Heat the World with the Warmth of Virtue, the Splendour of Right Teaching

The Catholic Church Deeply Cares About Principled Philosophy

"If anyone loves righteousness, her labor are virtues; for she teaches self-control and prudence, justice and courage.”(Wisdom 8:7)

by Susan Fox

Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903) had his finger on the pulse of modern civilisation when he wrote the Encyclical Aeterni Patris on the Restoration of Christian Philosophy in 1879. 

After the Protestant Reformation, philosophy dived into a host of “ism’s” based on nominalism, a doctrine that universals or general ideas are mere names without any corresponding reality; only particular objects exist. That made it impossible for the Catholic Church to forge a relationship with most secular philosophy.

This wasn’t the glory days of the Middle Ages when a Catholic realist, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), used the logic of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) to present revealed and created truth in a coherent manner. Such scholasticism reached its highest point under Aquinas, but it became closed in on itself. It could not address the hot new materialism that rose alongside the Reformation. Men wanted to take apart the universe and study it. They couldn’t do that with scholasticism.

"Whoso turns his attention to the bitter strifes of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful case of the evils which now afflict…us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all, his will soon follows," Pope Leo wrote.

And in a very determined manner, Pope Leo recalled St. Thomas Aquinas, who “like the sun…heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendour of his teaching.”

Pope Leo was right to be alarmed.

Pope Leo XIII

The word virtue was slipping from the English vocabulary. A search online shows that the use of the word “virtue” has declined dramatically since 1800 from 0.016 percent of English words used to 0.00279 percent in 2008, according to the Ngram Viewer.

And why should we care? “Be all that you can be!” we sing. But we rarely reflect what that requires — living virtuously. Virtue raises the level of existence of the human person. By living virtuously, man reaches his ultimate potential. “The virtuous person is in such a way that, from the innermost tendency of his being, he realises the good through his actions,” said Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper in The Christian Idea of Man.

And so Pope Leo begged, cajoled and encouraged modern philosophers to a practical reform of philosophy, “aimed at restoring the renowned teaching of Thomas Aquinas and winning it back to its ancient beauty.”

One year after Pope Leo died, Pieper was born (1904-1997). He answered the call of the Holy Father, giving us a beautiful new Thomism. Among his great works were The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance; Living the Truth; and The Christian Idea of Man.

More recently, Rev. Dr. Francis John Selman gave us the thoughtful basic introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas in Aquinas 101.

Both men answer the question, which began with Aristotle, “What is virtue?”

Fr. Selman dives right in with Aquinas, who defines a virtue as an act consistent with reason. The habit of virtue that perfects the powers of the soul and disposes it to do good is acquired by repeatedly choosing a good action, according to St Thomas. Fr. Selman — mimicking Aquinas — addresses three kinds of virtue: moral (justice, temperance and fortitude); intellectual (prudence, understanding and wisdom); and theological (faith, hope and charity).

But it is Josef Pieper who restores Aquinas to his ancient beauty in a manner attractive to modern times using Scripture. He begins his description of virtue by describing the Christian exemplar for man with one word: “Christ.”

Original man created in God’s image lived original innocence before the Fall, but an even more beautiful image of man emerged from the dust and ashes of Original Sin, and that is the Face of Jesus Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. In doing so, He endowed us with an unfailing moral compass, the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ Himself “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5:48)

But how many of us have seen and observed the actions of Our Heavenly Father, who is invisible? Jesus said, “My Father goes on working, and so do I.” (John 5:17) When have we seen the Father working? When has He come to the office carrying a briefcase, or tilled a field accompanied by angels?

But we know Him! We recognise His perfection in the life, death and resurrection of His Son, Jesus Christ.“The Son is

the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15)

That is our moral compass. The norms of Christianity are contained in the four gospels especially in the Sermon on the Mount, which all describe the words, teaching, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is God’s thinking, not ours! The first will be last and the last first? Love your enemies? Pick up your cross? If you even look at a woman or man lustfully, you have already committed adultery in your heart? Marriage is an unbreakable bond? What, no divorce? From our perspective, God thinks like an alien. But that’s the way we are called to think and act as well. That is the redeemed image of man, and Pieper lays it out for us in seven theses.

Let’s categorise them according to steps on a staircase. Pieper begins with the theological virtues, which Fr Selman said, are for “reaching and uniting us with our last end, which is God.” Faith, hope and charity are the only virtues which cannot be acquired naturally. They need God’s grace.

A Christian, Pieper says, is a person, who in his faith is aware of the reality of the Trinity. We are created to know, love and serve God. Love begins with knowing. The next step is hope. We look forward in hope to embracing God in eternal life. The third step is love. We actually see and serve the Person of Jesus Christ in everyone we meet. This love for God and man offers us a supernatural form of seeing and is stronger than natural love. No virtue is possible without charity.

The fourth step is prudence. The Christian lives in reality. He will not allow his will to dictate to him without reference to the truth of the situation. This is exactly what Pope Leo was talking about — modern man does not live like that. He tries to create his own truth, to be his own god. His life is turned inside out following every selfish whim. So we see people choosing to change their sex through surgery and hormone

Richard Hernandez, now as lizard goddess Tiamat

treatment, and using plastic surgery to turn themselves into an alien or a lizard goddess. These are imprudent actions, not based on the reality of who is man?

The fifth step is the virtue of justice, the Christian living in truth with the other. The practice of justice is required of people living in community. It can almost be said that the individual (though he is the only one who can be virtuous) is not responsible so much as the “we,” the social whole, the people.

In the sixth step of Pieper’s theses, the Christian is ready to suffer death — if necessary — for the truth and the

Fortitude by Raphael

realisation of justice for himself and the other. This is courage or fortitude. It is especially exemplified in the lives of the martyrs.

The seventh step is moderation, also known as temperance. The Christian does not allow his desire for pleasure, possessions and enjoyment to become destructive to his own person.

These seven steps, the three theological virtues, which unite us to God, and the four cardinal virtues, (prudence, justice,

Hope, Charity & Faith

temperance and fortitude), have actually faded from the mind and imagination of modern man, Pieper asserts. It is the same alarm sounded by Pope Leo in 1879.

Fr. Selman is more practical when writing about Aquinas. I am glad to have read his text as it is very precise, but Pieper is the one who speaks Vatican Two-ese. Before Vatican II, we had — dare I say boring? — official Church text in many of our documents. After Vatican II, everything was enriched by Scripture. Pieper seems to have adopted this practice.

Fr. Selman calls the cardinal virtues the hinges of the door. One enters the house by the door— by the four cardinal virtues. The theological virtues come at the end. They are the last step, leading us to our end, God Himself, in Fr. Selman’s exegesis.

But Pieper argues passionately that the “first and most distinctive virtue of the Christian is the supernatural love of God and neighbor.” And therefore the theological virtues are of a higher order than the four cardinal virtues, which are rooted in the theological virtues.

I like both approaches. Pieper enlarges my understanding. But Fr. Selman is coming at the issue from the point of view of spiritual direction. In dealing with a soul, a priest — like a good carpenter — might oil the hinges on the door before he enters the house, so he begins working with the cardinal virtues. But if his goal is to get the soul to heaven, he will have to tinker with the theological virtues, which unite us with God, our last end.

This characterises Fr. Selman’s approach:

As you come to Him, the living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “See, I lay in Zion a stone, a chosen and precious cornerstone; and the one who believes in Him will never be put to shame.(1Peter 2:4-6)

Which is the most important virtue? One really can’t have any virtue at all without having them all. But prudence directs all the cardinal virtues. The good accords with reality. Prudence allows us to choose the good based on real contact with objective reality. A woman decides her unborn child is a “blob of cells.” This untruth allows her to commit an abortion, an action imprudent, unjust, cowardly and intemperate. She is not in contact with objective reality. Many women, who have had an abortion, have subsequently suffered mental health issues.

That makes Prudence critically important. Pieper found that

Prudence in the Nave of St. Peter's Basilica

psychology confirms the necessity of an objective viewpoint for a healthy mind.

"The idealist ethics of the last century has largely forgotten and denied the determination of morality by reality,” Pieper wrote in Living the Truth, “But ethical realism receives very significant corroboration from the fact that modern psychology, beginning from an entirely different starting point, and influenced especially by the discoveries of psychiatry, emphatically declares that objectivity is one of the most important prerequisites of psychic health."

However, prudence requires the other moral virtues because the passions can blind the judgement of reason. And there is no virtue without charity.

“Everything in moderation.” Unfortunately, moderation or temperance has become the characteristic Christian virtue in popular thinking, according to Pieper. Moderation implies that man’s lower powers rebel against his spirit because of original sin, but modern liberalism has hollowed out this virtue and made Christianity emblematic of only this most private virtue, moderation. So Pieper says that moderation as popularly understood is overvalued, has given a negative meaning to passion and sensuality and must be considered to be the last of the four cardinal virtues, not the first.

While I personally find temperance (moderation) important on the road to holy happiness, the fact is that the world has minimalized Christianity to such an extent that we do need to emphasise more “manly” virtues like courage, perhaps by writing about the lives of the martyrs.

Passion is actually a neutral concept. It is neither evil nor good. Fr. Selman has a beautiful passage on passion, which he defines as emotion. He says when the body is moved by the soul in any strong emotion, we speak of being white with fear or radiant with joy. “The emotions are movements of our sensitive appetites when we apprehend things as good or evil.” A normal person is repulsed by evil, and attracted by good. Many philosophies in the world, like Stoicism and Buddhism, have sought to control the emotions by achieving a state of invulnerability. But Catholicism asks us to sanctify our senses and passions, not to deny them.

In 2001, as my mother lay dying of kidney failure and sepsis, she lost her sight. To the hospital, I brought a bouquet of herbs from my garden —rosemary, thyme, parsley, chive flowers, basil. Her sense of smell was still acute, and while blind for the first time in her 82 years, she did not fail to deeply appreciate the scent of those greens. She had lived a good Catholic life, and had deeply appreciated all that life offered. She did not deny her senses, she let God purify them. At the end of her life I watched her deep appreciation of living herbs when she could not even see them. It didn’t matter.

Pieper says the words “sensuality,” “passion,” “drive,” “desire” now have negative connotations because of the overvaluation of the virtue of moderation in the modern world. St. Thomas understands them to be all the stirrings of our faculty of sense and desire: i.e. love, hate, desire, pleasure, sadness, fear, anger. The Church Doctor — interested in everything — offers us remedies against pain and sadness. There are many kinds of pleasure (a form of rest from sadness) — tears, the sympathy of friends, contemplating the truth, having a good nap and taking a hot bath.

I have tried all these remedies, but I remember one sadness I had consistently for three days, which seemed to have no cause. I went grocery shopping across the street from a Catholic Church. As I loaded my groceries into the car, I looked up at the Church, and I said (to Jesus in the Holy Eucharist), “Hi, Jesus!” Suddenly my sadness ended. I was at peace.

It is comforting to think that St. Thomas found nothing intrinsically wrong in the emotions. They are only good or bad as they come under reason and the command of the human will in an act of virtue, Fr. Selman said. Without the reins of reason, the emotions can become a runaway wild horse. When not directed by reason (prudence), they cause disturbance. But in St. Thomas’ view we cannot have virtue without emotion because we are joyful when we act well and sorrowful when we do wrong.

The greatest evil is not physical pain, Fr. Selman said. It is guilt. What harms the soul is worse than what harms the body. “Thus not to think that evil is evil is a greater evil than any sorrow or pain, because this springs from a lack of judgement and right reason. To be deprived of these is an evil, because rationality constitutes the good of human nature. Thus repentance, like pity, is always a good sorrow,” Fr. Selman said.

And that is why Pope Leo was so insistently alarmed by the direction secular philosophy was taking. Besides losing the focus on objective reality as a basis for virtue, modern philosophy has almost erased discussion of the virtues. People realise their full potential made in the image and likeness of God by practicing virtue. Virtue is to imitate the beauty of the Incarnate God, who lived on earth 33 years and gave us His Church to lead us to Him in faith, hope and charity.

By grace enkindling these theological virtues, we are made sharers of Divine Nature, Fr. Selman reminds us, as wood shares in fire when it is set alight.

"Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." (Philippians 4:8)

If you enjoyed this, you might also like Truth or Consequences? A Dark Churning Blindness Engulfed Humanity. It was Called Nominalism

Bibliography

Pope Leo XIII. Aeterni Patris. August 4, 1879. http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html, 2.

Google Books, Ngram Viewer, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=virtue&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cvirtue%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bvirtue%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BVirtue%3B%2Cc0

Pieper, Josef. The Christian Idea of Man. Translated by Dan Farrelly. South Bend, Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 2011.

Pieper, Josef. Living the Truth. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989. 

Selman, Francis. Aquinas101. Notre Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press, 2007.

Allah has no Son Among Men

Gossip about the Prophet

Forms the Basis of the Quran

by Lawrence Fox

Mohammad is not your father, neither is Allah. Within the Quran there exists the recital, “Mohammad is not the father of any man among you.” (Surah 33: 40) What does this have to do with Divine Revelation and the life of Muslims? Like most verses in the Quran, it has very little context apart from the life of Mohammad as found within Islamic Tradition, according to Christian convert from Islam Mark Gabriel PhD., Jesus and Mohammad, Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities. (p.221) 

Without context, the passage seems benign and yet it touches upon lust for another man’s wife, the nature of marriage, divorce, polygamy, and the fact that Allah has divinely nullified human adoption. That’s right, the Muslim god has said there is no adoption. If you take orphans into your home, do not give them your name. They do not have the inherited right of son or daughter. 

This is a catastrophe of epic proportions for all of humankind’s relationship with God as Father. For Islam — with 1.6 billion adherents —  is the second largest religion in the world. Without God as Our Father, man devolves into practical agnosticism because there is no relationship in

religious practice. Instead religious practice is oriented to oneself and not to God, who is our Creator and final end.

Allah’s decree that Mohammad has no son (natural or adopted) has ethical and theological consequences. Developed monotheism focuses on character development, but Allah promotes both divorce and polygamy. Let us also  look at passages in the Quran where Mohammad has no son (Surah 33: 40) and where Allah has no son. (Surah 2:110) Allah’s negation of human adoption seals the deal on the manner in which Muslims relate to Allah in the Quran. Allah cannot be worshipped as father by creation nor by divine adoption. So why is Mohammad not the father of any man? Let us dig through the gossip, which is the religion of Islam.

  

Context is Everything. Mohammad desired to marry the beautiful wife of his adopted son, Zaid, according to Gabriel (pp. 178-9) and Counter-Jihad specialist Robert Spencer (The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, pp. 59-60). There are problems with such desires even in the desert of Arabia. 

In order for Mohammad to marry the wife of his adopted son, three things must be revealed and resolved: 1) Mohammad’s adopted son must divorce his wife, 2) Allah must not recognise human adoption, and 3) Allah must reveal from all eternity he willed that Mohammad marry Zaynab, the wife of his adopted son Zaid.

 Allah tells Muslims, “Forbidden to you are married women, except those who are in your hands as slaves.” (Surah 4: 28) It should be clear here that married Muslim men are granted

permission by Allah to take possession of enslaved married women. But Zaid’s wife is not enslaved by Mohammad, although Zaid was a freed slave. (Spencer p. 59) However, as an adopted son, Zaid’s status is tenuous. 

Moses on Mount Sinai revealed to the people of Israel the command, “You shall not commit adultery” and “You shall not

covet your neighbor’s wife.” (Ex. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:1-22) Zaid is as close to the Judaeo-Christian concept of  neighbour as one can get. Yet Mohammad is coveting his neighbour’s wife.  

When the children of Israel are ready to enter the promised land, the Lord God warns the people, a King “must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.” (Deut. 17:17) The message is clear. Multiple wives demean the institution of marriage and lead to idolatry. But what about adultery?

In the Quran, the spoils of jihad redefine adultery. According to Allah, woman captured as slaves can be used for sex amongst married Muslim men. Five centuries earlier, Jesus of Nazareth said bluntly,“But I tell you that

anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5:28) One can overcome one’s desire by practicing virtue, OR one can  manipulate his circumstances to get what he wants. Adultery is only one problem; Mohammad faced another challenge, incest. 

This following passage was inserted into the Quran after Mohammad’s indiscretion. It strictly limited the definition of son to one’s biological children: “Forbidden to you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters...your step-daughters, and the wives of your sons who proceed out of your loins.” (Surah 4: 27) This whitewashed Mohammad’s behavior toward his adopted son’s wife. 

Take the Wife of Your Adopted Sons. This is the revision of the Quran. Zaid was a free slave. His original name was Zaid bin Harithah and with adoption he became Zaid bin Mohammad. Zaid had a beautiful, but older wife named Zaynab bint Jahsh, who married against her will in order to show equality among Muslims. She was of the noble class while Zaid was the son of a slave adopted by Mohammad. (Gabriel pp. 178-9, Spencer pp. 59-60)

By Islamic tradition, Zaynab was not pleased with the arrangement and had to be reminded by Allah, “It is not for a believer, man or woman to have any choice in their affairs, when Allah and his prophet have decreed a matter and whoever disobeys Allah and his apostle (Mohammad), sins with palpable error.” (Surah 33: 36) So, according to the Quran, both Allah and Mohammad decreed the marriage between Zaynab and Zaid, and Zaynab should have quietly submitted herself to the arrangement. But Allah and his revelations change when the Prophet no longer wants to be bound by it.

Islamic tradition states that one day Mohammad went to the shelter of Zaid only to encounter Zaynab alone. (Gabriel p.179, Spencer pp. 59,60)

She invited him in and he left in haste muttering, “Praise be the one who changes the hearts and sights.” 

That was not a good sign. As a result of this encounter, Mohammad now has a torn heart. Surah 33:4 states, “Allah has not given a man two hearts within him....” Mohammad wants Zaynab, but she is married to his adopted son. He quickly runs back to his own shelter with these thoughts.

Mohammad’s demeanour towards Zaynab changed. It was no longer father and daughter-in-law. It is argued by Islamic Scholars that Mohammad’s desires were noble. Yet, the Quran reminds Mohammad, “It is not permitted for you to take other wives hereafter, nor to change the present wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom your right hand shall possess.” (Surah 33:53) Mohammad’s attitude toward women matched those of King Solomon, “But king Solomon loved many strange women…" (1 King 11:1) (Note: Before Mohammad died, he had 11 wives at one time.) So what was Zaid’s response to these events?

Some traditions suggest that Zaid was not happy with the marriage; others suggest that Zaid continued to love his wife. (Gabriel p.179, Spencer p. 60) My opinion is that Zaid was simply dedicated to Mohammad and was grateful to have a

beautiful wife. The argument that Zaid did not love his wife is meant to protect the prophet.

A movie made in 1985 about King David shows Uriah the Hittite as cruel towards his wife Bathsheba with whom David has an affair. The purpose of this bit of fiction is to whitewash King David’s adultery, making it look like he was rescuing her. 

King David’s adulterous affair and his orchestrating the death of Uriah in battle is history; the cruelty of Uriah is revisionist history. Uriah was greatly dedicated to his King and the cause of Israel. Such dedication actually caused his death. (2 Sam. 11:5-27) Zaid’s story is no less tragic. He is dedicated to Mohammad and Islam. Within three years after Mohammed marries his wife, Zaid dies in battle for the cause of Islam. It is my judgement that Mohammed orchestrated Zaid’s death, just as King David orchestrated his loyal soldier’s death so he could have his wife. 

What is Zaynab’s role in this matter? She recognised Mohammed’s desire for her, and related the encounter to her husband. Was Zaynab scheming to move up the ladder? Was Mohammad scheming to move into Zaid’s bedroom?  “They plotted and Allah plotted...Allah is a plotter.”(Surah 8:30) Islamic tradition says that Zaynab’s attitude toward her husband grew colder after she realised that that Mohammad desired her. A similar exchange can be found in the Book of Genesis, “So Abram had sexual relations with Hagar, and she became pregnant. But when Hagar knew she was pregnant, she began to treat her mistress, Sarai, with contempt.” (Gen. 16:4) 

We cannot ignore the fact that Mohammad was already in his 50s and married to six-year-old Aisha and six other women when these events unfold. Mohammad’s first wife Kadija, who was 20 years older than himself, had passed away leaving Mohammad with one living daughter named Fatima. By giving his adopted son, Zaid, an older women, he recreated the events of his own life. It appears that Mohammad did not care so much about Islamic equality, but acted out of a psychological problem. Zaid died without issue. (Gabriel p. 177) 

Again, Islamic tradition records that Zaynab -- after the encounter with Mohammad -- increasingly mistreated Zaid. As a result of dealing with an agitated wife, Zaid proposed to Mohammad that he would divorce her. Mohammad told Zaid to keep his wife saying, “Keep your wife to yourself and fear Allah.” (Surah 33:37) Mohammad wanted Zaynab but feared displaying such an attitude among his followers lest they say, “Did you hear Mohammad desires the wife of his adopted son?” 

According to the Quran, it was Mohammad who should have feared Allah and not the opinions of men, “And you did fear man; but more right had it been to fear Allah.” (Surah 33:37) Finally after the divorce, Mohammad instructed Zaid to tell Zaynab that he wanted to marry her. Zaynab wanted the prophet to tell her directly and not through her ex-husband, whom she still regarded as a slave. Was Mohammad willing to throw his adopted son Zaid aside in order to possess Zaynab? Zaid was indeed stripped of his filial relationship with Mohammed.

The Quran recounts the event as follows, “and remember when you (Mohammad) said to him (Zaid) -- unto whom Allah has shown favour and to thou also have shown favour -- ‘Keep thy wife to thyself and fear Allah’ and though you did hide in your mind (the desire to have the wife of his adopted son) what Allah would bring to light and thou didst fear man (wondering about the scandal marrying the wife of his adopted son); but more right had it been to fear Allah.” (Surah 33: 38,39) 

The recital suggests several things: 1) Mohammad clearly desired Zaynab before her divorce,  2) Mohammad clearly worried about the stigma marrying the divorced wife of his son, and 3) What about Mohammad’s adoptive son? How would he take his change of status?

Zaid divorced his wife and Mohammad ponders the matter, and Allah reveals, “Allah has not given a man two hearts within him . . . nor has he made your adopted sons to be as your own sons.” (Surah 33:4) Mohammad was now free (by divine revelation) from all accusations since he was never a father to Zaid, and this marriage was planned from all eternity. 

Zaid was not Mohammad’s carnal son but he was clearly known as “my son” and Zaynab was clearly known as “my daughter by marriage” amongst the various Arabic people. Allah rectified the situation by telling Mohammad he never had a son; that adoption was simply a non-binding human contract just like the institution of marriage. Did this convince all of Mohammad’s followers? Probably not the ones who lingered lustfully around his shelter on the day of Mohammad’s wedding to Zaynab. (Surah 33:53)

Poor Adoption A reasonable person would wonder how Zaid felt about the whole ordeal. No doubt he struggled (little jihad) for three years knowing his ex-adoptive father was having sex with his former wife, whom he still loved. He struggled realising he was no longer Zaid son of Mohammad, but again Zaid bin Harithah (the son of a slave). Zaid like a good Muslim turned his internal struggle to good use by embarking upon military struggle (big jihad) and dying for the cause of Mohammad on the battle field three years later. 

But what does this has to do with human adoption? As a result of recitals Surah 33:4 and 33:37, Islamic Scholars argue that it is forbidden by Islamic law to adopt a child (take the child as one’s own and give the child the family name and right to family inheritance), but permissible to take care of another child without family privileges. Islamic jurisprudence still argues that adoption -- as practiced by the Arabs in the days of Mohammad -- was rooted in Pre-Islamic ignorance. Allah removed this ignorance during the  life of Mohammad. Only Islam identifies a father giving his name to an orphan as an act of ignorance. This contradicts not only Arabic, but human history. 

Adoption in Secular History. In Europe and Western Society, adoption was framed by the Roman Empire and Christianity. Augustus Caesar was the adopted son of Julius Caesar. When the Roman Senate crowned Julius with divine

status (posthumously), Augustus identified himself as being “son of god.” The Roman Empire was forever changed as a result of adoption. No Roman citizen ever questioned the dignity of Augustus’ adoption; it was strong enough to make a man emperor. 

Adoption is mentioned in the Code of Laws of Hammurabi (1745 BC), “If the wife bears sons to a man or his maidservant have born sons and the father while still living says, “my sons” and he counts them with the sons of his wife; if then the father dies, then the sons of the wife and of the maiden shall divide the paternal property in common.” (Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, translated by L.W.King, #170) Notice the strength of the words “my sons.” Even when the father dies, the dignity of adoption remains. It should also be noted from this context, that all it takes for a man to become an adoptive father is to say, “my son.” This was the custom of the people in Arabia prior to Islam. 

No doubt in history, human adoption was changed, promoted, and sometimes discouraged due to economic, cultural, demographic conditions. Be that as it may, Christianity viewed human adoption as an expression of the mind of God, “Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” (1 Jn. 3:2) But there are theological reasons for Mohammed’s god dismissing adoption. It creates a break with Jewish and Christian history.

Adoption in Sacred History. Adoption is an integral part of Salvation History. Judaism identifies God as Father and Israel as His adopted family. God is identified as husband of Israel at least 26 times in the Old Testament.  

God remembers his covenant with Israel when He brought her out of Egypt: “My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.” (Jer. 31:32) This is the manner in which God spoke to his people through the prophets and psalmists.

Christianity identifies God as Father and the Church as His adopted family in Christ Jesus. Christianity also identifies Jesus as husband and the Church as His bride, “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’”(Rev. 22:17) Such imagery reveals God’s familial relationship with men. He is Father and Husband.

In the Old Testament, Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were adopted by their grandfather Jacob as his own, giving them full inheritance with their uncles. “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers.” (Gen. 48-1-22) 

Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter; which is fortunate for the life of Israel. (Ex. 2:10) In the New Testament, Joseph — by taking Mary as his wife — adopts Jesus as his son, “Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3) and again, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" (Jn. 6:42) In the Old Testament, the people of Israel are

identified as firstborn, children, son, and family of God. A person reading the infancy narratives of Jesus and the words of Allah captured in the Quran “nor has he (Allah) made your adopted sons to be as your own sons,” (Surah 33: 4) realises that Islam is not a continuation of Judaism nor Christianity. In fact it is a complete break from salvation history. 

  

Israel was identified by God as His firstborn son by adoption, “Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn.’” (Ex. 4:22) and again “You are the sons of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave your forehead for the sake of the dead.” (Deut. 14:1) Moses identifies God as Father when speaking to his people, “Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your father who has brought you forth? He has made you and established you.” (Deut. 32:6)

 The Fatherhood of God is reiterated through the Prophet Hosea, “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1) and again through the Prophet Jeremiah, "Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.’” (Jer. 3:19) The people of Israel are children of God by adoption. God uses the practice of human adoption to describe His relationship with His creation.

Finally, in the book of Esther, the young woman of the same name is adopted by her uncle Mordecai. Esther plays a pivotal role in the safety of the people of Judah, showing the good fruit of the practice of adoption. (Esther 2:7)

We are Children of God by Adoption.  In the Christian Epistles, the baptised are identified as adopted sons and daughters of God, “The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by Him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’” (Rom. 8:15) Jesus taught his disciples to address God as “Abba” (Daddy), "This, then, is how you should pray: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.’”(Matt. 6:9)

and again “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

(Matt. 6:6) and again "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Matt. 5:9) and finally “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13) 

The various recitals given by Allah in the Quran negate advances in secular and sacred history in relation to the dignity of adoption and marriage. The Quran seeks to distance God from man as much as possible. A Muslim does not know the opening lines of Genesis, “Let us make man in our own image and likeness.” (Gen.1:26) The promotion of divorce, polygamy, adultery, sexual slavery, and removal of adoption all represent a monotheism heading in the wrong direction.

When Jeroboam was made king of the 10 tribes of Northern Israel, he thought to himself, “The kingdom will now likely revert to the house of David. If these people go up to offer sacrifices at the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, they will again give their allegiance to their lord, Rehoboam king of Judah. They will kill me and return to King Rehoboam.” (1 Kg. 12:27)

And so he built temples to other gods so that the people would not turn towards 

Jerusalem. It is my contention the Mohammad through the Quran does something similar to prevent Muslims from reuniting with Jerusalem. Marriage and adoption cut too close to Judaism and Christianity.

Allah the Fatherless has no Son Amongst Men. The recital, “Mohammad is not the father of any man among you,” (Surah 33: 40) parallels a plethora of recitals which emphasise that Allah is a fatherless creator, “And they say, ‘God has a son,’ No! Praise be to Him. But His, whatever is in the Heavens and the Earth! All obey him.” (Surah 2:110) again, “In their ignorance they have falsely ascribe to him (Allah) sons and daughters . . . .” (Surah 6:100) and again “It seems not so that Allah beget a son.” (Surah 19:36) and finally, “They ascribe a son to Allah (God of Mercy), when it seems not that the God of Mercy beget a son.” (Surah 19: 92) This tone is not coincidental; there are emotional connections between Mohammad not knowing his own father, not giving  birth to sons, and Allah being a fatherless deity. 

The Quran is not simply arguing that Allah has no consort in order to sire a child (as in the case of the semitic Allah who sired three daughters Al-Lat, Al-Uzzah, Al-Manat). The Quran is arguing that Allah is not a father in opposition to what is revealed in Jewish and Christian sacred texts. 

It is a Carnal Revelation. The Quran understands the terms “begets, begotten, and son” only in a carnal sense. When Mohammad hears Christians saying, “Jesus is the only begotten son of God,” he thinks carnally. No doubt Mohammad’s contact with Gnostic Christians, Jews, and Ebionite Christians fostered this prejudicial understanding within the Quran. When Mohammad hears Jews identifying themselves “as children of God,” he thinks carnally. Christians identifying themselves “as children of God” by adoption must also be something carnal. Allah doesn’t sex, hence he has no son.

Mohammad who sires only female children through multiple wives and slave women publishes the recital, “Had Allah desired to have a son, he would have surely chosen what he pleased out of his own Creation.” (Surah 39:6) and again, “And He (Allah) ...has taken no spouse neither has any offspring.” (Surah 72: 3) Mohammed is not a father to a son, so he can’t see Allah being a father.

Allah Mirrors Mohammed’s own Insecurities. Allah is not able to be a father figure to Mohammad, who never really knew his own father as a little child. Mohammad’s father died when Mohammad was about two years of age. (Gabriel p.35-38), leaving a wound that made fatherhood unpalatable. He was shuttled around with his mother between several families. Allah was not a father figure to Mohammad but a master. Nothing could be further apart then the manner in which Mohammad approached Allah versus the manner in which Jesus approached His Heavenly Father. “I always do what pleases Him,” (Jn 8:29) and again, “Now, Father, give me glory in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.” (Jn.17:5)  When the disciples asked Jesus to teach them how to pray Jesus responded, “Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven....’” (Matt 6: 8-10) There does no “Our Father” recital in the Quran. The religion is empty of fatherhood.

The Fatherless Faith and Idolatry. While pondering Mohammad’s situation, I was struck by the divergent confessions revealed in the New Testament and what is found in the Quran. Christianity teaches, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son -- born of Mary -- that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (Jn 3:16 with slight adaptation) The Islamic Profession of Faith is simply, “Allah is Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.” The Muslim’s entrance into paradise is a profession of faith in Allah and Mohammad. Mohammad replaces Allah as the visible father amongst the people. 

The Quran has little context apart from the life of Muhammad. Like the Ring of Power in Tolkien’s trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings,” Muhammad and the Quran are essentially “one substance” as observed by the Islamic profession of faith, “Only Allah is Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet.”  Since the word Allah means god -- without any other qualification -- then the profession of Islamic faith consists of one saying, “Only god is god and Mohammad is his prophet.” It a confession which reveals fundamentally nothing about god and everything about Mohammad, “If you obey Allah and his apostle (Mohammad), he will not deny you the reward of your labours.” (Surah 49:14) and again, “It is not for a believer, man or woman, to have any choice in their affairs, when Allah and his prophet have decreed a matter and whoever disobeys Allah and his apostle (Mohammad), sins with palpable error. (Surah 33: 36) and finally, “You must not trouble the apostle of Allah, nor marry his wives after him for ever. This would be a grave offence with Allah.” (Surah 33: 53) 

While Allah was willing to get rid of the wives of the prophet, (Surah 33:28; 65:1, & 66:1,5), but the idea that another man would marry one of the wives of Mohammad after his death is a grave offence. To marry one of them after Mohammad’s death would prevent a Muslim from going to  paradise. The reasons for this recital are 1) To insure a male son is not conceived through his wives, 2) to enshrine Mohammad with divine status.

In the Quran, eternal paradise is dependent upon fidelity to Mohammad, more so then knowing the essential nature of “god.” In fact in Islam, like other unitarian movements, the essence of god cannot be known. What can be known is the essence of Mohammad and the recitals which come from him — unadulterated and dictated. 

Recitals of the Quran, which are binding upon Muslims, are essentially unknowable without the “revelation of Mohammad’s life.” The profession of faith, “god is god” reveals nothing. Divine revelation in the Quran is Mohammad; the Quran is patently idolatrous. The notion that Mohammad is the perfect man is idolatry. Islam’s jihad against idolatry is actually a jihad against itself. The words of Jesus to the Pharisees seem most appropriate, “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Matt. 7:5, Lk. 6:42)

Let us question the foundation of Islam. “Mohammad is not the father of any man among you.” (Surah 33: 40) Sadly, this recital has only human origins.  Islam’s prophet desired the wife of his adopted son. He had to change the “revelation” of Islam to get her.  The circumstances leading up to this recital as well as the catastrophic theological consequences within Islam and Islamic Societies should not be overlooked. If the law was changed so that Mohammad could marry the wife of his adopted son, then is not the foundation of Islam itself built on sand?

Sources

Dawood, N. J. Quran Translation from Arabic and Notes, 4th Revised Edition. New York, New York: Penguin Classics Book Ltd. 1974.

Gabriel, Mark, A. PhD., Jesus and Mohammad, Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities. Lake Mary Florida: Front Line Charisma Media/

Charisma House Book Group, 2004.

Rodwell, J.M. Translation of the Quran from Arabic. London: Phoenix Publishing, republished 1994.

Spencer, Robert, The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, Washington DC.: Regnery Publishing Salem Communication Co. 2006.