I. Terrorist Almighty - On Being Crushed

I. On Being Crushed

“The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delivers.” The Thirty-Fourth Psalm of David was recited in early synagogues to assuage the anxieties of sufferers with promises of divine deliverance from suffering. The psalm is designed to encourage the brokenhearted no matter how crushed they might be. Indeed, the Lord is closest of all to brokenhearted and crushed people. The Lord is largely ignored at feasts but let there be famine or some other disaster and he is loved. Frightened people fear and therefore love the Lord most of all.

Yes, a condition is attached to salvation: one must fear the Lord. Lions may go hungry but people who fear the lord, particularly poor people, will have everything they need. And all who fear the Lord will have nothing else to fear besides the Lord, for the angel of the Lord sets up camp around each person who fears Him. Therefore if a long life is desired, we must fear the Lord and be not ashamed to look up to Him with beaming faces. Of course one who fears the Lord will refrain from evil and do good. At least he will not slander people and lie. Most importantly, he will seek peace. In return, the wicked shall be slain and the righteous man's enemies shall be condemned to the worst dooms.

Downtrodden self-righteous people to whom the psalm is sung will no doubt begin to wonder: “When will the omnipotent Lord save me and kill my wicked enemies as promised, for crying out loud?” In due course of time, of course, and only the Lord knows when. The righteous man may be troubled, but he shall assuredly be delivered from all of his troubles, and not one single bone of his body shall be broken, or so it is said.

Imagine the misery of the person who has taken the Lord's word to heart, who has feared the Lord, who has been righteous, yet is crushed nevertheless. A preacher’s claim that 'crushed' means that contrition, or merely feeling crushed, is called for because, figuratively speaking, one's swollen pride has been crushed flatter than unleavened bread by the weight of original sin, is hardly comforting to the person who has in all humility obeyed authority yet has been literally crushed. The preacher’s sickly sweet claim only adds insult to injury. And the claim that a vessel must be broken before being filled with a new spirit is absurd to someone who needs food and water instead of empty words in the first place. It is difficult to see how anyone but the Lord’s Fool could be consoled by such nonsense.

The paradox of the existence of evil in a creation supposedly created by a one and only omnipotent and benevolent god has perplexed people for ages; or rather that god is a projection of their confusion to begin with. Sacred scriptures are rife with contradictions conveniently employed to justify any action whatsoever while avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy by clever argument and feigned humility. Nevertheless, a man may no longer feel righteous when he is literally instead of figuratively crushed. Postmodern Christian doctrine may maintain that we no longer need to be actually crushed in body and spirit since the Son of the Lord was sacrificed as a substitute or scapegoat for us all; we merely need to be figuratively crushed, in heart, the ancient seat of the mind, lest we become unbearably arrogant in our feel-good religion. However that may be, right may seem wrong to a crushed person; instead of fearing the Lord, which is good cause for loving Him and doing His bidding lest one be crushed, a man might hate the Lord. Or he might deny that the Lord exists except as a convenient myth to protect landlords and other overlords. The crushed man may then revert to his natural jungle-right to survive by any means whatsoever, embarking therefore on a relatively evil or natural course. He may proceed to rob and kill and rape, perhaps in the name of the creator of the law of the jungle, in order to obtain food, defend himself and propagate his kind.

Nonetheless, there are always martyrs or witnesses to the long-term advantage of righteousness; the more crushed they are, the more they suffer, the closer are they to nothingness or death, the nearer are they to salvation. At least among their own people they must not take the Lord's law, which is hopefully engraved on their hearts at an early age, into their own hands and revise it according their own will, say to justify killing the local landlords and distribute the spoils to crushed poor folk that they may actually inherit the Earth forthwith.

Perhaps the real Jesus would put to scorn the old adage of militant men, that a life not worth killing for is not worth living, and claim that a life one must kill for is not worth living, therefore thou shall not kill but be shall be killed instead. The Lord's martyr must suffer in all humility and welcome every indignity at home, at least until the Lord calls upon him to wage war or jihad on an enemy, in which case even greater suffering and degradation is required to preserve a person’s way of life no matter how depraved he or his leaders might be. in reference to the Thirty-Fourth Psalm, Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament (1981) compares saints with a warmongering hero:

“It is a fact that although the afflictions of righteousness are many, they continually enjoy the Lord's deliverance out of them all, David's own life, as well as the lives of the Tribulation saints, being dramatic examples. The latter will experience God's great deliverance, whether by being spared death or suffering martyrdom; in fact, their martyrdom will bring them even greater reward and glory."

Wherefore even the righteous are crushed until contrite; they may then every so humbly rise, leavened by the Lord’s spirit, to exalted heights, perhaps by means of new towers, until crushed and born again.

The Hebrew term for 'crushed' was interpreted for us long ago and rendered as 'contrite', but several revised bibles have reverted to "crushed." The Jewish Publication Society Hebrew-English Tanakh (1999) translates Psalms 34:19 (verse 17 or 18 in some bibles) as: ”The Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delivers.” The Authorized Version of the English Bible (1611) reads: “The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” The term "contrite" is favored over 'crushed' in the Jewish Publication Society's The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoreth Text, a New Translation. "Contrite" is also employed in the Fifty-First Psalm (51:19) and in Isaiah (57:15) of the Tanakh. Now ‘contrite’ is derived from the Latin, contritus, which means “worn-down or crushed,” but the English terms are not synonymous.

To be ‘contrite' is to be overcome by a sense of remorse or feelings of guilt and therefore wanting atonement. Someone might be literally crushed through no fault of their own. The doctrine of original sin may be wheeled in to find fault, but why should a righteous person feel guilty? One never knows if one is entirely righteous; indeed, "Nobody is perfect." Now we might think that, If it were not for that one little mistake or sin, that visible blemish on the bullock sacrificed to the Lord, or the invisible blemish on the crushed heart offered up for sacrifice, then and only then…. But on second thought we think not, for every person with a conscience must fear the Lord if not his or her own male superego, and is guilty no matter what s/he does, for the origin of the sin or fault is in self-conscious existence, in not being one with the Lord; which is to say that the error is in being born in the first place. No wonder there is so much evil in the world; and there shall ever be evil until humankind is equally mixed, crushed, and baked as flat as matzo bread, or, if you prefer, is beaten and rolled flat as a pancake for the Lord’s Breakfast, that a New Day might proceed.

Apparently much of what we call 'evil' is the rod of the Lord exacting punishment for our wickedness. Luther believed that the Muslims were an iron rod wielded by the Lord. Luther admonished Christians to be duly educated as to their own sin while engaging in the just war – according to his formula, to rise against one's own lords is unjust unless they be conspiring Catholics. We might ask, with all due respect, Was it Luther’s Rod of the Lord that flattened the symbolic Twin Towers of America’s military-industrial-oil complex? If it is true that everyone is a sinner, we might in all fairness ask if the pride of the sinners within and without were duly crushed into contrition by the criminal deed. Yes, we hear that the Warriors of the Lord have gone to the Better Place and are united with the Lord. They fought the good fight on Earth, or else they would not have received the Purple Heart or the civilian equivalent. Did their families, friends and countrymen repent of their own sins before seeking the Lord's vengeance on the wicked enemies implicated by the leadership? We hear a resounding “No.” And they shall presumably suffer greatly until that No is converted to Yes.

How cruel! It would seem that true believers would make sacrifices and suffer to help the crushed even though the crushed are not contrite or willing to grovel. Never mind those who are too crushed or insane to realize their errors. Is there no mercy or forgiveness or salvation for those brokenhearted people who are crushed yet do not feel they are guilty for their predicament? Apparently not…. Perhaps if they and their forebears had done unto others as they wanted done unto themselves they would not have to suffer the present predicament. Until then, many habitual liars, cheats, thieves and killers not to mention terrorists and freedom fighters knowingly do evil with apparent impunity; white-collar criminals legalize their own crimes in Congress and Court and prosper all the more by the immunity. Perhaps all of the above need more crushing, their lands lain waste and abodes reduced to rubble. Only then, as the Fire and Brimstone preacher knows so well, shall people see the light and repent. But the New Interpreters’ Bible (1996) begs to differ with the old interpretations:

“'Contrite' is a more interpretive translation of a word that literally means 'crushed'... God does not want 'broken' or 'crushed' persons in the sense of 'oppressed' or 'dysfunctional.' Rather, God desires humble, contrite persons who are willing to offer God their whole selves.”

That is kind of God, we think, but what is to be done besides the self-sacrificial, religious worship of the god who is absolute power? How is power to be distributed? Those who have little power might grovel in the dirt at the feet of those who have much, doing so figuratively speaking, and as a matter of attitude present their rears to the Lord’s representative, obeying his bidding for whatever they might get out of it, which might be a lot in the long run if the king or his democratic-republican court be benevolently disposed.

But the self-righteous misinterpreter of divine will, in all the sin of pride and arrogant exaltation of false humility, laid claim to Jesus Christ as his political hero and donned the crown of the false god he defined for the political salvation of his self, kith and kin, giving mere lip-service to the god of the brokenhearted and crushed. Instead of uplifting the crushed, as a compassionate king would uplift his subjects, the tyrant placed his boot on their necks and made the demand the despot makes of slaves: total submission and obedience, or torture and death. We might as well call him god, even though he would piously deny the identification. But fear not, for the Lord is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit he delivers.

Please Join Us

---

By the very nature of their critical endeavor independent intellectuals are often at each other's throats. Figuratively speaking, of course, for intellectuals prefer metaphors and virtual battles to mayhem and murder. I have on a previous occasion called for an intellectual rebellion or jihad against the prejudices of brute ignorance. I was tempted to place my call under the motto, "Intellectuals of the World, Unite!" But nothing seemed more incongrous to me at the time than universal intellectual integration, since each independent intellect is disposed to be at odds with the others. However, on second thought there is due cause for unison in the mental field, the project and object of our enterprise; to wit, truth. Now we might question the nature of the truth; indeed, that is the good cause of our dissension; but I think we can agree on one thing: our project is the same although our methods slightly differ.

I say "slightly differ" because of one thing intellectuals can be certain, he who seeks the truth must have his all his doors wide open for it. The intellectual keeps his mind open with doubt, but he is not dogmatically skeptical; rather he is critical, and would resort to a criterion for criticism rather than regress to the blind faith of a beast. The criteria for physics and metaphysics, the scientific methods for the natural and "supernatural" sciences, differ in their destinies, for one has the object or world in mind, and the other has the subject or self in mind as the only available avenue to the supreme being that unites subject and object; yet both still proceed with an open mind and both must strive to keep it open to be worthy of the name, "science." Of course there is always the divisive question as to whether the metaphysical subject exists and if so whether it is a projected personal unity of consciousness of the objective world, or whether it is an impersonal substance, and so on. Yet both the physician of the body and the physician of the soul agree on the virtue of a reasonable or logical approach to the matter or spirit or both at hand. Although there are different logics or efficient mental means, they agree in throwing away error until the truth be known.

Now my monologue may be crude, but the professional professors amused by my intelletual dilettantism know very well that I struggle to unite intellects in a common pursuit no matter what their various interests may be and even in spite of their variance. For if science is to make any headway intellectuals must struggle together no matter how independent their research may be. Whatever the source of knowledge, whether from friend of foe, we should be grateful for it and share it with our colleagues. Even if we consider our competitors as strangers and enemies, then we should praise them for their virtues even more than we overlook the vices of our familiars and friends. The first great philosophical enthusiast of Islam, al-Kindi (d. ca. 866) put it this way:

"We should not be loath to value truth and acquire it from whatever source it comes, even it were to come from races distant and nations different from us. For nothing is more worthy of the seeker after truth than truth itself; and no one is disparated through truth or belittled by it. Rather does the truth enoble all."

Al-Kindi's statement is now platitudinous, but it was revolutionary in his time, an era plagued by cultural xenophobia and anti-intellectualism. Expressing gratitude for foreign intellectual contributions could and did get intellectuals killed, especially if the intellectual treatment challenged the leading authority. For example, Christian and Muslim intellectuals exchanged ideas in Damascus, capital of the Umayyad caliphate. Two scholars, Ghailan of Damascus (d. ca. 743) and Ma'bad al-Juhani (d. ca. 699) among others rejected orthodox predestination in favor of free will; it is no coincidence they were both martyred, because if the doctrine of free will were true, then a caliph would be personally responsible for his bad deeds.

The intellectual Majid Fakhry, our contemporary, wrote about al-Kindi, "the only major Islamic philospher of pure Arab stock":

"For al-Kindi, the search for truth, however, is an ardous task, and without the assistance of other searchers is virtually impossible. Our gratitude to our predecessors should, for that very reason, be great; they have paved the way for us and thereby made our progression towards truth so much easier. It is indeed obvious to us and to those pre-eminent in the study of philosophy among nations of foreign tongues, al-Kindi (says), that no one has been able to achieve through his own individual efforts any significant progress towards truth. Aristotle himself confirms this when he writes, as al-Kindi has paraphrased Metaphysics: 'We ought to be grateful to the fathers of those who have imparted to us a certain measure of truth, in so far as they have been the cause of their being, and the cause of our attaining truth.'" (emphasis added)

As we know so well, Islam was unusually tolerant of foreign knowledge and adopted and developed Greek philosophy and natural science, Indian mathematics, Persian literature; by the ninth century, nearly the entire legacy of Greek philosophy and science had been translated into Arabic. Those works were later translated into Latin and became the basis for the European renaissance. Jacques Le Goff in his Intellectuals in the Middle Ages mentions the purely Arab contribution:

"And we must not omit the purely Arab contribution (to Western culture). Arithmetic with the algebra of al-Khwarizmi - while awating the first years of the thirteenth century when Leanardo Pisano would introduce the Arabic numerals, which were actually HIndu but brought from India by the Arabs. Medicine with Rhazi - whom the Cristians called Rhazes - and above all Ibn Sina or Avicenna, whose medical encyclopedia or Canon became the inseparable companion of Western doctors. Astronomers, botanists, agronomists, and especially the alchemists who provided the Latins with the feverish research for the elixir. Finally, there was philosophy, which, beginning with Aristotle, created powerful syntheses with al-Farabi and Avicenna. In addition to the works themselves, the Arabs gave the Christians words such as "number", "zero", and "algebra"; at the same time they gave them the vocabulary of commerce; douane [custom house], bazaar, gabelle [a tax on salt], check, etc." (translated from the French by Teresa Lavender Fagan)

And we must point out that the Arabs contributed the intellectual foundation of modern science, the inductive method which, as Engels and many others have noted, was introduced into England via Roger Bacon. Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic science at Oxford; he repeatedly declared that the knowledge of Arabic and Arab science was the only way to knowledge in his day. The experimental method of the Arabs was widely cultivated in Europe. That is not to say that Christian and Muslim scholars were locked in loving embrace; traditional cultures tend to consider wisdom as communal property, and if someone does not give it up it is another's duty to "steal" it - so Christians are quoted as urging their brethern to pirate and plunder the Arab knowledge just as the Hebrew god urged Moses' crew to grab whatever goods they could carry and make a run for it. In any event, no doubt there was a greater rapport between the intellectuals themselves than the spirtual authorities cared to preach.

Fakhry briefly mentioned a curious secret society, "Brethren of Purity" (Ikhwan al-Sufa), in his essay, a group that flourished in Basrah, Iraq, in the tenth century - other scholars date the founding at 983. I gleaned further information on this group from A History of Muslim Philosophy, edited by M.M. Sharif and from Professor Boer's The History of Philosophy in Islam. The Brethren, unlike the anti-rationalist believers often associated Islamist freedom fighters, somewhat analogous in the West to militant fundamentalist Christians who rely on faith alone and reject rational questioning of their faith, recognized no antithesis whatsover between philosophy and religion:

"Its eclecticism was such that it adhered unconditionally to the maxim of the absolute harmony of all truth - Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Greek or Indian. The motto of its members was 'to shun no science, scorn no religious book, or cling fanatically to no exclusive need; since their own creed encompasses all other needs and comprehends all the sciences generally,' as the so-called Epistles of the Brethren have put it." (Fakhry)

Philosophical eclecticism has appeared, beginning with the Greeks, several times throughout history. In philosophy a dogmatic period is usually followed by a skeptical rebellion; when skepticism itself becomes dogmatic, refusing to recognized truth anywhere. except in its claim that there is no truth, an eclectical period responds, recognizing a little bit of truth everywhere.

Eclecticism holds that there is some truth even in erroneous knowledge, hence the task of the eclectic is to use logic to discard error and by that means distil the truth. Those who deny that eclecticism is a legitimate philosophy say their claim is logically absurd because it is tantamount to equating error with truth. Furthermore, they insist, there must be a definition of truth before one begins the search. Of course that argument is rebutted by the eclectics, who claim that the criterion for finding the truth as set by their opponents - that it must first be defined - amounts to hiding prejudices in the premises, hence they find what they are seeking by ignoring contrary evidence; they beg their questions by answering them in advance.

Wherefore we see in the Arab philosophers an early adumbration of the "inductive", bottom-up, pragmatic approach of empirical science, in contradistinction to the top-down deductive method. The constradistinction is analogous to that of democracy and tyranny in politics. Of course the methods can work well together. A possible symbol for the articulation of the two is the prehistoric emblem of David recently adopted by the secular state of Isreal. The intellectual pilgrim ascends from the base of the mountain and approaches the summit, but he also descends from time to time for air that he may confirm his ascent with a clear head. The tyrant starts at any old peak and tries to coerce the mountain to conform. Be that as it may, some scholars have associated the Brethren's concept of ascent with Darwinism; Professor Boer says not:

"They have been represented as the Darwinists of the tenth century, but nothing could be more inappropriate. The various realms of Nature, it is true, yield according to the Encyclopedia (Epistles) an ascending and connected series; but the relation is determined not by bodily structure, but by the inner Form or Soul-Substance. The Form wanders in mystic fashio from the lower to the higher and vice versa, not in accordance with inner laws of formation, or modified to suit external conditoins, but in accordance with the influence of the stars, and, in the case of Man at least, in accordance with practical and theoretical behavior. To give a history of Evolution the modern sense of the term was very far from the thought of the Brethren. For example they expressly insist that the horse and the elephant resemble Man more that the ape does. In fact in their system the body is a matter of quite secondary consideration; the death of the body is called the birth of the soul. The would alone is an efficient existence, which procurs the body for itself." (Boer)

Eclecticism is obviously not a one-sided denial of spiritual pursuits. For example, during the early nineteenth century the eclecticism of the French philosopher Victor Cousin gained followers throughout the world including the New England Transcendentalists. The Transcendentalists were eager to select the spiritual truth wherever they found it including Oriental sources; the term "transcendentalism", at first an epithet for unorthodox foolishness, was taken out of Kantian context and adopted to their own needs. Their version of transcendentalism was a protest against dead-wood Protestantism and the Lockean rationalizations of its puritanically inclined authorities, who were predominantly Unitarians. Victor Cousin, however, like most eclectics was a moderate. He accepted the sensationalism ("sensualism") of Locke and Condillac, but he synthesized it with the idealism of Kant and Hegel, leading Hegel to say his friend Cousin had swiped his soup. Hence Cousin's rationalization of eclecticism was called Spiritualism. Eclecticism was attractive at that time to faithful people who wanted to be reasonable about their faith. And it was also attractive to Arab philosophers several centuries before Victor Cousin was born.

Instead of withdrawing to the woods to speculate and to write, and meeting in the chambers of a transcentalist club in New England to discuss the subjects appearing in their periodical propaganda organs with American names such as The Dial and The Boston Quarterly, Muslim eclectics withdrew to secret societies and discuss esoteric subjects set forth in anonymous tracts such as those compiled in the still popular Encyclopedia of the Sciences of the Brethren of Purity - that encyclopedia of fifty treatises is known as Rasail Iwan al Safa (Epistles of the Brethren of Purity. The Brethren met once every twelve days in their respective localities. There were rumors of partying but that sort of behavior was frowned on. A primary purpose for meetings was to cultivate sufficient wisdom in this world to build a Utopia in the next. The Brethren recruited young people because they are more docile than adults. Celibacy was encouraged; marriage was purportedly for the procreation of the race only. Furthermore, the Brethren believed members must be free to choose their own religion and to change their religion at will, providing one person did not belong to contradictory religions at the same time. Islam however was considered superior by the Arab philosophers for the same reason it is considered the highest form of monotheism by impartial students of comparative religion in the West - particularly in respect to its simplicity and singular devotion.

The Brethren of Purity believed thinking begins in the senses and continues in the mind. Since man is a microcosm of the cosmos, he may better know the cosmos by knowing himself; the only means available to know thyself is the mental faculty: the Brethren therefore were more fond of Psychology than Astrology, albeit they dearly loved both. Above all subjects they loved numbers, for they were frustrated Pythagorans. They believed that every soul is potentially learned. Knowledge gained by the intellect from the senses must be reflected upon, confirmbed by the senses, and imparted to students by learned teachers. The educational scheme proceeds with Grammar, Poetry and History, continues with Mathematics, Logic and Physics, ascends to Metaphysics, and culminates in the Godhead as the body dies and the soul is born inno to the pure spiritual life.

"Praiseworthy is the free act of the soul; admirable are the actions which have proceeded from rational consideration; and lastly, obedience to the Divine World-Law is worthy of the reward of being raised to the celestial world of spheres. But this requires longing for what is above; and therefore the highest virtue is Love, which strives after union with God, the first loved one, and which is evinced even in this life in the form of religious patience and forbearance with all created beings. Such love gains in this life serenity of the soul, freedom of hear and peace with the whole world, and in the life to come ascension to Eternal Light." Furthermore, "Our true essence is the soul, and the highest aim of our existence should be to live, with Socrates, devoted to the Intellect, and with Christ, to the Law of Love. Nevertheless the body must be properly treated and looked after in order that the soul may have time to attain its full development." (Epistles)

Wisdom is normally obtained by the devoted student after the age of fifty, at which time the learned man does not rest on his laurels but should participate as a leader of his community. In any case, he will behave as divinely as he can:

"... love for science as added to knowledge of the essence of all beings, gained as best as one can, together with profession and public behavior in harmony with that." (Epistles)

We cannot overstate the importance of the Arab philosophers' insistence that religion and philosophy are not enemies. This emphasis shocked medieval European intellectuals as they translated the Arabic texts into Latin, and the controversy that ensued gradually resurrected the dignity of reason for the theologically disposed thinkers as they pored over Aristotle's propositions which the Muslims had so carefully preserved and commented on both for and against. Arab intellectuals, as I have noted, had serious problems with the synthesis of faith and reason, or rational theology, with the caliphs and their supporters. Fakhry recapitulates the Arab philosopher's position:

"After all, religion is not a commodity to traffic in; by setting themselves against the study of philosophy in the name of religion, the proved their added irreligiousness. Rather, philsophy is the most secure avenue to truth, and he who opposes its study is actually opposing the acquisition of the knowledge of truth, which is the primary function of religion. Hence, to brand the study of philosphy as unbelief kufr is the highest form of unbelief - nor, as the previous argument implies, downright hypocrisy."

Fakhry concluded his particular essay with the following important remarks, after which I will conclude mine with a pointed question to all Muslims:

"...neither in the field of translation nor in commentary have contemporary Arab philosophers and scholars achieved the same pre-emininece as their ancestors during the classical period. The profound intensity and seriousness with whcih Greek philosophical and scientific texts were translated, studied, an commented upon by those ancestors remain unequaled in modern times. This is a great tribute to that contingent of Arab scholars who not only kept the torch of ancient learning alive during Western Europe's darkest hours, but also pushed the frontiers further than any other nations had in antiquity since the Greeks." (emphasis added)

Dear Muslim intellectuals, we are forever grateful for Islam's medieval contributions to "our" Western intellectual culture. We thank Muslim philosophers and scientists for acquainting us with the founding principles of the European renaissance, for introducing us to the humanist movement, the historical sciences, the inductive scientific method, and, most importantly, the harmony of faith and reason that shocked medieval Europe to its senses. But where are you now when we so urgently need you? Intellectuals of the World, Unite!

~~~NN~~~

---

References:

Majid Fakhry's essay appears in Arabic Philosophy and the West, edited by Therese-Anne Druart, Washington: Georgetown University, 1988

A History of Muslim Philosophy, edited by M.M. Sharif, published in Karachi by the Royal Book Company, is an excellent resource, supported by ample citations.

Intellectuals in the Middle Ages by Jacques Le Goff is published by Blackwell in Cambridge. Of special interest is the chapter, 'The Birth of the Intellectuals'

The History of Philosophy in Islam by T. J. de Boer, translated by Edward R Jones, London: Luzac, 1970, p.81 ff. 'The Faithful Brethren of Bazra'

Islam's Intellectual Gifts

Intellectuals are eternally grateful for Islam's medieval contributions to our Western intellectual culture. Muslim philosophers introduced the West to the humanist movement, the historical sciences, the inductive scientific method, the founding principles of the Italian Renaissance and, most importantly, the harmony of faith and reason that shocked medieval Europe.

Islam deserves the general credit for the Greco-Arab, Persian, Turkish and related cultural contributions: Islam was their unifying principle. Islam's revolutionary, monotheistic metaphysic and sceptical iconoclasm in conjunction with the cultural environments of conquered lands, was conducive to the development of natural science. And in dialectical resistance to iconoclasm, mysticism and romantic art excelled, particularly in subtle ironic and paradoxical expressions.

The fundamentalist Arabs were confronted by decadent tendencies all around when they arose from the desert to conquer the world for god. Influential Western thinkers have praised the Islamic effort. For example, Immanual Kant:

"Islam distinquishes itself with pride and courage, for it propagates faith not by miracles but by conquests, and it is founded on courageous asceticism. This important phenomenon is due to the founder who propagated the conception of the unity of God. The nobility of a people who were freed from idolatry has been an important factor in bringing about the result. The spirit of Islam is indicated not in conformity without will but in voluntary adherence to the will of God, and this, above all, is a noble quality of a high order." (Immanuel Kant,La Religion dans les limites de la simple raison, translated by J. Gibelin, J. Vrin, Paris, 1943)

Auguste Comte, the founder of modern sociology, in his discussions of the religions of humanity, praised Islam as a religion of the highest order, and acknowledged its scientific contribution: "Arab civilization transmitted Greek science to us; and this will always secure for it an honourable place among the essential elements of the medieval system, regarded as a preparation for Positivism." Furthermore:

"... though the separation of the Church and State was never effected in the East, the Greek clergy were of use in maintaining the intellectual tradition, which in the West was jusfiably postponed to social necessities (Comte is usually very careful not to disparage any people who in death constitute the growing aspect of the 'subjective life after death' of the Great Being which dwarfs the objective life of living beings). In this last phase a revolution burst forth in the East which exercised a profound influence on the whole course of medieval history. I refer to the rise of Mahometism... This revolution was the work of a man who combined in a unique degree high qualities of heart with those of mind and character. Unprecedented, but well-timed, it exhibited, in their fullest light, the two characteristic features of the Middle Age: the aspiration for universality in religion, and the establishment of a new nation. The Monotheism of Mahomet was a new and not inadequate solution of the great problem which pressed as stongly on the East as on the West. With admirable instinct he felt, though obscurely, the inconsistency of the theological principle with the separation of Church and State; an inconsistency manifested by the nullity of the Greek priesthood, and the inadquacy of the Western Church. The alternative was the concentration of the two powers as practiced by Polytheism... He was thus brought back into the direction of Hebrew monotheism, of which he might have been the true Messiah. But his warrior life kept him clear of theocratic tendencies; the simplicity of his doctrine was suited to the life, and was calculated indeed ultimately to lead to entire emancipation. The combination of the two satisfied the aspirations of his followers, to whom dominion had been the goal in view..." (Auguste Comte, System of Positive Polity, London, 1875)

Today, U.S. Marines refer to Arab "terrorists" in battlefields as "cockroaches", but there are occasions when even the most ruthless enemies are admired for their violent virtue notwithstanding the slaughter of innocents purportedly mandated by gods - including the god of the Old Testament. The Arab warrior was once one of the most celebrated romantic figures in Western literature, enjoying equal status with the European knight; bloodcurdling stories were told of the Arab warrior's exploits; tales of the jihads of Muhammad and his commanders were quite popular. Be that as it may, it was difficult for the Arabs to restrain or to reverse the relapses of conquered territories into moral decadence, yet they did their utmost. Hence Arab fundamentalists have been occasionally referred to as the militant "spiritual" force of Islam. On the other hand, some Muslims farther East, especially in the mountainous areas, have called themselves "spiritualists", and have refered to the fundamentalists as "materialists" because of their emphasis on controlling worldly behavior. In sum, Islam was often at war with itself and with others, and, as we can also observe in China's Warring States Period and elsewhere, extended troubled times can be conducive to intellectual development; of course intellectuals struggle for their respective nations; but some who are weary of war struggle to ascertain a universal solution to violent conflicts.

During the recent so-called "third world war on terrorism", Islam has frequently been defamed by persons who consider the violent acts of a few "terrorists" - or "freedom fighters" if you please - as the acts of an entire people, not only those who are living, but all those who are dead and all those who are yet to live. "We" do not like them so "they" are all brutal barbarians, almost subhuman; we deny the high culture of their civilization at large. That sort of error is to be expected. People who bolster love for their own kind with antipathy towards others tend to ignore or discredit the virtues of outsiders, prefering to emphasize their vices instead. Among the ignorant, we discover their objects of scorn serve as scapegoats for the projected viciousness which actually perpetuates the alienation of the despised group. If an intellectual praises some virtue found among the "aliens", he might be called a traitor or denounced for being a "pseudo-intellectual", meaning someone who is downright stupid. Furthermore, efforts are made to justify presently inflamed passion by rewriting the past, or by continuing some historical animosity to the same purpose for the sake of rescuing insecure self-esteem. But it is precisely this tendency to elevate passion over reason and to exalt the base sentiment of the brute horde over the integrity of the human race, that all intellectuals worthy of their studies hope to ameliorate for the universal advancement of humankind.

In any event we must not allow false religion or spurious metaphysics to divorce our faith from reason, to denounce reason and make faithful brutes of us. Despite our shiny new playthings and even because of our inordinate devotion to them or the fetishistic mana we hope to obtain by incessant consumption of those things, there exists a clear and present danger of a spiritual reversion to those dark and barbarous times in the West before Islam returned the seeds of enlightenment they intially fostered in the arks of high civilization in Baghdad: the librarians welcomed the orphaned works of Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, Hippocrates, Galen and others. And it was not a case of returning something borrowed, but rather of giving something discarded back greatly improved by original ideas - the seeds under the light of the one god were hybrid. The single-minded revolutionary spirit of the Arabs domesticated many exotic strains under the shadow of swords. Some of the intellectual endeavors were quite useful; others were viewed as intellectual hobbies of no threat to Islam, or were thoughts too deeply rooted and far flung to be extirpated.

And of course first credit is due to the Greeks, and much credit is due to Syrians and Jews, as well as to the heretical Christian cults exiled to the East. And the Arabs were intermediaries for the Indians whose contributions are not to be ignored. We simply hold up the contributions of the medieval Muslim culture as an example of the pressing need to appreciate all human resources both present and past. Too many people refuse to admit that wherever evil is found some good exists as well, and instead focus on the worst they can find or imagine to the exclusion of the best, all for the unwitting sake of bestial ethnocentric, cultural and national self-identifications. Who is uglier, you or me? Then also your kind or my kind as well, regardless of the relative distinctions.

The Sun shining over the West today should not cause us to forget that it was not long ago when Muslims preferred not to reside in the West to oversee their interests, and left infidels in charge because of the general vulgarity and ignorance of nascent European civilization. Western intellectuals were also dismayed by such a dismal state of learning. For example, here is an excerpt from a letter written in the twelfth century by an Englishman, Daniel Morley, to his bishop:

"My passion for knowledge had chased me from England. I stayed awhile in Paris. There I saw only savages settled with grave authority in their scholarly seats, with two or three work stands in front of them loaded with enormous tomes reproducing the lessons of Ulpian (Roman jurist) in golden letters, writing plumes in their hands, with which they painted asterisks and obeli in their books. Their ignorance forced them to remain stiff as statues, but they pretended to show their wisdom with such silence. As soon as they opened their mouths I heard only the babbling of babes. Having understood the situation, I sought the means of escaping these risks and embracing the 'arts'... Since at present the instruction of the Arabs, which consists almost entirely of the arts of the quadrivium (sciences), is made in Toledo, I hastened there to attend the lectures of the most learned philosophers in the world... Let no one be shocked if while dealing with the world I invoke the teachings not of the Fathers of the Church, but of the pagan philosophers... We, too, have been mystically freed from Egypt, and the Lord has ordered us to strip the Egyptians of their treasures to enrich the Hebrews with them. Thus, in conformity with the Lord and with his help, let us rob the pagan philosophers of their wisdom and their eloquence, let us rob these infidels to enrich ourselves with their booty in faith."

Islam's contribution to Western intellectual culture is immortal. And for that contribution to the foundation of our modern scientific, philosophical and aesthetic intellectual development, intellectuals are eternally grateful. And we also thank the intellectuals who "robbed" them of their priceless treasures while extending the courtesy of naming the victims - long before the commercial genius extended the law of copyright about the globe, intellectuals considered it their bounden duty to pirate good ideas. Be that as it may, the fact of the Muslim contribution to Western culture remains and cannot be erased; once done, forever done. Moreover, notwithstanding the innocent ignorance of history, or its hateful repression, or the callous ingratitude of those who do not deny the incontrovertible fact itself, the fact remains. The fact was once revealed to every school child as a matter of fact: it was common knowledge because intellectuals, those who are devoted to learning and teaching, tend to give credit where credit is due, to the truth, in spite of any disinclination of their particular faith. It would be foolish not to do so, for the fact is readily available to anyone who cares to do a few hours of casual research.

Faithful fanatics whose personal security was in naive "wisdom" denied the virtues of Reason and defied the reasoning reintroduced to their precincts. In retrospect, from the perspective of our mass cultivation of moral "anarchy", we may deeply sympathize with them, especially those who found solitude and solace in remote monasteries. Daniel Morley had visited the traditional, decadent Paris: he missed the places in Paris taken over by Aristotelian thinkers who had abandoned faith for reason. Paris then was Babylon as far as some Christians were concerned, a devil's haven or den of inequity. St. Bernard beseeched the masters and students of Paris to flee to monasteries: "You will find much more in forests than in books," declared Bernard. Peter of Celle, another Cistercian, said, "No book is brought there, a writing master is not hired, there are no convoluted arguments, nor intricate sophisms, but the simple determination of all questions and the simple understanding of all reasons and arguments. There life teaches more than study, simplicity advances more than sophistry."

Of course the under the renewed influence of the East, the friars eventually became intellectuals in their own right, delving into university libraries holding forests of books both spiritual and secular. The development of Western universities along lines of the Arab model is described as follows:

"In the first place, a band of scholars went to muslim countries and made perosnal studies. Constantine of Africa and Adelhard made studies of this sort for the first time. Constantine, who was born in Carthage nere the end of the eleventh century, travelled all through the East.He made translations into Latin from the Arabic translations of Hippocrates' and Galen's books in addition to those of the original works of Muslim scholars on medical science. Later on, many students from Italy, Spain, and southern France attended Mustlim seminaries in order to study mathematics, philosphy, medicine. cosmography, and other subjects, and in due course became candidates for professorship in the first Western universities to be established after the pattern of the Muslim seminaries. The second phase starts with the founding of the first Western universities. The style of architecture of these universities, their curricula, and their method of instruction were exactly like those in the seminaries. First, the Salerno seminary was founded in the kingdom of Naples. Courses were offered in grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and cosmography. Books of Aristotle and those on the interpretation of his philosophy were brought to Italy by way of Salerno. Emperor Frederick of Sicily was known as the patron of Muslim science. He founded the seminary at Naples..." (Shariff)

Frederick II became Emperor in 1215. He was brought into close contact with Muslims during his crusading activities, and wound up adopting oriental costumes, Arabic customs and manners. Frederick was familiar with several languages: French, Italian, German, Latin, Greek and Arabic. He greatly admired Arabic philosophers whose works he was able to read in the original. Pope Gregory IX compared him to the blaspheming beast of the Apocalypse; in response, Frederick likewise called the pope an apocalyptic beast, "the great dragon which reduced the whole world." De Lacy O'Leary, a lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac at Bristol University, points out that in fact Frederick professed a perfecty orthodox attitude towards Moses, Christ and Muhammad, quite contrary to the pope's claim that he had blasphemed them as three great imposters. O'Leary traces the spread of Greco-Arabic philosophy from the university founded by Frederick in 1224 at Naples for the express purpose of introducting Arab science to the Western world. O'Leary mentions the place taken by the monastic friars:

"When the friars began to take their place in the work of the universities we note two striking changes: (i) the friars cut loose entire from the timid policy of conservatism and begin to make free use of all the works of Aristotle and of the Arabic commentators, and also make efforts to procure newer and more correct translations of the Aristotlian text from the original Greek; under this leadership the universities became more modern and enterprising in their scientific work, thought not without evidence of strong opposition in certain quarters. (ii) As a natural corrollary a more correct appreciation was made of the tendencies of the several commentators... The leader in these newer studies was the Franciscan Alexander Hales (d.1245)... From this time forth the Franciscans begin to use the Arabic commentators."

Very few Western scholars were familiar with the Greek language in medieval Europe, which relied on Latin as its learned language. Christians seeking Greek and Arabic texts went to Toledo, Spain, a center of Greco-Arab scholarship, and all the way to Palermo, Sicily, where Greek, Latin and Arabic were spoken, to satisfy their curiosity. Teams of translators including Muslims, Jews, and Christians were eventually organized to translate the Greek and Arabic texts, pioneering the renaissance. Peter de Cluny (d.1156) and his team translated the Quran. Peter the Venerable conceived the then novel idea of learning the Islamic doctrine in order to contest it on intellectual grounds instead of the battlefield, thus setting the stage for Saint Thomas' attacks on Islam.

"I thus went in search of specialists in the Arabic language which has enabled this lethal poison to infest more than half the globe. Using pleas and money I persuaded them to translate the history and the doctrine of that unfortunate man and his law which is called he Koran from Arabic into Latin..." said Peter.

Translators in Toledo, retaken from the Muslims in 1087, also proceeded under the protection of Archbishop Raymund (d.1151). Sometime later, Raymond Lull studied Arabic at Majorca and Muslim philosophy near Tunisia; he suggested to the pope that a moral crusade be initiated against Islam; at first his suggestions fell on deaf ears, however, the popes were eventually persuaded and thus was the Missionary movement instituted. Raymond Lull apparently admired the Sufis but hated Islam. To this very day many prejudiced Westerners hate Islam to the extent of denying its contribution to Western civilization. Yet that contribution is widely known by the world's intellectuals. For instance, in literary circles it is an understatement to say Islam's literature had an enormous influence on the development European literature, including upon such illuminaries as the great Italian master Dante. In fact, the intellect and the arts of the Occident have always been stimulated and inspired by the Oriental imagination despite the reluctance of antagonists to lay down their swords. Again, not all are grateful for Islam's contributions, and many have been unwilling to admit the virtues of their intellectual and physical enemies. Astute Western thinkers have occasionally chastized Westerners for their periodic waves of ingratitude. M.M. Sharif, a Muslim, described the situation as follows:

"It was at first difficult for the Western philosophers to get rid of religious, imperialistic, and racial prejudice and look at Islam and the East with understanding. In spite of the fact that Renaissance became possible only through profiting by Muslim works on philosophy, and science and their translations and interpolations thereof for centuries, the attitude of some Western people who were hostile to the very civilization that created these works indicates how deep-rooted the religious, political and racial prejudices were. From the eleventh to seventeenth century on, Western philosophers gradually got rid of their prejudices against Islam. Cultural influences from the Muslim East for centuries were instrumental in bringing about that change." (M.M. Shariff, A History of Muslim Philosophy, Karachi: Royal Book Company)

Many books and essays have been written on this subject. This certainly is not the place to examine them all and retrace the entire influence of Arabic culture on the West. I will, however, quote O'Leary's concluding paragraph to his chapter on the influence of the Arabic philosophers on Latin scholasticism, in his Arabic Thought and it's Place in History:

"We have now traced the transmission of a particular type of Hellenistic culture through the Syrian Church, the Zoroastrians of Persia, and the pagans of Harran to the Islamic community, where it was rather compromised by the patronage of those whom the official Muslim teachers decided to regard as heretics. In spite of this censure it has left a distinct and enduring impression on Muslim theology and popular beliefs. After a chequered career in the East it passed over to the Western Muslims community in Spain, where it had a very specialized development, which finally made a deeper impression on Christian and Jewish thought than on that of the Muslims themselves, and attained its final evolution in North-East Italy, where, as an anti-ecclesiastical influence, it prepared the way for the Renascence. But this main line of development is not really the most important; all along that line it was branching off to one side or another, and its richest fruits must be sought in these side issues, and in the scholasticism which, in Islam, in Judaism, and in Christianity, was a reaction from its teaching, and in the medical, chemical and other scientific studies in the Middle Ages, which largely owed their inspiration to its influence. It is the most romantic history of culture drift which is known to us in detail."

The modern scholar Jacques Le Goff sums up the benefit of the Greco-Arab contribution as follows:

"How did Western Europe benefit from this first type of researcher, these specialized intellectuals, these translators of the twelfth century? There was James of Venice, Burgundio of Pisa, Moses of Bergamo, Leo Tuscus in Bynzantium and in northern Italy, Henry Aristippus of Catania in Sicily, Adelard of Bath, Plato of Tivoli, Herman of Dalmatia, Robert of Ketten, Hugh of Santalla, and Gerard of Cremona in Spain. They filled in the blanks of Western culture left by the Latin heritage; in philsophy and above all in the sciences... And what was perhaps more important than the content of their work was their method... Such was the shock, the stimulation, the lessons of Hellenism, at the end of its long journey through the Orient and Africa, was communication to the West..." (Jacques Le Goff, Intellectuals in the Middle Ages, 'The Birth of the Intellectuals' translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan, Oxford: Blackwell)

The fact of Islam's influence on the Western intellect forever remains, and if we would denounce its underlying cultures, whose critical philosophers refuted even their own patron "saint", Aristotle, with great practical effect, we must condemn Western civilization in toto., which of course we are unwilling to do. Rather, the intellectuals of the world are grateful for the intellectual contributions of Muslim intellectuals, and we are not afraid to say so.

~~~>>}}}@>~~~

One Nation Under God 2002

I had a terrific Independence Day 2002 under our God and Flag at the park. Despite the presence of the Motherland Security Force, our crowd was milling about anxiously because of the upgraded terrorist threat. But our enormous Flag mounted over the stage had a calming effect as we awaited the arrival of Father Babouin.

We had a big turnout out because we resent threats against this great nation of ours. Our nation is the leader of world civilization, the epitome of freedom and equality, against whom an attack is an attack on civilization itself. As a matter of fact, our nation is the mother of equality and liberty. Therefore nobody had better mess with our fraternity. We may be feeling a bit anxious, but we also feel belligerent when confronted by aliens who are jealous of our liberty and equality.

I certainly am glad I showed up at the park, and especially so since I made the evening news! As I was waiting for Father Babouin to show up, a reporter asked me, "How much liberty are you willing to give up to fight terrorism?"

"Plenty, as long as I am behind the biggest guns and have the true faith," I confidently replied.

"And what faith is that?" the reporter quizzed.

"The land-based faith of old-time religion. The man-based faith of the mother (expletive deleted) liberals is what got us into this mess."

Someone applauded - bystanders had gathered around to catch the interview. The reporter knew he had caught a live one. Two other reporters showed up with cameramen and poked microphones into my face; one asked, "Do you believe in our Father Babouin's Jesus?"

"Of course I do! The real Jesus is my political hero! But the liberal Jesus is dead as we can see by his followers who are running around doing whatever they want to do in the name of love. But we know love just does not cut it unless it is rooted in hatred of enemies. We must hate our enemies if we are to love our friends, and..."

At that point the interview came to an abrupt end. Father Babouin had entered the park with a caravan of armored cars. All eyes were on him as he mounted the stage - it was surrounded by clean-cut men packing heat. We cheered during his grand entrance. I felt my knees buckling; I wanted to fall on them and pray. I am an intellectual when alone; my inner intellectual does not want me on my knees; but, to hell with those intellectual bastards and their Matriotism, I thought, as Father Babouin waited for the cheering to abate.

My heart thrilled as our national Father began to speak. Chills ran up and down my spine with his smooth phrases; the hairs on my arm stood up when he enunciated certain key words. However, for some strange reason, I cannot remember any of the speech except: "Patriotism is a living faith! We love our Motherland! And when she is attacked we love her even more!" I heard a someone scream, "Thank God! For we know what the mother (expletive deleted) liberals want to do to their motherland!"

I had seen Father Babouin on television many times and I considered his image to be enormously persuasive, but his charisma in person astounded me. I felt my anxieties dissipate under his hypnotic gaze. I felt I was being cleansed of all evil, that he was submerging me in loving equality under his awesome stare. Yet I could not bear his look for long because I feared it would turn me into stone. I think the others felt that way too, and were about to panic. Fortunately, our attention was diverted to our enormous Flag. Subdued, we faced the Flag, put our hands over our fluttering hearts to induce a regular beat, and chanted:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, UNDER GOD!, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all!"

Although I am not a liberal, when UNDER GOD! was shouted in unison, I almost had an orgasm. It aroused old associations, memories from my puberty, when the phrase "under God" was inserted in the pledge at my grammar school. Mind you, I prefer not to give away my age because age is generally disrespected in this great nation of ours now that so many mature persons need jobs or more social security benefits, but when I was born again I resolved to make a clean breast of things. Yes, I remember very well when "under God" was inserted into the pledge. How could I forget? And I remember how the brightly colored letters of the alphabet were strung out across the front of the class room. Before we pronounced them one by one, from A to Z, we faced the Flag, put our hands over our hearts, and chanted the pledge of allegiance. I recall it was something we were supposed to do, one of those weird adult things such as saying prayers with your eyes closed and head lowered. We had formerly learned our pledge without "under God", so when we came to that phrase, Teacher would shout out "UNDER GOD" in order to firmly implant it in our young minds.

Remembering "under God" was a hassle at first. I didn't fully understand the implications of "under God" but I knew the phrase had something to do with the god of the Sunday school where I was told, "Jesus loves you." I received the impression people were trying to cheer me up because they really did not love me themselves - but Anne gave me my first kiss, and that was very exciting! I was told heroes won wars "under God." My dad could not afford to buy me a toy machine gun, but I had a cap pistol to shoot virtual "krauts" and "Japs" with, and I progressed over the years to killing virtual "gooks", "chinks", "commie bastards" or just plain "Reds", and by the time President Johnson announced the police action in Vietnam, I was itching to kill "Charlie." Now I hear our current enemies in Afghanistan are "cockroaches." We've got to "exterminate" them in their "roach motels."

My dad survived the wars. He married my mother after her first husband was killed, then she died of polio soon after I was born. Many of my school chums had lost their fathers. But my best friend's father had made it home with some really bad memories, so he committed suicide; then his wife killed herself, and a year later my best friend and his brother hung themselves in the garage. The rest of us kids went on to middle school where a few of us boys made zip guns in the shop. Our mathematics and Latin teacher had been gassed in the war so his face was covered by bumps; he was a very serious man - I did not care for math at all, but Latin was cool. Our geography and science teacher was also our football coach; I liked him because he knew how hard I was trying even though I was a clumsy kid; he showed a few boys what the war was like: he had photographs of Japanese soldiers his platoon had killed and dismembered, placing the private parts in the mouths of the severed heads. However, another teacher was depressed by memories of the surrendering German soldiers his unit murdered after the armistice was announced.

With that in mind along with weekly episodes of my television favorite show, Combat, it is easy to guess what the red, white and blue and "under God" meant to me. I should have went right into the army where I could have done some good for the nation that founded freedom and equality. Instead I wound up on the streets and came under the influence of alcohol, pot and acid, and mother (expletive deleted) liberals. I was an impressionable young man, and my morals were soon perverted. My eagerness to kill enemies for reasons better kept secret changed to aversion to war and disgust with uniforms and flags. I began to believe in miracles: I thought I could change into a liberal and love everybody. Instead of killing Charlie in the jungle, I wound up reading The Ugly American and hanging out with old beatniks, young hippies and yippies. Shortly thereafter, I was tear-gassed by the National Guard during a peace march to the armory. The sight of any national flag still invoked images of death and destruction, ignorance and hypocrisy, but instead of loving those images I hated them. For many years I harbored such evil feelings and led a perverse life of intellectual protest against war and religious nationalism. But some time after the great terrorist attacks, I was saved from my life of sin and brought to the reasonable realization that the territorial imperative must be re-established under the old god of mass terror. Allow me to briefly explain:

I thank God that I walked into that church! By God's providence the Flag of United States was prominently displayed there instead of a crucifix. Prior to the sermon everyone stood up; the pledge of allegiance was recited: two patriotic songs are played. Sinner that I was, I was incensed by the procedure, and when the minister approached the pulpit, I shouted, "Where in hell is the cross of Jesus?"

"Right here," answered the minister, pointing at his heart.

"Well, why don't you take it out of there and put it where we can see it, where it can do us some good, instead of displaying that flag?"

"Jesus is no longer on the cross, and we have faith in the unseen. Please see me later and I will explain this further," the minister said, opening his bible.

"But why are you worshiping Caesar's sign? Is this God's house or Caesar's?" I inquired.

I noticed people around me squirming in their seats. A few people were smiling. A man on my left whispered, "Shut the (expletive deleted) up you (expletive deleted) and get the (expletive deleted) out of here." The minister was visibly annoyed; he obviously wanted to get on with the service. He nodded to someone behind me; they turned out to be security, and they turned me out of church forthwith, one of them bruising my arm. As they literally ran me down the aisle, I made the best scene I could under the circumstances, shouting, "Hypocrites! Where is the cross of Jesus? Hypocrites! Where is the cross of Jesus?"

I was really worked up by the episode, and, even though I had not had a drink for ten years, I thought I would really enjoy a six pack of beer for a change. As I walked to the grocery store, I imagined what I would have said if I had not have been evicted from the church; it would have been a terrific tirade of jeremiads, of that I'm certain. With those thoughts racing through my mind, I got to the grocery store in a jiffy. I grabbed a six-pack of Bud and got in line. A Catholic priest was in front of me, preparing to purchase a case of Heineken and a round of gourmet cheese. A large crucifix with an image of Jesus suffering on it was hanging from a chain about his neck. I was moved to engage him in conversation.

"Father, it's good to see you wearing the cross," I got his attention.

"And it is good to see you. Are you..."

"Protestants do not want to suffer," I discourteously interrupted, wanting to continue my inner tirade, of which he, of course, knew nothing. "They don't show the cross at all, or they won't show Jesus being tortured on it. They prefer to think he's with his dad somewhere, but that somewhere is nowhere to be found on this Earth. Their faith justifies whatever they might want to do until they join their dad in heaven. Protestantism is really liberal atheism. Works are what counts, and Catholics know..."

I had to pause at that point to allow the priest to purchase his beer and cheese. I expected him to ignore me and walk out of the store in a hurry, but he waited for me to buy my beer. He invited me to a gathering where I wound up drinking most of the Heineken and smoking a cigar. In that little group I found all the authority I really missed but had been rejecting since I fell under the influence of mother (expletive deleted) liberals. I was quickly converted, and became family member. I will say nothing more since we do not advertise.

It feels good to be back on the right track again, and I am delighted to know that according to the latest poll eighty-four percent of my fellow Americans are on board. I will not fall off again because thanks to my new family, I KNOW it is the righteous track. And I am sure glad I attended the Independence Day celebration and heard Father Babouin's speech; even though I cannot remember it, I can feel it. Oh, yes! now I recall he patriotically addressed the issue of whether or not "under God" belongs in the pledge of allegiance. I suppose as an opinionated American I should venture my opinion on that before I sign off here. Well, even if the phrase is not there, God is still in charge, and the American people can rest assured His family is in control, unseen behind the scenes, for God works in mysterious ways. Some folks think kids might get the wrong idea if the phrase remains in the pledge. But look at me, it sure kept me on the right track until the mother (expletive deleted) liberals gave me some acid and pot, and, as you can see, I got back on the right track because of my earliest experiences.

xYx

Islam's Last Stand

Maulana Muhammad Ali, since age 25 "a soldier for the literary service of Islam", translated verse 99 of Chapter 18 of the Koran as follows:

"And on that day We shall leave a part of them in conflict with another part, and the trumpet will be blown, so We shall gather them all together."

Muhammad Ali explains: "There is a change here from the historical to the prophetical. The Gog and Magog of the old days were to have their representatives in the latter days. The only other reference to Gog and Magog in the Holy Quran is contained in 21:96, where they are stated as taking possession of all places of advantage and eminence. This would identify them clearly with the European races; and the Slavs (settling as they do in Russia, the land of Magog) and the Teutons may therefore be suggested to be the modern representatives of Gog and Magog, and the verse prophetically refers to some mighty conflict of the European nations and to their ultimate gathering together in Islam which alone can settle their ideological differences." (The Quran, 1948 edition).

The other Koranic reference to Gog and Magog in Chapter 21 (The Prophets), verse 96, appears under Section 7. - 'The Righteous shall inherit the Earth.' Muhammad Ali translates the verses 94-105 of the section as follows:

"So whoever does good deeds and he is a believer, there is no denying his exertion, and We write (it) down for him. And there is a ban on a town which We destroy that they shall not return. Until when Gog and Magog are made to overcome (the world), and they break forth from every elevated place. And the True Promise draws nigh, then lo! the eyes of those who disbelieved will be fixedly open: O woe to us! We were heedless of this: nay, we were unjust. Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are fuel of hell; to it you will come. Had these been gods, they would not have come to it and all will abide therein. For them therein will be groaning and therein they will not hear. Those for whom good a already gone forth from Us will be kept far off from it; they will not hear its faintest sound, and they will abide in what their souls long for. The great fearful event will not grieve them,and the angels will meet them. This is the day which you were promised. The day when We roll up heaven like the rolling up of the scroll for writings. As We made the first creation, (so) shall We reproduce it - a promise (binding) on Us; surely We shall bring it about. And indeed We wrote in the Book after the reminder that the earth - My righteous servants will inherit it..."

Many scholars have pointed out, lest people get the wrong idea from that terrifying section, that Islam is not, relatively speaking, an intolerant faith. First of All, "Allah" means "God", the One and only One. And "Those for whom good has already gone forth from Us", namely people who believe in God, will be kept at a distance from the hellish horrors. Furthermore, the Prophet said whoever believes in God and future life and acts righteously, "on him shall come no fear." Most importantly, the Prophet's official policy on religion is "There is no compulsion in religion."

Politically correct historians of all persuasions have admired Islam's alleged restraint from the religious persecution of conquered peoples; they have remarked at length on the international character of Islamic law and its applicability even to enemies, in contrast to the frightful persecutions carried out by crusading Christians. Moreover, when weighing relative intolerance on the scales, we are advised to keep in mind the different circumstances of Jesus and Muhammad. The student of history must discover why, on the one hand, Jesus ordered the Sword sheathed in favor of the Word pending Constantine's vision of the Holy Cross on the battlefield and why, on the other hand, Muhammad could not wait for a Constantine. Of course history may be revised at any moment; there is sufficient evidence of glaring breaches in the Prophet's official policy of tolerance. Nevertheless, whether Islam's success is by Word or by Sword or by both Word and Sword, the phenomenal growth of Islam in its infancy seemed to prove that the whole wide world would on the Last Day recognize one deity. Muhammad Ali makes note of that view as follows:

"The Qur'an has repeatedly stated that Islam would ultimately be made triumphant in the world. The righteous servants of God, we are here told, would one day be masters of the land. The words no doubt contain a prophecy of the possession of the Holy Land by the Muslims, which was fulfilled in the caliphate of Umar. Compare Ps.37:29. But, we are further told that the whole earth would be a Holy Land in the end."

The Koranic story of Gog and Magog presages the Final Conflict between Good and Evil, the Dualism arising in Paradise with human knowledge of the difference between the Two. Man is accordingly booted from the primeval garden, endowed with Free Will to make the prerequisite choices so that he may return to the virginal womb in heaven if not on Earth - special virgins await martyrs in Paradise. If man in rebellion will not return from evolved complexity to ultimate simplicity, then off to Hell with him - as if Earth were not already hellish enough from the consequences of the original sin of being born into the wicked human world in the first place.

On Earth, pain has always had a slight edge on pleasure - bliss is death, for in bliss there is no motive to move. Yet in the final analysis, Good shall win over Evil, thus we may argue that there is a universal good, or a good God over all. In the interim, some sort of objective division between Good and Evil is required, no matter how arbitrary, something clear and concrete to protect us from the roving forces of Evil. A wall might do to protect sedentary folk and their precious utensils from bandit bands, hence they would do well to give thanks and kiss the wall protecting them from the curse of evil invaders. But the sword has two edges: to save the world from Evil, or in pre-emptive self-defense, or just for the sake of revenge, an army might sally forth from behind the walls of one of civilization's centers and make war - then who is the barbarian? The world is conquered by the militant force: local barbarians are killed or enslaved, settlements burned or exploited. Thus civilization is grounded in crime, and Good arises from Evil; otherwise there would be no Progress to Good. But now we are on the horns of a dilemma, even confronted with the gnostic heresy that the old god who kicked us out of Paradise may have horns, may be a fallen angel, the Devil himself.

The Koran informs us that the two-horned hero named Dhulqarnain, during his travels far and wide, was asked by a certain people, whose speech was almost incomprehensible, to protect them from the Gog and Magog, whereupon he built them a barrier or wall of iron - an Iron Curtain. The Gog and Magog were typical "barbarians from the north" at the time - Scythians, Cimmerians or other ancestors of later barbarians. There are various accounts of the original event in folklore, handed down with related historical sketches and other fragmentary evidence; opinions vary as to where the Iron Curtain was built, and, for that matter, who Dhulqarnain really was. The popular position is that Dhulqanain was Alexander the Great - once a virtual saint of Christianity - that it was no less than he who built the wall at Derbent by the Caspian Sea. But I believe otherwise; I prefer the minority view, that the two-horned hero was Cyrus the Great - savior of the Jews - and that the prototypical event took place near what is now known as northern Afghanistan - the traditional home of Zoroaster, the hater of nomads who recognized Evil and its roving demonic bandit hordes as distinctly divided from Good and its attendant court of settled virtues.

Y