Today is an exciting one, folks!  Backseat Writer is participating in its first blog tour—the Tresaured/”God Gave Us” Blog Tour sponsored by Random House/Waterbook Press.  I reviewed Treasued by Leigh McLeroy and enlisted my friend Shari, a children’s literature reviewer for the “God Gave Us” books.  Enjoy the reviews and thank you to Waterbrook for this opportunity (and, yes, they did provide us with review copies).

TREASURED by LEIGH McLEROY

Leigh McLeroy and I would make great friends—I’m sure of it.  Her easy writing style makes me feel as though we are sharing our hearts on her couch over a cup of nice, strong Chai.  Not only that, but McLeroy is a keeper of sentimental things—reminders of her love for the Living God and an old box of her beloved grandfather’s belongings given to her after his death.  I have those boxes, too—one that smells like my Grammy and the other like my Poppy.  This sentimentalism drew me into Treasured: Knowing God By the Things He Keeps, which looks like a gift book, but is much more than a pretty book to keep in the bathroom.

McLeroy interweaves her personal stories with Bible stories drawn from the first few books of the Bible—pulling from the tales of the Fall of Man, Noah’s Ark, Hagar and Ishmael, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, the Exodus, Rahab, Balaam, Ruth, and David.  In each chapter, she picks an item—a treasure—that God used to teach a lesson to His people.  She then explains how Abraham’s knife, which should have been used to kill Isaac, instead teaches us about God’s mercy and love, how a bloodied strip of cloth from Joseph’s coat turned a tragic loss into the saving of a family (and nation), and how a scarlet cord signaled life for Rahab and her family.  She then makes it personal—first with her own story and then challenges the reader as well.

Treasured is not only a great book for new believers who are becoming familiar with the Bible, but also life-long Christians who have heard the ol’ stories hundreds of times—because, like me, you probably missed the small details that McLeroy so beautifully highlights.

Treasures can be found in the most common of things we keep—a heart-shaped leaf, a loved one’s picture, and a child’s first Bible, but also in the things that God keeps to remind us that we are treasured in Him.

GOD GAVE US LOVE & GOD GAVE US CHRISTMAS by LISA T. BERGREN

By Shari Transue, Special to Backseat Writer With Christmas quickly approaching our thankful hearts and giving spirits need a reminder of why we are celebrating. Lisa T. Bergren has written a series of children’s books discussing the gifts God has given to the world. In her “God Gave” series a polar bear family talks about Gods gifts of children, siblings, heaven, Jesus and love. God Gave Us Love coupled with God Gave Us Christmas is perfect for discussing the Christmas message to children ages four to eight. Since the books contain a lot of text that warrants explanation, the messages may be a lot for younger children to understand. The beautiful and fun whimsical artwork in each story invites engagement and enjoyment for the young readers, who will be sure to love these cuddly polar bears and their arctic setting.

In each story, Little Cub asks her Mama and Grampa questions that all children ask adults they grow up. When Little Cub and her Mama set out on a Christmas adventure, in God Gave Us Christmas,  to find God, Little Cub discovers the wonders of God in the Aurora Borealis, the majestic ice caps, the bright Morning Star, little flowers and the meaning behind the crèche. Little Cub learns about Jesus, the best present of all—that He was sent because of God’s great love for all of us–to show us how to love others.

God Gave Us Love is a great follow up story, discussing the kinds of love that we share with our families, friends and others.  Grampa Bear shows Little Cub how sharing love with others is important even when we do not feel like showing love. It is hard for little ones to look beyond themselves at a young age when they need so much attention, have many needs and need answers to many questions.

Grampa explains to Little Cub that God gave us love to allow us to accept others’ differences and show love by being patient, gentle, kind—touching on the Fruits of the Spirit. Grampa tells Little Cub that God loved us so much that He sent Jesus to help us show our love and that is what is most important.

This Christmas season, as we ready for the celebrations of family and giving, remember and share with your little ones that God gave us Christmas, God gave us Jesus and the best present of all–love.

Shari Transue writes for Examiner.com, Associated Content, and Miss Shari’s Story Time Blog . She’s a Keystone College graduate, holding Bachelors in Communication Arts & Humanities and Education certification. Formerly a preschool teacher, Shari loves collaborating with parents, teachers, and reading children’s literature. Contact Shari here.

The Prophet Adam

The Prophet Siith

The Prophet Idris (Enoch)

The Prophet Nuh (Noah)

The Prophet Hud

The Prophet Salih

The Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)

The Prophet Isma’il (Ishmael)

The Prophet Ishaq (Isaac)

The Prophet Yaqub (Jacob)

The Prophet Lot (Lot)

The Prophet Shuaib

The Prophet Yusuf (Joseph)

The Prophet Ayoub (Job)

The Prophet Dhul-Kifl

The Prophet Yunus (Jonah)

The Prophet Musa (Moses) & Harun (Aaron)

The Prophet Hizqeel (Ezekiel)

The Prophet Elyas (Elisha)

The Prophet Shammil (Samuel)

The Prophet Dawud (David)

The Prophet Sulaiman (Soloman)

The Prophet Shia (Isaiah)

The Prophet Aramaya (Jeremiah)

The Prophet Daniel

The Prophet Uzair (Ezra)

The Prophet Zakariyah (Zechariah)

The Prophet Yahya (John)

The Prophet Isa (Jesus)

The Prophet Muhammad

Something smells awful. Is it the rotting, bloated whales a neighboring ship has chained to her sides? Is it the unscrupulous deceit with which Stubb tricks the captain of the neighboring ship into giving him a valuable, though rotting, whale? Or is it simply all the smelly Frenchmen on board this ship, along with their cologne-making captain?

These are the circumstances with which we meet the Rose-bud, a French whaling vessel almost as incompetent as the German vessel we met a few chapters earlier. Unlike the German ship, whose crew furiously chased whales but couldn’t apprehend them, the Rose-bud has chosen to scavenge for whales already dead in the water. Ishmael identifies both of the whales found by the Rose-bud as “blasted” whales, or whales which have “died unmolested on the sea.” Despite all evidence to support Ishmael’s assessment, Stubb insists that one of the whales in question was harpooned and drugged by the Pequod in an earlier chase and, though lost to them at the time, should not belong to the scavenging Frenchmen. Identifying the other scavenged whale as potentially containing valuable ambergris, Stubb plots his revenge.* Though played out as humorous, the trick Stubb plays on the French captain, with the help of a Guernsey-man on board, is not only deceitful, but insulting, demeaning, and cruel.** In short, like the rotting whales, Stubb’s behavior turns both the nose and the stomach.

Our culture uses a variety of metaphors to optimistically suggest goodness in the heart of badness — pearl in the oyster, oasis in the desert, diamond in the rough, clouds with silver linings***, etc. — but Stubb’s trickery and greed turns the metaphor on its head somewhat. What do we make of a situation where a sweet smell found amidst a stench suggests a deeper, far less superficial kind of rot? Has the self-serving ethos of capitalism deprived us of any true optimism?

*Ambergris is a fatty, oily substance found in the intestines of sick whales, possibly a sort of lubricant for ingested irritants. Used for cosmetics and perfumes, ambergris was even more valuable than oil.

**Guernsey is an English island off the coast of France.

***Or Zinc linings, according to Alex P. Keaton.

Chapter 91: The Pequod meets the Rose-bud

From the heart of the stench
A rose-bud blooms,
A rose-bud blooms for the day.

The brilliant devise,
A posture to prize,
The moment’s luck from dismay.

As adjoining streams
Join as one, kneeling
Through the banks of probable decay,
Cannot claim perfume
Into rotten wounds,
May your sweetness live above the day!

Tides of the stench
Will ebb and flow,
And you, untouched, my Amber-Gray.

As adjoining streams
Join as one, kneeling
Through the banks of probable decay,
Cannot claim perfume
Into rotten wounds,
May your sweetness live above the day!

From the heart of the stench
A rose-bud blooms,
A rose-bud blooms for the day.

Tides of the stench
Will ebb and flow,
And you, untouched, my Amber-Gray.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea October 9, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea November 7, 2009

I just finished a book entitled “Ishmael,” by Daniel Quinn. Some of you will recognize the name Ishmael, especially if you are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, or are well-read.

The book I’ve been reading is not a work of historical fiction based on the biblical Ishamael.. It’s.. quite different. I don’t know why the author chose that name for the main character Maybe someone else who has read this book could comment on that. Before I get into this particular story called Ishmael, I shall tell you about the original.

Ishmael is told about in the Hebrew bible, which is also called the Old Testament, if you happen to be a Christian. Ishmael is also mentioned in the Quaran (also spelled “Koran,” “Quran,” – the Muslim holy book). All three scriptures tell of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. You can read this story in the book of Genesis. I was a Christian for many years, so I learned of Ishmael by reading the Old Testament. I’ve never read the Koran.

Abraham.. do I have to tell all of his story as well? No, go read Genesis, it is one of the most interesting books in the Bible – in my opinion, Genesis and Revelation – the first and last books of the Bible, are the most interesting to read, except for the first few chapters of Revelation, which I found quite dry.. but the rest of it, wow.. some have hypothesized that St. John, who wrote the Book of Revelation while on the Isle of Patmos in the Mediterranean Sea, was ingesting some sort of psychedelic plants.. (and if you want to read a book about psychedelic plants – I have just started one called “Breaking Open the Head,” by Daniel Pinchbeck – later, I’ll let you know if I think it’s good) .. but I digress..

Right then, Abraham.. first of the patriarchs. Abraham was told by God to leave his land and go to an area unknown to him and set up camp there.. he did so, and God blessed him with livestock and good crops and fertile land and good weather to grow the crops, etc. God also promised (well, I guess I am telling at least part of the Abraham story here aren’t I?) .. God promised Abraham a son.

Abraham and his wife Sarah grew quite old, and waited and waited..

And.. waited.

Finally, one day, Sarah says, “You need an heir. I ain’t gettin’ any younger, neither are you.. so, go make flippy-floppy with our servant woman, Hagar, and she will bare you a son.” Abe said ok, (I am guessing Hagar was not horrible – sorry, bad joke, couldn’t resist) did the deed, and later, Sarah bore Abraham his first child, Ishmael. God wasn’t exactly pleased about this, because he told Abe and Sarah to wait, and that, eventually, Abe and Sarah would make a son. This was a test of faith, one that Abe and Sarah, but especially Abe, failed. You may notice this is a second incident in the Book of Genesis in which a woman tempts a man, the man succumbs, and bad things happen.. well.. these books were written by men… and as to the story of Ishmael and Abraham and Isaac, after I finish recounting it, you be the judge of whether things have turned out badly or not…things certainly did not go pleasantly in Abraham’s household after Ishmael was born.. read on..

Some time after Hagar gave birth to Ishmael, Abraham got Sarah pregnant, and she had the promised child. They named the boy Isaac, which means “laughter.” (Sorry, I don’t remember what the name Ishmael means, and don’t feel like digging up my bible. I’ve spent more than enough time reading it, and have long since stopped reading it regularly, which, for me, is a very very good thing.)

As you might guess, there was tension between Hagar and Sarah, after Hagar gave Abe his first child. The tensions didn’t exactly diminish once Isaac was born. The two sons didn’t get along too well either, if I remember right. Eventually, things got so bad that Sarah told Abraham to banish Hagar and Ishmael, which Abraham did. He sent those two away, but God looked after them, and they didn’t starve in the desert.

Before Ishmael and Hagar were banished, God gave Abraham another test. God told Abraham to kill his son – to put his son on an altar and slaughter his son and burn the corpse as an offering to God. God was really into burnt offerings. However, God in the past had always demanded animals to be sacrificed.  This was the first time in the Bible that God wanted a human killed on an altar. According to the  New Testament, the second human killed as a sacrifice was Christ, and that occurred much much later.

Here is an interesting thing.. In the book of Genesis, it is Isaac who Abraham is told to sacrifice, in the Koran, it is Ishmael. Hmm…

What do I think? I think the story is a myth, not a news report, and not even all news reports are accurate..You believe what you want. I’m agnostic, and am just telling you the story.

Anyway.. Abraham, and his son whose name begins with the letter “I” head up a mountain and put stones on top of each other to make an altar. The son looks around for the sheep or goat or ferret or whatever (just kidding about the ferret), and hmm… no animal, asks his daddy about it, daddy says, “hop up on those stones, son.” Abraham then proceeds to tie up his son, and get the knife out to cut his throat. (Cue dramatic, suspenseful music here.. rising to a crescendo of impending gore and death..)

At the last moment, God tells Abraham to stop, that this was a test, and the son could now be unbound. Then, a ram (a rather unfortunate ram, wrong place wrong time) is sent by God to be wandering around in the general vicinity, and Abraham sacrifices the ram instead of his son.

Ok.. so, Isaac, the son of Abraham, becomes the second Jewish patriarch, and Ishmael is considered to be the father of the Arabs.. who eventually become Muslim, around 500 years after the death of Christ, much much later..

Arabs and Jews still don’t get along..

So there you go, that is the story of the biblical Ishmael, he isn’t mentioned much, if at all in the Bible after he gets banished. I don’t know if there is more info on him in the Koran.

Now you can see why the name “Ishmael” is a controversial choice for a fictional character – especially a fictional character who is a…

Telepathic gorilla.

Nope, I am not joking. The title character in the novel I just read, called “Ishmael,” is a telepathic gorilla. He is a teacher, or should I say Teacher.. one who is able and willing to impart great wisdom. Ishmael puts an ad in the paper, which the narrator of the story answers.

When I say narrator of the story, I mean the person telling it. Fiction is almost always written from the perspective of either first person or 3rd person omniscient. First person perspective books say “I did this – I went to the toilet, and while sitting on the porcelain throne, I was reading the newspaper, and found this remarkable advert”   .. and no, in the book, the character does not mention he was reading the book on the john, in case you’re wondering…)

The other literary perspective is called 3rd person omniscient. Omniscient means “all-knowing.” These books don’t start with I did this or that, but instead, “Bob Fribber went to the toilet. Bob sat and read the newspaper, saw an ad in the paper about a teacher seeking a student, and thought he might like to answer that ad, and see what he could learn.” Books written this way tell us the thoughts, motivations, etc. of the characters.

The narrator answers the ad, travels to a rather plain office building, and inside a mostly empty office within that building is a hulking gorilla, who turns out to be telepathic – he can talk with just his mind – which is a good thing, since the great apes, including gorillas, haven’t got the right vocal chords for speech. You can imagine mental telepathy would be quite a helpful ability for a gorilla.

Ishmael the gorilla, and the narrator enter into a series of dialogs. Almost all of the book is their conversations.. so as far as story goes, this isn’t much of a novel.. but it is a really deep book.. a work of philosophy, that I found worth reading.

The topic they discuss, and the wisdom Ishmael shares is regarding the eventual extinction of the human race, caused by the human race.. more specifically, caused by the view or philosophy of the human race.. or rather, most of us on this planet, but not all of us. (What do you mean I’m not making myself clear?)

For the sake of discussion, Ishmael divides humanity into two groups, the Takers, and the Leavers. The Takers are the people who many many many many years ago started the agricultural revolution, and greatly increased food production, which led to an ever increasing human population, which led to the need for yet more food production..which is still happening today,  and the Takers, being in numbers largely superior, took over the world, and mostly wiped out the Leavers.

Leaver societies – people who did not try so hard to control their own fates, who lived as hunter-gatherers, had respect for nature, and did not see themselves how we see ourselves. There are very few Leaver societies left. They include certain Native Americans (probably not those who are heavily invested in Casino gambling), Australian Aborigines, the tribesfolk of the Amazon – you get the idea.

How do we Takers see ourselves? We see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution.. everything on earth leading up to us, and the earth being for us. Leavers, according to this book, see us as being no different than elephants or rabbits or birdies – creatures on the earth, who are for the earth. Leavers therefore, do not exploit the planet and ruin it. It’s the Takers who do this. It is the Takers who are in control, and ruining the planet and ourselves.

You can find ancient references to a Taker philosophy, including the Bible.. mankind being told by God to go out and subdue the earth and take dominion over it, something like that.

Science tells us we are the highest form of evolution and many scientist assume we are what nature intended – no more evolving. This will be the case if we destroy ourselves… if we are all dead, we cannot evolve any further.

For a rather humorous and yet quite sobering look at what a mess American society might become in a hundred years (that is, if we don’t destroy ourselves before then) and, if you are not easily offended (I am guessing that many of those who are very easily offended would have stopped reading this blog before they got this far, so no worries), I highly recommend a movie called “Idiocracy.” It will show you a definite possibility of what the future of Taker society will be.

“Ishmeal” brought up many interesting things, including unusual but very thought-provoking interpretations of the Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel stories from Genesis. I will not write about these interpretations in this blog – if you want to know them, read the book, and if you haven’t yet read the Book of Genesis in the Bible, read that book first – at least the first few chapters – won’t take you much time. (There is even a brief mention of angels having sex with human women and producing powerful offspring – that’s in the 6th chapter of Genesis – far out, huh?) If you are not familiar with the earliest stories in Genesis, reading “Ishmael” will be a bit more difficult.

The book is mainly to get us thinking. In my opinion, not many solutions to our problems were proposed, even at the end.. so in that respect, I sort of felt the book to be lacking.. but that, I think is because we are so used to being spoon-fed information these days, we have lost much of our ability to think for ourselves. So, after reading this book, perhaps I can come up with my own ideas for helping the planet and living better, now that I have a new perspective. I think that is what the author intended.

A new perspective – that is what the book is good for.. a perspective that could lead to more critical thinking, which could later lead to a change in global consciousness, and a change in our behavior.

I kinda doubt it though.. I’m not the most optimistic person in this world. I should try harder to be optimistic..will do me a world of good, then I can do the world more good..

Fact is.. we are waking up to the reality that we humans in the industrialized world need to change, and this book, I think, will help.

If you’ve found this blog interesting, I strongly suggest reading “Ishmael.”

The Bible says of Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arab people:

“He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen” (Genesis 16:12).

We are constantly fed a fiction today concerning an issue that is growing larger and larger: Islam is a religion of peace, which a relative few crazed fanatics are trying to subvert.  The problem with this view is that it is a fiction.  The Muslims who support acts of religious violence against infidels (unbelievers) to their religion have a far stronger case to offer from the Koran and from the Hadith than do those Muslims who wish to have peace with the West.

The most terrifying problem of all is that the jihadists/terrorists are interpreting their Korans and their Islamic traditions more accurately than the Muslim contextualizers who are trying to make their religion compatible with Western values.  Why?  Because if the above is true, the problem becomes Islam itself, rather than a “few” (a few who nevertheless amount to tens of millions) “nutjobs.”

It is obvious why we would prefer the “few nutjobs” theory to be true, rather than the theory that Islam is a militant religion bent on conversion and expansion by force.  Who wouldn’t rather the former be true?  And yet it is also obvious why it is important to see the world as it really is, rather than merely as we wish it would be.

We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace.  It is not, and never has been; it is a religion of submission.  And problems arise whenever people in the Islamic sphere do not submit:  Women are oppressed.  Religious freedom is totally denied.  Anyone converting from Islam is killed.  We are also constantly told that Mohammad the Prophet of Islam was a man of peace; but history shows the exact opposite.

Mohammad was a man of violence who committed acts of genocide.  Most historians say that Mohammad led at least 27 military campaigns before his death in 632.  Many Muslims claim that the number was actually far higher – as many as 80.  And Mohammad had dozens more military campaigns planned at the time of his death.  Mohammad was a man of violence, a man who seized caravans and killed all the men, and enslaved all the women and children.  The Koran records his words to that effect: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. …And slay them wherever ye catch them….”

As you read the above words from Mohammad, realize that the Koran and Islamic tradition are quite clear that the Prophet is the supreme example of behavior for Muslims to follow.

Mohammad’s life can be divided into two phases: the Mecca phase and the Medina phase.  During the Mecca phase, Mohammad was greatly outnumbered and militarily weaker than his opponents.  We see his calls for peace during this phase.  But he left Mecca and subsequently grew strong in Medina – strong enough to ultimately seize Mecca by force.  During this phase, we find the increasingly violent calls to subdue the infidel by any means necessary.  This second and later phase has set the standard for Islam.

You do not find peace in Mohammad, or the religion which he founded.

You DO find it in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity as being lived out as Jesus lived.  Unlike the paradigm of Mohammad, no one professing to be a Christian can credibly argue that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, taught violence, or anything that contradicted His precepts that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

One hundred years after the death of Jesus, Christians were – and had been – dying as martyrs by the hundreds of thousands under some of the cruelest and most vicious persecutions the world has ever seen under the Roman emperors.  They sealed their testimony in their blood, proving their faith in Christ Jesus with their deaths, just as the Apostles had done with their deaths by martyrdom before them.

One hundred years after the death of Mohammad Muslim conquerors had long since set out with the scimitar.  They had poured across Arabia, poured across Africa, with violence in their hearts.  Christian communities in Africa and then Spain were eradicated.  And a vast Muslim army poured all the way across Europe killing and plundering, only to finally be stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours near Poitiers in France.

Christians are frequently confronted with their crimes during the Crusades.  What is largely ignored are the four centuries of unrelenting Islamic violence that preceded the Crusades, or that the Crusades began when the Christian emperor of the Christian Byzantine Empire at Constantinople called upon the Pope for aid to protect the empire from the threat posed by an attacking Islam.

This is not to say that self-professing Christians didn’t commit many evils during the Crusades, or during other times.  I merely point out that Islam had a long-standing tradition of continual violence that Christendom ultimately had to respond to.  Just as Western civilization needs to respond to the violence posed by Islam today.  Christians today – partly because of the Crusades – realize that there is no “Kingdom of Heaven” on earth; and the Christian’s ultimate kingdom is with Christ in heaven, rather than some geographical location at Jerusalem or any other place on earth.  We were wrong for believing we needed to go to war to claim Jerusalem for Christendom.

Allow me to contrast the Christian view of territory with the Islamic one:

According to the Muslim way of thinking, the world is divided into two areas: Dar al-Islam is the area already conquered by Islam. Dar al-Harb is the area of war, which the Arabs are commanded to conquer until it is turned into Muslim territory. After a certain territory has been conquered by Islam, it is declared as holy Muslim territory, which is forbidden to be relinquished under any circumstances.

[See here for more].

We need to face up to many theological and historical issues within Islam itself in order to come to some understanding as to how to begin to solve the obviously growing problem of violence.

Robert Spencer put it this way:

“If Mohammad taught violence, if Mohammad taught a doctrine of required holy war against infidels, if Mohammad conflated religion and government it will change mujahedin around the world not one bit to pretend otherwise; they will continue to invoke what they believe to be his authentic teachings in order to justify their actions.  The fact that truths are difficult is no reason to choose unreality and ‘polite fictions.’”

I would agree with any Muslim who says that terrorism is not an essential part of Islam.  Of course it isn’t.  As human beings, we are not automatons, we are free-willed human beings who make our own choices – and who are held responsible for the choices we make.

But I would also confront any Muslim who wants to see true peace with the rest of the world to account for the fact that virtually all of the hundreds of thousands of violent terrorist acts in the world resulted from Islamic theology, by men who screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as they murdered.

And I would confront Muslims to quit blaming the existence of Israel for violence and finally look at themselves instead.  Many Muslims demand that the Jews surrender the land that they “stole” from Palestinians.  I disagree that the Jews did any such thing, but let me agree with the premise for the sake of argument.  Fine.  Let every Muslim first surrender every square inch of land that Islam has seized, just to show that they are not hypocrites who demand standards from others that they would never be willing to put upon themselves.

And I would similarly point out that Jews have not been the source of violence and death in the Muslim world.  The fact is rather that:

“some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”

Today, tens of millions of Muslims live in fear of criticizing their fellow Muslims who are willing to employ violent jihad for fear that they will become the next victims of such Muslim violence.

And herein lies the rub.  If only a few “nutjobs” are “highjacking” (actually a very good word indeed given that we are talking about terrorism) a good and noble and peaceful religion, then let the hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not support the use of terrorism rise up as one man and deal with the clearly-growing crisis of violence that has been growing for decades inside their very own house.  Rather than standing by on the sidelines in fear and apathy, if you moderate Muslims REALLY speak for “true Islam,” then please finally stand up and DO so.  Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Don’t allow armed murderers to hide themselves among you, only to kill and murder before concealing themselves once more among you, and then claim that you aren’t responsible.  You moderate Muslims ARE responsible for what is happening all around you.

Islam is and will continue to be a religion of terrorist violence unless you moderate Muslims stand up and make it something different.

It’s time to take a side between “Islam, the religion of violence,” and “Islam, the religion of peace.”

Christians, Jews, and Muslims actually can stand in agreement on a great many things.  While we clearly disagree on the nature of God and His revelation, we nevertheless are people who believe in God and believe in divine revelation.  And therefore we agree that there are objective transcendent moral values.  There are a great many things we could agree upon, if we put our minds and our hearts to it.

Selected passages from the Koran detailing the fundamental intolerance and violence endemic to Islam:

Quran 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”

61:2 “O Muslims, why say one thing and do another? Grievously odious and hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not. Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in a battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”

9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”

47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”

.

Everyone reaches a point in growing up where he or she realizes the horror of most fairy tales and lullabies. From Cinderella’s stepsisters’ eyes being pecked out by birds, to a baby being blown out of a tree (why was it up there to begin with?), we grow up learning morals and values taught through terror. From there, it’s a pretty natural transition in high school to 1980’s horror movies and Victorian novels where adulterers are punished with horrible deaths.

“Squid” does not fit the bill of morality play, per se, but Ishmael presents the titular kraken in a creepy way evocative, at least to me, of scary stories and fairy tales. In the midst of a calm, Daggoo disrupts the crew’s collective lull with a possible sighting of Moby Dick. Upon reaching what they thought was a white whale, the four boats find instead a giant squid, “a vast pulpy mass” with arms “like a nest of anacondas, as if blindly to clutch at any hapless object within reach.” Ishmael continues, describing the squid as having “no perceptible face or front,” and being “an unearthly, formless, chance-like apparition of life.” Starbuck, of course, jumps to omen, saying that few ships have seen a kraken and survived the rest of their voyage, but Ishmael dismisses the concern, thinking rather that a kraken sightings are simply rare, which somehow “invest it with portentousness.”

A faceless, shapeless, blind reaper-of-souls, rarely seen and little understood? Sounds like a Puritan lullaby to me. And so I give you “Squid.”

Chapter 59: Squid

Matterhorn, now rising from the ocean –
A twisted form as roots into the deep.
As the mountains
Reach down and down
To the brimstone, the Kraken grasps the sea.

Nest of snakes, to blindly rip asunder
Hapless souls who chance into their reach.
Widen berth
From sin and sorrow –
Let The Whale drive him to the deep.

But beware (beware!),
As the weight descends
A whirlpool left behind.

So beware (beware!),
From the oceans fair,
Damnation grasping thee.

Though they say, the rising Whale as portent,
Bringing ’round the fateful end of days,
It’s the Kraken
That rises with Him
In the fray, will shatter all the world.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea October 4, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea October 17, 2009

This post is coming to you in bullet points because my life is all over the place right now…but not necessarily in a bad way. It’s the end of the quarter, I have papers to write and projects to present – you know how it goes. Anyway, since my last post I have…

• visited my high school and caught up with my two favorite teachers. I might be running a workshop with the newsmagazine staff over my winter break, which I think will be really exciting.
• slaved over a 10-page paper that I hope my soc professor deems A-worthy
• witnessed my little sister’s first (informal) driving lesson:

• handed out candy to people well over the age of typical Trick-or-Treaters

how my mom did our four pumpkins this year…if you can’t tell, the top two are eyes, the middle one is a nose, and the bottom is a mouth. Ain’t she creative?

• turned these

• into these…

ugh, upside down. Just go with it. These were the bomb.com and the recipe can be found here.

• accepted an internship (!!!) – more about that another time, perhaps
• read an incredibly thought-provoking book for my soc class. I finished it a good 45 minutes ago and the wheels inside my head are still turning. I would definitely recommend this to pretty much anyone.
• scheduled my classes for next quarter, including the oh-so-daunting Communication Law. Ruh roh?

Tomorrow is my last day of class for the week, and I only have soc because history was canceled (!). This weekend, my little sister in my sorority’s best friend from home is coming in and it’s one of my friend’s 21st birthday party, so I’m sure something exciting will happen. Next week is the last week of classes, and I couldn’t be more relieved. This quarter hasn’t been bad by any means, but I am so ready for a break.

I promise once break starts I’ll have better posts, but, alas, school takes precedence over blogging.

“The Gam” begins where “The Advocate” left off — giving readers one more reason that whaling is a superior pursuit to other maritime professions. We learn in “The Gam” that whalers are superior in their practice of greeting and socializing with crews of other whaling vessels when, by chance, they meet on the open seas. Though initially discussing the common sense and courtesy of the practice, Ishmael quickly, and at length, turns his discussion toward the snobbery implied in not valuing the gam as whalers do. He chides the “metropolitan superiority” of the English whalers toward the “Nantucketer, with his nondescript provincialisms,” as well as the aloof dismissal with which a merchant ship passes others it encounters in its travels. Of course, there are practical reasons that a gam benefits a whaling vessel where it would not benefit a merchant vessel — exchanging intelligence for one — but Ishmael ignores these considerations in favor of mocking the fancy pillows that merchant captains sit on when being ferried to another vessel, contrasted with the manly asceticism seen in a whaling captain, standing upright in mid-boat, uncomfortably trying to keep his legs.

In “The Gam,” Ishmael touches in me what I think is my biggest difficulty with class — a social pressure to discuss it only in winks and nods; interpretations of gesture, education, or background; and, most bizarrely, consumer choice, not in how much to spend, but in which brand to spend it on. Like a monster under the bed, our imaginations often fill in the unknown with the terrible, and so we assume awful, mean-spirited judgments in others, which in turn create awful, mean-spirited judgments in ourselves. We’re in a hall of mirrors, defensively reacting to each others’ reactions, taking on uncomfortable postures to garner credibility, snubbing and feeling snubbed, all to the loss of any sort of truthful human interaction. It’s our own fault.

Chapter 53: The Gam

Whaling ships are having a good time
Roaming on the open sea!
Pirate ships are villainous rascals,
Locked in their castles
With no “good day” to me.

Merchant ships are spurious dandies,
Brushing off their brethren without a heed.
Slaving ships are running from something,
And ceremony mars
The meeting Men of War.

On the open sea,
Lend the courtesy
As the whalers do with every passing of keels.
Oh, let’s have a gam,
I’ll extend my hand
To all sailors who share the jaunty rhythms of the sea.

Passing correspondence between us,
Pluck upon my tethers to home,
Tell us where the whales run the thickest,
Wherefore the riches
Surface from the foam.

On the open sea,
Lend the courtesy
As the whalers do with every passing of keels.
Oh, let’s have a gam,
I’ll extend my hand
To all sailors who share the jaunty rhythms of the sea.

Whaling ships are having a good time
Roaming on the open sea!
Join us for a bit of a ramble,
And let the ocean handle
The grave philosophies.

On the open sea,
Lend the courtesy
As the whalers do with every passing of keels.
Oh, let’s have a gam,
I’ll extend my hand
To all sailors who share the jaunty rhythms of the sea.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea October 2, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea October 11, 2009

Gender: Masculine
Origin: Biblical, Hebrew
Meaning: “he has heard.”
Eng (SIE-mun)

Simeon first appears in the Old Testament as the name of the son of Leah and Jacob who was the patriarch of the Simeonite tribe.

The name origins are debated. The Torah claims that the name is in reference to Leah’s cry of anguish to God over her husband’s deference to her. Being a derivative of the Hebrew shama’on meaning “he has heard my suffering.” In this case, the name would share the same etymology as the name Ishmael (God has heard).

In some classical Rabbinical texts the name is sometimes translated to mean “he who listens to the words of God.” It has even been suggested that it is derived from the Hebrew sham’in meaning “there is sin” which is in reference to Zimri, an ancestor of Simeon’s, who committed the sin of having a relationship with a Midianite woman.

The name was borne by several other characters in the Old and New Testament, in the forms of Simeon and Simon. Simon later became associated with St. Peter. During the early Christian era, the Greek world took the name to mean “snub nosed” due to its similarity in sound to the Greek word σιμοσ (simos).

Simon has always been prevalent in the Western World, it is currently very trendy in continental Europe. The rankings of popularity in various countries are as follows:

• Belgium # 12 (2006)
• Canada # 99 (2007)
• Chile # 77 (2006)
• France # 56 (2006)
• Hungary # 92 (2005)
• the Netherlands # 75 (2008)
• Norway # 75 (2007)
• Slovenia # 69 (2005)
• Sweden # 20 (2007)
• United States # 260 (2008)

Other forms of the name include (divided alphabetically by origin)

• Samān (Arabic)
• Simon (Armenian, English, Finnish, German, Hungarian, Norwegian, Slovenian, Swedish, Romanian)
• Şımon (Azeri)
• Ximun (Basque)
• Simeon (Armenian/Bulgarian)
• Simó (Catalan)
• 西蒙 Xi Méng (Chinese)
• Šimun (Croatian)
• Šimon (Czech/Slovak)
• Simoen (Danish)
• Siemen (Dutch; Frisian)
• Siimon (Estonian/Finnish)
• Símeon /Símun (Faroese)
• Semjon/Sema/Semen/Semoi/Siim/Siimoni (Finnish)
• Simeoni (Finnish)
• Simo (Finnish; Serbian)
• Semen (Gascon)
• Symeon (Greek Biblical)
• Symeon Συμεών (Greek Modern)
• Siimuut (Greenlandic)
• Shimon שמעון (Hebrew)
• Símon (Icelandic)
• Síomón (Irish)
• Simone (Italian/Corsican: pronounced see-MOH-nay, it ranked in as the 7th most popular male name in Italy in 2006)
• Sshimeoni (Kosovar)
• Simanas (Latvian)
• Saimonas/Saimontas/Simeonas (Lithuanian)
• Simanas/Simonas/Simas (Lithuanian)
• Simen/Simian (Norwegian)
• Simå (Norwegian dialectical form: Norrland & Østerdalen)
• Sømjo (Norwegian dialectical form: Rogaland)
• Simonu/Symeonu (Old Church Slavonic)
• Ximeno (Old Spanish)
• Symeon/Szymon (Polish: Szymek and Szymuś are diminutives. )
• Simão/Simeão (Portuguese)
• Simun (Quecha)
• Simion (Romanian/Danish)
• Semyon/Seymon (Russian)
• Sim (Scottish Gaelic)
• Simón (Spanish/Aragonese)
• Jimeno (Spanish)
• Simoni (Swahili)
• Semen/Symon (Ukrainian)
• Simwnt/Seimon (Welsh)
• Shimmel (Yiddish)

Feminine forms include:

• Simona (Czech, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian)
• Simonia/Simonie (Danish)
• Simoona (Finnish)
• Simone/Simonette (French)
• Szimóna/Szimonetta (Hungarian)
• Símonía (Icelandic)
• Simonetta (Italian)
• Sima/Simonė (Lithuanian)
• Ximena (Old Spanish/Old Portuguse forms)
• Szymona (Polish: vary rare)
• Simoneta (Portuguese)
• Simoneta/Šimona (Slovak)
• Jimena (Spanish)

The designated name-day is October 28, and October 30 in Slovakia.

Ştiu, o să pară un articol mistic. Asta e.

Am citit mai demult Ismael, o carte care mi-a plăcut extrem de mult, şi azi mi-am amintit de povestea aia cu Meduza (e la pagina 26, iată linkul ). Cam de la povestea asta mi-a venit ideea cu articolul următor. Nu ştiu de ce. Nici nu ştiu dacă va avea vreo legătură până la urmă cu Meduza, deşi ceva îmi spune ca va avea.  E tot o poveste. Eu nu ştiu să scriu altceva decât poveşti. Asta e, dacă mă simt mai apropiat de intuiţie decât de raţiune.

Mă gândesc la triburile din vechime şi la cele câteva care au mai rămas şi îmi sare în ochi un aspect foarte vizibil: ei trăiau în natură, în comuniune cu natura şi între membrii tribului existau legături foarte strânse. Mai mult, mie-mi pare că această legătură strânsă între Membrii Tribului – Natură poate fi asemuită foarte bine cu o simbioză. Simbioza este definită în felul următor în dex-ul nostru online cel de toate zilele – “Asociere a două vieţuitoare din specii diferite, care îşi duc viaţa în comun. ♦ (Fig.) Unire strânsă, intimă; prietenie. [Pron. -bi-o-. / < fr. symbiose, cf. gr. syn – cu, bios – viaşă]”. Putem considera natura o vieţuitoare? Vieţuitor este ceva în viaţă. Natura, după mine, este în viaţă în toate sensurile. Aşa că nimic nu mă opreşte să extind conceptul de vieţuitoare, astfel încât să cuprindă şi natura. Din câte ştiu simbioza presupune şi o dependenţă reciprocă a vieţuitoarelor care trăiesc în comun. De exemplu o termită care nu poate mistui lemnul, dar microbii din stomacul termitei pot, iar termita mănâncă ceea ce lasă microbii după ce au mâncat. Nu văd de ce triburile şi natura nu erau în dependenţă reciprocă. Aşa că o să continui de la ideea că tribul şi natura erau/sunt în simbioză. Eu aşa văd lucrurile.

Între membrii aceluiaşi trib exista o legătură strânsă, fără de care tribul n-ar mai fi putut supravieţui. Tribul era format din oameni, iar oamenii fac parte din aceiaşi specie. Ar fi putut exista simbioza între ei? Conform definiţiei, nu. Dar dacă ne imaginăm o legătură aşa de strânsă încât membrii tribului convieţuiau ca un întreg, ca un singur organism? Aş asemui tribul cu organismul uman, în cadrul căruia se petrec extraordinar de multe chestii de care nu suntem conştienţi. Nu suntem conştienţi de existenţa organismului în fiecare clipă, dar atunci când o facem ştim că facem parte din el şi el face parte din noi şi că gândul şi materia nu sunt despărţite, ci formează o unitate. Aici am cam generalizat. Sunt unii oameni care ridică în slăvi materialismul, alţii sunt cu imaterialul, alţii cu ambele, dar privite separat, ca fiind două părţi diferite, dar puţini sunt cei care cred în Holism. Sau mai mulţi. Nu ştiu. Nu i-am numarat. Să ne imaginăm că Tribul  este un organism de felul acesta ale cărui părţi se întrepătrund formând un întreg. Între Trib (organism) şi natură există o relaţie de simbioză, dar aş extinde (extind cam mult, nu?) şi aş merge până într-acolo încât aş spune că Tribul şi natura sunt O singură fiinţă. Termita şi microbii din stomacul ei sunt o singură fiinţă, la fel cum omul şi creierul său sunt o singură fiinţă. Da, dar creierul nu este o fiinţă. Aşa e. Nici creierul fără om nu ar exista la fel cum nici microbii ăia fără termită nu ar supravieţui. Aşa, pentru că am clarificat cât de cât pot merge mai departe, altfel devin plictisitorJ.

Ce mă face să cred în scenariul ăsta? Un fapt foarte simplu şi oarecum demonstrabil. Natura este împotriva sinuciderii. De ce triburile nu distrugeau natura? Pentru că era ca şi cum şi-ar fi extirpat creierul. De ce erau paşnici? Pentru că ar fi durut o eventuală răzvrătire. Aş asemui răzvrătirea cu o boală a unui organism pe care anticorpii o elimină mai devreme sau mai târziu.

Dar, se spune că ar fi existat nişte rebeli care ar fi ales calea răzvrătirii, la Revoluţia agricolă, acum 10 000 de ani. Au format un alt organism separat de natură, doar aparent, care se baza pe exploatarea naturii, adică pe auto-devorare şi autodistrugere treptate.

Cum s-au format ei, nu despre asta vreau să vorbesc. De ce s-au format? Doar un aspect mă interesează. După fiecare perioadă extremă urmează o altă perioadă opusă care se dezvoltă până la extrem ca mai apoi să lase loc unei alte perioade opuse care la rândul ei se va dezvolta până la extrem: Yin şi Yang, aici voiam să ajung.. Cel puţin aşa ne învaţă istoria. După o perioadă de prosperitate extremă urmează o perioadă de criză extremă. simbolul cel mai relevant e Yin şi Yang. Filozofia Tao e cea mai holistică. Iar pe mine mă interesează foarte tare aspectul ăsta al problemei. Ceea ce “aberau” oamenii ăia acum mii de ani despre Tao se potriveşte perfect cu principiile fizicii cuantice de azi. Ce “coincidenţă”. Dar despre asta voi scrie într-un articol separat…

Acum mă întreb şi eu, că tot am ajuns aici, ce dracu legătură e între Tao, Meduza lui Daniel Quinn şi Revoluţia agricolă. Bună întrebare. O să încerc să răspund. Deşi nu ştiu dacă voi reuşiJ.

Să ne imaginăm că acum 10 000 de ani, chiar înainte de Revoluţia agricolă a existat o astfel de perioadă extremă. De ce n-ar fi fost o perioadă extremă? Lumea o ducea mult prea bine atunci. Când organismul o duce mult prea bine, trebuie să apară o boală, iar după boală, organismul îşi revine treptat şi continuă să o ducă bine şi aşa mai departe. Cu o singură excepţie, atunci când boala este incurabilă, cum e SIDA, de exemplu. Ceea ce se întâmplă acum cam aşa pare a fi. O boală fără leac. O extremă boală fără leac care riscă să ucidă întregul organism. Atunci au apărut ceilalţi oameni. Au format o nouă cultură, separată (aparent) de natură, au venit cu conceptele lor de bine şi rău şi derivatele acestora. Cultura lor se baza şi se bazează pe distrugerea a tot ce nu e ca ei. Şi au continuat să distrugă, să distrugă, treptat-treptat, apropiindu-se de extremă, până azi când iată că ne aflăm într-o asemenea extremă.

În cultura asta auto-distructivă, au început să re-apară primele semne de holism. Da, chiar aşa. Numai că Tancul e prea mare de data asta ca să fie distrus. Sau? Cine ştie. Nu putem ştii nimic cu siguranţă. Aceste semne firave au început o dată cu fizica cuantică. Ea ne spune, contrar fizicii lui Newton, că întreg Universul e un mare Întreg, fără parţi independente, aşa cum ne-au învăţat de secole dualiştii sau materialiştii:

Suntem conduşi spre noţiunea de întreg indestructibil, noţiune opusă ideii clasice de realitate separată în părţi ce pot fi analizate independent…Ideile clasice de relitate constituită din componente elementare fundamentale şi de sistem alcătuit prin alăturarea şi aranjarea părţilor au fost părăsite. Spunem acum că interdependenţa cuantică a întregului constituie realitatea fundamentală şi că părţile care se comportă doar în mod relativ independent sunt forme particulare integrate acestei unităţi.( David Bohm)

În cultura asta autodistructivă au apărut primele semne de comunicare acauzală între persoane şi între acestea şi Natură. Bineînţeles nimeni nu crede, pentru că nu pot fi dovedite ştiinţific. Dar ce, Newton se gândea că se va naşte Einstein care-i va zdruncina concepţia sa rigidă despre lume? Eu nu cred că se gândea. Ca o analogie, foarte mulţi spun, Nu se poate, pentru că legile fizicii spun altceva, nu există comunicare acauzală(!!!). Probabil o fac dintr-o încăpăţânare, dintr-o ambiţie de viaţă (toată viaţa au fost siguri de ceva şi deodată vine cineva şi le dovedeşte că s-au înşelat: omul vede numai ce este învăţat să vadă) şi nu se gândesc că aceste legi ale fizicii nu se aplică domeniului contestat. Legile fizicii se aplică numai anumitor sisteme, nu realităţii în întregime. De vreo o sută de ani se lucrează la o teoremă care să explice realitatea în întregime. Dar nici până azi n-a fost descoperită.

În cultura asta autodistructivă, să ne imaginăm că există oameni moderni care pot trăi ca un întreg, ei şi întregul univers, Unul. Nu ca pe vremuri, în păduri, pentru că în stadiul de faţă aşa ceva nu mai este posibil. Pe de altă parte nici nu prea mai sunt păduri pentru a băga toţi oamenii în ele. Să ne imaginăm că doar trăiesc într-o altă formă, dar având aceeaşi esenţă cu modul de viaţă al primitivilor. Trăiesc şi comunică între ei şi cu mediul înconjurător natural, poate la fel cum vorbeau cu zeii primitivii. Să-i numim Homo Gestalt. Poate că nu sunt mulţi. Dar pot deveni mai mulţi. Meduza lui Ismael a greşit când a afirmat că în final a apărut ea, lăsând să se înţeleagă că ea este culmea evoluţiei. Prin asta a exclus orice posibilitate viitoare de evoluţie pentru ea însăşi. Şi tot aşa fac şi oamenii civilizaţiei noastre.

Un foarte posibil cataclism mondial cauzat de această cultură autodistructivă, va împiedica evoluţia celelaltor specii, inclusiv a noastră. Iar dacă noi am ajunge să depăşim stadiul de indivizi separaţi, aşa cum ne învaţă încă paradigma clasică, într-un timp foarte scurt, atunci ar mai fi o şansă. Următoarea etapă în evoluţia umanităţii nu va fi una fiziologică, ci una spirituală. Această etapă spirituală nu trebuie înţeleasă făcându-se analogie cu religia. Ci doar o evoluţie spirituală naturală. Bineînţeles, dacă timpul ne va permite, în această cultură autodistructivă.

Sebastien Tellier – Look (Brian Park’s Ishmael Mix)

Download

I wont be making a habit of it, but here is an original remix. It’s a Sebastien Tellier track, with bits of Abdullah Ibrahim, Tangerine Dream, and Ralph Towner in there. This is my second crack at mixing this, hope you enjoy it.

Something else I completed recently was some more artwork for Glasgow-based band Call Me Ishmael; a cover for their new demo/ EP.

I worked up about three different versions, more or less along the same lines, and this is one of the rejects. Thought I’d share it.

Today sees the start of Kurban-Bayram (Eid al-Adha), in which Russian Muslims and their coreligionists around the globe celebrate Ibrahim’s (that’s Abraham of scriptures fame) obedience to Allah by agreeing to sacrifice his son. Ismail was, however, spared at the last minute, a ram being killed in his place. And before anyone points out that it was Isaac not Ishmael who was up for the chop, it wasn’t according to Islamic scholars. Okay?!

The three day “Festival of Sacrifice” is marked by en masse praying, symbolic animal slaughter, and in many countries a public holiday. So too in certain parts of Russia. Some 50,000 Muslims will gather at Moscow’s newly renovated Cathedral Mosque, which is, incidentally, also known as the “Tatar Mosque,” the “Blue Mosque,” the “Congregational Mosque,” and the “Grand Mosque,” and from which the State media will be broadcasting many events live. As a means of maintaining security and public order, the police will be closing nearby streets together with those close to other large masjids.

They’re good at that, the Moscow police are . . . .

I don’t know, but I have my doubts, especially this year.

Thanksgiving is a North American civil holiday and not an actual religious holiday per se. Thanks to the nature of our American tradition and the function of religion in that tradition, for many it is the time that all faith traditions emphasize the importance of thanksgiving to the Creator and ultimate source of all blessing in life. So in theory, Muslims in the United States could easily embrace this American tradition and the function that it plays in our National identity and culture.

Did you know that there is another celebration, very significant to Muslims world-wide, that begins the day after Thanksgiving (this year) and this is the main reason for my doubts. It is simply a matter of the “prior” engagement that Muslims no doubt will be occupied with, much like my wife is now occupied with as she prepares for a house full of relatives for Thanksgiving. The Muslim festival I’m referring to is not just one day, but four days, and is called the “Festival of Sacrifice“.

This week Mohammedans celebrate their “Festival of the Sacrifice,” their Id al-adha, with slaying of animals and donations of the flesh to the poor. In New York City the festival has an unusual significance. It is due to the fact that the city has some 18,000 Moslems—Polish Tartars, Albanians, Turks, Hindus, Arabs, Malays, Filipinos. Some 700 assembled at Brooklyn last year for the first time for prayer, prostration and sacrifice. See the link above for more information of this festival which has some similiar features so prominent in our Thanksgiving activities, though we usually don’t refer to the slaughter of so many turkeys as a religious sacrifice. One final picture from Pakistan which is so prominent in our daily news, may be worth a “thousand words”.

When I watch nature documentaries on TV, I find myself experiencing a strange mix of clinical interest and upsetting empathy. I know that animals eat each other, that this is a fact and necessity of nature, but I can’t help pitying that grazing mammal as it hopelessly tries to kick itself free of locked crocodile jaws. For thousands of years of recorded history, humans have expressed a recognition of a similar dilemma as they hunt — the natural necessity of eating on one hand, the sacred value of life on the other.

In “The Pequod Meets the Virgin,” Ishmael weaves a narrative that evokes a similar mix of emotion. The majority of the chapter slowly and excruciatingly details the killing of an enormous and powerful whale, now sick in his old age. Ishmael alternates with pity for the dying, and cold indifference for the killing. But the brutality of the killing itself, undertaken for frivolous reasons, brings us to an uncomfortable moral ground. The whale was “horribly pitiable to see. But pity there was none. For all his old age, and his one arm, and his blind eyes, he must die the death and be murdered, in order to light the gay bridals and other merry-makings of men, and also to illuminate the solemn churches who preach unconditional inoffensiveness of all to all.” In framing the hunt thus, Ishmael frames the pursuit of whaling as needless, cruel, and unappreciative of the life in sacrifice — a group of bullies taking advantage of the weak.

So too, do we see in the Pequod’s interactions with the incompetent German ship, the Virgin. In competition to harpoon the whale, both crews fight tooth and nail, hurling insults as well as objects as they row into harpoon range. In the end, the Pequod’s boats win out, throwing their harpoons over the heads of the Germans, and knocking the captain out of his boat in the subsequent rush of the pricked whale. The glee with which the Pequod’s mates lord over not only their victory, but the failure of their competitors, complements their cruelty with the whale. Here we have not an unfortunate recognition that one side must win out over the other, but a joyful and abusive wielding of power.

Chapter 81: The Pequod meets the Virgin

Who knew, under placid waters
King Erudition writhes?
Barbed by weaker opposition,
Pitied for muted cries.

Were it head on, no one could resist him,
Strength of a thousand thighs,
But with one prick, hiding in the water,
King Erudition writhes.

And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.
And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.

The good folk, dark if for the pity
Man brings to suicide.
With a cheek turned, live your final moments
Deep in a ponderous mind.

And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.
And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.

Who knew, under placid waters
King Erudition writhes?
With a cheek turned, live your final moments
Deep in a ponderous mind.

And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.
And I, I, I,
Heavy with a grievance, heavy with a grievance.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea October 6, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea October 31, 2009

As the pilgrimage of hajj has now started and with Eid ul Adha fast approaching I have been looking into the matter of the Qurbani issue.

For the past few years we have been sending the money through one of the well known charities. Last year I was told that though it is a noble way to do Qurbani, if Qurbani is allowed in the country that we live in, is preferable to do it here.

Slaughtering the animal is more preferable than donating the money allocated for it, for that is part of Islam’s rituals and a mode of seeking Allah’s Pleasure, as Allah said, (…So pray unto they Lord, and sacrifice…) (Al-Kawthar 108: 2)

Muslims slaughter animals during `eidul-dha in emulation of Prophet Abraham who was about to slaughter his son, Isma`eel (Ishmael), to show obedience to Almighty Allah, when Ishmael was redeemed by a ram brought to Abraham by Angel Gabriel. The Angel then conveyed to him Allah’s Command to slaughter the ram instead.

This act henceforth became a Prophetic Sunnah followed by Muslims. So to slaughter the animal in the `eid is better than donating the money, for if all Muslims were to do that, this virtuous tradition will become obsolete.

However, a donation can be made posthumously on behalf of a person who dies before fulfilling a religious duty of offering a sacrificial animal, if it will be useless to present a sacrificial animal due to, say, for instance, people are not in need of meat.

In short, it is preferable to slaughter animal and offer monetary donation if possible.

Insha Allah.

Related Article: What is Qurbani?

Insha Allah.

Hagar And Ishmael Expelled

Snow White

cinematographer gordon willis interviewed on Fresh Air a few nights back gave me a reason for continuing to live here that I loved hearing:  the light.  He said he hates LA because the light there is so flat and boring, one dimensional.  In the north you’ve got wonderful light, he loves the cold, northern lights in winter up here.  Hooray I thought.  There it is, a good reason.  Few days last week have been as November-esque as possible–dark and damp and drear.  Days that sent Ishmael wandering on the high seas.  Why do we keep living here  ? you hear voices in your head wondering aloud for you.  Many sane people move to Florida and other points south and if not south then west and south.  But then the light in the skies grabs you and does fantastic things you had not noticed since about this time last year.  Clouds, contrasts, deep grays, fast moving dark slices and white bursts, always something.  So to heck with those snowbirds, for a few months longer.  Maybe someday we’ll join the caravans to eternal sunshine but not yet, not for now.  Can’t wait to see how short the day will be tomorrow.  Today sunset hit just around 4:30.  Damnation, makes you want to move to Copenhagen and savor even longer pitch black nights.

A cold, harsh world. Hostility from nature. Hostility from one’s fellow species. Alienation. Scar tissue as a written history of life lived. So dark, Ishmael! So dark!

In “The Blanket,” Ishmael examines and discusses a whale’s skin. In noticing small lines “engraved upon the body itself,” Ishmael first compares the whale to Egyptian pyramids and cliffs etched with undecipherable hieroglyphics, thereby establishing the skin as text. Ishmael continues, noticing the scar tissue that accompanies these lines, and here things start to get gloomy. The scars remind Ishmael of the scrapes left behind on rocks after contact with an iceberg. However, he notes that the scars on the whales most likely come from fellow whales. Connecting the violent erosion between vast and indifferent forces of nature with the violence of contact between members of the same species is quite an image. Add to that a discussion of men and whales, both needing warmth as an essential condition of life, both living in a world so devoid of warmth that they must make it themselves, and I’m ready to retreat into a fetal ball for the next week.

But we know Ishmael has been in a mood since the day we met him. What I find interesting is the fact that this particular mood can be so compelling, even as a guilty pleasure. Why do we indulge it? What’s so sexy about a scar? What’s so macho about hardship?

Ishmael closes the chapter feeling hopeless about making any comparison between man and whale: “Of erections, how few are domed like St. Peter’s! of creatures, how few vast as the whale!” In “The Blanket,” he gives us lament for the mortal insignificance of mankind. Bleak, Ishmael. Bleak.

Chapter 68: The Blanket

The skin of a man does tell of his history.
The skin of a man is thin as the breeze.
The skin of the whale is written as mystery,
Scarred in the vast, unspoken sea.

Learn your lessons from his presence,
Lifeless, laid at your feet.
Thick skin, blessed warmth, and refuge
Need a man to survive.

Much as the whale, does man need an inner warmth,
Though banished to live out his days in the cold.
Much as the whale, is man but a stranger
On the Earth he calls his home.

Learn your lessons from his presence,
Lifeless, laid at your feet.
Thick skin, blessed warmth, and refuge
Need a man to survive.
Thick skin, blessed warmth, and refuge
Need a man to survive.

(c) and (p) 2008 Patrick Shea
Words and music written by Patrick Shea October 5, 2008
All parts performed, arranged, and recorded by Patrick Shea October 24, 2009

Today’s Reading: Genesis 25 – 26

Gen. 25. God’s Sovereignty

Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. ~ Gen. 25:8

Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. ~ Gen. 25:17

Today, we say that believers have “gone to be with the Lord”, but remember, at this point in time, Jesus had not been resurrected; so rather than joining Him in Heaven, believers went to a place that Jesus called Abraham’s Bosom.  Jesus talks about this place in Luke 16:19-31 and I believe this is what “gathered to his people” means.

Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the LORD.

The LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.” ~ Gen. 25:21-23

This good husband prayed on his wife’s behalf. I love that! And I think God did too. Certainly God’s promises for Isaac were going to come to pass, but it was fitting for Isaac to remind God of his waiting in faith. When Rebekah was concerned about her babies, she went to the Lord. His answer was specific, and indicative of His sovereign will reigning supreme in the affairs of mankind.

So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau. Afterward his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau’s heel; so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them. ~ Gen. 25:24-26

The name Esau means “hairy”, and the name Jacob means “heel catcher” or “supplanter”. Can you imagine if we named babies according to their birth circumstances today? Our children might be named “Feet First”, “Fourteen Hour Labor”, or “That Makes Two”!

So the boys grew. And Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a mild man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. ~ Gen. 25:27-28

Parents demonstrating favoritism causes so many problems in families. In Esau’s case, he was rash and rebellious, an impulsive man of action rather than words — and Isaac let him get away with it. In Jacob’s case, he was a conniver, a deceitful man who used manipulative words to achieve his goals, rather than action — and Rebekah let him get away with it.

Now Jacob cooked a stew; and Esau came in from the field, and he was weary. And Esau said to Jacob, “Please feed me with that same red stew, for I am weary.” Therefore his name was called Edom.
But Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright as of this day.”
And Esau said, “Look, I am about to die; so what is this birthright to me?”
Then Jacob said, “Swear to me as of this day.”
So he swore to him, and sold his birthright to Jacob. And Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils; then he ate and drank, arose, and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. ~ Gen. 25:29-32

The name Edom comes from the word “red” and seems to refer to the color of the chili that meant more to Esau than his birthright. The significance of the birthright was the privilege of having the Messiah as one’s descendant, and the promise of God’s blessing. But God and His promises did not seem real to Esau, so he did not value them, and therefore he chose to do things his own way rather than God’s way.

Perhaps this explains the saying, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”, if Jacob represents faithfulness and Esau faithlessness.  Isn’t this the same issue we saw exemplified with Cain and Abel?  Compare: Malachi 1:2-3 and Romans 9:10-15.  He is the potter; we are just the clay.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Gen. 26. God’s Blessing

There was a famine in the land, besides the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech king of the Philistines, in Gerar. Then the LORD appeared to him and said: “Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land of which I shall tell you. Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” So Isaac dwelt in Gerar. ~ Gen. 26:1-6

Isaac had been living in Beer-lahai-roi, which, it is believed, was about 60 miles south of Gaza. According to Google maps, Gerar was about 15 miles southeast of Gaza, and this town, where the King of the Philistines, Abimelech lived, was where Isaac now traveled. God reiterated that all the land in Canaan belonged to the offspring of Isaac (not Ishmael or the sons of Keturah), and confirmed his covenant with Isaac.

Then Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year a hundredfold; and the LORD blessed him. The man began to prosper, and continued prospering until he became very prosperous; for he had possessions of flocks and possessions of herds and a great number of servants. So the Philistines envied him. Now the Philistines had stopped up all the wells which his father’s servants had dug in the days of Abraham his father, and they had filled them with earth. And Abimelech said to Isaac, “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we.” Then Isaac departed from there and pitched his tent in the Valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. ~ Gen. 26:12-17

The Philistines envied Isaac and all the blessings that God had bestowed on him. Isn’t this one of the reasons that people have persecuted the Jews throughout history?

Then he went up from there to Beersheba. And the LORD appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham; do not fear, for I am with you. I will bless you and multiply your descendants for My servant Abraham’s sake.” So he built an altar there and called on the name of the LORD, and he pitched his tent there; and there Isaac’s servants dug a well. ~ Gen. 26:23-25

Beersheba was about 20 miles southeast of Gerar. At this place, Isaac worshiped the Lord, and we see his reconnection with the Lord as the basis for his faith.

Then Abimelech came to him from Gerar with Ahuzzath, one of his friends, and Phichol the commander of his army. And Isaac said to them, “Why have you come to me, since you hate me and have sent me away from you?”
But they said, “We have certainly seen that the LORD is with you. So we said, ‘Let there now be an oath between us, between you and us; and let us make a covenant with you, that you will do us no harm, since we have not touched you, and since we have done nothing to you but good and have sent you away in peace. You are now the blessed of the LORD.’”
So he made them a feast, and they ate and drank.  Then they arose early in the morning and swore an oath with one another; and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. ~ Gen. 26:26-31

So the Philistines and Isaac’s family were at peace in the time of Abimelech. We saw earlier that Abimelech was righteous before God, and here again, he demonstrates godly wisdom and his belief in the Lord and His sovereignty.

It came to pass the same day that Isaac’s servants came and told him about the well which they had dug, and said to him, “We have found water.” So he called it Shebah. Therefore the name of the city is Beersheba to this day. ~ Gen. 26:32-33

The name Shebah means “oath” and Beer means “well”.  It’s so cool that many of these places, like Beersheba, are still on the map today. And how awesome that God has preserved His Word for us, with all these records intact. My idea of heaven is having the time to learn everything we always wanted to learn. I’d like to delve into this a lot more!

When Esau was forty years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite. They were a source of grief to Isaac and Rebekah. ~ Gen. 26:34

Here is further proof of Esau’s rebellion against authority. He married two women who were outside the Hebrew faith, which brought sorrow and strife to his parents.