Oh my gosh! It’s about time that Boddy Ghosh, the Deputy International Editor of “Time” magazine, undergoes a facts check. Boddy Ghosh was called upon to comment on recent issues surrounding media / cyberspace start Terry Jones. Why media / cyberspace start? Because he is the pastor of a small church in Florida, the Dove World Outreach Center, and yet, via the media and cyberspace he has become the stuff of influencing world events.
Now, let us, on this one level alone, correlate Terry Jones with Fred Phelps: here are two personages who lead small and nationally (not to mention universally, meaning around the world) insignificant churches. Via their actions, statements, the media and cyberspace, these two men have been ballooned well beyond what perhaps is truly their rightful sphere of influence.
“Hardball,” the show that is hosted by Chris Matthews, was guest hosted by Chuck Todd who discussed Terry Jones, Islam, Muslims, the Qur'an / Koran, Christians, the Bible and theology regarding divine inspiration with Boddy Ghosh. Ghosh demonstrated a remarkable ability for very succinct statements are as literally riddled with fallacy.
The Hardball transcript is titled Jobs Report and President Obama; GOP Takes on Labor; U.N. Worker Killed By Afghan Mob; Obama`s Path to Reelection (Copyright 2011 Roll Call, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Copyright 2011 MSNBC All Rights Reserved. Hardball 5:00 PM EST. April 1, 2011):
BOBBY GHOSH, DEPUTY INTERNATIONAL EDITOR, "TIME": Well, the real concern now, Chuck, is that this now spreads from here, that you have in other small groups of extremists in other parts of the Muslim world that people feel like they have to do a copycat thing.
We saw that happen many years ago with Salman Rushdie. We saw that happen much more recently with the Danish cartoons. The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not -- it is not the same as the Bible to Christians…
Let the discernment begin!
Terrorism has indeed worked. Be it the media, politicians or pop-culture, there is ubiquitous fear of expressing any disparaging words against Islam and Muslims in general. In particular, we are, at least, still getting condemnation of Muslim extremists, radical Muslims, Islamic fundamentalists, etc. Yet, even these are going by the wayside with the term terrorist attack being written within quotations and with references to manmade disasters and so on.
Are we to blame personages such as Terry Jones because he caused the murders of 12 United Nations workers? Of whatever he is guilty it is not causing anyone to do anything. Yet, or so we are told, we need to tread lightly upon broken egg shells because at any given moment what we say and do can go viral and we could be responsible for people being murdered on the other side of the planet.
As for the Salman Rushdie fracas, there is more than enough info to satisfy the curious at this link.
As for the Danish cartoons and other such fiascos, see here and here.
Yet, also consider the “crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine” or the “works of art in which people are throwing elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary” or the “artwork depicting the Virgin Mary in a bikini” and all of these works of art are merely the tip of the belligerence against Christianity iceberg (find more such instances here and also consider that, for example, the New Atheist movement is 99% anti-Christian—which is part of the reason that the movement is conceptually discredited).
But let us get to Boddy Ghosh’s main point which he introduces by stating, “the Koran to Muslims, it is not -- it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.” Here is his elucidation, with which Chuck Todd agrees. Keep in mind that he is about to describe what the Bible is to Christians as opposed to what the Qur'an / Koran is to Muslims:
…The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.
TODD: Yes.
GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.
That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you`re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more -- potentially much, much more inflammatory than –
TODD: Directly attacking -- directly attacking God.
Let us pause here for another fact check.
The statement “The Bible is a book written by men” is simply too generic. Does that mean that it is not inspired since it was mere “written by men”? What does it mean that it was “written by men”? Was the Qur'an / Koran not likewise “written by men”?
Judeo-Christian theology holds that the Bible was “written by men” as they were inspired by God to write it: “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). What is the Islamic theology as to the origins of the Qur'an / Koran? The very same as far as a claim to inspiration is concerned—at least in the singular.
As an aside: in reality, the Qur'an / Koran was stated by Muhammad whilst in seizure-like fits and written down on whatever was at hand, including leaves which camels later ate, and which were memorized, by people who later died in battle: this is why the Qur'an / Koran was eventually compiled—it was being lost one sura at a time. For details on just how different the Bible and the Qur'an / Koran are, see:
The Destroyed Bible – On How to Reconstruct the Bible
On the Qur'an's Composition
This only goes as far as explaining how both theologies claim that their holy books came to be in written form.
When Boddy Ghosh stated that “if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.” We could likewise state, “if you`re a Christian, the Bible is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.”
Here is, at least, one great distinction between the two theologies:
“The Bible,” here meaning both Testaments, consists of 66 book, written by 40 authors, through millennia, and in different countries.
The Qur'an / Koran consists of the sayings of one single man, Muhammad, living at one time and in one place—this is what was meant by the above reference to “in the singular.”
Some may say that if Jesus did not address then Christians have to right to take a position upon it. Yet, this would be a fundamental misunderstanding of how Christians view the Bible—which is the that they do, indeed, view it as a whole with 40 authors having a say. On the other hand, Muhammad’s words are the only one expressed in the Qur'an / Koran and his one say is final. This grants that we are to qualify this understanding by incorporating the fact that, indeed, Muslims would claim that it is not Muhammad’s words nor final say so but Allah’s as expressed through him.
Boddy Ghosh stated that the Bible“is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.” While ranging from generic to misleading, let us say fine—if we consider the Bible as a whole to be predictive of Jesus.
What he is getting at may be the Islamic belief that the Qur'an / Koran is eternal and did not then, come into being when it was revealed to Muhammad. Well, Christians likewise believe that God’s word is eternal.
Now, if the Qur'an / Koran is eternal that means that there is something beyond Allah which is eternal. Could this be a commission of shirk within Islam’s fundamental theology? Shirk is Islam’s ultimate and unpardonable sin: assigning companions to Allah. Shirk is why the Qur'an / Koran condemns Trinitarians to hell:
Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no more help.
They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except Allah. If they do not desist from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. (Surah 5:72-73—see Misconceptions in Reason and History).
In Christianity God’s word is eternalin that God’s word is not only the Bible but is a person: Jesus, the eternal “second person” of the Trinity.
How do Boddy Ghosh and Chuck Todd employ their misunderstanding? What conclusion do they reach? That “the act of burning a Koran is…directly attacking God” and they continue on this point:
GHOSH: -- than if you were to burn a -- burn a Bible.
TODD: Directly attacking God.
…GHOSH: …[the Afghanis] will be taken in by the message that it`s the American government or the American people that are directly responsible for burning the "Word of God."
TODD: Right. Jim –
ZOGBY [John Zogby, President & CEO, Zogby International]: Bobby`s got it completely right.
Now, let us get to the issue of what, truly, is the bottom line issue, the bottom line difference between the Bible and the Qur'an / Koran and that is the question of why Muslims and Christians react differently:
TODD: Does the evangelical Christian community need to get around and say, look, you don`t represent me, you`re a radical extremist, Terry Jones, get out.
(CROSSTALK)
ZOGBY: -- evangelicals were with us on September 7th.
John Zogby’s last sentence is a reference to what he previously described as:
…a press conference at the National Press Club with the leaders of every Protestant denomination, all of the major Jewish community denominations and organizations, the Catholic -- the Conference of Bishops, all the major Muslim leadership. And it was a press conference to say, bigotry should not happen in America. It was about the Park51 and the -- the burning.
…TODD: …I hope that the Christian community, the real Christian community deals with this guy.
ZOGBY: And I hope that the Muslim community as well will speak to those folks in Afghanistan and say –
TODD: Absolutely.
ZOGBY: -- this should not happen.
As it was stated by Lorne Gunter in Blame the murderers, not their contemptible provocateur (National Post, Apr. 5, 2011):
I can't imagine the Christian world erupting in violent protest at the burning of a Bible. After all, as holy as we Christians may believe the words inside to be, an individual Bible is just a book. We in the West got over such purely symbolic provocations around five centuries ago.
After 9/11, my National Post editorial-board colleagues and I wrote a series of editorials for the Post arguing that what the Muslim world needed most was a Reformation in which verbal attacks on Muhammad and the faith were not taken as direct insults and defilements. An intellectual separation of church and state would be a positive step, too. Such Enlightenment concepts had, over time, ended the crusades and most of the big religious wars among Christians and between Christianity and other faiths.
But because much of Islam has not gone through a similar evolution, the publication of Danish cartoons of Muhammad or false reports of a Koran flushing at Guantanamo Bay detention camp (both in 2005) or last month's Koran burning by Terry Jones set off deadly spasms of protest in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere.
Those who take Koran-defilement so personally that they storm churches, banks, shops and even the offices of the UN (which has saved countless lives in Afghanistan), destroy property and murder those inside are the ones responsible for the death and carnage they leave behind.
Good points to which we will delve a bit. They question remains: indeed, we can't imagine the Christian world erupting in violent protest at the burning of a Bible—but why not?
Was it because Christianity “got over such purely symbolic provocations around five centuries ago”? Let us note that, inevitably, whenever the topic of Islamic violence and oppression of any sort is raised, someone serves up undercook red herring in the form of, “Christians too!” And then come the ubiquitous talking point references to the Inquisition (get facts here), the Crusades (get facts here) or the Salem Witch Trials (lecture by Bill Honsberger, Why Not Burn Witches).
What of the “big religious wars among Christians and between Christianity and other faiths.”
Let us note that when it comes to “religious wars,” we must first ask whether the statement/argument is cogent.
Note that, overall, the facts were elucidated by The Encyclopedia of Wars which was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.
The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war: 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars and half of those involved Islam.
Thus, out of 10,000 years of war, a mere 6.98 are religious, Islam was involved in half of those and the rest of the world’s religions shared in the remaining statistically insignificant percentage.
What is there of notice in references to the Inquisition and Crusades? That they were not the doings of “Christianity” generically nor generally but specifically the doings of the Roman Catholic Church via its particular hierarchy. Let us leave aside the specific issues as to what the Inquisition and Crusades were, really (such as the political motivations, the Muslim encroachment in both cases, etc.—see the hyperlinks above). Now, to be fair, it was also not Muslims in general who become violent due to offenses to their faith but a specific brand of Islam.
Yet, let us bottom line this issue as it pertains to Christians and Muslims who faithfully represent their faith as it may be most basically and clearly understood as it was put forth in their holy books:
Taking into consideration the caveats surrounding self-defense (which is optional) and “just wars”: Christians are called to:
Love and pray for our neighbors (who are anybody at all regardless of gender, nationality, theology or lack thereof).
To love and pray for our enemies.
To love and pray for those who hate us.
To love and pray for those who curse us.
To love and pray for those who persecute us.
To love and pray for those who spitefully use us.
To love and pray for those who mistreat us.
[for examples see Matthew 5, Luke 6, Romans 12]
This is because our final revelation is that of grace and love.
Jesus’ words about His enemies who hated Him, who cursed Him, who persecute Him, who spitefully used Him, who mistreated him, who beat, mocked, spit upon and killed Him were, “Forgive them Father.”
Any violation of this is to violate that which would lend one the label “Christian” in the first place.
The Christian reformation (whether you want to reference the specific “Protestant Reformation” or not) has been about getting back to that which the Bible teachers basically and clearly; as it is said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all thing charity.”
Yet, any Muslim reformation will have to be away from the Qur'an’s / Koran’s basic and clear teachings, its final revelation. Why is this? Because of something that must be kept in mind and ever recalled when considering and discussing such issues: the Islamic / Qur'anic / Koranic doctrine of abrogation.
In essence, this means that latter revelation abrogates (formally annuls) previous revelation.
The Qur'an / Koran is divided into two historical sections: the Meccan period and the Medina period.
During the Meccan period Muhammad did not have much wealth nor many followers and preached peace. Later, during the Medina period, Muhammad had much wealth and many followers and preached force.
Thus, the latter revelation about using force is to be adhered to by faithful Muslims. Here are some of the relevant surahs:
2:191-193, 2:244, 2:216, 3:56, 3:151, 4:74, 4:76, 4:89, 4:95, 4:104, 5:33, 8:12, 8:15, 8:39, 8:57, 8:59-60, 9:5, 9:14, 9:20, 9:29, 9:30, 9:38-39, 9:41, 9:73, 9:88, 9:111, 9:123, 21:44, 25:52, 47:4, 47:35, 48:17, 48:29, 61:4, 61:10-12, 66:9.
Also, consider the Hadith (Islam’s sacred traditions):
Bukhari; 8:387, 52:177, 52:256, 52:220
Muslim; 1:33, 1:149, 20:4645, 20:4696, 19:4321-4323
Tabari; 7:97, 9:69
Ibn Ishaq; 327, 990, 992
Thus, the reason that Christians and Muslims who faithfully represent their faith as it may be most basically and clearly understood as it was put forth in their holy books react so differently to desecration of that which they consider sacred is that in the case of Christianity the revelation of God is that of grace, love and forgiveness whilst that of the Muslim is conflict and force.
This is one of the main differences between Muhammad and Jesus: one was peaceful, both in teaching and in personal conduct, and the other was not, see Muhammad and Jesus for many examples.
Thus, “that” Christians in general would, and are expected to, react differently is not as telling as “why” such is the case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.