World Religions – Biblical Notes

Impressions from the Koran

Posted on January 11, 2016September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Having read the Koran in its entirety (A. J. Arberry’s translation), I have various impressions of it. Some might accuse me of lacking objectivity, to which I would reply that everyone has a worldview which he brings to any subject. It is possible, by the evidence, to be persuaded out of a given worldview and into another. But, everyone brings his current beliefs to the table. So, I don’t claim “objectivity” in the sense of not already having my own conclusion. That would be akin to someone telling you, “Here’s a new math theory to consider, but first you’ve got to stop knowing that 2+2=4.” One cannot just “stop knowing” that 2+2=4, anymore than I can “stop knowing” that God wrote the Bible. Having completed my trip through the Koran, nothing in it came close to convincing me that Mohammad was inspired, or that I should abandon the Bible. What follows are a few scattered thoughts, though so much more could be said.

Beware the lone prophet. Mohammad lived c. 570-632 A.D. and the Koran was supposedly revealed to him by the angel Gabriel. Thus the content of an entire religion is filtered through one human being. In stark contrast, the Bible was penned over 1,500 years by about forty different writers—separated by time, education, ethnicity—who, nevertheless, composed a thematically cohesive book like no other. The last book in the Bible was written 500 years before the Koran. Mohammad was clearly influenced—directly or indirectly—by the Bible. There would be no Koran had the Bible not been here first, for Mohammad spends a lot of time talking about biblical characters, rewriting biblical accounts (e.g. Abraham was a Muslim), and criticizing Bible believers. At times, Mohammad introduces things without context or explanation, expecting the reader to know what he’s talking about, when the answer has to be sought somewhere outside the Koran.

The Koran is repetitive in the extreme. Not that repetition is bad, but read it yourself and you will soon see. Omitting the duplicate stories and phraseology, the book might immediately shrink by half. Or more. Were it a novel, the Koran would surely have few readers. Its content, style, and language plod on in a tautologous circle. The very last page contains a warning about evil women “who blow on knots.” I realize the suras (i.e. chapters) are arranged by length, not chronology, but, still, the whole thing winds down in a very anti-climactic “more of the same”—certainly nothing to compare with the moving, encouraging invitation in the Bible’s final chapter.

The Bible has convinced minds for millennia, on the persuasiveness of its evidence. While there are adults who voluntarily convert to Islam, the religion’s success is tied to pounding (not persuading) the Koran into children from earliest days. Read the New Testament and the Koran’s inferiority is painfully evident by any measure of comparison. There are unbelievers who read the Bible and even write commentaries on it. Even some unbelievers appreciate the moral influence the Bible has exerted in history. Were the Koran not drummed into their heads from childhood, it would not be convincing multitudes to convert on the merit of its message. In point of fact, it just might be the loneliest book on the library shelf. The late, former atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, decided at the end of his life that God exists, but he was not ready to embrace the gospel. However, in his book, There Is a God, Flew noted, “…I think that the Christian religion is the one religion that most clearly deserves to be honored and respected whether or not its claim to be a divine revelation is true. There is nothing like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like St. Paul…If you’re wanting Omnipotence to set up a religion, this is the one to beat” (p. 185f.).

Maybe it’s me, but the Koran comes across as paranoid. Over and over it says “they cried lies.” The “they” who “cried lies” are those who reject Islam. Imagine someone who wants to rule other people by convincing them it is God’s will, but his case is so unconvincing. What to do? He can call names, threaten, intimidate, terrorize. It is incredible how much of the Koran is devoted to people who reject the Koran, as though Mohammad could not deal with opposers who called his work lies and fairy tales. He brings them up ad nauseam. “They cried lies,” and Mohammad cannot stand them for it.

Whatever the page, you are never far from a line in the Koran about unbelievers, chastisement, an evil homecoming, or being roasted in the fire, even having to drink “oozing pus.” Sura 56 warns, “Then you erring ones, you that cried lies, you shall eat of a tree called Zakkoum, and you shall fill therewith your bellies and drink on top of that boiling water lapping it down like thirsty camels.” There is an unmistakable fixation on punishment that permeates the Koran. The gospel of Christ stresses holiness and the struggle against sin, whereas the Koran hammers on the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims, and how Allah is going to get all those who “cried lies.” Over and over the Koran criticizes Jews and Christians as unfit for friends on earth, and losers in eternity. Take out its constant criticism of non-Muslims, and its unending talk of their roasting in hell, and what is left? The Bible has warnings about hell, but it is all about avoiding the place. The Koran, on the other hand, seems to relish the fate awaiting unbelievers, and cannot emphasize it enough.

The Bible’s is a soaring story of redemption, inspiring with God’s own sacrifice for humanity’s sins. There is nothing remotely akin to it in the Koran. Islam is missing a Savior. It speaks much of sin, and says that God is forgiving, but offers no basis of forgiveness—there is no sacrifice to wash away sin. Christianity has the cross because that was the unavoidable price required, the only thing that could deal with sin. Islam makes salvation cheap. Say the prayers. Give the alms. Obey the Prophet. Paradise awaits. Islam fails utterly to provide a mechanism by which a holy God can save sinners. Only by the blood of Christ can it be done.

But what Islam lacks in a Savior it makes up in severity. The New Testament teaches Christians, “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (2 Corinthians 10:4, ESV) and “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12), and “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). It is a far cry from Mohammad’s instruction to slay people. As one of a multitude of examples from the Koran, consider: “This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger…they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement…” (from Sura V). “Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another” (from sura XLVIII). Search the Koran in vain for anything resembling Jesus’ lofty ethic in the Sermon on the Mount. Islam, as portrayed in its founding document, is a violent religion. Anyone who says Islam is inherently peaceful is either ignorant or lying. The violent, so-called “extremists” have not hijacked Islam. They are the true believers, taking their cue from the Koran itself. Islam offers a theocracy completely incompatible with the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Concerning the sexes, it was the gospel of Christ, more than anything in history, that elevated women. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25), and “there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). “Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). In contrast, the Koran advises, “…marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four” (sura IV). Likewise, Mohammad says “Men are the managers of the affairs of women…And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them” (sura IV). Thus, Mohammad condones domestic violence, at least in cases where a husband thinks his wife has a bad attitude.

The Bible and the Koran have vastly differing concepts of the next life. According to Jesus, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). The Bible says there are no sexual relationships in heaven. The Koran, on the other hand, describes Paradise as a place of sensual pleasure, full of “maidens…untouched…by any man” (sura LV) and “spotless virgins, chastely amorous” (sura LVI). Per Mohammad, “Surely for the godfearing awaits a place of security, gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing” (sura LXXVIII).

Nothing in the Koran is worse than its denial of Jesus’ deity, which it does over and over. For example, “They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son’” and “The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger” (sura V). Muslims say Jesus existed, but that he was not God’s Son and he did not die on the cross: “for their saying, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’—yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him…” (sura IV).

This is a tiny handful of examples, and much could be said regarding the traits of inspiration in the Bible, and their absence in the Koran. The ethic of Christ and the ethic of Mohammad are light years apart. Remember, the New Testament and church of Christ had been on earth nearly 600 years before the Koran was written. Islam is a late comer on the scene. It offers nothing good except what it borrows from the gospel (which is always better stated in the New Testament), which it mixes, unashamedly, with a host of gospel-denying verses.

Islam’s threat to Christianity comes, not from any theological superiority, but from its oft-exercised powers of intimidation, threat, coercion, and violence. Those who still live in a culture not dominated by Muslim oppression should recognize the threat and refuse to buckle. Silencing ourselves for fear of reprisal means we are already losing to its influence, and being victimized by the very definition of “terrorism.”

Reflecting on the Koran

Posted on October 20, 2014September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Recently I set a personal goal of reading the Koran in its entirety. Now a good way into it, I am compiling a list as I go of passages where its conflict with the Bible is glaring. Here are a few impressions so far, and a few quotes (all quotations taken from A. J. Arberry’s translation, The Koran Interpreted). The Koran obviously borrows from and revises biblical events, including the account of Cain and Abel, the incarnation of Christ, and the crucifixion. There would be no Koran had the Bible not been here first to influence Muhammad and provide him with religious people and doctrine to oppose.

Whatever the page, you are never far from a line in the Koran about unbelievers, chastisement, an evil homecoming, or being roasted in the fire. There is an unmistakable fixation on punishment that permeates the Koran. The gospel stresses holiness and the struggle against sin, whereas the Koran hammers on the conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims. Over and over the Koran criticizes Jews and Christians as unfit for friends on earth, and losers in eternity. Take out its constant criticism of non-Muslims, and its unending talk of their chastisement, and what is left? There is no soaring story of redemption, no sacrifice by God on the cross for humanity’s sins, no church where the saved congregate. Read the New Testament and the Koran’s inferiority is painfully evident by any measure of comparison.

But what it lacks in veracity it makes up in violence. The New Testament teaches Christians, “the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:4) and “our wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12), and “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44). It is a far cry from the Koran’s instruction to slay people. As one of a multitude of examples from the Koran, consider: “This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off, or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement, except for such as repent, before you have power over them. So know you that God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate” (from Sura V, p. 133).

Sura II says, “for whatever verse we abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it” (p. 41). Question: If the Koran existed eternally and God wrote it, why would he need to come back and replace any verse with another which set the first verse aside? Yet, while claiming the right to change, the Koran also claims perfect consistency when it says: “What, do they not ponder the Koran? If it had been from other than God surely they would have found in it much inconsistency” (Sura IV, p. 112).

Sura III boldy claims, “The true religion with God is Islam” (p. 75) and “Abraham in truth was not a Jew, neither a Christian; but he was a Muslim” (p. 83).

Sura IV is called “Women,” and has somewhat to say about them. Men may “marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four” (p. 100). “Men are the managers of the affairs of women…And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them” (p. 105).

The same surah (or, chapter) advises against praying while drunk: “O believers, draw not near to prayer when you are drunken until you know what you are saying” (p. 107). This verse was evidently modified by others with stricter teaching that frowns on alcohol altogether, demonstrating that teaching in the Koran can evolve and is not internally consistent. The same chapter strongly denies that Jesus was crucified (p. 123). Sura V says, “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends…Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them” (p. 136).

This is a tiny handful of examples, and much could be said regarding the traits of inspiration in the Bible, and their absence in the Koran. The ethic of Christ and the ethic of Muhammad are light years apart. Remember, the New Testament and church of Christ had been on earth nearly 600 years before the Koran was written. Islam is a late comer on the scene. It offers nothing good except what it borrows from the gospel (which is always better stated in the New Testament), which it mixes, unashamedly, with a host of gospel-denying verses.

Christianity and Culture, World Religions

Leftists and Islamists: Strange Bedfellows

Posted on May 23, 2013September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

The church of Christ and the gospel it seeks to uphold and defend are under attack from all directions. If we take seriously what the Bible teaches about Satan’s efforts, this should come as no surprise. If we realize that every Christian will be called on to suffer persecution of one brand or another (2 Tim. 3:12), we should be expecting it.

In point of fact, the “schemes of the devil” (Eph. 6:11) are so clever that we can even expect the unexpected. Have you ever been astonished at the palpable reluctance of the American media to criticize Islam? For example, on May 22 two Muslims plowed into a young British soldier in London in their car, then got out and attacked him with knives and a meat cleaver, nearly beheading the corpse. The murderous Muslims shouted “Allah Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) and recorded on camera a hateful speech before police arrived. In the recorded rant, one of the Muslims, hands covered in blood, said: “We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you…You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you, and your children.”

By now, American journalists and politicians should readily acknowledge the undeniable pattern emerging from a growing string of tragedies. In 2009 a Muslim soldier murdered thirteen and injured over thirty while shouting “Allahu Akhbar” at Ford Hood in Killeen, Texas. Yet, the Obama administration insists it was simply a case of workplace violence. On April 15, 2013 two bombs went off at the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 264, perpetrated by two foreign-born Muslim brothers. Yet, on May 23, 2013 President Obama boasted of his tenure, “There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure.” It seems we are doomed to the delusion that the religion of Islam is not an existential threat to American life.

Thus, to return to the late case of the murdered British soldier, consider how it was reported in America on the evening it happened (according to a newsbusters.org piece, “Networks’ Evening Shows Don’t Name Islam in London Terror Attack,” by Matthew Philbin). Brian Williams of NBC news said the killers vented “their message about religion and politics,” while NBC correspondent Michelle Kosinski remarked that one of the murderers “made a long political statement…”. Over at CBS, reporter Charlie D’Agata observed, “Witnesses said that the men shouted ‘god is great’ in Arabic during the attacks,” but there was no effort by CBS to emphasize or lay blame on Islam as a motive. At ABC news, Diane Sawyer said “officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are studying the meaning of this tape,” while ABC news reporter Lama Hasan said authorities were trying to learn “whether or not one of [the attackers] is of African origin with ties to terrorist groups.”

Even though one of the killers, moments after the murder, looked at a video camera and said, “We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone,” (which is what the Koran demands), our naivety knows no bounds. Leftist Americans scratch their heads and wonder what could have motivated such a grisly attack. Though a picture emerges, each new attack is met with an unwillingness to connect the dots.

Islam represents everything an increasingly godless American culture claims to hate. Islam puts to death adulterers and homosexuals, where godless liberals celebrate a sexual free-for-all where anything goes, and perversion is placed on the pedestal of respect. Islam calls for women to be covered, while the irreligious celebrate nakedness (in print, on film, in public). Islam opposes the consumption of alcohol, while America consumes it in volume. Islam opposes pornography while the Left supports it. Islam calls for everyone to submit to Allah, while godless liberalism refuses to submit to any lawgiving deity. Islam calls for a world ruled by Islam, whereas cultural leftists decry any organized religion. Islam says the Koran is ultimate law, but Leftists seem to recognize their own lusts as ultimate law, and the U.S. Constitution is respected by neither as the country’s highest authority. If truth be told, America’s constitutional republic and an Islamic society are definitionally incompatible. But there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Disparate as liberalism and Islam are, you would think liberal American journalists and Hollywood-types would be first in line to criticize Islam every chance they got. You might think the Left would see Islam as its greatest enemy. All things considered, Muslims should be coming under ever-increasing scrutiny and condemnation by the Left, since their respective worldviews are so diametrically opposed to each other. Or, are they?

It might be suggested that the Left is afraid to criticize Islam due to the latter’s obvious violent inclinations. While that is doubtless so in many countries, Islam in America has not reached a level of influence to scare us into submission. Muslims represent a small minority of our population. There must be another, more relevant answer. Why do American Muslims want to live in a country whose culture and governmental institutions stand in the way of the Koran’s influence? And why does our liberal American society seem so reluctant to offer criticism of Islam, when it stands for so many things liberals have a visceral reaction against?

Perhaps the answer lies in what they both have in common. The American Left hates the church of Christ. Islam hates the church of Christ. If there is one thing a godless worldview and an Islamic worldview have in common, it is this: they both fundamentally oppose the gospel of Christ. They both hate the Bible and the truth it contains. Think of it this way. By rejecting the truth of the gospel, liberalism embraces a worldview authored by the devil (who is the “father of lies,” John 8:44). By rejecting the truth of the gospel, Muslims also embrace a worldview from the same author. So, though they at first seem inherently different, liberalism and Islam both stem from worldviews issued from the devil. Both mindsets ultimately come from the same place! And the devil knows, whether it helps liberalism, or whether it helps Islam, it will make things harder on the Lord’s church. Since preventing men’s salvation seems his chief concern, Satan cares not from which direction the hindrance comes. In the case of American liberals, the devil has made for them a strange bedfellow, indeed.

World Religions

The Tooth Will Set You Free?

Posted on May 2, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Siddhartha Gautama (566-486 B.C.) was cremated at death, leaving behind (it is believed) a few teeth which have become religious relics, housed in fabulous temples in the Sri Lankan city of Kandy and the Chinese capital of Beijing. In 2011 the Lingguang Temple in Beijing lent a tooth to the nation of Myanmar (which it had also done in 1955, 1994 and 1996), escorted by “venerable monks” for forty-eight days of “public obeisance.” Before it traveled to Myanmar, the head of China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs attended a religious service for the tooth.

Why such a big ado over so small a thing? Gautama is otherwise known as the Buddha (meaning the “enlightened one”), who founded a religion that now encompasses 350 million worldwide.

A few years ago Beijing lent their tooth to Thailand. On its way to the Royal Air Force Airport in Bangkok, thousands of Thai Buddhists lined the route for a final glimpse of the sacred enamel relic. Pomp was in no short supply, as the tooth was ceremoniously driven in a decorated truck, the tooth itself resting in a miniature pagoda surrounded by bulletproof glass.

In fairness to Buddha, he had no say in his tooth’s becoming an object of veneration for his followers, since it happened after he died and the tooth was lifted from his ashy remains. But that is just the point: there are earthly remains of Buddha. He was nothing more than a mortal man with a host of uninspired ideas. He died and, apparently, some of him is still with us today. His influence is definitely still here, evidenced by millions ensconced in a morass of beliefs about karma, reincarnation, and a denial of the God of the Bible.

If that is Buddhism’s pedigree, Islam is the same song, second verse. Mohammad was born in Mecca c. A.D. 570, over 500 years after the establishment of the church of Christ in Jerusalem (Buddha’s rescued teeth would have been over 1,000 years old when Mohammad arrived). He borrowed from the Bible, mixed it with his own uninspired musings until it bore no resemblance to Scripture, and foisted it on the world in a book called the Koran. Thanks to his efforts, about a billion people today pray to Allah and call Mohammad his prophet. The alleged prophet died in A.D. 632 and was buried in Medina, where his tomb is now the second most revered place of worship for Muslims. Mohammad died. He was buried. He stayed buried. Thus two of the world’s major religions trace back to Buddha and Mohammad — two mere men whose mortality caught up with them, and whose remains are with us to this day.

Contrast that with the empty tomb of Jesus the Christ, the founder of Christianity. True, for a few hours he was buried in a Jerusalem tomb. But there is no coffin containing his bones, around which the faithful can gather to worship. There is no tooth of Jesus coming to a museum near you. Why? Because Jesus came up from the grave, just as he predicted, leaving a tomb whose unique claim to fame was its emptiness.

The Bible says, “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). Buddhism did not have the power to resurrect Gautama. Nor did Islam have the power to give Mohammad immortality. But the God of Christianity had ample power to call his Son from death to life and give him a kingdom unlike anything seen before or since. Only the misguided enmesh themselves in religions devoid of power — religions that worship 2,500 year old teeth or exalt ancient burial sites. Jesus is the only founder of a religion who verified his doctrine with genuine miracles and who left an empty tomb in his wake. And he said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).