10/14/06 3:19 PM Recent impressions of Mohammed.

I am trying to think more sympathetically with Mohammed, as Kant instructed me (in general) and can now, after having read No Man Knows My History on Joe Smith, and can easily believe that he was a man who believed that God would not fail to give a clear signal to the humans as to what they need to do in order to be happy. And this happiness would extend to the entire world. I.e., it would wed state and faith (a la Constantine). At least Mohammed will surely have thought, given the marvelous renderings of Jesus, that God would have provided a peace to the world.

Now Mohammed will have known that it would be impossible for such a peace and happiness to exist if people were left to their own devices. I must wonder if he really understood Paul or not. I suspect it was all pretty much corrupted by then, everyone having discarded the liberty for the sake of security (peace and best attainable happiness). I don’t know.

If Mohammed had heard of Paul’s free man [Liberty of Gentile Christian], he would have realized immediately that that was not going to work. The wedding (faith and government) would have to be based on something much more tangible. And that, I think, would be the slave man. Man is so naturally prone to evil, Mohammed will have thought, that the only way to keep him safe from himself is to beat him with a whip until he does it like a dog (although, of course, he will not have dared used such an analogy, for it would be counter productive). Or perhaps like a child, and only enough to obtain submission. No more.

And so the key to the understanding is this. It’s true, as Jesus said, that God loves the humans, but Mohammed cannot use that term because then people think that God is soft and can be dealt with (an historical horror to Kant and I think he would have approved of Mohammed here) and so the only solution is slave man, where people do what they are told to do. And then finally, with such people, attuned to doing as they are told, like obedient children, then they can be instructed as to what is in their own good, even if they don’t understand it just now, or ever. And so to make man a slave Mohammed comes up with the hell that had always been used (by Jesus and others), but he made it more vivid and frightening. And then he reasons with mankind: look, God is going to have his way with you, no question about that, and you are going to end up doing exactly what he says, for if you don’t submit you go to hell;. and so the only intelligent question is what did God say do? It’s that simple. Think about it! the world is a clear sign that he will have his way. Look at the marvelous ceiling that he has constructed and which we call sky. It is so obviously a work of his that it boggles our imagination. Well, the God that put up that sky tells you humans to bow down and also give to the poor. Now within those bounds (the law as interpreted) you are free to purse your happiness (and Mohammed also gets into specific advice, discipline women but don't mistreat them).

So the idea here is to scare people into cowing, and then tell them what they need to do to find happiness in this situation, and that is to do as they are told by God, which will be crystal clear, namely this and that.

[Interruption: I see the solution. First the Mullahs must be convinced that Paul was right, and then the remainder of Islam.]

And so Mohammed would have to make it perfectly clear and does so in his dictations. This and that. The man is marvelous. Joe Smith just caught on too late, after he had stumbled like a bumpkin before coming to believe himself. Mohammed was much more aware. He kept this mouth shut and thought about things, and how God would most certainly make it all clear. Enormous faith in God, and in his own inspirational powers.

Cow free (irrational) man into submission and then tell him what he can do (the bounds), if he wants to and is rational, and in that way bring happiness and hope to the heart of man.

Did Mohammed think that Paul was right in his expectation of free man, but that it had gotten corrupted, or did he, as I think, believe that man was sheer chaos unless he was whipped, and that free man was a practical illusion. The horses stick together and each acting on his own follows the guidance of his instinct, for they are submissive. Man thinks and goes off on an insane tangent of egotism which results in horror when there should be at least as much peace and security as in a herd of horses. First teach them to do as they are told (even inane things, and perhaps especially inane things), and then provide them the instructions as to what to do. And the principles can then later be derived, i.e., Mullahs being practical in getting people to get along, be innovative, be necessary to the specific human condition, e.g., Hindus get a slightly different treatment, perhaps, would be a subsequent conclusion.


Well then suddenly, lo and behold! the solution of the specifics of the Christian evangelist! The envangelis needs to admit indeed that Mohammed is the seal of the prophets for that encompasses also Paul. Paul needs merely to be seen as the Supreme Prophet, the prophet of liberty. It seems reasonable to believe that Mohammed knew that a time would come when it would be necessary to tell Islamic slaves what they are to do, namely to remove their shackles and to live like free men, according to laws of their own devising. This was the plan all along. that you Arabs would finally be free. God has kept you in your bondage for your own good, as terrible as it sometimes was (for it would have been worse without God’s intervention) in order to announce this wonderful news to you when ready for adulthood. Now you are free. And God does not want you to be slaves, but to be his friends, for God loves you. He has always loved you, but he had first to help you to grow up. And for that he had to keep you alive. He then gave his son to prove this (much earlier). It came in a Jewish cast and this had to be dispensed with in order to show everyone what it means to be a child of God and his best friend. Paul gave it, but the Jewish inertia (Kant’s theory here) kept it hidden long enough until you Arabs and other beloved of the Father were ready to receive it (or you Arabs had to be kept safe until the Jewish shackles could be discarded. And so here it is. In the name of Christ you are free and are pleasing to him. Now all you have to do, the last thing that you are told by God is this: go now and live a life worthy of the freedom that you have been given.

Wow. What an idea! Paul is kept hidden until the right time for the sake of the Arabs. Anyway, it might just work. Paul is the Supreme Prophet, the hidden 12th Iman who has been with us the whole time, but in disguise of the Peterian Christian, a Jewish hang on. Now it is possible to see him again (thanx to the inspiration of Kant): Jesus’ Son of Man, the Free Man who acts in rationality and good will and autonomy.

The clear sign of God of this (liberty and law of liberty) is in the heart of every person as he uses his rationality to make sense of the world and finds within himself a recognition of what it means to be worthy of happiness, and that is Kant’s moral law, which is the core (according to Kant) of Paul’s Christianity. This clear sign is then seen clearly in Paul, just as Mohammed’s people saw the sky/ceiling as a clear sign of power and might. Kant called the Arabs “an understanding, but ignorant people.” The 12th Iman was Paul with us all along, but in disguise. The Hidden Iman can now be announced. He was here all along, in the spirit of Paul


Now the question becomes this: how can you convince a Mullah that Free Man does indeed bring more, or at least as much, happiness and peace to their charge as a preservative take on Mohammed’s Koran, i.e., that we are to remain Slave Man? The theory is that the Free Man in Christ will cooperate for the common good, things like law and order and loving relationships among all people. This would be a natural outcome of the “transformation” that Paul spoke of, the “enemy made friend.” The practice, perhaps, can be attributed to the confusion of the Jewish hang-on in the self understanding of the Christians, i.e., the Christians thought they were Slave Man but with fewer rules than before (in the dispensation of Jews). [The Arabs would enjoy this “diminishment” of the Jews, that Kant was right and Christianity became infected with Jewish stuff and the whole thing became a mess.]

6:44 AM And so the whole thing works out like a charm. God saves the Arabs and he saved the Jews, only the Jews are going to wake up last.

First the Christian must wake up to the fact of the Return of the Paulian in the person of the American Episcopal Church. And then the Mullahs and Imams of Islam must be awakened to their “coming of age” through Paul, their liberation from tutelage. And then together as one they can invite the Jews to give up their silly relics of the past, and to build together on what is here, namely the bringing of the good news of Christian liberty and hope to India and the rest of the world.

7:38 PM Wondering then about Mohammed's Abraham. It will then have been essential to show Abraham as violating the moral law (even with the concurrence of his son of sacrifice) in order in turn to convey the abject submission needful in order to be pleasing to God. This should be a unique situation, for Mohammed, which, having happened, will never happen again [indeed and on the contrary many good things will be commanded.] In this way Abraham becomes the icon of submission, the Great Slave. And serves the Muslim as a model for doing as Mohammed tells him to.

Then the Arabs are preserved until Paulian Christianity can be "resurrected" from the confusion, and now is the time of fulfillment, when the Arabs throw off their tutelage and take on the mantel of maturity, at the same time that the Peterians claim liberty and become Paulians.