Wednesday, 22 July 2015

HERETICS AND HERESIES. By Green

HERETICS AND HERESIES
LIBERTY, A WORD WITHOUT WHICH ALL OTHER WORDS ARE VAIN.
By Greeen

WHOEVER has an opinion of his own, and honestly expresses it, will be guilty of heresy. Heresy is what the minority believe; it is the name given by the powerful to the doctrine of the weak. This word was born of the hatred, arrogance and cruelty of those who love their enemies, and who, when smitten on one cheek, turn the other. This word was born of intellectual slavery in the feudal ages of thought. It was an epithet used in the place of argument. From the commencement of the Christian era, every art has been exhausted and every conceivable punishment inflicted to force all people to hold the same religious opinions. This effort was born of the idea that a certain belief was necessary to the salvation of the soul. Christ taught, and the Church still teaches, that unbelief is the blackest of crimes. God is supposed to hate with an infinite and implacable hatred, every heretic upon the earth, and the heretics who have died are supposed at this moment to be suffering the agonies of the damned. The Church persecutes the living and her God burns the dead.
It is claimed that God wrote a book called the Bible, and it is generally admitted that this book is somewhat difficult to understand. As long as the Church had all the copies of this book, and the people were not allowed to read it, there was comparatively little heresy in the world; but when it was printed and read, people began honestly to differ as to its meaning. A few were independent and brave enough to give the world their real thoughts, and for the extermination of these men the Church used all her power. Protestants and Catholics vied with each other in the work of enslaving the human mind. For ages they were rivals in the infamous effort to rid the earth of honest people. They infested every country, every city, town, hamlet and family. They appealed to the worst passions of the human heart. They sowed the seeds of discord and hatred in every land. Brother denounced brother, wives informed against their husbands, mothers accused their children, dungeons were crowded with the innocent; the flesh of the good and true rotted in the clasp of chains; the flames devoured the heroic, and in the name of the most merciful God, his children were exterminated with famine, sword, and fire. Over the wild waves of battle rose and fell the banner of Jesus Christ. For sixteen hundred years the robes of the Church were red with innocent blood. The ingenuity of Christians was exhausted in devising punishment severe enough to be inflicted upon other Christians who honestly and sincerely differed with them upon any point whatever.
Give any orthodox church the power, and to-day they would punish heresy with whip, and chain, and fire. As long as a church deems a certain belief essential to salvation, just so long it will kill and burn if it has the power. Why should the Church pity a man whom her God hates? Why should she show mercy to a kind and noble heretic whom her God will burn in eternal fire? Why should a Christian be better than his God? It is impossible for the imagination to conceive of a greater atrocity than has been perpetrated by the Church. Every nerve in the human body capable of pain has been sought out and touched by the Church.
Let it be remembered that all churches have persecuted heretics to the extent of their power. Toleration has increased only when and where the power of the church has diminished. From Augustine until now the spirit of the Christians has remained the same. There has been the same intolerance, the same undying hatred of all who think for themselves, and the same determination to crush out of the human brain all knowledge inconsistent with an ignorant creed.
Every church pretends that it has a revelation from God, and that this revelation must be given to the people through the Church; that the Church acts through its priests, and that ordinary mortals must be content with a revelation—not from God—but from the Church. Had the people submitted to this preposterous claim, of course there could have been but one church, and that church never could have advanced. It might have retrograded, because it is not necessary to think or investigate in order to forget. Without heresy there could have been no progress.
The highest type of the orthodox Christian does not forget; neither does he learn. He neither advances nor recedes. He is a living fossil embedded in that rock called faith. He makes no effort to better his condition, because all his strength is exhausted in keeping other people from improving theirs. The supreme desire of his heart is to force all others to adopt his creed, and in order to accomplish this object he denounces free-thinking as a crime, and this crime he calls heresy. When he had power, heresy was the most terrible and formidable of words. It meant confiscation, exile, imprisonment, torture, and death.
In those days the cross and rack were inseparable companions. Across the open bible lay the sword and fagot. Not content with burning such heretics as were alive, they even tried the dead, in order that the Church might rob their wives and children. The property of all heretics was confiscated, and on this account they charged the dead with being heretical—indicted, as it were, their dust—to the end that the Church might clutch the bread of orphans. Learned divines discussed the propriety of tearing out the tongues of heretics before they were burned, and the general opinion was, that this ought to be done so that the heretics should not be able, by uttering blasphemies, to shock the Christians who were burning them. With a mixture of ferocity and Christianity, the priests insisted that heretics ought to be burned at a slow fire, giving as a reason that more time was given them for repentance.
No wonder that Jesus Christ said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword."
Every priest regarded himself as the agent of God. He answered all questions by authority, and to treat him with disrespect was an insult offered to God. No one was asked to think, but all were commanded to obey.
In 1208 the Inquisition was established. Seven years afterward, the fourth council of the Lateran enjoined all kings and rulers to swear an oath that they would exterminate heretics from their dominions. The sword of the Church was unsheathed, and the world was at the mercy of ignorant and infuriated priests, whose eyes feasted upon the agonies they inflicted. Acting, as they believed, or pretended to believe, under the command of God; stimulated by the hope of infinite reward in another world—hating heretics with every drop of their bestial blood; savage beyond description; merciless beyond conception,—these infamous priests, in a kind of frenzied joy, leaped upon the helpless victims of their rage. They crushed their bones in iron boots; tore their quivering flesh with iron hooks and pincers; cut off their lips and eyelids; pulled out their nails, and into the bleeding quick thrust needles; tore out their tongues; extinguished their eyes; stretched them upon racks; flayed them alive; crucified them with their heads downward; exposed them to wild beasts; burned them at the stake; mocked their cries and groans; ravished their wives; robbed their children, and then prayed God to finish the holy work in hell.
Millions upon millions were sacrificed upon the altars of bigotry. The Catholic burned the Lutheran, the Lutheran burned the Catholic, the Episcopalian tortured the Presbyterian, the Presbyterian tortured the Episcopalian. Every denomination killed all it could of every other; and each Christian felt in duty bound to exterminate every other Christian who denied the smallest fraction of his creed.
In the reign of Henry VIII—that pious and moral founder of the apostolic Episcopal Church,—there was passed by the parliament of England an act entitled "An act for abolishing of diversity of opinion." And in this act was set forth what a good Christian was obliged to believe:
First, That in the sacrament was the real body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Second, That the body and blood of Jesus Christ was in the bread, and the blood and body of Jesus Christ was in the wine.
Third, That priests should not marry.
Fourth, That vows of chastity were of perpetual obligation.
Fifth, That private masses ought to be continued; and,
Sixth, That auricular confession to a priest must be maintained.
This creed was made by law, in order that all men might know just what to believe by simply reading the statute. The Church hated to see the people wearing out their brains in thinking upon these subjects. It was thought far better that a creed should be made by parliament, so that whatever might be lacking in evidence might be made up in force. The punishment for denying the first article was death by fire. For the denial of any other article, imprisonment, and for the second offense—death.
Your attention is called to these six articles, established during the reign of Henry VIII, and by the Church of England, simply because not one of these articles is believed by that church to-day. If the law then made by the church could be enforced now, every Episcopalian would be burned at the stake.
Similar laws were passed in most Christian countries, as all orthodox churches firmly believed that mankind could be legislated into heaven. According to the creed of every church, slavery leads to heaven, liberty leads to hell. It was claimed that God had founded the Church, and that to deny the authority of the Church was to be a traitor to God, and consequently an ally of the devil. To torture and destroy one of the soldiers of Satan was a duty no good Christian cared to neglect. Nothing can be sweeter than to earn the gratitude of God by killing your own enemies. Such a mingling of profit and revenge, of heaven for yourself and damnation for those you dislike, is a temptation that your ordinary Christian never resists.
According to the theologians, God, the Father of us all, wrote a letter to his children. The children have always differed somewhat as to the meaning of this letter. In consequence of these honest differences, these brothers began to cut out each other's hearts. In every land, where this letter from God has been read, the children to whom and for whom it was written have been filled with hatred and malice. They have imprisoned and murdered each other, and the wives and children of each other. In the name of God every possible crime has been committed, every conceivable outrage has been perpetrated. Brave men, tender and loving women, beautiful girls, and prattling babes have been exterminated in the name of Jesus Christ. For more than fifty generations the Church has carried the black flag. Her vengeance has been measured only by her power. During all these years of infamy no heretic has ever been forgiven. With the heart of a fiend she has hated; with the clutch of avarice she has grasped; with the jaws of a dragon she has devoured; pitiless as famine, merciless as fire, with the conscience of a serpent: such is the history of the Church of God.
I do not say, and I do not believe, that Christians are as bad as their creeds. In spite of Church and dogma, there have been millions and millions of men and women true to the loftiest and most generous promptings of the human heart. They have been true to their convictions, and, with a self-denial and fortitude excelled by none, have labored and suffered for the salvation of men. Imbued with the spirit of self-sacrifice, believing that by personal effort they could rescue at least a few souls from the infinite shadow of hell, they have cheerfully endured every hardship and scorned every danger. And yet, notwithstanding all this, they believed that honest error was a crime. They knew that the bible so declared, and they believed that all unbelievers would be eternally lost. They believed that religion was of God, and all heresy of the devil. They killed heretics in defense of their own souls and the souls of their children. They killed them because, according to their idea, they were the enemies of God, and because the bible teaches that the blood of the unbeliever is a most acceptable sacrifice to heaven.
Nature never prompted a loving mother to throw her child into the Ganges. Nature never prompted men to exterminate each other for a difference of opinion concerning the baptism of infants. These crimes have been produced by religions filled with all that is illogical, cruel and hideous. These religions were produced for the most part by ignorance, tyranny and hypocrisy. Under the impression that the infinite ruler and creator of the universe had commanded the destruction of heretics and infidels, the Church perpetrated all these crimes.
Men and women have been burned for thinking there is but one God; that there was none; that the Holy Ghost is younger than God; that God was somewhat older than his son; for insisting that good works will save a man without faith; that faith will do without good works; for declaring that a sweet babe will not be burned eternally, because its parents failed to have its head wet by a priest; for speaking of God as though he had a nose; for denying that Christ was his own father; for contending that three persons, rightly added together, make more than one; for believing in purgatory; for denying the reality of hell; for pretending that priests can forgive sins; for preaching that God is an essence; for denying that witches rode through the air on sticks; for doubting the total depravity of the human heart; for laughing at irresistible grace, predestination and particular redemption; for denying that good bread could be made of the body of a dead man; for pretending that the pope was not managing this world for God, and in the place of God; for disputing the efficacy of a vicarious atonement; for thinking the Virgin Mary was born like other people; for thinking that a man's rib was hardly sufficient to make a good-sized woman; for denying that God used his finger for a pen; for asserting that prayers are not answered, that diseases are not sent to punish unbelief; for denying the authority of the bible; for having a bible in their possession; for attending mass, and for refusing to attend; for wearing a surplice; for carrying a cross, and for refusing; for being a Catholic, and for being a Protestant; for being an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, and for being a Quaker. In short, every virtue has been a crime, and every crime a virtue. The Church has burned honesty and rewarded hypocrisy. And all this, because it was commanded by a book—a book that men had been taught implicitly to believe, long before they knew one word that was in it. They had been taught that to doubt the truth of this book—to examine it, even—was a crime of such enormity that it could not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next.
The bible was the real persecutor. The bible burned heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties of men.
How long, O how long will mankind worship a book? How long will they grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past? How long, O how long will they pursue phantoms in a darkness deeper than death?
Unfortunately for the world, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, a man by the name of Gerard Chauvin was married to Jeanne Lefranc, and still more unfortunately for the world, the fruit of this marriage was a son, called John Chauvin, who afterwards became famous as John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church.
#This man forged five fetters for the brain. These fetters he called points. That is to say, predestination, particular redemption, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. About the neck of each follower he put a collar bristling with these five iron points. The presence of all these points on the collar is still the test of orthodoxy in the church he founded. This man, when in the flush of youth, was elected to the office of preacher in Geneva. He at once, in union with Farel, drew up a condensed statement of the Presbyterian doctrine, and all the citizens of Geneva, on pain of banishment, were compelled to take an oath that they believed this statement. Of this proceeding Calvin very innocently remarked that it produced great satisfaction. A man named Caroli had the audacity to dispute with Calvin. For this outrage he was banished.
To show you what great subjects occupied the attention of Calvin, it is only necessary to state that he furiously discussed the question as to whether the sacramental bread should be leavened or unleavened. He drew up laws regulating the cut of the citizens' clothes, and prescribing their diet, and all those whose garments were not in the Calvin fashion were refused the sacrament At last, the people becoming tired of this petty theological tyranny, banished Calvin. In a few years, however, he was recalled and received with great enthusiasm. After this he was supreme, and the will of Calvin became the law of Geneva. Under his benign administration, James Gruet was beheaded because he had written some profane verses. The slightest word against Calvin or his absurd doctrines was punished as a crime. In 1553 a man was tried at Vienne by the Catholic Church for heresy. He was convicted and sentenced to death by burning. It was apparently his good fortune to escape. Pursued by the sleuth hounds of intolerance he fled to Geneva for protection. A dove flying from hawks, sought safety in the nest of a vulture. This fugitive from the cruelty of Rome asked shelter from John Calvin, who had written a book in favor of religious toleration. Servetus had forgotten that this book was written by Calvin when in the minority; that it was written in weakness to be forgotten in power; that it was produced by fear instead of principle. He did not know that Calvin had caused his arrest at Vienne, in France, and had sent a copy of his work, which was claimed to be blasphemous, to the archbishop, He did not then know that the Protestant Calvin was acting as one of the detectives of the Catholic Church, and had been instrumental in procuring his conviction for heresy. Ignorant of all this unspeakable infamy, he put himself in the power of this very Calvin. The maker of the Presbyterian creed caused the fugitive Serve-tus to be arrested for blasphemy. He was tried. Calvin was his accuser. He was convicted and condemned to death by fire. On the morning of the fatal day, Calvin saw him, and Servetus, the victim, asked forgiveness of Calvin, the murderer. Servetus was bound to the stake, and the fagots were lighted. The wind carried the flames somewhat away from his body, so that he slowly roasted for hours. Vainly he implored a speedy death. At last the flames climbed round his form; through smoke and fire his murderers saw a white heroic face. And there they watched until a man became a charred and shriveled mass. Liberty was banished from Geneva, and nothing but Presbyterianism was left. Honor, justice, mercy, reason and charity were all exiled; but the five points of predestination, particular redemption, irresistible grace, total depravity, and the certain perseverance of the saints remained instead.
Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after the Old Testament, and succeeded in erect-ing the most detestable government that ever existed, except the one from which it was copied.
Against all this intolerance, one man, a minister, raised his voice. The name of this man should never be forgotten. It was Castellio. This brave man had the goodness and the courage to declare the innocence of honest error. He was the first of the so-called reformers to take this noble ground. I wish I had the genius to pay a fitting tribute to his memory. Perhaps it would be impossible to pay him a grander compliment than to say, Castellio was in all things the opposite of Calvin. To plead for the right of individual judgment was considered a crime, and Castellio was driven from Geneva by John Calvin. By him he was denounced as a child of the devil, as a dog of Satan, as a beast from hell, and as one who, by this horrid blasphemy of the innocence of honest error, crucified Christ afresh, and by him he was pursued until rescued by the hand of death.
Upon the name of Castellio, Calvin heaped every epithet, until his malice was nearly satisfied and his imagination entirely exhausted. It is impossible to conceive how human nature can become so frightfully perverted as to pursue a fellow man with the malignity of a fiend, simply because he is good, just, and generous Calvin was of a pallid, bloodless complexion, thin, sickly, irritable, gloomy, impatient, egotistic, tyrannical, heartless, and infamous. He was a strange compound of revengeful morality, malicious forgiveness, ferocious charity, egotistic humility, and a kind of hellish justice. In other words, he was as near like the God of the Old Testament as his health permitted.
The best thing, however, about the Presbyterians of Geneva was, that they denied the power of the Pope, and the best thing about the Pope was, that he was not a Presbyterian.
The doctrines of Calvin spread rapidly, and were eagerly accepted by multitudes on the continent; but Scotland, in a few years, became the real fortress of Presbyterianism. The Scotch succeeded in establishing the same kind of theocracy that flourished in Geneva. The clergy took possession and control of everybody and everything. It is impossible to exaggerate the mental degradation, the abject superstition of the people of Scotland during the reign of Presbyterianism. Heretics were hunted and devoured as though they had been wild beasts. The gloomy insanity of Presbyterianism took possession of a great majority of the people. They regarded their ministers as the Jews did Moses and Aaron. They believed that they were the especial agents of God, and that whatsoever they bound in Scotland would be bound in heaven. There was not one particle of intellectual freedom. No man was allowed to differ with the Church, or to even contradict a priest. Had Presbyterianism maintained its ascendency, Scotland would have been peopled by savages to-day.
The revengeful spirit of Calvin took possession of the Puritans, and caused them to redden the soil of the New World with the brave blood of honest men. Clinging to the five points of Calvin, they too established governments in accordance with the teachings of the Old Testament. They too attached the penalty of death to the expression of honest thought. They too believed their church supreme, and exerted all their power to curse this continent with a spiritual despotism as infamous as it was absurd. They believed with Luther that universal toleration is universal error, and universal error is universal hell. Toleration was denounced as a crime.
Fortunately for us, civilization has had a softening effect even upon the Presbyterian Church. To the ennobling influence of the arts and sciences the savage spirit of Calvinism has, in some slight degree, succumbed. True, the old creed remains substantially as it was written, but by a kind of tacit understanding it has come to be regarded as a relic of the past. The cry of "heresy" has been growing fainter and fainter, and, as a consequence, the ministers of that denomination have ventured, now and then, to express doubts as to the damnation of infants, and the doctrine of total depravity. The fact is, the old ideas became a little monotonous to the people. The fall of man, the scheme of redemption and irresistible grace, began to have a familiar sound. The preachers told the old stories while the congregations slept. Some of the ministers became tired of these stories themselves. The five points grew dull, and they felt that nothing short of irresistible grace could bear this endless repetition. The outside world was full of progress, and in every direction men advanced, while this church, anchored to a creed, idly rotted at the shore. Other denominations, imbued some little with the spirit of investigation, were springing up on every side, while the old Presbyterian ark rested on the Ararat of the past, filled with the theological monsters of another age.
Lured by the splendors of the outer world, tempted by the achievements of science, longing to feel the throb and beat of the mighty march of the human race, a few of the ministers of this conservative denomination were compelled, by irresistible sense, to say a few words in harmony with the splendid ideas of to-day.
These utterances have upon several occasions so nearly wakened some of the members that, rubbing their eyes, they have feebly inquired whether these grand ideas were not somewhat heretical. These ministers found that just in the proportion that their orthodoxy decreased, their congregations increased. Those who dealt in the pure unadulterated article found themselves demonstrating the five points to a less number of hearers than they had points. Stung to madness by this bitter truth, this galling contrast, this harassing fact, the really orthodox have raised the cry of heresy, and expect with this cry to seal the lips of honest men. One of the Presbyterian ministers, and one who has been enjoying the luxury of a little honest thought, and the real rapture of expressing it, has already been indicted, and is about to be tried by the Presbytery of Illinois. He is charged—
First. With having neglected to preach that most comforting and consoling truth, the eternal damnation of the soul.
Surely, that man must be a monster who could wish to blot this blessed doctrine out and rob earth's wretched children of this blissful hope!
Who can estimate the misery that has been caused by this most infamous doctrine of eternal punishment? Think of the lives it has blighted—of the tears it has caused—of the agony it has produced. Think of the millions who have been driven to insanity by this most terrible of dogmas. This doctrine renders God the basest and most cruel being in the universe. Compared with him, the most frightful deities of the most barbarous and degraded tribes are miracles of goodness and mercy. There is nothing more degrading than to worship such a god. Lower than this the soul can never sink. If the doctrine of eternal damnation is true, let me share the fate of the unconverted; let me have my portion in hell, rather than in heaven with a god infamous enough to inflict eternal misery upon any of the sons of men.
Second. With having spoken a few kind words of Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill.
I have the honor of a slight acquaintance with Robert Collyer. I have read with pleasure some of his exquisite productions. He has a brain full of the dawn, the head of a philosopher, the imagination of a poet and the sincere heart of a child.
Is a minister to be silenced because he speaks fairly of a noble and candid adversary? Is it a crime to compliment a lover of justice, an advocate of liberty; one who devotes his life to the elevation of man, the discovery of truth, and the promulgation of what he believes to be right?
Can that tongue be palsied by a presbytery that praises a self-denying and heroic life? Is it a sin to speak a charitable word over the grave of John Stuart Mill? Is it heretical to pay a just and graceful tribute to departed worth? Must the true Presbyterian violate the sanctity of the tomb, dig open the grave and ask his God to curse the silent dust? Is Presbyterianism so narrow that it conceives of no excellence, of no purity of intention, of no spiritual and moral grandeur outside of its barbaric creed? Does it still retain within its stony heart all the malice of its founder? Is it still warming its fleshless hands at the flames that consumed Servetus? Does it still glory in the damnation of infants, and does it still persist in emptying the cradle in order that perdition may be filled? Is it still starving the soul and famishing the heart? Is it still trembling and shivering, crouching and crawling before its ignorant Confession of Faith?
Had such men as Robert Collyer and John Stuart Mill been present at the burning of Servetus, they would have extinguished the flames with their tears. Had the presbytery of Chicago been there, they would have quietly turned their backs, solemnly divided their coat tails, and warmed themselves.
Third, With having spoken disparagingly of the doctrine of predestination.
If there is any dogma that ought to be protected by law, predestination is that doctrine. Surely it is a cheerful, joyous thing, to one who is laboring, struggling, and suffering in this weary world, to think that before he existed; before the earth was; before a star had glittered in the heavens; before a ray of light had left the quiver of the sun, his destiny had been irrevocably fixed, and that for an eternity before his birth he had been doomed to bear eternal pain.
Fourth. With failing to preach the efficacy of a "vicarious sacrifice."
Suppose a man had been convicted of murder, and was about to be hanged—the governor acting as the executioner; and suppose that just as the doomed man was about to suffer death some one in the crowd should step forward and say, "I am willing to die in the place of that murderer. He has a family, and I have none." And suppose further, that the governor should reply, "Come forward, young man, your offer is accepted. A murder has been committed and somebody must be hung, and your death will satisfy the law just as well as the death of the murderer." What would you then think of the doctrine of "vicarious sacrifice?"
This doctrine is the consummation of two outrages—forgiving one crime and committing another.
Fifth, With having inculcated a phase of the doctrine commonly known as "evolution," or "development".
The Church believes and teaches the exact opposite of this doctrine. According to the philosophy of theology, man has continued to degenerate for six thousand years. To teach that there is that in nature which impels to higher forms and grander ends, is heresy, of course. The Deity will damn Spencer and his "Evolution," Darwin and his "Origin of Species," Bastian and his "Spontaneous Generation," Huxley and his "Protoplasm" Tyndall and his "Prayer Gauge" and will save those, and those only, who declare that the universe has been cursed, from the smallest atom to the grandest star; that everything tends to evil and to that only, and that the only perfect thing in nature is the Presbyterian Confession of Faith.
Sixth, With having intimated that the reception of Socrates and Penelope at heaven's gate was, to say the least, a trifle more cordial than that of Catharine II.
Penelope, waiting patiently and trustfully for her lord's return, delaying her suitors, while sadly weaving and unweaving the shroud of Laertes, is the most perfect type of wife and woman produced by the civilization of Greece.
Socrates, whose life was above reproach and whose death was beyond all praise, stands to-day, in the estimation of every thoughtful man, at least the peer of Christ.
Catharine II assassinated her husband. Stepping upon his corpse, she mounted the throne. She was the murderess of Prince Iwan, grand nephew of Peter the Great, who was imprisoned for eighteen years, and who during all that time saw the sky but once. Taken all in all, Catharine was probably one of the most intellectual beasts that ever wore a crown.
Catharine, however, was the head of the Greek Church, Socrates was a heretic and Penelope lived and died without having once heard of "particular redemption" or of "irresistible grace."
Seventh, With repudiating the idea of a "call" to the ministry, and pretending that men were "called" to preach as they were to the other avocations of life.
If this doctrine is true, God, to say the least of it, is an exceedingly poor judge of human nature. It is more than a century since a man of true genius has been found in an orthodox pulpit Every minister is heretical just to the extent that his intellect is above, the average. The Lord seems to be satisfied with mediocrity; but the people are not.
An old deacon, wishing to get rid of an unpopular preacher, advised him to give up the ministry and turn his attention to something else. The preacher replied that he could not conscientiously desert the pulpit, as he had had a "call" to the ministry. To which the deacon replied, "That may be so, but it's very unfortunate for you, that when God called you to preach, he forgot to call anybody to hear you."
There is nothing more stupidly egotistic than the claim of the clergy that they are, in some divine sense, set apart to the service of the Lord; that they have been chosen, and sanctified; that there is an infinite difference between them and persons employed in secular affairs. They teach us that all other professions must take care of themselves; that God allows anybody to be a doctor, a lawyer, statesman, soldier, or artist; that the Motts and Coopers—the Mansfields and Marshalls—the Wilberforces and Sumners—the Angelos and Raphaels, were never honored by a "call." They chose their professions and won their laurels without the assistance of the Lord. All these men were left free to follow their own inclinations, while God was busily engaged selecting and "calling" priests, rectors, elders, ministers and exhorters.
Eighth. With having doubted that God was the author of the 109th Psalm.
The portion of that psalm which carries with it the clearest and most satisfactory evidences of inspiration, and which has afforded almost unspeakable consolation to the Presbyterian church, is as follows:
Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.
Let his posterity be cut off: and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
But do thou for me, O God the Lord, for Thy name's sake; because Thy mercy is good, deliver Thou me. * * I will greatly praise the Lord with my mouth.
Think of a God wicked and malicious enough to inspire this prayer. Think of one infamous enough to answer it.
Had this inspired psalm been found in some temple erected for the worship of snakes, or in the possession of some cannibal king, written with blood upon the dried skins of babes, there would have been a perfect harmony between its surroundings and its sentiments.
No wonder that the author of this inspired psalm coldly received Socrates and Penelope, and reserved his sweetest smiles for Catharine the Second.
Ninth. With having said that the battles in which the Israelites engaged, with the approval and command of Jehovah, surpassed in cruelty those of Julius Cæsar.
Was it Julius Cæsar who said, "And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain"?
Did Julius Caesar send the following report to the Roman senate? "And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, three-score cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto. Sihon, king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city."
Did Caesar take the city of Jericho "and utterly destroy all that was in the city, both men and women, young and old"? Did he smite "all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings, and leave none remaining that breathed, as the Lord God had commanded"?
Search the records of the whole world, find out the history of every barbarous tribe, and you cart find no crime that touched a lower depth of infamy than those the bible's God commanded and approved. For such a God I have no words to express my loathing and contempt, and all the words in all the languages of man would scarcely be sufficient. Away with such a God! Give me Jupiter rather, with Io and Europa, or even Siva with his skulls and snakes.
Tenth. With having repudiated the doctrine of "total depravity."
What a precious doctrine is that of the total depravity of the human heart! How sweet it is to believe that the lives of all the good and great were continual sins and perpetual crimes; that the love a mother bears her child is, in the sight of God, a sin; that the gratitude of the natural heart is simple meanness; that the tears of pity are impure; that for the unconverted to live and labor for others is an offense to heaven; that the noblest aspirations of the soul are low and groveling in the sight of God; that man should fall upon his knees and ask forgiveness, simply for loving his wife and child, and that even the act of asking forgiveness is in fact a crime!
Surely it is a kind of bliss to feel that every woman and child in the wide world, with the exception of those who believe the five points, or some other equally cruel creed, and such children as have been baptized, ought at this very moment to be dashed down to the lowest glowing gulf of hell.
Take from the Christian the history of his own church—leave that entirely out of the question—and he has no argument left with which to substantiate the total depravity of man.
Eleventh. With having doubted the "perseverance of the saints."
I suppose the real meaning of this doctrine is, that Presbyterians are just as sure of going to heaven as all other folks are of going to hell. The real idea being, that it all depends upon the will of God, and not upon the character of the person to be damned or saved; that God has the weakness to send Presbyterians to Paradise, and the justice to doom the rest of mankind to eternal fire.
It is admitted that no unconverted brain can see the least particle of sense in this doctrine; that it is abhorrent to all who have not been the recipients of a "new heart;" that only the perfectly good can justify the perfectly infamous.
It is contended that the saints do not persevere of their own free will—that they are entitled to no credit for persevering; but that God forces them to persevere, while on the other hand, every crime is committed in accordance with the secret will of God, who does all things for his own glory.
Compared with this doctrine, there is no other idea, that has ever been believed by man, that can properly be called absurd.
Twelfth, With having spoken and written somewhat lightly of the idea of converting the heathen with doctrinal sermons.
Of all the failures of which we have any history or knowledge, the missionary effort is the most conspicuous. The whole question has been decided here, in our own country, and conclusively settled. We have nearly exterminated the Indians, but we have converted none. From the days of John Eliot to the execution of the last Modoc, not one Indian has been the subject of irresistible grace or particular redemption. The few red men who roam the western wilderness have no thought or care concerning the five points of Calvin. They are utterly oblivious to the great and vital truths contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, the Saybrook platform, and the resolutions of the Evangelical Alliance. No Indian has ever scalped another on account of his religious belief. This of itself shows conclusively that the missionaries have had no effect.
Why should we convert the heathen of China and kill our own? Why should we send missionaries across the seas, and soldiers over the plains? Why should we send bibles to the east and muskets to the west? If it is impossible to convert Indians who have no religion of their own; no prejudice for or against the "eternal procession of the Holy Ghost," how can we expect to convert a heathen who has a religion; who has plenty of gods and bibles and prophets and Christs, and who has a religious literature far grander than our own? Can we hope with the story of Daniel in the lions' den to rival the stupendous miracles of India? Is there anything in our bible as lofty and loving as the prayer of the Buddhist? Compare your "Confession of Faith" with the following: "Never will I seek nor receive private individual salvation—never enter into final peace alone; but forever and everywhere will I live and strive for the universal redemption of every creature throughout all worlds. Until all are delivered, never will I leave the world of sin, sorrow, and struggle, but will remain where I am."
Think of sending an average Presbyterian to convert a man who daily offers this tender, this infinitely generous, this incomparable prayer. Think of reading the 109th Psalm to a heathen who has a bible of his own in which is found this passage: "Blessed is that man and beloved of all the gods, who is afraid of no man, and of whom no man is afraid."
Why should you read even the New Testament to a Hindu, when his own Chrishna has said, "If a man strike thee, and in striking drop his staff, pick it up and hand it to him again"? Why send a Presbyterian to a Sufi, who says, "Better one moment of silent contemplation and inward love, than seventy thousand years of outward worship"? "Whoso would carelessly tread one worm that crawls on earth, that heartless one is darkly alienate from God; but he that, living, embraceth all things in his love, to live with him God bursts all bounds above, below."
Why should we endeavor to thrust our cruel and heartless theology upon one who prays this prayer: "O God, show pity toward the wicked; for on the good thou hast already bestowed thy mercy by having created them virtuous"?
Compare this prayer with the curses and cruelties of the Old Testament—with the infamies commanded and approved by the being whom we are taught to worship as a God—and with the following tender product of Presbyterianism: "It may seem absurd to human wisdom that God should harden, blind, and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that he should first deliver them over to evil, and then condemn them for that evil; but the believing spiritual man sees no absurdity in all this, knowing that God would be never a whit less good even though he should destroy all men."
Of all the religions that have been produced by the egotism, the malice, the ignorance and ambition of man, Presbyterianism is the most hideous.
But what shall I say more, for the time would fail me to tell of Sabellianism, of a "Modal Trinity," and the "Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost"?
Upon these charges, a minister is to be tried, here in Chicago; in this city of pluck and progress—this marvel of energy—this miracle of nerve. The cry of "heresy," here, sounds like a wail from the dark ages—a shriek from the inquisition, or a groan from the grave of Calvin.
Another effort is being made to enslave a man.
It is claimed that every member of the church has solemnly agreed never to outgrow the creed; that he has pledged himself to remain an intellectual dwarf. Upon this condition the church agrees to save his soul, and he hands over his brains to bind the bargain. Should a fact be found inconsistent with the creed, he binds himself to deny the fact and curse the finder. With scraps of dogmas and crumbs of doctrine, he agrees that his soul shall be satisfied forever. What an intellectual feast the Confession of Faith must be! It reminds one of the dinner described by Sydney Smith, where everything was cold except the water, and everything sour except the vinegar.
Every member of a church promises to remain orthodox, that is to say—stationary. Growth is heresy. Orthodox ideas are the feathers that have been moulted by the eagle of progress. They are the dead leaves under the majestic palm, while heresy is the bud and blossom at the top.
Imagine a vine that grows at one end and decays at the other. The end that grows is heresy, the end that rots is orthodox. The dead are orthodox, and your cemetery is the most perfect type of a well regulated church. No thought, no progress, no heresy there. Slowly and silently, side by side, the satisfied members peacefully decay. There is only this difference—the dead do not persecute.
And what does a trial for heresy mean? It means that the Church says to a heretic, "Believe as I do, or I will withdraw my support. I will not employ you. I will pursue you until your garments are rags; until your children cry for bread; until your cheeks are furrowed with tears. I will hunt you to the very portals of the tomb, and then my God will do the rest I will not imprison you. I will not burn you. The law prevents my doing that. I helped make the law, not however to protect you, nor to deprive me of the right to exterminate you; but in order to keep other churches from exterminating me."
A trial for heresy means that the spirit of persecution still lingers in the Church; that it still denies the right of private judgment; that it still thinks more of creed than truth, and that it is still determined to prevent the intellectual growth of man. It means that churches are shambles in which are bought and sold the souls of men. It means that the Church is still guilty of the barbarity of opposing thought with force. It means that if it had the power, the mental horizon would be bounded by a creed; that it would bring again the whips and chains and dungeon keys, the rack and fagot of the past But let me tell the Church it lacks the power. There have been, and still are, too many men who own themselves—too much thought, too much knowledge for the Church to grasp again the sword of power. The Church must abdicate. For the Eglon of superstition Science has a message from Truth.
The heretics have not thought and suffered and died in vain. Every heretic has been, and is, a ray of light Not in vain did Voltaire, that great man, point from the foot of the Alps the finger of scorn at every hypocrite in Europe. Not in vain were the splendid utterances of the infidels, while beyond all price are the discoveries of science.
The Church has impeded, but it has not and it cannot stop the onward march of the human race. Heresy cannot be burned, nor imprisoned, nor starved. It laughs at presbyteries and synods, at ecumenical councils and the impotent thunders of Sinai. Heresy is the eternal dawn, the morning star, the glittering herald of the day. Heresy is the last and best thought. It is the perpetual New World, the unknown sea, toward which the brave all sail. It is the eternal horizon of progress.
Heresy extends the hospitalities of the brain to a new thought.
Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy, a coffin.
Why should man be afraid to think, and why should he fear to express his thoughts?
Is it possible that an infinite Deity is unwilling that a man should investigate the phenomena by which he is surrounded? Is it possible that a god delights in threatening and terrifying men? What glory, what honor and renown a god must win on such a field! The ocean raving at a drop; a star envious of a candle; the sun jealous of a fire-fly.
Go on, presbyteries and synods, go on! Thrust the heretics out of the Church—that is to say, throw away your brains,—put out your eyes. The infidels will thank you. They are willing to adopt your exiles. Every deserter from your camp is a recruit for the army of progress. Cling to the ignorant dogmas of the past; read the 109th Psalm; gloat over the slaughter of mothers and babes; thank God for total depravity; shower your honors upon hypocrites, and silence every minister who is touched with that heresy called genius.
Be true to your history. Turn out the astronomers, the geologists, the naturalists, the chemists, and all the honest scientists. With a whip of scorpions, drive them all out. We want them all. Keep the ignorant, the superstitious, the bigoted, and the writers of charges and specifications.
Keep them, and keep them all. Repeat your pious platitudes in the drowsy ears of the faithful, and read your bible to heretics, as kings read some forgotten riot-act to stop and stay the waves of revolution. You are too weak to excite anger. We forgive your efforts as the sun forgives a cloud—as the air forgives the breath you waste.
How long, O how long, will man listen to the threats of God, and shut his eyes to the splendid possibilities of Nature? How long, O how long will man remain the cringing slave of a false and cruel creed?
By this time the whole world should know that the real bible has not yet been written, but is being written, and that it will never be finished until the race begins its downward march, or ceases to exist.
The real bible is not the work of inspired men, nor prophets, nor apostles, nor evangelists, nor of Christs. Every man who finds a fact, adds, as it were, a word to this great book. It is not attested by prophecy, by miracles or signs. It makes no appeal to faith, to ignorance, to credulity or fear. It has no punishment for unbelief, and no reward for hypocrisy. It appeals to man in the name of demonstration. It has nothing to conceal. It has no fear of being read, of being contradicted, of being investigated and understood. It does not pretend to be holy, or sacred; it simply claims to be true. It challenges the scrutiny of all, and implores every reader to verify every line for himself. It is incapable of being blasphemed. This book appeals to all the surroundings of man. Each thing that exists testifies of its perfection. The earth, with its heart of fire and crowns of snow; with its forests and plains, its rocks and seas; with its every wave and cloud; with its every leaf and bud and flower, confirms its every word, and the solemn stars, shining in the infinite abysses, are the eternal witnesses of it's truth.
Twitter:@AndrewNandip
www.thetarokthinker.org

Sunday, 19 July 2015

WHO WROTE THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE? By Robert Green

THE NEW TESTAMENT
WHO wrote the New Testament?

Christian scholars admit that they do not know. They admit that, if the four gospels were written by-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they must have been written in Hebrew. And yet a Hebrew manuscript of any one of these gospels has never been found. All have been and are in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles—in James and Jude—no reference is made to any of the gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them.
The first mention that has been found of one of our gospels was made about one hundred and eighty years after the birth of Christ, and the four gospels were first named and quoted from at the beginning of the Third Century, about one hundred and seventy years after the death of Christ.
We now know that there were many other gospels besides our four, some of which have been lost. There were the gospels of Paul, of the Egyptians, of the Hebrews, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of Thomas, of Mary, of Andrew, of Nicodemus, of Marcion and several others.
So there were the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla and of many others. Another book called the Shepherd of Hermes.
At first not one of all the books was considered as inspired. The Old Testament was regarded as divine; but the books that now constitute the New Testament were regarded as human productions. We now know that we do not know who wrote the four gospels.
The question is, Were the authors of these four gospels inspired?
If they were inspired, then the four gospels must be true. If they are true, they must agree.
The four gospels do not agree.
Matthew, Mark and Luke knew nothing of the Atonement, nothing of salvation by faith. They knew only the gospel of good deeds—of charity. They teach that if we forgive others God will forgive us.
With this the gospel of John does not agree.
In that gospel we are taught that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; that we must be born again; that we must drink the blood and eat the flesh of Christ. In this gospel we find the doctrine of the Atonement and that Christ died for us and suffered in our place.
This gospel is utterly at variance with the other three. If the other three are true, the gospel of John is false. If the gospel of John was written by an inspired man, the writers of the other three were uninspired. From this there is no possible escape. The four cannot be true.
It is evident that there are many interpolations in the four gospels.
For instance, in the 28th chapter of Matthew is an account to the effect that the soldiers at the tomb of Christ were bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus stole away his body while they, the soldiers, slept.
This is clearly an interpolation. It is a break in the narrative.
The 10th verse should be followed by the 16th. The 10th verse is as follows:
"Then Jesus said unto them, 'Be not afraid; go tell my brethren that they go unto Galilee and there shall they see me.'"
The 16th verse:
"Then the eleven disciples went away unto Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them."
The story about the soldiers contained in the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th verses is an interpolation—an afterthought—long after. The 15th verse demonstrates this.
Fifteenth verse: "So they took the money and did as they were taught. And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
Certainly, this account was not in the original gospel, and certainly the 15th verse was not written by a Jew. No Jew could have written this: "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day."
Mark, John and Luke never heard that the soldiers had been bribed by the priests; or, if they had, did not think it worth while recording. So the accounts of the Ascension of Jesus Christ in Mark and Luke are interpolations. Matthew says nothing about the Ascension.
Certainly there never was a greater miracle, and yet Matthew, who was present—who saw the Lord rise, ascend and disappear—did not think it worth mentioning.
On the other hand, the last words of Christ, according to Matthew, contradict the Ascension: "Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
John, who was present, if Christ really ascended, says not one word on the subject.
As to the Ascension, the gospels do not agree.
Mark gives the last conversation that Christ had with his disciples, as follows:
"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. So, then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven and sat on the right hand of God."
Is it possible that this description was written by one who witnessed this miracle?
This miracle is described by Luke as follows: "And it came to pass while he blessed them he was parted from them and carried up into heaven."
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
In the Acts we are told that: "When he had spoken, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight."
Neither Luke, nor Matthew, nor John, nor the writer of the Acts, heard one word of the conversation attributed to Christ by Mark. The fact is that the Ascension of Christ was not claimed by his disciples.
At first Christ was a man—nothing more. Mary was his mother, Joseph his father. The genealogy of his father, Joseph, was given to show that he was of the blood of David.
Then the claim was made that he was the son of God, and that his mother was a virgin, and that she remained a virgin until her death.
Then the claim was made that Christ rose from the dead and ascended bodily to heaven.
It required many years for these absurdities to take possession of the minds of men.
If Christ rose from the dead, why did he not appear to his enemies? Why did he not call on Caiphas, the high priest? Why did he not make another triumphal entry into Jerusalem?
If he really ascended, why did he not do so in public, in the presence of his persecutors? Why should this, the greatest of miracles, be done in secret in a corner?
It was a miracle that could have been seen by a vast multitude—a miracle that could not be simulated—one that would have convinced hundreds of thousands.
After the story of the Resurrection, the Ascension became a necessity. They had to dispose of the body.
So there are many other interpolations in the gospels and epistles.
Again I ask: Is the New Testament true? Does anybody now believe that at the birth of Christ there was a celestial greeting; that a star led the Wise Men of the East; that Herod slew the babes of Bethlehem of two years old and under?
The gospels are filled with accounts of miracles. Were they ever performed?
Matthew gives the particulars of about twenty-two miracles, Mark of about nineteen, Luke of about eighteen and John of about seven.
According to the gospels, Christ healed diseases, cast out devils, rebuked the sea, cured the blind, fed multitudes with five loaves and two fishes, walked on the sea, cursed a fig tree, turned water into wine and raised the dead.
Matthew is the only one that tells about the Star and the Wise Men—the only one that tells about the murder of babes.
John is the only one who says anything about the resurrection of Lazarus, and Luke is the only one giving an account of the raising from the dead the widow of Nain's son.
How is it possible to substantiate these miracles?
The Jews, among whom they were said to have been performed, did not believe them. The diseased, the palsied, the leprous, the blind who were cured, did not become followers of Christ. Those that were raised from the dead were never heard of again.
Does any intelligent man believe in the existence of devils? The writer of three of the gospels certainly did. John says nothing about Christ having cast out devils, but Matthew, Mark and Luke give many instances.
Does any natural man now believe that Christ cast out devils? If his disciples said he did, they were mistaken. If Christ said he did, he was insane or an impostor.
If the accounts of casting out devils are false, then the writers were ignorant or dishonest. If they wrote through ignorance, then they were not inspired. If they wrote what they knew to be false, they were not inspired. If what they wrote is untrue, whether they knew it or not, they were not inspired.
At that time it was believed that palsy, epilepsy, deafness, insanity and many other diseases were caused by devils; that devils took possession of and lived in the bodies of men and women. Christ believed this, taught this belief to others, and pretended to cure diseases by casting devils out of the sick and insane. We know now, if we know anything, that diseases are not caused by the presence of devils. We know, if we know anything, that devils do not reside in the bodies of men.
If Christ said and did what the writers of the three gospels say he said and did, then Christ was mistaken. If he was mistaken, certainly he was not God. And, if he was mistaken, certainly he was not inspired.
Is it a fact that the Devil tried to bribe Christ?
Is it a fact that the Devil carried Christ to the top of the temple and tried to induce him to leap to the ground?
How can these miracles be established?
The principals have written nothing, Christ has written nothing, and the Devil has remained silent.
How can we know that the Devil tried to bribe Christ? Who wrote the account? We do not know. How did the writer get his information? We do not know.
Somebody, some seventeen hundred years ago, said that the Devil tried to bribe God; that the Devil carried God to the top of the temple and tried to induce him to leap to the earth and that God was intellectually too keen for the Devil.
This is all the evidence we have.
Is there anything in the literature of the world more perfectly idiotic?
Intelligent people no longer believe in witches, wizards, spooks and devils, and they are perfectly satisfied that every word in the New Testament about casting out devils is utterly false.
Can we believe that Christ raised the dead?
A widow living in Nain is following the body of her son to the tomb. Christ halts the funeral procession and raises the young man from the dead and gives him back to the arms of his mother.
This young man disappears. He is never heard of again. No one takes the slightest interest in the man who returned from the realm of death. Luke is the only one who tells the story. Maybe Matthew, Mark and John never heard of it, or did not believe it and so failed to record it.
John says that Lazarus was raised from the dead; Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it.
It was more wonderful than the raising of the widow's son. He had not been laid in the tomb for days. He was only on his way to the grave, but Lazarus was actually dead. He had begun to decay.
Lazarus did not excite the least interest. No one asked him about the other world. No one inquired of him about their dead friends.
When he died the second time no one said: "He is not afraid. He has traveled that road twice and knows just where he is going."
We do not believe in the miracles of Mohammed, and yet they are as well attested as this. We have no confidence in the miracles performed by Joseph Smith, and yet the evidence is far greater, far better.
If a man should go about now pretending to raise the dead, pretending to cast out devils, we would regard him as insane. What, then, can we say of Christ? If we wish to save his reputation we are compelled to say that he never pretended to raise the dead; that he never claimed to have cast out devils.
We must take the ground that these ignorant and impossible things were invented by zealous disciples, who sought to deify their leader.
In those ignorant days these falsehoods added to the fame of Christ. But now they put his character in peril and belittle the authors of the gospels.
Can we now believe that water was changed into wine? John tells of this childish miracle, and says that the other disciples were present, yet Matthew, Mark and Luke say nothing about it.
Take the miracle of the man cured by the pool of Bethseda. John says that an angel troubled the waters of the pool of Bethseda, and that whoever got into the pool first after the waters were troubled was healed.
Does anybody now believe that an angel went into the pool and troubled the waters? Does anybody now think that the poor wretch who got in first was healed? Yet the author of the gospel according to John believed and asserted these absurdities. If he was mistaken about that he may have been about all the miracles he records.
John is the only one who tells about this pool of Bethseda. Possibly the other disciples did not believe the story.
How can we account for these pretended miracles?
In the days of the disciples, and for many centuries after, the world was filled with the supernatural. Nearly everything that happened was regarded as miraculous. God was the immediate governor of the world. If the people were good, God sent seed time and harvest; but if they were bad he sent flood and hail, frost and famine. If anything wonderful happened it was exaggerated until it became a miracle.
Of the order of events—of the unbroken and the unbreakable chain of causes and effects—the people had no knowledge and no thought.
A miracle is the badge and brand of fraud. No miracle ever was performed. No intelligent, honest man ever pretended to perform a miracle, and never will.
If Christ had wrought the miracles attributed to him; if he had cured the palsied and insane; if he had given hearing to the deaf, vision to the blind; if he had cleansed the leper with a word, and with a touch had given life and feeling to the withered limb; if he had given pulse and motion, warmth and thought, to cold and breathless clay; if he had conquered death and rescued from the grave its pallid prey—no word would have been uttered, no hand raised, except in praise and honor. In his presence all heads would have been uncovered—all knees upon the ground.
Is it not strange that at the trial of Christ no one was found to say a word in his favor? No man stood forth and said: "I was a leper, and this man cured me with a touch." No woman said: "I am the widow of Nain and this is my son whom this man raised from the dead."
No man said: "I was blind, and this man gave me sight."
All silent.





THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHRIST
MILLIONS assert that the philosophy of Christ is perfect—that he was the wisest that ever uttered speech.
Let us see:
Resist not evil. If smitten on one cheek turn the other.
Is there any philosophy, any wisdom in this? Christ takes from goodness, from virtue, from the truth, the right of self-defense. Vice becomes the master of the world, and the good become the victims of the infamous.
No man has the right to protect himself, his property, his wife and children. Government becomes impossible, and the world is at the mercy of criminals. Is there any absurdity beyond this?
Love your enemies.
Is this possible? Did any human being ever love his enemies? Did Christ love his, when he denounced them as whited sepulchers, hypocrites and vipers?
We cannot love those who hate us. Hatred in the hearts of others does not breed love in ours. Not to resist evil is absurd; to love your enemies is impossible.
Take no thought for the morrow.
The idea was that God would take care of us as he did of sparrows and lilies. Is there the least sense in that belief?
Does God take care of anybody?
Can we live without taking thought for the morrow? To plow, to sow, to cultivate, to harvest, is to take thought for the morrow. We plan and work for the future, for our children, for the unborn generations to come. Without this forethought there could be no progress, no civilization. The world would go back to the caves and dens of savagery.
If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off.
Why? Because it is better that one of our members should perish than that the whole body should be cast into hell.
Is there any wisdom in putting out your eyes or cutting off your hands? Is it possible to extract from these extravagant sayings the smallest grain of common sense?
Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by the Earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city.
Here we find the astronomy and geology of Christ. Heaven is the throne of God, the monarch; the earth is his footstool. A footstool that turns over at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, and sweeps through space at the rate of over a thousand miles a minute!
Where did Christ think heaven was? Why was Jerusalem a holy city? Was it because the inhabitants were ignorant, cruel and superstitious?
If a man sue thee at law and take away your coat, give him your cloak also.
Is there any philosophy, any good sense, in that commandment? Would it not be just as sensible to say: "If a man obtains a judgment against you for one hundred dollars, give him two hundred."
Only the insane could give or follow this advice.
Think not I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother.
If this is true, how much better it would have been had he remained away.
Is it possible that he who said, "Resist not evil," came to bring a sword? That he who said, "Love your enemies," came to destroy the peace of the world?
To set father against son, and daughter against father—what a glorious mission!
He did bring a sword, and the sword was wet for a thousand years with innocent blood. In millions of hearts he sowed the seeds of hatred and revenge. He divided nations and families, put out the light of reason, and petrified the hearts of men.
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
According to the writer of Matthew, Christ, the compassionate, the merciful, uttered these terrible words. Is it possible that Christ offered the bribe of eternal joy to those who would desert their fathers, their mothers, their wives and children? Are we to win the happiness of heaven by deserting the ones we love? Is a home to be ruined here for the sake of a mansion there?
And yet it is said that Christ is an example for all the world. Did he desert his father and mother? He said, speaking to his mother: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
The Pharisees said unto Christ: "Is it lawful to pay tribute unto Caesar?"
Christ said: "Show me the tribute money." They brought him a penny. And he saith unto them: "Whose is the image and the superscription?" They said: "Caesar's." And Christ said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
Did Christ think that the money belonged to Caesar because his image and superscription were stamped upon it? Did the penny belong to Caesar or to the man who had earned it? Had Caesar the right to demand it because it was adorned with his image?
Does it appear from this conversation that Christ understood the real nature and use of money?
Can we now say that Christ was the greatest of philosophers?




IS CHRIST OUR EXAMPLE?
HE never said a word in favor of education. He never even hinted at the existence of any science. He never uttered a word in favor of industry, economy or of any effort to better our condition in this world. He was the enemy of the successful, of the wealthy. Dives was sent to hell, not because he was bad, but because he was rich. Lazarus went to heaven, not because he was good, but because he was poor.
Christ cared nothing for painting, for sculpture, for music—nothing for any art. He said nothing about the duties of nation to nation, of king to subject; nothing about the rights of man; nothing about intellectual liberty or the freedom of speech. He said nothing about the sacredness of home; not one word for the fireside; not a word in favor of marriage, in honor of maternity.
He never married. He wandered homeless from place to place with a few disciples. None of them seem to have been engaged in any useful business, and they seem to have lived on alms.
All human ties were held in contempt; this world was sacrificed for the next; all human effort was discouraged. God would support and protect.
At last, in the dusk of death, Christ, finding that he was mistaken, cried out: "My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?"
We have found that man must depend on himself. He must clear the land; he must build the home; he must plow and plant; he must invent; he must work with hand and brain; he must overcome the difficulties and obstructions; he must conquer and enslave the forces of nature to the end that they may do the work of the world.





WHY SHOULD WE PLACE CHRIST AT THE TOP AND SUMMIT OF THE HUMAN RACE?
WAS he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more perfect calmness, than Socrates? Was he more patient, more charitable, than Epictetus? Was he a greater philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what respect was he the superior of Zoroaster? Was he gentler than Laotse, more universal than Confucius? Were his ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno? Did he express grander truths than Cicero? Was his mind subtler than Spinoza's? Was his brain equal to Kepler's or Newton's? Was he grander in death—a sublimer martyr than Bruno? Was he in intelligence, in the force and beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes and fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race?
If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future.
Before him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with pain. He knew that his church would invent and use instruments of torture; that his followers would appeal to whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of the future lurid with the flames of the auto-da-fê. He knew what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain. He heard the groans—saw the faces white with agony. He heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of the teachings attributed to him.
He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He saw all wars that would be waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross.
He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned—that cruelty and credulity would rule the world; knew that liberty would perish from the earth; knew that popes and kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of men; knew that they would persecute and destroy the discoverers, thinkers and inventors; knew that his church would extinguish reason's holy light and leave the world without a star.
He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flaying them alive, cutting out their tongues, searching for all the nerves of pain.
He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women's breasts unbabed for gold.
And yet he died with voiceless lips.
Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: "You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men."
Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God?" Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?
Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?
I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know.





INSPIRATION.
NOT before about the Third Century was it claimed or believed that the books composing the New Testament were inspired.
It will be remembered that there were a great number of books, of Gospels, Epistles and Acts, and that from these the "inspired" ones were selected by "uninspired" men.
Between the "Fathers" there were great differences of opinion as to which books were inspired; much discussion and plenty of hatred. Many of the books now deemed spurious were by many of the "Fathers" regarded as divine, and some now regarded as inspired were believed to be spurious. Many of the early Christians and some of the "Fathers" repudiated the gospel of John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jude, James, Peter, and the Revelation of St. John. On the other hand, many of them regarded the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, the Preaching of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabus, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Gospel of Nicodemus, inspired books, equal to the very best.
From all these books, and many others, the Christians selected the inspired ones.
The men who did the selecting were ignorant and superstitious. They were firm believers in the miraculous. They thought that diseases had been cured by the aprons and handkerchiefs of the apostles, by the bones of the dead. They believed in the fable of the Phoenix, and that the hyenas changed their sex every year.
Were the men who through many centuries made the selections inspired? Were they—ignorant, credulous, stupid and malicious—as well qualified to judge of "inspiration" as the students of our time? How are we bound by their opinion? Have we not the right to judge for ourselves?
Erasmus, one of the leaders of the Reformation, declared that the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul, and he denied the inspiration of Second and Third John, and also of Revelation. Luther was of the same opinion. He declared James to be an epistle of straw, and denied the inspiration of Revelations. Zwinglius rejected the book of Revelation, and even Calvin denied that Paul was the author of Hebrews.
The truth is that the Protestants did not agree as to what books are inspired until 1647, by the Assembly of Westminster.
To prove that a book is inspired you must prove the existence of God. You must also prove that this God thinks, acts, has objects, ends and aims. This is somewhat difficult.
It is impossible to conceive of an infinite being. Having no conception of an infinite being, it is impossible to tell whether all the facts we know tend to prove or disprove the existence of such a being.
God is a guess. If the existence of God is admitted, how are we to prove that he inspired the writers of the books of the Bible?
How can one man establish the inspiration of another? How can an inspired man prove that he is inspired? How can he know himself that he is inspired? There is no way to prove the fact of inspiration. The only evidence is the word of some man who could by no possibility know anything on the subject.
What is inspiration? Did God use men as instruments? Did he cause them to write his thoughts? Did he take possession of their minds and destroy their wills?
Were these writers only partly controlled, so that their mistakes, their ignorance and their prejudices were mingled with the wisdom of God?
How are we to separate the mistakes of man from the thoughts of God? Can we do this without being inspired ourselves? If the original writers were inspired, then the translators should have been, and so should be the men who tell us what the Bible means.
How is it possible for a human being to know that he is inspired by an infinite being? But of one thing we may be certain: An inspired book should certainly excel all the books produced by uninspired men. It should, above all, be true, filled with wisdom, blossoming in beauty—perfect.
Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.
I will tell them:
This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man.
This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants—the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book founded the inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane.
This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns—with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another—to waste this world for the sake of the next.
I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty—the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress.
Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?





THE REAL BIBLE
FOR thousands of years men have been writing the real Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy, of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination's world, the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light and shade, the marvellous marbles that seem to live and breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed sea.
All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life—all that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain—all just and perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all thoughts that feed the flames of love, the music that transfigures, enraptures and enthralls, the victories of heart and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother-love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth, of all the best that all the men and women of the world have said, and thought and done through all the years.
These treasures of the heart and brain—these are the Sacred Scriptures of the human race.

Twitter:@AndrewNandip
www.thetarokthinker.org

Saturday, 18 July 2015

PROPHET MUHAMMAD WAS A LEADER OF A SECRET SOCIETY AND LATER ASSUMED THE POSITION OF A PROPHET! Nandip


I.—EARLY LIFE.
Mohammed was born in Mecca, a town in Arabia, about seventy miles inland from the Red Sea. His father, who died 570 A.D., a few months before the child was born, was a member of the Banu Hashim clan. His family, although well connected, was a humble one, possessing but little wealth. On the death of his mother some six years later, the child was taken by his grandfather, 'ABD-EL-MUTTALIB, who took care of him for two years. Then he was adopted by his uncle, ABU TALIB, who employed him to look after his flocks and herds.
From his earliest years, Mohammed must have been brought into contact with the religious life of Mecca, for his grandfather was custodian of the Kaaba, or temple, and would frequently take the boy with him on his official visits to the place. The numerous images of the gods set up in the temple would be familiar objects to the future prophet, whose iconoclastic zeal was eventually to bring about their destruction. His lonely shepherd life favoured the cultivation of the contemplative habits of his manhood, and played no unimportant part in the development of those characteristics which eminently fitted him for the life he was to lead. Nature had endowed him with the essential abilities of a commander of men, and his early environment provided a training that enabled him to exercise those gifts most advantageously.
The population of Arabia at this time consisted of numerous independent nomadic tribes, who were often at enmity one with another. Political unity there was none, while each tribe had its own patron, or god, which was considered to be responsible for everything concerning the tribe's welfare. Where tribes were united, or at peace, there the individual gods were supposed to be friendly. Even in Mecca, which for many years had been occupied by a settled community, there was no political or judicial organisation. The existing order was maintained by a form of patriarchal government, under which system it was possible for the head of a tribe or clan, to protect the life of any individual he chose to befriend.
The religious beliefs and customs were evidently gross materialistic corruptions of what had once been a purely spiritual worship. Mohammed had been preceded by men who had from time to time, in spite of the moral and intellectual darkness, been so endowed with spiritual perception as to recognise and bewail the hollowness and degradation of the Pagan system. Some, indeed, had been conscientious enough to utter words of condemnation; others had gone so far as to despise and ridicule its claims. So that when Mohammed was born the people were in a condition of religious uncertainty. Many elements contributed to this unrest. Travellers learned that the more prosperous nations had rejected the age long sanctions of Paganism; earnest, thoughtful men could not but recognise its inadequacy to satisfy the religious aspirations of their fellows; Jews and Christians, who had settled in the country, had introduced views that appealed to those who were dissatisfied with the old methods of thought; while the need for social and political unity called for a force that would unite the scattered tribes in the pursuit of common ideals. Thus was the land prepared for the mighty revolution that was to come—a revolution that made one great nation of the various tribes, and turned their warlike instincts and characteristic fanaticism, which before had been dissipated by wasteful internecine strife, into one definite channel, until it became a menace to the whole world. A change so potent, that, in the lifetime of one man, it was able to obliterate partly by absorption, and chiefly by annihilation, the sanctions and beliefs of centuries, and which fostered a hatred so bitter, and a brotherhood so strong, between man and man, that by its sanction the dearest, tenderest, and strongest ties of humanity have been broken, while those who for years had lived in enmity were united in bonds stronger than death. Under its malevolent influence, children have ruthlessly slain their parents, believing that thus would they merit heaven. And men of different race have fought side by side under one banner, hurling themselves with fanatical heroism upon their enemies, believing that to die in such a way meant the winning of an immortal crown.
During his boyhood, Mohammed had plenty of opportunities for observing the condition of affairs, and, thanks to his privilege of travelling with the caravans, was even able to notice the contrast between the conditions of his own people and those of the more peaceable, prosperous nations. He frequently attended upon his uncle in the fighting that often occurred between the tribes, and so gained the knowledge of military strategy which proved to be so useful at a later time. Margoliouth suggests that the two most important lessons the "prophet" learned at this time were the necessity of settling affairs of blood by some expedient less wasteful, and more satisfactory than that which was illustrated by the war of Fizar, and that war should be regarded not as a game, but as a mode of obtaining decisive results.
The varied experiences he passed through on his caravan journeys did much to influence his future policy; indeed, it appears that all influences brought to bear upon his early life were forces that moulded and equipped him for the office he was to fill. He was keenly observant, and wonderfully accurate in his inferences, especially in his estimate of the characters of men with whom he had to deal. He seemed to lack initiative, for he was always reluctant to take action in any important undertaking; but once the initial step was taken, he pressed forward with indomitable courage. In his business transactions he proved himself to be shrewd and tactful, and by his fidelity, patience, and self-confidence, gained the respect and esteem of his immediate fellows.
Khadijah, a rich widow, having entrusted Mohammed with the control of an important caravan, and finding how admirably he had performed his part, wisely concluded that her interests would be furthered if he had a share in them. Hence their marriage, which happy arrangement proved to be mutually blessed and successful. It vastly improved Mohammed's social standing, raising him to a position of equality with the leading men of the city. For many years he was content to live quietly as an ordinary citizen, engrossed in the accumulation of wealth by legitimate trading.
II.—THE "CALL" TO THE PROPHETIC OFFICE.
It has not been recorded how first he began to yield to the impulses that eventually led him to assume the role of reformer, but it is certain that at the age of forty he was the leader of a secret society, which had for its object the political and religious unity of the Arab people. He knew that far-reaching changes were necessary in every department of national policy before his ideal could be realised. Unity was the secret of power and prosperity. This he had learned through contact with other nations. His dealing with Jews and Christians had given rise to a deep appreciation of the value of a monotheistic faith in the consolidation of a people, and he was convinced that political unity would be achieved only where there was religious unity. With masterly insight he laid his plans accordingly, and because of the extreme conservatism was obliged to formulate them in strict secrecy. Unfortunately, owing to his untrustworthy sources of information, his policy was founded upon false bases. His distorted conception of truth led him to establish a system of false philosophy and theology so framed as to allow of no alteration or adaptation. In his elaboration of the system, he depended much upon his own meditative habits, and no doubt thought it all out in the loneliness of the mountains, to which he frequently retired for the observance of certain ascetic customs of the Pagans. Thus his scheme of reform crystallised into definite shape, and his call to the prophetic office became a fixed idea.
He felt certain that success lay in the determined proclamation of one god as opposed to the many of the Arab pantheon, and the more he pondered over this Being, of whom he had heard from the Jews and Christians, the greater became his certainty. God was supreme and omnipotent; of that there could be no doubt. But how to convince the people was a difficulty that needed much careful thought and cautious propagation. Jews and Christians could boast of prophets—of men inspired to speak with the voice of God—but the Arabs had had no one who had spoken with such authority. Why had they been so neglected? Surely they needed to hear the Divine voice, and that need was never greater than now, when all was unrest and dissention. Where was the man who would fill the office? Who would be willing to face the odds, and declare against evil by proclaiming the good and the true? Such must have been the questions that exercised Mohammed's mind. Then came the thought—"Why should not I be the messenger?" And this so grew upon him that he was convinced of his "call." The possession of this idea made him sincere in his purpose at first, but after the tide had turned in his favour, that sincerity was marred—nay, eclipsed—by an inflated notion of self-importance, and a consuming ambition to which every virtue and good feeling was subordinated, until at last he was able, with superb arrogance, to bracket his name with Deity, making the confession of his claim as important as the confession of the Unity of God. Wherein his inconsistency and falsity is chiefly apparent, for confession of Unity is insufficient without recognition of Mohammed's apostleship!
Ascetic practices tend to lead to physical disorders, which generally upset the mind and lead to mental and moral distemper. Judgment is warped because the functions of the mind are thrown out of gear. The varied departments of consciousness act with ungoverned caprice, with the result that fantastical fancies and visions are interpreted to be realties, which become misleading and deceptive. Thus may be explained the visit of the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed, but it can hardly be conceived that it will account for the ingenious method of revelation which he received. Some people believe it to have been inspired by Satan; it must ever remain a matter of speculation.
The necessity of a piecemeal revelation could not at this time have been apparent to the prophet. But we may give him the credit of the policy of abrogation which he afterwards adopted, for such a policy was necessary to enable him to cover or justify his actions which, like those of even the best of men, were marked by inconsistency.
III.—BIRTH OF THE ISLAMIC SOCIETY.
Being firmly convinced of his call, Mohammed, with characteristic caution, began to propagate his principles, for years being content to deal secretly with individuals, beginning with those of his own household. His wife acknowledged and encouraged his claim, and gradually he gathered around him an increasing circle of devoted followers, some of whom had more confidence in him and his pretensions than he had himself. This was particularly true of ABU BAKR, a rich and popular merchant of Mecca, who, having acknowledged the claims of the prophet, followed him with implicit obedience and unwavering devotion. He threw himself whole-heartedly into the work of proselytising, and the progress of early days, although slow, was largely due to his indefatigable energy.
As the membership of the new society increased, rules were framed, based upon the "revelations" which Mohammed now periodically received, and each member was compelled to subscribe to the most stringent regulations. Idolatry was strongly condemned and the unity of God emphatically asserted. Certain Jewish and Christian religious ordinances were imposed as a condition of membership, while unswerving loyalty to the prophet was demanded. License was given to the members to practice outwardly the old rites and ceremonies of Paganism, in order to arouse no suspicion, but the existence of such a society, in spite of all precautions, could not long remain unnoticed, and the time came when the prophet and his followers were compelled to make public confession of their faith. Persecution followed, in which the poorer members suffered more than their richer brethren. Mohammed himself received the protection of the head of his clan, and for eight or ten years carried on a campaign of words. Margoliouth, in his life of Mohammed, likens the prophet to a player in a game of cards, who, having received a good hand, plays his cards with consummate skill. He took advantage of every opportunity in strengthening his position, and having a clear-cut policy before him, subordinated everything to its furtherance. He was a powerful preacher, but owing to his ungovernable temper, was not so successful in debate; hence he produced a "revelation" forbidding him to engage in public controversy! He showed great diligence in seeking information that enabled him to produce his revelations in a style consistent with his claims. Being entirely dependent on hearsay, he obtained but a sadly distorted account of truth. The Koran is full of glaring errors, which, for centuries, have baffled the ingenuity of the Moslem doctors. Yet the prophet presumptuously claimed that his, being the last "revelation," was the most important, and more reliable, and the differences that were apparent were due to the corruption in time of the text of the former "revelations"—i.e., the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures!
He was evidently much perplexed by the divisions and controversies that existed within the Christian Church, and considered that the images and pictures then in use were little better than the idols of his own people. With no means of testing and verifying his knowledge, he accepted all that tended to enhance his own position, and his chief regret seems to have been his inability, in reply to the taunts of his enemies, to point to any element of the miraculous in his career. In the revelations, he frequently expressed views and opinions which flatly contradicted what he had formerly stated, and when challenged as to his inconsistency, defended it by claiming that it was not he who had changed his mind, but God, whose ways no man could question or understand!
In time, the position of the new sect became so intolerable that many were compelled to flee, and numbers went into Abyssinia, where they were well received. Mohammed himself, thanks to his relatives' protection, could still afford to remain in Mecca. In spite of the opposition, his influence gradually increased, and was considerably strengthened by the conversion of Omar, a citizen famed for his skill in military strategy and courage. Not long afterwards, Khadijah, the prophet's wife died. She had wielded a strong, healthy influence over her husband, and had cheered him on in times of discouragement and failure. Islam owes not a little to her life and influence, and were it more widely recognised, might possibly lead to an improvement of the position of the poor unfortunate daughters of the system, who are enslaved and degraded to a saddening degree. After Khadijah's death, Mohammed took full advantage of the polygamous sanctions of Paganism, and even abused the privilege when it conflicted with his own inclinations. Margoliouth attempts to defend the many marriages on the ground of political expediency, which may be conceded in only a few cases. In most instances they were due to selfish desire and inordinate affection. Particularly is this true in the case of the prophet's marriage with his adopted son's wife, which was a gross violation of Arab law.
On the death of his protector, Mohammed was compelled to seek refuge elsewhere, but not before he had made inconsistent concessions to the pagan leaders. In these concessions he retreated entirely from the strong iconoclastic attitude he had hitherto adopted, going so far as to produce a revelation that claimed to reconcile the One True God to the gods of the Pagan pantheon. This compromise, no matter how wise and statesmanlike it may appear to be, clearly indicates the falsity of Mohammed's claim, and enables us to estimate the value of his pretensions. His action was strongly condemned by many of his followers, and probably under the influence of their opinion, he produced an apologetic revelation abrogating the concession, and admitting it to have been a mistake!
He endeavoured to escape the persecution in Mecca by taking refuge in Taif, but was so badly treated there when his views became known, that he was glad to return, and upon promising to confine his proselytising efforts to strangers, was allowed to stay under the protection of one of the leading citizens. He carried on his work among strangers with such success, that before long a strong community had grown up in the town of Medinah. The rapid increase of this section of his disciples may be accounted for by the very unsettled condition of the place. Civil and religious strife had been for a long time aggravated by the aggressive attitude of a large section of Jews, so that circumstances were more favourable to the reception and growth of Islam than in Mecca, where there was more peaceful organisation, and where the existence of the ancient Kaaba, or dwelling place of the gods, made men more jealous of their old religion.
In the appointment of a man to lead the new community, Mohammed exhibited his characteristic insight into the abilities of men. He selected a follower thoroughly convinced of his master's claims, whose zeal in the earlier days had led him to forsake friends and family by flight into Abyssinia—a man full of enthusiasm and energy. In a comparatively short time the new religion became quite popular, and idolatry was despised. An incident indicative of the progress is seen in the visit of seventy of the Medinah disciples to Mohammed in Mecca. They met him secretly in the mountains, by night, and made solemn, binding vows of allegiance, in which they promised "to fight men of all colour in order to defend the faith." It is highly probable that at this meeting the prophet was invited to join them in Medinah, but for the present he preferred his native town.
Somehow the story of the night meeting leaked out, with the result that persecution was redoubled, and many of the less wealthy followers were forced to flee to Medinah. They were there well received and cared for, and were afterwards honoured by being designated the "refugees," while those who received them were similarly honoured in being named the "helpers." Thus the brotherhood of believers insisted on by Mohammed began to assume practical form, and men of different tribes were united in one common bond—a brotherhood so powerful that its enemies in Mecca were filled with alarm. They had no longer to deal with a man whose views could be despised. They were menaced by a growing force that threatened to overwhelm them. Steps were taken to overthrow the danger, and elaborate arrangements were made for the assassination of the prophet. He somehow obtained news of the plot, and escaped the would-be murderers, who came while he was supposed to be in bed, by climbing through a window. Accompanied by the faithful Abu Bakr and a few of his more intimate followers, he made his way to one of the mountain caves, where he stayed until the immediate danger had passed. Then the little company commenced the journey to Medinah, a task so fraught with danger and hardship that Mohammed shrank from it, in spite of the Meccan evil, and was compelled to attempt it only by the pressure of his friends.
The facts concerning his entry into Medinah are obscure and uncertain, but there is no doubt that his advent was hailed with delight by the "helpers" and "refugees." Hospitality was freely offered, and, owing to the prophet's independent spirit, reluctantly accepted. One of his earliest actions after arrival was to consolidate his forces by strengthening the brotherhood, making the obligations of his followers to one another, and himself, more binding than the ties of blood.
IV.—GROWTH AND PROGRESS.
He now found himself the acknowledged head of a large growing community, which looked to him for guidance in all its affairs—religious, social, and political. Proudly, and with true Eastern despotism, he took upon himself the dignities of prophet, priest, and king. He needed no one with whom to share these functions. His was the sole right—his alone. His ambitions were being realised. The striving of years, the disappointment, doubts, and fears that had so tormented him were well repaid, and could be forgotten in the glamour that now surrounded him. Enthusiastic and fanatical votaries crowded around him with loyal acclamation. Pampered and petted with excessive adulation, can it be wondered that he had visions of power hitherto undreamed of? His scheme of national reform paled into insignificance in the light of possibility. He saw himself the leader of a world-wide conquest—the promoter of a prodigious scheme of universal reform. He was not merely the messenger of the Arab people, but the mouthpiece of God to the whole wide world. And by the Divine Power that possessed him would receive the humble homage of proud and mighty nations, whose haughty monarchs would bow in lowly submission to his imperious will! Prophetic insight, regal authority, judicial administration were his by divine right, to be enforced, if needs be, at the point of the Islamic sword.
As his position improved, so his ideals deteriorated. His early piety was modified by the lust of worldly power. In place of patient pacific methods of propagation, he adopted a cruel, ruthless, warlike policy, and it was not long—perhaps owing to the extreme poverty which afflicted the new community—before the would-be prophet became the leader of a robber host. Yet even in spite of the glamour that surrounded him, and the questionable behaviour that characterised this period of his life, we catch occasional glimpses of that which reveals the working of nobler instincts in his mind. Had his environment been other than it was, Mohammed had been indeed a hero in the world's history. Ignorance of truth led him to place himself under the mysterious power of hallucination. The lonely brooding of the cave had produced that which had urged him into a position of bondage. He was the slave of a false idea, which so possessed him that he pressed onward, in spite of all that stood in his way, whether it was good or bad. It exerted an irresistible influence over all his impulses, leading him into actions in every way indefensible. When fair means failed, he adopted foul, and so succeeded beyond his highest dreams.
The first Mosque, or meeting place, was built very soon after his arrival in Medinah, and he entered upon his priestly functions. As a matter of policy, he adopted many of the Jewish rites. These, however, he soon changed, for as the number of his followers increased, and he grew more and more independent of Jewish aid, he made every effort to show his natural aversion to the ancient people, who scorned his prophetic pretensions. In place of praying towards Jerusalem, his followers were commanded to turn their faces towards Mecca. The Fast of Atonement was abolished in favour of the month of Ramadan, while in substitution for the Jewish rite of sacrifice, the pagan slaying of victims was observed.
A considerable difference is to be noticed between the "revelations" of this period and those of Mecca. The latter were concerned with denunciations of idolatry; proofs of the Divine unity and attributes; legendary stories, and occasional lurid pictures of heaven and hell. The former are generally of a legislative character, mingled with the domestic affairs of the prophet, and guidance as to his military policy. The method of recording them, too, seems to have been systematised, for it is certain that a body of professional scribes were engaged in this work, and evidence is not wanting to show that these scribes were allowed to express the revelations in their own particular style. Discrepancies and inconsistencies abounded, but Mohammed seems to have allowed that he was not responsible, and to have stated that God had a perfect right to alter as He pleased, and even to apologise for errors! The policy of abrogation has its sanction in the text, "Whatever verses we cancel or cause thee to forget, we give thee better in their stead, or the like thereof."
In his warlike policy, the prophet's strategy reflects most discreditably upon his character, everything that was honourable and virtuous being sacrificed to the passion for conquest. When he needed help, he pretended friendship to those he hated; and then, becoming strong enough to be independent, did not hesitate, upon the slightest provocation or pretext, to turn his sword against them. This is particularly true of his treatment of the Jews, whom he at first befriended, but afterwards treated with barbarous injustice.
Within a very few months of their arrival in Medinah, the need of some method of support, other than the charity of the helpers, presented itself. The number of refugees was still increasing, and the demand for the ordinary necessities of life exceeded the supply. Mohammed, to his credit, shared the misery of his followers, and proved himself to be generous even when in want. In order to meet the need, the policy of despoiling the wealthy Meccan caravans was conceived, and carried out with some degree of success. The prophet at first exhibited a feeling of repugnance against such warfare, especially when the ancient pacific regulations of certain sacred months were violated. But the benefits of the revenue accruing led him, some time afterwards, to produce revelations sanctioning hostilities even in the sacred months. The early successes provided the community with more wealth than was needed, and, arousing the avarice of many of those who were opposed to the prophet, led them to throw in their lot with him. Having seared his conscience by acknowledging the righteousness of the robber policy, it was easy for him to persuade himself that it was all part of the purpose of God to prosper his claims. All who would not acknowledge him were the enemies of God, and had no rights to property or to life. He began to preach the holiness of war against all unbelievers. He fanned the avaricious fanaticism of his followers into a flame of religious enthusiasm, and they became soldier priests, whose deaths on the battlefield were glorious martyrdoms, which gave them immediate entrance into a paradise where all their inclinations could be indulged to an unlimited degree. It is not to be wondered that an army of such men could put three times their number of Meccans not so inspired to flight. This is what actually happened in the battle of Badr. Mohammed had received news of the possibility of capturing a particularly rich Meccan caravan, and decided to make the attempt. News of his plans reached the Meccans, who determined to frustrate, if possible, the designs of their enemy. A thousand men were rapidly organised into a defensive and punitive force, and sent out to overwhelm the three hundred Moslems. They were by no means skilled in military strategy, little better than a disorderly horde; whereas the Moslems, under the masterly guidance of Mohammed, seem to have exhibited clever organisation. It has been said that the rigid prayer ritual enforced by Mohammed, at the risk of Divine punishment, had a disciplinary effect, and produced results very similar to those obtained by military drill. The Meccan host was put to flight, discipline, and steadfastness of purpose determined the victory. The Moslems returned to Medinah, carrying in triumph many prisoners, and considerable booty. The revelation produced after this, speaks of it as the "Day of deliverance," and Mohammed rejoices because the stigma of powerlessness to show evidence of miracle in his life, is removed, for he accounts for the victory by direct intervention of God in his favour. The effect of the victory on the surrounding tribes was highly favourable to the prophet. Many of the chiefs sought to ally themselves to him, but he received their offers solely on condition that they would embrace Islam. Few accepted, and those who did not before long regretted it.
For about a year after his success, his power and influence increased, until the whole of the tribes between Mecca and Medinah had been won over. Then came a defeat. The Meccans had been nursing their bitterness, and at last, just over two years after the victory of Badr, it found its outlet in an expedition again Mohammed. The Moslem forces were rallied, and under the prophet's leadership sallied forth to meet the Meccans. A fierce battle ensued, in which at first the Moslems had the advantage, and the Meccans were forced to fly. But they had learned many lessons in the fight at Badr, and had posted some of their cavalry in such a position that, when the Moslem order was disturbed in their pursuit of the enemy, they made a charge upon their rear. The fleeing Meccans turned, and the Moslems found themselves between two attacks. Then came the cry that Mohammed was killed! Instead of increasing the Moslem disorder by discouragement, it made them fight more doggedly, for the majority were so committed to Islam that they cared not for life if their prophet was dead. This prevented what must otherwise have meant absolute victory on the part of the Meccans, and a number of them, with Mohammed, who was only wounded, were able to retire to Medinah. The Meccans were quite satisfied with the result, considering that the stigma of their defeat at Badr had been wiped out. Later on, when Mohammed had sufficiently recovered of his wounds, he made a public appearance in the Mosque, where he was able to persuade his followers that their apparent defeat was really a victory! The general who is able to persuade his forces that there is victory, even where there seems to be defeat, is one who will inspire them to fight against apparently impossible odds. They will, indeed, never suffer defeat, but will fight on until annihilated by capture or death. The secret of success even in the more pacific engagements of life lies in this principle—to be undaunted in ardour, in spite of failure; to recognise in failure a step towards ultimate success. Let a man be possessed with these, and victory is within his grasp, whether he recognises it or not.
After this, Mohammed did not scruple to employ the system of warfare by assassination, if warfare it can be called. Some tribes, emboldened by the report of the Meccan success, began to treat Moslem emissaries with scant courtesy, and went so far as to murder some. Mohammed retaliated by sending men to balance the scales in the same criminal way, particularly in treating with the Jews. An idea had grown up in his mind that these people had determined to murder him. This, with matters of minor importance, already referred to, at last led to an organised attempt to subjugate them. A large, influential tribe was besieged; their date trees, lands, and property wantonly destroyed. Eventually the whole tribe surrendered, and were glad to march away with what possessions their camels could carry. This led to a combination of other Jewish tribes, which laid siege to Medinah. The siege was not successful, and barbarous treatment was meted out to the besiegers. After much skirmishing and general fighting, a number of the Jews who had been captured were decapitated, while their women and children were enslaved. Those who were unwilling to embrace Islam, were compelled to pay tribute. So the prosperity and success of Islam was assured. The Jews were no longer bold enough to cause the prophet any anxiety as to the validity of his prophetic claims, nor were they of a mind that would arouse fear as to their fighting abilities. They were true descendants of Isaac and Jacob, who were both men of peace, and were not qualified for success in war against the posterity of the active warlike Ishmael and Esau.
Freed from all anxiety in this direction, the prophet, realising that the security of Medinah could never be assured while the Meccans were opposed to him, began to formulate plans for the conquest of their city. His first step was to try and conciliate them, with a view to sending a pilgrim band into the city, but the citizens were far too cautious and suspicious to allow that. At last, however, they were prevailed upon to receive his son-in-law, Omar, who succeeded in persuading a section of the Meccans of the injustice of barring the Holy Temple to those who, although their enemies, were, after all, their kinsmen. This led to a treaty, in which Mohammed brought shame upon his followers because of his concessions. The arrangements were that for ten years, peace between the prophet and the Meccans should be maintained, and that within a year a party of the Moslems were to be allowed to make a pilgrimage to the Kaaba.
The humiliation to which the prophet compelled his followers to submit gave rise to considerable indignation, which was allayed only when he himself submitted to the shaving of his head and the offering of sacrifice. He knew that the humiliation was worthy of the advantage gained—indeed, it was but the furtherance of his policy, in which no action that was expedient could possibly be disgraceful. To him such a treaty involved no sacred obligation to his enemies. He was God's prophet, and as such was free of all obligation to those who did not follow him, a principle deeply rooted in Islam, which makes the violation of all virtuous relations with unbelievers highly meritorious.
V.—WORLD CONQUEST.
Not long after the treaty with the Meccans, Mohammed revealed the fact that he had elaborated a scheme of world conquest, by sending representatives to earthly monarchs of whom he had heard. His messengers carried letters bearing the seal, "Mohammed, Prophet of God," and urging the addressees to acknowledge his claims by embracing Islam. These overtures were in some cases favourably received; in others with contempt; but, of course, did not lead to compliance with the demands, except, perhaps, on the part of a few of the rulers of some Arabic tribes.
The eighth year of the flight is famous in the history of the prophet's life, because his followers, for the first time, came into conflict with the forces of the Christian empire. The battle of Mutah resulted in defeat of the Moslems, and, consequently, details have been suppressed. It was part of Mohammed's policy to counteract the demoralising influence of defeat by immediately attempting a fight in which victory was assured. This, to my mind, justified war on any pretext or grievance. In this case he conceived the idea of invading Mecca, and, although minor incidents justify his decision to a slight degree, his breach of the treaty adds to the evidence that is derogatory to his character.
The pilgrimage of the year before had been organised by him with the view of impressing the Meccans of his power, and was decidedly successful. When he with his ten thousand troops approached the city, fear caused submission on the part of the leader of the city forces, and after some slight skirmishing with a section of the community, which preferred to show active disapproval of the ignominious surrender, the city was won. Every idolatrous element of the Kaaba worship was swept away, and, although its pagan associations were negatived, it was sanctified to the service of Islam, and is still its only altar. The city was invested with a more sacred significance than it had ever occupied under the pagan system. It was never again to be defiled by the spilling of human blood, the prophet insisting upon this with admirable inconsistency! He showed his gratification in many acts of statesmanlike condescension, and seems at this time to have considered himself to be the ruler of all Arabs. Although it is improbable that Mohammed was aware of it, the significance he attached to the Holy City, by teaching that the Caaba was a heavenly built edifice, was to become the means of consolidating his system, in spite of national and racial distinctions. In its precincts, pilgrims from India, Persia, China, Russia, Turkey, and other lands where Islam has its devotees, mingle with the wild Bedouin of the desert in one common brotherhood, and worship, in unity of faith and form, Allah, the great and merciful.
After its capture, the fierce warlike Bedouin nomadic tribes made strenuous and courageous attempts to win back the city, but the Moslem forces were invariably successful, and, in time, Mohammed returned to Medinah more triumphant than ever. Eventually Taif, which had successfully resisted a siege, submitted peacefully to the prophet's claims, and the subjugation of the whole of Arabia followed.
An ingenious system of taxation was imposed upon all tribes submitting to Mohammed. The natural prejudice that universally exists against taxation (!) was overcome, because it was instituted as a religious rather than a statutory obligation. Thus the regular payments of alms became one of the five acts of faith imposed upon all believers. The other acts are: confession of creed, prayer, fasting, and pilgrimage.
VI.—MOHAMMED AND WOMEN.
The prophet's domestic life exerted considerable influence upon his religion; effects of which are to be seen in the Mohammedan home of to-day. His numerous marriages afforded experience which led to the framing of many "divine" laws referring to women. As has already been hinted, Kadijah, his first wife, exercised considerable influence over his prophetic career. She evidently had a strong affection for him, which feeling was heartily reciprocated. She had a personality strong enough to curb his natural passion, and to preserve her place in spite of it in his regard. Her encouragement and support when success and failure were trembling in the balance, urged him to persist in the development of his ideas. He was faithful to her during their married life, and to her memory afterwards, and promised her, upon her deathbed, that she should share his heavenly chamber after his death, with the Mother of Jesus and the sister of Moses. Within a month of her death he was betrothed to Ayesha, a child of seven. He did not actually marry her until she was nine years of age, and during the interval consoled himself by wedding a widow who had acted as nurse to one of his daughters. This marriage seems to have been more a matter of convenience than of affection on his part, and in later days she was able to keep her position as his wife only by the yielding of certain of her privileges to other members of the harem.
Seven months after his arrival in Medinah, during the time of poverty, the marriage with Ayesha was celebrated, the child of nine being united to the man of fifty-three! a marriage defended on the ground of political expediency, whereby the devotion of Abu Bakr, the child's father was strengthened. She seems to have been second only to Khadijah in the prophet's affections, and exercised a petty tyranny over him, which was submitted to even when it affected his revelations. She excited the envy of the other wives because of her privileges, and in spite of intrigue, was able to hold her own. She was extremely sarcastic in regard to some of the revelations, and even went so far on one occasion as to jeer the prophet on his faithfulness in recording them. This sarcasm was prompted by jealousy, because of Mohammed's marriage with Zainab, which was so illegal as to cause him to throw the responsibility on God. Zainab was the wife of the prophet's adopted son Zaid, who, having discovered his foster-father's love, thought it wise to divorce her in his favour. The revelation Mohammed produced seems to have been held over until his critics had been mollified by some victory—hence the sarcasm!
During the raiding of the Jews, Mohammed was considerably disturbed by the desire of the wives to accompany him on the expeditions. He eased the difficulty by arranging that one only should go with him on each expedition, and should obtain the favour by lot. Ayesha got into difficulty on one of these expeditions. She dropped a necklace and remained behind the returning party in order to seek for it. A youth who, too, had loitered behind, found it, and accompanied her back to the camp. Her enemies were not slow to take advantage of this incident to prejudice her before the prophet. He was deeply hurt, and in face of the surge of public opinion, sent her back to her parents. The complications arising out of the divorce would probably have alienated the sympathies of Abu Bakr, her father, so with his usual diplomacy, Mohammed produced a revelation, in which God declared Ayesha innocent of any cause for divorce! It was through Ayesha, too, that the prophet conceived the idea of praying for deliverance from the torment of the grave, for she casually remarked one day that she had heard a Jewish woman speaking about torment after death. Through all her life with the prophet she proved herself to be strong in character, and a fitting mate for a man of Mohammed's type.
Other wives did not play such an important part in the prophet's life work. He seems to have exhibited his taste for beauty in all his selections. Keud was the daughter of a man of considerable wealth and influence, and, like Zainab, was one of the Abyssinian refugees. In the expedition against Khaibah, Mohammed's greed was excited by the sight of some valuable ornaments belonging to one of his vanquished enemies. He sought to gain possession of them by marrying the daughter of the owner, Safiyyah, whose husband and brother had both been killed in the battle that had been fought. She accepted the prophet's offer, and contented herself for her losses in the squabbles of his harem. His other wives were Juwairijah, Hafsah, Um Salmah, Um Kabibah, another of the Abyssinian refugees, and Zainab, widow of his cousin. The last wife was Maimunah, who is said to have offered herself to him when he was considering the invasion of Mecca. A Coptic (Christian) slave girl, Mary, and Rihanah, a Jewess, were added to the harem, but went through no form of marriage with him. Mary was sent as a present from one of the Coptic rulers in answer to the prophet's letter, urging the claims of Islam; while Rihanah, whose husband was one of the many who were cruelly slaughtered by decapitation after a victory over the Jews, was at nightfall, almost immediately after the massacre, taken to the prophet's tent. It is evident that the prophet had many opportunities of still further increasing his harem, for many women offered themselves; while the relatives of handsome widows would make no arrangements for the re-marriage of the bereaved ones until they had been offered to the prophet and refused.
It cannot be expected that things could always run smoothly with so many women possessing rights to his attention, and there is much evidence to show that Mohammed was often disturbed by the difficulty of pleasing all. His relations to the feminine sex, as may be expected, led to a very low estimate of the position of women. Hence the utter degradation to which they are subjected in Islam. Although he did not practice it, he sanctioned wife beating. Divorce was made easy for the men, who could cast off their wives any time they so desired. Thus it is quite common to-day for women to steal from their husbands in order to provide for themselves in case of divorce. The evil of such a system is apparent. It makes the women mere slaves at the mercy of the caprice of their husbands. The polygamy and concubinage which is sanctioned in the Koran, has degraded the women to a degree that may be imagined, and certainly has not, as some authorities contend, abolished other evils. It is true that he improved slightly the condition of women in his day, giving them privileges they had not up to that time enjoyed, and by those who endeavour to picture him as a hero, his failure to arrive at a true estimate of the position of women is covered by the statement that it was impossible for him to grapple with a hopeless problem. It is encouraging to know that, with the growing influence of Western Christian civilisation, the condition of women in Moslem lands is gradually improving, although the village folk still consider us to be weak in character because we are courteous in our behaviour to them. In Egypt, Government schools for girls are being organised, and throughout the whole Moslem world education is spreading. The religion of Mohammed is so clearly defined that it can never be reformed. The only hope for the nations that are under its sway is that with the advance of western civilisation there may be a yielding to the influence of Christianity. It cannot be possible to enjoy the blessings of the West while men are tyrannised by a non-progressive religion of the East.
Just before he died Mohammed organised an expedition against the Romans, and this in spite of sickness unto death. He had made his last pilgrimage to Mecca, and had delivered what may be termed his final charge to his followers. The whole tone of his address seems to have been influenced by the thought of the proximity of death. He emphasised the doctrines he had inculcated, showing that the Islamic brotherhood removed all that tended to social inequality. The rich man was no better than the poor; the aristocrat who boasted of his ancestry, no more important in the sight of God than the lowliest beggar. The only difference that could exist between man and man was a difference in degree of piety. Property rights he recognised as regarding believers, and evidently implied that unbelievers possessed no such rights. He asked respect and humane treatment for women, and undoubtedly manifested a desire for a better condition of affairs than he in his lifetime had been able to establish. The subsequent illness was probably due to the strain and anxiety of this pilgrimage. Ayesha, the girl wife, tended him. The many stories that have been told of these last days are not at all reliable, but it is certain that for five days he was quite helpless and delirious. On the 7th of June, 632 A.D., ten years after the flight from Mecca, he died in the arms of Ayesha, leaving a work that wrought havoc in the Christian Church for centuries, and which, inspired by his immortal spirit, still exists in unyielding enmity against the faith of the meek and lowly Nazarene, whose native soil, in the providence of God, is owned by Islam's son. Never again will be heard the clash of steel on steel as Christian tries to vanquish Moslem. Those days are happily past and gone. Carnal weapons cannot avail against spiritual forces. The eternal, peaceable Spirit of Jesus is slowly but surely permeating the gloom of Islam. We see the resultant disintegration, and hope for that great day when, led by the broken and contrite spirit of their leader, the hosts of Islam shall bow before the King of Kings, recognising what, in time, they were impelled to deny—Unity in Trinity, the at present unrevealed mystery of Deity.
Britain, the greatest Moslem power of the world, needs to change her policy in regard to Christian missionary work amongst Moslems, if she is desirous of promoting the welfare of those benighted people. She must give freedom to the heralds of the Cross who labour in the lands of the Crescent. And the prayers of her people must ascend on behalf of the sons and daughters of Islam who sit in darkness and the shadow of death.


Twitter: @AndrewNandip
www.thetarokthinker.org