Muslims were the major victims of the Spanish Inquisition in Goa. Zimler of course focuses on the couple of Jews. But his work is seminal in the sense that it highlights the plight of the Goans. In Goa, the Portuguese Inquisition focuses its guns to South Asian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have reverted to their original ways. This mimicked the Morinos and Moriscoes in Spain and Portugal. The Goan Inquisition prosecuted and tortured non-converts who interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism. Goa was a Muslim kingdom and had given asylum to the Jews escaping Portugal and Spain. The first inquisitors, Aleixo Dias Falcão and Francisco Marques, forced the Portuguese viceroy to relocate to a smaller residence. The inquisitor’s first targets were Hindus, Sephardic Jews and of course the Muslims. http://rupeenews.com/2009/08/19/the-muslim-sultanate-of-sindabur-goa-inquisition-eliminates-all-muslims/ Like many other parts of Asia, Muslim sailors and businessmen traded with Chandrapur on the Eastern shoreline of South Asia. Over a period of time many in Sindbur converted to Islam. Sindubar, as it was known to the Arabs became a thriving metrpolis of commerce and cureny. The city Chandrapura owes its existance to its earlier association with the Arab Sindabur. Old Arab geographers, referred to Goa as Sindabur. The Turkish book MOHIT, a treatise on the seas of the Industan, written in AD 554 by Sidi Ali Kodupon, refers to GUVAH-SINDABUR, joining the names Guvah (Goa) and Sindabur (Chandrapur). The Delhi Sultanate took over Goa in 1312. However, they were forced to surrender it by 1370 to Harihara I of Vijayanagara. The Vijayanagara monarchs ruled Goa for the next hundred years – till 1469. From them it passed on to the Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga. After the empire of the Bahmani sultans collapsed, the Adil Shahis of Bijapur took over. They made Velha Goa their ancillary capital. During this era, Muslim pilgrims from all over India embarked on their journey to Mecca from here. A permanent settlement was established by the Portuguese in 1510, in Velha Goa or Old Goa, when the Portuguese admiral Afonso de Albuquerque defeated the ruling Bijapur king, Yusuf Ali Adil Shah, on behalf of a local sovereign, Timayya. One of the defences that the Portuguese built during their reign was the Fort Aguada in north Goa. It was a gruesome fight that terminated with the massacre of majority of the Muslims. To further spurn the Muslims, the Portuguese appointed a Hindu Governor. Henceforth, relations were established between the Vijayanagara and Portuguese empires strengthened and the Muslims came to be despised as a common adversary. Richard Zimler‘s novel, Guardian of the Dawn, documents the little-known Portuguese Inquisition in India, in 16th century Goa. He points out that, apart from their laws and religion, the Portuguese also imported and enforced their infamous methods of interrogation to subdue troublemakers. E T Whittington, writes as follows:“ As to the torture itself, it combined all that the ferocity of savages and the ingenuity of civilized man had till then invented. Besides the ordinary rack, thumb-screws, and leg crushers or Spanish boots, there were spiked wheels over which the victims were drawn with weights on their feet; boiling oil was poured over their legs, burning sulphur dropped on their bodies, and lighted candles held beneath their armpits.” Alexandre Herculano, a famous writer of the 19th century, mentioned in his “Fragment about the Inquisition”:“ …The terrors inflicted on pregnant women made them abort….Neither the beauty or decorousness of the flower of youth, nor the old age, so worthy of compassion in a woman, exempted the weaker sex from the brutal ferocity of the supposed defenders of the religion…. ” Herculano in his another book, History of the Origin and Establishment of the Inquisition in Portugal mentions that,“ …There were days when seven or eight were submitted to torture. These scenes were reserved for the inquisitors after dinner. It was a post-prandial entertainment. Many a time during those acts, the inquisitors compared notes in the appreciation of the beauty of the human form. While the unlucky damsel twisted in the intolerable pains of torture, or fainted in the intensity of the agony, one inquisitor applauded the angelic touches of her face, another the brightness of her eyes, another, the volluptuous contours of her breast, another the shape of her hands. In this conjuncture, men of blood transformed themselves into real artists !!” An article of Rajiv Srinivasan (Source: The Empire of the Soul, Paul William Roberts, Harper Collins, 1999 quoted in the Saint Business, Rajiv Srinivasan, Hindu Voice, in November 2003, page 4)[21]:“ Children were flogged and slowly dismembered (*tear or cut limb from limb) in front of their parents, whose (*parents”) eyelids had been sliced off (*so they couldn”t close their eyes) to make sure they missed nothing. Extremities (*the hands and feet) were amputated carefully, so that a person could remain conscious even when all that remained was a torso (*the trunk of the human body) and head. Male genitals were removed and burned in front of wives, breasts hacked off and vaginas penetrated by swords while husbands were forced to watch… And it went on for two hundred years. Zimler applied the “Page 99 Test” to Guardian of the Dawn and reported the following: My novel, Guardian of the Dawn, takes place in the Portuguese colony of Goa during the early 17th century, and it is an historical mystery that explores the dangers of religious fundamentalism. The narrator, Tiago, is imprisoned as a secret Jew by the Inquisition, which the Church and Portuguese Crown imposed on Goa in order to punish any residents who deviated from Roman Catholicism. On page 99, Tiago is being interrogated by the Grand Inquisitor, and he comes to realize that he can no longer trust any of his friends and family – that one of them must have informed on him. Even the other prisoner in his cell – Phanishw
ar, an Indian snake-dancer whom Tiago has grown to admire – may have been asked to befriend him in order to learn his secrets and destroy his resolve. And so it is that Tiago realizes that all his ties of love and family are gone, and that he can only count on himself if he is ever to avoid being burnt at the stake. At this point, the Inquisitor promises to let him sign a confession and earn his freedom if he can answer a riddle: “I speak to you on my journey – and only to you – from my departure point to the very end. And though I always die in the same place, you can hear me speaking from my closed grave if you pay close attention. Who am I?” Zimler has won numerous awards for his work, including a 1994 US National Endowment of the Arts Fellowship in Fiction and 1998 Herodotus Award for best historical novel. The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon was picked as 1998 Book of the Year by British critics, while Hunting Midnight has been nominated for the 2005 IMPAC Literary Award. Together with Guardian of the Dawn, these novels comprise the ‘Sephardic Cycle’ — a group of interrelated but independent novels about different branches of a Portuguese Jewish family. Intrigued by his novel, as well as his reasons for writing it, Senior Features Editor Lindsay Pereira decided to ask him a few questions. You were born in New York and went on to study comparative religion. Why the decision to write about the Portuguese inquisition in Goa — a whole other world? About 15 years ago, while doing research for my first novel, The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon, I discovered that the Portuguese exported the Inquisition to Goa in the sixteenth century, and that many Indian Hindus were tortured and burnt at the stake for continuing to practice their religion. Muslim Indians were generally murdered right away or made to flee Goan territory. I couldn’t use that information for my novel but decided, a few years later, to do more research into that time of fundamentalist religious persecution. I discovered that historians consider the Goa Inquisition the most merciless and cruel ever developed. It was a machinery of death. A large number of Hindus were first converted and then persecuted from 1560 all the way to 1812! Over that period of 252 years, any man, woman, or child living in Goa could be arrested and tortured for simply whispering a prayer or keeping a small idol at home. Many Hindus — and some former Jews, as well — languished in special Inquisitional prisons, some for four, five, or six years at a time. I was horrified to learn about this, of course. And I was shocked that my friends in Portugal knew nothing about it. The Portuguese tend to think of Goa as the glorious capital of the spice trade, and they believe — erroneously — that people of different ethnic backgrounds lived there in tolerance and tranquillity. They know nothing about the terror that the Portuguese brought to India. They know nothing of how their fundamentalist religious leaders made so many suffer. What were you trying to do with this cycle of novels? Did you set out, initially, to merely inform your audience about that period in history? I always set out first to tell a good, captivating story. No reader is interested in a bland historical text. People want to enjoy a novel — and find beauty, mystery, cruelty, love, tenderness and poetry inside it. Within that story, I do try to recreate the world as it once was. In the case of Guardian of the Dawn, I want readers to feel as if they are living in Goa at that time. I want them to see the cobblestone streets of the city and the masts of ships in the harbour, to smell the coconut oil and spices in the air, to hear calls of flower-sellers in the marketplace. I want them to feel the cold shadow of the Inquisitional palace falling over their lives. In my cycle of novels, I have written about different branches and generations of the Zarco family, a single Portuguese-Jewish family. These novels are not sequels; they can be read in any order. But I’ve tried to create a parallel universe in which readers can find subtle connections between the different books and between the different generations. To me, this is very realistic because we all know, for instance, that there are subtle connections between what our great-grandparents did and what we are doing. The research involved in Guardian of the Dawn is obviously immense. Could you tell me a little about the kind of preparatory work you had to put in? To write the book, I tried to read everything I could about daily life on the west coast of India — more specifically, in and around Goa — at the end of the sixteenth century. The Internet has made that sort of research much easier than it used to be, and I was able to order books about everything from traditional medical practices — including recipes for specific ailments — to animals and plants indigenous to that region. When I write a novel, I want to get all the details right, so this is very important. Of course, it was also vital for me to know as much as I could about Hinduism and Catholicism. As you mentioned, I studied Comparative Religion at university, so this was pretty easy. One of the main characters in the novel is a Jain, which is a religion I have always been curious about, so I read three or four books about Jainism as well. It was wonderful to be able to learn a bit about Jain belief and practice. Writing is always a great opportunity for me to keep learning. Tiago Zarco is a character you manage to strongly empathise with. Where did he come from? Was there factual data on someone he was actually based upon? Yes, he’s someone I really like — and for whom I feel a strong empathy. He’s a good man who is changed by his suffering and who decides to take revenge on the people who have hurt him and his family. But I did not base him on a real person. I think, in a way, he was born of my previous two novels, because I tried to make him someone who could fit into the Zarco family and yet be fully developed as an individual. With Tiago, I tried to ask the question — how far can we bend our own moral code to fight evil? In other words, can we use deception and even violence to try to destroy a cruel system of fundamentalist religious fervour like the Inquisition? Re-examining the Inquisition seems apt, more so at a time like this when religious fanaticism is changing the world in ways unknown to us. What do you, as an author, believe we ought to take away from a study of it? I couldn’t agree with you more, and that is one of the reasons I wrote Guardian of the Dawn. Put simply, I think we all need to be alert to the intolerance in our societies and in ourselves. We ought to maintain government and religion completely separate — such a separation is the only guarantee we have of freedom of expression. We ought to learn from the ancient Asian tradition, which is to respect the religious beliefs of others and not impose our own Gods on them. Did you visit Goa at any point? If not, what did you base your descriptions of the state upon? No, I decided not to go to Goa, because I didn’t want any images
from modern Goa to infiltrate into the novel. I didn’t want to risk inadvertently putting something from today into it. So I based my descriptions on other areas of the world I’ve visited that have similar flora and fauna — Thailand, for instance. Also, I read all I could about the city so that my descriptions of the buildings, for instance, would be accurate. I then used my imagination, which is the most important thing for a writer. I now have a landscape in my head that is Goa — and the surrounding region — in 1600. I don’t know how it developed. It’s almost magical. Portugal, today, is still a country deeply steeped in a Catholic tradition. Do you think people are aware of the Inquisition and what it meant back then? Would they look at this as a re-opening of old wounds? No, few people here know anything about the Inquisition. Many of them would rather not examine what their ancestors did, both in Portugal and its colonies. But others are very curious about what they didn’t learn in school about their own history. Yes, in a sense I am opening old wounds. But I think it’s important to do that. I think that we need to face the bad things we do — both individually and as a society. In general, the Portuguese have been very receptive to my books. Guardian of the Dawn has been a Number One bestseller here, for instance. A great many readers tell me I have opened a door to a part of their history they know nothing about. I’m proud of that. And I’m proud of having made it possible for Indians and Jews who were persecuted and imprisoned to ‘speak’ to modern readers through this novel. I think that’s important because I don’t want their suffering — and their heroism — to be forgotten. As an author — more specifically, an author devoted to history — you have a unique perspective on the past. As a journalist, how important is examining the past to you? As a journalist, it’s important, because I think we can change the world by exposing past injustices. By writing about atrocities, we can change policy and avoid future wars. We can get war criminals punished. We can help people win fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, so much journalism is superficial and stupid that there is little room left for important articles. Do you plan, in future, to base your work on other periods, or religious themes? Or do you plan to break away from the genre of historical fiction? I have written a new novel that has just come out in England called The Search for Sana, which is about two women — one Palestinian, one Israeli — who grew up in Haifa together in the 1950s. It’s about how their friendship is destroyed by political events that lead to tragedy for one of them. I am now working on a novel set in Berlin in the 1930s, in which one of the main characters will be a member of the Zarco family. So this will bring the cycle up to the 20th century. Where I will go from there is anyone’s guess. ‘Goa Inquisition was most merciless and cruel’ September 14, 2005 In an interview with rediff India [ Images ] Abroad novelist Richard Zimler pointed out that the ‘Goa Inquisition was merciless, cruel’ Published in Britain by Constable & Robinson and in America and Canada [ Images ] by Dell in July 2005, this is an excerpt from Zimler’s novel, Guardian of the Dawn, set during the Inquisition in Goa [ Images ]. At this point in the novel, the narrator — a young boy named Tiago — is living with his Portuguese-Jewish father and younger sister, Sofia, just outside Goan territory. Tiago’s Indian mother has recently died and it is the beloved family cook, Nupi, who helps him overcome his grief. After the wet nurse left, our house suddenly became too large and cold for me. All its comforting corners seemed to harden, and its doors seemed to be forever waiting for a visitor who would never come. For weeks at a time I trudged around from room to room thinking I was now an intruder. I even hated my bed, and the down pillows that had made a rocky coastline when I played at naval battles on my sheets, and the shady alcove on the north side of Papa’s library where I read my books when everywhere else was too hot. I got it into my head that I wanted a staircase and a second floor added to the house. I no longer remember why. Maybe I needed a new place to start over. One afternoon, after Papa refused to build a staircase for me once again, Nupi led me crying into her kitchen. When I explained what was wrong, she ordered me to sit.”What for?” I asked. “Will you ever just do what I say without making a fuss?” She’d made a batch of steaming dal for herself and spooned some with her old iron ladle onto a banana leaf for me, then gave herself a smaller portion. She moved her ancient wooden stool up to the table we’d recently given a new coat of bright yellow paint and instructed me to do the same with the cane chair behind her broom. “You want me to eat with you?” I asked. She looked around, then peered over my shoulder. She even upturned her large cauldron, which had a wedge of black soap hiding underneath. “I don’t see anyone else here,” she said, “so you’re my only choice.” For the first time in our lives we ate together. A white hibiscus flower from our garden peeked over the rim of the cracked earthenware jar between us. “Flowers are good,” she announced to me when I touched it. I came to learn that this was an essential postulate in her guidebook to life. “And your mother would want to know you’re eating well,” she added. As we ate our dal, Nupi kicked my bare foot now and again to make me look up, since I tended to get lost in thought of late. She told me I mustn’t leave over a single lentil or she’d report me to my father, which was an attempt at humour, since she was always saying Papa was too easy on me. When I didn’t smile, she gave me a serious look and said I was to eat with her in the kitchen whenever I was feeling bad. “You mean it?” I asked. “I never joke about food,” she replied, which was true enough. I sometimes think that Nupi’s simple offer that day saved my life, because I did eat with her — and often — over the coming years. And I have always associated the taste of her dal on that first occasion with the kind of love that never fails to act in time of need. Sofia told me much later that she did, too, and I would guess that Nupi invited my sister to eat with her on occasions I don’t even know about. I wish I had done something in return for our old cook that day — had collected a basket of the violet-coloured orchids we called cat’s whiskers for her shrine to Ganesha or simply hugged her. I didn’t yet realize that all she really prayed for — and what she most wanted in life — was that my sister and I would not die young. But that, of course, was a guarantee — and gift — that no one could give her. Voltaire quotes about Goan Inquisition [23][24]“ Goa est malheureusement célèbre par son inquisition , également contraire à l’humanité et au commerce. Les moines portugais firent accroire que le peuple adorait le diable , et ce sont eux qui l’ont servi. (Goa is sadly famous for its inquisition, equally contrary to humanity and commerce. The Portuguese monks made us believe that the people worshiped the devil, and it is they who have served him) .” Historian Alfredo DeMello describes the performers of Goan inquisition as,[25]“ nefarious, fiendish, lustful, corrupt religious orders which pounced on Goa for the purpose of destroying paganism (ie Hinduism) and introducing the true religion of Christ .” Richard Zimler, in his novel Guardian of the Dawn, which documents the little-known Portuguese Inquisition in Goa, tells why he decided to write about Goan Inquisiton, “ About 15 years ago, while doing research for my first novel, The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon, I discovered that the Portuguese exported the Inquisition to Goa in the sixteenth century, and that many Indian Hindus were tortured and burnt at the stake for continuing to practice their religion. Muslim Indians were generally murdered right away or made to flee Goan territory. I couldn’t use that information for my novel but decided, a few years later, to do
more research into that time of fundamentalist religious persecution. I discovered that historians consider the Goa Inquisition the most merciless and cruel ever developed. It was a machinery of death. A large number of Hindus were first converted and then persecuted from 1560 all the way to 1812! Over that period of 252 years, any man, woman, or child living in Goa could be arrested and tortured for simply whispering a prayer or keeping a small idol at home. Many Hindus — and some former Jews, as well — languished in special Inquisitional prisons, some for four, five, or six years at a time. I was horrified to learn about this, of course. And I was shocked that my friends in Portugal knew nothing about it. The Portuguese tend to think of Goa as the glorious capital of the spice trade, and they believe — erroneously — that people of different ethnic backgrounds lived there in tolerance and tranquillity. They know nothing about the terror that the Portuguese brought to India. They know nothing of how their fundamentalist religious leaders made so many suffer The Goan inquisition is regarded by all contemporary portrayals as the most violent inquisition ever executed by the Portuguese Catholic Church. It lasted from 1560 to 1812. The inquisition was set as a tribunal, headed by a judge, sent to Goa from Portugal and was assisted by two judicial henchmen. The judge was answerable to no one except to Lisbon and handed down punishments as he saw fit. The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of the culprits (men, women, and children) could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated carefully, a person could remain conscious even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head. Prohibitions Regarding Marriages -The instruments for Hindu songs shall not be played. -While giving dowry the relatives of the bride and groom must not be invited. -At the time of marriage, betel leaf packages (pan) must not be distributed either publicly or in private to the persons present. -Flowers, or fried puris, betel nuts and leaves must not be sent to the heads of the houses of the bride or groom. -Gotraj ceremony of family God must not be performed. -On the day prior to a wedding, rice must not be husked, spices must not be pounded, grains must not be ground and other recipes for marriage feast must not be cooked. -Pandals and festoons must not be used. -Pithi should not be applied. -The bride must not be accorded ceremonial welcome. The bride and groom must not -be made to sit under pandal to convey blessings and best wishes to them. Prohibitions Regarding Fasts, Post-death Rituals -The poor must not be fed or ceremonial meals must not be served for the peace of the souls of the dead. -There should be no fasting on ekadashi day. -Fasting can be done according to the Christian principles. -No rituals should be performed on the twelfth day after death, on moonless and full moon dates. -No fasting should be done during lunar eclipse. Dr. Trasta Breganka Kunha, a Catholic citizen of Goa writes, “Inspite of all the mutilations and concealment of history, it remains an undoubted fact that religious conversion of Goans is due to methods of force adopted by the Portuguese to establish their rule. As a result of this violence the character of our people was destroyed. The propagation of Christian sect in Goa came about not by religious preaching but through the methods of violence and pressure. If any evidence is needed for this fact, we can obtain it through law books, orders and reports of the local rulers of that time and also from the most dependable documents of the Christian sect

To understand John Locke one has to understand what was going on internationally. He was born in an era of ascendant Islam. On the eve of Locke’s birth the Ottomans Murad IV (r. 1623-40) was the ruler of the Ottomans. As a young man Locke may have heard stories about the reign of  Sultan Ibrahim (r. 1640-48). But Locke’s major years saw Mehmed IV (January 2, 1642 – January 6, 1693) reigning a largest Ottoman empire.

In 1658 Greek mainland and islands fall under the control of the Ottoman Sultan. The Turks were knocking on the gages of Vienna in 1683. Locke also saw the British rebuffed in South Asia. The Reign of Jahangir, 1605-1627 had prevented the British any toe hold in South Asia. There are painting where Britishers were kneeling in front of Jahangir begging for trading rights. John Locke was born (August 29th 1632) at the beginning of the Reign of Shah Jahan, 1628-1658. At the death of John Locke (October 28th 1704) the Mughal Empire reached its peak under the leadership of Aurangzeb Alamgir.

John Locke was keenly aware of the barbarianism which destroyed the most enlightened era of Europe in Spain. A couple of centuries ago the Spanish Inquisition had ended Muslim rule in Spain but they had conquered Constantinople in 1453. The twilight of the Ottoman Empire was no where in sight.

In 1612, Iskandar Muda sent to England’s King James I (1566-1625) a lavishly gilded letter which had overwhelmed the British monarch. In the letter Iskandar Muda had described himself as “lord in power here and below the winds who holds the throne of Aceh and Samudra and all the countries adjacent”.

Locke was widely known as the Father of Liberalism, he was a British philosopher and physician. John Locke was a very brilliant man. He influenced Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison.

At the time of John Locke there was deep introspection in British society on what was going on in Europe. There was profound discussion of what was wrong with British society as benchmarked to Islamic societies of the time. He was born at a time of a “civil war of idea” between those who believed in “Unitarianism” versus those who believed in “Trinitarianism”. This British schism was brought on by the break of the Church of England from the Vatican. At the time the rational philosophers were looking at logical solutions to what was thought as errors that had crept into the Christian scriptures. Sir Isaac Newton and others had written extensively against the concepts of Trinity. John Locke was part of the British elite that searched for and found Islam proposing a very rational view of Christian Unitarianism. Locke is regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. He is considered one of the first of the British empiricists, following the tradition of Francis Bacon, he is equally important to social contract theory. He was very influential on the American revolution and its constitutional development. He seems to have a natural curiosity for Islam.

Locke’s interest in Islam can be described by all that was happening around Britain. All of Europe faced Muslims all around them. The ottomans were a major cultural and political force and the British forays into “India” informed them of the might of the Mughals. A Chair of Arabic at the University of Oxford was established in 1636 which wss contemporaneous to a similar chair in Paris.

The Enlightenment not only heralded radical cultural change but also, quite understandably, brought the first signs of sharp reaction to it. The religious trend taking place at the Enlightenment is made clear by the very titles of some of its most important books: The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures (John Locke, 1695), Christianity Not Mysterious (John Toland, 1696), and Christianity as Old as the Creation (Matthew Tindal, 1730). The books of the latter two authors aroused such indignation that Parliament ordered them to be burned.

His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.

Although the idea of religious liberty and tolerance is a new issue in the West initiated with philosophers of the 18th century like John Locke and M Voltaire, it has always been a simple fact for Muslims, clearly declared in their religion.

John Locke’s “Irrationality Argument” stems from his “A Letter Concerning Toleration”, first published in 1689. The main thrust of the letter is Locke’s argument that religious intolerance by Christians is both unchristian and irrational. The latter “irrationality argument” is arguably the most important argument contained within the letter because while John Stuart Mill’s work focused on preserving a wide range of liberties, including freedom of speech and lifestyle, Locke’s greatest contribution to liberal thought was concerned with freedom of religious belief and his 1689 letter outlined his arguments in this matter.

The letter itself sought to answer two important questions:

• Whether a state should allow its citizens to follow the religion of their choosing, or should they be made to follow a state approved religion (in Locke’s case Christianity)?

• What are the limits of religious toleration?

There may have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Muslims in the United States in 1776—imported as slaves from areas of Africa where Islam flourished. Although there is no evidence that the Founders were aware of the religious convictions of their bondsmen, it is clear that the Founding Fathers thought about the relationship of Islam to the new nation and were prepared to make a place for it in the republic.

In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the “Mahamdan,” the Jew and the “pagan.” Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. “True freedom,” Lee asserted, “embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion.”

In his autobiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature “rejected by a great majority” an effort to limit the bill’s scope “in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan.” George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to “obtain proper relief” from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome “Mohometans” to Mount Vernon if they were “good workmen” (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded “the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians,” a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.snarla.Anonymous Arabist.

Locke’s assertion that there was only one necessary defining credal belief in Christianity accessible to all understandings, i.e. that Jesus was the Messiah. Edwards slyly commented that Locke ‘seems to have consulted the Mahometan bible’. We know that. Locke possessed an edition of the Koran (See J. Harrison and P. Laslett, The Library of John Locke (Oxford, 1971), 70, which shows that Locke possessed the 1649 French translation of the Koran. See D. D. Wallace, ‘Socinianism, Justification by Faith, and the Sources of John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity’, JHI (1984). See de Beer, Correspondence of Locke, V, 86-7, 96, 135-42, 145-7, 172, 207-29, where Locke corresponded with Firmin, Furley and Limborch (himself another suspected Socinian), about the case of a Dutch ‘damsel’ who had converted to Judaism because of her opposition to the Trinity. The current research of both J. Marshall and R. Iliffe into the theologies of John Locke and Isaac Newton would suggest that Edward’s accusations were broadly correct.)

The complicity between Locke and Islam according to Edwards was the notion of the nature and divinity of Christ; the Koran treated Christ purely as a prophet, ‘as a great man, one commissioned by God, and sent by him into the world. This is of the like import with our good Ottoman writer the Vindicator saith of our saviour, and this he holds is the sum of all that is necessary to be believed concerning him’. Edwards insisted that Locke was ‘confounding Turky with Christendom. (J. Edwards, Socinianism Unmasked (1696), 53-4; Edwards also attacked The Letter of Resolution in the same terms in Socinian Creed (1697), 227-8.)

During the Restoration Socinianism appears to have extended its influence to the highest levels. The coterie surrounding the philanthropist Thomas Firmin included Locke, Tillotson the future Archbishop of Canterbury, and minor members of the Anglican Church, such as Stephen Nye (1648-1719) and Henry Hedworth (1626-1705). Indeed, it was the latter who used the term Unitarian for the first time in print in The Spirit of the Quakers Tried (1672). Such was the ubiquity of the movement that Andrew Marvell was able to comment in the same year that ‘the Socinian books are tolerated and sell as openly as the Bible’. By 1676 there were at least three Socinian meeting houses in London.

The religious settlement of 1689 saw Socinians classed with Roman Catholics in being placed beyond the comfort of toleration. The Socinians were to achieve liberty of worship in 1813. Persecution descended upon such men as Arthur Bury (1624-1713), rector of Exeter College, Oxford, for the publication of his Naked Gospel (1690). The author was excommunicated, deprived and fined £500, while his book was burnt. William Freke unwittingly sent his Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity to both Houses of Parliament in 1694. The result was that the work was condemned and burnt by the public hangman, while Freke was forced to recantation and fined. Thomas Aikenhead, a student of Edinburgh University, was condemned as an heretic for his Socinian opinions and hanged in 1697. In 1698 the ‘Act for the more effectual Suppression of Blasphemy and Profaneness’ attempted to proscribe all discussion of the Trinitarian controversy, imposing for a second conviction denial of all civil rights and three years imprisonment.

The act was reinforced by royal command in 1714 (H. J. McLachlan, ‘Links between Transylvania and British Unitarians from the Seventeenth Century Onwards’, Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society 17 (1979-82); W. Whittaker, ‘The Open Trust Myth’, Transactions of the Unitarian Historical Society 1 (1917-18). See C. Leslie, ‘Of the Socinian Controversy’ in Works, II, 14, for reports of free distribution of Unitarian tracts. Leslie wrote of the Unitarians: ‘They have arrived to that pitch of assurance, as to set up public meetings in our halls in London, where some preach in them who have been spewed out even by the Presbyterians for their Socinianism.’ Wilbur, Unitarianism, 198-9, 212-14; McLachlan, Seventeenth-Century Socinianism, 285; on Aikenhead, see Levy, Treason Against God, 325-7. Note that Aikenhead was accused of preferring the Islamic scheme over the Christian, in particular he was charged with rejecting the canonicity of Scripture and reading atheistical texts. See T. B. Howell, (ed.), A Complete Collection of State Trials (1812), XIII, 918-39. The best account of the Aikenhead affair is the essay by M. Hunter, ‘Aikenhead the Atheist: The Context and Consequences of Articulate Irreligion in the Late Seventeenth Century’ in Hunter and Wooton, Atheism. On general background, see Redwood, Reason, Ridicule and Religion, 27-42. On Firmin, see S. Nye, Life of Firmin (1698 and reprinted 1791); H. W. Stephenson, ‘Thomas Firmin 1632-1697′ (3 volumes, D.Phil. Oxford, 1949), for a hostile contemporary account, see Luke Milbourne, A False Faith not Justified by Care For the Poor Prov’d in a Sermon, 28 August 1698. See also Hearne, Remarks and Collections, I, 102: ‘Tho. Firmin … a rank <108> Socinian was a great man with Dr Tillotson Archbp. of Cant. and others of the same leaven promoted by K. William to some of the best dignities and preferments.’)

Laure Principaud describes John Locke’s “Letter on Toleration”

John Locke (1632-1704) was one of the major English thinkers of the XVIIth century. He was the son of landed English gentry and studied classical literature, which destined him, first to a teaching post at the university and later, to ordination in the Church of England. To flee from that fate, Locke studied medicine and philosophy but the socio-political events in England at the time led him on to political interest. He acquired his political education when he worked for the first Earl of Shaftesbury, a powerful figure of the political scene in England. Locke was his medical advisor and became a permanent member of the household. Together with the Earl of Shaftesbury, he was exiled to Holland and returned to England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

In Locke’s time, England was in a state of socio-political chaos in which political and religious matters were closely meshed. England was Christian, but no longer Catholic, and in this part of Christendom, there existed, besides the Church of England, many dissenting churches in conflict. After the bloody dictatorship of Cromwell (died 1658), Locke had witnessed the reign of the Stuart dynasty, Charles II (1660-1685) and James II (1685-1688). These two kings were absolutist, secretly Catholic and tried indirectly to favour the return of their church.

Religious conflicts between all the dissident churches had reached a high level of violence. Moreover, the struggle between King and Parliament was constant: it was the time of creation of the two major political groups of the English Parliament: the Whigs who defended Parliament’s rights and the Tories who defended the Monarchy’s prerogatives. In 1679, the Whigs carried the vote of the Habeas Corpus Act which confirmed and extended the right to enjoy individual liberties. But James II, with the Tories’ support, managed to succeed to Charles: this marked the beginning of a brutal and clumsy reign. James II wanted to impose the return of absolutism and Catholicism: tensions reached a high level. The English people, through Parliament, then called on the Stathouder of Holland, William of Orange, who had married Mary, James’ elder daughter. On November 5, 1688, William landed in England; Jacques fled to France. The Parliament proposed the throne of England to William and Mary, subject to the condition that they sign the Bill Of Rights (1689) which defined and guaranteed the rights and liberties of Parliament. It was the « Glorious Revolution » which led England on the path towards a constitutional regime.

John Locke dedicates his « Letter concerning toleration » (1689) to William, the new king. Like all the Locke’s work, this « Letter » is by no means an apolitical philosophical paper, but the result of a pragmatic and political way of thinking. He observes and notes that before the Glorious Revolution there had been « a governement partial in matter of religion » and « religions who vindicate their own rights for the only interest of their own sects », in short « a narrowness of spirit on all sides » cause of the « miseries » of England. Locke presents his letter as an important and pragmatic body of thought concerning toleration between religious groups and the role of the State whose object was to guarantee peace and order in the country. In all his works, Locke meditates on individual liberties and the role of government. He is the founder of political Liberalism. His thought influenced Enlightenment ideas in Europe (Voltaire, Montesquieu…) and definitely played a role in the Revolutionary events at the end of the XVIIIth century.

Among Locke’s major works « Two treatises of Government » published in 1690, and « An Essay concerning Human Understanding », published in 1693, are worth mentioning.

2) Why is a « law of toleration » necessary? : Locke’s arguments

The entire «Letter concerning toleration » is a response to that question. So what is a « law of toleration »? It’s a law which defines and clearly separates the roles and powers of churches and the State concerning religious matters. The aim is to prevent the violence which exists between churches and between the churches and the State. The boundaries between the two must be clear and unmovable:

- The Churches’ actions must be limited to what concerns men’ souls.

- The State’s actions must be limited to what concerns the care of the commonwealth.

The stake is to guarantee « an absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.

* Churches
According to Locke, a church is « a voluntary society of men joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to the public worshipping of God, in such a manner as they judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of their soul ». Thus, a church can be only a voluntary association of people who make the free choice of being there and who can leave the group if it seems to be no longer appropriated to their salvation. So the rules which organise the association can’t be imposed onto the whole society of England. The strongest power that a church has is to exclude a member from the community, but this member retains his civil rights, for « belonging to a church can’t be an argument to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments ». Civil rights are the same for all the citizens, whatever their denominations may be. In that way, Locke bases a great deal of his argumentation on religious considerations: he refers to the Bible in order to show that for the aim of Christianity, and the role of the church, the appropriate means are incompatible with terrestrial interest and the thirst for power. Indeed, the business of « true religion » is not the « striving for power and empire »: « the Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, said our Saviour to his disciples, but ye shall not be so » (Luke XXII, 25, 26). The only role of church is to guide Christians in their « war upon (their) own lusts and vices ». For that purpose, the church’s servants have only one mean of action: « the exemplary holiness of their conversation », not violence and persecutions. « How easily the pretence of religion, and the care of soul serves for a cloak to covetousness, rapine and ambition ». Toleration, for Locke, is an evident necessity both for Christian reasons and reasonable reasons.

* State / Civil government

Civil magistrates caring for men’ souls is not only an absurdity to the common sense, for Locke, but also illegitimate (there is no legitimation by God for this in the Bible) and impossible: civil government has only one means, the laws, and these laws are not appropriate for inner and personal belief. Constraint can’t persuade.

The interest of the commonwealth refers only to « life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like ». So, the State’s role in the business of toleration is to guarantee civil rights and the civil peace: « laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud or the violence of the others ». To force someone by law to believe in what he doesn’t want to believe is not only absurd for Locke but it’s an offence done to God. The other consequence is that « neither pagan, nor Mahometan, nor Jew, ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commowealth because of his religion (…) the commonwealth which embraces indifferently all men that are honest, peacable and industrious ».

Civil power can’t interrupt a religious ceremony except if, in that ceremony, things forbidden in civil life (human sacrifices, for instance) are done, placing in danger the security and safety of Nation and people. Indeed, « the part of the magistrate is only to take care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice and that there be no injury done to any man ».

A civil power which shows itself incapable of doing this job can be overthrown by the people: in that way, liberty of conscience is finally the more important thing.

So the laws of toleration must guarantee civil peace and the State is a sort of regulator. With that in view, Locke also considers this as a rampart against the atheist’s arguments. Locke considers them as a danger for the civil order: « the taking away of God (…) dissolves all » so « those are not to be tolerated who deny the being of God ». Locke devolves to churches a role of moral regulation. In his approach to atheism, Locke’s view of toleration is a far cry from what we mostly accept today.

According to Locke, wars and troubles are not caused by the diversity of opinions (religious, but also political) but by:

- the refusal of toleration to those who are of different opinions

- the insatiable desire for domination and the credulity of the multitude.

And it is this unstable climate which goes against civil peace and all liberties (and against economic prosperity finally).

« If the law of toleration were once so settled, that all churches were obliged to lay down toleration as a foundation of their own liberty; and teach that liberty of conscience is every man’s natural right »

3) The main thrust of Locke’s thought

The stakes of toleration in Locke’s thought are the respect of civil liberties, of natural rights (liberty, life, and property) and public peace. These arguments are legislative and pragmatic: intolerance (or in-toleration) is a political inanity, the root cause of all disturbances. Thus the word « toleration » denotes a juridical act, contrary to the word « tolerance », which rather designates a state of mind, an individual or collective virtue. More than the dignity of other people or mutual comprehension, it is what constitutes the practical conditions of cohabitation in a pluri-religious state which interests Locke.

The Political Liberalism of Locke has a link with his theory of understanding (which, in short, says that each idea arises through individual experience, thus any idea can vary between one man and another). For Locke, concerning political and religious subjects, there is no one Truth but only some values which can be accepted or not; and the cohabitation of these values can be translated into laws.

Moreover, Locke grants an important role to individual concience, a conscience based upon reason. A thing is just and legitimate if it is accepted by the individual’s reason: the idea of individual responsibility is one of the main notions in Locke’s philosophy. So the legitimacy of civil government is based on Trust, on confidence. If civil government goes against that Trust, the people has the right and the duty to judge it and to rise up against it. In that way, Locke’s philosophy about toleration provides a first theoretical limit to sovereign power.

* Locke’s thought had an important repercussion in the Europe of the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries. Many thinkers of the Enlightenment were inspired by this political liberalism, including the French Revolution and the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights in 1789 (and up till today). Among French philosophers, Voltaire wrote about the toleration in his « Traité sur la tolérance », published in 1763. Voltaire wrote, like Locke, in a troubled socio-political context and was inspired by the British model, but his philosophy of toleration is quite different. At the end of Louis XIV’s reign and at the beginning of the reign of Louis XV, persecution against religious minorities, in particular against the Protestant Huguenot « Camisards », started up again. People’s consciences were still marked by the religious wars of the XVIth century. Voltaire wrote his essay about toleration in the context of the Jean Calas case, a Protestant man unfairly accused of having assassinated his own son, allegedly because he wanted to become a Catholic. This case inspired Voltaire to write against all religious persecutions. Voltaire who has read Locke retained some of his arguments, in particular the ideas that each citizen must obey first and foremost to his own reason and may legitimately rise up against any bad government, and that toleration is a necessity in a pluralistic empire for the sake of a Nation’s peace. But, contrary to Locke who advocates a clear separation between the role and power of the churches and the role and power of civil government, Voltaire advocates the subordination of the Church to civil power as the only means to guarantee toleration (thus, he appealed to the King’s council in the Calas case).

* Nowadays, in France, the question of the way of living together in a pluri-religious state has again been raised in the debate about secularity. The word « tolérance » in French has today a more extended signification and has often lost its political meaning to take on a more moral turn. The relations between Church and State concerning religion translate into the 1905 Act of Parliament which is the heritage of Enlightenment philosophy, the French Revolution and the Dreyfus case. The 1905 Act of Parliament establishes the separation of the roles and powers of Churches and the State in society. This question of secularization was to re-emerge in a big way in public discourse in the 1980s with the demonstrations for the defence of state-funded private schools, the first « veil affair » or the Vivien report concerning sects. According to Raphael Liogier (in «Une laïcité légitime », La France et ses religions d’Etat», published in 2006), in spite of this very law, France is one of the States which get the most deeply involved in religious matters, through its imposition of regulations. In Raphaël Liogier’s purview, the particularity of this secular intervention is simultaneously to deny any intention of intervention while interceding to a very considerable degree in the religious field at the same time. The « neutrality » advocated by the State is what enables it to intercede positively in the social game and in the religious field, as an arbitrator. According to R. Liogier, and in that way he seems to concur with Locke’s views on toleration, a secular State should not declare itself « neutral », but « incompetent » on issues of religion. The State can intercede in the religious field, if the security of the state or the safety of the human being are in jeopardy, but the state should not pronounce on what a good or a bad, a true or a false belief, or what the signification of such or such a religious rule or behaviour, may be…

Locke’s « Letter concerning toleration », written in 1689, raised some important issues then, which can still help us today to question our own way of considering cohabitation in a pluri-religious setting and the role the state should play in that perspective. John Locke’s “Letter on Toleration” Written by Laure Principaud
Wednesday, 26 November 2008 18:30

^ Peter Laslett (1988). “Introduction: Locke and Hobbes”. Two Treatises on Government. Cambridge University Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780521357302.
^ Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration Routledge, New York, 1991. p. 5 (Introduction)
^ Delaney, Tim. The march of unreason: science, democracy, and the new fundamentalism Oxford University Press, New York, 2005. p. 18
^ Godwin, Kenneth et al. School choice tradeoffs: liberty, equity, and diversity University of Texas Press, Austin, 2002. p. 12
^ Becker, Carl Lotus. The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas Harcourt, Brace, 1922. p. 27
^ Baird, Forrest E.; Walter Kaufmann (2008). From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 527–529. ISBN 0-13-158591-6.
^ Broad, C.D. (2000). Ethics And the History of Philosophy. UK: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-22530-2.
^ Peter Laslett, “Two Treatises of Government and the Revolution of 1688,” section III of Laslett’s editorial “Introduction” to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
^ Britannica Online, s.v. John Locke
^ “The Three Greatest Men”. Retrieved 2009-06-13. “Jefferson identified Bacon, Locke, and Newton as “the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception”. Their works in the physical and moral sciences were instrumental in Jefferson’s education and world view.”
^ “The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743–1826 Bacon, Locke, and Newton”. Retrieved 2009-06-13. “Bacon, Locke and Newton, whose pictures I will trouble you to have copied for me: and as I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical & Moral sciences.”
^ http://explorer.monticello.org/text/index.php?id=82&type=4 Jefferson called Bacon, Newton, and Locke, who had so indelibly shaped his ideas, “my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced”
^ Seigel, Jerrold. The Idea of the Self: Thought and Experience in Western Europe since the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005) and Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1989).
^ McGrath, Alistair. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p.214-5.
^ Martin Cohen, Philosophical Tales (Blackwell, 2008), 101.
^ James Tully, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
^ James Farr, “‘So Vile and Miserable an Estate’ The Problem of Slavery in Locke’s Political Thought,” Political Theory 14, no. 2 (May 1986): 263–89.
^ James Farr, “Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery,” Political Theory 36, no. 4 (August 2008): 495–522.
^ Locke, John (1690). Two Treatises of Government (10th edition). Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/trgov10h.htm. Retrieved January 21, 2009.
^ because Hobbes was not available in libraries due to his presence on the index librorum prohibitorum
^ Skinner, Quentin Visions of Politics. Cambridge.
^ John Locke (1691) Some Considerations on the consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money
^ Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. Roger Woolhouse. New York: Penguin Books (1997), p. 307.
^ Locke, Essay, p. 306.
^ The American International Encyclopedia, J.J. Little Company, New York 1954, Volume 9.
^ G. A. Russell (1994), The ‘Arabick’ Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, pp. 224–262, Brill Publishers, ISBN 9004094598.
^ Locke, John. Some Thoughts Concerning Education and Of the Conduct of the Understanding. Eds. Ruth W. Grant and Nathan Tarcov. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., Inc. (1996), p. 10.
^ Locke, Some Thoughts, 10.
^ Locke, Essay, 357.
Secondary literature
Ashcraft, Richard, 1986. Revolutionary Politics & Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Discusses the relationship between Locke’s philosophy and his political activities.)
Ayers, Michael R., 1991. Locke. Epistemology & Ontology Routledge (The standard work on Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding.)
Bailyn, Bernard, 1992 (1967). The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Harvard Uni. Press. (Discusses the influence of Locke and other thinkers upon the American Revolution and on subsequent American political thought.)
G. A. Cohen, 1995. ‘Marx and Locke on Land and Labour’, in his Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality, Oxford University Press.
Cox, Richard, Locke on War and Peace, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. (A discussion of Locke’s theory of international relations.)
Chappell, Vere, ed., 19nn. The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge Uni. Press.
Dunn, John, 1984. Locke. Oxford Uni. Press. (A succinct introduction.)
—, 1969. The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the “Two Treatises of Government”. Cambridge Uni. Press. (Introduced the interpretation which emphasises the theological element in Locke’s political thought.)
Macpherson. C. B. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). (Establishes the deep affinity from Hobbes to Harrington, the Levellers, and Locke through to nineteenth-century utilitarianism).
Moseley, Alexander (2007). John Locke: Continuum Library of Educational Thought. Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-8405-0.
Pangle, Thomas, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988; paperback ed., 1990), 334 pages. (Challenges Dunn’s, Tully’s, Yolton’s, and other conventional readings.)
Robinson, Dave; Judy Groves (2003). Introducing Political Philosophy. Icon Books. ISBN 1-84046-450-X.
Rousseau, George S. (2004). Nervous Acts: Essays on Literature, Culture and Sensibility. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-3453-3.
Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History, chap. 5B (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953). (Argues from a non-Marxist point of view for a deep affinity between Hobbes and Locke.)
Strauss, Leo, “Locke’s Doctrine of Natural law,” American Political Science Review 52 (1958) 490–501. (A critique of W. von Leyden’s edition of Locke’s unpublished writings on natural law.)
Tully, James, 1980. A Discourse on Property : John Locke and his Adversaries. Cambridge Uni. Press
Waldron, Jeremy, 2002. God, Locke and Equality. Cambridge Uni. Press.
Yolton, J. W., ed., 1969. John Locke: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge Uni. Press.
Zuckert, Michael, Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Locke Studies, appearing annually, publishes scholarly work on John Locke.

William Whiston was born on December 9th 1667 and died on August 22nd 1752 was an English mathematician and successor to Sir Isaac Newton as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. Like Newton, it was Whiston’s theology and acute sense of history that got him in trouble with Cambridge University. Edward Said in “Orientalism” says that Whiston’s “enthusiasm for Islam” could not be tolerated at Cambridge and it finally led to his expulsion.

Whiston was a student of Gilbert Clerke of Northamptonshire, a mathematician and a staunch  Anti-Trinitarian. Other philosophes influenced by Arianism were John Knowles, Thomas Collier and Paul Hobson. At the time Socinianism was considered at par with Islam.  Paul Best and John Biddle were the major proponents of Socinianism

Another Anti-Trinitarian Sir Issac Newton had written about the Errors in the Christian Scriptures which had also antagonized the Christian Orthodoxy of Britain.

In 1690 Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, “A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.” Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous. Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication.

William Whiston’s was very impressed by the Newtonian philosophy of Unitarianism as adopted by John Locke and then followed by Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in the new world.His interest in Islam grew out his investigation of Arianism and Anti-Trinitarianism. He took Sir Isaac Newton’s Biblical chronological system to new levels. In 1745 he published his Primitive New Testament (on the basis of Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus). Thomas Jefferson was impressed by this work and actually wrote his own version of the New Testement which was influenced by the writings of Newton, Whiston, and the Quran. Jefferson’s NT basically narrates the Quran version of events on the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Whiston is best known for his work on Islam and also on Arianism. Whiston continued to write and preach both on mathematical and theological subjects with considerable success. His study of the Apostolic Constitutions had convinced him that Arianism was the original and authentic creed of the early church. He was simply following in the footsteps of Sir Isaac Newton who held similar views on the subject. His views were shared by many across the Atlantic also. Because of his interest in Islam which he saw as the flag carrier of Arianism, Whiston was never invited to be a member of the Royal Society–he however did lecture at there frequently.

His research of the Apostolical Constitutions and the Arian views were derived from them in his Primitive Christianity Revived (5 vols., 1711-1712). In 1713 he produced a reformed liturgy, and soon afterwards founded a society for promoting primitive Christianity which he though of as Islam. He continued to lecture in support of his theories in coffee-houses, halls in London, Bath, and the Royal Tunbridge Wells.

Islam is “Hetrodox Christianity”…John Damascus

The status of Muhammad has to be understood in the context of Christian Dogma and Christian beliefs of “inerrancy”, “infallibility” “inspiration” and the liberal interpretation of the Gospels. The discussion of the status of Jesus Christ has always been a topic of discussion between Christians. In many ways the discussions of Jesus Christ and the theological differences between Islam and Christianity are essentially a discussion about the so called heresies of Arias and Eusebius of Caesarea that germinated in the city of Antioch. This has been prolifically elucidated by Thomas Jefferson in his “Jeffersen Bible”. Many churches have taken a liberal approach to the interpretation of the Bible and consider it inspired or infallible.

ARIANISM WITHIN THE FOLD OF ISLAM INFLUENCED LUTHER’S PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND THE RENAISSANCE: Historically, Arianism was a majority opinion among Christians, but this began to change when Emperor Constantine intervened on behalf of and Trinitarians. However Emperor Constantine in order to preserve the empire wanted to combine existing trinatirian concepts within Rome and married them to Christian beliefs. Arius, a Libyan by descent, was brought up at Antioch, a center of Christian learning. He became the Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) and was made presbyter of the church called “Baucalis,” at Alexandria. He opposed the Sabellians, who were committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme.

The Council of Nicea in 325 headed by Emperor Constantine adopted the Nicean concept of Trinity, Arias was exiled and his promulgation “anethmized“.

Emperor Constantine reversed his opinion about the Arian and his “heresy”. He recalled Arian and his supporting bishops three years later (in 328). At the same time, Arius was recalled from exile.

Constantine’s sister and Eusebius worked on the emperor to obtain reinstatement for Arius, and they would have succeeded, if Arius hadn’t suddenly died – by poisoning. Arianism regained momentum and survived until the reigns of Roman emperors Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose set to work stamping it out. However that was not the end Arianism.

Arianism survived until 381AD in the Western Roman Empire and then thrived in the Easter Roman empire and other areas until the 7th century. After that Arianism went underground. Evangelists sent to the Germanic peoples converted the Goths to Arianism. When the Germanic people entered the Roman empire they entered it as Arians and used this form of Christianity to differentiate themselves from the Romans. The Germanic peoples were Arians. Arianism did not die even then.

The flag of Arianism laws carried by “The Brethren of the Common Life”, who were a medieval lay group dedicated to Bible study and education. They were persecuted, fled their native homelands and were scattered all over Europe. They are by many account held responsible for the renaissance.

“John of Damascus” was born in Damascus when Islam was growing. In his book the “Heresies of Ishamail” he defines Islam in the light of Arianism and what he defines as Nestorianism. Nestorius (c.386-c.451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch and later became the Patriarch of Constantinople. He preached against the use of the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary and would only call her Mother of Christ (Christotokos). The same tile is used in the Quran.

John of Damascus in today’s light would not be considered an apologetic of Islam. I would consider him a proponent of Islam since he ties Islam to a kind of a Gnostic Gospel. He called all gospels divinely inspired. It is fascinating to see the link between Islam and Christianity. If we read Arianism and Nestorianism, and Unitarianism in conjunction with what the Archbishop of Canterbury says, it paints a picture of immense interaction between Islam and a much closer relationship than generally accepted.Fletcher in his book “The Cross and the Crescent” lists a lot of commonalities between Islam and Christianity and informs us the Syriac Christian Churches felt liberated when the Muslim took over the Holy lands. In all Muslims lands taken over by Muslims from Christians, the number of churches built went up phenomenally. The Syriac and Coptic Christians were closer to “Unitarians” and the heterodox Christian doctrine of Nestorianism. From a Christian perspective These were all the “heresies” that eventually got purged by Emperor Constantine and got included into Islam.

Gilbert Clerke of Northamptonshire, a mathematician and, in a sense, a teacher of Whiston, Noval of Tydd St. Giles near Wisbech, Thomas Firmin (Sabellian), William Penn, Stephen Nye (Sabellian), William Freke (Arian), John Smith, the philomath, of St. Augustine’s, London (Socinian), Henry Hedworth, the disciple of Biddle, and William Manning, minister of Peasenhall (1630–1711) (independent), form a direct and unbroken, though irregular, chain of anti-Trinitarian thought, extending from the commonwealth days to those of toleration—not to mention the more covert but still demonstrable anti-Trinitarianism of Milton and Locke. With the passing of the Toleration act of 1689, the leaven of this long train of anti-Trinitarian thought made itself strongly felt. It first appeared in the bosom of the church of England itself, in the so-called Socinian controversy. In 1690, Arthur Bury, a latitudinarian divine, was deprived of the rectorship of Lincoln college, Oxford, for publishing his Naked Gospel. The proceedings gave rise to a stream of pamphlet literature on both sides. In the same year, 1690, John Wallis, Savilian professor of mathematics at Oxford, was involved in a controversy with a succession of …anonymous Arian and Socinian writers (among them William Jones) by the publication of his Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity briefly Explained.

BAPTIST MATTHEW CAFFYN UPHELD UNITARIANISM: In 1693, Matthew Caffyn, baptist minister at Horsham, Sussex, was for a second time accused before the “Baptist General Assembly” of denying Christ’s divinity; and, when the assembly refused to vote his expulsion, a secession took place, and the rival “Baptist General Association” was formed. In the same year, the anti-Trinitarians published a Second collection of tracts proving the God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true God (1693). The tenth, and last, tract in this volume was a reply to South’s Animadversions on Sherlock’s Vindication.

PRESBYTERIAN JOHN HOWE DEFENDS UNITARIANISM:: In the following year (1694), the presbyterian John Howe entered the field with his Calm and sober Inquiry directed against the above tract, and, to make the fight triangular, Sherlock replied to South and Howe together in A Defence of Dr. Sherlock’s notion of a Trinity in Unity. The anti-Trinitarians’ Third collection of Tracts, which followed immediately, was a reply at once to Howe, on the one hand, and to Sherlock, on the other.

SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY: JOHN SMITH, LOCKE AND NEWTON DEFENDED UNITARIANISM:This first Trinitarian or so-called Socinian controversy, practically, came to an end in 1708. It went underground in 1698, damaged by the act for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness, which remained on the statute book till 1813.

With the exception of John Smith’s Designed End to the Socinian Controversy (1695), the whole of the anti-Trinitarian contributions to it had been anonymous (both Locke and Sir Isaac Newton are supposed to have contributed under the cover of this anonymity); and, with the exception of Howe, no representatives of the professed dissenting denominations had joined in the fray.

It is therefore to be regarded, primarily, as a church of England controversy, in which the churchmen had weakened the Trinitarian cause by a triangular and virtually conflicting defence: Sherlock versus South versus Tillotson and Burnet, and all four versus the enemy. The agitation which the controversy produced among the dissenters was mainly reflex, and is apparent more in their domestic quarrels, noted above, than in their published literature. But, disproportionately small as was the dissenting share of the combatants in mere point of literature, the intellectual ferment which ensued in following years showed itself more in the bosom of dissent than in the life and thought of the church of England.

PRESBYTERIAN THOMAS EMLYN SELF DESCRIBED UNITARIAN English Presbyterian minister and writer who first publicly adopted the name Unitarian to designate a liberal, rational approach to God as a single person (as opposed to Christian belief in the Trinity). He was was tried at Dublin, in 1693, for publishing his“Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ”, an Arian response to Sherlock’s “Doctrine of the Trinity.”

Some other famous Unitarians are: Milton (1608-1674), John Locke (1632-1704), John Biddle (1615-1662), Michael Servetus (1511-1553), Francis David (1510-1579), Lelio Francesco Maria Sozini (1525-1562), Fausto Paolo Sozini (Socianus, 1539-1604), Thomas Emlyn (1663-1741), Theophilus Lindsey (1723-1808), Joseph Priestly (1733-1804), and William Ellery Channing (1780-1842). Among the most famous early Unitarians in Christianity are: Arius (250-336 A.D.), Iranaeus (130-200), Tertullian (160-220), Origen (185-254), Diodorus, and Lucian (d. 312). Their biographies are contained in References 1 and 7.

Below is a brief account of a famous physician and a scientist, before and after Newton, who had strong religious opinion on the Trinity.

Michael Servetus (1511-1553), born in Spain, received a degree in Medicine from Toulouse in 1534. He was one of the first European to write about the principle of the circulation of the blood [see earlier work by Ibn Al-Nafis (1213-1288)]. Servetus wrote three important works: ‘The Errors of Trinity’ (1531), ‘Two Dialogues on Trinity’ (1531), and ‘The Restoration of Christianity’. Luther publicly condemned him in 1539. Servetus followed the views held by the early apostles who belonged to the Antiochene school of Christianity, and he supervised the printing of a Bible in 1540. Servetus corresponded with Calvin for more than twenty years. As a result of bitter conflict, Calvin had him arrested in Milan, and after a quick trial Servetus was burned to the stakes. Servetus is regarded by many as the “founder of modern Unitarianism.” [7]

Theophilus Lindsey is known as the organiser of the first Unitarian congregation in England. On April 17, 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Priestly attended the first Unitarian service conducted by Lindsey in London. Jospeh Priestly is known as the discoverer of Oxygen. Priestly’s main contribution to the unitarians in England was comprehensive argument, both historical and philosophical, in support of the unity of God. Joseph Priestly produced his most important and influential work, ‘History of the Corruptions of Christianity’ in two volumes. Priestly affirmed the humanity of Jesus, but denied the immaculate conception. He also denied the validity of the doctrine of Trinity. Priestly’s house was burned by a mob and so was a hotel where the mob mistakenly thought Priestly was present. His book was publicly burned in Holland. Joseph Priestly sailed for America with Benjamin Franklin in 1794, where they opened some of the first Unitarian churches in and around Philadelphia [7].

The Dalits are considered as untouchable in Hinduism. When the Dalits convert to religions where they are guaranteed equality they are hounded and harassed. The Dalits who converted to Christianity  Orissa face church burnings, gang rape, and murder at will. The Dalits who convert to Islam are branded as terrorists and charged under POTA and other draconian laws. As “terrorists” the ex Dalits face fake encounters, torture and death by the Indian agencies. The Maoist belt from Nepal running down to Andhra Pradesh is made of millions of Dalits (figures range from 250 million to 450 million). They are up in arms against the central government of India and control more than 40% of the Indian land mass.

Dalit Civil Rights activist in India: Dr Kancha Ilaiah Interview

India: Why are Hindus violently assaulting Christians?

Muslims must work AMONG Dalits & liberate them: Dr. Ilaiah

INDIA: Dr. Ilaiah, Dalit author of “I am not a Hindu” persecuted

“Nonviolence” gimmick failed to achieve any results. Is it a marketing success?

Indian Secularism: A status report by Shah Abdul Halim of Bangladesh

Freedom: Arundhati Roy on “Brave New India”

Dalts converts to Islam, Christianity face murder, rape in India

Dalit converts to Islam suspects in A’bad blasts 14 Sep 2008, 0432 hrs IST,TNN

???????? ???? | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ?????  | Sept 15th, 08 | Moin Ansari |  ???? ??????? | 

AHMEDABAD: Mohammed Umar Kabira is actually Ashokbhai Kalabhai on the payrolls of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC). He is among those picked up by the crime branch from Juhapura in connection with the July 26 serial bomb blasts in Ahmedabad.
A Dalit, Kabira converted to Islam five years ago and works as a manhole cleaner with AMC. He was released on Friday night after being in custody for 38 days, only to be called back on Saturday morning. Police has assured his wife Sumaiya (formerly Parulben) that he would return on Monday.
Sumaiya became a Muslim only after Kabira threatened to divorce her. When she finally converted, the couple changed the names of their children too – Shweta to Kulsum, Saloni to Taslim, Khushbu to Maria and Akash to Abdullah. Police has stumbled upon new conversion cases during the course of their probe.

This seems to have been inspired by Abu Bakar, born in a Dalit family as Jivanbhai Ramjibhai. Bakar works as a masonry contractor and used to convince other Dalits to embrace Islam.

While Kabira embraced Islam soon after the 2002 Gujarat riots, his brother Kishore, also an AMC employee, became a Muslim only a year ago on his brother’s insistence. He has changed his name to Zafar. “Now, even our relatives who are still Hindus are ridiculing our decision,” said Zafar whose wife Geeta is now Ameena and son Sachin now called Yusuf.
The crime branch has claimed before metropolitan court while seeking remand of the accused that SIMI members were involved in conversions and they indoctrinated these new converts into Jihad. Abdul Rehman Shaikh (earlier Jayanti Parmar) is another person who remained in police custody for a while after the blasts. Shaikh, a scrap dealer who shifted from Shahpur to Juhapura after embracing Islam, was picked up by the crime branch on August 12 and released after seven days.

???????? ???? | PAKISTAN LEDGER | ???????? ?????  | Sept 15th, 08 | Moin Ansari |  ???? ??????? | 

Eastern Churches on the Eve of Islam

The Early Differences

In the fourth and fifth centuries opposition to Christian thought, as represented by Byzantium and
Antioch, resulted in schisms, “heresies” from the “orthodox” viewpoint. These schisms as well as the
rejection of Greek language and culture were expressions of national awakening.

The Syrian spirit was asserting itself against the dominance of Greek culture. The Syrians as a people
were no more hellenized at this time than they were to be romanized later. They were alienated from their
Byzantine masters because of ideological as well as economic and political motives. The Christian
Byzantines were autocratic in their rule and oppressed the population with heavy taxation. According to Hitti they disarmed the natives and had but little regard for their feelings.
Even in religious matters they displayed less tolerance than their pagan predecessors. In the fourth
and fifth centuries theological controversy was a major preoccupation for the man of the street as well
as among the intelligentia. It centered around the nature of Christ and related topics. The result was
numerous religious schisms and heresies, some of which used the tools of Aristotelian logic and applied
Neo-Platonic principles. The protagonists of these heresies were of Syrian nativity or education.

Arius and Apollinaris
Chief among them was Arius (d. ca. 335), whose system was condemned in the council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. As a reaction against Arianism, with its emphasis on the humanity of Christ, Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicesa (d. ca. 390), affirmed that while Christ has a true human body and a true human soul (that part of man common to him and the animal), the Logos or Word occupied in him the place of the spirit, which is the highest part of man. Historian Duchesne states somewhat excessively that Apollinarism links Arianism
and Nestorianism by opposing the one and paving the way for the other.

Nestorianism
Nestorianism believed in the two natures of Christ. Though it reacted against Arianism and Apollinarism,
it failed to reflect the doctrine of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. Nestorianism refused to attribute to the
divine nature the human acts and sufferings of Jesus and refused to call Mary the Theotokos-mother of God; for it the right word was Christotokos Mother of Christ. Nestorians distinguished the two natures in
Christ and affirmed their union. However, they did not conceive this union to be of a metaphysical nature,
but rather of a psycho-logical or moral order. In other words, Nestorians held that in Jesus a divine
person (the Logos) and a human person were joined in perfect harmony of action but not in the unity of a
single “hypostasis”: i.e., “uqnum”. As far as Chalcedonian orthodoxy was concerned, the theological
inadequacy of Nestorian doctrine consisted in its view of the hypostatic union (hypostatic means the perfect union of the human nature end divine nature in the one person of Christ). For the Nestorians, the union was not a personal, but a moral union. Justly or not, Nestorian Christology was condemned by the council of Ephesus in 431. The differences over the One Nature of Christ
(Monophysitism). Next to Nestorianism, Monophysitism produced the greatest schism that the Eastern Church had suffered.
Strictly speaking, the Monophysites were those who did not accept the doctrine of the two natures (divine and human) in the one person of Jesus as it was formulated by the council of Chalcedon (451). They took for their watchword “the one nature of the incarnate Word of God”, because the Monophysites believed that this terminology was the most natural and proper way to guard against Nestorian formulations. The question of the terminology is of vital importance in this matter, because there was no clearly defined theological language and terminology at the time. Thus, it seems that the dispute between monophysites and Chalcedonian orthodoxy was mainly one of the terms: to Monophysites, terms “nature” and “person” synonymous, and to those maintained the two natures of Christ, the terms “nature” and “essence.”

This does not mean, that there was no difference in ideas or that both parties stressed equally certain
ideas; the case was that some stressed the unity and majesty of Christ, other stressed his two natures. In
the fifth and early sixth centuries, Monophysitism won to its doctrine the major part north Syria and also
fell heir to Apollinarism in the South. Its success was due largely to the missionary seal of Syrian monk
Barsauma, bishop of Nisibis (ca. 484-96), and to the personality of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch.
The Ghassanids and other Syrian tribes espoused the same doctrine. The Monophysite Church in Syria was
organized by Jacob Bardaeus, ordained bishop of Edessa about 541 and died in 578. Consequently, the Syrian Monophysites came to be called Jacobites. The western part of the Syrian (Monophysite) Church became entirely separated from the eastern (later Nestorian) Church. From Syria the Monophysite doctrine spread into Armenia to the north and Egypt to the south.
Armenians and Copts to this day adhere to Monophysite doctrine. In Syria and Mesopotamia the number of its adherents has been on the decrease ever since Islam became the dominant power in those lands.
Eastern Churches on the Eve of Islam This is briefly the situation of the Eastern Christianity just before the rise of Islam. By this time the Syrian Christian Church had split into several communities. As mentioned earlier there was first the East Syrian Church or the Church of the East which was later called Nestorian. In the year 484 Nestorian theology was declared by the Synod of Beth Papat in Persia as the official theology of the East Syrian Church. From this date on, one can accurately designate the East Syrian Church as “Nestorian.”
However, the term “Nestorian” was applied to it only at a later date (19th Century), by Roman Catholics, to
convey the stigma of differences in contradistinction to those who joined the Catholic Church as Uniats and received the name Chaldeans. With its God-and-man doctrine of Christology (in contrast to the orthodox doctrine which held that while in Christ two natures existed, these were moulded into one person), its protest against the deification of the Virgin Mary and its unusual vitality and missionary zeal, this Church at the rise of Islam was the most potent factor in Syrian culture which had impressed itself upon the Near East from Egypt to Persia. Members of this community from the fourth century onward had studied and translated Greek philosophical works and spread them throughout Syria and Mesopotamia. From Edessa the Church extended eastward into Persia. Even under Islam this Church had an unparalleled record of missionary activity. And there was, on the other hand, the western branch of the Syrian Church with its God-man Christology and its exaltation of the Virgin to the celestial rank, and which was comparatively lacking in missionary endeavour. Its theology was monophysite, giving
prominence to the unity of Christ at the expense of the human element. In Syria the Monophysite communion was called by hostile Greeks “Jacobites” after Jacob Baradacus, bishop of Edessa in the mid-sixth century.
The Ghassanids and other Syrian Arabs adopted this creed before the advent of Islam. The so-called
Jacobite Church thus became preponderant in Syria, as the Nestorian Church had done in Persia. Syriac was
and has remained the language of both churches; but Greek was also taught in the cloisters, and the
Jacobites seconded the efforts made by the Nestorians in transmitting Greek thought to Syria and then to
Islam. Qinnasrin was a great center in North Syria for disseminating Monophysite doctrine and Greek
knowledge. Jacobite scholars were depositories of whatever sciences were cultivated or transmitted in
those days. Armenian, Coptic-Ethiopic, Maronite, and Melkite Churches

Besides the Jacobite Church of Syria, the Armenian Church and the Coptic-Ethiopic Church are independent
descendants of the Monophysite rite. With all their interest in Greek learning the two estranged sister
Syrian Churches of the East and the West arose and developed largely as a reaction of the Syrian society
against the Hellenising influences of Byzantium and Rome. Jacobitism and Nestorianism, while they
professed different Christologies, were alike protests against foreign intrusion and the process of
syncretism that was turning Christianity, historically a Syrian religion, into a Greco-Roman institution.
Another shoot of the ancient Church of Syria is the Maronite, which owes its origin to its patron Saint
Maron (d. Ca. 410), an ascetic monk about whose life not much is known. He is probably that “Maron, the
monk priest” to whom John Chrysostom, on his way into exile, addressed an epistle soliciting prayers and
news. The Maronite Church has been charged with espousing the Monothelite cause (one will in Christ).
But later Maronite apologists, beginning with alDuwayhi (d. 1704) and ibn-Namrun (d. 1711) have
claimed continued Chalcedonian orthodoxy for their Church throughout the ages. The East and the West
Syrian Churches with their ramifications did not comprise all Syrian Churches. There remained a small
body which under the impact of Greek theology from Antioch and Constantinople succumbed and accepted the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Thereby this community secured imperial orthodoxy not only escaped excommunication, but obtained protection, even patronage from the state church and the imperial city.

By way of reproach their opponents-centuries later-nicknamed them “Melkitesites,” royalists (from
Syriac malka, king). Gradually, Greek replaced Syriac Melkite language of ritual and the liturgy gave place
to the Byzantines.
Al-Bushra (from Arabic, means good news) is created by Rev. Labib Kobti from the Latin Patriarchate of
Jerusalem (The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Jerusalem). Copyright © by Al-Bushra. January 22, 1997
——————————————————————–

The following is an open letter to Geert and Dr. Laura penned by a resident of the USA:

Dear Geert and Dr. laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18 : 22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1 : 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15 : 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but many women take offense.

d) Lev. 25 : 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35 : 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or will you arrange it for me?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11 : 10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21 : 20 Clearly states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19 : 27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11 : 6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19 : 19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24 : 10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20 : 14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

 

We welcome all our Dutch friends. Welkomen!

After you read the article on the Taliban (below) you may also enjoy these ARTICLES POPULAR AMONG OUR VALUED  DUTCH READERS:

Please also read the following articles and post them on this Dutch site (http://www.nujij.nl) and others. Thanks:
===================================================
WHERE ARE THE GOOD DUTCH?
===================================================
Muslim andloving Holland

Freedom of Speech Tested on Dutach boards. Rupee News faced Abuse, Ban and Censorship

Dutch Nazi collaboration seeds wilders new Anti-Semitism (Islamophobia)

Dutch provocation. Muslim Blowback!

Dutch Nazi Diamonds. A girls worst friend

 Fitna here and the multiple response on this site

Geert Wilders anti-Quran film. Silence will be the best response

Dutch and Geert Wilders should ban these holy books too

Europe: Muslim Integration and separatism lessons learned from the British Raj

Send Tulips to Geert Wilders

Muslims support SOIEs efforts to eliminate Islamic influences from Europe

“Fitna” Rebuttal to Geert Wilders. Refuting the Dutch Nazis

Danish Nazi collaboration creat Danish Nazi collaboration

Prophet Muhammad in the Christian context

The following is an open letter to Geert and Dr. Laura penned by a resident of the USA:

Dear Geert and Dr. laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18 : 22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1 : 9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21 : 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15 : 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but many women take offense.

d) Lev. 25 : 44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35 : 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or will you arrange it for me?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11 : 10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21 : 20 Clearly states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19 : 27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11 : 6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19 : 19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24 : 10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20 : 14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan

Jesus through Muslim eyes –

Prof Tarif Khalidi University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK Sheikh Zayed Chair in Islamic and Arabic Studies at American University of Beirut. (internationally renowned Islamic Studies scholar) (presented in a BBC Telecast)

In the year 630 A.D, the Prophet Muhammad achieved one of his most cherished goals: the occupation of Mecca and the subsequent cleansing of the city from idol worship: it was at once a political and a religious victory of immense symbolic importance. Mecca had been declared the center of the new faith; its conquest was therefore the fulfillment of a divine promise.

Entering the Ka’ba, the square structure which housed the city’s idols, Muhammad ordered all its icons cleansed or destroyed. One of the icons in what must have been a very mixed gallery of divinities was a Virgin and child. Approaching the Christian icon, Muhammad covered it with his cloak and ordered all the others washed away except that one.

Fact or fiction? The question is immaterial. The report I cited is at least 1200 years old and therefore belongs to some of the earliest strata of Muslim historical writing.

What this episode illustrates is the fact that between Islam and the figure of Jesus Christ there exists a literary tradition spanning a millennium and a half of a continuous historical relationship — a preoccupation with Jesus that may well be unique among the world’s great non-Christian religions. To do full justice to this record, I would need a far larger canvas than the one available to me today. Instead I can only hope to draw a sketch of the contours of that relationship; to point to only a few of its highest peaks, its defining moments.

The Qur’an is the axial text of Islamic civilization, and it is of course where we must begin for Islam’s earliest images of Jesus. Approximately one third of the Quranic text is made up of narratives of earlier prophets, most of them Biblical. Among these prophetic figures, Jesus stands out as the most puzzling. The Qur’an rewrites the story of Jesus more radically than that of any other prophet, and in doing so it reinvents him. The intention is clearly to distance him from the opinions about him current among Christians. The result is surprising to a Christian reader or listener. The Jesus of the Qur’an, more than any equivalent prophetic figure , is placed inside a theological argument rather than inside a narrative. He is very unlike his Gospel image. There is no Incarnation, no Ministry and no Passion. His divinity is strenuously denied either by him or by God directly. Equally denied is his crucifixion. A Christian may well ask, what can possibly be left of his significance if all these essential attributes of his image are gone?

Jesus reinterpreted by the Qur’an is singled out, again and again, as a prophet of very special significance. Uniquely among prophets he is described as a miracle of God, an aya ; he is the word and spirit of God; he is the prophet of peace par excellence; and , finally it is he who predicts the coming of Muhammad and thus, one might say, is the harbinger of Islam.

How did these earliest images of Jesus grow and develop inside Islamic culture ? The Hadith or Prophetic Tradition of Muhammad, depicts him as a figure who will come at the end of days to help bring the world to its end. He can now be said to bracket the era of Islam, standing right at its beginning and right at its end. But it is the rapidly growing literary tradition of Islam which now began to embrace the various images of Jesus current in the lands that Islam had conquered. There came together a corpus of sayings and stories attributed to Jesus which in their totality one could call the Muslim Gospel (a collection of these I have just published under the title The Muslim Jesus). Let me quote a few of these sayings and stories: “Jesus said, Blessed is he who sees with his heart but whose heart is not in what he sees”. Here’s another: ” Jesus said, The world is a bridge; cross this bridge but do not build upon it” And here’s a short exchange: ” Jesus met a man and asked him, What are you doing? “I am devoting myself to God,” the man replied. Jesus asked,” Who is caring for you?” “My brother,” said the man. Jesus said, “Your brother is more devoted to God than you are”. And so it goes on, some three hundred such sayings and stories, which Muslim culture was to ascribe to Jesus across a millennium of continuous fascination with his images and manifestations. At times he is a fierce ascetic, at other times he is the gentle teacher of manners, at yet others the patron of Muslim mystics, the prophet of the secrets of creation, the healer of the wounds of nature and of man.

But back now to my sketch, to just a few other illuminations inside this lengthy historical record. In the tenth century A.D. we have the great Baghdad mystic al-Hallaj, whose life and crucifixion was called “The Passion of al-Hallaj” by the celebrated French Orientalist Massignon. If you want to take my word for it, you would regard him as one of the most Christ-like figures in human history, up there with Socrates, Gandhi and one or two of the greatest saints of mankind. What made al Hallaj a Christ-like figure was total absorption in the life of the spirit, a realm lying beyond law, and an exploration of a reality that led him ultimately to claim identity with the divine. But at the same time, there is in him the unshakable willingness to submit to the law, even unto death. So he dies under the law, as it were, in order to rise above it, in order to triumph over the law. Thus, at one time he used to advise his disciples: “Why go on pilgrimage to Mecca? Build a small shrine inside your own house and circumambulate it in true faith, and it is as if you have performed the pilgrimage.” The tension between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law endows the life of Hallaj with a Gospel-like aura, culminating in his trial, his tragic last days and his heart-rending crucifixion. The model of sanctity prefigured by al-Hallaj was to survive most notably inside Muslim mysticism where Jesus was to become a patron saint of Muslim sufism.

But let me move now to later times. The era of the Crusades, a two-hundred year war, pitted European Christian against Western Asian Muslim armies. And here was a chance for Muslim scholars to point to the glaring disparity between Jesus, the prophet of peace, and the barbaric conduct of his so-called followers. In the twelfth century, Jesus was once again reclaimed by Muslim polemics, once again reinvented, if you prefer, in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims against his alleged followers. In the battle for the legacy of Jesus, there was no doubt whatsoever in Muslim eyes that the true Jesus belonged to Islam. It was in a sense a replay of the Qur’anic scenario, this time more urgent and dangerous.

As we approach our own days, we observe that many of his earlier manifestations continue to dominate the spiritual horizons of contemporary Islam. Let me speak of only two major images: Jesus the healer of nature and man, and Jesus the Crucified. To encounter Jesus the healer, I invite my listeners to take a trip to to the Monastery of Sidnaya north of Damascus or to the Iranian city of Shiraz . The Monastery of Sidnaya was founded by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD. It sits on an outcrop of rock high above a valley. To this Monastery travels an endless stream of men and women seeking the blessings and healing of our Lady and her infant son. The vast majority of visitors are Muslim, who come to this Christian shrine as did their ancestors for a thousand years.

A visit to Shiraz might come next. Here, the celebrated city, a treasure house of Muslim art and architecture and a garden-city of poets and mystics, is home also to a living Muslim medical tradition of healing, the tradition of the Masiha-Dam, the healing breath of Christ. This theme is already reflected in the poetry of the great Persian poet Hafiz, some seven hundred years ago. Thus, in both the literary as well as medical tradition of contemporary Iran, there runs a continuous preoccupation with the healing Christ figure. For Shii Islam, which dominates Iran, the martyrdom of Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, in 682 A.D. is a central spiritual event. And for Shii Islam in particular, the life and death of Christ is a parallel spiritual event. The Christ/Husayn analogy is ever present in the religious sensibility of Shi’i Islam.

I should now make mention of another poet, widely considered the greatest Arab poet of the twentieth century: the Iraqi Badr Shakir al-Sayyab. His life was one of exile, imprisonment, ill health and of total commitment to the cause of the oppressed; his was a poetry utterly Modernist in form but utterly classical in diction. In his verse one will find what is probably the most memorable impact of Christ on modern Arabic/Islamic literature. One poem in particular, entitled “Christ after the Crucifixion” is a Passion, a vision of Christ as lord of nature and redeemer of the wretched of the earth. At the risk of doing violence to its tight structure, I will read only its first and its final stanzas:

After they brought me down, I heard the winds In a lengthy wail, rustling the palm trees, And steps fading away. So then, my wounds, And the Cross upon which they nailed me all afternoon and evening Did not kill me. I listened. The wail Was crossing the plain between me and the city Like a rope pulling at a ship As it sinks to the sea-bed. The dirge Was like a thread of light between dawn and midnight, Upon a grieving winter sky. And the city, nursing its feelings, fell asleep
I was in the beginning, and in the beginning was Poverty. I died that bread may be eaten in my name; that they plant me in season. How many lives will I live! For in every furrow of earth I have become a future, I have become a seed. I have become a race of men, in every human heart A drop of my blood, or a little drop
After they nailed me and I cast my eyes towards the city I hardly recognised the plain, the wall, the cemetry; As far as the eye could see, it was something Like a forest in bloom. Wherever the vision could reach, there was a cross, a grieving mother The Lord be sanctified ! This is the city about to give birth.

This is a poem of salvation, political and theological, a poem that interweaves, in a apocalyptic voice, the Jesus of the Gospels and the risen Christ triumphant, a Jesus who is lord of the wretched of the earth and a Christ who is lord and healer of nature. It is a poetic gospel in miniature, a vision of Christ in suffering and ultimately in victory.

So: I think it can safely be shown that Islamic culture presents us with what in quantity and quality are the richest images of Jesus in any non-Christian culture. No other world religion known to me has devoted so much loving attention to both the Jesus of history and to the Christ of eternity. This tradition is one that we need to highlight in these dangerous, narrow-minded days. The moral of the story seems quite clear: that one religion will often act as the hinterland of another, will lean upon another to complement its own witness. There can be no more salient example of this interdependence than the case of Islam and Jesus Christ. And for the Christian in particular, a love of Jesus may also mean, I think, an interest in how and why he was loved and cherished by another religion

Moin,
     Wow!  Many thanks.  Salam,  Bob
—————–
Forwarded Message:

Subj:

Re: Please send Archbishop of Canterbury’s Al Azhar talk to Sheilamusaji@aol….

Date:

10/29/2004 11:15:10 AM Eastern Standard Time

From:

Moinansari

To:

Transcendentlaw

CC:

Sheilamusaji, Jeremyhthomas

Right-click picture(s) to display picture options

Brother Crane.

I am quickly attaching the Archbishop’s message here along with some other research that I have accumulated on the subject

The Pope has already reaffrimed the cocept of MULTIPLE COVENANTS between God and Jews, Christians and Muslims

The Archbishop also seems to bring us closer

The Unitarian, Quaker, and Mormon concepts of Unity of God are closer to Islam. The Presbyterians and the Episcopalians certainly think of the Bible as “infallible” and not “inerrant” or TOTALLY divine

In a message dated 10/28/2004 9:08:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Transcendentlaw writes:

  I would appreciate it if you could resend your email to me so that when I return to Florida next week I can store it electronically.  I want to send it to Rev. William Baker, who wants to co-author a book with me, entitled Muslims and Christians: Our Jihad Against Terrorism.  This is to be in lieu of publishing the book that I completed 18 months ago but have been holding for revision at the right time.  Since the ultimate is beauty, the Archbishop’s beautiful teachngs, like Jesus himself, is the way to God.  Perhaps we can at least refer to it in our book.

ADDRESS OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AT AL-AZHAR

11 September 2004

I am very deeply moved by the honor of being invited to address you in this place, as a guest and, I hope, as a friend. It is some twenty five years since I first visited this great city and al-Azhar mosque; and I can remember my wonder and delight at the quality of its buildings and the atmosphere of dedication and calm reflection expressed in the very stones of the walls.

I am here as a Christian, to speak to you of some of those matters which both unite us and divide us. In the world as it is now developing, it is of the most central importance that we as Christians and Muslims understand one another better. I am delighted at the continuing commitment to this process that has been shown here, a commitment evident in these last few days. And better understanding means understanding our differences as well as our common vision. In these few remarks, I want to meditate a little on the greatest theme of both Muslim and Christian faith, the doctrine of God; and I want to suggest how, despite some of our differences, we can, in the light of our belief about Almighty God, together make certain affirmations to the world about the way to peace and justice for human beings.

If I understand the doctrine of Islam correctly, its most important conviction can be expressed in the word tawhid. God is one. No being is associated with God as a second reality deserving of worship and obedience. God has no need of any being outside his own eternal and self-sufficient life. In these words, I do no more than repeat some of the most luminous and uncompromising words of the Qur’an, which I give in the new translation by Muhammad Abdel Haleem.

‘God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful.’ (al-Baqara 255)

‘He is God the One,
God the eternal.
He fathered no one nor was he fathered.
No one is comparable to Him.’ (al ‘Ikhlaas 1-4)

This last text reminds the Christian that this great affirmation of the uniqueness of God is what has always caused Muslims to look with suspicion at Christian doctrines of God. Christian belief about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears at once to compromise the belief that God has no other being associated with him. How can we call God al-Qayyuum, the Self-sufficient, if he is not alone? So we hear in al-Baqara 115-117,

‘The East and the West belong to God:
wherever you turn, there is His Face.
God is all pervading and all knowing.
They have asserted, “God has a child.”
May He be exalted! No!
Everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him,
everything devoutly obeys His will.
He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth,
and when He decrees something, He says only “Be,” and it is.’

The belief that God could have a son is, for the faithful Muslim, a belief suggesting that God needs something other than himself and is subject to the processes of limited bodies by ‘begetting’ a child. How can such a God be truly free and sovereign? For we know that he is able to bring the world into being by his word alone.

Yet these anxieties do not belong only to Muslims. Egypt was, in the first centuries of the Christian era, the location of great debates on just such matters. Indeed, without the contribution of Egypt, Christian theology would have been infinitely poorer, for many of the greatest minds of that period were natives of Alexandria. And one of the great concerns of these thinkers and their successors was this: if Christians say that the eternal Word and power of God was fully present in Jesus, son of Mary, can we avoid saying this in such a way as to imply that God is subject to a physical process, or that God has a second being alongside him? These Christian sages believed as strongly as any Muslim that God was self-sufficient and free, and that he could not be affected or limited by physical processes and did not act as a physical cause among others. They say quite explicitly that when we speak of the father ‘begetting’ the Son, we must put out of our minds any suggestion that this is a physical thing, a process like the processes of the world.

Those Christian thinkers and their successors developed a doctrine which tried to clarify this: they said that the name ‘God’ is not the name of a person like a human person, a limited being with a father and mother and a place that they inhabit within the world. ‘God’ is the name of a kind of life – eternal and self-sufficient life, always active, needing nothing. And that life is lived eternally in three ways which are made known to us in the history of God’s revelation to the Hebrew people and in the life of Jesus. There is a source of life, an expression of life and a sharing of life. In human language we say, ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, but we do not mean one God with two beings alongside him, or three gods of limited power. Just as we say, ‘Here is my hand, and these are the actions my one hand performs’, but it is not different from the actions of my five fingers, so with God: this is God, the One, the Living and Self-subsistent, but what God does is not different from the life which is eternally at the same time a source and an expression and a sharing of life. Since God’s life is always an intelligent and purposeful life, each of these dimensions of divine life can be thought of as a centre of mind and love; but this does not mean that God ‘contains’ three different individuals, separate from each other as human individuals are.

And Christians believe that this life enters into ours in a limited degree. When God takes away our evildoing and our guilt, when he forgives us and sets us free, he breathes new life into us, as he breathed life into Adam at the first. That breathing into us we call the ‘Spirit’. As we become mature in our new life, we become more and more like the expression of divine life, the Word whom we encounter in Jesus. Because Jesus prayed to the source of his life as ‘Father’, we call the eternal expression of God’s life the ‘Son’. And so too we pray to the source of divine life in the way that Jesus taught us, and we say ‘Father’ to this divine reality.

But in no way does the true Christian say that the life and action of God could be divided into separate parts, as if it were a material thing. In no way does the true Christian say that there is more than one God or that God needs some other in order to act or that God promotes some other being to share his glory. There is one divine action, one divine will; yet (like the fingers of the hand) there are three ways in which that life is real, and it is only in those three ways that the divine life is real – as source and expression and sharing. It is because of those three ways in which divine life exists that Christians speak as they do about what it means to grow in holiness.

And the Christian also says something which may again be a source of disagreement. God is a loving God, as we all agree; but, says the Christian, God does not love simply because he decides to love. He is always, eternally, loving. His very nature, his definition is love. And the interaction and relation between the three ways in which God lives, the source and the expression and the sharing, is eternally the way God exists. The three centres of divine action, which we call Father, Son and Spirit, pour out the divine life to each other for all eternity, a sort of perfect circle of giving and receiving. And the only word we can use for that relationship of pouring out and giving is love. So as we grow in holiness, we become closer and closer in our actions and thoughts to the complete self-giving that always exists perfectly in God’s life. Towards this fullness we are all called to travel and grow.

Now these are difficult matters, and the greatest minds of the Christian Church have always found them hard to put into words. But what I wish to say to you today is simply that the disagreement between Christian and Muslim is not, I believe, a disagreement about the nature of God as One and Living and Self-subsistent. For us as for you, it is essential to think of God as a life that has no limit, as a life that is free. God is never to be listed alongside other beings. All through the centuries that we call the Middle Ages, Christians, Muslims and Jews thought alike about this, and our greatest philosophers, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Maimonides and others, all worked to make this clear. They would all have agreed that only if God is alone and needs no other is he worthy of our complete worship and devotion. God is not a being who is like us, only greater and more powerful. If God were like us only much greater, we might worship him out of fear instead of giving him free obedience and love. But the true God’s freedom is infinite and he can never be limited by any definition. When we have used up all the names that human language can find for him, we shall have spoken true things of him, but never expressed the whole truth which is hidden from created minds. And so we adore him in trust and thankfulness but we accept that we shall never have him in our grasp.

Together we can acknowledge these things. And it is sad that sometimes an unfaithful or careless Christian way of speaking has led Muslims and Jews to believe that we have a doctrine of God that does not recognise the oneness and sufficiency of God, or that we worship something less than the One, the Eternal. In our conversations with Muslim friends, we Christians are rightly challenged to think more deeply, to think as our Egyptian Christian fathers did, about the unity of Almighty God.

But there is a practical consequence of this belief about the One Living God. If God is truly not a part of the world, truly self-sufficient, then his will never depends upon how things turn out in the world. We cannot work out what is just and good simply from what seems to work, from what the world finds successful or easy or popular. What is good and just is rooted in eternal truth, in the nature of God, who is what he is quite independently of what the world is and what the world thinks. The world may tell us that we should behave in such and such a way – that we should seek only to make and keep money, that we should break our promises, that we should take revenge and show no mercy, that we should take our pleasures where we like. Sometimes behaviour of this sort seems to bring success in the world. But the believer knows that no amount of worldly success can make bad things good, because nothing in the world can change the will of God, who is beyond all change and cannot be affected or weakened by any other being. So we hold to our calling to virtue and generosity and justice whatever may happen, even if, today and tomorrow, it does not make our life easy and comfortable. We struggle in our interior, spiritual battle, to be faithful to God’s will.

The greatest challenge today for our world is how to react to circumstances in a way that is faithful to God’s will. Undoubtedly, greed and revenge affect all of us. We feel that we want to defend ourselves in the way that a person without faith or hope or love would understand – in anger and bitterness and unforgiving cruelty. But when we act in such a way, we show that we do not really believe in a God who is living and self-sufficient. We do not believe that God’s will is enough; we act as though the circumstances of this world could so change things that cruelty and fear could become the right tools with which to defend ourselves.

So when the Christian, the Muslim or the Jew sees his neighbour of another faith following the ways of this world instead of the peaceful will of God, he must remind his neighbour of the nature of the one God we look to, whose will cannot be changed and who will himself see that justice is done. Once we let go of justice, fairness and respect in our dealings with one another, we have dishonoured God as well as human beings. I am deeply grateful that it was once again in this country that Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders from the Holy Land under the co-chairmanship of the Grand Imam, Dr Tantawy, signed the Alexandria Declaration together, with its commitment to respect for the rights of the peoples of the Holy Land, its call for justice, and its refusal of terror and violence. How much we still need that vision to inspire us today, as the tragedies of this region of the world continue to resist settlement!

There is no doubt that the present violence throws a deep shadow over conversations between the West and the Muslim world. Three years ago today, I was one of those who shared just a little in the terrible experience of the events in New York. I was in a building just a short distance from the World Trade Centre that morning, and for a while I and my colleagues were trapped there; we were among those fortunate enough to be able to get out of the area just as the second tower collapsed, and we saw at first hand something of the nightmare and the suffering of that day.

On the day after, I was asked by a journalist for some of my reactions. I said that when someone spoke to us in the language of hatred or abuse, we had a choice about what language we might use to reply. So when someone ‘spoke’ to us in violence and murder, we could choose what we should do. We may rightly want to defend ourselves and one another – our people, our families, the weak and vulnerable among us. But we are not forced to act in revengeful ways, holding up a mirror to the terrible acts done to us. If we do act in the same way as our enemies, we imprison ourselves in their anger, their evil. And we fail to show our belief in the living God who always requires of us justice and goodness.

So whenever a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew refuses to act in violent revenge, creating terror and threatening or killing the innocent, that person bears witness to the true God. They have stepped outside the way the faithless world thinks. A person without faith, hope and love may say, If I do not use indiscriminate violence and terror, there is no safety for me. The believer says, My safety is with God, whose justice can never be defeated. If I defend myself, I seek to do so only in a way that honours God and God’s image in others, and that does not offend against God’s justice. To seek to find reconciliation, to refuse revenge and the killing of the innocent, this is a form of adoration towards the One Living and Almighty God.

This is why it is important to be clear about the God we worship. There is, as you will have seen, a great difference between what I as a Christian must say and what the Muslim will say; but we agree absolutely that God has no need of any other being, and that God is not a mixture or a society of different beings. And if we are committed to this God, we shall be able to do justice and act rightly even when the world around us expects us to follow its own violent ways.

And just as I have said that Christians have sometimes spoken carelessly about God and led others to think they believe less than they truly do, so all of us, Jews, Muslims and Christians, have sometimes spoken carelessly and let people think that we live by the same standards as those who have no faith or love, appearing to encourage violence and terror. If we look back to the Alexandria Declaration, we see how it is possible for all of us, in the light of our conviction about God, to be committed to something different from the world’s ways; there we find a promise to approach each other with respect and patience and to turn away from open battle, even when we feel threatened by each other. There too we find the common commitment not to use the name of God to justify violence and injustice. It has been impressive to hear in recent days the strength and clarity with which so many Muslim nations and Muslim leaders have condemned the unspeakable atrocities in Beslan. The common commitment of Muslims and Christians, as of all people of compassion, hope and intelligence, is not for a moment in doubt in this context.

In our own country, we have recently conducted a process in which Muslims and Christians together have listened to the concerns and hopes of many local communities, and we are now hoping to set up a national forum in which the anxieties of Muslim communities may be expressed and freely discussed. And we have also been discussing how each of the religious communities in Britain should react when any one of them is under threat or open attack – so that we hope a Christian community will give support to local Muslims if a mosque is attacked, and Muslims may do the same for local Jews if a synagogue is attacked or a cemetery desecrated, and Muslims and Jews will stand alongside Christians when they are abused and attacked. We pray that this willingness to stand alongside each other will be shared in other nations.

We believe that in such local ways we can, despite our disagreements, show to the world a different standard of behaviour, one that is worthy of the all-powerful and self-sufficient God we worship, worthy of him in a way that crusades and terrorism and oppression are not. All of us need to be able to repent before God for our errors and for the ways in which we are enslaved by a greedy and fearful world. But as our Christian scriptures say, we must not be conformed to this world but transformed, with our minds renewed (Romans 12.2).

If we truly understand the nature of our God, our minds will be renewed. We do not only teach truths about God, we allow those truths to change our lives. May we all find the strength and the courage from Almighty God to honour him by seeking peace together in fairness and respect and thanksgiving for each other.

‘To be one of those who believe
and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion.’ (al-Balad 17).

And as Jesus says in our own Christian Scriptures,

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they will be shown mercy…
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they will be called children of God (Matthew 5.6-7, 9).

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_50874_ENG_HTM.htm

Thanks for a good article. I must be on the right track, since I bought Crescent and the Cross about a year ago and used it extensively to update Dr. Crane’s book when he asked to revise it. I did so much work on it, that he called me a “co-author” of his latest version.
The attached article should be used in conjunction with my earlier article on Arianism and the Haneefs and what Fletcher actually calls Islam the Hetro Christianity..John from Damscus is called the first apologetic of Islam and a detractor………………..in his book the “Heresies of Ishamail” he pretty much defines Arianism. Sir Isaac Newton, Jefferson, Adam, Franklin and others used these Unitarian ideas and are today called “Deists”.
John of Damscus in today’s light would not be considered an apologetic of Islam. I would consider him a proponent of Islam since he ties Islam to a kind of Gnostic Gospel.
Obviously this is heresy in Islam since it reduces the prophet and Quran. However it is fascinating to see the link between Islam and Christianity as we have seen in the articles sent to us by Dr. Khan, Dr. Siddiqui and my own article. If we read all these in conjunction with what the Archbishop of Canterbury says, it paints a picture of immense interaction between Islam and a much closer relationship than generally accepted.
Please also note that Syriac and Coptic Christians were closer to “Unitarians” and the heterodox Christian doctrine of Nestorianism. From a Christian perspective These were all the “heresies” that eventually got purged by Emperor Constantine and got included into Islam
Nestorius
Nestorius (c.386-c.451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch and later became Patriarch of Constantinople. He preached against the use of the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary and would only call her Mother of Christ (Christotokos). He also argued that God could never be a helpless child, and could not suffer on the cross. His opponents accused him of dividing Christ into two persons: arguing that God the Word did not suffer on the cross, while Jesus the man did, or that God the Word was omniscient, while Jesus the man had limited knowledge, effectively implies two separate persons with separate experiences. Nestorius responded that he believed that Christ was indeed one person (Greek: prosopon).Nestorius was opposed by Cyril of Alexandria and finally condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, which held that Christ is one person, and that the Virgin Mary is the mother of God. The pronouncement of the Council is available here (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_to_nestorius_3.shtml). The condemnation resulted in the Nestorian schism and the separation of Assyrian Church of the East from the Byzantine Church. But even Ephesus could not settle the issue, and the Byzantine Church was soon split again by the Monophysite schism over the question whether Christ had one or two natures.Today it is generally accepted that the accusations against Nestorius and the Assyrian Church were exaggerated. The real question should have been whether properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Jesus Christ, and vice versa. This sharing of properties is called Communicatio idiomatum, and is part of Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Roman doctrine. For the position of the Assyrian Church look at this (http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_theology.html) page.[edit]
Christological implications
The teaching of Nestorius has important consequences that deal with soteriology and the theology of the Eucharist. During the Protestant Reformation, when some groups denied the Real Presence, they were accused of reviving the error of Nestorius.[edit]
The involvement of the Assyrian Church
Cyril of Alexandria worked hard to remove Nestorius and his supporters and followers from power. But in the Syriac speaking world Theodore of Mopsuestia was held in very high esteem, and the condemnation of his pupil Nestorius was not received well. His followers were given refuge. The Persian kings, who were at constant war with Byzantium, saw the opportunity to assure the loyalty of their Christian subjects and supported the Nestorian schism:
They granted protection to Nestorians (462).
They executed the pro-Byzantine Catholicos Babowai who was then replaced by the Nestorian Bishop of Nisibis Bar Sauma (484).
They allowed the transfer of the school of Edessa to the Persian city Nisibis when the Byzantine emperor closed it for its Nestorian tendencies (489). At Nisibis the school became even more famous than at Edessa. The main theological authorities of the school have always been Theodore and his teacher Diodorus of Tarsus. Unfortunatelly, only few of their writings have survived. The writings of Nestorius himself were only added to the curriculum of the school of Edessa-Nisibis in 530, shortly before the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia as Nestorius’s predecessors.At the end of the 6th century the school went through a theological crisis when its director Henana of Adiabene tried to replace Theodore by his own doctrine, which followed Origen. Babai the Great (551-628), who was also the inofficial head of the Church at that time and revived the Assyrian monastic movement, refuted him and in the process wrote the normative Christology of the Assyrian Church, based on Theodore of Mopsuestia.A small sampling of Babai’s work is available in English translation here (http://www.cired.org/faith/bawai.html). The Book of Union is his principle surviving work on Christology. In it he explains that Christ has two qnome (essences), which are unmingled and eternally united in one parsopa (personality). This, and not Nestorianism, is the teaching of the Assyrian Church.Book: Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler: The Church of the East. A concise History, London-New York 2003[edit]
Modern Nestorianism
In addition to the Assyrian Church of the East, some Protestant/Reformed organizations foster or tolerate doctrine that could be seen as Nestorian, specifically the doctrine that the Virgin Mary is merely the mother of “Christ’s humanity” and denying that she could be seen as the mother of the Son of God.
In a message dated 10/18/04 9:14:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wkhan@optonline.net writes:

al-Mansur, the King of Morocco, was making a proposal to his English ally,
> Queen Elizabeth I. The idea was a simple one: that England was to help the
> Moors colonize America.

Western Perceptions of Islam
The Middle Ages: From Theological Rivalry to the Creation of “the Other” Ibrahim Kalin
George Washington University 14/04/2003

From the moment it emerged as a universal religion, Islam became a major challenge for Christianity: it was a new dispensation from Heaven that claimed to have completed the cycle of Abrahamic revelations. The references to Jewish and Christian themes in the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions (hadith), sometimes concurring with and sometimes diverging from the Biblical accounts, contributed to the Christians’ sense of both consternation and insecurity on the one hand, and to the urgency of responding to the Islamic claims of authenticity and family relation to monotheism, on the other. The earliest polemics between Muslim scholars and Christian theologians that took place in the Islamic world attest to the zeal of the two communities to defend their faiths against one another. Baghdad and Damascus from the 8th through the 10th centuries were the two main centers of intellectual exchange and theological polemics between Muslims and Christians. Even though theological rivalry is an invariable of this period, many ideas were exchanged in the fields of philosophy, logic, and theology – taking the mode of interaction beyond theological bickering. In fact, Christian theologians posed a double challenge to their Muslim counterparts because they were a step ahead in cultivating a full-fledged theological vocabulary by using the lore of ancient Greek and Hellenistic culture. No one single figure can illustrate this situation better than St. John of Damascus   (c. 675-749) known in Arabic as Yahya Al-Dimashqi and in Latin as Johannes Damascenus. A court official of the Umayyad caliphate in Syria like his father Ibn Mansur, St. John was a crucial figure not only for the formation of Orthodox theology and the fight against the iconoclast movement of the 8th century, but also for the history of Christian polemics against “Saracens” – a pejorative name used for Muslims in most of the anti-Islamic polemics whose origins go back in all likelihood to St. John himself. St. John’s polemics, together with his contemporary Bede (d. 735) and, a generation later, Theodore Abu-Qurrah (d. 820 or 830), against Islam – as an essentially ‘Christian heresy’ or, to use St. John’s own words, as the “heresy of the Ishmaelites” – set the tone for the perceptions of Islam and continued to be an operative factor until the end of the Renaissance. In fact, most of the theological depictions concerning Islam as a ‘deceptive superstition of the Ishmaelites’ and a ‘forerunner of the Antichrist’ go back to St. John, who had no intentions for an interfaith understanding vis-à-vis Muslims. What is curious about St. John’s impact on his coreligionists in Western Europe is that he had a direct knowledge of the language and ideas of Muslims, which was radically absent among his followers in the West.  R. W. Southern has rightly called this the “historical problem of Christianity” vis-à-vis Islam in the middle ages, viz., lack of first-hand knowledge of Islamic beliefs and practices as a precaution or deliberate choice to dissuade and prevent Christians from contaminating themselves with a heretic offshoot of Christianity. The absence of direct contact and reliable sources of knowledge led to a long history of spurious scholarship against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad in Western Christianity, and as a result, Islam remained as an eerie foe in the European consciousness for a good part of the Middle Ages. The problem was further compounded by the Byzantine opposition to Islam and the decidedly inimical literature produced by Byzantine theologians between the 8th and the 10th centuries on mostly theological grounds. Even though the anti-Islamic Byzantine literature displays considerable first-hand knowledge of Islamic faith and practices, including specific criticisms of some verses of the Qur’an, the perception of Islam as a theological rival and heresy was the leitmotif of this type of literature and provided a solid historical and theological basis for the later critiques of Islam. If deliberate ignorance was the cherished strategy of the period, the out-and-out rejection of Islam as a theological challenge was no less significant. The Qur’anic assertion of Divine unity without the Trinity, countenance of Jesus Christ as God’s prophet divested of divinity, and sustaining a religious community without the clergy and a church-like authority were some of the challenges that did not go unnoticed in the Western Christendom. Unlike Eastern Christianity that had a presence in the midst of the Muslim world and better access to the Muslim faith, the image of Islam in the West was relegated to an unqualified heresy par excellence and regarded as no different than paganism or Manichaenism from which St. Augustine had his historical conversion to Christianity. In contrast to Spain in a later period where the three Abrahamic faiths had a remarkable period of intellectual and cultural exchange, the vacuum created by the spatial and intellectual confinement of Western Christianity was filled in by folk tales about Islam and Muslims, paving the way for the new store of images, ideas, stories and myths that were brought in by the stories and fantasies of Crusaders. Paradoxically, the Crusades did not bring any new or more reliable knowledge about Islam but reinforced its image as paganism and idolatry. There was, however, one very important consequence of the Crusades as far as the perceptions of Islam are concerned. The Crusaders, it is to be noted, were the first Western Christians to go into the Islamdom and witness Islamic culture with its cities, roads, bazaars, mosques, palaces, and, most importantly, its inhabitants. With the Crusader came not only the legend of Saladin (Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi), the conqueror of Jerusalem, but also the stories of Muslim life, its promiscuity, its wealth and luxury, and a number of goods such as silk and paper. Combined with popular imagery, these stories and imported goods – presenting a world picture immersed in the luscious joys and luxuries of worldly life – confirmed the wicked nature of the heresy of the Ishmaelites. Even though the subdued sense of admiration tacit in these stories did very little in ameliorating the image of Islam, it opened a new door of perception for Islam and Muslims as a culture and civilization. In this way, Islam, vilified on purely religious and theological grounds, became something of a neutral value – if not possessing any importance in itself. The significance of this shift in perception cannot be overemphasized. After the 14th century when Christianity began to loose its grip on the Western world, many lay people, who did not bother themselves with Christian criticisms of Islam or any other culture and religion for that matter, were more than happy to refer to Islamic culture as a world outside the theological and geographical confinements of Christianity. In a rather curious way, Islamic civilization, to the extent to which it was known in Western Europe, was pitted against Christianity to reject its exclusive claim to truth and universality. This explains, to a considerable extent, the double attitude of the Renaissance towards Islam; the Renaissance Europe hated Islam as a religion but admired its civilization. During the passionate and bloody campaign of the Crusades, a most important and unexpected development took place for the written literature on Islam in the Middle Ages, and this was the translation of the Qur’an for the first time into Latin under the auspices of Peter the Venerable (d.c. 1156). The translation was done by the English scholar Robert of Ketton who completed his rather free and incomplete rendition in July 1143. As expected, the motive for this translation was not to gain a better understanding of Islam by reading its sacred scripture but to know the enemy better. Regardless of the intention behind it, the translation of the Qur’an was a momentous event since it shaped the scope and direction of the study of Islam in the middle ages and provided the critics of Islamic religion with a text on which they can build much of their anti
cipated criticisms. Parallel with this was an event that proved to be even more persistent and alarming to Europe. The extant literature on the life of the Prophet of Islam in Latin is by far more extensive and elaborate as well as ornate in depicting a picture of Prophet Muhammad that was to last up to our own day. And although St. John of Damascus was the first to call the Prophet of Islam a ‘false prophet’ before the 12th century there are hardly any references to ‘Mahomet’ as the Prophet Muhammad was known to the Latins, and he does not appear to have any significance for the formation of Christian polemics against Muslims. With the induction of the Prophet into the picture, however, a new and eschatological dimension was added to the preordained case of Islam as a villain faith because the Prophet of Islam could now be identified as the anti-Christ heralding the end of the times. The picturing of the Prophet of Islam suffered from the same historical problem of medieval Europe to which we have referred, namely the lack of the study of Islam based on original sources, texts, first-hand accounts, or histories. The notorious fact that there was not a single scholar among the Latin critics of Islam until the end of the 13th century who knew Arabic resurfaced as a major catalyst for the spurious depictions of the Prophet of Islam. The first work ever to appear on the Prophet Muhammad in Latin was Embrico of Mainz’s (d. 1077) Vita Mahumeti, culled mostly from Byzantine sources and embellished with profligate details about the personal and social life of the Prophet. The picture that emerges out of such works largely corroborated the apocalyptic framework within which the Prophet of Islam and his discomforting success in spreading the new faith was seen as fulfilling the Biblical promise of the anti-Christ. The theological concerns of the time simply shun any appeal to reliable scholarship for the next one or two centuries to come and laid the ideological foundations of the image of the Prophet. Almost all of the Latin works that have survived on the life of the Prophet had one solid goal: to show the impossibility of such a man as Muhammad to be God’s messenger. This is exceedingly clear in the picture with which we are presented. The prophet’s ‘this-worldly’ qualities as compared to the ‘other-worldly’ nature of Jesus Christ were a constant theme. The Prophet was given to sex and political power, both of which he used, the Latins reasoned, to destroy Christianity. He was merciless towards his enemies, especially towards Jews and Christians, and took pleasure in having his opponents tortured and killed. The only reasonable explanation for the enormous success of Muhammad in religious and political fields was something as malicious as heresy, viz., that he was a magician and used magical powers to convince and convert people. The focus on the psychological states of the Prophet was so persuasive, so it seemed to the Latins, and so persistent that as late as in the 19th century William Muir (1819-1905), a British official in India and later the Principal of Edinburgh University, joined his ‘medireview’ predecessors by calling the Prophet a ‘psychopath’ in his extremely polemical Life of Mohammed. There are many other details that can be mentioned here such as the Christian background of the Prophet, his dead body being eaten and desecrated by pigs or that he was baptized secretly just before his death as a last attempt to save his soul. These details are truly interesting and reveal various facets of the spirit of the age in which the picture of the Prophet was drawn in an exceedingly hostile, polemical, shallow yet steady manner. The foregoing image of the Prophet of Islam was an extension of the erstwhile rejection of the Qur’an as authentic revelation. In fact, with the Prophet in the picture as a possessed and hallucinatory spirit, it was much more convincing in the eyes of the opponents to attribute the Qur’an to such a man as Muhammad. Having said that, there was also a deeper theological reason for focusing on the figure of the Prophet. Since Christianity is essentially a ‘Christic’ religion and Jesus Christ embodies the word of God, the Latin critics of Islam presumed a parallel paradigm for Islam according to which Muhammad was accorded a similar role in the religious universe of Islam. At any rate, the rejection of the Qur’an as the word of God and the representation of the Prophet of Islam as a possessed spirit and magician immersed in the lusts of the inferior world stayed with the Western perceptions of Islam until the modern period. Perhaps the most important outcome of the medireview Christian repudiation of Islam has been the exclusion of Islam from the family of monotheistic religions. Even in the modern period where the interfaith trialogue between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam has come a long way, we are still far from speaking with confidence of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition by which Islam can be seen as belonging to the same religious universe as the other Abrahamic religions. It goes without saying that the absence of such a discourse does nothing short of reinforcing the medireview perceptions of Islam as a heretic and pagan faith, thwarting the likelihood of generating a more inclusive picture of Islam on predominantly religious grounds.  
The Middle Ages: From Theological Rivalry to the Creation of “the Other”
From the Middle Ages through the Modern Period: The European Discovery of Islam as a World Culture
The 19th Century Perceptions of Islam: From the Pilgrim to the Orientalist
The Legacy of Orientalism and the New World: Islam as the ‘Other’ of the West?
Best Regards,
Moin Ansari
973-463-1260 day
973-568-9330 cell
973-568-9330 home
————————————————————————————————————————–
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended
recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the recipient of this e-mail,  please immediately delete\destroy it.
Clients: Any opinions or advice contained in this email  are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing client agreement letter.
I am sharing a www.episcopalchurch.org web page article with you.  Click here to read the article:   http://www.episcopalchurch.org/6947_50874_ENG_HTM.htm

I thank Dr. Khan for mentioning this article which I was able to mine. It is a fantastic article. Please read it if you were going to read ONLY ONE article this year on interfaith..in many ways it brings Muslim and Christina together by working with the most contentious issue: “Trinity” vs. “pure” monotheism

11 September 2004

I am very deeply moved by the honor of being invited to address you in this place, as a guest and, I hope, as a friend. It is some twenty five years since I first visited this great city and al-Azhar mosque; and I can remember my wonder and delight at the quality of its buildings and the atmosphere of dedication and calm reflection expressed in the very stones of the walls.

I am here as a Christian, to speak to you of some of those matters which both unite us and divide us. In the world as it is now developing, it is of the most central importance that we as Christians and Muslims understand one another better. I am delighted at the continuing commitment to this process that has been shown here, a commitment evident in these last few days. And better understanding means understanding our differences as well as our common vision. In these few remarks, I want to meditate a little on the greatest theme of both Muslim and Christian faith, the doctrine of God; and I want to suggest how, despite some of our differences, we can, in the light of our belief about Almighty God, together make certain affirmations to the world about the way to peace and justice for human beings.

If I understand the doctrine of Islam correctly, its most important conviction can be expressed in the word tawhid. God is one. No being is associated with God as a second reality deserving of worship and obedience. God has no need of any being outside his own eternal and self-sufficient life. In these words, I do no more than repeat some of the most luminous and uncompromising words of the Qur’an, which I give in the new translation by Muhammad Abdel Haleem.

‘God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful.’ (al-Baqara 255)

‘He is God the One,
God the eternal.
He fathered no one nor was he fathered.
No one is comparable to Him.’ (al ‘Ikhlaas 1-4)

This last text reminds the Christian that this great affirmation of the uniqueness of God is what has always caused Muslims to look with suspicion at Christian doctrines of God. Christian belief about God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit appears at once to compromise the belief that God has no other being associated with him. How can we call God al-Qayyuum, the Self-sufficient, if he is not alone? So we hear in al-Baqara 115-117,

‘The East and the West belong to God:
wherever you turn, there is His Face.
God is all pervading and all knowing.
They have asserted, “God has a child.”
May He be exalted! No!
Everything in the heavens and earth belongs to Him,
everything devoutly obeys His will.
He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth,
and when He decrees something, He says only “Be,” and it is.’

The belief that God could have a son is, for the faithful Muslim, a belief suggesting that God needs something other than himself and is subject to the processes of limited bodies by ‘begetting’ a child. How can such a God be truly free and sovereign? For we know that he is able to bring the world into being by his word alone.

Yet these anxieties do not belong only to Muslims. Egypt was, in the first centuries of the Christian era, the location of great debates on just such matters. Indeed, without the contribution of Egypt, Christian theology would have been infinitely poorer, for many of the greatest minds of that period were natives of Alexandria. And one of the great concerns of these thinkers and their successors was this: if Christians say that the eternal Word and power of God was fully present in Jesus, son of Mary, can we avoid saying this in such a way as to imply that God is subject to a physical process, or that God has a second being alongside him? These Christian sages believed as strongly as any Muslim that God was self-sufficient and free, and that he could not be affected or limited by physical processes and did not act as a physical cause among others. They say quite explicitly that when we speak of the father ‘begetting’ the Son, we must put out of our minds any suggestion that this is a physical thing, a process like the processes of the world.

Those Christian thinkers and their successors developed a doctrine which tried to clarify this: they said that the name ‘God’ is not the name of a person like a human person, a limited being with a father and mother and a place that they inhabit within the world. ‘God’ is the name of a kind of life – eternal and self-sufficient life, always active, needing nothing. And that life is lived eternally in three ways which are made known to us in the history of God’s revelation to the Hebrew people and in the life of Jesus. There is a source of life, an expression of life and a sharing of life. In human language we say, ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, but we do not mean one God with two beings alongside him, or three gods of limited power. Just as we say, ‘Here is my hand, and these are the actions my one hand performs’, but it is not different from the actions of my five fingers, so with God: this is God, the One, the Living and Self-subsistent, but what God does is not different from the life which is eternally at the same time a source and an expression and a sharing of life. Since God’s life is always an intelligent and purposeful life, each of these dimensions of divine life can be thought of as a centre of mind and love; but this does not mean that God ‘contains’ three different individuals, separate from each other as human individuals are.

And Christians believe that this life enters into ours in a limited degree. When God takes away our evildoing and our guilt, when he forgives us and sets us free, he breathes new life into us, as he breathed life into Adam at the first. That breathing into us we call the ‘Spirit’. As we become mature in our new life, we become more and more like the expression of divine life, the Word whom we encounter in Jesus. Because Jesus prayed to the source of his life as ‘Father’, we call the eternal expression of God’s life the ‘Son’. And so too we pray to the source of divine life in the way that Jesus taught us, and we say ‘Father’ to this divine reality.

But in no way does the true Christian say that the life and action of God could be divided into separate parts, as if it were a material thing. In no way does the true Christian say that there is more than one God or that God needs some other in order to act or that God promotes some other being to share his glory. There is one divine action, one divine will; yet (like the fingers of the hand) there are three ways in which that life is real, and it is only in those three ways that the divine life is real – as source and expression and sharing. It is because of those three ways in which divine life exists that Christians speak as they do about what it means to grow in holiness.

And the Christian also says something which may again be a source of disagreement. God is a loving God, as we all agree; but, says the Christian, God does not love simply because he decides to love. He is always, eternally, loving. His very nature, his definition is love. And the interaction and relation between the three ways in which God lives, the source and the expression and the sharing, is eternally the way God exists. The three centres of divine action, which we call Father, Son and Spirit, pour out the divine life to each other for all eternity, a sort of perfect circle of giving and receiving. And the only word we can use for that relationship of pouring out and giving is love. So as we grow in holiness, we become closer and closer in our actions and thoughts to the complete self-giving that always exists perfectly in God’s life. Towards this fullness we are all called to travel and grow.

Now these are difficult matters, and the greatest minds of the Christian Church have always found them hard to put into words. But what I wish to say to you today is simply that the disagreement between Christian and Muslim is not, I believe, a disagreement about the nature of God as One and Living and Self-subsistent. For us as for you, it is essential to think of God as a life that has no limit, as a life that is free. God is never to be listed alongside other beings. All through the centuries that we call the Middle Ages, Christians, Muslims and Jews thought alike about this, and our greatest philosophers, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sina, Maimonides and others, all worked to make this clear. They would all have agreed that only if God is alone and needs no other is he worthy of our complete worship and devotion. God is not a being who is like us, only greater and more powerful. If God were like us only much greater, we might worship him out of fear instead of giving him free obedience and love. But the true God’s freedom is infinite and he can never be limited by any definition. When we have used up all the names that human language can find for him, we shall have spoken true things of him, but never expressed the whole truth which is hidden from created minds. And so we adore him in trust and thankfulness but we accept that we shall never have him in our grasp.

Together we can acknowledge these things. And it is sad that sometimes an unfaithful or careless Christian way of speaking has led Muslims and Jews to believe that we have a doctrine of God that does not recognise the oneness and sufficiency of God, or that we worship something less than the One, the Eternal. In our conversations with Muslim friends, we Christians are rightly challenged to think more deeply, to think as our Egyptian Christian fathers did, about the unity of Almighty God.

But there is a practical consequence of this belief about the One Living God. If God is truly not a part of the world, truly self-sufficient, then his will never depends upon how things turn out in the world. We cannot work out what is just and good simply from what seems to work, from what the world finds successful or easy or popular. What is good and just is rooted in eternal truth, in the nature of God, who is what he is quite independently of what the world is and what the world thinks. The world may tell us that we should behave in such and such a way – that we should seek only to make and keep money, that we should break our promises, that we should take revenge and show no mercy, that we should take our pleasures where we like. Sometimes behaviour of this sort seems to bring success in the world. But the believer knows that no amount of worldly success can make bad things good, because nothing in the world can change the will of God, who is beyond all change and cannot be affected or weakened by any other being. So we hold to our calling to virtue and generosity and justice whatever may happen, even if, today and tomorrow, it does not make our life easy and comfortable. We struggle in our interior, spiritual battle, to be faithful to God’s will.

The greatest challenge today for our world is how to react to circumstances in a way that is faithful to God’s will. Undoubtedly, greed and revenge affect all of us. We feel that we want to defend ourselves in the way that a person without faith or hope or love would understand – in anger and bitterness and unforgiving cruelty. But when we act in such a way, we show that we do not really believe in a God who is living and self-sufficient. We do not believe that God’s will is enough; we act as though the circumstances of this world could so change things that cruelty and fear could become the right tools with which to defend ourselves.

So when the Christian, the Muslim or the Jew sees his neighbour of another faith following the ways of this world instead of the peaceful will of God, he must remind his neighbour of the nature of the one God we look to, whose will cannot be changed and who will himself see that justice is done. Once we let go of justice, fairness and respect in our dealings with one another, we have dishonoured God as well as human beings. I am deeply grateful that it was once again in this country that Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders from the Holy Land under the co-chairmanship of the Grand Imam, Dr Tantawy, signed the Alexandria Declaration together, with its commitment to respect for the rights of the peoples of the Holy Land, its call for justice, and its refusal of terror and violence. How much we still need that vision to inspire us today, as the tragedies of this region of the world continue to resist settlement!

There is no doubt that the present violence throws a deep shadow over conversations between the West and the Muslim world. Three years ago today, I was one of those who shared just a little in the terrible experience of the events in New York. I was in a building just a short distance from the World Trade Centre that morning, and for a while I and my colleagues were trapped there; we were among those fortunate enough to be able to get out of the area just as the second tower collapsed, and we saw at first hand something of the nightmare and the suffering of that day.

On the day after, I was asked by a journalist for some of my reactions. I said that when someone spoke to us in the language of hatred or abuse, we had a choice about what language we might use to reply. So when someone ‘spoke’ to us in violence and murder, we could choose what we should do. We may rightly want to defend ourselves and one another – our people, our families, the weak and vulnerable among us. But we are not forced to act in revengeful ways, holding up a mirror to the terrible acts done to us. If we do act in the same way as our enemies, we imprison ourselves in their anger, their evil. And we fail to show our belief in the living God who always requires of us justice and goodness.

So whenever a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew refuses to act in violent revenge, creating terror and threatening or killing the innocent, that person bears witness to the true God. They have stepped outside the way the faithless world thinks. A person without faith, hope and love may say, If I do not use indiscriminate violence and terror, there is no safety for me. The believer says, My safety is with God, whose justice can never be defeated. If I defend myself, I seek to do so only in a way that honours God and God’s image in others, and that does not offend against God’s justice. To seek to find reconciliation, to refuse revenge and the killing of the innocent, this is a form of adoration towards the One Living and Almighty God.

This is why it is important to be clear about the God we worship. There is, as you will have seen, a great difference between what I as a Christian must say and what the Muslim will say; but we agree absolutely that God has no need of any other being, and that God is not a mixture or a society of different beings. And if we are committed to this God, we shall be able to do justice and act rightly even when the world around us expects us to follow its own violent ways.

And just as I have said that Christians have sometimes spoken carelessly about God and led others to think they believe less than they truly do, so all of us, Jews, Muslims and Christians, have sometimes spoken carelessly and let people think that we live by the same standards as those who have no faith or love, appearing to encourage violence and terror. If we look back to the Alexandria Declaration, we see how it is possible for all of us, in the light of our conviction about God, to be committed to something different from the world’s ways; there we find a promise to approach each other with respect and patience and to turn away from open battle, even when we feel threatened by each other. There too we find the common commitment not to use the name of God to justify violence and injustice. It has been impressive to hear in recent days the strength and clarity with which so many Muslim nations and Muslim leaders have condemned the unspeakable atrocities in Beslan. The common commitment of Muslims and Christians, as of all people of compassion, hope and intelligence, is not for a moment in doubt in this context.

In our own country, we have recently conducted a process in which Muslims and Christians together have listened to the concerns and hopes of many local communities, and we are now hoping to set up a national forum in which the anxieties of Muslim communities may be expressed and freely discussed. And we have also been discussing how each of the religious communities in Britain should react when any one of them is under threat or open attack – so that we hope a Christian community will give support to local Muslims if a mosque is attacked, and Muslims may do the same for local Jews if a synagogue is attacked or a cemetery desecrated, and Muslims and Jews will stand alongside Christians when they are abused and attacked. We pray that this willingness to stand alongside each other will be shared in other nations.

We believe that in such local ways we can, despite our disagreements, show to the world a different standard of behaviour, one that is worthy of the all-powerful and self-sufficient God we worship, worthy of him in a way that crusades and terrorism and oppression are not. All of us need to be able to repent before God for our errors and for the ways in which we are enslaved by a greedy and fearful world. But as our Christian scriptures say, we must not be conformed to this world but transformed, with our minds renewed (Romans 12.2).

If we truly understand the nature of our God, our minds will be renewed. We do not only teach truths about God, we allow those truths to change our lives. May we all find the strength and the courage from Almighty God to honour him by seeking peace together in fairness and respect and thanksgiving for each other.

‘To be one of those who believe
and urge one another to steadfastness and compassion.’ (al-Balad 17).

And as Jesus says in our own Christian Scriptures,

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
For they will be shown mercy…
Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they will be called children of God (Matthew 5.6-7, 9).

Best Regards,
Moin Ansari
President
http://www.crestech.org/: Crestech Training Solutions in Medical, Business, Project Management, Business, Sigma & Technology
infotechNJ.com: Infotech Research International, Inc Consulting Solutions in BPO, Outsourcing, Six Sigma, Project Management
————————————————————————————————————————
973-463-1260 work
973-568-9330 cell

TRINITY

I THEMATICS

Deities in the set of three occur in the most pagan religions. Numerologically, the number three is supposed to reveal:

- A pair of opposites

- A unity which reconciles and transcends the opposites

In Hegelian jargon, thesis and anti-thesis resolve into synthesis. Dialectics move and sustain phenomenology of spirit.

In the Marxist model capital and labor ascend to dictatorship of the proletarat and, ultimate emergence of a classless society.

Egyptian scheme centers around Osiris, Isis and Horus. The Trimurthy of Hinduism consists of Brahma (creator), Vishnu (sustainer) and Shiva (destroyer). Trinity is the most primitive of human dogmas. One God but three phases; one God but also three. Christology comprises tritheistic implication of positing three persons – God, Son, Holy Spirit – In God. God is one-nature, three persons == MIA OUSIA, TREIS HUPOSTASEIS.

Godhead is a triad.

Christ is one person and two natures. God takes on flash in Christ and, God dwells within Christ as spirit. Christ had preexisted in Father’s (God’s) mind and then became incarnate in time. God has chosen not to be God apart from mankind.

Christian God cannot be conceived expect as Trinity. EGRO, He cannot be conceived apart from Humanity. The etiology engenders creeds, doxologies, liturgy, ritual and soteriology consistent with hupostasis, ousia, substantia, subsistentia and ultimately, persona.

Thematically, Focus is on the CROSS. God is with us in our suffering. Father and son are separated in the dialectic of crucifixion. This separation is negated by the Holy Spirit, which reunites Father and Son in the resurrection of Christ. Thus, Christ has become one with all mankind in the perennial incarnation.

II EVOLUTION

Arius (320 AD) contradicted trinity with conviction that Christ the Son was not fully divine like Father the God. He was not same substance: he was not Homoousios. Father alone is ungenerate – source without source, self-existent, utterly immaterial, indivisible and thus, cannot be communicated. Whatever has come into being is necessarily created, in time, and this does not preclude the Son.

St. Augustine, (354-450 Algeria) was the follower of Mani, the Persian religious reformer over Zarathushst, founder of Manichaeism – dichotomy of spiritual forces of good (light) and evil (darkness). Mani denied EX NIHILIO principle on groups that doctrine of creation from nothing contains no sufficient explanation of why God should create at any given moment in time rather than any other. Also, he wondered as to what God was doing before he created the world. Not satisfied, St. Augustine converted to Christianity in 387, advocating that God created the world from nothing. And, Time itself is creation. A single divine substance is share by all three persons, analogically, memory, intellect, will or lover beloved, love. This was in sharp contrast to Aristotle who theorized that God and Matter are eternal and co-existent. God did not create Matter; he merely shaped it.

Averroes (Ibnrushed 1126-1198) re-established Aristotelian epistemology. He posited one active intellect for all mankind. By implication, he denied individual souls’ immortality, also entire range of eschatology. In retrospect, Hinduism posits a single universal soul into which all souls are ultimately absorbed.

As reaction to Averros, Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) attempted to reconcile Christianity with Aristotelian notion of an unmoved prime mover, distant and removed, unapproachable. He advocated individual intellect since that alone warrants personal immortality.

III CRITIQUE

Strictly, God is not revealed as trinity in OT or NT. Pauline epistles refer to that triad: Spirit, Lord, God. Synoptic gospels, Matthew alone mentions Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The catechism statement – In God there are three persons and one nature: In Jesus Christ there is one person and two natures – is sharp contrast to Shema (OT) and Shahada (Q). Both doctrine establish that God is ineffable, thus, totally foreign to human concept, ontology or teleology. Three persons, by tritheistic definition, imply three individual, mutually exclusive, concentric levels of consciousness, engendering ceaseless epistemological polarities.

Since Christian God cannot be posited except as trinity, he cannot be perceived distinct from humanity, the thesis entirely compromised God’s freedom in choosing to become man imbibing crass anthropolomorphism.

Trinitarian doctrine is both analogical and christomonistic. As a result, it excludes world religious orders by withholding salvation since it cannot surrender or even preclude cursorily, its cardinal conviction that God is fully present in Christ.

God chooses not to be God apart from mankind; if so, Jesus is not a preexistent logos but merely a hypostasis along side the father. Thus, Jesus occurs only as a dialectic in world history.

The dogma totally ignores the “God question” vis-à-vis existentialist atheism, secular humanism or epistemological pluralism (say, the ten incarnations of Vishnu). Since, Nature of Christian God is to love and since love must always seek an object (if love) God needs world as a partner in love. Ergo, world is co-eternal with God. (Hence, no Qiama, no resurrection no judgment, no hell).

The masculine connotation curiously circumvents Mariology as if, no vehicle or medium permeates transposition of the Holy Ghost.

 All opinions expressed are my own and these opinions are legally protected by the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, or if you disagree with the contents of this message\disclaimer, and\or are unable to conform\adhere to the stipulations mentioned herein, you should immediately delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Notice: All email sent to or from the Crestech/Infotech corporate email system or my personal e-mail ISP may be retained, monitored and/or reviewed by Moin Ansari or his designated agent.

Copyright 2003 Infotech Research International, Inc. or Crestech or Moin Ansari. All rights reserved.

 

Why does Austria germinate and nurture monsters? What is is about Austria that creates men like Mr. Fritzil and Hitler?

The religion of Mr. Fritzil is not advertised. The culture of Mr. Fritzel is not propagated. No one blames the schools he went to or the society he grew up in. He will be labeled insane and put in any asylum. The question is what is it about Austrian culture, genetics, schooling, and church teachings that generates monsters like Hilter and Mr. Fritzil. Hitler and Fritzil are not unique or isolated cases. How many more Fritzils are doing more than what Fritzil got away with. During WW2 the sexual fetishes of Austrians were vented on the gays, homeless, gypsies and the innocent citizens who happened to be Jewish.

The media does not blame the religion of these monsters are discovered? Why not?

Josef Fritzl: I deserve credit, I’m no monster By Andreas Sam in Amstetten Last Updated: 2:29PM BST 07/05/2008

Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who fathered seven children with his daughter while keeping her imprisoned in his cellar, has complained of receiving a bad press and not being given credit for keeping his dungeon family alive for more than two decades.
Fritzl, 73 claimed that media coverage was “unfair” and “entirely one-dimensional”, given the fact that he did not kill his daughter and the children he produced with her during 24 years of sexual abuse in a subterranean bunker in Amstetten.

“I am no monster,” Fritzl said though his lawyer Rudolf Mayer, according to the German tabloid newspaper Bild.

“I could have killed all of them, and no one would have known. No one would have ever found about it.”

Fritzl locked his daughter Elisabeth, 42, beneath his house and fathered seven children with her.

Three of the children – Kerstin, 19, Stefan 18, and Felix, five – had not seen sunlight until they were released by police last month after Kerstin was taken to hospital with an undiagnosed illness.

“Kerstin would not be alive today if it wasn’t for me. I have made sure that she gets to a hospital,” Fritzl said via his lawyer, according to Bild.

Fritzl, who is going to be questioned by a prosecutor for the first time today, is currently in a remand prison and will appear in court for a closed hearing on Friday.

His lawyer Mr Mayer is trying to get a certificate of insanity for his client, in order to be able to declare him unfit to stand trial.

Mr Mayer said: “My client doesn’t belong in a prison; but rather in a closed psychiatric hospital.”

Mr Mayer also complained about receiving death threats from Austria and abroad, including Britain.

Reinhard Haller, one of Austria’s leading forensic psychiatrists, challenged the claims that Frizl was insane and therefore not responsible for his actions.

Dr Haller said: “His main motivation was the exercise of power. It is not a sign of mental illness, but rather of an extreme personality disorder.” Meanwhile, the Fritzl case has reached the Austrian parliament, where MPS will debate today (WED) on whether to introduce lengthier prison sentences for sex offenders and change laws to allow the criminal records to be preserved for a longer period.

The move comes after it was revealed that Fritzl had previous convictions for rape and attempted rape, as well as charges for arson, but was nevertheless awarded care over three children born out of the incestuous relationship with his daughter, as according to Austrian laws files on sex offences are being removed from the records after ten to 15 years.

The Austrian Justice Minister Maria Berger has admitted that authorities have mishandled the Fritzl case for the first time and said that police and social services had acted “somewhat gullibly”. She said that the disappearance of Elisabeth in 1984, when her father kidnapped her but told authorities she had run away to join a religious cult, was “not sufficiently investigated”.

“Today, we would surely go about it differently and conduct a detailed investigation,” Mrs Berger said.

Were US Founding Fathers Muslim? Deism, Unitarianism and Islam

FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA WERE DEISTS OR MUSLIMS

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” Thomas Jefferson

“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.” Thomas Jefferson

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

Thomas Jefferson: The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

http://unrealitycheck.com/articles/christians

/founding_fathers/the_founding_fathers_

were_not_christians.htm

“Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.”
– Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters, (1959) p. 506, quoted from Jeremy Koselak, “The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s Critique of Christianity“

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819), quoted from Dickinson W Adams, ed, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series (Princeton University Press, 1983; note that attributions saying “Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University (June 25, 1819)” are incorrect, as that Ezra Stiles died in 1795) ††

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by “Christian Nation” revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson’s thorough research of this matter.

… [A] short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.
– Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Kercheval, 1810 (see Positive Atheism‘s Historical section)

Benjamin Franklin wrote “. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

 

In 1782, directly rejecting Christian dogma, he wrote “I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.” Note the next one: “I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works … I mean real good works … not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing … or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity.” Burn! How about another burn: “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

June 19, 2002 by Dr. James Kennedy, posted at Worldnet Daily

Dr. Kennedy: “Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he scissored from his Bible all references to miracles. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, “a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.”

THE JEFFERSON BIBLE IS WHAT ISLAM TEACHES

The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus’ resurrection are also absent from the Jefferson Bible.^[5] The work ends with the words: “Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.” These words correspond to the ending of John 19 in the Bible  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.^[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus’ divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.^[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

From a PBS website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/

religion/jesus/jefferson.html):

Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus written in the New Testament had been contaminated. Early Christians, overly eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These “Platonists” had thoroughly muddled Jesus’ original message. Jefferson assured his friend and rival, John Adams, that the authentic words of Jesus were still there.

With the confidence and optimistic energy characteristic of the Enlightenment, Jefferson proceeded to dig out the diamonds. Candles burning late at night, his quill pen scratching “too hastily” as he later admitted, Jefferson composed a short monograph titled The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth. The subtitle explains that the work is “extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.” In it, Jefferson presented what he understood was the true message of Jesus.

Jefferson set aside his New Testament research, returning to it again in the summer of 1820. This time, he completed a more ambitious work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels in Greek, Latin, French and English. The text of the New Testament appears in four parallel columns in four languages. Jefferson omitted the words that he thought were inauthentic and retained those he believed were original. The resulting work is commonly known as the “Jefferson Bible.”

From: R.P. Nettelhorst, “Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State”, posted on Quartz Hill School of Theology website (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm; viewed 30 November 2005):

Thomas Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.

There has certainly never been a shortage of boldness in the history of biblical scholarship during the past two centuries, but for sheer audacity Thomas Jefferson’s two redactions of the Gospels stand out even in that company. It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the United States as, razor in hand, he sat editing the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he himself says) “2. or 3. nights only at Washington, after getting thro’ the evening task of reading the letters and papers of the day.” He was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament… (Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149.).

Editions of the Jefferson Bible in print

The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth (2006) Dover Publications paperback: ISBN 0-486-44921-1

The Jefferson Bible, (2006) Applewood Books hardcover: ISBN 1-55709-184-6

The Jefferson Bible, introduction by Cyrus Adler, (2005) Digireads.com paperback: ISBN 1-4209-2492-3

The Jefferson Bible, introduction by Percival Everett, (2004) Akashic Books paperback: ISBN 1-888451-62-9

The Jefferson Bible, (2001) Beacon Press hardcover: ISBN 0-8070-7714-3

The Jefferson Bible, introduction by M.A. Sotelo, (2004) Promotional Sales Books, LLC paperback

Jefferson’s “Bible:” The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, introduction by Judd W. Patton, (1997) American Book Distributors paperback: ISBN 0-929205-02-2

 

ISLAM AND DEISM

“English and American Deism, Unitarian Christianity, and Socinian Christianity emerged as heretics of the Protestant Reformation. All applied various degree of reason to the Bible producing faiths that combined reason with a Jesus centered ethical outlook. (Not Paul centered as in Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.) All rejected the Trinity, Original Sin, the Elect, Nicene Creed, predestination, and other church manufactured dogma. Like the Anabaptists they all advocated separation of church and state which is well within Christian traditions. All advocated religious tolerance.

Rational Islam and rational Judaism when embracing reason and religious tolerance are in many ways similar to Deism. The various Unitarian and Deist groups because they reject the Trinity are sometimes accused of being Muslims (Turks) or Jews. While there is an indirect Muslim influence, we reject many of the cultural aspects of Islam in regards to religious freedom, separation of religion and state, and placing blind revelation over reason. It’s time to end the confusion on these related, but different groups. There is no theological reason why any of these groups would be enemies. Mix in other elements, it’s often religion that is used to cover-up unrelated conflicts.

Deism is not this disinterested creator that made the world and went away. I define true Deism as the use of reason over revelation. While Deism evolved from Christianity in opposition to its violence and intolerance, it never sought to destroy it or any other faith. Once exported to France and stripped of its theistic roots, it would become just as violent. Deism is not a church or religion and has no clergy or organization, but often a submerged component”. http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/index.htm

In fascinating article from The Nation entitled In God’s Country (11/6/2006) secular fundamentalists lamented,

…the nine in ten Americans who have said they’ve never doubted the existence of God. Or the eight in ten who believe the Lord works miracles. Or the same number who are certain they will be called to answer for their sins on Judgment Day. Or the tens of millions who attend church every week–more, in a typical seven-day span, than those who turn out for all sporting events combined…the idea that urbanization, scientific progress and rising living standards would gradually transform America into a secular society has long appealed to journalists and intellectuals. Talk about blind faith.. http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/.

Secular arrogance in believing that anyone who believes in God is somehow a backward, country bumpkin is a big part of their elitist mentality. As the article continues,

…most of the Founders were Deists and Unitarians who rejected doctrines like the Incarnation. Thomas Jefferson dismissed the Trinity as “incomprehensible jargon.” He and other Founders made no mention of God in the Constitution, and took pains not to establish an official church on US soil. And yet, as various scholars have noted, disestablishment grew out of respect, not disdain, for religion, which, James Madison observed, “flourishes in greater purity without [rather] than with the aid of government.” He was right…falling church membership stirred much excited talk about the so-called “death of God.” Somebody forgot to inform the American people, an overwhelming majority of whom told pollsters they were believers… http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

Treaty of Tripoly

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law. While this was brought up by Daniel Pipes to illustrate we are not at war with Islam, but Islamo-fascism, Morris uses this as “proof” we are not a “Christian nation.” http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

Sir Isaac Newton, Jefferson, Adam, Franklin and others used Unitarian ideas and are today called “Deists”. The founding fathers of America were Deists whose ideas very similar to those expounded by the Arians, Unitarians and Islam. John Locke (influenced by Ibn Tufail), James Madison and Benjamin Franklin (friends of the most famous Unitarian Joseph Priestly), Thomas Jefferson (who also owned a coy of the Quran), Isaac Newton (who wrote extensively in defense of “Arianism” “A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture“), Milton were all Unitarians in some form or another.

These Deists had ideas about Jesus which were FAR from the dogma and their ideas were very close to those that we have in the Islamic faith. Jefferson actually wrote a Bible free of “dogma“. The USA is truly a conglomeration of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and those expounding a clash of civilizations are simply hate mongers. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin were too enlightened to be bogged down in dogma. They gave us our glorious constitution, and Jefferson even gave us a Bible. Using these documents there is a lot of hope ecumenical harmony in the USA which will surely reverberate back to South Asia and the Middle East.The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon) said:

Concentrating on the commonalities between the Abrahamic FaithsThe Arian influences on Islam, the Muslim influences on Martin Luther, Locke and Jefferson

 I have tried to define Islam in Christian and non-religious terms. Michael Baigent, Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Bible and the Naag Hamdi texts not withstanding, there is historical precedence in understand the message of Muhammad in the Christian context. This commonality will help us understand the message and therefore Islam and Muslims. UNDERSTANDING the genesis of the religion will help us understand each other and this will help us gain understanding of world events. Once we have understood Muhammad in the Christian context, then it is much easier to understand Jesus in the Muslim context. The founding fathers of America, the American Deists have already done that in many ways.

The hordes are not coming. They have always been here. There is nothing to fear from Muslims who are like Unitarians or like Jefferson or Madison.Muslim tradition uses Peace be Upon Him (PBUH) every time we mention the name of Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Abraham or any of the other Biblical/Quranic prophets. I have left this out to make it more palatable to non-Muslim audiences

 REJECTING DOGMA IN THE SPIRIT OF ECUMENICAL HARMONY: Dogma creates problems If we move away from dogma we find the power of ecumenical harmony. Based on my research on the Church’s adherence to “infallibility” and “inerrancy“, we can surely find common ground in our beliefs.

Muslims beliefs are similar to the Christian beliefs as researched by Pagels and discussed in the Da Vinci Code (Naag Hamdi Texts and the Lost Gnostic Bibles). In the broad spectrum of today’s Christianity, Islam is closest to the Unitarians, the flag bearers of Arianism. We are also close to the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and other liberal churches who are willing to work with Muslims. The Pope has declared that Islam is an Abrahamic faith and that belief in Islam qualifies a soul to enter heaven, a thought described by Moses Maimonides in his Epistle to the Yemenites in the 12th century. There is a book that is a must read for all Da Vinci Code fans, and those who are interested in real history. Michael BaIgent of “Holy Blood and Holy Grail” fame, in his latest fact based historical book “The Jesus Papers“, traces the roots of the violent Jewish (Sakari, Pharisee, and Zedoc) insurgency against the Romans and links the insurgency to Judas (Mathew 2:22, 2:23), and also to Jesus Christ. Schoenfeld’s “Passover plot” also discusses this insurgency against the Roman occupiers of Judea (later reamed Palestina) and how the Jewish Sakari used to use their daggers for assassinations.

An overwhelming body of evidence ties Jesus to the insurgency in Judea, and this may have been the main reason to put him to death. The Roman backlash ended up with the Jews fleeing to Masaada and them committing mass suicide. As a result of the Jewish insurgency, in and around 70 AD, Jewish Jerusalem was totally destroyed by the Romans and renamed Aelia de Capitolina. It was the Romans that would display the bodies of their enemies along Roman roads. Titus used Jews for entertainment.After the destruction of the 2nd temple around 70 AD, the despised Roman emperor, Herrod killed thousands of Jews and displayed their bodies for everyone to see. The reverberations of this type of morbid activity live to this day. The conflict between the Jews and Romans has left its mark on history and some of our Middle Eastern problems still ooze of those historical events. Around 130 AD, the Jewish zealot leader and Jewish insurgent leader Shimon bin Cockba was captured by the Romans. His body was displayed as a trophy. The Roman emperor Hedrian, after destroying Judea, renamed it Palestina. The creativity of the jailers were used to try every human trick in the book to try to get useless and insignificant information about the zealot movement out of poor and innocent Jews.

Titus used his Jewish prisoners for routine torture and perverse tactics, like throwing live Jews in front of animals.  Martin Luther, the Protestant reformation and the Jewish reformation came centuries later, and achieved the same type of reformation in destroying the unyielding/tyrannical power of the Pope/Rabbi/Vatican. The Luther reformation was aimed at those who remained with the Church 

ARIANISM IN MODERN TIMES: Today Arianism survives in the works of John Locke, Isaac Newton, Milton Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Archbishop Dimitri of the Orthodox Church in America has identified Islam as the largest descendant of Arianism today. There is similarity in Islam’s teaching that Jesus was a great prophet, but very distinct from God, although Islam sees Jesus as a human messenger of God without the divine properties that Arianism attributes to the Christ.

Islam sees itself as a continuation of the Jewish and Christian traditions and reveres many of the same prophets.Non-Trinitarians claim the roots of their position go back further than those of their counterpart trinitarians. Some ancient sects, such as the Ebionites, said that Jesus was not a “Son of God” but rather an ordinary man who was a prophet, a view of Jesus shared by Islam. The doctrine of the Godhead, as mentioned by Jefferson according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is similar to Arianism

JOHN LOCKE and MILTON INFLUENCE JEFFERSON ON UNITARIANISM & DIEISM:

Thomas Jefferson was in touch with John Locke and heavily influenced by John Locke. In fact when Thomas Jefferson wrote the “Jefferson Bible” he mentions that he has been in touch with all major philosophers of religion in Europe. In 1700 Locke resigned from the Board of Trade and devoted himself to Biblical studies and religious meditation. He had carefully studied the Gospels in preparing his “Reasonableness of Christianity.” In researching the Epistles of St Paul, he  applied the spirit of the Essay and the ordinary rules of critical interpretation to a literature which he venerated as infallible. The work was published two years after. A tract on Miracles, written in 1702, also appeared posthumously. John Locke’s “The Reasonableness of Christianity” is described by Samuel Bold.

Subscription controversy-the doctrinal dispute aroused by the spread of Arianism. Under the commonwealth, Socinianism (represented by Paul Best and John Biddle), Sabellianism (by John Fry), Arianism (by John Knowles, Thomas Collier and Paul Hobson) and universalism (by Richard Coppin, John Reeve and Ludowicke Muggleton), had been alike banned and persecuted. The intolerant attitude of both presbyterians and independents was continued after the restoration; and to this was now added the rigour of the re-established English church. To Richard Baxter, not less than to John Owen or to Stillingfleet, the Socinians were on a par with Mohammedans, Turks, atheists and papists.  

FAMOUS UNITARIANS:

But, in spite of persecution, the discrete strands of varying anti-Trinitarian thought remained unbroken. Gilbert Clerke of Northamptonshire, a mathematician and, in a sense, a teacher of Whiston, Noval of Tydd St. Giles near Wisbech, Thomas Firmin (Sabellian), William Penn, Stephen Nye (Sabellian), William Freke (Arian), John Smith, the philomath, of St. Augustine’s, London (Socinian), Henry Hedworth, the disciple of Biddle, and William Manning, minister of Peasenhall (1630-1711) (independent), form a direct and unbroken, though irregular, chain of anti-Trinitarian thought, extending from the commonwealth days to those of toleration-not to mention the more covert but still demonstrable anti-Trinitarianism of Milton and Locke. With the passing of the Toleration act of 1689, the leaven of this long train of anti-Trinitarian thought made itself strongly felt. It first appeared in the bosom of the church of England itself, in the so-called Socinian controversy. In 1690, Arthur Bury, a latitudinarian divine, was deprived of the rectorship of Lincoln college, Oxford, for publishing his Naked Gospel. The proceedings gave rise to a stream of pamphlet literature on both sides. In the same year, 1690, John Wallis, Savilian professor of mathematics at Oxford, was involved in a controversy with a succession of …anonymous Arian and Socinian writers (among them William Jones) by the publication of his Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity briefly Explained. Simultaneously, Sherlock’s Vindication of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity, although directed against the same group of writers, called forth another outburst of pamphleteering from quite another quarter, South leading the attack with his Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Vindication. The first portion of the anti-Trinitarian literature produced in this triangular contest is collected in The Faith of one God Who is only the Father (1691). In the ranks of dissent, the same controversy manifested itself in the disputes which wrecked the independent and presbyterian “happy union” and, contemporaneously, it appeared in the baptist body.

BAPTIST MATTHEW CAFFYN UPHELD UNITARIANISM: In 1693, Matthew Caffyn, baptist minister at Horsham, Sussex, was for a second time accused before the “Baptist General Assembly” of denying Christ’s divinity; and, when the assembly refused to vote his expulsion, a secession took place, and the rival “Baptist General Association” was formed. In the same year, the anti-Trinitarians published a Second collection of tracts proving the God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only true God (1693). The tenth, and last, tract in this volume was a reply to South’s Animadversions on Sherlock’s Vindication. 

PRESBYTERIAN JOHN HOWE DEFENDS UNITARIANISM::  In the following year (1694), the presbyterian John Howe entered the field with his Calm and sober Inquiry directed against the above tract, and, to make the fight triangular, Sherlock replied to South and Howe together in A Defence of Dr. Sherlock’s notion of a Trinity in Unity. The anti-Trinitarians’ Third collection of Tracts, which followed immediately, was a reply at once to Howe, on the one hand, and to Sherlock, on the other. 

SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY: JOHN SMITH, LOCKE AND NEWTON DEFENDED UNITARIANISM:This first Trinitarian or so-called Socinian controversy, practically, came to an end in 1708. It received its deathblow, in 1698, by the act for the more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness, which remained on the statute book till 1813. With the exception of John Smith’s Designed End to the Socinian Controversy (1695), the whole of the anti-Trinitarian contributions to it had been anonymous (both Locke and Sir Isaac Newton are supposed to have contributed under the cover of this anonymity); and, with the exception of Howe, no representatives of the professed dissenting denominations had joined in the fray. It is therefore to be regarded, primarily, as a church of England controversy, in which the churchmen had weakened the Trinitarian cause by a triangular and virtually conflicting defence: Sherlock versus South versus Tillotson and Burnet, and all four versus the enemy. The agitation which the controversy produced among the dissenters was mainly reflex, and is apparent more in their domestic quarrels, noted above, than in their published literature. But, disproportionately small as was the dissenting share of the combatants in mere point of literature, the intellectual ferment which ensued in following years showed itself more in the bosom of dissent than in the life and thought of the church of England.  

PRESBYTERIAN THOMAS EMLYN SELF DESCRIBED UNITARIAN English Presbyterian minister and writer who first publicly adopted the name Unitarian todesignate a liberal, rational approach to God as a single person (as opposed to Christianbelief in the Trinity).  He was  was tried at Dublin, in 1693, for publishing his”Humble Inquiry into the Scripture account of Jesus Christ“, an Arian response  to Sherlock’s “Doctrine of the Trinity.” 

MUHAMMAD’S MESSAGE RESONATES WITH THE DISENCHANTED CHRISTIAN ARIANS: With the Arian Goths in decline, the land was hungry for the purest form of monotheism. He was taking Arabia and the world back to monotheism. He pointed out the excesses of the synagogue just like Jesus had done 600 years earlier. Muhammad also tried to reform the established church just like Martin Luther did a thousand years later. Muhammad was extremely successful because the pagans and the progeny of Arians accepted the new monotheist message. Islam spread like wildfire.

Quran [5:82] ..And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, “We are Christian.” This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant. [7:159] Among the followers of Moses there are those who guide in accordance with the truth, and the truth renders them righteous.

[5:46] Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous.

[5:47] The people of the Gospel shall rule in accordance with GOD’s   revelations therein. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD’s revelations are the wicked.

[2:62 & 5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

CHRISTIANITY AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD: The “Christianity” and “Judaism” that existed at  the time of Muhamamad was pre-reform Catholicism and Pre-Orthodox type of Judaism. It was very different than the Christianity and Judaism that exists today. The Christianity was probably based on the he scriptures called Diatesseron and the Catholic Epistles or Peshitta.

Since the Qur’ân talks about a Gospel, it would suggest Diatesseron more than Peshitta. Muslims consider the Quran to the 3rd and Final Testament and also think of the Torah and the Bible as Holy Books The Diatesseron was one of the earliest (AD 165) compilations of the Christian Bible. Tation’s Diatesseron is based on the Arabic version, itself a translation from the lost Syriac.Bible. It was complied  iIn the second century, well before the `canonical’ gospels took their present form, Tatian took the four gospels (now included in Emperor Constantine’s approved Bible) and one or more Gnostic and Judaic one harmonized account of the life of Christ, the Diatessaron.

Tatian eliminated duplicated passages, deleted or reconciled contradicting verses, and harmonized parallels. Tatian’s Diatessaron became the standard gospel among the Syriac-speaking Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia up till the fifth century. Its text spread from China to England, and may be Iceland, and became one of the oldest witnesses to the gospels. Most Middle Eastern churches consider this the original Old Testament.

Arabic Translation: Two manuscripts of an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron exist (the Borgian and Vatican MSS). This translation is (in super- and sub-scriptions to the Borgian MS) said to be a translation made by Abu’l Faraj Abdulla ibn-at-Tayyib (d.1043) from a Syriac version of Tatian’s Diatessaron into Arabic.  The Syriac exemplar on which he depended was written by Isa ibn Ali al Motatabbib (d. 873) who was a pupil of Honain ibn Ishak. In other words we are at least one translation (maybe two) away from the original Diatessaron, and several copyings

The principal Syriac translation of the Old Testament was carried out by Jews or Jewish Christians during the first two centuries AD. These are known as the Peshitta.By the beginning of the 5th century, or slightly earlier, the Syrian Church’s version of the Bible, the Peshitta (‘simple’ translation) was formed. For the New Testament it represented an accommodation of the Syrian canon with that of the Greeks. It contains 22 books – all of the present New Testament except: II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John. For the eastern part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as the Nestorians.

The Peshitta, lightly revised and with missing books added, is the standard Syriac Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition: the Syriac Orthodox Church. Most Middle Eastern churches consider this the original Old Testament..The Quran is the word of God. The  Hadith is the sayings of the prophet, so the Hadith is similar to the Bible. Christian Arab Kingdoms of the Ghassanids and Muntherits became the powers controlling the  Arab Peninsula from Syria as far south as Yemen and Oman, and from Iraq as far south as the Arab Sea. The other Christians near Muhammad were the Nabatians.

The Nabateans were settled in northern  Arabia and by the 6th century BC, they moved to what is now Jordan where they formed their state and kingdom. Petra, their capital, was a trading center between Arabia and the Mediterranean Sea.

ARIANISM WITHIN THE FOLD OF ISLAM INFLUENCED LUTHER’S PROTESTANT REFORMATION AND THE RENAISSANCE: Historically, Arianism was a majority opinion among Christians, but this began to change when Emperor Constantine intervened on behalf of and Trinitarians. However Emperor Constantine in order to preserve the empire wanted to combine existing trinatirian concepts within Rome and married them to Christian beliefs. Arius, a Libyan by descent, was brought up at Antioch, a center of Christian learning. He became the  Bishop of Nicomedia, took part (306) and was made presbyter of the church called “Baucalis,” at Alexandria. He opposed the Sabellians, who were committed to a view of the Trinity which denied all real distinctions in the Supreme.. The Council of Nicea in 325 headed by Emperor Constantine adopted the Nicean concept of Trinity, Arias was exiled and his promulgation “anethmized“.

Emperor Constantine reversed his opinion about the Arian and his “heresy”. He recalled Arian and his supporting bishops three years later (in 328). At the same time, Arius was recalled from exile.

Constantine’s sister and Eusebius worked on the emperor to obtain reinstatement for Arius, and they would have succeeded, if Arius hadn’t suddenly died – by poisoning, Arianism regained momentum and survived until the reigns of Roman emperors Gratian and Theodosius, at which time, St. Ambrose set to work stamping it out. However that was not the end Arianism.

Arianism survived until 381AD in the Western Roman Empire and then thrived in the Easter Roman empire and other areas until the 7th century. After that Arianism went underground. Evangelists sent to the Germanic peoples converted the Goths to Arianism. When the Germanic people entered the Roman empire they entered it as Arians and used this form of Christianity to differentiate themselves from the Romans. The Germanic peoples were Arians. Arianism did not die even then.

The flag of Arianism laws carried by “The Brethren of the Common Life“, who were a medieval lay group dedicated to Bible study and education. They were persecuted, fled their native homelands and were scattered all over Europe. They are by many account held responsible for the renaissance.   

ISLAM’S INFLUENCE ON MARTIN LUTHER: Martin Luther’s schooling included the Latin school at Mansfeld, a year at a school in Magdeburg (run by the Brethren at Eisenach). In his 15th year, Luther made valued older friends and was influenced by Arian ideas. Luther’s ideas led to the Christian reformation. Here are some of the positive things said by Martin Luther about Muhammad and Islam:

From this book, accordingly, we see that the religion of the Turks or Muhammad is far more splendid in ceremonies-and, I might almost say, in customs-thanours, even including that of the religious or all the clerics. The modesty and simplic-ity of their food, clothing, dwellings, and everything else, as well as the fasts, pray-ers, and common gatherings of the people that this book reveals are nowhere seenamong us-or rather it is impossible for our people to be persuaded to them. Fur-thermore, which of our monks, …Martin Luther

In 1532 facing the threat of the Turkish invasion, the Emperor agreed to a truce with the Protestants in the Religious Peace of Nürnberg. Facing the Turkish invasion Luthers’s ideas changed. Bernard Shaw also had a lot of good things to say about Islam.

…the ‘Bull’ of Pope Innocent III causing the massacre of 20,000 men, women and children (Albigenses) in France and the nailing of Martin Luther’s 95 questions on the Church door in Germany, it stretches a long period in between. The European society passed through a massive reform during this time. The reform movement of Peter Waldo of France, John Wycliffe of England, Jan Hus of Bohemia (Czech), Girolamo Savonarola of Italy, Michael Servetus of Spain, Ulrich Zwingli of Switzerland, William Tyndale of England and hundred others must have influenced Bernard Shaw to lean heavily towards the fairness of early Islam – the Islam that Pophet Muhammad once preached. 

SULAIMAN THE TURKISH CALIPH SUPPORTED THE CHRISTIAN REFORMATION 

In addition to Suleriman, Charles was threatened by the pope, the king of France, and even some of his own princes! Suleriman, in opposing Charles V, helped the Protestants militarily and financially. God thus used the Moslem nation to provide opportunity for the Reformation to grow in Germany and in the rest of Europe.   

RUMI INFLUENCED THE EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE, LUTHER & BEETHOVEN ETC.

Rumis influences: For Mevlana, a human being is made up of REASON ( knowledge, thought, conscience, maturity), LOVE ( emotions, poetry, music) and SPIRIT ( life, motion, whirling). It is very unlikely to find the three clamped to each other in theory and meaning in such a way in any other system. As a result, this approach created an ecolé, namely “Mevlana’s Whirling Dervishes”, and it has had great influence on people for centuries. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, one of the humanists of Renaissance in 16th century, Martin Luther and Sebastian Frank, who translated some of Mevlana’s poems, Rambrandt(artist-17th century), Beethoven (composer-18th century), Frederick Ruckert, Joseph von Hammer, Johann Volfgang von Goethe(writers- 19th century) , Prof R. Nicholson and Prof Arbery of Cambridge University(20th century) and Heins Meinke (poet), Prof Helmuth Ritter and Anne Marie Schimmel of Bonn University (orientalists- 20th century) are some who were influenced by Mevlana’s philosophy.
ISLAM AS “HETRODOX CHRISTIANITY”:

John of Demascus actually calls Islam Hetrodox Christianity. John of Damascus is called the first apologetic of Islam and a detractor.

According the Wikipedia “John of Damascus (Latin: Iohannes Damascenus or Johannes Damascenus also known as John Damascene, Chrysorrhoas, “streaming with gold”-i.e., “the golden speaker”) (c. 676 – December 5, 749) was a Melkite monk and presbyter. He was born and raised in Damascus but died (in all probability) at the monastery of Mar Saba, southeast of Jerusalem.”.In his book the “Heresies of Ishamail” he pretty much defines Islam in the light of Arianism and what he defines as Nestorianism. Nestorius (c.386-c.451) was a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Antioch and later became the Patriarch of Constantinople. He preached against the use of the title Mother of God (Theotokos) for the Virgin Mary and would only call her Mother of Christ (Christotokos).
John of Damascus in today’s light would not be considered an apologetic of Islam. I would consider him a proponent of Islam since he ties Islam to a kind of a Gnostic Gospel. He called all gospels divinely inspired. It is fascinating to see the link between Islam and Christianity. If we read Arianism and Nestorianism, and Unitarianism in conjunction with what the Archbishop of Canterbury says, it paints a picture of immense interaction between Islam and a much closer relationship than generally accepted.Fletcher in his book “The Cross and the Crescent” lists a lot of commonalities between Islam and Christianity and informs us the Syriac Christian Churches felt liberated when the Muslim took over the Holy lands. In all Muslims lands taken over by Muslims from Christians, the number of churches built went up phenomenally. The Syriac and Coptic Christians were closer to “Unitarians” and the heterodox Christian doctrine of Nestorianism. From a Christian perspective These were all the “heresies” that eventually got purged by Emperor Constantine and got included into Islam 

“On the Day of Resurrection I will intercede and say,

‘O my Lord! Admit into Paradise (even) those who have faith equal to a mustard seed in their hearts.’” Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Hadith 600 

MUHAMMAD IN THE CHRISTIAN CONTEXT:

Islam is “Hetrodox Christianity“…John Damascus 

The status of Muhammad has to be understood in the context of Christian Dogma and Christian beliefs of “inerrancy“, “infallibility” “inspiration” and the liberal interpretation of the Gospels. The discussion of the status of Jesus Christ has always been a topic of discussion between Christians. In many ways the discussions of Jesus Christ and the theological differences between Islam and Christianity are essentially a discussion about the so called heresies of Arias and Eusebius of Caesarea that germinated in the city of Antioch. This has been prolifically elucidated by Thomas Jefferson in his “Jeffersen Bible“. Many churches have taken a liberal approach to the interpretation of the Bible and consider it inspired or infallible.

MUHAMMAD THE REFORMER: Muhammad was a reformer in a sea of paganism. His message was the purest form of monotheism that exists in the three Abrahamic religions. He had married a Christian woman by the name of Khadija. When Muhammad got his message from God he was referred to Khadija’s unlce Waqaba who was a Monophysite Christian. Waqaba informed Muhammad that the voices he was hearing was from God and there is prophecy in the Bible about someone like Muhammad. Some critics claim that Muhammad was influenced by a Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.

MY MUHAMMAD:

A woman would throw garbage from the rooftop on the Prophet Muhammad every day in Mecca. One day when he noticed that no garbage was being thrown on him, he inquired about her, and discovered that she was sick. He prayed for her and gave her solace and comfort. She was so impressed, that she gave up her pagan rituals and converted to Islam.

During one of his trips, the people threw stones at him so much so that he was all bloodied. Upon his rescue by his supporters, he prohibited them from any action and requested God to forgiven them

An older Christian woman Khatija hired the young Mohamed for trade.She was so impressed by his integrity in conducting her business affairs so honestly and profitably that that she asked him to marry her. He remained faithful to her ’till her death. She was his companion, advisor, partners in life and one of the first converts to Islam.

While praying, his nephews Hasan and Husain would climb on his back. He would never scold them or admonish them, instead he prolonged his prayer in while prostrating.

Muhammad was known by the pagans of Arabia as “ameen” the honest one, “sadiq” the truthful one, long before he received revelation and even afterwards. He was offered, money and kingship to give up his message of “one God”, but he refused and continued to preach the message of Abraham. These are the stories I grew up with. This is my image of my prophet. This is the image all Muslims think of when we think of our prophet.

CRITICISM OF MUHAMMAD:

His popularity in the world of Islam and elsewhere has attracted a barrage of criticism on his personality, his message and his life. Heretic Christian monk, false prophet,  warrior, womanizer, and cruel are some of the major themes of criticism rained on this man whose popularity has continued to grow around the globe. Obviously his message is resonating with humans and his criticism is not being heard. He never proclaimed that he was starting a new religion. He always insisted that this was the original faith of Abraham and vociferously proclaimed one God, the God of Abraham, the god of Jesus and the God of Noah. E remained faithful to the love of his life Khadija for more than 20 years ‘till his death. He married slves to liberate them and old widows to provide them comfort in dieing. Most of his marriages were at the end of his life, not during the youthful years. He took the advice of Khatija nad Ayesha and considered them partners in his life and in Islam. Like King David, Muhammad could have chosen to become king of Arabia. Instead he established covenants with the Christians and and his “Mishaq e Medina” was a constitution that established an ummah of Jews and Muslims. Arabia had about 50,000 people of which only about 20,000 or less were able bodied men who could wage war. A smaller subset of this number actually formed the army that within 50 years of the death of Muhammad brought Morocco to Indonesia. Obviously it was not the sword that brought this vast area under the sway of the color green….it was the message of Muhammad, a message of love, affection, compassion and one of equality and justice. Islam was not spread by the sword. The largest Muslim populations in the world in  Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and India constitute more than 80% of the Muslims. None of these populations are Arab and none of these people were ever conquered by Arab armies. 

Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, the fastest growing religion in Europe,  and the fastest growing religion in America. 4 out 5 Western coverts are women. This phenomenon has to understood in terms of sociology not pulpit propaganda.  

We can either demonize the other religion or work on building common ground. As Westernized Muslims, we can and should discuss the infallibilities of Muhammad the man. Muhammad was fortunate enough to be born in one of the power centers of an affluent Arabia which owed its prosperity to becoming the hub of trade and commerce. Affluent and powerful, he did not have to take on the entire Arabian peninsula and preach monotheism and a civl code of justice. He did not have to upset the equilibrium.

He was part o f the establishment and his tribe was all powerful. He like Abraham chose to eliminate idol worship and clear the Kaaba of all idols. He was a man and not a God. My research of his entire life shows me a MAN OF COMPASSION, INCLUSIVELY and MAGNANIMITY. This opinion is based on his entire life and teachings. I have so many stories that it would take volumes of paper to print. This image of Muhammad is also my core belief and my personal relationship with Muhammad the MAN. Muhammad’s life spans many decades. The religion was not based around his personality, but around the prophets of the Bible. He even called it “Deen e Ibrahimi” or the religion of Abraham. A cult would have died out in a year or so. It has now been 1400 years and the religion is growing. There must be something in the religion and the message. 

Muhammad and Islam have faced defamation from the first day the declaration of the “shahadah” (submission to the will of God) was made. Muhammad’s entire life has been defined by many authors. The definitive works on the life of the prophet were written centuries ago and new ideas are but summaries of the books: These were  Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat e Rasul Allah and Ibn Khatir’s Siratul nabi.

 A new PBS documentary on Muhammad created by Alexander Kronemer who regularly writes on the interfaith site belief.com  came out a couple of years ago. It should be available in the library and on PBS. It is based upon Karen Armstrong’s book titled “Muhammad.” She thinks of it as a gift to Muslims. She however needs to update her book on in light of the latest research on  Banyu Quaraza. Karen Armstrong and Martin Lings are a few of the current authors that talk about Muhammad. I read Karen’s book ten years ago when it first came out.

*Peace Be upon Him (PBUH). I have deliberately not used this to make it easier for Non-Muslim leaders. SWW.May God forgive me if I have transgressed and may God show me the right way.

REFERENCES

The Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures. 1695. French trans. 1740; Dutch trans. 1729; German trans. 1733.A Vindication of The Reasonableness of Christianity, … from Mr. Edwards’s Reflections. 1695.A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity. 1697.A Letter to the Right Reverend Edward Ld. Bishop of Worcester, concerning Some Passages relating to Mr. Locke’s Essay of Humane Understanding: in a late Discourse of his Lordship’s in Vindication of the Trinity. 1697. Mr. Locke’s Reply to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester’s Answer to his Letter. 1697.Mr. Locke’s Reply to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester’s Answer to his Second Letter. 1699.A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, etc. 1705.Posthumous Works. 1706. “Conversation between a Saracen and a Christian” John Damascus ”Concerning Heresy” (peri aipeseon) – The last chapter of this part (Chapter 100) deals with the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. Differently from the previous ‘chapters’ on other heresies which are usually only a few lines long, this chapter occupies a few pages in his work. It is one of the first Christian polemical writings against Islam, and the first one written by a Greek Orthodox/Melkite. John Damascus Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam;

A Book of Essays by JOHN TOLAN on 5 pages Anglo-Saxon Perceptions of the Islamic World (Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England) by Katharine Scarfe  Beckett on page 41, Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)  Saracens by John V. Tolan in Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)  Popular Dictionary of Hinduism by Avril Powell on page 30, and page 32 John of Damascus on Islam: The ‘Heresy of the Ishmaelites’ (Hardcover) by D.J. Sahas Misquoting Jesus :

The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman Lost Scriptures :

Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the

Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein God Against the Gods : The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism by Jonathan Kirsch Whose Bible Is It?

A History of the Scriptures Through the Ages by Jaroslav Pelikan An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture Account of Jesus Christ (1702)

Thomas Emlyn American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation (Hardcover) by Jon Meacham (Author)

The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

by Steven Morris, in Free Inquiry, Fall, 1995

“The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of…Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country’s second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers ‘noble and gallant achievements” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces”. Late in life he wrote: “Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!”

It was during Adam’s administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:”I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.” He referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac” and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed fromem) was a a href=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521829402/ref=sib_ab_dp_pg/104-3038607-0285517?ie=UTF8 the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.”
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, “That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.” When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of nature.”
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.” He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.

Freethought Today March 1996

---

The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians

By Steven Morris, Ph.D.

The Christian Right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States, as part of their campaign to force their religion on others who ask merely to be left alone. According to this Orwellian revision, the Founding Fathers of this country were pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

Not true! The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New Testaments.

Thomas Paine, pamphleteer whose manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the War of Independence: “I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of . . . Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.” [1]

George Washington, first president: He seems to have had the characteristic unconcern of the 18th century Deist for the forms and creeds of institutional religion. Although he often referred to Providence as an impersonal force, remote and abstract, he never declared himself to be a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a Universalist who denied the existence of Hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance. [2]

John Adams, second president: Drawn to the study of law but facing pressure from his father to become a clergyman, he wrote that he found among the lawyers “a noble air and gallant achievements” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces.” [3] Late in life, he wrote, “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” [4]

It was during Adams’ presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty with Tripoli was written and concluded by Joel Barlow during Washington’s administration. [2]

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence: “I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.” [5] He referred to the Revelation of St. John as “the ravings of a maniac” [6] and wrote, “The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.” [7]

James Madison, fourth president and Father of the Constitution: Madison was not religious in any conventional sense. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” [8] “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” [9]

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence: “That Jesus Christ was not God is evident from his own words.” In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally “denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious I am no Christian.” [10] When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the Judge asked him if he promised “to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God.” Allen refused to answer until the Judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those “written in the great book of Nature.” [11]

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion . . . has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” [12] He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, as a Deist, not a Christian.

---

Steven Morris received his Bachelor’s Degree in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D from the University of Calgary. He held a research position at UCLA for two years working on a seismology project, which included spending one year at the South Pole running a seismometer. He has taught at the University of Puerto Rico and now teaches physics and physical science at Los Angeles Harbor College. He has published several astronomy research papers and is an active member of the Los Angeles-based Atheists United.This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

---

Footnotes

1. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, p. 8, 9 (republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY)
2. George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., p. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas TX)
3. The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, p. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC) quoting letter by J.A. to Charles Cushing Oct. 19, 1756
4. The Great Quotations, ed. by George Seldes, (Citadel Press) quoting letter by J.A. to F.A. Van der Kamp Dec. 27, 1816
5. Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham MD) quoting letter by T.J. to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse June 26, 1811
6. Thomas Jefferson, An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York NY) quoting letter by T.J. to Alexander Smyth Jan. 17, 1825
7. Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., p. 246, quoting letter by T.J. to John Adams July 5, 1814
8. The Madisons by Virginia Moore, p. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co., New York NY) quoting letter by J.M. to William Bradford April 1, 1774
9. James Madison, A Biography in His Own Words, p. 93 quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by J.M. June 1785.
10. Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolf Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York NY) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man by Ethan Allen 1784
11. Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press Inc., New York NY)
12. Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in His Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404 (1972, Newsweek, New York NY) quoting letter by B.F. to Ezra Stiles March 9, 1790

In 1796, U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam

by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
November 7, 2006

Has the United States ever engaged in a crusade against Islam? No, never. And, what’s more, one of the country’s earliest diplomatic documents rejects this very idea.

Exactly 210 years ago this week, toward the end of George Washington’s second presidential administration, a document was signed with the first of two Barbary Pirate states. Awkwardly titled the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211),” it contains an extraordinary statement of peaceful intent toward Islam.

The agreement’s 11^th article (out of twelve) reads: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, – and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

In June 1797, the Senate unanimously ratified this treaty, which President John Adams immediately signed into law, making it an authoritative expression of American policy.

In 2006, as voices increasingly present the “war on terror” as tantamount to a war on Islam or Muslims, it bears notice that several of the Founding Fathers publicly declared they had no enmity “against the laws, religion or tranquility” of Muslims. This antique treaty implicitly supports my argument that the United States is not fighting Islam the religion but radical Islam, a totalitarian ideology that did not even exist in 1796.

Beyond shaping relations with Muslims, the statement that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” has for 210 years been used as a proof text by those who argue that, in the words of a 1995 article by Steven Morris, “The Founding Fathers Were Not Christians.”

But a curious story lies behind the remarkable 11^th article. The official text of the signed treaty was in Arabic, not English; the English wording quoted above was provided by the famed diplomat who negotiated it, Joel Barlow (1754-1812), then the American consul-general in Algiers. The U.S. government has always treated his translation as its official text, reprinting it countless times.

Additional notes on Jefferson

Note that Thomas Jefferson, one of the nation’s most popular and respected presidents, is claimed by many groups.

Jefferson was born into an Anglican family and was raised as an Aglican. He would later be considered an Episcopalian, after the Episcopal Church was officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism in 1789 (after the Revolution and independence from England).

Later in his adult life Jefferson did not consider himself an Episcopalian, or a member of any other specific denomination. Later in life Jefferson held many clearly Christian, Deist, and Unitarian beliefs, but was not a member of any congregation or denomination. Today, many Unitarians sincerely believe that Jefferson should be “counted as” a Unitarian, just as many Christians point to Jefferson as a Christian, and many of the small number of Americans who identify themselves as Deists believe Jefferson should be classified a Deist.

Jefferson was never a member of the Unitarian denomination nor was he ever active in a Unitarian congregation. However, he did once write that he would have liked to be a member of a Unitarian church, but he was not because there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia. It is not unreasonable to identify Jefferson as a Unitarian (with the caveat that, technically speaking, he was not actually one). However, it is a mistake to extrapolate from Jefferson’s stated admiration for Unitarianism the notion that he was somehow “un-Christian” or “non-Christian.” It is true that contemporary Unitarian-Universalists now classify their denomination as a distinct religion not confined as a subset of Christianity (although a large proportion of individual Unitarian-Universalists do indeed identify themselves as Christians). However, in Jefferson’s day, Unitarianism was considerably different from its present form, and there was no concept that it was a non-Christian religion. Unitarianism in Jefferson’s time was regarded as one liberal Protestant denomination among many other Protestant denominations extant in America. Virtually nobody thought of Jefferson as a non-Christian (or even non-Protestant) president.

By some of the more narrowly-conceived definitions of the word “Christian” which are in use today, particularly among Evangelicals since the 1940s, it is entirely possible that Jefferson’s beliefs would mark him as a “non-Christian.” Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian must be done purely on contemporary theological grounds, because he was clearly a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. Furthermore, to define Jefferson as a “non-Christian” requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time.

Adherents of other religious groups, including atheists and agnostics, also point to various writings of Jefferson which are in harmony with their positions. The difficulty in classifying Jefferson using a single word for religious affiliation does not stem from a lack of information, but rather a wealth of writing — which can be interpreted differently depending on a person’s perspective. Jefferson left a considerable amount of writing on political and philosophical issues, as well as writing about religion, including the “Jefferson Bible.”

In a practical sense, classifying Jefferson as a “Deist” with regards to religious affiliation is misleading and meaningless. Jefferson was never affiliated with any organized Deist movement. This is a word that describes a theological position more than an actual religious affiliation, and as such it is of limited use from a sociological perspective. If one defines the term “Deist” broadly enough, then the writing of nearly every U.S. president or prominent historical figure could be used to classify them as a “Deist,” so classifying people as such without at least some evidence of nominal self-identification is not very useful.

Although Jefferson’s specific denominational and congregational ties were limited in his adulthood and his ever-evolving theological beliefs were distinctively his own, he was without a doubt a Protestant. One should keep in mind that despite his later self-stated non-affiliation with any specific denomination, he was raised as an Episcopalian, attended Episcopalian services many times as an adult and as President, and he expressed a clear affinity for Unitarianism. However these denominations may be classified now, during Jefferson’s lifetime, the Episcopal Church and the Unitarian Church were both considered to be Protestant denominations. Ref. http://www.adherents.com/people/pj/Thomas_Jefferson.html