The Holy Qur’an

The Holy Qur’an

In a recent blog post, we discussed what a sacred text might be. In conversation, the idea that the West view the Qur’an as suspect deserves some further introspection. Most people is North or South America have not read nor understand what the Qur’an is, and make assumptions about different interpretations of texts. Christians should not have any trouble struggling with the idea of different interpretations of texts. As of this writing, Wikipedia lists 108 completed versions of the Bible in English and dozens more partial and unfinished versions. That’s just English. That does not count the different languages and their own idiosyncrasies of language which may change subtle meanings. Let’s just say that there is a wide variety of translations, interpretations, and commentary on meanings contained within the Bible, perhaps more so than any other “sacred text.”

Be that as it may, the Qur’an is a relatively new piece of literature in the consciousness of Western peoples, mainly due to global conflicts and media hype. The Quran or Qur’an is one of the world’s newer religious texts, having thought to been revealed to Muhammad beginning in 609 C.E. over the course of 23 years by the Angel Gabriel. The book itself is considered a miracle and is considered to be one of the foundational reasons for Muhammad’s prophethood. Margot Patterson, in her book “Islam Considered: The Christian View,” states: “The Quran is of inestimable importance in Islam, more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians, even fundamentalist Christians.”

Because of the timing of its delivery and the beginnings of wider literacy amongst people at that time, the Quran was completed in written form within 20 years of the Prophet’s death, by the third caliph, Uthman, in 654 C.E. Even with its relatively new nature, there are slight variations that have to do with the spread of Islam in the years after the Prophet’s death, especially as it moved throughout Arabia, Persia, and eastward.

The meaning of the word Quran is “that which is recited” or “the recitation.” The whole foundation and working of the Quran is complicated and challenging. While there are many, many translations into languages other than Arabic – upwards of 112 in 2010 were counted – there seems to be lesser variation on Arabic texts than there are for Biblical translations. Muslims generally believe that to understand the true meaning of the Quran, one must learn Arabic and, even better, ancient Arabic. This would not dissimilar to learning Aramaic to understand the original translations of many of the works attributed to contributing writers of the Bible. To be clear, when using the term “Bible,” the meaning is both the old and new testaments.

The recitations, or lessons, contained within the book trace from Adam through to Muhammad, all of which are told with a specific type of prose language. Indeed, when reciting the Quran for prayer, there are different, codified ways to recite the text, with different emphasis given to each method. The Quran is organized into chapters called suras but they are organized in no particular order. Even though it covers the revelations to Moses and Jesus, both considered to be Allah’s Prophets, they are not necessary sequential. One does not generally read the Quran from beginning to end.

All of this information is easily obtained and digested by the serious investigator. What is a little more difficult to digest is the differences in meaning between the Quran and other religious texts, like the Bible. The Bible is viewed by Christians as generally being the influence of the divine on its individual writers, all conveying the message as they understand it. It is divinely inspired, for the most part, but not actually divine itself.

Because the Quran is generally a single Prophet’s words, an illiterate Prophet, the words are seen as purer, as divine as if the hand of God had grasped a pen and wrote them. Christians see that God became manifest in Jesus. While Muslims do not see God manifest in the actual Quran, it’s as close as one might be able to get to having god speak to them directly. This difference, subtle as it may be, is profound when it comes to understanding how the words of each are held in regard.

Additionally, because of nature of the texts, the directives given therein, the challenge ongoing for humanity, Islam believes, is to incorporate the Quran’s doctrine into humanity’s ever changing Earth. This leads one to the discussion about Sharia Law. Christianity and indeed, the Bible, are not structured in such a way as to govern a community.

The Christian Church is the last living legacy of the Roman Empire, a government in and of itself. Judaism and Islam have both created a law-giving structure built off religious, sacred texts, in which to govern a community or far-flung communities. They were not tied to a central government much as the Christian Church was since its inception. It’s difficult for many modern Christians to get their heads around; many typically see religious law as a kind of impingement on their freedoms. What one must understand is that many people feel a higher judgement above the laws of man; many would submit themselves to religious laws before they submit them to an independent government, one which may not have the sanctity of their after-life in mind.

Halakhah and Sharia have many similarities. The word sharia comes from the word halakhah, the Jewish canonical law. The difference between Christian canonical law is that it generally comes from a single source – the Pope. In this community based law system, rabbis or imams are responsible for interpretations and their interpretations stand unless a council may be called to help with judgments. The misunderstanding comes from most American’s belief that Muslims or Jews in America would prefer canonical law rather than the country’s legal judgments. This is generally untrue. An excellent article on this is located in the Jewish Observer, here: https://thejewishobserver.com/2013/04/16/afraid-of-sharia/. While there outliers across religions – yes, there are Christians who oppose American law as well – observant Jews and Muslims follow the laws of the country in which they live, even if these laws impinge on their religious freedoms. As the article states, polygamy is legal under sharia but even in Arabic countries, it is still rarely practiced. It is not practiced in the United States because it is illegal here, for every religion.

There have been many interfaith conferences between Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders. There will most likely need to be more. While this continues, the onus is on the rest of us, the believers of whatever faith we have, to learn more about the other people in this world, what they believe, how they act, what they find important. As the article in the Jewish Observer relates, we should not be afraid of any religion. We may need to work hard to understand the nature of religions and under and when something is mainstream and when it is fundamentalism. Just like political extremists, there is a great difference between the far ends of the spectrums of religions and a great deal in the middle. The edges is where extremists and fanaticism reside. This is where most people begin to go sideways in their understanding: believing the fundamentalism is the entirety of a religion.

Fundamentalism spans the globe. There are fundamentalist Buddhists, after all. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to irreducible tenants of a religion. An example for Christians is the virgin birth of Jesus. In many cases, other Christians would not be seen as Christian because they do not necessarily believe in a virgin birth. Included in fundamentalism is the general literalness of translation. It is not enough to believe that Mary was “metaphorically” virgin; fundamentalist Christians believe that she was actually a virgin. There is no symbology in the meaning. The words of the sacred texts are interpreted literally, not symbolically. In general, fundamentalists are not militants unless they feel a fanaticism that is above all else. Militancy to faith also spans religions and it is born more from fear than from the religion itself. “Religious fanaticism is defined by blind faith, the persecution of dissents and the absence of reality.” In his book “Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk,” Neil Postman states that “the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming….(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are ‘false’, but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false.” One cannot confuse Fundamentalism, Fanaticism, and Faith. They are very different and cannot be singularly tied to any one religion.

The best way to combat fanaticism is understanding and knowledge. The Freemason knows that there is a fundamental law that underlies human nature, and these texts really seek to make that divine law accessible to all human beings, regardless of where, when, and to whom they are born. The Quran is piece of that understanding. We might be seen as the generations that demonized Islam, much as other generations and countries have demonized Judaism and Christianity. Do we have to be? Seeking to learn is what sets the discerning, intelligent human apart. We can’t develop a better humanity if we can’t understand what is important to all of us, not just ourselves. There is beauty, grace, and knowledge everywhere, if we can be strong enough to listen.

Sacred Lore

Sacred Lore

What is Sacred Lore? These words are on the tongue of almost every Freemason, regardless of obedience, religion, creed, or geography. Yet, I have seen little depth into figuring out what they are, how they made their way into a Lodge and Freemasonry, what is their significance in Lodge. Many writers have spoken about these volumes, which may be termed sacred lore or sacred law. The inference there is that one is suggestive of stories and myths, while the other is orderly and a series of rules and codes by which to live. Here we really get into the difference between dogma, ethics, and morality. Does one need a book to be a moral person? Does one need religion? Does a Freemason need religion to be a true Freemason?

Some Freemasons think so, and others do not. Since its inception, Freemasonry has juggled a thin line between religion and morality. Not all Masonic Orders are the same, and there are wild variations about what is acceptable and what is not. Some Freemasons do not allow anyone who is not an avowed, church-going Christian. Catholics are discouraged, and in some cases forbidden, from becoming Freemasons. Some orders of Freemasons allow atheists, and still others don’t care what you believe in, as long as it is “something greater than yourself.” Religion and Freemasonry have struck a unwieldy dance through the ages and it does not promise to get any better any time soon.

Most Freemasonry groups have a requirement for a general belief in “god,” and study religious texts as they apply to overall morality and ethical behavior. These religious texts are, for the most part, guidelines on how one should live their life and are the generally accepted texts of most major religions. Taken in their “symbolic” form, they are meant to be an expression of the highest human civilization can achieve, for itself and the world it lives in. Whether you call them codes, rules, mores, or dogma, the end result is the same: guidelines for how to be a good human being in a world filled with other human beings and living creatures. We need to get along to survive as a species and these texts are there to provide us the guidelines. While not everyone needs a guideline, many do. Even if you do not feel like you personally need a guideline, it is probably a good idea to know how other people think, in order to get along and be a generally good citizen of the world.

In general, many people take these books to be “inspired by God,” although written by men. When one asks,”Is the Tao de Ching a sacred text?”, the answer is likely to be yes. Written by man, it is still generally to be an inspired text to assist with the building of a human race. Why? Why did a culture choose that particular text to venerate? Isn’t it likely that it could be anything? What about the I-Ching? Is that not a sacred text? Perhaps it is, perhaps not. There may be many answers to the “what makes something sacred” question and any of them may be correct. It may be that the leaders of specific religions are the authority on their related texts; yet, who is to say really what makes something sacred? Perhaps we just take their word for it and call them all sacred.

To be sacred means that it’s entitled to reverence or veneration. It’s set apart – a text, in this case, that is set apart from other texts. This implies that being inspired by divinity sets it apart. It has a different quality; it was written by someone to be venerated or exalted, for example, or it has a quality that we recognize as being special, valued, or important.

The controversial question is this: who are we humans to say what is divinely inspired and what is not? From those who have read widely, it may be clear that works by Shakespeare are something special. Were they not language-changing for English speakers? I do not believe we mere mortals can say that these works were not divinely inspired and yet, we would not call them sacred texts. We assume that a sacred text must belong to a religion. Yet, there is sublime poetry by Sappho, Byron, and Borges that touches the face of god and strikes directly to our hearts. Anything that creates an intense, life-changing emotion could be communication from the divine and perhaps we would do well to listen.

Encyclopedia Britannica states that “…their common attribute is that their words are regarded by the devout as sacred.” That is, the words that are on the page are to be revered by the devout. This does not mean that they are revered by all… except, perhaps, by Freemasons. Freemasons, in general, accept all of the world’s “sacred” texts as words to be studied.

Where a religion may view its own texts with reverence and exclusivity, Freemasons see the wisdom included across all of the world’s religions and venerate them all equally. Why? Because morality and ethical behavior are really the crux of what these texts are about. They teach humans how to live well with each other, how to live well with the world around them, and how to be able to not only help the human race continue to survive but to increase the positive influence in the world and promote the general welfare and progress of human society.

These texts, because of their sacredness, are also open to negative and destructive morality. Religion taken to the extreme, any religion, corrupts the message of something positive into something consumptive. This has been true throughout the history of the human race but even more so in the last two thousand years. The baser human nature twists the message and those who live in primal fear follow that message. There are many who view “sacred texts” of religions with disdain and hatred for the corruption they have sown. In all of this, its up to the human element to decide how the word will be interpreted – for the good of humanity or the destruction of it.

There is truth everywhere we look, depending on how deeply we look. One must take the time to explore to really learn and to experience to really learn. What is it that Mulder would say? The Truth is out there…


Read more Sacred Texts at sacred-texts.com. They have nearly every conceivable sacred text that one could ever want to study.