by Ianto Watt
It becomes clear that this claim of singularity is THE central theme of the book. Which is to say, it is designed to deny the divinity of Jesus, the (second person of ) God in the New Testament, pure and simple. And considering that Christianity was the dominant religion of the time, it is a natural claim that has to be made if someone is trying to sell a competitive religious belief. And so, to cover up the insult to the divinity of Jesus (so as not to offend too deeply the Christian audience he sought to convert), Mohammed then ‘elevates’ Jesus to the same status of Moses. Which is to say, he’s just another Messenger sent by Allah in the past, whose message was corrupted over time just like the message of Moses. But again, we are never told just exactly what passages of the Bible we have today that are corrupt. Nor does he tell us what the original message was. It seems to me that if God wanted to reform the Church (and Judaism) all he had to do was give Mohammed the original revelation so he could publish it abroad. Or at least tell us which passages were changed, and what the original verses said. Instead, all we have in the Koran is the claim that the Bible of that day was corrupted. This claim is packaged within a bunch of praise-phrases of Allah, and the claim to singularity (even though it is expressed time and again in a plural voice).
Now, say what you want about the Christian concept of God, which also claims to be both singular and plural, at least it confronts the issue head on. It claims a singular Godhead, but explicitly packages it in three persons. It never claims singularity of person, only of the Godhead. Just think of it as a family, and they all have the same last name: God. They are all essentially of one substance (although that word is as close as we can get towards describing the essence of God. Think of DNA). But in the end, the Christian story allows rationality to exist alongside of mystery. We can conceive of this arrangement, but not fully understand it, due to our finite nature. But in Islam, there is absolutely no room for rationality, as Allah is, by the definition laid down in the Koran, unknowable, in any sense of the word. All you can know is what he said to Mohammed, and you must do it without question. No thinking allowed. Just like public schools!
So, what do we make of the use of the plural voice then? If Allah is one, why speak as ‘We’ or ‘Us’? Well, there’s the matter of familiarity for those who are familiar with either the Old Testament or New Testament. If you’re selling a product to a group that already has an earlier version of the Operating System you promise to deliver, you can’t get too far outside the marketplace definition of what is being offered, which in this case is the concept of ‘God’. And that brings up another point. Throughout the Koran the reference to ‘Allah’ is that of a ‘god’, with a small ‘g’. Pretty odd, I think, considering that there are still quite a few references to Allah as ‘God’ with a big G. And given the testiness of the defenders of Islam, I think it’s very telling. If you were to speculate that the translation you read was defective (and that the small-g ‘god’ mentioned numerous times were simply typographical errors), look out buddy, you may get a Fatwah (death-sentence) pronounced upon you for such blasphemy.
But then again, in the next section (Xenophobia), these same believers neatly set themselves up for such a claim. So which is it? Who knows? No sense thinking about it, because there’s no thinking allowed! Ben Stein, beware! But I will come back to this later, when I tie these matters together in my conclusion of who actually dictated (and heard the dictation of ) the ‘message’ of the Koran, and its real purpose on the stage of life.
The Koran, as we are told time and again in the text, was delivered in Arabic, which according to the Koran is the only ‘pure language’, and which has suffered no corruption over the past 1400 years since the Koran fell out of the sky and hit Mohammed on the head. Now normally, we think of a xenophobe as someone who is fearful, perhaps paranoid about strangers, those from other nations or tribes. We think of it as a defensive mechanism. Here it becomes an offensive weapon in the ‘war of translation’ that every religious and political document undergoes as people try to understand it across the cultural divides of tribe and tongue.
By saying that Arabic is the only pure language, those who speak it have an insurmountable advantage over anyone from any other linguistic group that seeks to ‘understand’ its meaning. Even if you were bi-lingual and spoke fluent Arabic, it becomes impossible to render an acceptable version to any other group via translation. Or does it? According to the Imams (the ‘holy men’) who interpret it in the Arabic world, it certainly does. Is it because of the schizoid nature of the grammatical problem covered in my point above? Or is it simply a way to explain this problem away without addressing it? Actually, the point is moot, as this is only a side problem in the overall scheme of things, as the theology expressed in the Koran (apart from the schizoid nature of the god it portrays) is rather cruel and inhuman. But we’ll get to that later.
In a way, this claim that Arabic is the only pure language is almost racist in nature, as it separates not only all believers within Islam (Arabic vs. all the rest), but all non-Arab outside of Islam are thereby separated from the Arab-speaking world. It posits that there is a pure language that isn’t penetrable by any non-Arabic speaker, and therefore, if there is any nuance in the original, it is inexpressible to non-Arabic readers. Is this an Arabic over-reaction to the often expressed theme of an Arabic inferiority-complex vis-à-vis the Western world, especially since the defeat of the Muslim armies at the gates of Vienna in 1683, the high point of Islamic power? Or has it been there from the beginning? Who knows? But it doesn’t make any difference what the motivation is, if it results in the division of man into pre-determined and separate classes of ‘the elect’. That’s just Calvinism for Caliphs. If a religion says that there are certain pre-determined men who can’t, by ANY means, achieve salvation, then the game is rigged, the deck is stacked, and I don’t wanna play. Because I know which group I’m assigned to!
Obviously, one can conclude that in Islam, Arabic speakers will have a higher place in heaven than those whose tongue is different. All by accident of birth. And that’s assuming that those of another tongue can get into heaven at all. It’s a lot like the Talmudic belief that all gentiles are cattle, and that salvation was for the Jews alone. In any event, this coldness, even hostility to certain large portions of mankind based on their accident of birth location, reveals something unsettling about the original possessors of ‘the true message’ that was peddled (generally by force) on the rest of the non-Arabic world over the next 1,400 years after Mohammed heard his voices in the night. .
The next basic structural problem I see with this text is the robotic (versus human) presentation of the Koran’s contents and the robotic reaction that its beliefs require. There is no room for human thought, whether rational or mysterious, in this system of belief. In fact, you could even say it is not a form of belief but rather one of acceptance (submission?). Why? Because it leaves no room for human discernment at any level. All human action is completely programmed by the commands of the author (whoever ‘Allah’ really is), and this reduces humanity to the status of a computer. One with only Artificial Intelligence. Which is to say, a robot.
All actions are either black or white. All people are either good or bad. No room for people who are both good and bad. All commands are to be followed without question. It kind of sounds like Stalinism. A lot like it! There is no room for human thought, no room for human contemplation, let alone decision making, and certainly no room for mercy. And by the way, have you noticed that the desired end (paradise) has no description of any reward that goes beyond the enjoyment of earthly pleasures? Food, wine, sex. That’s it. And I’ll admit, that’s a pretty powerful combo for a lot of people, mostly men. But there is nothing mystical about heaven, because there is absolutely no possibility of comprehending even the smallest part of Allah, who we are told innumerable times, is inscrutable, unknowable and certainly not ‘human’ in any respect.
Therefore, the only things we can enjoy in the Islamic heaven are earth
ly things. Weird. Unless of course, you simply want those 72 virgins. But, by the way, it never says what gender they are. Is there a surprise waiting for us, guys? And what I want to know is, where are they gonna get these virgins, and do you have to share? Because then they aren’t virgins, right? I mean, think about the math here- this is exactly the opposite result of the Chinese one-child policy that has resulted in an over-abundance of males, as the females are aborted to insure having a male offspring. Math time, again, grandson. Flip this scenario and add a 1:72 ratio and then ask yourself, are these real women, or just inflatable dolls? Just a thought that occurs to a Barbarian. We prefer real women, preferably Viking Women. And, oh yeah, what about good women? What do they get in Islam? 72 Imams? The Koran spends absolutely zero time on the fate of women, good or bad. I think they are just accessories in Islamic heaven. Just like Islamic earth? Well, why wouldn’t it be?
Throughout the Koran believers are told repeatedly to act without question. Now, to be fair, this happened a lot in the Old Testament of Judaism as well. But in the Old Testament, man was able to plead and even reason with God, especially when they hadn’t done what they were told to do. Moses was often reduced to pleading with God not to destroy all of the Chosen Ones who time and again failed to do as God had instructed. And several times he used logic and reason to ask God to relent of his expressed desire to tromp the daylights out of Israel. Meanwhile, in the New Testament, Jesus makes many demands of his disciples, but each time, he tells them of the pain and suffering they will experience if they actually do what he tells them to do. Now this type of exhortation is not the best way to get people to follow you blindly. The New Testament also counsels believers to ‘test the Spirit’ (1 John 4:1) when we are urged to do something by some unknown spirit. And so I conclude that Jesus was actually asking his followers to think hard about what he was commanding, as it could only be through a reasoned acceptance of his theological basis that his believers could truly be said to accept his message. And it likely was the only way to steel them for the persecution that would come, thus inoculating them from the danger of apostasy. In any event, it was a far cry from the cold dictates of Allah, who never offered any insight into his reasoning when he made demands of his ‘submissive’ followers.
In any event, the robotic nature of Islam can best be seen by the willingness of its most submissive members to willingly strap on high-explosive underwear for the purpose of killing infidels. But before you can activate the robot, of course, he has to be programmed. In the case of humans, we call it hypnotism, and that’s what we’ll look at next.
The last structural problem I found with the text of the Koran is the hypnotic nature of its composition. The book makes very few theological claims, and the same goes for the historical context it is set in. These elements are secondary, if that, and are simply window dressing to the main element, which is the continual repetition of the three main themes.
These themes are pretty simple: God is one (never mind the syntactical problem noted above when Allah refers to himself in the plural), Mohammed is his prophet, and all opponents will be crushed. Each of these themes is repeated hundreds (if not thousands) of times from beginning to end. Sprinkled in between them are a few historical blurbs, many of which contradict the historical context of the Old and New Testament. But that’s not the point. The point is the repetitious nature of the these 3 themes that becomes, effectively, a hypnotic mantra. This mantra then commands that the believer mindlessly absorb the programming that Allah has given, all without a single thought as to the human effects they will have, on believers and non-believers alike.
This observation of the hypnotic nature of the presentation of Islamic belief has nothing to do with the commands themselves. Rather, the hypnotic state is the result that the reader falls into if they accept the repetition of these 3 basic themes. Once the reader succumbs to the repetition, then the underlying commands of these themes will become firmly imbedded in the sub-consciousness of the reader. Or, in most cases, the listener, as so many Muslim’s have never read the Koran, because they only hear the Imam chant these verses at the mosque. Anything that conflicts with any or all of these 3 themes must therefore be dealt with by resorting to the commands the Koran contains about what to do when there is anyone who questions them.
It’s a pretty closed system, totally unlike Judaism or Christianity (in their original forms) both of which give great weight to the concept of ‘contemplation’. The Koran tries to hijack this thought, but since man is unable, by definition of the Koran, to fathom God’s thoughts in the least, then there’s nothing really to contemplate. And so the real comparison is contemplation vs. repetition. One leads to further understanding of God and his creation, whereas the other is a replacement for it (as man cannot understand anything about Allah, let alone the creation). And anyone who has studied hypnotism (as I have) knows that repetition is one of the key elements of successfully inducing a trance. And the purpose of inducing a trance is to implant a command in the sub-conscious mind that will override the decisions of the conscious mind. In other words, programming. Bottom line, this is a very effective Operating System, but it takes me where I don’t want to go. I like my boxers without the extra baggage. Semtex is not really very comfortable.
Having problems with this observation, grandson? Well, as I have said, repeatedly, I don’t really care how you describe your stated Operating System, I only care about how it actually operates. And my explanation is the only one I know of that can rationally explain the act of strapping on an explosive vest and annihilating yourself (along with all your enemy-victim-civilians nearby) as an expression of the ‘love and brotherhood’ some of the defenders of this dogma supposedly preach. And while many Muslims may object to this conclusion, they can’t do it rationally, because they can’t explain things rationally. Not even their god. Hell, they can’t even decide whether to spell the word with a capital G or not! Hahahhahaha! Idiots.
I know, I know, all the ‘moderate’ believers of this Operating System claim that these ‘extremists’ are simply that, fanatical extremists who have misread the Prophet’s intent. And I could believe that, until I read the Koran myself, and saw that the Prophet himself talked out of both sides of his mouth. This then allows both ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’ to claim with equal sincerity that they are following the Prophet’s words. Because they are! But if you are hypnotized, you’ll never notice this dichotomy, will you?
In any event, these 4 observations will color my further analysis of the Koran and its main proponent, Mohammed. So now, let’s get to work, using our 5-point analysis, and see if Islam can make a case for being the acceptable lens through which we can view the ancient Greek world to interpret the clues given to us by Calchas, the Seer in the Pagan world of Troy. And so, let us begin by asking the same questions we asked of the Jews and Christians.
Does Islam have a historical written document
with verifiable facts? Yes and No.
The real problem here is that the Koran has very little in the way of actual historical claims in it. Very few dates are given, although the few it gives are generally believable. Most are dates referring to battles or the movements of Mohammed throughout his life.
The real problem here is not the dates given, but the story-line contradictions between the Old Testament and the Koran. For example, Muslim theology maintains that Zechariah and his son John the Baptist and John’s cousin, Jesus, were all descendants of Amram, the father of Aaron and Moses. This would make them all from the (Jewish) tribe of Levi. Yet all Jewish and Christian chronologies show that Jesus and John were from the tribe of Judah. Now this wouldn’t be such a problem if Mohammed had provided his own genealogy of Jesus like the New Testament does, but the Koran makes no such listing. Yet time and again the Koran claims that both the Jews and Christians adulterated the scriptural revelations given to them (and presumably this is one of those instances), yet it fails to give the corresponding Islamic correction.
/> This problem repeats itself throughout the Koran, as it recounts the stories of Moses, Saul, David, and Jesus in the briefest of words, with no dates or locations or names of the opposing side (other than Pharaoh). In fact, when Pharaoh is mentioned, several times Haman is mentioned, as though it was a name that somehow should be recognizable as a contemporary of the Egyptian royal court, without any historical mention (like his title, genealogy, etc.). Yet the Old Testament puts Haman in the story of Esther, as the opponent of the Jewish people in the time of the Persian kings (many centuries after Pharaoh of the Exodus). So which is it? Is this an example of the ‘corruption’ of the Old Testament Mohammed keeps speaking of? If so, tell us, and tell us the significance of it!
Another huge problem with the Koran is Mohammed’s warped understanding of the Christian concept of the Trinitarian Godhead. Mohammed repeatedly speaks of the Christian Godhead as consisting of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary the Mother! Uh, sorry Mohammed, you put Mary in where the Holy Spirit belongs. Mary is totally (and only) human, she is not divine. She’s as close as a human can get to being divine, sure, but the line isn’t crossed, because it can’t be. God can take on human nature (as the Christians claim Jesus did), but that’s a one-way street, mathematically speaking. It doesn’t work the other way around. Unless you’re an Arian heretic. And maybe that’s how Mohammed picked up his understanding of the Christian concept of the Trinity, by talking to a Christian heretic. Which would explain a lot. But not enough to overcome all the rest of his beliefs.