by Ianto Watt
Which, by the way, is another distinction too, between Mosaic Jews and Catholics versus the Talmudic Jews and the Protestants, too. None of the Bizarro contestants have any ritual ceremonies that are universal in observance here on earth. But if you listen to Moses or the Apostles in the Old or New Testaments, their modes of worship are full of ritual, and each one is full of mystical and cosmic meaning. Huh? What’s this all mean then?
Well, the purpose of earthly ceremony is to point towards what will be going on in heaven in the Mosaic/Apostolic world. So, math problem here. What can you do that will absorb you for all eternity that won’t become boring and repetitious? Well, in the Christian (and Mosaic Jewish) world, there will be all the mysteries of a personal God to explore, from within the confines of His family. As members of his family (adopted, that’s true, but nonetheless, a fully legal member) God will reveal, over the course of eternity, all of the wonders of His eternal Being. And since he is Infinite (as well as omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent), that pretty much covers everything, and more, actually. You will never get bored because you’ll never do the same thing twice, as there’s always something new to see and learn. And you’ll sit there, awestruck at each new revelation, saying ‘wow, Dad, how did you do that? That’s awesome! Can I try it? Thank you!’
But in the Muslim Paradise, you get to have 72 ‘dark-eyed virgins’ (still no word yet on their gender, nor on what faithful women get?), lots of food and wine, and music. That’s it. And it lasts as long as Allah decides, which, by the way, you can’t be sure how long that is, because he’s never said, and even if he did, he can’t be held to his word. Oh yeah, and he also doesn’t reveal a thing about himself to anyone, as we can’t comprehend the slightest thing about him. How could we? We’re not like him. Which is why he won’t adopt us as his children. After all, children get to know their parents by living with them and having their parents teach them things about the wisdom and knowledge they have accumulated. And if you have no ‘parent’ in heaven (and certainly no mother!), well, guess what? You’re just a servant. Get me a beer, will you? And a ham sandwich too? Wait, there’s no pork in Islamic heaven. Bummer!
Which brings up the next question- what’s Allah doing this whole time after the end of the world- watching us eat, drink and be merry? How does that glorify him? How does it edify us? What’s the point here? What cosmic significance is there to the endless buffet and floor show? Do we get fat? Do we have hangovers? Do we have children? To what purpose? I don’t get it. So I don’t want it. That’s as close as I can come to answering the question of ‘Does Islam promise us something desirable?’. It ain’t for me. I want more. Lot’s more. Including pork.
And so, having said all that, I think it’s time to move on to the next pregnant question of our five-fold criteria and ask the next big question.
Does Islam have an unbroken line of priestly
or kingly succession till today? NO.
Why? Because from the get-go, there was no established kingdom or priesthood, let alone a defined order of succession. Remember what I said about organizations? If it ain’t organized, it ain’t an organization. And each organization has to have one head. Except mutants, of course. Ever seen a two-headed cow? I have. Ever seen the progeny of a two-headed cow? Me neither. Why? Because girl cows don’t like them? No. It’s because they never successfully reproduce. But that doesn’t stop Richard Dawkins. He still thinks this is an improvement in the evolutionary scheme of things. Idiot.
Anyway, in Judaism, which was established as a theocratic state, there were absolute rules as to who could be the next high priest. Likewise in Christianity, which was also a theocratic state (but which governed a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one). There were appointed leaders in Christianity (the Apostles, or ‘ambassadors’) and a leader over them (Peter), whose successor would be chosen by the remaining and successive members of the apostolic group (known as bishops today). In both of these there was an unbroken and publicly known line, and in Holy Roman Christianity it still exists today. You’ll note that in both Bizarro Judaism and Bizarro Christianity, almost anyone can be a preacher or a rabbi. And that they can say almost anything, even if it contradicts the founder’s words. As long as it makes them money.
In Islam, however, which was also established as a theocracy (but only in an earthly sense), there was no line of succession specified in the Koran. Now none of this mattered for a while after Mohammed’s death, because there weren’t that many of them, and the strong man’s successor was the next-strongest man, who happened to be his father-in-law, Abu Bakr.
Abu Bakr was known as the ‘Caliph’, and he was merely the governing political ruler of all the believers. There could be no further religious revelation after Mohammed, as he was the final messenger. All the Caliph could do was to pronounce on the proper interpretation of the Koran in a given geo-political circumstance. But since there was no real supreme religious authority (like a pope or a high priest), it was up to the individual believer to decide whether or not to follow the Caliph’s decision in a particular matter. Thus, it is not amazing that there arose a series of disputes that resulted, over a short period of time, in the fracturing of the political/ military leadership, producing smaller, regional competing factions within the believing community. Which is an oxymoron, as it seems to me that without a supreme religious authority (as distinct from a political authority, which is what the caliphs were) there could be no definition of ‘community’. Thus, there could be no theological ruling of what the actual Operating System was. Which, of course, is why there are several actual Muslim Operating Systems; Sunni, Shiite, Ismaili, etc. Each one claims to be the original, but each one still has the four defects I noted at the beginning of this section. Weird, eh?
Abu Bakr’s opponents said Mohammed’s son-in-law (and cousin) Ali, was supposed to be the rightful successor. This group (the Shiites) held their peace for a while, and Ali eventually became the 4th Caliph after Abu Bakr and his two successors died. At this point, Ali was recognized by all in the community as the true Caliph, but note, again, this only made him the political leader, not the supreme religious interpreter. And when Ali’s progeny were denied the right of dynastic succession which they claimed as their divine right, all bets were off, and the split between the different factions became open and hostile. Thus from the very beginning there has been division and warfare within the Islamic world. Emperor George Bush did not fail to notice this division. Nor has Emperor Obama.
Anyway, we now have those who believe the Caliphate was not necessarily meant to be a dynastic succession from Mohammed’s descendants as opposed to those who believe it should be. Thus you have two major branches which are at odds with each other, but they are joined in their opposition to all who are outside the camp of Islam (as each defines it). The Sunni branch is made up primarily of two groups, The Twelvers and another group known as the Ismailis. The other main branch, who claim Ali as their legitimate ancestor, are the Shiites, although there are also some other smaller branches who reject the Sunni version, such as the Kharijites.
Now anyone who has even a minimal amount of knowledge of these groups knows they are more than willing to kill each other, as long as it doesn’t get in the way of killing the rest of us. But bottom line, there has never been real agreement within the Islamic world from the very beginning as to who the legitimate successor should have been, and this division continues till this day.
While I know that this seemingly has nothing to do with this discussion, I’m going to interject it anyway. It’s my opinion that George Bush Jr. deliberately started the second Gulf War with too few troops to adequately keep the peace between these two groups (Sunni & Shiite, along with the Kurds) when he went in to topple Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a non-religious Arab who terrorized all groups within his realm, regardless of their religious beliefs. Bush was advised of this huge risk by his highest military men and yet he dismissed their advice.
My theory is that he did this, no
t out of stupidity or bravado, but out of a cunning belief that the best way to destroy the Islamic world was to remove the control-rod (Saddam) from the reactor (Iraq) and then sit back and watch the Islamic world melt down in a fratricidal war. We would then be ‘powerless’ to stop this war due to the inadequacy of our troop strength on the ground. Not that Emperor George wanted to stop it, of course. In other words, he did it to start an Islamic civil war, for the purpose of destroying both major flavors of Islam. Now why would he do this? Cui bono, grandson. Follow the money. Petro-dollars and shekels. Follow them to Jerusalem. Or Tel Aviv.
Anyway, as to the question at hand, does Islam have an unbroken line of priestly (or even political) succession to this day? Obviously not. So, that’s a big strike against them in our attempt to determine which monotheistic Operating System will serve our needs as we approach the second part of this book, where we will trace all the significant happenings since the Fall of Troy in our quest to understand where all of us will end up, politically and religiously speaking. So now, let’s move on to the last of our five practical criteria in this quest, and let’s ask;
Does Islam have a believable Messiah? Well, No.
Why? Because we don’t know anything about him. The Koran tells us almost nothing about him, or who he will be. Or where he will come from. Or who he will come from. Or when he will come. Or why he will come. Or how he will come. Or, most importantly, what he will do when he gets here. Or how he will judge us. Or how he will rule, and why. In short, we know almost nothing about him, except, of course, that he cannot be divine. Why? Because, as Mohammed has told us a billion times in the Koran, Allah has no partners, no children, no relations whatsoever. So unless the Messiah is also Allah (and the Koran does not say this), who the heck will he be? Another human? How does that work? What qualifies him to rule us? What’s he done that’s so great? Well, we’re not privy to this info. We’ll just have to wait and see.
But in the meantime, Islamic tradition (as distinct from the Koran) tells us more about this Mahdi (messiah). The Sunni’s say he will be a 10th generation descendant of Mohammed (small math problem here, he’s way overdue), and that he will be accompanied by Jesus. Jesus may have a problem with that as well. The Mahdi’s name will be Mohammed, which is like saying his name will be John Smith in the Islamic world. His coming will also be at the time of an Anti-Christ, but we have no other data on this part. Question; why, if Jesus is NOT the messiah, will the opponent of the Mahdi-messiah be an anti-Christ? Shouldn’t he be an anti-Mohammed? Or an anti-Allah? Why is Jesus so central to the Muslim end-times, yet he is so subordinate to Mohammed? The Koran gives us no clues.
But the Koran does say some things about the end-times. The Koran says the messiah-mahdi’s coming will be marked by the flying of The Black Standard (flag) from Khorasan (roughly the area of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, etc.) and a star with a luminous tail will arise in the east. The basic problem here is that Islamic caliphs from the Abbasid Dynasty onward have been flying this flag since at least 750 AD. And there have been dozens of comets (a star with a luminous tail) reported over the last thousand years, so why would another one excite anyone, in term of signifying something cosmic? Oh well, how about this last detail; the Islamic Messiah will have natural mascara ringing his eyes when he comes. So then, what if he lands in a Goth community- how will this feature distinguish him today? And what would be the significance of it? Is this where Alice Cooper is revealed as the true messiah?
I know, I know, there are some Shiites that say he will appear in Mecca, but the Sunni’s don’t say that. And the Sunni’s say he could be an ordinary man, not related to Mohammed. Other Sunni’s (Abul Ala Maududi 1903– 1979) say he won’t claim to be the messiah, and will only be recognized as such after his death. His what? Yes, his death. You mean he will die? Yep. And no mention of a resurrection. Not much of a messiah, in my book. Just another ordinary mortal. So what’s the point? Where’s the climax here? So he’s just going to be another mortal leader who unifies mankind through apocalyptic war, and we all live happily ever after while the messiah-mahdi dies? So heaven is down here?
I don’t get it. Way too much disagreement amongst the believers here, and this disagreement in Islam is present from the very beginning. Way too little data in the supposedly divine Koran. Way too little power in the person of the Mahdi-messiah himself. Way too much letdown for those of us who think a messiah should be divine. What’s the cosmic significance of all this? It just sounds like another round of what we’ve seen for the last 6,000 years. Big deal. Who cares, really?
And why does Jesus appear after the messiah (according to some Islamic scholars)? Why is he here if Mohammed was greater? And what about Moses, and Adam? Hell, grandson, even Abraham and Ishmael don’t even get screen credits in this over-hyped extravaganza! What a let-down. Is this just a set up for a sequel movie? What’s the point in calling him a messiah if he’s just another guy? What makes him so great? Where’s the High Priest when you need him?
Sorry, I can’t buy this Operating System, it doesn’t seem to have a unified and coherent help-desk when it comes time for solid answers. And unlike all operating manuals for all the other competing systems, the ‘true’ instructions are only in Arabic!
So am I saying, like so many Islamic-bashers, that the Muslim world is a hopeless hodge-podge of misogynist, intolerant fanatics bent on world dominion? No. A lot of their leaders are that way, but that bizarre behavior simply mirrors the world of Talmudic Judaism and Evangelical Protestants. Notice that each of these is the Bizarro version of its original counterpart? Huh? What is the original Islamic counterpart? After all, haven’t I already said that all versions of Islam are Bizarros? Yes. But Muslims had to come from somewhere. And they did. They came from Catholicism. From Holy Rome.
What!? Well, again, remember that my favorite mantra is, ‘forget what they say, look at what they do’. So let’s look at what they (the majority of Muslims) actually do. They do five things, and these five things are known as the Five Pillars of Islam. Let’s look at them and then see if you agree with me that these people are, for the most part, mimicking basic Holy Roman Christianity. Actually, it’s anorexic Christianity, but it’s still alive and kicking. The skeletal parts and the skin are there, but there’s just not a lot of flesh on it. But still, the form is there. Let’s take a look at them before we continue, just to be fair.
There is no god but God (and Mohammed is His messenger);
Pray 5 times daily;
Fast during Ramadan;
Give alms to the Poor;
Make Pilgrimage to Mecca at least once (if possible).
Now the first of these is their creed, and it’s pretty simple. To make it Catholic, just drop the second part. Notice that this makes it even more simple, and it becomes totally consonant with the monotheism of both Mosaic Judaism and Catholicism. Forget, for a minute, that this is the simplest creed on the face of the earth, but it is monotheistic, which does separate it totally from all pantheistic pagan religions.
The second act is consonant with the Biblical injunction to ‘pray always, without ceasing’. That’s what monks do, and it is totally congruent with the Holy Roman belief that ‘those who pray will surely be saved, and those who do not will surely be lost’. It’s simple: ‘ask, and it shall be given’. You don’t ask, you don’t get. Get it, grandson? Good.
The third act is fasting, which is a form of self-denial, which is absolutely right out of the Holy Roman playbook. But Protestants despise self-denial. So do Talmudic Jews. Forget the fact, for a minute, that this Muslim way of fasting, at Ramadan, is followed by a gorging (after sunset). The original part (fasting) is Holy Roman.
The fourth act is the act of charity, which Holy Roman Christianity puts above all the other virtues, as it will last for eternity (whereas faith and hope will pass away). Protestant Christianity says ‘name it and claim it’. Holy Rome saves ‘give it to live it’. Guess which is harder? Guess which one actually deserves so
me kind of reward?
The fifth act, the Pilgrimage to Mecca, is an act of submission to the ruling authority (which rules in Mecca). It is an act of obedience to an earthly authority, which is a totally Mosaic Judaic and Holy Roman act. It is totally consonant with the New Testament and Old Testament, which enjoined the people to do as the High Priest and/or the Pope commands them. This openness to obedience was praised by Jesus who, in the ultimate act of insult to the Pharisees, praised the Roman Centurion for his obedience and submission to earthly authority. This was a submissive act of faith that Jesus found to be greater than all acts of faith that he had found ‘in all of Israel’. (Matthew 8:10)
So, just what am I saying, grandson? I am saying that most Muslims (that’s my way of saying the little guys, not their leaders) are nascent Catholics. Are they stunted in their theological development? Yes. Are they stilted in their rigid application of Sharia Law? You bet. But are they welcoming to strangers? Yes. Are they modest? Yes. Are they humble? All the ones I know are. Are they devout? Absolutely! Are they willing to die for their faith? Need I ask? And there’s the problem. Their faith isn’t developed, because of the problem I mentioned earlier, the fact that there is no room for reason in their Operating System. That’s what’s missing, and that is the Holy Roman element.
Now remember, almost all of this can also be said of many of the little-guy Jews and Bizarro Christians of today as well. So where am I going with this? I’m saying that both of these little-guy groups have a lot of ‘redeeming social values’, as the Supreme Court would say (which said that in its defense of pornography, for crying out loud!). So what does this mean? It means, by my reading of history, and the signs I have perceived in history (which by the way, includes a lot of prophecies) that many people from these two groups will eventually land right smack dab inside Holy Rome. And not as terrorists. The terrorists are already inside, for the most part.