Man's spiritual need dates back to thousands of years. A quest for Divine Existence was part and parcel of the man who learned first how to forage and later to grow crops, spin fiber and make clothes and build habitats. From Mayans and Incas in the American continents to the old Greeks and Romans in the European theater, we may see there is a significant trend in fulfilling human thirst for spiritual solace. But, one thing we can conclusively say that nothing of a God-related belief system stayed permanent. Idea of God and Divinity was as transitory as flow of water on a meandering river bed. Due to invasion of superior mighty forces or because of natural calamities many faiths and Divine-related belief system have been extinguished. In some cases, they vanished without any trace; in other circumstances, they left some indelible marks on the newer faiths. 

 

Most religions in the contemporary world have structurally based upon supernatural or unseen phenomenon. Mysticism could be their main essence. In the yesteryear, many mysteries remained shrouded under the cloak of faith-based dogma. Therefore, we cannot blame our ancestors altogether for their ignorance. They did not have the knowledge nor did they have the scientific tools to find the answers to many bewildering questions. A case in point would be a meteorite that fell from the sky say three thousand years ago. How a common man would perceive that "mystical" occurrence? Would the imagination be too farfetched if some religionists consider it a Godly phenomenon manifested from the heaven? Should we blame the common practitioner if they started to worship the "sacred stone" for many years to come? Similarly, how much man was aware of the galaxies, Milky Way and Quasar stars thousands of years ago? Should they be ostracized if earth was perceived to be the center of the whole universe?

Let us now turn our focus to the genesis of the three monotheistic religions capturing the center stage of this planet that have common roots. The Ten Commandments was the cornerstone of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Christianity's spread to the European continent was such a monumental development whose impact can be felt even today. It is true that Christianity in Europe got more of a European face. But the Church centered Christianity entered into a territory where freethinking and scientific quest were blooming. Galileo and Copernicus's epoch making theories pushed the religion to a collision path with scientific discovery. Millions of earthlings believed about the "Center of the Universe" theory that went in coherence with Church's central dogma. But those "troublemakers" shattered the age-old belief system. Ultimately, the Science won at the cost of those bold new thinkers. However, this cannot be said of middle eastern-based religion Islam, which until this day could not get rid of ancient folklore that runs contrary to sound scientific principles.

The showdown between rational thinkers and arch conservative Christians in Europe that I mentioned earlier gave birth to Protestant Movement that essentially made Christianity more of a tolerant religion. The release of Church's control on state machinery gave the freethinkers and scientists the last hurrah. At long last nobody had to get an approval from a man in robe to involve into fundamental research. That includes those researches which could be controversial in the eyes of the Cross.

Turning to modern day, we now see that America is an important test case where Christianity has been metamorphosing on a liberal plateau. The other day, the Presbyterian Church in USA has given the majority verdict for homosexual conjugal union. Whatever is written in the Bible is becoming less significant. Nevertheless, most Americans believe in divine existence. Many of them even go to Church, occasionally. But a careful scrutiny can disclose that the belief system is not remaining static as the time goes by. 

How the Americans view the Bible could be an interesting case in point. A recent Washington Post article on American religions depicted that the common Americans are casual as far as religious practices are concerned. Some even endeavor to "domesticate" the God. 

Out of curiosity, I asked three of my coworkers about their view on the Bible. One of them is white and Roman Catholic, the other two are African-Americans and one of those again goes to a Baptist Church. All three have shown their skepticism about the authenticity of the Bible as documentation of pure words of the Divine. One even commented that in those days there were no tape recorders, how can we be so sure that God's discourse was recorded in its entirety. Another coworker emphasized on the tampering of the Bible as he mentioned King James's role in this regard. Although those three Americans may not be the representative of entire America, I thought people could still be religious without any blind faith and without any absolutist dogma. I felt this could be an indication that there is a way to believe in Divine existence without becoming a fanatic. The Bible's history has given the anthropologists and secular historians enough food for thought. Conversely, Islam's sacred text was out of any historical scrutiny. The dramatic finding of a possible earlier version of the Qur'an in Yemen could have been an earth shattering incidence. If the scholars can prove that there was modification in Qur'an in course of time, many traditional Islamic clergies may go berserk. But the logical conclusion of a history related to any text may not be detrimental to greater humanity.

Martin Luther's role in translating the Bible in German, which unquestionably humanized the Christian Holy Book, was the first major effort of bringing the enigmatic God word into the households of the billions of commoners. That broke the deliberate mystification of sacred texts by the religious power brokers. As the Bible was becoming a popular literature, its fate also began to change. The book which was shrouded under mystery came under microscopic scrutiny by secular historians and anthropologists. Compared to Bible, Quran's situation has not changed drastically. Most of the non-Arabic speaking Muslims (who comprise the most of the Islamic faith) do not have enough comprehension about the Divine oddity.

Among the branches of Christianity, Roman Catholicism is assumed to be a conservative one. A study of American Roman Catholics showed that majority of them does not follow the Vatican dictum in toto. It made the Pope unhappy, nonetheless, what can he do? He is following a pragmatic "give and take" policy. Pope's political statements sometimes raise many eyebrows. His historical comment to apologize for all the atrocity and injustices perpetrated on the people of other faiths is quite astounding. This is another example of further liberalization of the Christian sector. Can any one dream the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia apologizing to the mankind for the ethnic cleansing of the Jews in the Holy land occurred thousand years ago? One solitary person wrote about the extermination of Jews during our prophet's time in a recent article in letters to the editor column in Peshawar's Frontier Post in the last week of January 2001. We know what happened then. Islamic countries are eons away from Christendom as far as liberalization of the religion is concerned. Are Islamic beliefs immutable? How long will it resist probing from within? I have no glib answer to that. But one thing I could add here is that what Christians did earlier to humanize the religion, more freethinkers from Islamic world would probe the built-in inanities in Islam. Who knows what will happen then. The bottom line is that we have to humanize Islam through probing as it has been done in Christianity. How far is this Islamic Glasnost? 

---

 

Addendum by Chris (LA):

Mr. Hasan's article was generally true, and it makes some good points. I would like to add a couple of "builds" to round-out his observations.

1. In contrast to the Qur'an, the Bible is not considered to be the verbal word of God. The Bible is only "inspired" by God and written by individuals. Many of the authors are known by name and time-period in which they wrote their books, based on concurrent historical events. This point is stated quite clearly by the Apostle Paul in II Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do very good work." Christians often talk about the Bible being "the word of God," but they don't mean it as literally as do the Muslims.

2. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian only, and are not reflected in Islam. a) There is no day of rest (Sabbath) in Islam, only the Friday prayers and then Muslims can go right back to work; b) Murder is only wrong if the victim is a fellow Muslim; c) Stealing in the form of booty was specifically sanctioned for Muhammed by Allah; d) Mohammed certainly coveted -- to the point of marrying his adopted son's wife, Zaynab; e) Lying is permissible if it advances Islam -- e.g., takyia

3. Despite the charges by Muslims that the Bible was corrupted, this is not true. Full texts of the Bible date back to the 4th and 5th Centuries. Although the King James translation of the 17th Century contains errors (some might say deliberate mistranslations), all modern translators returned to the original Greek and Hebrew texts for their sources. These sources are pre-Islamic, so the Muslim charge that the texts have been corrupted raises the question as to when. The Quran claims to confirm the Torah and the Gospel. Clearly it doesn't. Then, there's the question as why all the non-conforming versions of the Qur'an were destroyed. This didn't happen with the Bible.

4. Martin Luther's issue with the Roman Catholic Church was not about the Bible. Remember, he was a cleric and desired to remain so. Rather, he opposed the non-Biblical traditions that the Church embraced, particularly selling indulgences (get-to-heaven-free tickets) which financed the construction of the Vatican. The Catholic Church is still bogged down with non-Biblical traditions -- the veneration of Mary, the mythical Veronica in the stages of the Cross, the celibacy of priests, and the central control of churches, to name a few.

All this leads to the question as to whether Islam can be reformed. If Muslims admit that the entire Qur'an isn't the "verbal word of God," then the entire house of cards collapses: the religion would merely be the dream-child of Muhammad, and clerics could no longer hide behind God in the face of the numerous flaws and errors in the Qur'an. The same goes for the ahadith and the sunnah, which are the bases of shariah law. Even Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, who distinguished between the Medina Surahs and the Mecca Surahs had a problem: Some of the surahs are a mixed bag, necessitating use of hadith to sort things out. Where do you draw the line between what is authentic, true Islam and what is the administrative/militaristic portion?

In contrast to the Qur'an, the Bible has undergone centuries of harsh criticism by skeptics and scholars, and it has actually come out stronger than before. While the Bible may contain scientific and even some historical errors, it is valued for its strong moral foundation and its credible promises. Once the errors in the Qur'an are exposed, there is little left to the morality or the promises. Does it really make sense that by killing other humans you will be transported directly to Paradise?

Ultimately, Mr. Hasan is right: anyone who criticizes the Qur'an is a target.