9/4/06 7:13 PM

A draft sketch of an appeal to the Muslim to turn to Christ.

We shall start with the idea of divine communication and focus on it in terms of clarity.

It is one thing to be divinely inspired such that one is moved to express an idea in one's own terms, as one understands the inspiration and is able to communicate this to others. But it is quite a different thing indeed to speak of receiving a divine dictation where the writer has no authorship or editing role at all, but serves as merely a stenographer. In this latter case we would expect perfect clarity (though perhaps not in all details, for the divine being might wish to be poetic). Certainly we would expect perfect clairty with regard to the practical aspects of the dictation, i.e., what we must do in order to be pleasing to God.

With respect to the latter, concerning what must be done to be pleasing to God, we find two striking shortcomings in the case of Mohammed's highly vaunted recitation. In the first place a divine dictation as attested to by Mohammed would make it clear if there were a successor to Mohammed and if so how that successor might be selected or recognized. That this is not the case is clearly seen in the great and bitter divide between the Sunni and the Shiite.*

[* There are great divides among the Christians also, but they do not claim to have a dictation and but only an inspiration where the author of the communication is personally engaged. There is a possibility of confusion here that cannot be expected of a divine dictation.]

Secondly we note the wide profusion of guidance on the part of imans and mullahs and this and that expert and specialist. This speaks clearly that the divine dictation conveyed by Mohammed is unclear as to what must be done to be pleasing to God. The existence of diverse traditions and interpretations is clear evidence enough of a deficiency in clarity.

Now since the clarity is so very clearly absent and since Mohammed's recitation is, admittedly, a divine dictation, questions will quite naturally arise. It could be that this communication is a dictation from God and that God simply cannot do any better. The Mormons of America report that God is "an exalted man," that he was once on a planet with his own God and he had obeyed this God and upon his death he was exalted and perfected and was made into a god, just as Jesus, according to the Mormons, will have his own planet and will populate it just like Jehovah populated this earth and Jehavah's father and mother populated his home planet where Jehovah was a child and grew up.*

[* Unless it is distracting we could mention that the Smith communication ties in more completely with the Bible than does Mohammed’s. It considers the potential of inhabited planets in other parts of the world, but still beyond our reach and provides a justification for the many stars that we see about us in the vastness of the universe. I.e., many gods here and there are populating and ruling their planets. Interestingly similar also to the Hindu reports of gods upon gods.]

With such a God it is conceivable that he might be able to write better than anyone on earth, much more beautifully than any human, but it is also conceivable that he would not be able to write a perfect communication, a rightly recorded dictation, of the sort we are considering here, i.e., from a practical standpoint.*

[* Islam makes much of the "clear signs" of the divinity, e.g., in the stars and the vault of the sky (as did also Paul, e.g., Romans 1). As a result it should be held accountable for the clear sign of confusion in which Islam finds itself, speaking of precisely what it is that makes someone pleasing to God. And I don't think it is acceptable to say: what pleases God is for people to spend as much time as possible trying to figure out what pleases him.]

And so the Muslim needs to realize that he (or she) is having to decide between a perfect God in the sense the intellect conceives him (or her), i.e., utterly or infinitely perfect; and a "perfect" God in the sense that we could measure by the standard of man which is the case according to the Mormon reports. The Muslim will not be able to admit to the latter.

But this would appear to present a problem, one that is morally based on fairness.* Is it possible that God would want people to miss what is necessary in order to please him? That he would want to make it so difficult that people would have ferret out what is necessary in order to be perfectly obedient? perhaps in order to arrange people on some scale for grading? on a curve, perhaps? In order that they can never be quite sure of exactly what it is that one must to do be pleasing to God.**

[* It is significate that the Muslim is able to grasp this distinction, for it is proof adequate of his own moral freedom, i.e., to make decisions without the aid of God with regard to good and evil, and indeed on a equal with God. (This is echoed in Genesis 3:22a, the hallmark of all Christian evangelism, for it speaks to freedom and thus is consistent with the moral idea of universal human dignity.]

[** And if need be we can address this problem of predestination. If God made it difficult so that not everyone would be convinced of what was needful to please God, this means nothing more than he has destined some people to hell, and they will be those who don't understand what anyone could figure out if he really wanted to and worked hard enough at it. And so all this confusion and vagueness would make sense. But this raises a more profound question concerning the intention of God. If that arises, and it is indeed always in free play, then we might just as well say that God's intentions can be described as diabolic or at least as whimsical in that in the Day of Judgement, the ones who believe Mohammed's communication and suscribe to it are stupid and are going to burn in hell. The entire thing then is conceived of as a sort of Hindu joke, God was just passing time by having some fun with the humans, after having bored himself in other amusements. If the Muslim admits deliberate confusion and darkness, then he must also consider the possibility of an intentional deception on the part of God to his own deteriment. This raises a much more profound examination.***]

[*** A critique of the expectations of any God is discussed in the course of an examination of divine and demonic communictations. Back button must be used to return here.]

I assume that the Muslim rejects the notion of foul intention on the part of the Creator. Now the Muslim must either accept this view of his divine dictation, namely not rendered rightly originally, or else he must wonder if somehow confusion crept in from a different quarter?

It could be that Mohammed was mistaken, or it could be that something were clear then to all which is not clear to us presently. In both cases we have an exception to perfect, or universal, clarity. Clear to children then and clear to adults now. That is more to the character of what we mean with regard to a divine dictation as compared with the likes of men, where the clarity can fail through time and must be sought out by study. As a result we want now to shift the scene to an interesting contrast to the Muslim's quandary.

Contrast with Paul. We present a contrast to Mohammed’s communication in the reports of Paul’s communication. While there is much confusion here with Paul, which affects the various ideas on the organization and thinking of the Christian unity, there is no confusion with regard to practical measures of what one must do in order to be pleasing to God. It is beyond challenge that, according to Paul, the Christian is required to do nothing more than his very best in applying the law of love of neighbor in his life. And the law of love can be utilized by each person in the world immediately without need for expert* For everyone can apply it in his own understanding.

[* Two doctors can sincerely come to different remedies of one and the same ailment and thus can even act contrarily to one another, but this is not a matter of the desire to help the patient (which corresponds to the law of love in both cases in this analogy), but merely in the understanding of what dosage of what is medicine and what dosage of what is poison. And that understanding is a function of science, and of this we are not speaking.** See especially the essay on the suffiency of the Golden Rule. Remember the back button.]

[** The Muslim may counter here and say that the dictates of Mohammed (in the Koran) are like medicine and poison, and that God is a skilled benefactor of mankind. But then the question arises again as to why it is not clear? Why are experts needed? Why the disagreements as to the practical guidance? "Why make difficult what it is that would be pleasing to you, O God, as I am myself in this specific time and space?"]

And so while merely an inspired writer (by hypothesis here), Paul does better than Mohammed’s God in making the practical elements of the communication crystal clear, even to children both then and now. But this should be no wonder. The reason for such clarity in the communication of Paul is that his expression of the law of love is one with the moral law which is a product of one’s own rationality and thus is comprehended immediately by the entire world.* Even children appeal to this autonomous law of their own determinatin, and often cry out, “that’s not fair?”

[* See essay on the moral law and freedom. Back button must be used to return here.]

Now this is the sort of world that would exist if everyone were like Paul: The law of love would motivate us to do the loving thing, loving others as we loved ourselves.* As a result (if people heeded Paul) men would be loving husbands and fathers and masters and slaves, and likewise with the women and, to a growing extent, the children. And accordingly a great, rational cooperation would ensue, in practical matters, and we would find increased knowledge about the medicines and poisons of life and could be on guard and could help each other and come to good knowledge.

[* Actually fellow Christians are to be loved more than self, but that will not be discussed here. See essay on the Paulian Christian. Use back button to return here.]

[** By way of speculation I consider the reason that the Christian God of Love does not immediately send down books on all the material things of this world, e.g., knowledge of vaccins for our sicknesses, is that the humans have fled from God and he cannot now apporach us any faster than we can stand, like children coming to learn about and recognize their father, in their own halting way. He made us independent, just like He is.]

Three Choices. And so the Muslim has three choices:

1. a divine dictated communication, i.e., a literal dictation, which is perfect and whereby one is never fully assured to be pleasing to God due to an intentional confusion, or else

2. a divine dictated communication which is of the caliber of an “exalted man,” i.e., the natural confusion, or finally

3. a human (divinly inspired) communication where one is totally assured of what is needful to be pleasing to God.

We might then ask the Muslim, “how would a rational, unbiased jury choose between these three if it were required to make a recommendation for the religious belief of the world?”

Amazing Koran? Now if the question arises to the power and beauty of Mohammed’s communication and the Koranic suggestions here and there of scientific discoveries made only long after along with some remarkable numerology of the Koran, we can reply in this wise. Genius of expression is very rare, but geniuses do exist. Consider, for example, Milton’s poem “On His Blindness” or Paul’s expression of love in 1 Corinthians 13; not to mention any works of Shakespeare, Goethe and a host of others including many Muslims. But then if the suggestions of science or numerology are still overpowering arguments against human origin and genius, we might consider some supernatural origin, but which would not have to be perfect, e.g., a supernatural trickster on the order of the Mormon god.* And, speaking of amazement, in terms of the extent of the communication, we might observe that while Mohammed did not begin his communication until 40 and that it extended over twenty some-odd years, Joseph Smith produced his equally voluminous work (Book of Mormon) by his very early 20’s, and all at once.

[* See essay on discerning a divine and a demonic communication. Use back button to return here.]

And so there is no reason for awe before any presumed or established scientific prowess on the part of Mohammed's communication, for there are other supernatural explanations besides God, e.g., a deception of a demon.*

[* One does not need to sneer at the idea of the demon, for it is presented merely as an intermediary between the Perfect God and man, a being who has more than human power and who is nevertheless limited and who intends mischief. This is presented conceptually.]

Options of Affliation among Christians. At this point we might introduce the options a convert would have with regard to the Christian faith. Paul presents two options, either a Peterian Christian who would look at the Bible and perhaps also some Church as a source of laws, or a Paulian Christian who would look at the Bible as a source of inspiration and history, but not laws.* **

[* This is explained in the essay on the Liberty of the Paulian Christian. Use back button to return here.]

[** The Christian faith also has room for a third option, namely a Zaachaen Christian who does not acknowledge the resurrection of Jesus but seeks to comply with the Law of Love above all else. The Peterian and the Paulian groups constitute visual (organized) congregations in the Church of Jesus, while the Zaachaen Christian is in the invisible (unorganized) congregation of the same Church.*** ****]

[*** Due to the danger of conversion in some Muslim quarters a different quality Christian might also be introduced, namely the Nicodemian, who came to Jesus “under the cover of night” per John's gospel.]

[**** I suspect that many Buddhists can conceptually be placed in and amongst the invisible members of the Church of Jesus with Zachaeus. He is at peace and active in compassionate work.]

To contact the author, please e-mail: pmr**kantwesley.com (note: the ** must be replaced by @)

To The Table Of Contents on Journals