Next, there is a fear of attack and/or personal threats that comes to me for any boldness in revealing issues of Islam, Allah, and the Prophet Muhammad, which may prompt questions or require Spiritual discernment. But I remember Matthew 10:28.

The issue of fear is all the more real for my writing on the “Satanic Verses”, when I recall the fatawa that was issued for the murder of Salman Rushdie because of his fictitious novel “Satanic Verses”.(June 19, 2007, This is appears prescient, in light of world events over the past 24 hours in Great Brittan and Pakistan; read story)

The novel is based on the same Islamic information that is detailed below. Also, it is important to understand that Mr. Rushdie did not write the “Satanic Verses”. He wrote a fictitious novel that was named “The Satanic Verses”, which surrounds the existence of verses that are recorded in the “Sira” or “Sirah”, i.e. Sirah Rasul Allah (Life of the Apostle of God) or Sirat Nabawiyya (Life of the Prophet) (from Arabic سيرة), the Sirah were written by Ibn Ishaq and is the earliest surviving traditional biography of Muhammad and was written less than 150 years after his death. The above information is all drawn from Wikipedia and I encourage all who are interested to review these links and any associated links that you might find on these pages.

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, you will note in your research of the links above that many Muslim scholars will dispute the actual existence of the “Satanic Verses”, which Ibn Ishaq recorded as being historically accurate. They dispute his record of these verses, while at the same time revering the work of Ibn Ishaq as foundational to the fundamental tenets of Islam and recording the practices the Prophet Muhammad.

Ibn Ishaq is called one of the The Tābi‘īn (“Followers”) Arabic: التابعين ‎, by most Muslim scholars. This term is reserved for the generation who immediately followed the Prophet’s death.

It is my opinion, that if one revere’s the man “Ibn Ishaq” for his historical contribution to Islam, i.e. the Sirah, then you must also, logically accept his words, over the words of skeptics from subsequent generations. But, I understand that many disagree with this opinion for various reasons. Please post those reasons if you do disagree with me.

Furthermore, I am always attempting to find & ascertain truth. I recognize that I am biased, just as all humans are biased by personal experiences, which come from many quarters, such as culture. However, I am willing to place my biases up against logic & generally confirmed historical documentation and if my biases are not up to the challenge or appear to be lacking veracity I will give them up. There are examples of this “open mindedness”, (I prefer the term “integrity”), posted on this web log.

With these caveats stated, I am hopeful that if any should find fault with my citations of history on this issue (or any other) or my logical application of reason to the former, that you will post your exceptions and any supporting documentation for those exceptions, without threats or offensive expressions of anger.

Again, I am seeking truth and am not offering condemnation of anyone, regardless of who they are or what they believe or disbelieve.

The Qur’an is, according to the adherents of Islam, the directly dictated words of Allah. Thus, the word’s found in the Arabic copies of the Qur’an are literally the very spoken words of Allah.

Islam has an incongruous paradox on this point, because, there is a section of the Qur’an that has been redacted, it is the section called the “Satanic Verses.” These verses apparently did not comport with the generally accepted tenets of what many early Muslims wanted to believe or have taught in the name of Allah.

Therefore, with respect to these verses they claim that Satan tricked Mohammad and only “appeared” to be Allah, and that the Devil spoke to him these lies, which were dutifully recorded into the body of the Qur’an.

Please consider this for a moment, the Qur’an is in jeopardy, when it’s most devout believers can on the one hand say that “the Qur’an is the very words of God (Allah?)”, but on the other hand also say that “Satan is so shrewd and deceptive that he is able to persuade the Prophet Muhammad, that he (Satan himself) is Allah.

Consider this. If, 1) God may appear to be Satan, and 2) Satan may appear to be God, and 3) he is unable to distinguish between them.

How could I trust what he attributes to God?

It is a logical conundrum that the believers must resolve.

So, please think for a few moments about what I’ve outlined above. The resulting admission, by Islam, of the existence of the “Satanic Verses” means that the directly dictated Words of Allah (The Qur’an) are also the directly dictated words of satan (The Qur’an), and this is presented by Islam’s very own teachings from Ibn Ishaq and the Sirah.

People, at this point, have only two options. The first is that we accept that there is an impossibly irreconcilable paradox in Islam and we are comfortable with this. Or secondly, we do not accept the paradox, but rather we search for and consider a resolution to the paradox by understanding that Mohammad’s god “Allah”, was not in-fact the same person as Yahweh, Jesus, the Father, or God’s Holy Spirit

God bless,
DSM

According to the teachings of Islam. The Qur’an is the actual words of Allah, that were dictated to the Prophet Mohammad. Therefore, the Qur’an is the very word of Allah, without Mohammad’s editorials, input, or personality. This is the teaching of Islam.

The words of Allah are extremely important to understanding the character of the person of Allah. What is he like? What does he like? What does he dislike? This information tells us about a person and their character.

• ► For example, I like to work in the yard or grow Japanese Maples. I also like to study and learn religious doctrine, bible, faith, culture, etc.

As you learn these things you apply them to me in understanding me. The more details you know about an individual, the better you can tell what his character is.
With this context in place we may take the actual words of Allah and study them to find out who Allah is and what his character is.

• Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

• Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”

• Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

This sounds like what the believers in Al queda are doing; this is also what is occurring in Darfur region of Sudan. These groups are simply following the directions of Allah. We should not call them “extremists” for following so closely the commands of their lord (Allah).
We learn important details about Allah when we study and consider his words.

Here is another example, but from the Bible: This is Jesus Christ answering the “dark religion” of the Jewish Pharisees.

• John 8:44 “For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

Compare Jesus’ words to Allah’s in the passages below from the Muslim’s holy book.

• Qur’an 4:142 “Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah. He shall retaliate by deceiving them.”

• Qur’an 5:41 “Whomever Allah wants to deceive you cannot help. Allah does not want them to know the truth because he intends to disgrace them and then torture them.”

I think that we must actually study Qur’an for the purpose of helping our Muslim friends and neighbors to compare Jesus to Allah. I am not being disrespectful and I believe that when we are disrespectful and condemnatory toward our fellowman, then we have destroyed all chance for communication and rescue.
We (disciples of Jesus) must not follow worldly directives that teach us to hate, kill, and label our “brothers” and “sisters” as barbaric or monstrous.
As stated in the posting from Thursday October 19, Jesus never calls his disciples to fight our fellowman.

• ► Luke 6:27 But if you are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you.

• ► Luke 6:35 “Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don’t be concerned that they might not repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are wicked.

The enemy who we are to fight, in the scriptures, is quite clearly identified as Satan and his demons.

• ► 1 Peter 5:8 Be careful! Watch out for attacks from the Devil, your great enemy. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for some victim to devour.

• ► Ephesians 6:12 For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.

The citations above are not unique, but it will make clear, the difference in the Islamic path to Allah and the Christian path to Yahweh.

• ► John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The same thing that is outlined above about how we must study the words and deeds of Allah in order to know who he is and what his character is, should be applied also to Jesus Christ . What did he tell us to do?

• ► John 13:34-35 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so must you love one another? By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Jesus gives us a very simple measuring stick to know if a person is a Christian. This is not difficult to understand, if there is a “dark side” to this then, Jesus states quite clearly, that the “dark side” it is not what He taught. If someone says that Jesus is only speaking about loving fellow Christians then they have likely forgotten what Jesus said in Luke 6.

• ► Lk 6:27ff “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you.”

The contrast between Jesus words and deeds and that of Allah is not arguable. There is no dark side to Jesus. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus and …well, doesn’t follow Jesus is not … well, a follower of Jesus.

DSM

I will consider this last question and maybe offer some opinions on which traits agitate me to cynicism.

Đ₰ Җ

Here are some questions to be answered, and the theme to the answer may permeate future posts, because, philosophy is seldom isolated to any specific Q&A.  Instead philosophy should be considered holistic thought therapy.

• Does philosophy have any value to the average person in the real world?
• Should I care what the professors are professing from the ivy towers of evolving knowledge & devolving belief?
• Should you care what the politicians are proposing from the chambers of evolving mercy & devolving justice?

The answer is a resounding “Yes!”  Individuals must take interest in the philosophy that is being considered by the men and women who shape the course of our world.

The philosophies in these elite circles may not be changed by our considerations, but, the goal should not be to change the world.  The goal, for each individual, is the recognition of Truth.  This is the power of each person.  We, individually, have & hold the power to evaluate thoughts and accept them or reject them.

It is just that simple.

If after evaluating the philosophy du jour, we find the conclusion of the thought to be untenable, we may remain in command by holding Truth in our minds, and never abdicating to others who desire to think for us. It is our authority as much as it is our right.

As an example of the importance of philosophy to average people I have been contemplating some underlying thoughts about the spirit of the “Age of Reason” & “Age of Enlightenment”.

I recently wrote something about the “ethos of humanity” and my wife asked what I intended to say. So, I found myself explaining what ethos is and why I hadn’t just used the common term, “morality”, to express myself. (I didn’t give her all of the details that I am including below; Molly will not suffer my pedantic verbosity as graciously as Mr. Scott, my editor/executive producer at ThoughtAudio.)

However, my answer involves the “Age of Reason”, the “Age of Enlightenment”, and almost all of the thinking that occurred as this era matured into our now “Post-modern” world.  I will resist the temptation to make a doctoral thesis out of “Ethos”, but, maybe when I go back to get my PhD I will have a head start.

If you haven’t already googled, I will save you a step by linking the Wiki on Ethos. You should notice that in the first paragraph, the Wiki references the Latin equivalent, which is Mores.

This is the key to my wife’s question.  I maintain that there is not an equivalency between the Greek concept of Ethos and the Latin concept of Mores.

The Western weltanschauung changed fundamentally with the “enlightenment” and the results of the change could have been expected, because of the philosophy that took root in the minds of the movers & shakers of the western world. Thoughts have costs and philosophies have consequences.  When one evaluates the ultimate conclusions of a thought and he sees that its end is bleak and hopeless, is he “closed minded” to block acceptance of the philosophy from his mind?

Metaphysical Naturalism (aka Ontological Naturalism) was the dominant philosophy, which consequentially led to many of the philosophies that you will hear on ThoughtAudio.  Wikipedia classifies Metaphysical Naturalism as a “quasi-religion”. However, the Wiki article then gives a description of a powerful religion.  Note carefully what Wikipedia has to say about Metaphysical Naturalism; “…metaphysical naturalism gives a set of answers (i.e. value judgments) to deep human questions…”

The value judgments of Ontological Naturalism are based on matter only.  In the modern/post-modern religion of Ontological Naturalism, there is no rational means of appealing to a dimension beyond the observable cosmos to give a framework for values.  Therefore, Nietzsche reaches into his natural “bag of tricks” for a purpose for mankind and he pulls out Übermensch (Super-Man), while Sigmund Freud found the Ego, Super-ego, and Id.

These carnal/material answers from the naturalist philosophers are essential in order to move mankind beyond deity.

Because of this evolution of reason & naturalism, ethos was no longer dominant for providing guidance to the actions of the individual, and it was during this time that mores, conceptually, replaced ethos.

Mankind’s Moral imperatives were to be driven by culture; that is to say that our guiding principles could no longer look to unverifiable deities such as Jesus. Also, with this evolution, it was a reasonable extension to consign determination of mores into the hands of the most logical (reasonable) minds, such as Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, & Engels, et al.

While I won’t necessarily credit these great men for their great philosophical advancements, neither do I fault them, because the logical progression from the mid 18^th Century “Enlightenment” was foreseeable.

Nevertheless, I see the evolution to mores as a degradation of civilization.

People assume that “Mores” & “Ethos” are equivalent concepts, but they are not. Mores are driven by ‘mob’ forces from without, e.g. culture, government, community, neighborhood, & even gangs.

Ethos however, is a spiritual element that arises from within; it is an application of an internal standard of reality. The standard is irrational, yet, it is spiritually superior. Consider how the writer of the book of Romans describes, what I am here recognizing as Ethos.

ROMANS 7:19-23

¹⁹ For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. ²¹ So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. ²² For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; ²³ but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.

Note that the writer continually references “I” in this passage. However, you can see that in verse twenty, the writer divides himself into two individuals.  Even more importantly, he transforms our understanding by his identification of a true self and a false self. In verse twenty-two the writer further enlightens us about who the true self is. True self is the “inner being”. As a disciple of Jesus, this makes sense.  I see the inner being in myself as the man who exists prior to the modifications from without, i.e. the fall.

Mores seek to convert humans into utilitarian tools for society.

We are so obsessed with doing that we have no time and no imagination left for being. As a result, men are valued not for what they are but for what they do or what they have – for their usefulness. ~Thomas Merton

Ethos maintains the value in the individual’s original essence, by acknowledging the value of all other individuals. The manifestation of Ethos is seen first by our attitude and then by our actions towards others.

What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous. ~Thomas Merton

Therefore, I would say that Ethos is who we are in our being, while Mores represent who others demand that we become. Mores should be subservient to Ethos, or did you think I forgot about Nuremberg?

What do you think? Let me know.

DSM

David S. Martin: An Implied Presumption of Theology

“Theology becomes relevant when one assumes that he is capable of knowing what God expects from his creation.

Humanity is arrogant enough to believe that this knowledge is within our grasp, and so, we cipher with our finite minds; presuming that the infinite mind of God may be captured by us and placed under glass or on a pin, in our collection of empirical facts.”

Scott: The thought is intriguing and does have some appeal. I wonder though where this leaves resources like the Bible and our “God given inner compass, the conscience”, which helps with discernment and being “Spirit led”.

I think I believe that it is possible to know God’s will with certain and assured limitations, but his is a question I have not really analyzed in depth. I believe that we have touched upon this topic before in discussions of ethics and morality…
Any other thoughts?

David S Martin: This philosophical observation has evolved since its first incarnation.
Something about it seems too simple to be an error.

But, the things, of which you make note, are abrasive to a reasonable mind. So, we are compelled to harmonize a paradox that is inexplicable.
The paradox….

• God is mystery. God is Spirit. God exists in the cosmos, but cannot be contained by the cosmos.
• Man is a tiny speck within the cosmos. Man must understand the will of God. Man must obtain the knowledge of God.

The implied presumption of theology utterly defies the being of God.

It would be the greatest tragedy in human history.
The day when man succeeded in his quest to grasp God’s will for creation.

This would be the greatest tragedy…, because, on that day, man will have wrestled God from heaven and equaled Him on the field of intellectual battle.

Scott: I am generally very wary, to say the least, of people that make statements like “God wants___________ (fill in the blank)… Like I mentioned before upon hearing James Dobson say, “God wants to use the US to help destroy Islam”, which immediately made me ask several very penetrating questions like where he supposedly got that information, why God would need our fighter planes and tanks if he wanted Islam destroyed, who does this guy think he is and what scripture did he get that idea from?”
But, I don’t think I have ever understood theology as necessarily discovering God’s will but rather exploring his nature. As far as will goes, we have discussed whether or not there is a master plan or a script for every person- I don’t believe there is. All this comes out in an exploration of the question of freewill.
I think my studies of Native theology helped free up my mind on these topics. As you mention, sort of, generally speaking Native Americans thought of God as the “Great Mystery”

Scott: “The Great Mystery” being distinct from “The Great Spirit”. They acknowledged that certain aspects of God’s nature were simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. All that they knew was that this Creator God was benevolent, having created life in an ordered, cyclical, nurturing,
symbiotic , morally conscious section of a vast cosmos, most of which they could know nothing about except by expanding the spiritual nature- which they were actually quite good at. This was a lot easier for them than us because of the distractions in the world we have built for ourselves. They never pretended to know what God’s will was- but simply sought to find their own purpose and hopefully fulfillment within creation. I could go on for hours… your turn.

Scott: What I was working up to before cutting myself off was that not ALL, humanity assumes that arrogance of which you speak… the Western mind and the indigenous mind (or some indigenous minds) are actually quite different on that point…. That arrogance and assumption and collection of facts is what we mostly know because that is what this culture that we are living in the middle of has made of itself… but not all humanity and all cultures try to operate that way.

David S Martin: You may be correct about theology.
However, my understanding of theology is as a rational approach to understanding the being & essence of deity.

The terms of exploring God’s “nature”, implies that God has a “natural” or physicality that lends itself to being observed naturally. This to me is paradoxical.
The statement that started our discussion does not point a finger of blame, shame or prideful guilt at one man, e.g. James Dobson. Instead, it says that mankind has a task that defies reason, in attempting to study a non-creature, i.e. study an un-created life.

The statement can’t be seen to single out Dobson, Moses, or Muhammad.

The issue is that man attempts to know God. As any man comes to believe he has knowledge of God, he is compelled to distribute this knowledge to others. Therefore, by so doing arrogance is manifest in the teacher, rabbi, priest, and shaman.

David S Martin: I had been thinking and writing when you posted your comment prior to my last. However, your point about other cultures being less encumbered by western (industrial) thought is not necessarily true. Siddhartha attained enlightenment and then sought to help others follow his path. This implies that he had a deeper grasp of spiritual essence. Lao Tzu recorded the great wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which implies he had discerned a unique knowledge of the Tao that others did not have.

It may be said that Lao Tzu and Siddhartha were most humble of men, but, the fact that they knew they had achieved such humility that should be recorded for the enlightenment of others, is hubris.

David S Martin: I apologize for my cynicism. The purpose was not to be a “kill joy.”

Scott: by nature I mean essence- I think of that as the same thing… but semantics can always trip one up…

This reminds me of the old saying about how those that speak don’t know and those that don’t speak do know…
but, that statement too is an assertion of knowing and wisdom… and assumption that wise, knowing men hold their tongues and actually know something of the unknowable… lol. In the end, who knows?

About all I profess to know about God himself is that there is one and his Spirit can interface with that of a person in a pretty unmistakable way… and even then, the Mystery is not revealed but only confirmed(?)(not sure what word to use there- language has its limitations)

David S Martin: Yes, I thought that I understood you on that.
Just so you don’t misunderstand my underlying point; the nuance issue comes into play in my understanding.

It should not be understood that I am denying the value of seeking knowledge of God,
neither should it be understood that I am denying the value of sharing knowledge of God.

Rather, what I am saying is that the knowledge men obtain about God, is not so much the result of the men wrestling knowledge from God by great effort and intelligence.

The knowledge, therefore, is obtained by a humble acceptance of the revelation from God. It is a spiritual epiphany within the heart, mind and soul.

Scott:

I had gotten all that- good summation.