to use drums, cymbals, shout as well as sing, and to make a joyful noise to the Lord. We are told to dance before Him, to lift our hands to the Lord. So snapping your fingers and whistling when no musical instruments are around, or even if they were, would be well within our instructions of how to rejoice in the Lord. For the Bible declares the Joy of the Lord is our Strength!

We are to sing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs, and even make up new ones. We rejoice over what He has done for us, and our actions are in liberty and rest. Not in trying to use the severity of prostrating ourselves, up and down, trying to earn His love. That came out harsh.
We do occasionally prostrate ourselves. Sometimes after the loving worship, we settle into a serious (calm) resting in His presence. We may be thanking Him for His mercy, His graciousness, and just appreciating His holiness and majesty. Or we might become convicted of some sin, failure or weakness of our own, or of others that we cry out for.
We sink to our knees, or lay on the ground, in humility. These are holy times, sincere and therefore powerful. We do not abase ourselves in kneeling or prostration out of habit, if our hearts do not lead us there first. And this may be done individually, while others only kneel or pray quietly. Of course, how often this is done depends on the church and group one is with, so as not to disturb or offend.

Perhaps Mohammed observed Christians worshipping. To someone not understanding our relationship, of being able to call Him Father- or as the Bible puts it, Abba Father-the equivalent of Daddy, it might seem indeed presumptious to try to come to the Lord singing and dancing. To a foreigner who comes before some prince, they come in prostrating themselves, doing obeisance to show submission, especially if they want a favorable audience. This is indeed proper between strangers or others non-family. But to those given intimate permission, it would be rude. Parents want kisses to show affection, not kowtowing.

Mohammed instituted proper ways (for his followers) to worship, no-to pray. It reflects what was proper within his heart. But, as King David in the Bible who danced before the Lord, we have the freedom to do otherwise. The Psalms, many of which he wrote, are songs. Some are for group worship and therefore contain instruction for the congregation on which behaviors enhance our adoration before our Lord. Whistling and snapping fingers would be welcomed, assuming they still had their fingertips left to do so.

C.S. Lewis

Lewis was an English intellectual who answered the skeptics of his day. Their denial of Jesus' divinity was plagued with assertions to soften the insult-"but of course we consider him a good man, a fine example. No hard feelings, old chap." He replied by saying in effect, "go back, look at His claims: Not just his miracles, nor His teachings to forgive one's enemies. Yes, most would appreciate those."
So he pointed out Jesus claimed to be God, and used the term Son of God to describe Himself. Jesus said no one comes to the Father but by me. Lewis explained anyone doing this could be one of three things: liar, lunatic, or what he really claimed to be.
Anyone who claimed he could forgive sins and was God, could not be merely a good man. If he was sane, he would be either lying or telling the truth. Goodness would preclude lying. And his examples and teachings are overflowing with goodness.

If he believed these claims and was mere man, then he was insane. Following such a person would be folly, not noble. But the very fact of the miracles, as well as the sanity of the teachings, not only preclude the question of lunacy, but strongly emphasize the power of the living God behind him. Would God enable not only false, or heretical teachings, but actual blasphemy? Again the answer is no. So, if he was not insane, nor a liar, then he could not be mere man. Thus, as hard as it might be to fathom, the only conclusion one can come to is that He was in fact the very Son of God, worthy to be worshipped and served.
This was not a position Lewis wanted to come to. He did not start in faith, trying to prove his reasonings. Rather, he was forced into believe by this.
For Lewis' fans, forgive me if I do not do justice to him. I have to spend so much space on quotes of the Bible and Koran to supplement the sources lacked by one side or the other, I do not have time to quote him. But let me acknowledge that besides the apologetics from Mere Christianity, he wrote many other great pieces of literature.

Koranic responses to Islam

I've invented a word I've never heard, but that could just be the circles I run in. Koranic, or Koranical in contrast to Biblical. There are four K. responses those known as Christians give in response to Mo.
Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and then prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right; and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: they are in the ranks of the righteous. S.3:113-114.
Sura 5:86 And when they listen to the revelation received by the Apostle thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth. They pray: "Lord! We believe: write us down among the witnessess." Now assuming that they aren't grieving for having to deny Jesus, and their tears are of joy, these have denied the Bible, and the Savior, and are not Christian. God may choose to forgive them, and not send them to hell, but this is not a Biblical response. This is the first way.

The second is resistance. The Koran is full of many vivid descriptions. This displays itself in three main ways: Jesting-whether forming jokes, or to the extent of ridicule, Anger-whether it is the look on our faces, or downright hatred and rage, and Opposition-active work to withstand the teachings. When I was looking at another jest, and wondering whether it was a fleshly response, the Lord showed me this was one of the proper responses of a believer (Christian). Just as I was inmeshed in the message of the Koran, in reading the whole thing twice, my brethren had to tolerate this as they walked down their streets, and went about their work. Though they may have been gracious to start with, they had to deal with the constant insults to their Saviour, the blasphemies against Him as well as to their brethren, not to mention the threats. One must respond to the threat of their time, speaking out-or we will be responsible for the others. Please indulge me in remembering their works, before we discuss the other two chioices.
But my call only increases (their) flight (from the Right). And every time I have called to them, that Thou mightest forgive them, they have (only) thrust their fingers into their ears, covered themselves up with their garments, grown obstinate, and given themselves up to arrogance. Sura 71:6-7. attributed to Noah.
Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport...When ye proclaim your call to prayer, they take it (but) as mockery and sport.... S5:60-61
The revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. S.5:67, also v.71.
When it is said to them: Come to what Allah hath revealed, and to the Apostle: thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust. S.4:61
When our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, thou wilt notice a denial on the faces of the Unblievers! They nearly attack with violence those who rehearse Our Signs to them....S.22:72
When they see thee, they treat thee in no other wise than in mockery...S.25:41
Seest thou not that We have set the Evil Ones on against the Unbelielvers to incite them with fury? S.19:83.
And when came to them an Apostle from Allah, confirming what was with them, a party of the of the People of the Book threw away the Book of Allah behind their backs, as if (it had been something) they did not know! S.2:101
Since other behaviors have already been discussed in earlier posts, I won't go into building fake mosques, and hiding gold.

The third response is to love their enemy. Mohammed says that it is a gift of Allah that they should take advantage of, because never could you get such a weakness (where your enemy lays down his defenses.)
The fourth is where the Hypocrites come in, who pretend to serve Allah, but when they are away they do as they want. Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them... Sura 4:91
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them. This because they contended against Allah and His Apostle... S.8:12-13. So at that point, and others already mentioned, they feign belief.

I think the lesson should be to fight while we have the day, and can speak, in whatever form, before we either have to physically fight, pretend, or die.

Jesus describes Himself

I am the good shepherd: and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father, and I lay down My life for the sheep....Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.John 10:14-18
(Others disputed whether He was crazy or demon possessed, then He continued.) Verses 25-33, 36-38 follow.
Jesus answered them, I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, Many works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me? The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."(Jesus reply)....do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, You are blasphming, because I said I am the Son of God? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.

Purpose

The purpose of this site is not to malign Muslims or extol hatred for any people. Nor is it to inform the visitor of a summary of Islam. Many fine books and websites already exist which do this. Most of those I read are from a pro-Christian viewpoint. I do not trust secular people who try to position themselvs as objective. A Sociology of Religion course of a few decades ago already convinced me that secular humanists merely want to point out how quaint folks are who bother with religion. They want us to be tolerant because they think it really doesn't matter.
Instead, I want to offer insight from the original source-the Koran. These will not be pro-Islamic, but Christian notes. You see, the book not only has its own theology, it contains its own anti-Christian apologetics fully spelled out on what to say to "the Unbelievers." I will also refer to the Bible when necessary.
In addition, it has great testimony of what members of the Body of Christ were doing. As I read it, the story of the Unbelievers who faced the Prophet grabbed my attention. These are part of our "great cloud of witnesses" who cheer us on as they watch or struggles. I am encouraged every time I find a passage about them. Although they are usually written about as the bad guys who were hindering people coming to Islam, no one in the books I read ever mentioned much about them, so hopefully this covers new information too.

To Muslims

I realize your book forbids you sit in the presence of one who mocks the Signs. However, the Koran itself lists the taunts of the Unbelievers, and describes the mocking and strutting of the Unbelievers. Some of my jests are meant in good faith, merely as jokes to be silly or lighten the mood. Some of my comments are meant as serious questions or answers to problems I find in the book. I desire only to provoke thought, and perhaps explain why these Christians had questions, and reveal specifically what scriptures (in the Bible) they would have presented as answers to his teachings.
I quote both books: the Koran to show you my source in your faith, and the Bible to reveal what mine teaches. You are allowed to ask of the People of the Book, so you are not breaking faith in reading this.

Christian Meditations on the Koran