|
|
News |
|
Articles |
|
Letters |
|
Profiles |
|
Quotes |
|
To Do List For New Muslims |
|
Main Page |
By Mushfiqur Rahman Posted July 16 2001
[A Few days ago, a lady whom I met recently and who has been reading about Islam, sent me a series of questions after she had a conversation with the Reverend of her church and became confused. This article is written in response to her questions. The reader is asked to read her questions first in order to know the background to which this article was written.]
Anyone who carefully reads Ms. Brooks’ questions would realize that her confusion came from religious doctrines that are not dealt with or discussed from a rational and intellectual perspective and that she would probably be satisfied to know the Islamic answers to those questions. But rather than addressing her questions point-by-point and providing clear-cut Islamic answers to those, it would be more appropriate to address these issues from a logical perspective before attempting Islamic answers. Three Gods in OneIn the Athanasian Creed, which was adopted by the Church in the 5th century, it is stated:
“There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal …So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the Holy Ghost is Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord.”
Three distinct gods, each one uncreated and pre-existing, and yet they are one God and not three gods. Three different gods, each one with distinct personality, and yet they are one person and not three persons. Each one an incomprehensible and eternal Lord, and yet they are one Lord and not three Lords. This doctrine defies logic, reason, and basic mathematics and its acceptance lies only on faith. This doctrine of the Trinity has baffled Christian philosophers and theologians, and volumes upon volumes of books have been written on it. Sixteen centuries, however, have passed since the Church adopted the above creed and yet not one Christian scholar or theologian could explain this in a way that can be accepted from a logical standpoint. It remains a matter incomprehensible, a doctrine to be accepted but not to be understood. Long after he became a Muslim, Muhammad Asad (formerly Leopold Weiss – his short profile is available in this website) was once invited to a religious conference in Europe where there were hundreds of Christian priests. One of the Christian priests, who was a friend of Asad, asked him why he decided to become a Muslim. Being a former Jew, it would have been more logical for him to become a Christian instead. Asad told him that if he could answer only one question for him, then on that very day he would abandon Islam and become a Christian, despite the fact that he had been a Muslim for many years. Curious, the priest asked him what that question was. Asad asked him to explain the Trinity. After pausing for a moment, the priest replied that it was not a matter to be logically discussed but one would only comprehend it in his heart. This was exactly the reason, replied Asad, why he was not a Christian where he could not have a logical explanation of his questions.1 On another incident, I was once encountered by two Mormon ladies. I was not their planned target, but as I left my car after parking it on my apartment’s parking lot, I was spotted and approached by them. After hearing what they had to say, I told them that I was an open-minded person and I always welcomed religious discussions. However, I was not to accept anything except through a logical scrutiny. I then pointed out to them, from historical perspective, and written by Christian historians, how Christianity has evolved away from the original teachings of Jesus, peace by upon him. She told me – only one of them was leading the discussion – that history was not to be used in matters of religion, which should always remain a matter of faith. I told her that if that was the case, then why should one accept her doctrines and not that of a Hindu or a Buddhist who also sincerely believes in his or her faith. She responded that it was the Mormon belief where the truth was and if I prayed to God, God would plant that belief in my heart. Both of them were school-going young girls and it was clear that they set out on a specific mission and were not ready to discuss comparative religion. But the point is that religion is not a matter of blind faith. Every individual must seek the truth and arrive at it from a rational and logical perspective. For it is a serious matter and our ultimate success or failure as humans depends on it. Trinity From the Historical PerspectiveEdward Gibbon in his famous The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire discusses at length the bitter disputes on the question of the Trinity that characterized the early history of the developing Church. There were many factions and religious groups, each interpreting the teachings of Jesus and the doctrines of the Trinity differently from the other. Most notable among these were tow factions. One of them was headed by a priest of Alexandria called Arius who held the view that Jesus was not co-equal with God, that he did not always exist but was a created being. The other group was headed by Bishop Athanasius, also of Alexandria, who strictly maintained that Jesus was co-equal and co-eternal with God, un-created and always existed. It is because of this particular rivalry that caused unrest in the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine, who took power in 323 A.D., found his empire divided into these two rival factions. This led him to call for the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. It was in that Council that the four gospels – out of about 50 others – that were considered supportive of Athanasius’ view were given their canonical authority and Jesus was given the status of full divinity. The Trinitarian concept is such a direct antithesis of monotheism that an attempt to reconcile the two and explain the roles and essence of each of the gods in the Trinity was necessary. That was, however, so perplexing that it appears that Athanasius himself was not clear about his Trinitarian doctrine. Gibbon writes,
“But the most sagacious of the Christian theologians, the great Athanasius himself, has candidly confessed, that whenever he forced his understanding to meditate on the divinity of the Logos, his toilsome and unavailing efforts recoiled on themselves; that the more he thought, the less he comprehended; and the more he wrote, the less capable was he of expressing his thoughts.”2
Whether Jesus was man or whether he was God, and if he was God, whether he was of the same substance as God was, were also matter of dispute that engulfed the general population. One will have some idea about the extent to which these disputes occupied the minds of the general public from the following famous story mentioned by a second-century Christian monk named Gregory of Nyssa:“Every corner of the city is thronged with men arguing on incomprehensible subjects. Ask a man how many obols a thing costs, and he dogmatises on generated and ungenerated essence. Inquire what is the price of bread, and you are answered, ‘The Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father.’ Ask about your bath, and you are told, ‘The Son was created out of nothing.’ "3
All these disputes were officially put to an end by Emperor Constantine in the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. The subsequent emperor, however, accepted Arius’s view as the official doctrine. Then followed a period of years when “one Emperor dies, and his successor restores Athnasius: that successor perishes, and Athanasius is again in trouble. One council declares in favour of Arianism, the next reverses the decision.”4 Finally, under the penalty of law, the views of Athanasius were fully established by a decree of Emperor Thedosius:“It is our pleasure that all the nations, which are governed by our clemency and moderation, should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans; which faithful tradition has preserved; and which is now professed by the pontiff Damascus, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; under an equal majesty, and a pious Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as we judge, that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of Heretics; and declare, that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches. Besides the condemnation of Divine justice, they must expect so suffer the severe penalties, which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them.”5
No Clear EvidenceIf Trinity defines the core of Christianity, then one would expect Jesus to have devoted much of his discourses on this principle and establish it clearly in unambiguous terms. The fact, however, is that even the word “Trinity” does not appear in the entire New Testament. Not even once. The closest approximation to the concept of the Trinity comes from the following verse:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (I John 5:7)
This verse is now considered a forgery. Although it continues to appear in the King James Version, it is taken out of other modern bibles, such as the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version. Concept of More Than One God is Actually A Denial of GodIt is not befitting to the Majesty of God that he would have partners, or that He would need assistance from others to run this universe, or to attribute things to Him from our animalistic perspective, thinking that he can have sons like we do (Christ as His only “begotten” son). These are blasphemous things to ascribe to the Majesty of God. Probably one of the most, if not the most, intriguing philosophical problems that an intellectual mind seeks an answer to is how this universe had come into existence. The idea that it always existed or that the “Big Bang” happened without anyone causing it is sheer nonsense and an escape from addressing the question. One must come to the conclusion, if he or she is not prejudiced against religion, that someone had to create it. And only such a Single Force can create it Who is not Himself created by others and who must create it without any tools or raw materials, that is by mere volition.
The primal origin
Of the heavens and the earth:
When He decreeth a matter,
He saith to it: "Be"; and it is.
(Qur'an 2: 117)
For to anything which We
Have willed, We but say
The Word "Be", and it is.
(Qur'an 16: 40)
Verily, when He intends
A thing, His command is,
"Be", and it is!
(Qur'an 36: 82)
It is He Who gives Life
And Death; and when He
Decides upon an affair,
He says to it, "Be",
And it is.
(Qur'an 40: 68)
But He - the Living,
The Self-subsisting , Eternal.
No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep.
(Qur'an 2: 255)
The One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not,
Nor is He begotten;
And there is none
Like unto Him.
(Qur'an 112:1-4)
"[Islam shows] the unadulterated, pristine belief in the one and only, the true God, Who does not beget, and was not begotten, Whom nothing and nobody resembles … In place of the qualified deism of a tribal God and the constructions of a divine Trinity, the Qur’an showed me the most lucid, most straightforward, the most abstract – thus historically most advanced – and least anthropomorphic concept of God."6
Understanding the universe can lead to understanding God, and on understanding God lies the success and fulfillment of our mission as human beings. Sacrificing God’s Son on the CrossThat God’s son would have to be sacrificed on the Cross so that his blood can expiate for the sins of the believers is a concept that crept into Christianity from contemporary mythologies. During the first few centuries after Jesus (peace be upon him) Christianity was heavily competing with contemporary pagan beliefs for adherents, especially Mithraism, and eventually it won over pagan beliefs by incorporating some of their cults into its own. Regardless of how astounding this may sound, this is all based on historical analysis. I have written an article on this sometime ago and will publish it on this column in the near future. Here, I would quote the famous British humanist Annie Besant:
“The growth of the philosophical side of the dogma of the Divinity of Christ is as clearly traceable in Pagan and Jewish thoughts as is the dogma of the incarnation of the Saviour-God in the myths of Krishna, Osiris, etc.”7
Alas! How easily people like to believe one of their own men as god! Jesus, a mortal human, is considered god. Pharaohs were worshipped by their subjects as gods. Julius Caesar was considered god by some of his men. The Dalai Lama calls him a god and believed to be so by his followers. Krishna, a Hindu legendary figure, is considered god’s incarnation on earth. One African-American leader was considered to be god by some of his close circles. And just a few days ago after the recent tragedy in the Nepalese Royal Family, a child was officially declared as the goddess of Nepal! The fact that these people are born as helpless creatures in front of their very eyes, live, eat for survival, answer calls of nature, have feelings and emotions like the rest, succumb to diseases and cannot cure themselves but require attention of doctors, and eventually die despite their efforts to live a little longer – all these mortal behaviors make no difference in the eyes of their worshippers. This is the degradation of worst kind of one’s intellect. Let us discuss the issue of the Sacrifice from a logical perspective. The blood of Christ needed to be sacrificed in order to atone for the sin committed by the first couple – Adam and Eve. Being the progeny of Adam and Eve, every child is born burdened with their sin and, therefore, must expiate it in order to escape from the Hellfire. If religion is not a matter of blind following of dogmas, then one would say that such a proposition is a total contradiction of what justice is fundamentally about. First, a newborn child has been declared guilty of a crime that it has never committed, and second, that “crime” was expiated by executing a third individual. If religion is supposed to establish peace and justice on earth, then this doctrine runs contrary to that objective. One Christian believer told me once that regardless of how good I was, I would go to Hell if I did not believe Jesus to be my savior. On the other hand, if I did, then I would go to paradise regardless of how I acted on earth! This is a fundamental Christian belief and people actually commit immoral acts and sins and believe that they will go to Heaven and will not have to account for their sins because of their belief in Jesus as the Savior. Another most objectionable point in this whole story is the unjust, cruel portrayal of God – A God that is blood-thirsty and is unable to forgive the sins of mankind or will not forgive the sins of mankind unless his “only begotten son” is brutally murdered on the Cross (despite his plea for life: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”). Dr. Murad Hofmann, a Catholic who later converted to Islam, found such an image of God hard to accept long before he considered accepting Islam:“In time, I began to realize how monstrous, even blasphemous it is to imagine that God could have fallen short in his creation; that He could have been unable to do anything about the disaster supposedly caused by Adam and Eve without begetting a son, only to have him sacrificed in such a bloody fashion; that God might suffer for mankind, His creation.”8
This reminds one of pagan gods for whom men and animals were sacrificed at the altars, but this is not the picture of God Almighty of the universe, Who is the Most Kind, the Most Merciful:And seek His forgiveness?
For Allah is Oft-Forgiving,
Most Merciful.
(Qur'an 5: 74)
Say: "To whom belongeth
All that is in the heavens
And on earth?" Say:
"To Allah. He hath inscribed
For Himself (the rule of) Mercy."
(Qur'an 6: 12)
Lo! He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
(Qur'an 6: 54)
(He turned in mercy also)
To the three who were left behind …
For Allah is Oft-Returning,
Most Merciful.
(Qur'an 9: 118)
"He is the Most Merciful
Of those who show mercy!"
(Qur'an 12: 64)
And He is the Oft-Forgiving,
Full of loving-kindness,
Lord of the Throne of Glory.
(Qur'an 85: 14-15)
Of its acts on none
But itself: no bearer
Of burdens can bear
The burden of another.
(Qur'an 6: 164)
Who receiveth guidance,
Receiveth it for his own
Benefit: who goeth astray
Doth so to his own loss:
No bearer of burdens
Can bear the burden
Of another ..
(Qur'an 17: 15)
Nor can a bearer of burdens
Bear another's burden.
(Qur'an 35: 18)
Qur’an confirms the miraculous birth of Jesus (peace be upon) without a father and also the other miracles done by him including healing the lepers and raising the dead. But the miracles were done by the leave of God, not by Jesus’ own power. There are many examples of miracles done by the Old Testament prophets, such as Moses splitting the Red Sea and delivering the Jews. But when it comes to the arrest, humiliation, and crucifixion of Jesus, Qur’an denies it with a very powerful statement: “They killed him not”.
"We killed Christ Jesus
The son of Mary,
The Messenger of Allah" -
But they killed him not,
Nor crucified him,
But so it was made
To appear to them,
And those who differ
Therein are full of doubts,
With no (certain) knowledge,
But only conjecture to follow,
For a surety
They killed him not -
Nay, Allah raised him up
Unto Himself; and Allah
Is Exalted in Power, Wise.
(Qur'an 4: 157-58)
Death is not imposed upon a creature because of someone else’s wrongdoing – it is a natural and logical consequence of one’s coming into existence. From a biological perspective, it is a normal process that growth of the cells will gradually slow down after a certain stage in a man’s life, weakening the immune system and making him vulnerable to various diseases or disorders, and bringing his eventual death through one disease or another. So is the case for other animals, and even plants. In fact, there is death everywhere in the natural world. Animals of different kinds and shapes are dying everywhere. But when we take a walk across the forest, we do not necessarily see carcasses all over the place. Nature hides them from us, as said Hamza Yusuf, a Muslim revert and now a scholar in his own right. Through death, we give way to the next generation, we pass the inheritance of the earth to them, and we allow them to have their chances as we enjoyed our chances. From an Islamic perspective, death has another deeper meaning: it is a bridge between this life and the next. In the mind of a believer who submits to the will of God, death is not a punishment, nor does it put an abrupt end to one’s life. Yes, for a tyrant, death puts an end to his activities and makes him face ultimate justice, but for the believers who lived righteously on earth, submitting to God’s will and helping others around, death welcomes them to a pleasant abode. They leave this world while God is pleased with them and they are pleased with God:
"O (thou) soul,
In (complete) rest and satisfaction!
Come back thou to thy Lord -
Well pleased (thyself),
And well-pleasing unto Him!
Enter thou, then, among my Devotees!
Yea, enter thou My Heaven!"
(Qur'an 89: 27-30)
1An interview of Muhammad Asad by Islamic Information Services
2Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Paris, 1840, vol III, p. 12
3H. G. Wells, A Short History of Religions, New York, 1971 (1st pub. 1934), p. 218
4A Short History of Religions, p. 218
5Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol III, pp. 298-99
6Dr. Murad Hofmann, Journey To Makkah, Beltsville, Maryland, 1998, p. 40
7Annie Besant, The Freethinker’s Text-Book: Vol II - Christianity, London, 1881, p. 363
8Journey To Makkah, p. 40