March 03, 2006

The Quran, the Old Testament, and the New: Responding to Reader Love Mail

I got this letter from a Muslim urging me to refrain from making fun of his religion (scroll down), so I felt it necessary to respond publicly.

As regular readers know, I'm totally cool with Muslims. It's Islam I don't like. As a non-Muslim, I can't know what true Islam is---just as a non-Catholic and non-Protestant I can't know what true Christianity is. That's an internal debate that you Muslims need to be having (and are having) with yourselves.

And even though I don't consider myself a traditional Christian, I do consider myself a follower of Jesus and I've read the Bible dozens of times. So, while I'm not an expert on true 'Christianity', I do have a fairly in depth knowledge of the Old and New Testaments. I do have an opinion, then, on what the Bible says and means.

I have also read the Quran. All of it. Several times. I've also read many of the hadiths (traditions). So, I'm not an expert about true Islam, but I do believe I have enough information to have an opinion on what the Quran says and means.

So, here are my opinions about them.

Old Testament: Pretty bloody horrifying. Luckily, Judaism does not treat the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Further, as the story of the Old Testament unfolds, Jehovah seems to get a lot nicer. Good on you LORD for growing up. (If you don't think that God can handle criticism, then I'd suggest you don't know too many Jews.)

New Testament: Pretty cool, except for all the pacifism stuff. Jesus seems to clearly be a pacifist in my reading. Which is fine, as long as Christians were in the minority. But once Christians became a majority--in other words, once they controlled the state--pacifism doesn't seem all that great to me. Luckily, theology was able to take care of dangerous pacifism. Further, no theologian I know of treats the New Testament as the literal word of God. Even fundamentalists only claim that it was inspired of God--that the words are those of Paul, not God's.

Quran: Pretty frightening. Not only does it have all of the bad stuff from the Old Testament, but Islam treats the words of the Koran as the literal word of God. These are God's words, not Muhammed's (or Gabriel's). The Quran is not a collection of stories, but, as Reza Aslan says, it is the "Divine monologue."

If these are God's words, then I'm a monkey's uncle. Either I am very wrong about God being a pretty cool dude, or the God described in the Quran is not God at all. In fact, Allah, if we take him at his word (as he himself reveals it in the Quran), is an asshole. He's worse than Hitler.

So, I won't apologize for making fun of the Quran. I do not believe it is the word of God. If I'm wrong, and Allah is God, then he certainly does not deserve to be worshipped or followed. Further, I do not believe that it has any redeeming value whatsoever. I do not believe any of it. None.

Hadiths: Don't teach us much, except that Muhammed is not someone I would like to hang out with. He was a pedophile. He marries a 6 year old, but we are to believe that it's okay, because he really doesn't have sex with Aisha until she's 9. Yeah, that makes everything better. He is a genocidal maniac. He wipes out entire tribes. He's a fascist. He thinks it's cool to kill any one who gives up the faith. So, no I don't believe he was a Prophet.

There is no God named Allah and Muhammed is not a Prophet.

Incidentally, I don't believe Sidhartha actually found enlightenment under the Bodi tree. But I have a great deal of respect for the Buddha. I don't believe that Baha'u'llah was a Prophet. But I do have a great deal of respect for the content of his writings and the Baha'i faith.

Muhammed, I have no respect for. It's not so much that I reject him as a Prophet--there are a lot of people who I don't accept as a Prophet, but whom I respect--as it is that he was a sick S.O.B. who also had a lot of destructive things to say.

If you want to follow Muhammed that's your right. But it is also my right to criticize him. If you want me to refrain from criticizing him, then I'd first suggest that you take away my right to bear arms. Because, you will find that I will give up both of those rights over my cold, dead body.

If you want me to end my criticism, then you'll have to first convince me that Muhammed and the Quran are worth respect. Since I've read a lot of the hadiths, and the entire Quran, I know better.

If it makes you feel better, if your Quran actually doesn't have all the bad stuff in it, and you don't take as authoritative the stuff about Muhammed screwing a child and engaging in genocide, then I'm totaly hip to your Islam. But, then, your Islam is not traditional Islam. In that case, I'm not criticizing Islam as you know it, or the Quran as you know it, or Muhammed as you know him, but I am criticizing some other Islam, some other Quran, and some other Muhammed.

If such is the case, what is the problem?

My response is below. UPDATE: Here is Bluto's response. Here is Howie's response. My comments are inserted.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford, Howie and other members or creators of the My Pet Jawa website

I know that you have freedom of expression over the internet but on viewing your page regarding the Quran, I was extremely dismayed at the offensive material. All of you are intelligent people [you obviously don't know us very well], but yet you can place something so terrible on the internet. You must know that there are 1.2 billion Muslim's on earth [duh, no I didn't know that. Just kidding....but, how is that relevant?? Is that a) a threat b) it's wrong to offend people, but only when there are a lot of them?]. We have terrorism that occurs because of some(a small percentage of extreme so-called Muslim's) whose actions clearly contradict the Quran. [Since they quote the Quran while they commit acts of terrorism, how is it that they are contradicting it? Or, do you just want to pretend that the stuff in the Quran that is pretty genocidal, doesn't exist? Just because YOU don't interpret those versus that way, does not mean that others cannot. How do I know that YOUR version of Islam is correct, and not that of Qutb? Don't the hadiths show Muhammed using violence to expand the Ummah? I don't know who is right, but I do know that the Quran certainly can be interpretted violently]

By firstly, performing such acts on the Word of GOD, the Holy Quran, your website has offended all good Muslims [I don't care]. The people who are terrorists(so-called Muslims) do not care because they will say, "See I told you So". [so what?] "There are such low people on this earth who will stoop to anything to disrespect Islam." [I guess no one can criticize Islam? That you are the one religion in the world exempted from it?]

We Muslim's consider all 3 scripture's the Old Testament(Taurat), the New Testament(Gospel of Christ) and the Last Testament (Quran) to be the word of GOD [Liar. You know this is not the case. Islam rejects the Old and New Testament as 'corrupted', therefore a new Revelation was needed. Either you are not a Muslim, or you know nothing about the New and Old Testament. Or you are practicing Taqiya--lying.] Now by discrediting and disrespecting the Quran you must think that you will change Muslims to think to your points of view. [No, I don't. I just want to speak what I see as the truth--let the chips fall where they may] However, for good Muslim's who consider the Quran to be the Word of GOD and read the Holy Quran daily, work 8 hours or more daily, family men, students, good hearted citizens of countries, our feelings get extremely hurt. [Sorry that I hurt your feelings. Really. Just kidding.] We feel disgusted and frustrated at your lame [give me more credit than that!] attempt to totally discredit the Word of GOD without understanding the material in the Quran. [Gee, I guess YOU understand the Quran, while the rest of Muslims in the world that take the injunction against conversions from Islam as literally binding, are wrong]

Can we & will we Muslim's respond but doing the same as your website did to the Old and New Testaments. No. [Uh, since the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified--something which seems essential to the New Testament story--how does the Quran NOT do exactly that? The Quran calls believers in the Trinity 'infidels'. I don't believe in it, but I don't believe that those who do believe in it are the same as unbelievers. And the Hadiths--as interpretted in all sharia schools--prohibit Christians from fulfilling the 'Great Commission'. I may piss on the Koran, but I find that much less offensive than prohibiting Muslims from leaving Islam. Yeah, I may be childishly offensive--but your religion, as interpretted by your fellow believers--is fascist.] We would abhor suchg an act because we believe that the current versions of those 2 books hold parts of the word of GOD and the original scriptures did hold the entire word of GOD [Ah, so you admit that the Old and New Testament aren't really the word of God. Big of you]. It would be a sin for a Muslim to act that way [Except that transferring a Bible to a Muslim is forbidden. So, you won't burn the Bible, but you will ban it? Nice.]

The Holy Shrine in Samarra is a good example of Terrorism. [Indeed] Did Muslim's perform this terrorist act against themselves? [] Ask your self the question? [Wait for it] Can we call people who destroy the House of GOD, Muslims? [Wait for it ] No these people are so low that they call themselves Muslims but in the truth anyone who does what they did to any house of GOD cannot be called Muslims. [Ahhhhhh. Maybe it was the J-O-Os who really did it? ]

Finally, I would like to speak to your humanity, and I am sure everyone of you are humans or have an ounce of humanity within you [An ounce? Possibly]. Be human and let us all work together to eradicate terrorism. [Definitely, good show. Right proper of you] By defaming the word of GOD, against all Muslim, is totally unfair and inhuman. [Non-sequitor. Stupid. Silly. What I'm trying to do is apply the same rules to humanity, equally. When the Quran goes against these rules, then I feel the Quran is open to criticisms. ] Please remove the page about the Quran from your website and let us all work together to understand each others problems and resolve this matter in a fair way.

[No. Screw you and the high-horse you rode in on. Work together with me to eradicate terrorism or don't. But if you can't accept my help in fighting it without also accepting that I don't believe in your Prophet or Quran, then sorry. You are a child. Grow up.]

I pray to GOD that you listen to me
Hajji Mohsin

Thanks Haj. Feel better now?

Posted by: Rusty at 11:09 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1446 words, total size 12 kb.

1 I disagree somewhat that Jesus was a pacifist. He was very active and in order to fulfill his role he followed the Fathers will which was for him to be crucified and battle and conquer death. As I read it Jesus did not want this but submitted to his fathers will which was to be led like a lamb to the slaughter. He is only pacifist becuase that is the fathers will and the time has not yet come.

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 12:22 PM (D3+20)

2 The Quran is not a collection of stories, but, as Reza Aslan says, it is the "Divine monologue." Are they so called, because Muhammad spoke them out of his Vagina?

Posted by: dave at March 03, 2006 12:35 PM (CcXvt)

3 Interesting, some pacifists quote Jesus pretty directly, with his "turn the other cheek" thing. But a slap on the face isn't a knife in the gut, and Jesus didn't seem to think that military service disqualified people from being righteous. On the other side of things, some second-century wag named Marcion actually tried to teach a "Two Gods" thing, with one the Old Testament God of vengeance and bloodshed, and on the New Testament God, the Father that Jesus talked about. But Marcion had to butcher up the Gospels and the Letters of Paul to support his thesis. You see, they're riddled with quotations from the Old Testament. In the end, believers who read the un-edited versions of the Gospels rejected Marcion and his teaching. They also had the writings of Peter, John, James, Jude, and the mystery character who penned Hebrews to work with. Those all spoke to the "old covenant/new covenant" division, but didn't feel a need to separate the Father from the dangerous, jealous God of the Old Testament. Marcion eventually ended up with the Gnostics, who tried to use Jesus as the key to some mystical-secret-knowledge rather than as the Savior long promised to Israel. I think it's an open question whether God "grew up", or the Hebrew conception of God went through a maturation process. For all we know, He needed to tell people about judgement, sin and evil before He needed to tell them about grace, mercy, and forgiveness. But the Psalmists knew, centuries before Jesus, that God's judgement had to be tempered by His Mercy. They knew that if everyone was judged according to their deeds, then everyone was damned. I don't know enough about Islam to agree or disagree with you about it. But the thought that the Written Book itself is Absolute Literal Truth From the Mouth of God, and not a human response to Divine Revelation is pretty hard to deal with. I've also been told that it's missing that element of relationship. Heck, Moses didn't just command obedience to God, he encouraged love towards God. From what I hear, Muhammed never heard anything about people loving God.

Posted by: karrde at March 03, 2006 01:43 PM (65ApY)

4 Jesus was peaceful, but I don't think He was a pacifist. One needs only look at where He ran the moneychangers out of the temple to see that He didn't mind taking matters into his own hands (even slightly violently so) when the situation required it. But He only used the amount of force necessary - overturning tables and brandishing a whip - to accomplish His goal. He didn't hurt or kill anyone in the process. Still, this was an excellent post!

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at March 03, 2006 01:54 PM (Ns5kk)

5 Jesus never says what to do if they slap the other cheek too.

Posted by: Howie at March 03, 2006 02:10 PM (D3+20)

6 "Turn the other cheek" means to stand up to your persecutors, show them the fullness of your humanity, and challenge them to strike you again now that they know you are righteous.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at March 03, 2006 02:11 PM (+BgKd)

7 All, The point is that someone reading the New Testament, without the temperment of years of theology, would become a pacifist. That is the LITERAL reading of it. Thus, the fundamentalist Christian who rejects Christian tradition and theology, might very well become a pacifist. Certainly there is nothing in the New Testament where Jesus leads his followers to conquer Jerusalem because he's pissed that the Jews rejected him--something that the hadiths say is exaclty what Muhammed did. I don't believe Jesus was a pacifist, either, but that is not based on the Bible.

Posted by: Rusty at March 03, 2006 02:21 PM (JQjhA)

8 And that's the very example you need. Jesus felt that the moneychangers were desecrating the temple and then overturned the tables. He didn't strap Semtex to his belt and run into the crowd while ululating in madness. I have news for you, Hajji... no Muslim that killed innocents stands before God in heaven. The Koran is full of that (women and children of tribes slaughtered mercilessly), presented as exemplary muslims - it is no wonder that your youth blow themselves up in hotel lobbies. Islam is no religion of peace - it wants to subjugate the world. It is barbarism trying to put up an illusion of civility to that end.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 03, 2006 02:24 PM (/lpvu)

9 I may not feel the need to post as often anymore. The most horrific human behavior in the last 10 years or so was the Rwanda tragedy. This occured in an African country that is 90% christian. I think this illustrates that culture/society plays a very substantial role in group behavior. If you were to go back further then you might point to the Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge. They were overwhelmingly buddhist.

Posted by: john ryan at March 03, 2006 03:08 PM (TcoRJ)

10 John is still the apologist. Why don't you become a Muslim, John, or perhaps you already have. Rwanda is not 90% Christian, and the Cambodians of the Pol Pot regime were not overwhelmingly Buddist. Geez, do you believe your own shit, John?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 03, 2006 03:15 PM (rUyw4)

11 Turning the other cheek means you should seek to turn your enemy into a friend. That's what Jesus meant. Paul alluded to the same when he said: "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." It's like when somebody curses you, and you respond with a soft word, it turneth away wrath. That's what "turning the other cheek" means. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself with violence. Jesus himself said: "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was counted among the lawless'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." He replied, "It is enough." Must all be read in context to get full meaning, of course. Jesus told Peter to put away his sword because he (Jesus) was MEANT to go to the cross. But to Luke he warns him to prepare for the coming persecution. It self-defensive though, not offensive like Mohammed.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 03:18 PM (8e/V4)

12 John, Agreed, but Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of religion. Islam isn't the only bad ideology out there. Most dangerous book ever: Das Kapital Second: Quran

Posted by: Rusty at March 03, 2006 03:39 PM (JQjhA)

13 I love to argue, but sometimes a picture is just so much clearer. Some might have seen here earlier Derek's lovely portrait of Mohammed. Today, rather than engage in anything beyond my usual, I'd like to turn your attention briefly to how I feel in response to this problem of Islam: http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/ Please be happy in posting this link and graphic as you will.

Posted by: dag at March 03, 2006 04:19 PM (xJEf+)

14 I want to know when Rwanda became 90% Christian and Pol Pot became a Buddist, because this is a pile of bullshit that John has laid.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 03, 2006 05:25 PM (rUyw4)

15 This Hajji guy likely never read a single word of the Bible - from the Bible. What he has likely read is the bastardized version of Bible stories Muhammed put in the Koran. Muhammed had to say the Bible was corrupted so he could change the stories and portray the characters as full of wrath and the first Muslims in order to justify his own actions. I mean, c'mon, Adam was a warrior and had his own calvary? Who was he fighting? And this Hajji guy thinks that the first step to working together is to do as he says and get rid of the page about the Quran. Or what?

Posted by: Oyster at March 03, 2006 06:53 PM (YudAC)

16 I completely agree that Mohammed, if he even existed, was a fake, a pedophile, a terrorist and just a plain ass-hole. Practising Muslims should be expelled from the western world by boat, plane or rope.

Posted by: DT at March 03, 2006 08:20 PM (ntCeu)

17 my god is right, yours is wrong. because you read both books several times... religion is so fucking ridiculous... Religion is a haven for the lazy looking for an excuse for not getting along. Your hate rant is fucking boring and screams "I'm pissed off because a Muslim got promoted before I did at McDonalds" *yawn*

Posted by: THE hadith at March 03, 2006 10:55 PM (QFlYr)

18 But John Ryan isn't trying to "pin" anything on Christians. It only seems that way. John, if you "may not feel the need to post as often anymore", don't let the door hit you in the arse. However, when you have something concrete with plenty of corroborating links and data, let us know. I'm sure you can find something. I'm sure you can find some aberrant behavior in some corner of the earth that can be pinned on Christians thereby allowing you to condemn everyone here for whatever it is you think we're all so guilty of.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 07:54 AM (YudAC)

19 Yikes, only a matter of time before we had Blogiquette. So we have to have links in order to be "real" posters? you and your little clubhouse mentality. But Christianity is riddled with violence and murder. But of course, you'd actually have to OPEN YOUR EYES, instead of hiding in your cocoon of religious self-righteousness. MULTIPLE examples: Most recent - Nigerian christians murdering muslims. But lets review: -Rampant murder during the Crusades "in the name of God" -Indescriminant killing of peasants all through Europe during times of economic stresses by the clergy in the middle ages -Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231. Untold thousands burned at the stake. - The Thirty Years war in the 1600's which left millions slaughtered in Europe. - The Catholic slaughter of the Huguenots of France. Pope Gregory XIII wrote to France's King Charles IX: "We rejoice with you that with the help of God you have relieved the world of these wretched heretics." - The witchhunts of the 1700s where thousands were tortured, hanged, or burned alive for heresy - The Taiping rebellion, where millions of Chinese were murdered in the name of the Christian god. - The hatred, terrorism, and murder carried out by the northern Ireland "Intifada". Or perhaps you would like to read through the following books: Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History. James A. Haught, Holy Horrors. J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750. Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe. R. Dean Peterson, A Concise History of Christianity.

Posted by: THE Hadith at March 04, 2006 01:01 PM (QFlYr)

20 People, people, people... "turn the other cheek" means that we should not react in anger or seek vengeance, but it should not in any way be taken to mean that we should stand by while murdering animals kill and maim innocent people. Remember that Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 04, 2006 04:20 PM (0yYS2)

21 the animals who commit terrorism are not Muslims, but Islam has no ecclesiastical process to expel heretics. Catholic Clerics who reject Vatican II can be excommunicated (and have been. I went to a heretical Latin mass in the 1970s in France). Pity the Roman Catholics are not so aggressive in exommunicating pedophile priests. Hanabi Islam, as practiced and pushed by the Wahabi heretics, are well funded, but they ignore everything except the Quran and Hadith. They lose the mysticism of the Sufi, which is responsible for most of the conversions to Islam outside of Arabia and Iran. A Christianity limited to the New Testament would lose the Irish Monastics, the Scholastics, the writings of Augustine, the good works of the Franciscans, the Reformation, the logic and theology of the Jesuits, the modern literary criticism of the last century, the charismatic aspects of the Assemblies of G-d, the philosophy of Hegel, Decartes, Kierkegard and the example of Dietrich Bonhoffer and Pastor Niemoller. That would be a poor Christianity indeed. Accordingly, Islam limited to the Hadith and Quran are also poor things. The Romans, though pagan had a well developed system of Virtues, both private virtues appropriate to a citizen, and public virtues appropriate to a community. All religions, as they mature, begin to move away from their scriptures, to an appreciation of virtues as a useful foundation for people living together. If they do not mature, they destroy themselves by refusing to learn. The Hanabi-Wahabi developed their heresy in the 18th century, and since that time had almost succeeded in destroying civilized society, until the discovery of oil on the Arabian penninsula. With that kind of capital influx, the Wahabi were able to overcome their disfunctional society to some extent. Alas, due to the influx of petro dollars, and the ability to distribute their pernicious doctrine to pilgrims during the Haj, the Wahabi has become the public face of Islam, and has not had to reform. It is my hope that the conflict that Wahabi doctrines are forcing will lead to emprisonment of Wahabi Imans, and destruction or significant diminution of their horrible influence. But you have to fight to win, and Europe is not helping much.

Posted by: Don Meaker at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (CCwl2)

22 "the Crusades" lol! These Lefties simply can't avoid the unintentional self-parody.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 04, 2006 11:25 PM (xpnBq)

23 Being curious about the religious makeup of Rwanda I checked the CIA World Factbook (scroll down to People/Religions): http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rw.html Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7% (2001) (Note: I am in no way associating the attempted genocide in Rwanda with religion, just thought the data was interesting.) The comment that was made about the Khmer Rouge being primarily Bhuddist seems off base however. Excerpted from Wikipedia (questionable content error?): "In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "old people" through agricultural labour. It resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation."

Posted by: LC CanForce 101 at March 05, 2006 01:54 AM (3smJS)

24 Hey Don, your apologetics and attempts at appeasement and understanding of the murderous scum we call muslims won't change the fact that they will still rape your wife and/or daughter while you are made to watch, and then cut off your head. They are vermin and must be exterminated.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

Posted by: Pamela at June 30, 2006 07:11 AM (ITTo/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
48kb generated in CPU 0.0182, elapsed 0.1419 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.132 seconds, 274 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.