ANSWER THE MUSLIM VIEW OF JESUS/ISA

ANSWERING THE ISLAM/MUSLIM VIEW OF JESUS/ISA AND A FEW COMPARISONS WITH OTHER WORLD RELIGIONS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ONE CHRISTIAN by Terry
I have stayed a total of two years, to date (when I first wrote this), in countries that are of a Moslem majority. I had two tours in the Muslim world as a member of the United States military. I entered the country of Iraq, from Kuwait, during the first days of April of 2004. The time of this writing is September of 2004 (Later revised December 2009). During this time period, I have tried to learn some Arabic. Arabic is a language that has the same alphabet as the ancient Aramaic which some of the earliest Christians spoke, and is said to be the language of the Koran or Qur'an. The Koran is the holy book of Islam. It should be stressed, to the Christian endeavoring to answer the inquiring Muslim, that any translation of the Koran is considered "invalid" in its attempt to convey the pure message of Mohammed as he allegedly received from Allah. The Koran is treated with great respect among Moslem adherants. They must be sure to have washed their hands before handling it, and they must not accept the book, from the hands of an unbeliever, unless the unbeliever is gloved, as in the case where a Muslim is incarcerated and may request a copy of the Koran from a non-Muslim. If they may only acquire a copy of the Koran from a non-Muslim, who refuses to honor this tradition, then they may do so, but this is considered insulting and disrespectful to the practicing Moslem. One who would challenge Islam, but who is unable to read the language of the Koran in its original, is left with the immediate handicap, from the viewpoint of the Muslim, to either learn the ancient Arabic of the Koran, if indeed it is all Arabic, or to be considered "unschooled" in any discussion, concerning the Koran, at best. But I have digressed. The first time period that I spent in the Muslim world was for a length of one and a half years, ending in June of 1977, which I spent in the country of Turkey, near the town of Karamursel, a small village across from Istanbul and located on the Marmara Sea. I was a medic in the military, at that time, as I am currently (At time of first writing). I traveled extensively, in Turkey, since we had that freedom during our off duty hours, in that country. I was able to visit many cities and ancient ruins, of a biblical and historic nature, including Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Balakashir, and the ancient ruins of Ephesus, Pergama, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, Smyrna, and Hieropolis. In addition, while residing in Turkey, I was able to travel to Greece and to visit its cities of Athens and Corinth. Predictably, my travels and my interest in religion have led me to inquire about the Moslem beliefs, and have allowed me to hear many interesting comments, of an informative nature, about their beliefs and practices. I learned a few Turkish words, enough to travel freely, while in that country. Interestingly enough, I have found at least two words common to both Turkish and Arabic - "chai" and"merhaba", which mean "tea" and "hello". "Chai" is a common word for"tea" throughout a larger part of Asia. The "chai" is commonly served hot, and the occasion to partake is often considered a social occasion. Many good discussions have taken place around the "chai" table, among friends. I also traveled, for two or three weeks, and lived with some Christians, Americans who were then living in Turkey, after I was first discharged from the military, in May of 1977. That is, I lived with them (Dennis Burchett, John Seiple, and Tim Brinley) for about three weeks, after my discharge in May of that year. Arabic has at least two words in common with Hebrew (And many more, I am certain, but this is off the top of my head.) that I've discovered, thus far: 1) "Yom" for "day" and 2) "Salom", which is the Arabic form of "shalom", as in "peace", and is most often used as part of a friendly greeting upon arrival or when departing. These similarities in words are, no doubt, as a result of the cultural and the geographical proximity of the countries, as well as the languages having the commonality of Semitic (descendents of Shem, a son of Noah, and ancestor to much of the Asian population) roots. I know only a few words in each language and am not, by any stretch of the imagination, close to fluency in either one. I only mention these discovered facts with the hope that you will find them interesting, and by way of introduction. Less than four percent of the populations of each country, Iraq and Turkey, claim Christianity as their religion or belief system. Both countries are overwhelmingly Moslem in their profession of belief and practice. As a member of the military, I am forbidden to discuss religious differences with members of Moslem countries. As a result, and with much interest, I have committed myself to much listening and reading to learn what may be helpful. Now, with some preliminaries out of the way by way of introduction, allow me to proceed on with some specifics that might be helpful to a Christian in answering Moslem queries. The Koran was written at least six centuries after Christ. Moslems claim its Arabic to be pure and of the most beautiful form and of such beauty, some affirm, as to evidence its divine origin. Some controversy has been caused, of late, when linguists have demonstrated that the language of the Koran seems not to be "the most beautiful Arabic form", after all, but instead seems to be a mixture of Aramaic and early Arabic words. This hypothesis is supported from two fronts: 1) The impossibility of finding exact current Arabic equivalents to some of the syntax and phrases and the corresponding equivalency to known Aramaic words and syntax (sentence structure), as are found in the Koran, and 2) The predominance of the Aramaic language, in the locale from which Mohammed delivered the Koran, is a known fact. Scholars point to the Moslem's difficulty, in some cases, in understanding some Koranic teachings, as being compounded by this problem of the linguistic hurdle. One may further research this hypothesis by searching for "Aramaic Koran (or "Q'ran" or "Qur'an")"on the internet. Still, in introducing the Koran, Muhammad Shakir states, "The proof of Mohammad's Prophethood is the Holy Quran." In the beginning of the next paragraph he states, "For those who want to believe, these proofs are enough, and those who do not want to believe, will never believe, no matter what proofs or arguments, however strong they may be, are brought before them." <*Holy Qur'an, translated by Muhammad S. Shakir, Ansariyan Publications, Qum, Islamic Republic of Iran, Email: ansarian@noornet.net, English-Arabic version, first page of Introduction [unnumbered], ISBN: 964-438-378-8> But what of the truth-seeker, who neither, "wants to believe" or "does not want to believe", but who just wants to know the truth? What about the open mind who is still searching? Unfortunately, this scholar has so stated his argument, as if one must approach the Koran with an already biased mind - either "for" or "against" it. In all fairness, to Mr.Shakir, I do feel compelled to admit that all people must start their search for truth, when they come of an age when they are able, from the knowledge gained from their own individual background. But his argument could be made from the standpoint of a believer who stands in the defense of any religion. Indeed, do not all exclusive religions make similar claims - and with sincerity? I was given a "fact", to consider, by a Moslem friend, "The Koran has to be a miracle, for Mohammed was illiterate, and yet he wrote it in perfect Arabic. How can this be, unless it was a miracle?" I replied, "I don't know. That's interesting," and wondered how he knew that Mohammed was illiterate or that he, in fact, wrote the Koran. One Moslem scholar has written a statement equivalent to the following, "Mohammed himself stated that, if another writing could be produced, which consisted of such beautiful and perfect Arabic, by one man or a group of men, this would be proof that the Quran is not a miracle." After stating this, in so many words, he continues and says something like, "In all the centuries since Mohammed, this hasn't happened. Therefore," says he, "the Quran proves to be a miracle." Three major arguments, that Mr. Chirri made in this book, asserting that the Bible prophesies concerning the coming Mohammed, the founder of the Moslem system, are refuted later. What is one to say? Short of external evidence of its miraculous delivery, it is hard to know how to answer. This defense appeals to the beauty of the book. The Koran appears to be written partially in Aramaic, and therefore, according to the evidence, is not the purest form of Arabic. We don't really know that Mohammed was illiterate. Even if he was, we do not know if he had his close friend and constant companion, Ali, pen the book. None of us was there to verify miraculous delivery, of course. But, as one can quickly deduce, the same can be said of any book claiming Divine deliverance or Divine inspiration. One would hope that there was more than "the beauty of the writing in Arabic," to prove inspiration, especially given that other earlier sacred writings contradict the Koran in some statements of faith, practice, and history. If there were no external evidence, to verify the book, what are we to think? The book appeals to itself to verify itself! We must keep in mind that unlike the Bible, written by different men in different stages of history, of whom many lived during the history that they were recording as they were observing it, the Koran was written by one man during his own lifetime (There are serious evidence problems that the Koran, at least in its current form is actually the work, in total, of Mohammed. But for now let us go with the claim made concerning the work.) claiming it to be a message from Allah, and he records events of past history which in some cases differ from the biblical narrative. The biblical narrative has witnesses hundreds or even thousands of years closer to the events recorded. The "Bible" is different in that it is actually a collection of books (a library) written over a period covering millennia. It is a marvel that this library agrees in its prophecies concerning the Messiah -concerning his birth, ministry, death and resurrection here. So we may say that we have some evidence to trust the Bible, including the fact that a copy of the book of Isaiah was found in the Dead Sea scrolls and dated several hundred years before Christ's birth. Yet it clearly predicts the Messiah, as suffering and dying, in chapter 53, so that we might be "healed by his stripes," and for "the iniquity"/sins of the people he was to die. This prophecy Jesus fulfilled, as will be further evidenced later in this writing. I believe that I am remembering correctly that it was dated at about 100 BC (internal evidence: See following web site - < http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm >). What about external evidences of the truthfulness of the Koran? It is true that defenders of the Koran appeal to many of the same historical truths, as defenders of the Bible, to verify the validity of the Koran. History, beginning with the creation story, as recorded in the Koran, has similarities on up through Abraham, and the births of Isaac and Ishmael, to Bible narratives. Secular history and archaeology bear record to the facts of biblical history, as nations and peoples are evidenced to have existed in the times and in the places that the Bible chronicles. Moslems argue the oneness of all people, from scientific evidence, as noted by humans being one species, same number of chromosomes, the ability to breed among themselves, and their origin in a common area on earth, to migrate across the world, both before and after the Great Flood. (It is interesting that the world's greatest religions have all migrated from their origin in Asia.) In these matters Muslims use some of the same evidence as Christian and Jewish scholars who take the history of the Bible as a literal account of humankind's history upon the earth. Herein lies the problem: Ancient biblical history was completed centuries before the time of Mohammed. Mohammed was very familiar with Jews and Christians of his day, and to such an extent that secular history reveals his great frustration when, to his disappointment, many Christians and Jews did not receive his "new revelation" with open arms. Familiarity with Jews and Christians and their beliefs would easily explain why he, or an assigned writer of the Koran, would be able to incorporate some facts, that agree with biblical history, into the writings of the Koran. The ability to copy some truths from other ancient writings does not verify the Koran as a newer divine revelation. Some biblical prophecies are referenced, by Moslem scholars, as evidence that biblical prophets, including Jesus, prophesied of Mohammed's coming. Some of these prophecies are reviewed in the rest of this paragraph. The Moslem interpretation, as well as the New Testament interpretation, when the New Testament gives an interpretation, is expounded. 1) Moses, in outlining for theIsraelites God's future directive to them, in their conquest of Canaan, also gives the following prophecy to them, along with a warning in Deuteronomy chapter 18, verses 15-19: "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." <**Holy Bible, Authorized King JamesVersion, World Bible Publishers, Inc., Iowa Falls, IA, U.S.A., pg 186 Old Testament, 800-10-50911> Moslem scholarship quotes this as being a prophecy concerning Mohammed. It is said that Ishmael is of the brethren of the Israelites, since he is the first son of Abraham and half-brother to Isaac. Indeed, it is further asserted, and correctly so in this second case, that of Ishmael would be made a nation, according to the Almighty's promise, because he was also of the seed of Abraham. Reference Genesis chapter 21 verse 13. There is agreement between the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems that Ishmael did become a nation in his descendents. But this is not the same as his descendent qualifying to be the prophet about whom Moses spoke in Deuteronomy chapter 18. Notice that God said, through Moses, that the prophet was to come, "...from the midst of thee," in verse 15. <**ibid.> Moses said that the prophet, of their brethren, was to arise from the midst of the Israelites. These are the people to whom Moses was speaking and, in the context of the speech, they are the brethren. Since an Israelite is the only one who could fulfill this prophecy we can understand that an Ishmaelite or, in other words, "an Arab", would not fit the parameters of this prophecy (I am not really certain if Arabs are direct descendants of Ishmael. See: < http://www.christianblog.com/blog/exmuslim110/ishmael-father-of-the-arabs/ >. This web site has some discussion indicating the Ishmaelites dwelt just east of Egypt. However, for the sake of argument we will assume the Muslims to be correct.). Thus, Mohammed cannot be the fulfillment of this prophecy since he was an Arab and descended (?) from Ishmael. This leaves open the fulfillment of the prophecy to another. The Apostle Peter, in Acts chapter 3, verse 22 and following, applies this prophecy to Jesus as being the one foretold by Moses. Jesus does meet the qualifications, for he is an Israelite of the tribe of Judah and was a prophet indeed. Since the inspired apostle showed Jesus to be the fulfillment, then no later prophet, such as Mohammed, is needed. 2) Deuteronomy chapter 33 and verse 2 is sometimes used, by Moslems, as a prophetic reference to the message of Mohammed, when it mentions the locale of Paran. "And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them." <**ibid, pg 201, Old Testament> This prophecy, so say some scholars, represents three law-givers: a) Sinai's the Mosaic Law, b) Seir represents Christ since it is in the area of Palestine, and c) Paran represents the revelation given to Mohammed, since Ishmael grew up and lived in the wilderness of Paran. See Genesis chapter 21, verse 21. But a closer look reveals this to be part of a blessing by which Moses blessed Israel just prior to his own death. Read verse 1 of Deuteronomy chapter 33. These places are the areas that the children of Israel had successfully traveled through on their victorious journey toward the Promised Land. Seir was then occupied by the Edomites, descendents of Esau, and represents part of the trials that the nation of Israel had endured, because the Edomites did not welcome them as brothers, though they had a common ancestor in Isaac. This second verse is not a prophecy, but a recounting of events past. Notice the use of the past tense. Another thing to note is that the verse speaks not of three law systems but of one. It sums up the number of laws by the words, "from his right hand went a fiery law for them." This shows the verse to be in reference to past recent history by its use of the past tense and its use of the article "a" equalling "one", meaning the passage refers to one law and not three law givers. The "them" and the "ten thousands of saints" are a contextual reference to the nation of Israel - set apart by God and given victory by God up to this point in history ("set apart" = "saint"). The nation of Israel was the one that Moses was addressing and the message, including the blessing to follow, was for them. It was a battle cry to move onward, for God had demonstrated that He was with them and that He was well able to carry them through. It is not a reference to Ishmael or to a descendant of his named "Mohammed." 3) Another verse, from the Bible, which is held forth as one that speaks of Mohammed, is Psalm 118 and verse 22: "The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." <** ibid., pg 535, Old Testament> Muslim defense of this prophecy's application to Mohammed is that Ishmael was "cast out" from Abraham, since he was the son of Hagar, the slave woman (See Genesis chapter 21, verses 10 through 12), and eventually, after being cast out or rejected, he had a descendant in Mohammed who delivered the Koran to the world. Therefore Mohammed, through his ancestry, is said to have been "rejected", and he "became the head of the corner" when he delivered Allah's message to the world and started the great spiritual nation of Islam. In the New Testament Jesus quotes this very prophecy and applies it to himself. This can be seen by the fact that he spoke this as a parable against some Jewish religious leaders, when they were rejecting Him, and that the chief priests and the Pharisees, of the Jewish people, understood it that way. Read Matthew chapter 21, verses 42 through 46. In verse 43, Jesus expands on His comment, by adding, "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." <**ibid. pg 24, New Testament> Moslems will say that Jesus is here speaking of taking the kingdom of God from Israel, and prophesying of giving it to the Arab nation. The Israelites were of the nation of Israel, then Judah, which was a nation under the control of the Romans at that time. Israel was a nation, nevertheless. "Arab", on the other hand, is not a nation. Arabs are a people with a common ancestral lineage who later became parts of several nations. During the time of Christ they were divided among tribes and were no nation at all! In some cases some Arab clansmen controlled areas or fortified cities. Different powerful chieftains, or family heads, (today, sometimes known as "sheikhs") controlled different areas, but these people, with a common ancestry, were never united into something called "the Arab nation." (In this case, I hope that my memory serves me right and that I am not misrepresenting them. I have no reference work with me now. In the past, in preparation for this mission, we were given some materials to study, in order to indoctrinate ourselves to the region and its background. I never remember reading about "the Arab nation" but about Arabic tribes, Bedouins, and several Arabic nations.) However, this statement of Christ does present a similar difficulty, if my understanding is correct, with the English translation by the word "nation." I understand that Christ was using a parable, just as He had in the preceding verses, when debating with the godless leaders, and was simply telling them, as He had in some of the other parables, that the gospel would be given to people that the religious leaders would think of as undeserving (People other than Jews - See Greek "ethnos" at : <http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1484.). Jesus was saying that the supposed "undeserving" would be more appreciative and more receptive. After all, this was a parable, as stated in the text, and is not to be taken too literally, but simply as a teaching tool to express an important truth. One may read a parallel passage in Mark chapter 12, circa verses 10 & 11. Aside from all this, the issue is settled by the Apostle Peter, in I Peter chapter 2, verses 3 through 9, where Peter says clearly that this "stone that the builders rejected" passage is referring to the Lord Jesus Christ! All of this was fulfilled several hundred years before Mohammed was conceived! Dear reader: Please consider the following points seriously: 1) There are absolutes. On this Moslems, conservative Christians, and Orthodox Jews all agree. Either there is one universally powerful, supreme, and intelligent being that we call "God", or there is not. I am reminded of the philosopher who insisted, "There are no absolutes!". The clever student retorted, "Are you absolutely sure?". There must be absolutes. On this the foundation of logic and existence rest. "I think. Therefore I am," one famous philosopher has said. That makes sense to me. The three religious views, noted above, cannot all be right. Why not? They have tenets that logically contradict each other. To invent an integrated religion is to reject the absolute teachings of each and is, therefore, not any of the three but a different religion, altogether, which rejects the exclusive claims of all three. To be too tolerant and accepting is to be intolerant of the views of the ones who claim the truth of absolute truth, and of absolute right and wrong! The existence of absolute truth(s) disallows the believing and acceptance of every philosophy and of every religion as all being correct. I'll tell some terrible facts to illustrate. Some have the philosophy that pedophilia is an acceptable way of life. They say that pedophilia is not really an exploitation of children, but it is simply experimentation and exposure to learning experience. I know. I have prior work experience as a correctional officer and a counselor in a state prison system - five and one half years working with hardcore criminal deviants (some). Some criminals excuse rape/sexual assault and insist that the victim "asked for it" by dress or demeanor. Some thieves insist that if you fail to lock your house or close your garage that you are "just asking" to have your belongings stolen and "that you deserve it." Some excuse murder in a similar way, and other crimes. Do you agree with this abnormal reasoning of human lawbreakers? Most do not. Why? We inherently know that people must be protected. We know that some people are predatorial, with warped values, and dangerous. The predatory criminal is Absolutely Wrong and that philosophy cannot be accepted in a healthy society! It is not my purpose to offend any reader. The use of such extremes is intended to make the point about tolerance and about absolute truths. 2) Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Conservative Christians agree on some things. But they don't agree on many things. They don't agree about the messiahship of Jesus or His mission. They don't agree on whether Mohammed was a prophet of God. But all three will say that Jesus was a good man. They don't all agree whether Jesus really died. The Moslem says He didn't, but was rescued from death by God into heaven. Moslems say He never died at all, either during or after the crucifixion! Either Judas was transfigured to die in His place, or else Jesus was placed on the cross, but didn't actually die there, and was revived in the tomb and later, perhaps, was taken up into heaven! But the Koran says that He never suffered death. Orthodox Jews believe that He died, either on the cross and His body was stolen from the tomb, or He revived in the tomb and escaped to die later. But they do not believe that He died and was resurrected from the dead. Traditionally, professing Christians have believed that He died and was resurrected from the dead, thus leaving the tomb empty. They believe that He was later taken to heaven to be seated at God's right hand. Christians agree with the Moslems about Jesus being taken into heaven. But they differ because they believe that He actually died and was resurrected! 3) Moslems and Jews do not believe that God fathered Jesus in the womb. In other words, they don't believe that Jesus is the literal son of God. Moslems profess that God miraculously made Jesus, in Mary, who was then a virgin, but deny that God was His father. The Orthodox Jews don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, but that He was conceived naturally. Some may be found, in all three groups, who believe that Jesus was a good man. Moslems believe that he was a prophet. Christians have asked, "How can some believe that He was a good man and believe His message or His life to have been a lie?" A good man is either truthful about his identity and purpose or else he is honestly and irrevocably deluded. If Jesus was deluded, that delusion led Him to the cross. He was certainly convinced of His own delusion! But, "He didn't really die!" or "He was not resurrected!" different ones say. Why then, does history reveal a bunch of disciples, including apostles, who knew Him well, called Him wise (not deluded), say they witnessed His death on that wooden place of execution, and they found Him alive and very well on the third day afterward, and some had even laid His lifeless body in the tomb, and many gave their lives for the cause? These people gave their lives testifying to have witnessed the marvelous facts of this man's life, death, burial, and resurrection. Note First Corinthians chapter 15 in the Bible. If there weren't these hundreds of witnesses, as Paul noted to the Corinthians, "...of whom the greater part remain unto this present," the readers, of the day, would have said, "Where are they?" and laughed the Apostle Paul out of town! <**ibid., pg 165, New Testament> 4) Moslems may offer up animal sacrifices, during the Pilgrimage to Mecca, but may not believe that a sacrifice, for example Jesus, is necessary in order for humans to be forgiven of sin. Some Jews may believe that animal sacrifice was effective for sin offerings, at least for thousands of years, although they no longer sacrifice nor see the need of Jesus offering Himself as the sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God, so that God could forgive people their sins in appealing to Jesus' accomplishments for others. Christians predominantly preach that animal sacrifices were teaching about the justice of God, of which Christ was the reality. They believe that He took the penalty of humankind's sin on Himself on the cross. Christians believe that a just God demands penalty for transgression in order for the scales of justice to be balanced. Therefore, they believe, when Jesus suffered a cruel death, He demonstrated how God's love and mercy meet to save mankind. Christians believe, like the other two religions, that God loves people. What makes sense to you, dear reader? Only one view, if any, is true. 5) Buddha teaches kharma. Therefore the victim, of crime, gets what he or she has earned in this or aanother life. Even though such crimes are disgusting to Buddhists also, the victim has still received what he has previously earned, Buddhists believe. Buddhism teaches countless reincarnations to life after death until one reaches Nirvana - nonexistence or nothingness, where the individual loses his or her identity. Buddhism also teaches that there are no absolutes and that all are on different paths to Nirvana. According to Buddhism, there is no need for an appeal to an exterior god, but each is to seek enlightenment by meditation or looking inward. However, this seems to be quite logically impossible since there is no "each" of "us" (In Buddhist philosophy there is no "self". "Self" is simply a "way of perceiving" - only a construct of our belief system. But I am not sure how that can be, since there is no "self" in "us" to have conjured up such a belief system!), so that self could look inward! Mind boggling? Don't be concerned since there are no absolutes and we are not to give in to passions. Instead we are to deny them and seek the peace of non-feeling and non-thinking. Don't concern yourself with answers, for concern is a bothersome passion! No worries! Just be... or not! That is the question, isn't it? I think Buddha might have done well to read the book titled The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham. These psychological researchers show cases of abuse "memories" where the accused is vindicated and is proven to have been elsewhere during the time of the alleged abuse. The researchers demonstrate the effect of dreams and ideological exposure on our thinking and assumed memories. This may be especially true when one's past is probed by malpracticing therapists or hypnotists. Such helpers may inadvertently plant suggestions or ideas in the client's mind, which later construct themselves into "memories" by the power of concentration and imagination. These memories become even more questionable, when a therapist begins to delve into dreams or memories "repressed" - perhaps "long-forgotten" because they weren't really there originally. "Memories" can come from our imaginations or just simply the mix of ideas to which we have been exposed. Maxwell Maltz, of Psycho-Cybernetics book fame, also discusses how the mind can experience the same practice or emotions, of an event, by using the imagination, as it experiences in real time events or practice. This simply means that our minds may construct something and perceive it as feeling real. Joan Minninger, in her book, Total Recall: How to Maximize Your Memory Power, discusses the malleability of memory and how real memories may be corrupted with changes from imagination, dreams, or later events. She also discusses how memories may tend to overlap, thus blurring and corrupting one another. So every time you feel like you were a Roman gladiator or a warrior Viking of centuries ago, does not mean you lived it in a past life. It may mean that you saw a movie or read a book about such and really identified emotionally! I think a passage from the Apocrypha might be quite appropriate, in ending this discussion on Buddhism and reincarnation: "Disturbed by nightmares, he fancies himself a fugitive from the battlefield; and at the moment when he reaches safety, he wakes up, astonished to find his fears groundless." This is a quote from Ecclesiasticus chapter 40, verses 6 & 7. <***The New English Bible with Apocrypha, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, published 1970, Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 61-16025, Printed in the United States of America. Top of pg 174 in The Apocrypha.> 6) There are many other points that could be discussed. The slavery issue has caused some to migrate towards Islam, claiming they want to leave the "white man's religion." Some do not know that both Judaism and Christianity began not in Europe, but in Asia, and quickly migrated to Africa, as well as parts of Europe. Some are also unaware of the history of Arab slave trade, which predated the Dutch and English involvement by a large time period. "History of the Arab Slave Trade" might be an interesting topic for some to research on the internet. It is true that all have sinned (One exception is Jesus.), just as the Bible states. It is also true that many who claim a stance, in each major religion, are of that religion in name only and do not come near it in heart or practice. You may decide to research and pick something. If you do not choose, then you have made a choice not to choose, at least for now. There is no escaping the responsibility of choice. What will you believe? I'm hoping that you choose what is absolutely true. If you are truly seeking, I will tell you what I believe. I believe you'll find it.