"Eight years for 450 kilometers."
"Right, but don't forget the times we are talking about. Right now, they are planning the construction of a high-speed railway line between the two cities and Mohammed would have been able to cover the distance in a single day, in just over two hours in fact. Not that he would necessarily have wanted to return to Mecca nowadays, I don’t know.
Oh? And why wouldn’t he?"
“Because the Saudi Arabian Mecca is no longer Mecca. It is no longer possible to recognize it as Islam’s holiest city. The three million or so pilgrims who now visit each year could be forgiven for thinking they had landed in Las Vegas. The city has become a vast collection of skyscrapers served by large numbers of hotels and expensive shopping malls, all interconnected by multi-lane roads and their corresponding spaghetti junctions. In order to achieve this, the Saudis bulldozed ancient hills and mountains and numerous historical and religious buildings such as the Bilal mosque dating from Mohammed’s time. The house of Khadijah, the first of Mohammed’s many wives, has been turned into a block of toilets. The Makkah Royal Clock Tower is one of the world’s tallest buildings and is built on top of the remains of around 300 historically significant sites. The Makkah Hilton is built on top of the house of Mohammed’s close companion, Abu Bakr. And…”
“But surely something is left, Peter? What do the pilgrims visit otherwise?”
“Oh yes, there is something left, but not much. Many pilgrims now arrive in packaged tour groups and are consequently tied to their hotels. They participate in a mixture of guided shopping trips and guided visits to remaining historic sites. These include the Sacred Mosque and the Kaaba itself and the house where the prophet Mohammed lived. For a long time this house was used as a cattle market, and has since been converted into a library which, however, is not open to the public. The Saudi clerics fear that if allowed inside Mohammed’s house, the pilgrims would commit the unforgiveable sin of praying to the prophet rather than to Allah himself. And so, for various reasons, the calls for the demolition of these remaining sites continue. And the whole situation is aggravated, do I need say it, by the latent discontent between the Salafist brand of Saudi Islam and the many different pilgrims’ sects, all of which are rejected by the Salafists as being false ones.”
"O.K. Peter. Interesting stuff. But you were describing the origins. Allah became, so to speak, the new God?"
"Yes and no," I replied. "There are many experts who describe Christianity and Islam as sister religions. Certainly many of the personages in the Bible and the Koran are the same, including Old Testament personages, and their existence is acknowledged by both religions. This includes Jesus and his mother Mary, by the way, although Islam describes Jesus as being more a kind of apostle than a prophet. That is why Mohammed changed the direction of prayer away from Jerusalem and toward Mecca, by the way."
"He did?"
"Yes, he did.
"So what are the big differences?"
"There are no big differences. Just the minor ones of some humans kneeling when praying, others close to full stretch on the ground, others sitting, and others, including priests, pray standing up. Some face east, some look at the ground, and some face the sky (for example, certain soccer players as they make the sign of the crucifix and say thank you after scoring a goal).
"No, I didn’t mean the differences in prayer customs. I meant the big differences between the religions, Peter."
"Oh. Sorry. Well…there are equally as many experts who say that these are not sister religions, nor are their gods the same. These experts state that there are three major differences. The first one is that, for the Christians, their God is a Triune God, a three-in-one God, consisting of God himself, his Son—who appeared on Earth in human form—and something else called the Holy Ghost."
"The Holy Ghost? What is that?"
"I don't know."
"O.K. I'll look it up."
"In contrast, Mohammed was definitely a human being, rather than someone in human form, and he was not the son of the Islam God, Allah, who has never had any sons at all. Nor does Allah have any other partner within his domain. Mohammed, coincidentally, also had no sons, although he certainly married. In fact, he married eleven or twelve times.
"Hmm…"
Yes…now the second major difference, according to these experts, is that in the Christian religion you attain salvation—you are saved—if you don't sin. You are also saved if you do sin but then repent and request forgiveness, sincerely of course, of God and his Son. The Islamic Koran, on the other hand, says that your way to salvation is attained if your good deeds while on this planet heavily outweigh your other deeds."
"According to all of these particular experts."
"Yes, according to all of these particular experts. At the same time, good deeds and bad deeds are classified in a different manner. For example, Islamic law (Sharia) says that men are superior to women and may use physical violence against their wives if they do not behave in certain matters as the men would like them to. Under the same law, the penalty for a wife who commits adultery is death at the hands of the state. Death by stoning, no less, although nicer methods of execution are also allowed by certain of the Islamic sub-sects of which, by the way, there are over one hundred. Recently, a young woman was stoned to death for having had sex with three men. She claimed that the three men had raped her, but she couldn't prove it, so it was bad luck for her."
"Not very compassionate."
"No. But there is some kind of compassion. For example, another woman recently sentenced to death by stoning for adultery was allowed to have her death delayed until she had finished the breast-feeding of her newly-born child."
"Hmm…"
"Men, on the other hand, are permitted to have several wives."
"That doesn't seem fair."
"Oh, I don't know, it's in line with biological principles, among other things."
"Biological principles?"
"Yes. Now let me see, what would be an easy way to explain that to you? O.K…we are happy to put ten cows into a field together with a single bull. But we will not put ten bulls into a field together with just one cow. The latter would be unnatural. It would also have disastrous consequences. It is a biological matter. The male animal, in general, is not only by nature a polygamous animal, but is also, with some exceptions, more than ready to have sex with an adulterous female animal, irrespective of whether that adultery is willing or forced (as in the case of the ten bulls and the one cow)."
"So you agree with Islamic law in this case?"
"I neither agree nor disagree. Nor am I saying that the marriage law is based on purely sexual motives. There are other motives for marriage. Mohammed himself married some of his soldiers' widows in order to take over the responsibility for providing for them. So let us just say that I understand it, that I accept it."
"And the third big difference?"
"And the third big difference, according to these very same experts, is between the two religions' scriptures themselves and what they preach. But on this, these particular experts are factually wrong. It is the other way round. Both scriptures' teachings are in fact very similar."
Is that an opinion of yours, Peter, or is it a fact?"
"It is a fact."
"That means that you are personally acquainted with the complete content of both these scriptures?"
"I am indeed. I have read the Christian Bible and I have read the Islamic Koran. Both were actually compiled and collected—collated might be a better word—by human beings following the respective deaths of Jesus and Mohammed. The main subject dividing the opinions of the different groups of experts is the subject of tolerance. Tolerance toward others and, specifically, tolerance toward other religions—in other words, toward the 'non-believers' of each respective religion."
"But the scriptures are similar, you say?"
"Yes. If you read the Koran, you will find several passages which preach tolerance toward other religions. Fo
r example, Verse 32 in Chapter 5 states that whoever kills another human being is as guilty as if he had killed all of mankind. Furthermore, you will find that Allah is prepared to 'forgive' non-believers for not believing, on the condition, however, that they are prepared to repent and reject their previous beliefs. Nevertheless, there are also passages in the Koran, including the final teaching on this subject, which clearly state that Islam should be imposed by the use of force against all non-believers. By murdering them all, if necessary. A form of 'Jihad' is justified against the list of 'Unbelievers' (who are hence the enemies of Allah) and that list includes not only pagans but also Christians and Jews. One example of the many paradoxical teachings is Verse 92 in Chapter 4, which clearly states that a Muslim may not kill another Muslim. From which one must deduce that Muslims may kill non-Muslims."
"And the Christian Bible contains similar views?"
"Absolutely. Similar views or similar paradoxes, one should say. On the one hand, we have the 'turn the other cheek' passages. Jesus is quoted as telling us to 'love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you'. However, most Christians largely ignore this and follow the 'eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth' principle, also to be found in The Bible. Same paradoxes."
"Did you say that the Christians largely ignore the love-your-enemy teachings?"
"Indeed I did and indeed they do, and fortunately so in many cases. Otherwise, Hitler, or rather his successors, would currently be reigning supreme. The Holocaust murderers would not have been executed and their successors would have continued to apply their grisly skills to even broader swathes of the human population, and we would all—those of us allowed to survive, that is—be eating sauerkraut right now, a food which I personally happen to detest."
"Ah hah, a joke."
"Yes, Jeremy, but there are a lot of unfortunate examples of human beings using force—in particular, in order to impose their chosen religion on other members of the species. The Christian Crusades, The Christian Inquisitions, the Christian missionaries including the Protestants introducing the 'Word of God' into North America by committing genocide against hundreds of native Indian tribes, and of course we have the Islamic Holy Wars. And we don't stop there, we also have the use of force between the religious sub-divisions, the Catholics versus the Protestants in Northern Ireland, the Sunnites versus the Shiites, and all the rest of them."
"So the two religions share a lot of similarities…"
"Yes, but there are also plenty of dissimilarities. And these are not confined to who is the true God or the true prophet or whatever."
"For example?"
"For example, a Christian, even if he is a priest, is allowed to change his religion if he wishes to. This is not the case with Islam—worse still, the penalty is death. I remember reading the tale of Yousef Nadarkhani, an Iranian priest, married and the father of two sons, who converted from Islam to Christianity and who was subsequently arrested (in the year 2009) at the age of 32, and thrown into jail. The following year he was condemned to death by an Islamic court. Thanks to external political pressures, the execution was postponed and he was given another year to revert back to Islam or be executed. I don't know what eventually happened to him, but I am sure you can find out on the Internet. In any case, Jeremy, the enforcement of religious belief by force and violence is still alive and well on our planet."
"Difficult to believe."
"Maybe, but simple to check out. And there are plenty of smaller religions, Jeremy. And newer ones. Sikhism, for example, was founded in the Punjab region of India in the 16th century by a self-proclaimed guru who said that God had spoken to him. Further self-proclaimed gurus kept the religion going and the tenth guru founded Khalse, a Sikh sect. This god says that you may not remove any body hair, although doubt remains as to which of the various reasons given for this is the correct one. Head hair is wrapped n a cloth of about 5 meters in length. This cloth is called a turban. It also supposedly pressures the 26 bones of the skull, thus permitting the brain to concentrate more closely on spiritual thoughts. Or so I am told. And you may not use tobacco, alcohol or any other intoxicants. Nor may you eat the meat of an animal killed in the Muslim way. So I am told, anyway…"
"Yes, yes" said Jeremy hastily, "But I don't think we need to go through any of your minor religions, Peter." He tugged at his shirt cuffs, fingered his cufflinks. Nervous. Had a business appointment soon perhaps?
"O.K. The third largest religion on our planet is Hinduism."
"No…no thank you, Peter. I think I have the general idea. One could say that each of these beliefs originated via a single human being—or perhaps, in the case of Jesus, a spirit in human form—who lived and travelled around the desert. Jesus stated that there was only one God and that he was his son. And Mohammed said that no, Jesus wasn't God's son at all. On the other hand God had spoken to him, Mohammed, when he got to be around forty years old, and he in fact was the true prophet of God. Of Allah."
"Yes, that is a fair summary."
"But in you only have their word for it."
"That is so."
"And your species believes that what these two persons said about themselves is in fact true."
"Not quite. Some believe in the one, some believe in the other, and some believe in other ones. And some don't believe in any of them. Our species is divided on this."
"O.K. But the ones who believe don't actually know if it's true for a fact.
"No, of course not, Jeremy. If they knew, they wouldn't be able to believe. In fact belief would be redundant. Religion depends on belief—believing what you're told. Oscar Wilde summed it up very well. ‘Religions’, he wrote, ‘die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions.’"
"O.K. So, sticking to the two big religions, Peter, the differing claims of the two main personages you mentioned have been perpetuated since then by other human beings who felt it was their responsibility to do so. But I have a couple of questions."
"Go ahead."
"If I understand correctly," continued Jeremy, "these religions state that God or Allah created the human animal, an animal which not only slaughters itself—war, murder, abortion, suicide—but also other animals, which in turn slaughter others, and so on in an intricate chain of non-stop death right down to the spider killing the fly. A ghastly Planet of Death, Daily Death. Now why would God or Allah or anybody else want to create something like that?"
"Well, some of it is what we like to call the 'food chain', Jeremy, a nourishment system created by whichever god you happen to believe in," I said. "But the answer to your question is that I don't know."
"You don't know. Well. Whichever god it is apparently also created you and the other animals as creatures requiring oxygen to breathe, water to remain hydrated, fuel to renew energy (food you call it), systems to continuously remove all of these things after use—lungs, bladders, intestines and sphincters—and then bones, muscles and nerves to provide mobility, other complicated organs such as livers, kidneys and genitals, a system of neurons and electrical impulses to direct your actions, an entire arrangement of major and minor pipes to irrigate all the working parts with a mysterious fluid called blood, a pump to circulate this mysterious fluid, and so on. And the whole caboodle is inhabited by bacteria, full of defects and open to disease, cancer, breakdowns, suffering, death, cessation. Now why would anyone want to create something as complicated as that?"
"I don't know."
"And you were also designed to have to spend a third of your existence in a state of total unconsciousness—sleep as you call it—and if you don't, you die. Now, what possible purpose could anyone have had in wanting to create that?"
"I don't know."
"You don't know, but you hold everything to be possible?
"Yes, and for that very reason—I don't know. I do not have the required information to reject the possibility of anything at all. Nor to query why anyone might wan
t to create anything in the first place. I have no idea."
"How about the Big Bang as an explanation?"
"I don't reject that either. I just don't know. It could be possible, but again, I don't have the necessary information to understand how something which didn't exist in the first place could then explode. There must have been something there beforehand."
"Oh yes, and indeed there was, Peter. Let me enlighten you on that. There have been countless big bangs in fact, over a period of time going back into what you might call infinity. But infinity is not a concept your species can grasp. You have to have a 'Beginning' and an 'End' to everything, you cannot conceive of anything else."
O.K., so now I'll nail him. The past is one thing, the future is another. I wonder what kind of answer he is going to give me on this: "So what about the future, Jeremy, what about the fate of the universe?"
He didn't pause for a second. He needed no time for consideration. The question was, for him, a simple one.
"I read," he said, "that your cosmologists have many, many theories in that regard. At the current point in time, there appears to be a growing consensus among them toward the presumption that the universe is flat, and that as such it can, and probably will, continue to expand for ever and ever. This theory may or may not be allowed by their colleagues to survive, as it involves the as yet, for them, unacceptable concept of infinity. But they are right in one way, Peter. The ultimate fate of the universe is indeed dependent upon its shape. It is, however, also dependent upon the role dark energy will be playing as the universe ages. And your cosmologists' tentative conclusion is, due to their lack of knowledge, an incorrect one, I can assure you. What will happen is that there will be an implosion, a big bang in reverse so to speak, and then there will be another 'normal' big bang and so it will go on, a process repeating itself countless times on and on into infinity. One day your species will have to try to grasp and understand the concept of infinity.
The 2084 Precept Page 37