Ibrahim (pbuh) and the Birds

Hast thou not Turned thy vision to one who disputed with Abraham About his Lord, because God had granted him power? Abraham said: "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." He said: "I give life and death". Said Abraham: "But it is God that causeth the sun to rise from the east: Do thou then cause him to rise from the West." Thus was he confounded who (in arrogance) rejected faith. Nor doth God Give guidance to a people unjust.

Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! how shall God bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" but God caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said: (Perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: And that We may make of thee a sign unto the people, Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh." When this was shown clearly to him, he said: "I know that God hath power over all things."

Behold! Abraham said: "My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead." He said: "Dost thou not then believe?" He said: "Yea! but to satisfy My own undertaking." He said: "Take four birds; Tame them to turn to thee; put a portion of them on every hill and call to them: They will come to thee (Flying) with speed. Then know that God is Exalted in Power, Wise."

2:258-260, Yusuf Ali Translation of the Qur'an

Jay Solomon, at The Zen of South Park, has been working his way through the Qur'an, trying to understand its meaning better. This week he focused on verses 2:258-260; the central point of his that I try to address is below:

It seems especially odd to me that someone speaking to God would then question matters that God says are so, like resurrection. It seems somewhat illogical since faith is believing without proof and Abraham already has proof of God since they’re chatting casually. Why would Abraham tell God that he has faith but that he just needs a little proof to lay his mind at ease. Needing proof is the essence of not having faith. As Jesus said, it is a wicked generation that needs signs. Not to go all Jesus quoting on anybody - I think it can be very annoying when people do that to make a point - but I do it to emphasize the notion of faith, which is Jesus’ point. You have to believe in things without being shown that they are so. Otherwise you don’t have faith.

This is my response:

I think your connection between verses 2:258 and 2:260 (faith vs. no faith) is very interesting. Personally, I don't see these two verses as being in such a black-and-white contrast; I do view them as a reaffirmation of Allah's (swt) power and ability in light of our niggling doubts.

Here's how I see these two verses. I think Ibrahim (pbuh) was an intelligent man, although he made occasional mistakes in judgment; for example, by associating the stars, moon and sun with Allah (swt) (6:74-79). In the end, he realized his errors and began worshiping Allah (swt) alone. Thus, by the time of his meeting with the king (Nimrod, according to Ibn Kathir) in 2:258, he correctly points out that the king's power is very limited, especially in comparison to that of Allah (swt).

However, as an intelligent man, he is beset by niggling doubts. I think this is a "curse" of intelligence, that we become so filled with facts and enamored with logic that our conscious and subconscious minds begin to fill us with questions about our faith. Some people lose that faith entirely; others (like me) battle time and time again with the questions. In this regard I see Ibrahim (pbuh) in a sympathetic light. I don't believe that I have no faith simply because I have doubts or questions. I believe my faith is tempered and strengthened through my internal jihad against the doubts and questions. In other words, despite the doubts and questions, my faith in Allah (swt) and Islam remains and grows stronger (and will continue to in the future, insha'allah).

So, by the time of verse 2:260, Ibrahim (pbuh) has his doubts and asks Allah (swt) for reassurance. Interestingly enough, Allah (swt) normally spurns providing such "proof," at least to unbelievers; for example:

If their spurning is hard on thy mind, yet if thou wert able to seek a tunnel in the ground or a ladder to the skies and bring them a sign,- (what good?). If it were God's will, He could gather them together unto true guidance: so be not thou amongst those who are swayed by ignorance (and impatience)! (6:35)

They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth, "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water; "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring God and the angels before (us) face to face: "Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- an apostle?"(17:90-93)

Ibrahim, however, is both a prophet (nabi) and a messenger (rasul) of Allah (swt), so Allah (swt) provides him with a miracle. Now the Qur'an mostly focuses on what I call lower-case miracles, the signs of Allah (swt) that permeate the universe to the point where we largely take them for granted. But in 2:260, we have an upper-case MIRACLE. Except, in Muhammad Asad's translation, you'd never know it.

In 2:259, the nameless traveler ('Uzayr/Ezra, according to Ibn Kathir) dies, is resurrected in 100 years, then is told to look at his food and drink, which remained fresh after all that time, and his donkey, which had died and was nothing more than bones. The donkey is resurrected in front of the traveller ("When this was shown clearly to him..."):

As-Suddi said, " `Uzayr observed the bones of his donkey, which were scattered all around him to his right and left, and Allah sent a wind that collected the bones from all over the area. Allah then brought every bone to its place, until they formed a full donkey made of fleshless bones. Allah then covered these bones with flesh, nerves, veins and skin. Allah sent an angel who blew life in the donkeys' nostrils, and the donkey started to bray by Allah's leave.'' All this occurred while `Uzayr was watching, and this is when he proclaimed,

(He said, "I know (now) that Allah is able to do all things,'') meaning, "I know that, and I did witness it with my own eyes. Therefore, I am the most knowledgeable in this matter among the people of my time.'' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Now the traveler knows the true power of Allah (swt). Likewise, with Ibrahim (pbuh). He says to the king in 2:258 that "My Lord is He Who Giveth life and death." But apparently he thought to himself afterwards, "Did I speak truly?" So he asks Allah (swt) for a similar demonstration in His power to resurrect the dead. Allah (swt) asks, "Don't you believe?" To which Ibrahim (pbuh) says, "Yes, Lord, but I wish to be stronger in faith."

Now Muhammad Asad's translation reads,

Said He: “Take, then, four birds and teach them to obey thee; then place them separately on every hill [around thee]; then summon them: they will come flying to thee.

Sounds simple enough. Train the birds, place them on different hills, then call them; they will all return to you. But every other translation that I've checked (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali & Khan, Ibn Kathir) all say that the birds were killed and dismembered first! Ibn Kathir:

And (remember) when Ibrahim said, "My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.'' He (Allah) said: "Do you not believe'' He (Ibrahim) said: "Yes (I believe), but to be stronger in faith.'' He said: "Take four birds, then cause them to incline towards you (then slaughter them, cut them into pieces), and then put a portion of them on every hill, and call them, they will come to you in haste. And know that Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.''

(cause them to incline towards you) means, cut them to pieces. This is the explanation of Ibn `Abbas, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Abu Malik, Abu Al-Aswad Ad-Dili, Wahb bin Munabbih, Al-Hasan and As-Suddi. Therefore, Ibrahim caught four birds, slaughtered them, removed the feathers, tore the birds to pieces and mixed the pieces together. He then placed parts of these mixed pieces on four or seven hills. Ibn `Abbas said, "Ibrahim kept the heads of these birds in his hand. Next, Allah commanded Ibrahim to call the birds to him, and he did as Allah commanded him. Ibrahim witnessed the feathers, blood and flesh of these birds fly to each other, and the parts flew each to their bodies, until every bird came back to life and came walking at a fast pace towards Ibrahim, so that the example that Ibrahim was witnessing would become more impressive. Each bird came to collect its head from Ibrahim's hand, and if he gave the bird another head the bird refused to accept it. When Ibrahim gave each bird its own head, the head was placed on its body by Allah's leave and power. ''

What more powerful demonstration of Allah's (swt) ability to resurrect the dead could there be? Ibn Abbas is reported to have said, "To me, there is no Ayah in the Qur'an that brings more hope than this Ayah.''

Response to BamBam

Once again, I've decided to take a response to a comment on my blog and make it its own post due to the length of the reply.


It is really interesting to me that you would choose (6:25) since you read in it that god veils the hearts of non believers against believing, basically condemning them to his hell without any chance of reprise theoretically, the exegesis for this aya is also revealing.

Actually, I hate to say, I never chose this verse (or 8:31) for the reason you ascribe; I chose both verses because of the similarities of language between what the polytheists in Makkah said ("These are nothing but tales of the ancients.") and what Nizar said ("...you still worship the same ancient myths..."). No more, no less.

However, since you bring up the topic ("basically condemning them to his hell without any chance of reprise theoretically"), I disagree with your assertion; I believe Muhammad Asad's exegesis is more on the mark:

Since it is God who has instituted all laws of nature - which, in their aggregate, are called sunnat Allah ("the way of God") - this "sealing" is attributed to Him: but it is obviously a consequence of man's free choice and not an act of "predestination". Similarly, the suffering which, in the life to come, is in store for those who during their life in this world have wilfully remained deaf and blind to the truth, is a natural consequence of their free choice -just as happiness in the life to come is the natural consequence of man's endeavour to attain to righteousness and inner illumination. Note 7 (Quran Ref: 2:7)

...that is to say, man's "going astray" is a consequence of his own attitudes and inclinations and not a result of an arbitrary "predestination" in the popular sense of this word ... In his commentary on the above verse, Zamakhshari stresses this aspect of free choice on the part of man and points out that "God does not cause anyone to go astray except one who, as He knows, will never attain to faith; and He does not guide anyone aright except one who, as He knows, will attain to faith. Hence, the [expression] 'causing to go astray' denotes [God's] leaving [one] alone (takhliyah) and depriving [him] of all favour, whereas [the expression] 'guidance' denotes [His] grant of fulfilment (tawfiq) and favour .... Thus, He does not forsake anyone except those who deserve to be forsaken, and does not bestow His favour upon anyone except those who deserve to be favoured." Commenting on the identical phrase occurring in 16:93, Zamakhshari states: "[God] forsakes him who, as He knows, will [consciously] choose to deny the truth and will persevere in this [denial]; and ... He bestows His favour upon him who, as He knows, will choose faith: which means that He makes the issue dependent on [man's] free choice (al-ikhtiyar), and thus on his deserving either [God's] favour or the withdrawal of [His] aid ... and does not make it dependent on compulsion [i.e., predestination], which would rule out [man's] deserving anything of the above." Note 4 (Quran Ref: 14:4)

In other words, non-believers are not "condemned to hell without any chance of reprise." They all have the chance throughout their lives to mend their ways if they will only take the opportunity. The question is, will they? The further they go down the path of unbelief the more likely they will not do so. As they follow along that false path their hearts become more and more veiled. And yet there is still hope (IMO). We are all tested, believer and non-believer; insha'allah, we may recognize the errors of our ways prior to death.


IT is not always the imitation in us that drives us to move further away from religion, sometimes it's knowledge that does that. History is full of examples where people of highly regarded religious knowledge move away from religion because of moral conflicts.

In which case I'd say that people are failing their tests. Knowledge doesn't equal conviction. Knowledge isn't the most important criterion. Perhaps you're familiar with this part of a hadith qudsi (#6)?

[Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Quran. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Quran for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: He is learned. And you recited the Quran that it might be said [of you]: He is a reciter. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

Don't just rely upon your nafs to say, "Well, I'm smart enough in my knowledge of religion to say that this apparent conflict goes against my principles; therefore, religion is wrong and I'll become a non-believer." If your principles were in line with your religious knowledge you'd work your way through the moral conflict:

Whoever among you witnesses a bad thing, it is necessary for him to bring that to a halt with his hands, and if he does not have the potential for that; then he should stop him through his tongue, And if he does not have the ability to stop that with his tongue, then by his heart; he should think bad of this sin and that is the lowest level of Iman.

The reality that religion (abrahamic and otherwise with few exception) creates moral conflict in our current society and doesn't allow the space for it to be more encompassing of growing trends or realities. So the result is that people either create new sects with encompassing understand of their own religion or drop it all together into the ritualistic sphere ... others adhere strictly (usually causing conflict) and they should all co-exist.

The details of human life change over time; the nature of humanity hasn't. As I commented on a friend's blog:

Have we really changed? No.

You have left, O Hector, sorrow unutterable to your parents, and my own grief is greatest of all, for you did not stretch forth your arms and embrace me as you lay dying, nor say to me any words that might have lived with me in my tears night and day for evermore.” (Andromache, the wife of Hector, grieving over his death in The Iliad)

The Iliad is perhaps the world’s first novel-length story, with the text being written down - at the latest - by the 6th century BCE. I’ve always thought that if you can understand the grief of Andromache, then humanity hasn’t changed in at least the past 2500 years.

The Qur'an and Islam (indeed, one could argue all religions) are concerned about human nature. "Growing trends and realities" are irrelevant. Nothing has really changed except that people would rather follow their nafs by either creating sects or going into unbelief.


I leave you all with one question, would a person who leads a moral life and does his fair share of goodwill and is religious deserve to be incarcerated and tortured for an eternity in a place called hell because he picked the wrong god?

Allahu alim. Who are we to judge who goes to hell and who doesn't? Are you trying to set yourself up as judge of humanity? You've certainly made a start, setting up your own standards; the problem is, you don't know if your standards match His standards. Best I think to follow His, considering that yours is pure conjecture and He is all powerful.

Response to Nizar

I came across this one guy's blog post tonight (the son of Muslim parents who's slipping into atheism). I tried leaving a comment on his blog but apparently you have to log in to his blog to do so, something I'm not interested in doing. Instead, I thought I'd post my comment here as I suspect he'll find it in a day or two, insha'allah.

Stumbled across your blog. As a Catholic-turned-atheist-turned-Muslim, I understand your doubts although I disagree with your beliefs. I think your dad was wise not to try to argue with you; what kid believes their parents, at least at first?

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” (Mark Twain)

What I think you've done is stumbled into the cult of rationality. It's an easy trap for intelligent people to fall into (been there, done that). "Science and technology will solve all our problems and, if it doesn't, logic will guide the way to a bright shiny future." Yeah, that's the ticket. @_@ And it becomes this idol for atheists and agnostics. Science, technology and logic are all very good, but they're merely tools, the means and not the end. As moral compasses they're unreliable. As anyone who's worked with tools will tell you, you pick the right tool for the job; science, technology and logic aren't designed to provide the moral direction mankind needs. But if you want to have a better understanding of the universe or live a better material life (the dunya), that's what you use.

From Ministry of Space Exploration

I find it interesting that you would use the WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) for your third picture. A couple weeks ago, I gave a talk to about 60 Muslim children and teenagers about astronomy, and I used that very image for my final picture, my representation of the universe. And one of the kids asked me, "What's outside the universe?" And I answered Allah (swt). Now I've been working on a blog post that expands further on that answer (it's only about half-finished), but what I want to say here is this: as good as the technology is to provide what is, to date, the best picture of the primordial universe, that science, technology and logic will never give you a complete picture. It will never provide you with a basis for your morality. And it will never provide you with an understanding of who your creator is. The cult of rationality can never do that for you. Only Allah (swt) can.

BTW, I agree with your mom regarding Hamas. Ask yourself if the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were right to fight back against their Nazi oppressors. Gaza is nothing more than the Jewish version of the Nazi ghetto, and the Jews know that well. Then give some thought to 2:191, and see what your mom says. Remember, oppression is worse than death.

The Church vs. The Mall: The Case for Blue Laws

Starting in the 1950s, American states began to repeal "blue laws" that prohibited retail activity on Sundays. A new study by Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Daniel M. Hungerman of Notre Dame shows that the repeals of blue laws nationally has created both social and economic problems as a result.

The basic hypothesis of the study is that, with the repeal of blue laws, churches must now compete with secular activities, both from the perspective of time allocation (Do I go to church this morning or do I work, play or shop?) and of goods allocation (Do I spend my money at the mall or do I donate to the church?). Results from the survey show that the church suffers from both perspectives. In economics-speak, the opportunity cost of going to church has risen. With the blue laws, there was not as much opportunity cost to attending church. If you didn't go, you didn't have more options available to you (e.g., going shopping; the stores were closed). However, with the blue laws' repeal, now people had more options open to them. If you didn't want to attend church, then you could go shopping instead. One hour of worship at church meant that you had lost one hour's worth of secular activity.

Not surprisingly, church attendance has decreased, and donations to churches have fallen although, interestingly enough, donations to non-church charities didn't fall after the repeal of blue laws. The people who have stopped going to church were what the authors called "initially religious." Meaning, they used to be go to church but, with the repeal of the blue laws, they drifted away from the church. (However, as the authors also noted, the initially religious didn't become less religious, they only worshiped in a church less.) These "initially religious" are also the people who had the biggest increases in substance abuse. The authors found that among the initially religious, the more often they attended church in the past, the more likely they were to begin heavy drinking. For example, those who attended most frequently were 6.5% more likely to drink than those who didn't attend, which corresponded to about one-third of the difference in heavy drinking between weekly attendees and non-attendees. Likewise, those who who attended somewhat frequently were 3.3% more likely to drink. Results for marijuana consumption were very large (10.5% and 6.7%, respectively), while cocaine consumption increased somewhat less than alcohol consumption (4.1-4.3% for both very and somewhat frequent attendees).

The authors conclude with the following:

Absent strong negative externalities, there seems little argument for restricting the days of the week that commerce can take place. But religious participation may be one of those activities with such externalities. As such, secular regulations such as blue laws which promote religious participation can have external effects. Whether those external effects are sufficiently large to justify restrictions on commerce is an excellent question for future research.

In other words, should blue laws be put back onto the books? I would argue that there is a case for doing so. The Qur'an tells us several times to enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah (e.g., 3:104, 3:110, 3:114, 22:41). Would not society benefit by encouraging religious participation, by having American Christians going back to church on Sundays, by donating money to churches (instead of spending it at the mall), and by reducing the amount of substance abuse (and hypocrisy), especially among those who used to be the best attendees? I would think so.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and MIT's Quarterly Journal of Economics both have the final draft of the report available for download, but only for a fee; you can read an earlier draft of the paper here [pdf].

HT: Economist's View

Update: "Macro and Other Market Musings" has More on the Opportunity Cost of Religion.

Chris Hedges on Ayaan Hirsi-Ali and Islam

I came across an interview tonight with Chris Hedges, former Middle East bureau chief for the New York Times and author of the recently published book, I Don't Believe in Atheists. Chris made two points that I thought were worth repeating:

You say at one point in the book that the New Atheists, "like Christian fundamentalists, are stunted products of a self-satisfied, materialistic middle class." But I wonder what you would say to someone like Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, a victim of genital cutting who fled her faith-based homeland for the secular West, when she says that the secularism of Western society is better than the religiosity of her native Somalia?

It was better, for her.

She doesn't qualify that. She says it's better.

Well, she's speaking out of her personal experience, and it was better for her. I mean, look, I covered conflicts in Africa, in the Middle East, and in Central America, where Western society rained nothing but death and destruction on tens of thousands of people, which is of course what we're doing in Iraq. So, is Western society -- American society -- better for Iraqis? And I think part of the problem is people who create a morality based on their own experience, which is what of course the New Atheists and the Christian fundamentalists have done.

Chris makes an excellent point here. One of the biggest problems with Islamophobes is that they rely heavily upon the hasty generalization (the fallacy of the insufficient sample, leaping to a conclusion, what have you). "If Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, who hates Islam, says that Islam must be such-and-such, then it must be true." They base their "morality," such as it is, upon the sandy soil of one person's experience.

I want to go back to what you see as the ultimate threat of the New Atheists and the Christian right. You voice concern in the book that these two groups of fundamentalists are going to gang up, "to call for a horrific bloodletting and apocalyptic acts of terror..."

It's a possibility. I mean, I covered al-Qaida for the New York Times. There wasn't an intelligence chief who I interviewed who didn't talk about another catastrophic attack on American soil as inevitable. They never used the word "if." They just used the word "when," and if this kind of rhetoric, which is racist, is allowed to infect the civil discourse -- whether it comes from the Christian right or the New Atheists -- toward Muslims, who are one-fifth of the world population, most of whom are not Arabs, then what I worry about is that in a moment of collective humiliation and fear, these two strands come together and call for an assault on Muslims, both outside our gates and on the 6 million Muslims who live within our borders. And that frightens me, that demonization of a people -- turning human beings into abstractions, so that they're not human anymore. They don't have hopes, dreams, aspirations, pains, sufferings. They represent an unmitigated evil that must be vanquished. That's very scary, and that is at the bedrock of the ideology of the New Atheists as it is with the Christian fundamentalists.

All I can ask my fellow Muslims is, "Are you not surprised?"

Contextualizing Muslims

I came across a blog, GetReligion.org, where some of the commenters had suggested that a "Tmatt trio" be created for "contextualizing Muslims." Being unfamiliar with what a "Tmatt trio" is, I poked around the blog and found that it's a series of questions the writer, Terry Mattingly (tmatt), has used since the mid-80s to "find out where Christian leaders fall on a doctrinal (not political) scale from left to right, from progressive to traditionalist." The questions are:

(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?
(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)?
(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?

And I had been trying to think, is there a set of questions that can be created for Muslims. I think the problem in trying to do so is that the range of possible answers given by Muslims to most questions would actually be quite narrow. Take the third question above (which is the only one of the three that's actually relevant to Muslims). The correct answer, of course, is "yes," which I suspect 99% of the world's Muslim population would agree to. (IMO, you'd really have to be outside of a state of Islam to answer "no" to that question.) And so the third question really isn't a good discriminator in being able to separate Muslims into more distinct groups. Which, of course, is something that's frowned upon in the Qur'an anyway. So I'm not sure such a trio of questions is really possible except for nit-picking into the minutiae of the religion because the basics of Islam are, IMO, pretty universal among all Muslims.

What Can I Do For Him, Here, Now?

Just before Ramadan, a non-Muslim friend asked me if I'd be willing to talk to his wife, who's been looking into Islam. She fasted part of Ramadan with us (alhamdulillah), but she's still unsure of herself. So I wrote the following as part of my most recent e-mail back to her. I'm posting a slightly revised copy of my response here, not for her sake (she's already received my e-mail), but for the sake of others who may be considering a reversion to Islam, insha'allah.

One of the reasons why this e-mail has taken a few days to write is because I wanted to address this section at length (but not too long ;) ). First, remember that the length of time in making a decision is not so important (as long as you make the right decision ;) ). I think what it all boils down to is, what type of relationship do you want to have with God? I would call this the one inescapable relationship. When someone dies, Muslims will say, "Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raje'un," meaning, "From Allah do we come and to Him do we return." Of course, many people think that they can escape this inescapable relationship (atheists and the like), but we all go back to Him in the end, when we will be judged and then sent either to Heaven or Hell. A lot of people don't like to believe in this, but that's their nafs talking. (Some people take a "universalist" approach - as in the Unitarian Universalists, which I used to belong to a long time ago. A Universalist would argue, "I can't believe that God is willing to send any human to Hell." That's their nafs, their ego, talking.)

And I think a lot of nominal Christians (and members of other religions) are going to be surprised on the Day of Judgment when they say, "Well, I lived a good life. I didn't do too much wrong." I don't think that excuse is going to fly either. Every now and then, I hear of someone's dream that, real or otherwise, sounds like it has a kernel of truth to it. One dream I heard of a few months ago was the dream of a man who had a friend, an Islamic scholar, who had died. And the dead friend said in the dream something to the effect of, "All that other stuff that we did, it didn't count for so much. What really counted was our prayer." (I told this to Milady and asked her what her parents would say in reaction to this story; she said her parents would say, "Of course!" :) )

I think we need to recognize that we need Him, but that He doesn't need us. We depend upon Him for our sustenance, whether it be physical, intellectual or spiritual, but that the way will not be easy. Of course we will go through challenging times. Does that give us the right to whine during those times, or to ignore Him as soon as the danger has passed? (There's a great pair of ayat in the Qur'an that deals with this issue, 10:22-3, where sailors pray to Allah (swt) while out on the ocean in the middle of a storm, but return to insolence once they're back on land.) Are we grateful to Him? Do we show it? I know I don't show it nearly enough. Reading the Qur'an the past couple of nights, I've read through passages that say how wonderful Heaven will be. Lounging around, eating and drinking. And I think to myself, if I reach there, insha'allah, will I be satisfied with all that? Or am I the sort of person who might say to Allah (swt), "What can I do for you, here, now?" And I realize that this is the question I need to ask myself now. What can I do for Him, here, now?

Funeral Masks

"Pastor Dan" at Street Prophets had an interesting diary the other day about a recent funeral he attended. He saw a woman take a picture of the deceased and asked the question, "Why do people take pictures of the dead?" While I'm certainly no expert on the subject, I decided to add a couple of comments to that diary, which have been expanded upon below. This is what Dan originally had to say:

An Aged Relative took a snapshot of the deceased to add to her collection. She said she had one of her mother, father, and sister.

This is one of those customs I don't judge but can't pretend to understand. I suppose it's no odder than laying out the decedent in the front parlor, a custom still followed in some sub-cultures.

But yeah, what gives?

Several people who had made earlier comments on Pastor Dan's diary noted the popularity of photographs taken of the dead during the Victorian age, but the practice actually goes back thousands of years. I'm not sure if anyone knows exactly when the practice of making a death mask or funeral mask first started, but this practice has occurred in many different cultures. Both the ancient Egyptians and Greeks made funeral masks for their dead, especially for royalty. Some of these masks are very famous and familiar to us; others not so much. Of course, nearly everyone will recognize the funeral mask of King Tutankhamen, made of gold and a number of semi-precious stones, including lapis lazuli, carnelian, quartz, turquoise and obsidian, plus colored glass. However, the Egyptians also made mummy masks for non-royal subjects, both men and women, up through the Roman era. These masks were much less expensive than royal masks, of course, often being made of "cartonnage," which was a process similar to papier-mâché in which layers of linen were plastered together, molded and then painted. In later periods, papyrus scrolls were used in place of the linen. (Source)

Heinrich Schliemann, the amateur archaeologist who discovered the ruins of Troy, is also famous for having dug up the shaft graves of Mycenae. Among the art objects found in the shaft graves of Mycenae's Grave Circle A included what is now known as the Mask of Agamemnon, made of gold, although the mask (along with four others found at Mycenae) are now dated to the Late Helladic I period (c. 1500-1550 BCE), perhaps 200-250 years or so before the life of the actual Agamemnon (if he was, in fact, an historical figure, which I believe he was).

Gold, of course, was a popular choice of material for royal death masks around the world, but other materials were used as well. Wood was a popular material in many cultures, such as the Ibo (right) and the Egyptians, being abundant and easy to carve. Jade was popular among the Mayans and the Chinese, the latter also making funeral masks in bronze.

Into the Roman era, we find a significant difference between the earlier peoples versus those of the later antiquity: the funeral masks are kept among the living instead of being buried with the dead. The ancient Romans made funeral masks of their ancestors, normally of wax, but hung them in the front lobby to their home so that visitors could see the visages of prominent ancestors (especially those who had held public office, such as the consulship). In Tom Holland's book, Rubicon, he wrote:

"Beyond a portico designed to echo the features of a temple, the walls of the atrium were hung with forbidding images, the wax death-masks of magistrattes, bearing witness to the honours won by the family in the past. Painted lines connected the portraits, reaching backwards into time..." (p. 116)

In the West, the practice of creating funeral masks has lasted into the twentieth century, even at a time when photography has made the masks irrelevant. Ludwig van Beethoven's plaster funeral mask has survived to this day (top photo, above), as has that of the Bohemian-Austrian composer Gustav Mahler. What's interesting is a comment made by a friend of Beethoven, Stephan von Breuning:

"Such casts of great men are often permitted," wrote Bruening beforehand, "and if we forbade it, our refusal might afterwards be regarded as an encroachment upon the rights of the public."
(Source)

The alleged death mask of Bruce Lee.

The Ideological Animal

Psychology Today has an interesting article on various factors that help to mold our political preferences, such as our educational levels, personality traits, and what Dutch professor Geert Hofstede refers to as the Uncertainty Avoidance Index, a measure of a society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. This index "indicates to what extent a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations." In fact, reading through this article, I was struck by how much overlap there is between it and Hofstede's research.

(Two factors left out of the Psych Today article that Hofstede comments on is that both a geographic factor and a religious factor also help to determine one's political preferences. Briefly, people who live in regions near major port cities or near oceans or inland seas (e.g., the Great Lakes) tend to be more liberal; they are often more curious about what's coming into port; conservatives, on the other hand, would be more afraid (uncertainty avoidance). Likewise, there tends to be a split among Christians: those people whose ancestors came from countries that were part of the Roman Empire (and, later on, became primarily Roman Catholic countries, such as France, Italy and Spain, tend to be more liberal than those people who were outside of the Roman Empire (the Germanic countries and Scandinavia), where Protestant Christianity took hold.)

What amuses me no end about this article is how closely it reflects my personality. That second paragraph in particular describes me, the liberal, to a T: the clutter and color, the travel documents, maps and flags (I collect flags, and prolly have about a dozen so far). The books (and books and books :) ), the optimism, the classical music (to a smaller degree) and the jazz (which I love), the abstract art (to a degree) and the romantic comedies. I do think I am much more religious than many liberals, however.

Below are various excerpts. Click on either the title link or the Psychology Today link above to read the full article.


Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself.

...

Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberals—not just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

The most comprehensive review of personality and political orientation to date is a 2003 meta-analysis of 88 prior studies involving 22,000 participants. The researchers—John Jost of NYU, Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland, and Jack Glaser and Frank Sulloway of Berkeley—found that conservatives have a greater desire to reach a decision quickly and stick to it, and are higher on conscientiousness, which includes neatness, orderliness, duty, and rule-following. Liberals are higher on openness, which includes intellectual curiosity, excitement-seeking, novelty, creativity for its own sake, and a craving for stimulation like travel, color, art, music, and literature.

The study's authors also concluded that conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity, a trait they say is exemplified when George Bush says things like, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think," and "I'm the decider." Those who think the world is highly dangerous and those with the greatest fear of death are the most likely to be conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are "more likely to see gray areas and reconcile seemingly conflicting information," says Jost. As a result, liberals like John Kerry, who see many sides to every issue, are portrayed as flip-floppers. "Whatever the cause, Bush and Kerry exemplify the cognitive styles we see in the research," says Jack Glaser, one of the study's authors, "Bush in appearing more rigid in his thinking and intolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, and Kerry in appearing more open to ambiguity and to considering alternative positions."

...

In one study, they exposed some participants to the letters WTC or the numbers 9/11 in an image flashed too quickly to register at the conscious level. They exposed other participants to familiar but random combinations of letters and numbers, such as area codes. Then they gave them words like coff__, sk_ll, and gr_ve, and asked them to fill in the blanks. People who'd seen random combinations were more likely to fill in coffee, skill, and grove. But people exposed to subliminal terrorism primes more often filled in coffin, skull, and grave. "The mere mention of September 11 or WTC is the same as reminding Americans of death," explains Solomon.

As a follow-up, Solomon primed one group of subjects to think about death, a state of mind called "mortality salience." A second group was primed to think about 9/11. And a third was induced to think about pain—something unpleasant but non-deadly. When people were in a benign state of mind, they tended to oppose Bush and his policies in Iraq. But after thinking about either death or 9/11, they tended to favor him. Such findings were further corroborated by Cornell sociologist Robert Willer, who found that whenever the color-coded terror alert level was raised, support for Bush increased significantly, not only on domestic security but also in unrelated domains, such as the economy.

...

After all, Cinnamon Stillwell and others in the 911 Neocons didn't become more liberal. Like so many other Democrats after 9/11, they made a hard right turn. The reason thoughts of death make people more conservative, Jost says, is that they awaken a deep desire to see the world as fair and just, to believe that people get what they deserve, and to accept the existing social order as valid, rather than in need of change. When these natural desires are primed by thoughts of death and a barrage of mortal fear, people gravitate toward conservatism because it's more certain about the answers it provides—right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, us vs. them—and because conservative leaders are more likely to advocate a return to traditional values, allowing people to stick with what's familiar and known. "Conservatism is a more black and white ideology than liberalism," explains Jost. "It emphasizes tradition and authority, which are reassuring during periods of threat."

...

Across the political spectrum, people who had been primed to think about death were more conservative on issues like immigration, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage than those who had merely thought about pain, although the effect size was relatively small. The implication is clear: For liberals, conservatives, and independents alike, thinking about death actually makes people more conservative—at least temporarily.

...

Campaign strategists in both parties have never hesitated to use scare tactics. In 1964, a Lyndon Johnson commercial called "Daisy" juxtaposed footage of a little girl plucking a flower with footage of an atomic blast. In 1984, Ronald Reagan ran a spot that played on Cold War panic, in which the Soviet threat was symbolized by a grizzly lumbering across a stark landscape as a human heart pounds faster and faster and an off-screen voice warns, "There is a bear in the woods!" In 2004, Bush sparked furor for running a fear-mongering ad that used wolves gathering in the woods as symbols for terrorists plotting against America. And last fall, Congressional Republicans drew fire with an ad that featured bin Laden and other terrorists threatening Americans; over the sound of a ticking clock, a voice warned, "These are the stakes."

"At least some of the President's support is the result of constant and relentless reminders of death, some of which is just what's happening in the world, but much of which is carefully cultivated and calculated as an electoral strategy," says Solomon. "In politics these days, there's a dose of reason, and there's a dose of irrationality driven by psychological terror that may very well be swinging elections."

Solomon demonstrated that thinking about 9/11 made people go from preferring Kerry to preferring Bush. "Very subtle manipulations of psychological conditions profoundly affect political preferences," Solomon concludes. "In difficult moments, people don't want complex, nuanced, John Kerry-like waffling or sophisticated cogitation. They want somebody charismatic to step up and say, 'I know where our problem is and God has given me the clout to kick those people's asses.'"

...

Studies show that people who study abroad become more liberal than those who stay home.

People who venture from the strictures of their limited social class are less likely to stereotype and more likely to embrace other cultures. Education goes hand-in-hand with tolerance, and often, the more the better:

Professors at major universities are more liberal than their counterparts at less acclaimed institutions. What travel and education have in common is that they make the differences between people seem less threatening. "You become less bothered by the idea that there is uncertainty in the world," explains Jost.

That's why the more educated people are, the more liberal they become—but only to a point. Once people begin pursuing certain types of graduate degrees, the curve flattens. Business students, for instance, become more conservative in their views toward minorities. As they become more established, doctors and lawyers tend to protect their economic interests by moving to the right. The findings demonstrate that conservative conversions are fueled not only by fear, but by other factors as well. And if the November election was any indicator, the pendulum that swung so forcefully to the right after 9/11 may be swinging back.

...

If we are so suggestible that thoughts of death make us uncomfortable defaming the American flag and cause us to sit farther away from foreigners, is there any way we can overcome our easily manipulated fears and become the informed and rational thinkers democracy demands?

To test this, Solomon and his colleagues prompted two groups to think about death and then give opinions about a pro-American author and an anti-American one. As expected, the group that thought about death was more pro-American than the other. But the second time, one group was asked to make gut-level decisions about the two authors, while the other group was asked to consider carefully and be as rational as possible. The results were astonishing. In the rational group, the effects of mortality salience were entirely eliminated. Asking people to be rational was enough to neutralize the effects of reminders of death. Preliminary research shows that reminding people that as human beings, the things we have in common eclipse our differences—what psychologists call a "common humanity prime"—has the same effect.

"People have two modes of thought," concludes Solomon. "There's the intuitive gut-level mode, which is what most of us are in most of the time. And then there's a rational analytic mode, which takes effort and attention."

The solution, then, is remarkably simple. The effects of psychological terror on political decision making can be eliminated just by asking people to think rationally. Simply reminding us to use our heads, it turns out, can be enough to make us do it.

Heaven's Gate +10

Today is the 10th anniversary of the mass suicide of the Heaven's Gate cult. The San Diego Union-Tribune has an excellent article on the suicide, including a detailed timeline of events through 1999.

Heaven's Gate was one of those thoroughly weird religious events that happen every now and then. There have been a number of other mass suicides among cults (e.g., The People's Temple/Jonestown, The Order of the Solar Temple, and The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God), but Heaven's Gate ranks up there for being very unusual. Some quotations from the article:

It began unfolding the afternoon of Wednesday, March 26, 1997, during a period when the Hale-Bopp comet could be seen in the night sky.

Inside a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult lay dead. Convinced that a spaceship was traveling behind the comet and that they would be transported to the vessel to begin a new life “beyond human,” they had poisoned themselves. Twenty-one women and 18 men died by eating pudding and applesauce laced with phenobarbital and other drugs – the largest mass suicide on U.S. soil.

All went willingly under the guidance of their leader, Marshall Applewhite, also known as “Do.”

...

“I don't think anybody really believed what the person was saying,” said Robert Brunk, a sheriff's deputy who had just started his shift at the Encinitas station. “It was an anonymous call to the communications center stating that 40 people had committed suicide and they were cult members. It came out as a 'welfare check,' and they had held the call for a while because it was busy.”

Brunk went to the address, 18241 Colina Norte, which turned out to be a 9,000-square-foot, two-story home up a 200-foot driveway.

“As I'm driving, I'm thinking to myself, 'How am I going to explain to the people that live there the purpose for my visit?' ”

But when he arrived, things seemed odd. All the windows were closed and the curtains drawn. Two vans parked in the driveway were rented, a dispatcher confirmed.

Brunk found an unlocked door on the side of the house. When he opened it, the stench nearly knocked him over.

...

“As we entered the house, we started seeing bodies that were covered up. ... Every room that you went into, we found more. Some were in bunk beds.

“They were all in their running suits with their 'Heaven's Gate Away Team' patch on the sleeve. There was a computer flashing 'Red Alert,' sort of like 'Star Trek.' There was still a load of laundry in the machine. It was surreal.”

Purple shrouds covered all but two bodies. Brunk remembers lifting the shroud off only one person, among the youngest. He also remembers shaking a foot of every body to check for rigor mortis. All were wearing black Nike running shoes with the white swoosh on the side.

“The Nike symbol triggers my memory more than any one thing,” said Brunk, a 17-year veteran. “I remember their shoes, all 39 pairs.”

...

“It was like being in the Twilight Zone,” he [Homicide Detective Rick Scully] said. “We were wandering from room to room to room, and every room we went into we were finding bodies. You're thinking: 'When is this going to end? How many bodies are going to be in here? How many rooms are there to this place?' Because every room we went in had bodies stacked up like cordwood.”

He remembers thinking: “How could people do this to each other. What kind of person led them to do this?”

“Then we got to the final room. Marshall Applewhite, aka Do. It was the upstairs master bedroom, a huge room, and he had the bedroom to himself. Great big bed. He's all propped up with pillows around him.

“As soon as you walked in, you knew this guy was the head chief. He was the leader.”

...

“The members of Heaven's Gate adhered to a strict doctrine. Members led a regimented lifestyle. Particular attention was paid to: punctuality, cleanliness, orderliness, personal possessions, how to dress, what to eat, how to phrase a question, and most importantly desires. Each member was assigned a partner to watch over him or her in order that they could constantly fight their 'human desires.'

“Their beliefs were a hybrid of science fantasy (UFOs and aliens) and Christian beliefs. Essentially they believed that God and the Kingdom of God were extraterrestrial. They believed that they descended from this extraterrestrial kingdom and took occupancy in human bodies some 20 years or so ago. They believed that they had learned all there was to learn of the human condition and that it was time to return to the kingdom from where they came.”

...

Many of those who joined had been searching for answers and goals, family members said. Applewhite offe red a simpler, more focused way of life that also isolated group members from the outside world and fostered a shared belief system. Some left behind children and spouses to join the group.

“The investigation revealed that (the decedents) were ardent followers of Do, Marshall Applewhite. ... Members wrote that their only purpose was to make Do happy,” a Sheriff's Department report concluded.

Together they ate their final meal March 21 at Marie Callender's in Carlsbad. Their orders were identical: salad and chicken pot pies, with cheesecake for dessert. The next day, working in shifts, they made their exit.

Six weeks later, two male cult members who had not been at the mansion attempted suicide at an Encinitas motel, using phenobarbital and wearing Nikes. One died; the other was found barely alive but survived. Nine months later, his body was found in a tent in the Arizona desert, a suicide.

...

But the first male body [Coroner Christina] Stanley examined caused her to worry about her skills. She couldn't find the man's testicles.

“As a fellow, I thought, 'Boy, am I just bad at finding these?'” she said.

“I remember (another doctor) was there, and he said he couldn't find any testes on these people either. So I thought, 'OK, this is real.'”

Applewhite and six members of the cult had been castrated in Mexico a few months earlier – another way to deal with unwanted desires.


Comet Hale-Bopp; photograph taken March 16, 1997.

Family Guy: Christian Alternative to the Theory of Evolution

(H/T to Jim/rlrr.)

Visiting a Mosque

The following is from an e-mail I received today from MAS-Arizona. The essay is written by a Christian minister who recently visited the Islamic Community Center of Tempe when they held an open house for the community. I'm putting this post up partly because of my pride in this masjid (it was where I first made shahadah), but also because I appreciated this minister's open-mindedness, which shows quite clearly in his writing.


VISITING A MOSQUE
By Tom Compton

My friend Chuck called to ask me if I'd like to go with him to an open house at a mosque in Tempe, AZ. Having never been in a mosque, I thought that it would be an interesting experience but wondered if I would need a bullet proof vest or an assault rifle to protect myself during the visit. After all, haven't we been warned by numerous government and Christian leaders that the Muslims are out to create a holy war against us infidels?

We parked our shoes on the ground floor of the mosque and walked up to the second floor into the prayer and worship room. There were about 50 visitors in attendance plus members of the mosque who filtered in during the open house portion of the service. After the open house, their regular Friday night service would be conducted. It was easy to spot the visitors because they were sitting in chairs. It was explained that during the service and prayer time the flock was either standing, sitting or bowing down on the floor. The men are in the front and the women in the rear with a curtain that could be drawn by the women if they wanted privacy.

The Imam, the Islamic equivalent of a pastor or priest, was giving a Power Point presentation on the fundamental beliefs of Islam. Part way through the presentation, the Imam said that they would break for a brief prayer session and we were invited to observe how this part of their worship is conducted. Muslims are required to pray 5 times a day, this one lasted about 10 minutes. A group of more than a dozen men came to the front to participate in the prayers. The chanting and prayers were in Arabic but there seemed to be a similarity to a Catholic worship service in that both services are composed of ritual elements.

The Imam continued with a discussion on the life of Muhammad and other prophets they recognize and revere: Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Interestingly, the Imam said that they recognized that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary with no earthly father. It seems curious to me that because of Jesus' uniqueness ascribed by Muslims that He should receive a higher status in Islam than he does. The Imam said Muslims recognize Mohammad as the last prophet of Allah (God) but claim not to worship him. Judaism doesn't recognize Jesus, but the Muslims do. Does this mean that followers of Mohammad are closer to God than those of Judaism?

Next, the Imam opened the floor for questions. The Imam and a woman who he identified as "his boss" meaning she was a layman from the mosque congregation, fielded the questions. One person asked about the apparent unequal treatment of women as exhibited by the women sitting in the back of the mosque and other examples demonstrated in the Muslim world.

It was explained by the Imam that because of the frequent bowing down during the service that having women in the front could be a distraction to the men worshippers who are to be focusing on Allah.

A statement by Muhammad sheds some light on the subject: "O People: It is true that you have certain rights in regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives, only under God's trust and with His permission...Do treat your women well and be kind to them, for they are your partners and committed helpers..."

Another visitor asked about the Islamic "Jihad" against Christians and if Muslims were committed to the destruction of infidels. It was explained by the Imam and the other lady that Jihad is not a word that just translates into "war". Its meaning could be better defined as "a struggle against something." Another person wanted to know about all the killing done by Muslims. The Imam said that their religion does not condone killing. In the Imam's accompanying notes to his presentation, a quotation attributed to the Prophet Muhammad's last sermon is noteworthy: "All mankind is from Adam and Eve. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also, a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action..."

Another visitor in the audience recounted that when her family was based in Turkey they were treated beautifully by the Muslims in that country.

There is no doubt that there are some Muslims who want to "get" us. But, as I pointed out in some general comments I made to the assembly: the United States was also guilty of killing millions of innocent people needlessly in the steady stream of serial wars that the U.S. fosters and perpetuates. I said that as a follower of Christ that I could see no justification for what the U.S. has done in Iraq. I pointed out that the war in Iraq was not legal because our Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war. Only Congress has been given the power to declare war. Also, I pointed out that our President claims he is a Christian. His actions are certainly at a variance to the teachings of Jesus. No wonder the world is so mixed up about what Christians say they believe and what they advocate. Applause originated from a number of the members of the mosque after making my comments.

Upon my sitting down, another visitor jumped up to strongly disagree with me and question my patriotism. He claimed that he was a veteran and had defended our freedom. Then, a number of the visitors applauded him. It is a sad commentary to think how the American public has been brainwashed to think of Muslims as a threat to us. Any honest person when reviewing the facts will see how dangerous the United States' policy of wars for "democracy" really is. Many Americans believe that the United States is somehow morally superior to anybody else on the planet and is the universal dispensing agent of truth and justice. Applying Jesus' directive to love your neighbor as yourself still sounds valid to me.

If you have a chance to visit a mosque, don't hesitate to do so. I felt warmly received during my visit. Compare this to downright animosity received on occasion from some of my "bloodthirsty brothers in Christ" when standing outside their churches holding a sign that simply says: "Choose Life, Not War."

Tom Compton is a co-founder of We Hold These Truths and Strait Gate Ministries.

More (Lots More) Nude Christian Calendars

LeonKJ wrote (in Menj's blog): "My friend, it’s unfair not to differentiate between Christianity and its self serving heretics. Christianity is very unanimous against porn, and this movement is very likely a small deviationist group."

Leon was writing in response to Menj's post, "Biblically-sactioned porn," which was in reference to the nude calendar a German Christian youth group published and was recently reported on the BBC website. I brought up this topic on December 4th with my own post, "How does one say, "I am a Christian Degenerate" in German?" Two people, "Celestine" and "LeonKJ," complained to Menj for his linking the making of the nude, pornographic calendar with Christianity (as I did with my post). My response to both of these people is, "Too bad. Menj and I are only speaking the truth."

While many Christians may very well be against pornography, the fact of the matter is that this particular calendar was made for the express purpose of luring young people to church. Sex sells, and this German Christian youth group was using it to sell Christianity to teenagers and young adults. Celestine and LeonKJ might be offended by the fact that Menj and I are calling a spade a spade. However, as the Qur'an says, "And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is)." (2:42)

As for Leon's other point, that "...this movement is very likely a small deviationist group," that may very well be so; however, if Leon had checked out the BBC webpage more carefully, he would have noticed that there were four other links to more cases of Christians either making or promoting nude calendars. This "movement" is not confined to one small group, but appears to be spreading, especially in Britain. Following are some quotations (and pictures) from the four articles:

"A Gloucestershire vicar is lending his support to a nude calendar by displaying the images in his church. The Rev Stephen Earley from St Martins in Horsley, launched 'Exposed 2005' after a service on Sunday commemorating the genocide in Rwanda, Africa. 'I've been very impressed by the calendar, the pictures have all been very tastefully shot,' he said." (Vicar's support for nude calendar)


"A curate from Suffolk and a number of his parishoners have defrocked themselves to raise money for charity. Assistant curate John Buchanan, of Holy Trinity Church, Barsham, hopes to raise £90,000 for the organ restoration fund by posing nude for a calendar." (Curate is defrocked for calendar)

"The stars of a calendar featuring semi-naked builders, produced to raise cash for a north Cornwall parish, have defended their vicar from criticism. Reverend Christine Musser, 48, who took over the seaside parish of Boscastle last year, revealed on Wednesday that she had received letters calling for her to resign after backing the calendar. Divorcee Mrs Musser, star of BBC's A Seaside Parish, said criticism over the calendar was 'inevitable.' Calendar producer Raymond Rogers praised the bravery of Mrs Musser, who appears on the front of the calendar backed by partially-clothed local builders. 'There's no way we would do anything to embarrass the Church.' ... Mrs Musser has said she will be staying put, despite the hostility. She said: 'I thought I was going to come in for some flak from it because, if you put yourself in a public role, I guess you are going to find others that disagree with you. But the overwhelming response from the majority of people far outweighs the negative responses. Nudity and the Church are not traditionally linked, but to my mind, it was a group of guys who don't come to church, but are very much part of the community who wanted to show their support for their community church. How could I not support them?" (TV priest backed over calendar)


"Male members of a cathedral choir have stripped off for the second year running to produce a saucy calendar for charity. The 'Heavenly Hunks' of Portsmouth Cathedral Choir Association are back by popular demand, according to the group. The calendar, which has the backing of the Bishop of Portsmouth, shows eleven young men from the choir revealing their hidden talents against the backdrop of the cathedral. ... 'It is a refreshing story about the Church of England and a great example of some young guys doing something fun because of their membership of the church and of Portsmouth Cathedral Choir.' The Bishop of Portsmouth, The Right Reverend Kenneth Stevenson, said: 'I support anything that involves young people having fun as part of the church and congratulate these lads who have bared more than their souls to raise money for these charities.'" (Cathedral choir strips for calendar)

Of course, these are just the calendars that are being published and supported by Christians. Other, secular groups are promoting their own nude calendars: the Paralympic Games (Games hope rides on saucy calendar), the Royal Air Force (Aircrew bares all for calendar), and ambulance crews (Ambulance crews strip for calendar). Surprisingly, there is one British charity that has refused to be associated with a nude calendar, the Shrewsbury Amateur Operatic Society (Charity says 'no' to saucy calendar). But this last group appears to be the exception rather than the rule.


LeonKJ also wrote: "We all have problems with people like this, in Islam, you have Salman Rushdie and Osama Bin Laden, both, with diametrically opposed ideologies, that makes the average Muslim reject one, or both as lunatics who should not be allowed to carry the label."

I'm glad to hear you say this, because a Christian has finally realized that his religion can be "highjacked" for the wrong reasons. However, I hate to say it but, it's too little, too late. Christians deserve to be criticized for being decadent. It's you who have the problem, not us. Clean up your own house.

Shepherds Wanted - Must Know Accounting!

It turns out that the country of Hungary is in need of shepherds for its million-plus sheep. And not just that: "...shepherds must have accountancy skills and, since the country joined the EU last year, be capable of applying for grants..." After all, as one former architect turned shepherd says of his new profession, "Being a shepherd isn't just sitting next to your dog on the field all day, smoking a pipe." :)

I don't think becoming a shepherd is going to be one of my occupations anytime soon. ;) While I do have the accounting skills, here in S'pore we have a distinct lack of sheep. :) Still, some of history's greatest men were shepherds in their day: Amos (a Jewish prophet who is not mentioned in the Qur'an), Ibrahim, Musa, Daud and, of course, Muhammad (peace be upon them all).

A Nation of Faith and Religious Illiterates

This brief, interesting article was mentioned on the blog, Mere Islam (see the link to the right). The article tries to answer the question, "How did one of the most religious countries in the world [the United States] become a nation of religious illiterates?"