The Religion Mafia & Us

FOREWORD

In this book I would like to address topics that concern every human being. In doing so, I try to draw on both my own experiences and evidence from the Holy Scriptures (the Bible and the Quran). For this reason I would like to encourage you, as you read this book, to keep the Bible and the Quran close at hand and to look up the passages mentioned for yourself. You should decide for yourself whether the arguments presented hold up. My purpose in writing this book is not to lead anyone to a church, mosque, synagogue, or any other place of worship; on the contrary, I especially want to address those who are already integrated into such a community.

This book should also be a humble attempt to encourage every person to attain and make use of the freedom that God has given to us all. These are my wishes and my aspiration. In doing so, I do not wish to upset anyone or draw the hatred of some upon myself; on the contrary, I want to win them — not for myself, but for God, their Creator. I would like to begin this book with the following concise and simple statement:

Then Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was exceedingly great on the earth and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. After that God said to Noah: "The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence through them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth." (Genesis 6:5, 12, 13) These are the words of God, as we find them recorded in the Bible and the Quran. At this point I wish only to draw attention to one further verse that also clearly relates to our own time. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says concerning the time of the end:

For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of Man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood: they were eating and drinking, men were marrying and women were being given in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away — so the presence of the Son of Man will be. Matthew 24:37–39 Please form your own picture of the extent to which these statements concern our time and ourselves. If you doubt that God is truly interested in humanity in general and in each of us as individuals, then please read the following verse:

Not a single leaf falls to the earth without His knowledge. Al-An'am (The Cattle), Surah 6:59 Even all the hairs of your head are numbered. Matthew 11:30

Let us imagine all the trees on this earth — can we count the leaves that fall from them? Or think of all the people living on the earth; can we measure the number of hairs that fall out and of those that grow back? For us, of course, this is impossible, despite all our advanced technology. It also seems unnecessary to us. What parents know how many hairs their child has on their head, even though they love that child? Does it strike us as absurd? Perhaps it does, but what is being said here is that our Creator knows all these things. These two passages alone, cited above, show how powerful He is and how much He cares about His creatures as individuals. If God even knows the number of our hairs, will He not be far more interested in our thoughts, in what is happening in our hearts, in our words, in what we do, and in what we will yet do? Yes, of course God places far greater value on our actions, on the reasons behind our actions, on our thoughts, and on our wishes! We have surely all heard something about this in our childhood. Even if we are not religious and have probably been disappointed by religious people many times, we still want to take an interest in God — perhaps not to the extent that He takes an interest in us, but at least to the extent that He expects of us. We cannot count the hairs of God's head; that would be nonsense. But we can take time and make an effort to gather true knowledge — and that can mean life for us. Try to take the time and read this book in peace, for it concerns your life. Many other things — the Middle East, poverty, famine, problems between men and women — do not really concern us in a personal sense. Generally speaking, they are also things over which we have little or no influence, even when we make great efforts. The topics discussed in this book, on the other hand, concern us all, regardless of who or what we are. For it concerns your personal relationship with God, and this can mean for you eternal life or eternal judgment. Even if we are unable to change many things, we can still change ourselves. We are living in a time similar to what Noah experienced, according to the verse quoted above.

The explanations and commentaries you will read in this book are not the words of a prophet. That is to say, God has not spoken to us as He did with the prophets. Our goal is to arrive, through research combined with earnest prayer, at a correct understanding of the words of the prophets. In doing so, I have also tried to learn from the mistakes that others before me have made, knowingly or unintentionally. God has already foretold that it will be this way in our day. In the Bible book of Daniel 12:4 God says: And as for you, O Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant. Since we are living in the time of the end, I make it my aim to pass on my knowledge to others.

For you behold your calling, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way who were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth; but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. 1 Corinthians 1:26–29

The Bible quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New World Translation. The Quran quotations are from the German translation of the Ahmadiyya Mission. In most cases, not only the number of the Surah but also its name is given. The names of the persons mentioned in this book have been changed.

HOW IT BEGAN

At around the age of 22 I had the feeling that I had somehow seen through the world — and I felt a strong sense of revulsion. I had no knowledge of God, but believed that there was something up there, a great power. When I went to bed tired, I would begin talking to God: "God, if you exist and you have given me this life, then I ask you, take it away — I no longer want it. As long as I live I will only have to endure painful experiences; of this I am certain. The days on which I was truly able to laugh and be happy can be counted on one hand. I am not a good person; I have many faults and weaknesses. Of this I am aware. Did you not give us human beings our lives? I do not want it. Please take it from me, without making me suffer." I saw no more meaning in my life. Eating, drinking, accumulating, building, marrying — that cannot be all there is! People have always done these things, and yet they have never become happy. All the suffering and misery, the wars, the quarreling, hatred, jealousy — all of it just because of these things?! There is a reason some people say: "The world revolves around nothing but money and pleasure." It is repulsive and ugly, but the terrible thing about it is that it accurately describes the condition of all mankind. It has been tried out through many generations. Was I supposed to change something about it? Yet something gave me pause. My life, my existence had become meaningless; everything the world had to offer held no interest for me; and death seemed to me the only solution — but perhaps everything only seemed that way to me! Perhaps there was still something I had not yet thought of at all. Was I the only one who wanted to die and be saved by death? And besides, if God exists, does He not know us? Perhaps He created us so that we would suffer and He could listen to our weeping and wailing every day? Even if I did not have these thoughts word for word at the time, I did have the feeling that there was still a way out, and that at least God knew what it was. Of course, if He is God and I am asking Him for death, could He not also bring about my rescue and show me a way out? But from what was He supposed to free me? If I had a serious illness, a chronic physical ailment, if I were in prison, or if a dear friend had died or something similar — but that was not the case. True, for my young years I had a relatively heavy lot to bear. We were living in a foreign country, in a land where we were not welcome. Marriage, separation, conflicts, being torn between two countries, school, and then an enormous mountain of debt. Was it worth struggling so hard for all that? Was it worth it? Why should I keep on struggling? Was that all life had to offer? In my dreams it was as though everything the world had to offer lay before me and I had already attained it all without being happy. When I lay down I began to dream. Whatever a person can imagine, I possessed in my dreams. As I lay there dreaming, I tried over time to be realistic. Even in my dreams, problems kept arising. These too seemed unsolvable, even though in my dreams I could do anything I wanted. These dreams cannot, of course, be compared with the dreams of a small boy, for they were things I had set as goals for myself and hoped to achieve in the near future. Do we not all dream beforehand about the things we have planned or that we have set out to do? So it was with me as well. Sometimes I thought about transforming my homeland into a paradise, to free myself from the situation of being an unwelcome guest; or it was about a beautiful new car, or a pretty girl, or about being smarter than everyone else. Sometimes I could give my friends everything in my dream, while my adversaries shrank back before me, but in the end neither I nor the people in my dream were happy. Sometimes I dreamed of becoming rich — very rich, the richest man in the world. But the wealthy are not truly happy either. They say so themselves quite openly. "Give me happiness and contentment and I am ready to give up all my wealth for it" — this is what some of those rich people have said, people whose life stories I had read, and I think they were sincere and honest in saying so. Drug abuse seems to be a particular problem in wealthy families. In my experience, those who possess a great deal are more dissatisfied than those who possess very little. What could still give my life meaning? I was discouraged, and as a solution I had nothing but death in mind. In the awareness that I do not know everything, I ended my conversation with God with the words: "If you will not let me die, if you will not take my life, then change it." With these words I fell asleep. I somehow had the feeling that there was someone up there who heard me. That someone was God. I was so certain that I would die that I was very surprised when I woke up the next morning. But then a great joy came over me, for I was certain that my life would change. Trusting in that, I went to work in the morning.

I COME TO KNOW THE BIBLE

Voices kept coming into my mind that I did not want to hear. Over time I thought, "I am going mad." I prayed to God, because these voices were beyond my will — I could not suppress them. I prayed: "Hear my prayers, which I myself do not even understand but which we were taught to say; deliver me from this suffering."

In primary school we had memorized Quranic suras. When I recited them, I had the feeling of having done something very valuable. Suras such as Al-Fatiha, Al-Kawthar, or Al-Ikhlas. And then there was the "Bismillahirrahmanirrahim," which I had learned as a child and had already recited countless times up to that point — yet I did not even know what it meant. But it had to be something very significant and good. What it means in Turkish I only learned much later. It means: "In the name of God, the Most Merciful." But I also learned that a great many people do not know this, even though they use the expression every single day. To be more precise, no one in my circle of acquaintances knew it. That is to say, they were not much different from me, even though some of them had been using this expression for sixty years or more of their lives. They were certainly convinced that these were special words and that by using them one somehow becomes holy, or at least moves away from one's sinful nature. They are indeed meaningful words — but not for the person who says them, and not for the listener either, since neither of the two understands the meaning of what is being said. There is not much that distinguishes them in this situation from a parrot. They may be saying beautiful words, but since no one understands them, no one is edified by them. The words are meaningless to them — or rather, they use these words as a kind of lucky charm, just as some people hang a small Quran in their car hoping to receive special protection by doing so — much like in certain Catholic regions people fasten a Saint Christopher medallion to their dashboard. One does it to receive special protection, to gain good luck, or in the hope that a wish will be granted. Simply put, things they ought to be expecting from God they instead expect from such objects or sayings, and in doing so they place these things in God's position. They equate these things with God; they make idols of them. The Quran warns in countless places against equating anything or anyone with God. One should not even marry someone who does this. I just opened the Quran at a random page and it says, for example:

Do not marry women (or men) who worship idols or who are unbelievers. Even if such a woman (man) pleases you, it is still better that you marry a believing woman (man). — Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:221 (The text in parentheses is not in the original but has been added for better understanding.) This rule of course applies to both sexes. If I am not mistaken, the warning "to equate nothing with God" appears on virtually every page of the Quran. On the subject of speaking in a foreign language, or praying to God in one, the Apostle Paul writes under inspiration in 1 Corinthians 14:4–33:

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself (since he himself understands the meaning, but not his listeners), but he who prophesies edifies the assembly. 5 Now I wish that all of you spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. In fact, he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless he also interprets, so that the assembly may receive edification. 6 But now, brothers, if I were to come to you and speak in tongues, what benefit would it be to you, unless I spoke to you with either a revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? Even so, lifeless things that produce sounds — whether a flute or a harp — if they give no distinction to the notes, how will what is played on the flute or on the harp be recognized? 8 For truly, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, if you with the tongue do not produce speech that is easy to understand, how will what is being said be recognized? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. … Verse 16 Otherwise, if you offer thanksgiving with a spirit, how will the one who occupies the seat of the ordinary person say Amen to your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? … Verse 22 Consequently, tongues are for a sign, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers, whereas prophesying is not for the unbelievers but for the believers. 23 Therefore, if the whole assembly comes together in one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if you all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ordinary person comes in, he will be reproved by all, he will be carefully examined by all; 25 the secrets of his heart will become manifest, so that he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring: "God is truly among you." … Verse 33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

The Quran expresses the same thought and says the following to the Arab people: We have sent down the Quran to you in the Arabic language so that you might understand it and reflect upon it — Yusuf (Joseph) 12:2. The point, then, is that the people should understand this language and the meaning of what is said or written. Naturally the Quran was composed in Arabic because it was first addressed to the Arabs! In Surah Fussilat 41 (Those Who Are Detailed), verse 44, it says: Had We made it a Quran in a foreign language, they would have said: "Why have its verses not been made clear? What! A foreign language and an Arab?" Say: "It is a guidance and a healing for those who believe." If the Quran had been conveyed in a language incomprehensible to the Arabs, the people at that time would have rightly said: "Why have its verses not been made clear? What! A foreign language and an Arab!" But the Quran was meant to be conveyed in an understandable language, which is why Surah Az-Zukhruf (The Gold Adornments) 43:3 says: We have made it a Quran in clear (understandable) language so that you might understand.

Yes, so that we might understand it. Yet for centuries the exact opposite has been attempted. Everything possible is done to make the message of the Quran as difficult to understand as possible for the people. The Christian world had the same problem for many hundreds of years as well. Reading the Bible, translating it into the language of ordinary people, was forbidden, and more than a few were burned at the stake for doing so. This means that Muslims are in this respect simply a certain amount of time behind, but the approach is the same. Let us imagine for a moment that everyone had to read the Bible and the Quran in the original language — and that is precisely what is claimed! Then we would all have to learn Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic. I regard that as impossible, at least for myself personally. I have now lived in Germany for about thirty-seven years, and I cannot say that I have mastered the German language as well as my mother tongue — not even half as well. To read and understand God's word, we would therefore have to master four additional languages as well as our mother tongue! It is obvious that those who entertain the thought that an ignorant, uneducated people is easier to govern are trying to apply the politics of the Middle Ages, thereby keeping people away from learning God's will. The true motive behind this was expressed by Jesus as follows: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the Kingdom of Heaven before men! For you yourselves do not enter in, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 55 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, (if you can win only one person over to your teaching — Good News) and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Gehenna, twice as bad as yourselves. — Matthew 23:13–15. Do these words not apply both to Muslims and to Christians? As a child I would often take my "tespih" (a kind of rosary) in my hand and then repeat "Bismillah" to myself hundreds, even thousands of times. It was all very laborious. I was perhaps eight or nine years old at the time. Hidden under the bedcovers, I had turned my palms upward and prayed silently to God. "Will these hands still pray to God when they are grown?" I asked myself, as I looked at my hands. The people around me prompted that question in me. When I saw how they behaved, what they did, and how they spoke, I could not imagine that in prayer they were pouring out their hearts to God. By this I do not mean those who performed the ritual prayer in order to be seen by others, or those who did it out of fear of other people, or those who simply did it because it belonged to a ritual. That struck me more as fulfilling a duty, carrying out a task. Their prayer appeared to me just like going to school, or others going to work, or a housewife attending to her work at home — it was simply an obligation that had to be fulfilled. It was habit, routine. Stand up, kneel down, stand up, kneel down, and in the process say something that one does not even understand oneself, since one had simply memorized it — just as I took my tespih and repeated "Bismillah" countless times. Of course there were also people who genuinely believed. But what I mean to say is that I thought at the time that prayer was only something for children. Adults, grown-ups, no longer needed to pray. They were not children, after all, that they should still pray to God. Moreover, praying was presented as something to be mocked. In films, for example, when the villain is cornered and his death is imminent, someone says: "Say your last prayer." Prayer was nothing serious, nothing important — it was something to be laughed at. Be that as it may, I will return to my childhood experiences from time to time. I was twenty-two, twenty-three years old, and so I prayed to God. Even when I recited a memorized Arabic prayer, I would first tell Him what was in my heart. At the same time I asked Him to help me also through the things whose words I myself did not understand. I apologized to Him for speaking to Him in a language I could not understand and asked that He understand me nonetheless. That was a kind of rule I had set for myself. What else could I do? I had no idea. I was married, but with whom could I talk about such things? Who would listen to me and understand me? They would probably even think me crazy. I was certain that only God would understand me. Yes, if He exists, He would understand me. I then began to pray mostly like this: "My God, even in my imagination I cannot find a way out. I do not know what is good for me, so do what You think is best for me."

Until that point I had always prayed for specific things that God should give me. Then it became clear to me that God was for us a kind of genie in a bottle, like in Aladdin's magic lamp. He can give me anything I want, so I first had to think carefully about what I wish for, so that the fulfillment of my wish would not land me in trouble afterward. That is why our wishes before God appear more like commands than requests. When we want certain things, we still say "let it be this way or that way." The genie in Aladdin's lamp was very powerful and could grant any wish, but one had to choose one's words carefully, for he fulfills the wish word for word, like a soldier receiving orders from his superior. In that case the superior bears responsibility and is constantly worried that nothing goes wrong. In other words: God may be almighty, but we are cleverer than He is!! Is it not actually like that, in our hearts? Do we not always pray that everything may happen as we envision it? We are afraid to say to God: "Your will be done." Why? Because somewhere in our subconscious sits the thought that the things which appear good and right in God's eyes are boring to us and would rather make us unhappy. Who then wants God's will to be done?! We say to God, in a sense: "Give me what I want, and otherwise stay out of my life." Those among the readers who have children — actually all of us, since we were all children once — know the situation in the parent-child relationship. When we desperately wanted something from our parents, but they knew it would only harm us, they tried to explain why it was harmful. But we did not want to hear that; on the contrary, we used every means at our disposal to somehow win them over so that we would finally get what we wanted. But when we later realized they had been right, we naturally did not let it show. For if we had conceded the point, it would have been even harder in future to get our own way. It simply cannot be that parents are always right. And so the struggle begins already in childhood and continues later in our relationship with God. Who accepts that God loves us and truly wants only the best for us? Not in words, but truly from the heart with complete conviction? A few questions arising from ignorance: "If there is a God, why is there so much injustice, pain, and suffering? Why does He not put an end to wars, crimes, murders, and cruelties?" Certainly a legitimate question — I will address it in the course of the book.

I was in a bad way mentally, but my prayers did not go unanswered. On a Sunday, when I was alone at home, there was a ring at the door. Before me stood an elderly couple who began to tell me a few things. I did not understand what it was about, but I asked them to come in. Whatever they had to say, they could just as easily say it inside my apartment. Besides, my sense of propriety would not allow me to leave them standing at the door. That probably comes from the hospitality I learned from my mother. It has never done me any harm — I am very grateful to her for teaching us such useful things. The two people, whom I took for possible insurance agents, were Jehovah's Witnesses. Even though we had grown up in Germany, our vocabulary in the religious field was very limited. I did not even know what the word "Prophet" meant in German. I barely knew the meaning of "Gott" (God) and "Kirche" (church). I even learned the German word for mosque much later. I soon had the impression that the West was ahead of our country in technology and in certain developments, but not in humanity, understanding, and tolerance — for our faith in Mohammed, in Islam, was mocked both at school and later in the workplace. I found that there was absolutely no trace of the hospitality of Abraham, of the forgiving love of Jesus, or of the humility that God had commanded — even though all of these things are recorded in the book that Christians claim to believe in. There are truly only a few, very few people who can be described as good. And those are ones who have nothing to do with religion at all. And how were we? Were we Muslims any different? Yes, we were different, but not better in God's eyes!! On the surface there were certainly some differences, but not in our fundamental attitude. There everyone is alike, whether Muslim or Christian. When one looks at the matter from God's perspective, who would one want to describe as better? Envy, jealousy, selfishness, love of money, placing one's own interests first, and lying without batting an eye — these are characteristics of the followers of both religions. The difference lies only in the opportunities, the abilities, the education, or the economic advantages. But fundamentally there is no difference between our cultures, our societies — in fact it is certainly not wrong to say that the whole world is like this! The Ottoman Empire was very powerful for a long time. That changed; that empire no longer exists in that form. The same fate befell many states. The people of a state that is particularly powerful at any given moment see themselves as superior to all other peoples. Some say they are a superior race; others say that God favors them because they are more valuable. The rest of humanity is then dirty, degenerate, inferior, and stupid or wicked. When such an attitude spreads among a people, their end is near. That is not my view — it is what history teaches us; it is the facts. But we should not look for such attitudes in the various groups or communities, but in ourselves. If in our own daily lives we practice such an attitude as we have just exposed as bad and wrong, then we are not one bit better than these peoples, groupings, religions, and organizations. If it is merely a question of power, then it is a different matter. Then we are saying, in a sense: "I can do it, but you cannot." We say: "I make the rules — for example, the red traffic light. You must stop; I need not." That is how the whole world works. "If you do not stop, you will be punished — but whether I stop or not is none of your business." Only the strong, the powerful, may demand accountability. The weak, the powerless, have no rights whatsoever, unless a power grants them that authority. Justice is virtually extinct. This is not a matter of states, peoples, or religions. It concerns all religions and all peoples, whether Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Americans, Turks, Arabs, or Chinese. It concerns all people. The problem lies with us personally.

To return to the subject: when the Witnesses were sitting in my apartment and talking, I listened to them. By then I had slowly come to understand that this was about religion. I naturally assumed they had come from a church. Until that point I had only heard in theory about the various groupings, communities, and sects within Christianity, but had never personally come into contact with any of them. I was not interested in who stood behind the churches; what mattered to me were the people sitting across from me. To this day I try, in my dealings with others, to keep in mind that I am dealing with individuals and not with members of some community or group. What concerns me is the person I am with, not their club, their skin color, their race, their money, their language, or any other label. It is easy to say — or to write — such things, but it is also a fact that we are all influenced by outward impressions and by the people around us. If that influence did not exist, it would surely not be so easy to persuade a whole people to risk their lives for the fatherland. It is as though we were pieces in a game of chess. We are the pawns, and our only task is to protect the king. Is it not the case that the whole world operates on this principle of the chess game? When I played chess for the first time, it did not feel like a game to me — it felt as if it were reality. I did not want to lose a single piece. Was I supposed to be the king, with all the others protecting me and sacrificing their lives for that? How could I expose them to death? These were childish thoughts, even though I was twenty-one years old at the time. My friend, who wanted to teach me the game, kept giving advice: "Do it this way, or that way." "But then you'll take one of my pieces," I answered. "So what," he said, "then I'll take it. This is not like backgammon, where the number of pieces matters. The only thing that matters is to protect the king and win the game. In chess you can still have all your pieces and still lose. Just watch over your king." "Yes, yes, of course, you are right," I said, but my feelings resisted the idea. "Another piece lost — how could I have exposed it to death," I thought to myself. How was I supposed to explain that to my friend? When I look at life, I have the feeling that it sometimes truly resembles a kind of chess match. For that reason alone I do not enjoy playing this game. What difference is there really between these pieces? Are they not all people? Why are some not all pawns? Or why are they not all kings? If someone had written something like this in Turkey in earlier times, they would have thrown him in prison on the grounds that he was a communist. I did say that I am genuinely considered crazy in the eyes of the world — this is the proof. But if you actually read this book all the way to the end, you may even end up hating me. Let us return to the conversation with the Witnesses who were sitting with me in my apartment. While I was listening to them, I thought to myself: "If I ask them a question or two, they will get up and leave immediately." My religion teacher from primary school came to mind. At the end of a class he would ask us whether anything was unclear or whether we had any questions. Then a silence would fall over the room; nobody said anything. I had just come back to Turkey from Germany after three years. I had lost three years, because instead of entering the final year of middle school — where I would have been had I not gone to Germany — I was placed in the fifth grade of primary school. I was, in other words, back where I had left off three years earlier. Our report cards from Germany contained virtually no grades. How could they? You go to a foreign country as a worker and understand practically nothing of the language. And we are their children. You have to go to school — that is compulsory. But receiving grades is not compulsory. Go to school and do as you please, sleep or daydream. You must sit still while the teacher up front talks about something you understand absolutely nothing of. For years, day after day. When I think back on it, I am amazed at my own patience. That was German logic and German education at the time. Turkey took pity on us and sent a Turkish teacher. Then afternoon school was added as well. Once a week a Turkish teacher was supposed to teach us. I looked forward to it. Finally someone would teach us some German so that we could find our way more easily in Germany and be able to talk with Germans. But we were very disappointed when we discovered that he did not speak a single word of German. He was so helpless that he could not even take the bus, because he did not know how to buy a ticket. It was obvious that the teachers sent from Turkey were not meant to teach us the German language, but to prevent us from losing our Turkish culture. They were sent, in a sense, as guardians and preservers of Turkish culture. Once I was even struck by this Turkish teacher because I had laughed. "Who does he think he is, hitting me," I thought, and I was very angry. At the same time I admired the composure of the Germans. At least they do not hit, though they let out their anger in other ways. Against that, I had known one — perhaps two — German teachers who were very kind and reasonable. They did not see their teaching as mere duty-fulfillment; you could sense that they conducted their classes with genuine enthusiasm and were convinced of the importance of what they were doing. Perhaps they did not act out of love either; perhaps it was more their self-respect, their conviction, or their conscience that moved them — I do not know — but they were valuable people. Whatever good they taught us, they did so by giving of their time, not because they were required to. How the laws later developed to ensure that all foreign children who did not speak German received an education, I do not know. I did not know it then and I still do not know it today. I am only trying here to convey what I saw and experienced. Back then, among all the teachers who had little regard for foreign children, there was one person who had a great deal of work and very little time — the school principal — and he made a great effort so that we could better master the German language. Although we were ten years old, we were very grateful to him for that. I came to recognize that neither Germany nor Turkey was interested in teaching the children anything. The Germans had brought workers into their country and along with them their children, but they had only one thing in mind: their own advantage. They saw the workers' children as an additional burden, a heavy load, and therefore fostered only aversion or even hatred. When I then see what became of those children, I am surprised, because I thought nothing reasonable could come of them — and I still think so. A great many people tried by every means to prevent the children from advancing their education. Their intention was that the children should become at most locksmiths, construction workers, waste collectors, or cleaning staff. Yet strangely enough, they did not quite succeed. They really should have only needed to look at the people of color in America to see that it did not work. Besides, you cannot always have a Hitler come along and say: "Those who wake up should all be wiped out; we should bring in new people to do our dirty work!" Over time the Germans spoke more and more about the suppression of the human rights of the Kurdish people in Turkey, and even supported the Kurds with money. The Kurds used that money to buy weapons and plant bombs. Today this is no longer insider knowledge but is openly admitted and publicly known.

Returning once more to events in the fifth grade: the teacher had asked whether we had any questions. I had the feeling that he meant this sincerely, but since nobody raised their hand I thought this was an opportunity to ask a question that genuinely interested me, and at the same time to rescue the situation. In the end I asked my question: "Why do we learn prayers by heart in Arabic and not in our mother tongue?" The teacher then made a gesture with his hand for me to sit down, which I immediately did. After that another classmate raised his hand and asked a similar question — evidently my question had given him courage. Since I was one of the most diligent students in the class, the teacher did not show his anger directly toward me. But the boy who asked the other question bore the full brunt of his rage and fury. I understood that this applied to me as well. I cannot recall all the details now, but the teacher was very agitated and said something like, "Prayer in Turkish? Where has anyone ever heard of such a thing?" and things along those lines. I wanted to sink through the floor, I was so embarrassed. While I was still angry at myself for having asked such a question, the bell rang and saved us. I had learned something important: in religious education class, you do not ask questions. Following the motto: just say "yes, yes," collect your grade, and move on. Or simply try to advance to the next school year. Learn the material so you can write good marks and do not think too much about it. The point was to memorize numbers and dates. When did Mohammed flee from Mecca to Medina? When did he receive the Quran? Anyone who cannot recite at least five long suras by heart will be in trouble, he said. That was our religious education. No spiritual values were conveyed. Our sense of feeling toward God was below zero. It was about everything except God. When it did concern God, it was only to portray him as a punishing power. In time I came to feel that my teacher himself did not know the answer to my question; he too was only teaching what was prescribed to him by the curriculum. Because of this and similar experiences I thought: "If I ask the Jehovah's Witnesses a question, they will leave on their own anyway." Not that I was afraid to learn something about God, but nobody had ever taught us anything sensible about God; what our religious education looked like can be imagined well enough from my accounts. My knowledge of God was more like a wishful fantasy — however I painted God in my mind was how he was to me. As a friend of mine once said in response to the question of how many gods there are: "As many people as there are, that many gods there are, because every person has a different idea of God in their head." The God I imagined was certainly different from the idea others had of him. Once my stepfather said, with regard to prayer: "God has so many people to look after — how is he supposed to have time to listen to your prayer?" I looked at him because I thought he was joking, but he seemed to mean it seriously. It was evidently his belief, his idea of God. Even as I attributed this to my stepfather's ignorance or lack of education, I would later come to know, in countries of Europe and America, very religious people — like the Jehovah's Witnesses — who believed that God does not see everything. Accepting this doctrinal teaching is even a condition of belonging to their community. Anyone who does not accept this teaching they expel from their ranks and believe that such a person, if they do not repent, will never see eternal life. Well, I will go into that subject in more detail later. So I put my question to the two Witnesses who were our guests. I asked them why they wore a cross around their necks. I expected them to react with annoyance, or to say some nonsense, because as Muslims we had been taught that this behavior of the Christians was idolatry. "We do not wear a cross or anything like that," said the Witnesses. "What? The thing we see on people in films and in the street — is that not the cross? Is it not the symbol for Jesus or his death on the cross?" But he contradicted me: "We do not wear such a thing." "Either they do not understand me, or they are lying straight to my face," I thought. But the man offered an illustration and asked me a question. "Who do you love most?" I said: "My mother." "If someone were to kill your mother right now, would you hang a symbol of the murder weapon around your neck?" "Of course not," I said. "But then why do so many people in Germany wear a cross, and why is it everywhere in the churches?" I asked. "That has nothing to do with us," he answered. "They do not live according to God's will." He then took the Bible in hand and opened it to a verse from the Ten Commandments. It reads:

You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion... — Exodus 20:4, 5

At the time I had read this text in the Bible they had ordered for me in Turkish, which as far as I remember cost sixteen Deutschmarks. This book — the Bible — I later gave away to others on many occasions; from some I asked money for it but never received any. Be that as it may, I was very impressed by our conversation and by the answers I received to my questions. I had not expected this. For me, until then, religion had never had anything to do with logic or reason. But this answer was, for me, logical and reasonable. Of course I did not believe them straight away simply because of one logical answer to one question. I then asked another question. As far as I knew at the time, every church had a large cross that depicted Jesus. Those present would then bow before this cross and make the sign of the cross over their chest. In our eyes this was idolatry. In mosques, by contrast, there is not even a picture, let alone a statue or anything similar. Christians worship Jesus as a God — more precisely, he is God for them. They believe in a God who consists of three persons. But they are not three gods, only one. To illustrate this idea, they take three matches and ask: "How many matches do I have in my hand?" "Three." Then they hold the three matches together, light them, and ask: "How many flames do you see?" "One," you say. "You see — it is the same with God: three and yet only one!" That kind of thing is a fine example of demagoguery (literally: leading the people, in the negative sense of misleading them; presenting something false as true). For many hundreds of years Christendom has been teaching this concept of God — the Trinity consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, among the Christian religions only the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God is only One and not part of a Trinity. As I learned later, there are a few other Christian sects that support the same teaching. My question was therefore: "Why do you worship Jesus?" My guests replied, however: "We do not worship Jesus. Only God alone deserves worship and veneration." They then explained to me that they do not hold the view of the churches that God is a triune God. And they proved it to me with Bible verses. For example, on the night he was betrayed and was ultimately to be executed, Jesus pleaded in prayer: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will." — Matthew 26:39. If Jesus himself is Almighty God, to whom is he praying? Does God pray to God? And what meaning does it then have when he says: your will be done? That is of course nonsense. And in another place Jesus says: "'Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.'" — Mark 12:29. Here Jesus repeats the words enshrined in the Ten Commandments and emphasizes that God is not three but one. Both Jews and Muslims believe in only one God. What the Witnesses told me, and the verses they showed me from the Bible as proof, impressed me greatly. If the book in my hand had not been written in Turkish and I had not read it with my own eyes, I might have thought they were trying to deceive me or had made it all up themselves. But against this evidence I had nothing to counter. Of course I had already thought on this point the way the Witnesses did rather than the way the churches did, but I could not prove it. My knowledge in this area was simply too limited. I had asked these questions in order to expose Christendom. The answers I received were very satisfying and convincing. With my questions I had actually wanted to get rid of them, but we had spoken that day for approximately four hours or longer, if I am not mistaken. When they said goodbye they said they would come back. "Of course, any time," I said, and they left. They had gone, but I sat there still, thinking over what had been said. They were able to talk with me like that because they were clever and skilled, I thought, and because they know this book well. This book — the Bible — I absolutely had to read for myself, to satisfy myself whether everything they had told me was correct. But what mattered even more to me was that I had genuinely enjoyed such an interesting conversation, such questions and answers. If I had taken no pleasure in it, I would not have put these people to the test or investigated whether what they were saying was true or false. Moreover, the questions that had been raised were of great significance for all of humanity, and were therefore truly worth investigating. When I took the Bible in my hands I thought of how many books I had already read, some of which were worse than useless. And then we were living in a foreign country. If someone were to ask me what faith the people in this country hold, what was I to say? What does it mean to be a Christian? I wanted to be able to give at least some answer to these questions. Another important reason was that we had suffered particularly greatly at the hands of religious people. I did not know what to answer them when they insulted me as an unbeliever, a godless person, or the like. I have to get to know this book well so that I can beat them with their own weapons, I thought. I had, therefore, enough reasons to read this book. There was one reason, however, that I had not considered at all: that this book might change my life, or help me to live a happy life.

The Bible I held in my hands was written in an old form of Turkish, and there were some words I did not understand. It was also written in an unusual style — for instance, in the opening chapters the sentences often begin with "and then, and then." That took some getting used to. Whenever I reread those chapters later, I would read as if the "and then" were not there; that made the reading easier and a little more comprehensible. In any case, this only occurs in the first few pages; it settles down after that. I was determined to read the Bible. The two individuals visited me from time to time, and through those conversations my resolve to read and understand the Bible was strengthened. Every time they came, I put questions to them. The man seemed very spiritually minded — reasonable, calm, and composed. His wife did not speak much. When she did speak, I could tell that she had not quite understood me; her husband grasped more quickly what I was trying to say, and he gave wise, discerning answers.

It was already strange for me back then. I had the Bible in my hands and could read it and immerse myself deeply in its ideas. The Quran, on the other hand — no one had ever pressed it into our hands and encouraged us to read it, let alone to ask questions if we did not understand something. For me, the Quran was a book wrapped in cloth that hung on the wall in our home. We were not even allowed to touch the cloth, for fear of being struck down! My mother had wrapped something inside the cloth along with it — sugar cubes or something of the sort — so that nothing bad would happen to us if we did happen to touch it. My mother was from Istanbul; she was of Ottoman descent and had no interest in such things. Those cloth-wrapped Qurans for hanging on the wall were, in any case, readily available to buy. Who knows whether they actually contained the Quran at all! Back then it was not yet possible to read the Quran in Turkish, as I did years later. In those days the Quran existed only in Arabic. In our culture, everything written in Arabic is regarded as something sacred. Certainly, some of the books people kept at home and took for the Quran were in reality something else entirely — but because they were in Arabic, people assumed they were the Quran. Whenever something was written in Arabic, we were immediately warned: "Don't touch it, it is something holy." My mother was not religious, nor was my father. I will never forget the day my father woke me early in the morning and said: "Up you get, boy — we are going to the mosque." "Why?" I asked, still half asleep. We had gone to Turkey for the holidays; my father lived in Turkey, he was not working in Germany. It was only many years later that he came to Germany as a visitor. "Today is a holiday, son," he said in a whisper. I had not seen my father for a long time, so I did not dare say no. I was just about to get up when I heard my mother's voice: "Where are you two going?" "Papa says we are going to the mosque," I replied. At that my mother shouted at my father and said to me: "Lie back down, my boy — let them go; let them go to the mosque with their dirty backsides." I was, of course, relieved on the one hand that I did not have to go and could go on sleeping, but on the other hand I felt sorry for my father, who had just been given a dressing-down by my mother. My parents came from entirely different cultures. My mother always said openly what she thought. My father came from the depths of Anatolia, whereas my mother was born in Istanbul into a good family and received a good upbringing and education accordingly. Her family had certainly struggled with poverty as well, but despite everything they had a different upbringing, a different culture. When many years later I spoke with my father about religion, I asked him about the events of that time. "You never really had much to do with religion — so why did you want to take us to the mosque when we were still small?" It had only been on a feast day, and as far as I knew only that one time, but I was curious what had prompted him. His answer was: "My boy, on a holiday everyone goes — that is why I wanted to go with you." He went because it was the custom. I am certain that many people go for the same reason. Well, perhaps one thinks they are being reasonable and fitting in. It is the fear of other people that brings them together — not the fear of God. It is not love of God that drives them. They do not know Him well enough to love Him. They know nothing about Him that would allow them to know Him. That they neither know Him nor wish to know Him is yet another matter, and one I will return to later.

MY DECISION TO READ THE BIBLE

I felt great joy reading the Bible every day. In the past I sometimes did not know what to do with myself when I came home. But now I looked forward to reading on in the Bible. When I spent weekends with my friends and saw them bored, I thought to myself: "Can anyone really be bored when they have the Bible?" But I knew I could not talk to them about it — they would not understand me. During the time I was reading the Bible, I did not say much to anyone; I told no one about it. I wanted first to be convinced myself. Even once I was convinced, I still needed to acquire at least some knowledge in order to be able to convince others. Even though I had actually begun reading the Bible in order to find faults or criticize it, the more I read, the more love and faith for this book grew within me. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the most beautiful time of my life was when I was reading the Bible. If someone asked me to which period of my life I would like to return, I would say: "None." But if someone asked me: "In which period were you happiest?" I would say: "When I was getting to know the Bible." My contact with the Witnesses' congregation through this couple grew ever more intense. At our third or fourth meeting, I felt the need to speak about my spiritual despondency and about the voices I was hearing, because they disturbed me greatly, and as I said, one cannot speak about such things with just anyone. Rarely does one have people around who are both educated or intelligent and who also love you. Either they love you but have no idea, or they are educated but do not love you. In time, they declare you to be mad. Who knows — perhaps I really am mad. Does a mad person know he is mad? Can he recognize on his own that something is not right with him? I have no idea; I do not know — how could I? After all, one does not keep going mad and then turning normal again in a way that would allow one to judge. Besides, I had always considered all the stories about ghosts and demons to be nonsense. "I will tell these people my story about the voice I hear — after all, they are strangers, and no one will find out. Perhaps they can even help me," I told myself. The many questions I had asked and the answers I had received from them had earned my trust. When I began to broach the subject, I did not want my wife or anyone else to be present. Although we were divorced, we were still living together. She had never had much time for such topics anyway. On that particular day she had gone to the outdoor swimming pool, if I remember correctly. To be more precise: I had persuaded her to go to the swimming pool. Normally she worked, but on that very day she happened to be at home. Be that as it may — after she had left, I began to tell my visitor — his name is Gerhard — about my problem. "Until now I have not spoken to anyone about this, but I think I can confide in you," I began the conversation. "I hear voices inside me that I do not want — voices that sometimes even blaspheme against God. That disturbs me; I do not want it. It would not matter so much if I were simply suffering, but this blasphemy against God — I do not want that. How can something like this happen, when I do not want it? Could it be a mental illness, or am I perhaps going mad?" I now expected Gerhard to start laughing at me or to say something merely to calm me down. His answers had often surprised me before; this time was no different. After listening to me attentively, he opened the Bible and asked me to do the same. The passage he had opened to was Matthew 4:1–11. There I read the following: Then Jesus was led up by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. 2 After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 And the Tempter came and said to him: "If you are a Son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread." 4 But he answered and said: "It is written: 'Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every word that comes from Jehovah's mouth.'" 5 Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him on the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: "If you are a Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written: 'He will give his angels a command concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, so that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus said to him: "Again it is written: 'You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.'" 8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." 10 Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written: 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" 11 Then the Devil left him, and look! angels came and began to minister to him.

Gerhard looked at me and asked: "Who was speaking with Jesus here?" "The Devil," I answered. "What do you think — was he speaking face to face with him, the way the two of us are speaking right now?" "Wasn't it like that?" I asked. "It could have been, but Satan is a spirit creature who was created by God as an angel and then rebelled against Him. We humans cannot see spirit creatures. Satan, the Devil, was speaking with Jesus on that occasion, but the conversation took place in Jesus' mind — one need not picture a literal person standing opposite him. Prophets, for example, also heard voices in their minds; that is what is meant by inspiration. Sometimes they heard these voices while they were traveling, lying down, or sitting. Sometimes they had visions — meaning they saw images or scenes of things that were yet to happen, as if sitting before a television. With God, all things are possible; that is something we can learn from this book." "If the voices I hear are saying wicked things, do they come from Satan, then?" "Well, they do not necessarily have to come from Satan. The Gospels often speak of Jesus healing people who were possessed by demons. The demons were all once angels who rebelled against God and thus followed the path of Satan. Satan was the first to rebel. The name Satan means 'rebel' or 'adversary' and he is called that because he was the first to set himself against God," Gerhard explained to me. He then showed me the account found in the first two chapters of the book of Job. In heaven, before the eyes of all the angels, a conversation took place between Satan and God. It concerned a controversy that Satan had raised — namely, that every human being would curse God under affliction and hardship unless he stood to gain something from it. God resolved this controversy through the example of Job. All of this took place around the year 1600 B.C.E. But Job remains a great source of encouragement for all of us today. It was therefore not without purpose that God allowed this severe trial to come upon Job, since after so many years we still draw benefit from his faithfulness.

What I had just heard threw me into total confusion. When I said I did not believe in the Devil at all, Gerhard again gave a very logical answer: "The better we know our enemy, the better we can prepare ourselves and defend against him. But if we do not know our enemy — or are not even sure he exists — then of course he has an easy time, even if he is weak. The greatest favor you can do him is not to believe in his existence. Because you do not believe in him and in his effectiveness, he can influence you all the more easily." Of course, I can no longer be certain today whether I am repeating his words exactly, but that was the essence of what he told me at the time. It can easily be verified in the publications of the Watchtower Society, as it broadly reflects the teaching of the Witnesses' congregation. And it is also correct. For me, at that moment, a great burden fell from my shoulders. Even if the voices had not entirely disappeared, I no longer paid them so much attention, because I now knew where they were coming from. And as I was now also reading the Bible regularly, I found ever more evidence for the correctness of what I had learned. There was still more I would come to learn about Satan later on.

There are certain people who say: "There is no Devil. He is only a product of our imagination — something we invented so we would have someone to blame for our own mistakes." Yes, of course every person bears responsibility for his own actions. The fact that he shifts blame onto others does not acquit him. But through bad company, through the wrong friends, one can more easily be led into wrongdoing. This subject comes up in court not infrequently. Two people who have committed the same crime will often receive different sentences. The severest punishment generally falls on the instigator — the one who seduced the other into committing the act. On this subject, God sends us the following warning:

Bad company corrupts good character! — 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Good News Translation)

Have we not all already felt the truth of these words ourselves? On another occasion Gerhard asked me: "Who rules this world?" After thinking briefly, I answered: "God." "Then he is not a very good ruler," said Gerhard. "But that is the fault of people," I protested. "Yes, of course people bear part of the blame, but there is a force that stands behind all the wickedness and evil in the world," Gerhard pointed out. As a young man I had read practically all the books by Aziz Nesin, the Turkish socialist writer. In his novel Tatlı Betüş ("Sweet Betüsh"), the main character of the novel, a woman named Betüş, says: "If only I could find the root of all misery." In this novel the woman manages to climb from the wretched life of an orphan all the way up to the highest echelons of society, to the point of becoming the lover of the president of the country. She traveled widely, both within the country and abroad, throughout Europe. She was driven by a desire for revenge. Each time she believed she had found the guilty person on whom she could take her revenge, she noticed that this person was just as weak as she herself was. At times they could be loving and attentive, but also unreasonable — in short, they had bad qualities alongside their good ones, like every other human being. They cause others to suffer, yet they suffer just as much themselves. They are not only perpetrators but to an equal degree victims. Put simply, there is no single person responsible for the misery in the world. That is why the woman in the novel kept saying: "If only I could find the root of all misery." I thought to myself at the time that it really is a legitimate question: Who is actually responsible? The woman in the novel was certainly not the only person searching for that answer. Probably the author, Aziz Nesin, did not know the answer either — or did not want to know it.

Both the Quran and the Bible give a clear answer to this question. They are the most reliable source when it comes to God's purpose for the earth and humanity, or to the history and future of both. Above all, they clearly show the root cause of all misery. These books are for us something like an instruction manual for our lives. Through these books, God gives us answers to many questions — for example, how we should live, how we can solve problems, what expectations are appropriate and what are not.

It seems to me right now as though I can hear the voices of countless people protesting against this claim. But when you ask them what would be better, they begin to philosophize. Then they talk about Darwin and his theory of evolution. Who was Darwin, actually? He was a scientist — one among many. He made valuable discoveries, but also errors. He conducted painstaking observations in nature and kept detailed records of them. From these he developed a theory. He developed a theory based on what he had seen with his own eyes. He drew conclusions with his own mind. He did not develop his theory on the basis of extensive laboratory experiments. He spoke of events that had taken place millions of years earlier and that could not be reproduced through experiments. These were not solid, irrefutable proofs, but only conclusions drawn from observations. One can understand it when someone, on the basis of observations he makes in nature, sets aside the truth of God and invents his own theory about the origin of life. What I cannot understand is the reaction that followed. First people would have liked nothing better than to stone him; then they proclaimed his ideas as the absolute truth. Darwin may well have become convinced through his observations that his theory was correct, and he is of course free to speak openly about it. That is how it should be. But that people then take up this theory and proclaim it as a "gospel" for all of humanity, and present it in schools as an established fact — that somehow does not fit into my thick skull. It is taught as truth, just as people once taught that the earth was flat and was carried on the backs of turtles or elephants. What is particularly interesting is that even religious people who believe in God support Darwin's theory. By now there are many who try to combine the theory of evolution with the story of Adam and Eve. At this point, however, I also want to mention that it is a good thing that people like Darwin have existed throughout human history and still exist today. Otherwise all people would believe only the same things; there would be no real freedom, and we human beings would not have progressed. Even if this progress has often produced things that are bad and harmful, we can still say that we have learned much from it. If it were not so, God would not have permitted evil. Through my experiences I have learned that the attitude "only what I think, believe, and find logical is correct" in a sense imprisons humanity. It may be that I do not accept Darwin's theory, but that does not mean I reject everything that man said. Our world has been brought to this wretched state by people who regarded only their own ideas and convictions as correct — people who liked to lay down laws and guidelines in a despotic manner, whose hobby is to condemn others, who are prepared to wage war against those who think differently and to torture them. The history of humanity shows that nothing has changed in this regard over thousands of years. It is not a state of affairs or a pattern of behavior that belongs only to the dark Middle Ages; it is still the order of the day. We do not see the truth, cannot see it, or do not want to see it — and it is not supposed to be shown to us. Seen from this perspective, one should welcome Darwin's attitude. He at least did his own research. I know what it means to do research. Who can say of himself: "My findings are the only correct ones"? We have all surely experienced at some point that something we once recognized as right and true later turned out to be wrong, to be nonsense. If a person supposedly cannot use even a tenth of his brain, that means ninety percent of the brain goes unused. But that gives no one the right to freeze his capacities and render them useless. In religion, in science, and in our relationship with God, the very opposite is the case. Scientists have made life difficult for one another through competitive behavior, because each one absolutely had to be right. It is worst of all in religion. The quarrels that scientists wage among themselves are harmless compared to religious disputes. Kings and other rulers have gladly cooperated with religions, because they recognized that religion is an excellent means of manipulating people. When those in power could not reach common ground with religion, they tried to eliminate it — on the principle of "big fish eats little fish." The big one is swallowed by an even bigger one, and so on. But here we are not talking about fish; we are talking about human beings who behave in this way. Even when such people feel themselves to be very powerful, intelligent, and cunning, they show through their behavior that they are no different from the fish just mentioned.

I had to insert this explanation at this point, otherwise the meaning of my efforts, of the many discussions and points of contention, as well as the meaning of this book, would be difficult to understand. Everything rests on the same principle — only the topics or the details change.

I thought I would get through the Bible quickly. But I had not taken into account the thin paper and the small print. It would actually have been better if this book never came to an end. As soon as I got home from work, I would lie down after dinner and read the Bible until I fell asleep. During that period I had to do hard physical labor. I had always worked at that company during the summer months, until they went bankrupt. Especially during the school year, that job was very valuable to me. The money I earned there over the summer months was not enough to last me through the entire winter, but it at least allowed me to afford certain things — luxury items included. The first time I worked there I was fourteen years old. When I was twenty-one, they filed for bankruptcy. Afterward they reopened the company as a small family business. At that point they only hired a woman who had been employed there for many years and me. Everyone else still working there belonged to the family. One of the family's sons was my age. I worked closely with him on many occasions. Once I asked him whether he knew Jehovah's Witnesses. "Good grief! Do they come to you too?" he answered, somewhat alarmed. "Yes, why?" I asked, curious. "Just don't let them in," he said excitedly. "Why not, what do they do?" I asked. Maybe they're thieves or con artists, I thought, but I didn't dare ask. "Once you've let them in once, they keep coming back." His grandmother had also believed in the Witnesses and had expected the end in 1975. But nothing happened. Like a few others, she was so disappointed afterward that she wanted nothing more to do with them. As he was telling me this, I noticed that he was speaking both about his grandmother's disappointment and also that he himself did not believe in such religions and regarded their teachings as false and deceptive. If that's the entire risk, I thought to myself, it's not so bad. I am writing this looking back from a distance, reflecting on events, but at the time I perceived everything only dimly, as if through fog; I lacked experience, the necessary insight. I had absolutely no idea. Work, eat, drink, sleep — that was everything. The next day, again and again and again. Then debts up to my eyeballs. Back then I calculated that I would have paid off my debts in about six years, provided I could keep paying without interruption. That was, of course, only my calculation. In the meantime twenty-six years have passed, but I still have debts. If I were to say one gets used to it, that would of course be a lie. I was never able to get used to the debts and somehow always had an aversion to them. Strangely enough, I still managed to run up debts again relatively quickly. When I look at this side of my life, I sometimes think that I am living no differently than an animal. But then again, when I think of people in poor countries who go hungry every day and have to fight for their survival, I am aware that I am of course better off than they are. Was I ungrateful? Is one ungrateful when one thinks this way? There are people whose entire life looks like this: work, sleep, eat, drink... In the past I also thought that Germans live to work, rather than working to live. But as I came to recognize later, they only showed themselves that way to us. In any case, they were not as lazy as our kind. It seemed as though there was nothing worse for Germans than being lazy. They always appeared to be constantly busy and never having time, but then they could spend hours on their hobby or with friends at the pub, or they would go home to sleep. If you want to visit someone unannounced, they are almost certainly too busy, or they simply don't open the door at all. That too is a kind of culture! If you don't know them well, you get the impression they are always industrious and always have something to do. Among our people it is exactly the opposite. There is no greater shame than to work. When we sometimes visited a friend at his workplace and asked in surprise, "Tell me, are you actually working?" the answer was usually: "No, of course not, I'm just here." They were proud of doing nothing. Even though he was working, he acted as though he weren't — only simple laborers worked! One was not well regarded if one earned money through work. Success lay in earning money without working. When they are together, they talk only about pleasures, alcohol, women, and good food, and so on. In Europe it is women who behave this way. When they work, their husband doesn't see a cent of it. When Germans get together, they talk about work, about technical matters. But their favorite topic seems to be foreigners. On that point they are mostly in agreement and stick together. Yet even when they have known each other for forty years, they have not so much as set foot in each other's home or even had a coffee there! For a foreigner — especially a Turk — the first conversation with a German you don't yet know is particularly difficult. You simply cannot speak with him normally. Most of the time they say they actually like foreigners, that they have no problem with anyone. Then they start talking about negative experiences with other Turks. "I don't mean you, you're different, but the Turks I deal with..." As if there were no other topic. If you smile at someone in a friendly way, the question immediately comes: "Where are you from?" Although I know why he's asking, I usually give the name of the place where I live. "No, I mean what country are you from?" is often the follow-up. When I then say I'm from Turkey, the smile disappears from my counterpart's face. Somehow he gives himself away, no matter how hard he tries to control himself. Then he tells me that around the corner from him there also lives a Turkish family... Is it any wonder — is there a neighborhood without Turks? Even among the Eskimos there are said to be Turks working there as fishermen. At least that's what I heard when I was in America. It is well known that you can find Turks everywhere. He then continues, even mentioning that he was once in Turkey and vacationed there... As I already said, the conversation goes on in this manner, as if there were nothing else to tell or talk about. Perhaps they truly have no other topic of conversation. What would he talk to us about anyway? But when they are among themselves — Germans, in an elevator or in a waiting room — they say absolutely nothing. They are like deep-frozen; you couldn't pry their mouths open with a knife. With Turks, as soon as they meet, it gets loud immediately. I thought about that too. The Germans were probably once like us, but they realized it has no value, that you only get trouble from it. They greet each other, but that is all. In the small street where we live, that is how it is handled. If you lived there for forty-five years, nothing would change. But when you find out everything they know about you, you are astonished. People I had never known, whom I believed I had never even seen, knew me inside out. They knew what I occupied myself with, what hobbies I had, and so on. Evidently the relay of information works well. Some don't even say hello. But that is nothing special — in every society there are such people. That is humanity. When I was in Turkey on a business matter, I took a day trip by boat and met a few young people who work for tourists. I asked them which tourists they liked best, from which country. They naturally started from the bottom of the list. The worst tourists were the locals. Especially when they came from Istanbul. They were very arrogant and inconsiderate. The Russians were undisciplined and dirty. They would simply throw their rubbish into the sea. The women were all prostitutes. The Arabs come to dinner in their pajamas. The Poles... and so on. But their favorites were still the Germans and the English. I have had the same experience. At least they are decent. When years later we ran our own snack bar, our most pleasant customers were the Germans. I also fondly recall an occasion when I drove by car to Turkey and had to wait twenty-six hours at the Romanian border. While I waited in that queue I felt utterly wretched and despondent amid all the filth and misery around me. There were no toilets, no water, no means of meeting even the most basic human needs. I then spoke with a German truck driver for about five minutes, and it did me so much good — I was more glad of it than if I had run into my own mother's son. That he was German was not what mattered, but his truck was clean and so was he. Somehow he had managed to shave under those circumstances. He had a clean water canister and had freshened himself up with it. His neatness appealed to me. I once began a friendship with someone simply because he was very clean and tidy at our first meeting. He was not actually a good person. But so what — he was clean. Somehow I had the feeling that his cleanliness and tidiness covered over much that was bad about him. What I have written here should by no means serve as a rule or a model; I am simply writing down my feelings and reflections that I experienced in connection with navigating the positive and negative sides of different cultures. Naturally, in every culture there are also exceptions to the generalizations described here.

PERFECTION

Both then and later, I did not encounter many people who expressed any sympathy for the Witnesses. That fact only made me more curious, especially since many of the accusations leveled against them were unfounded or simply false. For me, the only interesting thing about it was getting to know God — not the Witnesses or anything else. When I read a book, I always try to put myself in the situation of the people described in it. If the book was about a thief, I was a thief; if it was about a police officer, I was a police officer — all in order to understand the characters better. I did the same when reading the Bible. If someone did something, I wanted to know the reason for it and to understand them. When I read the story of Adam and Eve, for example, I was first Eve, then I was Adam. Whenever I did something different in my imagination, I thought about the story. If I had been in Eve's place, what would I have done? Why did she not go straight to her husband but instead ate right away? Why did Adam eat? Then I said to myself: "In his place I would have told God immediately what had happened. I would have said to him that a serpent was speaking to us." But did Eve not know that a serpent does not normally speak? Could all the serpents in Paradise perhaps talk? Certainly not. Serpents do not possess such an ability. That God had previously warned the people about Satan was something I only learned later from the Quran. Someone who reads only the Bible and does not know the Quran will never learn this truth. On that point the Quran says the following in Surah Al-A'raf (The Heights) 7:22, after Adam and Eve had eaten from the forbidden fruit: Did I not forbid you to eat from that tree? Did I not tell you that Satan is your enemy? This means, therefore, that God had warned the people about Satan, and that they knew they must not listen to him. In the Bible we find the following thought in Amos 3:7: For the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a single thing unless he has revealed his confidential matter to his servants the prophets. This statement confirms what we read in the Quran. It truly gets to the heart of the matter to say that it is a fundamental principle of God.

In the light of these facts, much naturally appears different now. Why would Eve say to Adam: "Listen, hear what the serpent told me," since she knows what answer she would receive from him. Adam was created first, then Eve. How many years lay between them we do not know. What is certain is that Adam already had more life experience. His connection to God had existed longer. That is why Satan first tried to seduce Eve. In terms of life experience, knowledge, and strength, Eve was not equal to Adam. And what was Adam supposed to say to God? God had warned them both beforehand. If Adam were to say, "God, the serpent is saying this or that," would God not then ask: "Did I not tell you that you must not listen to it?" God had communicated to them what was important for them, what they needed to know. It makes no sense to ask a question when you already know the answer you will receive. So it appears logical that Eve knew very well who was speaking to her through the serpent. That is why she secretly pondered the serpent's words. Evidently she did not take from the fruit immediately but turned the serpent's words over in her mind until she could no longer resist. Let us read how the Bible describes Eve's situation: Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be longed for to the eyes, yes, the tree was desirable to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when he was with her, and he began eating it. — Genesis 3:6. Later, in the New Testament, a verse describes more closely what was going on inside Eve. It shows the principle that before a person sins, they first think about their course of action until the thought gains mastery over them and they finally carry out the deed — even knowing what consequences it will have — exactly as was the case with Eve. We find this verse in the book of James 1:14,15: But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death. Eve certainly allowed exactly this to happen to her. She dwelt on the thought that Satan had planted in her until the desire became too great. That brought death not only to herself but ultimately to all of humanity. As for Adam — why he ate from the fruit that his wife then offered him — we can only speculate. Neither in the Quran nor in the Bible do we find an explanation for why he listened to his wife and ate from the fruit even though he knew it was forbidden. Perhaps he assumed the fruit would immediately show its deadly effect, since God had said: In the day that you eat from it you will positively die. — Genesis 2:17. In their eyes, of course, a day meant 24 hours. But is God perhaps bound to an earthly reckoning of time, so that when he uses the word "day" he means 24 hours? Of course he knew that people would understand "day" as 24 hours. But it is precisely with these things that we fail to understand or misunderstand that our faith, our trust, our love, and our endurance are tested. In reality they lost their eternal life at the very moment they ate from the forbidden fruit, even if they did not realize it until later. When his wife said to him: "Here, take it — I have eaten from it and nothing has happened to me," and held out the fruit to him, Adam's trust in God was put to the test. If in that moment, instead of relying on his own reasoning, he had trusted in the words of God, he would not have eaten. If he had even just doubted whether God had lied to him, would it not be reasonable to suppose that he would have said so to God beforehand? Of course he could have said that. I have also imagined what Adam might have done if things had actually gone badly for Eve — if she had, for example, already been lying on the ground writhing in pain. In that case, probably not. Some religions (including the Witnesses) claim that Adam ate because he knew his wife was going to die and did not want to live without her. (Like in old Indian or Turkish films.) In the verses that follow we can see that the relationship between the people and God is more like the relationship between a father and his children. We do not see the Almighty watching over his creatures and punishing them, as he is sometimes portrayed. This good, friendly relationship was destroyed only by sin. Adam hid himself when he heard God. Evidently God was in constant dialogue with the people. From the sounds in the garden Adam recognizes that God is approaching. (Genesis 3:8,10.) The fact that Adam hides from God shows us that Adam, despite his perfection, had only a very limited knowledge of his Creator.

At this point we should perhaps briefly clarify what perfection means. Some people seem to equate perfection — that is, sinlessness — with omnipotence or omniscience. To be perfect does not by any means signify knowing everything. Knowledge has no end, just as we can go on learning about our Creator without limit. Just as God makes himself known as the one who "has no beginning and no end," so too does learning never come to an end.

What does it mean, then, to be perfect? Before God, perfection means being without sin. It does not mean knowing everything. For does not Adam's behavior — hiding from God — strike us as childish by the standards of our knowledge today? Can one hide from God? Adam did not have in his hand, as we do today, a book in which God's dealings with people over a period of some 4,500 years are recorded. Adam did not know the experiences of humanity with their Creator that we have come to know by now. We have come to know God primarily through the recording of those experiences. He could draw only on his own brief life experience. Let us put it this way: Adam had, compared to us, a very limited knowledge of God. The fact that we know so much more about God does not make us perfect, and conversely, Adam's limited knowledge does not make him imperfect. Level of knowledge is not the measure of perfection. To keep learning and growing in understanding is something beautiful and enriches our lives; otherwise our lives would become boring at some point. We would eventually reach the point where there would be nothing new for us anymore. What do we do then, when we know everything and there is nothing left for us to learn and discover? Strangely, for many people learning is synonymous with torment. They often say: Kill me, but don't tell me I have to learn something. There are many reasons why they think this way. One reason is the manner in which knowledge is conveyed in the world. It is almost without exception associated with pressure, with punishment; trivial, pointless knowledge is taught; and the learners are frequently humiliated in the teaching methods used. Hardly anyone associates learning with joy. But the worst thing is the pressure of time. Everything must happen quickly. Life is short. At age 7 one starts school. The stress begins straight away; every day the child must learn a certain amount of material according to an organized plan. If the child then makes it through to secondary school or even university, and successfully finishes there, they have still not even learned how to bake a loaf of bread — and cannot do it either. If they can, it is because someone outside of school taught them. They are not, through what they learned at school, capable of dealing properly with the most straightforward illnesses. In earlier times people did not have access to as much knowledge as we do today, but they learned the fundamental things of life. Today people can take a cell apart and know how to reproduce it. I have expressed that with my limited knowledge, and I am sure that their knowledge goes even further and encompasses much more. But what children learn at school is in part a disgrace. In biology class I once drew a snail, with its internal structure and organs. But about my own body I knew next to nothing useful. Everything we actually learned came primarily from what we picked up from parents, from friends, or from the streets. In developed, modern countries they teach children from an early age how to use computers, and what they can already do in that area often astonishes us adults — but on the other hand one is alarmed to see how little they know, or can do, in other areas. Throwing dirty laundry into a washing machine and washing it, for instance. What I mean by this is that they are not prepared for daily life at all at school, yet they learn many things that are not necessary for their happiness or for a successful life. Our life is short — and then our heads are filled with rubbish on top of it! Through this school system our minds are truly filled with rubbish, or at least with a great deal of senseless, unimportant stuff. There are a few useful things they teach us. When God created people, he surely had in mind that people should continually learn — but useful things. By applying these useful things they would have enriched their lives and given joy to themselves and to others. We find this thought confirmed in both the Bible and the Quran. And Jehovah God proceeded to form from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one; and whatever the man would call each living soul, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the domestic animals and the flying creatures of the heavens and every wild beast of the field... — Genesis 2:19,20. He said: "O Adam, name them for them"; and when he had named them for them... — Al-Baqara (2):33. Let us picture countless animals that Adam observed and named according to their behavior. Even the angels were astonished at this. We can imagine that Adam carried out this task, which his Creator had entrusted to him, with genuine pleasure. In the Quran this story is treated in somewhat greater detail. In Surah Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:30, regarding God's intention to create people, the following is said: And when your Lord said to the angels: "I am going to place a viceroy on earth," they said: "Will You place there one who will cause corruption on it and shed blood? — while we glorify Your praise and sanctify You." He answered: "I know what you do not know." Christian religions criticize these statements in the Quran. "How could the angels know in advance how the people would behave?" But God deals with his creatures very openly and freely. Would the angels otherwise dare to ask such a question? The angels knew what the people would later do, what their future looked like. On a later occasion God acts equally generously, openly, and freely toward Abraham, thereby also showing how precious he was in his eyes. According to Genesis 18:17 God says: "Am I keeping hidden from Abraham what I am doing?" Afterward he reveals his intention to him. And this despite the fact that he has before him an imperfect, sinful human being! When one reads on in that account, one is even more surprised. After God has told Abraham what he intends to do to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham begins to negotiate with God, as though he were doubting the rightness and justice of God's course of action! (Genesis 18:22-33.) Why would God, who even initiates an imperfect human being into his purposes, withhold anything from the angels?! We see from these verses that God informs his creatures about his intentions and allows them a glimpse into the future. What is, after all, the main content of the Bible and the Quran? Do not both books speak a great deal about the future of humanity? God reveals far in advance events that will take place in heaven, says that angels will become demons, prophesies the end of Satan — none of this is nonsense, but the fact that he reveals to the angels that he will create people and what their future will look like is supposed to be nonsense? We see much more clearly how much value God places on his creatures and how greatly he respects their freedom and independence. We do not have a despotic God. We know that the angels were created before people. Why then do Christians and Quran critics take offense at the Quran's statement that God communicated his intention regarding people to the angels beforehand? Because of this statement the Quran is, in their eyes, nonsense! If the fact that God says something in advance is nonsense, what then is the Bible? When you ask them that, they look at you in bewilderment. That concerns the Christians. Among Muslims there is different nonsense that they defend; I will come to speak of that later.

Let us return once more to our topic of learning. Where learning is concerned, above all the pressure of time is intense. During his brief lifespan the human being must first go to school, then is exposed to the harsh realities of life in order to earn money, then comes old age, in which life no longer brings him much joy anyway, and finally he must depart. Let us say this happens at the age of 60 — in some countries the average is somewhat above that, but in some, such as Turkey, it is still below it. So let us take 60 years of life as our basis. At age 7 one starts school. That leaves only 53 more years, after which everything is over! Is that not frightfully short? If one then spends even longer in school — studying medicine, for example — life does not begin until the age of 25! For a man, the time of military service is added on top of that. Then one does not have a cent in one's pocket, or is already in debt. Then the next years call for work, work, work, to build a livelihood. Get married at 30? If one is in a position to do so — but then one takes on yet another burden. The best years of life pass quickly, and before one knows it one is old and everything becomes hard. Life no longer brings one joy. But this is not actually our topic here. Still, the fact that we have only little time for learning is an obvious truth. Let us turn now, however, back to the topic of perfection. A perfect human being can sin — that is, he can act against the will of God. But to do so he must force himself. It is therefore exactly the opposite of the case with imperfect people: for us it is easier to sin; we must make an effort when we want to do the right thing. But it does not mean that it is impossible for the perfect human being to sin. He has a natural inclination to do what is good and right; it costs him no effort to overcome himself. For us, on the other hand, doing the right thing is often very difficult; we sometimes struggle to do it, especially when we were not raised in that direction and have no experience of it. It is sometimes very hard for us, and it is as though we feel literal pain. That is the reason people flee from God. Even if God demands nothing impossible of us, it still costs us great effort to do his will. Actually, it is easier to do the will of God than to follow the way of this world. But the greatest obstacles come from the world that lies in the hand of Satan. Since God knows this, he has given us laws, rules, and counsel to make it easier for us.

What is easier — to tell the truth or to lie? It is self-evident that telling the truth is easier. You do not need to think much, do not need to invent a story or an excuse; you simply recount what you saw or experienced. Lying is already somewhat more complicated. First, you have to think up the lie; then you have to prevent it from coming out. That can sometimes be very exhausting. You have to keep track of what you told to whom. But somehow it comes to light again in the end. It is only a matter of time. Of course one often takes refuge in lies in order to escape possible consequences. The pressure can sometimes be great. Who has never lied? We have all lied, and we still do, willingly or unwillingly. Some more, some less. If we were to express it in percentages, and assume that in the case of the greatest liar ninety percent of what he says is a lie, then even in the case of the most honest, most sincere person it is not zero percent, because everyone lies somehow, at some point. A perfect human being, however, does not lie. For the Bible says that Satan is the "father of the lie." (John 8:44) He was the first to have lied, and from him the lie spread. But since lying is contrary to the nature of God, a perfect human being cannot lie unless he forces himself to sin. A perfect person would have to force himself in order to lie, but in doing so he would lose his perfection — he would become sinful, imperfect.

Another large part of Christendom believes that the forbidden fruit from which Adam and Eve ate represents the sexual act. One might be inclined to accept this idea without thinking much further. But there are several gaps in that reasoning. If it truly represents the sexual act and that act was forbidden, why did God create two different sexes in the first place? Could he not have created a second man so that Adam would not be alone? But far more significant is the fact that God brought Eve to Adam and in a sense married them to each other when he said: And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth..." — Genesis 1:27, 28. How can God give them the command to multiply and at the same time forbid the sexual act? He commands and forbids simultaneously! Moreover, he himself married them. Such absurd interpretations as these have always interested me. One learns by getting to the bottom of them. I became all the more curious through such statements and researched all the more thoroughly. For my own sake alone, for my personal faith in God, simply reading the first book of Moses — Genesis — would have been enough. Different people hold different views. Each person asks different questions — questions I would never have asked. But as I said, I took pleasure in all of it: in discussions, in conversations, in listening, in learning, and even in arguing. Yet I often saw that the people with whom I conversed and discussed matters of faith — those who showed great willingness to make sacrifices for their faith — cared more about pleasing people than about pleasing God. This made me angry at times, at other times disappointed or surprised, and sometimes I simply could not understand why they were like that. To this day I still do not understand people who prefer the fear of men to the fear of God. And they do it willingly, consciously! In their religion they send themselves back to the Middle Ages. Humanity needed fifteen hundred years to free itself from those chains, through many tears, torments, and sufferings — and then many go back into that condition of their own free will! I often observed this behavior in fanatical believers, and I was to encounter it especially frequently in my dealings with the Witnesses.

There is a well-known film by Tarık Akan — I believe it is called "Yol" (The Road). The film is about a prisoner who is allowed out of prison for a week to visit his family and his village. While he was in prison, his wife had been unfaithful to him. During that week, when he returns home, he leaves his wife to die in the snow, compelled by the pressure of the village inhabitants who expect this very act from the husband. When we saw this film for the first time, we shook our heads in incomprehension at this backward Anatolian culture. I was very surprised when I later saw, both in America and in Europe, that people do things far more unreasonable, solely because of the pressure of the society in which they live. People are evidently the same everywhere. Should we not also expect this, since we all descend from one couple? It is only natural that we are all similar to one another. I write this here in order to put to shame those who consider themselves something special. They are in a worse condition than the peoples they mock! Added to this is the fact that people in so-called advanced countries do these things voluntarily, whereas people in Anatolia generally have no other choice! They are involuntary slaves of a backward tradition. But what is one to say about the behavior of people in America and Europe who have voluntarily made themselves slaves to people who are no different from themselves? In the further course of this book I will attempt to support this idea with evidence.

I have always read the Bible in the way shown by the example of Adam and Eve. I thought intensively and often about what I had read. Naturally, the thoughts about Adam and Eve that I have just described were not the ones that came to me on the very first reading. That is merely an example here. On a first reading everyone has different topics that interest them or stay on their mind. Some passages in the Bible I could not understand at all, even after reading them several times. Only when I later experienced similar things did certain matters become clear to me. There is a great difference between learning something in theory and applying it in practice. But as different as the two things are, they complement each other. How can one apply something one does not know? And if one does not apply what one has learned, how is one to understand it correctly? Only experience truly advances us. This does not mean that I must first sin in order to understand what sin is. I have never jumped into fire, but I know I will die if I do. I do not need to try that out in order to know it. But one thing is certain: I will never have the experience of someone who jumped into fire and was burned. I do know, however, that it is something unpleasant. The situation with angels is similar. There are many angels who have never sinned and yet know what sin means, because they have seen it in others. (Genesis 3:22) For them it is not necessary to have the same experience as those who have sinned. To have seen it is fully sufficient. The fact that they know it does not mean they have also sinned. To illustrate with another example: someone who has never felt pain does not know what pain is, but he sees its effects in those who are in pain — as in the comparison with fire. Who would intentionally burn his fingers, purely out of curiosity, just to see what it feels like? He sees someone burning in fire and thinks to himself: "Let me at least let my finger burn, just to see how it feels"? In my view, a person of sound reason would not do that. These are of course only comparisons. There are always people who act differently, who sometimes do crazy things, but we do not want to take them as our standard.

Perfection means, then, to be without sin. A perfect human being is one who has not committed a single sin in his entire life. As already discussed, it has nothing to do with knowledge. Both a perfect person who knows much and one who knows little has never sinned. Omnipotence and omniscience are attributes that belong to God alone. Both Adam and Eve were perfect at the time of their creation. But their abilities were limited in every respect; this did not, however, make them sinful. If someone has never sinned, that means he is perfect. So far only three human beings have lived on earth who possessed this quality: Adam, Eve, and Jesus. These three persons had something in common: they were created directly by God and had no human father. (Genesis 1:27; Hebrews 7:26-28; 9:14-28; John 1:13; Surah Al-Imran 3:59) They were spiritual creatures in origin. There are many verses that confirm this. I cannot cite them all here, but I would like to touch briefly on one or two. In Paradise, people will once again have the opportunity to become perfect — naturally without compulsion and entirely of their own free will. (Revelation 21:1-8)

ADAM'S SIN

About a year had passed in the meantime. I had reached the last pages of the Bible. I had many questions for the couple whenever they visited me. I wanted to know the answers not only for myself but also in the interest of other people. Gerhard always answered such questions. His wife sat beside him, but one could sense that her relationship to God was different from his. When you spoke with Gerhard, you always had the feeling that he loved God and gladly served him; this feeling I did not have with his wife. Not all people are the same: while one person loves something very deeply, his partner may have little love for it. My wife's relationship to God was also to differ greatly from my own later on. Whether that is good or bad I do not know. Everyone should love God from their innermost being, from the depths of their feelings. This should not be done out of peer pressure, or to present oneself, or out of speculative motives. So that our motives may become evident, one should allow absolute freedom in this area. No one is saved through pressure or compulsion! A Turkish saying conveys roughly this idea: Beauty cannot be forced. (Zorla güzellik olmaz.) In the same way, love for God cannot be forced. One can encourage, strengthen, and teach — but not apply pressure or compulsion. A person can put himself under pressure to fulfill his own desires, to keep the law, to meet the demands of his workplace, and the like, and there it may perhaps have some usefulness. But no one can ever force another person to love God! Even if force can accomplish many things, it can never produce love. Therefore no one may be compelled in this area. Through pressure one can at best achieve the opposite.

I often feel sorry for the children of religious people. When I see eight-year-old Muslim girls covering their heads, or the children of Witnesses going to meetings three times a week and having to sit still for hours at congresses — you praise your children for doing what you expect of them, but then do not be surprised by them when they are adults. A significant number of them suffer from depression, behave abnormally, or cannot get their lives under control. The religions load their followers with unnecessary burdens, regulations, and restrictions under which people suffer — restrictions that lead them to mental illness, that bring them closer to thoughts of death. Meanwhile, the religions seek only their own advantage instead of leading people to salvation through God. I do not mean by this that people are better off in other areas of life, or that they have no problems there. But in religion, in the relationship to God, a person should surely feel relief — through what he learns about God and through living by God's principles and counsel. In France, Jehovah's Witnesses have difficulties gaining recognition as a religious community, partly because the suicide rate among their members is above average! That the Witnesses conceal such data while at the same time being almost obsessively given to praising themselves — this I only learned much later. Something else, very important, I was also to learn later: there is no salvation in joining any organization, community, religion, or human being. God has had the following written clearly and plainly in his Word: 11 For this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it beyond reach. 12 It is not in the heavens, so that one should say: "Who will ascend into the heavens for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and carry it out?" 13 Neither is it on the other side of the sea, so that one should say: "Who will cross over to the other side of the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and carry it out?" 14 For the word is very close to you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may carry it out. — Deuteronomy 30:11-14. This means, then, that doing the will of God does not depend on where we are. It is within us. The word of God was not then in the tabernacle, nor is it in any organization or religious community. Since the word of God is within us, who can pressure or compel it into action? Only we ourselves, if we so choose. A person can change to the point where he truly turns away from the wrong path. Can one bring this about in someone else? One may think so, but in reality it is not possible. Each person must do it within himself. God does not want our empty outward appearance or our business card — he wants us.

I had finished reading the Bible. I had read the entire Bible from beginning to end. I had to complete my military service in Turkey. For those of us living outside the country there was a special arrangement: we had the option of completing a shortened term of service in exchange for payment. I had registered a year beforehand. Reading the entire Bible moved me to make some changes in my life. During this time I went to no mosque, no church, and no other religious meeting. The Witness couple who visited me regularly always urged me to attend their meetings, but I always said I would go only when I had finished reading the book. Strangely, at that time Gerhard's wife was somehow opposed to my reading the Bible on my own. She said: "Even if you read the whole Bible, you still won't understand it." She then added that she only understood the Bible through the meetings and Witness literature. Because I am, as is well known, stubborn, I simply ignored her. I love it when people lay down rules! She thinks that because it was good for her, it must be so for everyone. I later discovered that it was not her personal opinion at all — the Witnesses are taught by their organization to think this way!! The organization instills in its followers the idea: "Without us you cannot understand the Bible, cannot come to God, and cannot be saved!" That is why they also say quite openly: "No one outside our ranks can understand this book, and therefore no one outside our ranks may interpret the Bible!" This attitude I clearly observed over fifteen active years — nineteen years in total — of contact with them, even though I myself was never one of them.

Interestingly, not even the prophets had this audacity (this impudence) to express themselves in such a way. Of course they said no such thing; after all, God had not commanded them to say anything of the sort. The Bible points only to Jesus as the Savior of mankind. That is a gift of God. Someone reading this for the first time will probably not understand it. The kindness of God described in the Bible, and the death of Jesus connected with it, is something Islam does not know — or does not wish to know. Whether Christendom truly understands the death of Jesus is yet another question. In Christendom there are thousands of groups, each with a different view, as in Islam or other religions. For this reason I would like to explain this subject briefly at this point. God sent Jesus from heaven to earth. Yes, indeed: Jesus was the first angel God had created and had lived in heaven. (Proverbs 8:22-31; John 1:1-14; 8:57, 58; Surah Al-Imran 2:55, 59) He was a spirit creature. There are many verses that confirm this. I cannot cite all of them here, but I would like to touch briefly on one or two. It would be best to read the entire Bible and the Quran for this purpose. Of course it is not enough to sit comfortably in our armchair and listen to others. If we begin with "he says this" and "she says that," we will not make progress, and above all we will not draw closer to God — we will drift farther away. Of course we should listen to others, but we must also do something ourselves. For example, we should read the Holy Scriptures. Then we ask God for understanding. Then we listen to what others say about it and compare it with what we have read. We should investigate it earnestly. Our guiding standard throughout should always be the word of God, not the word of men. (1 John 4:1)

That Jesus was the beginning of God's creation we can read in the following verses: Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From ancient times I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. — Proverbs 8:22, 23. These words were written by Solomon under inspiration, and he cannot have meant himself by them, since he was born as the son of King David. That these words can only refer to Jesus can be seen from Jesus' own words. The following exchange with the Jews is very revealing: The Jews therefore said to him: "You are not yet fifty years old, and yet you have seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them: "Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." (John 8:57, 58) I need not elaborate further on this statement here, as the Holy Scriptures clearly support this idea. The Quran does not state explicitly anywhere that Jesus had previously existed in heaven, but it does show that Jesus is before God as Adam is. Truly, Jesus is before God as Adam. (Surah Al-Imran 3:59) I have noticed that many Muslims would very much like to understand the meaning of this text and ask about it. We know that Adam had no fleshly, human father. He had a heavenly Father, namely God. (Luke 3:38) With Jesus it was the same. It was necessary that he not be fathered by a human father. God had to send a perfect, sinless human being to earth, so that this person would be able to pay the corresponding ransom price as compensation for the sin of Adam. This idea is completely unknown in Islam. What does it mean that God pays a ransom? It is basically quite simple. God said to Adam: "If you eat from that tree you will die." They ate, so they had to die — for God does not lie. (Titus 1:2) If God had said, "Well, you ate from it even though I forbade it, but I forgive you," then he would have lied and it would not have been just. Even when God forgives, a price must be paid. This statement runs through the entire Holy Scripture. It sheds light on the justice of God. Perhaps we wonder why God did not simply look the other way here. Why was such an elaborate course of action necessary — one that required even a perfect spirit creature, Jesus, to come to earth and sacrifice his life? This is because God does not violate his own principles. People enact laws and the first to break them are those who enacted them. Such is what one would expect of humans. But this is not consistent with the way God acts. If God were to act in such a manner even once, who would still trust him? Moreover, the entire world — the heavens, the stars, countless galaxies — together with their order and their laws, could not exist on the basis of lies and deception. Otherwise all of creation would sink into chaos.

The first humans were created imperfect and sinful. All their descendants inherited their imperfection. That is only logical: children of flawed, sinful, imperfect parents are also imperfect and sinful. If death is a consequence of imperfection, then their descendants logically inherited death as well. It is like a hereditary disease. Is this merely our own conclusion? No, the Bible describes it in exactly the same way. The justice of God requires that a price be paid for sin, a ransom — otherwise human beings would be subject to sin and death for all eternity, and that does not correspond to God's will. He created human beings to live forever. Eternity is innate to them. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) That is why, ever since their existence began, human beings have resisted death and cannot simply accept it as a natural given. This desire for eternal life was placed in us by God. God would never lie, but humanity would have died out entirely if he had not created a means to free us from sin and its consequences. Therefore, someone who was like Adam had to sacrifice his life as a corresponding ransom for Adam's sin. On the basis of this sacrifice, God would free humanity from sin. In the Bible, in the letter to the Romans, we find a detailed account of this provision. In chapter 6, verse 23, it says: For the wages that sin pays is death. That is God's justice, his principle, his law. Another rule, found in chapter 6, verse 7, states: For he who has died has been acquitted of his sin. When a person dies, he has paid the debt for his sins. Since all human beings are mortal, everyone who has died up to now has paid for their sins. What then about the resurrection — why can we hope for the resurrection? This is made possible through the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, whom God sent to earth for the redemption of humanity. That is why Jesus died. Jesus was fully aware of this before he came to earth. He did not carry out this mission under pressure, compulsion, or reluctance, but out of love and free choice. He loved God and he loved human beings. This is evident once again from Proverbs 8:30, 31: ... then I was beside him as a master workman, and I was the one he was especially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were among the sons of men. These were the words of Jesus when he was in heaven at God's side, and they expressed his attitude. The people he spoke of here were already wicked and imperfect, far removed from the glory in which God had created them. Satan, by contrast, looked upon human beings from the very beginning with rage and hatred. Jesus, however, took delight in human beings. (See Job 1:6–11; 2:1–10; Quran 7:11–19; 15:28–43; 38:71–85)

This shows that spirit creatures — angels — could hold differing opinions about one and the same matter. That would mean they, like human beings, possess free will. Some tend to view angels more like robots who have no choice of their own and cannot do otherwise than good. Far from it: the countless spirit creatures are vastly superior to human beings in intelligence, abilities, and experience.

Let us return again to the first sin and its effects on humanity: That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all had sinned, as Romans 5:12 states. The role that Jesus' ransom sacrifice plays in relation to Adam's sin is explained in the following verse: 18 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, so too through the obedience of the one person many will be constituted righteous. ... 21 That, just as sin ruled as king with death, so too undeserved kindness might rule as king through righteousness with everlasting life in view, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:18, 19, 21. Through the death of Jesus, the possibility of eternal life was to be given to all people. That is the will and the justice of God!

This explanation may strike some as nonsense, especially those who have spent years being taught unreasonable religious views. Allegedly in order to withstand the attacks of Christians, they have constantly preached in the mosques: "The Bible has been corrupted — do not read it, and if you do read it, do not believe a single word of it." If the Bible is the word of God and was corrupted by human beings, and God permitted this, then the same applies to all of God's books. Who guarantees us that the Quran has not also been corrupted? Interestingly, the Quran nowhere states and does not even hint that the Gospels or the Torah have been corrupted. On the contrary, the Quran confirms the truthfulness of these books in many verses and even encourages people to read them. As representative of many verses I would like to cite this one: Say: "Bring the Torah, then, and read it, if you are truthful." Al-Imran (the House of Imran) 3:93. (Further confirming verses: Surah 2:4; 5:59; 7:157; 10:37; 21:24; 29:46)

In all these verses the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels are pointed to as reliable sources. Far from being corrupted, the Quran repeatedly states that one should read these books in order to convince oneself that they come from God. These books are called upon, so to speak, as reliable witnesses. Where, then, does this view come from — so widely heard in Islam — that the Bible has been corrupted? This view must have its origin somewhere. At the Council of Nicaea there appear to have been several Gospels in existence and people wanted to agree on one, but without success. I do not know why the people of that time gathered for this council. Is there anyone who does know? But one thing we can say with certainty: over time, many translations and copies had come into circulation, and at the council a decision was made as to which ones to officially recognize as the correct ones. That is a simple, brief explanation. Did this same problem not exist among Muslims with regard to the Quran? In my countless discussions with Muslims I have noticed that they became upset when I used a translation by Osman Nebioğlu, and I was urged to use a translation by Süleyman Ateş — who was at that time the official head of religious affairs in Turkey (Diyanet İşleri Başkanı) — though "urged" is still putting it very mildly. The problem with these people lies not so much in this or that translation, but far more in what the Holy Scriptures themselves actually say. Do you know how many translations of the Quran exist in Turkish alone? I do not know their number, but I think it is no fewer than the number of Gospel translations that existed at the Council of Nicaea. "That is precisely why we read the Quran only in Arabic," many Muslims would say at this point.

It is a fact that not all languages possess the same richness and that some things can be expressed better in one language than in another. Sometimes it happens that something can be expressed in one language with a single word, while translating it requires an entire sentence to convey the same meaning. I would like to give a simple example here: in many languages the gender of a noun is already evident from the noun itself, but not in the Turkish language. Above all our Turkish language — it is, compared with many other languages, still young and immature. Sometimes you can express something in one language with a single word, while in another language you need an entire sentence just to make the meaning reasonably intelligible. In Turkish, for instance, there is only one personal pronoun, "o," which can refer to a man, a woman, a child, or an object. This only becomes clear from the context. In other languages that are richer, there are specific expressions that clearly distinguish between masculine, feminine, and neuter, and also between singular and plural. A single word makes it clear. Such or similar difficulties arise precisely when translating. If a thought does not come through clearly when reading, one simply has to investigate further. Perhaps the textual context — the verses before and after — sheds light on the meaning. If not, one reads another translation. One also always has the option of consulting yet another translation. Sometimes one simply has to do more research in order to fully grasp a meaning. How often would a reader who reads the Quran for the first or second time encounter such a problem? In any case, it is not necessary to learn another language for that purpose. No matter how limited our language may be, it is fully sufficient for getting to know our Creator better through it. It is a thousand times better to read the Quran in an expressively limited language — if such a thing even exists — than not to read it at all. I will return to this point later when it comes to the prophecies that point to Muhammad.

In Arabia they drive American cars and Japanese jeeps, use French and German technology, have Russian weapons ... All these devices, vehicles, tools, and weapons are operated, maintained, and repaired by Arab people. User manuals for all these devices are available in Arabic. There are even nuclear power plants where Arab engineers work. We are all surely aware of what can happen if mistakes are made in a nuclear power plant! All these things — which are hardly everyday items — can be handled by Arabs because the relevant information has been translated into Arabic. But a book like the Quran, which deals with daily life, supposedly cannot be translated into other languages! How then should one translate words like: "You shall not steal, not lie, not cheat; read the Bible," and so on, into another language??!! This is how educated, academically trained people respond. Just imagine, then, how the uneducated respond.

If language is such a great problem, then we had best stop learning anything at all — not in school, not at work, not anywhere. Everything in this world that was ever invented has also been transferred into other languages. If the word of God cannot be translated into another language and should be understood only in its original language, then consistently we would have to learn everything that was not invented or discovered in our mother tongue in the language of its discoverer, would we not? Errors could surely have crept in during translation! Then let us reject everything that was not developed or invented by us Turks! Then we should use no television, no video recorder, no mobile phone, no blood pressure or blood sugar monitors, nothing related to medical technology, and so on. We should then neither own nor use any of these things, and certainly not trust the Turkish translation of the user manual. What does one call such logic? I would call it nonsense — to put it politely.

What I am getting at is that every person should read the Holy Scriptures for themselves in their own mother tongue. That is worth every effort. Christendom, however, has indeed changed certain passages when translating the Bible and adapted them to its own doctrines. But in time this came to light. That is why conferences were held and the false translations were taken out of circulation. What an embarrassment for the religions and the organizations that supported them! Their attempted manipulation of the word of God did not remain hidden. But God allowed these things. Why? God said that true knowledge would not be easy to find. In Proverbs 2:4, 5 it says: ... if you keep seeking for it as for silver, and you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures, 5 then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the very knowledge of God. In this verse the search for knowledge of God is compared to searching for silver, gold, and hidden treasures. Does God not know that these things are not easy to find? Of course he does — but if we search with the same effort, we will certainly find God and his truth. It is not impossible. The world presents it as something unattainable, and unfortunately the intention is to discourage people in their search for truth.

Muslims think that all Christians know and read the Bible. Read the Bible — not a chance! For many centuries people who attempted to read the Bible were burned alive at the stake! Others who tried to translate the Bible into the language of the people were persecuted and tortured by religious leaders. In fact it is only in the last two centuries that the Bible has truly been made accessible and distributed to the general public. Before that point was reached, a high price had to be paid in the form of blood and human lives. But even after that, attempts were still made to stop people from reading the Bible. Exactly as in Islam. After so much suffering throughout history, there are still fanatical Muslims who become agitated and say: "The Quran must be read in Arabic — it cannot be translated." It is only about keeping people somehow away from the knowledge of God. If the people read for themselves, how can the leaders continue to keep them in ignorance? Their income, their honor, their personal advantage would be gone. Are they not aware of this? Of course — that is precisely why they make such an effort. But more than their efforts, something else makes me sad: seeing people observe the behavior of religious leaders and turn away from God because of it! Or it also astonishes me to see that, under the influence of these clerics, people do not read the book they claim to believe in in their own mother tongue — and even consider such a thing impossible. If someone expresses a desire to get to know God, they immediately send him to an Arabic class. If there was even the smallest spark of interest and love, they immediately try to extinguish it — and they usually succeed. What is the point of that — is he perhaps going to Arabia to conduct trade?! Or did God write commandments such as you shall not lie, you shall not steal, be kind to one another, and so on in such a complicated way that they cannot be translated into another language? Can God only speak Arabic? Is he only a God of the Arabs?

Some years ago a report appeared in the newspaper. A friend of mine told me about it from Turkey. Two Arab friends were visiting Turkey. On a Friday, one said to the other: "Come, let us go to the mosque." If I am not mistaken it was in Istanbul at the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. In any case, the two went to the Friday prayer service at the mosque. The imam recited from the Quran in Arabic, in a lamenting tone. It was summer, the mosque was packed, and even outside there was no room left. Our two Arabs found themselves outside the mosque. As the Quran was being read aloud, those present began to sob and weep. The more the imam read, the more the listeners were moved, and some even gave themselves over to mournful lamentation. The two Arabs first looked at each other in bewilderment, then began to grin, and finally could no longer contain themselves and started to snicker. The Turks were so enraged by this that they began beating the two Arabs, and they were almost lynched. Only with great difficulty were they rescued from the crowd and brought to the police station. They finally stood before the commissioner covered in blood, with torn clothing and disfigured faces. After the commissioner heard the story, he asked the two Arabs through an interpreter: "What was all that about — why did you behave that way in the mosque? One does not mock the worship of others." The two Arabs replied: "We did not go there to mock anyone — we went to conduct our own worship. We listened to the imam as he read from the Quran. It was only when we noticed that some of those around us began to grow sad, to sob, and some even began to weep, that we were very puzzled. What the imam had been reading was nothing sad, and certainly nothing to cry about. The subject was how war booty should be distributed after a battle. When we saw that many of those present began to weep, we could not contain ourselves and had to laugh." The commissioner had clearly understood the situation and said only: "There is no laughing in our mosques." What else could he have said?

The main thing is that one goes to the mosque and fulfills one's duty. In their eyes it almost seems that way. Then one truly sees oneself as a good and righteous person. They feel themselves already halfway in heaven, their feet barely touching the ground. Even among those present in the mosque, only some are righteous — not all. Of the others, who do not go to the mosque, we need not even speak — they are in any case hopelessly lost. God will punish them for it. And if one also brings real emotion into it and begins to sob and weep during the service, then one has truly accomplished something great! God could not possibly overlook this — he will surely reward us richly for it!!! Do they really believe they can put God in their debt by doing such things? They do this without truly reflecting. They do not want to know the reason behind it. One has fulfilled one's duty by attending the service regularly. And reading the Quran in their own language — absolutely not! They are not afraid that the meaning will then no longer come across properly, but rather that the magic, the mystical quality, will be lost — that people will no longer be drawn under its spell.

What I still do not understand in all of this: what is the point of reading at the Friday service about the distribution of war booty — and in Arabic, no less? Speak instead about something edifying, something that strengthens people in their faith and encourages them to good deeds. But how is one to edify others when one has nothing to give? Jesus said aptly about such persons: "Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." — Matthew 15:14. Are these words not fitting for such people?

When a person has a limited mind — or makes little use of it — his sense of values is equally narrow. He sees everything from his restricted vantage point and lives in his small world. From that perspective he judges all the things he sees, hears, or experiences. Put differently, such people feel an emptiness and insecurity, and they try to overcome that insecurity by searching for something to lean on, something to orient themselves by. That is why people join a party, a religion, a community, friends, relatives, or a club; they look for a life partner, wealth, or success. They are searching for security — ideally without having to do much for it. It has nothing to do with love from a pure heart. It is not genuine; it is heartless, driven by self-interest and by fear. Both at school and during military service, and in all human relationships, I observed that behind respect there always stands compulsion. At school we were expected to show respect. When the teacher entered the room we were expected to stand up and greet him. But nobody expected or demanded love. Yet is love not the most important thing? No matter how much pressure is applied, no matter how much someone is coerced, one can never achieve as much as through love. Our Creator says so, and He places very great value on it. A sacrifice offered under compulsion, under pressure, out of self-satisfaction — in short, for any reason other than love — God does not accept. (See Genesis 4:3–7) Do we not actually know that God is like this? If one behaves in Europe or America the way we were taught to behave under the name of "respect," one is laughed at. First we learn it reluctantly, and then it turns out to be useless as well — at least outside our own culture. I am not in favor of abandoning one's values and orienting oneself toward Europe or America. On the other hand, I think that if something is not a true value and is of no use to people, we should free ourselves from it. It is a fact that human beings find it very hard to change a habit or even to think outside certain structures. People say that man is a "creature of habit." And when he does change, it is not for something good. People find the courage to overcome themselves for bad things, but not for just and good things. Those who stand up for truth and justice, who build others up and encourage them, are in the minority anyway. What sense does it make, for example, when a Jehovah's Witness rebels against the pressure put on him, leaves the organization, and then joins a far-right party? Such a thing probably happens rather rarely, but I want to show by this how contradictory people's behavior can sometimes be. They do not act in accordance with what they apparently protested against.

In elementary school, in second or third grade, we were told a story. It was about a contest between the sun and the wind over which was the stronger. They wanted to test their powers against a man out for a walk. The question was who would first be able to take his hat or jacket from him. The wind began to blow and grew stronger and stronger until it became a storm. The harder the wind blew, the tighter the man held onto his hat and the more he buttoned up his jacket. In the end he found a shelter where he was somewhat protected from the wind. No matter how hard the wind tried, it could not remove a single item of clothing from the man. It achieved exactly the opposite. Then it was the sun's turn. The warmer it became, the more the man opened his jacket. Then he took it off altogether, and after a short while he removed his hat as well.

From this story I drew the lesson at the time that one can accomplish more with kindness, gentleness, and love. Even if the wind had been strong enough to tear the walker's clothing to shreds, he would hardly have been happy about it — he would have been even more annoyed. What the sun did caused the man to lay aside the clothing of his own accord. In my view the point of this story in the reader was to present the wind as a symbol of violence and the sun as a symbol of love and warmth of heart. In reality both can exert enormous force and violence. Both used their power to reach their goal. Against one kind of force the person resisted more and more; against the other kind of force he did not resist at all, but did exactly what that force wanted him to do. Yet in neither case did the person truly have freedom. Neither the wind nor the sun created an atmosphere in which the person felt free and at ease and then made a decision for himself. It only appears as though the person felt freer and more comfortable with the sun. But he had little choice but to take off his clothing so as not to suffer too much from the heat. Often in life it is not so much a matter of what you do, but why you do it. In the advertising industry and in films the only aim is to get people to do something willingly, since there is no way to force them anyway. Is that not also the method politicians use to get elected? Politics is inherently very unjust, very unfair. You have a choice among a few people you can vote for, and each one is worse than the next. Even if you yourself do not vote, someone is still elected — whoever received the most votes. Those who dislike that politician, who did not vote for him, have no choice but to accept him. So be it — politicians do not want our love anyway; what matters to them is getting elected. Whether one loves them or not is irrelevant. Who is loved by everyone? Certainly no politician. Turn it any way you like, people have still not found a foolproof remedy — that much is clear from the entire history of mankind. That is also why it is so hard to identify a guilty party. In some cases it really is like the story of Nasreddin Hodja, who in a dispute gave every party involved the same answer: you are right. For us human beings it is difficult regardless. That is why God also advises us in the Bible not to be quick to judge. (Romans 14:13) What I mean by this is: even if it is hard or even impossible for us human beings to distinguish rightly, for God it is no problem. He makes no mistakes in His judgment and in His assessment. When He gives counsel or enacts a law, all people can live by it, and it is the best for all people — regardless of the culture or the era or the country in which one lives. It makes no difference whether we are old or young, poor or rich, man or woman. His decisions are not comparable to those of human beings.

We started with one topic and have ended up on a completely different one. I hope my narrative style does not come across as too erratic when I keep weaving in other topics and explanations along the way. Sometimes it is simply necessary to go into certain words and expressions more deeply in order to make the context clear. You learn many new words when you want to get to know God. It is as though you are learning a new language, because these words are not in everyday use. Over time I even learned to render this particular vocabulary into the German language. But, as I said, I am not a writer — not even remotely. Please therefore do not evaluate this book by literary standards, but read it more as a kind of diary in which someone has written down his feelings and impressions just as they came to mind. Yet do try to filter out from this book the truths, the secrets, and the answers to many questions, and pay attention to the voice of your conscience. Look into whether things are as described here. Open the books that you say you believe in, and learn from them. If you can bring yourself to do so, then live accordingly.

My military service lasted 2 months. Fifty-six days, to be precise. The first few days each felt like an endless year. In fact we were not treated badly. Those who had paid money and served only 2 months were treated preferentially, in contrast to those doing their regular 18-month service. But the biggest problems we had were with those who, like us, had to serve only 2 months. From my time in the boarding school I know what it means to live in close quarters with many people. I never got used to it. The military, the boarding school, the orphanage, the hospital — I would not even want to know what prison is like. I believe the worst of these are the orphanage and the prison. At least the orphanage I was in was horrific. I was in that home from the age of 3 to the age of 6. I was beaten almost every day. In the middle of the night the lights would come on and I would be beaten because I had wet the bed. During the day I was beaten for other things: either because I did not want to eat, or because I laughed, because I cried, because I ran, because I stopped walking, and so on — there was always some reason, or no reason at all. I think there is nothing worse than being beaten without cause, or for something you are not responsible for. Those blows hurt the most. The beatings I received because I had done something wrong did not hurt — even when they were physically painful, they did not wound the soul. But receiving beatings and not knowing what for — that was terrible. Whether what I did was right or wrong, I was beaten. At midnight we were woken up to go to the toilet. The sleeping room was a large hall. The iron-framed bunk beds we slept in were always arranged lengthwise so that the foot of one bed was at the head of the next. Along the window there were about 5 beds side by side. Then there was an aisle, then two more rows directly next to each other, then another aisle. There were approximately 25 to 30 children in that orphanage in Istanbul — Kasımpaşa. Perhaps there were also some children who came only during the day, but if so, there were only a few. Such negative experiences never entirely disappear from memory, even if I can no longer remember every detail. When the lights came on at midnight, I would already be beaten before I was even properly awake. I was wet from the waist down. Then I had to take off the clothes — underpants and so on. After all the children had been to the toilet, I — and sometimes perhaps one other child — was not allowed back into bed. I would sit huddled on the stone floor, knees drawn up and head resting on my knees, with my wet undershirt pulled down over my knees. And that is how I fell asleep. I was content to sit that way. As long as I did not get beaten, I was willing to accept everything else. I no longer know how long I slept in that position. When the supervisor in her headscarf would eventually take pity on us and order us back to bed, I would crawl back into my by then ice-cold, wet bed and look for a dry spot to lie down. The best sleeping spot — the middle of the bed — was cold and wet, and no matter how I positioned myself, I was always lying at least partly in urine. That was how the earliest years of my childhood passed, in various orphanages — each one worse than the last. It was the early 1960s. Even orphanages in America were terrible at that time, judging by what I have seen in films. Of course there were also homes where conditions were better. Those were not for us, since we had nobody. My mother had gone to Germany at that time to work. My father was somehow unable to care for me, so they placed me in a home. I was the youngest of 3 children. Germans mostly preferred women when it came to hiring new workers. Unfortunately it is still that way. Employers probably think first of their own pleasure, and besides, women are easier to deceive and less argumentative than men. Even if these women cannot accomplish very much, they are hired for their appearance or their gullibility alone. At least some men can feast their eyes on that — even if the beauty does not apply to all of them. As a woman you always find work quickly. If you are a man you have already lost. Of course they hire men too, but only for heavy, dirty work that nobody else wants to do. I am not saying this is the case everywhere, but these are the experiences I had. Are there no foreigners in Germany who have a good job? There certainly are, but I never met any. Germany brings a mother of 3 children over to work. Why should they give any thought to her husband and her 3 children? My mother had stood in line day after day in Turkey to get a permit for Germany. Then at the medical examination they found an inflammation in her urine. She even had healthy teeth pulled because of it. Whatever she did, or had done to her, it changed nothing — they always found something in her urine indicating an inflammation. In the end she submitted someone else's urine sample and got through with that. She received her papers and was finally able to go to Germany. By that point she had of course already accumulated a great deal of debt. In those days workers traveled to Germany by train. I was still small at the time — 3 years old. Of all those events only a few negative ones have stayed in my memory. When I saw my mother for the first time, I apparently addressed her as "Auntie," since I did not even know she was my mother. At the orphanage Sundays were visiting days. But my father usually showed up only once a month or once every two weeks. Sometimes he came every weekend, then again not at all. You were allowed to spend 2 to 3 hours together. Money was collected from the visitors. A child would walk around with a hat or something similar, and everyone would drop money in. Whether there was a set amount or whether you could give as much as you wanted, I no longer remember. When I sometimes look back on it, I wonder whether it was because of the money that he visited me so rarely, or simply because he only thought of himself. If I had been in his position, I would not have left my child alone like that. But when I think about that time, about the circumstances — I do not know. Perhaps it was also necessary for me to go through such difficult times. From the money collected, something was supposedly purchased for the children. Well, if a sweet occasionally came my way, that was already a lot. The greater part went to the home. One tenth, or at most one twentieth, was for us children.

You are a helpless, defenseless child in an environment that knows absolutely no love. There was one woman I still remember well — her name was Oya. She was a wealthy woman. I no longer remember exactly whether she could not have children or did not want them. But this woman was our greatest joy, our salvation. Who knows what became of her? Sometimes she would gather us all around her and turn off the lights. Then she would run her train, which had red lights. That train — I remember it clearly — had a pointed front shaped like the tip of an arrow, as if it were made of gold. It was forbidden even to touch the train. I did not want to anyway. Just seeing the train and not being beaten — that was already enough for me. When Mrs. Oya was there, nobody beat us, not even a light smack. That was the best part for me. But reaching out to touch the train held no appeal for me. Not infrequently, however, the supervisor would later beat us because we had misbehaved in Mrs. Oya's presence. So in the end even Mrs. Oya's visits had a bitter aftertaste. The beatings were usually not as bad as usual, though. They were probably afraid the children would tell Mrs. Oya about it later. While writing this book and thinking about my military service, these memories from back then came back to me. Not because they treated us so badly in the military, but because I had a terrible childhood in those orphanages. Those homes were created to give children protection and security, yet exactly the opposite was practiced there — children were left defenseless, at the mercy of torment.

If I were to say I breezed through my military service, I would be lying. In my view there is nothing you can breeze through when there is no freedom. Even though it was not a matter of life or death, I prayed to God often. And I am convinced that He protected me from much that was bad there too. Reading the Bible had brought about many changes in me. I had the desire to change and to live in a way that pleased God. The friends I made there, on their free weekends, would go to brothels or were at least out looking for a woman. I had resolved not to do such things anymore. I was even surprised at myself, because in earlier days I had been the one who was out ahead of the others. Yet I felt a strong love and affection toward God, and a strong desire to please Him. I went neither to church nor to the mosque, but I paid much greater attention to doing the right things. After reading the Bible it was clear to me that worshipping God had nothing to do with ritual prayer, with the bowing down in the mosque, nor with the ritual church service, with the ceremonies in the church. Such things do not please God. In God's eyes the important things are: being honest, loving one's neighbor, being ready to forgive — these things constitute worship. With the understanding I had at the time, I did not see it as wrong to go to church or to the mosque, but I simply did not go. There was no pleasant, warm, heartfelt atmosphere there. I had the feeling that I would not find the God I worshipped in those places. I thought: if I want to serve God, if I want to speak with Him, I can do that anywhere and at any time. I just did not have enough knowledge to be firmly convinced of that thought. On the other hand I also sensed that what I knew would not be well received by others. Discussing such topics or saying in a group of Muslims "I have read the Bible" does not go over well. So I mostly kept silent. Only to a few close friends did I say that I had the desire to serve God. They were constantly on the lookout for women, which from their point of view seemed perfectly normal to me. In their position I would have done the same. They were only the way they were because they did not know what I knew, I thought. I was convinced that with my knowledge they would never act the way they were acting now. On account of this conviction I was later to experience many disappointments. Knowing the right thing, being acquainted with it, does not necessarily change a person for the better.

Some of what I read in the Bible moved me deeply and stayed with me long afterwards. Reading the Bible brought me experience. It helped me to think — about myself, about others, about the causes of events. Most of all, though, it helped me to get to know God and His qualities better. As I mentioned earlier, I always tried to put myself in the place of the people I was reading about. For one thing, it makes reading more enjoyable; for another, it speaks more directly to our mind and conscience, and what we have read comes alive and takes on meaning. Above all, one learns to know oneself better. When I read the Bible for the first time and came to the passage about the life of Solomon, the son of David, I encountered an episode that moved me greatly. Solomon had offered many sacrifices to God. Then God appeared to him in a dream and said: "Ask what I should give you." (1 Kings 3:5) I was twenty-two years old when I read that. King Solomon must have been somewhat younger — perhaps twenty-one. I stopped reading and thought. "If God were to give me such an opportunity, what would I choose?" Immediately I thought of beautiful women, and probably of wealth as well. What do I mean, "probably"? Of course I thought of it — the longer you think, the more wishes pile up, because something you would like always comes to mind. But those were my first, spontaneous thoughts. I did not yet know what Solomon had asked of God. Sometimes, when I came to such a passage, I did not read on straightaway but first thought about what I would have done in that person's place; in that way I come to know myself, and then I am all the more curious to find out what the person described actually did. So I read on. Solomon answered God: "...You Yourself have made Your servant king in place of David my father, and I am but a little child. I do not know how to go out or come in. And Your servant is in the midst of Your people whom You have chosen, a great people who cannot be numbered or counted for multitude. Give Your servant therefore an understanding heart to judge Your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to judge this great people of Yours?" 1 Kings 3:7–9

When I read those lines I thought: "Damn! How can Solomon be so foolish?" "How can a young man wish for something like that?!" He wants neither riches nor beautiful women, nor even honour and recognition. No — instead he wishes for "an understanding heart, to discern between good and evil." What a way to throw away the chance of a lifetime, I thought. How often does an opportunity like that come along? How often does God appear to someone and offer: "Ask of Me whatever you will"? I read on. God gave Solomon this answer:

"Because you have asked this thing and have not asked for yourself many days, nor have you asked riches for yourself, nor have you asked the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself discernment to understand justice, 12 behold, I have done according to your words. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there has been none like you before you, and after you none like you shall arise. 13 I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honour, so that no other king shall compare with you all your days. 14 And if you walk in My ways, keeping My statutes and My commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days." 1 Kings 3:11–14

These words moved me deeply; I felt ashamed and began to cry. When I was alone while reading I let my feelings run free. I wept not only because I was ashamed, but above all because I was so struck by God's answer — by His generosity and goodness. He truly delights in justice and uprightness. How merciful and compassionate He is. I thought again about Solomon and his request, and I admired him for having expressed a wish so reasonable and so well considered. It showed that even in his youth he already had a genuine sense of responsibility.

Why would I have wished for something so senseless, and not seen things the way Solomon did? Solomon knew God far better than I did. His father David was both king and prophet. Through his father's upbringing and example, Solomon had already become a wise young man. He placed little value on material things or on the gratification of his fleshly desires. Those are things that arise naturally on their own. Yet such an attitude does not maintain itself automatically — one must fight for it. Solomon himself grew careless in this regard. He did not heed God's counsel, married women who did not know God, and because of them later left the way of God. Up to that point I had not had much knowledge of God, and what I did know was not necessarily correct. As I mentioned before, I imagined God to be like the genie in the bottle, or like Aladdin's magic lamp. Whatever you wish for in that moment will be granted. If you wish for something wrong or bad, that is your misfortune — your own fault. That is why I always thought we must be very careful with our wishes. But God is quite different from what I had imagined. First, He knows us very well; second, He is concerned with making good our mistakes. He takes no pleasure in our acting foolishly; on the contrary, He strives to spare us that. Whatever we have done or got up to, if we are truly sorry and turn back to Him, He will not turn us away. Through the prophet Ezekiel God gives us this assurance: "None of his sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him." — Ezekiel 33:14–16. So if we truly turn from our wrongdoings, no matter what we have done, our sins will not be counted against us. How different we human beings are. Even when it looks as though we have forgiven someone, at the first opportunity we remind him of the mistakes he made in the past. We humiliate him, make him sink into the ground. And God — He who sees every single day, completely in the open, all our faults, our sins, our foolishness, our impudence, and whatever other wickedness one can commit — He says, when we feel genuine remorse in our hearts for what we have done: "I will remember your sins no more"!! Which of us, which father has a love like that? I do not wish to compare God with human beings; I write this so that we may understand God better. How do we treat Him, and how does He treat us? While reading the Bible I often came upon passages like these, which put me to shame but also set me thinking. Through them I came to know myself better. The books of God gave me answers to my "why" and "how". While reading I sometimes began to cry; sometimes I grew very agitated at what I read; and sometimes I could not stop laughing. In this book I would like, when the occasion arises and with God's help, to weave in such incidents — why I grew agitated, why I wept, why I had to laugh, and also why I sometimes did not understand what was written there.

I MAKE THE ACQUAINTANCE OF THE QURAN

Military service was over. The friends I had made there, with whom I had spent so much time, left the barracks a day or two before me. They had arrived shortly before me, so they were allowed to leave a little earlier. But they waited for me all the same. We met up in a hotel. Freedom is a wonderful thing. Just drinking a cup of tea — in freedom, without pressure, without fear — we could truly savour that now. Of course I had hoped they would wait for me, but I had not said so. I was very glad that they had. Most of them parted ways afterwards, each heading home. We had planned to go together to Antalya and then on to Alanya. For two months we had been together, under strict regulations. Now the situation was completely different. Perhaps we also wanted to get to know one another in these new circumstances. Or perhaps there was no particular intention behind it — we simply wanted to share our joy with one another. In Antalya my friends went straight to a brothel. I said immediately that I was not going. One of the friends did not go either. He had two women. One was Turkish, the other German. He was legally married to the German woman; with the Turkish woman he was only religiously — that is, not officially — married. (In Turkey it is not permitted to be officially married to more than one woman in any case.) I heard later that he was very unhappy. He was religious but not conservative. Whether he practised his religion with joy, I do not know, but that was not the impression I had. He had probably been raised to live that way. He did not know very much about God, however. After I said I would not go, he joined me. The other two tried hard to persuade us to come along. "Come on, just to have a look." "That's precisely why I don't want to come," I replied. Evidently they understood then that we were determined not to go, and they set off. We waited in the car. We waited and waited; hours passed and there was still no sign of the two of them. The one waiting with me in the car grew restless and wanted every few minutes to go and look for the others. I kept changing the subject and talking about something else, because I knew that going there would mean a great temptation for me. He grew more and more impatient, and in the end he pressed me to go. I made one last attempt to avoid the matter by suggesting that he go and look for the others himself while I waited in the car so that someone would be there when they came back. But it was no use — I absolutely had to come with him. So we went. As we walked there I thought to myself: "Am I really so weak?" Then I told myself that a person of worth is always a person of worth, no matter where he happens to be. If a piece of gold falls into the mud, does it lose its value? We went into the house and looked through all the rooms for our friends, or to see whether something had happened. The women invited us in, and they looked inviting too. Each one more beautiful than the last. "How easy it would be to spend a night here with a beautiful woman," I thought. If you were to see such a beautiful woman somewhere out on the street, she would seem completely out of reach. But here the women belong to you — you only have to pay for it. Like a hire car. There are some cars you can only dream of because you cannot afford them. So you rent one for a day or several days, and for that time it is yours. And what is a car compared to a human being? However long we stayed in there and looked around, outwardly I was completely cold and composed, but inside me it was like a volcano. We did not find our friends, so we went back to the car. Shortly afterwards the two of them arrived. I was astonished at myself. How had I managed to resist that temptation? I was glad that I had been able to keep my feelings under control. But I am certain it was the Bible that had changed me. During that year in which I had been reading the Bible, the older Witnesses who visited me had perhaps come ten to fifteen times. But I had never imagined that what I had read in the Bible would change my life to such a degree.

We then spent one more day together in Alanya and parted. From there I went to Gemlik, to the flat my mother had rented sight unseen. She had moved there from Istanbul while I was doing my military service. It was a typical foggy, damp November. The house was still in complete disarray. It was not exactly the right place to rest and recover after military service. My mother has somehow always had a fondness for disorder and for constantly changing where she lives. My childhood is always associated in my mind with moving house. I believe we have lived in virtually every district of Istanbul. There were always reasons for it, of course. In a flat of 130 square metres there was simply no room for all the things they had! My mother was living with a man who was a retired agricultural engineer. He had worked in many different places. I called him Nihat Papa. Nihat Papa was someone who enjoyed conversation, though it mattered more to him to speak than to listen. Both of them were already old. After they moved in together, the accumulated belongings of two households gathered over many years all came into one flat; it was clear it would no longer be enough. The work fell to me again, as usual. One does many things willingly, as long as one thereby satisfies the other person and has the feeling that the work one does is appreciated. My wish to always have a tidy, orderly home was not only for my own comfort — I also thought of how it would be pleasant for others as well. But my mother placed no value on it whatsoever. The mere fact that I had been in conflict with others on just this point since my childhood showed me clearly that not all people are alike — that not everyone has the same preferences and qualities. This happens not only with your mother, father, or siblings; even your own children are completely independent persons with their own personalities. We feel drawn to someone who thinks the way we do about certain things, even though they are complete strangers to us. On the other hand, a person very close to us, living in the same household, raised in the same way, from the same culture, can be our complete opposite in certain views. Despite everything, my mother was the person I loved most. But that love had often brought more pain than joy and happiness. After what I had experienced in the orphanages, my mother seemed to me like an angel. When I had wet the bed, my mother never scolded me once. She was the only person who understood that I could not control it. Perhaps that is why I had valued her especially. Our mother only hit us twice during our childhood. Both times it was, unfortunately, only me who felt it. The first time I deserved it; the second time, in my view, she was in the wrong. Like all human beings, my mother had her good sides, but also her faults. With us children she was very good. She was always very hospitable and generous. She never liked visiting other people, but when someone came to us, they could not leave without having eaten and drunk something. Then she was happy. The saying of Jesus — "There is more happiness in giving than in receiving" — my mother followed naturally, from the heart. (Acts 20:35) Most people do exactly the opposite, unfortunately. They live by the principle: receiving makes you happier than giving! Above all, religious people! That the majority of people live this way is something one can still understand, but from religious people one should expect something different, something better. God Himself is generous, and He loves generous, open-handed people. Why is it that religious people love money so much? It is difficult to satisfy someone who is not religious and is worldly-minded, but a religious person is satisfied with less — as long as you give him something. The dream of every young Jehovah's Witness is to ring the doorbell of a wealthy person and find an open ear there. The reason is obvious. If the ordinary door-to-door preacher thinks this way, one can easily imagine that the leadership of that organisation is no differently inclined. One then assumes that the water flows in their direction — which is not infrequently what happens. The wealthy, well-off person will then begin to share his prosperity with the Witnesses, provided he is generous. To approach people with such a thought in the back of one's mind is certainly not in accordance with God's will. But on the other hand, the Witnesses do not engage in any form of gambling — no lottery or the like, even when it involves no stake of money — except for those who do so secretly. That is a sin, and the other...? Does that apply only to the Witnesses? As I said, this is a problem that religious people have in general. There are good, kind, wise, well-read people among them — but generous ones? There certainly are, yet I have not encountered any. I can say that in the roughly twenty years in which I had closer contact with such people, I found genuine hospitality coming from the heart — with no expectation of something in return — very, very rarely. In all that time I came to know at most two or three such families. In general they place great value on material things. The God they claim to worship places value on spiritual things, and He expects the same of His servants. In Matthew 6:19–21, Jesus gives this admonition: Stop storing up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. That is to say, wherever our treasure is — whatever we regard as valuable — that is where our heart is too. Where the heart of the religions lies can easily be answered on the basis of this explanation, on the basis of our experiences, and on the basis of history. They come to you, to your home, they eat and drink, but where their house, their flat is — that one finds out only after years. And these people claim to make God known! When you look at their conduct, you think: "That cannot be right; God can surely never have said that one should behave this way!" After having gone along with it for a long time without saying anything, you eventually reach a breaking point and say something to one of them — and then they are offended, and you are the bad one for having said it. For money, people are prepared to do anything. Why have wars been fought? Napoleon once made this plain when he was sitting at a table with other statesmen. "We wage wars because we need money," he said. At that, an English statesman merely smiled and replied: "We — we fight for glory and honour." Napoleon's answer was: "Everyone fights for what he does not have." To those who regard money as their lord, Jesus said the following: No one can be a slave of two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of Riches. According to Matthew 6:24. In these verses we are helped to have a balanced view of money and under no circumstances to place it on a level with God. The Quran too repeatedly emphasises that we should not set great store by money and wealth. (Al-Baqarah: 200) At a congress of the Witnesses a speaker said: "Money is a useful servant but a poor master." Even if they make such speeches only to their own advantage, to appear in a good light, it is nonetheless a wise saying. It is important to pay attention to the eyes with which we regard money. If we place money above everything else, then it is our god. If we place pleasure above everything else, then we make that our god. If we place ourselves above everything else, then we make ourselves our god. Simply put, whatever we set in first place in our lives — that we make into our god. If we place the true God above everything else in our lives, then we follow His commandments and serve Him. We naturally do not expect anyone to say outright that money is the most important thing to them and that they serve money as their god, but their conduct makes their attitude plain. Everyone has different values: one person puts his hobby above everything else, another his spouse, his children, his car, his pleasure, his career, and so on. Then what he places above everything else becomes his god, his idol. That is why God tells us in the Holy Scripture what He expects of us: ...and you shall love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength. — Mark 12:30 — With these words God states very clearly that He expects us to give our time and strength to Him, willingly and from a loving heart. With this attitude we should draw near to Him. Not hypocritically, or merely to fulfil a duty, an obligation. This verse leaves absolutely no room for selfishness or self-love. Some see these as small, unimportant details, but they are the fruits, the works, of the person. A tree does not bear just a single piece of fruit; it has many fruits of the same kind. The more fruits are rotten, the more readily one will see the tree as a rotten, useless tree. If miserliness, lying, merciless, loveless, unjust conduct are not bad, rotten fruits — then what is? We all bring forth bad fruits. But should one not look more closely at those who say of themselves, "Without us you cannot be saved"? Should we not expect especially good fruits from them? The religions, however, have brought forth bad fruits throughout the whole of human history. By saying "You will recognise these people by their fruits," Jesus gave us a standard by which we can judge the religions.

Whether it was possible for me to talk to my mother about my faith and my newly acquired knowledge in the new apartment, amidst all the chaos, I can no longer say. In any case, after a few days we did speak about it. I also can no longer remember what her reaction was at the time, whether she simply dismissed it as a new idea. Over the course of time, with everything I did as a result of my knowledge of God, and the ways I changed my life, my mother was among those who offered me the most resistance. We had never been religious. In the twentieth century, an aversion to religion had spread everywhere. Communism in particular had increasingly curtailed the power of the churches and other religions. That was certainly not wrong, but it was not necessarily right either. It has not been uncommon throughout history that in taking action against a movement or an ideology, one has proceeded against some innocent people along with the guilty. Through Atatürk and the founding of the Turkish Republic, the influence of religion in Turkey was sharply curtailed. That won the sympathies of many people. After these events, my mother, like many others in her generation, had regarded everything connected with religion with suspicion. I can well understand her and even agree with her. She had arrived at this conclusion through her own observations and feelings, not through research as I had done.

Sometimes one has an aversion to something but cannot explain it. One does not need to witness or experience a great deal of negativity to see through something. Often just one or two experiences that make one feel sick are enough to develop an aversion. The fact that one cannot explain this aversion, or that it is not grounded in well-founded knowledge, does not mean that one is necessarily wrong. Are decisions or ways of acting made on gut instinct then a kind of gamble? No simple rule can be established. There are many things in our lives that we have done rightly and well, solely based on our feelings. We made such decisions without knowing or estimating the outcome. But sometimes bad, wrong decisions also produce pleasant, positive results. Both the Bible and the Quran report an event to which this applies exactly. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers, which was certainly not good, but God gave the story a very good outcome. (Genesis 45:5–8) By this I do not mean to confirm a belief in fate in the sense of predestination. We are held accountable for what we do, whether good or bad. If God steers a matter toward good, that does not mean that we are absolved of the wrong we have done, or that we may even present it as something good. It is God who turned the negative into a positive, but the one who did the negative has still made himself guilty. God does not cause us to do evil; we ourselves are responsible for that. It is God who sets things right again and offers his help. In this context, other very significant questions arise that I will address later. For example: if Jesus came to earth to sacrifice his life for us — meaning he had to die — why are those who killed him guilty? As I said, I will come back to this question later, so as not to stray too far from the story for now. I will try to deal with related topics together as much as possible, but I can already see that I am not managing to do so. My goal in writing is to reach as broad a readership as possible and to convey the material in an easily understandable way. As I mentioned, many of the words are not part of our everyday vocabulary, so I add the occasional explanation. I hope that in doing so the actual subject does not get lost.

I had taken three months of vacation. Two of those were spent in the military and one week on travel there and back, so I had three weeks for my mother. Completely unexpectedly, out of the blue, she gave me a red book one evening before bedtime and said: "Here, take this — it is a Turkish Quran. It was mine; it should belong to you." I took it immediately. I was curious whether this book would captivate and influence me as the Bible had. It had become an important book for me. I had gained practically all my knowledge of God through reading the Bible. I began to read the Quran as well. It was written in a different style from the Bible. Yet the accounts in the Quran immediately felt familiar to me, since I already knew them from the Bible. Many events from the Bible are also mentioned in the Quran, but usually only very briefly, so that someone who does not know the Bible has little to go on. Events that are treated at length in the Bible are only touched upon briefly, in various places, in the Quran. This book that I held in my hands was later to be the cause of many endless discussions, confrontations, and debates, and also the reason that some people wanted nothing more to do with me, and even hated me. Of course, I was not yet aware of that at the time. I read it with joy and still enjoy reading it today. In a prophecy concerning Jesus it is written: "... those who hate me without cause ..." These words strengthened and comforted me. The fact that I felt this way and had such experiences is not in itself proof that I am in the right. It is astonishing what nonsense many people do on account of their faith, consciously or unconsciously. They too have grounded their conviction and their source of strength in a similar way. Although they always invoke the power of God, history shows that they had and have no support from God. Being aware of this, I have always been careful not to base my faith on this kind of feeling. Can one believe without feeling? I cannot say that with one hundred percent certainty. I have always tried to develop my faith through objective inquiry, through logic, through knowledge, and above all through the study of the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps I tried to be scientific without being aware of it — that is, it was important to me to be able to prove my conviction. In science there is no place for feelings. If someone says, "I have a feeling that the earth is round," that is not a scientific statement. Feelings are not proof, even if one arrives at the correct result. One would hardly solve a mathematical equation based on feeling, or justify the solution with a feeling once it has been found. Religions unfortunately fall short in this area. When you put a specific question to someone in a position of responsibility, he does not say "I don't know." He talks a great deal, explains a great deal, but none of it has anything to do with the answer. Yet he does not say that he does not know the answer — he cannot say it! Why pride plays such a large role here, I do not know. Moreover, he cannot say something that contradicts the official teaching of his religion. If on a particular topic the explanation is such and such, then that is how it is, end of story. It does not matter whether he understands it or not, let alone whether he can explain it. They justify it by saying: "That is just how it is; that is how we must accept it." When one encounters someone who is genuinely interested in answering the questions, he will, if he is diligent, research and seek the answer. Then he will come back and tell you: "In our literature it is explained thus and so." Then one reads the explanation in the literature and comes across certain inconsistencies and also half-truths. When one points these out, one is branded as stubborn, unreasonable, proud, and self-righteous. Then one tries to almost beseech one's counterpart and to ask him to show where one may have made mistakes in one's reasoning, or whether it might not be the case that one is in the right. Then there are only very, very few who say: "I understand you." But then he will add nonetheless: "Despite everything, you should believe as we do." One must then ask what genuine faith has to do with saying: "All right, because you want it this way, I will believe as you do." Can one practice such a faith with love? Probably not everyone will have understood what I meant by these remarks. I think that when I mention practical examples from my own experience, the point will become clearer. Through reading the Quran I had experiences such as those described above.

DID JESUS FORBID POLYGAMY?

At no point in this book do I claim that reading the Bible caused me to shed all my sins. This is made clear by an event that occurred right after the events mentioned, when I was still in Turkey with my mother after completing my military service. After being discharged from military service, I had put a card in the mailbox of my ex-wife. Every time I was in Turkey I still met with her, even though she knew that I had since married in Germany. As far as I can remember, we had not seen each other for a year. Many people told us that this was not a healthy relationship and that it was also damaging to the marriage. We knew that too. But what does a healthy relationship look like? What is right? What must one do for a relationship to become happy? One receives many different answers to these questions, so we chose the ones that appealed to us most. We lived only for the moment. What pleased us at the time, we did. Who can say what consequences it would have? The world leads us to such conclusions, because no one lives consistently according to what is praised as a healthy relationship. The few who appear so respectable lead such boring lives that one is hardly inclined to imitate them. At some point it then comes to light that precisely these "role models" lead or have led anything but exemplary lives, because they did far more disgusting, unnatural things and took pleasure in them. (Romans 1:24–32) Having heard of such things, I thought it best to live as I saw fit. Everyone regards their own way of thinking as the best. By this I do not mean to say that I consider myself the most reasonable or even the cleverest person. I live with the conviction that there are many people who are cleverer, more reasonable, and wiser than I am. It is not uncommon for me in a given situation to see everyone else as very wise and myself as an idiot. On the other hand, every person must make their own decisions about their way of life, their attitude, their faith, their convictions, and the things they love. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how clever and wise one considers oneself or one's fellow human beings. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own life and will also give account for it before God, which is why each person should decide for themselves what kind of life they wish to lead. Most people will certainly agree with me on this point, and yet hardly anyone in practice lives by this principle. We align our lives with the wishes of our spouse, our party, our religion, our friends, or our employer. This list is certainly not complete. There are many reasons why we do this, but going into them here would take us too far afield, so we will simply leave this fact as it stands and continue with our topic.

Something unexpected happened: late one evening the doorbell rang. My mother opened the door and called: "Your wife is here." I had not anticipated that. I had put the card in the mailbox so that if she found out I was in Turkey, she would not say: "Couldn't you at least have left a message that you were here?" Not that I place great importance on what others say, but my sense of decency required it of me. And should love for God keep me from doing good things? On the contrary, for me it was a matter of decency to leave her a message. I still think so today. Sometimes, unfortunately, the things that seem good and right to us bring terrible consequences — possibly even death. In any case, things were already going rather wrong in my life, since in the end I even wanted to die. What I believed in and regarded as right had brought me to that point. At the time I could not yet see this so clearly and plainly. I only knew that it was not right to be together with a woman I was no longer married to — at least not as a married couple. When my mother said "your wife is here," my face turned chalk white. It was clear to me what was about to happen. And I was right — it happened. How could I have turned her away? After receiving my card, she had set out on a journey of several hundred kilometers and stood smiling at the door. How could I say "no"? And did I not want it too? Of course I did, but what now troubled me was the knowledge of God. I asked my mother what I should do. "What you should do? What you always did before, my boy," she answered. "But I know that God does not want that." "Just go ahead and go to her; let your sin fall on me," she tried to reassure me. For my mother such a way of thinking was entirely normal, but I could never accept it when someone says "I will bear your sin." It is illogical that God should hold someone else responsible for a sin that I commit. Does not each person bear responsibility for their own actions? In a story in the Bible, Jacob's mother gives her son a similar reply. (Genesis 27:8–13) Yes, I had passed the first test; the second one I failed. On the day I was discharged from military service I stood firm in faith, but this time I was weak.

Before we continue the story, I would like to insert an important truth at this point. About twenty years after these events, a friend and former Jehovah's Witness who had voluntarily left the community asked me what the Bible says about polygamy. At first I wanted to give the usual, familiar answer, but then I began to think about the question at greater length. Christians teach that one may only marry one woman. For thousands of years they have taught this as God's commandment. In the Catholic Church it is even forbidden for clergy to marry. This is not a commandment of God but rather a tradition. The words of Jesus on this matter are as follows:

I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." The disciples said to him: "If the situation of a man with his wife is like this, it is not advisable to marry." He said to them: "Not all men make room for this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. Let the one who can make room for it make room for it." Matthew 19:9–12

It is primarily on this verse that celibacy is based. They believe that through abstinence one draws closer to God. Of course they do not forbid marriage in principle — otherwise humanity would eventually die out. But, they say, "whoever wishes to be close to God and is willing to take on this task should not marry." In a creeping, insidious way, the impression is created here that the desire to be close to God is bound up with a task that involves difficult conditions. Of course no one is forced into it, but people's consciences are heavily influenced in religion such that they feel under pressure. No Witness is forced to be a "pioneer" (the Witnesses' term for a full-time minister), and yet their conscience is trained in that direction so that they feel guilty if they do not. In the area of deception and manipulation — that is, influencing people to do something specific — religions are masters, just like politicians. In my book I want to make precisely this point clear. If the words of Jesus are to be understood as the Church interprets them, then one must ask why so many of his disciples — including the Apostle Peter — were married. Were they not close to God, or did they lack the desire to be? Neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul forbade marriage as a means of drawing closer to God. Of course a marriage brings obligations with it. The time, strength, energy, and attention that one must devote to fulfilling those obligations are regarded by some as unnecessary, or at least not of primary importance. If someone wishes instead to devote as much time and strength as possible to God and to spiritual matters, the Bible advises not marrying. But that is an entirely personal decision and has absolutely nothing to do with that person loving God more. Nor is it a rule that God has established. On the contrary, after the creation of the first humans God gave the commandment, "be fruitful and become many." At no point in the Bible is this commandment revoked. Which of course does not mean that one must necessarily marry and bring children into the world in order to be pleasing to God. That God leaves to the freedom of each individual. In any case, this drive is very strong in us, regardless of our gender. Whoever is capable of mastering this drive has no need to marry either. It remains the individual's own choice. In any case, it is fornication when one goes to bed with every person one happens to meet. As fornication one may regard every form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage, according to what the Bible and the Quran say about it. Marriage is contracted according to different laws in every country. It makes a difference whether one marries in a European country or in an African village. Before God, however, what is decisive is that one is married to the person with whom one has sexual relations. No matter what culture or circumstances we live in, what matters is being married. The Bible reports on the marriage of Abraham's son Isaac, which evidently takes place without the observance of many rules and regulations, yet he and Rebekah were nevertheless married as husband and wife. (Genesis 24:65–67) The word "marriage" is explained in dictionaries approximately as follows: "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of founding a family," or also as "a legally recognized form of life shared by two people." Regardless of this explanation, God designates marriage as a covenant, a promise between husband and wife. Through the prophet Malachi, God has this to say: ... And this is another thing you do: you cover the altar of Jehovah with tears ... because Jehovah himself has acted as a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have acted treacherously, although she is your partner and the wife of your covenant. — Malachi 2:14 In God's eyes this concerns a covenant, a promise. For a marriage one does not necessarily need a registry office, the consent of state officials, or a religious authority. For many thousands of years marriages were contracted without these formalities. The state's primary concern is with legal and above all financial matters, which is why over time certain regulations were established that are necessary to make a marriage legally valid. So put simply, marriage is "the promise that a man and a woman make to join together for the purpose of founding a family." That is what God values. All sexual relations outside of marriage are fornication. This applies to both sexes, male and female. One of the Ten Commandments reads: "You must not commit adultery." This commandment was revoked neither by the Gospels nor by the Quran. (Exodus 20:14) What does fornication — or adultery — actually mean? Many people cannot explain this term precisely, or rather, everyone explains it as it suits them. In this area even some religions have taught their followers incorrectly. Simply put, fornication means any sexual relation outside of marriage. This simple explanation is not represented and taught by all Christian religions. While some say that sexual intercourse between unmarried people does not count as fornication, others say that it is not fornication if the intercourse is not carried out through the genitals but, for example, anally. As strange as that may sound, this is precisely the opinion that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses held in the 1970s. That this is not merely an assertion but corresponds to the facts is apparent not only from the book written by Raymond Franz, a former member of that Governing Body, but can also be seen from the official writings of the Watchtower Society itself that were written during that period. If a religion that claims to be the only true Christian religion in the twentieth century holds such a view of fornication and adultery, then one can imagine what the understanding of this term looked like in the Middle Ages. Although Jesus gives the word "fornication" a very clear and, by our standards, strict meaning, there are religions today that do not classify oral sex as fornication: 27 You heard that it was said: 'You must not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. — Matthew 5:27, 28 Can it be expressed any more clearly? God therefore takes an interest not only in what we do, but he even pays attention to what we think! "Who can control themselves so well?" you may rightly ask. Even if it seems impossible, if one truly wants to, one can! Naturally, like many of our other weaknesses, it will hardly be overcome in a single day. We simply have to work at it. Job expressed himself on this matter as follows: A covenant I have made with my eyes. So how could I show an interest in a virgin? — Job 31:1 I think that someone who wishes to apply this advice literally in today's world would have to be blind. But it is not about taking something literally; it is far more about doing something at all and developing the right disposition of heart. One general principle can certainly be drawn from the words of Jesus: we must learn to control our eyes, our desires, and our heart. Most people probably do precisely the opposite — they even encourage these desires and feast their eyes on them. In this area they are like small children who do not yet know what they want and have no control over their feelings and wishes.

What is clearly evident from the Gospels, however, is that Jesus is opposed to divorce. In the Torah and in the Quran, divorce is a fairly uncomplicated matter. One could separate from a partner by issuing a certificate of divorce and parting ways. The Quran also emphasizes being generous toward the woman, for example by not taking back things one has given her. In the Surah An-Nisa (the Women) it says: And if you wish to exchange one wife for another and you have given one of them a heap of gold, take nothing from it. Would you take it back through slander and open sin? And how could you take it when you have become one with each other and they have taken a firm pledge from you? — An-Nisa 4:20,21

There are very many verses in the Quran concerning marriage and divorce, but in essence their statements resemble the text above. Interestingly, the Quran speaks of a "firm pledge." The Quran is the only one of the holy books that limits marriage to 4 wives! Yes, you read that correctly — the Quran is the only one of these books that specifies a number as a restriction. Neither Moses, nor later Jesus, placed any restriction on the number of spouses. In the Mosaic Law there was only the instruction that if the Israelites ever wanted to have a king over them, he should neither accumulate "gold" — meaning wealth that can corrupt a person's heart — nor military strength through "horses," nor should he multiply "women" for himself. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17) No specific number is given, however. When we read that King Solomon married a thousand women, that can certainly be considered "a lot." It was, after all, the women who led him into sin. Yet one should mention the fact that it was not so much the number of women that was the problem, but rather that some of them did not serve the true God. He had chosen as his close companions persons who did not strengthen his faith — on the contrary, they were people who worshipped idols and not the true God whom Solomon worshipped, and that was his great error. But having many wives, devoting oneself excessively to pleasure, and accumulating wealth are all things that can easily corrupt a person's heart, and against these things God had warned.

The Apostle Paul addressed the subject of marriage in a letter to the young Timothy. These statements are still regarded as a rule for Christians today. His instructions read as follows:

If a man is reaching out for an office of overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. 2 The overseer must therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of o n e wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, well-ordered, hospitable, qualified to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not a smiter, but reasonable, not contentious, not a lover of money, 4 a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness 5 (if indeed any man does not know how to preside over his own household, how will he take care of the congregation of God?); 6 not a newly converted man, for fear that he might get puffed up [with pride] and fall into the judgment passed upon the Devil. — 1 Timothy 3:1-6

Paul shows in these verses the ideal standard for an overseer in the congregation. Many people seem almost obsessed with living by clear rules and instructions. Or they are obsessed with living entirely without any rule. Neither extreme corresponds to a healthy, reasonable way of life. A wise, reasonable person knows what he wants, and what he does is resolute and consistent, but he does not live by rigid rules. Christendom has again turned this verse into a strict regulation — regulations that they were then unable to uphold. They forbade marriage and were incapable of keeping passions and desires under control. Just as Paul said, "men burned in their desire toward other men, and women toward women." With the idea that "we go even further than what God has required of us," they not only disgraced themselves — what they did became their shame. This behavior in turn fostered the attitude of others who are against every rule or legal restriction and do not know God either. We see where both extremes have led us.

Let us come to the explanation of what Paul meant by the expression "the overseer should be a man of one wife." The fact that Paul cites this as a requirement suggests that in the first century there were indeed men among Christians who had more than one wife. Yet at no point in the New Testament are they called upon to separate from these women — neither by Jesus nor by the Apostles. Those who today call themselves Christians raise the objection that these men were already married when they became Christians. But I wish to emphasize once more: there is not a single indication anywhere in the entire New Testament that one may only have one spouse, or that someone already living in a polygamous relationship would have to change this in order to become a Christian. Paul is speaking here about the requirements for someone who wishes to serve as an overseer in a congregation. As already mentioned, this is the ideal standard for overseers — nothing more and nothing less. God and evidently Paul as well were aware that a Christian who is married to several women also has more concerns and is therefore limited in his time and energy for the congregation. But it does not mean by any means that such persons are worse or inferior in God's eyes. Nor does it mean that God would hate polygamy or people who live in a polygamous relationship. Jesus spoke clearly against divorce and cited adultery as the only grounds for it. But he did not speak against marriage — whether with one partner or several. At this point someone might cite the following account from the Gospels:

And Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying: "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of grounds?" 4 In reply he said: "Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh', 6 so that they are no longer two, but one flesh? Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart." — Matthew 19:3-6

Here it is said that God created only one man and one woman — not three women and one man. I naturally agree with this conclusion. I do not believe that God intended from the beginning for people to live in polygamy. But has everything on earth developed the way God wanted it to, such that we should cling to this point and use it as the basis for establishing a law? We know that Adam and Eve had many children. The question therefore arises: did they always produce one boy and one girl? No. Therefore we can also assume that a man had multiple wives as well. (Genesis 4:19) The Bible says that Adam became the father of sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). As I said, it is hardly conceivable that a boy and then a girl were always born in alternation. I think it is correct to say that polygamy has existed since human beings became sinful. A good example is Abraham. If polygamy had been something reprehensible, Abraham, who is called a friend of God, would hardly have accepted Sarah's offer to take her maidservant Hagar.

In the Mosaic Law (given by God but transmitted through Moses), there are special requirements for the priests: "Speak to Aaron and say: 'No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect may approach to present the bread of his God. 18 For no man in whom there is a defect may approach: a blind man, or a lame one, or one with a disfigured nose, or with one limb too long, 19 or a man in whom there is a fracture of the foot or a fracture of the hand, 20 or a hunchback or a thin man, or one with a defect in his eye, or one who has an itch or ringworm, or one with crushed testicles. 21 No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest in whom there is a defect may approach to present the fire offerings of Jehovah. There is a defect in him. He may not approach to present the bread of his God. 22 He may eat the bread of his God from the most holy things and from the holy things. 23 Only he may not come to the curtain, and he may not approach the altar, because there is a defect in him; and he should not profane my sanctuary, for I am Jehovah, who is sanctifying them.' " — Leviticus 21:16-23

In this passage God emphasizes what conditions must be fulfilled by someone who serves as a priest at the altar. The priesthood under the Mosaic Law was regulated so that it was passed from father to son. If someone therefore became a priest by virtue of his lineage but had one of the defects listed above, he was not permitted to serve at the altar — that is, he was not permitted to offer sacrifices there or perform work directly connected with service at the altar. Is God here denigrating people who have a defect? Does he see them as second class? That cannot be so, for in the Gospels we read in many places that Jesus took special care of those who had defects and healed them. But a priest who had a physical disability and served before the eyes of the people at the altar would draw undue attention to himself and thereby distract the people from giving their full attention to the spiritual aspect of the priest's actions. Furthermore, someone serving in that position was to be complete. Of course no one is perfect, but someone who has physical imperfections in such a conspicuous way cannot represent the people before God. For example, sick or blind animals were also not permitted to be brought as sacrifices, even though the animal would be slaughtered at the altar and in some offerings even burned completely. No one would eat the flesh of such a sacrifice, yet God expressly forbade presenting such offerings. What does it even mean to sacrifice a sick animal? It would be disrespectful. It shows how much value we place on God. The Israelites committed this act of disrespect. What did God say about it? And when you bring a blind animal for sacrifice: "It is nothing bad." And when you bring a lame or sick one: "It is nothing bad." "Present it, please, to your governor. Will he be pleased with you, or will he receive you graciously?" Jehovah of armies has spoken. — Malachi 1:8. Is it not logical? The cleaner, more upright, and more exemplary the person serving as mediator between human beings and God — both in his conduct and in his outward appearance — the more honor he gives to God. It also affects those who are present. In Turkey, and perhaps in all countries, it is not normal for a high-ranking officer in uniform to carry heavy suitcases or other burdens — it is even forbidden. The rule is not there to protect or spare the officer; it is about respect and honor in the public eye, not of the officer himself, but of the army in general. Equally, a general cannot simply mix in among the people while in uniform. I am speaking here about everyday life; there may of course be exceptions. A general will, for example, not board a train or a bus to go home — for that he has a state car with a chauffeur. It is not about the comfort of that one man; it is about the public standing associated with his position. The same applies to other state servants. That is why one generally adopts a respectful posture when encountering an officer — similar to how one feels in Germany upon catching sight of a police officer. The purpose of all this is to create a sense of respect toward these persons, but even more toward their position and toward what it represents. Otherwise these people are no different from us. The difference lies only in their position and in what they represent.

Both under the Mosaic Law and in the Christian congregation, special requirements were placed upon those who took on particular duties in service to God. That is what Paul is speaking about in the verse under discussion. Someone who does not meet these requirements is therefore by no means further removed from God or a greater sinner. In any case, these requirements cannot be taken entirely literally. For if Paul says the overseer should be someone "who has children in subjection with all seriousness" — meaning children who respect and obey him — then only someone who is married and has children could hold this office. That would mean that neither an unmarried person, nor someone who is married but childless, would qualify as an overseer of the congregation. Yes, of course, if one takes these instructions literally, that is the conclusion one reaches. But it is very unlikely that this is how they were intended, because Paul is writing this letter to the young Timothy, who at that time was not yet married and therefore had no children. For this reason, when dealing with such instructions one must always consider the context and try to grasp the actual meaning. Paul's words can be better understood if one always inserts the word "if." If he is married (the overseer), then he should have only one wife; if he has children, then they should respect and obey him.

Under the Mosaic Law there were for the priests certain requirements that differed from the law for the people. I do not wish to treat the entire law in detail here, but I urge you to read Leviticus Chapter 21. A simple example: it is stated as a requirement that a priest may only marry a virgin. (Leviticus 21:7) Then it says that the priest who serves at the altar to present offerings must not have a physical defect. (Leviticus 21:17-22) Does this mean that such a person has incurred God's hatred? Of course not. He even continues to serve as a priest and is permitted to eat of the holy offerings. (Leviticus 21:22) As already mentioned, the office of priest was always passed on to the son. In the Bible the priests are also called sons of Aaron, since they were all descendants of Aaron. They were all priests, but only one of them at a time became High Priest and remained so until his death. The office of the Pope is evidently also modeled on this. Christians sometimes take something from Jesus' teachings, then again something from the Mosaic Law, just as it suits them. As stated, someone who for whatever reason did not meet or no longer met the requirements was not thereby a worse person, sinful, or even condemned to death. The same applies to the instruction Paul gave for appointing overseers in the congregations. If someone did not meet these requirements, he was nonetheless a believing person, a Christian, a servant of God. Of course every God-fearing person should strive, as best he can, to reach the ideal standing before God. But as in many other areas, polygamy also falls under the personal responsibility of each individual. Such a person is therefore not separated from God or cut off from Him. Neither in Moses, nor in the words of Jesus or Muhammad, do we find any such statement.

We can therefore say with reasonable certainty that in the first century among believers there were also those who were married to more than one woman. As already mentioned above, some will say that this was only the case because they had married according to the old law before becoming Christians. Interestingly, today people try to pressure someone who lives in polygamy and becomes a Christian into monogamy! More precisely, it is made a condition for his being baptized as a Christian. This situation is not rare for Christian missionaries working in Mexico or in certain parts of Africa. They baptize someone only after he has separated from all his wives except his first. This is not only the case with Jehovah's Witnesses, but with virtually all Christian communities. Refusing to baptize someone amounts to saying that he is not worthy of eternal life in God's eyes! Can this truly be the will of God? Is the word of God supposed to divide people or bring them together? The grotesque aspect of the situation is the fact that both Jesus emphasizes that he is against divorce (except in cases of fornication) and God clearly says: "I have hated divorce!" — Malachi 2:16. And the religions say exactly the opposite: you are not worthy before God unless you get divorced! Even separation should only be considered when the situation is unbearable for both or one of them. This subject is treated in detail in 1 Corinthians 7:8-15. Furthermore it was said: 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on account of fornication, makes her a subject for adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. — Matthew 5:31,32. Despite these words of Jesus, those who claim to be Christians put pressure on those who want to become Christians and demand that they separate from their wives — otherwise they would be tormented in hell or at the very least would not be worthy of eternal life! There is no clear law that says "one must not take multiple wives and one may only marry one woman." If there is a numerical restriction, it is only in the Quran, where the number of wives is limited to 4. And if you fear that you will not act justly toward the orphans, then marry women who seem good to you — two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you cannot deal fairly, then only one, or what your right hand possesses. — An-Nisa (the Women) 4:3,19-21 and Al-Ahzab (the Allies) 33:50. The regulation of divorce in the Quran is similar to that in the Mosaic Law. Jesus explains the reason for this: "Out of regard for your hardheartedness Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning." — Matthew 19:7,8. If God shows the same mercy to the Arabs — or to those who become Muslims — then who are we to elevate ourselves above this and condemn it as something bad?

As I have already emphasized on multiple occasions, it is not the case that the Bible comes from God and the Quran from some other source. Both come from Almighty God. This idea is promoted nowhere. The Quran states repeatedly:

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed in it; whoever does not judge by what God has sent down — those are the transgressors. – Al-Ma'ida (The Table) 5:47 As God said: "O Jesus, I will cause you to die [a natural death] and raise you to Myself, and purify you from those who disbelieve, and I will place those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. – Al Imran (The House of Imran) 3:55 This verse in the Surah Al Imran speaks unmistakably of those who believe in Jesus being placed above the unbelievers until the Resurrection — not until the Quran arrives. Muslims, on the other hand, teach that the Gospels are no longer valid now that the Quran has come. According to the Quran, Jesus is the only person who rose from the dead and was raised to God's side. This is not a teaching of Islam, but it is a statement of the Quran. It is not that no one knows this verse — people simply avoid this statement. But why do people avoid the truths that God has revealed? Why are they ashamed of them? Do they perhaps think they will lose ground to the Christians by acknowledging them? How can a person lose anything at all by acknowledging a fact, a truth revealed by God? In short, the Quran supports living according to the guidelines of the Bible.

Then there are individuals among the so-called Christians who cite the following statement of Jesus: In reply he said: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will cling to his wife, and the two will be one flesh'" — Matthew 19:4,5. Here Jesus says quite clearly and explicitly, "he will cling to his wife," not his wives. Because the singular "wife" is used here and not the plural, does that mean a man may only marry one woman? Whether a man has one, two, or several wives — or like Solomon, even 1,000 wives — he is still one flesh with his wives. He is one flesh with each of his wives. This principle does not change based on the number of wives. There are families with one child, families with several children, and even families with no children. Therefore, we cannot take the word "one" literally in this context. It is not about the number; it is about the meaning.

But the inspired utterance says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, who are seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 who forbid marrying and ... — 1 Timothy 4:1-3. The Catholic Church has issued exactly such a senseless prohibition for its clergy — one which the Apostle Paul had already spoken of prophetically. They support their position partly with a statement from the Apostle himself (1 Corinthians Chapter 7). But Paul there gives only advice, to relieve people of a burden, since it was evident that many felt obligated to marry — either because they simply took it for granted or even because they thought God expected it of them. But he did not say, "do not marry, but men may burn with passion for men and women for women." Yet that is precisely what the Church's prohibition brought about. This is why God warned very clearly and explicitly with the following words: "I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written in this scroll." — Revelation 22:18,19. A similar verse is found in Deuteronomy 4:2. What are we actually thinking when — despite God warning us so clearly — we load ourselves and others with burdens through additional rules, regulations, and laws? Do we think our service before God will thereby become more valuable? It would mean we are essentially saying to God: "Well, God, what you expect of us and have commanded us to do is not complete enough — let us show you how it can be done even better." Is it not ridiculous to think and act that way toward God? Against such an attitude even sincere servants of God sometimes could not prevail. They would immediately receive the reply: "Why do you see us as bad or evil, simply because we are striving to serve God even better?" But that is how all religions are — not just the Catholic Church in the case mentioned.

Among the Witnesses there was also for a time a similar attitude, that full-time servants should not marry, whether male or female. Yet the cited verses, taken literally, say exactly the opposite — all who wish to serve as examples should be married and have children. Until Martin Luther appeared in the sixteenth century, it was forbidden for all Christian clergy to marry. Such a person genuinely loves or loved God and wishes to do more to help others draw closer to God. Yet then he finds himself trapped in a rule set by human beings — a rule that for him represents nothing but an unnecessary burden. These are diabolical rules and regulations devised by human beings, which rob people of joy and unnecessarily place the affected individuals in difficulty. This regulation still applies in the Catholic Church today. Among the Witnesses a change came about primarily in the 1950s, when their then-president N. Knorr married himself. They make themselves ridiculous by setting up rules they cannot then keep themselves. Well, can a person not sometimes be wrong? Of course he can — but you will scarcely find any indication in their literature that they have ever apologized for anything, so they seem to be without error.

Some may cite, as grounds for polygamy being wrong, the life of Jacob and the jealousy among his wives, the strife between Abraham's wife Sarah and his maidservant Hagar, or the fact that Solomon's wives had led him away from the true path. I must say something about this right away. If jealousy and envy are the issue, then nobody should have more than one child either. It is nothing new that there is almost always jealousy among siblings. If we want to prevent envy and jealousy, we would have to set up even more senseless rules — ones that would ultimately go so far as requiring all women to dress identically or forbidding them from wearing makeup. After Hagar became pregnant, "her mistress [Sarah] became of little account in her eyes," the Bible says. (Genesis 16:4) If being looked down upon or despised is a problem, then one should not marry at all. For how often have husbands despised their wives — or, more often still, wives their husbands — and not infrequently even hated them. Such feelings are unfortunately, in most cases, the order of the day in marriage.

Let us turn to the case of Solomon, who allowed himself to be led astray by his wives into abandoning true worship. In the Bible, in the New Testament, God gives the counsel to "marry only in the Lord." And the Quran recommends not entering into marriage with an unbeliever. I have known many religious women and men who thought they were following this counsel and married someone of the same religion, only to find that their spouse proved to be a snare to their faith. In choosing a partner they looked only at the label, but in reality that person's heart, knowledge, and faith were far removed from God. Applying this counsel today seems to me virtually impossible. How many people can I expect, for example, to believe what I have written here in this book? But God does not say "your partner should believe the same things as you" — rather, he or she should believe in God. Everyone should examine and decide that for themselves, without deceiving themselves. We can say, however, that it is very difficult to find a person who is truly devoted to God — as hard to find as the proverbial needle in a haystack. The Witnesses, for example, following the counsel of the Bible, marry only someone who is also a Witness. In my view, in doing so they do exactly the wrong thing and marry someone who lives in contradiction to God's will, much like the wives Solomon had married. I am convinced that such people are the kind who lead others away from God, because they do not serve God but their organization. For this reason they are generally weak people, and not infrequently selfish or even bad people. They would of course be outraged to hear such a thing, but the same applies to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. These people too claim to serve God, but Muslims give their honour to Muhammad, Jews to Moses, and Christians to Jesus. A Muslim, for instance, never says the name Muhammad alone — when he speaks that name, an Arabic phrase must invariably be appended, meaning something like "the Prophet of God, upon whom God's blessing rests." It is considered disrespectful to pronounce the name without adding this phrase, even though most people do not even know the meaning of those words. Do they perhaps think they are honouring God by repeating like a parrot words whose meaning is not clear to them? If you ask a Muslim whether Muhammad is greater, or God, he will naturally be indignant that you would ask him such a thing. But why is it disrespectful to pronounce the name Muhammad without the addition, while at the same time they have no hesitation in pronouncing the name of God with a single plain word? Is that not then disrespectful toward God? When you ask this question, they first look at you in utter astonishment, then they become angry and hate you like the others. In this respect all religious people are the same. Many have already answered me angrily: "How dare you speak of Muhammad as though you were talking about a friend of yours? At the very least you should say 'the Honourable Muhammad.'" But then why do all people simply say "God" and not at least "the Honourable God"? If that word "Honourable" is such a fine thing and must absolutely be said, is not God above all worthy of such a designation? Religious people remind me of a bank advertisement. A representative of a certain bank says: "There is no difference from the others — but we are simply the X Bank." What is more valuable: to attach a multitude of names to a person — names you do not even understand — and pay no attention to that person's words, on the contrary leading a life far removed from what that person taught? Or is it better to pay attention to that person's words, and strive to know God and live accordingly? They can do nothing other than constantly making up rules! When Jesus lived on earth, the Jews always appealed to Moses, as if Jesus were against Moses. It is always the same tactic. Jesus gave them the following fitting answer: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you, Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" — John 5:45-47. Just as these words were the right answer to the attitude of the Jews, so this answer is equally fitting for the Christians who claim to defend Jesus and for the Muslims who claim to stand on Muhammad's side. Which of the religions cited here worships the true God? With a member of which religion can one then marry, in order for it to be a marriage "in the Lord"? In my view it applies to none of them — all of them fall short of God's will, neither through their faith nor through their deeds. Of course one finds good people here and there, but more often among the "unbelievers" than among the members of the religions. The needle in the haystack, precisely.

Let us return to our topic of polygamy. Why do I bring up this subject here at all? Do I perhaps wish to justify the fact that I was occasionally together with my ex-wife? Absolutely not. From the moment I began reading the Bible, from the moment I began walking this path, I regarded it as sin. Even with my present knowledge, I cannot say that our conduct was right. Even though we had once been married to each other, we never lived according to the meaning of marriage — neither before nor after. By coming back together from time to time, we gave each other unrealistic hopes and thereby led ourselves into a dead end. Besides, at least for the present, I have no intention of marrying any further women. My sole concern is to expose something that is false. I have known some people who reject the Quran simply because it states that one may marry up to four wives. They could never believe in a God like that. It is above all women who take offence at this statement. Some men support them in this, or at least pretend to. Where would they find the courage to say otherwise! But that is not really what concerns me here — that is not our topic.

Christendom has shown understanding for women's feelings — at least on this point — and has turned against the Quran. They defend monogamy: a man may only be married to one woman. One might think that marriage is sacred to them, yet these are the same people who hate women who cover their heads. Under the motto: You worship the devil; we worship Jesus. What is one to say about the German employers who are not even willing to hire a woman who wears a headscarf, yet go to bed with any woman themselves — quite a few of them have children outside of marriage? Such things happen; why not? What business is it of ours? What interests us is the attitude: those who wear a headscarf are idol-worshippers, while he himself is going to heaven. If a woman with a head covering is also not particularly attractive in appearance, she has no chance whatsoever. Compared to Turkish women with headscarves, women from Russia, Romania, or Bulgaria have far more quickly won the sympathy of Germans, even though they have no idea of God. One wonders why? At least they can feast their eyes on them. Besides, outwardly there is no difference between unbelievers and Christians. But a woman with a headscarf stands out. On the other hand, what about these women with headscarves — are they truly as chaste and honourable as all that? These believers who do wear a headscarf but pair it with tight jeans, or under a loose coat a miniskirt, with a cigarette in hand — are they exemplary in their faith? These games they play with one another, the double life they lead, often only comes to light when something goes wrong. That is known to Germans just as well as to the rest of the world. What they do is also none of my business. What saddens me is only that they use the name of God in doing it. In my view, this is also the main reason why Germans hate them — not because of their headscarf. Let us imagine that those who wear a headscarf were always honest, sincere, reliable, clean, exemplary, and known as people who carry out their work diligently and with joy — would they not then win the sympathy of all people? Not that one is necessarily loved when one does what is right, but then at least the antipathy would be unwarranted.

I am certain that many people have suffered because Christendom insisted on enforcing the rule that a man should marry only one woman. Today this is less of a problem, but there were times when it was difficult for women to lead an honourable life, in marriage, in a family, made harder by the pressure of the churches. By forbidding polygamy, the Church promoted prostitution. With this began the spread of sexually transmitted diseases — and what was even worse, mental illness. Since humanity has existed, wars have been waged. Many of these wars lasted for many years and left behind countless widows. But the prohibition of polygamy must on no account be broken, despite wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men! Those who imposed this prohibition and worked to uphold it were the very same ones who also blessed the wars! Through these rules set by human beings, by religions, the survivors — above all the widows — were enticed into harlotry. In past centuries hundreds of thousands went off to war, but only a few returned. Wars often resulted in terrible, long-lasting epidemics, famines, and poverty. Added to this was the infertility of some women, often as a consequence of illness. All these circumstances not infrequently made women into prostitutes and men into their clients. Infertility affected not only women, of course — men were equally affected. But men generally knew it only when they had been with multiple women. Something like medicine did not yet exist, or existed only in very primitive form. Of course defenders of feminism will immediately object here: why cannot a woman go to another man if her husband is infertile? Because I cannot imagine a man who provides for his family, takes on responsibility, and then also pays with his money for a man to produce children on his behalf. After long wars, in some villages only a handful of men remained, but a considerable number of widows and young, unmarried women. It is not hard to imagine what women did under such circumstances. It has happened often enough regardless. Why, then, do religions interfere, forbid lawful marriages, and then drive people to satisfy their needs in unlawful ways and thereby defile their conscience? What does this "defiled conscience" mean for people? Not infrequently those affected come to ruin in their faith. Our conscience torments us and disturbs us; we then try to silence it. The more we do so, the more deaf we also become to God's admonitions. This is precisely what Satan wants to achieve through such human rules: through a bad conscience he wants to lead people away from God. The Bible says on this subject: ... by holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside, resulting in the shipwreck of their faith. — 1 Timothy 1:19. This is exactly the procedure of the religions — they attempt, through many senseless, oppressive, hard-to-keep rules and laws, to hold the human sense of imperfection and weakness constantly before people's eyes, and thereby cause their followers to have a permanently guilty conscience. Someone who has a guilty conscience is easier to make compliant. A person who feels guilty can easily be influenced and thereby controlled. Throughout all generations it has been the task of the religions — with a few exceptions — to lead people away from God and to make them their own subjects. We have always regarded the representatives of the religions as saints, as men of God. Now these people are even prepared to marry and bless homosexual couples before God! They know well how to adapt to the latest trends — so long as their followers remain available to them as beasts of burden. Let us now turn to the feminists. To this day I have not met a single man or heard of one whose desire was to marry multiple women. I am not speaking here of gigolo types who are constantly with different women — that involves extramarital relationships in any case. I am not concerned here with the nonsense and immorality that some people pursue for their own pleasure. But there have always, at every time, been women who have sought a door, a refuge. Not infrequently they found one — with men who were then regarded as monsters because they were married to several women. Who compels them to marry this "monster"? These women wage war, are jealous of one another, and yet they do not leave the door they once found! What is one to say about these poor, pitiable women who must work in the fields all day, do housework, or perhaps even chop wood, or perform other heavy labour? The field they work belongs to this "monster" they are married to, the house belongs to him too, and the wood they chop warms that very house. The situation is similar to when Turks in Germany say, "if it were not for us, Germany's economy would never have become successful so quickly." Of course there are women who were exploited by such men, who really had to work very hard and still must. These men think only of their own advantage and are neither just nor loving. It is also true that Turks in Germany were mostly given the work that the locals did not want to do, because it was hard or dirty. They too were exploited, for many years. But if the Turks had not come, others would have come who would have been exploited just the same. What person does not think of themselves and their own advantage? I have deliberately compared here the situation of a woman who has nothing with the situation of foreigners in prosperous countries, in order to make this thought clear. In which country is it customary to follow God's counsel, "love your neighbour as yourself"? Can one imagine a woman who has absolutely everything, who is doing splendidly in material terms, who owns houses and fields and supports a man? If you have seen or heard of such a thing, very well; to this day I have neither heard of it nor seen it myself. If so, it would be only because the woman has other needs that the man fulfils — that she keeps him for entertainment. One should not always think of money here. Generosity and giving generally come from the man. If neither is prosperous, the situation is naturally different — then one drags the other along, even if they hate each other. It is mostly about advantage, about needs and dependencies. This is not only a problem between man and woman; it is the problem of all humanity. Whoever is powerless is exploited, abused, and oppressed by the powerful — and it makes no difference whether the stronger party is the man or the woman. Are only men selfish, intent on their own advantage, jealous, and inconsiderate? These qualities are found in both sexes. But because women in general do not trust their own abilities and strength as much, they are more intent on taking from others, so that they will not be left destitute if they are abandoned. It comes back again to fear — fear of being dependent. For this reason they seize every opportunity to avoid that situation, as do all weak, fear-driven people. The Quran warns with these words: Satan promises you poverty and commands you to commit indecency, while God promises you His forgiveness and bounty; and God is bountiful, all-knowing. — Al-Baqara (The Cow) 2:268. Not a few people think that the world can be improved if the battle between the sexes can be stopped.

In some regions of Mexico where Jehovah's Witnesses were doing missionary work, a number of the local people showed interest in the Bible and love for God, yet they were living in polygamous marriages. Even though these women quarreled and argued among themselves, their greatest grievance was not that their husband had married them, but that he had also married the other women. Their complaint was directed less at the husband and more at the other wives. It has happened that such a family came to believe in the God the Witnesses proclaimed and wanted to be baptized. There was, however, a problem. The man would have to separate from all his wives except the one he had married first. In truth, neither the man nor the women actually wanted this. There were economic, legal, and psychological reasons for this. After all, the man had children with each of these women. If it is God's will, then I am in favor of it being handled that way, whatever the cost. What angers me, though, is when people are made to suffer because they are following a commandment that was not given by God but invented by human beings. Those who are unwilling to conform to these commandments are then stamped as unworthy of God and their conscience is burdened. Or the family is torn apart, even though none of them wants this. Even when they had quarreled among themselves, even when there had been jealousy and envy, they were still a family — just as the family of Jacob, who despite their disputes were a family with common interests. (Genesis 31:1–16) Then someone comes along and breaks this family apart in the name of God. By what right and on whose authority does he do this? What does he know? On what does he base his judgment? For the book he claims to represent says no such thing. Perhaps he thinks these are not Jacob and his family, after all? So what — what business is it of his who is who? Will he perhaps stand before God and give an account for this family? What is certain is that he will have to give an account if he pressures others to do things God has not commanded. That is precisely why the Letter of James in the New Testament says the following: Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment. For we all stumble in many ways. — James 3:1, 2. Among the people I have come to know, the Witnesses are probably the ones most eager to be teachers. I do not condemn teaching or the office of a teacher; I only wish to point here to the responsibility it entails.

For several thousand years, women depended on the protection and provision of men. Even though many men abused this, women generally had no other choice but to endure the situation. And men had to endure the women. Throughout history, many women in this situation preserved their dignity, their honor, and their purity — and what is more important, they did so with a clear and good conscience before God. They had not moved away from God merely because they had to share their husband with other women. (1 Samuel, Chapter 1) This situation was easier for them to bear than being left entirely on their own. In some cases, being alone would even have meant death for them. In the Bible we find recorded a number of examples of faithful servants of God that shed light on this. One is the life of Ruth, the grandmother of David. An entire book of the Bible bearing her name is devoted to her life, and I would recommend reading about this woman's life in that book of three to four pages. What stands out above all is that these people were not thinking of their own advantage or pleasure; rather, it was love for God and for their fellow human beings that drove them. For the people of that time, family — bearing the name of one's husband — was of special importance. Isaiah 4:1 gives expression to these feelings: And seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying: "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; only let us be called by your name to take away our reproach." Even though these verses carry a prophetic meaning here, they are grounded in an attitude that was by no means unusual in that era.

In every age, people have looked on the freedom God gives with a negative eye. For that reason, they have added a multitude of commandments and prohibitions. There were women who were materially well off and who let themselves be pampered (Isaiah 3:16), but alongside them there were also women who lived in poverty and depended on the help of others to survive. Who compels anyone to marry or not to marry? Could God not have given clear laws on this matter? If God therefore grants us freedom and gives us the means to adapt to the adverse circumstances that life sometimes brings, why should we view this as something bad?

Let us consider a married couple who love each other. The wife is barren; she cannot have children. This man's line would die out and his property would be distributed to others. To prevent this, he takes another wife who can bear him children. What is he then supposed to do with his first wife, whom he still loves? Should he put her out the door? No — God gave no such senseless commandment; that is something only human beings do. I recommended earlier that a chapter in the Book of Samuel be read. That chapter describes precisely such a situation — the one involving the parents of the prophet Samuel. The wife did not hate her husband for taking a second wife to bear him children, nor did the husband stop loving his first wife or even abandon her because she was barren. We have already spoken about the lives of Abraham and Jacob. There are many such examples — possibly thousands. And these are only examples concerning a wife's barrenness; if we now add the sick to the count, the number rises considerably. Were there perhaps no women who suffered from a flow of blood or other illnesses for years? (Mark 5:25) Should husbands therefore have left their wives, or simply resigned themselves to their fate? Because of the laws introduced by Christians, the men neither resigned themselves to their fate nor did without women — they committed fornication in secret. They led lives in which their conscience before God was no longer clean. Not a few women will object here: "If I am sick or barren, my husband must accept me as I am." Not all women are so unsympathetic, so selfish, and so blindly jealous. Where the law of God has been or is being applied, people see no need to commit adultery or fornication in secret. By preserving a clean conscience in the matter of marriage, they have also not so easily suffered shipwreck in faith. (1 Timothy 1:19) These men were not, as some would have us believe, dishonorable, selfish, or even evil. Both in the Bible and in the Quran one finds many examples of prophets and faithful servants of God who were married to more than one woman.

Let us turn to the moral aspect of this subject. What woman gladly shares her husband with another woman? This feeling is certainly one that everyone can well understand. The particular circumstances we have mentioned were not a permanent state. Apart from that, only a few women are willing to share their husband — not only with another woman, but with virtually anything he loves — and in their jealousy they have tried to do everything to keep him away from it. In the eyes of many women, a husband should share only the things she also loves, and should live only for her. Even though this pathologically egotistical attitude is also found in men, I have never seen it as extreme as in women.

In former times, children were not only a symbol of prosperity, blessing, and a guarantee for the future — the lives of parents were literally dependent on their children. There are actually only a few countries where this is no longer the case today. The majority of parents depend on their children in old age. Even if they are not necessarily dependent on them financially or materially, they are dependent on them morally. The people closest to them in the end are their children. This is true in Germany just as it is in America, France, England, or anywhere else. Whoever wishes to protest this statement may do so. I have no interest in arguing, but the fact is that children are still regarded as a form of life insurance for the future, whether in wealthy Europe or in poor Africa. Even when the children are, from the parents' perspective, good-for-nothings, in their old age parents seek out their children — not their money, their possessions, or their support in the form of care; it is enough for them simply that they are there. These are facts, even if in more recent times one hears of reports that apparently prove the contrary. There are several reasons that speak in favor of a man marrying more than one wife, yet today one's thoughts immediately turn to sexual needs. That is why many women also react to this subject with anger or jealousy. It may be that some men in this are thinking of their own advantage. What are the women after? Is it only men who pursue their own advantage and pleasure? If it is the pleasure of the men that provokes the displeasure or irritation, then the anger toward women should be even greater, since they are even more intent on their own advantage. Furthermore, women in Europe and Western countries enter into far more illicit and dishonest relationships regarding sexual needs than men do. We are so fixated on our life today, on the circumstances under which we live today, that we even go so far as to say, "How can God permit marrying more than one wife?"! What a shortsighted way of thinking. As I said, there were times when there was nothing more important for a woman than to be married to a man, even if he already had other wives. Today women say they would never do such a thing under any circumstances. God has, after all, never forced any woman to marry a particular man. Did men take their wives by force? That too has happened, but it was not the norm. What has changed today? In former times, the future husband was usually chosen by the parents, according to their own advantage or simply their own inclination — which is to say, the girl was not consulted. Today, by contrast, it is the girls and women who are on the hunt for a wealthy man, and not a few are prepared to endure difficulties for it, at least for a limited time. One way or another, the material aspect has always played a major role in marriage, even when people have a free choice. Shall we make a comparison between men and women here? Whoever does not place value on love must bear the burden of what they do value. If someone values money, wealth, and prosperity in their relationships and is prepared on that account to enter into a marriage conducted with hatred or at least without love, that person should look to themselves for the fault and not blame the man. No one can lead an easy, carefree life, whether man or woman. If we are disappointed by our partner, should we therefore reject men — or women — altogether? By that logic, children could also complain: "Why was I not born to wealthy parents? Why is my father not a king?" Or the children of wealthy parents might say: "Why did my parents not give me more attention and instead led a simpler life?" Such examples could be multiplied endlessly. Is it not true that our parents had and have faults and weaknesses, and that sometimes we cannot understand their behavior at all? There are people who hate their parents or one parent because of this. But these facts do not prevent us from wanting to be parents ourselves, and they do not prevent us from making the same mistakes — or even worse ones. We are all fundamentally the same; there is no reason to elevate oneself above anyone else. We should not be eager to judge others, not even in small matters. As we judge others, so we ourselves will be judged. (Matthew 6:14, 15; 7:1, 2)

What then is advantageous for marriage? Should God rather give stricter laws that restrict us more, or should He grant us more freedom? Certainly some will object: "If God allows this much freedom on this point, then men will go wild." Who says you have to marry such a wild man? If you knew this when you married him, why are you still complaining? It is of course possible that you had no other choice. Are you the only person in the world who must suffer because of this? Are people who live in monogamy so much happier? God does not necessarily require you to marry. But He does require you to live honestly and virtuously, and to maintain a good relationship with Him. To meet this requirement, it makes no difference whether you are married to several women or whether you are one of several women married to the same man. Which wealthy woman has this problem? For that reason, one does not need to strive to become wealthy either. Is it not the concern of this treatise to show, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, that what we have been taught is wrong and senseless? God and Jesus are unambiguously against divorce. The so-called religious people have done exactly the opposite, and people who wanted to draw near to God were pressured into divorce, and in the process entire families were destroyed. And all in the name of God. That is what I am against. If the Quran permits divorce under certain circumstances, it is for the same reason it was permitted under the old covenant between God and Israel — "because of their hardheartedness." — Matthew 19:3–12

No matter from which angle I look at this subject, I find nothing bad in the freedom that God has given us. The laws and rules that human beings have imposed on themselves and then could not keep — the immorality among nuns and monks, the bones of children found in convent walls — are these perhaps better and more commendable? A Hindu who had imposed on himself the duty not to sleep, and who finally grew weak and fell asleep, cut off his own eyelids for it — this comes from the same spirit, the same attitude. Where do these restrictive laws come from, the ones that lay unnecessary burdens on people? They do not come from God; they come from the Devil, from demons — they are rules people have invented for themselves. In a certain sense it also corresponds to God's will. Why would God want such a thing? For this, the people of Israel, who had moved away from God, serve us as an example. We are no different from them. Their experiences and examples are a lesson for all of humanity. Happy is the one who understands it. Let us see what God says to a people that stubbornly wants to go its own way.

18 And I said to their sons in the wilderness: "Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, and do not observe their ordinances, and do not defile yourselves with their idols. ... 21 But the sons rebelled against me. They did not walk in my statutes, and they were not careful to obey my ordinances, by which, if a man keeps them, he shall live. 24 ... and their eyes were set on their fathers' idols. 25 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live. 26 And I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them, so that they would know that I am Jehovah." ' — Ezekiel 20:18, 21, 24–26

This explanation from God is a good lesson for all of us. Those who claim to believe in God cling to senseless teachings and practice in part abominable rites, because of their own sinfulness. God observes this and does not rescue them from that condition — He permits it. He also states the reason for this. "They did not walk in my statutes" — therefore He says He "gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live." This does not mean that God Himself gave them such statutes, but He did not prevent them — He permitted it, so that they might see the consequences of their own rules, suffer under them, and ultimately recognize that such things do not come from God and that the laws of God are good for them. If God acted that way then, why should it be any different today? God is the same today as He was then. Or does God change? God says of Himself, "I do not change," according to Malachi 3:6. How can the religions and their followers, how can humanity escape the coming judgment of God? Will God not scatter them to the four winds? If God did not refrain from doing this to the people of Israel, whom He called His chosen people, how much more will He do it to us today?

With this treatise I by no means wish to encourage anyone to marry more than one wife. Every person must know that for themselves. My concern in this chapter is to show, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, that what we have been taught is wrong and senseless. God and Jesus are unambiguously against divorce. The so-called religious people have done exactly the opposite, and people who wanted to draw near to God were pressured into divorce, and in the process entire families were destroyed. And all in the name of God. That is what I am against. If the Quran permits divorce under certain circumstances, it is for the same reason it was permitted under the old covenant between God and Israel — "because of their hardheartedness." — Matthew 19:3–12

The Apostle Paul gives some very wise counsel regarding marriage. But let us not forget — these are not commandments and ordinances of God, but counsel. They are not equally applicable to everyone; only the person who accepts them with joy and puts them into practice. Paul says the following on this subject: 25 Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who has been shown mercy by the Lord to be faithful. 26 I think therefore that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. 29 But this I say, brothers: the time is shortened. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30 and those who weep as though they were not weeping, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, 31 and those who make use of the world as though they had no full use of it. For the present form of this world is passing away. 32 And I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. — 1 Corinthians 7:25–35

Allegedly, the Church relied on these verses when it hid monks and nuns in monasteries behind enormous, insurmountable walls. They did not marry — marriage was forbidden — but in return they committed every possible abomination. In reality, they exploited these people and took the very last thing they had. These monasteries did not lead these people to enlightenment but to torment. Do they really believe they are following the example of the Apostle Paul? Paul gave himself completely for the sake of others; he did everything in his power to ensure that no harm came to people. He lived in the midst of people and did not hide behind high walls. He suffered greatly for others — he was stoned, flogged, shipwrecked more than once, and repeatedly found himself in desperate situations. He worked to earn his own living without being a burden to anyone, even though he had the right to be supported. (2 Corinthians 11:20–29; 2 Thessalonians 3:7–9) These people were recognized by God and had his blessing. But those who pretend to resemble these faithful servants of God are deceivers, merciless, and bent on exploiting others. In the buildings they call the house of God, they exploit people — not only materially, but above all psychologically. When they are done with them, these people are discarded like rubbish. These are the ones who claim to have the Apostle Paul as their model! We have seen this, and we continue to see it, and what has remained hidden until now will also be revealed. The end of all these machinations is near — very near! All nations will gather together and move against the religions that the Bible calls Babylon the Great, the Harlot, and destroy them. The destruction of all religions will come very suddenly and unexpectedly. All religions, without exception, have acted like a harlot by selling themselves, mercy, justice, faith, and love for God — often for nothing at all. (Revelation 14:6–8; 18:1–24)

To summarize once more briefly: according to the New Testament, there is no restriction on the number of wives. God has given no such restriction. With regard to divorce, however, we find in the NT a clear guideline in the following words of Jesus: "But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." (Matthew 5:32; 19:3–12) By the expression "a divorced woman," Jesus means those who have not been divorced according to the rule just mentioned. But he makes no statement about how many women one may marry. There are no limits on that, yet before marrying one should not forget that separating afterwards is no longer so easy. So if someone wishes to live by the rules and teachings of Jesus and desires to become his follower, being married to more than one woman is no obstacle. It might, however, be an obstacle if that person wishes to take on greater responsibility within God's congregation and serve as an overseer. But neither does it mean that he is automatically unfit for every kind of responsibility in the congregation. It is certainly an obstacle, though, if he wishes to take on responsibility as a traveling overseer over a certain district containing several of God's congregations. In any case, it is no reason to regard such a person as having moved away from God. In the Mosaic Law we find certain circumstances listed that would make a priest unfit for service at the altar of God in the temple. Even if he can no longer carry out that duty, it does not mean he is therefore far from God — he remains a priest of God nonetheless. The Quran is the only book that limits the number of spouses to four. Even so, the following counsel is added: "But it is better for you if you stay with one woman." (An-Nisa 4:3, 19–21; Al-Ahzab 33:50) That is all.

Some sincere Muslims feel ashamed about this topic, as though the Quran were recommending something bad. Christians who wish to prove that the Quran originates from the devil are fond of using this topic. "Why would God allow marrying multiple wives again in the Quran?" Their only goal is to prove that the Quran cannot have been inspired by God. But if this is the standard, then by whom is the Bible inspired? To those who say that such counsel cannot come from God, I simply reply that the same freedom and the same rules are to be found in the Bible as well.

The Quran addresses the topic of marriage and divorce in somewhat more detail. (Al-Baqarah (the Cow) 2:221–242) Since we are discussing this subject at the moment, I would also like to briefly address a practice that is common among Muslims but makes no sense. In Al-Baqarah (the Cow) 2:229 it says: Such a divorce may be pronounced twice; thereafter, either retain them in a fitting manner or release them with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take back anything of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the bounds of God. And in verse 230 the following is then added: And if he divorces her a third time, then she is not lawful to him afterward until she has married another husband; and if the latter then divorces her, there is no blame on them if they return to each other, provided they are certain they can keep within the bounds of God.

Based on these verses, a rather peculiar practice has spread among Muslims over time. The text cited does permit divorce — albeit limited to a certain number — but the Quran by no means suggests that one may divorce for any arbitrary reason. The point is to safeguard the mutual rights of both parties and not to abuse the goodness and patience of the other. Mutual respect and self-control should be paramount. What is spoken of here is separating from one's partner twice. The apostles in Jesus's time also knew that divorce was the quickest and easiest way to settle disputes between spouses. (Matthew 19:9, 10) After that, only adultery was to be regarded as the sole valid grounds for divorce. The Apostle Paul adds on this subject: if an unbelieving partner wishes to leave, let them leave — but he adds: if they wish to stay, they should not separate. So if one of the two partners is an unbeliever, that is not in itself a reason for divorce. Paul himself mentions that this is not a law of God but his own counsel as an apostle. We can, however, be certain that God supports this line of thought. This in turn does not mean that one is compelled to live together with someone whose life stands in contradiction to the laws of God. (1 Corinthians 7:10–16)

Muslims understand this instruction literally, or they wish to understand it that way. This means that if a man is angry with his wife and then says "you are divorced" three times, it counts as three divorces, even if it is the first separation. To me this seems completely illogical. They turn it into a word game. If someone is furious at his partner's behavior and then says "you are divorced," it makes no difference whether he says it three times or ten times. What the Quran has in mind is not the utterance of a word, but the literal separation of the two partners — the end of the marital relationship — whether that separation lasts a day, a month, or a year makes no difference. After that, they can reconcile. The same would be possible after a second separation, but after the third separation there is no reconciliation. Even if both sides have a firm will to reconcile, it is not enough to overcome this obstacle. If such a law exists, who still has the courage to make the same mistake three times? If the woman is not very important or precious to the man, it will not grieve him greatly if she marries another man. But if she means a great deal to him and a separation would be very painful, he will certainly think his decisions through carefully so as not to lose her. God closes his eyes twice to such a mistake. In the Mosaic Law this subject is not dealt with in such detail. Our topic here, however, is the implementation of Quranic precepts in the lives of Muslims. When a man says "you are divorced" to his wife two or three times and then regrets it, he looks for ways to circumvent this law. Religious leaders always find a way, just as politicians always find a way. Under Islamic law, the man may not remarry the woman until she has first been married to another man. But when will she separate from this other man so that she can remarry her first husband? That can sometimes take a very long time. But the worst of it is that the woman will sleep with the man. A loophole has been found. Someone is paid to marry this woman. In the evening they are wed by a clergyman, and the next morning divorced! All of this is planned in advance. In connection with this practice there was already a great deal of trouble in Ottoman times. Normally, the man should not even touch the woman. Whether the man was trustworthy is another matter. In these affairs there were naturally many despicable things as well. The entire procedure has been called hülle (an interim marriage) in Islam, and the interim partner has been called hülleci. In Europe, one would probably call such types a gigolo. How this paid "gigolo" carries out his "work" is yet another matter. They try to use such tricks to circumvent the law of God. This is the Muslim form of legal compliance. Yet there is no basis in the Quran for such behavior. With this law, God has barred the path to reunion of both partners after the third divorce. How many times does one marry the same person, then divorce, and then return to them? Surely such a thing is a great exception. One might read about it in the tabloid press concerning the lives of actors and artists, but that is certainly no standard for the general public — it is rather the exception. With such cunning they have tried to bend the laws of God according to their own ideas and wishes. But who are they deceiving? Only themselves. They told the uneducated, ignorant people that it was the law of God, that it was written as such in the Quran. Do they perhaps think that God is like them? In the Bible we find the following statement of God: If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and becomes another man's wife, will he take her back again? Would not that land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; yet return to me, says the Lord. — Jeremiah 3:1 In the Quran there are verses directed against those who twist the word of God. Muslims use these verses to show that the Bible was altered over the course of years. But there is a difference between distorting the word of God in its application and literally changing the words or sentences when writing. The Quran says more than once: "Bring the Torah and read in it; the possessors of the Gospels should follow what is written therein; the word of God cannot be changed." Do not such statements show that the Holy Scriptures as such have not been falsified? But the example mentioned above shows that it is not the Scripture that has been falsified — it is people who, in their interpretation of Scripture, twist the word. It is their own twisted, erroneous teachings that they then ascribe to God. With these games they try to play with God, they only harm themselves. But the word of God is unadulterated. For this subject and many others in which Muslims have set up their own rules, this statement from the Quran fits very well: Do you expect them to believe you, when a group of them used to hear the word of God and then distort it, after they had understood it — and they know what they do? Al-Baqarah (the Cow) 2:75 Are only Muslims meant in this verse? If we read the verses before it, we see that Moses and the Israelites are being spoken of. Elsewhere, Christians are charged with the same accusation. Put simply: if we read these verses and then observe what religions do, one can say that it applies to all religions. All religions have, to a greater or lesser degree, nullified the word of God in favor of their own commandments and traditions. (Matthew 15:1–9) The Quranic verse mentioned also shows, moreover, that the distortion does not concern the Scripture itself but its interpretation. I am not speaking here of errors. This verse is not about errors either, but about a deliberate course of action. One can misunderstand a text, or have false expectations based on a false understanding. A religion too can misread a verse. Are there things I have not correctly understood from the Holy Scriptures? If I were to deny this, where would be the difference between me and the religions I wish to expose? There is a difference between misunderstanding something and consciously, willfully twisting it. But how can one prove this? Does not everyone — and every religion — say the same thing? Do not all say: "We have the truth and we are sincere"? Yet Jesus gives us a way to make a distinction when he says: "You will recognize these people by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15–20)

I often do not understand why people, on many subjects such as marriage and divorce, put God to the test, make accusations against him, blame him. "How can God give people such freedom?"; "If God is like that, does things like that, then I do not believe in him"; or "If there is a God, why does he allow such things?" Are we aware of who we are? What do we think we are? Are we more righteous than God? What do we know about ourselves, about our own needs, and about the needs of others, of all humanity and their feelings, sensations, their love and their hatred, that we can so easily judge and decide? Did we bring humanity into existence? Do people belong to us? Can we make our own child become what we want, no matter how powerful we are? Can the President of the United States do this? He is so powerful that he can destroy entire states, ruin the lives of many people — but is he capable of making his own child obedient to him in every respect? To destroy and annihilate is easy; anyone can do that. But who is capable of living and teaching love? Who can make his child love its parents? You can try it by force if you like. Who can see into the innermost being of a person, even when it is one's own child? The success of people consists for the most part in destroying and annihilating. Why do they not, for once, do something constructive and uplifting? The names of good, merciful rulers are more likely to be remembered. But the fame of the cruel passes quickly. Those who display such rebellion against God should summon the courage to act and speak toward a human being the way they do toward God. Let them go to their president, their prince, their ruler, or simply their superior and vent their rage and frustration there. By what right do they get so worked up about God? Merely because he gives people freedom and compels no one? How impudent we sometimes are! But the main thing is that we believe in God! And if it were not for us, no one would enter paradise. The world would surely fly apart and perish if we were not believers! People constantly cry out for freedom, but the one who grants freedom is the one they speak ill of. I will return to this subject later under the heading "Freedom or Equality."

ONLY GOD CAN UNDERSTAND IT

My military service was over, and I had returned to Germany. I took with me the Quran my mother had given me. I went to my workplace — partly to say hello, and partly to let them know I was back. New Year was just around the corner. They told me they had not expected me to return and had hired someone else in my place. In other words, they let me go, politely. They even gave me Christmas pay. Many people in my position would have been sad, but beyond my disappointment at their unfair conduct, I was glad. A job like that can always be found again. I had started working there when I was fourteen. While still in school I had earned a little money during the summer holidays. The senior boss had treated me well and was very understanding. About a year after this dismissal they called me. I went, thinking they needed my help temporarily and I could do them a good turn. But they wanted to take me on full time again. I declined, because by then I had found another job. Besides, I did not want to return to that working relationship — I had been the only worker there; everyone else was a boss. Anything heavy or dirty that needed doing was mine to handle. The family's home was right next to the company. Sometimes the son, with whom I worked most of the time, would go home for lunch and not come back until two hours later because he had got caught up in a film. When he finally arrived, we would work at a furious pace to finish on time. I had spoken with his father about this problem before I went to do my military service. If I was to keep working at that pace and under those conditions, I would not live to see retirement age. I spoke with them beforehand so they could make their decision by the time I returned from the army. I also made clear that I would not take any legal steps to claim any rights, should they dismiss me. I said that to make the decision easier for them. My own well-being and that of others matters greatly to me, and I did not want to make any kind of threat. Those were the real reasons they had let me go — not because they had not expected to see me again. Of course, the son had a different standing within the firm than I did. On those occasions when he came back late from his lunch break, I would go into the boiler room and chop wood. "Chop wood" sounds modest. They were trees — enormous trunks — that I cut down to size so they would fit in the furnace. The furnace itself was large enough for a thin adult to stand inside. The loading opening was also very wide, but a whole tree trunk still did not fit in at once; you had to break it down a bit first. In winter I would lie down in that boiler room after eating, because it was pleasantly warm in there. The firm manufactured solid-wood paneling. The panels went through several production stages before they were ready for delivery. In the period before the firm went bankrupt, the three of us were doing the work that twelve workers would normally do. At our pace we could have finished it in about three and a half days, but because, as I said, the son often came in late, took longer breaks, and so on, it took us five days. Since just the two of us were working the machines, I used the time when he was absent to take care of every other task in the place — splitting wood, sweeping the yard, and much more.

It was at this firm that I was working when I began to read the Bible. While working, you have a great deal of time to think. The work was very exhausting. You take in nothing of life at all. Work, eat, sleep, work, eat, sleep … The mind plays a major role in all of this. I remember that the boss's son sometimes pulled an all-nighter and came to work without having slept. As I said, things were comfortable for him at the firm. He was fulfilling his responsibility toward his father; that was enough. As for the work, it somehow always got done — but how! I often thought about why they loaded so much onto me, and I sometimes grew angry about it. Even though nobody interfered in what I did or did not do, nobody stood behind me giving orders, I was never idle. Some people are really good at that. When they work, they do everything calmly and leisurely without straining themselves. That is an art in itself. The Germans are masters at it. When you think it through logically, it also makes sense. The work never runs out anyway, whether you go fast or slow. When it does run out, you are unemployed. Honestly, there is not much logic in me working like a madman. When I arrived at work I was clean and fresh, but when the son was late or did not show up at all, the hard slog began for me. Splitting the tree trunks, the sweat poured off me like water. My clothes clung to my body. When he eventually came to work, I dropped everything and worked alongside him. He was rested and in good spirits; I, on the other hand, was soaking wet, drenched in sweat, physically and morally spent. Sometimes, while thinking about the work and about his situation, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and told myself that in his position I would probably behave no differently. Even if my own character would not let me say with certainty that I would act the same way, I still think that most people in his place would do exactly that. They had hired me as a worker and were paying me for my work, after all. During working hours, you work. So why was I getting worked up? Because the work was hard? Who would hire me for easy work? In my childhood in Turkey, my father also had workers under him. I never had the feeling that they were at a disadvantage, badly treated, or deserving of my pity. That is certainly not something an eight-year-old thinks about. We simply stood above these people — that was what I thought, and not only I; that is generally how people think. Clearly, the influence of one's surroundings plays a very large role.

Why should the Germans be any different from us? On the contrary, I am quite sure that they are often better than us in this regard. Who knows how we would have treated the Germans if they had come to us to work. King David was truly a wise man, for when he was given the choice of which punishment he would receive from God for a sin, he said: "Let me not fall into the hands of men." (2 Samuel 24:10–14) Surely everyone will have sympathy for a thief who steals only to still his hunger, yet he will not go unpunished all the same. If I have understanding for the conduct of the Germans, does that make them guiltless? If all other nations are punished for their wickedness, then the Germans must face the same. We human beings are on earth, but God is in heaven. I am certain that we will all have to render an account to Him. (Ecclesiastes 5:2; 12:14)

You come to a foreign country as the child of a guest worker — what can you really expect? I think things would be considerably simpler if the Germans did not harbor this senseless hatred. On the one hand they bring foreigners to Germany to do the heavy and dirty work; on the other hand they do not want to see them — not even on the street! They expect extraordinary qualities from foreigners. For instance: the women should all be especially beautiful and look good in a bikini above all else. The men should adapt well, be clean, orderly, and honest. On top of that they should be hardworking and intelligent. They should also possess talents — but only ones that serve German interests. Why, though, would someone who possesses all these qualities come to your country to work as a porter or clean toilets? I compared the Germans — or rather, people with such expectations — to Turkish girls in personal ads. I read those advertisements often between the ages of fourteen and seventeen. The wording of the notices went roughly like this; they looked for the following: He should be tall and handsome. He should be an architect, a doctor, or an engineer. He should at least have attended a higher school. He should own at least a house and a car. He should be entertaining but not boring, romantic, funny, and have a sense of humor. He should be well-groomed, clean, and tidy, but not petty. No mama's boy — and then be there only for me! Those were the qualities her future husband should have. She described herself as follows: People say I am beautiful. I love traveling, theater, and music. In my free time I read a great deal and enjoy listening to music. I also do sport and watch my figure. I want to share my life with someone I can trust and lean on.

Most of the ads are like that, or something very similar. As one can clearly see, it is all about taking. Perhaps not everyone reveals it quite so plainly in their ad as in the example given, but in the end it is mostly about taking, not giving. Most people are smart enough to find a partner without ads anyway. Not rarely, difficulties in the marriage begin once children arrive. Then it becomes a matter of claiming as large a share as possible of the pie that the man has painstakingly built up over many years. She believes she has a right to it, because after all she has to take care of the children. And in most countries the law also gives her that right. But that is a different topic again. I mentioned the advertisements because they make the typical mindset of most people plain to see. She writes down everything she expects from her future husband. And what does she offer, besides what she wears under her clothes? Why would a man want to marry such a woman? But it seems that men want only one thing, so it is hardly surprising that women offer themselves accordingly. As already mentioned, the aim of most women is generally to ensure they are not left destitute when they are abandoned. Those among the women who have a good income do not marry anyway, or only on paper. There are always exceptions, of course. This is not about the relationship between Turks and Germans, or between men and women; it is about people in general. It is about how we treat one another. It is about the fact that everyone thinks only of their own advantage and does not even try to understand the person in front of them. It is always only: "What can I take away from this, what advantage do I gain?" And when they finally receive what they hoped and wished for, they are still dissatisfied. Or have you ever met someone who became happy with such an attitude? The apostle James says:

Where do wars and where do conflicts among you come from? Do they not come from this source, namely, from your desires for sensual pleasure that wage war in your body members? 2 You desire, and yet you do not have. You go on murdering and coveting, and yet you are not able to obtain. You go on fighting and waging war. You do not have because of your not asking. 3 You do ask, and yet you do not receive, because you are asking for a wrong purpose, that you may spend it on your desires for sensual pleasure. 4 Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God. 5 Or does it seem to you that the scripture says to no purpose: "It is with a tendency to envy that the spirit has taken up residence within us"? 6 However, the undeserved kindness that he gives is greater. So it says: "God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones." James 4:1–6

To win more votes, the parties in Germany often speak of how they will curtail the rights of foreigners or what they will do against the tide of immigrants — above all the parties that call themselves Christian. They are elected on the strength of those promises alone. "Being a politician in Germany is not hard," I often thought to myself. Back home in Turkey, politicians have to rack their brains much harder over how to win voters' support. They promise the moon and the stars. "We will make every one of you a millionaire if you elect us," they even say. And they were not even lying, because at that time inflation had caused the value of money to fall so steeply that an eight-year-old boy shining shoes in Turkey was already a millionaire! In the United States the situation is quite different again. To be elected president there, you have to promise the people a war in order to skim the cream off some other country and ease the tax burden on your own people. But let us return briefly to the subject of German hostility toward foreigners, and in particular the aversion toward Turks. Is their attitude unfounded? Certainly there are things where one has to say they are right, or at least where one can understand their feelings. But there is simply no carefree, easy life. Solomon once said:

Where there are no cattle, the manger is clean, but the crop yield is abundant because of the power of a bull. Proverbs 14:4

Do the Christian Germans not know this verse from the Bible? Would the Germans be happy and without problems if there were no more foreigners in their country? Certainly not — and that is exactly what infuriates me. The politicians know this just as well, but merely to catch votes they give the people a false picture of the situation, as though foreigners were responsible for all the problems. The Germans are credulous where politics are concerned anyway; they place great trust in their government. Someone could put on a uniform and stand on the street demanding a road toll, and most people would pay without protest. There are few peoples on earth who are so easily led. Back home in Turkey it is exactly the opposite. When something useful is being done, our people are the first to protest. Whether they understand it or not, the first reaction is to be against it. If the government were to announce that it was giving every citizen a golden throne, everyone would protest against it first. I can understand them — after all, they have been disappointed by the government often enough. They immediately suspect something sinister, that there is a catch. Viewed from a human perspective, I can understand everyone and give them all their due. But when I look at the matter from God's perspective, from the perspective of the holy scriptures, I have to say that everyone is in the wrong. That all nations are in error and on the wrong path is something God states plainly in His written Word. To that end, one should read the following passages of scripture: Isaiah 34:1, 2; Jeremiah 10:1–3; 17:5

It is easy to speak ill of people. In an article in a magazine distributed on an airplane, the author complained that proper German was no longer being spoken in Germany. The ones to blame for this were, as one might expect, the Turks! The Turks can neither speak good German nor do they speak proper Turkish. The author's patriotic feeling moved him to be upset about it. Those who are upset about this, on the other hand, also protest against the fact that the Kurdish language is banned in Turkey and that the Kurds do not have their own state. They do not merely protest against the oppression of the Kurds — they even press bombs into their hands to go off in Turkey. During the time I lived in Turkey, I did not witness anything close to the mistreatment of Kurds that the Turks receive in Germany. Worse things I have seen only in films about the fate of the Jews. It reminds me of Jesus's saying about people who see the speck in their neighbor's eye but not the plank in their own.

The Turks came to Germany to do heavy work. They entrusted their children to German schools. What is taught there I have already described. As I said, it always comes down to taking as much as possible without giving in return. Everyone does that, one might object — but you cannot be so one-sided. Many Russians came to Germany claiming to be German. Not only from Russia — from all the Eastern Bloc states, and not just from there either. They speak even worse German than the Turks do. And they are German! After the fall of the Wall, quite a few came from the East and immediately started receiving a pension, even though they had never paid into the German pension fund. They all had their teeth or other replacement parts taken care of without having paid a single cent into the health insurance system. And then people wonder why all the health insurance funds are bankrupt. But nobody talks about that, because they are Germans. The fact that the Germans also stood up to the Americans and did not support them in the war only made the economy sink further — who can afford not to cooperate with the USA? But in the end it is once again the foreigners — above all the Turks — who are to blame. Nobody mentions the fact that a solidarity surcharge for eastern Germany is also deducted from the wages of foreigners. The children of Germans are not learning proper German in school — the Turkish children are to blame! I do not wish to defend foreigners in Germany in general, nor Turks in particular; I only want to show where aversion and hatred lead people, and how greatly it clouds their judgment.

My work in Germany was mostly as described above — it was always back-breaking labor. Whenever I think about a situation, I always try to see it from both sides. I tried to put myself in their position and them in mine. Then I said to myself: "What do you actually want?" "Should they perhaps not let you work so much, or let you rest now and then, or even offer you a coffee? On the other hand, what would be wrong with it if they did?" Then I told myself again: "No, it is pointless to expect something like that. If they once began treating their workers that way, the firm would no longer make as much profit and would go bankrupt." Well, in the end they did not treat their workers that way and went bankrupt all the same. My thinking always led me into a dead end, even when I tried to defend my employers. Out of anger, disappointment, and exhaustion I wanted to speak badly of the others, to blame them — but then again I could not, because from their point of view they were partly right as well. I held such conversations with myself and turned things over in my mind. As I said, what I absolutely cannot stand is unfounded hatred and humiliation. The boss's son, with whom I worked a great deal, often made such negative, demeaning remarks about Turks. I frequently grew upset about this and showed it — by going silent, or by making my irritation visible through my expression. The others usually noticed this and then felt uncomfortable. His father was a decent man. The circumstances and the pressure made things hard for him.

As I read the Bible every day, I constantly learned new things about God and His nature. Sometimes while chopping wood I would think to myself: "Only God would truly understand me, and only if I am working for Him could I be content." That was a wishful thought, an expression of what I felt inside. It was not that reading the Bible made me feel called, or like a prophet or an angel. How can a person think that way and see all things the way God sees them? God sees into the innermost depths of a person; a person's most secret feelings and thoughts lie open and exposed before Him. No one needs to prove anything to Him. There is no need to explain yourself at length, to defend yourself, or to make excuses. He knows everything anyway. In the book of Job it is expressed this way: How much less when you say you do not behold Him! The case is before Him, and you must wait for Him — Job 35:14. We, on the other hand, behave as though no one is watching and no one knows what we are doing. The Psalms say: And they keep saying: "The LORD does not see; and the God of Jacob does not understand." Understand, you senseless ones among the people; and you fools, when will you come to have insight? The One who planted the ear, can He not hear? Or the One who formed the eye, can He not see? — Psalm 94:7-9. There is something beautiful about trusting God — but from the heart, with joy and enthusiasm. Many things I would only come to experience and understand much later. I felt a great, deep love for God. It was a kind of love I had never known before. I loved my mother and other people too, but that love was always bound up with suffering and sorrow. What if this beloved person falls ill, or something happens to her, or she dies? Why does this person act so obviously unreasonably and bring harm upon herself? Why is she sad when there is nothing I can do? Why does she not love me? Why does she treat me badly? Why does she not understand me? Such thoughts and questions weigh on human relationships and sometimes bring sorrow. Especially when love is present on both sides and then something comes between — illness, accident, war, or something similar — the grief and pain can be immense. The pain is then so intense that it robs one of all feeling and seems as though it will never end. Who can know how deeply Jacob suffered when the news was brought to him that "your son Joseph is dead"? The account says that all his sons and daughters wanted to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. (Genesis 37:32-35) Is there anyone who cannot relate to those feelings?

With love for God it is entirely different. One need not worry about Him. The only thing one must worry about is that one might sin and turn away from God. Throughout history it has always been people who have left God; never has He been the first to abandon a person. Something comes between them and the person withdraws from God. There have been thousands of such examples throughout history. In one's relationship with God, one never needs to occupy one's mind with the fear of being abandoned. If trust is lacking, it is a lack of trust in oneself. A person might say: "What if I also do what others do and then abandon God too?" You might ask whether love here is not also bound up with suffering. Yes, that is true, for we do not live in paradise, and such concerns arise even in the love for God. The difference is only that everything lies in our own hands, unlike in human relationships. The more value you place on the love for God and on your relationship with Him, the happier you will be in that relationship. If you do not abandon Him, He will not abandon you. The best part is, He loves you regardless of who or what you are. It does not depend on your skin color, your religion, your ancestry, or your gender. He loves you because you are the work of His hands. He created you. You never need to worry about Him. You need have no fear that He might make a mistake, fall ill, or even die, that He might not understand you or hate you for no reason, turn away from you, not listen to you, overlook you, or treat you without consideration. All of these things play a role in human relationships, but not with God. In brief, there is a statement in the Quran that is repeated again and again: nothing and no one is equal to Him. That is true — no one can compare with Him.

PUT OFF THE OLD PERSONALITY

After returning from military service in Turkey to my home in Germany, I was met with a strange sight in the bathroom: in the middle of the room was a mountain of laundry! I wondered who all that laundry belonged to, and it turned out it was only my wife's. No person can make so much laundry dirty in a few days or even in a week. But evidently she had not done any washing for several weeks — in fact for three months, since the day I had left the house. Not that we didn't have a washing machine; no, she simply had not washed. No matter where I go, I always seem to encounter strange events and sights. After my military service I visited my mother, who was right in the middle of moving, and then I come home to find this! When I am at home, I do the laundry. Not everyone places importance on the things that matter to me. That is why many people call me crazy — my mother foremost among them. Life is full of surprises; what I am recounting here are only small episodes from it.

As I reflect on this, I become aware that many things, many traits, are present in us — or absent from us — even though no one taught them to us. By this I do not mean to stress belief in fate or predestination; rather, I want to show that from birth we all have to struggle against various weaknesses and inclinations. The holy scriptures encourage us again and again to change for the better, indeed even to reshape our entire personality. One verse that comes to mind is this one: ... that you should put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires; 23 but that you should be made new in the force actuating your mind, 24 and should put on the new personality which was created according to God's will in true righteousness and loyalty. — Ephesians 4:22-24. The Apostle Paul commands here — in a manner of speaking, under the guidance of God's spirit — all people to make a profound change in their lives. He speaks of laying aside the old personality like worn-out, old clothing, and putting on new clothing, that is, a personality pleasing to God. No one comes into the world at birth with only good, positive qualities. Yet neither is anyone born utterly evil. But we are all influenced to a greater or lesser degree by our surroundings, and Paul urges us to fight against being so strongly influenced in a negative direction. Yet this influence is not the only factor that affects us negatively. Added to it are original sin and our own sins, which are ever-present and make life difficult. Often the struggle against external influences is easier than the struggle against one's own weaknesses. Who does not know this? It is the same for every person, regardless of whether our parents are wealthy and hold high positions, or whether they are poor and go hungry. Simply put, from the day of our birth we are caught up in a struggle. If we love life and God, we cannot avoid such a struggle. It is not a struggle waged with literal weapons, with rifles and cannons. It is a spiritual struggle, a war — not against flesh and blood. Therefore people are not the only ones responsible for injustice, suffering, hardship, wars, and so on. As was mentioned earlier in this book, one would have to be blind not to see that entirely other forces are at work. The Bible states clearly and plainly: Finally, go on acquiring power in the Lord and in the mightiness of his strength. 11 Put on the complete suit of armor from God that you may be able to stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places. 13 For this reason take up the complete suit of armor from God, that you may be able to resist in the wicked day and, after you have done all things thoroughly, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm, therefore, with your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and with your feet shod with the equipment of the good news of peace. 16 Above all things, take up the large shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the wicked one's burning arrows. 17 Also, accept the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, that is, God's word, 18 while with every form of prayer and supplication you carry on prayer on every occasion in spirit. And to that end stay awake with all constancy and with supplication in behalf of all the holy ones, — Ephesians 6:10-18.

Knights and soldiers of former times were protected from head to foot by armor. They wore heavy plate armor or chain mail so that they could not easily be wounded. In our analogy, of course, we are speaking of spiritual armor, and accordingly the equipment is also spiritual in nature. Paul speaks, for example, of girding oneself with truth. Do we love the truth? Here truth and righteousness are compared to armor, to a protection. But most of the time people do not use truth as their protection; instead they try to protect themselves through lies. It is fitting that it is compared to a breastplate, since both the lie and the truth come from the heart. But a lie is no protection; it can deceive us — and others — for a time, but it cannot truly protect. It goes on to say that our feet should be shod with the equipment of the good news of peace. This means our steps should lead us to bring God's message of peace to other people. In order to do this, we would first have to know that message ourselves. And having this knowledge, we should not then make ourselves comfortable at home, like the shepherd who feeds only himself. (Ezekiel, chapter 34) By this, however, I do not mean that one should go from house to house in the hypocritical manner of Jehovah's Witnesses. If someone says, "only our religion, our beliefs are correct; the other religions are wrong and should be criticized, but I want to hear not a word said against us" — what is that but hypocrisy and insincerity? Moreover, we need a faith that shields us like a protective guard against everything that might discourage us. The shield of faith is a protective shield that can guard us against every kind of attack. Can you imagine how many attacks a person who loves truth and peace is exposed to every single day? A former American president once described the state of the world aptly when he asked: "What is worse than a lie?" After a brief pause for reflection he answered by saying: "The truth." What kind of world is it in which truth is generally regarded as an enemy and lies as a friend? Even if the qualities mentioned here are regarded in general as desirable, one still meets with a great deal of hatred and hostility when one actually puts them into practice.

As a sword, the Apostle Paul advises us to use the word of God, while encouraging us to draw near to God at every opportunity with every form of prayer. Why "with every form of prayer"? Why does he not tell us simply to keep repeating what we have memorized at every opportunity, like a parrot? Because every situation is different, and we experience each situation differently as well. Therefore in every situation we also need a different kind of support, help, counsel, or something of that nature. What we feel in a given moment is what we should honestly and sincerely communicate to God in prayer. It also serves as encouragement for ourselves when we speak openly about it. Something learned by rote cannot convey what we feel in our hearts. For example, God will establish paradise on earth and His will shall be done, regardless of whether we pray for it or not. Why then should we pray for something we know will come to pass with absolute certainty? Yet in doing so we show how important it is to us, whether it is truly our heart's desire. A father, for example, has promised his child a bicycle and has already ordered it, but it will still take a few days to arrive. Even though the child is certain he will get the bicycle, he still stops at every shop window displaying the same or a similar one and gazes at it for a long time. Does this mean the child has no trust in his father, or that he doubts he will receive the bicycle? Certainly not — his behavior is entirely normal. I have even known forty- or fifty-year-old men who have gone into the garage at night with a flashlight to inspect their new car or motorcycle. Does it not show how much that object means to them, how much they value it? That is the same reason why the apostle encourages us to express what moves us in prayer. Yet we should keep in mind that God is not a genie in a bottle who grants our every wish. It is therefore good if we first consider whether our wish is in accordance with God's will. Finally, Paul also admonishes us to remain awake with all constancy. This requires wholehearted effort and leaves no room for lukewarmness or half-heartedness. That is the war we must wage daily. We are all on this battlefield. Or is it only those who believe in God who are involved in this war? I think that the struggle waged by those who are not believers, directed as it is toward satisfying their own interests, is for that reason even harder. Nations also wage this struggle among themselves. Everywhere — in films and novels — this struggle is constantly the theme: the struggle for food, for career advancement, for personal advantage, the battle of the sexes, the struggle for the supremacy of one's own race, the struggle for ... and so on. Life is not easy!

Is there any way to withdraw entirely from this matter and remain passive? Can one say that one is unaffected by any of these struggles and wars if one lives alone on an island or retreats behind high walls? No. At most, one keeps oneself at a distance from the influence of other people. "Is that not enough?" many will certainly think now. The holy scriptures remind us that our struggle is directed against three different adversaries: first, our own weaknesses and inclinations; second, the influence of the world; and third, Satan and his demons. It is they who are primarily responsible for having the world under their evil influence. (James 3:15) If we keep this in mind, it quickly becomes clear that we cannot escape these influences anywhere in the world, for wherever we go, we carry our faults and weaknesses with us. How are we to flee from ourselves? It is also hard to imagine that spirit creatures such as Satan and the demons could be held back by high walls or other obstacles. Some have chosen death as their only way out. I too once thought this was the only solution. I was without hope and without knowledge. I no longer had the strength to live with what I possessed. But the more I learned, the clearer it became to me that I had been on the wrong path. One must not surrender to death so easily. Since I had already come to terms with death anyway, I was now convinced that the life I now wanted to live for God would make me happier and more content. But the strongest driving force was love. Yes, when you love someone, you come alive! It was this love, this indescribable enthusiasm, that I felt for God. By striving to get to know Him, I came to know myself better and better as well. "Getting to know yourself" may sound strange to some people, perhaps even ridiculous. In truth we hardly know ourselves at all. We think we know ourselves. On many occasions, as uninvolved observers, we say or think: "If I were in his or her position, I would act this way or that way." But when we ourselves are in a similar situation, we are often surprised at how we act or feel. We experience such situations every day. How can we assess other people and various situations without making mistakes? So many factors are at play — feelings that sometimes stand in our way, such as jealousy, envy, fear, and anger, as well as our own interests, which influence our decisions. All of these things can affect us so greatly that we end up behaving in a completely different way than we would ever have expected of ourselves. But all of this only happens while we are right in the middle of things. Looking at it from the outside beforehand, with a clear head, we are masters of the situation — but then we become victims of our emotions. I have heard of people who had preserved their faith and integrity under very difficult, adverse circumstances, but then in a seemingly minor test they failed and gave up both their faith and their love. What seems so easy to us as observers was, for the person involved, a great trial. That is why we should not take small weaknesses in our personality lightly. For these seemingly small weaknesses can, over time — without our even being aware of it — grow and become our undoing. Though we do not reckon on it at all, it is precisely this seemingly small weakness that brings us down. It is similar to pathogens that invade our bodies. They are small, invisible to the naked eye, and yet their effect can be devastating if nothing is done about them. With medication they can be combated all the more easily the sooner action is taken. The more the pathogens have spread through the body, the more difficult the healing process becomes. If nothing is done at all, the illness — even if it began small — can lead to death. Sin behaves in a similar way. If we do not fight against the weaknesses that arise in us from the very beginning, it will become all the more difficult to do anything about them later. Over time our weakness grows and has a great influence on our lives. Some bad habits may have become second nature to us. If we think again of our first ancestors, particularly of Eve, we see that she allowed a wrong thought, a bad desire, to grow within her. This small, inconspicuous pathogen — this virus — was the thought that Satan planted in Eve's mind. Over time she allowed this thought to come more and more to the foreground; instead of pushing it away, she dwelt on eating from the fruit. Finally she yielded to the desire, which had by then grown strong, and took from the fruit, even though she was aware that she was doing something forbidden. But it did not stop there, for she gave some to her husband and he ate as well.

While I was at boarding school, my classmates smoked cigarettes. I didn't smoke back then. You should have seen how they offered me cigarettes at every opportunity! They tried all sorts, American ones, menthols, ones with charcoal filters and ones without filters, and goodness knows what else. At the time I thought even the headmaster of the school had never seen such a variety of cigarettes. But once I had started smoking and gotten used to it, no one offered me a cigarette anymore — not even the cheapest filterless one. Why were they suddenly so stingy? Or better asked, why had they been so generous before? It evidently bothered them that someone was among them who didn't smoke. Not because they wanted to share something good with me, but because their conscience was tormenting them. Through this circumstance, their own weakness was brought home to them. They had given in to a bad habit, and that troubled them especially when someone was around who had not succumbed to that weakness. That is why they pressure the non-smoker until he joins in. Then they feel better right away. You are then one of them. Of course, they no longer offer you cigarettes now. Later I behaved exactly as my friends had. First I constantly, repeatedly offered cigarettes to someone who didn't smoke, until he took one and smoked it. Then I felt better — "I'm not the only one who is weak," I thought. None of this played out in our minds with a directly bad intention, but subconsciously we do want to ease our conscience, whatever the cost. God had good reason to have his prophet say: "Do not be misled: bad company corrupts good habits." (1 Corinthians 15:33) Eve surely offered her husband the fruit from a similar motive. She did not want to stand alone as the loser in what she had done, in the battle she had lost. I have used the example of cigarettes here, but the same can be seen with many other things — drugs, theft, alcohol, fornication, and so on. People have always tried to draw others in on the very things in which they felt pangs of conscience. The history of humanity is full of such experiences. No one wants to be alone in defeat. That is one part of our weaknesses — or rather, our wickedness. This feeling has driven people so far that they have killed prophets. When you are doing something wrong, you make an effort to somehow deaden your conscience so that it does not keep unsettling you. Then someone comes along and tries to bring that conscience back to life. At that point there are two options: either you eliminate the bad habits, or you eliminate the one who keeps reminding you of them. In many cases people have chosen the second option — presumably they felt it was the easier way.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND THE QURAN

Now I had plenty of time for reading. I also read the Quran. In terms of length it is roughly equivalent to the New Testament. I finished reading it fairly quickly, because I had plenty of time since I was no longer working. It would probably be an exaggeration to say I read day and night, but eight hours a day it certainly was. The Quran is written in a completely different style from the Bible. Various events are mentioned only briefly, seemingly without context. But I already knew the events mentioned in the Quran from the Bible. "How can anyone understand the stories of the Quran if they haven't read the Bible?" I asked myself while reading it. The people who claim to believe in the Quran generally reject the Bible. By their conduct they show, of course, that they don't believe in the Quran either — but that is another chapter. In their view, the Bible is a book of pagans; they wouldn't even touch it. If, on the other hand, you ask how many Muslims have read the Quran in their mother tongue, you will be astonished at the answer, because it is only very few. I believed in neither the Quran nor the Bible before I had read them. More precisely, I did not form an opinion about something I did not know. From the Witnesses who visited me I learned that the Quran was not the word of God. As far as my faith in the Bible was concerned, they influenced me positively. Regarding the Quran, I thought to myself that they had surely studied it and had therefore arrived at that conclusion. Why did I read the Quran at all — didn't I trust the Witnesses? For me it was clear that I would first speak with my friends, relatives, and acquaintances — all of them Muslim by religion — about what I had learned from the Bible. I imagined what answer they would give me when I started talking about the Bible: "Why don't you first read our book, the Quran, before you concern yourself with other books?" They would, of course, use the Quran in that case only as a defense, as my brother had done — not because they were genuinely interested in my reading the Quran. If they had wanted that, they would at least have read it themselves. But apart from that reason, I also wanted to read it for my own sake. If I were in their position, I might ask the same question. After all, one doesn't simply change one's religion without first having examined the religion in which one grew up. If someone does it anyway, one can assume he is selfish and unreasonable. Everyone will ask him why he did it. But it's not just about giving others an answer, being able to defend oneself — one also wants to help others when one is convinced of having found something good, something better. When you begin to build a friendship with God, you soon learn that love of neighbor is part of it. Such honest, sincere motives should always drive us to seek and explore the truth. These motives also drove me to read the Quran. In the end I also thought it was fitting — rather than reading countless other books — to occupy myself with the book that many millions of people claim to believe in. I had also begun reading the Bible for the same reason; why should I not now read the Quran for the same reason?

I have already referred to the Witness congregation many times in this book and will continue to do so. But this should not be understood as though I harbor a particular aversion toward them, or wish to speak badly of them here. For me they serve merely as representatives of many religious communities. Their attitude, their behavior, their doctrinal views, and their reactions are cited here only as an example. In my view, there is fundamentally almost no difference between the various communities. The way the Witnesses are, so too are the Muslims, the churches of Christendom, and the Jews. The only difference lies in how seriously someone takes his religion. The spirit, however — the prevailing attitude behind it all — is the same everywhere. But unfortunately it is often not the spirit of God. The motive behind their actions is not love of God, even if they present it that way. They do not know Him well enough to love Him. Besides, they don't even want to get to know Him. The difference between them is really just a matter of taste. Paint each religion in a different color and then pick the color you like. The trouble is only that someone already inside such a community can no longer choose. In general it is assigned to one at birth. That person then accepts it as if it were his name, without investigating whether it is right or wrong. The more strongly someone feels bound to his organization, his religion, the harder it becomes to explain anything to him, to convince him — sometimes it is even impossible. No matter what argument or proof you put forward, no matter how many verses you read as evidence from the book he claims to believe in, no matter how logically and reasonably you speak — it doesn't interest him, he doesn't look into it, he doesn't even think about it, and he doesn't even listen properly. His faith is not something he has worked out for himself; it has been transferred to him by others. The situation is similar to hiring a lawyer. What is the first thing a lawyer does after he has heard the matter? He hands over a document, a power of attorney, which you fill in and sign. This gives the lawyer the right to represent his client's interests before the law. He is authorized to act in his principal's name. What your lawyer says or does in your name is as if you yourself had said or done it. In a similar way, people entrust all matters that have to do with God to other people — religions, organizations, sects, and other institutions. These are to represent them before God. They give them the authority to believe, to think, to understand, and to interpret their holy books on their behalf. They believe and do everything their "lawyers" tell them and prescribe for them. Would anyone place a lawyer between himself and his father, from whom he has received everything? Well, someone may be so concerned about making no mistakes before God that he wants, so to speak, to hire a lawyer. That is also the reason one hires a lawyer in court: to make no mistakes. But whoever builds such a relationship with his father need not be surprised when the response is correspondingly cool. Will not a father then also do for his son only what the law requires of him? As I said, in all our human relationships and in our relationship with God, what counts is love — and the behavior described above is attributable to a lack of love. Added to this is the fact that such people lull themselves into a false sense of security and think that those whom they follow and have appointed as their "lawyers" will answer for them. They believe they can justify themselves before God by saying, "We only followed those you sent us as guides." Will that save us and make us blameless before God? If you do everything you are told in the name of God, does that absolve you of guilt? Were Adam and Eve, or their children, able to talk their way out of it like that, and were they acquitted?

If someone had told me all of this earlier, I would probably have called him crazy and declared what was said unbelievable. But the history of humanity is actually like that. People have always tried — and this continues to this day — to brand political and religious leaders as the villains of this world. Even if that is partly true, one must rightly ask how it comes about that such people have such great influence. Are not those equally at fault who give them this power, who give them authority to act, speak, and believe in their name? In time, those who received this authority abused their power and caused great harm in the process. I would like to return to this topic later and insert a few pages from my website on the subject.

I read the Quran, but I did not understand everything — perhaps I understood nothing at all. It was the same as when I read the Bible. But what stayed in my mind from both books was a general impression and the fact that I found nothing that spoke against the books. When I say "nothing," I mean that I found neither confirmation of what Christians say about the Quran, nor of what Muslims say about the Bible. I also noticed straightaway that nothing the Quran contains matches what Muslims place value on — their rules, regulations, holidays, and customs. It is possible that I did not understand it. "Well," I thought, "they will know better than I do, since they have been occupied with it for many years, whereas I had only just begun to engage with it."

I began first by talking about these things with my brother, who was a year and a half older than me. When we were together on weekends I told him what I had read and spoke enthusiastically about the books. These subjects were as foreign to him as they had been to me. My brother, however, did not believe in God. He was never interested in it. Neither as a child nor later did I ever see him pray. My sister, who was three years older than me, was not like that. She believed in God. Later, though, I noticed that she too made no effort to get to know the true God and serve Him, but rather believed in a God who corresponded to her own ideas and wishes. In my twenty years of experience I have come to know only a handful of people who made an effort to see God as He reveals Himself, and who were willing to serve Him according to His will. With this statement I do not wish to judge or to elevate myself above others, for we cannot see our fellow human beings as God sees them. Take these words simply as an expression of my feelings, experiences, and views. There are many points at which I wish I were wrong. What I will still discuss in this book are terrible, ugly things. Sometimes I think it is better to die than to see all of this or to live like this. That is why I often wish I am wrong in the statements I make in this book. My brother was often bored and annoyed when I talked about God and His books. "Can't we talk about something else?" he would often say. I would then think about what else we talked about when we weren't arguing. Wasn't it better to talk about such topics than about the empty things we otherwise discussed? These were things he had never heard before, and moreover they concerned him personally. Since he had no one else, he usually came to us on weekends, as he was obviously bored otherwise. He generally spent the weekend at our place, and then on Sunday evening, after a quarrel, he would go home. That was how it was every weekend. On Fridays he was kind and good to us, and on Sundays, when it was all over, he would start quarreling with us. The Bible and the Quran were a completely different subject matter. I thought that no person is truly bad — they just don't know any better, which is why they are the way they are. "If my brother gets to know God's books, he will change for the better and come to love what is good," I thought, "because ultimately it is not the will of people, but of God." I was convinced of that. His behavior no longer upset me the way it used to. The two of us had always been in conflict with each other since our earliest childhood. I now made an effort to approach our differences differently than before. Whereas in the past I would immediately get worked up and raise my voice, I now tried to react a little more calmly and composedly, and I hoped that my brother would then change too. I did this not only when I was with my brother, but I also made an effort to be different toward everyone. It was not always easy. Those who noticed my change felt even stronger in relation to me and acted even more high-handedly than before. It was especially noticeable with my brother.

One day my brother called me, excited: "Now they're even learning Turkish to lead us away from our religion." He said this with a mocking undertone. "These are young guys, about our age — but they don't believe in the Quran," he added. As if he himself believed in it! "Just let them in and listen to them," I answered. "I told them I didn't have time today and they should come back on Saturday at noon. I will naturally not be there when they come." I implored him to at least listen to them once. What else did he have to do? He lived in a tiny room of six or seven square meters and spent his income mainly on his car and other pleasures. "If you come too, to that appointment, then I'll listen to them," he said. It was the middle of winter, there was snow and ice everywhere, fifty kilometers lay between us — but I agreed all the same. On the appointed day we waited in his room. The doorbell rang, and after a while — my brother lived on the top floor — two young men of about twenty years of age came up the stairs, and they spoke Turkish! I was surprised; I had never seen that before. My brother-in-law is German, but to this day, after more than twenty years, I have not heard him speak Turkish. The odd word now and then, perhaps. These two young men were going from door to door to talk to others about their faith. That was why they had also learned Turkish. What German would be willing to take so much upon himself for his faith? I was impressed by the zeal of these young Witnesses. We talked. One had a noticeable accent and was hard to understand at first, but in time we understood him well. The other spoke almost without an accent, so that you could barely tell he was German. From the start there was a warm, pleasant atmosphere to the conversation. There was only a bed for seating. My brother and I sat on the floor. We asked many questions — for example, why they had learned Turkish and not some other language, and how they had learned it. I expected them to somehow introduce the topic of God and religion. Somehow we were then in the middle of the subject anyway. My brother immediately brought up the Quran. Because I know him, I knew he was only saying it to be contrary. Many Muslims use this tactic. They don't ask out of interest or curiosity; their only aim is to oppose immediately — they try to protect themselves with it. I too often objected right away, but my intentions and motives were quite different. I had my Quran in my pocket and took it out as soon as the conversation turned to it. I wanted to show them that both books — the Bible and the Quran — contain essentially the same thing. But the one with the strong accent was evidently not very pleased when he saw the Quran. We sat and talked for a few hours. Afterwards we went to a pizzeria right next door. I wasn't hungry, so I only ordered something to drink. At that time I was still smoking. I offered them a cigarette too. Until then I only knew the Witnesses from the older couple who visited me from time to time. I also knew they were non-smokers. But my sense of decency required me to offer them a cigarette nonetheless. "No, thank you," they said, "we don't smoke because we know it displeases God." My brother had quit smoking again at that time. With him it was always that way — sometimes he smoked, then he would stop for a longer stretch, then he would start again. I had gotten used to it. The trouble is only that he expected from others what he himself did. When he quit, everyone had to quit. My brother therefore seized the opportunity right away and tried to speak badly of me and my smoking habits. The Witnesses were on his side. But they were right in what they said about smoking. This situation was made for my brother, because he was glad to have allies against me — the subject itself was secondary or even irrelevant to him. As I already mentioned, he had no friends, so he usually came to me and tried to run me down in front of my friends. Sometimes he provoked it openly in my presence; often, though, he spoke badly about me behind my back. That is — thinking about it now — it occurs to me that he actually does it that way with everyone. I must unfortunately say that he does it in a calculated and malicious way. Of course it happens that you get worked up about someone and then in anger say something bad about that person. If the fuel for his way of going about things is anger, then his tank is never empty. I paid it no mind, because I had known him for a long time. What was interesting to me, however, was how others reacted to him. He generally came across as more likable to others than I did. He was calmer, but also hypocritical, not honest and open. Because he was not open, he gave more the impression of a "nice, quiet, likable young man." I was fine with that; all that mattered was that he got to know God's word, whatever way that happened. After the pizzeria we went back to our place. We sat until midnight talking. They were not deep conversations. The names of the two visitors were Bernd and Dieter. Dieter was nineteen or twenty years old at the time. He looked like a Turk — at least you wouldn't take him for a German. In my view that was a problem for him. Bernd was one or two years older than Dieter. He has a calm, gentle nature. I think it is not wrong to say that most people feel comfortable around him. However, even this quality can be harmful if it is too strongly pronounced. At the time I could not yet know, of course, that our friendship would endure to this day, despite many obstacles and prohibitions. His love of money and material things was concealed by his quiet manner. I always made an effort to see the good qualities in them. Although I occasionally spoke openly about their faults and weaknesses — to help them — neither they nor I changed.

Before we said goodbye, they mentioned that there were meetings held in Turkish and that they would be glad if we came along. That interested us. In general, when people think of religion they immediately picture elderly folk, but the fact that these two young men were evidently committed to God and His interests made us curious. The older couple who visited me frequently had already invited me many times to their meetings, but since those were held in German I did not want to go. Not wanting to disappoint them, I went once. On that occasion I came into contact only with friends of my hosts, who were understandably about the same age. Younger people were also present, having come with their parents. They felt foreign to me — at least that was my feeling. The meeting itself did not interest me all that much. I could barely follow what was being said, since everything was spoken in German. The moment I tried to grasp one thought, I had already missed the next words. The topics were, after all, not so simple that you understand them at once. If they had been talking about everyday things — about apples or pears — I might still have been able to follow, because I could form some mental picture. Even though we had been living in Germany for many years, the spiritual language used in that sphere was foreign to us, since such things are not part of daily life. The meeting was, for me, in a completely foreign tongue. When our visitors said, "There is a meeting in Turkish," we were immediately all ears. But the main reason was the two visitors themselves — Bernd and Dieter. This suddenly blossoming friendship delighted us so much that we were willing to set off early on a Sunday morning and travel the roughly one hundred kilometres to attend the meeting. Of course, we did not yet know at that time that they were doing this primarily out of a sense of duty and that they were reporting on their time spent visiting! For me, what mattered was that this whole matter was about God.

I was very impressed by our first gathering. It affected me, for example, to the point that I quit smoking. Even if they went about it more through mockery — under my brother's influence — they were, as I said, right nonetheless. Smoking had never been a pleasure for me anyway. Since the smell bothered me, I never smoked in the living room. I usually went down to the cellar or stepped outside the door to smoke. Occasionally I smoked in the kitchen as well, but then I held the cigarette into a small hole in the wood-burning stove so that the smoke was drawn out through the chimney. More than one person laughed at me back then, because in their eyes my way of smoking had more to do with torment than with pleasure. I can remember that sometimes I even prayed with a cigarette in my hand. By praying I mean that I was talking with God. There is no need to adopt any particular posture when one prays. What Christians, Muslims, or Jews impose on people as prescribed forms of prayer, they invented themselves; it has nothing to do with any instruction from God. Someone might perhaps object that such rules were introduced to regulate public worship, to create a uniform order. Fair enough — but why do people apply them at home as well, when they are praying alone?

In any case, we find no prescription regarding prayer posture anywhere in the Bible or in the Quran. When the Quran speaks of "bowing down," it is meant in the sense of respect and reverence. There is no indication that one should literally prostrate oneself. If we absolutely must seek a rule and want one for our worship, then let it be this one that truly comes from God: approach God with love and reverence and worship Him with a sincere, wholehearted disposition of spirit. That is the form of worship pleasing to God. Among Muslims, just as among Jews, it seems to rest more on ancient tradition — tradition that had its justification up until the coming of the Messiah. But on this very topic Jesus said the following to a woman: "Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth; for indeed, the Father is looking for such people as his worshippers. God is a SPIRIT, and those who worship him must worship with spirit and truth." John 4:19–26. That is the true form of worship. We human beings should approach God with our whole heart, with sincere words, not with words we ourselves do not understand. On this topic alone, among Muslims there exist several thick volumes on "Prayer and Worship" that regulate everything down to the smallest detail. In all those thick tomes, they cannot link a single instruction directly to the Quran. They do not encourage people to read the Quran in their mother tongue; they themselves have never read it — yet they raise small children to follow the instructions in these thick books, where the procedure of "correct" prayer is depicted in pictures so that nothing is done wrong. In short, they have laboured for years to teach small children — many no older than seven to fourteen — in their Quran schools their own idea of prayer and worship, regardless of what God Himself thinks on the subject. It is also expected that they continue at the school until they are adults. During that time they learn an enormous number of rules and regulations. With which hand to begin the ritual purification at which point! What invalidates this ritual purification? Or is it permissible to swim in the sea during the fasting period? These are topics the children must master by the time they reach adulthood — and moreover, they learn all this under strict discipline, often including beatings. On top of these prescriptions about the correct prayer and the corresponding preparation, there are prayers in Arabic that they do not understand and will not understand for the rest of their lives. Those who continue in the Quran course then learn to read Arabic like their mother tongue, so that they may at last read the Quran. Now along comes someone like me who starts talking about love for God. Surely the other person would think: "Is it really that simple?! We have been at it since our youth and never once managed to perform the prayer ritual correctly." If you are reading these lines, you may think: the Turks, especially the religious ones among them, are really rather simple-minded. But this phenomenon is not confined to Turkey or to Islam as a whole. Let us cast a glance at Western, "developed" Christian civilization.

As I have often done in this book, I will again cite the Witnesses organisation at this point as an example of the Christian religions. Are they perhaps also "simple-minded"? I do not wish to pass judgement on that, but they are effective when it comes to guiding people. Do religions all work so diligently and strenuously to bring people closer to the love of God? Before we form a judgement about that, let us follow Jesus' advice and look at the fruit they produce. (Matthew 7:15–23) How many people are there on earth who truly know and love God? Yet there are millions, probably billions, of people who, because of the conduct of the religions, have turned away from God and hate Him. In what does the success of the religions consist above all — in drawing people closer to God, or in alienating them from God? Where they succeed, that is their fruit. The number of followers a religion has, its statistics, is no measure of love for God.

Let us return to our subject of the form of worship. Human beings have also bowed before kings and other high dignitaries. It is reported of Abraham in Genesis 18:2 that he bowed down to the ground before the three men he had invited to himself. In some parts of the world, such as China and Japan, it is still customary today to bow before another person as a sign of respect. If bowing is a sign of respect, then it is all the more fitting to bow before God. But what matters is the respect, not the particular form. In some translations of the New Testament the word "worship" is used in connection with Jesus. This comes from the assumption that the words "worship" and "bow down" have the same meaning in Greek. Through this translation error, false teachings have become established in the churches of Christendom. If one translates instead with "bow down," it simply means that one pays respect to Jesus, which is also fitting. Jesus neither called on others to worship him nor do we read that he approved of such a thing. He repeatedly emphasised that only One is worthy of worship, namely God Almighty. (Matthew 26:38–44; John 20:17) In short, bowing before someone does not mean worshipping them. I can bow before many people without worshipping them. That is precisely why bodily posture in the worship of God is not what matters; what matters far more is the disposition of the spirit. It is about our respect for God and our love for Him. This need not necessarily be revealed through our bodily posture. We can speak to Him — pray — whenever we wish: while taking a walk, while driving, while lying down, while eating, while working, wherever we happen to be standing or walking. That said, we can also pray alone in our room in a respectful posture, or together with others. I only want to say by this that prayer has no fixed rules regarding time, place, or even bodily posture. It is about sincere respect and unfeigned love.

How did we get onto this topic? Ah yes — I was recounting that I spoke with God at every opportunity and opened my heart to Him. Sometimes I did this while I was smoking. I did not feel comfortable doing so, however. Not only because I found it disrespectful. For instance, I also spoke with Him while I was eating, and that did not make me uncomfortable. With smoking it was different, because I was convinced that it displeased God. Can one imagine a father who would want his child to become addicted to cigarettes, regardless of the child's age? I am speaking of normal people. It is by now printed right on the cigarette packet: "Smoking kills." It is unimaginable to me that our Creator would want us to destroy ourselves in this way. Even if the Witnesses organisation is wrong on many points, I must grant them their position on smoking. Naturally they are not the only ones to have recognised this. There are other religious communities as well that hold a similar view on smoking. Among the Mormons, for example, not only smoking but even the consumption of black tea or coffee is forbidden. They emphasise thereby that these stimulants too are harmful to the human body. It is not only the Witnesses who abstain from certain foods or drinks — there are even more extreme groups. I had to stop smoking; that much was clear to me. Not only for my own sake, but also out of love for God. My first wife was a heavy smoker. Once I asked her: "Do you love me?" "Of course I love you," she answered. When I then added, "Do you love me more than cigarettes?", she understood where I was heading and tried to end the conversation by saying, "What nonsense, the two things have nothing to do with each other." She smoked one to two packets a day. If she could not quit, she should at least reduce the amount. This question now came back to my mind. By my own logic, then, I would not truly love God if I were unable to stop smoking. As it was, I did not smoke all that much — perhaps five or six a day. Besides, I smoked through a filter mouthpiece that filtered out most of the nicotine and tar. If I did not clean it in time, it could happen that a drop from this mouthpiece made it into my mouth — a dreadful taste, very bitter. It is by now well known that a small drop of pure nicotine is so powerful a poison that a quantity of fifty milligrams is already lethal. A small child that swallows a cigarette can die from it. Nicotine is thus more poisonous than arsenic or cyanide! It is not exactly pleasant to kiss a smoker. When I wanted my wife to stop smoking, I was also thinking of myself. But when God wants us to stop smoking or taking drugs, He is thinking only of us. It was not easy for me to stop smoking. I pleaded with God for help. Then it was as though a voice within me said: "Do you now want help from someone for whom you are not even willing to stop smoking?" So I gave my word and stopped. Since that day I have not smoked a single cigarette. Sometimes I dream that I am smoking, then I am frightened, and when I wake up and realise I had only been dreaming, I feel relieved. I had given God my word, but after a week or two it became almost unbearable and I kept thinking constantly about smoking. I began to deceive myself and thought: I gave God my word, but I did not swear an oath. During that period it was fortunate that I was attending the Witnesses' meetings. It was precisely during that time that on a Sunday at the local meeting a talk was given on the seriousness of promises. The speaker demonstrated from the Bible that it makes no difference before God whether we have given a promise or sworn an oath. God values our standing by our word. An oath is made in God's name, whereas a promise is given in one's own name and is generally used in interpersonal relationships. But the decisive point is that in both cases one is a liar if one does not keep one's word, for God hates lying. We often sin every day without realising it, but if on top of these errors we also add deliberate transgressions and do the opposite of what we said and what we should have done, we will have to pay the price for it. That price can be very high and its payment very painful. Through this talk I had learned enough about myself and my promise not to smoke again. To this day I think that in some way that talk was held just for me. Having made a promise and then hearing this talk grounded in biblical evidence, it was clear to me: the subject of smoking had to be erased from my mind, and I should not waste another thought on it. The speaker was unknown to me; I wondered whether it was his gift for speaking, his rhetoric, that had influenced me so strongly. I therefore paid particular attention to this speaker at large gatherings afterwards, but he had no exceptional gift. It was clear to me: it was entirely due to his argumentation and his biblical reasoning, which was sound. That had impressed me. I also came to know good, very gifted speakers. Simply put, if a person is not willing to change, even the best speaker remains for him like a singer performing a beautiful song — it is simply a pleasure to listen. (Ezekiel 33:31, 32)

The subject of smoking is not discussed anywhere in the Bible, since there was no such thing as cigarettes at the time. But there is a universally valid principle in 2 Corinthians 7:1 that says "we should cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit." One can hardly say that someone who inhales nicotine is keeping his body pure. Naturally it is just as wrong to eat spoiled food or to offer it to someone. Doing such a thing out of stinginess or laziness is just as wrong as smoking a cigarette or taking drugs — setting aside particular circumstances. The difference lies only in the dosage, in the effect, and in the fact that one knows that drugs cause addiction whereas spoiled meat generally does not. A thief is a thief, whether he steals a car or a bicycle. The only difference lies in the material penalty before a court. Neither is the person who stole a valuable car more of a thief, nor is the other less of one because he "only" stole a bicycle. Only the punishment changes. Both are still thieves. Theft, regardless of its extent, is theft before God and is in contradiction to His laws. In the same way, a person also violates God's law by smoking cigarettes.

Setting aside the damage to health, the smoke and the stench of cigarettes has always irritated me. I am rather sensitive in that area generally — not only cigarette smoke bothered me, but also the smell and the steam from cooking. When I checked to see whether the food was ready or wanted to taste it, I would lift the pot or the pan out through the window and only then remove the lid. I delighted in it like a child when a cloud of steam escaped out the window. I imagined how that cloud would otherwise have spread through the room and how the smell and grease would have settled everywhere. We later bought a range hood and vented it into the chimney, but that did not work perfectly either. There are of course very expensive models with genuinely powerful motors that draw the smell away properly — not a hundred percent, but at least to a minimum. Be that as it may, even though my wife and I have been together for over twenty years, she pays no attention to such things at all. When one is in the bathroom, one can smell through the closed door that she is in the kitchen cooking. In Turkish families it is particularly bad in winter. Because it is cold outside, the apartment is barely aired out, everyone smokes, and on top of that fatty food is being cooked. In German families it does not seem to be as great a problem, since they pay more attention to such things. Although it used to be common for the whole family to sit together in the kitchen-living-room, with the space filled with the aroma of sauerkraut or other typical German national dishes. But among the younger generation, the trend toward ready-made meals has grown ever stronger. It is not much effort, it is quick, and the kitchen is not taxed as heavily. That seems to be an important criterion anyway. They are proud of their expensive and beautiful kitchen, which they like to show off, but when guests arrive they do not even offer a coffee — that would mean work. The Turks living in Germany have not remained entirely uninfluenced by this. They have quickly adopted this bad habit of making little or no sacrifice for their guests. The generation born and raised in Germany no longer has much of the famous Turkish hospitality. On the other hand, I am convinced that it is only of value when one does it gladly. Generosity, a willingness to sacrifice, love — these things lose their quality when done reluctantly. Beyond that, one loses one's own joy and possibly develops hatred or aversion. None of that has anything to do with whether one lives in Germany or in Turkey. How many people are there who follow the Turkish tradition of hospitality because it is simply tradition, because they want to make a good impression on the neighbours, because they fear the gossip that would otherwise arise? Or, to put it the other way round, how many are hospitable because they genuinely enjoy it, because they do it with joy and love? Hospitality is generally measured by the guest. The more value one places on him, the more one is willing to do for him. Many people know this, and so they feel honoured — and they take the honour for themselves when they are lavishly entertained. They say to themselves: "Look how valuable I am, look at all they are doing for me." How corrupted people's consciences already are: no one shows them appreciation, and when someone does, they take the honour for themselves rather than giving it to the person who is showing them that appreciation. Everyone thinks only of the benefit they can draw from a situation. If you are generous toward a German, he immediately becomes suspicious and thinks: "What does the other person want from me that he is being so friendly?" So as not to remain in anyone's debt, he promptly tries to give something in return — chocolate or a bottle of wine, depending on what you have done for him. Of course it is a good thing when people give each other gifts and in this way express their love, gratitude, or appreciation, but one notices fairly quickly what the underlying motive is. You receive a gift from someone you have done something good for, and then you neither see nor hear from that person for a long time, and when you do see them it is as though nothing had ever happened. Then one gets — not without good reason — the feeling that the gift was not about friendship but rather about settling a debt. Those are my experiences with proud and self-righteous Germans. But those are still the more pleasant ones. For then there are also those who, once they notice how generous and hospitable you are, take advantage of you while acting as though they are thereby doing you an honour. The very fact that he greets you on the street is a special distinction! That is why, on the other hand, many Turks have served Germans hand and foot. The Germans, in turn, act as though they can barely endure this behaviour. When a Turk insistently, almost imploringly, offers Turkish honey, the German takes it with reluctance and forces it down. Actually they are not wrong to be irritated by such senseless intrusiveness. Well, if we start criticising a culture, a people, then — if one is objective — one finds flaws and weaknesses in everything; the colour and form may differ. In general the Germans are equally wary whenever someone is friendly and kind to them. I am not very different in that regard and am initially sceptical, since I am sure my counterpart wants something from me. Being aware of this, I try not to let this feeling take hold of me. In the Bible God emphasises that we should not rely too much on our feelings, since they can deceive us. (Jeremiah 17:9) People are constantly trying to speak ill of one another, to condemn one another. That is probably also the easiest thing to do. Say something bad about someone you do not yet know — in all likelihood it will prove true. For that you need no great knowledge of human nature. Yes, of course, people are flawed, sinful, and self-centred, which is why what you say will very likely turn out to be correct. But why does one not also make the effort to see the good sides, in the same way that one automatically directs one's gaze toward the faults? That certainly takes more effort, but effort also brings greater satisfaction. It is easy to destroy something, but to build something — that is difficult. Building a great bridge requires the work of many labourers, engineers, and architects. Much time is needed for the planning, the calculations, and the execution. Tearing a bridge down, on the other hand, is relatively easy. A single person can do it entirely alone. He only needs to know at which point to place how much explosive. The whole act may take only a few hours. The details are not the main point here, but it is a fact that building something requires greater effort than tearing it down; sometimes a single press of a button suffices for that. Being constructive, building others up, is difficult — but beautiful and worthwhile. Being destructive and negative, on the other hand, is easy but ugly. We live in a time when more time and energy is spent tearing down interpersonal relationships than building them up. Friendships are a long-term project, comparable to the construction of a bridge. Friendships that have been worked on for years, perhaps for an entire lifetime, are destroyed in a moment. The willingness to sacrifice, the love, the faithfulness, the many shared experiences, the countless kind words from which the friendship has grown and which bound the two people together like a bridge — all of this is torn down in an instant by a wrong word or a wrong action. It can be repaired again, but that is as difficult and laborious as building a new bridge. Many people shrink from that effort and prefer to take the easier path. Pride, hatred, envy, and jealousy, on the other hand, are the easier path.

The subject of hospitality brings to mind the prophet Abraham. He ran toward strangers he had never seen before and bowed before them with the request: "...if now I have found favor in your eyes, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet. Then rest yourselves under the tree. And let me bring a piece of bread, and refresh your hearts. After that you may continue on, for that is why you have passed by your servant." They said, "Yes, do as you have said." Genesis 18:3-5 This was how Abraham responded to people who were completely unknown to him. Abraham was a very wealthy man. The Bible says that "the land could not bear his riches." He had countless sheep, goats, cattle, and camels. He had a great number of male and female servants. If we compare the wealthy of our time with Abraham, they appear very poor. His wealth did not consist of a bank account or real estate, but of what was considered valuable in his day, and that was first and foremost livestock. Finely ground flour was a great luxury in his time; enormous effort was involved in producing it. Yet today it is almost impossible to find coarsely ground flour. Note the humility and modesty with which he treated his guests:

6 Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Hurry! Take three seahs of fine flour, knead it, and make round cakes." 7 Then Abraham ran to the herd and took a tender and good calf and gave it to the servant, who hastened to prepare it. 8 He also took butter and milk and the calf he had prepared and set it before them. Then he stood by them under the tree while they ate. Can we picture this scene in our imagination? Abraham, the wealthy man who had just been enjoying the shade of a tree to shelter himself from the scorching heat of the sun, is now in a flurry after the men have arrived — running to his wife, giving instructions, running to his servant, issuing orders — all to satisfy his guests. What man today could go to his wife and say, "Quickly, make bread for the strangers who have come"?! If he is lucky and she is a good-natured woman, she might say: "What do you have to do with these people? You don't even know who they are or whether their visit will benefit you." But Sarah, Abraham's wife, was entirely different. She addressed Abraham as her lord, and she did so "in her heart," says the Bible. (Genesis 18:12; 1 Peter 3:5, 6) What an enormous difference there is between people of that time and the ways people behave today — including religious people and especially the women among Jehovah's Witnesses. Abraham also had a large number of servants. If someone today found himself in such a situation, at most he would send his servants to ask why the strangers had come and what they wanted. What a respectful and loving attitude Abraham had toward others. Had he not possessed love, he could not have acted this way, for he was not dependent on his visitors. And his wife Sarah — what can one say about her? Was she old and unattractive? Did she obey Abraham because she depended on him and would not have found another man otherwise? On the contrary. The Bible says that Abraham asked his wife to present herself as his sister so that men would not kill him in order to take her, for she was of extraordinary beauty. Sarah shows understanding for the whole situation. If a man were to say something like that to his wife today! The woman would lose all respect for her husband. She might even become abusive and snap back: "Are you some kind of pervert?" She would not say this out of concern for her honor or worry that her good reputation might be tarnished. On the contrary — women today are masters at provoking men. In modern Europe it has become a fashion. If a couple is sitting somewhere and another man is at the table, she starts being affectionate with her partner — not because she loves him so dearly, since at home they fight like cat and dog, but rather to provoke the other person, to arouse him. Why they do this I do not know, perhaps to always appear desirable.

When Abraham and Sarah were once in Egypt, Sarah's beauty became known throughout the land and was reported to Pharaoh, so that he took her as his wife. When it says in Genesis 12:10-20 "...and Sarah was brought into Pharaoh's house..." or that she "became the wife of Pharaoh," it does not mean that she immediately had relations with him. It was not the way it is today, where if a king took a woman for himself she would spend her first night in the palace with the king that very evening. That this was not the case is clearly shown by the account in Esther chapter 2. Whether people were more patient and self-controlled in those days I cannot judge, but it is certain that the haste and rapid pace of life was not as pronounced as it is today. We must also not forget that Abraham and Sarah had God's special attention, and He would certainly not have allowed such a thing to happen in their case. "If He allows such things today, what reason do we have to assume He did not allow them back then?" someone might object. Certainly He allowed such things back then as well, but firstly He had a special plan for Sarah and Abraham, and secondly these events have been recorded for us in order that we might come to know God better. Even if He had allowed it despite everything, the Bible would have recorded it. For example, it is reported that a daughter of Jacob had sexual relations with a man. Afterward that man and his father came to Jacob and asked for his daughter's hand in marriage. Two of Jacob's sons were so furious that this man had had a premarital relationship with their sister that by means of a ruse they killed not only this man but all the men of that place with the sword. The biblical account says they did it because their sister had been dishonored and had been treated like a prostitute. (Genesis 34:18-31) My point in mentioning this story is to show that it was not the way it is today, where one immediately goes to bed with someone who appeals to them — if not generally, then at least among people who know God. Given these circumstances, we can assume that Sarah was not dishonored, even if the Bible says that she became the wife of Pharaoh. It therefore also makes sense that God intervenes and informs the king of Egypt that Sarah is Abraham's wife. The king reacts with alarm and returns Sarah to her husband, since he had not known, as he himself says. (Please read the account in Genesis 12:10-20.) To show that at the same time there were also people with a different morality, one can read the account of Lot and his family in Sodom and Gomorrah. Compare the hospitality that Abraham showed his guests with what happened to those same men in Sodom! At Abraham's they were treated with courtesy, food and drink were set before them. In Sodom, Lot invited them into his house and the people gathered before his door to rape these men! These men were angels. We can assume that Abraham learned this in the course of their conversation, but when he ran toward them and bowed down before them and invited them into his house, he could not yet have known it. The angels had come to the city to rescue Lot and his family before it would be destroyed. What awaited them there had nothing to do with Abraham's hospitality. Even after the angels struck the people with blindness, they did not give up trying to find the door until they were exhausted. (Genesis 19:11) What zeal!! Had I been among those people, at the very latest upon suddenly being struck blind I would have grown skeptical and would have begun to reflect on what I was doing at that moment. But even this miracle — being suddenly struck with blindness — did not cause them to stop and think. The zeal they showed, however, was not to obtain beautiful women; their interest was in men. In order to have relations with these men, they were prepared, in a manner of speaking, to walk over corpses. This is how low human beings can sink. What does Lot do in this situation, where the lives of his guests are at stake? He goes outside with his two daughters and offers them: "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never had relations with a man. Please let me bring them out to you, and do to them as seems good in your eyes. Only do nothing to these men..." Genesis chapter 19 Who today would do such a thing to protect their guests? No one? Then our situation is bleak indeed. This story shows us that the claim "we are influenced by how others behave" is nothing but a cheap excuse. A person of true worth can maintain their worth at all times and under all circumstances. If we are guided by firm principles, we are not dependent on what others do. If we are not doing something we should be doing, we should not deceive ourselves by reasoning that no one does it. That does not make our behavior any better. God had this account recorded for us as a warning, so that we understand that only the one who lives uprightly and practices righteousness will be saved. — 1 Corinthians 10:11 Lot probably hoped that his course of action would bring the people to their senses. He had lived in their midst for many years and knew them well; he knew they would never do such a thing anyway. His daughters also lived in the city, after all, and if the inhabitants had wanted his daughters, they would have had ample opportunity long before. Simply put, Lot was not offering his daughters to just anyone who came banging aggressively at his door. His neighbors had obviously understood his point, because they became even more furious at him. I mention this story here to show that it is by no means appropriate to downplay Abraham's hospitality with the argument that in those days all people were the same, that hospitality was simply part of their culture. In some regions at that time there was already hostility toward foreigners and crime, in some respects worse than today. The Bible confirms this for us — it was simply not as widespread as it is today.

Behind every good deed, people always look for a hidden bad motive. As I mentioned above, people are immediately suspicious when someone does something good, when someone is friendly, helpful, or hospitable. It is hard to imagine that someone would do such things simply because they are convinced that what they are doing is good and right, or because they love people. Looking at the matter from another angle, one wonders why someone who is not themselves so selfless, who does not love others, reacts so negatively and immediately tries to oppose what is good and perhaps even begins to hate the person doing it. It is like the example I mentioned about cigarette smoking. Those who smoke have a guilty conscience when one of their companions does not smoke, because that person reminds them of their own weaknesses. It is not uncommon for someone to have been taken advantage of after acting selflessly. For this reason, people place no value on love of neighbor — what good is it anyway? The small measure of love he had, he has lost; and so he sees others, the whole world, through those eyes. He thinks no one acts out of love, because he himself has no love. This view is widespread. Of course there are many reasons that have led people to this attitude. As I said, the good-natured, helpful person is often taken advantage of and treated disrespectfully. Therefore many people strive to show no weaknesses, to not become soft. "Let people hate me or dislike me, I don't care — but they respect me and I have my peace." That is how they think, and they even force themselves to be that way.

While I am working on these lines, something has happened to me that I absolutely must include here. My 74-year-old father wanted to visit me from Turkey and spend a few days with me. Can one say to one's own father, "No, don't come"? But it was not so simple, because he had to apply for a visa. When we spoke about it on the telephone, he told me it would be considerably easier and faster if we sent an invitation from Germany. So we contacted the responsible authority to set everything in motion. We were told by phone what we would need for such an application. My list then included the following items: proof of income (at least the last 3 months), the rental agreement (with a precise breakdown of the number of rooms and the size of the living area). So we obtained everything and went to the office. The official studied our documents and then said, "I'm sorry, but this won't work!" He had written several figures one below the other on a notepad and was doing calculations. "Your income is too low," he added. Only my wife is employed — and only part-time at that. But we live well, modestly but well. We need money from no one; we receive no support of any kind from the state either. "So we cannot invite anyone to stay with us?" I asked in disbelief. "No, under these circumstances you cannot," the official confirmed his statement once more. I explained to him that money was not the problem, since my father is wealthier than we are and would not be dependent on us during his stay. "That is irrelevant," replied the official. I turned to my wife and said: "This is freedom! You cannot even invite your own father!" The official said nothing, but one could see that he was irritated. Then he added, by way of excuse, that he could do nothing about it — the laws are what they are. Every official justifies a rejection with that excuse. This is how one is treated, even though one holds German citizenship. My wife was even born and raised in Germany. When we were outside, I said to my wife: "This law applies only to countries for which a visa is required — that is, primarily the poor countries. An American can come to Germany at any time, even if he sleeps under a bridge. An Englishman can enter here at any time without anyone asking him who he will be staying with or whether his host earns enough money to provide for him." In wealthy countries it is not a problem precisely because people there are generally not that hospitable. It is rather the poorer countries where hospitality is still held in high esteem. But those who come from such countries are then confronted with laws like these, so that they cannot even invite visitors. As if it were not enough to be humiliated every day on account of one's origin — on top of that, additional restrictions are imposed through such laws. All right, I could understand it if they asked whether your father has a criminal record, or whether he has ever received any kind of support from the German state. Or if they made clear upfront that he would have no entitlement to any support during his stay in Germany, that I could follow. The state that says you do not earn enough money to invite a visitor nevertheless collects taxes regularly — whether much or little. And this state is governed by a Social Democratic Party. While I was reflecting on this grotesque situation, I said to my wife: "We are talking about Abraham's hospitality and how we can imitate him — and then the German state says, you are not permitted to be hospitable, because you do not earn enough money!" On the other hand, thousands of murderers, thieves, and swindlers come to Germany and file applications for asylum. They live entirely at the state's expense. At first they are crammed together, 10 people in a room, but the state covers all the costs. To this day we have not received a single cent from the state or made use of any kind of assistance — on the contrary, at times we have even foregone support we would have been legally entitled to. But to us they say: you do not earn enough money to have a guest in your home. Personally, I have known so many elderly people who came to Germany and, because they were over 60 years old, received their pension here, even though they had not paid a single cent into the state. They live entirely at the state's expense. And for those who came from the East, they exchanged their money at a 1:1 rate, even though it was hardly worth anything. Us Turks — we are resented when we become self-employed; why don't we go back to our homeland? We are supposedly taking jobs away from Germans.

It makes no difference which situation in the world you look at — everything is wrong and contradictory. None of this has anything to do with logic. But one can understand these people. When we look at our own lives, we find that we are not much different. Sometimes we think, speak, and act exactly as they do. But it is important that we absolutely must become different and that we must distinguish ourselves from them. If we seek God's approval, we cannot be the way the world generally is. If we continue to do so regardless, our salvation is extremely doubtful. That is the difference — that we recognize something and change it: not in others, but in ourselves. Some people get upset about many things and about other people; they want to change the whole world. Which is easier — to change the world, or to change oneself?

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

I enjoyed the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses. I felt comfortable in the clean, tidy, very well-kept hall. What was particularly interesting was the composition of those present: Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Kurds; people who came from the lowest classes — from the German perspective. In addition, there were some Germans who had learned Turkish. All of them had adapted to this order and cleanliness. Although the meetings were held in Turkish, the Turks were in the minority. In the larger gatherings, the congresses, the situation was no different. Of a thousand people present, perhaps a hundred were genuine Turks. When I speak of genuine Turks here, I mean that many of those present did come from Turkey, but most of them had already belonged to a Christian religion beforehand — such as Syriac Orthodox or Armenians — though they too came from other ethnic groups, such as Kurds, former Yugoslavia, Syria. Who can really say who descends from whom or from where? The only thing I know is that we all descend from Adam and Eve. Nationalism is not my concern here; I only want to point out that there are very few Muslims who have become Jehovah's Witnesses. Fundamentally, that too is a matter of indifference to me. Before God we count as human beings, not as members of a nation or a religion. What nationalism means and what effects it produces, we have seen and experienced more than enough in Germany, and it disgusts me. Simply put, I believe that people often call what is good evil, and what is evil good, simply because they feel they must defend their nation, their country, their people, their family, or their religion. Even if at first glance one gets the impression that Jehovah's Witnesses are free of such prejudices, one comes to recognize over time that among the German Witnesses there exists a certain aversion or disdain toward foreigners, even if not to the degree that is generally widespread in Germany. The influence of society surely plays a not insignificant role in this. Of course I can understand it too, for there are many aspects of our own people that in my eyes are also senseless and negative. I do not speak much about it, however, because I see that the Turks are their own greatest enemy and they hate each other the most. They only stick together when they can find no other way out — not out of love. Seen in that light, one would even have to say that actually people all over the world act in similar ways. They stick together when it is in their own interest, when it concerns shared interests they represent or champion, but it has nothing to do with love. A friend's uncle had come from Turkey to visit Germany in order to conduct business. The entire time he talked about nothing but how bad and vile the Turks are, how much they lie to and cheat one another. As he spoke, I thought to myself that he was not much different from those he was speaking so badly of. Everything he recounted about the faults of others, he himself did as well. Since I naturally did not want to hurt him, I simply said: "Who knows, perhaps we make the same mistakes without being aware of it." He understood immediately what I meant and added, quite excitedly: "I know — if the Turks are so vile, then I am the most vile of all of them." On the one hand I could hardly suppress my laughter, because he said it so spontaneously; on the other hand I was astonished at his honesty and openness. In my view, the Turks feel the most hostility from within their own ranks. That is already one reason why no state in the world regards us as dangerous. If the Turkish people were united and all stood together, the hostility they would feel in other countries would be far greater. When the religious Turks in Germany grew stronger and began to organize themselves better, the German state immediately took steps. Any state would have done the same. All minorities face this problem. That was also one reason why the Jews in Germany at the time of Hitler experienced such great hostility — because they held together. Who knows, perhaps it is a kind of protection for us Turks; by fighting among ourselves, we are left more or less in peace abroad. Regardless of what results it brings, hostility and hatred are always something terrible. This brings to mind a story — or rather, a joke. A king has people of various nationalities thrown into a pit as punishment. Among them are a German, an American, a Frenchman, an Englishman, and two Turks. When the time of punishment is over, the king orders the cover of the pit removed and the prisoners released. They can only get out with each other's help, by climbing on a fellow prisoner's shoulders. One by one they all come out, until in the end only an arm appears now and then, then a head, for just a moment, then disappears again, then another head appears, only to vanish again shortly after. In between, shouting and cursing can be heard. The king and all those standing around are baffled by what is going on. Someone then explains that only the two Turks are left, and every time one tries to get out the other pulls him back down, so neither of them can get out. Sometimes the situation among us Turks is actually similar to this joke. In Istanbul I often crossed the Bosphorus by ferry. They were all already quite old, from the 1950s and 60s. One time a ferry was completely restored. The passenger cabin was beautifully furnished — decorated in the style of the nineteenth century. I remember being very impressed. When I took the same ferry the next day, I was shocked: it looked as though it had been through a war, or had fallen into the hands of robbers. The seats had been slashed, the wooden paneling was ruined. I became angry and sad at the sight. This hostility within one's own ranks really does take strange forms sometimes. One day, while I was traveling by train, a friend boarded and came into the compartment where I was sitting. My friend was surprised that we were alone, and to make absolutely sure, he walked through all the compartments in the carriage. When he came back he said with delight: "We really are completely alone — there's no one here but the two of us!" "So what?" I said — before I had even finished speaking, he took a running start and began running across the seats in his shoes! Everywhere he left the prints of his dusty shoe soles on the green leather. When I asked him what he was doing and whether he had lost his mind, he looked at me in complete astonishment and answered: "There's nobody here." What a way of thinking! He was not actually a bad person. But why he took pleasure in such nonsense, I still do not know to this day. We rarely train our conscience, and when we do, it is mostly according to senseless standards. In religion we are either forbidden everything and told it is sin — without anyone making the effort to give a reason — or we are promised a life in paradise with beautiful virgins, or the torments of hell in blazing fire. That is our religious upbringing. In school, in civic education, we are taught the values of our culture and our nation. Watch your posture, stand up straight, stand up when the teacher enters the room, give up your seat to an older person on public transport no matter how tired you are yourself, and so on. Some of these poor children crawl out of their barracks — I would not call them houses — before dawn, while it is still dark, to go to work. Then they perform the hardest labor until sunset, often under the worst conditions, depending on whose hands they fall into. The only opportunity to rest and sit down is a free seat on public transport on the way home. It is not always easy to find one. It is surely not very hard to imagine how one feels when one finally gets to sit down. Then beside him stands an old man with reproachful looks. The young man begins to struggle with himself. Should I pretend not to see him, or perhaps pretend to be asleep? Then finally his conscience troubles him, he stands up and offers his seat. The old man who then sits down is not pleased that a seat was offered to him. No — he considers it his right to sit and the young man's duty to stand up. On the contrary, he gives the young man a look that seems to say: "Why did you hesitate so long, you wretch, and not stand up right away!" And yet, in the end both of them paid the same fare. That is our idea of respect. That is the upbringing we give our children. Yes, the young man stands up and makes room, but with reluctance, perhaps even with resentment. In Europe something like respect for older people barely exists at all. In Europe people only care about small children and small dogs! If it does happen in these countries that a young person stands up and offers an older person their seat, that person feels gratitude and thanks them warmly, because they do not take it for granted. Since in those countries it is not part of the upbringing to do such a thing, the young person who gives up their seat does so on their own initiative and expresses their own feelings. They do not stand up because it is expected of them; they do not do it reluctantly, and that is why it is also more appreciated. Of course in these countries there are also other things that are senseless yet generally accepted or expected by society. Do I mean to say that one should treat older people disrespectfully, or that one should not offer them a seat? Absolutely not. But I cannot recall a single day when I heard an older person who had been offered a seat say: "Thank you, son, stay seated — you've all had a hard day's work and deserve to rest," or "I'm happy to stand, since I no longer work and have plenty of opportunity to sit," or that someone simply thanked the young person warmly for this gesture. If it were so, the younger ones would surely be glad to stand up. There is a saying in Turkish: "Respect belongs to the elders, love to the young." The elders expect the respect — but what about the love toward the young? In general they feel none of it. Without being aware of it, an aversion or even hatred develops over time. What would an old man or old woman lose by showing a little gratitude? Yet there is something particularly interesting in this connection: these young people who hate the way older people treat them will, with time, grow old themselves. Then they do exactly the same as the generation before them. Why do they not do what they themselves so longed for from others in earlier years? Why do they not now avoid that very behavior that once made them so angry? Because nobody else does it? So what — then be the only one who does, if it is something good. No, everyone thinks only of their own comfort. And so the cycle goes on and on, from generation to generation, and nothing changes. And yet one of the most important commandments in the Bible is: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Who abides by it? Who lives by it? In connection with this, the Bible says the following, in Matthew 22:35–40: And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him: 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." This love makes no distinction between old and young, between members of a nationality, between the sexes, race or skin color, or whatever else there is that divides people from one another.

The Witnesses appealed to me. As I said, it was above all their order and cleanliness that impressed me. That was something I was not accustomed to from the people around me. Later I came to know other religious groups that were no less impressive in this regard. At the Witnesses' meetings, biblical topics were discussed. That too was new to me. No one else spoke about the Bible. Most people did not know this book at all and had no desire to get to know it either. As the Bible says, their interest is limited to their shame — their sexual desires — or to their stomach. (Philippians 3:19) That is what they live and fight for. And yet in this we differ hardly at all from animals. Where then is the difference? In our intelligence? But if we use our intelligence only to satisfy these simple, base desires, then the difference ultimately amounts to nothing more than the replacement of instinct by intellect — yet the result is the same. Where then is the superiority of the human being over the animal? On the contrary, compared to the human being, the animal is more virtuous, more disciplined, and more temperate. Animals deal with their environment in a far more responsible way; they are one with nature. The gift that God gave us human beings — the responsibility for the earth, for nature — we have neither appreciated nor engaged with consciously. We have only abused this power that was given to us together with this responsibility. That cannot be said of animals. Or can anyone prove otherwise?

Through our regular attendance at the meetings, various contacts arose and interesting conversations developed. I often took the opportunity to speak about the Quran, because I was convinced that they knew this book better than I did and that I could learn from them. I had already spoken with Gerhard about the Quran two or three times, but he had never read the book — perhaps had never even seen it. Everything outside the Bible was wrong as far as he was concerned. Although I had learned a great deal from him in many areas, I recognized that he could not help me in this regard. But here in the Turkish congregation I was convinced I would find help, since I assumed they must have engaged intensively with the subject. I was never concerned with wanting to be right. I did not conduct fanatical discussions with the premise that "the Quran is right" or "it must be right." I held no such prejudice with regard to the Quran, nor with regard to the Bible. For me what mattered was to read the books without preconceptions. The more I read in the Bible, the more I felt drawn to this book. That feeling is impossible to have if one has not read it — one cannot love something one does not know. Perhaps it was coincidence that I came to know the Bible first and the Quran afterward. One can more easily understand the Quran when one already knows the Bible. The Quran is a confirmation of the books that came before it. God revealed this book through a man who could neither read nor write and who had grown up in Arab culture. The people to whom he preached were simple and had little formal education. The words of the Quran are composed accordingly. Even in earlier times God made use of the manner of expression of the respective prophet. Naturally they received a revelation from God, but in writing it down they used their own way of telling and expressing. (1 Corinthians 14:26–33) For example, we find the same events and stories in the four Gospels, yet each time they are narrated and written down from a different perspective and in different words. That corresponds to the will and purpose of God. In the Quran it is stated on this matter: We have made it easy on your tongue, so that they may take heed. Ad-Dukhan (The Smoke) 44:58. The more I read in the Quran, the clearer it becomes to me that what is written there is not something Mohammed could have made up on his own. No one with the level of knowledge of that time could have written such a thing. And even more interesting is the fact that he died without having written a single word. As I said, he was illiterate. People at that time memorized the Quran. It is said that Arabs have a good memory. In my view, it is not only Arabs who have that — all people do. It is simply a question of how well one develops it. Especially people who cannot read or write often develop their memory extremely well, since they depend on it. I recall that in my childhood in Istanbul I went to a man to exchange money on the black market. I later learned from a friend that he was illiterate but knew more than five hundred telephone numbers by heart. Besides telephone numbers, he had of course also memorized a great many other facts and figures, such as names and addresses. He was very successful with his abilities — for example, he was already driving through the streets of Istanbul in his Mercedes (without a license) at a time when owning a car in Turkey was still a luxury that only a few could afford. He was a successful businessman. Once I saw on television that a man had memorized an entire telephone directory. If you told him a name, he knew the corresponding telephone number. It truly astonished me to see how and for what purposes people apply their abilities. What I want to say with all of this, however, is that what is said about Mohammed and his friends and successors — namely that they knew the entire Quran by heart before a single word of it had been written down — is not so extraordinary as to be unbelievable. In Turkey and in other Muslim countries it is customary for even young children to memorize the Quran. And when one also memorizes something in one's mother tongue, it is surely even easier.

As already mentioned, the narrative style of the Quran is not chronological — that is, it does not recount events in historical order, but rather in fragments, making only brief reference to earlier occurrences. If God wished to communicate truths through his prophet, why would he have something entirely different written and then declare the earlier revelations — the Bible — invalid? Or why would he have exactly the same thing written, word for word, as what is in the Bible? What value would such a book have then? That is why the Quran is written in such a way that it only briefly refers to earlier events. God even encourages his readers in the Quran to open the Bible and read about those events there. "We have sent down to you the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it." — Surah 5:48 "He has sent down to you the Book with the truth, confirming what came before it ..." — Surah 3:3 "And who believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain." — Surah 2:4 "Bring the Torah and recite it, if you should be truthful." — Surah 3:93 "And this Quran is not such as could be produced by other than God. Rather, it is a confirmation of what was before it ..." — Surah 10:37 "Say: 'O People of the Scripture, you are standing on nothing until you uphold the Torah and the Gospel and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.'" — Surah 5:68 I could cite many other verses here, but instead I would like to encourage you to read the entire book — the Quran itself. You will not find in the Quran a single verse, not the slightest hint, against the Bible. The Quran criticizes Christians and Jews, but not the books they claim to believe in. It also speaks against unbelievers and the Arab people of that time. But above all, it is nowhere stated that the Bible has been corrupted — contrary to what Muslims claim. It is not even implied. On the contrary, the Quran repeatedly states that its very purpose is to confirm the Bible. Countless passages refer to narratives in the Bible. The fact that we find in certain verses the call to "bring the Torah and read it," or, as cited above, "...until you uphold the Torah and the Gospel...," makes it clear that the Quran upholds the reliability and credibility of the Bible. God makes the following assurance in the Quran: "Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, it is We who will be its guardian." — (Surah 15:9) Muslims apply this statement only to the Quran, not to the Bible. But in the Psalms we find the following prophetic statement by the prophet and king David: "The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You yourself, O God, will keep them safe." — Psalm 12:6–7 Why should what holds true for the Quran — that God preserves his own word — not also hold true for the Bible?

To the prophet Daniel, who did not understand a revelation, the following was said:

"But as for you, O Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time. Many will roam about, and the true knowledge will become abundant." — Daniel 12:4 Although Jesus lived six hundred years after Daniel, he referred to Daniel's words — yet at no point did he say that the people had corrupted the words, the writings of Daniel, or even the words of Moses, which had been written fifteen hundred years earlier. Jesus was not the kind of person who held back from telling people plainly about their faults and weaknesses. If people had corrupted the old scriptures before his coming, would Jesus have concealed that and said nothing about it? On the contrary, he constantly quoted the old scriptures to show them where they had gone wrong. He never said, "if the old scriptures had not been corrupted, you could read this or that." He always referred to existing writings when he said, "Have you not read...?" Interestingly, as mentioned above, the angel told the prophet Daniel: "...many will search, and the true knowledge will become abundant." If these scriptures had been corrupted, would it make any sense to search through them? If these scriptures contained no truths significant for the end times, why would they need to be sealed? Even though Daniel is here instructed to seal the book until the end of time, it is clear that Daniel himself could not carry this out, since he did not live that long. But God would ensure that this book was preserved and that the understanding of this prophecy would remain hidden until the end times. In the Gospels, Jesus says: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away." — Matthew 24:35. If God's word could so easily be changed and corrupted, what then would be the basis for the assurances that God had his prophets make?

As I said, there are many verses that confirm this view, and I cannot cite them all here. My only intention at this point was to show that the view held by many Muslims — that the Bible has been corrupted but the Quran cannot be corrupted because it is the word of God — is incorrect, and is supported by neither the Quran nor the Bible. Is God reliable and faithful when it comes to the Quran, but not when it comes to the Bible? If he preserves and protects the Quran because it is his word, whose word then is the Bible, since he allegedly did not protect it? Why would God eliminate a book that recounts many hundreds, even thousands of years of humanity's experiences with their Creator, and that also, from an objective standpoint, narrates the development of the human race? Moreover, this book contains an immense wealth of knowledge, life wisdom, and guidance for our lives, as well as countless prophecies pointing to our near future. Concerning the benefit of this book to us, we find among other things the following verse: "Now these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our warning, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." — 1 Corinthians 10:11. If God therefore pursued this intention — that is, if he wanted later generations to learn from the recorded history — why would he allow his earlier words to end up, as it were, on the rubbish heap, for people to change and corrupt at will? If we think of God's word in this way, even though neither God nor his scriptures give any indication of this, then it is our own false thoughts, beliefs, and feelings that belong on the rubbish heap — or rather, that ought to be changed. They are not the product of God's creation or of the facts. If God's word had been corrupted, or as some believe, if no written word of God exists at all, one wonders by what standard God will judge mankind. By what measure will he judge us or acquit us? If we are guilty, will we then be able to say "I did not know"? Would not everyone then come before God with that excuse? Would a righteous God allow such a thing? If even we unjust humans would not allow such a thing, how much less would God. What government makes a law and then hides it? Whether someone reads it or not, whether they act on it or not, is then a separate matter. But regardless of whether he has read it or not, when he stands before the court the excuse "I have not read it and besides it has been corrupted" will not save him. Ignorance is no protection against punishment. Otherwise everyone would use that as an excuse. If we humans place such great value on the laws we make, why should we assume that God places less value on the laws and principles he has given us? Quite apart from all this, God created human beings with a conscience that helps them distinguish between right and wrong. Therefore he can also judge those who are called godless or unbelievers according to their conscience. — Romans 2:14–16

Our faith should not be founded on hearsay, but on what we read in the word of God. If we observe Muslims and for that reason reject the Quran, that is not a wise decision — just as it is unwise to reject the Gospels because of the way Christians live, or to reject the Old Testament because of the example set by the Jews. On the contrary, it is precisely the reverse. If, for example, we observe the way Muslims live and see that they proudly proclaim their belief in the Quran, but then when we read the book we find that they do not live by it at all — that this book even condemns their behavior — that actually strengthens our trust in the book.

Let us think once more briefly about the argument that the Holy Scriptures have been corrupted. Should one not then assume that whoever corrupted them would have manipulated them to support his own ideas, thoughts, and conduct? That would be logical, would it not? For example, we find in the Gospels the commandment to love one's enemies. (Matthew 5:43–48) And yet two world wars were fought mainly among so-called Christian nations. Instead of applying the teaching of Jesus — "if your enemy is hungry, feed him" (Romans 12:20) — they fed their enemies with bombs and bullets. If I were to go into further detail about the various religions and their crimes, this book would probably never be finished; there might not even be enough ink. My point in this context is to show that one should not judge a book by the conduct of those who claim to believe in it. I have included this brief explanation so that the reader can more easily follow the logic and reasoning in the discussions between the Witnesses and me.

At one of the first gatherings I attended with the Jehovah's Witnesses, I got into conversation with a woman. Somehow the topic of Muslims came up. I can still remember saying in reply: "But they — the Jehovah's Witnesses — don't believe in Islam." She then remarked in passing, "In the true meaning of the word, we are also Muslims." She offered me a pamphlet to read in which this term was explained. Muslim means something like "one who is surrendered," in a specific sense "one who is surrendered to God." I read the pamphlet. I understood what she meant. But she also understood what I meant. With this kind of conversational sparring, they only try to sidestep sensitive topics. In my view, they try to avoid certain subjects because they fear that a direct answer will upset the other person, or they are simply afraid of the reaction. One does not want to hurt the other person right at the start of a conversation. But for me there were no such tactics involved, because I simply wanted to know the truth. I had nothing to defend or protect. My conversation partner then said that her husband would like to continue talking with me about this topic. The Witnesses are not as casual in their male-female relationships as one generally expects from Christianity. If someone engages in extramarital sexual relations, they remove that person from their community, no longer speak with him, no longer eat with him, and do not even greet him. They base this step on the text in 1 Corinthians 5:11: "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one." Most people have applied this instruction according to their own discretion. Everyone considers this rule appropriate to some extent, but does not want to be judged by it themselves. Who would want to be betrayed by their partner? Who would not want to be the first with the woman he loves? In quite a few cultures it is customary to expect the bride to remain a virgin until the wedding night. If it turns out she is no longer a virgin, she loses her honor and is publicly branded a whore. But if a man has many sexual relations before marriage, that brings him no shame, even if it becomes known. When God says, "You shall not commit adultery" — that is, illicit sex with another, even if one is not married — did he mean only women? Is it not right to expect from God that his moral laws apply equally to both sexes? If a man does this, is he blameless, yet if a woman does the same thing, is she sinful and loses her honor? I do not wish to emphasize here that women or girls are oppressed, for adultery and fornication are just as common among them as among men. I would even say far more so. While men not infrequently do such things because they cannot or will not control themselves, women do it even though they do not even enjoy it as much. For them it is rather a means to an end, depending on what they wish to achieve by it. In the Western world, culture has developed somewhat differently. As far as I have observed, many mothers raise their children alone. The legislation supports them in doing so. If a married woman becomes pregnant by her husband, that is a form of security for her, especially if he is wealthy. The man then has to pay for years. And yet the man is no tyrant or monster with whom one could not live. Not infrequently the woman has planned this from the very beginning in order to secure her future. If a woman can live in such freedom, why should she live under the obligations of marriage? Interestingly, hardly anyone sees the responsibilities of marriage as an opportunity for greater happiness — far more often as a restriction of freedom. Instead of cooking at home, she would rather go out to work as a waitress or cleaning woman, and then go out to eat with her hard-earned money. In her eyes it is far better to work outside the home than in her own house. The people in her household, in her eyes, are not worth cooking and working for. Besides, housework brings in no money. On top of that, one cannot expect any service from someone who goes out to work — not even a glass of water! She can no longer do anything at home, because after all she goes to work! In this way women have now been made equal to men. But if going out to work and earning money is such a great privilege, why do people hate or look down on men who do not go out to work but instead take care of the household and children? We sometimes have very odd, illogical views and traditions. Behind relationships that should by rights be carried by love, there is usually nothing but self-interest. Because this is so widespread, one barely trusts anyone, even when that person truly loves. One immediately thinks about what advantage the other could be gaining from it. The word love is used frequently in these relationships, but is only very rarely truly present. Ninety percent of men, perhaps even more, are in any case prisoners of their sexual drive. This makes neither the man worse nor the women better. All are morally and ethically far from the divine standard. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the only help in this area comes from the religions. God communicated the following sad fact through the prophet David: "God himself has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see whether anyone has insight, anyone who is seeking after God. They, all of them, have turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." — Psalm 53:2–3; 14:2–3 "Not even one who does good," says God. Is that not sobering? How then can the religions, the religious leaders, say "without us you cannot be saved" — and not even blush as they say it? Since morality has hit rock bottom not only between married partners but all interpersonal relationships are marked by egotism, exploitation, lies, and deceit, God's moral requirements appear outdated, inappropriate, or even impossible. But in this context we must not lose sight of one important fact: no matter how much someone mocks God's moral laws and calls them old-fashioned, everyone still wants them applied to himself. No one wants to be lied to, cheated, or deceived himself. What man or woman would say to their partner: "It is better, darling, if you occasionally sleep with someone else"? I am speaking of normal people. There are also others who even persuade their own daughter to appear in a pornographic film and watch it happen. They call that art! I am not speaking here of such people, who have so thoroughly deadened their conscience that they no longer have the feelings mentioned above.

Just as the sexual drive is something normal, so too is jealousy something normal. When some men insist that their wives cover themselves entirely and even veil their faces, they do so first and foremost out of jealousy, not out of fear of God. God's prescriptions in this area suit them very well — that is all. He does not do it for God, only for himself, because he is jealous and has no trust. He cannot bear to be betrayed, but pretends to love God and his laws very deeply. They often forget, however, that the God who wants women to cover themselves and is against provocative dress is also against lying, deceit, theft, quarreling, violence, and many other things besides — things they also ignore entirely. Cursing and foul language are part of their daily life, just as they regard members of other religions as enemies — as, fundamentally, all religions do, including the Witnesses. But I must admit that, compared to the primitive, fanatical followers of Islam, the Witnesses appear more cultivated and even outwardly like angels. On the one hand, Muslims may go to great lengths to ensure their wives are veiled and remain faithful, yet when they themselves have the opportunity to deceive their wife, they do not hesitate for a second. Does his wife not think and act the same way? Perhaps — but he knows nothing about it. In Europe during the Middle Ages, it is said to have been customary in certain circles to put a chastity belt on a woman when the man was away from home for an extended period. Even if there is no clear evidence for such a practice, and it is rather questionable whether this was really carried out by everyone, the point here is really the thought that much is done not out of love, but with personal advantage in the foreground. No one loves the other and no one trusts the other. The sexual drive and the pleasures associated with it are not a human invention — they are a gift from God. Like so much else, the joy depends on the right use of them. Used in connection with moral norms, with mutual trust and love, the sexual drive contributes to our happiness. I am speaking here of genuine happiness, of inner contentment, not of short-lived pleasure. On the contrary, this brief pleasure very often leaves negative, lasting marks. And those are precisely the kinds of pleasures against which God warns us and which he condemns. In this area I myself have made many mistakes. It is no excuse that I did so in ignorance. One should stand by one's mistakes and not give the appearance of purity and innocence.

Even though the principle of Jehovah's Witnesses taking action against immorality within their own ranks sounds admirable, it was all the more shocking for me to hear that they had disfellowshipped some members for failing to observe the prescribed rules governing how sexual intercourse between a married man and woman should be conducted. In the early 1970s, this led to grotesque situations in some Witness congregations. For example, one married couple was expelled because an elder of the congregation (an elder is someone who holds a leadership position in the Witness community) had seen depictions of sexual acts in the couple's bedroom and subsequently confronted them as to whether they engaged in intercourse in the ways depicted. After the two confirmed that they did, they were disfellowshipped — that is, they were no longer regarded as members of the community. On the other hand, these regulations on permissible sexual intercourse led to situations in which a woman was not allowed to divorce her husband because he was having sexual relations with another man — but specifically anal relations, which did not fall into the category of "sexual intercourse." (This can be read about in the books by R. Franz, "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom.") This view was later changed by the governing body of the Witnesses, after more and more inquiries and complaints came in over a period of four to five years. But those who had been disfellowshipped remained disfellowshipped; they were not simply reinstated just because the view had changed. The act of disfellowshipping is carried out with the attitude: "Whoever does not obey us and is expelled from us cannot be saved." The conscience of the Witnesses is trained to regard expulsion from the community as equivalent to a death sentence; God will give such people no possibility of resurrection — unless they request reinstatement. The conscience that has been shaped in them over years makes it difficult for them to find their footing in normal life after leaving the community. They feel insecure, weak, and abandoned. A considerable number of those who left the community, or were expelled, return for this very reason. The others, who do not come back, torment themselves in life and make many mistakes. All of this pleases the leadership of the Witnesses; they feel vindicated. "You see what kind of people they are — that's why we threw them out; now their true face is revealed." Fault always lies with "those down below," the "little ones." The Witnesses openly oppose military service and the military, yet they have built their own organization along military lines and are even proud of it. Jesus said, "You are all brothers," but among the Witnesses it is made very clear who has the right to speak and who does not. Only those at the bottom make mistakes; those in leadership never make mistakes, because they are "guided by God." In the twenty years I moved in and out of the Witness community, I never read or heard that those at the top apologized for anything. When an expectation was not fulfilled, the blame lay with those at the bottom for having harbored such expectations in the first place. But no one asks who awakened those expectations. As if ordinary members could invent or dream up such things themselves! It is not the one who puts a teaching into circulation and compels followers to believe it (compulsion produced by psychological pressure is still compulsion) who is at fault, but strangely enough it is the one who believes it and then leaves the community out of disillusionment — they are the ones who deserve eternal death! It is like the example mentioned earlier involving a man and a woman. If the man sins — that is, commits fornication — it is not considered a fault, but the woman who commits the same sin is put in the pillory. Although such problems for women in Europe or America may not apply in the same way, the underlying logic is the same. For a time the Witnesses were against organ transplantation. (Those who doubt this can look it up in Awake!, issues of 1972 and 1973. It should again be noted that the position of the Christian Witnesses of Jehovah — that such transplants are nothing other than a form of cannibalism — proved to be a protection. Why? Because it spared them the despair, grief, and anxiety suffered not only by patients and their relatives but in some cases also by hospital staff. — g72 22.10; g70 22.01. A Christian who is guided by biblical principles will not permit the corpse of a deceased relative or his own body after death to be mutilated or abused, out of respect for the body that was created by Jehovah God. — g73 22.8.) It is incredible but true: religion meddles in every area of life. They prescribe whether you are permitted to donate or receive an organ! One can easily imagine how many people their loyalty to the organization has cost their lives. If I am not mistaken, they declared the matter a matter of personal conscience in the early 1980s. How devious and underhanded. They never said: we made a mistake. If they said that, someone might get the idea that they had also made mistakes in other statements! Of course they make general statements such as, "We are all imperfect and make mistakes." But their conduct does not show that they truly think this way. By saying "it is a matter of conscience," they show that they are not willing to take responsibility for the deaths of those who lost their lives because they followed the instructions of the Governing Body. They are in effect saying: "Our decision at the time was correct, and whoever lost their life as a result lost it out of loyalty to God." In this way they take no responsibility for their past mistakes, and they even appear very generous and tolerant by declaring it a matter of conscience. They need not apologize for anything. What a clever way of thinking — not a divine one, but a diabolical one. It would not surprise me if they soon do the same with regard to blood transfusions. The world is full of fanatics who in essence say: "You can do what you want; we support you." For this reason the Witnesses should not confuse their zeal for their organization with true faith and believe they are the only ones. It is not only the Witnesses who have such dangerous, unconditional, and mindless obedience. History has seen enough madmen, political and religious, and people have unfortunately always been glad to go along.

That is why so many of those who have been expelled wander about like lost, helpless, abandoned sheep and fall into many traps. The Witnesses themselves admit that unfulfilled false expectations harbored by some led to an attrition within their organization. Yet they often forget who awakened those expectations. Jesus put it aptly: Then he said to his disciples: "It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should arise. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they arise! It would be more advantageous for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to stumble one of these little ones." — Luke 17:1, 2. When I first came to know the Witnesses, I had not truly grasped the gravity of these words. I still thought: if the worst thing that can happen with the Witnesses is being expelled, they must be very worthy people. I had only known fanatical religious people who brutally torment and kill apostates from their ranks. By comparison, the Witnesses seemed genuinely nice and polite. The worst they could do to you was throw you out! But I had enormously underestimated the effect of psychological pressure — something I would later experience in my own flesh. It is like taking a medication without reading the package insert that describes the possible side effects, and then those very side effects occur in your own case. Who can predict in advance who will experience them and who will not? As long as you do not feel the side effects, you consider the medication harmless, safe — even healthy. Over time it became clear to me that these "side effects" were not experienced only by me but by more or less all people. All religions attempt to manipulate and shape people. I used the comparison of a medication here, but in truth I should have said poison, because in essence that is precisely what religions give to people. As in many other instances in this book, the Witnesses here are meant to serve only as an example. The Witnesses consistently make an effort, with every "newcomer," to destroy and alienate his relationships with outsiders. One cannot say that their line of reasoning is completely wrong. When I think, for example, of the people I used to associate with, their interests revolved almost exclusively around entertainment and new acquisitions. Honestly, I was no different myself. They do not give you much; on the contrary, the little bit of good that one does have, they take away. The problem of genuine, true friendship seems to be a worldwide problem. Almost everyone complains about having no real friends. I think that no matter whom one speaks with, most people will agree on this topic. But among the Witnesses the situation is somewhat different, because they fundamentally regard every non-Witness as bad company — untrustworthy, dangerous, and wicked. They live by the motto: the good ones come to us. If someone does not come to the Witnesses, then God will ultimately destroy them anyway — so they believe and so they teach. They want everyone to devote their love, faith, obedience, willingness to sacrifice, self-control, money, time, and so on — in short, everything good we can think of and everything we love — to the service of their organization. They determine how these qualities, abilities, and resources can best be utilized. If a Jehovah's Witness reads these lines, he will say that all of this is nonsense and has nothing to do with reality. Yet he will have to admit, if he views the matter objectively — which for a Witness is nearly impossible — that the Governing Body of the organization leaves practically no topic unaddressed in prescribing to its members what is best for them. In doing so, they do not even shrink from making, as already mentioned, regulations that reach from prescriptions about the sex lives of married couples to the innermost organs of the body. The Witness may perhaps object that he does all of this for God and not for the organization. Then one should ask him who determines how God can best be served, and he will have to admit: "the faithful and discreet slave" (by which they mean their Governing Body). If he says anything else, then he is lying, or he is not a Jehovah's Witness. It is, after all, a prerequisite for becoming a baptized Jehovah's Witness. One of the baptismal questions is: "Do you recognize that God is directing his organization through his holy spirit?" For them this is the only way to serve God in a manner acceptable to Him. Believing this is an absolute requirement; someone who does not accept it cannot be baptized! Yet the Bible says something entirely different about the meaning of baptism: it is a request made to God for a good conscience; baptism symbolizes that a person acknowledges his sinful condition before God and is prepared henceforth to lead a life of dedication to God. (Romans 6:4; Ephesians 2:12; 2 Peter 3:21.) Can one imagine such brazenness? Someone wants to enter into a good relationship with God, and then others place themselves in between and say, "You can only do this through us"; and then they even extract a promise from him from which he can later free himself only with great difficulty! Stated bluntly, what they demand of the baptismal candidate is to make the following promise: "I repent of my sinful life, I believe in God and will keep His commandments, and at the same time I will also serve Satan the Devil"!! That is exactly what happens, because when a third party places itself between God and a human being — whether it be an individual, an organization, a religion, or any other community, even if that third party were an angel — it has the same meaning. Paul offers the following explanation: I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from the one who called you by Christ's undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. 7 But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again: Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed. Am I now trying to persuade men, or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ's slave. — Galatians 1:6–10. Paul and all the other servants of God always tried to please God and not men. The above words prove it. They neither tolerated a third party placing itself between themselves and God, nor did they seek to present themselves as mediators between God and men. God has granted only Jesus Christ the right to assume the mediating role. Even he does not abuse his position by forcing salvation upon people who have not earned it or who do not wish to be saved. Otherwise he would be denying himself. (2 Timothy 2:12, 13; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 2 Corinthians 11:1–21; Galatians 5:1.) Jehovah's Witnesses have not without reason changed the baptismal questions multiple times, because in the end one finds in the Bible no — absolutely not a single — indication of such a promise in connection with baptism.

It is the same with those kinds of salespeople where you can assume from the outset that there is some catch, no matter what they are selling. You want to take a short vacation, for instance. There are many extremely low-priced offers. But they conceal the fact that this offer includes an excursion for which you must pay extra. This is what happened to us: three of us had booked a trip to Turkey for around five hundred euros. We only found out later that this trip included a day excursion for which you had to pay an additional ninety euros per person. If you chose not to join the excursion, you still had to pay eighty-nine euros! No matter what you did, there were always additional costs that had been concealed at the time of signing the contract. We were fortunate to be dealing with a friendly Egyptian salesman who accepted our withdrawal from the contract. It is similar with religions. With the Witnesses, it initially seems to be about nothing more than service to God, but once you are in, they make it clear that acknowledging them and their organization is a condition. "You can only come to God through us," they say more or less plainly. They then expect you to carry their burden as well. Of course one would be willing to carry even that burden if the path truly led to God — but unfortunately that is not the case. This problem is by no means limited to our modern age; it has existed since the beginning of humanity. Everywhere, in every culture, there have been spiritual and religious leaders — even in the simplest of cultures — who exploited the religious feelings of their society for their own benefit. In some cultures he was called a sorcerer, a priest, or a shepherd. The name and the label change, but the role is always the same. Among the Witnesses it is no different. There they are called elder, ministerial servant, circuit overseer, "faithful and discreet slave" (Matthew 24:45–51), or Governing Body. They also speak frequently of "the organization." In essence all religions are organized, but each one gives itself a label that distinguishes it in some special way. A baker will not call himself a butcher, even if he is not a very good baker. Jesus extended the following heartwarming invitation, especially to the victims of blood-sucking religions: "Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and you will find refreshment for your souls. 30 For my yoke is kindly and my load is light." — Matthew 11:28–30. The Witnesses apply this passage to themselves without shame. They try to convince people that this invitation applies to them, that the burden they place on people is light. Do not think for a moment that they force people or exert pressure through violence. They do it cleverly, like the salespeople mentioned above who offer a trip. You don't have to — but essentially you do have to. Outright violence or threats of violence are in any case not permitted by the laws of most countries. There is also the fact that religions are perpetually at war with one another and are always at pains to find fault in the competition. A proverb says: two acrobats cannot balance on the same tightrope. The Witnesses frequently point out in their publications how they are oppressed by the major churches. But I am quite certain that if the Witnesses had the kind of power and influence those churches have, they would not allow dissidents to breathe at all. The reason they appear so tolerant, friendly, and peace-loving to the outside world is simply that they do not have very much power. It has absolutely nothing to do with love for God or for fellow human beings. The best proof is the way they treat the people over whom they do have power. They exercise their power without listening, without consideration or compassion. If the only thing they are able to do is disfellowship you — cut off your connection to your relatives and friends — then that is exactly what they will do. These are the visible, tangible interventions. And then there is the insidious, less obvious form of influence made possible through spiritual indoctrination. It is about dependency. They want to make you slaves — not slaves of God, but slaves of theirs. The love among them, the willingness to help one another, is more a result of mutual dependency, of the fear of being left alone, and of the awareness that they are a minority. Their love more closely resembles the hospitality mentioned earlier in our culture; it is hypocritical, not coming from the heart. It is not truly love. "A new commandment I give you, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are my disciples — if you have love among yourselves," says Jesus in John 13:34, 35. Once you look past the first impression, you quickly see through the supposed love among the Witnesses. The fact that they keep such a close eye on one another stems more from fear than from love. They spend a large portion of their time within their relatively small community. Since they are more or less all dependent on one another, everyone is careful not to fall out with anyone. It was similar to the way things were in East Germany — at least, from what I have heard. People there were very hospitable and helpful. It was more or less the circumstances that brought them to be that way, not genuine love. They were more dependent on the help of neighbors, and therefore more willing to help in return. The person who was best positioned to help others was also seen as a good person. That was their standard. What kind of character someone has, what attitude, what ideology he holds, what he loves or hates — all of these things were irrelevant; what counted was only that he helped. And if things then went badly for him, naturally others would help him. Their judgment of good and evil was measured by this standard. That is the lot of poorer countries; they have arranged their lives in this manner out of necessity. In Turkey it is similar. People there are willing to help complete strangers. But it is not love for the person standing before them — love for humanity — that moves them. It is the thought: "Maybe things will go badly for me one day too, and I will need the help of others" — even if they may not be consciously aware of this. The East Germans complain that West Germans are different — not as helpful, cold, and distant. "You can't knock on someone's door at night and ask for help there." Maybe the car has broken down or something like that. Then they are annoyed and told, "Call the ADAC or go to a garage." For everything there is a support service — the ADAC, auto repair shops, the social welfare office, and so on. In the West, people are accustomed to receiving all help from the state or appropriate institutions; neighborhood assistance exists only in villages and small communities. Helpfulness became so developed in the East because people depended on it. In the West, people see no need for it. Incidentally, the help was naturally expected to be free of charge. There are many people who do not want to pay for the help they receive. That is how the friendliness and helpfulness of the Witnesses also function. "What is wrong with helping, regardless of the motive?" someone might object. Of course I am of the view that it is good and right to help, regardless of whether one does so willingly or not; it is also a commandment of God. I only want to point out the hypocrisy here. Not everyone who smiles at me does so out of love; not everyone who helps does so because he loves. I want to go even further and say that not even everyone who sacrifices his life for others necessarily does so out of love. Perhaps you are now thinking: "What is the point of that? That is nonsense, because after all there is hardly a better proof of love than giving one's life for someone one loves." I used to think the same way, but through a few verses from the Word of God I would like to briefly show what I mean. In 1 Corinthians 13:1–3 we read the following: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding piece of brass or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. I thought long and hard about these verses. How can someone give everything he has to the poor and not have love? How can someone give up his body and not do so out of love? This person may have a very strong faith — the kind capable of moving mountains. This person may be a prophet of God, but whether or not he loves is entirely up to him. Consider, for example, the life of the prophet Jonah. We find a book of the Bible that bears his name, in which we find a brief but very illuminating account from a short period of his life.

God had decided to destroy a city because of its sins. He commissions Jonah to go to the city and inform its inhabitants. But Jonah does not go to the city; on the contrary, he boards a ship and travels in exactly the opposite direction — he takes flight. During the journey the ship is caught in a great storm, so that the travelers fear for their lives. They ponder why this is happening to them, who might be to blame. That is, they had years of experience to understand that this was no natural phenomenon. They also ask Jonah, and he tells them his story and the reason he is on the ship. He then tells them to throw him overboard, and the storm will cease. This frightens them all the more. But finally the waves grow so large and powerful that they see no other way out and throw Jonah into the sea. Instantly the storm calms and the waves become smooth. God then sends a great fish, which swallows Jonah. Jonah remains three days in the belly of the fish, from where he prays to God and pleads with him. The fish then spits Jonah out onto dry land. God gives Jonah the same commission once again. Jonah then goes into the city and proclaims: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." (Jonah 3:4) He then sits down on a hill outside the city and waits for God to destroy it. But when the people and the king of the city of Nineveh hear Jonah's words, they repent. They begin to pray and to ask God for forgiveness. The king proclaims a fast for the whole city; neither man nor beast shall take food. The inhabitants are to pray to God and plead with him, and to turn from their evil way. "Perhaps God will relent and have mercy on us and spare us," they say. Indeed, God hears their prayers and their pleading, acknowledges their sincere repentance, and spares the city. (Jonah 3:6–9) What happens next has to do with our actual subject — love. Jonah is furious with God because he sees that God does nothing, that he spares the inhabitants. He is so angry that he even wishes for death. He begins to speak ill of God. I quote Jonah's words here verbatim: "Ah, now, O Jehovah, was not this my concern while I was on my own ground? That is why I went ahead and fled to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in loving-kindness, and one who feels regret over the calamity. 3 And now, O Jehovah, please take my soul from me, for it is better for me to die than to live." — Jonah 4:2, 3 Does something strike us here? Jonah is very angry; he is furious at the way God has acted and he is bitter toward him. This is best seen when one reads the whole story in context. Jonah lists here the things he holds against God. I have underlined these words. Are these things really bad in Jonah's eyes? In his anger Jonah lists such things as mercy, willingness to forgive, loving-kindness. When one is angry with someone, one accuses that person of the worst things that come to mind. Yes, in this context Jonah actually regards these qualities as something bad. He reproaches God: "Why do you forgive them? First you announce that you will destroy them, and then you don't do it." And he is so angry about it that he would rather die. He speaks here of God's love as though he hates it. Jonah looks at the inhabitants of Nineveh only from his own point of view, without love. That the people are not destroyed he sees as nothing but a waste of time, because he made the long journey and the effort for nothing. Jonah, for whom there are only clear rules and laws, shows no understanding for the love of God — a love that goes so far as to spare these people, even though they may have deserved death. In contrast, he is deeply grieved over the sudden demise of a bottle-gourd plant (some translations say a castor-oil plant), even though he had not labored over it at all. He is not sad about it because he loves it so dearly; rather because it had given him shade. (Jonah 4:10) That Jonah is someone who lives by rules and laws and by strict justice is evident in his behavior on the ship. He does not think of himself but of justice and truth when he says: "Throw me into the sea and you will be spared." And yet he had no love. God taught him important lessons through these events; otherwise Jonah would surely not have written this down. God explains the superiority of his love over Jonah's cold justice with these words: "You yourself felt sorry for the bottle-gourd plant, something for which you did not toil and which you did not make grow, which came up in a night and perished in a night. 11 Ought I not to feel sorry for Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than one hundred and twenty thousand human beings who do not even know the difference between their right hand and their left, besides many animals?" — Jonah 4:10, 11 It is also clear that being chosen as a prophet has nothing to do with whether the chosen one has love or not. But how can someone give up his life for others without love, as we read in a Bible verse above? For whom would such a thing come easily? The fact that something is very difficult does not in itself mean that it has anything to do with love. But why would someone make such a sacrifice — and without love at that? What other motivations might drive him? A person may do it for his own honor. He sees himself as a hero, or the conviction that a certain cause is right may leave him no other option. It may also be that he has been brainwashed, manipulated by others. History is full of heroes who sacrificed their lives for other people or for an ideology. In this connection a story comes to mind that is told among Muslims. It does not appear in the Quran, but I like it so much that I would like to tell it here.

In the time of Muhammad, the Muslims were defending themselves against their enemies. During the battle, the courage and dedication of one Muslim warrior stood out. He threw himself into the midst of the enemy with sword in hand, as though he wanted to challenge death itself. This was an inspiration for many to follow his example. The Quran encourages all Muslims to defend themselves, to fight for their faith and to be courageous. Those who are afraid and do not take part in the battle are not mentioned positively in the Quran. Be that as it may, the Muslims win the battle and celebrate. Some turn to this particularly brave and fearless warrior and praise his courage, faith, and valor. "What would we do without fighters like you," they say. To this he replies: "I only know one thing: Do you see that date plantation over there? That is mine — but if we had lost the war, I would have lost that property too." Everyone looked at him speechless. Whether this story is true or freely invented I do not know. But it shows that what matters is not so much what one does, but far more why one does it. It is about motives — the drive behind our actions. In this story the man was not concerned with the faith, with the defense of Islam; he was only concerned with his property, which he did not want to lose. For someone else it might be about other things.

After I had spent some time with the Witnesses — that is, attending their meetings regularly — Bernd asked me whether I would help him with wallpapering. Of course I agreed and went over. I was about twenty-four years old at the time. While we worked I asked Bernd a question: "Bernd, do you like me?" When I think back to that time today, I realize that I had already sensed back then that something was not right. What these people were doing appeared very valuable to me. Love that truly comes from the heart makes itself known in different ways and is sometimes hard to recognize, especially when the person knows the Bible. That is why I asked the question directly. The fact that I asked it at all shows that I apparently had doubts. Bernd answered directly and without evasion: "I cannot love you, because you are not my brother in the faith." I had not expected such an honest, open answer. He said what was in his heart. That is how he was raised. On the other hand, I consider it merely an excuse, because real love is very hard to restrain — sometimes it is even impossible. Such a question cannot be asked of just anyone. A classmate once told me: "Everyone is afraid of questions like that, where you ask others for their opinion about yourself, so it takes courage to ask them." But I was so glad about my friendship with Bernd and our time together that the question seemed perfectly normal to me. We had known each other for about six months and got along well, even though there were repeated differences of opinion — for example our views on the Quran. But our discussions were always conducted with decency and mutual respect. I liked them very much. At our very first meeting I gave them a suit of mine that I had never worn, expecting nothing in return. I wanted to share everything with them. It is said of people who live around the Mediterranean that they warm up to someone quickly but fall out just as quickly in a quarrel. I always tried not to be like that. I did not want to be the kind of person who takes someone into his heart right away because of a feeling, only to hate that person just as quickly because of another feeling. Our time together was always characterized by mutual respect and a healthy distance. Had they not come to preach to me in order to save me? Was that possible without love? Apparently it is indeed possible. Their going from house to house, the many hours they spent in that service, their zeal, their efforts — all of this surely had many reasons, but certainly not love for people. But my love for Bernd was not dependent on whether he loved me. Children in the street sometimes ask each other: "Do you like me?" If the answer is "no," the child who asked says: "I don't like you either." If the answer had been "yes," it would have said: "I like you too." Whatever the other person says, you give the same answer back. But real love does not depend on reciprocation. Love knows no conditions. In the First Letter of John we find this statement: "This is love, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins. 11 Beloved ones, if God so loved us, then we are ourselves obligated to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God. If we continue loving one another, God remains in us and his love is made perfect in us." — 1 John 4:10–12 By the expression "to love one another," the Witnesses understand this to apply only among themselves. In principle most of them think as Bernd expressed it to me. Did Jesus Christ think the same way? Shortly before he died, he said to God about those who hated him: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." — Luke 23:34 Now and then I also felt moved to say these words to God regarding the Witnesses, for I was certain that they were often truly unaware of what they were doing. I do not claim to be a loving person, but I do not understand it when someone hates without cause. If someone loves me, genuinely likes me, but I do not enjoy being with that person, then I prefer to avoid that person rather than hurt them. Why should my weakness destroy that person's love? Many years later, when I spoke with Bernd about this incident, he said in disbelief: "I'm supposed to have said that?"

Bernd is, as I said, someone who is very calm and pleasant. He is very popular and many people feel comfortable in his presence. He is not someone who provokes or backs his counterpart into a corner. Whenever I talked to someone about him, I heard only good things — everyone praised him. Everyone loved him, but did Bernd love everyone — or anyone? In my view, it is to this day his greatest problem. Perhaps love is not only the greatest but also the most difficult commandment God has given; not only the most difficult for Bernd, but also for me, for all of us, for everyone. The chief cause of our problems also lies in the fact that we do not love and do not want to love. Some people, including Bernd, never love, cannot love, no matter how much they are loved and how much good is done to them. That upbringing, culture, or similar factors are to blame is, in my view, no satisfying explanation. The Bible speaks of the love and close friendship between David and Jonathan. Although there was a great difference in age between them and Jonathan's father Saul was an enemy of David, a strong love bound them together. (1 Samuel 18:1–4; 19:1–7; 20:17, 41, 42; 2 Samuel 1:11, 12) Love does not look for excuses — but hatred does.

I have come to know people who do not believe in God. They are very active in social work and exert themselves to help others. They fight against hunger in Africa, are active in aid organizations, donate money to various social institutions, and so on. But they say they do not believe in God. In their opinion, everything ends at death. They do not do it because they are obeying a commandment of God or anything of that kind. Yet with all of these people I have also noticed that they still have no love for the people they help. Their concern is only to be seen by others as good people, or to soothe their own conscience. At the high school in Turkey, for example, I came to know female teachers who were very wealthy. But from their salary they probably could not even have afforded their own makeup. And yet they went to work. I did not have the feeling, however, that they did it because they loved the students so much or because they loved their profession. That they generally enjoyed working I also consider very unlikely. But one can assume that they hated sitting at home alone and being bored. The feeling of being useless was unbearable to them. Therefore one cannot say that all people who are socially engaged do so out of love for those in need. Moreover, being praised and admired is not unpleasant either. Even when one sees pictures in the newspaper or on television of someone presenting a check to a social institution or a foundation, one does not have the feeling that the person is acting purely out of love. But it does not mean straightaway that they hate people either. The fact that someone feels no love does not automatically mean that the opposite is the case. If someone has felt love in what they do, they must still be on guard, for one can lose this precious feeling quickly again. Unfortunately, today much work in the social sphere is also organized and runs according to prescribed rules and guidelines, so that over time one ends up feeling little different from an assembly-line worker performing the same monotonous task day after day. Whatever love was once present is lost, buried under routine and monotony. It is usually the case that someone who continually performs the same task in the same sequence gradually loses their sensitivity — their feelings become dulled. Especially when someone has made great sacrifices for it, it becomes a burden over time and grows unbearable.

Something similar to what was described above happened to Moses. Estimates indicate that the people of Israel whom he led numbered at least three to six million at that time. The Bible gives the number of men fit for military service, for an exact census was taken of them. That number came to six hundred thousand. If one adds women and children as well as older men, the figure of six million is certainly not an exaggeration. Moses was the one entrusted with leading the people. For a long time he was the sole point of contact for their quarrels, their dissatisfaction, their wishes and concerns. How did he cope with all of this? After some time he said the following to God:

"I am not able to carry all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me. 15 If this is how you are going to deal with me, please kill me right away — kill me if I have found favor in your eyes — and let me not see my misfortune." — Numbers 11:14, 15 Moses was aware of a great danger: he might lose his love for the people. Moses did not have the character of someone who rules or oppresses others. On the contrary, he regarded himself as a servant of the people. It pained him when the Israelites had to go through difficult times, even when it was their own fault. When they provoke God so severely that he wants to destroy the people, Moses steps in and intercedes, pleading for the people — and God listens to him. Of course God knew his character and knew how Moses would act, but so that we too might become acquainted with his character, God had these events recorded. One should not draw the conclusion from this that God allows people to dictate to him or consult him for advice. For Moses, the guidance and leadership of the people became a great burden that he could no longer bear. Had he wanted to, he could have made life easier for himself and loaded more onto the people instead. From the entire account of Moses we can see that he did not have the character to do such a thing. He would sooner have accepted death for himself than do something like that. What that man accomplished! He cared for every single person — and in those days there was no telephone, no mobile phone, no fax, no car, no computer. Day after day he labored over the problems of the people and the problems of individuals. Who knows how many hours he spent each day listening to the worries and troubles of individuals, how often he had to settle disputes and make decisions as a judge — day after day, week after week, month after month, for forty years. The attitude this man demonstrated is in no way comparable to the attitude of those in charge of the wealthy religions today, who have every technical achievement at their disposal and are able to reach any spot on earth within a few hours. They have no interest in listening to problems, let alone in dealing with them daily. They lead comfortable lives in their high-rise offices, far removed from the worries and troubles of the "lower" people, the common folk. Many of the concerns that plagued the Israelites who came to Moses may appear insignificant or unimportant to us, but Moses took the time for them. For example, a family came to him that had no male heir and wanted to know how the inheritance should then be divided. He did not know the answer, but he asked God for guidance. God gives him an answer that henceforth serves as law. Neither God nor Moses is upset that they had sought help over such a question. On the contrary, he tried to understand each person in their need. This spirit of self-sacrifice seems impossible to us today, unachievable. Those who have elevated themselves to prophets of God and believe that "without us no one can be saved" naturally do not want to hear these words. They are welcome to look up the passages in the Bible that confirm what is written here. (Exodus 18:13–25; 32:30–33)

We see Moses' attitude, his love for his people, and his genuine concern for them even more clearly in the episode where God wanted to destroy the people. The Bible reports: And Jehovah spoke further to Moses: "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 14 So now let me alone, that my anger may burn against them and that I may exterminate them, and let me make you into a great nation." — Deuteronomy 9:13,14 What a great honor God bestows upon Moses here! How would we have responded? Even the noblest-minded people we know would probably have answered, in Moses' place: "You know what is best; may your will be done." But what did Moses do? He climbed a mountain and fasted forty days and forty nights, pleading with God in tears and supplication. Later he recounted this to the people with the following words: And then I threw myself down before Jehovah as at the first, forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water because of all your sin that you had committed in doing what was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, so that you provoked him. 19 For I was afraid because of the burning anger that Jehovah had felt toward you, to the point of destroying you. But Jehovah listened to me that time also. — Deuteronomy 9:18-19

That is what true love means. Of this man we can say with conviction: he did it out of love. His deeds were not in vain. He did not show his love by burning himself alive, but through active, positive works. Someone who literally sets himself on fire benefits neither himself nor others. As we read in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, it is of no benefit if someone sacrifices himself but has no love. Nowadays it has almost become fashionable to set oneself on fire. Who truly benefits from such a display? If we reflect seriously on these verses and on what they mean for us, it will deepen our gratitude and appreciation toward God and increase our joy. Whatever we do, our relationship with God should never be superficial. Whatever our motives may be — self-promotion, fear of people, peer pressure, selfishness, or anything else — if we do not act out of love, it will be of no use to us. The things people do just to look good: the Witnesses who carry out their door-to-door service in order to report the hours; the Muslim who collects money for the mosque in the hope that something will come back to him — there are motives enough. But none of it has anything to do with love. I do not want to talk about individuals here; I only want to show what fruits the religions produce, what contribution they make to humanity.

In the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses — the highest body of the Watchtower organization — I have not seen one millionth of the qualities of a Moses. I do not mean toward me personally, but toward their own members. And yet in their eyes Moses is a rather insignificant, unimportant person. The only one who, in their view, is truly significant and worthy of imitation is Jesus. Very well, let us say they are right. Jesus was, after all, perfect, without fault. If we think only of what we have read about Moses and what kind of personality and disposition he had, then what must Jesus have been like? Let us then compare that with the Witnesses who claim to be followers of Jesus and who say of themselves, "we are the channel chosen by God; whoever wants to be saved must come to us"!!

In their magazine Awake! life stories of Witnesses are regularly published. Some recount how they survived under very difficult circumstances and adverse conditions, how they preserved their faithfulness and integrity. From these accounts I recognize the zeal of the person telling the story, but never once have I read that anyone helped them — certainly no one from the Governing Body. They are not the ones who help; they set rules and laws and are more occupied with expelling others from the community. Those working below them are occupied with writing down, printing, and distributing these rules. That is the greatest benefit they have from one another. In truth, one must even say that they not only bring no benefit to their followers — on the contrary, they only harm them. Yes, they actually harm them to a very great degree by laying upon them burdens they cannot carry. That is what I have seen and heard from them. During Hitler's regime they wrote that madman Hitler a hypocritical letter in which they portrayed themselves as though they supported Hitler's policies. Of this the Witnesses are generally unaware. Afterward they sent him a provocative letter that stirred his anger even further. This letter is still spoken of approvingly today in their literature and at their conventions, as though their leadership of that time were real men who had given Hitler a piece of their mind. Yet those who wrote the letter were sitting comfortably in their armchairs in America, while the fury they aroused in Hitler struck the Witnesses in Germany, not the authors of the letter. The intention of the letter was not to help the Witnesses in Germany; it was about their own advantage, their goals, and above all their pride. The experiences and sufferings that the Witnesses in Germany had to endure are still recounted with pride in their writings today. What happened in Germany at that time was no exception. Through their conduct the Governing Body has provoked similar reactions in other countries as well, such as in Malawi. They do not shy away from making these mistakes because they have no love. I will return to this subject later, in connection with a letter that we sent to the Governing Body of Witnesses on behalf of my wife. In that letter we quote, among other things, from Raymond Franz, who was himself active among the Witnesses for 40 years, and for several of those years served in their highest body, the Governing Body. The Witnesses carry out their preaching work from house to house with great zeal. They distribute literature and conduct Bible studies in order to lead people to their organization. All their thinking and striving is directed at recruiting new members for their organization. There are also some among them who are not so zealous and purposeful, for whom the primary concern is to report their hours. They preach whether the other person wants to hear it or not, without even trying to win the person over. They are even annoyed when they encounter someone who is interested and asks questions, if the time the Witness had set aside for the preaching work has run out. They then try to arrange a nearby appointment. Such people are not very suitable for the organization, for it is important for every organization that "new forces" keep coming in. They try to bind these new forces to themselves as quickly as possible, to gain control over their minds. As I mentioned above, they do not even shy away from requiring a promise to the organization at baptism, completely contrary to the will of God. These people have been prepared like dough that is now ready to be baked. They can then be used by the organization in whatever way it pleases. But this is fundamentally nothing new; it has nothing to do with our present time. In Jesus' day the religions and sects were no different. Jesus said about the efforts of these religious zealots:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men! For you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in. 14-15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Gehenna twice as much so as yourselves. — Matthew 23:13-15

After that it is easy to lead and direct these people. Are the questions they ask at baptism not clear enough? It then takes something extraordinary to make someone renounce their loyalty to the organization. The main reason a person is disfellowshipped is fornication. Each year approximately 300,000 persons are expelled from the community of Witnesses. One can assume that 90 percent of them were expelled for fornication. That was the last information I had about 15 years ago; by now the numbers may be even higher. The number of those expelled for apostasy is vanishingly small. Apostasy, in their understanding, means teaching something other than the official doctrine of the organization. This also includes critical thinking or asking too many questions. Those who do so are in any case the most dangerous — for any organization. Those who were expelled for fornication, theft, or other offenses normally return to the bosom of the organization after two or three years. Clearly the issue of child abuse among the Witnesses also appears to represent a not insignificant problem. Within their own ranks, of course, such a topic is not discussed — or at least it is not presented as a serious problem. Even thinking such a thing is already a sin. In general, serious offenses among them are played down; otherwise the impression might arise that they are no better than other communities! Besides, the organization has the task of protecting its members. If someone confesses their sin, then of course they must be expelled. As I said, the number of those who lose their fellowship amounts to around 300,000 per year, but the unreported number — that is, those who do not confess their sin — is certainly three or four times that figure. With this they are satisfied, because numbers are very important to the organization; they boast of them. How would they otherwise appear, if the rate of offenses reached the same proportion as in the Catholic or Evangelical Church, which are so vilified in their literature? With the exception of apostates, many of those who are disfellowshipped return to the organization. Of the apostates, normally none ever comes back. Their entire offense consists in having criticized the organization, asked critical questions, or refused to accept a teaching. In my book I will address a few examples known to me personally. These include Bernd and my wife. With Bernd I should add that I always had to give him a push, since he did not have the courage on his own. The reason they threw him out was the question: "Why do you say that God does not foresee the future of each individual in advance?" His letter and my wife's letter will be printed later in this book. The letters from my wife were not met with expulsion — they were met with nothing at all, not even a reply. I will also write about this in greater detail later. Raymond Franz they expelled on the grounds that he had eaten lunch with an apostate — who was at that time his employer. That was of course only a pretext; the real reason lies elsewhere. The real reason is quite simply that one does not allow everything to be dictated to oneself, that one does not always say only "yes" but sometimes also "no" to the channel chosen by God.

These things, this perspective, I only came to know many years later — and that despite the fact that I never gave in to them. Why should I do things merely because they told me it was a commandment of God? I am very grateful to God that later I was able to see many of their impurities, their filth. That I could not see it right away was because the Witnesses are very cautious toward an outsider and do not speak openly. They always present themselves as better than they are. It takes time before one has seen through everything and recognizes their true face. As already mentioned, the work of the Governing Body in particular is very secretive. A mystery surrounds it; people believe that its members receive the Spirit of God in a special way. It is fundamentally like the Mafia. It is not a manner of conduct one would expect from servants of God. What continually astonishes me is how foolish, lazy, and naive we are. We are foolish because we do not know what we are doing; we are lazy because we are too comfortable to investigate; and we are naive because we quickly believe something simply because we want to believe it. Even when we do not believe it, we force ourselves to. I have always strived to rid myself of these traits. At least where God is concerned, I have endeavored not to simply swallow everything. People are often willing to take risks, sometimes destroying their lives, for nothing.

For example, we are together with a friend or an acquaintance who, in our presence, starts a quarrel with someone else. We then feel obligated to defend him, even though we know full well that he is in the wrong. We are willing to risk our health, our reputation, and even our lives — for an act of foolishness. We accept the possibility of landing in prison or suffering permanent physical harm. It is a false notion of loyalty and faithfulness that leads people to think: "No matter what the person beside me does, I will not abandon him." What does one want to prove by standing by someone regardless of what he does, even when one knows one hundred percent that he is in the wrong? Does that have anything to do with loyalty and faithfulness? But that very same person who is ready to put his life at risk for someone else, to ruin his life for nonsense, does not react at all when one tries to encourage him on the path to God by saying: "Read! Investigate!" One can talk as much as one likes — one constantly encounters doubt, fearfulness, or indecision. She is afraid of doing something wrong. Not because she is convinced that it is wrong, but because for her it amounts to a betrayal of her own religion. The religions are like the bad friend in my example. People are willing to give their lives for their religious leaders, for their brothers in faith, for their fatherland — behind which of course there are only politicians — even though they do not love them so much and often know that what they are doing is wrong, unjust, inhumane, and barbaric. But when it comes to doing something good, they are suddenly fearful and very cautious. The Witnesses go from house to house, supposedly to share their beliefs with people and open their eyes. They want to point people to the evil works of the religions. What they say about the religions is, by and large, true. The history of religions is full of innocently shed blood, of oppression and suffering. They tell people that the religions, like a numbing drug, have kept humanity in captivity for many centuries. There are some individuals who have been visited regularly by the Witnesses for years and listen to all of this again and again, yet do not leave their religion. This is incomprehensible to the Witnesses. "How can someone see all of this and still remain in their religion?" they say among themselves when talking about such people. But how do they themselves behave? Are they perhaps any different? They cling to their Governing Body even more fanatically, even more stubbornly, than most followers of other religions. The people they visit are at least tolerant enough to listen to other religious views and opinions and to engage with them — something a Witness does not truly do. The very same people who say to others, "take our literature, read it, study it and underline it," reject literature from others the moment it appears to be directed against their own religion. If someone from another religion goes from house to house in the same way they do and rings their doorbell, that person is usually turned away just as the Witnesses themselves are turned away daily. They behave exactly like the people who in their eyes are part of this "evil world." Those who go from house to house day after day to correct other people and help them onto the right path cannot bear to be criticized themselves. What they expect of others, they do not do themselves. This does not mean that they do not listen at all or that they refuse to hear other opinions. A lot of nonsense is spoken, too. But serious, well-founded criticism they cannot endure — especially when it comes from someone who knows their community and their views well and speaks to their hearts and their motives. Such criticism is dangerous to them. Why is what they do every day considered right, but when someone else does the same thing, he is a bad person with evil intentions?

When I write this generally about the Witnesses, it does not mean that all of them are like this. There are also very valuable people among them who do not behave this way, as there are exceptions everywhere. When I say here what I say about the Witnesses, I do not mean that they are worse than others — but also not better. I only want to show that their self-portrayal, what they say about themselves, is not accurate, because they claim to be different from the rest of humanity. This view is not correct and cannot be correct, because being united in a religion, a community, or a party does not make everyone the same. Not everyone who comes to you and joins you is like you. Not all people who use the same brand are the same. Advertisements try to suggest this to us, but it has nothing to do with reality. Many organizations, however, proceed on the same principle and use the same propaganda. They act as though everyone who belongs to their organization has the same ideals, thinks the same, believes the same. But it has nothing to do with reality. They know themselves that it is not true, but the point is to maintain this impression. Mao's effort to dress all the inhabitants of China uniformly comes from the same way of thinking. It is then justified with equality or justice. One always finds an explanation. In reality, however, it is about being able to steer and influence the masses more easily. It is about power and control. The talk of unity and justice is mere appearance.

The Witnesses meet three times a week: twice for two hours each and once for one hour. In addition, there are three large conventions per year — one lasting one day, one lasting two days, and a third lasting three or four days. In earlier times there were also conventions that ran for a week or longer. Kingdom Halls (as the local meeting places of Jehovah's Witnesses are called) are not found in every town, so some members travel half an hour or more to reach the hall. Since one does not want to arrive at the last minute and does not leave immediately after the meeting ends but wants to talk with one person or another, you can add another two hours to the time for a single meeting. And, of course, one dresses appropriately for the occasion, which takes a few more minutes. All in all, a two-hour meeting takes up four to five hours of one's time. Beyond that, members are expected to spend as much time as possible in house-to-house service. If someone is a pioneer (the term used by the Witnesses for a full-time preacher), he was at the time expected to spend as many as ninety hours per month in the preaching work. Since then, that target has been revised. It should not be misunderstood, however — they are not forced to do this; they do it voluntarily. There are, of course, various reasons why someone agrees to it: friendships, the constant influence on the conscience, expectations tied to this role, the prospect of advancing within the organization, fear, or the desire to avoid other obligations, to name just a few. In general, they say they do it out of love for God and for their fellow human beings. The leadership of the Witnesses places great importance on this service and repeatedly emphasizes that it is the will of God. This constant repetition has no small influence on the conscience of the Witnesses, so that many feel compelled to exhaust themselves in this preaching work and to "bear fruit pleasing to God." What is meant by this, of course, is bringing new members into the organization — attracting customers. I use the word customers quite deliberately, because the organization knows very well that every new recruit also means a new source of income. New members are often more zealous and donate more cheerfully. It is also hard to deny that money is the central problem of all organizations, communities, and institutions. In the halls of the Witness congregation there are always two donation boxes. The money in one box is for the local congregation; the money in the other, labeled "for the worldwide Kingdom work," goes to Selters, the German headquarters. I never once put money into that second box. The expenses connected with the upkeep and maintenance of the hall must be borne by the congregation members out of their own pockets, without any support from headquarters. The buildings are generally constructed with the members' own resources as well. Headquarters assigns a building committee with experience in constructing such buildings and dealing with the authorities. The construction itself is carried out entirely by volunteers, who work without pay and receive only meals. But in the end everything belongs to headquarters — either directly to the Governing Body in America or to one of its branches. In various countries the legal arrangements may differ, but in essence the Governing Body alone has the final say. In New York, they have by now become one of the wealthiest organizations — through their real estate holdings alone. Many large buildings in Brooklyn are owned by the Watchtower Society. Add to that the ownership of thousands of convention halls and Kingdom Halls worldwide. The figures they report about this are curious. A building worth, say, one million euros is listed at a hundred thousand. That is not even a lie, because the actual outlay for the Watchtower Society really was only that much. Of course they can build cheaply when they keep impressing upon their members that the volunteer labor they perform on construction sites is a service valuable in the eyes of God. They have no additional costs for engineers, architects, or other workers. When such a building is later sold, it is worth many times more. The members of the organization have no influence whatsoever over the flow of money. I am convinced that not even all members of the Governing Body have full insight into the finances — possibly only a handful of people do. The Watchtower Society, like many others, lost a great deal of money on the stock market in recent years. Who knows how many millions of dollars they lost there. The organization that expels a widow from its community because she earns her living cleaning a military barracks does not shrink from investing its money in shares of an arms company, because it expects large returns. That widow's work is portrayed as something dishonest and unchristian, with no regard for her situation — but what the organization itself does on a grand scale is met with silence! Of such people Jesus said: They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. — Matthew 23:4

Just as Hitler did, they place little value on the individuals in their midst who cannot do as much as others. The elderly, the sick, the disabled, or otherwise disadvantaged persons are regarded as a burden. Of course they do nothing actively against such people as Hitler did. I am not speaking here of individuals — I am speaking about the policy of the leadership of this organization. Yes, of course they also publish articles encouraging members to care for the elderly and the sick, but those articles serve more as an alibi. Why do I claim this? Because the calculation we made above — concerning the time invested in regularly attending meetings and the preaching work — shows that hardly any room remains for such visits. For the weekly attendance at all meetings alone, not counting conventions, approximately forty hours per month are consumed. If we then assume a below-average publisher, we must add another eight to ten hours of preaching work per month. That is how much time someone who is not zealous, who is comfortable, or who is not in the best of health spends. Young people often take up the pioneer service because it increases their chances of finding a marriage partner. The requirement for pioneer service is ninety hours per month in the preaching work — or as I said, that was the case then; the hourly goal has since been reduced to seventy hours per month. A pioneer's monthly time investment for the organization is therefore roughly 130 to 140 hours, not counting the time for preparing for the preaching work and for meetings, or the time spent working on assignments and talks. The time a publisher reports for the preaching work does not begin to count when he leaves his house, but only when he is standing at the first door. At conventions, reports are sometimes given of bad examples among pioneers who also count travel time by car. A poor publisher by comparison has a monthly time commitment of fifty to sixty hours. As I said, the time for preparation — which is expected of everyone — is not included in that figure. A good Witness prepares well for the Watchtower Study and the book study by studying the article to be covered beforehand, that is, underlining the key sentences in each paragraph in order to be able to give answers and contribute to the flow of the meeting. For their so-called Theocratic School, individual publishers are assigned short tasks. Depending on the size of the congregation, this can range from once a month to once every six months. Working out such a short five-minute talk can take an entire day or even longer. I have personally known people who spent a whole week using every free minute to prepare their talk. Most of them, however, are employed and have only their evenings or weekends available. Some among the pioneers can carry out this service only because their parents are also Witnesses and provide them with financial support. Parents are happy to support their children, since it also has something to do with their pride — the same feeling a father or mother has when a son or daughter becomes a doctor or takes up another respected profession. In the house-to-house preaching work, especially for pioneers, the greatest thing is finding an open door and possibly even being offered something to eat and drink. That depends on the hospitality of the householder. Over time one learns to adapt to the circumstances. One then arranges visits so as not to call on two hospitable families on the same day — after all, one cannot eat so much one after the other. What I have described here concerns Turkish territory; finding hospitable householders in Germany who also offer food is very difficult, indeed impossible. When one considers all of this, one can imagine that hardly any time or inclination remains to visit the elderly or the sick — especially since such visits cannot be reported. We are speaking here of elderly people who are themselves Witnesses. If they do not even take care of their own people, because they cannot report it, how much less would they care for so-called worldly people if reports were done away with altogether? At this point I should briefly explain what these reports are about. A Jehovah's Witness must hand in a slip at the end of each month recording the time he has invested in the preaching work — that is, the time he spent trying to convert people. The slip also notes how many magazines and books he distributed. When I say "must," I do not again mean that threats of force stand behind it, but one appeals to the individual's conscience. The primary emphasis is placed on the authority of the Governing Body. If someone does not participate, or criticizes this arrangement, it is presented as if that person were personally rebelling against Almighty God Himself. There is a Turkish proverb that says, roughly: "Either you herd the camel or you leave the country." The same principle applies among the Witnesses: either you go along with all of this or you leave the community. This pressure is always present among them. If someone misses a meeting, he is called right away, or at the next opportunity he is asked: "What happened last week — you weren't there? Did something happen?" It is explained that they love one another and therefore look out for one another. After all, they all want to serve God, don't they! But one does not want to lie either. Interestingly, in the twenty years I spent among the Witnesses, I never once heard anyone say, "I just didn't feel like coming last week." If someone had said such a thing, it would have spread immediately. It simply is not done. The elders would at once have a conversation with that person, because he does not have the right attitude. When someone withdraws because he does not feel comfortable in the congregation, because he does not like it, the attitude of the congregation members toward him changes immediately. If necessary, that person is expelled entirely, so that he does not "infect" the others. After all, this is the people of God — belonging to it is not a simple matter!

Among them, the transmission of news functions magnificently. To put it in exaggerated terms: if a Witness in Africa has beaten his wife, it will be recounted among many Witnesses in Europe. Gossiping is one of their favorite pastimes. That I believe in the Quran, and what arguments I bring for it, is known among all Turkish-speaking Witness congregations in Germany. These religious groups have many interesting and negative habits. I deliberately say religious groups here, because what I have described is based on my personal experiences with the Witnesses, but it is found in principle, in different shades, in all religions. The difference lies only in their respective beliefs, their culture, their abilities and circumstances. But everything is done in the name of God. In the course of this book I will repeatedly return to such peculiarities of religious people.

I have described this point in somewhat greater detail here in order to show how little time one has for other interests when one is active in a religion like the Witnesses. Barely a day goes by in which a Witness does not do something for his religion in one form or another. Either he is sitting in a meeting, out in the preaching work, or preparing for one or the other. Whatever free time one has, the Governing Body lays claim to. One might well ask: what does it not lay claim to? It asserts a claim on life, on time, on friendships; it interferes in personal matters such as the sexual relations between married partners; it prescribes where one may and may not be employed. The Governing Body determines what its members may do with their bodies, controls their thinking, their freedom of belief, prescribes what one may and may not wear, what hairstyle and what beard one may or may not have. If someone gives a public talk, he should wear a suit and tie. For everything there is a rule or a regulation. Over time, people can no longer think independently, since everything is prescribed for them. The message constantly drummed into them is: "We have the truth, the end is coming soon, and God will save His people — this we must proclaim." Every single day they hear this message; it is repeated continuously in the meetings, in their literature, and at the conventions. Everything in the world is bad; only we are the good ones. Whoever comes to us will be well; we live in a spiritual paradise. God leads His people — us — through His spirit and reveals the divine truths to us piece by piece. We are the only people whom God leads through His "channel," the "faithful and discreet slave." All talks lead more or less to these assertions. After all, one has a Bible of fifteen hundred pages in hand — there is always a topic in it that can be applied to this. All the positive examples and qualities cited in that book are applied to one's own community; the negative ones are applied to others. It is as simple as that.

If ten people on the street ask you, "Where is your head? I cannot see it," the question has its effect. Even if you do not believe it, you will at least glance in the mirror as soon as you get home — or you will reach up and touch your own head to check. I do not say this so that you as a reader have something to laugh about. No — this is how the human psyche works. I have heard reports of psychological torture used in China and in other totalitarian states. In one method, a prisoner condemned to death is taken from his cell in order to carry out the death sentence. He is seated in a chair and his arms and legs are bound. His eyes are then blindfolded. One can imagine how he feels at that moment. Then they take a knife and draw the blunt edge across his wrists, as if they were slitting them open. After that, they let warm water run down from his wrists, giving him the impression that he is bleeding. Remarks from those standing around add to the effect: "Look how he's bleeding — he'll be drained soon, he won't last much longer, a minute at most," and so on. This form of torture has ended fatally for some; they died of heart failure. Although no physical pain was inflicted on him and he had no injury, he believed he had been gravely wounded and had lost a great deal of blood. That killed him. As in all other areas, human beings have misused their knowledge of the human psyche for evil purposes. They have gone to great lengths to find out how one can most effectively influence the mind and spirit of a person. In less developed countries, religions make more use of violence and threats to make people compliant. In advanced countries, people are manipulated in an insidious, diabolical way — in the truest sense of the word. When people are controlled and led through pressure and threats, their thinking and their psyche are not thereby influenced. Against that, one can more easily defend oneself — the fronts are clear, one knows who the enemy is. But when people are manipulated in an insidious, hidden way, their mind and spirit are influenced to the point where they can no longer distinguish between friend and foe. It is similar to the story of the sun and the wind. But both approaches are incompatible with what it means to be a servant of God. If God wished, He could influence or manipulate people more easily than anyone else could. It is not His purpose to make people do a particular thing; He leaves human beings their free will. This can be demonstrated by many examples — for instance, how God dealt with Pharaoh at the time of Moses. Many people misunderstand these passages or cannot interpret them correctly. I would like to use this example here to show how God leaves people their freedom in all their decisions. My purpose in doing so is also to show how far removed we are from God. His way of thinking and acting has become foreign to us, because we have become estranged from Him.

God commissioned Moses to liberate His people Israel from Egypt, from the hand of Pharaoh. This was around 1500 B.C.E. At that time Egypt was a world power. In the known world there was no greater power. Moses and his older brother Aaron went, each with a staff in hand, to the most powerful ruler in the world and demanded that he release the people of Israel from slavery. One can hardly expect him to have answered right away, "Of course, consider it done." Through many signs and wonders God intended to bring Pharaoh to his knees. He did this through many plagues that He brought upon the land and its inhabitants: the water of the Nile was turned to blood, the land was afflicted with frogs, a great hail destroyed the harvest, locusts devoured everything green, three days and nights of absolute darkness fell upon the land, and so on. Finally, with the last plague, God struck down all the firstborn of the land, including Pharaoh's firstborn. With each plague, Pharaoh begs Moses for relief and promises to release the Israelites. Moses relays the request to God, asking Him to put an end to the plague since Pharaoh has given his word. God then ends the plague, and Pharaoh does not keep his promise but remains obstinate. Then the next plague comes, and again Pharaoh pleads and makes a promise. After every plague the same reaction follows. The Bible gives the reason why Pharaoh does not keep his promise:

...But Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had spoken. — Exodus 8:19 However, Pharaoh made his heart unresponsive even this time and did not send the people away. — Exodus 8:32 But when Pharaoh saw that there had been a relief, he made his heart unresponsive; and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had spoken. — Exodus 8:15

... and now comes the interesting part:

But Jehovah let Pharaoh's heart become hardened, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had spoken to Moses. — Exodus 9:12 However, Jehovah let Pharaoh's heart become hardened, and he did not send the sons of Israel away. — Exodus 10:20

In the upper texts, Pharaoh's own stubbornness is spoken of, but the lower verses say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart! When I first read these verses, I was confused. On the one hand, God wants Pharaoh to release the Israelites, yet on the other hand He hardens Pharaoh's heart and thus prevents the release. Since I know that all things are possible for God, I thought to myself that instead of hardening his heart, He should have softened it. For a long time I pondered the meaning, but could find no answer; even the Witnesses had no satisfying answer to this. I prayed to God that He might grant me wisdom and understanding in this matter. Even though I do not consider myself worthy, I am convinced that He has heard such prayers from me every time. One can feel that this help has been received, provided one is not ungrateful. As John says:

... and whatever we ask, we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing in his eyes. ... and by this we know that he remains in union with us, thanks to the spirit he has given us. — 1 John 3:22, 24b

Let us return to our subject — why God hardened Pharaoh's heart, why He let it become hardened. Let us first imagine what feelings the plagues that came upon the land aroused in Pharaoh. He was surely very angry at the beginning. He was a man of war; he had fought many battles and was accustomed to winning. But he had always fought against opponents of flesh and blood. The opponent now standing before him was God Almighty. What could he do against Him? How could he defend himself against Him? He summoned his priests and sorcerers. When Moses took a staff and turned it into a snake before Pharaoh's eyes, the priests were able to perform the same miracle. They could also imitate some of the plagues, but later they had to admit as well that the hand of God was at work. (Exodus 8:19) No one was left unimpressed by the plagues; everyone feared. Things happened that no human being had ever seen before, and about which no one had ever reported. Accordingly, Pharaoh too was impressed and frightened, or felt helpless and enraged. But not always. Sometimes his heart hardened on its own, and sometimes God hardened his heart. We should not throw all these verses into the same pot. We should read the verses exactly as they are written. When it says that Pharaoh made his heart unresponsive even this time, we should understand it as Pharaoh himself doing this. But when it says that Jehovah let Pharaoh's heart become hardened, then in this case God intervened. God let his heart become hardened, but only when the Bible explicitly says so. Otherwise, in the other cases, Pharaoh himself hardened his heart. God let his heart become hardened because He is opposed to something specific — a decision made out of fear. When a plague that God brought upon the land of Egypt had aroused fear in Pharaoh, and he was therefore inclined to release the Israelites, God intervened, because that was not supposed to be the motivation for his decision. God removed the fear from his heart and thereby brought about the hardening, or the becoming hardened. In God's eyes, decisions made out of such fear are worthless. He expects decisions that come from the heart, that are not made under pressure or out of panicked dread. He rejoices when we choose something because it is right, because we have recognized our error. The circumstances that had moved Pharaoh at the time to say "Yes" would have moved anyone to do so, for ultimately the plagues were very fear-inspiring, and God knew that. Therefore, Pharaoh's reaction — his agreement to release the people — was a natural one, but a worthless decision. People should make their choices freely, not under compulsion. For exactly this reason, God removed the fear from Pharaoh, and this brought about the hardening of his heart.

In another event, shortly after the Israelites' departure from Egypt, God spoke with a loud voice from heaven so that all the people could hear Him. He spoke at that time the words still known today as the Ten Commandments. Because God spoke with such a voice, they all fell into dread, so greatly that they were afraid of dying. Then they said:

And they began saying to Moses: "You speak with us, and let us listen; but let not God speak with us, so that we do not die." 20 Moses then said to the people: "Do not be afraid, for it is to put you to the test that the [true] God has come, and so that the fear of him may continue before your faces, so that you may not sin." — Exodus 20:19-20 This people, who had expressed their fear in this way, made a golden calf not even forty days later and worshipped it as their god. How could the people with whom God had just spoken personally do such a thing? Their behavior appears to us as extremely ungrateful. How could they forget such an impressive display so quickly? But we should always remember that they were no different from what we are. It only seems that way to us because we read the forty-day story condensed into three sentences. We cannot understand them. But if we put ourselves in their position and are objective, we discover that we are scarcely different from them. The decisive factor in this story is fear. Fear prompted them to choose God; once the fear was gone, they took a different path. Their motivations at no point were love and gratitude toward God. When fear is gone, when it no longer has power over a person, his true character becomes manifest. That was so with Pharaoh; it was no different with the Israelites. With the opportunities that present themselves, with more power that one acquires, with less fear that one feels, character traits — various qualities — become more distinct. Often we ourselves know nothing of this; we know ourselves far too little. That is why we are sometimes startled by ourselves, or surprised by ourselves.

The fear of God is a gift from God. No one can acquire it by themselves. Only when God wills it does He bestow this fear on someone. In the Bible the prophet Isaiah expressed this with the following words:

For you are our Father; even though Abraham himself may not have known us and Israel himself may not acknowledge us, you, O Jehovah, are our Father. Our Repurchaser of long ago is your name. 17 Why do you make us wander, O Jehovah, from your ways? Why do you harden our heart against fearing you? Return for the sake of your servants, the tribes of your inheritance. — Isaiah 63:16-17

Isaiah knew the value of fear — the fear of destroying the good relationship between human beings and God. It is for this fear that Isaiah prays. This prayer also reveals something to us about God. He does not give this fear of Him to people in whom He takes no pleasure. Someone may possess this fear as long as he has a good relationship with God. But he can also lose this fear again. This means that God can bestow this fear on someone, but it does not mean that it must remain in his possession always; one can also lose it again. If someone deliberately distances himself from God, he will also lose this fear. As I said, it is a gift from God. God will not press this gift upon anyone. How many people possess such a fear? The fear that has been instilled in us has only to do with threats and punishment. Above all, the religions have tried to inoculate this kind of fear in people. In doing so, of course, it is not about fear of God, but rather people should fear them — that is, the religious leaders. The things with which they frighten people, they themselves do, but God does not. Even though all their followers know this, a conscience has been given to them such that they think the punishment comes from God and religion is merely the executing instrument. The fear of God of which the Bible speaks is, by contrast, something entirely different; it is the fear that one feels toward persons whom one loves very much and holds in high esteem. One is afraid of hurting that person, of needlessly offending them, or of losing the good relationship with them. We should not see a threat of force behind every kind of fear. A person can fear a beloved spouse. Parents fear their own children. This fear moves them to avoid actions that would sadden the other. The force behind this fear is not dread as we ordinarily understand it; it is motivated by love.

I should insert a brief explanation here: fear is not the same as fear — there are different kinds of it. There is a kind of fear that makes life difficult and is constantly bound up with torment and pain. This fear is anything but edifying. The fear that God gives is not accompanied by torment, but it motivates us to do everything to preserve the good relationship with God. This fear is a kind of protection. If someone is afraid of heights, that fear can be a protection for him. Small children do not yet have this feeling. A toddler can stand at the edge of a precipice without being afraid; it will even go further and fall — and while falling it will still laugh. The fear of dangers and risks has not yet developed in a small child. This can be very dangerous for the child. That is why one should not leave small children unsupervised. So, in short, not every fear is bad or harmful; on the contrary, sometimes it is even essential to life. The same applies to the fear of God. We should above all take delight in it, for it is a gift from God. One does not give as a gift something that causes the other person torment. I at any rate would not regard such a thing as a gift. The prophet Nehemiah expressed this in a prayer to God as follows: O Jehovah, may your ear please become attentive to the prayer of your servant and to the prayer of your servants who take delight in fearing your name; ... — Nehemiah 1:11 A person should gain even more joy through this fear. Of course one cannot say that everyone would rejoice over such a fear. Many people would describe such a fear as constraining, and a life governed by it as boring. God will not press His gift upon such people. The fear of God is a gift only for those who know its value and appreciate it. It is comparable to the relationship we have with good friends. We also do not want that good relationship to be destroyed or clouded, and therefore take special care of it. Yet we do not experience this feeling as negative; on the contrary, it motivates us to do more to preserve that good relationship. But when we hear the word "fear of God," mostly negative feelings immediately arise in us, because we associate it with what the religions have taught us for centuries. This word has always been used to keep people submissive and humble, to intimidate them and make them compliant.

As already mentioned, not every kind of fear is healthy and wholesome. There are people who are afraid of doing something good. When we are afraid to tell the truth and lie instead, this is also not a healthy fear that is pleasing to God. At the time when the Gospels were written, Christians were persecuted, tortured, and even killed. Even though they too were afraid, they overcame their fear and did not give up the good they possessed. God was very pleased about this — not that they had to endure so much, but that they had a strong faith and were loyally devoted to Him in love, despite these difficult circumstances. God hates it when someone, out of fear, is led to do evil and leave off the good. About such people He had written in the book of Revelation: Whoever conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth, and murderers and those who commit sexual immorality, and those who practice spiritism and idolaters and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This means the second death." — Revelation 21:7, 8 Just imagine — God places cowards on the same level as murderers and those who commit sexual immorality. The same fate awaits them. Being afraid to tell the truth, being afraid to do what is good and beneficial — that is what is reprehensible in God's eyes. If someone is under threat or under particularly difficult circumstances, under torment, and therefore does not tell the truth, one certainly has understanding for that; but to sell the truth for nothing, for worthless things — no one would show understanding for that.

The fear that Pharaoh had was not a healthy fear. He feared so greatly because of the plagues that came upon him that he gave in to God. Even though this decision was in principle the right one, God did not rejoice over it. For it was not a decision he made from his heart. When God removed that fear from him, he fought against God like a lion. What God had thereby brought about was Pharaoh's true face, as his character came to light. It was not as if God had changed his heart so that he would stand against Him, as some persons explain it — as though He had removed the good that was in Pharaoh's heart and replaced it with something bad. God would never do such a thing. God's desire regarding His creatures is that they use their free will to serve Him, to be obedient to Him, and to take delight in it. When someone walks in God's way, it has His approval only when the person does so freely, with love and joy. What we have seen from the religions — pressure, threats, manipulation, and indoctrination — are the methods of human beings, not of God.

The religious leaders can never imagine seeing the simple people, "those down below," set free. That would be the worst thing for them. In the Governing Body of the Witnesses, these ordinary people are often spoken of as the "rank and file." (R. Franz) In the Middle Ages, these common people had, for those in authority, often no more worth than a pig. They thought: at least you can feed yourself from a pig. When no more benefit was to be expected from the people, in their eyes they were nothing more than dirt. With these topics I continually try to emphasize how important our love and our free will are in God's eyes. Because God places value on these qualities, He has also permitted evil — and therefore the Devil as well — so that human beings may make use of these qualities. That is why Satan and the world governed by him aim at taking precisely these two qualities away from people. Above all, the religions. Precisely these two qualities are the most valuable things human beings possess, and God wants us to draw near to Him on the basis of these qualities — love and freedom of will. The religions have set their sights on precisely these qualities. Since their existence, for thousands of years, they have directed all their power and cunning toward wresting love and freedom from people. If we ever yield to their striving, to their efforts, and cease to resist, then we have lost. The religions come in God's name, to be sure, but their goals show that they expect things from us that are contrary to God's goals. Therefore we can say that they are only to our harm. That they themselves do the very things they demand of others does not mean that it is right either. Apart from that, they generally do not hold themselves to the standards they impose on their subordinates — the rank and file. For example, many members of the Governing Body do not themselves attend all the meetings, even though they demand it of others. But the house-to-house ministry — the hallmark of the Witnesses and a requirement for baptism — is also neglected by members of the Governing Body. Raymond Franz makes this clear in his two books — Crisis of Conscience — and — In Search of Christian Freedom. Raymond Franz, whose parents were already Jehovah's Witnesses, was himself an active Witness for forty years. When he began to say "No" to certain things, they threw him out with some flimsy pretext. Without going into detail here, one can say that he used his free will and his love of truth and of God — that was his sin. He did not say "Yes and Amen" to everything. He used the word that people hate most: "No." The same will happen to us, or even worse. God had this foretold through His prophets. The prophecies say that in the time of the end evil will increase and that the people who love God will be oppressed. But this should not discourage us. Let us always think of the following encouraging words that God said to Joshua when he took up his office after the death of Moses:

Be courageous and strong, for it is you who will cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their forefathers to give them. 7 Only be courageous and very strong, so as to take care to act in accordance with all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it, either to the right or to the left, so that you may act wisely everywhere you go. 8 This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you should read it in a low voice day and night, so that you may take care to act according to everything written in it; for then you will make your way successful, and then you will act wisely. 9 Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not be terrified, and do not be dismayed, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go." — Joshua 1:6-9

These comforting words God speaks to us, and He promises always to be with us, provided we walk in His ways and obey Him. But if we are afraid to do what is good and right, regardless of who stands before us, then we should not let these words, which God addressed to Jeremiah, leave our minds:

And as for you, you should gird up your hips, and you must rise and speak to them everything that I myself command you. Do not be filled with terror on their account, so that I may not strike terror into you before them. — Jeremiah 1:17

Who were those before whom Jeremiah was not to be afraid, who stood against him? They were his brothers, his people, and above all, the priests, the clergy, the princes, and the king. The greatest resistance, the greatest difficulties Jeremiah had to endure came from the religious leaders. Sadly, it was always those who claimed to act in God's name who constantly worked against God's prophets. Anyone who cannot believe this is welcome to verify it in the Bible. We ought to compel ourselves to live according to the words that God addressed to Joshua and to Jeremiah. All the words of the prophets concerning the time of the end seem to apply very closely to our own time. That is to say, all the difficulties and tribulations described in these prophecies could possibly fall upon us. Showing this faith and love is not always easy, but neither is it impossible. Moreover, we have no other choice if we wish to be saved.

DIFFICULT TIMES AND WISDOM

Through the close friendship with Bernd and Dieter, we had grown quite close in many respects within a very short time. We were roughly the same age, and for me it was a valuable friendship. Neither I nor my brother had any particular expectations — we simply enjoyed being together with the two of them. Even if my brother developed a wish over time to marry a girl from the Witnesses, that cannot be called an evil or wrong intention. My brother was obviously taking seriously the Witnesses' strict view of fornication and adultery. In essence, everyone looks for a partner who thinks the same way. When I look back today at the fact that my brother sought a closer friendship with the Witnesses with this intention — simply to find a girl there, without having any interest in God himself, to say nothing of love for God — I can only shake my head. I also think that everyone noticed it except him. There was something else I had recognized very early on among the Witnesses: conversations about spiritual topics were always very exciting, stimulating, and interesting to me. I could not get enough of them. Through each conversation I came to know God better, was able to broaden my horizons; I was clearly starved in this area. But I observed Bernd and Dieter — they were not like that. My brother would ask a question, not a difficult one. Even I by that point knew a simple, logical answer to that question. Yet the two of them would only say, "Bravo, that is a good and interesting question," but they gave no answer. So as not to leave my brother without an answer, I gave the answer myself. Then my brother would get annoyed with me again, since he did not want to hear my answer. I regarded my brother's attitude toward me as normal, until my patience sometimes ran out.

There are three of us siblings, but in temperament and character we have barely anything in common. It is not rare for us to treat each other like cat and dog. We are all approaching fifty by now, but in that respect we have not changed. Sadly, many siblings are like that with each other. Strange — as though from birth one has feelings of envy and jealousy toward one's siblings. It is, in essence, something ugly. There is a reason Jesus says: "A prophet is not without honor, except in his own household." A person can be a prophet and yet be despised by his own family members. Others, however, do not see him that way. This was experienced, for example, by the prophet and king David — his brothers were envious of him. (1 Samuel 17:28) I have very rarely seen siblings who truly get along. I did not actually intend to speak about this here; the book already seems to be growing more extensive than I anticipated. Dieter and Bernd conducted their visits to us the way one carries out an obligation. From the very beginning, since their first visit to us, I made every effort to treat them as well as possible, to be hospitable and generous. Sometimes we sat together until late in the evening or even into the early hours of the morning. They were both single and lived together in an apartment. When it grew very late, I offered them a place to sleep at our home. They always appeared very tired and listless. When Dieter, due to his fatigue, could no longer hold himself upright in the armchair and began to slide halfway off the seat with his legs stretched out, my brother and I would exchange astonished glances. Sometimes we would watch television with Dieter, and when I looked at his face, he looked as though he had just completed a thirty-hour, exhausting journey. When I saw him in that state, I would invite him to go to the bathroom and freshen up, to not torment himself and to feel at home. What could I say — it was quite possible that he simply did not feel comfortable in other people's homes. It sometimes happened that when the two of them came to visit, Bernd would say his goodbyes almost immediately to pop in "quickly" on his family, who lived nearby. He would either arrive three or four hours later than the promised time, or not at all. This meant each time that Dieter had to stay overnight with us. Dieter was apparently annoyed by this, and it bothered us as well. By this point we were right in the midst of the Witnesses. Everyone makes mistakes — that is not the point. But the way in which they, as servants of God with so much knowledge, wisdom, and an outward air of humility and modesty, could let themselves go over such small things simply astonished us. We had probably expected more from them as civilized, European Germans. We are only simple Turks — in the eyes of Germans, uneducated, underdeveloped. If that is so, should they not then set an example for us rather than so openly showing their weaknesses? This should not be understood as though nationality played a role for us, but these people claimed to be servants of God and sacrificed ninety hours a month for their door-to-door ministry. They were supposed to be a model for us — at the very least when one represents the name of God. With this attitude I observed the two of them, even through a magnifying glass. I loved God, but when I got to know the two of them I was surprised. Their willingness to make sacrifices seemed very great to me — until I got to know them more closely. It did not take long before I recognized that they carried out this "work" under pressure and did not truly enjoy it. One would have to be blind not to see this. They were forcing themselves to do it, and on top of that came the pressure from the community. When someone is genuinely convinced that what they are doing brings God joy, are they not at peace with themselves and in possession of a clear, good conscience? And when you do this within a community, within a religion — meaning you are not standing alone — then this effect is all the greater. Added to this is the fact that day and night you are only together with people who think exactly the same way. They are like pieceworkers laboring nonstop for fourteen hours a day; the more exhausted and worn-out they appear outwardly, the more satisfied and happy they are. "Look at everything I am taking upon myself." I think they feel similarly to the way Muslims feel when they look around as they perform their prayers in a parking lot between lorries, conscious that they are being watched. In the realm of religion, so much is attempted through pressure — it begins with small children. They are threatened, and God is spoken of as though He is only interested in punishing those children who do not keep to the traditions. People are compelled to serve God! In some Arab cities it is apparently common that if police officers see a man on the street during Friday prayer time, he is sent to the mosque by force. Many who grew up under such pressure have also become religious zealots. But I have rarely seen happy, contented, joyful people among them. Wherever the compass of the religious community one is part of is pointing, that is the direction one follows. One does not deviate from it by a single millimeter, for a tiny deviation on the compass can, depending on the distance traveled, mean a deviation of many kilometers. That is how one is taught; that is how they teach their followers. If you look at the markings on a compass and assume that each marking corresponds to a religion, a faith community, and its goals, then there will probably be no compass on which you could assign a marking to every religion — for there are countless many of them. Each has its own views, convictions, and goals. But all have at least two things in common: they all call out, "We are the right, true servants of God," and second, they are all after money! It is actually so — they are all very materialistically inclined. It is as Jesus said:

Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel! — Matthew 23:24

They prefer to receive rather than to give. I have often observed how they exerted themselves to go about it as cleverly as possible. They racked their brains over such things — often very petty ones. My brother often told me that wherever he went with the Witnesses, he was always the one who paid; they never contributed even five pfennig. He was very annoyed about this, for these things bothered him just as they bothered me. The Witnesses had placed a great deal of hope in him, not in me. But what kind of hope was it — to win him over, or to drive him away? Judging by their words, they wanted to win him over; judging by their actions, they wanted to drive him away, to get rid of him. My brother would sometimes say, "I don't expect them to pay for my food — I don't expect that — but they should at least pay for their own. If it had stayed with just one person, it would not be a problem either, but more and more keep coming." This was not a matter of one or two occasions — they were always like this. Once my brother went somewhere with someone. They briefly went into the apartment of the young Witness to pick something up, and then planned to go somewhere else. He was still a student, attending the final year of secondary school at the time. My brother had often treated him. On the table lay some apples. The boy took two pieces and was about to leave when a stern voice from the other room said: "You've already had your share." "Yes, yes, all right," he answered his mother and put the apples back. My brother said: "That situation was so embarrassing — I went bright red." As I mentioned, he was in the final year of secondary school, so around nineteen or twenty years old. The Witnesses had probably visited us a hundred times for a meal; I had gone to their place perhaps a few times, only because it was the done thing. Their hospitality, their generosity, is forced and performed — you do not need to be a clairvoyant to see that. For them it is like fulfilling a duty; it has nothing to do with love. I must add, however, that I did not have this feeling with the Turkish Witnesses. They did not have this habit of straining out the gnat. But they had other problems — if you had entrusted them with something, you never saw it again; but that is another topic. On a hot day we were getting ready to go to a wedding of some Witnesses. We were still waiting for another family who had also been invited. When they arrived, the sister said: "I am completely drenched in sweat from the long journey — I cannot go to the wedding like this." My wife then gave her her finest dress so she could wear it to the wedding. She tried it on and it was a perfect fit. At this wedding we saw the dress for the last time!! A family of Witnesses whom we had invited called the day before and gave instructions as to what they would like to eat at our home. People can be that brazen. We then prepared the requested meal in the requested manner. Such were our experiences with the Witnesses in the Turkish congregation. As I said, they all like to receive, but they have a hard time giving. It also happened that they once brought along a bar of chocolate, but the best-before date had already passed by a year. I naturally threw it straight into the bin without opening it. The person who brought it was a German, over fifty years old, and an elder in the congregation. During one of his visits, when he was at our home with his wife, he played the strong man, took his coat, threw it to his wife, and said: "Get up, we're leaving." The trigger: I had said that God foresees our future! His wife rescued the situation and they remained seated. I felt ashamed for these people and began to sweat, but they continued to lose respect in my eyes. I had experiences of this kind thousands of times — what I have described here is only a brief excerpt. Very often I had to restrain myself and bite my tongue. Every person makes mistakes, but as supposedly God-fearing, religious people they made mistakes that were so simple, so brazen, and sometimes so repulsive. Not even so-called "worldly people" would expose themselves to such ignominy. Some of it was so bad that I am ashamed to write it down here. Much of it may be commonplace. But that these people, who in their literature constantly speak ill of the world, feel so superior to the rest of humanity, who consider themselves God's chosen ones — and then act this way — is more than troubling; it is a disgrace. At the time, however, I did not let it bother me. More precisely, I only attributed it to the individual person in question and drew no conclusions about their religion. It was possible, after all — you encounter all kinds of people everywhere.

We were hopelessly in debt at that time. Well, it was no wonder, the way we lived. I had probably learned it from my mother — to always be generous and open-handed. I came to know how hard it can be to always have debts. Accepting something for free, without payment, was unbearable for me. In my younger years I did not have five pfennig in my pocket, but had fifty thousand marks in debt at the bank. That may perhaps not be easy to understand. But it was actually quite simple: For the shortened military service in Turkey I paid ten thousand marks; with the flight and a few days' holiday, the loss of my job, and so on, I quickly reached fifteen thousand. Before that I had also bought a car, so as not to lose my job, since my old wreck had given up on me. So I bought a small but new car, a Ford Fiesta. That purchase cost me around twelve thousand marks at the time. Even though we had married without a wedding celebration, and the landlord's daughter made her wedding dress available, a few more debts were added on top of that. All of this in young years, without experience, in a foreign country, in a foreign culture. To earn money as a foreigner, you are expected to work like a donkey. If you only work as much as a German, why would anyone hire you? With a German, an employer can chat and even joke around, but what is he supposed to do with you as a foreigner? Germans regard each other as human beings and protect one another. But they see us as rented animals. Many Turks do not notice this, because they saw and experienced the same thing in their homeland. By the time they understand the German language and culture, they have already grown so accustomed to it that it does not even register with them. The Turks who still had a little sense of self-respect did not stay long in any case and returned to their homeland. Then there are also those who went back but were disappointed by what they experienced in their homeland and returned to Germany again. But those people are usually very withdrawn and intimidated, have little contact with others — neither with Germans nor with their compatriots. After I had seen how Germans were disrespectful and inconsiderate toward Turks, even though they would never have done such a thing to one another, it was clear to me that their mutual respect is merely a show — nothing genuine. The Turks, on the other hand, had rather made a name for themselves with fraud and all kinds of dishonesty. Does that apply to all of them? Certainly not, but if it is only twenty percent, it is already too many. With Germans it has nothing to do with respect for a fellow human being — they are far more afraid of each other. But toward a Turk they feel free to do anything. When people feel free, when they have no fear, their true character becomes clearly visible. My father used to say that one should treat others the way they treat us. That seemed logical to me as well. With Germans it is enough to know that you are a Turk — it does not matter at all what kind of person you are, what kind of character you have. No matter how good you are to them, how honest, sincere, modest, or courteous — you are a Turk, and that is enough. There are some who do treat you decently, because they see your good qualities and are lonely themselves. But God thinks very differently about this saying: "Treat others the way they treat you." He says in Proverbs 24:29: Do not say: "Just as he did to me, so I will do to him. I will repay each one according to his dealings."

We lived under such a financial burden in a prosperous country. I had a car but could not drive it, had nice clothes but could not wear them. Everything is regulated, prescribed — even when you eat or drink. I used the car only to get to work. And yet I so badly wanted to simply go out and wear my clothes. The hard work of chopping wood meant I never got around to putting them on. Often I worked Saturdays as well. That left only Sunday. But by then I was so worn out that I had no desire to go anywhere. This is modern slavery. I do not mean to demean the work I did, but we were alone, left to our own devices. Turkish men often go to Turkish coffeehouses, where they are among their own kind. If you go there once, you can put your entire outfit — down to your underwear — in the washing machine afterward, from the stench of the smoke. It is worst in the winter months when the windows are also shut. I went there a few times, but I did not enjoy it — mainly because of the smoke and the poor hygiene; otherwise I had no objection. Many also went there to gamble their money away. But in the end, most of them were really just looking for community. Back then, Turks were usually denied entry to discotheques. That used to make me furious. Later they even started using Turkish bouncers to avoid putting the Germans in a bad light. Hitler is said to have often played Jews off against each other. I never understood that until we had a place of our own. Many years later we opened a small restaurant — more of a snack bar, really, but with seating for about ten people. The worst customers for me were the Turks. I rarely had problems with the Germans, but when a Turk walked in he behaved as if he were not just buying a döner but buying the entire shop, staff included. In my view this comes from a lack of refinement. They seldom eat out, so they are reluctant to part with the few marks. On the other hand, they can gamble away a month's wages in one day at the coffeehouse without batting an eyelid. But when they put those few marks on the counter, they expect to be waited on hand and foot. It is then hard to satisfy them, even though they are simple workers just like me. They want to know everything about you — where you come from, what you believe, how many kilograms of meat I sell, how many kilograms I put out each day, and so on. If they dislike one of the answers, they never come back. What more can I say? The landlord was Turkish. The problems we had with him were worse than anything else; we ended up in court over it. We went to court four times in Germany, three of those times because of our landlord. His wife, all one-and-a-half meters of her, made a habit of walking past our shop window cursing and scolding. Simple Turkish workers had become property owners in Germany — that is no small thing either!

Everyone has a different story and different problems, so no one should raise themselves above another, for no one is better than anyone else. God therefore rightly commands us to be ready to forgive; He sees things from a higher vantage point, can judge everything better, and knows us best. If we do not forgive one another and have no love, then... then the world looks the way we see it now. I think that needs no lengthy explanation.

I have told all this in some detail so that you, the reader, can better understand our situation at the time. We had a heavy burden to carry and we were alone. The situation of the Witnesses who visited us was much better than ours by comparison, just as Germans generally had it better than we did. Of course it did not rain money from the sky for them either, but it was their homeland and they had their relatives, their friends, their family, a social safety net. We had plenty of relatives here too, but they were of no use to us — on the contrary, they expected things from us. Even the poorest Germans still had the great advantage of living in their homeland, of not feeling unwanted or unloved. Generally speaking, parents set money aside for their children — open a savings account, then pay for driving lessons or even a car. When their children start an apprenticeship they usually have all that money at their free disposal, since everything else is already taken care of. So they can start early thinking about what kind of house they will buy or how to invest their money. When an uncle dies they inherit; when a grandfather dies they inherit. When someone dies in our family we inherit too... but usually debts. Whether this is true of the Turkish people in general or only of our family, I do not know. What I do know is that most Turks in Germany send money to their parents in Turkey, while Germans receive money from their parents. The Germans did not earn their prosperity easily either. They lost two great wars. The Americans still sit on their necks. When an occupying power is in your country, it always means expenses — and not small ones. In earlier times it was the Ottoman Empire, before that the Byzantines, before them the Romans, the Babylonians, the Assyrians... In principle they are all the same; why should the Americans be any different? And yet all of them eventually perished — no power has lasted forever.

Bernd and Dieter were surprised by my enthusiasm for the Bible and everything connected with it. But they told me it would wear off in time. Now I was the one surprised, and I thought a great deal about that reaction. Would it mean that my joy and my love would grow cold over time and eventually become nothing more than a kind of duty? What value would the whole thing then have in God's eyes? Did the faithful, exemplary servants of God mentioned in the Bible — Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and many others — also lose their zeal for God over time? Only many years later did I understand that especially among religious people their feelings, their love for God, are almost at zero. All their time, their work, their zeal are in reality devoted not to God but to the benefit of their religion. With God they have, by and large, nothing to do. The fact that every other word from their lips is "Jehovah" makes them appear very God-fearing, but on closer acquaintance one sees that it is nothing more than a label, a formula, a lucky charm. They do not know God as God and do not love Him; they take no pleasure in the things that please God. It is human commandments they follow and to those they give their absolute obedience. Years later I had this confirmed by former Witnesses. By then I had already recognized it through my own observations; their words were a confirmation of my conclusion. No matter what religion one belongs to, if someone loves God with all his heart and strives to obey Him, sooner or later he will come into conflict with that religion. It is like a bolt and a nut with different threads — no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to join them. I feared becoming like them, and so I began reading the Bible, which I had just finished, again from the beginning. The first time it took me about a year to read the entire Bible from start to finish; the second time only six weeks. On average I read eight hours a day — not to finish as quickly as possible, but because I enjoyed it. This time it was even more beautiful than the first. I was not in the least sad about having lost my job. I had found something of immense value that surpassed everything else. I missed absolutely nothing. In the Bible is God, His Word. What I was reading were the thoughts of God, our Creator — not a human invention. I also read the Quran and investigated whether it too contained the Word of God or was merely human wisdom.

Our financial hardship frequently caused us difficulties. People can be very inconsiderate when they see what kind of situation you are in. My wife was working at a German inn at the time, directly across from our house. The working hours were constantly extended while the pay was reduced! Originally it was eight hours a day; over time it became ten. If the normal hourly wage was, say, ten marks, they paid only five marks for overtime — when it should have been the other way around. They seized every opportunity to cut costs somewhere. We were a welcome target. But the employer was a highly respected and popular figure in the village. In my eyes he was good for nothing. I tried very hard to get my wife to stop working there. When she wanted to give notice, he even threatened us. My wife then had the opportunity to work at the nearby hospital. The director of the hospital was a friend of the inn owner's. He said that my wife would work there for a month at most and then return to him, since she would have no other option — they would give her notice within a month. That was the caliber of these people.

Unfortunately it is like this everywhere: when it comes to doing something good, everyone is timid. Do they think that by being so, they will be spared what they fear? Sooner or later the same thing or something similar will happen to them. Then they complain that no one speaks up. People are willing to sell themselves for such small things. They make themselves into prostitutes by selling their values. They use what power they have to make life hard for others — and in doing so they only stoke more anger and hatred. These same people who commit such injustices and ugly acts set up a Christmas tree in their homes, celebrate the birth of Jesus, and exchange gifts with one another. After all, they are good Christians!

My prayer to God was always that He would not let me fall into the hands of men, even if I sinned. Let God Himself punish me. I learned this from David. After he had sinned, God sent a prophet to him, telling him to choose from three possible punishments: "Go, and you shall speak to David, saying: 'This is what Jehovah has said: "Three things I am directing against you. Choose one of them for yourself, so that I may do it to you." ' " Then Gad came in to David and said to him: "This is what Jehovah has said: 'Make your choice: whether there is to be three years of famine, or three months of being swept away before your adversaries while the sword of your enemies overtakes you, or three days of the sword of Jehovah, even pestilence, in the land, with Jehovah's angel bringing destruction throughout all the territory of Israel.' And now see what I should reply to the One who sent me." — 1 Chronicles 21:10–12

Although David was under great pressure, he gave a wise answer: Then David said to Gad: "I am very distressed. Please let me fall into the hand of Jehovah, for very great are his mercies; but do not let me fall into the hand of men." Verse 13. This example was always my guide when I thought about my own mistakes and sins. But would God give me, as He did David, the chance to choose for myself? Would I be worthy of that in His eyes? I am glad that God will make that decision, for He is just.

As I write these lines, I am trying to help you, the reader, to put yourself in our situation at the time. There is another story I wanted to tell here as well. Shortly after we got to know Bernd and Dieter, something unexpected happened that placed a great financial strain on us. We had bought a new bed. The bed our previous tenants had left behind was by then on the verge of collapse and we had ordered a new one. It would arrive the following week, and so I went to the bank to withdraw money. Our account was in the red as usual, but until then we had always managed to get money. This time, however, the bank refused to give us any. We tried every bank within a radius of fifty kilometers, but none was willing. I did not know what to do. The bank would not give me money because I was unemployed. I was angry at my own stupidity. Why had I ordered the bed without having the money available? There were only two days left until delivery. By now I did not want it anymore — I hated it — but what was I to say to the man who would be standing at my door with the bed two days later? When I saw no other way out, Bernd and Dieter came to mind. I called them and explained my situation. If they would lend me the money, I would give them our passports as security until the debt was paid; and I also wanted the arrangement to be formalized in writing. Within three months they would get their money back. Bernd said he would have to speak with his friend first and would call back. Shortly afterward he called back and said they were willing to give the money. We were overjoyed — and also astonished. How had it even occurred to us to ask them, when we had only known them for a few weeks? Probably because we saw absolutely no other option. The first time I saw Bernd afterward, I was ashamed. While we were driving together, Bernd said to me: "When we first got to know you and you were always so friendly toward us, I thought there must be a catch to it." I could have sunk into the ground, I was so ashamed. I did not sink into the ground, and I did not die. Twenty-two years have passed since then and I am still very grateful to them both. As agreed, we repaid the money within three months. I was never happy with that bed. When we moved out of the apartment six months later, we left all the furnishings behind for the next tenant — including that wretched bed. We sold everything we had in that apartment. With part of the money we paid off our debts; with the rest I financed my trip to New York to visit the Governing Body of the Witnesses, in order to speak with them about whether they might not have been mistaken on the question of whether the Quran is the Word of God.

Like everyone else, we constantly had financial problems. We were always struggling to find money. Yet I always tried not to regard money as our master. For me, money was something that served me. That is in fact why I am telling all of this here: people give money more importance than anything else. Everyone knows that with money you can achieve almost anything. Whatever you want, if you have money, you take what you want. You can even buy people for a few banknotes. There are so many people willing to sell themselves that one is tempted to say that those who are not willing are a rarity. Napoleon was certainly one of those statesmen, and also a soldier, who spoke quite openly about this problem. Since he also had no need to be diplomatic, he said it plainly. He repeatedly emphasized that he had money problems. Is there still anyone who does not know what power money holds? How much damage and ruin the greed for money has already caused and continues to cause? The wise King Solomon said the following about money: For wisdom is a protection just as money is a protection; but the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the lives of those who have it. — Ecclesiastes 7:12

This verse surprised me. God knows very well what great power and influence money has among people. Yet here God is prompting us to think. He places the value of money alongside the value of wisdom. Wisdom means knowing the reasons behind things. This applies to every field, from understanding weather patterns to understanding human behavior. The more wisdom a person possesses — the more connections he understands and perceives — the more readily he can foresee certain things, because he understands why something behaves as it does. Yet we should develop beyond mere recognition and understanding. If someone has great knowledge, it does not necessarily mean it influences him or that he acts upon it. How many people do we know who knowingly allow themselves to be led and conquered by their simple weaknesses and desires? Perhaps the best and clearest example is again the wise King Solomon. Although he is described in the Bible as the wisest king who ever lived, he allowed himself to be enticed by idolatrous women into turning away from God's path. In that area he did not act wisely. This matter is described in detail in 1 Kings 11:1–14. That he acted unwisely in that area does not make him an unwise person overall. Simply put, possessing something is one thing; it is another thing to use that something effectively in accordance with its purpose. There were wise men through whose counsel entire armies — considered unbeatable — were defeated. Yet those same men were not capable of taking matters into their own hands and carrying out their own advice. Nevertheless, one cannot call them windbags or say they only made empty speeches. Let us think of the prophet Jonah. He advised his fellow passengers to throw him overboard so that the storm might calm down. He had wisdom: he knew why the sea was so stormy, he knew that he himself was the cause. He therefore gave wise counsel — but he did not carry it out himself, for he could after all have jumped into the sea on his own. The fact that he did not do so does not make him a foolish, unwise person. Was his advice wrong or foolish? As the biblical account shows, he gave wise counsel. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom; all who practice it have good insight, says Psalm 111:10. Here a distinction is made between knowing and doing. Many people judge a person's wisdom by the success he achieves in life. There are many very successful people, but they are not all wise. On the contrary, more than a few of them we would call foolish or stupid. Perhaps they have a talent in a particular area. But behind most of these successful people there are usually others who are wise and who bring about the success. The fact that this works can be explained by the fact that we live in a world, a system, governed by Satan. That is why we need not be surprised at such and other injustices. One important factor in their success is the complete absence of love and mercy — that is what makes them successful and strong. They may have skills in scheming; they are inconsiderate and unscrupulous, selfish and stubborn. Or they have successful relatives from whom they benefit. It is hardly likely that the son of a sitting president will earn his living picking potatoes, cleaning toilets, or carrying heavy loads. Their success and their careers can scarcely be attributed to their wisdom. There may be many reasons for their success, but it has nothing to do with wisdom or understanding. Moreover, there is no law, no rule, which states that through wisdom and understanding one becomes famous or rich. On the other hand, a wise person will not regard wealth as something worth striving for in the first place, or make himself a slave to money. The source of wisdom is God. This in turn does not mean that every wise person believes in God. Just as God causes the sun to rise over the good and the evil and sends rain and nourishes all the people on earth, in the same way He gives wisdom to those who seek it. For example, a shoe-shine boy who has had no formal schooling believes in God, while a professor with all his knowledge and education does not believe in God's existence. This does not mean that the professor knows less than the simple boy. But which of them is wiser with regard to belief in God? Is it not the simple boy? Certainly — but not according to knowledge. The professor also has more knowledge about God, but he does not act on it, as expressed in the text cited above. While the one claims to believe in a book of which he has not even read a single page, the other has already read many books on the subject and done research. He has knowledge, and he also sees the connections, but he does not believe in it. It only shows that he does not use the knowledge he has correctly — possibly does not appreciate it. The knowledge he has laboriously acquired and worked for is, in his own eyes, worthless. By contrast, the one who believes in God with little knowledge has drawn greater benefit from what he knows. Fundamentally, it is not a sign of wisdom to leave unused what one possesses. Buy truth, and do not sell it — wisdom and discipline and understanding, says Proverbs 23:23. We earn money through effort; with it we buy what we want or need. Likewise, truth and wisdom are acquired through effort, through research, through study and reflection. One can therefore say that wisdom is something one purchases. The same applies to learning in general. To see through a matter, to recognize its true face, requires effort. Many people have spent their entire lives trying with all their zeal and willingness to sacrifice to serve God wholeheartedly and to please Him. Their lives were defined by this; they fought for it, in a sense. Then they came across a different truth — one grounded in knowledge — and threw everything else overboard. They had difficulty accepting this new truth, but they could not deny it either. And so they let go of everything and throw it all in the bin. In other words, they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Through this confrontation they came to realize that they do not actually love the truth, that they have not given it any real value. Even though they themselves had always stressed how important love of truth is for a servant of God, they themselves failed at precisely that point. What they had called love of truth was only love for their own ideas and ideals. The problem, however, lies in the fact that they received this truth ready-made — they had not worked it out for themselves. Of what value is possessing such a "truth"? Is spreading this "truth" not essentially the same as a parrot that merely repeats what is said to it? They did not work out their faith in God through research and examination — they simply adopted something pre-packaged. Interestingly, in such people faith in God is often tied to conditions. "I will believe in you only if things are such and such. If not, I no longer believe in you." As if they could threaten God. Like it or not, the Witnesses come to mind again in this context. They are not concerned with someone accepting the truth — they are concerned with their truth, the one they themselves believe. They go from door to door with the Bible in hand, encouraging people to read this book, while at the same time saying: "You cannot understand it yourself; only our Governing Body understands this book correctly." In doing so they block the path to accurate knowledge in any case. The conditions of the Middle Ages, when the Catholic Church had banned many writings and truths, spring from the same ideology. The dark Middle Ages are one of the fruits of the narrow-minded, blinkered, fanatical attitude of the religions. A similar attitude prevails among the Witnesses. Yet they have neither knowledge nor love. If one of them is confronted with something new and most of them are against it, then he is against it too. And if he then fights against it and finally realizes that he was on the wrong path, he throws away everything he believed in and everything he previously lived for. He always expected humility from others and preached it, but his own pride is so great that he could never accept any truth from outside his religion.

I write these things to show that acquiring truth and wisdom is no easy matter. Even if knowledge is more accessible today than for any previous generation, there are other difficulties one faces when one wishes to research and investigate. Which Muslim today can pick up a Bible and read it without encountering hostility? Which Christian can read the Quran without meeting at least incomprehension — unless, that is, he reads it with the intention of finding errors, of seeking proof that it is not a divine book? Every society has its unwritten rules. Everyone is expected to abide by them, even though they are not codified in any law book or written down anywhere. If you cross a certain line, you meet resistance. In our country, and in Europe too, there is freedom of religion and belief — but only on paper. The laws of society differ from the laws set down in the statute books. The basic laws of our country are not very different from those of any European nation, but as a society we walk a different path from the Europeans. The German constitution is against xenophobia, but politicians know the attitude of the people and exploit these negative feelings to harvest votes. The written laws play little role in this; society has its own rules, barely influenced by legislation. Perhaps the law can intimidate, but the people will not change; they will simply find other ways to express their feelings. Their entire behavior, their entire attitude, is always shaped by these unwritten rules. One can give them many names: hatred, prohibitions, mercilessness, stubbornness, template thinking, belief — or one can call it, more politely, culture. But it is always precisely these rules that prevent people from making progress, from developing further, from learning, from growing in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Since Solomon was aware of how difficult it is to acquire wisdom, he warned: do not sell it! Of course, every culture has its good sides and its bad sides. But I want to emphasize here that every society, every culture, will stand in your way on the path to knowing God and drawing closer to Him. As long as you keep to society's rules and go along with everything, all is well — but the trouble begins the moment you start to question their views on faith, their habits, their traditions, or to expose them as nonsense, or even simply when you refuse to go along — that is when the difficulties begin.

Here are some verses that clearly show God has given Satan great power over the earth: Job 21:7–14; 32:9; Revelation 4:13; Luke 4:6; Al-A'raf (The Heights) 7:13–15; Al-Hijr 15:33–37; Sad 38:71–87

Look! The fear of Jehovah — that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding. — Job 28:28

The book of Proverbs in particular is full of wisdom. It draws our attention to the value and the source of wisdom. Please open your Bible and read it for yourself. For many of the quotations from the Bible I have not only given the reference but written out the verse itself, so that you need not go to the trouble of opening the Bible yourself — but I cannot write everything down here. I am convinced that when you read the Bible you will feel sympathy, but sometimes also discouragement. Some of the things people have done God praises, and those we rejoice over — but on the other hand there are also many things we have done, or still do, that are not approved of in the Bible. That can discourage us. Let us not be discouraged by the high standard we find written in the Bible, for that would only harm us. Whatever discourages us becomes our master. If we allow ourselves to be discouraged by our sins, our fears, our comfort-seeking, our desires, our pride and arrogance, and we yield to them, we become their slaves. But if we resolve to do good, to give priority to everything connected with it, then we begin to become slaves of God.

When we return briefly to the subject of love of money, it is good to take to heart the counsel of Jesus: Stop storing up for yourselves treasures on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 Rather, store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. — Matthew 6:19–21

With these words Jesus gives wise counsel to those who are constantly chasing material values. He encourages us to give priority not to material things but to spiritual values and a good relationship with our Creator. Then he says, regarding the love of money:

No one can be a slave to two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves to God and to Riches. — Matthew 6:24

God draws such a clear line. He says that whoever loves riches cannot love Him. Although God expresses Himself so plainly, entire nations and peoples, religions, organizations, and individuals are in pursuit of money. This does not mean we should throw our money into the street. It is enough if we do not let money and the striving for it govern us. We should see it as a servant — but not a servant who serves only us exclusively. It is a good and valuable servant, and therefore its service should not be confined to our own person. We have heard that Abraham, with his money and his possessions, served people who were completely strangers to him. That is what we should take as our example. Let us not be put off by others considering us stupid and naive simply because we are generous. Generosity is a gift of God, a grace. Jesus said, "There is more happiness in giving than there is in receiving." This happiness is what we should seek. What does our money bring us when everything is over? Where can we take our money? When we are young and healthy, we should be generous and remain so as we grow old. To be generous and open-handed is always appropriate when it is combined with wisdom. Solomon spoke a bitter truth when he said: ...a man to whom the true God gives riches and material possessions and glory, and there is nothing lacking for his soul of all that he desires, yet the true God does not give him the power to eat from it, but a stranger eats it. This is futility, and it is a grievous affliction. — Ecclesiastes 6:2

Every person must acknowledge such truths as these. Is it important to be rich? What does one gain from it if one cannot enjoy it? That is the greatest problem rich people have: becoming happy. It is perhaps a problem of all people, but nowhere is it so evident and plain to see as among the wealthy. While the child of a poor family plays carefree with friends beside a rubbish heap, making do with meagre toys, the child of wealthy parents sits alone in front of a computer or other electronic entertainment and is bored. Not rarely, the very people who possess a great deal have a problem sharing their possessions, whether they are children or adults. When you place a playmate alongside the child who plays alone, it usually does not last long — difficulties begin immediately, because the child has not learned to share. Among poor children it is not like that. Do they quarrel with one another? Of course they do, but because they depend on one another, they make peace again quickly. The rich child can afford to say, "I don't need you." A poor child cannot afford to say that — but if it could, it would naturally do so as well. Does that make it happier? Hardly. That is exactly what I want to bring out here: that happiness has nothing to do with money or possessions. The wealth that humanity chases and strives for by every means seems so valuable because it is hard to come by. Yet wealth itself is not to be condemned. Wealth combined with a rich and generous heart can accomplish a great deal of good. But if someone is rich and also stingy and petty, whose purpose does his wealth serve? Neither the rich man himself nor those around him benefit from it. Even a rich person cannot live alone, but usually many flatterers gather around wealthy people, doing everything to make themselves liked. Do they perhaps think that the person whose favor they seek does not notice? Does it bring them satisfaction? Because the Western world has strengthened women's rights so greatly, it is the women who tell the wealthy the truth. Why would a woman behave like the flatterers? She gets what she wants in any case. One can imagine what the situation becomes once she has a child. This is what has happened to many rich men — they defended themselves constantly against enemies from outside and were always on guard, but the real danger came from the trusted companion at their side. These are just a few small problems that wealth brings with it. As long as we do not love and do not truly recognize the value of love, we can hardly expect that to change.

Better is a dish of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf at the stall where there is hatred. — Proverbs 15:17

I have tried here, using a few Bible verses, to show what God thinks about money and riches — but my experiences with religions and their followers show that they do precisely the opposite. Their entire way of thinking and acting is devoted to material values. Some random ordinary person is not as materialistic as the religious individuals who claim to live by God's word and to serve God. When I first made this observation, I was shaken.

As already mentioned, among the Witnesses — and presumably in other communities as well — donations are collected to cover expenses and to support the worldwide preaching work. In the time of Moses, and also in later times, the people of Israel were called upon to give donations for a specific thing that needed to be done. In Moses' time, the tent of meeting was to be made from choice materials and erected in the wilderness. Moses announced this to the people. He said explicitly that everyone should give only what he wished to give freely. But then a problem arose. What it was, the account tells us:

And they received from Moses all the contribution that the sons of Israel had brought for the work of the holy service, to do it; and they kept bringing him a voluntary offering, morning after morning. 4 And all the skilled workers who were doing all the holy work kept coming, each from his own work that they were doing, 5 and they said to Moses: "The people are bringing much more than is needed for the service of the work that Jehovah has commanded to be done." 6 So Moses commanded that they should make an announcement throughout the camp, saying: "Men and women, do not do any more work for the holy contribution." And the people were restrained from bringing. — Exodus 36:3–6

When I read these verses, I was astonished. There was a specific work to be done. For it the people had to contribute both their time and strength and their material gifts — gold, silver, and so on. The people responded with joy. Then a problem arose: the people brought more than was needed! And so to a people of millions the announcement was made: "It is enough; bring nothing more!" Then my thoughts turn to those who say of themselves, "Without us you cannot be saved." To those who pride themselves on the fact that no money collections are held among them — and yet who call for donations at every convention. To the collections and the appeals in the mosques. To those who pass the collection plate along the church pews. From all of these I have not once heard that they said, "Enough — it is sufficient — you need not give any more, we have more than we need." Why do they never say that? Because they are all like greedy wolves that can never get their fill. When they receive generous donations, all they say is, "How greatly our God has blessed us." By blessing they of course think first of themselves, of the extension of their influence and their power. But it does not last long — the next convention is certain to come, and once again donations will be called for, or the collection plate will be passed around again. Moses was entirely different. He reined the people in. The religions of today feel no shame in speculating on the stock market with their money, in buying the latest printing machinery and new buildings. After all, Jehovah is blessing His people! I have never experienced them thinking about the people and considering how they might help them. The Witnesses, for example, sent aid to the former Yugoslavia. But even in their helping they think first only of their brothers in the faith. If anything is left over, it may be given to others as well. One need not expect, however, that the help will come from the Governing Body — no, it comes, as always, from the ordinary people. The upper echelons, as everywhere, do not lift a finger. Whoever gets into the Governing Body does not leave it again. I think it is similar to the Catholic Church — it is said that the greatest wealth sits in the Vatican. In any case, the wealthiest institution is the Catholic Church, both in money and in property. They display their riches without shame: their jewelry, their precious vestments, their churches filled with gold and fine marble. It was so in the Middle Ages and it is so today. Only with sharing did they have difficulty even then, and apparently they still do today. They always want more and can never say "enough." Where are they, and where is Moses? As I have said, they even consider themselves far superior to Moses. Who was Moses, after all — an ordinary man with a good heart, but we are far beyond him. We accomplish and achieve far more than he did. Especially in connection with the story recounted above, they see him as a fool — but naturally they dare not say so openly in public.

Interestingly, we often speak admiringly of people who are successful through their deceit and cunning. Or they tell the story themselves with great pride, how they "took someone in," as if it were a special achievement. But if someone is honest, upright, and modest, he is presented as unsuccessful, as a failure or a fool. Even about one's own children one speaks this way. "That one is clever, he knows how to get ahead, he knows how to get what he wants" — so they say about a child who cheats others. And by saying so they encourage him to keep doing it. About his brother they do not speak like that; of him they say, "He's no use, he lets everyone take advantage of him," and so on. One of them, even though he is only eight or ten years old, already has two or three mobile phones in his pocket. His mother is proud of this: "He'll go places." "His brother you can forget — he even saw someone drop a wallet recently and ran after the owner to return it. Nothing will ever come of him." It is not everywhere quite so blunt and open, but broadly speaking, children are being raised insidiously in this way. I have presented all this in simple terms, of course. People who are financially comfortable do not teach their children such stupidities, but instead they teach their children to hate. From childhood on they teach their children the distinctions of skin color, race, and nationalism — even though the media supplies them with more than enough of this already. Such is how they raise their children in civilized, wealthy countries. Our moral sense is so distorted that we begin to take pride in things we should actually be ashamed of. This has found such wide acceptance in our society that we even elect such people into government. Of course it must be this way — Satan can only use such people; how could he make use of honest, upright, loving persons for his purposes? At the top there must stand someone who is clever, cunning, and "up to every trick." We cannot use someone who, like Moses, holds the people back from donating still more. Moses had no idea whatsoever — he had no notion how to exploit and mold his people!

When I told my wife the example of Moses, her first reaction was, "People back then were simply more generous than they are today." At first I thought she was joking. Although we have been talking about such topics at home for years, my wife has a quite different attitude from mine. When we read the account in the Bible about those times, we see clearly that the people of Israel were greedy, selfish, ungrateful, and rebellious — fundamentally no different from what we are today. That is precisely why they had to suffer so much. Although they were warned so often about greed and its consequences, they paid no heed, and during one war they stole gold and garments from the spoils and hid them beneath their tent. God punished them for this and caused them to lose the next battle. God then revealed to them the reason for it. The thief and his family were called to account for their greed and were put to death. (Joshua, chapter 7) We should never accept good qualities and character traits as something normal, something to be taken for granted. They are never normal — at no time, neither in Abraham's day, nor in Moses' day, neither in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of Muhammad. It is no different today. If someone's good qualities depend on the times and circumstances, what value are they? One should preserve good qualities and good character under all circumstances. No one is without fault — that is not our subject. All the exemplary persons have made mistakes and sinned from time to time. But what mattered was that they were always ready to improve themselves; they were willing to see their faults and to work on them. There is no end to this growth until death. In the Psalms, David says: Examine me, O Jehovah, and put me to the test; refine my kidneys and my heart. (Psalm 26:2) Who has the courage to say that with such sincerity as David? David said it. His heart was without duplicity both toward God and toward his fellow man. Such valuable people are not found on every street corner. It is for this reason that God had such exemplary figures recorded in the Bible. (1 Corinthians 10:6–13) We should reflect on this and take it as an example for ourselves. Let us follow these people on the path toward God. They were, just as we are, ordinary, sinful, imperfect people. They were, exactly like us, descendants of Adam and Eve. God means to tell us by this: "If they managed it, then you can too." Until now the prophets have been presented to us as unreachable beings, as though they were angels or superhuman. But this corresponds to Satan's aim: to discourage us and to portray these examples as unattainable. For this reason, for instance, Muslims have difficulty acknowledging that Muhammad sinned, even though this is clearly evident from the Quran. (See 47:19; 66:3,4; 40:55; 48:1,2) They think that by doing so they are preserving Muhammad's dignity and protecting him. But God did not have these faults recorded in order to belittle these people, to humiliate them, or to present them as unreliable. On the contrary — the fact that their faults are described so openly makes the entire account reliable and trustworthy. Moreover, it gives us courage, for it shows that we too are capable of being like these chosen prophets. Otherwise God could just as well have conveyed His word through angels. They would have encouraged us and said, "Keep God's word — it is a help for you." If that had been the case and we had found their life accounts recorded in the Bible, who would then have had the courage to follow their example? I do not think I would have had the courage to do so. I would have said, "I can never be like them anyway — what they accomplished is nowhere near what I could achieve." But God did not choose that path. Because He loves us, He wishes to win us. He has given us free will and encourages us by commissioning people who have the same failings as we do — through their courage, their weaknesses, their wishes and desires, through all their good and bad qualities He says to us: "You can be like them, you can imitate them." So let us strive to be like them.

Say: "I do not say to you: 'With me are God's treasures', nor do I know the unseen; nor do I say to you: 'I am an angel'; I follow only what has been revealed to me." Say: "Can a blind man and a seeing man be equal? Will you not then reflect?" — Al-An'am (Cattle) 6:50

For some reason, people have never wanted to understand this good and wise intention of God. That is why Muslims regard Muhammad, Christians regard Jesus, and Jews regard Moses as standing even higher than God himself. They venerate these men. In Christianity this is perfectly obvious. Through the doctrine of the Trinity they have formally placed Jesus on an equal footing with God. The Arabs in Muhammad's time had the same tendency to see prophets as superhuman beings. The Quran describes everything they expected from Muhammad before they would consider him one of the chosen:

And they say: "We will never believe you until you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us; 91. Or until you have a garden of date palms and grapes and cause rivers to flow abundantly through it; 92. Or until you make the sky fall upon us in pieces, as you claim, or you bring God and the angels before us face to face; 93. Or until you possess a house of gold, or you ascend into heaven; and we will not believe in your ascension until you send down to us a book that we can read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I anything other than a human being, a messenger?" 94. And nothing has prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: "Has God sent a human being as a messenger?" — Al-Isra (The Night Journey) 17:90–94

Most people think exactly as it is described here in the Quran. God's messenger cannot simply be a human being like us! That is why they did not believe him, and why today many still do not. Their idea of what a prophet should be springs from their own imagination. The miracles they wanted to see — those that would have convinced them — were naturally connected to their primary problem: drought. When Jesus was on earth and ministered among the Jews, they had similar thoughts. They were not as blunt as the Arabs, since they already had more experience — after all, almost without exception all the prophets had come from among the Jews. But their attitude was the same.

And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation." — Mark 8:11,12

They demanded a sign from Jesus! Jesus had made the blind see among them, healed people from diseases, the lame could walk, the deaf could hear again, and he had even raised the dead! He had fed thousands of people with two loaves of bread and five fish. I cannot list all the miracles here without having to rewrite the Gospels in their entirety. All of this had become known among the people, and yet they came and demanded a sign! Their ears were stopped up, their eyes had gone blind, and above all their hearts had turned to stone. It was truly the case that those who were literally blind could see Jesus and recognize him, while those who had physical sight were blinded in their spirit and heard and saw nothing, because there was darkness in their heart and in their spirit.

Earlier we spoke of the example of the people of Israel. God had spoken to them in such a way that all of them could hear, and they were frightened to death; they had seen many miracles and signs in Egypt only a short time before. And yet what did this people do? Did they believe Moses? He had not been gone even forty days before they made a golden calf and worshipped it! (Exodus, Chapter 32)

When we read the Holy Scriptures, we find that they are full of supernatural events. In these writings God shows us plainly how unbelieving, disobedient, uncomprehending, and irrational we are in our relationship with him. This has been so through many generations. Sadly there were only very few exceptions. Therefore, in our endeavor to find the true God, we should not hope for too many supporters. The more supporters and followers a cause has, the more certain one can be that it leads away from God. That is why we are not surprised, when we read the Holy Scriptures, to find that most of the believing people who had earned God's favor through good deeds were cast out of society, persecuted, thrown into prison, tortured, and murdered. We should not think: "That was just how things were back then." We must not forget that we live in a far more malicious world. God calls us to read his books and to live by them, to change our character accordingly — but he does not promise us a life of luxury and prosperity. Before we begin to indulge in fantasies, it is better to expect what the Scripture itself holds out to us. We want to be ready to enter into an unreserved and unconditional bond with God. It is precisely this kind of bond that the state not infrequently demands of us, and in many national anthems this is expressed quite bluntly.

If politicians demand from us unconditional devotion and willingness to sacrifice, why should God want less from us? Yet God does not demand that we spread our faith through war or compel others to believe. He admonishes us not to abandon our convictions out of fear, but to stand up for what we believe. The time will come when God declares war on the unbelievers, but he does not give us the right to wage war ourselves. On the contrary, it will be God who wages war on our behalf. This is at least clearly indicated in the Book of Revelation. With our devotion to the state it is exactly the reverse. Your personal conviction counts for nothing; only the interests of the state matter. You must wage war for the state, not the other way around. We have seen what wars are sometimes fought for and how unjust they are. Is it worth risking your life for that? Not everyone wages war for the same purpose that Atatürk did. His goal was not personal honor and glory, enrichment in goods, lands, or the acquisition of more power. I do not wish to defend Atatürk and some of his wrong deeds here, but I want to show that one should not paint all politicians with the same brush. There have been and still are honest, upright people among them who were and are concerned for the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. Religious people in Turkey curse Atatürk. In doing so they reveal what spirit they are of. Alternatively, in Turkey, uttering criticism of Atatürk carries an equivalent prison sentence! Does that have anything to do with love for Atatürk? This is how they treated the prophets too, after they had killed them. But afterward they raise the prophets to the level of God. Then they forbid the name of the prophet to be uttered, almost without having first performed the ritual purification! But through their conduct they are miles away from the thinking of the prophets. If you are going to elevate someone to the heavens, at least try to do their works as well, so that you sound convincing.

People who constantly carry the name of some celebrity on their lips and hide behind it are nothing other than blusterers. If you believe in someone and want to follow them, believe it in your heart and live accordingly — but why do you feel the constant need to advertise it? Yet by doing this they provoke one another and even kill each other. Why? Simply because he believes in God or in Muhammad. Or because he did not observe the fasting period. Or for some other trivial reason. Can you convince someone with violence, with torture, with beatings, or with bombs? If he then does believe, it is only out of fear. He then does what is expected of him out of fear, and is still envious of the freedom of others. What have you achieved by that? But this is more or less the same in all religions and governments. It is justified as "positive pressure," as encouragement, or as a means of preventing licentiousness. They use whatever power they have to put pressure on one another. But do not think that only uncivilized, uneducated Muslims do this — Christians do it in an even worse way. They do not do it as crudely and openly now; it works more on a subtle level. What do they want to achieve with their pressure, what are they trying to say? We have read how important love is in God's eyes. For many thousands of years, the prophets have repeatedly pointed out how important it is to seek God with joy and love. What do religious people want to achieve with the pressure they exert and the wars they wage? Do they want to bring people to God in this way and help them to love him? The opposite is the case — because of them, many people hate God, and therefore they serve Satan the devil, and not God.

When one of the Witnesses begins to neglect the meetings without a valid reason, the others look at him with suspicion. Should they not instead be sad — if the meetings are truly something so valuable and unique — that one of their number has missed out? Instead they reprimand him and have serious talks with him. Pressure is immediately applied the moment someone steps out of line. The others are intimidated; even when they have no desire to go, when they find the meeting boring, they go anyway. Even if he understands nothing or falls asleep — it does not matter, as long as he shows up! The point is simply to be there. Sometimes one truly cannot help but fall asleep. I am not against those who fall asleep during the meetings; I am against those who think they must exert pressure to make sure everyone comes. On whom did Jesus exert pressure? When did he say: "You must listen to me"? I have used the Witnesses' meetings as an example here, but one could just as easily substitute church, mosque, or synagogue.

Let us create the following picture in our imagination: At the edge of town stand fruit trees whose fruit turns to gold at a certain time. Only if you harvest them on that day do they remain pure gold. Who would not go? Would one be angry afterward at someone who did not go? On the contrary — "Good thing you didn't come," one would say. Let us assume the ideal: say we had invited a good friend to come. We would then be sad and say: "What a pity you weren't there and missed it." That is of course only an example. But religions offer people more than golden apples — they offer "the way to eternal life." What is more valuable? That is surely beyond question, but strangely enough their works show that they place greater value on material things than on spiritual ones. Does anyone want to accuse me of lying here? Why then do you get upset over someone who does not attend the meetings? Do you get upset over someone who did not come to gather golden apples? I wrote this example to show what things people consider valuable, and what things bring them joy.

The people who came to listen to Jesus came either out of joy or because they were looking for an opportunity to find something against him. Whatever their reason, none of them came against their will. His friends and his enemies came willingly. No one pressured anyone else or reproached them with: "Why didn't you come?" When a person gives in and allows himself to be pressured, he becomes envious of the freedom of others. He begins to hate those who have the courage not to allow themselves to be pressured, who live in freedom. He is envious, and he shows it clearly. A man works under the blazing heat of the day, eating and drinking nothing because it is the fasting period. He nearly faints, he feels so ill. Beside him sits his compatriot, who keeps none of this, and cheerfully goes on eating and gets himself a cold drink. The one who is fasting grows dizzy, his head spins, and he begins to curse his compatriot, to insult him, perhaps even coming at him with a knife. He hates the one who is not fasting and is envious of his freedom. He thinks that if everyone suffered as he does, his own torment would be more bearable. He begins to hate because he suffers. If he were doing the same thing out of joy, such thoughts would never even enter his mind. On the contrary, if he were the only one fasting while everyone around him was eating and drinking, his joy and his strong faith would lead him to see the weakness of the others and to feel compassion for them.

For many years I went to the Witnesses' meetings. A single trip was one hundred kilometers. Our son was still small, so I went to the meetings with a diaper bag in my hand. In a hypocritical way I was often praised: "You always come all this way, all those kilometers — bravo." I always answered that I came out of my own interest and with joy. The only thing that troubled me at the time was how clearly I could feel their rejection. I came and went like a thief. The only reason for that was that I did not say "yes and amen" to everything they told me. I kept going until they were forbidden from speaking to me. What they did under pressure and reluctantly, I did with joy. I never allowed them to rob me of that joy. As I said, they interfere in all the affairs of their followers — their bodies, their blood, their intimate lives, and so on. They are looking for puppets, and I always resisted that. What do they give you in return? Just to see a few friendly faces — should I sell myself for that? I am many times happier because I have striven, through my conduct, not to sell myself but to please God. This contentment was not given to me through a ready-made recipe or through the prescription of others, or by simply imitating what they told me to do. People go there and chase after a fantasy as if they were under the influence of drugs. The people they follow are by now a handful of centenarians. These are their hope, their joy, their faith — the thing they fight for. If their leadership were no longer there, they would look around helplessly like lost sheep and no longer know what to do. That is the kind of upbringing they have received from these hundred-year-olds. They think they can hide behind the backs of others and thereby shift their responsibility. But God will under no circumstances allow such a thing. Each person must give an account for himself; each person must show for himself what he believes and who he is. There should be no doubt about this for anyone — so it will certainly be.

The conclusion of the matter, after all has been heard, is this: Fear the [true] God and keep his commandments. For this is the whole [duty] of man. For the [true] God himself will bring every work into judgment, together with every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. — Ecclesiastes 12:13,14

WHY CANNOT THE QURAN ORIGINATE FROM GOD?

When a Christian says, "Mohammed cannot have been a prophet of God," and you ask them for their reasons, the answer is usually, "because he was married to several women." Then they start to judge his intimate life. What business is it of theirs what he did with his wife in his bedroom? And who really knows that precisely, as though someone had filmed it at the time? Were they perhaps present back then, or did they interview eyewitnesses? They have no sense of propriety whatsoever. But people love such topics. The best-known accusation is probably that Mohammed married a 13-year-old girl. On what grounds does this claim actually rest, when they cannot even prove it? Let us assume for a moment that this rumor is true — we must not overlook the fact that at the age of 13, girls in many countries in Africa have long since been married and are already mothers. In Europe, 13-year-old girls are handed the pill at school, and by 14 most of them have already had sexual intercourse, unless they are unattractive, have some problem, or are religious and go about it in some other way. Of course there are exceptions too, but you can search for them like a needle in a haystack. Mohammed married such a young girl — what a disgrace! Such things I have never read about and they never interested me either. When we married, my wife was 16 years old. Does that make me somehow abnormal, perverted? In Europe and America, in so-called Christian countries, pornographic films are made with 8-year-old girls. I do not wish to compare these people with Mohammed; I only wanted to say that if it is customary in a culture to marry at 13, then for those people it is not abnormal.

This kind of criticism has never satisfied me. If someone is not recognized as a prophet because he married several women, then most of the prophets mentioned in the Bible — David, Abraham, or Solomon — were not sent by God either. When Jesus was on earth, he is said to have apparently forbidden polygamy. Only after 19 years of research did I recognize that Jesus had never pronounced such a prohibition. I have already dealt with this topic extensively in this book under the heading "Did Jesus Forbid Polygamy?" At that time I did not yet have this insight. At first I defended Mohammed's polygamy with the words: "If God permitted it before Jesus and gave the Law of Moses as a tutor to prepare people for the coming of the Messiah so that we could understand him, why should God not have given the same instruction to the Arabs?"

... for through law comes the accurate knowledge of sin. — Romans 3:20 So the LAW has become our tutor leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous as a result of faith. — Galatians 3:24

The body of evidence for this topic may appear somewhat complicated, but it is not. There are simple, clear proofs that speak for themselves. Jesus said: "You will recognize these people by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15–20) That is in fact the simplest way. All religions, without exception, have their various methods of exerting pressure on their followers. It belongs to their basic rules that one must accept all their teachings without any ifs or buts. Against those who do not do so they proceed with strictness and severity, as far as they have the power to do so. I am not speaking here of any secret things that are done in concealment and that no one can verify. On the contrary, what I am speaking of is obvious and essentially known to everyone. I am speaking of the Crusades of Christendom; of the Catholic Church, which burned people for reading the Bible, which cruelly tortured people for translating the Bible into the language of the people; I am speaking of the threats made against a Galileo because he claimed the earth was round; of those who exclude a member of their community because he tried to save the life of his son and consented to a blood transfusion; of those who expel another from their community because he says God foresees the future, branding him as worthy of eternal destruction. I mention here only a tiny fraction of the injustice done in this area, but by doing so I wish to emphasize how religions repeatedly exert pressure on their followers. Does such behavior befit true servants of God? Can one say they behave this way because they know no better? What is decisive is not false or insufficient knowledge; what matters is the behavior toward people who, in their eyes, are on the wrong path, and how one deals with what is wrong. What I am condemning here is their behavior toward persons or things that rub them the wrong way, regardless of whether they themselves are in the right or not. Someone who sincerely believes in something, even if it is wrong, is not to be killed, not to be brought to the stake, and not to be regarded as a "son of destruction." Entirely apart from whether he is sincere or not, what good is the restriction of freedom of thought and belief through coercion? What does coercion and pressure have to do with joy and love? What path does God want? Does He say that people should all come to Him, even if they must be forced to do so? Or rather that they turn to Him voluntarily and out of love? If He placed no value on that and wanted to force people to serve Him, who could put people under pressure or manipulate them more effectively and skillfully than He Himself? What do we imagine we are, when we think we must pressure others in God's name? Are we zealous for God when we want to force someone to keep God's commandments? And yet it is not God's commandments that are at issue here, but human commandments. These fruits are not from the spirit of God; they are the fruits of Satan and his demons, they are the fruits of human desires. God is disgusted by them and says:

... to whom he said, "This is the resting place. Give rest to the weary one. And this is the place of repose," but they did not want to hear. 13 And the word of Jehovah will surely become for them "command upon command, command upon command, measuring line upon measuring line, measuring line upon measuring line, a little here, a little there," so that they may go and certainly stumble backwards and actually be broken and ensnared and caught. — Isaiah 28:12–13

It is truly the case that God has not been shown to us as He really is, but rather as a God who takes pleasure in giving people commandment upon commandment, regulation upon regulation. But did not Moses judge people and even sentence some to death? Yes, of course he did. But in all these events it was not Moses who exerted pressure; he condemned others who were exerting pressure or wanting to exert it. That is a great difference. They made a golden calf and worshipped it as God. Not content with breaking their own word, they also tried to drag others along with them. Such things happened not just once; the entire biblical history is full of such events. Of course it may happen that someone makes a golden calf and bows down before it and worships it as though it were God. Moses killed no one for that reason alone. He had grown up in Egypt after all, at Pharaoh's court, and was therefore well acquainted with such customs. He knew the many gods that the Egyptians worshipped. He did not declare war on them or hate them simply because they worshipped something false. Did he fail to do so because he lacked the power? Did Moses not receive the necessary power from God in every instance? This great power could have destroyed all of Egypt without difficulty. But God places the highest value above all on freedom of thought and belief. If God were to destroy the Egyptians because of their false beliefs, customs, and traditions, would He not then have to exterminate the entire human race? When the time comes and it is fitting, He would do even that, but in the case of Egypt it was not about their faith — it was about the way they treated other people. It was about the fact that they held the Israelites as slaves and oppressed them. The Egyptians applied pressure, not God. The Egyptians used violence; God gives them a lesson. He is nonetheless concerned for their well-being. He wanted to show the Egyptians something by this, and not only the Egyptians, but through them all other peoples as well.

God forced neither the people of Israel nor the mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with them into anything. They were not led out of the land the way someone is led into exile — chained together and under guard. No, on the contrary, they left Egypt dancing and singing. (Exodus 15:19, 20) No one forced them to follow Moses. Was there no other possibility for them to go to some other land, some other region? When God spoke with them and His voice was clearly audible to all, and they heard the terms of the covenant, they answered as with one mouth: "Everything that God has spoken we will do." After they had followed voluntarily and then given this promise, and yet immediately afterwards turned away from God and worshipped a golden calf — then Moses had them put to death. No one had forced them to accept the conditions that God had set. They were all free to separate themselves from the people and go elsewhere. But if they wanted to live with this people, they also had to keep the word they had given. Yet they used their own freedom to restrict the freedom of others and to exert pressure on them. Did those who made the golden calf not know to whom they had made a promise? If they themselves did not keep their promise, why did they then drag others along behind them? The religions of today have the same spirit as those who made the golden calf. The God they make known to people, saying "this is your God, you must worship him," has nothing to do with the true God; it is only an image they themselves have created. They walk the same path as their forefathers. The path they walk is not God's path, and their deeds do not resemble those of Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed.

I can already hear the protests of the Witnesses: "What is wrong or bad about removing from our ranks those who do not accept everything we teach?" Their power only reaches so far, which is why they do not kill anyone or torture them. If they had as much power as the churches in the Middle Ages, they would today apply the same methods that were used on heretics back then. The conduct of the Witnesses has nothing to do with mercy. By now I regard it as something good to have been thrown out by them. Unfortunately, those to whom this happens do not see it that way. Most of them are, through years of manipulation and brainwashing, at a point where they even feel guilty about it. Not those who do the expelling feel guilty — no, those who are expelled! Quite a few of them fall into depression and despondency. Their life seems meaningless to them, and sometimes they flee into death, even though being removed from this life-threatening environment ought to be a relief for them. They have the chance to live, yet instead they feel closer to death. These are the effects of the instruction they have received over many years and willingly accepted. It makes no difference why someone was excluded. If someone is excluded because of a reprehensible, base act, perhaps the whole world will be on the side of the organization and grant it its right. But that is only so when one looks at the matter superficially. When one examines the matter more closely, one finds that in most cases it is the distorted and abnormal teachings and conduct of the Witnesses that drive people to such acts. These side effects manifest differently in each person. Child abuse occurs, or other aberrations and perversions. A tight-knit community that operates and functions through manipulation and subliminal pressure drives people into abnormality. To be frank, this is not only about the community and the bad influence it exerts over others. If someone keeps bad company, they are not themselves blameless. We are all deceived and abused in one way or another. Being taken in is not an offense, but continuing on a path after one has recognized that one is being deceived — that makes us guilty. What does God say about this? The Bible states:

Now if a person sins in that he has heard a public pronouncement, and he is a witness, or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error. Or if a person touches anything unclean, whether the carcass of an unclean wild animal or the carcass of an unclean domestic animal or the carcass of an unclean swarming creature, although it is hidden from him, he has become unclean and is guilty. Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort of uncleanness it may be by which one may become unclean, although it was hidden from him, and he himself has recognized it, he has become guilty. Or if a person swears rashly with his lips to do evil or to do good, in everything that a man may speak rashly in an oath, although it was hidden from him, and he himself has recognized it, then he has become guilty in regard to one of these things. 5 And it must occur that if he becomes guilty in regard to one of these things, he must then confess in which respect he has sinned. — Leviticus 5:1–5

These are only a few excerpts from the Mosaic Law. What is important for us in this context is how God regards a sin when it is committed unknowingly. There are instances in which the person who committed the sin is not found guilty due to ignorance — only when they become aware of the transgression. But there are also other cases in which ignorance is no protection from a guilty verdict. Regardless, however, of whether one stands guilty before the law or not, the price, the penalty, must in any case be paid. This rule applies everywhere. "Ignorance does not protect from punishment." This saying has its validity and is so applied under every law. That means we cannot escape punishment by claiming that we did not know. There is no innocent person; everyone sins. No matter how good and sincere someone is, even a prophet is not without sin. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 5:12; Al-Mu'min (The Believer) Surah 40:55; Al-Fath (The Victory) Surah 48:2; Fussilat (Explained in Detail) Surah 41:6) No court acquits us on grounds of ignorance; what changes is only the severity of the punishment. If intent can be proven against someone, the punishment is of course far harsher. If a pedestrian is run over by a car, that is an "accident" and is penalized accordingly. But if intent can be proven, then it is no longer an "accident" but a "crime," which is then punished far more severely. Christians know, or should know, that there is no flawless, perfect human being and that we all sin daily, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise they could not understand why Jesus died — or rather, why He had to die. If that is the case, how can a person, an organization, a religion, a community say with conviction: "We have the truth, no one outside us knows the truth, only we will be saved, outside our community there can be no salvation"? How can they make such a claim, and how can people believe them and follow them? No religion will ever say "there are better religions than ours" — they will never be able to say such a thing. For them it would be a defeat, a failure. But God says, "... if he becomes guilty in regard to one of these things, he must then confess ..." This confessing of sins is constantly expected of religious followers, sometimes even demanded or commanded. In the approximately 20 years during which I was closely connected with Jehovah's Witnesses, I never once heard or read the Governing Body say, "back in year X our conduct caused great harm," or "through our senseless instruction we made your life unnecessarily difficult." In other words, they are without fault! They admit their fallibility only in very general terms, because we are all imperfect after all. Instead of adhering to God's admonition "you shall confess your sins," they prefer to remain silent, cover up their sins, and — what is worse still — they even defend their sins! (Romans 1:28–32)

The Catholic Church not too long ago admitted its error against Galileo. When was it proven that the earth is round, and when did the Church apologize? And I can well imagine that there are other topics for which an apology from the Church would be appropriate. In essence, they are all saints, standing above the angels — unfortunately we do not recognize their divinity! To return briefly to the case of Galileo: what would have been the situation if he had been mistaken and his view had actually been wrong? Why does one try to silence such a person and resist every advance and every progressive insight? One person writes, another reads. The one who reads reflects and develops the ideas further and makes improvements. How else should people develop further? Do religions, through such an approach, wish to halt progress, or do they wish to promote it? States and governments are fundamentally no different — perhaps not quite so extreme — but religions have no competition in this area.

In short, the fact that Muhammad had been married to several women, and that this was supposedly proof the Quran could not have been inspired by God, did not convince me. That was the case even with my knowledge at the time. There would have to be other reasons for me to reject the Quran as the Word of God. On the contrary, I am convinced that the religions which reject the Quran for the reasons mentioned — by their own behavior, by pressuring people who are married to several women to divorce, by forbidding clergy to marry, by blessing homosexual unions, and so on — are loading far greater sin and guilt upon themselves. I looked for other reasons that might allow me to reject the Quran. Through the arguments they put forward, they did not discredit the Quran — they discredited themselves.

About four months had passed since we first met Bernd and Dieter. During that time we went regularly to their meetings every Sunday. During the week I always looked forward to the visits of the two of them. The only important topic for me was always the truth about God. Of course we talked about other things as well, but at its core everything revolved around these vital truths. The two of them spent a great deal of time going from house to house doing missionary work. As a result they had already gathered some experience with people. The strongest impression they received was probably the indifference and ignorance of most people. Even when some showed interest at first and appeared very eager, it became clear over time that they were not honest and sincere. They had this experience especially among Turks. Every people has certain peculiarities. I later had the same experiences myself. I sensed that Bernd and Dieter sized me up in the same way — that they thought I was not sincere and would lose interest before long. They wanted to "study" a small brochure with me (this is a method the Witnesses use with someone who has shown interest, by going through a piece of literature with them in a question-and-answer format). I wanted to disabuse them of that notion, however, and so I said to Bernd: "Take a book, open it to any page, and ask me something." Bernd was surprised by the answers I gave to his questions and laughed. I had read pretty much all of their Turkish books, at least in part. If I simply told them I had already read the books, that would not satisfy them — either because they did not trust the claim, or simply because they found the question-and-answer method more meaningful or effective. In practice they use the Bible only to look up the passages cited in their literature. They do not say, of course, "look at what our Governing Body says on this subject," but the Bible verses are cited to support the ideas contained in their literature. They do not really form any independent thoughts about the interpretation of texts. They cannot think outside what the Governing Body prescribes for them. I only became aware of this much later. The Governing Body in New York tells them how they are to understand certain biblical texts and prophetic words. There is no room for personal reflection or interpretation. As already mentioned, they meddle in the most intimate matters of life and issue regulations. No topic is left untouched, from masturbation all the way to instructions on how conjugal relations pleasing to God should be conducted, from blood transfusions to organ transplantation. On every topic the Governing Body says what one should do and how; it determines what is right and what is wrong. The people have grown so accustomed to this that before making many decisions they first look up what the organization says about it in the Watchtower literature. It would not take much more for them to start asking, when they need to use the bathroom, when and where they are permitted to go! Which foods may one eat, which ones contain blood components, which are entirely forbidden? If such foods are spotted in someone's refrigerator or even on their table, is that grounds to expel them from the community, to regard them as someone who has turned away from God, as someone disobedient and rebellious, as someone who has earned eternal destruction? Compared to their attitude, the Muslim position on eating pork is positively relaxed. The Governing Body — whose instructions the members feel bound to follow to the letter — consists of a group of roughly ten men (seven as of 2011, when this was written), the youngest of whom, at my time, was around eighty years old. They can even order their followers to their deaths, as long as they phrase it cleverly enough. Where these people find the audacity to exert such pressure on others in God's name remains a mystery to me to this day. At bottom the answer is simple: they all come running of their own free will and believe everything they are told. So they have only themselves to blame, one is tempted to say — yet I do not dare say it. I too fell into this trap. Can anyone say they have never been deceived? In one area or another we have all been taken in, cheated, or betrayed, or we allowed ourselves to be deceived. The Bible also cites deception and being deceived as a sign of the last days. (2 Timothy 3:13) We were taken in because we were foolish, but one cannot say that others were not deceived simply because they are smart. In this matter we are all equal. Those who think they can wrap the whole world around their finger will find themselves wrapped around someone else's finger.

One day, then, we sat with these young men — raised as I described above — and discussed the Quran. This time there were three of them; I was alone. In this field I have always been alone, and that has not changed to this day. With curiosity and excitement I tried to give them answers. I was curious to see what criticism they would bring against the Quran. Up to that point I had not yet made up my mind about the Quran. Moreover, I was in the position of the Quran's defender. As I said, I did not feel a need to defend this book under all circumstances, but to reject a book — or its divine origin — for the reasons they cited struck me as absurd. For someone who does not know the Bible or does not accept it, those reasons may seem acceptable, but not for someone who believes in the Bible. Christendom as a whole, regardless of denomination, still rejects the Quran on the same grounds. On the internet I keep coming across such critiques of the Quran, published by various Christian organizations. Yet with their line of argument they are in truth attacking not only the Quran but the Bible as well, even though they claim to believe in it. Their criticism may be justified when they attack Islam and its teachings, but not when it concerns the content of the Quran. They attack Islam and think that by doing so they are attacking the Quran. In the same way one could attack the teachings, views, and practices of Christian religions and thereby diminish the value of the Bible. But that is not accurate, because the religions by no means represent the books they claim to believe in.

Well, there we sat until the early hours of the morning, jumping from one topic to another. The topics were the familiar ones — for example, why a man may marry several women, why a thief's hand should be cut off — and eventually we landed on the verse: And We created you, then We gave you form; then We said to the angels: "Bow down before Adam"; and they all bowed down. Only Iblis (the Devil) did not; he was not among those who bowed down. — Al-A'raf (The Heights) 7:11

They said contentiously: "God says to the angels, after He created Adam: 'Bow down before Adam'? God would never say such a thing! God wants people to worship only Him and no one else." To this I replied: "God is not asking the angels to worship Adam here — He is only asking them to show respect for the work of His hands, for humanity." But they countered: "No, that is not how it was and that cannot be what is meant!" As proof they showed me a verse from the last book of the Bible, Revelation. It reads: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he says to me: 'Be careful! Do not do that! I am a fellow slave of you and of your brothers the prophets and of those who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God.'" — Revelation 22:9 At the event described there, John may have been so overwhelmed by what he had seen and heard that, knowingly or unknowingly, he felt compelled to prostrate himself before the angel and worship him as though he were standing before God. That this was not how it should be the angel states very plainly to John, and thereby to all of humanity. Even so, not every bow before someone constitutes worship. Abraham is said to have bowed to the ground before his visitors. (Genesis 18:2) Prophets bowed before kings: And while she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet came in. And they told the king: "Here is Nathan the prophet!" So he came in before the king and bowed before the king with his face to the ground. — 1 Kings 1:22, 23

It did not occur to me at the time to open the Bible and show these verses. I did not know them by heart — I did not know where they were and could not have shown them directly. But I recounted them from memory as best I could, and it did no good: they did not believe me. Then they said: "Even if those people you mentioned — Abraham, for instance — actually did this, they did it on their own initiative, not because God commanded it. There is no proof that God approved." Therefore the Quran cannot come from God!

Something important I was to learn from these conversations: the sincerity that the Witnesses expect from their interlocutor is not something they themselves display — or are capable of displaying. When someone sits across from them and says he is a convinced Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else, that person cannot be sincere and objective. You cannot persuade such a person, no matter how well you argue. When such people see you as an opponent, as a critic, they will not believe you — even if you tell them things that their own religion officially teaches but that they do not know. I tried this several times. I did it to show them how dishonest, insincere, and subjective they were. It was not a very kind thing to do, admittedly. For example, I once picked up a Quran and recited to a Witness sitting across from me a verse from the Gospel of Luke from memory. He thought I was reading from the Quran and said at once: "I know stories like that — I've heard them from Muslims quite often. That's nonsense." Then I handed him the Quran so he could read the verse for himself. He said it was not necessary, but I pressed him. He took the Quran and searched for that verse. He searched and searched and could not find it. Then I told him: "That verse is not in the Quran at all — it is in the Bible, in the Gospel of Luke." I used other tactics and tricks as well, but I later dropped them, even though their stubbornness and unwillingness to see reason had irritated me greatly. My conscience would not leave me in peace afterward. I never did this during a formal conversation, because I did not want them to feel I was mocking them. I did these things when the guys came over and the atmosphere was relaxed. We made jokes and laughed a lot. Even so, I had the feeling I was more likely to lose them than to gain them. Perhaps I would not have won them by any other route either, but at least I would have had a clear conscience. I began to feel as though I was using my knowledge in a negative way and elevating myself above others. I always tried not to win a debate — my concern was always how I could help the person across from me. I tell this here to show how blindly people believe in something. That does not change with the name of the religion. On this point there is no difference between Catholics, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

After such conversations he would keep his distance from me. In my view he did so because of his lack of knowledge. He was afraid of being rebuffed and rejected. I will never forget when we went together during the lunch break at a district congress of the Witnesses to an Italian restaurant. This friend and his father were there, along with my brother. After the meal, we reached for our wallets to pay the bill. Then the father said: "This time the young ones should not pay — I'll pay." That surprised us greatly and we stared at him in disbelief, because up to that point I had the impression that the Witnesses kept a scorpion in their pocket. Later, at a meeting, I saw him again; he looked perfectly healthy. Then I heard he had died the very next day. That saddened me — it still does, even now, when I think of it, though many years have since passed. I never got to know him any better; that time together in the restaurant was the only occasion on which I actually spoke with him. Otherwise, like so many other Witnesses, we had only seen each other from a distance at the meetings.

As I said, we had discussed until the early hours of the morning and we all looked like vagrants. Before Bernd left he said to me: "I'm going to get some sleep. You'll always only argue with others. I, on the other hand, feel sorry for them." He looked at me with anger. For Bernd it was not so much about right and wrong; what bothered him was why I could not simply accept everything rather than constantly opposing and arguing. His motto was roughly: Either you accept and come over to us, or you don't accept and stay away — but don't make things difficult for us. When I spoke with them, I was not speaking about my own ideas but about what I had read in books. What I was defending was not my own thinking, nor the thinking of any organization, religion, or sect standing behind me. My only concern was to come to know the truth with my whole heart, in all sincerity, and to defend it. That this was my concern was something even my opponents confirmed to me later.

The first time I read the entire Bible in one year, after which I went into military service. The second time I read the Bible within six weeks. Immediately afterward I began reading it a third time. In the meantime I had also read the Quran twice and was in the process of reading it a third time as well. The discussion that had gone on until the early hours had satisfied neither them nor me in any real way, and somehow we had not made any progress. When I now began reading the Bible for the third time, I read it with different eyes. I was now focused specifically on various topics that I had often discussed — or rather, argued about — with the Witnesses.

About two months passed in the interim, and while reading the Bible I came across words that surprised me. In Hebrews 1:6 the Bible says: But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him." (General translations) In the New American Bible it reads: And again, when he leads the firstborn into the world, he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him." We had discussed this very topic for hours — how God could demand that the angels bow down before Adam! In their view this was something owed to God alone, and He would never tolerate anyone paying homage to one of His creatures. That was for them a reason to reject the Quran. And now I read this very verse in the Bible. I was of course very pleased and longed for Sunday to come so I could speak with them about it. After the meeting they asked whether we would join them for a picnic. Of course we went along. Then it began to rain terribly — typical Germany. My brother, Dieter, and I ran quickly to the car. Once we were sitting in the car, I thought it would be the perfect opportunity to raise the topic. "Dieter, do you remember — some time ago we spent the whole night discussing how God had required the angels to pay homage to Adam, and you said God would never do such a thing?" He listened but said nothing. He was sitting in the front of the car; I was directly behind him. "I'd like to read you a verse I found in the Bible." Then I read the verse mentioned above aloud. I closed the book and fell silent. My brother and I waited tensely for the reaction of this young, idealistic, devout man. As I said, my brother had other interests at heart, but he too was curious about Dieter's reaction. After a brief silence, Dieter turned to my brother and said, in his broken Turkish: "Are we still meeting this week, as agreed?" He completely ignored what I had asked him! It was obvious to me that he did this deliberately, and I began to laugh — then I mocked his hypocrisy and his lack of decency. On top of that I was angry. When I started laughing in that mocking way, my brother could no longer contain himself either. Dieter's reaction was, to me, plain hypocrisy. Finding this out had cost me a great deal of time and effort, but it was worth it. This young, idealistic man — who had given up his parents and his home for the Witnesses and made great sacrifices along the way — had begun to play the hypocrite over such a small thing. He had surrendered his sincerity for something trivial. His reaction was entirely different from what I had expected. That single verse from the Bible had unsettled him. And yet these were people who had come to me to defend the Bible and to show me that the Quran was wrong. Whom can they win with such behavior? I do not know whom they can win, but I know that they lose themselves. They sell themselves like the whore of Babylon described in the last book of the Bible, which is a symbol for all religions. I saw and recognized this dishonesty and insincerity in them, even though I was still young and come from an underdeveloped country and did not have such a good education. We were roughly the same age, but they had a far better education and a more developed culture, and I do not believe they failed to notice their own dishonesty. I could not say that then, and I will not say it today either. May God forgive them.

The story mentioned above is just one of hundreds. It would be impossible to write down everything I experienced over those roughly twenty years. In this book I will only mention some of them from time to time, for the sake of better understanding. Would an honest, sincere, open person react the way Dieter did? I often put myself in his position and asked myself what I would have done in such a situation. Dieter was clearly not surprised by this verse. Whether he knew the verse and had thought of it during that late-night discussion, I do not know. But there were three of them, and all three had clung to their position and defended it, which is why they had seemed credible to me. It was not their argument that was credible — it was them, as people, who appeared credible to me. I did not know they were not sincere. But Dieter's reaction showed me that he knew the verse. As I said, whether he already knew it during our discussion, I cannot say. Nor do I know whether he knew it but simply did not think of it, could not connect it to the topic. If he had never read that verse before, he would surely have said: "Show me the verse, I want to read it myself." Then, after reading it, he would have seen that he was wrong and apologized. Or if he came across the verse at some other point, he would have called and apologized. The fact that they had made an error in one point of their Quran criticism does not mean they would have to accept the Quran. But if something is wrong, it should be corrected, should it not? None of the three did that. It would presumably have meant an admission, a defeat, for them. Or was their behavior a reflection of the spirit of their Governing Body? In my eyes, their behavior was a defeat for them. How was I supposed to trust their sincerity now? My trust in them was already no longer what it had been at the beginning.

Strangely, Dieter believed that demons were haunting our apartment — simply because I had defended the Quran! In his view, my research and the conclusions I had reached could only have come from the devil or from demons. Because I started laughing, he said: "It does not necessarily mean you are possessed; it could be some object in your household that carries a demonic influence. Perhaps someone has placed a kind of curse." So we began to turn the entire apartment upside down together. We left nothing out — from my wife's underwear to my socks, the kitchen cutlery to the toilet brush; we examined everything. In the end he found a rosary, which was evidently displeasing to him. "Throw it away," I said. What mattered to me was that he felt at ease. They hated me, even though I had always been accommodating toward them and had made it a point to ensure they felt comfortable in my home. They were often angry at me and at what I said. They presumably believed they were doing a good deed by being dishonest and insincere toward me, because after all they were doing it for God and in the name of "truth"! Any means justified the end; what mattered was only that one would become "one of them."

A family had once invited us over. The wife was the type who always wanted to walk a few steps ahead of her husband, as was the case with many other women among the Witnesses. This family had started attending the Witnesses' meetings after us; they were still "new." They were new, yet because the program is so intensive, one can observe certain changes within three or four months. Her husband was Turkish, and she was descended from Turkish immigrants — from Yugoslavia or Bulgaria, I believe. But that is beside the point. While we were their guests, the wife began to explain why she no longer believed the Quran to be the word of God. The Witnesses had shown her a verse, or she had found it herself, in which the adornments of a woman are discussed and before whom she may display them. (The Light, Surah 24:31) The verse states: And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what ordinarily appears thereof, and to draw their veils over their chests, and not to reveal their adornments except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their fathers-in-law, or their sons, or their stepsons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their fellow women, or those their right hands possess, or male attendants who have no sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they conceal of their adornments. She read this verse to me, and then said that this was the reason she had given the Witnesses the right and rejected the Quran. I raised my head, which had still been lowered over the book, and my eyes, still resting on the lines of the Quran, and looked at her with a questioning expression: "Why, sister?" "But it says so quite clearly right here," she said, not understanding my reaction. Then I looked back into the Quran, read the verse again, then the verses before it, then the ones after, hoping to find something — but I still could not understand. "Sister, I have now read the verses again, but truly, I do not understand why these verses should be a reason to reject the Quran. If I have missed something, please show me." She said with disbelief: "How can it be that you don't see it? It is written there quite plainly." Then she turned to my wife and said: "You tell him." But my wife also had no idea what she was talking about. Then she said, excitedly: "The Quran says right here before whom a woman may show her adornments — what a shame! How can anyone do such a thing?" Now I understood her problem. She had understood the word "adornments" as if it referred to intimate parts, to the genitals. To be quite certain, I asked her. She confirmed it. I then explained to her what I understand by the word. Among other things, I showed her the verse in the Bible where Peter says "your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair" (1 Peter 3:3). She then said: "You are right, yes, one can understand it that way — or rather, that explanation sounds more logical." In this she was sincere, more sincere than those who had been Witnesses for years. Over time she changed too. But I marveled at how she could have understood the text in that way. Her Turkish was probably not very good. In her mistaken view she had been confirmed by the female Witness who had been visiting and looking after her. Perhaps she had even learned this interpretation from her, even though that Witness was a Turkish woman herself and therefore this linguistic misunderstanding should not have arisen. That Witness was not uneducated. She was the woman I mentioned earlier who had explained to me the meaning of the word "Muslim." Her husband later separated from her and was therefore expelled from the community of the Witnesses. That did not stop him, however — he continued going and was readmitted years later. They are not bad people, but what they do there is no good either. They turned away from the nonsense of Islam and became Witnesses. In a manner of speaking, they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire.

As I said, their goal is: come, come to us, no matter how — just come. And throw away the Quran, regardless of why — just throw it away. But I always attributed their behavior solely to the ignorance of individuals. I was certain I would find someone among the Witnesses who really knew the subject and with whom I could discuss it. That is truly astonishing, given all that I had experienced by then. The Witnesses are right — I probably really am stubborn!

WAS JESUS KILLED OR NOT

By this time, everyone in the Turkish congregation I attended regularly knew that I was researching the truth about the Quran. Virtually all Christians believe that believing in the Quran has something to do with stupidity, irrationality, lack of education, or something of the sort. Although very few of the Turkish Witnesses were former Muslims, for them belief in the Quran was something from the past — something one had left behind and ought to be ashamed of. Those who believe in the Quran or wish to explore the truth about this book are regarded with contempt, or at best seen as pitiable fools. By doing so, they think they elevate themselves. They acquired these feelings through the influence of so-called Christians. I am quite certain that a Christian living among Muslims feels the very same way. I was not ashamed of not knowing. And above all, I was not ashamed of wanting to find out the truth. Not a few people do their own research as well, but only in order to appear open-minded and receptive to others. For me, none of these considerations or sensitivities played any role; I did not give them a second thought. First and foremost, I was learning for myself — I simply wanted to know the truth. While some did not want to speak about this topic because they were ashamed, others deliberately brought it up in order to mock it.

I saw myself as someone who was at the very beginning of the road. Compared to the extensive program the Witnesses undertook, I considered myself a zero. Their zeal, their frequent meetings, their conventions, and their constant participation in house-to-house service gave me the feeling that they were far superior in their reading, experience, knowledge, and understanding. By that I naturally mean insight and understanding of God and His ways. There were many Witnesses who had been involved for years and who participated regularly in this comprehensive program. Some of them were former Muslims. But whenever I spoke with them, I was surprised each time. Not one of them had any real knowledge of the Quran, and not a single one was sincere. They had no desire to know anything about it, nor even to speak about it. For them, it was a finished, checked-off matter, buried in the deepest depths of the earth. My presence — or rather, my interest in the topic — unsettled them; it even made them angry. I researched independently of them, and above all, I did it sincerely, from the heart, unlike them. No personal gain, no self-interest, no fanaticism, no need to defend any particular side played any role for me. In their eyes, however, I was merely a stubborn hard-head.

One among the Witnesses, who had noticed my sincerity and honesty, suggested that I speak with a circuit overseer of the Witnesses. This circuit overseer was staying with him that week, and he would arrange a meeting. He was evidently convinced of my sincerity, for otherwise he would not have organized such a meeting, since the Witnesses generally do not want to waste their time with someone who defends the Quran. I was very pleased about this. The Witness who made this suggestion and his wife were Turkish. What was pleasant about this couple was their hospitality, which came truly from the heart. They were a great exception among the Witnesses. The others, of course, took advantage of this. I was very much looking forward to this meeting. Finally I would get to know the truth, I thought. Up to that point, I had unfortunately not yet met anyone who really knew the Quran and understood it. There were many who claimed to know it but did not understand it, or did not want to. A precise date was agreed upon. The circuit overseer and his wife were German, but they spoke very good Turkish.

At this point let us briefly set aside our actual subject so I can explain in a few words what a circuit overseer is. The Witnesses do not use Latin or Greek names for specific positions within the community the way the Catholic Church does. "Catholic," for example, means "universal." The title "Pastor" means "shepherd." The equivalent of "Bishop" in Greek is "Episkopos," meaning something like "overseer." In essence, the Witnesses use the same designations as the Catholics, only they do not render them in Latin or Greek but in the respective national language. That is something I only learned recently. But it is a point on which the Witnesses argue strongly against the churches. They say that assigning such titles within their hierarchy contradicts the statements of Jesus. The verse they refer to in this connection is the following: But you, do not be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Furthermore, do not call anyone on earth your father, for one is your Father, the heavenly one. Neither be called 'leaders,' for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. -- Matthew 23:8-12

With these words Jesus expressly warns against giving oneself titles. People, by contrast, are positively obsessed with assuming or bestowing such titles, for through them they can make an impression and exert pressure on others. Such a title is especially effective when people do not understand it. Many persons and many religions interpret these verses differently. The Baptists, for example (whose name means "immersers"), forbid their children to address their parents as "father" or "mother." Instead they call their parents by their first names. If the father is named Peter, for instance, the child does not say "father" but "Peter." In their view, the title of father is appropriate only for God. A church official who had read my book online emphasized that "among Baptists (the baptized) no such thing exists." It is possible that the family applies this custom according to their own interpretation! What else can I say.

In the Bible, expressions such as overseer, apostle, or elder appear time and again, but never in the sense of a title. What does this mean? How can these expressions be used, but not as titles? Jesus' words are clear when he says, "you are all brothers." This is not meant in the way the Baptists apply it — literally and superficially. He is saying plainly that no one stands above another, that no one can direct or rule over others, neither an individual nor a group of persons. Regardless of how I elevate myself above others, however I make it visible — whether by bearing a title, by wearing special clothing, a turban or the like — I have made it something special and placed myself above others. Neither Jesus nor God wants that. Jesus also said, "if anyone among you wants to be great, let him be the servant of all." With all titles and designations, what matters is how they are used. Jesus was against using them to put pressure on others, to impress them, to rule over them — and yet it is precisely for this purpose that religions use these titles. In the time of Jesus too, religious leaders used titles to lead the people, and it was against this that Jesus acted. What was particularly important was that they claimed to have received these titles from God. That is especially impressive to followers. That is why Jesus spoke out so clearly against the use of such titles. Otherwise, Jesus had no allergy to the designation "teacher." What Jesus was against was what stood behind the designation — the pressure, the oppression, the suffering, and everything else that drives people away from God. Among the Witnesses too there is a hierarchy. There are those above and those below. On this subject one does not find much in their literature. But as one becomes more closely acquainted with them, one recognizes that this is the case, and they even try to show it openly. One recognizes relatively quickly who belongs to the upper tier, who has a say in things. Simply put, we do not want to look at what is written in the Bible in such a superficial way, for it says, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Cor. 3:6) If we place more value on spiritual things, our understanding will also increase. I do not even know where to begin, for in religion there is so much that is abnormal to recount. I cannot possibly address all the topics here. Does this mean I know everything better? No — but if I were to start saying "I know everything better and there is no one besides me," that would already be the first step toward abnormality. The prophets were sent by God to convey messages that the people did not want to hear. They did not do this from a feeling or a suspicion; they also did not speak in their own name. God had spoken with them and sent them to pass on the message. They never raised themselves above the people — no, they truly made themselves servants of the people.

But let us return to the subject of the traveling overseers among the Witnesses. These overseers are carefully selected. A primary criterion is loyalty to the organization, that is, to the Governing Body in America. Those who are especially good in this regard also have good prospects of being chosen. They even have special training for these chosen ones. These traveling overseers go from congregation to congregation. A tour lasts approximately six months, so they return to the same congregation twice a year. He stays for one week. This week is called the "service week." During this week, a particularly large amount of time is devoted to the preaching ministry. House-to-house service is especially promoted during this week. Everything proceeds, of course, according to the guidelines of the Governing Body. The traveling overseer writes a report about the week. Absolutely everything possible is reported. Among other things, even how a husband engages in sexual intercourse with his wife! If they practice oral sex, for instance, it is over. I am sorry, but I still cannot imagine how they find out about such things — who tells them? However it may be, they hear of it and expel the family from their community, or possibly just one of the two partners, depending on whether he repents and promises not to do it again. In the meantime, after many protests, this has changed. The elders no longer involve themselves in such matters. It is not proper, but it is now left to the conscience of those concerned.

I would like to recommend that you have something within reach while reading this book — something to help you if what you read here makes you feel unwell. Perhaps it won't make you feel unwell at all, but you may find yourself unable to contain your laughter, or you may need to cry over the misery of it. Well, perhaps at least a handkerchief should be kept handy. Of course, there are other topics of conversation when the traveling overseer comes to visit. After all, not everyone goes and tells the elders such stories. In my opinion, topics like these tend to come from women who perhaps want to take revenge on their husbands in this way. But as I said, that is only a guess. The less a Witness conforms to these senseless rules, the better it is for him, because it is a kind of protection. Some people create this protection for themselves in a largely unconscious way, because they have managed to preserve their natural character to a certain degree. But if someone takes everything the higher-ups say seriously, believing that God is with them, then over time he will develop problems of a psychological nature. Sometimes it is only depression, but not rarely it becomes worse and the person in question must be admitted to a hospital or a psychiatric institution. Sometimes it even ends in suicide. The cause lies in the fact that the person puts pressure on himself and makes changes in his life, convinced that it is the will of God. That is precisely the problem. In France, Jehovah's Witnesses have had difficulty being recognized as a religious community because the suicide rate within their ranks is said to be unusually high. That is why I am convinced that the best way not to end up like that is to not simply accept everything as though God himself had spoken. Since one does not want to stand out negatively either, some of them have become true tightrope walkers. That is to say, they do not follow all the instructions and do not believe every word, but they act as though they believe everything. As if no one would notice. In reality, everyone knows it — except the tightrope walker. It is the same principle everywhere; among the Witnesses it is no different than in other communities. Obeying human commandments has always caused harm and continues to do so today. Since suicides are regarded as a disgrace, they are generally covered up. There are no official figures on how frequently they occur. If none of the bereaved are Witnesses, they do not even attend the funeral. In earlier times, suicide was regarded as a sin, similar to the Catholic Church's position, and so no funeral was organized by the community. By now things have become somewhat more relaxed. How can they say that God rejects people who commit suicide? They do not want to consider how the person came to find himself in such a situation, or who bears a share of the blame, because they fear their own nest might be soiled. With these brief observations, I only wanted to show how they are organized, and I have tried to illuminate one aspect of the traveling overseer within this organization.

So, I went to this meeting with my brother. At that time I had read the Quran once from beginning to end. My mother had given me the Osman Nebioğlu translation of the Quran in Turkey after I had finished my military service. This is the translation I like to read most. One can say that it is almost entirely free of interpretation. It is also free of Islamic traditions, which otherwise strongly influence other translations. Fundamentally every Quran is the same, but into the actual translation they insert so much interpretation, commentary, and tradition that the original meaning is lost or buried under a tangle of words. In general, these insertions are easy to recognize because they are normally marked with a different typeface (bold, italic, smaller, ...) or placed in brackets. From this one can tell that these sections are not translated directly from the Quran but are insertions or explanations added by the translator. In a few cases these explanations are helpful, but most of the time they are more confusing than not. That is why I like the Osman Nebioğlu translation — it leaves every interpretation and explanation to the reader himself. For every verse, every Muslim group, every sect, every school of thought has a different explanation; which one should one add to the Quran? Do that in a separate publication, in a journal or a book, but not in the Quran! And yet I am convinced that the translators did this with good intentions, believing their doctrinal view to be the correct one and that they needed to help the reader arrive at this understanding. I am only saying here that this is not right. It is senseless and useless. I will report later on how, in Atatürk's time, Mehmet Akif had convened all the leading scholars of the Islamic world to compile an interpretation of the Quran together, and how they then parted ways with the explanation: "We cannot do it; God has not granted us the ability."

Let us return to my meeting with the circuit overseer. After the assembly we took the overseer with us in the car and drove to the family at whose home we had been invited. He was very kind and courteous. I liked the way he spoke. He knew how to conduct himself. Overseers are generally exemplary in their manners, but with him I had the feeling that he took the matter very seriously, and I liked that. I was excited, because I hoped he might be able to help me further. I felt great respect, affection, and admiration toward him. Not only toward this overseer, but toward anyone who takes his work seriously and carries it out well. He sat down on the back seat beside me, even though we had reserved the front passenger seat for him. I thought to myself, "what a considerate and polite person." Surely a great deal had already been told to him about me. We tried to get to know each other a little better through general questions. It was in any case only a short drive to the house; after about fifteen minutes we had arrived. Several people were present — as far as I recall, Dieter, my brother, my wife, the hosts, the overseer, and a few others whom I can no longer remember. To my astonishment, the overseer opened a binder. The binder contained nothing but Quran criticism. Later I was also handed the binder for a moment and leafed through it; it had been prepared by an older Jehovah's Witness. "What became of this man?" I asked. He had been expelled from the community for some reason or another, I was told. But the binder he had compiled was quite evidently still in use!

The overseer leafed through this binder until he found what he was looking for. I had made no preparations for this conversation. I had only read the Quran and the Bible — nothing more. What I saw here encouraged me in the future to do more research and take notes, so that I could quickly find the passage I was looking for. "May I just step out to the bathroom for a moment?" I asked. I only wanted to wash my hands. While I was in the bathroom, I pleaded with God: "God, who am I to defend the Quran or to discuss such a topic with these people? My only concern is to recognize and understand the truth. I implore you: if what these people are telling me is the truth, then let it become clear in this conversation and I want to understand it; but if their view is wrong, Father, then help me so that I may show them the truth." The overseer asked me: "Is the Bible the word of God?" "Yes," I answered. "Is it possible that things are written in it that are incorrect, that do not correspond with the truth?" That was a very broad question, and so I answered briefly: "I believe in the Bible, to the letter, as the word of God." "Well then, if this book is from God and the Quran likewise, then nothing in one book should contradict what the other book says, should it?" "Yes, of course," I confirmed. "Laws may change from time to time, but accounts of events that have occurred must agree." He noticed that I did not entirely understand what he meant, and so he continued to explain: "If one book says that a certain person was killed and the other says he was not killed, that is an unacceptable contradiction, is it not?" "Yes, you are right about that," I said in agreement. "Well then, let us first read the story in the Bible and then compare it with what the Quran says." We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus was nailed to a stake and killed. This story is dealt with in all four Gospels and is the central message of the New Testament. If Jesus had not died, his coming to earth would have had no purpose. I did not object as we read the texts of Matthew 27:45–56 and Luke 23:33–46. "Good," he said, "now let us read what the Quran has to say about it." Then we read Nisa (The Women) 4:157: ...and (because) they said: "We have killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary and messenger of God (Allah)." But they did not kill him (in reality), and neither did they crucify him. Rather, it only appeared so to them. And those who disagree about him are in doubt concerning him. They have no knowledge of him but follow only conjecture. And they did not kill him with certainty.

That is approximately how the text reads without interpretation, insertions, or explanations. He, however, read from a translation with interpretation. Muslims believe, namely, that the Jews did not kill Jesus but rather killed someone in his place who resembled him. They base this view solely on this one verse. In this way they believe they have warded off a disgrace from God, who would never allow his messenger to be treated in such a manner. When the overseer read aloud from his translation, I said that nothing of the sort was written there. The others agreed with me that this was merely an interpretation by Muslims. Whereupon the overseer said, "yes, ok, that's clear," since he knew better than we did that he had not read the pure Quranic verses. But what he wanted to say was clear: while the Bible states in many places that Jesus was killed, this verse says that the Jews did not kill him — and that is a contradiction that cannot be permitted in the word of God. I read the verse through once or twice more to myself. Then it became clear to me that this verse wants to draw our attention to something. It is neither clearly stated that Jesus was killed, nor the opposite. It speaks of the conjecture of the Jews, who believed they had killed Jesus.

The usual explanation did not satisfy me. Then I said: "Brother, look — this verse is speaking of a conjecture. The Jews did not believe in Jesus and thought that if they killed him, they would be rid of him forever. If someone, for example, is on trial and knows that a witness saw him commit a crime, he tries to silence that witness. He lies in wait for him and strikes the witness on the head with a hard, heavy object. He leaves him lying there, believing he has killed him and thus saved himself in court, since the witness can no longer testify against him. On the next day of the trial, that witness appears in court with a bandage around his head. 'I thought you killed him,' says his friend. To which he replies, 'so did I.' This example shows what happened to the Jews. They believed they had killed Jesus once and for all and were rid of him forever." According to a dictionary, to conjecture means "to assume based on certain signs, to surmise." I did not add this dictionary definition in the conversation, of course. Moreover, I do not know whether the word conjecture actually appears in the original Quranic text. But in several translations this word is used. When one reads this text, one truly cannot understand it easily. As I said, it is often a tightrope walk. If our explanation, our interpretation, agrees with the rest of the book, then we can say that we have perhaps understood this verse correctly. I say perhaps, because on many matters it is difficult to say, "that is how it is." Was Jesus killed according to this verse or not? The Bible makes a clear statement. But what does the Quran say? Is this the only verse on this subject? No, thankfully not. I will cite a few verses from the Quran here, and you can decide for yourself whether the Quran says that Jesus was killed or not. Jesus says to God: "Nothing did I say to them except what You commanded me: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them; but when You caused me to die, You were the watcher over them; and You are witness over all things." — Maide 5:117. Peace was upon me the day I was born, and will be the day I die, and the day I am raised back to life. — Meryem 19:33.

These verses I did not yet know at the time of this conversation, since I had read the Quran without preconceptions and had not had the teachings of the Witnesses or those of the Muslims in mind. But these kinds of conversations and discussions moved me to read the Quran many more times, keeping the various doctrinal positions in mind. At the time I placed importance on that one text and on the meaning of the word conjecture or surmise. If the text speaks of the Jews surmising something or forming a conjecture about something, one can hardly regard it as proof that a thing happened or did not happen. Then I added: "It is clearly recognizable that these words are addressed as a warning to the Jews. For they genuinely believed they had killed someone named Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. This is also evident from the Bible, in the Gospel of Matthew. There it is said that the religious leaders of the Jews arranged for guards to be posted at Jesus' tomb, so that his disciples could not steal his dead body from the grave and then claim he had risen. For they knew of Jesus' prophecy that he would rise again. In the eyes of the Jewish leaders, Jesus was a deceiver." Let us read this in Matthew 28: After the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb. And behold, a great earthquake had occurred, for an angel of Jehovah had descended from heaven, come forward, rolled away the stone, and was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. Yes, out of fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women: "Do not be afraid, for I know you are looking for Jesus, who was nailed to the stake. He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. ... While they were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. And after these had met with the elders and taken counsel together, they gave the soldiers a sufficient number of silver pieces and said: 'Tell people: His disciples came by night and stole him while we were sleeping.' And if this reaches the governor's ears, we will persuade him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the silver pieces and did as they were instructed; and this account has been spread among the Jews down to this very day. — Matthew 28:1–6; 11–15. In short, the rumor circulated among the Jews that the body of Jesus had been stolen by his disciples. By this they denied the resurrection of Jesus. That is why the Quran clearly points out that Jesus was the promised Messiah, for whom the Jews had waited for many hundreds of years, that they were able to kill him but not to destroy him as they had intended. Is it not a clear and powerful warning to the Jews when not only the disciples of Jesus, but also — half a millennium later in Arabia — the Prophet Muhammad, who had nothing to do with Judaism, draws the Jews' attention to their error in this way? The task of God's prophets was always to draw people's attention to their errors and to lead them from evil to good. I said to the overseer: "In my view, this is what the text wants to tell us." We did not speak much more. He did not have much time, so we got up and left. At the door, as we were saying goodbye, he asked me a question that is as fresh in my memory as if it had happened yesterday: "Is it possible that you are mistaken about the Quran?" I considered briefly, then said: "Yes, of course — it is possible that I am mistaken." Then he said with a laugh, "Then there is still hope." Although he had not presented a single argument that gave me any real cause for doubt, I nevertheless answered that I could be mistaken. It is possible, after all, that I am blind and cannot see certain things, or that I lack understanding and still do not grasp certain things, or grasp them wrongly. I believe that all manner of faults are present in me, which is why I do not trust myself too greatly. I thought: if my views are wrong, I will perhaps recognize that in time.

The overseer had most likely truly run out of time that day, for as I said, they are very busy people — and why should he have taken more time for my sake? Was there nothing more of interest on the subject of the Quran in that thick binder? As I said, I held the binder in my hands once afterward and leafed through it a little. Many things written in it sounded very logical and reasonable, and were aimed primarily against the teachings of Islam, not against the Quran itself. Moreover, it contained a great deal of wordplay that did not really say very much. At that time I made a resolution: I would read the Quran again and again. In addition, I had resolved to compile an index for myself, arranging various topics from both the Quran and the Bible in alphabetical order with the corresponding verses listed after them, so that I could argue more effectively — for while I knew many verses and their meanings, I always had difficulty finding them. This index of important statements from the Quran and the Bible, which I compiled myself, I have appended at the end of this book. I did this not only to be better equipped to speak with the Witnesses, but also to argue more effectively with other people who say they are Muslims, atheists, or something else. In essence, this index was meant to help me speak more skillfully with all manner of people. With these thoughts in mind, I read the Quran and the Bible. I have read both books at least ten times; after the seventeenth or eighteenth reading I stopped counting. The number does not really matter, but I notice that I still have a poor memory and that while the thoughts and statements of the books come to mind, I do not know in which verse they are found. In the meantime I have obtained computer programs for both the Bible and the Quran that make searching much easier. The Witnesses' CD is very useful. I only obtained this convenience fifteen years later, however. At the time I had difficulty understanding the Turkish Bible translation. It was written in a language as it had been spoken around 1920. I obtained a special dictionary and wrote a modern, more comprehensible translation in the margins alongside the text. I did this only in my personal Bible. Unfortunately, no one else benefited from it. When someone complained that the translation was hard to understand, I offered them my Bible so they could copy down the words, but no one has ever accepted my offer; even the copying was too much work for them, or they were too proud to accept anything from me. Fortunately, there is now a new, more modern translation. It is indeed easier to understand. However, I have the feeling that the new translation does not quite have the same spirit as the old one — perhaps it is simply a matter of habit. By this I do not mean to say that it is wrong, but even if it is insignificant in some places, it is nonetheless flawed. Although it has helped me to a better understanding in some respects, I still prefer the old translation, since, as I said, it has a different spirit. I would like to give a brief example of this. It concerns Eli, the high priest who is mentioned in the book of Samuel. (1 Samuel 4:18) In the old translation, Eli is described as "old and heavy." In the new translation it says he was "old and fat." That is not the same thing. Not everyone who is heavy is also fat. Perhaps he was tall and had a large frame. This is essentially a minor error, but it leaves a false impression. The Bible gives no indication that he was an excessive eater. Moreover, he fasted on several occasions. Why they translated this passage as "fat" I still cannot understand. In Bible translations in other languages I have not encountered this nonsense. Furthermore, it was translated in a completely different style. Possibly it was the attempt to use modern Turkish expressions and to avoid old Ottoman expressions that contributed to the translation turning out as it did. But, as I said, there are also some places where this translation has helped me to a better understanding. I by no means wish to say that the Bible has been changed or falsified! Many people think so and feel confirmed by what I have written here. They are merciless critics who claim to know the Bible very well, even though they have not read this book from beginning to end even once! Every book changes slightly through translation. That is true for any book, whether Bible or Quran. What matters is that the message does not change.

It was the overseer's final visit, since they rotate their district assignments every three years. As he said goodbye, he told me: "Who knows — maybe by the time we see each other again, you'll already be a baptized Jehovah's Witness." I thought to myself that this was very unlikely, but so as not to hurt or disappoint him I said: "Yes, maybe you're right." They were actually very kind people. The fact that they are heading in the wrong direction and that I see much of what they do as mistaken does not diminish their worth as human beings. How wonderful it would be if they could put their abilities and their zeal to work for God's way — freely and honestly, in the freedom that God has given us. Instead they have made themselves slaves of men, and all their zeal goes toward bringing others to the same place. That extraordinary zeal, however, is far removed from the will of God. Sadly, everyone sees his own way as the right one. I say "like every person," but those who are active in a religion are truly very different from others. Almost every person at least accepts that he makes mistakes and could be wrong on his path — but these religious people are without faults! With their words they admit that they are sinful and imperfect and make mistakes, but their behavior shows nothing of the kind. They fear one another greatly. They are not open and honest with each other; they all present themselves as saints. In their dealings with outsiders they regard themselves as superior and believe that God loves them more. And yet the very book they constantly carry around condemns precisely that way of thinking. It may look as though I am trying to thoroughly expose and discredit the Witnesses in this book — but the truth is that I lived among them for fifteen to twenty years, came to love many of them, and believed much of what they taught me. During that time I never spoke negatively about them; on the contrary, I even tried to bring other people to the Witnesses as well. In that respect I was no different from them. It is only many years later that one realizes not everything is as it seems. I always thought they were the way they were because they did not know any better. Among them there are many who see it the same way. They know that not everything runs properly and they hope the situation will improve — but they keep those thoughts to themselves. Even married couples can hardly speak to each other about such things. As I said, the people they fear most are one another. Sadly, the greatest hostility tends to come from within one's own household. Jesus emphasized this fact in Matthew 10:34–42. By these words Jesus does not intend to drive people apart; he is speaking about reality, about what will happen. It is sad but true. In those verses he says: 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring not peace but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 40 Whoever receives you receives me also, and whoever receives me receives also the One who sent me. 41 Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will get a prophet's reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will get a righteous man's reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water to drink because he is a disciple, truly I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward." — Matthew 10:34–42 AND THE MORAL OF THE STORY ....

The more the Witnesses tried through their arguments against the Quran to shake my belief in that book, the more curious I became. I was also deeply astonished. The people I was debating with had little or no knowledge of the subject, and on top of that they were thoroughly biased. If someone were to ask me whether Muslims have greater knowledge, I would of course say "no." It is precisely through the behavior, the wickedness, the foolishness, and the ignorance of Muslims that these same people feel justified in their position. But Christians are no different. Simply put, one cannot judge the books by the behavior of Muslims, Christians, or Jews. If you believe those people, you cannot develop a faith that is pleasing to God. On the contrary, they drive people away from God and His scriptures. Anyone who doubts what I am saying here need only take a look at the world and judge for themselves how much knowledge and how much interest religious people have in their own books. From every religion, truly valuable people have emerged very rarely. And when they did, they were branded as "crazy" by the others and treated as outsiders. Perhaps you will ask: "How can you teach knowledge to someone who has no interest?" The reason they have no interest is that what these people teach others is designed to make people dependent on them, to make others their slaves — they only throw out a few scraps as bait. (2 Peter 2:18–19) They merely wait for someone to take the hook. But in reality these were not uninterested people to begin with — otherwise they would never have sought contact with religion at all. But after they had seen a few things up close, they too lost interest, and rightly so. Through their behavior, the religions have driven away from God the very people who were seeking Him — what an achievement!

I had wondered why the Witnesses are so generous when it comes to expelling their members. Normally one would think that organizations care about growth, about the number of their followers. Evidently the reasoning of the Governing Body is different. They too dangle bait in front of people, just like other religions do. They prefer to have one person who is valuable to them over a thousand useless ones. The larger the number of followers, the more work there is. Of course, it all comes down to their own advantage. They do not need many who have to be pulled along; they need a few strong donkeys who can carry the load. Why should they place value on numbers? They are not politicians who need to win as many votes as possible. Have you ever seen a king parading through the streets campaigning for his policies? Why should he? He doesn't need to, because he is not elected — he inherits the office from his father. Yes, from time to time, when he feels like it, he appears in public and addresses the people. The people go absolutely wild for it. They nearly trample each other to death just to attend this extraordinary event and set eyes on this superhuman being!

When I think of England in this context, I ask myself: why do they place such value on their queen, their princesses and princes? What do they give to the people? That they take — that goes without question. Why does this people, which has its arms spread across the entire world like an octopus, still look up to its royal house? Is the queen so powerful that they cannot remove her? On the contrary — they are actually proud to have a queen. The tabloid press, in its glossy magazines, is utterly obsessed with news from the royal household. Paparazzi follow the aristocrats at every step. If someone from the royal family happens to be spotted relieving himself somewhere, it becomes a sensation and the pictures go around the world. Or the aging queen stumbles on the stairs. What a story! Well, such things happen, especially when one is no longer so young. And when it comes to news from the bedroom, it disappears from the press for months on end. Do such topics bore you? Millions of people are crazy for them — because these newspapers do not work for free. A great deal of money is earned in this field. Exclusive photos or interviews cost a fortune. And then it happens, rarely but it does happen, that someone from ordinary mortal stock marries into the royal family. Just as it is for Catholics and Witnesses to play golf with the angels above the clouds, so it is for that person to enter the palace. But the disappointment does not take long to arrive. After a relatively short time, after a deeper look behind the scenes, she sees such terrible things that she feels sick. This life at court, so coveted from the outside, becomes unbearable for her and she tries to escape it. She begins to air dirty laundry in public, throwing mud at the noble house. All of that is still not bad enough — but then she wants what these aristocrats love most, what their heart clings to: money. A short time later: what is this?! An accident has occurred and this woman and her lover have lost their lives in it. What a coincidence! Then comes the funeral ceremony, watched by the public. Those responsible would love to jump for joy, but at every corner stand those intrusive, repulsive journalists. To the memorial service come hundreds of thousands — yes, even millions.

Why do I tell this? Am I concerned with politics? No, I have never had much interest in politics. I want to speak here about us human beings, about how we behave. These kings and queens — we make them kings and queens. We carry them on our shoulders. We bow down before them; we arch our backs and wait for someone to sit on them. Well, that is how it is in politics. But no — that is not enough for us; we are prepared to carry even more burdens. So we have taken on still more loads. We have offered the priests, preachers, rabbis, hodjas, the religions and organizations a place on our backs. Interestingly, we always praise the very people we have become donkeys for, the ones we carry on our backs. We allow no criticism of them. Not because we particularly love them or greatly value what they are worth. Especially when the one sitting on our back constantly drives us and digs in his spurs. Some have spurs like the cowboys of the Wild West — beautiful points, arranged like the points of a star. We suffer under them constantly, but we would never admit that we are on the wrong path, even when we run into our own misfortune with our eyes wide open. We will always speak admiringly of our rider and honor him. If we were to begin criticizing him, people would immediately ask: "Then why do you carry him at all?" If we then had to say that we do so because we have no other choice, it would come out that we are donkeys. That is what we fear: no one should notice that we are donkeys. We are ashamed of that. Sometimes the load becomes too heavy and we can no longer carry it — then we rebel, flee, and run into another stable, where we again make ourselves available as a beast of burden. Does one truly free oneself from being a donkey by changing stables? We only bring great joy to the owner of the new stable. The donkey then thinks: "My new owner is truly a good person — look how happy he is about me." But the owner is not rejoicing over the individual; he is only glad to have found a new donkey who even came to him willingly. Just as people generally treasure things they did not have to work for, things that simply fell into their laps, so the new owner values his donkey. When will the donkey realize this? Only when he has worked himself to exhaustion and is at the end of his strength, when he can no longer perform as he once did and is therefore no longer as valuable to his owner? Yes, sadly that is usually the case. And often by then it is too late. What would you say — do adults laugh more than children? Do children laugh more because they are unreasonable or foolish, while adults are wise and experienced? Who is more foolish, or rather more sensible, given that laughter is an expression of joy? Perhaps you will say: "What does one thing have to do with the other?" Who would not like to experience things that cause him to laugh from the heart and to be glad? Surely everyone would — or would they not? Why does this seem impossible as an adult? Donkeys never laugh either. Their handsome face is always sad. The donkeys that fare best are those you see in zoos in Europe and America. They are not free, but they carry no loads. In this case I mean literal donkeys. But the people who are like donkeys fare well nowhere on earth — neither in Asia nor in Europe or America nor anywhere else.

How are adults supposed to laugh? When they look back on their lives, they were themselves donkeys and carried others, or they exploited other donkeys and let themselves be carried. But there is always someone sitting higher up. And there is always someone who is right at the bottom and upon whom the entire weight rests. When he breaks down, the next one up is suddenly at the bottom. But why do we stay on all fours and not begin to straighten up and stand on two legs, as befits a human being? God created donkeys as donkeys and people as people. Why do we not recognize our worth as human beings? Pardon — by that I mean not only our own worth as human beings, but also the worth of our fellow human beings. In truth, even those who let themselves be carried by others would be happier and more content if they stood on their own two feet. Because of us — because we carry them on our shoulders — they are no longer accustomed to walking; their legs have gone to sleep; they have unlearned how to walk. When they then fall, they can no longer get up and crawl like a worm on the ground. Their legs have no strength left to stand on. We have spoiled them so — and it does them no good. Although we sometimes mean well, we often harm one another. Either we oppress others, or we carry them on our shoulders and say: "You don't need to go to the toilet — just relieve yourself on my head."

For a time, God's chosen people Israel had neither a king nor a ruler. They paid no taxes and gave nothing toward the military. The only contributions they were required to make were the sacrifices for their forgiveness, which they would bring to the priest as a sign of their repentance when they wished to do so. Since at that time, under the Mosaic Law, the priest served as a kind of mediator between God and the people, they were in effect giving these offerings to God Himself. And that only when someone sinned and confessed and repented of his sin — that was more or less all. Approximately four hundred years after this people was freed from slavery in Egypt, they went to the prophet Samuel of that time and said: "We want to have a king like the neighboring peoples." This made Samuel very angry. His reaction is found in the Bible, where it says: But the thing was displeasing in Samuel's eyes, because they said: "Give us a king to judge us," and Samuel began to pray to Jehovah. 7 Then Jehovah said to Samuel: "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is me whom they have rejected, so that I should not be king over them." — 1 Samuel 8:6, 7 But God then adds the following: Only this — that you should solemnly warn them and tell them what the king who will reign over them will lawfully claim from them. 1 Samuel 8:9 What is it that the king would demand of them — what would be the consequence of the people's request? God explains it to them:

So Samuel spoke all the words of Jehovah to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 And he continued: "This is what the king who will reign over you will lawfully claim: He will take your sons and put them to his chariots and among his horsemen, and some will have to run before his chariots; 12 and to appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and his chariot equipment. 13 And your daughters he will take to be ointment mixers and cooks and bakers. 14 And the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves he will take and give to his servants. 15 And from your fields of grain and from your vineyards he will take the tenth, and he will certainly give it to his court officials and to his servants. 16 And your male servants and your female servants and your best herds and your donkeys he will take and use them for his work. 17 From your flocks he will take the tenth, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but Jehovah will not answer you in that day." — 1 Samuel 8:10–18

Have we understood what God is saying here? With their wish to have a king, the people are in effect saying: We want to be donkeys! How does the people respond after hearing God's clear warning? The account tells us:

But the people refused to listen to Samuel's voice and said: "No, but there will be a king over us. 20 And we also, we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." — 1 Samuel 8:19, 20

What was their problem, that they absolutely had to take such a burden upon themselves? If it was simply a matter of having a king: God was already their king, for He said "so that I may not be king over them." Was God not a good king, that they wanted someone else? If we read the whole account we must say that it is nonsense to assume this. In practice, however, we are exactly like the Israelites. What did they say? They wanted to be like the neighboring peoples. Why did they have this need? What advantage did those peoples have over Israel? They had a king, soldiers, and armies. This may seem attractive at first glance. Soldiers, all dressed alike and well organized. They were constantly waging wars and honoring their heroes. All of this may have seemed very attractive to them. But what did they think — who raises those armies, who organizes all of it, who trains the soldiers? Did they perhaps think the king does all of this himself? On the contrary, the king would have them do all of it. He would not ask — he commands, and if necessary he compels. He would also pile his own burdens onto the people and make them carry them. The most precious things they owned, their king would take from them. Their sons, their daughters, the produce and yields of their fields, stables, and vineyards — the king would claim all of it for his palace and his servants. That it would be this way, God had told them. If we read further in the Bible's story, we see that the burden on the people was even worse than that.

We should not fall into the judgment, however, while reading this account, that the Israelites were very bad and foolish people. What they were, we are today just the same. Their account was simply written down as an example for us today. (1 Corinthians 10:6–11) If God had caused the account of every people and nation to be recorded, how many Bibles would we have today? The one we have is already too much for most, since only a few people read it. People back then were no different from us. We should not let ourselves be deceived by technological progress. Back then there were already the same fears, worries, hatred, quarrels, jealousy, envy, love of money, self-love, complacency, and so on. What led these people, the people of Israel, to make such a decision? Why did they prefer to be ruled by a human rather than by God?

At the beginning of this topic I spoke about how people make donkeys of themselves. You may have read those thoughts as though I were joking or telling fairy tales. There are certainly some among the readers who say: "I don't believe that people really demean themselves to that extent." Let us allow the history of humanity to pass before our mind's eye. At every time there has been a ruler, a leader above us. Wherever he has gone, we have followed him. For most people this has brought great misfortune and had terrible consequences. But what concerns me is not so much all the bad consequences for us, but much more the question of why we have been like donkeys, such that all of this has happened to us. As I said — what does it mean when someone stands on all fours with a saddle on their back? What does it mean other than: "Climb on, take me wherever you want, I will carry you"? That is, I do not want to think too much, I do not want to strain my mind — take all my worries and problems and I will do everything you say. Does the one you lift onto your shoulders have no worries of his own? In a moment of danger, will he protect you and sacrifice himself? Or will he send you into danger and flee himself? Of course he will do that. Will you truly be rid of your problems and worries by loading them onto someone else and saying: I will do what you want, but I myself do not want to have to think very much? It is said that an ostrich buries its head in the sand when danger threatens. Does that protect it? These and similar questions are the ones we do not want to think about, and they are what drives us to act like the Israelites of old and make donkeys of ourselves. Some take pleasure in carrying others; others take pleasure in being carried.

Behind this behavior lies laziness and fear. People are afraid of making mistakes. They fear making a wrong decision. They feel overwhelmed at the thought of thinking through their worries. They hate responsibility and flee from it. All of these things should be taken care of by someone who knows what they are doing and who enjoys doing it. They think that then they can lean back. In areas like this, people are somehow all optimists. They are optimists because they are afraid of reality, afraid of the truth. The king will do this and that to the people. Maybe — but it will not happen to me. The bad things always happen to others, never to oneself. One is always exempt from catastrophes and other terrible events. The main thing is that one does not have to think and make those decisions oneself. It will somehow work out. Let others make the important decisions. Let others think about it — it will surely be for our benefit. With whose money do those at the top make their decisions — do they pay for everything out of their own pocket? Do they declare war on other countries trusting in the strength of their own sons? No, never! All of this and much more, you and I must pay for. The king declares war, your son and mine die. He spends the money, you and I pay. He makes a bad, wrong decision, you and I bear the consequences. He himself is spared all of this. The one to whom we said "please lead and guide me" wears a suit and tie, drives the finest and most comfortable car with a chauffeur, dines in the best restaurants, has plenty of servants around him — and he can afford all of this with your money and mine. When he came to power he weighed 70 kilos; within no time at all he tips the scales at 120 kilos. In former times, the king was chosen from the bravest of the war heroes. The most courageous among the fighters was made king. They were made into heroes, and they were the ones who went ahead of everyone else and protected them. Times have changed. Today, those in power are the ones who are deceitful and base. They are afraid of their own wives and cannot even keep their children in line. Yet these are the ones who wage war against other nations. Nothing happens to the man himself — he is not even in danger. He is surrounded by donkeys who are ready at any moment to give their lives for him, just so that nothing happens to him. All right, we have chosen them and gotten used to it. But that is still not enough. We have become so comfortable that we have even sought and chosen leaders in our relationship with God. "I have no idea about God and religion, I cannot even pray properly. You speak to God for me, you think for me and research for me what the will of God and the true faith is. You pray for me, I will follow you — as long as you lead me to paradise." Through this attitude we have elevated to mediators between us and God people who soil themselves because they can no longer hold it in. Are they being crushed under the burden we have loaded onto them? They are not foolish either. After all, the donkeys are standing there ready and offering themselves — so they climb on and let themselves be carried. They say: "Bring us everything you have, you wretched, wicked sinners, for God has so commanded us!" And the people follow and obey willingly. They do not fear God nearly as much as they fear the leaders they have chosen.

Let us suppose that these people we have chosen as our leaders are good, very good people, without fault. What do we gain from that — does it bring us any benefit? Will they be able to save us? God's Word says clearly and plainly: "No." The prophet Ezekiel tells us:

And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting unfaithfully, I will stretch out my hand against it and break its staff of bread and send famine into it and cut off from it man and beast." "Even if these three men were in the midst of it — Noah, Daniel, and Job — they themselves would deliver their own souls by their righteousness," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. — Ezekiel 14:12–14 "... even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst, as I am alive," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, "they would deliver neither son nor daughter; they themselves would deliver their own souls by their own righteousness." — Ezekiel 14:20

In other words, however good the person we follow may be, he will not be able to save us. We can only hope to be saved by God through our own righteousness, through our own character — not by following a human being or a label. A righteous person can save only himself, God says — not even his own son or daughter! That is the case when we follow someone who is a very good person; what then when we follow someone who is bad and sinful? Will it save us if we say, "I followed him, I only did what he told me"? The answer is obvious. Please also read 2 Kings 17:7–23. There it is written what consequences resulted from the Israelites' insistence on having a king, where their kings had led them. The consequences of following kings and peoples are described there very vividly. I would like to quote just a few words from it here:

"And this was because the sons of Israel had sinned against Jehovah their God, who had brought them up from the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and they had begun to fear other gods; and they kept walking in the statutes of the nations that Jehovah had driven out from before the sons of Israel, and those of the kings of Israel that they had introduced ..." — 2 Kings 17:7,8

We have seen where their demand "we absolutely want a king over us" led them. With their own laws and rules they destroyed themselves. Did this happen only to the people of Israel? No — on the contrary, people today are even more obsessed than before with having a king over themselves, a pope, a leader, a president, ministers, pastors, rabbis, a Faithful and Discreet Slave, and so on. This springs from the attitude: "You can do this much better than I can — you do it." We are in a pitiable state. What I am writing I do not mean as a joke. It is truly so: no donkey behaves the way we human beings do.

Some may object: there is no other way. They cannot imagine any other way of living. Yet God showed in the Bible that there is. Sinful and bad people like us lived for 400 years without a ruler, without a king. Were there no problems among this people during that time? Of course there were. But how did they solve their problems? The Bible book of Judges is full of these experiences and accounts. The worries and problems they had to wrestle with were always the consequence of their own mistakes and their immorality. When they had pleaded with God for help, He always helped them by sending a deliverer. But this deliverer never came to reign or rule as king — he was on the same footing as the people. Even at that time the people had expressed the desire for a king, but the judges whom God had sent as deliverers always declined. This is clearly apparent from the verses in Judges 8:22,23. When the people wanted to make the judge and his sons their rulers, he declined and said that neither he nor his sons would rule, but only God. In every city there were Levites, priests of God, who had a reputation among the people as honest and trustworthy men, who took on the function of a judge and attended to the problems and disputes of the people. Naturally, from time to time there were also those among them who sold themselves and accepted bribes, or who were not free of prejudice in their judgments. That kind of problem existed everywhere — we must accept that. There are countless people who have lost their lives because of a slander or an unjust verdict. And yet neither the slanderer nor the one who pronounces the unjust verdict is a king or ruler. Even though a judge bears great responsibility and power toward the people, he is still only a judge and his power is limited. He is not a king or ruler. When serious incidents arose among the people, the whole people would assemble as one man and make a decision. In one such case, the whole people came together, made a decision, and did not disperse until the matter was resolved. They were all as one man. There was no head, no one who had the final say. Of course they argued and debated until they had agreed on a solution. Their greatest help in this was the word of God, which they recognized as their standard. But one must not imagine this as though they were always in agreement or as though one of them invariably had the right answer. When no agreement could be reached, they inquired of God and He answered them. "Why does God not answer us today?" someone is surely asking right now. If we asked God today, would He not say to us: "Why do you come to me — go to the one you have chosen as king, as ruler over you"? (Judges 10:10–14) Would God not be right to answer in that way? Nevertheless, God is forgiving and we live in trust in His mercy. The king of that people back then was God, even though they were sinful and flawed. Yet in contrast to Jehovah's Witnesses, who see it as proof of their loyalty to ask even their Governing Body where they should go to relieve themselves, these people did not ask God about every minor thing. Even though God was their king, He had created them with a mind with which they themselves could make decisions. He wanted them to use their abilities and to develop them further. God is always in favor of people being active. He does not think like the political powers, like the religions and society, which raise passive, cautious people who are afraid to make decisions. They put on the brakes; they stifle people's abilities. The human being is still the most magnificent and wonderful creature on earth, even if they have demeaned themselves.

Related to this topic, we find an account in Judges chapters 19–21. These 3 chapters report on a terrible immoral act and its consequences — how the whole people of Israel united as one man and resolved to take action against this immoral deed. When the people heard of it, the account states precisely that "the people gathered together as one man."

Then all the people rose up as one man, saying: "None of us will go to his tent, and none of us will return to his house. And now this is what we will do to Gibeah: we will go up against it by lot —" — Judges 20:8,9

Among them there was no king, no ruler, no leader. The people themselves were king and ruler. Many are surely thinking: "Perhaps that was possible back then, but it cannot be realized today." In actual fact, communism began with that very same thought. Under that name, unfortunately, a regime then developed that exercised even greater pressure on the population. With this book I do not want to say either that we should live again as the Israelites did, or that I believe humanity will develop in that direction. I am convinced that what is foretold in the holy scriptures will be fulfilled — a world that stands under the rule of God. He has appointed Jesus Christ as king for this purpose, who will rule from heaven. The systems we have today, we will simply no longer see, and we will no longer live under human governments. No one will exert pressure over another, dominate another, or rule over another. That is what is understood by the word paradise. But it will never be brought about by human beings, for they are not capable of it. For that we need a superhuman power — the power of God. With this I do not mean to rebel against governments. For there is no government on earth that does not exist unless by God or with God's permission. (Romans 13:1–7) That in turn does not mean in the slightest that all the evil, bad, and cruel things that governments commit happen in the name of and with the approval of God. Just as God does not immediately punish our wickedness, He also does not prevent governments from acting as they do. But this should not encourage us to continue in our sins. Yet most of the time we feel encouraged to do so, as Solomon describes in Ecclesiastes 8:11: Because the sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad.

But let us return once more to those who object that in our day it could not be realized — living as the Israelites did, without a government. At the same time they say of the Israelites that they were bad and lazy people. If they were so bad and selfish and they lived for several hundred years without a ruler, how much more should we be able to carry it out successfully today, since we are so advanced and live by Christian principles? Depending on what suits us, we call them bad and unbelieving, or conversely we say that what they were capable of, we cannot do today. Is that fair? As I said, there is fundamentally no difference between people then and people today. They are descendants of Adam, just as we are. Are there perhaps those who say that we descended from apes? Of course there are. There are all manner of views that are widespread among us human beings. If we did descend from apes, that means we are the same species as they are. Where the apes came from, we had better not ask! With such questions and thoughts, the very clever among us begin to deny their human origin and to call God into question by asking: "Where does God come from?" In this way they want to justify their own descent from apes. As if by asking such a question they could prove anything! Is someone right simply because they ask questions that cannot be answered? Earlier I called human beings donkeys — with that I only meant to draw a comparison. But these people speak of literal apes. They believe they can escape the facts by forcing themselves to believe something like that. Let them keep at it. As I said, no one will be able to bring about another person's salvation, so let them keep at it if they think they can answer for it. For we will all have to give an account before God for what we think, do, and say.

For God himself will bring every work into judgment, concerning every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil. – Ecclesiastes 12:14

THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE

The more I compared what the Bible says with what I read in the Quran, the less likely it seemed to me not to regard the Quran as the word of God. The more I read, the more I investigated, the more I came to believe in the Quran. What influenced me most, of course, were the arguments of those who claimed the Quran could not be the word of God. Possibly without realizing it, their very argumentation even cast the Bible in a bad light, despite their professed belief in it. Whenever they said about something written in the Quran, "that cannot be, God would never say such a thing, he would never do or demand such a thing," I found the same or something similar in the Bible. Or when they said about a historical account in the Quran, "that is not how it happened," because the event is not mentioned in the Bible, I would find in the Bible at least a hint or a small allusion suggesting that the Quranic account might in fact correspond to reality. Sometimes it happened that I read something in the Quran that is truly not mentioned in the Bible, not even alluded to, yet teaches an important truth. I will mention such points later.

When a Christian picks up a Quran, he expects to read exactly what he has read in the Bible, identical to the letter and comma. A Muslim, when reading the Bible, expects to find complete agreement with the Quran. Sometimes they actually look for exactly the same wording, rather than paying attention to whether the same story, the same meaning, is conveyed. Sometimes they then literally argue over individual words — why does it say this word here and not that one. It is as if they were examining counterfeit money, but literally so. I am by no means opposed to a thorough examination — on the contrary, it is good and necessary. The more thoroughly one investigates, the better. In this book I myself place a great deal of emphasis on that. If we return briefly to the comparison with counterfeit money, we see that a single letter, a comma, a period, a dash, changes everything and exposes something as false. With money there are thousands of minute details that make an original, such as the quality and thickness of the paper, the watermarks, fine embedded wires, and much more. With this method, however, one cannot compare the Quran with the Bible, or even the writings of two different prophets. It would then be impossible to compare even the same book in the same language but translated by different translators. That brings us back to the arguments of Muslims or medieval Christians that the scriptures of God cannot and should not be translated at all. Can two translations of the Quran or the Bible be identical to the very last comma? If we examine a book with this attitude, we will end up rejecting everything. Those who say, "one must absolutely read the Quran in Arabic," think the same way. A wrong comma, a wrong period, or even a wrong word is a catastrophe for them. But this attitude does not stem from a deep appreciation or reverence for the word of God, for they themselves do not understand what they are reading and they do not want anyone else to understand it either. They are against the truths in these books becoming known; they are against ordinary people reading and understanding and rising up against the clergy. That is why they say one cannot understand the word of God without having received a special education. "Has God revealed his word to these common people? Where would we end up if everyone could read and understand or interpret the Bible for themselves? They should not trouble themselves with it; we will explain to them what is written in these books." With these words they present themselves as kindly and generous, as if they were concerned only for the people's wellbeing. That is to say, these stupid, ignorant people would break their chains if they came to know the truth in these books. They would throw off the burden they have carried for many thousands of years and free themselves from their captivity. Through the spread of knowledge and understanding, this has in fact happened to some extent. The more widely Bible translations spread, the more people rose up against their oppressors. For the religious leaders, the clergy class, this change brought about by the spread of the word of God is no miracle. They know that anyone who reads these books for themselves and investigates them will find it very difficult to say "yes and amen" to everything they say.

Martin Luther, for example, published the Bible in the German language in the year 1534. In English it had already been translated by others a few years earlier. The Catholic Church declared war on these individuals. People like them were burned publicly at the stake in the marketplace. No matter how great the pressure and resistance of the Church were, it could not prevent this work. Something similar unfolded in the Islamic world and is still present to some extent today. At that time the Church could still exert its pressure more effectively, because the printing press was still in its infancy and was mainly in the hands of the authorities — that is, the Church. The invention of the printing press was not exactly welcomed with open arms by the Church, only once it realized it could make very effective use of it for its own purposes. Otherwise all new inventions are the devil's work. It is always the same. This same attitude toward technology, toward progress, we find in Islam today as well. First one is against it, as if it came from the devil. And we follow along. Somehow we are slow to learn and find it difficult to draw a lesson from the history of humanity.

In the year 1789 a revolution breaks out in France and the spark leaps to other countries and spreads to nearly the entire world. The Catholic Church is affected most of all. The power of the Church was curtailed, and it is one of the first links in the chain that will eventually lead to the complete downfall of the Church. Knowledge and understanding brought people there. The more you know, the easier it becomes for you to take the step away from the donkey and toward becoming a human being. You begin to free yourself from some of the burdens you carry. Because the religious leaders, the class of clergy, know this, they resist the common people from educating themselves further. All manner of things disturb them. Even the fact that the earth is round, or that it is not the center of the universe, is intolerable to them. That is why they proceeded with force, with extreme brutality, against such knowledge and against those who spread it. The same spirit can still be felt today among the Witnesses and other communities. They interfere in every matter. I am not speaking of Islam — in my accounts I am still talking about Christendom! Christians still view Muslims and the Ottoman Empire as barbarians. They are portrayed as enemies of civilization. Sometimes that is even true. But then I would like to call out to them with the words of Jesus: "How is it that you can spot the speck in your neighbor's eye, but cannot see the plank in your own?"

Hostility toward other countries, other peoples and cultures, is stirred up somehow in every nation. Not even two neighbors living close together can live in peace with one another. The moment the doors are closed, they gossip about each other. In Europe it has by now become the order of the day to take one's neighbor to court. There are many thousands of such cases. They often concern utterly trivial, ridiculous disputes. Either the branches of the neighbor's tree grow over the hedge onto one's own property, or the new neighbor builds his house 50 cm higher than planned — what precision of eye they must have, I find it truly astonishing. If he did not insist on filing one complaint after another, everyone would really not care, but he does not see it that way. In a documentary I saw how an old man fumed about it and said before a running camera: "If nothing is done, he will kill himself." Madness! For the builder the alteration cost fifty thousand euros. No matter — he must comply with the regulations! The two of them have never shaken hands or had coffee together, not from the very start, and both are so-called true Germans. Or the neighbor's dog urinates in our yard, or the rooster crows too loudly, and so on. There are even more absurd and worse, more intimate cases, but I am even ashamed to write down here the things they quarrel about. If neighbors can quarrel with each other over such trivialities and become so bitterly hostile that they no longer speak to one another, why then should they not be hostile toward Muslims? Crusades were launched to destroy the Ottomans. That still astonishes me today. So many warriors from half of Europe gathered together, marched into the Middle East, and waged wars against the Ottoman Empire. These masked knights were made all manner of promises at the time, including a place in paradise. And today they mock, because Saddam calls for holy war! What does Christendom do? Saddam is simply trying it with a somewhat outdated method, and it did not work either. Well, the problem was really that the opponent was overwhelmingly powerful; otherwise his holy war would have had an effect.

Tell me, wherein lies the difference between these peoples, these cultures? In what respect is one superior to the other? And yet they are constantly busy praising themselves and say with pride: "We are superior to the others, we are the best." While the European states champion human rights and advocate for greater humanity, justice, and freedom, they simultaneously rejoice when war is waged against an Islamic country. They regard the death of every Muslim as a gain. I have seen these feelings myself among Jehovah's Witnesses, even though they like to present themselves as international in character and portray themselves as having overcome all racial barriers and prejudices. They go from house to house to all people, regardless of skin color, religion, or language, and proclaim to them the Kingdom of God. "Come to us and you can be saved," they announce without reservation. If even among them such prejudices and racial barriers exist — albeit on a smaller scale — what must it look like among others? But from what source does this attitude stem, where did they get it? They got it from the same source as the Muslims. Who or what is this source? This was also the question asked by the woman in Aziz Nesin's novel "Tatlı Betüş" (Sweet Betüsch). She kept telling herself, "if only I could find the cause of the filth." The Apostle James, guided by the Spirit of God, describes the source of human hatred and rage:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by his good conduct that his works are done in the gentleness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. – James 3:13–17

This one passage alone tells us clearly the cause of the "filth," of discord, hatred, and strife. In the very next chapter, James 4, the apostle reveals to us several other interesting truths. I would ask you to read this for yourself in your Bible.

That times have changed has not gone unnoticed by the religions either. They have lost very many adherents. Now they tuck their books under their arms and go from house to house, advertising their religion. Only the outward form has changed; otherwise the attitude is exactly as it was in the Middle Ages: "What we teach you is correct; only we can understand and interpret the Holy Scripture. What we say you must follow word for word. You cannot study and understand these books on your own. Only we can, because we have the Spirit of God. If you are stubborn and think you can interpret these scriptures for yourselves, you will have a rude awakening." It is always the same, even if the words and the tactics have changed. If you are seeking understanding and knowledge, they come to satisfy that need. Manipulating someone with clever words was once the art of politicians and lawyers; today even the ordinary worker does it, so the clergy are naturally not left behind.

In my childhood it was something one was somehow ashamed of to say openly: "I believe in God and pray constantly." Was that only the case in the area where I grew up? Of course it is not the same everywhere. Yet we did not regard ourselves as godless or atheist. But we considered ourselves modern, progressive people. That is why in our family circle religion and everything connected with it was not particularly welcome. There were a few things that Muslims practiced — those who at least have "Muslim" on their identity card — such as not eating pork, or the matter of the headscarf, even though that has more to do with men's jealousy than with their fear of God. So as not to embarrass themselves, they attribute these things to God. But all of this, as I said, has nothing to do with the fear of God or love for his commandments and laws, or even the desire to be a good, loving person before God. One might perhaps believe it if they did these things while also placing great value on faithfulness and honesty in their marriage. But at the very first opportunity they betray their partner. The matter of pork is, on the other hand, even more interesting.

Let us look at the whole thing not as Muslims or as Jehovah's Witnesses, but simply through the concept of sin that we have all had planted in us, more or less unconsciously. When we came to Germany, the most striking feature of Muslims for us was the prohibition on eating pork. Many Germans felt the same way. Muslims do not eat pork — everyone knew that. For a time, the prohibition on alcohol was also observed very strictly, but over time people replaced wine with Turkish raki and thereby preserved their honor. Those who were then found in Turkish bars, for whom lying and cheating had become something everyday, who led a carefree life and were known for their dishonesty — they nevertheless kept strictly to the Islamic rule against pork! Quite a few of them would not even go to a German butcher to buy beef or lamb, because the knife the butcher used was unclean, since they cut pork with the same knife. At that time there were no Turkish shops yet. The abundance of vegetables and fruits in German stores only came later with the foreigners. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that back then there was hardly anything that Turks were accustomed to from home in the way of foodstuffs. Some Turks went so far as to secretly slaughter sheep in the cellar, just so they would not be defiled by hands that had touched pork. When the Germans got wind of this, they became agitated and protested loudly against it. It really was so: the pork issue dominated everything else. But into the brothel they went in and out freely. They fathered illegitimate children with German and Yugoslav women and neglected their own families who had remained behind in Turkey. For many men and women this was a severe trial, since German employers brought over not families but always only the husband or the wife of the family. Many families were torn apart by this. It is possible that it was German policy not to bring over married couples or families but instead to drive people into immorality. Many couples had applied together, but the choice usually fell on only one of the two. The other had to wait until fortune smiled on them, sometimes one or two years later. When the one who had gone to Germany to work was then able to meet the not-insignificant conditions of the state, he or she could apply for family reunification. Those who were unable to do so had to somehow manage alone and simply went to bed with whoever the opportunity presented, as it arose. Illegitimate children resulted from this. The law compelled them to pay maintenance for these children, even though they had never had the opportunity to form a family with these partners. There were women who came to Germany alone and had relationships with men. Men who came to Germany and left their wives and children behind in poverty and hardship at home sent no support for their families, but kept women for themselves in Germany with their money. But the wives and children back home were of no concern whatsoever to the German state. When many years later I submitted my application for recognition of German citizenship, they absolutely wanted to know whether I had children from my first marriage contracted 15 years earlier or not. Had I been unable to produce the relevant documents, it would have been impossible for me to be recognized as a German citizen. Only when one applies for German citizenship does the state want to know whether one has children or not. They justify it by saying that one must live up to one's responsibilities. But when one is not a German citizen, no one is interested. All these laws, rules, and practices are so absurd, unjust, and inhumane. Why does one drive people into experiencing ugly things in the first place? Someone is locked up without being given anything to eat. Then loaves of bread and other food are placed before him, but he is not allowed to take any. Whoever takes from it is a thief and is punished with death. Then one observes: whoever is honest dies of hunger, and whoever steals is put to death. In the end there is always death. In their view, one dies honorably and the other dishonorably. That too is a kind of logic. It is the logic of illogic — or better said, of stupidity.

The Germans applied this very logic first and foremost to the Turkish guest workers. In Germany, if you walk away from your car without locking it and a police officer sees it, you get a ticket on the spot — no further discussion. And they explain the reason with a kind of self-congratulatory logic: "By leaving your door unlocked, you are tempting someone to steal," and: "If your car had been locked, the person would not have had the nerve to commit the theft and would have walked on." They hold the view that even an ordinary person who has nothing to do with theft would be capable of stealing when given such an "inviting" opportunity. Is that not absolutely right? And yet, when they brought the Turks over to work — where was the state's wisdom, where were the laws, where was the logic?!! They did not even grant them the value of someone who might become a thief — or who might be tempted to become one. From these lived experiences I want to make the following point: God will judge those who did not apply to others the same conditions and standards they applied to themselves, yet expected others to meet. A person can be very simple and full of shortcomings. Normally, when we set ourselves up to judge such a person, the question is asked: "Why did he not live up to these expected values?" That person may not have thought about those values at all, or may never have been taught them. The upbringing he received may even have fallen below the required level. Let us say that, without taking any of this into account, the person is punished, put under pressure, excluded from society, and so on. If that is justice, then the following must not be overlooked: are the same standards not also demanded of the one who judges, punishes, and excludes? If a person pays no regard to these values whatsoever, is the natural response not: "How can you demand of others what you do not even do yourself?" It is for this reason that Jesus said:

»Judge no one, so that you too will not be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you yourselves will be judged, and with the measure you use on others, it will be used on you. (Matthew 7:1–2)

As already mentioned, these people were ready to do anything, to transgress all of God's laws — yet they stood firm when it came to pork. To be fair, I have also met Turks who, at a street festival, ate a bratwurst from a stall because it smelled so tempting. But even those who did eat had such a sensitive conscience in that area that they felt guilty for days — some perhaps even for years. The situation is similar to the keeping of the Sabbath among the Jews. The Jews hated Jesus because he healed the sick on the Sabbath. He healed people with withered limbs, the blind, the lame, and people with all manner of infirmities on the Sabbath. Their hatred drove them so far that they killed him. What was his crime? — He had healed on the Sabbath! The Witnesses do all manner of things, secretly or openly, but under no circumstances will they accept a blood transfusion! They would rather die than receive blood; those who do receive it they condemn to death. Muslims commit all kinds of crooked deeds, yet they never eat pork; the Witnesses consistently refuse blood, yet their entire lives they are occupied with finding some advantage for themselves somewhere. These are the things the world religions have taught us and modeled for us.

Over time — provided the family had not already broken apart — most of the Turkish workers brought their families over. The women all wore headscarves, even those who had never done so before. Whatever a spouse was doing in Germany, the one who had remained at home did the same, or felt compelled to. Are there fewer arguments, less hatred, less hostility, less adultery, fewer lies and less deceit among those who wear a headscarf? They do not do these things as openly as others, which in a way makes it even worse — but who can say it happens less frequently among them? Those who act openly and show themselves as they truly are harm only themselves; but the others carry out their crooked deeds in secret while trying to present themselves as good people. In doing so they not only bring shame upon themselves but — what is even worse — they soil the name of God, because they claim to be serving Him. I do not mean to say that everyone should air their dirty laundry in public, but the point is this: we must be conscious that through our actions we draw attention to whatever it is we are advertising. When we present ourselves as believing people and, for example, wear a headscarf, our deeds will cast either disgrace or honor upon the name of God. If we have a Turkish flag sticker on our car, everything we do will be attributed to the Turkish people accordingly. But we must not forget that a single mistake causes a thousand good deeds to be forgotten. And as things stand, we have committed a thousand crooked things against only a handful of good ones. What matters, however, is that as Muslims we did not eat pork, as Jehovah's Witnesses we did not accept blood, as Christians we missed neither Christmas nor any other holy day, and as Jews we observed the Sabbath! We have truly earned praise for that — for our strong faith! And we can be certain that God will reward our steadfastness and our such great zeal!

The Witnesses go from door to door with a Bible in their hands. Does their behavior not therefore cast either a good or a bad light on the Bible? It is similar in Islam. Let us imagine for a moment that every Muslim were honest, sincere, reliable, trustworthy, and loving — known for his cleanliness and orderliness, and educated in his faith and his convictions. If Muslims in general were like that, how would people speak about them, how would people speak about their religion and their book? What impression does it leave when every person who calls himself a Muslim is the exact opposite of all that? I think I need not provide an answer to that. Is wearing a headscarf or refraining from eating pork all that makes a Muslim? By their deeds they remain unbelievers in the eyes of many people, and conversely, many regard them as unbelievers precisely because of their conduct. There are many people who are honest and good but eat pork, and many women who do not cover their hair but are God-fearing and sincere. And are there not also, among those who cover their heads or abstain from pork, many who are dishonorable, deceitful, and loveless? Does that not correspond to the facts?

Since this is generally known, some organizations — and the Witnesses above all — place enormous importance on their public image. They are very careful that no disgrace comes upon their name. Yet in doing so they impose so many senseless rules that they destroy much of the good in people. Those who are already dishonest quickly adapt to these regulations and rules and perform their balancing act with ease. But the good, righteous people suffer under them. This will remain so until the end of this system. The Holy Scriptures emphasize again and again that justice cannot be brought about through human effort. (James 1:20)

In my discussions with the Witnesses, I never once reached the conviction that the Quran could not be the word of God. But since they are so loyal to their organization, I asked them whether there was not an official position from the Governing Body on the subject of the Quran. When they spot a gap in someone's argument, they bombard them relentlessly with arguments and a flood of words — but when they themselves have no answer, they fall back on their Governing Body: "We do whatever the faithful and discreet slave tells us." Since they are such will-less robots, I wanted to know what their faithful and discreet master was telling them. Bernd did some research and actually found something. In the German edition of September 15, 1965, a series of articles on the Quran had been published. Each article said something different against the Quran, and there were some thoroughly absurd arguments among them. I will address only the more significant arguments here, and not all of them, as that would take us too far. They brought me these articles and I read them. Apart from this four-article series, I found nothing negative about the Quran in the Witnesses' writings. On the contrary, from time to time verses from the Quran were quoted to support statements in the Bible, and this was done with the sole intention of appealing to Muslims. Quranic verses are cited with some regularity in order to lead readers toward the Bible. They do not believe in the Quran, yet they use it in their argumentation. In my view, that is not wrong in itself. When it comes to searching for truth, I do not think such an approach should be condemned as hypocritical. But that is not what they do. On the one hand, they use the Quran in their Turkish publications as a means of bringing people to the Bible, while trying to conceal their antipathy toward the book. I do not find that honest or good. If they were to say openly: "We do not believe in this book, but this book does encourage all those who believe in it to read the Bible. So why do you not believe in the Bible, or at least try to get to know it?" — then I would have respect for their position and their openness.

Let us turn to the content of this article series. Some years later I even traveled all the way to New York on account of these articles. They were never published in Turkish. I read them in German, and I will briefly address the main arguments here. The series is not very extensive — the whole thing runs to about fifteen pages. We should not, however, dismiss these arguments as merely the thoughts of the Witnesses; they represent rather the general mindset of Christendom, and even some Muslims may find the following line of reasoning logical. For in general, our religion is attached to us like a label and has little to do with our actual convictions. Most people remain in the religion they inherited from their parents. Only a few change this in the course of their lives. Whether such a decision is right or wrong is itself another question. I will now attempt to go through the Witnesses' 1965 article series section by section.

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE QURAN

The Watchtower, September 15, 1965

Under this heading, the subject treated is what proofs and miracles Muhammad can point to in order to distinguish himself as a prophet of God. The prophet Moses is drawn upon for comparison. When Moses is chosen by God as a prophet, he asks: "But suppose they will not believe me and will not listen to my voice, for they will say: 'Jehovah did not appear to you.'" (Exodus 4:1–31) God shows him 3 miracles and thereby resolves the problem. It is reported that the people began to believe when they saw the miracles. There is also extensive reporting on the many miracles the people experienced during the 40-year wandering through the desert, such as thunder, lightning, earthquakes, fire, smoke, and so on. (Exodus chapters 7–15; 19:16–18; Deuteronomy 8:14–16)

Then Muhammad is compared with Jesus Christ. When John the Baptist was in prison, he sent messengers to ask whether Jesus was the expected prophet. In response, Jesus said to them: "Go and report to John what you are hearing and seeing: the blind are seeing again, and the lame are walking about, lepers are being cleansed and the deaf are hearing, and the dead are being raised up, and the poor are having the good news declared to them; and happy is he who finds no cause for stumbling in me." And to the religious opponents who did not believe him, he gives the following answer: If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, ... — John 10:37, 38; Matthew 11:5

In the subsequent sections it is shown that, according to the Quran, Muhammad was accused by his opponents of being a fraud, because he worked no miracles. Yes, there are such verses, although the ones mentioned in the Watchtower have rather little to do with this subject. I record here nonetheless the verses that are also mentioned in the Watchtower and supplement them with those that are somewhat clearer (marked by an underline). (Surah 2:112; 10:40; 11:18; 17:91/95; 21:5, 6) The Witnesses then say that Muhammad defended himself against such accusations and repeatedly emphasized that he was only a messenger, an envoy of God. They say this answer only skirts the issue, because what ultimately matters is whether Muhammad was the same as Jesus or Moses. In earlier times too, some people had not believed, even though the prophets had worked miracles. But that fact would not have prevented God from giving his prophets the power to work miracles. (Surah 3:184, 185; 5:42; 9:70)

The answer to the subject:

It is clear that the Witnesses who compare Muhammad with Moses do not correctly understand the Bible, not in the way one ought to understand it. In the fifth book of Moses, at the end of the book, it says of Moses, after his death: Yet there has never arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom Jehovah knew face to face, as regards all the signs and the wonders that Jehovah sent him to perform in the land of Egypt upon Pharaoh and upon all his servants and upon all his land, and as regards all the mighty hand and all the great and awe-inspiring things that Moses performed before the eyes of all Israel. — Deuteronomy 34:10–12. So although many prophets came after Moses, none was like Moses.

Let us come to the comparison with Jesus. Moses had already pointed prophetically to his coming some 1,500 years earlier: A prophet from your own midst, from your own brothers, Jehovah your God will raise up for you like me — to him you people should listen — Deuteronomy 18:15. How many prophets are mentioned in the Bible? Were only Moses and Jesus prophets of God? By no means — there were at least 40 prophets who were involved in writing the Bible alone. Then there were prophets whose names and deeds are mentioned in the Bible, but who had no share in writing it themselves. In addition, there were many prophets who are not even mentioned by name. (1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Kings 13:1–32; Acts 21:9, 10) If a prophet becomes a prophet only through miracles, then most of the prophets mentioned in the Bible were frauds. They worked no miracles and yet they were acknowledged as prophets. About one very important prophet it is even stated plainly that he worked no miracles: And many people came to him, and they began to say: "John indeed performed no sign at all, but everything John said about this man was true." — John 10:41. The people at that time openly acknowledged John as a prophet, even though they plainly say he had worked no miracles. Yet for the Witnesses, it is a reason to reject Muhammad, because he worked no miracles. By their reckoning, David, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, John, and many others would not be prophets but frauds, since they did not bring fire down from heaven, did not split the earth, did not part the sea, did not feed multitudes or heal the sick. According to their criticism, all of these were only frauds and not sent by God.

What then makes a prophet a prophet — which criterion is decisive?

However, the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I did not command him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: "How will we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?" — 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not become frightened because of him. — Deuteronomy 18:20–22

According to this standard, a prophet would have to make a statement about a future event that comes to pass within his own lifetime. If he speaks about things that should prove true only 500 years later, it would make no sense to judge him by that, for God states clearly that those living under the Mosaic Law should put a false prophet to death. The prophet would not be alive 500 years later anyway. The prophet would therefore have to make an accurate statement about the near future. Muhammad fulfills this criterion. I will return to this point later. Can a prophet then not make a statement about a time perhaps 500 or even 1,000 years in the future? Of course, but those statements would not be the criterion for his truthfulness. Let us not forget: there were also false prophets who made a statement about a distant future that was also fulfilled, even though they were not commissioned by God. For God also says the following on this subject:

In case a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder does come true of which he spoke to you, saying: "Let us walk after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for Jehovah your God is testing you to know whether you love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul. — Deuteronomy 13:1–3

These verses do not show us that working miracles constitutes proof of a prophet. On the contrary, it is even said that even those who are not guided by God can perform miracles and signs. There is in the Bible a fitting example of this as well. When Moses and Aaron go to Pharaoh and work miracles, the Egyptian priests can perform some miracles as well, transforming water into blood, bringing forth frogs, and turning staffs into serpents. (Exodus 7:10, 11, 21, 22; 8:6, 7) These priests did not do this with God's help. This is clearly evident from the fact that with certain miracles they reach their limits and acknowledge that only "the finger of God" could have brought this about. (Exodus 8:18, 19) Did God perhaps not know what power the priests and sorcerers possessed? Why did He not have Moses perform from the very beginning a miracle that the priests could not imitate? Precisely so that we would understand and learn from it that working miracles is not a privilege reserved for chosen prophets of God. In the Bible book of Revelation, predictions are made about the last days, and among other things a wild beast is mentioned therein. This "beast" stands in opposition to God and his servants and performs great signs and wonders — it even makes fire come down out of heaven. — Revelation 13:11–17

We read in all four Gospels that people constantly expected miracles from someone like Jesus as a sign from God. Although extraordinary things were constantly taking place before their eyes and they were witnesses to remarkable events, they demanded that he give them a sign. Interestingly, Jesus gives the following answer to their requests:

A wicked and adulterous generation keeps on seeking for a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." With that he left them and went away. — Matthew 16:4

He did not say: "Are you not ashamed to ask me for such a thing, seeing that every day you have witnessed a great many proofs and miracles?" The only hint of a sign he gives is by pointing to Jonah. This sign was to be fulfilled only three days after his death. Just as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish, so Jesus would be three days dead in the belly of the earth. His resurrection — that is, the fulfillment of this sign — was witnessed only by the believers, however. The unbelievers therefore had no reason to believe in him after Jesus' resurrection. It is with this logic that the Jews still reject Jesus as the Messiah today. They are therefore no different from the Witnesses, from all Christians. Just as the Jews do not believe in Jesus, the Christians do not believe in Muhammad. That is why I say there is no difference between them. The fact that Muhammad worked no miracles does not weaken my faith in him; on the contrary, it strengthens my confidence all the more. If this man had been a fraud, it would certainly have been child's play for him to move people to believe in a miracle through some trick, especially since he already had a great many followers. If he had received his revelations not from God but from Satan, would he not then have worked at least a few miracles, as Pharaoh's priests did? I always touch only briefly on the various subjects connected with Quranic criticism from the Watchtower here, otherwise it would become too extensive. Let us move on to the 2nd point of criticism:

IS THE QURAN A LITERARY MIRACLE?

The Watchtower, 15.9.1965

In this section we will briefly address the argument of whether the Quran is a literary masterpiece. The Witnesses seek to expose as ridiculous the claim that the Quran is a literary miracle. Muslims say that no human being could have written such a book; moreover, the Quran itself states that no one can produce a book equal to or similar to it. Surah 2:24,25; 10:38,39; 17:89. The Watchtower then contends that a good literary work does not make unnecessary repetitions. The Quran, it is claimed, makes countless repetitions about Jesus, Adam, Moses, and others. But the pinnacle of this, they argue, is found in Surah 55, where in its 79 verses the phrase "which of the favors of your Lord will you deny?" is repeated 31 times. For this reason alone, the Quran has no literary value. The Witnesses also criticize the names of the surahs in this article. The 29th surah is called "The Spider," the 16th "The Bees," the 27th "The Ant," and the 2nd is called "The Cow." Yet in all these surahs, the animal after which the surah is named is mentioned in only a single verse. The writer and essayist Carlyle is also quoted — who, though he refers to the Prophet Muhammad as a hero, explicitly emphasizes that the Quran cannot be regarded as a literary miracle. He is even said to have stated: "I have never read a book so incoherent, confused, and exhausting to read as the Quran." The Christian critic Gibeod also said that the Quran, apart from a few beautiful passages, is unnecessarily drawn out and makes tedious repetitions. As for the Muslims who would respond at this point that Muhammad could not read or write, the counter-argument is that Muhammad was a successful businessman who had married his employer, a wealthy widow. In short, all the facts indicate that the Quran can never have been inspired by God.

THE RESPONSE TO THIS TOPIC:

First, since I am not a writer myself, it is not fitting for me to engage in literary criticism here. Second, I am astonished that people place such expectations on a book that God sends as a warning and guide for humanity. Both the Bible and the Quran are about God making himself known to human beings. They deal with knowledge about the creation of the earth and of mankind. The book is meant to serve as a guide for people. Furthermore, this book reveals God's purpose, shows us his laws and counsel, gives us hope, and contains many other important truths. Yet strangely, many people expect something different and ask whether the book also offers advice about health. It is not a medical book. But when it touches on medical questions, its statements are correct. Others may hope for guidance on architectural matters. Still others expect some special knowledge about scientific topics, or they hope for a particularly poetic book or a literary work of art. It is none of these things, but whenever it touches on such a topic, it always accords with the facts. Of course, we cannot leave the Witnesses' criticism unanswered here. As already mentioned, these people are so intent on criticizing the Quran that in doing so they speak ill of the very book they claim to believe in. When we ask whether a book is a literarily valuable work, we must first also ask by what standards we judge it.

First, a remark about the names of the surahs. Both the division of the surahs in the Quran and their naming, as well as the chapter and verse divisions in the Bible, are the work of human beings. When God revealed the Bible or the Quran, he did not do so with chapters and verses. This division was introduced to make reading and locating passages easier for us. In my view, it is indeed something useful. The surahs in the Quran are not arranged in chronological order. Some have taken issue with this and arranged the surahs in the order in which they were revealed. I only wonder how they can know this so precisely. For example, the translation by Yasar Nuri Öztürk is arranged in this way. Although it is a good translation, I do not use it, because the changed arrangement confuses the reader and makes research more difficult. Often only the surah numbers are given in verse references, and then one runs into difficulties with an altered sequence. Who actually owns the translation by Mr. Yasar Nuri? Should one not make it as easy as possible for the reader? Nevertheless, I have respect and regard for his work. Just because it does not suit me does not mean it is wrong. In the standard translations we use, the surahs are arranged by length. The longer surahs come first, and they grow progressively shorter toward the end of the book. Perhaps this was done with the reader in mind — someone who reads at the beginning with more eagerness and curiosity and will therefore also read longer surahs continuously. But these things are not important. Regardless of the order in which one reads the surahs, what matters is understanding. After all, this is not a novel, where naturally one cannot read the chapters in arbitrary order. Mr. Yasar Nuri should not take offense at my position, because my point is simply that the order is fundamentally not really important. If the Quran had originally been arranged in chronological order and we were accustomed to such translations, and Mr. Yasar Nuri had published a translation in the order we know and are accustomed to today, I would not have welcomed that either. The point is also that it creates difficulties when one wants to show someone a passage or find it, if the familiar order of the surahs has been changed. But I am not against change or innovation. It certainly has its good sides as well. I should also mention at this point that Mr. Yasar Nuri confirms what I have recognized and stated as truth for years — for which I was called crazy and an unbeliever. He says that many traditions and customs in Islam have no basis in the Quran, such as circumcision or the festival of sacrifice. Even if I cannot agree with him on every point, I am grateful to him for courageously proclaiming certain truths. If all Muslims were like him, Islam would not be where it is now, I think. But never mind — what we are actually concerned with here are the names of the surahs in the Quran. Back then, some people sat together and gave the surahs names, considering what was mentioned in each surah, whether frequently or only once. Well, and is that wrong? As I said, the purpose was to give everyone who reads and studies the Quran a uniform reference to find passages more easily. It is exactly the same as with the Bible: chapter and verse divisions were introduced only later, as were the names of the books of the Bible. But none of these things change the content of the books in the slightest. If that is the case, how can one then say that the division of the surahs and their naming are proof that this book does not come from God? Are there not similar arguments against the Bible? For example, there are the 2 books of Samuel, even though it is known that the prophet Samuel himself wrote only part of the book and the ending was completed by another writer. The same applies to the fifth book of Moses. I still do not understand what the point of this is, why anyone takes offense at such things. It is about names, labels, punctuation marks. As if they were searching for counterfeit money. Why do they not simply focus on the content of the book?

The person who wrote in this article that Surah 55 of the Quran contains 31 repetitions has either never read the Bible himself, or has quite deliberately built his arguments on such nonsense. For example, Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 correspond almost word for word. All four Gospels report on the same events. In my eyes this is not nonsense — on the contrary, God has four different witnesses confirm that Jesus is the promised Messiah. But let us continue speaking as unreasonably as they do and compare the Bible with the Quran. Fortunately, they say they believe in the Bible. In reality, however, they are far removed from this book. In Psalm 107, for example, we find the words "O may people give thanks to Jehovah for his loving-kindness and for his wonderful works to the sons of men" repeated 6 times. So since we are already arguing unreasonably according to their logic, let me also continue to speak unreasonably, as Paul said. In Psalm 136 we find the phrase "For his loving-kindness endures forever" repeated 26 times in 26 verses. 26 times in 26 verses! The very same people who claim to believe in the divine inspiration of this book reject the Quran because in a surah of 78 verses a phrase is repeated 31 times! What kind of reasoning is that?! Let us continue. In the Bible books of 1st and 2nd Kings we find the same events as in 1st and 2nd Chronicles. While the book of Kings speaks about both the kings of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel and the two-tribe kingdom of Judah, the book of Chronicles reports only on events in the kingdom of Judah. But since the kings of both realms sometimes had dealings with one another, the accounts frequently overlap. In my view, such repetitions are very useful. They reveal truths that broaden our understanding and expose false views. The fact that the same events are narrated from different perspectives and with small differences broadens our understanding and helps us to see certain things more clearly and distinctly. If someone reads the books only superficially and finds such differences, he immediately says: "It says something entirely different here than there — that is a contradiction." They think this allows them to reject these books. The critics of the Quran or the Bible do exactly the same. It is as if they were searching for counterfeit money.

As I said, this concerns not only Christians who criticize the Quran — Muslims examine the Bible using the same methods; and this despite the fact that their own book, the Quran, contains not the slightest indication that the Bible has been falsified.

The Bible is indeed regarded as a literary masterpiece. For example, Psalm 119 is written in a special poetic form. When translated into other languages, this distinctive quality is naturally lost. The Quran contains similar passages that sound poetic in the original through the distinctive qualities of the language, but lose beauty and elegance in translation. Above all, what matters with these books is that they are translated correctly in terms of content, and that literary features are not pushed to the foreground. I cannot say much on this topic, since I neither know Arabic nor understand anything about literature. Although these books were not written to impress through poetry, poets, writers, and composers throughout all the centuries have drawn inspiration from these scriptures. Some parts of them are also texts that were sung accompanied by musical instruments. As I said, I do not understand much about this and cannot say more on the subject. I am neither a poet nor a writer. The religious songs that Christians, Muslims, or Jews use during their ceremonies are for the most part taken from these scriptures. For this reason, the repetitions contained in the verses mentioned are not tedious or superfluous. In the first century, when disciples of Jesus were flogged and beaten and then thrown into prison and put in chains there, they found comfort in singing these songs. (Acts 16:22–25) In this field, the most well-known example in the Bible is certainly David. He himself wrote many of the psalms. Indeed, the word psalm means a song sung with the accompaniment of musical instruments (from the Greek psalmos, meaning string playing). These psalms, which in part had prophetic content but also offered comfort and hope or gave wise counsel, were written in such a way that they could easily be sung. Psalm 119 is written in pure form: each stanza begins with the next successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. As I said, I am not very well versed in this and it is possible that I am even making mistakes in explaining it here. The same applies with regard to the Quran. In the Quran there are also such poetic passages. This is why the opponents of Muhammad also called him a possessed poet. (As-Saffat — Those Who Set the Ranks — Surah 37:36 and Al-Haqqah — The Reality — Surah 69:41) Therefore it is not abnormal to encounter such repetitions in the Quran or in the Bible. I would sooner describe as abnormal those who do not see this as normal.

In Turkish cultural life it is customary for the hodja to recite the service. On such occasions religious songs are sung. Many people admire hodjas who have a particularly beautiful voice. In my opinion, the use of religious songs is also sometimes taken to excess. The deceased himself gains nothing from someone singing funeral songs on his behalf, but for those left behind it makes sense — it can help them process their grief. When the Jews were taken captive to Babylon, Jeremiah wrote the Lamentations. A lamentation is a song of mourning sung after a deceased person. It expresses the feelings of the bereaved, speaks of the good qualities of the departed, and thereby provides a certain comfort. It has nothing to do with calming the spirit of the deceased or anything of that kind.

IS THE QURAN A CONFIRMATION OF THE EARLIER SCRIPTURES?

1 October 1965 The Watchtower

The Watchtower begins its second series of articles on this topic, and I will again attempt first to briefly summarize the arguments presented in this article. Approximately 250 to 300 million Muslims (in 1965; by the 1990s there were around 800 million, and now, in the year 2009, 1.4 billion) acknowledge the holy book of Islam, the Quran, as divinely inspired. Surah 5:47 is then quoted, where it is written: "We have sent down to you the Book in truth, confirming what was already in the Book before it and as a guardian over it." We must acknowledge that God is not a God of disorder but a God of order and peace. And just as it is written in the Bible, it will prove to be the case that God will be found true even if every man turns out to be a liar — and therefore all of God's revelations must be in complete agreement with one another. (1 Corinthians 14:33; Isaiah 1:18; Romans 3:4) That this is so can be recognized both from the Hebrew Scriptures and from the Christian Greek Scriptures. When we examine these books we find that they are in harmony with one another. (They should try telling that to the Jews sometime!) This is the case even though the Hebrew Scriptures, which consist of 39 books, were written down by at least 30 different writers over a period spanning several hundred years. The 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures are not only in agreement with one another but also confirm the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus confirmed this fact through the statement he made to the religious people of his day: "You search the Scriptures, because you think that by means of them you will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me." (John 5:39) For the same reason Paul also praises the believers in Beroea, since they were searching the ancient Scriptures to see whether what Paul preached to them agreed with those Scriptures. (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:15–17) We see, then, that the Greek Scriptures agree with the Hebrew Scriptures. If we proceed from the assumption that the Quran comes from the same source as the Bible, should we not then expect that it too confirms the earlier Scriptures? That is what we shall examine.

Up to this point the line of argument and the logic are clear and correct. But it goes further. Now they again resort to demagogy, half-truths, and verbal gymnastics.

The Hebrew Scriptures consistently contain the name of God, Jehovah, and exalt it highly. (Exodus 6:3; 2 Samuel 7:23; Psalm 83:18; etc.) Jesus and his followers likewise emphasized the importance of this name. (John 17:4, 6; 18:37; Acts 15:14) Even though the name does not appear in many translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, it is clear from ancient manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint that the first Christians used this name. How does the Quran compare in this regard? While the name Jehovah appears alone in the Hebrew Scriptures 6,961 times, it does not appear in the Quran at a single point. Since the name is not mentioned anywhere, one may say that the Quran is not a confirmation of the earlier Scriptures. The God in the Quran has no name — so this article claims.

THE RESPONSE TO THIS TOPIC:

That Jehovah's Witnesses use this name almost as a talisman, a lucky charm, is beyond doubt. They have turned this name into an idol. Muslims have done something similar with Muhammad. A Muslim never utters the name of the Prophet Muhammad without appending the phrase "may God's peace be upon him" (in Arabic: Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam). In writing, the abbreviation S.A.S. is used, but in speech it cannot be avoided — as though they had to give Muhammad a surname! And yet neither do Jehovah's Witnesses do the will of Jehovah, nor do Muslims do the will of Muhammad. But they are so fanatical, so obsessed with attaching a name, a label, hiding behind words and letters. If only they would place even half as much value on the actual words of these persons whose names they venerate so. Jesus fittingly said: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens." — Matthew 7:21

To those who render hypocritical respect and believe they will be saved simply because they repeat a name like a parrot, or hide behind a word or a name, Jesus continues in the verse quoted above: "And yet then I will declare to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness." — Matthew 7:23

Let us come now to this personal name of God. It is certain that no one can say with assurance how this name was or is correctly pronounced. He has a personal name, but the pronunciation alone is not established. It is found only in Hebrew script. In Hebrew script no vowels were written, only the consonants. So wherever the name of God appeared in a text, only the 4 letters YHWH were written. Even Jehovah's Witnesses accept this fact and say that they pronounce the divine name, the 4 letters (also called the Tetragrammaton), as Jehovah, even though there is no proof that this pronunciation is correct. Quite a few Bible translations render the Tetragrammaton in the same way. Many preachers at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century also used the name Jehovah. The Bible was first translated into Turkish in 1827, on the order of Ottoman Sultan Mehmet IV, in Arabic script. So not that long ago. The translator was the Sultan's scribe, Mr. Ali. After the founding of the Turkish Republic, it was translated into Turkish with the current Latin alphabet (around 1941). This translation was taken directly from Mr. Ali's translation. In both translations the name Jehovah was introduced. Jehovah was presumably the most popular pronunciation in common use at the time. For when the Bible Students later changed their name and became Jehovah's Witnesses, this angered the established churches, and they began to criticize this name. Their criticism is based primarily on the very argument mentioned here: that it cannot be known how this name is correctly pronounced. They say "the pronunciation Yahweh is more probable." Since the pronunciation is uncertain, they no longer use the name at all, or use it only very rarely.

It is also a fact that the churches contributed to this name falling almost entirely into obscurity before Jehovah's Witnesses made it known worldwide. Partly to blame are also the Jews, who no longer pronounced the name at all, because one of the 10 commandments reads: "You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up his name in a worthless way." — Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11

Christendom deliberately tried to erase the name entirely in written form. In Bible translations the name hardly appears anymore; instead, only LORD or God stands in place of the Tetragram. Even in the new Turkish translation — since 1987 — they have removed the name entirely! The Witnesses, on the other hand, chew this name in their mouths like chewing gum!

Many Muslims are upset at the idea that God should have a personal name. Others point to the lines of the palm and say these lines show the numbers 18 and 81 in Arabic. Together they add up to 99, and from this we know that God has 99 names. Everyone tells some sort of nonsense without any foundation whatsoever. When you ask them what those names are, they begin listing various names. But what they list are not names at all — they are attributes. There is a difference between names and attributes. One learns this already in elementary school. In the Turkish language it is still relatively easy to draw a connection between a name and an attribute, since names often derive their origin from attributes. Nevertheless, a personal name is something specific — it is used to designate a particular person. For example, one might say "tall Hans" or "fat Paul." In that case, "tall" and "fat" are not names but adjectives added to say something about the person and their characteristics. What Muslims then list as names of God are all words that describe His attributes and can be called titles, but they do not form a personal name. They say the names include, among others, "The All-Merciful," "The Almighty," "The Gracious," "The All-Forgiving," and so on. Even if all these titles and designations apply to God, they are still not a personal name. In Turkish, for instance, the name Ihsan means Forgiver, Merciful. Or Hikmet means Wisdom. Perhaps a wish is being expressed in giving a name, but the child — the bearer of the name — may develop in an entirely different direction. If, for example, Hikmet becomes a thief, then he is Hikmet the thief — which in German would come out as "wise thief." Even if a name carries a meaning, the personal name encompasses everything connected with that person, whereas "thief" in this case is not a name but only a kind of title or designation, pointing to only one aspect of the person named.

In the Quran, with one exception, every surah begins with the expression Bismillahirrahmanirrahim, which means something like "in the name of God, the All-Merciful, the Ever-Merciful." This indicates that the Quran acknowledges the personal name of God, even if the name Jehovah is not mentioned anywhere in the entire Quran. The Watchtower treats this circumstance as proof that this book cannot come from God. Interestingly, however, the name Jehovah appears in none of the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and it can be assumed that Jesus himself did not use this name. This is confirmed by all Bible translations — even in the appendix of the Witnesses' own New World Translation. In their translation they have gone so far as to insert the name Jehovah in places where the original text (or the oldest manuscripts) has God or Lord! Even though this is not important to me, I do see it as a form of presumption and arrogance toward God. Who are we? Who has given us the authority to alter the word of God? Can one really blame Muslims or other critics of the Bible if they say the Bible has been corrupted? On the other hand, it is obviously the case that those who question the Bible's credibility on account of such things are merely looking for a reason not to believe in it. For with a little effort one can easily recognize this alteration. Those, however, who think they can change the Bible to their own advantage and improve the word of God only arouse still more mistrust. Let them carry on as they wish — it is their affair.

Yes, in fact, it is as we have said: there is not a single verse in the Bible from which we could conclude that Jesus addressed God by the name Jehovah. I shall write down here the verses they cite as proof:

I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word. — John 17:4–6

The second verse is:

37 So Pilate said to him: "Well, then, are you a king?" Jesus answered: "You yourself say that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." — John 18:37

What this verse has to do with the name of God I have not yet fully understood. In any case, it is cited as evidence in this article. Perhaps an error crept in there — it can happen; after all, it happens to everyone from time to time.

The third verse:

Symeon has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. — Acts 15:14

The verses cited above appear in this or a similar form in all translations. Here I have even used the Witnesses' own New World Translation, and even there the name Jehovah does not appear — there is only a reference to a name. The Watchtower Society often refers to the Septuagint translation when it inserts the name Jehovah into the New Testament. The Septuagint translation was produced in the 3rd century B.C. by Jews and is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures — that is, the Old Testament — into the Greek language. Even if the name Jehovah appears in this translation, it appears only as the Tetragram, that is, with the 4 Hebrew letters. However, even this is disputed, let alone whether the writers of the New Testament, when quoting from this translation, actually carried over the Tetragram. In any case, all ancient manuscripts of the New Testament lead to the conclusion that they did not. All in all, these sources are not very reliable. But I want to emphasize once more: these things are not important to me. I mention them here only for those who set great store by every period, comma, and name, and who judge by such things whether a scripture comes from God or not. The most interesting circumstance regarding the divine name, however, is that Jesus never addressed God as Jehovah in any of his prayers or his speeches. All translations confirm this. Yet it is hardly imaginable today that a Witness would offer a prayer without using the name Jehovah! They probably assume that the prayer would not even be heard without it. So if Jesus were alive today, the Witnesses would long since have removed him from their congregation, because he does not use the name Jehovah. This is the conclusion one reaches when reading their criticism of the Quran. If any Witness can prove to me that Jesus actually used the name Jehovah in his prayers and addresses, he is more than welcome to do so. In my twenty years of association with the Witnesses, at any rate, not one of them could. If therefore the Quran cannot be a book of God for this reason, then they would also have to reject the entire New Testament. If, however, the verses cited above are sufficient proof for them simply because they contain the words "your name," then they would have to accept the Quran anyway — for after all, every surah, with one exception, begins with the words "in the name of God..."

HELLFIRE

The Watchtower, October 1, 1965

The Hebrew Scriptures show death as the only punishment for sin: For the living know that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, ... – Ecclesiastes 9:5 (see also Genesis 3:19; Ezekiel 18:4). This is confirmed in the Greek Scriptures: For the wages sin pays is death, ... – Romans 6:23. There are some illustrations of Jesus that give a different impression. Furthermore, the fire mentioned in Revelation must not be understood literally. (Revelation 20:14; Luke 6:19–31) In the Quran, however, it is entirely different. In a third of all suras, hellfire and eternal torment are mentioned repeatedly. It even says, "...as often as their skins are burned away, We shall give them other skins in exchange, that they may taste the torment." (Sura 4:57; 2:207; 25:14) How can this be, given that every sura — with the exception of the ninth — begins with the words "In the name of God (Allah), the Gracious, the Merciful"? That simply does not add up.

THE ANSWER TO THIS:

The Witnesses do not mention with a single word in this article the Christendom that has been teaching hellfire for many centuries. Many churches and Christian books are full of drawings and paintings that vividly describe and depict the torments of hell, showing people being thrown alive into burning fire and boiling water. Where do they get their views from? How do they arrive at such a teaching? Or do they perhaps believe in the Quran? After 1,900 years the Witnesses have appeared on the scene and say there is no hellfire. Because they have said so, everything is settled! Of course — they have the truth, after all!! Nevertheless, they must acknowledge one fact regarding the Bible:

"There are some verses that can be understood differently. These verses, however, are illustrations and are not to be taken literally, but have only a symbolic meaning." But why should everything in the Quran be understood literally when, in some places, the same form of expression is used? Are there no verses in the Quran that must or should be understood symbolically? Both Christendom and Islam teach hellfire, as does Hinduism. They all understand this literally, with literal torments, as depicted in the drawings mentioned. In these drawings one sees figures who, with a pitchfork in hand, guard the victims and keep thrusting them back into the fire. These well-known images all originate from Christendom. Even though the teaching of hellfire is widespread in Islam, I have yet to see a drawing by Islamic artists. But the Witnesses are naturally an exception, and therefore a different answer should be given to them.

As they themselves show in their writings, it is not only in the Bible book of Revelation (20:10) that the lake of fire and sulphur is spoken of and that those thrown into it "will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Jesus also spoke repeatedly of Gehenna and the torments associated with it, not only in the parable in Luke 16:19–31. Peter too speaks of a fire, but it cannot be understood symbolically at all, for he compares it with the waters of Noah's day, which were also literal. (2 Peter 3:6,7) And let us think of the words of John the Baptist, who said: "I for my part baptize you with water; but the one who is stronger than I is coming, the lace of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire." – Luke 3:16

Other verses that speak of the torments of hell:

"...will be liable to the fiery Gehenna ..." – Matthew 5:22; in this verse too, hell (Gehenna) cannot be understood symbolically. Jesus uses no parable here.

"...and they will throw them into the fiery furnace ..." – Matthew 13:41,42. Here too Jesus is not speaking in a parable. Please read these verses yourself in your Bible in their context; I am sure you will understand what I mean. "Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels." – Matthew 25:41

"And many of those who are sleeping in the dust of the earth will wake up, these to everlasting life and those to reproach and to everlasting contempt." – Daniel 12:2

I think these verses suffice. With these passages I do not wish to prove that there is a hellfire in which the wicked are punished after death. Why should God, who back in Noah's day destroyed the earth by a flood, not bring about the destruction of the present wicked world through fire this time? Moreover, it is certain that there is a hell after the resurrection. It will not be the way the Witnesses wish — with people going into eternal destruction laughing and dancing. They are the sect that mocks others and says "the God of the Quran has no name," while at the same time saying "God does not foresee the future of human beings"! They are hypocrites who expel someone from their community because he says "yes, God foresees the future of every individual at every moment" and proves it from their own book! Woe to these sects, religions, and communities that claim to defend the Holy Scriptures and yet nullify them through their teachings! They are the harlot mentioned in the book of Revelation, who is drunk with the blood of the nations. In Revelation it says of her: "Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth." Revelation 17:4–7 And whose blood do they drink? It is our blood, which we offer them, because we are lazy, comfortable, and foolish. When we offer it to them, they naturally accept it as a matter of course. We have spoiled them through our complacency to the point that they drink without ceasing and are already completely dazed from it — they are drunk, they vomit, and then they wallow in it. Let us read what God says about such religious leaders:

And these also — because of wine they have gone astray, and because of intoxicating liquor they have wandered about. Priest and prophet — they have gone astray because of intoxicating liquor, they have become confused because of wine, they have wandered about because of intoxicating liquor; they have gone astray in their seeing, they have reeled in [their] decision. For the tables themselves have become full of filthy vomit — there is no place without it. Whom will one instruct in knowledge, and whom will one make to understand the things heard? Those weaned from milk, those moved away from the breasts? For there is "command upon command, command upon command, measuring line upon measuring line, measuring line upon measuring line, here a little, there a little." – Isaiah 28:7–10 And for them the word of Jehovah will certainly become "command upon command, command upon command, measuring line upon measuring line, measuring line upon measuring line, here a little, there a little," that they may go and certainly stumble backwards and actually be broken and ensnared and caught. – Isaiah 28:13

Is this not an apt description of these people? It is not I who say this; it is the word of God. To return to our subject: Hell, as it is portrayed in the Holy Scriptures, is taught in that form by no religion — neither by Muslims, nor by the Witnesses, nor by Catholics, nor by any other religion. For the most part what they teach is nonsense, springing from their own interpretation and speculation. The Witnesses have completely rejected the idea of hell and preach that no such thing exists. They themselves admit in their writings that this is an important reason why they have gained many followers in certain areas. Using some verses from the Quran I will show what the Holy Scriptures actually teach, and you can then decide for yourselves.

First of all, we should not expect hell to be in some other place. We should not think that after death some go to heaven and others to hell, as though they were two places far apart from each other. I would like to demonstrate this from the Quran and then compare it with the statements of the Bible. Let us see how the Quran describes the Day of Resurrection.

And on the day when the Hour comes, the sinners will swear that they tarried not save for an hour — thus were they ever deceived. But those who had been given knowledge and faith will say: "You have tarried, according to God's (Allah's) Book, until the Day of Resurrection. And this is the Day of Resurrection, but you used not to know." – Rum (The Romans) 30:55,56

Let us examine this verse more carefully. Two groups of people are spoken of. One group are the believers; the others are those who do not believe and are rebellious. When does this conversation take place? It says quite clearly: on the Day of Resurrection. What do those say who do not believe? They "swear that they tarried not save for an hour." They think they spent only an hour in the grave, that they were absent for only an hour. This makes sense: a dead person has no sense of time, and therefore when he rises from death he cannot estimate how long he was dead. That is why those who believe neither in God nor in the resurrection react in this way — they say they were away for only a brief moment. Something else interesting can be recognized from the text: the resurrection takes place in surroundings familiar to the deceased; otherwise they could not express such a conjecture. There will be no resurrection above the clouds, in the depths of a hell, or anywhere else in some utopian place, as the Christian religions and Islam try to make us believe. This thought is confirmed in the Quran in more than a few places. In one place it says: "There shall you live, and there shall you die, and from there shall you be brought forth." Araf (The Heights) 7:25. Where do we live? On the earth. Where will we die? On the earth. And where will we be resurrected according to the statement of this verse? In the Sura of the Anbiya (The Prophets) (21), verse 105, it says: And We have already written in the Psalms (the Book of David), after the reminder, that My righteous servants shall inherit the earth. This Book of David cited here says in Psalm 37:29: The righteous will possess the earth, and they will live forever on it.

There are yet other verses that make a similarly clear statement, thereby confirming the thought that paradise and the resurrection will be here on earth. What was God's purpose from the beginning of creation? Adam was created here on this earth — not in heaven, as Muslims believe. He was forbidden to eat of the fruit of one tree. Where in heaven do trees grow? And where were the animals to which he was to give names? When God says to Adam and Eve after the fall "go down," that does not necessarily mean they were cast from heaven to earth, as many Quran readers insist on understanding it. Could it not also be that the Garden of Eden was situated on a height and they were to descend from it? That would not only be a logical explanation, it would also be in harmony with the statements of the Bible. It is precisely because of such senseless teachings and interpretations of the Scriptures that people have turned away from them and have ridiculed them or even developed hatred toward them. The Scriptures report about the creation and mention water, air, plants, and then tell of how animals and finally human beings were created. All of these things, according to the Muslim view, were not created on the earth but somewhere else!! But this view finds no support in the Quran. Of course they cannot think that far. But the Holy Scriptures confirm the statement that Adam was created on the earth, for after all he was made from earth! All other teachings are nonsense and are not in harmony with the Scriptures.

Now that we have arrived at the conclusion that paradise will be on earth, the question arises: where will hell be? If we briefly refer again to the verse from the Quran mentioned above, it becomes clear that the unbelievers will also be resurrected on the earth, for they will be able to speak with the believers — with those who are in paradise. Does that mean that paradise and hell will be in the same place, here on earth? The verse cited actually allows only this conclusion. What then is hell? It is best if I say it here plainly and you search for yourselves. When Adam became disobedient, what punishment did he receive from God? Was he thrown into boiling water or into raging flames? Through his disobedience he began to age and to die. He had been created for eternity and could have lived forever, for otherwise death would not have been a punishment for him. The account in the Bible says: And Jehovah God went on to say: "Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put out his hand and actually take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite —" 23 With that Jehovah God put him out of the garden of Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 And so he drove the man out and posted at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubs and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life. – Genesis 3:22

...all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. – Genesis 5:5. It is not the way we have been taught — that the dead live among us and can make contact with us. To Adam it was said plainly: ...until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return. – Genesis 3:19. God did not play a game with him by saying "you will die, but it will only appear as though you are dead; in reality your spirit lives on"! Those who claim to be able to make contact with the dead and summon the spirits of the deceased are in reality making contact with demons. These spirits are very well able to imitate the characteristics of the deceased, so that the impression arises that they themselves are those deceased persons. The Holy Scriptures confirm to us that these demon spirits take delight in playing with human beings, driving them to madness, into depression, or into suicide. That is what the books of God teach us. Those who apparently speak with the dead are in reality speaking with demon spirits. In the past I did not believe in such things at all. But to doubt the existence of invisible spirits would mean doubting the existence of God as well. If there were no such evil spirit powers, that would mean that the source of all evil on earth would be God himself — and that is simply nonsense and would be a slander of God.

The punishment Adam received for his disobedience has not changed. There will be only one difference. Now both good and wicked people grow old and die. After the resurrection, however, only those — the unbelievers, those who hate God — will age. Therefore the Quran says: The sinners will be recognized by their marks ... Sura 55:41 ...and some faces on that day will be overcast with gloom, for they will sense that some dreadful calamity is about to befall them. – Sura 75:21–23

When it is said that their skin burns away, that is truly an apt description of aging. When someone has burned their skin, it looks like the skin of a very old person. What is important is that we see that God held out aging and death to Adam and Eve as punishment for their sin. If that is so, why should people expect a different punishment after the resurrection? Has God changed? Please read the following verses on this subject: Genesis 2:17; 3:19; Isaiah 65:20; James 5:3; Revelation 20:14; Sura 73:17; 7:48.

Although this is only symbolic language, the description of "hell" is truly very fitting, both in the Bible and in the Quran. What I still cannot understand, however, is why, when one reads such verses in the Bible, one carefully investigates whether they have a symbolic meaning or how they might be understood — but when it comes to the Quran, one immediately judges and says "it is nonsense or wrong." In this connection the story of the Zaqqum tree comes to mind, whose fruits and leaves are very bitter and are destined for the people in hell. Of it, Sura 37:64 says: Verily, it is a tree that springs forth from the bottom of hell. How can a tree grow in fire — how can it take root in a literal hell?? This means there is earth and trees in hell. The people in hell are in dialogue with the people in paradise! But where is this place? (Sura 7:48–50; Luke 16:19–31) Yet that there will in time be a certain boundary between the two groups is evident in the Quran and in the Bible alike. Who gave Adam the command to transform the whole earth into a paradise? Should this command of God be made null and void and forgotten because of Adam's disobedience? Is there anything a human being or any other creature could do that would move God to deviate from his purpose? If God commanded, when he said to Adam and Eve "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it," that the whole earth should be made into a paradise, then that command will also be fulfilled. Of that I have no doubt. To those who do not believe it, I recommend searching it out. Is it not worth investigating when eternal life is at stake?

THE QURAN ON JESUS

This chapter deals with the well-known question of whether Jesus is the Son of God or not. For hundreds of years this has been a point of contention between Muslims and Christians. My aim in this chapter is simply to show what the Quran says on this subject. I will then leave it to the reader to decide whether these statements are in agreement with the Bible or not. I would like to briefly add one thing: among the various faith communities within Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones I know of who do not worship Jesus as God. Their understanding of this is based on their knowledge of the Bible, and unknowingly also on statements from the Quran. In my many years of contact with them, this was one of the most important points for me. It was partly for this reason that I had a great deal of sympathy for them. If they had also defended the worship of Jesus as the other denominations do, I might well have broken off contact immediately.

Christians place great importance on seeing Jesus as the Son of God — so much so that they often venerate him more than God himself. This is not meant as a joke or exaggeration; Jesus is in fact worshipped as God, as the Almighty. And they do this even though the Book of Moses explicitly states that God is one God, that no one is equal to Him, and that no one should be placed on an equal footing with Him. Jesus, too, always gave glory to God, never to himself. (Deuteronomy 6:4; 5:7,8; John 5:19; 12:49,50; Matthew 22:36–38) On this subject, the Witnesses have produced excellent literature that exposes the Trinity doctrine of Christendom as having no foundation in the Bible. They have recognized this truth from Scripture and thereby distinguish themselves greatly from the established churches. I believe this is in fact the main point that separates the Witnesses from both the Protestant and the Catholic Church. Why do they not worship Jesus as God? Because of this difference with the churches, the topic of the Trinity and the role of Jesus is addressed very frequently and in great detail in the writings of the Witnesses. As I said, among the many Christian denominations I know of, the Witnesses are the only ones who do not believe in Jesus as God and do not worship him as such. That is why I think I can make this subject more understandable to the Witnesses than to members of other Christian religions.

The Quran states repeatedly that God has no son and no daughter. (Surah 53:21). Interestingly, the doctrine of the Trinity has placed Jesus on an equal footing with his Father God — and in doing so has also elevated Mary to the status of "Mother of God"! The Quran says: He has not taken a wife or a son. — Al-Jinn, Surah 72:3. In As-Saffat (Those Who Range Themselves), Surah 37, verses 149–153, it states quite plainly: Now ask them whether your Lord has daughters while they have sons. Did We create the angels as females while they were present? Behold! It is nothing but their own invention when they say: "God has begotten"; and they are truly liars. Has He preferred daughters over sons? (Some other verses on this subject can be found in the Quran in, among other places, 43:16–81; 23:91; 5:116; 6:100; 10:68; 9:31; 39:4)

These verses make clear that God not only has not begotten a son, but has not brought forth daughters either. Evidently people have gone so far in their delusions as to teach and believe such things. This is primarily a legacy of the teachings of the Catholic Church. They have implanted in the subconscious of people an image of God in which God has produced children through a male-female relationship. The Quran warns above all against these teachings of the Christians of that time, and little has changed in their beliefs to this day. In order to make Himself known to people, God has sometimes used comparisons. For example, He speaks of Himself as a king, a ruler, or a governor. To illustrate His love and closeness to us, He often compares Himself to a father (Malachi 1:6–8; 1 Samuel 8:7). According to an etymological dictionary of the German language, the word "father" refers "evidently to the social position of the father as head of the household and lord over the extended family." (Kluge) It is also frequently used in the sense of life-giver. For example, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is referred to as the father of the Turkish Republic, and the Bible calls the devil the father of the lie. (John 8:44) Is it not therefore appropriate to describe the true source of life — the one who created heaven and earth and all creatures — as a father? God can thus be called the Father of all living things. And did He not Himself create this principle? Did He not arrange things so that human beings bring forth children and become fathers and mothers? He could equally have arranged things so that humans multiply like fruit or vegetables. Why did He create us humans so that we can only reproduce through sexual intercourse, and so that children come into the world in a state of strong dependence on their parents? In this way, people come to understand what it means to be a child, and later they come to know the feelings that parenthood brings. I am convinced that God arranged things this way intentionally, so that we can understand Him better — because we ourselves bring children into the world, love them, take responsibility for them, and care for them. As children or teenagers, we often fail to understand what our parents did, said, or expected of us, and then the day comes when we have children of our own and suddenly see everything from a different perspective. We become more careful in our judgment of our parents and more understanding of them. Where once we were guided and led by our parents, we now find ourselves in the position of guiding and leading our own children. Over the years we gain wisdom and understanding through the experiences we have. This may not apply to everyone, but these are the experiences that most of us have and the feelings that most of us go through. Some kill these feelings within themselves, others allow them, learn from them, and live accordingly. We tend to take in and live out what we feel to be valuable, while trying to deny or entirely suppress what we consider worthless. All of this shapes our personality and our character. Whether a good personality develops from this, God will ultimately judge — but on the basis of His written Word we can roughly imagine how He will judge us.

In the Quran there are countless verses showing that Christians, under the pretense that he is the Son of God, have elevated Jesus to the place of God. For example, in Al-Ma'idah (The Table) it says: And when God will say: "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people: 'Take me and my mother as two gods besides God'?", he will answer: "Glory be to You. I could never have said what I had no right to say. If I had said it, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my soul, but I do not know what is in Your mind. You alone are the Knower of hidden things. I said to them nothing other than what You commanded me: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them, but since You caused me to die, You have been the Watcher over them; and You are witness over all things." — Surah 5:116,117

Are there any texts in the Bible that confirm this statement of Jesus? We read: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." John 20:17. Would such a statement make sense if Jesus himself were God the Almighty? With this statement Jesus makes clear that there is only one God — for him and his disciples, indeed for all of humanity. When God set about creating human beings, He said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." He said this to the angels He had created beforehand. Yet neither the angels nor human beings were meant to be almighty gods. They were meant to resemble God in certain qualities. What are those qualities? They include, as the Witnesses teach, qualities such as love, power, justice, and wisdom. These are qualities that God the Creator, angels, and humans all share. But God is also holy, and humans likewise are called to be holy. In Leviticus 11:44,45 it says: "...and you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, for I am holy." This call goes out to all people, and yet no one can be as holy as God. (1 Samuel 2:2) And after all, God does not say through these words: "you shall be gods equal to me."

At this point I should perhaps insert a brief explanation. The titles "God" and "Lord" are not restricted solely to God the Almighty, the Creator. God has, for example, given this title to angels and to prophets who proclaim His word. Please read the verses in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:30–38. But this is most clearly expressed in 1 Corinthians 8:5–7: ...we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but o n e. For even if there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth — as there are indeed many "gods" and many "lords" — yet for us there is in fact o n e God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; ... Here the distinction between the one true almighty God and the other gods is clearly emphasized. The following warning found in the Quran is an apt warning for Christendom, which places Jesus on an equal footing with God:

They have taken their scribes and monks as lords besides God, and the Messiah, the son of Mary. And yet they were commanded to worship only the One God. There is no god but Him. Far too holy is He for what they associate with Him! At-Tawbah (The Repentance) 9:31.

There is "God" and "Lord" as a title, and by this not only the Almighty is meant, but no one deserves honor like the Creator. This Creator-God is o n e God and no one is equal to Him.

For example, "teacher" is also a title, a designation. There are many teachers, but each has their own unmistakable personality and their own name that distinguishes them from others. When God created the heavenly creatures, He called them gods, and that is correct. But they are never placed on an equal footing with their Creator. That is why God has also given Himself His own name, which distinguishes Him from all others. In some Bible translations it is rendered as Jehovah or Yahweh. (Exodus 6:2,3; Isaiah 42:8) Whether His name is pronounced Jehovah or Yahweh I do not know — scholars dispute about this. But this name is in any case unique, and through it too the Creator is distinguished from other deities. What I also do not know is the reason why neither the New Testament nor the Quran makes use of this name. Raymond Franz says on this subject in his book "Christian Freedom": That all of God's promises and purposes concerning salvation culminate in Jesus Christ may be a further explanation for the shift that is evident in the Christian Scriptures, compared to the Hebrew Scriptures, in the way God is named.

Could it be that because Jesus in a certain sense fulfilled the meaning of the name Jehovah, this name is no longer mentioned? Again I must say: I do not know. But there is one true, almighty God, through whom everything came into existence, and no one is equal to Him. No one has ever seen Him, yet His existence is no secret.

Every time I have discussed these topics with a Christian or a Muslim, what I said seemed like nonsense in their eyes. No matter how well and logically I explain it, the best explanation is offered by the Holy Scriptures themselves. I therefore ask you, when you read the Bible or the Quran, try to remain objective. Try to clear your mind of the teachings of Muslims and Christians. Read these books simply as they are. When we are opposed to something, we should try to be clear about the reason why. When I began reading the New Testament, I felt a very strong aversion — even a hatred — toward Jesus. As I read, I felt transported into the situation of the Jews of that time. Although I knew how the story ended, I was on the side of the Jews who wanted to put Jesus to death. It is as if, watching a film you have already seen, you expect a different ending the second time around. I asked myself: "If I know and believe that God chose Jesus and gave him all these abilities, then who am I to be upset about this and oppose it?" Once, when I had the Bible in my hands and was reading it — I had not yet overcome my rejection of Jesus — I put the book aside and said to myself: "This is pointless; the Bible cannot be read this way." Either I am willing to accept God as He has revealed Himself to us in His book, or I should leave it alone. Why should I stand in rejection or even hatred toward the truths of God? Where did this rejection come from? As I reflected on it, I realized that we Muslims had had an aversion toward Christians instilled in us. In a similar way, Jews and Christians have also been influenced. We are not even aware of it. Christians have a strong aversion to Muslims, to the Quran, and to Muhammad. They have their own reasons for this attitude, reasons that may seem logical from their perspective. Whether we are religious or not, we are biased. It has become a kind of creed for society as a whole. But one thing is certain: this attitude, these negative feelings, this hatred do not come from God. On the one hand I wanted to break free from these chains, yet I almost allowed other chains to be placed on me by beginning to put my trust in the Witnesses. That is why I do not wish to listen to those who speak ill of other faith communities while themselves belonging to a religious organization, because their words seem incredible to me. It is like the followers of a political party or a club. At bottom they are all the same, because they lack objectivity. None of these institutions is from God. I repeat once more: none of these religions is from God. Someone might perhaps say: "And are you perhaps from God?" To which I reply: "I am not telling anyone to follow me, nor do I have the arrogance to claim that I alone am the righteous one!" And above all, I do not possess the audacity to say, as the Witnesses do: "Without us, you cannot be saved"!! But in general, these are the kinds of statements one hears from religions. Precisely because they use such slogans — directly or indirectly — I am convinced that none of them has God's approval. Their outwardly displayed humility and modesty are no longer convincing. By now their works, their deeds, have become plain for all to see. No one has the right to elevate themselves above others in the name of God. God gives no one that right. But if you want to make yourselves the servants of these people, then what more can I say? Free yourselves from these chains as quickly as you can, before it is too late. Do it for yourselves and for those you love.

Let us return once more to the question of whether Jesus is part of a triune Godhead. Shortly before his execution, Jesus prayed the following to God: "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." — Matthew 26:39. If Jesus himself is God, what sense does it make for God to pray to God and say: "not as I will, but as you will"? The evidence is actually plain. When the Church was recognized as the state religion in the third century, it began to teach nonsense. That is one reason the Quran came. God wishes through this book to admonish all three religions, or communities.

FIRST, FOR THE JEWS

The Jews are the people who have received the most attention from God. They are descendants of Abraham, whom God called His friend; most of the prophets came from among them, and a large portion of the Bible was transmitted to them. Moreover, a savior — the promised Messiah — was to come from their ranks. The Quran likewise points out that a savior has been expected since the very beginning of humanity. In Surah Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:38 and in Surah Ta-Ha 20:123 it says: We said: "Go down from here, all of you. And whoever, when guidance1 from Me comes to you, follows My guidance — on them shall come no fear, nor shall they grieve."

(The context makes clear that this refers not merely to instructions from God in a general sense, for people had already received those before. Evidently it was important for human beings, after they had sinned, to understand that they were not without hope. It therefore stands to reason that God was here giving them an indication of a savior.) There is no verse or clear indication from which it would follow that this savior — or leader, guide — was to be Muhammad or any other prophet. Yet no one other than Jesus has said of himself, "I am the Messiah, the promised Savior." The Quran accords Jesus a position that is unique and cannot be compared with any of the other prophets. According to the Quran, only Jesus was raised and now lives in heaven at God's side. (Surah 3:55; 19:33; 4:158) Over time, ever more details about this foretold savior were revealed. Shortly before his death, Moses said: "A prophet like me from your own midst, from your brothers, Jehovah your God will raise up for you — to him you shall listen" — Deuteronomy 18:15. In the Bible at Acts 3:22–26 it is stated that this foretold savior is Jesus Christ. Did the Jews believe this? No, they rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah. Just as the Muslims do. They do not reject Jesus as the Messiah because they do not know what "Messiah" means. But when they hear what it means, they reject him. They reject him in his function as the foretold Savior. In their eyes it seems absurd that God, as recompense for Adam's sin, would require a perfect sacrifice for the salvation of mankind from sin and death.

1 هدى [hudaa] (Right-)Guidance, (Divine) Direction (1 Corinthians 2:14) The Jews have had these same feelings and continue to have them to this day. Muslims cannot reject Jesus entirely as the Jews do, since the Quran assigns Jesus a special role; but by claiming that the Bible has been corrupted, they have found another way to reject Jesus. The meaning of the word Messiah and the expectation of a Messiah are very important points. The Quran, however, refers to Jesus as the Messiah on multiple occasions, and the meaning of this word is not unknown to the Jews, for they live to this day in expectation of a Messiah. There are even some today who see the Kurdish leader Öcalan as the promised Messiah. My own sister believes in this nonsense. It is her own interpretation, which she holds to. Öcalan himself has never claimed any such thing, but she wants to convince him of it. She wants to bring him to declare it, so that he will be labeled mentally deranged and released from prison. I can well imagine that he is mentally deranged, but he cannot use that to justify his murder of many innocent people! Are there not enough madmen in this world? On the other hand, it is not reasonable to let mentally deranged people who pose a threat to others roam free. Moreover, the expected Messiah was to be a savior, not a mass murderer! Not even by attempting to set off bombs and thereby killing people indiscriminately, on the pretext of making oneself known. The Messiah was to be someone who is physically healthy and never falls ill. Öcalan, by contrast, is constantly surrounded by doctors. Nor was the Messiah to come as the savior of the Kurdish people, but rather to separate the good from the wicked among all of humanity. Our topic is, after all, the appropriate answer for the Jews. Should we tell them: the Messiah has come and he is waiting for you on Imrali2? So many false messiahs have already appeared — which one should they believe? When the true Messiah came, they did not believe in him. But is it not remarkable that these self-appointed leaders and madmen who sought to draw attention to themselves always presented themselves as the Messiah, regardless of which religious corner they came from? Should one not expect a confused Muslim to present himself as Muhammad, or an Alawite Kurd as Ali? No — strangely enough, they all call themselves the Messiah! It is not without reason that Jesus said the following, among other things, about the time of the end: "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name and say: 'I am he,' and: 'The due time is near.'" — Luke 21:8

Let us turn to our actual subject: the meaning of Messiah. In Israel, kings and priests were anointed with a special oil as a sign of their installation into office. An oil was prepared from particular herbs and spices and poured over the head of the person concerned. (1 Samuel 10:1; 16:13; Leviticus 4:3; 2 Kings 9:3) This was done for every king and every priest before he was installed in his office. It was a symbol of divine approval. This ceremony, carried out by human hands, was called anointing. Jesus Christ was anointed by the Spirit of God. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:9,10; Luke 3:21,22; John 1:30–34; Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table) 5:110) In the Bible book of Hebrews, chapters 7 through 11, it is explained in greater detail that Jesus was chosen by God both as High Priest and as King. To understand the meaning correctly, you should definitely read the Bible. Simply put, Jesus was anointed to serve as King over all things and as the highest Priest. One Bible text explains it as follows: For such a high priest was indeed fitting for us: loyal, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners and become higher than the heavens. …Now as for the things being discussed, this is the main point: We have

2 Imrali is an island in the Sea of Marmara used as a prison. Abdullah Öcalan has been held there since 1999. such a high priest, and he has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. — Hebrews 7:26; 8:1 What is remarkable is the description we find here of Jesus. Neither in the Quran nor in the Bible is it said of any other person that he is without sin. Muslims become angry when one shows them verses in the Quran demonstrating that Muhammad sinned. They are guided by their feelings and wish to see Muhammad as sinless, perfect, because they deify him, rather than orienting themselves by the truth God has revealed. They despise Christians for deifying and worshiping Jesus, yet at bottom they behave in exactly the same way toward Muhammad, even if they do not openly say that they worship him. What Jesus said to the Jews applies absolutely to Muslims as well: "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you, Moses, on whom you have set your hope. In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" — John 5:45–47 Jesus directed his words to the Jews, who had set their hope on Moses. When Muslims today read these words, they need only exchange the name of Moses for Muhammad, and it becomes clear what is meant. What is the difference between Muslims and Jews, or the difference between Christians and Muslims, or between Jews and Christians? In my view, there is no difference! Are a name and the knowledge one possesses really significant? If one does not apply one's knowledge, it counts for absolutely nothing. Someone who knows none of these things at all is still the most at ease. He at least has an excuse. The topic of what value the Quran holds for the Jews can perhaps be summed up in one sentence: The Quran bears witness to the promised Messiah and shows that it is Jesus. "The Messiah is Jesus, in whom you have not believed." — Surah 5:15; 27:76; 2:62,111,113; 5:41–47

SECONDLY, FOR THE CHRISTIANS

The message the Quran directs at Christians is clear and simple: "You have not believed in the promised Messiah in the manner expected of you. You have not only deified Jesus, but have also made him part of a triune Godhead. You have done things God did not command you, and in addition you have imposed commandments upon yourselves that God did not give, thereby distorting God's pure message and harming yourselves." For example, they imposed on themselves commandments such as celibacy, the prohibition of meat on Fridays, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Here are just one or two verses as an example: Truly, those who say: "God (Allah) is none other than the Messiah, son of Mary," disbelieve — even though the Messiah himself said: "O children of Israel, worship God (Allah), my Lord and your Lord." Whoever ascribes partners to God (Allah), God (Allah) has forbidden him paradise, and the Fire will be his abode. And the wrongdoers shall find no helpers. Truly, those who say: "God (Allah) is the third of three," disbelieve; there is no god but the One God. And if they do not desist from what they say, truly a painful punishment will befall those among them who persist in unbelief. — Surah Al-Ma'idah (The Table) 5:72,73 In the Gospels, the following verses confirm these statements of the Quran: John 12:49; 20:17; Luke 22:42. Regarding the correct view on the doctrine of the Trinity, the only ones among the Christian religions I know of who have this right are the Witnesses. As I have said many times, they have recognized through the Bible that God is not part of a Trinity. It is truly not difficult to see this. And yet it does surprise me that they have managed to see it. Let us return once more to the message the Quran has for Christendom:

Neither the Messiah nor the angels brought near will ever disdain to be servants of God (Allah); — Surah An-Nisa (The Women) 4:172 That Jesus, the Messiah, is a servant of God is also clearly evident from the Bible. Peter says the following about Jesus: "God raised up his servant and sent him to you first, to bless you by turning each one of you away from your wicked deeds." — Acts 3:26 In this verse, Jesus is called a servant of God. Somehow, it does not seem to occur to the other Christian religions that if Jesus is himself God, he cannot be the servant of another God. But when it comes to the title Son of God, one must not overlook the fact that Jesus is not the only one referred to in this way. All angels are also called sons of God, even though Jesus holds a special position before God. (Job 1:6; 2:1; Genesis 6:2) In some newer translations these verses render it as "divine beings," but in general a footnote indicates that the correct translation is "sons of God." Beyond that entirely, God calls the Israelites His sons, thereby showing in His love that He considers even human beings — sinful, imperfect human beings — worthy of that designation. (Deuteronomy 14:1) With this knowledge, the prophets and other faithful servants of God drew near to God in prayer and addressed Him as "Father." (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 3:7–10)

Do not think that Christians possess much insight and knowledge in this area. Christians are just as ignorant as Muslims. And this despite the fact that they hold the Bible in their hands — a book that conveys a great wealth of knowledge. Those who know a great deal have gone thoroughly astray, or have remained too much under the influence of the church and its dogmas3. The greater part of the Christian population scarcely picks up the Bible to read and study it. Yet in earlier times it was common practice to read the Bible, and some portions of it were memorized. By now, people are content to pay their church tax and limit their attendance at church to a handful of occasions, such as holidays, weddings, and funerals. Many are disappointed by the example set by their clergy, or they have fallen out with God on account of their own inclination toward sin and comfort, and have broken away from Him.

Dear reader, please do not expect to find all the knowledge on this subject here. The thoughts I have set down here should serve every earnest seeker only as a beginning — an impulse to investigate and reflect further. It is not my aim to present here an exhaustive and detailed list of everything the Bible or the Quran says on this topic. It would be downright inhuman to expect to find all those verses and their detailed explanations set down here. How could I write all of that here? And in a way that everyone could understand, besides! That is impossible. At least for me at this point. Once again I want to emphasize how important it is that each person seeks, prays, and reflects for himself, for we ourselves are responsible for what we think and believe. One should neither believe and accept what is written here, nor what someone else says, without first investigating. If we find it tedious or are too comfortable to do so, we will have to bear the consequences for that as well.

3 Dogma: a fundamental Christian tenet (for example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma of the church) It will be even harder for them. Of course I am aware that no one will be saved by knowledge alone. But to be entirely without knowledge makes salvation nearly impossible for us. Through knowledge we can at least open the door to salvation for ourselves — we at least know where that door is to be found. Walking through that door is something that ultimately remains up to each person. Since the knowledge we possess is, so to speak, the key to opening that door, a person who has no knowledge, no insight, is helpless — he has nothing in his hand, in his mind, or in his heart. (Matthew 25:1–13) God is merciful, yet we should not think His mercy is a weakness and that we can make ourselves comfortable and at ease and He will simply forgive us. For God can also be punishing and avenging. It rests entirely with us. Please take the Bible in hand and open the book of Proverbs and read in chapter 1 the verses 22 through 33. There it is written what the end will be of those who hate knowledge. Later I will return to these verses once more in a different context.

Christendom stoned people who had read the Bible, condemned them to death, hung the Bible around their necks and burned them alive at the stake, and those who translated it were considered deserving of death. Simply put, they hate knowledge and those who strive after it. And these Christians say: "What do we need yet another book like the Quran for?" And they say this with an eye toward Islamic society. There is no difference between Muslims and Christians. Just as the one behaves — rejecting knowledge and insight — so does the other. Just as the one holds to the book in his hand and applies it in his life, so does the other. Just as the Christians do, so do the Muslims.

THIRDLY, FOR THE ARABS AND ALL UNBELIEVERS

The third and most important warning of the Quran is directed at the Arabs — especially at the Arab peoples who were, at that time, very uneducated. Have they become better through the Quran? Certainly at first, but over time they fell back into their old condition. When we look at history, we notice that the peoples who lived faithfully according to the Quran prospered. But just like all other peoples who later turned away from God, they too declined over time or disappeared altogether. If some former world empires and once-successful states still exist and have not yet vanished from the face of the earth, this is owing to God's patience and consideration, as we can see in the example of the people of Israel. Instead of directing our attention to the question of whether the Quran brought any advantage to the Arabs, we should be aware that the general condition of humanity on earth is miserable — even though they all possess the Holy Books to a greater or lesser degree. Everywhere there is war, misery, crime, deception, and terror. When terror is carried out by a state or a government, it is called war and associated with qualities such as patriotism, loyalty, courage, and heroism! When they deem it necessary, states themselves train terrorists, supplying them with weapons and money. They are then sent into a region to bring freedom and democracy, yet they turn that region into a hell. The Vietnam War was spoken of often during my childhood — to name just one example. Who does not by now know about the crooked schemes that the "powers that be," the rulers, devise to line their own pockets? They know only money, power, pride, and pleasure. For these things they do everything — they deceive, murder, steal. They have no scruples when their own advantage is at stake. With good reason does God in the Holy Scriptures compare states to wild beasts (Daniel chapter 7 and Revelation chapter 13). What these rulers, these states, these organizations do — only a wild beast does such things. So if these nations, peoples, tribes, and we as individuals are so thoroughly corrupt, we should not look for the reason in the Bible or the Quran. Instead, we should seek the cause of our corruption within ourselves. What became of the people of Israel, even though God took such great care of them? The Bible says they continually did only evil. Please read 2 Kings 17:7–18 on this point.

Let us turn to the warnings in the Quran. Through His Prophet and the Quran, God sends a warning to a people that buries its daughters alive in the earth and worships idols. The Quran points to God as the Creator, to His uniqueness, and refers to earlier scriptures and prophets. While on the one hand the Quran speaks of a paradise on earth and of eternal life for good people, giving them hope, on the other hand it warns evil people of God's judgment and punishment. Rather than citing individual verses as proof at this point, I can only recommend reading the entire Quran; that should suffice as evidence for the correctness of this statement. Nevertheless I would like to draw attention to a few verses: Surah 6:19; 10:37–39; 7:2; 3:3; 2:2; 10:57; 10:48; 16:64; 17:102. In Surah 16:101 it is written: Say: "The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth, to strengthen those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings to those who submit." And in 18:1,2: All praise belongs to God (Allah), Who sent down the Book to His servant and placed no crookedness in it. As a straight guide, that it may warn of a severe punishment from Him, and give glad tidings to the believers who do good works, that theirs shall be a goodly reward …

Asia — and thus Arabia — had barely been missionized by the first Christians in the 1st century, and so the Good News was scarcely known there. At the time of the apostles, God had not permitted this. (Acts 16:6) Later, through the coming of the Prophet Muhammad and the Quran, God would explain His purpose for the future. With regard to His purpose, God had given Abraham the following assurance: And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He will father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. — Genesis 17:20 Christians have a great aversion to Ishmael. In their Bible films, Ishmael is always portrayed as dark-skinned with black hair; Jesus or Isaac are always shown as light-skinned and even blond. They project themselves onto these figures and assume that these people, specially blessed by God, must have looked like them; for them, race and appearance play an important role — dark skin is something inferior, something cursed, in their eyes. They serve demons, not God. The Western world deliberately tries to implant such an attitude in people. This seems normal enough, since from an Ottoman perspective it is presented in exactly the opposite way: there the heroes are bearded, sun-bronzed men, and the pale, pallid-faced people are the villains and the losers. I am convinced that if today people of short stature were the most powerful on earth, they would portray Moses, David, Jesus, and all the great figures of history as dwarfs in their films. Dark-skinned people imagine the heroes of the past as dark-skinned. That is normal. But in my view it is a sick, foolish, and naive kind of normal! Throughout history, people have always tried to portray their own race as superior and others as inferior and second-rate. Although such attitudes appear most clearly and most frequently in Europe or the USA — among so-called Christians, to be more precise. In the end their views changed, and in newer films one can see that Jesus has genuinely dark skin and dark hair. After several hundred years! Still — a tremendous step forward.

But God did not curse Ishmael; on the contrary, He says: "I will bless him …" And in Genesis 21:13 God says: And as for the son of the slave woman, I will also make him into a nation, because he is your offspring. In making this statement, God is not trying to flatter Abraham. This is evident from the fact that Abraham later has four more sons, meaning he has six sons in total: Isaac, Ishmael, and four others. (Genesis 25:1–4) But regarding these other four, God makes no promise to Abraham, even though they too are Abraham's descendants. He gives assurances only concerning the descendants of Isaac and of Ishmael. Between these two promises there is only one difference: the promised Seed, the Savior, was to come through the line of Isaac. Interestingly, God uses the word also here. The use of this word points to the equality of the promise. God is saying, in essence, that He will make both Isaac and Ishmael into great nations. We should of course not make a direct comparison at this point between the people of Israel and the Arabs. God directed our attention in the further course of history to the people of Israel, until the coming of the Messiah. (Galatians 3:16, 19) In order to give an example to all peoples and nations, God ensured that His dealings with the people of Israel were recorded in detail. It is not the case — as many religions and peoples believe — that God chose only one people and is indifferent to all others. He never did that, not even for a limited time or temporarily. No one, no people, no religion holds a monopoly on God! There are many religions and organizations that harbor such a fantasy, and even if they do not always say so openly, they reveal their attitude through their actions. It is certainly more accurate to say that they all think this way! This is their conception of God, and this is what they try to pass on. Like the Jews of old, who said: "We are chosen, we are holy, you are unclean and condemned to death." Jesus said the following to these stubborn, self-righteous religions, peoples, races, and above all to the Israelites of that time: But truly I say to you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian. And all in the synagogue were filled with rage when they heard these things; and they rose up and drove him out of the town … — Luke 4:24–29 With these words, is Jesus not making it unmistakably clear that God places absolutely no value on any labels whatsoever, but that every individual person matters to Him, regardless of which organization, religion, race, or nation they belong to?

God always keeps His promises. But let us look more closely at what He actually promised with these words. While some of His assurances are tied to certain conditions, others are completely unconditional. For example, God says to David: "If your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel." (1 Kings 2:1–4) This promise was clearly tied to a condition, and they had to keep that condition in order to receive the blessing. But the assurance God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael was unconditional. God had promised Abraham that the Savior would come through the line of Isaac, regardless of how Isaac or his descendants might conduct themselves. And His promise to the descendants of Ishmael was likewise free of any conditions. (Genesis 17:5–8; 15–21)

For this reason, God commissioned Muhammad as a prophet, for he came from the line of Ishmael. This may not be easy to understand for someone who knows only the Quran, but in the light of all the Holy Books, God's manner of proceeding is easy to follow. I will cite a few selected verses on this subject. Today I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favor upon you … Al-Ma'idah (The Table) Surah 5:3 Here God speaks of having completed something. He is referring to a promise He had made to them — the promise given to Abraham concerning Ishmael. The Quran further says: And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House, (he said): "Our Lord, accept this from us; truly You are the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. And our Lord, make us submissive to You, and from our descendants a community submissive to You; and show us our rites of worship, and turn to us in mercy; truly You are the Oft-Returning, the Most Merciful. And our Lord, raise up among them a messenger from among themselves, who shall recite to them Your signs and teach them the Book and wisdom and purify them; truly You are the Almighty, the All-Wise." — Al-Baqarah (The Cow) Surah 2:127–129 God shows that this prayer of Abraham and Ishmael was heard by fulfilling their requests concerning themselves, their descendants, and the House they built. The House they built is the structure draped in black cloth in Mecca, which to this day is the destination of Muslim pilgrimage. In the Bible we find no indication of this. It might appear as though Abraham never saw Hagar and Ishmael again after he drove them both away. But this impression results from our being under the influence of a false understanding of the Bible. For the Bible reports that both of them together — Isaac and Ishmael — buried their father Abraham. (Genesis 25:8–10) They were in constant contact with each other, even though they lived many hundreds of kilometers apart and despite the limited means of communication available at that time. I will cite verses from both the Bible and the Quran as evidence for this. Regarding Ishmael: Genesis 16:10; 17:20; 21:13–18; Surah 2:133; 3:84; 4:163; 19:54; 21:85; 38:48. These verses about Ishmael show that he was a good man and a prophet chosen by God. Yet this truth is denied or at least passed over in silence among both Jews and Christians. If he had not been valuable in God's eyes and had not played a role in His plan, then after Ishmael was driven out of Abraham's house God would have left him to his own devices or to death. But that is not what happened. On the contrary, in that very difficult situation God renews His promise to Hagar and her son Ishmael — and He does so more than once. It is truly worthwhile to read Genesis 16:10–12 and 21:14–21 in context. There we also find a very interesting statement about Ishmael, a statement that meets with antipathy among Jews and Christians. It says literally: "God was with the boy, and he grew up and lived in the wilderness …" — Genesis 21:20 A similar statement is found in the Bible about Jesus Christ: "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him." — Luke 2:40

Do such statements apply to someone who is cursed by God, or do they rather point to a person blessed by God? Yet these are truths that stand in opposition to the false, unbiblical teaching of Christendom. The Muslims, on the other hand, confuse the two persons Isaac and Ishmael entirely. Many things that apply to Isaac they attribute to Ishmael. The Feast of Sacrifice is just as muddled as Easter is among Christians. What do rabbits and eggs have to do with the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is supposedly commemorated at Easter? In the same way, Ishmael has nothing to do with the sacrifice that Abraham was prepared to offer. The Quran makes no explicit statement as to whom Abraham brought to the altar of sacrifice. But neither does it make any statement that contradicts the account in the Bible. It is simply not reported in as much detail — that is all. But what is written there corresponds to the truth. If in Islam over the years certain falsehoods and certain nonsense have crept in, it is not the Quran's fault. If Muslims cannot agree or find clarity, they should consult and read the Bible. Then they would know whom Abraham sacrificed. This is the advice — or rather the command — that the Quran itself gives; it does not come from me: "If you are truthful, bring the Torah and read it." — Al Imran Surah 3:93 What have the Muslims done? Do they perhaps think they can sidestep this commandment and evade the facts by saying "the Torah has been corrupted"? The Quran, however, does not support their view — on the contrary, it says: "If you are truthful, read the Torah." The same thought is reinforced in the following verses: Surah 40:53,54; 4:47; 3:99. Finally I would like to quote one more verse, which contains a warning to all Muslims and members of the other groups mentioned: And when it is said to them: "Believe in what God has sent down," they say: "We believe in what was sent down to us," but they disbelieve in what came after it, even though it is the truth confirming what they have. Say: "Why then did you use to kill the prophets of God, if you were believers?" — Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:91 Say: "We believe in God (Allah) and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and what was given to Moses and Jesus, and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we are submissive." — Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:136 Can you tell me which Muslim truly takes the underlined words to heart and believes in them? I personally know none. Either the Quran is on the wrong track, or the Muslims are. It is logical to conclude that the Muslims are in error. What do you call it when on the one hand someone professes to believe in a book and on the other hand does not act according to it?

We have named three distinct groups: the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, who were formerly unbelieving Arabs. The Quran is a book that confirms the justice of God and His purpose. Since the beginning of humanity, a Savior, a Messiah, has been pointed to. Again and again it was said: "He is coming." (Genesis 49:9,10; Deuteronomy 18:15 and as a parallel text John 5:46; Psalm 22:16–18; 30:2,3; 40:6,7; 110:1 and as a parallel Matthew 22:42–46; Luke 20:42,43; Proverbs 8:22–36; Isaiah 7:14; chapter 53 in full; Daniel 2:44; 9:24–26; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 12:10; Hosea 11:1) These verses are only a part of the prophecies pointing to the coming of the Messiah. They are all quotations from the Holy Books of the Jews, known among Muslims as the Torah and the Zabur (Psalms). The promised Messiah came, and the Gospels confirm this, but the Jews did not believe. Later, a man with no connection to the Jews appears and says he is a prophet of God. He speaks about the Savior and provides indications that identify Jesus as the man God had promised. That prophet was Muhammad, and the knowledge he passed on is contained in the Quran. What clearer proof should God still have to provide?

What more can one say, when God has shown such clear evidence and drawn so close to humanity, yet they refuse to understand!? They behave like followers of a political party or fans of a football club. Here we are and there you are. People are moving apart from one another; they have divided themselves into hundreds, into thousands of different groups. They have always gone at each other's throats and still do. They have used the Books to guide people, to rule over them in the name of God — but not in His spirit, rather with their own selfish, impure, corrupt, and abominable feelings and thoughts. We have followed them and their words like donkeys. Despite everything, we have still not turned around; we still follow after them. Whom are we defending? For whom have we fought? For whom or for what have we died, or are we prepared to kill? Whose advocate are we? Are we truly trying to defend God's interests? God needs no lawyer or defender. Least of all does He allow His interests to be represented by someone who through his deeds makes himself an enemy of God. Do we perhaps think God is like us — a crook or a murderer?! Not without reason did God once give our forefathers this fitting answer:

Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit. Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, and walk after other gods whom you know not; and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered — so that you may go on doing all these abominations? Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers (a den of murderers, in the Ulu and Luther translations) in your eyes? I myself, behold, I have seen it, says Jehovah. — Jeremiah 7:8–11

THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM

- The Watchtower, 1 October 1965

In this chapter an attempt is made to show, by means of the teachings of Islam, that the Quran is not correct. For example, this article argues that Islam rejects the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice. On this subject they have not cited a single verse from the Quran — because there is none. But there is likewise no verse that supports the doctrine of the ransom or atoning sacrifice. The fact is that the Quran is neither a copy of the Old Testament nor of the New Testament. A prophet wrote only what was revealed to him, and did not copy what earlier prophets had written before him. Let us consider the idea that Jesus gave his life as a ransom sacrifice for humanity. If the Jews, who lived under the Mosaic Law for 1,500 years and were familiar with the ransom arrangement, still did not understand the role of Jesus (John 6:32–71), how could an idolatrous people with no knowledge of this whatsoever be expected to understand it? Can one expect the Quran to explain from the very beginning everything relating to the sacrifice of Jesus and his position as king after the order of Melchizedek — that he was to be both king and priest? (Hebrews 7) Who would understand that? Why were the Gospels written? Is the Quran a book that declares the Gospels invalid and false, or does the Quran support and defend the Gospels? — Surah 3:45–59; 4:171,172; 5:47, 5:66–68, 5:110 — These verses are only those that came to my mind spontaneously from the first five surahs of the Quran. The Quran as a whole makes a statement that is consistent with these verses. In one verse it says: Say: "O People of the Scripture, you stand on nothing until you uphold the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from your Lord." But surely, what has been sent down to you from your Lord will increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief. So do not grieve over the unbelieving people. — Al-Ma'idah (The Table), Surah 5:68

If Muslims reject the Bible on account of the conduct of so-called Christians, that is their own irrationality. As I said, I can understand them well, because it is almost impossible to observe Christians and not reject the Bible. Just as it is difficult to observe the conduct of Muslims and, on that basis, not reject the Quran. Equally, it would be difficult to accept the Mosaic Law after becoming acquainted with the behavior of the Jews. But all these groups, while having appointed themselves as representatives of their Holy Scriptures, are in essence nothing other than kings who have placed the crown upon their own heads. In their actions, in their deeds, and above all in their teachings, they are miles away from the books they claim to believe in. Of course there are sincere individuals among them, but these are exceptions. Yet it is with these exceptions, with these few sincere people, that these organizations boast and advertise themselves. During their lifetimes they make these people's lives a hell; after their deaths they build altars to them. Who are the "Christians" to reproach Muslims for not understanding the doctrine of Jesus' ransom sacrifice? As if they themselves had understood it! If the churches, popes, Witnesses, and the many sects had truly understood it, would they present themselves as saviors, as the sole path leading to God, as the one and only church that brings salvation? Are they not the very ones who constantly say "without us you cannot be saved," "God uses only us," and "only with us is there a way to salvation"? And yet Jesus made it absolutely clear that there is only one mediator between God and men, namely himself. But Jesus did not place this crown upon his own head — God gave him this position. This is clearly evident from the Bible: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. — 1 Timothy 2:5,6 If those who have possessed the Bible for 2,000 years and claim to believe in it do not understand, how can one expect that believers in the Quran would understand it if it were written there? And does the Quran say something different — does it forbid belief in Jesus as Savior? When people lose their objectivity, they become illogical and twisted in their thinking. They become what are called "blind fanatics."

In the next paragraph, the Watchtower goes on to address the children of Noah. The Quran states that one of Noah's children did not enter the ark and perished in the flood. "Nothing like that is in the Bible." That is correct — some things that are in the Quran are not mentioned in the Bible. But the reverse is equally true: much that we find in the Bible is not written in the Quran. Nor could one expect otherwise, since one book has fewer than 300 thick pages while the other encompasses 1,400 thin pages. While the Bible was written by at least 40 writers over a period of 1,500 years, the Quran was revealed to a single person over a period of 20 years. Is it not natural that such differences arise? It would be like singling out one single book of the Bible, believing only that book, and expecting to find all truths within it. Is it reasonable to believe only in the prophet Isaiah, to reject all other prophets, and then compare his biblical book with the others? Sometimes an event is mentioned only briefly in one place with no details or names, and only many years later is the same event reported at length by another writer. For example, in the letter of Peter a truth is mentioned concerning an event in the time of Moses that is not made fully clear in the books of Moses themselves. This refers to a prophet by the name of Balaam. When the Israelites were traveling through the desert, the king of Moab summoned this prophet to curse the people of Israel. If we read this account in the fourth book of Moses, we find no clear indication that Balaam did anything that angered God. But he did do something. This is mentioned both in the words of Jesus in Revelation and in the letter of the apostle Peter. The further events that Moses describes in his account suggest that he did something wrong. But afterward the Israelites went to war against the Moabites and killed Balaam as well. Evidently they knew something about his conduct. In this story the prophet Balaam each time passes on only what God tells him, not what the Moabite king wants to hear. But at the end, when he sees that the king is saddened, he gives him a diabolical piece of advice: "If you want God to abandon them, you must make them sin against God. Send young women to seduce them and to make them bow down before idols, and then God will turn away from them and you will have an easy time with them." The king heeds this advice and it happens just as the prophet predicted. (Numbers 25:1–3,9) The one who gives this diabolical counsel is a prophet of God! He was evidently influenced by the friendliness and generosity of the king. He thought he was helping him, accommodating him with this advice. For comparison, you can read the verses in 2 Peter 2:15,16, in Numbers 22–24, in Revelation 2:14, and in Jude 11. But for our subject what matters is that this story does not become clear simply from the account in the book of Moses. Only many hundreds of years later is this clarified in writing in the New Testament. The Israelites certainly knew some or all of these details through oral tradition, but by reading the account in the Old Testament alone, we cannot know these facts today.

The mistake this prophet made I too have committed from time to time, doing or saying things that did not please God simply in order to satisfy the person in front of me. And I do not even know whether that person was truly satisfied; what I do know is that God was not satisfied. I am thinking particularly of my friends during my time in military service. When I was doing my military service I had read the Bible only once. I had helped them find women for the free weekends. Even though I myself did nothing, I was helping them in it! When we returned to the barracks in the evening, my conscience troubled me. Nothing had happened as such, but my action was still not right. I myself had done nothing wrong, but I had helped others to do something wrong! To be sensitive in such areas requires wisdom and, accordingly, knowledge. For if we channel these feelings in the wrong direction, it can easily happen that one becomes a fanatical Jehovah's Witness or Muslim, or like the Jews who killed Jesus, or like other religious fanatics. History is full of negative events that sprang from the motivation to satisfy others. I often ask God to give me the wisdom to recognize what is right, and I think we should all do this.

A similar case is found in 2 Timothy 3:8. There it speaks of Jannes and Jambres, who opposed Moses. But neither name is mentioned in the account of Moses. They appear only in the New Testament, and even there only in this one verse. Does this mean that the Bible has been falsified? There are several similar examples in the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles. This seems to be sufficient proof for some critics that these books have been falsified. They are no different from the Christians and the Witnesses who criticize the Quran. Only the label and the color are different.

Let us now come to the subject of Noah having one more son in the Quran than in the account in the Bible. The Bible speaks of only 3 sons (Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 10:1). Why then is a 4th son mentioned in the Quran? The Quran says both of Lot's wife and of Noah's wife that they were "not good." In Surah 66:10 it says:

God (Allah) sets forth for those who disbelieve the example of the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of Our righteous servants, yet they betrayed them. So they availed them nothing against God (Allah), and it was said: "Enter the Fire, both of you, along with those who enter." In the Bible only Lot's wife is briefly mentioned, in connection with the family's flight from Sodom. She disobeyed God's command and turned and looked back. If one reads this superficially, one thinks her only guilt was simply that she looked behind her. (Genesis 19:17–26) In the same way, one cannot understand why the prophet Balaam mentioned above was killed if one reads only the account in the book of Moses. One might even think it happened by accident. If we now consider the matter of Noah's 4th son in the light of these facts, we must ask whether it is really an indication that one of the books has been falsified or is untrue, simply because one of them makes no mention at all of Noah's wife and his 4th son. In the Bible we learn absolutely nothing about Noah's wife. Must one reject a book because it mentions no details about certain events? It may well be that in the Bible some accounts are very extensive and detailed while others are only briefly touched upon. It is worthwhile to compare the 4 Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — with one another. Each of the 4 authors tells the events surrounding Jesus in his own writing style and from his own perspective, each placing emphasis on different details. For example, only Matthew mentions the story connected with the birth of Jesus — the star of Bethlehem and the cruel reaction of Herod, who had young boys up to the age of 2 killed. (Matthew, Chapter 2)

There is nothing in the Quran that a Bible believer would need to reject or could not accept. Why could it not be that Noah was not truly the father of his supposed 4th son, but that his wife had been unfaithful to him? If God gives such an indication, what leads us to dismiss this as impossible? The Quran says about the wives of Noah and Lot that they had committed betrayal. The account in the Quran says: And Noah called to his Lord and said: "My Lord, my son is of my family, and Your promise is surely true, and You are the most just of judges." He said: "O Noah, he is not of your family; he is of unrighteous conduct." — Hud, Surah 11:37–48. We do not know whether Noah received any further information on the matter. The verses of the Quran and their context really leave me with no other conclusion than the one stated above. Nor is it impossible, for in our own day children born out of wedlock are almost commonplace. Even if we assume that humanity at that time was no worse than today, we can still assume that, given the circumstances and the opportunities of the time, such escapades occurred now and then. (Genesis 6:5–7) Some may perhaps think, "Why did God not simply kill her if He knew?" For the same reason that God today does not kill everyone who commits adultery, He did not kill Noah's wife then either. We should also not forget that only 8 people in total survived the flood and that these people made up the entire population of the earth. Would her death have been a punishment for her, or more for Noah? God had never said that with the flood all wickedness would come to an end forever. After the flood, people were just as imperfect and sinful as before. Why does it seem so incomprehensible to us that God, who knew all of this, forgave Noah's wife and let her live? About Job's wife it is also said that she was unreasonable, unbelieving, and sinful. Yet God did not kill her. On the contrary, after Job had survived his severe illness, the Bible says he lived many more happy years with his wife and had many more children with her. (Job 2:7–10; 42:10–16) Could it not be that things happened in this way? According to the view of the Witnesses, no. That comes from placing weight on one verse while concealing others. They are simply not objective — and how could they be!

WAS THE BIBLE FALSIFIED?

- The Watchtower, October 1, 1965

This subject is approached with a completely different line of argument. This time an attempt is made to use Quranic verses to prove that the Bible is right! Until now the aim was to prove that the Quran cannot be the word of God, and now it is being used as evidence to underpin the credibility of the Bible. This tactic has recently been employed by many Christian missionaries who try to bring Muslims over to their side. I will reproduce their arguments with the cited verses exactly as they have written them. In this case I stand behind their views, though not behind their dishonesty.

In Islam, the view that the Bible has been falsified is widely accepted. That is, of course, nonsense. If on one hand you say the Bible is the word of God but was falsified in the course of history, then you must equally call the Quran into question. The Witnesses cite the following Quranic verses as proof in their argumentation: Surah 2:39, 40; 76-79; Surah 3:71, 72, 79; Surah 4:52, 137; Surah 5:16, 47-50; 66-68; Surah 10:95. All these verses repeatedly call upon people to read the Gospels and the Torah and give not the slightest indication that these scriptures have been falsified. Those who say the Bible is falsified ought to think about this and be ashamed. If we claim that God's word has been altered or falsified, we begin to doubt not only His word but God Himself, and we have no longer any basis for saying "this is the word of God." There is then nothing left on which we could lean or rely. We would be portraying God as unjust. How could He expect us to distinguish between right and wrong if He cannot then ensure that the knowledge necessary for doing so is preserved? On what basis will He judge us? But we can trust that He will judge justly in His court. Otherwise would not everyone rightly say: "I am sorry, but I knew nothing of this; I did not know what Your will is; You did show Your will through the scriptures, but people have falsified it, and I do not know what is right and what is wrong in it. That is why I simply did what seemed right in my own eyes"? Is it possible, from our own experience alone, to say what is right and what is wrong, when one looks at all the different cultures worldwide? While in one country it is even forbidden to drink beer, in other regions the evening drink of whisky or other spirits is an everyday affair. While in some places the exchange of affection in public is seen as perfectly normal, in other cultures it is forbidden, for example, to walk hand in hand with one's spouse; one even risks one's life doing so, because it is perceived as indecent and immoral. In some parts of Africa it is customary for women to walk around nearly unclothed, while in other hot regions women are fully veiled and only their eyes are visible. What is the right thing between these extremes? How is one to decide, if God has not preserved and protected His word down to this day? Would a loving father do such a thing? Interesting is what Jesus says about this: For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. What father among you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! — Luke 11:9-13 If we ask God for understanding so that we may distinguish between good and evil, why should He hide it from us and allow the guidance He sent to be falsified and altered by human beings? God gives us in 3 books the promise: "I will protect My word" — Psalm 12:6,7; Isaiah 34:16; Matthew 24:35; John 5:39; Quran Surah 6:34, 115; 5:48; 2:91.

In the following sections the Witnesses continue to disparage the Quran. As with all the other articles, I have not attempted to reproduce everything word for word. What mattered to me was only to make the Witnesses' line of argument clear. What is important is what makes someone a prophet of God. The Bible gives us a clear criterion for this: "If the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not come to pass or prove true, that is a word which Jehovah has not spoken." — Deuteronomy 18:20-22 But this is not the only criterion, for in Deuteronomy 13:1-3 it is shown that the predictions of a false prophet can also come true. It can be very difficult to determine whether a prophet is truly a genuine prophet of God. On the one hand it is difficult; on the other hand, it is not. As mentioned, even the words of a false prophet can come true. But in any case there must be statements by the prophet that are fulfilled during the prophet's own lifetime. That is one condition. Therefore there is no way around increasing our knowledge. We must research thoroughly in order to find a satisfying answer. But if our knowledge is based on the dogmas, interpretations, and teachings of Muslims, Catholics, Witnesses, or Jews, then we will see any coming prophet as a liar and a fraud. Since all the religions I have named, and others left unmentioned here, are in contradiction with the will of God, if a prophet were to appear today they would certainly kill him, just as they have done in the past. The Witnesses above all would stand against this prophet. How could God dare to send someone as a prophet without asking their permission, and then someone who is not even a member of their Governing Body?!! If this prophet were to present himself to them, ask their permission, and speak admiringly of them, then they might perhaps allow him to proceed. The condition, of course, would also be that this prophet would be of benefit to them and would say "Yes" to all their requests! If someone behaved in all these ways, they might perhaps accept him. On the other hand, a person who would do all this could not have God's favor and therefore could not be a prophet of God!

But let us return to our topic. Did Muhammad utter a prophecy that was fulfilled during his own lifetime? The meaning of prophecy is "to make known God's warnings and His messages and to predict things that still lie in the future." The person who does such a thing is called a prophet. That is the meaning expressed in simple terms. In their series of articles on the Quran (November 1, 1965), the Witnesses also address this topic. In this article, the prophecy in the Quran in the Surah of the Romans at verse 2 is discussed and dismissed as nonsense. As I said, if someone is biased, the other can say whatever he likes — it will always be dismissed as nonsense. The verse in question says that the Romans were defeated but would be victorious within a few years. It concerns the military conflict between the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) and the Persian Empire. Muhammad predicted that the Romans would defeat the Persians within the next 3 to 9 years. (Ar-Rum (the Romans) Surah 30:2-4) The Witnesses present this prophecy as something that anyone with a little knowledge of the forces involved could have foreseen. It would have been easy to know this in advance, since the Byzantine Empire was a world power. On the other hand, one must ask why they then lost the preceding battle. Added to this is the timeframe given in the prophecy. It does not speak of a few years, nor does it say after 12 years. A timeframe of 3 to 9 years is given. Even if this appears to be a broad span, the facts show that it was fulfilled precisely within this stated period. Even in our own age, experts are quite often wrong about the development of nations, despite the countless aids available to them. It is anything but easy to say something concrete about the future. How then could Muhammad make such a concrete statement? Yet I do not wish to dwell further on this statement here. In my eyes there are more significant prophecies of Muhammad's. There is an event in which Muhammad makes a prediction about the future that could not have been foreseen at all. This story is not mentioned by the Witnesses in their treatise with a single word. Muhammad declared himself a prophet of God and met with fierce resistance and even had to flee in order to bring himself to safety. He was almost entirely alone — as far as I know, only one person was with him. Over time he gathered more and more followers around him despite many difficulties. Nevertheless, he predicted that he would return to the place from which he had been forced to flee and that the inhabitants who had driven him out would convert to Islam. To be able to predict something like that, one must truly be a prophet. This story is told in the 48th Surah. In verse 27 it then says: Truly, God has fulfilled the vision of His Messenger: you will most certainly enter the Sacred Mosque, if God wills, in safety, with your heads shaved or your hair cut short, without fear. He knew what you did not know, and He ordained, apart from this, a victory near at hand.

Muhammad begins his work almost alone, and these predictions were fulfilled during his own lifetime. At this point a few figures, since the Witnesses set such great store by them. According to their latest official figures, there are approximately 6.5 million active members worldwide (as of 2009). They say of others, "they do not have God's blessing, they will not be saved." Those whom they judge in this way number approximately over 2 billion Christians, followed closely by Islam with approximately 1.4 billion followers. I do not wish to talk about numbers here — that is unimportant to me — but the Witness community lays such great emphasis on them, and I only wish to show in this context how ridiculous their views are. What I want to emphasize here is that Muhammad uttered prophecies that were fulfilled during his own lifetime, even though that was very unlikely. Regardless of whether one wants to believe it or not, it is a fact, anchored in the history of Islam. If someone is unwilling to acknowledge this, he will probably also not believe the prophecies in the Bible. There are some who claim that the prophecies in the Bible were only written down after they had already been fulfilled. Interesting is who makes such statements: Christian thinkers! They had better not think any more than they already do!

The Witnesses then point out in the next paragraph another fact: by declaring himself a prophet of God, Muhammad made himself, at least for a time, very unpopular. They probably want to imply: if you, dear reader, believe in the Quran and in Muhammad, the same could happen to you. But those who point this out also claim to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, about whom the biblical account says that when he was led to his execution, not a single person stood at his side. Yes, they led him to his execution! And why? Because he opened the eyes of the blind, because he made the mute speak, because he raised the dead to life! All these signs God worked through him. Why? To say to humanity: "I am with him, believe in him!" (John 11:32-42, especially verse 42) What did Jesus say about how people would treat him? "If they have treated me this way, how will they treat you?" (John 16:20) But Jesus also said the following to the hypocritical and false people of his time: Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! 38 See, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of Jehovah!" — Matthew 23:32-39

When one reads these words and then thinks of the admonition the Witnesses expressed in their magazine — "do not become followers of Muhammad, otherwise you will only make yourselves unpopular" — one is truly moved to call them a brood of vipers! On one hand they call the UN a diabolical organization, yet they themselves were members of that organization for years, until protests from within their own ranks grew ever louder. Their justification was that they had never supported the UN but had only become members in order to profit from the extensive material in that organization's archives. God feeds His people through a satanic organization!! Are God and Satan working together? On the other hand, they do not hesitate to expel a sister from their ranks because she accepted a cleaning job at a military barracks, on the grounds that she would be supporting a military and therefore a satanic institution!! What logic! My view on this is that no one is free from sin and error. But to run after such an organization — one that is so hypocritical and false — and to see it as God's chosen people is truly reprehensible, since one also takes their guilt and sin upon oneself and thereby tramples underfoot everything that is of value! Is it any wonder then that God looks upon us with wrath? Do we then also rightfully expect Him to save us? With the justification that we are His chosen people? Carry on as you are, look at this hypocrisy, and call it the people and organization of God!

DID THE BIBLE PREDICT THE COMING OF MUHAMMAD?

There are also critiques on this point. Islamic scholars point out that the coming of Muhammad was foretold in the Gospels. At the time I myself was not familiar with the meaning of these verses. The statements to which the scholars refer are found in the Gospel of John. In chapter 14, verses 16 and 17, as well as verses 25 and 26, it is clear that the reference is to the Holy Spirit. But in chapter 15, verses 26 and 27, and especially in chapter 16, verse 13, it is obvious that a person is being spoken of. Let us take a closer look at this.

Both Jesus Christ and many other prophets not infrequently referred to multiple events in their prophecies, even when it appeared as though they were speaking of only one event. A well-known example is the statement about the last days. Jesus speaks not only about the last days of the Jewish system, but simultaneously about an end of worldwide proportions. (See Matthew 24:1–31; Mark 13:1–32; Luke 21:5–28) This distinction becomes apparent only when one examines the details closely. From Luke 21:20 one can clearly see that the destruction of Jerusalem is in view. This is not as evident in the other Gospels. Luke writes his Gospel from a different perspective. When one reads his account and the prophecies it contains, one gets the impression that God's judgment upon the entire earth follows immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem. In the statements found in Matthew and Mark, one has more the sense that it concerns only the destruction of the system as it exists worldwide. The fact is that Jesus knew very precisely that God's judgment coming upon the whole earth would resemble the days of Jerusalem's destruction, and therefore he combined both events into a single prophecy. Simply put, just as in other prophecies two similar events are dealt with in one prophecy, so too the prophecy in John that concerns us here refers to two different events. It speaks of a "Helper" whose coming Jesus foretold. This was fulfilled once when Jesus, shortly after his death and resurrection, poured out the Holy Spirit upon his followers, and they were enabled by that power to speak in languages they had never learned. Moreover, this Spirit even appeared to them visibly in the form of tongues of fire over their heads. (Acts 2:1–4 and 10:44) But John 15:26 also says: When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — he will testify about me. With this verse alone it cannot be proven whether Jesus is speaking here about Muhammad or indeed about a person at all. But John 16:7–14 is written in such a way that there can be no doubt that a person is being spoken of who will come. Let us read these verses together.

But believe me, it is good for you that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you, and he will take my place. When he comes, he will confront the world. He will show people what sin is, and what righteousness is, and what judgment is. Sin consists in the fact that they reject me. Righteousness consists in the fact that God vindicates me; for I go to the Father and you will see me no more. And judgment consists in the fact that the ruler of this world has already been condemned. I still have much to say to you, but it would be too much for you to bear right now. But when the Helper comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth. What he will say to you does not come from himself; he will only tell you what he hears. He will prepare you each time for what is coming. He will make my glory visible; for what he passes on to you he has received from me.

In the original text, the word used for "he" is a Greek word that refers unmistakably to a male person. This is not the case in the other verses that speak of the promised Helper. But apart from that, there are other ways to determine from the context whom Jesus is speaking of here.

First, however, we should clarify who or what the Holy Spirit is. The Spirit of God is not a person. It is God's active force. It is comparable to the hand or the arm of a human being. The hand is not a person. If I strike someone with my hand, I cannot say that I did not do it — that it was my hand. People would send me to a psychiatrist. We can do a great many things with our hands, but they cannot do anything independently of us. The hand is controlled by the brain, so it is we who act. Neither our hand nor our arm nor our legs have their own mind, or any free will, or an independent personality. That is a comparison which gives us a rough idea of what the Holy Spirit is. It is the force through which God created everything. Concerning the role of the Holy Spirit in creation, we read in the very first verses of the Bible:

And the earth was without form and empty, and darkness was over the deep; and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. — Genesis 1:2 Since the Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, they explain the Holy Spirit in a similar manner. They too state in their publications that the Holy Spirit is God's active force. They do not view the Holy Spirit as a person, as the major Christian churches do. This explanation is consistent with the statements of the Bible and the Quran. One of the most important texts that Christendom cites to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person are the above-mentioned verses — Jesus's prophecy about the coming of Muhammad. I will attempt to explain this by means of evidence. In one verse, Matthew 12:32, it says: And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. To speak against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to speaking against God, to hating Him and His works. If the Holy Spirit were a person of a holy Trinity, as Christendom teaches, should not all persons properly be listed at this point? Should it not say: if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, against God, or against the Son...? Why is only the Holy Spirit mentioned here? If we were to think as Christendom does, it would mean that it is an unforgivable sin to hate the Holy Spirit, but that hating God would not be as serious a sin. That would of course be nonsense. What is essentially being spoken of here is God alone, and the Holy Spirit is His active force, not an independent personality.

As already mentioned, the Witnesses have a correct understanding in this area, one that is consistent with the Bible. Yet their correct understanding on this topic leads them astray because of their false views on other topics. This is the general pattern: if we understand one verse of the Bible correctly but misinterpret another, contradictions arise. To resolve these, there are two options: either recognize the error and correct it, or twist and turn the texts until they appear to fit. What I mean by this can be well illustrated by a verse in the Gospel of John. As we read this verse, let us consider once more whether it is speaking of Muhammad or of the Holy Spirit.

But when the Helper comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth. What he will say to you does not come from himself; he will only tell you what he hears. He will prepare you each time for what is coming. — John 16:13 Jesus says the Helper will say nothing on his own, but will only say what he hears. As already mentioned, the word translated as "he" refers unambiguously to a male person. When it says here that he will not speak on his own, that means he has the capacity to speak on his own. He has a free will. But can one say that about the Holy Spirit? Can the Holy Spirit speak on its own? Our hands are powerful, but they have no will of their own. Our mouth can speak, but not on its own. Our organs are active, effective, but they have no free will. Then Jesus says of this Helper: "he will only tell you what he hears"! This person can hear! Our organs, our hands, arms or legs cannot hear. Can the Holy Spirit hear? Yes, but not in the sense of a person. Just as our ears can hear but are not persons. When Jesus says he will not speak on his own but only what he hears, it is unambiguously a person-individual being described. To summarize: Jesus is describing someone who has the capacity to hear, to speak on his own, yet who has a free will. A person is being described here — a male one. The masculine pronoun is used of God, to be sure, but never with respect to the Holy Spirit, except in this verse in the Gospel of John. For this reason one can also say that it is not the Holy Spirit being spoken of here, but a person. No matter how we turn and twist this verse, it cannot be understood otherwise. But when we apply it to a person, everything fits together. A human being has the capacity to hear and to speak on his own. He has a free will. If he therefore says nothing on his own but only what he hears, this demonstrates his obedience. When our hands and our mouth do what we want, do we say "my hand is obeying me"? Everyone would think us mad. Obedience is not expected of inanimate or will-less things. Our hands are like a machine, a tool. The fact that they are capable of movement does not make them a living being with a personality. What I am speaking of here are living beings with a free will, with the capacity to think and make decisions. Only from such creatures can obedience be expected. If we were to make the Holy Spirit into an independent person with a free will, with the capacity to decide whether to speak on its own or to pass on what it hears, then it would also be independent of God. In doing so we would be making God into a powerless, impotent being. Yes, of course — for if all power and might rested with the Holy Spirit, then God could do nothing at all on his own, he would be without power and strength. That is the logic and the thinking of Christendom. They hold many erroneous and absurd views about God.

The Quran says on this subject: And (remember) when Jesus, son of Mary, said: "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, fulfilling what came before me of the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad." — Surah As-Saff 61:6 There have been and continue to be many discussions about this verse. The name Ahmad means "the Praised One." The Christians of course object here that Jesus foretold a "Helper," not a Praised One! As already said, either people have no idea about the books they apparently believe in, or they do it deliberately. Would they believe in Muhammad if his name actually meant Helper? Certainly not. It is enough for a person to reject something in their heart — their mind will then find enough reasons for it! But I would also like to address this, on the basis of the Gospels which they claim to believe and which they defend so resolutely.

There are very many prophecies about Jesus, as we have already mentioned. For our topic, a single one of them will suffice. It is a prophecy concerning his birth. In the Gospel of Matthew we find the following statement:

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." — Matthew 1:21 "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' — which means 'God with us.'" — Matthew 1:22,23 (See Isaiah 7:14)

In this verse Matthew even explains what the name Immanuel means. The name Jesus, on the other hand, means "God is salvation." There are many different prophecies about Jesus, and in them he is given various names. At one point he is called Shiloh (Genesis 49:10), at another Immanuel, and also Logos — the Word (John 1:1, 14). Simply put, we can say that a prophecy about a person does not necessarily mean that this person must appear under the exact name used in the prophecy. Concerning John the Baptist there is the prediction that he will be called "the voice crying in the wilderness." But his name, John, does not carry that meaning. John means "God is gracious." Yet he truly showed himself to be someone who cried out in the wilderness — he called people to repentance and conversion — but this was not a reference to his name. (John 1:21–23)

If we know all of this from the Scriptures, why do we insist on someone whose very name must literally mean Comforter? Do we reject him simply because he has the wrong name? All these names have a meaning: just as Immanuel means "God is with us" and Jesus means "God is salvation," so Ahmad means "the Praised One." What matters is that the meaning was fulfilled in these people. The Jews also rejected Jesus over such trivialities, so it is no wonder that others reject Muhammad because of his name. Moreover, if the one who wrote the Quran — or rather made it known — had truly been a deceiver, he could easily have said: I am the Comforter who was foretold. Some might perhaps say that had he done so it would make it easier for us to believe. Do they really think they would then have actually believed in him? Then all the more they would say he is a deceiver. In my opinion,

4 The statement in John 1:1 is not wrong, but can easily be misunderstood. It says here that the Word was in the beginning and it was God (or it was a god). Jesus is not equated in this verse with Almighty God, but he is referred to as a god. As we have seen above, the Bible shows that there are many gods; even prophets are called gods. Not all translations make this clear. It shows that repeated attempts were made, in the process of translation, to allow Christian dogmas and teachings to flow into the text and thereby mislead people. The translation is not necessarily wrong as a result, but at the very least it is not objective. the Christians would have been the first to believe in him, if Muhammad had been a deceiver. But that is another topic entirely.

With this we have reached the end of the examination of the Quran critique in the Watchtower series. I have naturally not looked in detail at every paragraph and every argument. Some things are not even worth mentioning. The Governing Body concedes in its Watchtower writings that Muhammad did indeed receive revelations, but of course not from God — from demons. What are we then to think and say about such an organization, which claims to be the channel used by God and yet acts in such a false and deceptive manner? Where then do the rotten fruits come from — the ones they themselves publicize and which I have written about in this book? From God? Yes, they are truly so arrogant and biased that they claim God sifted out those who left the organization because of the falseness and hypocrisy they witnessed there! Yes, they are so blinded that they not only fail to see their own mistakes, but even attribute those mistakes to God!

It is easy to see where they are heading, but it is difficult to understand those who follow them. These simpletons are willing, like donkeys, to take upon themselves the burden of their self-chosen leaders and allow themselves to be driven by the old men in America. It is slowly becoming time for us to prove that we are not donkeys but human beings. It would be wrong to think that only the Witnesses conduct themselves in this way. What I am writing here concerns all religions, and I keep using the Witnesses as an example to show how we human beings behave. Otherwise there are plenty of states, religions, sects, and communities on earth that are even more brutal in comparison to the Witnesses. Has it not become clear that this world, at least for the time being, is truly in the hands of the devil and not in the hands of God? Would we otherwise keep praying that God's will might be done on earth?

As already mentioned, I have not addressed every detail of the Watchtower's Quran critique here. Some topics also recur elsewhere or are dealt with more thoroughly in a different context.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE JOURNEY TO AMERICA

If you want to get to know someone, you should also listen to what their enemies have to say about them. I came to believe in the Quran after hearing what these people had to say about it. The arguments I have cited above were the strongest ones the Witnesses put to me in conversation, and they were the reason they said the Quran could never be the word of God. There were a few other ideas and thoughts that I have not even mentioned here, because they are utterly nonsensical. Everyone had something to say on the subject, within the limits of their own understanding, abilities, and level. At the time I assumed it was simply a lack of knowledge that caused them to think this way. I also considered that the behavior of Muslims had influenced their thinking as well. So I decided to write letters about this and other topics to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York. The replies from the Watchtower Society always went to the responsible Witnesses in the congregation I belonged to, with the note "take care of him." They had presumably replied, "We have taken care of him, but he refuses to understand us." The letters, however, never reached any member of the Governing Body; they ended up in a department that answered such reader mail. On one occasion I even had a letter translated into English and made several copies — one for each member of the Governing Body, twelve at the time, if I remember correctly. I sent the letters not only by registered mail but also with return receipt, meaning the post office sends you an additional document bearing the recipient's signature. Even so, not a single one of those letters reached the persons I was trying to contact. I then thought the best course of action would be to go there myself and speak with these people in person. So I flew to America. In truth I did not have enough money for such a trip. On the contrary, I was once again buried in debt. Shortly before, I had been working for a construction company that went insolvent and could no longer — or would no longer — pay us. Our financial situation was so bad that sometimes I did not even have 10 deutschmarks in my pocket for petrol to attend the weekly meetings.

The house we lived in was old and arranged in such a way that the tenants who lived above us had to pass our bedroom door whenever they left the building. You also had to walk through our hallway to reach the cellar. When we moved in, the upper floor was occupied by two young women who dressed in the hippie style. Occasionally some of my wife's jewelry would disappear in an inexplicable way, but otherwise the two were very easy to get along with. When they came home very late, they would take off their shoes and creep quietly up the wooden staircase. Even though we are not particularly sensitive people, we were impressed by the considerate behavior of the two young women. Not long afterward — roughly a year and a half later — they moved out. A family then moved in who had fled from East Germany. The father of the family weighed at least 130 kilograms. This was still before the fall of the Wall. They had two boys and a large black dog. Whenever the father went up or down the stairs, the whole house shook. It sounded as if a hundredweight sack were tumbling down the steps! The whole family was like that — no matter who used the staircase, father, mother, or the children, you could not fail to hear them. No matter what we said or how much we asked them to be considerate, it was pointless; nothing changed. On the contrary, we even had the impression that the more we pointed it out, the more inconsiderate they became. Although they occupied two floors above us with eight rooms, on Sunday mornings the children would practice the trumpets they had been given as gifts — in the hallway right outside our door! It was truly not easy to live with these people. The father in particular was very nosy. Every time he took his dog out for a walk, he had to pass our living room. The living room door had a glass panel made of frosted glass; you could not see through it clearly, but you could still catch a glimpse inside. The father never went out without at least taking a quick look into our room. Every single time he would stop in front of the door and peer in. Through frosted glass you can only make out vague outlines, but after a while it really got on one's nerves. We no longer wanted to put up with this situation and spoke to the landlord about it. We were clearly pushing against an open door with him, because he too was very annoyed with this tenant. The man paid rent very irregularly — sometimes not at all for three months, then he would pay again, whenever the mood took him. At that time I had begun reading the Bible. Despite the difficult circumstances in the house, I did not let it get to me. To be more precise, for a long time I did not let it bother me at all. When you live with people like that, it wears on your nerves over time to the point where you eventually lose control and snap. But before it came to that, I wanted to move out. In my view that was the best thing one could do in that situation. A verse from the Quran comes to mind here: it says, in essence, "Is there not another place you can go if they oppress you?" It is often wiser to walk away than to quarrel. Our landlord tried to persuade us to stay. "Please stay — I will give that family notice to leave. I would rather they go than you." But I did not want him to do that on our account. He countered that he would not only be doing it for us; he himself wanted to be rid of the family as well. It was clear to me, however, that it would not be so easy to remove them from the apartment. The hospital where my wife worked had apartments that belonged to the hospital. We therefore had the option of moving there and intended to do so on a temporary basis. I was not entirely comfortable with the idea of moving into an apartment owned by an employer, since it would make us completely dependent on that employer. People often change when you make yourself dependent on them and can become insufferable. It is therefore better to preserve as much independence as possible, but sometimes there is simply no other way. Once we had moved in, my wife came home from work almost every day with a new complaint. They kept piling more and more burdens on her and made our lives difficult at the time. The people responsible at her workplace changed their behavior once our situation had changed. Even if someone were to say that was not the case, I know it was not my imagination. We truly experienced it firsthand. It is terrible to fall into the hands of people. In saying this I make no distinction between Germans and Turks or any other nationality. At the very least I have learned not to make the same mistake as many narrow-minded people and to prefer one nation over another. Because we live in Germany, I report here on both the good and the bad things we have seen or experienced.

We had rented the new apartment and would be moving out of the old one three months later. We informed our landlord of this. I had forgotten to mention that in the meantime we had had a child — unintentionally, or more precisely, unplanned. It was above all because of the baby that we wanted to leave the apartment. Just when we had finally managed to get the baby to sleep, the noise from the upper floors would wake it again. It was time for us to move out, even if it meant a heavy financial burden for us. The apartment we were moving to was a small two-room apartment, only half the size of our old one. We would not be able to fit our furniture in. I did not think about those things — what mattered to me was getting out of that house, away from those circumstances. Our pantry was outside the kitchen. We stored our supplies, fruit, and similar things there; only the items that needed to be kept cool were stored in the kitchen, in the refrigerator. We had unbelievably high costs just for food! I can remember that sometimes we bought six or seven kilograms of bananas and within five days they were all gone, even though I myself had perhaps not eaten a single one of them! Of course I assumed my wife had eaten them all and thought, she could at least have left one for me! Back then we were both out at work most of the day and I had not put a lock on the pantry door. Somehow it did not feel right to do so, which is why I did not. Only once, when we came back from holiday, did they tell us they had taken something from the cupboard — two packs of margarine and a packet of pasta. But you would have had to be blind not to see that quite a bit of food had gone missing. Oh well, let them enjoy it. This had evidently been going on for years! And I still say: enjoy your meal. They were probably sitting upstairs telling themselves, "Good thing we found a couple of stupid Turks!" Let them — they are not the only ones who think that about us. They try to take advantage of you; if it works, they say "those stupid Turks"; if it doesn't work, they get annoyed about Turks. Whether you are good or bad, they always see you in a negative light. Of course this does not apply to everyone — there are also people of character. People who are not willing to sell themselves. There are not many, but they exist. They are scattered across the whole earth, regardless of which nation they belong to. We simply may not have met them yet.

A friend I had known since childhood had a shop. I went to him and told him happily that we were moving out and already had a new apartment. I was there to shop and we chatted. When I was back home, he called me. He said, "When you move out, I know someone who is looking for an apartment. He is a nice young man and his wife is still in Turkey. Why don't you pass the apartment on to him?" Even though I repeatedly stressed that it was not my decision to make but the landlord's, he kept pressing me and said he would bring the young man over to have a look at the apartment. They came. The young man had already been married for a few years but had not been able to bring his wife to Germany yet — perhaps because he had not found an apartment; I did not know. He had lived for a long time in a room in a residential block. It was no place to live as a family. He looked at the apartment and I told him the reasons why we were moving out, although my friend already knew them. "That doesn't matter," said the young man. Since he owned nothing, he would have to buy and furnish everything from scratch. I told him, "We can leave everything here for you as well, including the curtains and the coffee spoons." I said it more as a joke, but he agreed immediately. As far as compensation for the furnishings was concerned, we also came to an agreement quickly. As if I were the landlord and we could decide things ourselves. But they were so enthusiastic — then they left and entrusted me with handling all the necessary arrangements with the landlord. I told him everything exactly as it had happened. The landlord was a very friendly man. He had inherited the house from his grandmother. At the time of the fall of the Wall and German reunification, many East Germans were looking for housing in the West, and in the West people were keen to rent apartments to East Germans. A number of prospective tenants did come, but somehow none of them liked the apartment, so in the end things worked out as we had hoped. It did take a long time for the landlord to make up his mind, so that until a week before our move-out date we still had no confirmation. When he finally agreed, a weight fell from my shoulders and I was genuinely happy. With the money we then received for our furniture I intended to go to America. With that money I was even able to pay off one of our many loans. I had prayed constantly to God and I am certain that He heard my plea. The young man who took over our apartment turned out to be very modest and decent. After he had given me the agreed amount, I felt uneasy and told him "we would also leave him the washing machine — consider it included in the sum." But he protested and said he could not accept that. I was truly surprised — so there are also such modest people. And so we moved out of that apartment, with our eight-month-old baby and our personal belongings.

After we had moved out, I applied for my visa and was able to go to America — but three months passed before that point. It was important to me to act as quickly as possible so that the money would not run out again before I could carry out my plan. By the time the moment came, we had already spent most of the money again, so I did have to take out another loan in the end, but finally I was able to go. What would await me there? I will tell that story in detail.

When we plan something and carry it out, disappointment is unavoidable if we go about it according to our own ideas. We often believe we are in control of the situation, but the truth is that our abilities, our knowledge, our strength, our wisdom are all very limited — because we are human. Thank goodness for that! We can see how things go for people who believe their abilities are unlimited and that they can do whatever comes into their heads. Everyone gives them a wide berth. People who do not know their limits are unpleasant and disagreeable to be around. In this connection I always think of a story that a commander-in-chief experienced — a story recorded in the Bible.

This man was a leper. At that time there was no cure for this disease. In his household there served a girl who had been brought there as a captive from the people of Israel. She said: "Oh, if only my master would go to the prophet who lives in Samaria! He could heal him of his disease." The girl clearly felt affection for the family, for her master. That he was well-liked and agreeable is also evident from the way his soldiers spoke to him — they addressed him as "Father." This form of address speaks of closeness and shows that the person so addressed is a trustworthy, honest man. The commander-in-chief, whose name was Naaman, went to his king, the king of Syria. At that time Syria was a powerful nation. The king supported Naaman in his intention to go to Israel to the prophet and gave him a letter to the king of Israel. Naaman took with him a great quantity of gold, silver, and garments as gifts and set out with his king's letter for the king of Israel. He presented the letter, which read as follows: "The man who delivers this letter to you is my servant Naaman. I have sent him to you so that you may heal him of his leprosy." At this the king tore his garments — which in those days was a symbol of grief, anger, or indignation. He said in outrage: "Am I God, who has power over life and death? It is obvious what this king wants — he is looking for a quarrel with me." In his eyes it appeared as though the king of Syria was merely seeking a pretext to make war against Israel. He was not wrong; how was a king supposed to bring about such a healing? Moreover, this king was no model of faith and had no good relationship with God. But the prophet Elisha heard about this matter and immediately sent someone to the king with the following message: "Why have you torn your clothes? Please send this man to me and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel." Naaman set out with his soldiers and his horses and stood before the house of Elisha. But Elisha stayed inside and sent a servant to tell Naaman "he should bathe seven times in the Jordan and he would be healed." Naaman, however, became angry and left. He said: "I expected the prophet to come out, call upon his God, and wave his hand over the leprosy and make me well. Instead he tells me to bathe in the Jordan! We have far better rivers in our homeland than the Jordan."

His soldiers saw his anger and urged him: "My father, if the prophet had demanded something great of you, would you not have done it? If then he asks something so simple — bathe in the Jordan and be healed — why should you not do it?" A truly logical and sensible piece of advice. Naaman showed good judgment and followed their counsel. He went down to the Jordan and dipped himself seven times. His flesh then became like that of a young child — he was healed! (2 Kings, Chapter 5) We can imagine how overjoyed he was! And he must certainly have felt embarrassed. That he was a very decent man is clear from what followed in the story. Immediately after his healing he turned back and went with his entire retinue to the house of the prophet. He said to the prophet: "Now I know for certain that there is no God anywhere except in Israel. Please accept these gifts from me." But the prophet answered: "As the Lord lives, before whom I stand, I will not accept them!" No matter how much Naaman pressed him and pleaded with him, the prophet Elisha would not take the gifts. A short time afterward, the prophet's servant Gehazi, who had witnessed all of this, set out to follow Naaman and obtain some of the gifts for himself. When he had caught up with him, Gehazi said to Naaman: "My master has sent me and says: Two young men have just come. Please give them one talent of silver (about 34.5 kg) and two changes of clothing." Naaman was not only willing to give what was asked without hesitation, he also persuaded Gehazi to take two talents of silver. This greedy servant received the gifts and hid them in his house. He then went to the prophet Elisha as if nothing had happened. "Where have you come from, Gehazi?" asked Elisha. "I have not gone anywhere," answered Gehazi. But Elisha gave him this reply: "Did not my heart go with you when the man turned from his chariot to meet you? Is this a time to receive money, or to receive garments, olive orchards, sheep, oxen, menservants, or maidservants? Therefore the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever." Immediately his flesh became white as snow, says the Bible account. (2 Kings, Chapter 5)

There are many lessons one can draw from this story. If only we were willing to understand how wrong and misplaced our expectations, our unbelief, our greed, and our dishonesty are. Against that, we should recognize how valuable decency, honesty, humility, and trust in God are. All these lessons are contained in this story.

At our school there was a Turkish teacher whom we called crazy Irfan. Out of the blue he would start grumbling and shouting, and we could never tell who he was shouting at. I told my mother about this teacher, how strange he was. "Well, he is called 'the crazy one' after all." "You have nothing to fear from him," my mother said, "but beware of those who are called cunning and clever." I have never forgotten those words, and from that point on I looked at this teacher with different eyes. Mother was right. His class was interesting. Or more precisely, his teaching methods were unconventional. For example, after we had read something, he would ask about the main points. In the very first lesson a boy raised his hand and gave an answer. The teacher made a sign for him to sit back down. We other children assumed the answer had been wrong and put up our hands as well. To everyone who gave an answer the teacher's reaction was always the same. He offered no comment on any of the answers. As time went on we grew uncertain. What, then, could the right answer be — surely everything had already been said? He noticed this and was annoyed. He said: "There is not just one main idea for us to find. What matters to you is a main idea for you. I did not ask you what the author meant to say; I want to get to know your thoughts. Besides, who really knows what the author meant to say with the piece?" We were all surprised by his answer. He had made us think. Naturally I cannot speak for everyone here, but at least for me it made a deep impression. We had long had enough of teachers who always wanted to hear only one particular answer. Think of the various characters in a detective novel. One reader puts himself in the position of the investigating detective, another identifies with the criminal. It is once again only the intolerant and narrow-minded people who assume that one must necessarily identify with the police. Even if that was the author's intention, there is no rule dictating which character in a novel one is meant to find sympathetic. In reality many things look different from what one expects. In some films I find myself hoping the bank robber can escape the long arm of the law. Perhaps it is because he plays the lead role, because we learn more details about him and he seems likeable. Even when we know how the film ends, we sometimes hope the criminal gets away unscathed. But that does not mean we are all potential criminals, or that we are even entertaining the thought of robbing a bank. Especially the more we see how police and states act criminally, the more we begin to see things through different eyes. Intolerant and narrow-minded people cannot be merciful and open-hearted. For them there is no other way of looking at things. In the novel Les Misérables by Victor Hugo, one of the main characters is a chief inspector who is very dutiful. And yet even he reaches a point where his conscience, his humanity, holds him back from doing his duty as a policeman. He conquers the organizational mindset and overcomes his sense of duty. This time, he takes his own life! He frees himself from narrow thinking. This is admittedly a fictional character, but the connection to reality is great — greater than we are often aware!

The situation in religions is very similar to what has been described above. Those who cannot manage to free themselves from their bondage to these organizations either take their own lives or remain damaged for the rest of their lives, living as mentally ill. The reason lies in the fact that the leaders of an organization always try to instill a sense of guilt. A person with a guilty conscience is easy to lead. "You can only have a clear conscience if you do what we tell you." That is essentially the message behind the leadership. This is also what drives the Witnesses to preach — if they do not, they have a guilty conscience. They are convinced they are doing it for God, but in reality they are relieving their conscience and can submit a report. It is not about God's will, but about the will of their leaders. If many hours can be reported at the end of the month, their conscience is at rest. This plays out in their subconscious, for on the surface they are convinced they are doing it for God. They would never accept such a claim. Earlier in this book I mentioned that the quota for a pioneer was formerly ninety hours per month and was then reduced to seventy. After that, no pioneer made up the twenty extra hours that had previously been required. There may be exceptions, but none are known to me. But why? Why does no one who previously preached ninety hours a month now continue to aim for that goal, instead being content with seventy hours, if it is truly being done for God? That is the success of the organization. If someone were doing it out of love for God and with joy, such quotas would be neither important nor a benchmark. On the contrary, if one were doing it for God, one would not even think to write down the hours put in. One would feel it to be an impudence and impertinence toward God. The only effect this has is that one loses the joy in it. Over time one develops an aversion and reluctance, possibly even hatred toward the whole matter. But for the leaders it is about new blood, new customers, larger membership numbers with which they can boast and proclaim as proof of God's blessing. The more preaching is done, the more new members are found. New members mean more income, more income means more power, and power means security for them. They follow the same path as their forebears. They drive the new ones into their stalls: "Get in, you donkeys, and carry the burden we lay upon you." And behind all of this stands God, supposedly! Apply this same principle to someone you love dearly and they will end up hating you, or at the very least their love will be extinguished. And is it not the very goal they want to achieve, consciously or unconsciously — that people will no longer love God? We have surely all heard that Satan's goal is to turn people away from God, to let their love for God grow cold, or even to make them hate Him.

What is love, and how does God see it? Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous, it does not brag, it does not puff itself up, it does not behave indecently, it does not look out for its own interests, it does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. — 1 Corinthians 13:4–8 Decide for yourselves: would a person who feels love toward God, as described here, write down the hours spent in the preaching work? Not one of God's prophets in the Bible ever did anything so absurd. Neither of Jesus, nor of his apostles or his followers is anything of the kind reported — that they would have acted so shamelessly toward God.

During the time when David reigned as king, he desperately wanted to know how many soldiers were in his service, how powerful his army was — as though his success depended on that number. God was greatly displeased by this and the matter ended with the death of many people. (Read the account in 2 Samuel chapter 24 and 1 Chronicles chapter 21.) I mention this here because there are actually organizations that believe that by having people write down and report their hours of service, they can spur people to greater zeal for God. Through compulsion, through guilt. What is always at work here is coercion of conscience — no one is physically pressured or threatened with violence. But through the rules they set up, they are like a man who builds a house on sand. The rain falls and the water washes the house away, and great is its collapse. Jesus used this comparison when speaking about people who set up their own rules. (Matthew 7:24–27.) Personally, I could never report the hours I have spent in service to God. Is this supposed to be a measure of my love for God? Does God not know how much time I give? That is a matter between me and God alone and no one else. Where then is the difference from those who pray in public, as Jesus describes and as is still common today? Or what about those who have themselves photographed when presenting a check to a charitable organization? Where is the difference from the Witnesses who go from house to house and write a report? But what counsel did Jesus give us?

Take good care not to practice your righteousness before men to be observed by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in the heavens. Therefore when you make gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be glorified by men. Truly I say to you, they are having their reward in full. But you, when you make gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you. Also, when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites; because they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men. Truly I say to you, they are having their reward in full. You, however, when you pray, go into your private room, and, after shutting your door, pray to your Father who is in secret; then your Father who looks on in secret will repay you. But when praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. So do not make yourselves like them, for God your Father knows what things you are needing even before you ask him. — Matthew 6:1–8

If those who act in this way are doing God's will, then whose will are Jehovah's Witnesses doing? They claim they need these numbers in order to compile statistics and see where there is a need for "Kingdom publishers"! Those are nothing but flimsy excuses. Why should people do something that awakens negative motivations within them? Why did David consider it necessary to count his soldiers? Was it not the same motivation? And why did David thereby bring guilt upon himself? David was in danger of trusting in the strength of his army instead of in God's help! He and part of his people had to pay very dearly for it (2 Samuel chapter 24 and 1 Chronicles chapter 21). Do the Witnesses perhaps want to use these numbers to prove how diligent they are? If so, to whom?

While preparing for my journey to the United States, and on other occasions as well, I kept thinking of the story of Naaman. It was a lesson for me at the time and remains one to this day. We cannot expect change if we look at a matter only from our own point of view. Firstly, we are biased; secondly, we have only limited knowledge. For these reasons alone I considered it very important to learn to see things from God's point of view. The more time has passed, the more clearly I see this necessity. We are on the earth, but He is in heaven (Ecclesiastes 5:2). No one can equal Him or think as He does. There will be many things we do not understand, which we must bear and accept with patience. But no one who truly and with full conviction trusts in God will be disappointed or put to shame (Romans 10:1–13).

It seemed necessary to me to go to New York. In my eyes, the Witnesses I had come to know were making many mistakes, and I assumed they were doing so out of ignorance. I believe that God permits neither me nor anyone else to judge others. By this I mean that God does not allow us to jump hastily to the conclusion that these people are acting willfully and knowingly in a contrary manner and cannot be taught. At any rate, God did not permit me, with the knowledge I had at that time, to think in such a way. That would have been a harsh, rash judgment, and ultimately God has not appointed us as judges. That is His task, not ours. Furthermore, there is no rule that says what we believe must necessarily be right. Since this was my conviction, I felt obligated to go to New York, to the Governing Body. With the knowledge I have today, I would no longer go. But such knowledge does not simply fall into one's lap. Someone else in my place might perhaps have done something different. That varies from person to person and depends on one's opportunities, abilities, level of knowledge, and above all on one's conviction and love.

On a few points I should insert a brief explanation, as they might otherwise be misunderstood. For example, the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:1–5: Does anyone of you who has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation that you assign as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? ...

When Paul speaks here of judging, he means something different from what we have been discussing. Paul is speaking of blatant violations of the law which they should be prepared to adjudicate. It is about people who share the same moral standard living together — not about outsiders. In one case Paul even stated quite plainly, "remove such a man from among you," and he was speaking of a man who had taken his father's wife! To judge such people means, in the worst case, to ban them from the community. The apostle later says of this same person that he should be received back into their midst, since he had repented of his wrongdoing. This can be read in 2 Corinthians 2:5–11. There is no comparison with the kind of judgment the Church applied for centuries by burning people alive. Paul says that one should keep one's distance from people who have made a promise to lead a God-pleasing life and then no longer keep that promise. That means judging someone. God has given no organization or any person the right to go further than His judgment. Nor does this mean what the Witnesses practice, by shunning people — people whom they have previously made dependent on their organization — so thoroughly that they are completely isolated, simply because they say, for example, "God foresees the future of each individual," and thereby condemning such a person to eternal death! And no one gives them the right to condemn people because they do not believe in the dates given by the Witnesses for the end of this system, such as 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975. If they already claim to possess such a right and authority, then they should not forget that they too will have to answer for it and will receive a corresponding judgment! On the other hand, those who too readily believe the invitation "come to us, join us, trust us, we will take your sins upon ourselves" should likewise not go unpunished. If the Israelites were innocent before God when they could shift their mistakes onto the kings and priests, then we too will be innocent. But if they could not excuse themselves in that way, then neither will we. It is that simple.

Is my book not about condemning all religions? My concern is to make their works manifest and to condemn them. But this judgment does not come from me — God condemns them. It is as Jesus said:

If anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I came, not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that disregards me and does not receive my sayings has one that judges him. The word that I have spoken is what will judge him in the last day; because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment, what to tell and what to speak. Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the things I speak, I speak them just as the Father has told me. — John 12:47–50

Does Jesus not state clearly here by what standard people are judged? In everything I write here it is especially important to me that I am not trying to put forward my own ideas of justice, truth, and integrity! Rather, I am trying to show what the judgment of the books is — the books in which people claim to believe, whether the Quran or the Bible. And after all, I did not write these books myself, so that anyone could accuse me of having invented this. These are the words of God. Everyone should form their own picture and decide. Am I making myself guilty by trying to draw the attention of individual people, religious communities, or all of humanity to this? On the contrary — before God I would make myself guilty if I knew something and then failed to draw others' attention to it (Ezekiel 3:18–21). If only all people would turn back to God and strive to do His will — all the fanatics, the bloodsuckers, all the people who are good for nothing but exploiting others, all the religions and states that bring only misfortune and suffering to people! But since they have not turned back, would I judge such people and turn away from them if they were around me? Of course I would. Where then is the difference? The difference does not lie in the fact that people are judged, but in how and on what basis. No one reproaches countries, religions, and communities for judging others. Of course there will be judges and there will be a court and the guilty will be punished. I have no objection to that. My concern is with what criteria are used for judgment, how the judgment is carried out, how far those who pronounce the verdict have removed themselves from God through their blasphemous conduct. In this book I make clear that the guilty sit in judgment over the innocent. Yes, you have read that correctly — in our world the innocent are judged by those whose hands are stained with blood! Those who truly deserve a severe sentence sit as judges in the courtrooms. Those who at bottom should simply be servants have placed the crown upon their own heads and rule. So it is not a question of whether judgment is passed, only that everything is turned on its head. David's son Solomon expresses what I want to say here more clearly: There is a calamity that I have seen under the sun, as if it were an error that proceeds from the ruler: Foolishness has been put in many high positions, while the rich themselves sit in a low position. I have seen servants on horseback, while princes walk on the earth just like servants. — Ecclesiastes 10:5–7 That is what I want to say here. That is the message I want to give to those who run along behind. I understand those who exploit others and abuse them for their own purposes; but those who allow themselves to be exploited, who present themselves as donkeys, I cannot understand. And they do it gladly, with devotion. When you point it out to them, they even react more aggressively. Wake up! Stop behaving like donkeys and conduct yourselves like human beings — that is the message our Creator sends us, what He calls us to. Let us be human! Let us constantly encourage one another to be so. We all need that. None of us has reason to elevate ourselves above another. The person we regard as very lowly is subject to God just as much as the one we look up to. We are all His servants. Which servant of the same master has the right to elevate himself above his fellow servant? No one. Why, then, do we exalt ourselves above others as though we were their ruler?

My friend, whose shop I visited, had a relative near New York. He advised me: if you go to America, make sure you stop by my relative — he'll be able to help you there. It has always been important to me not to be a burden to anyone, but since he pressed me so insistently, and since it was also reassuring for me to have a contact point in America, I agreed. He immediately notified his relative, and that person prepared everything. He had written my name on a sign and would be there at the airport to receive me. These attentive and considerate people are not religious. Although they certainly have their faults too, I have never encountered such consideration, understanding, and humility in any of the religious zealots I have come to know over the course of 20, 30, or even 40 years. I do not think I am exaggerating with that statement. An elder from the congregation I attended came to me one day, accompanied by a "special pioneer" — someone who earns his living through missionary work. With the knowledge I have today, I would sooner call such people "special donkeys." Among them there are quite a few who think only of their own advantage. The elder, whom I liked very much, had told the special pioneer about me before their visit, the way a teacher might report on a pupil who had done something wrong. Out of pride, so the story went, I was clinging to the Quran and therefore would not "come into the truth." That phrase, "the truth," is one of the most frequently used expressions among the Witnesses. Anyone who does not accept their organization, their teachings, is not in the truth! Only they themselves are in the truth, and they alone know the truth. They go to great lengths to teach this to their members. It is a common expression among them to say, "I came into the truth in such-and-such a year," meaning the year they were baptized as Jehovah's Witnesses. The elder had come to introduce me to the new special pioneer who had just been assigned to this district. The fact that they talked about me among themselves like this did not bother me, but what did irritate me was the hypocrisy of this man whom I said I liked very much. They have no great fear of God — their fear of one another is far greater. Because I was annoyed by this, I gave answers that day which led to a somewhat tense atmosphere. When they stood up to leave at the end of the conversation, the elder asked me: "Do you know that I like you very much?" I replied: "When people come to know the Bible, they can become very dangerous." That was of course not the answer he had expected, and he assumed I had not understood him. So he asked me the same question again. I said again: "When people come to know the Bible and do not walk on this path, they can become dangerous. How am I supposed to know whether you like me or not?" He reacted very angrily to that — unjustly, in my opinion. But it is actually true. By "knowing the Bible" I mean being able to distinguish between good and evil. Not every adult is capable of distinguishing between good and evil, between right and wrong. Since the world does not teach this knowledge, it makes no difference how many years one has attended school or studied. For most people, whether they do the right thing or not is more a product of chance. They make their decisions based on their own reasoning, or on whatever they feel like at the moment, but most of all they are guided in their decisions by their culture. What their culture regards as right, they also regard as right. Not infrequently, the law of that culture also forms the basis of their sense of right and wrong. Breaking the law is something bad; keeping the law is something good. It is that simple for many people. Breaking the law generally results in punishment, and it is this prospect of punishment that holds people back — not the fact that they are doing something bad, immoral, or wrong. On the contrary, one often hears of someone who is proud of having broken the law without getting caught! As merciful and compassionate as they are, they can be equally hard and brutal. They do not know it themselves; they are like a weathervane in the wind and have no clear line or set of values to orient themselves by and hold on to. Reading the Bible helps one to clearly recognize the difference between good and evil. But that does not mean that someone who possesses this knowledge will automatically always do what is right. On the contrary, most choose to do what is wrong. But now such a person does this willfully and knowingly. That means they are professionals at doing evil. Or at least one can say that this person now knows more clearly what they are doing — they act more consciously. In the next chapter I will go into this topic in greater detail. I had actually begun this subject in order to report on my trip to America. But before I do that and describe the details of what happened there, I must first write about another topic — conscience. If we do not understand what it is and how it works, it becomes more difficult to follow what I say next.

CONSCIENCE

Conscience is defined as "moral awareness of good and evil" (Duden Dictionary of Meanings). Someone who reads the holy scriptures, the word of God, or allows themselves to be instructed through these writings, begins to recognize the difference between good and evil and continues to develop this capacity. They will recognize some things as evil or harmful that are regarded as right and good in the culture in which they live, and they will discover other things which their culture calls wrong and bad, but which, based on biblical instruction, they conclude are good and right. I would like to give a simple example here. Nowhere on earth is smoking cigarettes prohibited — with the exception of specific bans, such as smoking in public buildings. In every country on earth you can buy a pack of cigarettes and carry it with you. There is no law that prohibits this. But nowhere on earth will a Jehovah's Witness buy a pack of cigarettes. In his eyes, this is something very wrong. Do others not know this? By now, it should be well known to everyone that smoking is harmful, especially since it is printed in large letters on every pack. As long as lawyers, judges, professors, teachers, police officers, and doctors smoke, that notice will have little effect. People barely take note of the warning anymore. But a Jehovah's Witness learns that smoking is harmful and wrong, and above all that it is not good in God's eyes. And they live by it — at least in front of one another they present themselves that way. It is not, then, a teaching that is merely stated in passing. This teaching, the training they receive, shapes their conscience and brings them to rid themselves of even such a severe addiction. In this example I have compared Jehovah's Witnesses with other people. Does that mean that someone who is not a Witness lacks this knowledge, that they do not know smoking is harmful? Nobody spreads such nonsense as to say that smoking is beneficial, yet the conscience is not engaged, because everyone does it. As long as the person who gives long speeches about how harmful smoking is smokes themselves, their words will remain without effect. No matter how skilled they are at speaking and arguing, these will remain empty speeches that have no influence on others and cannot have any. To illustrate how differently people's consciences react based on their upbringing, I would like to give one more example. Suppose a child is injured in a traffic accident. The emergency physician determines that the child has lost a great deal of blood. Every bystander, regardless of what culture they come from, regardless of what nationality they belong to or what upbringing they have had, would immediately be willing to donate blood to save the child's life, or would advocate for the child to receive blood. But if among the bystanders there were a Jehovah's Witness, he would refuse to give blood, and if it were his own child, he would do everything in his power to ensure that the child does not receive blood!! Billions of people would have a guilty conscience in such a situation if they did not give blood, but a Witness would have a guilty conscience if he did give blood. He would be willing to accept the child's death rather than consent to a blood transfusion! And his conscience does not trouble him in the least — on the contrary, he is convinced that he has made a great sacrifice for God. He would have a guilty conscience that would torment him for the rest of his life if he were to give blood or consent to a blood transfusion. These are just two examples that show how profoundly people can be influenced through religious training, to the point where their conscience functions entirely differently from that of other people. While one thing is good and beneficial, the other is bad and harmful — even deadly. While I was writing these lines, I came across a report on the internet. In the United States, a man sued a doctor because the doctor had given him blood and thereby saved his life from death, without obtaining his consent! You can imagine which religion the plaintiff belonged to. Correct — he was a Jehovah's Witness. He lost the case, whereupon he appealed to a higher court. We do not know how the matter was resolved. Stories like this and similar ones are well known among the Witnesses. It is their conscience that points the way for them. His conscience tells him: you are on the right path, what you are doing is right and good, even if others think differently. A few years ago I still held the same conviction and acted the same way. I thought like this for many years. I had adopted this part of the teaching from the Witnesses without researching it much. Like a dumb donkey I accepted what they told me. Yes — I myself am one of those donkeys I write about in this book! I was at odds with the teachings of the Witnesses on so many points; what else was I supposed to reject? Since I have no fear of death, I had adopted this particular point from the Witnesses without investigating further. I remember a doctor in the hospital. Before the operation he asked me several questions. I said: "Whatever happens, I do not want blood under any circumstances." He was very annoyed. I also picked up the Bible and showed him, using Bible passages, why I refused blood. That is what irritates me most in hindsight — that I committed this act of foolishness with the word of God and in his name. The operation proceeded without complications and no blood transfusion was necessary. But when I think about the conversation with the doctor, my conscience still troubles me today. I have found that many doctors do not believe in God; and then along comes a donkey like me telling him "he should give me no blood under any circumstances and rather let me die, because God wills it"! If he had retained any goodwill toward God up to that point, it was certainly gone now. This is what happens when one does not truly investigate, but instead adopts dogmas, teachings, and articles of faith from others. Behind this foolishness lie laziness and the conviction that others have thoroughly researched these things and have therefore arrived at this belief. Fortunately, there was never a real problem over the blood question. But what if it had come to that? What if I had lost my son or my wife because of this conviction? What would my conscience look like, with the knowledge I have now? What religions do and how they cause their followers to act is truly terrifying!! I will return to this topic again and again — after all, this book is about the machinations of religions. Let us continue with our current topic: conscience. We have established that a conscience functions the way it has been trained. Let us look at a few more examples to make this point clear. A person commits a crime — he steals or kills someone — then goes home and falls asleep in complete peace of mind. Another person, by contrast, tosses and turns, cannot sleep for several days, because he may have hurt someone through his words or actions. He broods constantly and has no appetite, even though no one has judged or punished him. It is his conscience that will not let him sleep. David had similar experiences. In 1 Samuel 24:5 and 2 Samuel 24:10 it says: But it came about afterward that David's heart kept striking him, because he had cut off the skirt of Saul's sleeveless coat. …And David's heart began to strike him after he had so numbered the people. In this translation, even the expression "striking" is used, which makes the situation all the more vivid. The heart, or the conscience, cannot literally strike its owner, but it torments him and gives him no rest. In the Unity Bible translation it says: Afterward, however, David's conscience struck him, because he had cut off a corner of Saul's cloak. 1 Sam. 24:6. Something similar also appears in the translation "Hope for All." Conscience, then, has a great influence on the whole person. What about people whose conscience does not trouble them, even though they have committed great wrong? Do they have no conscience? We sometimes call such people unscrupulous. Fundamentally, all people have a conscience, but as we have already seen, it depends on upbringing. By upbringing, at this point, I do not mean only the upbringing we received from our parents — more precisely, not only that kind of upbringing. By upbringing I mean here everything that influences our values. All the factors that determine our moral values, that shape what we see as good or evil, right or wrong — all of that constitutes the training of our conscience. But before we address that question, let us first discuss whether a conscience can change. Is it possible that people do things without batting an eye today, even though a few years ago they would have been incapable of it, because their conscience would not have allowed it? Conscience is not an organ that sits in a fixed place in the body. It is our capacity to distinguish between good and evil. In the verses quoted above, for instance, the word "heart" is used. But it is not the literal heart that possesses this capacity either. It has more to do with our feelings and perceptions. To better understand how our conscience works, I would like to use a small analogy to illustrate it. Let us take, for example, our sense of smell. Suppose that in the morning, just as we are getting ready for work, we smell a pair of socks we had already worn once before. The smell is unpleasant at first. We really should not put them on again, but if we keep smelling them long enough, the smell grows weaker and eventually we no longer notice it. Have the socks become fresher and cleaner? Certainly not, but our sense of smell has grown accustomed to them and no longer reacts. The first smell that hit our nose was like a warning not to put the socks on. But we did not heed that warning and instead kept smelling them until the nose no longer registered any smell at all. Our conscience works in a similar way. At first it warns us to do or not to do something specific — just as our sense of smell warned us not to put the socks on. The first time we smell them, the nose says "Ugh, that smells terrible"; the second time it says "it smells unpleasant"; the third time "well, it doesn't smell very nice"; the fourth time "they don't exactly smell freshly washed"; the fifth time "it's okay"; the sixth time "I can barely smell anything"; and finally the seventh time "these are fine — I'll put them on again." The nose grows accustomed to the smell and no longer perceives it. I have hung a little air freshener in my car so that it smells of vanilla. But I barely notice the smell anymore when I get in my car. My passengers, however, do notice it, because the smell comes unexpectedly to them. The same is true in reverse when I ride with others. The same effect is also familiar with perfume. When you spray yourself with perfume, you yourself can barely perceive the scent as the day goes on, but the people around you still can. Or this effect can be observed particularly clearly in people who work with materials that smell very strongly. Whether it is paints or the smell of heating oil, someone who deals with them daily no longer finds the smell strong — or may not notice it at all anymore. One could add countless more examples. Our conscience works in a similar way. Regardless of what upbringing we have received and how much we know, when we are in a situation where we should or should not do something specific, our conscience warns us loudly and clearly. The next time, the voice of conscience has already grown considerably quieter, and at some point it no longer reacts. Now we can calmly do what our conscience once warned us against. Or we omit to do something that our conscience had urged us to do. Simply put, it is our desire that suppresses the voice of conscience and ultimately silences it. It can even reach the point where we have grown so accustomed to doing something forbidden that our conscience no longer warns us — on the contrary, it disturbs us if we do not do it! In the Proverbs of Solomon we find the following statement: For they do not sleep unless they do something bad, and their sleep is taken away unless they make someone stumble. — Proverbs 4:16 While there are people whose conscience reacts very strongly to even a small matter, the people mentioned in this verse cannot sleep unless they have done something bad!! Do these people have no conscience? Of course they have a conscience, but it functions according to how it has been trained — how it has been dulled over many years. I would like to give a simple example here too. In Arabia, if a man does not go to the mosque at the time of the Friday prayer, he has a guilty conscience — but a Christian has a guilty conscience if he were to go. Conversely, in a Christian country, a Christian would go to church on Sunday morning with a clear conscience, but if a Muslim were forced to do the same, it would trouble his conscience. While one person goes there because he wants to serve God, for the other that same place is something abhorrent — precisely because he too wants to serve God. Their ideas of when and where one serves God diverge greatly, because they were raised differently and their consciences have developed accordingly differently. Because it is a very sensitive subject, Paul pointed out the need to be very attentive when it comes to conscience. But let us never forget: a well-functioning conscience does not arise on its own. Everyone must make an effort in this area. Every person has received a different upbringing from childhood. Our parents raised us the way they thought was right. One cannot of course expect that they always knew what was right and what was wrong. Moreover, they themselves were subject to certain emotions that influenced their decisions. But it is very important to have a well-trained conscience, especially in matters of faith. For this reason, Paul says the following: …holding fast to faith and a good conscience, which some have thrust aside and have experienced shipwreck regarding their faith. — 1 Timothy 1:19 This is also the central thought that drives me in writing this book. The religions that allegedly bring us closer to God bring our conscience under their control and ruin us in God's eyes. Religions and governments are absolute masters at bringing people under their control by influencing their conscience. The dictator Hitler, who influenced the people through suggestion, allegedly once said: "Conscience is a Jewish invention!" As soon as we begin to do things out of fear, out of self-interest, or for any reason other than the conviction that we are doing the right thing, this means we have already begun to dull our conscience. But if we begin to dull our conscience and "throw it overboard," as Paul puts it, then we are on the verge of suffering shipwreck in our faith! But it is impossible to draw closer to God without faith! (Habakkuk 2:4; Hebrews 11:6) A person's conscience will change if they constantly suppress its voice and try to silence it — even if they were previously known for a high moral standard. The sense of right and wrong suffers and affects the person's powers of discernment. This is what is meant when the Bible says that the conscience has become "seared." It is like the skin of animals that has been branded with a branding iron. At that spot the skin has no feeling. The nerves there have died; the skin at that point is as if dead. With our conscience it is similar. Over time it can be deadened, dulled, made insensible. The conscience is shaped by many factors: culture, upbringing, religion, desires, longings, and needs. That is why a person can sleep peacefully even after a whole day of doing a great deal of wrong. It is not that this person has no conscience, but it functions differently, because they have shaped it — or allowed it to be shaped — differently. What one person regards as something very wrong, another person sees entirely differently, and in that area their conscience is dulled and insensible. It is therefore important for all of us to pay attention to how we shape our conscience, and to what influences we expose it. Religions are desperate to exert influence over people's consciences, because they know the facts described above and understand the power this gives them over people. Once they have brought a person's conscience under their control, the rest is easy. That person is like wax in their hands; like a robot, they do whatever they are told. For outsiders, it then becomes difficult to exert any influence on what they do. Since we as human beings function this way, we must first of all unconditionally acknowledge the fact that we are not free from error. By that I mean a genuine acknowledgment — out of conviction, one that must show itself in behavior — not like the Witnesses, the Muslims, the Christians, or the Jews, who all readily say that we humans are imperfect and full of faults, yet gladly present themselves as perfect people. Since we are all full of faults, we also have an imperfect conscience, because we have all been exposed — or are still being exposed — to an imperfect upbringing. If we say we have received a flawless upbringing and have not stood under any imperfect influence, and therefore see ourselves as something better and more complete, then we have become fanatics who are no longer open to any argument. The greatest danger to humanity has come from such people — people who were unshakeably convinced that they possessed the truth and were not open to another point of view. Does this mean we can never arrive at any certainty, that we should always doubt everything? Not at all. James says this: If any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him. But let him keep on asking in faith, not doubting at all, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and tossed about. In fact, let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from Jehovah; he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways. — James 1:5–8 One should note that in this passage, faith and freedom from doubt refer to faith in God. But our knowledge, our understanding, and above all our sense of righteousness — these we should naturally call into question and be prepared to correct. Instead of being proud of our knowledge, we should acknowledge that true truth and understanding reside with God, and that he gives it to whom He wills. I have already mentioned it several times in this book, and will point to it a few more times: however much we strive to be without fault and righteous, in God's eyes we are all idolaters and sinners. (Romans 7:18, 23–25) David was fully aware of this too; that is why he said — Psalm 130:3: If errors were what you watched, O Jah, O Jehovah, who could stand? Who can truly claim to be the best among humanity when it comes to knowledge, understanding, wisdom, or righteousness? That is why it is also so important to maintain a good conscience before God. And it is our own conscience that matters — not that of others. Just as each person is responsible for their own conscience, each will also give an account for their own conscience. Accordingly, we will be found guilty or innocent. For this reason, no one has the right to exert pressure on the conscience of others. If we were to do that, we would not bring such a person closer to God — on the contrary, it will be as Paul said: they will suffer shipwreck in their faith.

... Therefore, whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God — 1 Corinthians 10:23–33. That is what matters. That is what God values. When I read the Bible for the first time, these words confused me greatly. What does this mean? None of us truly knows with complete certainty what is right, and we cannot know it one hundred percent. Is everything in vain, then? Is all our searching, reading, studying, and worship pointless if we are ultimately judged only by our conscience? That is indeed what these words seem to imply. Since no one really knows what is right or wrong, how are we to be judged? Yes, that is exactly the point this book is about. First of all, it is absolutely essential that we train our conscience according to God's standards. Only when we do this can we assume that we have a properly functioning conscience — not one hundred percent, of course, because our imperfection sometimes gets in the way. But imperfection must not be an obstacle when it comes to seeking God's will and striving earnestly to do what is right. We will never do the right thing one hundred percent of the time, but we can and should make every effort to keep learning so that we can distinguish right from wrong and make fewer mistakes. Our imperfection should therefore not discourage us, but rather drive us to be even more zealous in doing what is right. We should also be aware that we will be held accountable for how we use our knowledge. If that is so, then it would be better to know nothing at all! The more I know, the more responsibility I bear! Through the Apostle Paul, God says to us:

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. — Romans 2:12–16

According to these verses, we cannot escape judgment regardless of how much knowledge we have. By what standard, then, will we be judged? By our conscience. But without insight and knowledge, how can our conscience judge correctly? How are we to know what is right when we have no idea? Put simply: if we treat others the way we ourselves wish to be treated, or refrain from doing to others what we ourselves dislike, there will be no problems. This is a principle that is always valid and has guided human conscience for thousands of years. Can a person's conscience trouble him when he lives by this principle? Whether you are a devil or an angel, if you live by this rule, evil will disappear. (Luke 6:31; Matthew 22:36–40) Is that difficult to understand? If we are willing, it is not difficult to understand, and everyone can feel it in their own conscience. Even if we have received little upbringing and education, our conscience will still point us in the right direction in many things. By reading, educating ourselves, and cultivating our minds, we will do good not by accident but consciously and with full intention — we will become professional at it. Just as some people are professional in committing crimes, we should be professional in doing good. Simply trying to be a nice person is not enough; otherwise it will happen that we wander aimlessly out of ignorance, like cattle drifting here and there. We have no goal in sight and let ourselves be carried along by the current. But, as I said, we are not cattle, not donkeys — we are human beings. Even though our conscience is naturally capable of distinguishing in a general way between good and evil, God does not merely recommend that we acquire knowledge and insight — He commands it (Proverbs 1:29). A conscience that only partially functions and good intentions are not worth much and, due to ignorance, can be utterly worthless. Satan, especially in our time — in these last days of this system — works hard to influence our conscience by making good appear evil and evil appear good. In our era, insight and understanding are far more important than they were when the Bible was written. Not only because we are living in the last days, but even more so because evil today is carried out with such refinement and cunning that it is sometimes difficult to see through it. And it has long since ceased to be confined to certain parts of the earth — it is a global development. That is why today, probably more than at any other time in human history, we depend on divine knowledge. It is vital, and therefore every conceivable effort is worthwhile. We should truly not take this lightly. We will not find an answer in the holy scriptures for every situation in our lives, which is why we should train our conscience well so that we are able to make a good, correct decision at any time. If we are still uncertain what we should do, which decision is the right one, we turn to God for help in finding the answer. He will help us if we ask Him with complete sincerity and honest intentions. Jesus said: And so I tell you, ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. 11 What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent? — Luke 11:9–11

We can be certain that God will give us everything we need to do good — whether that is knowledge of the truth or discernment to do what is right — if we truly ask Him for it. However, we should then not be like the Syrian commander Naaman and expect an answer that matches our own expectations. Many people address their requests to God and expect many things from Him, but they often have fixed ideas about what the answer should look like and are then blind to the answer they actually receive. Some then turn away from God entirely, turning their backs on Him, because they are dissatisfied with the answer. Not infrequently, they get into difficulties through their own behavior and then blame God for it. "Why did He allow this to happen to me?" As soon as one turns away from a harmful path, it is beneficial — regardless of what one has done before — that as soon as one becomes aware of it and changes one's life, it will bring salvation. There were individuals in history who repented of their way of life at the moment of their execution, and their repentance was acknowledged by God. Others, however, feel no remorse at all. When Jesus was executed, two criminals were also executed alongside him, hanging on stakes just as he did, one on his left and one on his right. While one of them showed genuine remorse and humbly acknowledged his sins, the other mocked Jesus and was unrepentant (Luke 23:39–43). This example shows us that not everyone who faces death repents of his sins and mistakes. To the one who repented, Jesus gave this promise: "You will be with me in Paradise." Jesus held out to the criminal a beautiful reward. In doing this, Jesus is by no means encouraging us — as many Muslims think — that one can live however one pleases and then profess faith at the moment of death and be saved! Very well, let us assume you have lived your entire life just as you pleased, without regard for others, and in your final breaths you repent of what you have done, just as that criminal who hung on the stake next to Jesus did, and God forgives you. But you must not forget that he nevertheless ended his life in great agony and pain! Just as he suffered tremendous torment, pierced with nails, until death released him, so you too will have to pay for your sins. Yet the wish of God our Creator is that we can live without that agony — that is why He sent us the holy scriptures. Through counsel and instruction, He wishes to preserve us from torment and pain. We can regard His word as a kind of instruction manual for our lives. Just as we receive an instruction manual for every electronic device, God has given us an instruction manual for life.

I mentioned earlier that someone who has absolutely nothing to do with religion often leads a more decent life than religious people. It is even the case that someone who has more knowledge is not infrequently worse than uneducated people. This is one reason the Jews have drawn the hatred of many peoples upon themselves. This is not easy for many people to see through. It can only be judged once one examines what they do. When a religion or a people develops in a very negative direction, this depends on their understanding of good and evil. Unfortunately, the people who possess genuine knowledge of the truth often do not use it for the benefit of many people, but for their own advantage. And for their own advantage, they are not infrequently without scruples toward others. They are professional in what they do — they are no amateurs at it. What, in fact, is the difference between a professional and an amateur? This was once explained well in a television program. An amateur takes one hundred photos in order to have one picture that pleases him and matches his vision. A professional presses the shutter once and has the desired image. That, in simple terms, is the difference between someone who knows what he is doing and someone who is not aware of it. The person who has knowledge and experience is the professional; the person who lacks both is an amateur. Who is more successful in what he does — the professional or the amateur? The same applies to acting in daily life when it comes to choosing evil or good. Who will be more successful in what he does — the person who does evil knowingly and deliberately, or the person who behaves like an amateur in doing so? While the amateur achieves his goal with a probability of, let us say, twenty percent, the professional succeeds at close to one hundred percent. I would like to give a simple example here. Let us say a Turk opens a döner kebab stand in a German city. Some time later, another Turk arrives and likewise opens a döner stand, right next door or a street away, even though he has no idea about the business and had not actually planned it. Now a competition naturally begins between the two. They start undercutting each other. They offer special deals and promotions to be more attractive than the competitor. They are even willing for a time to lower the price so far that they operate at a loss, just to make the other one give up. The customers can only be pleased and laugh about it. As I mentioned earlier, even though the Turks have made themselves unpopular, no one still sees them as dangerous, and everyone lets them do as they please, because they are their own worst enemies. They would not even treat each other the way an enemy would treat them. Now let us assume a Jew were to open a food stand. The next Jew who settles there does not think about how to ruin the other one. Instead, he considers: what does a food stand need? He then opens, nearby, for example, a bakery to bake rolls and bread — supplying not only the food stand but simultaneously creating another customer base. Over time they become successful, but not by engaging in a fierce competition; rather by supporting each other and at the same time producing good quality and working with discipline. They make others dependent on them — not through force, but through good work. While some are only interested in viewing each other as competitors and tearing the other down, these people help one another. They thereby also create a mutual dependence. Whoever helps the other also helps himself. A truly striking difference between these two peoples. Which way of behaving is better and more useful? And this success is not built on relentless, ruthless competition. In Hitler's Germany, the Jews were unpopular, among other reasons, precisely because they helped and supported one another and were therefore very successful. The Jews were in possession of the Torah, and thus in possession of divine law. They saw themselves as the chosen people, superior to other human beings. Moreover, they did not use their knowledge from the holy scriptures to help others, but only for their own benefit. This understandably provoked the hatred of other peoples. Even though the Germans hated the Jews, they followed their example and tried to be equally successful. The idea of the superiority of the German race was influenced by Jewish thought — it was simply transferred to the Aryans. In the same way, the Turks who have lived in Germany for many years have also become nationalistic. In their homeland they had no such ideas, but they were influenced by German nationalism. The relationship to religion is often very similar. Many who fundamentally have nothing to do with religion become religious because they are influenced by others. It may be envy of the zeal some people display. It may be that they feel provoked and want to prove that their religion is better, superior. We have learned sayings such as "You shall love one another and pray for those who persecute you; love your neighbor as yourself," and we pay careful attention to who abides by these words and puts them into practice. We do not pay attention to ourselves in doing so — it does not occur to us to live by them ourselves! Yes, that is what we have learned about good and evil and how we apply this knowledge! (Matthew chapters 5 through 7) The elder who had asked me, "Do you know that I like you?" was afterward so annoyed that he no longer allowed me to speak at the meetings. Not that I was eager to, but I noticed it. For many years I had not participated, and even that was held against me: "He doesn't join in answering questions, he isn't sincere," they said. In the end I decided to give answers after all, at least on topics where I agreed with their views. It didn't take long before I was simply no longer called upon. At first it was only this one elder. Later the other elders followed his example. As a rule they make such decisions together, but in this case the elder acted on his own initiative. He was not a bad person at heart, but not a good one either — he was like most people. He who had insisted so strongly that I acknowledge how much he liked me showed his love for me in this way! If he truly loved me, he would not have let my answer affect him so much. At the time, in response to his pressure and his unreasonable behavior, I said: "People who know the Bible can be very dangerous." Was that statement wrong? To summarize briefly: in this chapter I wish to point out that the Bible shows us both the good and the bad. What we make of this knowledge rests entirely with us. If we decide to do evil, then from now on we do so with the knowledge of the Bible. We do it knowingly and more deliberately, and we become professional at it. If we decide to do good, it is the same. We become professional at doing good, and our fellow human beings will truly benefit from it. But do not think that doing good is easy — we must educate and discipline ourselves in it. God said the following on this: For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are wise in doing evil! But how to do good they know not. — Jeremiah 4:22

Yes, just as we need knowledge in order to do good, we likewise need the will and the zeal to train our conscience. We said earlier that a conscience does not train itself. In this twisted world it seems almost impossible to train our conscience properly. We are influenced day after day by radio, television, the internet, newspapers, and so on. Every single day the world overwhelms us with everything that is bad and with spiritual garbage. All these things — and, as already mentioned, the culture in which we live — ensure daily that our conscience is burdened and grows numb. Is there nothing good with which we can train our conscience? Of course there is; it depends entirely on us whether we want to. It truly depends on each of us personally. There are times when it seems as though it is impossible to train our conscience properly. Deliberately exposing ourselves to a good influence and fighting to do what is right, keeping our conscience ever alert and attentive — this is demanding and requires determination. Drifting along and going with the crowd has always been the easier path, but it will not end well for us. We only harm ourselves by doing so, even if it may seem easy at first. Above all, we will ultimately fall out of God's favor, which can mean our end — forever. If, on the other hand, we genuinely strive for a good conscience and fight to train our conscience in the right way, we can save lives. By this I mean not only our own life, but also the lives of those we can thereby help.

On this topic as well I have tried not to write too much, limiting myself to what is strictly necessary. I am also aware that there are plenty of critics who say I write too much, go into too much detail. I hope that I have at least written enough to have encouraged one reader or another toward a good path. Let us not be donkeys when it comes to training our conscience and the power we give others over it. Since the things we are dealing with here cannot be seen with the eye — they are spiritual matters — we should be watchful and not take the advice and warnings lightly. Whether our lives now and in the future will be satisfying and happy, or rather unsatisfying and bitter, depends greatly on how we deal with our conscience. Above all, it very strongly influences our relationship with our Creator. I sincerely hope that you will engage with this topic even more deeply. I have only touched on it briefly, because it is closely connected to the subject of the book and I consider it very important.

NEW YORK – BROOKLYN

Actually, there is not much to tell about my trip to America that relates to my original intention. Real warmth and helpfulness came from someone I did not know at all — someone who earns his living there under very difficult circumstances: the relative of my friend who owns the shop. He waited for me at the airport holding a sign with my name written large on it. His name is Hasbi. He worked in the kitchen of a restaurant on the main road that also had a motel attached to it. He was married to a pretty American woman. I later heard that they had separated. Even back then I had the impression that she did not like family life, as so many women do today. Hasbi gave me his room in that motel, the room where he had lived during his bachelor days. He paid for the room on my behalf and had to persuade his employer to accept the money. Although he was married by then, he still had that room. He lived with his wife in a different apartment. The rent for that apartment was as high as his entire income. His employer did not want any money for the room, but the fact that Hasbi insisted on paying for the time I would be staying there surprised me greatly. His hospitality and generosity in a country where he had not yet fully mastered the language and where he had to work extremely hard was deeply impressive. It was in complete contrast to what I had seen from religious people who constantly held speeches and fine talks about love at gatherings, congresses, church services, and in mosques, and who pretended to do everything in the name of God. I stayed with him for two nights and one day. The good part was that I had a room to myself. It is very uncomfortable for me to be a guest at someone's home. But with him I felt at ease. On the first evening, when I arrived after the long journey, he immediately ordered a pizza. He ordered a pizza for three people — but that didn't mean three pizzas; it was one enormous pizza, as big as a cartwheel. I had never eaten such a good pizza. I ate pizza again in America later on, but none was as good as that first one on that evening. When I grew tired, he took me to the motel room.

On the first night I slept so deeply and soundly that I did not notice that in one of the rooms across the way two people had been involved in a violent quarrel and had nearly killed each other. The entire furnishings had been smashed and there was blood everywhere — and I had heard absolutely nothing. The next morning police were everywhere. Hasbi then showed me the room where it had happened. Not a single piece of furniture was left intact. Two friends had gone to their room in the evening with two cases of beer, and as they drank they started arguing and went for each other. They had smashed beer bottles over each other's heads. Hasbi said only: they are like wild animals. Why had I heard nothing? Whether it was the eight hours of sitting on the airplane or the change of air I do not know, but the whole time I was there I struggled with fatigue.

That day, while I was staying in his room, he brought me toast around noon because he was worried about me. He brought far more than I could ever have eaten. He ran with a hot plate from the kitchen to my room and nearly burned his hands in the process. Then he hurried back to get to work on time. He was considerate throughout and fulfilled my every wish. He then took me to a friend of his who lived near Brooklyn. It was already dark, and I had secretly slipped some money into the compartment of his car while he was not looking, so that he would not see it. Then we said our goodbyes. I wanted to give him a small compensation for all the expenses I had caused him and for the trouble he had gone to on my behalf. But he had barely driven away when he came back, holding in his hand the money I had left there. He was not willing to keep it; he insisted that I take it back. I was completely taken aback — how had he discovered the money so quickly? Let us suppose that out of pride he had been unwilling to accept money directly from my hand; he could still have pretended not to have noticed the money, and that is what every person I had known up to that point would have done. But he was truly different; he had seen it and brought it straight back. His hospitality genuinely shamed me. May God bless him and help him. What I saw in this man, a stranger to me, I had never seen in anyone else, even though I have been friends with many people for years — not even among those who are very generous. The love for one's neighbour that God demands of us, that He wishes to see in us, this man showed me, and with obvious joy. Bravo. After that I did not see Hasbi again, nor did he gain any benefit from me. Perhaps one day — I hope so at any rate.

I said farewell to him and then stayed with a Turkish family near Brooklyn. I stayed only one night and set off the following morning. I stayed only because they pressed me so insistently. When I told them that evening why I had come to New York, a conversation developed about religion and about the Quran. The atmosphere was fairly tense, even though the topics I raised were simple ones. For example, I spoke about the fact that God does not obligate us to be circumcised. There is no commandment to that effect in the Quran. I also mentioned that it makes no sense to perform the ritual prayer in Arabic, since we do not understand what we are saying and in that way we are no different from a parrot that merely repeats things. When I then wanted to back up my arguments with passages from the Quran, they became completely irritated. My purpose was to make them curious about the Quran. That is why I raised simple matters that they could easily follow and verify. But I am convinced they were hearing this for the first time. So there I sat as a stranger among them in their apartment at eleven o'clock at night, and I saw no other option but to stay. I would have much preferred to get up and go to the nearest hotel. The person who had brought me here had left, and I longed desperately for him to come back and get me out of there. I was a guest there and it is simply not done to just leave. So I stayed — but do not ask how I felt. The next morning I got up very early, while it was still dark, and went to the kitchen. My hosts were four or five men who had rented this apartment together. A typical bachelor flat. This was not like being in New York — it was like being in Istanbul. I looked out the window to see whether the other buildings were in a similarly run-down state. Indeed, the other houses resembled the one I was in now. The richest country on earth, with the best and most advanced weapons technology, and yet conditions like these. And I would see worse things still in the short time I was there.

Time stood still; the hand on the clock barely moved. It was six o'clock in the morning and I was sitting alone in the kitchen, trying to be as quiet as possible. It was Sunday; everyone was sleeping. And Turks on a Sunday don't get up before noon anyway. Then one of them got up — he had to go to work, on a Sunday morning! He was the quietest of all of them. He said to me: "If you destroy our faith here, what will we have left to hold on to?" Then he got up and left. Does it save people to hold on to a lie? Would it really help them to close their ears to the truth in a foreign land? And is it not the case that, just like us, they too have become slaves in that foreign country precisely because of the senseless and superstitious things they believed? It was still six o'clock — what was I to do? I began looking out the window again. Somehow time passed as I watched the pigeons outside. And then, around eleven o'clock, the one who had brought me here got up. "If you want to do me a favour, call me a taxi and show the driver this note with the address," I said to him. But he insisted on taking me himself to the address I wanted. I urged him not to go to any trouble, but he would not listen to me. He had not been sitting with us for long the previous evening and had therefore missed the unpleasant conversations. And even if he had been there, he would not have reacted differently, for on such topics they are all afraid in front of one another. In this they are like the Witnesses — like all religions. He himself did not have much to do with religion. None of them were genuinely religious. They had all come to America and were fighting their daily battle to survive. I know that kind of life from my experience in Germany. At some point we finally set off. On the way he wanted to stop briefly at a garage — apparently something was wrong with the car. But it was not brief; we waited and waited. The person repairing the car was also a Turk. I was truly surprised: there were Turks everywhere. When I had set out for America, I had thought I would somehow get by with my German, but in New York you get further with Turkish. Taxi drivers, waiters, restaurant owners — at every corner I ran into compatriots. Once, a few days later, while walking alone through the streets of Manhattan, I came across a woman who appeared to be homeless; in any case she was shouting insults at everyone who walked past, in Turkish. I could not believe my ears. Nobody paid any attention to her and it seemed that nobody understood her. But she kept raining Turkish curses down on the passers-by. Her appearance suggested she slept somewhere under a bridge. She had blond hair. She probably came to America in the sixties with an American soldier, I thought to myself. Turkish girls back then were crazy about the possibility of going to America, as most people were. "If someone marries only to fulfil that dream, it can end this way," I continued my thoughts. The atmosphere there reminded me of Taksim in Istanbul — this was the American version of it.

The friend who had given me a lift in his car noticed that I was beginning to grow impatient at the garage and eventually called me a taxi after all, which took me to the headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn. I breathed a sigh of relief. As I got out of the taxi I saw a car and an elderly couple standing in front of the building. Since it was Sunday, I thought nobody would actually be there. The man had just come to pick something up and his wife was waiting outside the building. They were on the verge of leaving. At last — I was certain these two would be able to help me. I had my suitcase in hand. Wherever I went I had to drag the heavy thing with me. In America it is not customary for someone to take your suitcase and put it in the trunk of a vehicle — not taxi drivers, not anyone else. Every time I struggled to get the suitcase onto the back seat. It certainly was not going in the trunk. They just watch you struggle. Their trunk has no room for a suitcase anyway! Once I had happened to have a chance to glance into a trunk. The state of it was catastrophic. And my suitcase was heavy, since I was expecting to stay in America for about four weeks. My English was truly dreadful, but I had at least learned what "brother" and "sister" mean in English. So I asked the couple whether they were "brother" and "sister." Yes, we are, the woman said. I indicated that I was very glad to hear it and that I spoke no English. They were on their way to the meeting and had stopped here only briefly to pick something up. They took me along to the meeting, but were not very pleased about my company. When we arrived at the Kingdom Hall the woman was quite agitated and flustered. She bustled about saying something to various people, came back again, but I had no idea what it was about. I went up to her and asked if there was a problem. From her gestures I could tell that she was looking for a tie and a jacket for me. I said "no problem" and asked where the toilets were, pointing to my suitcase. I wanted to show her that I had everything with me. She pointed out the toilets. I went to the toilet and changed — tie, jacket, suit trousers, I had everything with me. When she saw me she looked satisfied and relieved, turned around, and sat down in a seat in the front row! After that I did not see her again. Never mind — she was content. Apparently she was accustomed to seeing only donkeys with halters in this stable, and the sight of a donkey without a halter disturbed the familiar picture.

The hall was like a railway carriage — narrow and long. Several tall, heavyset Black men who gave an impression of peacefulness stood at the back of the hall like bouncers in a nightclub. The man who had brought me here looked serious and perpetually busy, and appeared to be giving instructions. He apparently also indicated to the Black men that they should keep an eye on me, and he placed me in the back row so that they could observe me well. What he said to them I could not understand, but they either replied with a single word or gave an approving nod. He then walked away and sat down in one of the front rows as well — probably next to his wife; I could not see from behind. Then followed two hours of meeting — and in English at that! But I let it all wash over me — what else could I have done? Fortunately the meeting came to an end at some point, and he managed to find someone on the phone who speaks German. He handed me the phone. A voice asked me: "Why have you come? What do you want?" "I have come to speak with you," I replied. "Good, but what do you want to speak about?" the voice asked. I naturally did not want to start a conversation straight away on the phone, but the voice pressed me to at least say what topic I wanted to discuss. "I have come to talk about the Quran," I said finally. All right — now he understood. "Come to the headquarters tomorrow morning," he said, and "please give the phone back to the person next to you." What the two of them then said to each other I could guess. The gathering dispersed and the hall emptied. They then handed me over to some poor fellow who was accustomed to taking orders. It is the same everywhere, whether in America, Asia, or Europe: the burden is always placed on the simple, unassuming people who do not protest and put up with everything. The poor fellow took a large Black woman along in his car as well, a woman who filled the car on her own. In addition he had children — twins, about a year and a half old. Somehow they managed to squeeze me in between them. Whether his wife was also in the car or travelled with someone else and we met again at their home I can no longer say with certainty. The Black woman, as far as I can recall, he dropped off at the nearest subway station. In any case, I had the impression that he was also responsible for ferrying people around. I knew that from my home congregation. If they found someone gullible, they would bestow on him the "privilege" of picking others up for the meeting. They are specialists at distributing tasks. The higher-ups do not concern themselves with such simple work, but they need someone who is willing, like a donkey, to carry whatever load is placed on him. I was in any case completely exhausted from the journey, the events, and the atmosphere. And now I was an additional burden on these poor strangers. I asked several times to be taken to a hotel. They would not accept this. What hospitality! Hospitality apparently means for them that you do what they tell you. Hasbi — in such moments I naturally thought of Hasbi and how understanding he had been toward me! I was dead tired and nothing mattered more to me than sleep, no matter if it were a pile of hay in a barn — just sleep! In America a bed had become a luxury item for me!! I would spend this night with this Jehovah's Witness family and speak with one of their superiors the next morning. We finally arrived at their home. They said something to me, but I did not understand it. I indicated with gestures that I absolutely needed to sleep now. The poor fellow — he had simply done what he had been told; what else could he do? Evidently they had no sleeping accommodation for a guest. They had a kitchen, but they got their coffee from the diner on the floor below. They did not even fry their own eggs — they had them made at the diner and bought them from there. I saw this the next morning at breakfast. That seems to be the way it is in America! But what did that matter to me right now; my only burning wish at that moment was to sleep. In their two-room apartment there was an armchair. The apartment looked as if they were about to move out or had only moved in yesterday. The man pointed to the armchair. Yes, that's fine, I said. I was supposed to make myself comfortable somehow in the armchair, curl up and sleep like in a car. After that they left. I did not sleep — I lost consciousness. That is how it felt, at any rate. Whether it was the change of climate, the springtime, the journey, my state of mind, or all of it together, I do not know; but I was at the end of my rope. And so I collapsed half-unconscious into the realm of dreams in that armchair. I was in a two-room apartment where you stumbled over things lying around as you walked, and I had no idea where the toilet was. It was not a restful sleep. I kept hearing people walking past the door. They were talking so loudly that I woke up each time. At first I thought someone was coming in and it was awkward for me to be caught sleeping in the armchair, so I tried to get up. Then I realised nobody was coming into the room, the voices grew quieter again, then it was silent, and I fell back into a coma. This happened several times — perhaps ten or twenty times. That was how it seemed to me at any rate. Each time I tried to come to myself, to sit up, and then to lose consciousness again. This went on for a long time; I kept hearing loud voices in front of the door, but nobody came in — I was alone. How much time had passed I do not know, but at some point I began to come round and to open my eyes. I stared at something, feeling as though I were still half in a trance. I stared at this something. Until I recognised it — there was a mouse! I thought I was dreaming, but I was awake. The mouse felt quite at home; my presence did not disturb it in the least. It ran here and there. I only like mice in cartoons, like Tom and Jerry. The mouse was now in the kitchen, running over the cupboards. It tried to squeeze itself into a drawer that was open a crack. This is my chance, I thought. As soon as it was inside I pushed the drawer shut. But it escaped through the other end of the drawer. Never mind — at least it was no longer running openly around the apartment. I do not like mice because they are not clean animals. At home we had a large terrarium in which we kept, among other things, mice that belonged to the school. Within a very short time they had multiplied enormously. Since my mother was very fond of animals, we always had animals being looked after at our place. As a result, my interest in and curiosity about animals was satisfied in my childhood. All the same, I do not like it when animals like that run freely around an apartment — it makes me feel ill. Gradually I began to come to myself. I was alone in the apartment. Then those voices started up again. Now that I was awake I realised that the voices were coming from the answering machine. The tenant had hooked up loudspeakers and turned the volume up full blast! So that was the source of all the noise. I had never seen such an answering machine. At that time they were not yet very widespread either. That is why I had been so startled and had not been able to identify the sounds properly. Those loud voices still pursue me in nightmares to this day. In the evening the family came back. We would go out to eat together. Not understanding a language is usually a great disadvantage, but it can also be an advantage. There was an older woman with them as well — the mother of the wife. Judging by her appearance, they were from the south, possibly from Mexico. The man, however, had a typically European look. The twins were truly absolutely identical. We went together to a restaurant the man had recommended, saying it was very good. They served beefsteak there. The meat was dreadful — gristly and tough, the worst meat I had ever eaten. It was probably from an old bull. The man asked me how I liked it. What was I supposed to tell him? But after he kept asking repeatedly, I could not lie. I pointed to the pieces on my plate that I had been unable to eat because they were so gristly, but I nodded my head nonetheless to suggest that it was good. I did not want to disappoint them. Besides, it was very expensive. Since I was already a burden on the family, I had paid for the meal. After that I never ate so expensively and so badly again in America. Perhaps it was a restaurant the family had only heard good things about but had never actually visited themselves. And now that they had a visitor, they wanted to go to a special place. That has happened to me too. Visitors come and you go to a restaurant you have heard a lot of good things about or that looks very inviting from the outside but that you have never been to yourself. Then you are disappointed. It is better in such cases to go to a restaurant you have been to many times before, one that is good and also reasonably priced. That is sometimes how it goes: you mean especially well and then it does not turn out the way you imagined. They were well-meaning but pitiable people. When we returned afterwards, they apparently gave some thought to where I should sleep. They told me that they often have visitors when someone comes from far away to visit the headquarters in Brooklyn. That made me feel even more sorry for the man. Who knows for what reasons the visitors came? There were probably differences in quality as well. Depending on what position someone held in the organisation, or for what reason they had come to Brooklyn, they were offered corresponding accommodation. Since I had said I had come to talk about the Quran, I had been given corresponding accommodation! Most of all, however, I was preoccupied with these people in whose apartment I now found myself, and I had no idea how to escape this unpleasant situation. If only they had put me in a hotel — that would have been my preference above all else. The head of the household finally wanted to let me sleep on a mattress he had laid out on the floor of their bedroom! I could not accept that. They already had a small room, and now I was supposed to lie on the floor next to them. That was out of the question for me. Below there was a garage, stuffed full of all sorts of things so that you could barely walk through it. It looked like the car trunks I had seen in America. It was the end of March. I said I would sleep in the garage. The man did not want to accept this. But I kept saying yes, yes! In the end we cleared some space together and the man set up a garden lounger that was already completely worn through. I lay in it in a "V" shape and could turn neither to the right nor to the left. Do not ask me how I got up in the morning! I consoled myself with the thought that what I was going through here was nothing compared to what the Apostles had endured. In this somewhat battered state we drove to the headquarters of the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn the next morning. The man led me through the entrance and then ran straight back out again, because he had spotted a police officer. I do not know whether he was parked in a no-stopping zone; in any case he was in a hurry, and after that I never saw him again. After I returned to Germany I had written a card with Bernd's help. I received no reply. In their apartment there had been a corner behind the front door where some postcards were pinned to the wall with drawing pins. Perhaps my card is hanging there now as well.

I had finally arrived where I wanted to be. It had been exhausting and arduous to get there, but I was there. They led me into a side room, together with a tall white-haired man and a somewhat shorter German with a conspicuous yellow front tooth. Everything was very clean and tidy here, as the halls of the Witnesses always are. And this was, after all, the headquarters of the Witness organization. It was a small hall, just to the right of the main entrance. They began asking me many questions. My name, my father's name, whether I had completed military service, and if so where, whether I was married, whether I had children, and so on. They wanted to see my passport — I gave them that as well. They asked me how I had come to Germany and when. The entire interrogation lasted an estimated 20 minutes. Perhaps they had to be careful and cover themselves. But who or what were they afraid of? And back then there was no fear of terrorist attacks in America the way there is today. During this questioning, the one who spoke German and was probably also German was not at all to my liking. He came across as very arrogant and condescending. After they had finished their questioning, they finally asked: why have you come here? I said again that I had come to speak with them about the Quran. As I said this, I reached into my bag and pulled out the Watchtower articles that had been published by the Witnesses about the Quran back in the 1960s. Immediately the German with the yellow tooth said, "our conversation ends here," and stood up. The older white-haired man followed him and likewise stood up, though I noticed that he turned red in the face and was clearly annoyed. I later learned that this man's name was Albert Schroeder and that he was at that time a member of the Governing Body. I was still seated and hurriedly tried to stuff the magazines back into my bag. They stood beside me and waited with an expression that said, "come on, hurry up, get out!" "At least give me half an hour so I can briefly explain why I've come," I said pleadingly. But they were like stone and did not relent. They had wasted nearly half an hour with pointless questions, and now they could not spare me even a few minutes — though they knew I had traveled seven thousand kilometers to speak with them!! All I asked was that they listen to me calmly for a short while — that was all I expected! I picked up my bag and my suitcase and left. I walked about 50 meters from the main entrance and sat down on a stone staircase. "Maybe they'll see me and take pity on me," I thought. When I sat down there it was roughly 9 o'clock. I sat there like that for 8 hours! I was clearly visible to everyone passing by, everyone entering and leaving the building. No one came over to me or called out to me. What was I supposed to do now? I hadn't even been able to speak for a few minutes — I had only been made to answer questions. All my effort had been for nothing, I thought. "Why won't they just listen to me? They can still make a decision afterward. They can send me away or tell me what I'm saying is nonsense, but surely they can at least hear me out!" I sat there for 8 hours with no idea where to go or what to do, praying constantly to God and talking to myself. No matter how long I sat there, no one came and said, come inside, present your concern, and then go. Many thoughts ran through my mind. Moses came to mind. All alone he led a people of roughly 6 million and attended to the problems of each individual, even down to the details. It is certainly not easy to look after everyone's concerns, to sit there from morning to evening listening to the complaints, grievances, and problems of each person and to seek answers and solutions — least of all with a people whom the Bible describes as narrow-minded and hard-hearted. Moses did this entirely on his own, until his father-in-law, a priest from Midian, advised him to enlist helpers from among the people so that he would not be consumed by the task. (Exodus chapter 18) And these people here, on whose doorstep I was now sitting, could not spare even a few minutes to tend to the concern of a man who had traveled 7,000 kilometers to speak with them — and that despite all the ease that modern technology has brought. Their time or their pride would not allow it! They lived in comfort with fully air-conditioned rooms and every conceivable convenience. And Moses? Under what conditions did Moses live, and what sacrifices did he make for the well-being of his people? Someone might perhaps object: you can't compare Moses with these people! That is certainly true, but the reason I do so is their own words. They themselves see themselves not merely as equals of Moses — they cast him far into the shadow. As I said, they are so convinced of themselves that even Jesus is placed a step lower. The organization leads people to salvation, not the ransom sacrifice. That is what they write in their literature, that is how they act, and those are the fruits they produce — their members of the Governing Body, the highest body of the Witness organization. They are filled with pride and arrogance. Every Jehovah's Witness will certainly say this last sentence is nonsense, but their teachings and their conduct prove me right. Moreover, hardly anyone from within their own ranks has had experiences like mine, and so they cannot judge it. Only a few who have been disfellowshipped or who have left the community themselves might perhaps agree with me, having come to know the organization in a very different way. Someone who says yes and amen to everything sees only one side of the face, but whoever also says no at times comes to know another side as well. Pick up any Watchtower article and read it; you will find nothing but self-praise. By contrast, David and his son Solomon say the following:

For Jehovah is high, and yet he looks upon the humble, but the haughty he knows only from a distance. — Psalm 138:6 Let a stranger and not your own mouth praise you. — Proverbs 27:2

I have not read a single article in the Watchtower that reflects the spirit of these two verses. Not that they do not talk about humility and modesty! They talk and write a great deal about it — but those are qualities they expect of others, qualities one must show toward the Governing Body. Everyone in this world must be humble; humbly accepting what their Governing Body has to say. They forgive every kind of pride and arrogance, theft, dishonesty, child abuse, and so on — but they never forgive a lack of humility toward the organization's leadership. As I have already said, I can well understand those who lead this organization, but not those who plant themselves like donkeys and constantly beg to have a burden laid upon them, or who make themselves available to be climbed upon and humiliated. Sometimes I do not understand myself for acting the same way. Two verses happened to come to mind: Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. — Psalm 146:3 The fear of man brings a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord will be kept safe. — Proverbs 29:25 (Good News Translation)

With these words, God does not wish to sow enmity or mistrust among people. But he does not wish for the honor, glory, and majesty that belongs to him alone to be given to human beings, or for people to render to them the obedience and submission we owe to him alone. Strangely, we human beings always tend to do exactly that.

Whether I had sat there and waited 8 hours or 80 hours, it would not have changed anything. Then a thought occurred to me. I was determined not to return home without having spoken with someone responsible. I had been thinking and praying about this constantly. It came to me that in a few days the death of Jesus would be commemorated and they would all gather for the Memorial supper. I was again hopeful about speaking with the white-haired member of the Governing Body, with Albert Schroeder. Somehow I had to find out which hall in New York he would be at on that evening. Then I wanted to try my luck once more. I had noticed that he had let himself be infected by the German's behavior and had been intimidated. Even though I did not understand his language, the fact that he went completely red in the face because of the other man's conduct was an unmistakable sign to me. I stood up and went back into the building. I asked in which hall he would be on the evening of the Memorial. I received an answer, noted down the address, and left. With the thought of finding a hotel and resting until that day, I called a taxi. The taxi driver was a Black man. Since I knew that hotels in New York are not cheap and I would be staying a few days, the idea came to me to ask the taxi driver whether I could stay with him, and of course I would pay for it. Explaining this was quite an effort, but he understood me. He stopped at every phone booth and called home, but he couldn't reach his wife. Unfortunately I also couldn't tell him how long I would be staying in America. That depended on whether I would be able to speak with Albert Schroeder and how he would respond. It would be no problem for me to stay in America for several weeks, but staying in a hotel that long exceeded my financial means. It was also quite possible that I would leave immediately after the conversation, in which case I would be on my way home in 2 to 3 days. Since the taxi driver was unable to reach his wife, I asked him to take me to a hotel. We could phone each other after 2 days and I could let him know how things stood. Then I tried to explain to him that the hotel should not be too expensive, but should not be a cheap dive either. He was very helpful. He searched for a long time and finally found a hotel that would cost me 89 dollars per night. Breakfast was not even included in that price. The manager of the hotel was an older gentleman who also spoke German. He looked after me well. He even gave me his private telephone number. As I have said, the most beautiful and pleasant experiences I have always had are with people who do not know God, or at least do not advertise that they do. When I entered the room I felt indescribably relieved. I showered and lay down. I slept restlessly, had nightmares, and kept waking up. Since arriving in America I had not called home. How could I have? I never like calling when I am somewhere away from home anyway. I only do it when an opportunity presents itself. But back then it was not so simple — mobile phones and internet cafés did not yet exist. And telephone flat rates were not yet common either. Now in my hotel room I had the opportunity. I expected a joyful conversation; instead I was showered with reproaches: "why haven't you called?" She kept crying the whole time so that I couldn't get a word in, or she couldn't hear me at all. This went on for 2 or 3 minutes until I finally had the chance to calm and comfort her. Then I hung up and fell asleep. And yet before I had set out I had told her that I would not be calling for some days, only when an opportunity arose without burdening anyone. She should not worry about it, I had said. But that is my wife — no matter what you tell her, she has her own ideas and shapes her expectations and actions accordingly. When I fell asleep it was roughly 6 o'clock in the evening. I had slept for three hours. In principle I could have slept through until morning, but I had eaten nothing the entire day. The day before I had choked down the barely edible beef. For approximately 30 hours nothing had passed my lips, neither food nor drink. Before that I had been with the Turks, and there too I had eaten nothing. I had money on me — that was not the problem. I can manage a few days without food, but when it goes on too long my stomach burns too much. That is why I wanted to eat something in the evening before going to sleep. Well, it is simply not easy to see men of God and speak with them — one must be willing to make sacrifices!

I got up, got dressed, and went outside. I had no idea where to go. But since the hotel was situated more or less right in the center of Manhattan, I would certainly find a restaurant no matter which direction I walked, I told myself, and looked around. While I was still standing there hesitating, I heard 2 women — a younger one and an older one — speaking to each other. I could not believe my ears, for they were speaking Turkish. At first I thought I was dreaming, but then I was certain I had heard correctly. I went over to them and asked whether they knew where one could get something to eat around here. They replied that they were looking themselves. So we set off together. We found a self-service restaurant. You take the food you want from a buffet onto your plate and then pay at the cash register. I asked the younger of the two women which food she would recommend, since she lived in America and knew her way around. Then a young man behind the counter said in Turkish: "I recommend that one over there!" Another Turk. We became friends. The two women were mother and daughter. The mother was in America to visit her daughter. The daughter had gone to America as an au pair. They were from Adana and were fairly well-to-do. The mother was carrying a heavy burden. As she spoke of it she cried constantly. She had very recently lost her son in a car accident in a horrific manner. He had driven at high speed into a tractor that was carrying long, sharp rods. He was pierced by several rods. She kept breaking off her account and weeping. I tried as best I could to comfort her and offer her hope, speaking about the resurrection that God has placed before us, that we were not created to spend a few years in this life and then die. That is not all there is. At first they listened with interest, but when we had finished eating this changed. Whether it was because they had found out I was married, or whether they simply no longer wanted to hear about the resurrection or about God, I do not know. Afterward the Turkish man came out from behind the counter and sat with us. We made plans to meet later. He had grown up in Germany, in Berlin. Then he returned to Turkey with his parents. He completed training in the hotel trade. There he met a young girl and fell in love with her. But the girl married another, wealthier young man. He was deeply disappointed by this and did not know what to do. He decided to leave Turkey and began working on a ship. When the ship docked in New York, he and a friend decided to slip away — and they did. It was not easy for them, but their upbringing helped them stay afloat in New York. He did something that went completely against my grain. We were traveling by taxi through New York to see some sights, and he paid for the taxi for me in such a way that I could not intervene or stop him. I had set money aside for this journey anyway, but these people, who worked hard under difficult circumstances to earn their living, were so generous with me. How could I accept money from them or be a burden to them in any way? Later he gave me his address and we wrote to each other a few times. He wanted one thing or another that I sent him by post. I spoke with him constantly about the hope God has given us, both while I was there and later in my letters. But as is the case most of the time, here too there came a point where people no longer wanted to hear it and the topic began to bore them. I promised him I would send him a Turkish translation of the Bible. After I sent the Bible, I heard nothing more from him — he did not write back. What continually amazes me about this story is the fact that such generous and considerate people appeared in my life in completely unexpected situations. Most people I know are stingy, selfish, and think only of their own advantage. But these people — where do they suddenly come from? And it is not as though they are living in luxury and giving from their abundance. May God bless such people. I say this not because they did good to me, but because that is simply who they are in character — they treat others the same way. It is their personality, which is so generous and giving. What a difference between the servants of God for whose sake I made the journey, and these simple, poor people who came into my life so unexpectedly and treated me so well. Who, in your opinion, is doing the will of God? In my opinion, it is those who conduct themselves like human beings. Jesus Christ spoke about love of neighbor — love for one's fellow human beings — and used a very striking illustration to convey it. In the Christian world this parable of the "Good Samaritan" is well known to everyone. Please do read the story in the Bible in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 10, verses 25 to 37. As I have already mentioned, I have always seen this kind of love in those who have never even read these verses and have probably never heard the story — and not in those who constantly quote it. Sadly, that is how it is. The words of Napoleon Bonaparte come to mind again: "everyone fights for what he does not have." Probably these religious people constantly teach the things they do not possess and boast of things they do not own. Jesus made it clear in simple words what matters and by what one could recognize which people are pleasing to him. He said: A new commandment I give you, that you love one another. Love one another as I have loved you. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. — John 13:35 That is the standard that matters — not knowledge and understanding. The Witnesses like to boast about the love they possess. Sadly, in my 20 years of experience with them I was unable to see much of it. In general it is all about formalities and performed friendship when they hug one another at congresses and gatherings. The same kind of love can be found among other groups as well — fans of a sports club, a political party, or people who ride the same brand of motorcycle. They embrace one another and treat each other like friends, and are often even more generous than the Witnesses. If these people are, in the eyes of the Witnesses, idol worshippers and servants of Satan, then in what does the superiority of the Witnesses consist? They always leave their meeting places clean and tidy. Even when they rent large stadiums, everything is spotless afterward. Others, by contrast, leave dirt, filth, and chaos behind. Then a cleaning crew comes and cleans everything up. Is that the difference? Hiring a cleaning company costs money; if you do the cleaning yourself you can save that extra expense. So once again it comes down to material benefit. As for whether they help one another, I can only say that I have seen greater helpfulness among non-religious people. Or does their love show itself in the fact that they hug and kiss as a greeting and farewell? In that case, go to any airport and you will see such scenes every single day. These people get on each other's nerves and quarrel every day, yet at parting they embrace. I leave it to you to decide who shows genuine love of neighbor, genuine love for people, once you have finished reading this book. Among the Witnesses I have not seen this love. To be honest, I have not seen this true love in anyone who has called themselves religious. I am not claiming that it does not exist among such people — I am only saying that I have not seen it. But let us stay with the Witnesses. If someone says he has found this love within this community, then he is either not being honest or he is blind. As I said, I am speaking of real love of neighbor, the kind Jesus spoke of — not the superficial pleasantries and friendliness that can be seen and found everywhere. Otherwise we might designate the Catholic Pope as the most loving person on earth. Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of the Witnesses, described in his book the conditions prevailing in Bethel homes and missionary homes worldwide, where there have been recurring cases of serious conflicts and thefts. History shows that they are incapable of getting these problems under control. Such are the conditions among the Witnesses, who are certain that no one except themselves will enter paradise, and that in paradise doors will no longer need to be locked because the entire world will consist of Witnesses only! In their Bethel residences they even lock their wardrobes with padlocks to prevent theft. That is the degree of trust they have in one another.

I spent a few wonderful days in that New York hotel. Is there anything more beautiful than freedom? The feeling of freedom is one of the most precious and beautiful feelings God has given us. Even though Satan and many people would like to spoil that feeling for us, God has made it such a fixed part of our being that we will carry it with us for all eternity.

The Bible tells the story of a woman who, whenever the prophet Elisha passed by, urged him to eat at her house. Sometimes a year or more would go by, but whenever the prophet and his servant were passing through, she would offer them a meal and insist they stop to refresh themselves. One day this woman said to her husband: "Look, I'm sure that the man who often comes our way is a holy man of God. Let's make a small room on the roof and put in it a bed and a table, a chair and a lamp for him. Then he can stay there whenever he comes to us." — 2 Kings 4:8–37. In the account, this woman is described as a prominent woman. Other translations call her a "noble" woman. By this, God tells us how precious she is in His eyes. She is hospitable and deeply considerate. She has a small room prepared for the prophet because she empathizes with him and wants him to be able to rest. She knows that people can truly relax and recover only when they have their own room, their own space, where they can be by themselves. But isn't the very fact that she invites him and cooks and bakes for him already a great act in itself? Should that not be enough? And who knows when the prophet will pass by again? Is all that effort worthwhile? These are questions she might have asked herself. It is also plain that she has no desire to put herself at the center. There are many hospitable people, but they then sit across from their guests and expect praise and gratitude. This woman was not like that. She truly cared about satisfying her guest; her concern was for his well-being. She was not trying to satisfy her own curiosity by hosting an important man who traveled widely and knew much. I can only recommend reading the full story of this woman in the Bible.

As I write these lines, another interesting episode comes to mind — one I experienced many years ago. I was about 20 years old at the time. We had driven to Cyprus and spent all our money; we did not even have enough left to buy petrol. In Mersin we were guests of a family we had never met before. They had laid out a feast for us, and nothing was lacking. We began to eat, but no one else was there. The apartment was empty. Our hosts had provided us with everything and then left. I have no idea where they went, but it was clear they wanted to let us eat in peace and rest. Afterward they also gave us money so that we would be able to get home. Our host had a large family; he was a taxi driver. We took his younger brother with us to Istanbul. It was through that brother that we had met them in the first place. He worked in a car repair shop in Mersin. We had been waiting for a ferry and briefly stopped by the shop, where we got to know each other and he invited us home to his family. Once we were in Istanbul, we spent a few days together. We then bought him a bus ticket for the return journey and gave him the money that his older brother had lent us. But the money never reached his brother in Mersin. He was not very reliable. He said he had been forced to stay in a hotel in Ankara for a few days because of heavy snow and the bus could not continue, and that he had spent all the money during that time. I felt very sorry for his brother, who had taken such good care of us. I was still a student at the time, so I was not in a position to raise that much money again and send it. Who knows what the boy told his older brother. I wrote a letter to explain the situation, but received no reply. What could he say? What troubles me is only the foolishness of that young man. Although many years have passed, I have never forgotten this story or the hospitality of that man. There are people who do good without expecting anything in return. They do it because it is right and good. They do it because they are human beings. They do it because — even if what they know may be little — they love God and they love people. Yet in the eyes of the Witnesses, these people are idol-worshippers who will never be saved because they do not accept "the truth." One thing I forgot to mention: they gave us their own bedroom for the night. It was a large and very clean room. The year was 1980, perhaps 1981. I would love to see these people again. The love and gratitude I felt at the time moved us deeply, and even after all these years I cannot forget it. Imagine that man's generous gesture, the way he treated us. In his place, a religious person would surely have thought: "These young people must have had plenty of money if they set out on a trip like that — who knows what foolish things they spent it on? Now they should face the consequences of their own behavior." That reasoning would even have been justified. My friend had indeed spent the last of our money on a carton of cigarettes! We had spent everything, so that we could not even buy food. But these people helped us without asking questions or making reproaches. When a religious person offers you something to eat, he watches how you eat and how you digest it. He will first ask you a string of questions to determine whether you have earned this good gift. This type of person X-rays your stomach with a penetrating gaze. If — after you have eaten — you do something that displeases him, he reaches into your stomach with his arm and pulls the food back out. That is the difference between people who know God and those who do not. You may believe that or not. What I write here is what I have seen and experienced, what history shows us, and what stands in Holy Scripture. Some readers will protest at this point — but a proverb says, "A hit dog will holler." There are also religious people who are hospitable and helpful by virtue of their culture. But after showing you their hospitality, they urge you to strap on a belt of explosives and blow yourself up. "You will enter paradise as a martyr," they promise. Such are the people who serve God. As I said, I prefer to give a wide berth to people who speak in God's name. Are all people who believe in God like this? I too believe in God, yet I find nothing in myself I could boast about. But the religions are full of self-praise, and they claim that only with them can one obtain the entry ticket to paradise!

After having undertaken such a long journey to New York, I was absolutely determined to speak once more with the white-haired man who belonged to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. The day before that meeting was to take place, I took a taxi out there to look at the location and gauge the distance, then returned by subway. I was captivated by the New York subway. You pay one dollar for the entire day and can ride as much as you like. Moreover, the streets have no names — everything is divided into numbers, which means you can orient yourself very quickly. The stops are likewise identified by numbers. With a little effort, you can understand this system in five minutes. Even if you do not speak the language, you can still navigate with ease. In Germany, looking for a street is sometimes a very laborious undertaking. But here in New York, by dividing a large portion of the city into numbers, they have made it very easy to find your way — even for a foreigner. At last the day arrived on which I had placed my last hope. It was the day on which the death of Jesus is commemorated, and it therefore carries extraordinary significance for all of humanity. At this point I would like to say a few words about the meaning of this event.

The Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt. That day, according to the Jewish calendar, was the 14th of Nisan. Approximately 1,500 years later, Jesus was killed on the same day. The prophets and the Law had pointed to this day in connection with the Messiah. It corresponded to the will and purpose of God to give the life of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of Adam, which spread through him to all of humanity, bringing imperfection with it. (Romans 5:12, 19; Quran, Surah 3:59.) Both Jesus and Adam were from the very beginning perfect, without sin. Adam had lost this quality when he sinned; Jesus, however, preserved his perfection until his death. Neither had a human father. This teaching is foreign to Muslims, and they resist it strongly, even though they hold no proof against it. When I first read the Bible, I had difficulty accepting this, because I was influenced by the Muslim outlook. But I worked hard to listen to what the Holy Scriptures actually say, independent of traditions, customs, and what I had been told. This 14th of Nisan does not always fall on the same day in our calendar, since at the time the Bible was written a lunar calendar was in use, whereas we use a solar calendar. We ought to commemorate this day in a special way each year. Our gratitude toward God should of course not be limited to this one day; rather, every day of our life should be filled with that gratitude. It is a fact, and a matter that truly concerns every person personally. Christendom likewise commemorates this day each year, but they do things that are far removed from the day's actual meaning. It is celebrated as the Easter festival. People buy chocolate in the shape of rabbits and eggs, paint eggs in bright colors and hide them. These are things that have nothing to do with the meaning of the occasion and have their origin in idolatrous traditions. But I will go into this topic in more detail later.

Despite the heavy traffic in New York, I arrived on time for this special gathering. When I entered, I immediately looked for Albert Schroeder and spotted him at once. I walked up to him and he recognized me immediately. He asked me in German: "How are you?" He is of German descent but was born and raised in America. When one speaks German, he can understand something but does not speak it well. When I saw him, I estimated his age at 65. When I returned to Germany and Bernd mentioned his name, he said Albert Schroeder must be nearly 80. At first I did not believe this and said it might have been his son. Bernd then searched through the Watchtower magazines for a photograph. When I saw the picture I recognized him at once and said, "That's him, no question." So it was not his son — it was him. He really did not look 80; he seemed very vigorous. If he is still alive, he must be approximately 100 years old by now.5 In response to his greeting I said "thank you, I am well" and immediately seized the opportunity to explain to him once more that I had made this long journey in order to speak with him. I practically implored him to take at least half an hour for me and hear me out. He understood me and said, "Come tomorrow at such-and-such a time." I also asked him not to bring the same interpreter as in our previous conversation. He looked at me with some surprise, then nodded to show his agreement. During that gathering I was filled with joy. The following day I arrived at Bethel at the agreed time. This time a different interpreter was present. The man was an architect who had some work to complete there and was therefore staying for a while. He was completely different from the previous interpreter — a very pleasant person. He came from the same culture, held the same faith, came from the same country, and yet the difference between the two was like night and day. Albert Schroeder led us up to his office. We rode up in an elevator. As he walked ahead of me, I noticed he was wearing house slippers. I was surprised at first, but then I realized that this man lives here as if in his own home — his apartment, his office, the dining room, all in one building. It was his home. When we entered his office, I had my next surprise. I am not one hundred percent certain, but from his office one can clearly see the spot where I had sat for hours in despair a few days earlier! In my view, he had seen me there. I naturally did not go to the window and conspicuously look over at that spot. It is not important either way. He sat down at his desk, the wall behind him lined from floor to ceiling with books on shelves. The architect and I sat side by side, facing him. I came straight to the point. From my bag I took out the magazines on Quranic criticism, which I have already discussed in more detail earlier in this book. Since he kept emphasizing that he had little time, I wanted to address only the most important topics. It was clear to me that these people did not know much about the Quran. In their eyes it was the book of a man who had proclaimed himself a prophet. In short, it was a book of the devil and demons. Well, if one looks at the Islamic world, one might indeed arrive at that conclusion. On the other hand, one does not fare much better when looking at the Christian world. In total I spoke for perhaps 10 or 15 minutes. The translation of my words, Albert Schroeder's responses, and the translation of those words — the whole of our conversation lasted about 40 or 45 minutes. To put it briefly, I said: "The person who wrote this series of articles is not only criticizing the Quran but also the Bible." He looked at me with puzzlement and apparently did not understand what I meant. So I continued: "If, according to the reasoning presented here, the Quran cannot be the word of God, then the Bible cannot be God's word either — because the arguments brought against the Quran apply equally to the Bible." I offered a few examples to make my argument clearer. I spoke about how Moses and Muhammad are compared in this article, about what the characteristics of a prophet are, and so forth — I do not wish to bore you here with the same exposition again, since everything was already discussed in detail above. I was able to raise a few of the highlights from the argument presented earlier. As I said, I had spoken for about 15 minutes — you can imagine how much one can say in that time. Then I fell silent and looked at him expectantly. He said: "We have never claimed that this article contains no errors." Now it was my turn to be puzzled; I did not understand what he meant by that. He continued: "We only correct the errors we have made in our explanation of the Bible." His answer sounded firm and resolute. There would be no point in trying to persuade him or press him further, I told myself. "But there are several hundred million people who believe in this book, or at least claim to," I added. To that he said only "there are so many religions in the world," apparently meaning, "Are we supposed to concern ourselves with all of them?"

Mr. Schroeder either did not understand, or did not want to understand, that the ones who needed caring for and who needed help were they themselves. They would have to change first. Had I come to them with the same attitude they have — you are on the wrong path, we are on the right one — he would not even have listened to me! He was so convinced that they are on the right path that anything else was simply inconceivable to him. That was all. The architect at my side was very calm and pleasant. Yet this time Schroeder treated him with condescension and harshness. What a topsy-turvy world: in the company of the previous interpreter, who had been arrogant and presumptuous, Schroeder had been like a quiet little kitten, hardly opening his mouth — and now, in the company of this pleasant man, he was like a lion! This was precisely the kind of person who deserved to be treated with decency and consideration. Of course he certainly had his own flaws and weaknesses, and perhaps he is not as zealous as the arrogant one. Perhaps — but he is a human being and conducts himself humanly. In difficult times, help and support can only be expected from people like him. The same cannot be said of the other. Words like love, consideration, compassion, and kindness do not exist in the vocabulary of that type of person. To my mind it had been a pleasant conversation in a calm, agreeable atmosphere. At the very least my conscience was eased. At that point I was convinced that there was nothing more I could do. Besides, my aim was not to impose my will but to do the will of God. What good did it serve? I have no idea — I cannot say; perhaps it was useful, perhaps not. The people I spoke with at least have no excuse and cannot say "we did not know." Afterward I left Albert Schroeder's office together with the architect. We sat together briefly in the lobby of the building and talked. He had understood what I had said in the conversation and what I was getting at. Do you know what he said to me? "You speak in a way that leaves no answer, but that does not mean you are right. There are some arguments that unsettle a person and leave one unable to respond, yet they are not right for all that." Now I did not understand what he was trying to say. He gave an example and asked me whether God is almighty. "Yes," I answered. "If that is so, can God create a rock so large that even He cannot move it?" At first I did not understand and thought it was a play on words. I asked him to repeat the question. He did. Then I started to laugh. What an interesting question — no matter how you answer it, you end up placing God in a position where He is not almighty. The question is so cleverly and cunningly constructed that I simply had to laugh. The architect was measuring me with this logic. With this line of argument he only wanted to silence me and quiet his own conscience. With this kind of logic, one can dismiss everything that contradicts one's own conviction — with a wave of the hand, so to speak. One need not truly engage with the counterargument. One need not reply, or reflect, or even investigate. One can leave the other person standing there without engaging with him or his argument. On my way home I reflected on this reasoning. The architect had accepted such logic and thereby made himself a beast of burden for this organization. Of course, for people who make themselves beasts of burden, they always have enough fodder to keep them in line, so to speak. The question is posed in a way that tries to assess the omnipotence and greatness of God using human reason. In order to answer such a question, one must first study the omnipotence of God and learn to understand it. How should we feel ourselves capable of measuring God's omnipotence when we cannot even properly gauge our own strength, or that of our children, or that of our partner? We are speaking of the One who is able to oversee everything in the universe — the energy bound within tiny atoms, and much that we have never seen or even know to exist. He Himself created all of this. If God were therefore to create such an enormous rock, the energy in all its atoms and molecules would be His anyway. If the dynamic forces and movements within that rock are under His power, can we even comprehend that? We have difficulty understanding everything on this earth, let alone everything that goes on in the universe. Can we understand how soft water turns into hard ice capable of sinking metal ships — while on the other hand, hard metal, iron, copper, or gold can be melted by the power of the sun and flow like water? All of this God has created in this way. Tiny atoms, molecules, and cells He has created and constructed with such intricacy that we have not yet been able to unlock their final secrets. We can say and write much, but do we understand it? Can we create even the smallest insect? Through genetic engineering we are able to modify existing life forms, but we still cannot create something entirely new. It is like the grafting of roses or fruit trees. By this means we are able, for example, to make different varieties of rose blossom on a single rootstock. Many trained farmers, gardeners, and hobby gardeners can do this with ease. But in the end, human beings are merely using existing material created by God. We ourselves are not capable of creating anything new.

5 Albert Schroeder died in 2006.

At this point we should briefly discuss the difference between creating and making. We sometimes say that someone is a creative person, where "creative" essentially means "having the power to create." In fact, the expression "productive person" or "maker" would be more fitting. We use it to highlight a person's resourcefulness and talent. But creating is something only God can do. To create means to bring something into existence from nothing, to produce something entirely new. The Bible says that God made man from the dust of the ground. He assembled existing matter and formed it into a human being. But then He breathed the breath of life into man and created a living being. He created life. The first act was a form of making; the second act was an act of creation. In some translations this distinction is not consistently rendered correctly. Do not be alarmed — this is not a vital insight. Nor should one draw the conclusion that the Bible was not translated properly and is therefore unreliable and worthless. It simply means that errors were made in the translation and that God allowed them. It means that we must invest time and energy to find and understand the truth. When one reads the Bible, one can recognize and understand such fine distinctions. I think the difference between making and creating has become clear. A professor discovered that the human being consists of twenty different amino acids. He himself discovered only four and experimented with them. I am convinced that it would be possible to find and bring together all twenty amino acids. But who will supply the life energy? Where is it supposed to come from? One can assemble things, join matter together, but to bring something to life is an entirely different matter. Where would that necessary life force come from? The heartbeat alone is not enough! In the Psalms it is written: When you hide your face, they are dismayed. When you take away their spirit, they perish and return to their dust. When you send out your spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground. — Psalm 104:29, 30

That means a human being can only be created through the Spirit of God; to make a human being means only to bring existing matter together. A table, for example, is made from a tree. One does not then say, "I created the table," but rather "I made the table." The raw material, the source material for the table was already there. The table was made by taking the existing wood from the tree and shaping it into a particular form. In the sacred scriptures, the act of bringing something into existence from nothing is called creation, and this capacity belongs to God alone; therefore only He is called the Creator. It lies solely with Him to give or take this ability from anyone. There is biblical evidence that God had given this ability to others. For example, it is said of the time before the Flood that there were heavenly sons of God who desired the daughters of men. From the context it is clear that these were angels. They came to the earth and took on human bodies. We can be certain that they did this without God's help. It was a rebellion against God — why would He help them? How then were they able to come to the earth as men? Well, the angels were eyewitnesses when God created the first human beings, and they used their knowledge to imitate that act. How did they bring the human bodies to life? How did they breathe in the spirit? Angels are, after all, spirit creatures, and as we know from the Gospels, they are able to enter bodies — both human and animal — and take possession of them. (Luke 8:26–39 and 11:14–16) If someone is able to take possession of a living body, then he can also enter a dead body and bring it to life through his spirit. Yet even in this case it is not an act of creation, because both the raw materials for the body and their spirit, their life force, were already present. The spirit of a human being, his life force, is bound to his body. For the angels this is not a problem. They are made differently from us and are far superior to us in power. Some Bible commentators hold that the expression "sons of God," as used in the account mentioned above, refers exclusively to human beings. It is true that God also addressed human beings as "sons of God." (Deuteronomy 14:1; Romans 8:14) In those verses the expression is meant to emphasize that they enjoy God's favor. One should not conclude from this, however, that their physical father is God. Angels coming to the earth and entering into relations with women, on the other hand, does not enjoy God's approval in any way whatsoever. Therefore, in that verse, "sons of God" cannot mean that they stood in God's favor. They were angels. They have no literal father as we human beings do. They are not capable of reproducing sexually as humans do (Matthew 22:29, 30). They were created directly by God. But they became disobedient and turned away from God. Both in Genesis 6:1–4 and in 2 Peter 2:4, 5 there is mention of disobedient angels in the days of the Flood. Their conduct was a sin and a rebellion against God. If it were not so, then these angels who had become flesh would have had to be in the ark, would they not? We can assume, however, that when the Flood came they left their fleshly bodies and returned to heaven. The Witnesses explain this in a similar way. I have come to this subject now because of the architect's question: "Can God create a stone so large that He Himself cannot lift it?" One can raise many similar questions, such as: "Can God destroy Himself?" That is like the genie from the bottle who is so powerful and performs many wonders and can even dive into a small bottle — but when you put a cork on it, he can no longer get out! That is human logic, fairy tales. We cannot grasp God's omnipotence with our limited minds and knowledge, let alone judge or condemn it. Being almighty does not by any means signify being able to do everything. God cannot, for example, deny Himself or His word. Therefore there is no reason to say, "You see, God is not almighty after all." God also cannot lie. Could He not do so if He wished? That would amount to self-denial. In Titus 1:2 the Bible states clearly that God cannot lie! Does this verse prove that God is not almighty? Does God lose His omnipotence because there is something He cannot do? On the contrary. What do we mean when we say God is almighty? It means that His power is unlimited. It does not mean that He can do impossible things; it does not mean that He would be able to deny Himself or kill Himself. That was precisely the point the architect was driving at with his remark. He wanted to say that this statement is actually nonsense but cannot be refuted. He wanted to imply that my explanation may sound logical, and he could find no objection to it, yet my statements about the Quran were nonetheless nonsense. In the eyes of the Witnesses, everything that does not agree with their ideology or their teaching is nonsense in any case. That was the stamp he put on me because he could not answer my biblical argument. With such a statement a person reveals how closed he is to other views. He recognizes no truth other than what he currently defends or believes himself to possess. With this logic, this attitude, they lay the foundation for their own fanaticism. They are the ones who play word games in their Watchtower articles. Instead of reflecting on what they have written and giving thought to their errors, they try to accuse me. The reason for this is quite simple: the Quran can never be the word of God! Of course it happens that we face someone to whose arguments we cannot reply. Our knowledge in that area may be limited. But that was precisely my intention — I wanted to draw their attention to gaps in knowledge and to their errors. Yet if one goes in from the start with only the thought, "He cannot be right, no matter what evidence he brings," that is not an answer. At that point they no longer even believe the words of the Bible themselves. Or if someone says in reply, "We only correct errors that relate to the Bible," that is downright impudent. If there is an error and that error also brings shame upon God, then that error absolutely must be corrected. Perhaps someone might object: "Do we bring shame upon God's name simply because we do not believe in the Quran?" But as already mentioned, that is not the point; rather, it is that with their logic and their argumentation they also reject the Bible and speak ill of it. If someone speaks ill of the very book he claims to believe in, this undoubtedly brings shame upon God, does it not? It certainly does — and in such a way that they will have no excuse. I would like to briefly return once more to the architect's logic. If we approach all the inconsistencies and differing opinions among human beings with this logic, then one must ask why, of all people, Jehovah's Witnesses go from house to house with the Bible in hand and try to convince people, on the basis of the written word, that they are on the right path. Could not any conversation partner, after listening to the Witness's argument, simply say: "I cannot answer that, but that does not mean you are right!" The Witness can try as hard as he likes — he will get nowhere. All right, there may be a moment when you are unable to give an answer, but then search, reflect, look for an answer — do not simply dismiss the other person. People with such an attitude, such a logic, would not listen to Moses, not to Jesus, not to Muhammad; they would not listen to God. Why did Jesus preach? Why did he ask questions that provoke thought? Why did he take the trouble to show people their wrongness and to condemn those who acted that way? But those who did not want to believe in him, or in any of God's prophets, have the same attitude as this architect. "You speak in a way that leaves no room for a reply, but that does not mean you are right. Is God almighty? Then can He make a stone so large that He Himself cannot lift it? What you say is something like that. That's it, there is nothing more to say." That is simple enough, isn't it? With that answer one can silence anyone. By this line of argument the religions want to convey that they alone are on the right path and there is no other truth — indeed, there can be none. What if everyone thought the way the architect does? Whom could the Witnesses then convince? They expect from all people a sincere love of truth, the willingness to search and seek, yet they themselves display none of these qualities whatsoever. How do they have the audacity to go to people's front doors? And how do they dare to persuade people to join them and then impute a lack of sincerity and love of truth to all those who do not? Jesus said of such people:

Stop judging so that you will not be judged; for with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you. Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother's eye, but do not notice the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Allow me to remove the straw from your eye,' when look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the straw from your brother's eye. — Matthew 7:1–5

That was, in brief summary, the events connected with my journey to America. But do not think that after my return I broke off contact with the Witnesses or wanted nothing more to do with them. As I said, I can be very stubborn. I continued to think no ill of these people, right up to the point when they removed me from their midst, placed everyone who had contact with me on the blacklist, and even threatened to shun me entirely. Nevertheless, I had never accepted their senseless teachings and views. Although I am not a person who simply nods along to everything people say, I did fall for some of the nonsense they told.

Deceiving people or using them is something very ugly. Such things stir up hatred in people. Thank God I can say that I never felt hatred toward these people. This does not mean in any way that I consider what they do to be good — their ugly deeds, their hypocrisy, the fact that they have interfered in the personal affairs of many people and have stained themselves with the blood of many. I do not accept or support this in any way. I hate these deeds and these ways of acting. Even in my own child I see things I hate, yet that does not mean I hate him. There are bad tendencies, bad traits in him that I find reprehensible, but he also has good sides which I praise and try to encourage. I do not expect all people to think or believe as I do. And that is a good thing. Otherwise it would be dull, because all people would be the same, like robots. The freedom to grant people and to recognize such freedom in matters of faith — this I have learned from God, from the prophets, and from His word. That is why I also want to emphasize at this point that these people are playing with fire. It is not good — it is even dangerous — to treat people like donkeys and to make them out to be stupid. I would not want to trade places with them. Woe to them!! (Luke 10:10–14)

It should not give the impression here that the only thing I found wrong in this religion was their view of the Quran. I had decided to pick just one important point and speak about that. These people, who force their views and opinions on others and in whose eyes everyone else is on the wrong path, cannot even endure the slightest criticism. It was already a great effort to get them to listen to me for fifteen minutes — you can imagine the rest. This was my experience with the Witnesses — and how are the others? In my opinion they are no better.

About twelve years have passed since that story. I have seen Bernd from time to time in between. As already mentioned, my aim was not only to show the truth about the Quran; I also tried at every opportunity to point out their false views. With every Witness I crossed paths with, I tried to engage in conversation. Naturally they gave me an ever wider berth over time.

Once, in a conversation with Bernd, I asked him: "What, in your opinion, would one need to do? How can one help these people?" He did not accept that the Witnesses are truly so hardhearted and stubborn that they would refuse to accept an obvious truth. I then asked: "Do you believe that God foresees the future at all times?" The Witnesses have a rather odd view on this. They compare God's ability to foresee the future to a radio. He can see it when He wants to! He has this ability, but He does not always make use of it! They settled on such a flexible explanation because they cannot give a clear answer. If they say He cannot see the future, there are enough Bible verses that prove the opposite. On the other hand, they cannot say He always sees the future, because that would create contradictions with other teachings. In my opinion this solution is attributable to their ignorance, their disposition of heart, and their pride in having to have an answer ready for every text. After all, they are the channel chosen by God to instruct mankind — so they must have an explanation for everything! I spoke with Bernd at length on this topic. Even if he did not admit it, it was clear that he too believed that God always foresees the future.

In conversation with him I emphasized that he could write a letter to the Governing Body on this point. And is it not in fact his duty to do so? After all, he had been with these people for many years and could see that they believed in false things — should he not help? Bernd warmed to the idea. "I will write," he said. Bernd is, however, somewhat slow when it comes to actually doing something. At bottom he is in this respect no different from most people. They are quick when it comes to earning money or enjoying themselves, but when it comes to doing work for others and taking a risk in doing so, they are very slow and think things over a hundred times before they act. Some time passed and I kept asking: "So, have you written the letter?" Finally we sat down together and wrote the letter jointly. But I warned him: "Bernd, when you send this letter you will be in trouble! Your parents-in-law, your wife, and all the Witnesses around you will distance themselves from you." But he only laughed and said: "I am an elder in the congregation myself — the reply will come directly to me." "If they want to remove you from their ranks because of this matter, it makes no difference where the reply goes — to your hands or to others," I replied. He did not believe my words; he did not think so negatively about this organization. He laughed and said: "You don't seriously think they'll throw me out over something so minor?" Finally he sent the letter off. A short time later he was removed from his office as elder. Had he not backed down at that point out of fear, he would probably have been disfellowshipped immediately. He accepted some of the conditions that were placed on him, but he lost his eldership at once. His letter, which he had written to the Governing Body, appears further below. He was eventually disfellowshipped after all, because he agreed to have the letter published on my website http://mesias.de under the link "A Letter." He was then nearly forty years old and had served thirteen years as a pioneer and ten years as an elder — yet because he believed that God foresees the future of all people, he was disfellowshipped and thereby declared worthy of death. It is true that in their eyes he is dead, but he lives in God's eyes. At the time I thought that Bernd would now finally begin to take the first steps toward salvation, but sadly he decided — as many others who leave do — to pursue a path of satisfying his selfish desires and long-suppressed longings. The letter that Bernd wrote at that time, which became the reason for his expulsion from the Witnesses, follows here. I would ask you to read the letter and form your own judgment about this organization and the fruit it produces.

BERND'S LETTER

Dear brothers, with this letter I wish to put to you a question that has been occupying my mind for some time. At first I simply wanted to let the matter rest, but at the latest after reading the passage in Rom. 14:23 in my Bible reading program, I resolved to write this letter. Since I serve as an elder in the Neckarsulm-Turkish congregation and therefore also teach, I must be fully convinced of what I teach. My question concerns Jehovah's foreknowledge. In all the literature I have found on this question, the subject is unfortunately constantly mixed up with predestination. In the Insight book it is even listed under the same heading, although on the other hand the Reasoning book explains in a simple and logical way that the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The theory that Jehovah predetermines the fate of human beings can be reconciled neither with logic nor with Jehovah's love. By contrast, it is a sign of his love when he makes use of his foreknowledge. It is therefore completely incomprehensible to me why the WT 53/p.468, par. 13 states the following: "He does not intrude his ability of foreknowledge into the affairs of these creatures. He is not a suspicious God who constantly suspects his creatures and continually seeks faults in their minds and hearts in order to create difficulties for them." Why is foreknowledge presented here as something negative? With respect to groups, on the other hand, it is said to be "a gracious service for mankind, since it makes it possible to issue warnings." The issue of April 15, 1998 addresses the same topic and cites the incident of Abraham in connection with the sacrifice of his son as a logical basis for argument. I cannot fully agree with this reasoning, since Jehovah, who knows hearts very well, already knew from Abraham's disposition of heart how Abraham would act. The fact that Jehovah nevertheless says: "…for now I know that you are God-fearing…" does not show that he did not know in advance how Abraham would act. We find many similar examples in the Bible. (Jehovah asked Adam after the Fall — where are you? / Jehovah asked Cain — where is your brother Abel?) If we assume that Jehovah sees everything in advance, some fundamental questions naturally arise: Why did Jehovah forbid Adam to eat of one particular fruit, if he knew full well that he would eat it? For many this makes no sense. But Adam was created perfect — in the image of God. If he transgresses God's commandment, whose fault is it then? Can one rightfully reproach Jehovah? God sent Jesus to the earth under far more difficult conditions, and he was obedient even unto death. By this he proved that God is in the right. Jehovah foresaw both outcomes. Why should this foreknowledge make him guilty? We too would always encourage our child to be obedient, even though we know in advance that it will sometimes be disobedient. Ezekiel was to warn, even though Jehovah said that no one would listen to him! (Ezek. 3:7) A further example is found in Deuteronomy 31:16-19, 29, where Jehovah has the people of Israel learn a song. Jehovah knew full well that the people would turn away from his statutes and yet he enters into a covenant with them. The Song of Moses was then to serve as a witness for Jehovah and against the people. By this means Jehovah is completely free of any guilt. Why should he not proceed according to the same principle with respect to individuals? There are even events in the Bible that indicate that he does so. For example, we read concerning the two sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, that they received a special privilege — they were permitted to ascend the mountain to Jehovah together with their father, with Moses and with seventy of the older men, they saw a vision of his glory and they ate and drank before him. (Ex. 24:1, 9-11) A short time later it was precisely these two sons of Aaron who offered unauthorized fire before Jehovah. (Lev. 10:1) By this Jehovah clearly proved that they had rightly deserved death. No one can reproach Jehovah in this matter. Adam's sin was similar in character. Jehovah was in no way taken by surprise by the course of events. On the contrary, Paul says that "the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will also be set free from slavery to corruption." (Rom. 8:20, 21) Why? Paul gives the answer in chapter 9:19-24. We know why Jehovah permits evil — not because Adam's sin confronted him with unexpected obstacles to overcome, but because he knew from the very beginning that through it the human race would ultimately receive lasting healing. The WT 53, p. 469, par. 14 states that to accomplish his purposes Jehovah does not need to foresee the future of each individual. That is of course correct, but the comparison with insects is in no way in keeping with the spirit of the Bible. Jesus said that even the hairs of our head are numbered. We see in the Bible that Jehovah places very great value on the devotion of his servants. (e.g., "none like Job") Elijah too, at his challenge to the Baal worshippers on Mount Carmel, was well aware that he was not in Jehovah's eyes an insignificant insect, but that Jehovah would stoop down to him. On the contrary, Elijah's challenge revealed the helplessness of the false gods. If we read the Bible from beginning to end, we find not the slightest indication that Jehovah would not foresee, or would not wish to see, the future of individuals or of groups. Rather, all the statements of the Bible point to the fact that he always sees everything. Jehovah is not subject to time; he stands above time. Why should he use his ability only occasionally? Foreknowledge is not a faculty of Jehovah's — it is his attribute. He possesses it always, just as he possesses his love or his mercy. He does not employ those qualities only now and again either. Should we restrict Jehovah in any way, simply because we sometimes do not understand his ways? The fact that Jehovah sees everything in advance shows his love and wisdom all the more. A simple example may illustrate this: A father leaves home for a week. He leaves his son, who stays behind alone, some money so that he can take good care of himself. Even if the father knows — is indeed quite certain — that his son will not always use the money wisely (and may therefore have to go hungry for a day), will he then leave no money at all? He will, however, point this out to his son beforehand, saying: "This money is enough for the whole week. It is up to you to use it wisely." The son will have no justified complaint to make against his father; on the contrary, he will rather come to see that his father was right and will learn from it for the future. Another question that arises from the unrestricted use of Jehovah's foreknowledge: Why then did Jehovah choose individuals such as Saul or Judas, if he foreknew their end? A gardener leaves a diseased fruit tree standing as long as the fruit, or the other trees, are not adversely affected. (John 15:1) Likewise, Judas and Saul were at the time they were chosen good men and very useful. Why should Jehovah have prevented them from receiving certain privileges? These men were good until the time when unrighteousness was found in them. In all of this we cannot rightfully reproach Jehovah for anything. Of course it is not possible to deal with so extensive a topic in two pages, but I have tried to raise a few fundamental points on the basis of which it is not possible for me to believe that Jehovah only sometimes foresees things or wishes to see them. In speaking with several brothers I have found that many think in a similar way. I therefore ask you to prayerfully reconsider this teaching, above all the argument presented in the WT of April 15, 1998. Awaiting your reply in brotherly love, your brother and fellow servant.

A brief explanatory note on this letter: Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that God always foresees the future. They strictly reject the idea that God foresaw that Adam would sin. On this point their reasoning cannot be supported from Scripture, and the explanations given are somewhat confused and contradictory, much like the doctrine of the Trinity held by the churches.

The person who wrote this letter was publicly reproved before the entire congregation. In addition, he was told plainly and clearly that he would be disfellowshipped if he continued to speak about this view of faith. He was later disfellowshipped after all, because this letter was published on the homepage of http://mesias.de. Both the judicial committee and the appeals committee considered his disfellowshipping to be lawful. On this subject we wish to quote only one text out of hundreds:

And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight, but all things are naked and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account. — Hebrews 4:13

You can imagine what Bernd's life looked like after that, since nearly all his relatives, family, and friends are Jehovah's Witnesses. But whatever direction his life takes, Bernd has taken the first step toward freedom. Once a person has experienced this, it will be very difficult to turn him back into a donkey. Unless he regrets it and returns and then becomes a real donkey. That depends on Bernd's attitude and his motivations. I say this not only for Bernd's sake, but for all who have made a decision like Bernd's.

RECORD OF A COURT HEARING

Published on http://mesias.de. Every person endowed with common sense, after getting to know the Witnesses, will also give all other religions and religious communities a wide berth. If one wants to get to know someone, one should ask not only their friends but also their enemies. Then one can form an objective picture. Just as what the Witnesses say about the established churches is correct, so too is what other religions say about the Witnesses. The perspective on religions varies greatly depending on whether one is inside or outside of them. When one makes an effort to view all religions from a distance, one notices that the same spirit, the same attitude, prevails everywhere. We should not think, however, that this spirit is confined to the Witnesses, the Muslims, the Jews, or the Catholics. They are all merely different parts and manifestations of one and the same spirit, which is found everywhere in the world. And it is certain that it is not the spirit of God. The history of these communities leads us to this conclusion. There is no community that has been capable of living according to the will of God or of maintaining a standard that corresponds to the example of the early church. Ultimately they have only brought shame and disgrace upon the name of God and have drawn his wrath upon themselves. In every age there have been individuals who have done God's will. There have also been smaller groups of whom the same can be said; they appeared briefly on the scene and then vanished again. They either died, strayed from their path, or were led astray. Such, for example, as the followers of Jesus in the third century. They were recognized by the state as a religion and regarded this as a particular success. Instead, they sold themselves into subjection to the rule of government.

The holy scriptures give no one — not even in the slightest degree — authority over other people or over the faith of other people. The apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1:24: We are not masters over your faith, but fellow workers for your joy. Yet throughout all of history mankind has again and again endeavored to found organizations and to defend them. They see an advantage in being organized. This may appear reasonable and logical at first glance. If God were to approve of an organization and regard it as a suitable means — which is not the case — who would be better placed to establish an organization than God himself? We must not confuse the concepts of education and organization. I will deal with this topic in somewhat more detail right at the beginning of Part 3 of this book under the heading "Organization and God." I can only recommend that you read it attentively. In the past God ordered and guided the people of Israel better than any human being could. What was the result? We can read the history in detail in the Bible. Again and again they were unfaithful, turned away from God, brought disgrace upon his name. Again and again there were inhuman actions. In the end they even killed his Son Jesus. (We should endeavor to understand the expression "Son" here as we can discern it from the Bible and from the Quran, without taking anything away from it or adding anything to it; nor should we view it with the kind of euphoria with which Christians approach it or with the ignorance of the Muslims.) But the conduct of the Israelites and their turning away from God does not mean that God has failed. Through this detailed record of the history of this people God wishes to teach an important lesson to all peoples, languages, and tongues — in short, to all of humanity. Apart from love, there is nothing that brings us closer to God — no law, no rule, no form of compulsion of any kind. (Gal. 3:10-14) The Israelites serve here only as an example. We are in no way better than the people of Israel described in the Bible. In Galatians 3:23-25 we read the following concerning the Mosaic Law and its purpose: But before faith came, we were being kept under guard as prisoners together in view of the faith that was to be revealed. So the Law became our guardian leading to Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith. But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.

If it were not so, God would not have abolished the Law. At this point I should insert a brief explanation. Some raise the objection: since the Law was abolished, why does the Quran then reintroduce the Law? In reality the Quran is not a return to the Law. In the Gospels too one finds certain instructions and rules that concern, for example, the clothing of women, or conduct in commerce — that it is advisable to set down agreements in writing, that one should not lie or steal, and so on. It is said, for instance, that women should dress in modest apparel, that a statement is valid only when confirmed by at least two witnesses, that one should not neglect the gathering together, that one should abstain from blood, that his disciples would fast when Jesus would be taken from them — all of these statements are found in the New Testament. Yet even when these things often involve instructions and rules, they cannot be compared with the (Mosaic) Law. The purpose of the Law was to prepare the Israelites — and thereby all of humanity — for the coming of the Messiah. These laws demonstrate the power, the goodness, the mercy, and the justice of God. Many traditions and laws in Islam, such as circumcision, regulations for the performance of ritual prayer, or religious holidays, are not written in the Quran and are therefore not a commandment of God either; just as there is no biblical basis for the many Christian celebrations. Many Islamic traditions can be traced either to the influence of Jewish traditions — and thus indirectly to the influence of the Torah — or to human laws introduced at a later stage.

Let us return once more to our actual subject: religions — or more precisely, "organized religions." Despite the evidence and circumstances set out above, religions still loudly proclaim: "Does it not say in the scriptures that we should not forsake our gathering together? Were there not also elders in the congregations at the time of the apostles? God has acted through an organization throughout many centuries. And did not Jesus himself say: wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am in the midst of them?" With these and other quotations from the holy scriptures they seek to draw attention to their authority, and in doing so they gladly compare themselves with Moses or Aaron. Sometimes they do not even shrink from arrogating to themselves a position like that of Jesus or even of God himself. Before hundreds and thousands of onlookers they publicly declare that they are the chosen mouthpiece of God, that they have a monopoly on the spirit of God and that only they are guided by the spirit of God! Not only do they say this without blushing, they are also met with thunderous applause for such arrogant statements!

How can it come to pass that people have the audacity to make such statements? We wish at this point once again to take up the example of the Watch Tower organization and its history. The American Charles Taze Russell is the founder of the Watch Tower movement, formerly known as the Bible Students and today bearing the name Jehovah's Witnesses.

THIS IS HOW THEY BEGAN

The clearest statements of all — the ones that also reveal the actual basis for Russell's warnings against affiliating with a religious organization — can be found in the book Thy Kingdom Come from the year 1909 (German edition: Dein Königreich komme, 1914 edition, pages 177–179). It is noteworthy that the chief dangers he highlighted stem from the enslavement of conscience and judgment, the suppression of independent opinion and inquiry, and the enforcement of the organization's doctrinal structure. Those who refuse to submit to the organization's control and dominance are branded "traitors" who have "gone beyond the light of the organization":

Among the various sects of Babylon — of "Christendom" — there are varying degrees of bondage. Some, who indignantly reject the total and absolute slavery of personal conscience and judgment demanded by Romanism, are nevertheless perfectly content to be bound by the creeds and dogmas of one or another of the Protestant sects, and eager to bind others. It is true, their chains are lighter and longer than those of Rome and the Dark Ages... But why wear human fetters at all? Why enslave our conscience at all? Why not stand firm in the liberty with which Christ has set us free? Why not reject all attempts by fallible men to enslave our conscience and prevent investigation — not only the attempts of the distant past, of the Dark Ages, but also such attempts by the various reformers of more recent times? Why not resolve to be as free as the apostolic church was? — free to grow in knowledge as well as in grace and love, as the Lord, "in his due time," reveals his precious plan ever more and more fully? Surely everyone who joins any of these human organizations and adopts their creed as his own knows that in doing so he is committing himself to believe neither more nor less than what that creed states on the matter. If, despite such voluntarily assumed bondage, they think for themselves and receive light from other sources — light beyond what the sect enjoyed when they joined it — then they must either be unfaithful to the sect and to their promise to it not to believe anything contradicting its creed, or honestly lay aside and renounce the creed they have outgrown and withdraw from such a sect. To do so requires grace and costs some effort and often severs pleasant relationships, and exposes the honest seeker after truth to the simple-minded charge of being a "traitor" to his sect, [...] an "unstable" person, and so forth. When one joins a sect, it is expected that one will surrender entirely to the sect and no longer belong to oneself. The sect now decides for him what is truth and what is error; and in order to be a true, dependable, faithful member of the sect, he must accept its later as well as its earlier decisions on all religious questions, disregard his own opinion and avoid personal investigation, since otherwise he might grow in knowledge and be lost as a member of such a sect. This slavery to a sect and a creed is often expressed in so many words when one says that one "belongs" to a sect.

These bonds of sectarianism, far from being seen for what they are — fetters and chains — are regarded and worn as an ornament, a badge of honor, and evidence of strength of character. Self-deception has gone so far that many of God's children would be ashamed to be known as those who were without such chains, whether light or heavy in weight, long or short in respect to the personal freedom they permit. They are ashamed to say that they are in bondage to no sect or creed, but "belong" to Christ alone.

Hence it is that we sometimes see an honest, truth-hungry, gradually advancing child of God progressing from one denomination to another, as a child advances in school from one class to another. If he is in the church of Rome and his eyes are opened, he leaves and probably falls in with a branch of the Methodist or Presbyterian system. If his hunger for truth is not entirely suppressed there and his spiritual sensibility numbed by the spirit of the world, one may find him a few years later in one of the branches of the Baptist system; and if he continues to grow in grace and knowledge and love of truth and in an understanding of the liberty with which Christ has set us free, one may find him after a while outside of all human organizations, connected only with the Lord and his saints, bound only by the tender yet strong cords of love and truth, as was the case with the first church. — 1 Cor. 6:15, 17; Ephesians 4:15, 16. If only men would act as Russell has here described in these words.

How many people have the courage and the wisdom to act in this way? As already mentioned, these words come from the mouth of Russell, the founder of the Watchtower movement. And it did not take long before he made his organization worse than the communities he had just condemned with such wise words. Whether Russell truly acted accordingly can be discerned from other writings of his and also from the transcript of a court proceeding. First of all, he continues his remarks with the following words:

The sense of unease and insecurity felt by some when they are not bound by the chains of some sect is quite widespread. It is produced by the mistaken idea, first proclaimed by the papacy, that membership in a human organization is essential, pleasing to the Lord, and necessary to eternal life. These earthly, humanly organized systems, so different from the simple, unbound associations of the apostolic age, are held by Christian people instinctively, indeed almost unconsciously, as so many heavenly insurance companies. . . But no earthly organization can issue a passport to heavenly glory. Even the most narrow-minded adherent of a sect (excepting Romanists) will not claim that membership in his sect guarantees heavenly glory. All are compelled to admit that the true church is the one whose registrations are made in heaven and not on earth. The people are deceived by the claim that it is necessary to become a member of some sectarian body in order to be a member of the "Body of Christ," the true church. On the contrary, although the Lord has refused no one admission even when he came to him through the sect system, and has never sent away empty a sincere seeker after truth, yet he tells us that we have no need of such obstacles, but can come to him much better directly. He calls: "Come unto me"; "Take my yoke upon you and learn of me"; "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light, and ye shall find rest for your souls." Would that we had heeded this voice sooner; many a heavy burden of sectarianism, many a slough of despond, many a temptation to vanity and worldly-mindedness would have been spared us.

How much wisdom, sincerity, and truth these words of Russell contain! With the knowledge I have acquired from the Holy Scriptures, I can only agree with them. We surrender the freedom that God has given us — even though we have not deserved it — and make ourselves, in the name of God, slaves of men. But the Watchtower Society did not need much time to end up on precisely the course it had just condemned so clearly. And this despite the fact that its founder Russell had not only rejected every form of organization, sects, and religions, but had expressed himself against every form of "labeling" and made known a clear rejection. How drastically the course of the WT Society changed, and in the shortest span of time, is plainly evident from the transcript of a court proceeding from the year 1954, which was conducted in Scotland. I would like to leave a portion of this transcript here for you to read, without comment. Please tell me whether there is any difference between the attitude of those responsible within the Witnesses' organization and that of the Church during the Middle Ages at the time of the Inquisition. There is one difference: the Witnesses do not have the power that the Church had in those days. But that does not make them better or worse. Those were the early statements and views. How then did such a striking transformation come about, at the end of which stood an almost completely opposite attitude — one that persists to this day? This question is posed by Raymond Franz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, in his book.

AND THIS IS WHAT THEY BECAME!

The original of the court transcript is in English. We have used here the translation printed in Raymond Franz's book "In Search of Christian Freedom." First Franz states the following in his book: I can vouch for the fact that the Watchtower organization earnestly claims to be God's sole channel of communication on earth. Perhaps the clearest statements by Watchtower representatives about what awaits all people who reject their message were made in a court proceeding in 1954 in Scotland. The case, known as the Walsh case, centered on the claim to ministerial status for a Jehovah's Witness who was the presiding overseer of a congregation in Scotland. I recall that years ago I heard from my uncle himself (who later served as president of the Watchtower Society until his death on December 22, 1992) what role he played in the proceeding; but it was not until I recently saw the actual court transcript that I realized the full scope of what the testimony contained.

With the permission of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, portions of the official court transcript of the testimony are reproduced here. As recorded therein, Fred Franz, at that time vice president of the organization, was the first to take the stand, and the transcript contains, among other things, the following statements, portions of which I have underlined ("Q" stands for questions asked, "A" for the corresponding answers):

Q.: In addition to these regular publications, do you from time to time prepare and issue a number of theological booklets and books? A.: Yes. Q.: Can you tell me this: Are these theological publications and the semi-monthly journals used to discuss doctrinal statements? A.: Yes. Q.: Are these doctrinal statements regarded within the Society as authoritative? A.: Yes. Q.: Is it left to the individual to accept them, or are they compulsory for all who are members of the Society and wish to remain so? A.: They are compulsory.

By this testimony, anyone who wishes to remain a Jehovah's Witness has no alternative, no choice, but to accept the published statements of the Watchtower Society, for which Fred Franz spoke as representative. That is "compulsory." The consequences are shown in his further testimony:

Q.: So that there will practically, as a result, be a new human society? A.: Yes. There will be a New World society under new heavens, for the former heavens and the former earth will have passed away in the battle of Armageddon. Q.: Now as to the population of this new earth: Will it consist only of Jehovah's Witnesses? A.: At the beginning it will consist only of Jehovah's Witnesses. The members of the remnant expect to survive that battle of Armageddon just as a great crowd of these other sheep will. The remnant's stay on earth after the battle of Armageddon will, however, be only temporary, since it must faithfully complete its earthly course unto death, but the other sheep, if they continually obey God's will, may live on earth forever.

Acceptance thus becomes a matter of life and death, for the Armageddon survivors will consist "only of Jehovah's Witnesses." What now if a member of the congregation rejects a certain teaching of the organization because his conscience tells him there is no scriptural support for it, and he is thereupon disfellowshipped? What is the official position toward those who are disfellowshipped and do not apply for reinstatement? The position on this is precisely explained in the testimony as follows:

Q.: And are these disciplinary measures actually carried out when the situation arises? A.: Yes. Q.: Well, I don't want to ask you more about that side of the matter, but are there offenses that are regarded as so serious as to warrant disfellowshipping without hope of reinstatement? A.: Yes. The fact is that disfellowshipping as such can lead to destruction for the disfellowshipped person, if he never repents and changes his course and if he remains outside the organization. For him there would be no hope of life in the new world. There is, however, one course of action leading to disfellowshipping from which such a person could never return, and that is the so-called sin against the Holy Spirit.

The counsel for the Crown later drew attention to certain teachings that the Watchtower Society had abandoned over the course of time, including some to which certain specifically named dates had been attached. What if someone, at the time when these teachings were being proclaimed, had recognized the error and therefore had not accepted them? What position would the organization take toward such a person? By way of explanation, the testimony:

Q.: Is it not true that Pastor Russell fixed the date 1874? A.: No. Q.: But it is true that he fixed a date before 1914? A.: Yes. Q.: What date did he fix? A.: He fixed the end of the times of the Gentiles at 1914. Q.: Did he not fix 1874 as some other significant date? A.: 1874 was generally understood to be the time of the Second Coming of Jesus in the spirit. Q.: Say: generally understood? A.: That is correct. Q.: And was that put forward as a fact to be accepted by all who were Jehovah's Witnesses? A.: Yes. Q.: Now that is no longer held, is it? A.: No. Q.: When Pastor Russell came to that conclusion, he based the view on an interpretation of the Book of Daniel, did he not? A.: In part. Q.: And in particular on Daniel, Chapter 7, verse 7 and Daniel, Chapter 12, verse 12? A.: Daniel 7:7 and 12:12. What did you say he based on these scriptures? Q.: His date of 1874 as a significant date and the date of the Second Coming of Christ? A.: No. Q.: What did you say he fixed it as? I took that from what you said. I must have misunderstood you. A.: He did not base 1874 on those scriptures. Q.: He based it on those scriptures in connection with the view that in the year 539 the kingdom of the Ostrogoths came on the scene? A.: Yes. 539 was a date he used in his calculation. But 1874 was not based on that. Q.: But it was a calculation that is no longer accepted by the board of directors of the Society? A.: That is correct. Q.: So I was right after all; I am only trying to find out the attitude. So it was the duty and obligation of the Witness to accept this miscalculation? A.: Yes. Q.: So the Society must perhaps in a few years admit that what it is today putting forward as truth will then be false? A.: We shall have to wait and see. Q.: And in the meantime the totality of Jehovah's Witnesses has continued to follow an error? A.: They have followed misunderstandings with regard to Scripture. Q.: Error? A.: Well, yes, error.

Once again the question arose as to how great the authority was that was conceded to the publications of the Watchtower Society. Although the vice president had at one point stated that "one does not accept under compulsion," he reverts in his later testimony to the previous position, as can be seen:

A.: To become an ordained minister, he must acquire an understanding of the things contained in these books. Q.: But is one not ordained as a minister through baptism? A.: Yes. Q.: So he must therefore know these books at the time of baptism? A.: He must understand God's purposes as set forth in these books. Q.: Set forth in these books; and set forth by interpretation of the Bible? A.: These books give a setting forth of the entire Scripture. Q.: But an authoritative setting forth? A.: They set forth the Bible or the statements made therein, and the individual examines the statement and then the Scripture and finds that the statement is supported by Scripture. Q.: He — I beg your pardon? A.: He examines the Scripture to ascertain whether the statement is supported by Scripture. The apostle says: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." Q.: I understood your position to be — correct me if I am wrong — that a member of Jehovah's Witnesses must accept what is contained in the books to which I directed your attention as a kind of Bible and as a true interpretation. A.: But he does not do so under compulsion; he is given the right as a Christian to examine the scriptures so that he may receive confirmation that this is supported by the Bible. Q.: And if he now sees that the scripture is not supported by the books, or vice versa, what will he then do? A.: The scripture stands there as support for the statement, which is why it is cited there. Q.: What does a person do if he sees that there is a discrepancy between the scripture and these books? A.: You will have to produce for me someone who finds that, and then I can answer, or he will. Q.: Did you also mean to say that the individual member has the right to read the books and the Bible and then form his own opinion as to what is the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture? A.: He comes — Q.: Would you say yes or no and then elaborate? A.: No. Would you like me to give my reasons now? Q.: Yes, if you wish. A.: The scripture is given there as support for the statement. So if a person looks up the scripture and thus has the statement confirmed, he arrives at the scriptural view of the subject, at the scriptural understanding as in Acts, Chapter 17, verse 11, where it says that the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians because they received the word with all readiness of mind, searching the scriptures daily to see whether those things were so. And we give instruction to follow that noble course of the Bereans and to search the scriptures to see whether things are so. Q.: A Witness then surely has no alternative but to accept and follow as authoritative the instructions put out in the "Watchtower," the "Informant," or "Awake!"? A.: He must accept them. Q.: Is there any hope of salvation for a person who, in a situation in the world where he cannot obtain the tracts and publications of your organization, relies on the Bible alone? A.: He does rely on the Bible. Q.: Can he then interpret it correctly? A.: No. Q.: I do not want us to exchange texts, but did not Jesus say: "He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live, and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die"? (John 11:25) A.: Yes.

The statement of this witness therefore means: the message that the Watchtower Society spreads as God's channel is the sole means by which people in the world in the twentieth century can gain an understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Not accepting the content of these publications means incurring God's displeasure — indeed, even death. But that was only the testimony of one man, Fred Franz, the vice-president. Two more responsible representatives from the world headquarters had come to Scotland to give their testimony. Did their statements confirm his on these matters? Next on the witness stand was the Society's legal counsel, Hayden C. Covington. Here are his statements in the course of his testimony:

Q.: Is it not absolutely necessary to speak truthfully in religious matters? A.: Yes, certainly. Q.: In your view, is there room in a religion for a change in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures from time to time? A.: There is every reason for a change in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures as we see it. Our vision becomes clearer because we see how prophecy is fulfilled over time. Q.: You have — forgive the word — spread false prophecy? A.: We have — I don't believe we have spread false prophecy; there were statements that were erroneous, that is how I would put it, and inappropriate. Q.: Given the present state of the world, is it a matter of the utmost importance to know whether concrete meaning can be assigned to prophecy as to when Christ's second coming took place? A.: It is, and we have always striven to ensure that we have the truth before we speak. We rely on the best material available to us, but cannot wait until we have perfect knowledge. For if we did, we could never say anything. Q.: Let us pursue this thread a little further. The fact that the second coming of the Lord took place in 1874 was disseminated as something that all members of Jehovah's Witnesses had to believe? A.: I am not familiar with that. You are speaking of something I know nothing about. Q.: You were present during Mr. Franz's testimony? A.: I heard Mr. Franz's statements, but I am not familiar with what he said about that. Therefore I cannot respond to it any more than you, who heard what he said. Q.: Please leave me out of it. A.: What I heard in the courtroom is the source of my knowledge. Q.: Have you studied the literature of your movement? A.: Yes, but not all of it. I have not studied the seven volumes of "Studies in the Scriptures," nor what they now mention about 1874. I am completely unfamiliar with that. Q.: Take it as given by me that the Society published that Christ's second coming would take place in 1874. A.: Assuming that is so, then that is a hypothetical statement. Q.: Was that the publication of false prophecy? A.: It was the publication of false prophecy, it was a false statement or an erroneous statement about the fulfillment of prophecy, which was false or erroneous. Q.: And all of Jehovah's Witnesses had to believe that? A.: Yes, because you must understand that we must be in unity; we cannot have disunity where a lot of people go in all manner of directions. An army is expected to march in step. A.: But you don't believe in the legitimacy of worldly armies? Q.: We believe in the Christian army of God. Q.: Do you now believe in the legitimacy of worldly armies? A.: We do not make statements about that. We do not preach against them, we merely say that the armies of the world, like the nations of today's world, are part of Satan's organization, and we take no part in them. We do not preach against war, we only claim to be exempt from it. That is all. Q.: Let us return to the core issue. False prophecy was disseminated? A.: I agree. Q.: It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses? A.: That is correct. Q.: If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses came to his own conclusion that the prophecy was false and said so, was he customarily disfellowshipped? A.: Yes, if he said so and continued to cause trouble. For if the entire organization believes something, even if it is wrong, and someone comes along and tries to spread his ideas among the people, there is disunity and trouble — no marching in step. If a change comes, it should come from the proper source, from the leadership of the organization, the governing body, not from the bottom up. For otherwise everyone would have his own ideas, and the organization would collapse and go off in thousands of different directions. Our aim is to have unity. Q.: Unity at any cost? A.: Unity at any cost, because we believe and are certain that Jehovah God uses our organization and its governing body to lead it, even if mistakes are made from time to time. Q.: And unity based on the compulsory acceptance of false prophecy? A.: I concede that. Q.: And the person who expressed his view that it was, as you say, false, and who was then disfellowshipped — would he be violating his covenant if he had been baptized? A.: That is correct. Q.: And would he, as you expressly stated yesterday, be worthy of death? A.: I believe — Q.: Would you now say yes or no? A.: I answer unconditionally yes. Without hesitation. Q.: Do you call that religion? A.: It certainly is. Q.: Do you call that Christianity? A.: Most certainly. Q.: With respect to errors, you were subjected to quite a lengthy cross-examination concerning differences of view that may have existed in the authoritative presentation of Scripture over the years since the Society was founded, and I believe you agreed that such differences have existed. A.: Yes. Q.: You also quite freely conceded that persons who at any time refuse to accept the authoritative presentation must expect to be disfellowshipped from the Society, with the spiritual consequences that may entail. A.: Yes, that is what I said, and I state it again.

Unity can, according to the testimony of this representative of the Society, require a Christian to accept as true everything which he believes God's Word shows to be false. Regardless of what he reads in the Bible, he is not to express it if it does not agree with the authoritative teachings of the organization. It may be clear to him from God's Word; yet that is not sufficient. He must wait until the change "comes from the proper source, from the leadership of the organization, the governing body, not from the bottom up." Regardless of what he reads in the Bible, he must wait for the "proper source," the governing body, to tell him what it is permissible to believe and discuss. And the justification for such an extraordinary claim? There must be "unity at any cost," even if it is founded on "the compulsory acceptance of false prophecy." Failing to do this means deserving disfellowshipping and being "worthy of death." In practical terms, this means: a person may read the very words of the Lord in writing, yet cannot accept them or act upon them if the supposed "slave" of the Lord tells him something different. That, plainly and simply stated, is the position the organization takes. A third Jehovah's Witness then took the witness stand. This representative from the head office, who testified last, was the secretary-treasurer, Grant Suiter, and his testimony included the following statements about a ministerial office:

Q.: What is the position of a servant of the Society in this regard? A.: He must have met the prerequisites spoken of previously; he must have maturity, judgment, and spiritual understanding in order to lead the congregation. He must have the Theocratic Ministry School training mentioned, lead actively in field service, be teachable, and have other qualifications that Scripture has laid down. You know, man cannot specify qualifications that Scripture itself does not lay down. Q.: That is stated in general terms. But to come to the actual practice — he must now attend the Theocratic Ministry School, must he not? A.: Yes. Q.: And there he finds the library? A.: Yes. Q.: Is he not expected to familiarize himself with the Society's publications? A.: Yes, certainly. Q.: Can he now, in the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, actually have an understanding of Scripture without the Society's publications? A.: No. Q.: He can only have a proper understanding of Scripture through the publications? A.: Yes. Q.: Is that not presumptuous? A.: No. Q.: You heard the testimony that 1874 was ultimately considered false as an essential and decisive date, and that 1925 was a false date? As regards those two points — all Jehovah's Witnesses at the time were required to accept them as the truth, unconditionally? A.: That is correct. Q.: You agree that meant accepting what was false? A.: No, not entirely. The points that were wrong were so because we were mistaken, but what matters is the overall outcome. All the years of service by Jehovah's Witnesses, since the founding of the Society, the Pennsylvania Corporation, there has been a constant turning of people's hearts and minds toward God's Word and his righteous principles, and they have been given the spiritual strength to stand up for what they know to be right, to uphold Jehovah's name and proclaim his kingdom. One simply cannot compare the minor points that have been corrected with the significance of the main thing, the worship of Jehovah God. That has been anchored all these years in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses and other persons.

The secretary-treasurer affirmed that "man cannot specify qualifications that Scripture itself does not lay down." And yet he himself, as do the two preceding representatives, says that everyone can only gain a proper understanding of Scripture through the publications of the Watchtower Society. Although false prophecy was produced, "all Jehovah's Witnesses at the time were required to accept it unconditionally as the truth," and it is persistently maintained that this was right. The secretary-treasurer asserts that it is "what matters overall that came of it," and that the organization should therefore not be judged harshly for having disseminated errors on "minor points," when "the main thing, the worship of Jehovah God," was conveyed. It would be unfair to equate the significance of the errors with the actual message. "One simply cannot compare them," said the secretary-treasurer. This last assertion is in itself correct. But Suiter's own testimony, as well as that of the other two, shows that while the organization demands that such forbearance and balanced judgment should rightly be extended to it, it denies these to others. It demands tolerance toward itself, but grants it to not a single member who objects to false teachings and cannot accept them. For such persons the result is disfellowshipping — they are cut off as worthy of death. This is so regardless of how fully the individual may accept the "main" theme of the message, or how sincerely and devotedly he worships "Jehovah God." No, he must accept the entire message, with all its trimmings, exactly as the messenger "Organization" saw fit to present it, errors included; the alternative is expulsion. The organization dismisses the errors it has published as "minor." Yet when those very same errors are not accepted or objections are raised, they paradoxically become enormously important — important enough to warrant disfellowshipping proceedings. This peculiar thinking makes God appear very displeased with anyone who does not accept the errors that a supposed messenger of God may utter in His name; displeased that such a person insists on "testing all things and holding fast only to what proves to be good and true" — genuinely from God. In God's view, once such a person has been put out through the organization, he would not be regarded as worthy of life. It may seem incredible, but the persons who made these statements apparently saw no inconsistency in any of it. All of this calls to mind the principle from Proverbs: "Two sorts of weights are something detestable to Jehovah, and a cheating pair of scales is not good." (Proverbs 20:23) It is surely absurd to believe that God could be so serious about ordinary business dealings (where someone dishonestly uses different weights depending on whether he is buying or selling) and yet far less serious when it comes to matters involving people's spiritual interests — where people apply one standard to themselves when demanding forbearance, and another when appealing for it to be shown to others. God's true messenger, Jesus Christ, said: "For with the judgment you are judging, you will be judged; and with the measure that you are measuring out, they will measure out to you." (Matthew 7:2) Not only at this trial, but on many other occasions, the Watchtower organization frequently appeals to Jehovah's Witnesses to overlook the errors, claiming these are offset and outweighed by other, more favorable points. It does not, however, apply this standard to how it deals with those under its authority. If these individuals hold any view, however insignificant, that does not conform to Watchtower teachings, it is not regarded merely as a human "error" that may be corrected over time, but is treated as grounds for disfellowshipping. The "overall picture" may well show that the individual who holds a differing view clearly displays genuine Christian qualities. But that is irrelevant. He must be of one mind with the organization. The words of Christ make it entirely clear that he does not approve of such an unequal application of standards. Given the weight of the issues raised in the trial in Scotland, there is no reason to think that the three Witness representatives were merely expressing personal views. Although the goal they were seeking to achieve in this particular proceeding (which included recognition as an "established religious denomination") may have influenced somewhat the manner in which they expressed themselves, they nonetheless laid out the authoritative policy of their organization, the prevailing legalism. Testimony from past and present demonstrates this. My own experience with the governing body can serve as confirmation of that.

So much for the quotation from Raymond Franz's book regarding the 1954 trial. Raymond Franz was himself a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, its highest governing body. Both of his books can be obtained through the website http://www.ausstieg-info.de. At this point I would like to express my sincere thanks for his work, his valuable research, his experience, and his integrity. I can recommend both books — "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom" — to everyone.

ORGANIZATION AND GOD

Organization: 1) Planned construction, structure, order, design of something. "The organization of the Olympics was a difficult task." 2) a) Group; association; society; union; coalition of a group of persons with common goals. "Political organizations." b) Composition, structure, arrangement of institutions, service enterprises. "Organization of cities and municipalities." 3) (Biology) Arrangement of organs, structural plan of an organism. 4) (Medicine) Transformation into organic tissue, vascularized connective tissue through cell migration and new formation of blood vessels. German Dictionary 1996 by Honos Verlag. (The word "organization" is derived from the Greek expression organon. It denotes, among other things, an instrument or tool with which work is performed. In the Septuagint it appears several times and refers to a musical instrument, such as David's harp. The root word is ergon, a noun meaning "work." An organization is therefore an institution that serves to accomplish a task or achieve a goal in the best possible way and with the least expenditure of time and energy. (The Watchtower, 15 March 1985, p. 10)) In the Holy Scriptures (Bible and Quran), the word "organization" does not appear anywhere — neither in the original language nor in any of the translations. At this point I would also like to mention that Jehovah's Witnesses have examined the Bible for it and ultimately had to acknowledge this fact with regret. Jehovah's Witnesses are an organization and they continually emphasize its value to their members, and one can say that every Jehovah's Witness is more or less proud of this organization. In this treatise, however, we do not wish to concern ourselves solely with the organization of the Witnesses, but rather to reflect much more broadly on the fundamental significance of organization for humanity, and to see what spirit lies behind it. We wish to see through examples from history where organizational thinking leads — or misleads — people. But above all, we wish to see whether God is a God of organization — whether he himself has an organization or supports any of the organizations on earth in any form — and what the holy books say on this subject. To write a comprehensive explanation of this one word and its meaning for us, a more detailed treatise would certainly be possible than is practical here; one could fill a thick book with it. Here too I will try to be brief and address examples from our own lives. Can we say that there are only well- and badly-organized things? Can everything be reduced to these two statements? Are there good organizations? A childhood memory, from when I was about 15 years old, has stayed with me. I was visiting my friend, whose father was a coal merchant. My friend began provoking his father with defiant answers. His behavior surprised and embarrassed me, since my friend is normally rather subdued in his father's presence. Why did he have to do this of all times when I was there? In the course of the conversation his father asked him a question, probably to expose his son's ignorance. "How many kinds of coal are there?" When my friend quickly answered, "Two kinds, like everything else," I thought to myself: that was off the mark. His father then asked further: "Which two kinds?" My friend calmly answered: "Good coal and bad coal." I did not know whether to laugh or... What was certain, at any rate, was that his father had not expected such an answer either. Every time I think of that incident I have to laugh. Is it the same with the subject of organization? Are there good organizations and bad ones? If we classify them that way, we ought immediately to consider by what criterion we call an organization good or bad — by its size, its success, its influence, its power, its goals, its popularity, the cohesion among its members, and so on? Perhaps we think at first that all criteria are important. But we should think it over calmly once more before classifying an organization as good or bad. It seems as though this very simple question cannot be answered easily. Almost everything on earth is organized. Here we wish to cite only a few familiar, everyday examples: politics, the military, religion, the nation, finance, business, terrorism, crime, and so on. And now we should try to separate the good from the bad among all these political, military, religious, charitable, and criminal organizations! Which are good, which are bad? Some organizations are called good by many while others would classify them as bad. While a few people would be willing to lay down their lives for an organization, others would lay down their lives to combat that very same organization! Although on the whole the functions and methods of operation of organizations are the same or at least very similar, we wish here to address religious organizations in particular. We also wish to treat this subject somewhat more thoroughly, not to gain the interest of our readers, but much more to show that this subject concerns every human being. All of us — the whole world — is under the influence of organization! We all live within the sphere of influence of organizations, whether we want to or not. Whether we go shopping, go to work, go to school, and so on — everywhere we stand directly or indirectly within the sphere of influence of organizations. Perhaps there is still the occasional person who, like Robinson Crusoe, lives alone on an island and is not under this influence, but that is the exception. Only about a person who has no contact with other human beings and is entirely self-reliant can one say that they are not under the influence of an organization. Where does this line of thought lead us? Let us come to the subject without further ado. Something about this subject made me curious, namely the fact that the word "organization" does not appear anywhere in the Holy Scriptures. Why not? And why is that interesting for us? The Scriptures also do not contain the words "telephone" or "cigarettes." These things did not yet exist back then, which is why they are not mentioned. But if God is the great Organizer, as some claim, or if it is even one of his most important attributes, then it cannot be compared to terms like "telephone" or "cigarettes." There should then at least be some evidence or indications in the Bible showing that God is a God of organization and that he himself places value on it. I have also asked myself this question — why does the word "organization" not appear in the Bible. And there is a clear, unambiguous answer to it: GOD DOES NOT NEED AN ORGANIZATION! And he has never organized people. But we do not wish to rest with this assertion; we will try to prove it as well as we can, and in doing so may make some unnecessary repetitions in order to truly remove all doubt. The purpose of an organization is to plan something and then carry out that plan under all circumstances. For this, human beings and human institutions require an organization. The situation is different with our Creator. He has given his will — and with it his plan — into the hearts of people, so that they gladly do his will by nature. It is a part of them. This does not mean that a person is nothing more than a robot, or that they act like animals following only their instincts. They do it gladly, because it is right, and in doing so they employ their intellect and their abilities. The current world situation and the history of humanity seem to give the lie to our words, for good seems to be constantly embroiled in a struggle against evil and does not always gain the upper hand. This is because God gave Satan — who was an angel — the opportunity to exercise power over the earth, and the earth today is under his influence. This may perhaps sound strange to many readers. As we said at the outset, our concern with the subject of organization is with its relationship to God. For persons who do not believe in God, or who have their own conception of God, this treatise may be worthless, but if someone wishes to come to know the truth objectively, for such a person this brief treatise is not only interesting, but may even contain insights that can change his life. As we have already mentioned, the fact that God has placed his will in our minds and hearts does not mean that we are all like robots. We also know from Holy Scripture that both human beings and spirit creatures were endowed with a free will — that is, with the ability to choose between good and evil and to act accordingly. But if our Creator has implanted his will in us, how is it that we nevertheless do evil? A perfect human being must force himself to do what is evil. The first humans, Adam and Eve, were perfect. We read in Holy Scripture that they both forced themselves into disobedience and that they were also pushed into it by an external influence, ultimately losing their perfection. That external influence was Satan the Devil, who as an intelligent and powerful spirit creature — an angel — rebelled against God. A serpent spoke to Eve. Yet no animal, not even a serpent, can speak and so easily outwit creatures far superior to it in intellect. In order to impress Eve, Satan spoke through the serpent. Simply put, he deceived her. (Genesis chapter 3; Revelation 12:9; Quran, Surah Al-A'raf 11–25; Surah Ta-Ha 115–124) You are surely wondering what all this has to do with our subject. Our aim is to find out how God thinks about organization, and for that reason we also wish to learn something about his adversary. If, however, we say that we believe only in what we see and allow ourselves to be influenced only by such things, then we naturally only see the serpent. We have passed this story on to our children to this day in such a literal form that we have become like tellers of fairy tales in their eyes. We do not only want to know who used that serpent at the time, but want to learn more about this creature and its goals, its methods, and its sphere of influence. Since the world lies in his hands (has been placed there) we have an obligation to get to know him more closely. Unfortunately, we do many things because he wills it so. That means that even when we wish to please God, we sometimes do things that are in complete contradiction to God's will and in reality serve the interests of Satan. The purpose, the goal of this treatise is to distinguish the works of God from the works of the Devil — to make the difference clear. As mentioned previously, human beings have come to be in an imperfect state through their sin, meaning that even this will of God, which he placed in people's minds and hearts, is no longer present without error. That is one of the reasons why God's purpose has not been realized on earth. But that God created man in his image and planted his purpose in man's heart and mind, and that he requires no organization to fulfill his plan — this we will first demonstrate using the animal world, which is also a part of God's creation. A simple example familiar to all of us, and to which the Bible also draws our attention, is the community of ants. They work together perfectly, although they have no commander or supervisor over them. (Proverbs 6:6–9) God created them that way. This is but one of millions of examples from God's creation. They are neither organized, nor were they created in such a way as to require an organization. Nature is created in such a way that we can delight in it, and if it is still a blessing and a feast for the eyes — even though human beings have done everything to destroy it — then that is not to the credit of organizational thinking. Thinking dominated by organization has a destructive effect on life. By now it will perhaps not be surprising when I state plainly that organization is a tool of Satan. Since he does not possess God's ability to create, he achieves his goal most easily by leading human beings into organizations. He has in this way brought the entire world under his control. Let us think of a government. A handful of people govern an entire people and have it under their control. But it is something that is in complete contradiction to God's principles and goals. He never willed it this way, but has permitted it. This can be shown by means of many biblical examples, especially in God's dealings with the kings of Israel. That is precisely why God was opposed from the beginning to Israel being governed by a human king. But the people absolutely wanted to be governed by a visible king, like the neighboring peoples. (1 Samuel 8:4–22; 10:17–20 and the entire chapter 12; One can also read the account in the Quran, Surah Al-Baqarah (2) 246–252, but if one does not know the account in the Bible one will hardly understand the context.) Those who defend the idea of organization cite as an example the laws that God gave the people through Moses and say that God organized the people of Israel — that they were his earthly organization. In doing so they are essentially pursuing the same goal that the Israelites of that time wanted, namely a human ruler. The point is to vest authority in human beings and to give it divine legitimacy. In the past I always thought that the exercise of authority springs from people being power-hungry, but in reality the number of those who want to be ruled and dominated is far greater. This can be seen very clearly in the aforementioned example from the people of Israel. They had already requested earlier to be governed by a human being (Judges 8:22, 23). The initiative came from the people — they wanted to be governed. It was not the case that someone from among the people stood up and said he would rule over the people; rather, the majority of God's people asked to be governed, even though they were made aware of the disadvantages this would bring — to say nothing of the fact that in making this request they had in reality chosen against God.

Let us return once more to the time of Moses. Did God act as an organizer back then? To that we can only say no. Even if terms like order and planning are used in connection with the word organization, this does not mean that wherever order and planning are visible there must be an organization. God loves order and also gives laws — yet that does not make him an advocate of organizations. We are speaking here of two entirely different concepts. There are quite a few who rely primarily on these two concepts to defend the idea of organization. They say that without an organization it is impossible to implement order and laws. Of course a certain degree of order and also laws is necessary, but that does not necessarily require an organization. The question is only how order and laws can be enforced, and it is for that reason that an organization is demanded. At first it looks like the easiest, most convenient way. The alternative would be to leave order and laws to the conscience, the responsibility, and the capacities of individuals — just as God did — in freedom, without the necessity of an organization. That was the case in the time when God himself was king over Israel, up until the time when they wanted a human king over them. (Judges 17:6; 21:25; 2 Samuel 8:7,8) Moses, too, during the time he led the disobedient, sinful people of Israel through the wilderness, did not attempt to guide them through an organization or to make them servants of God through one. (Deuteronomy 12:8) As Moses had said, naturally not everyone could do whatever they pleased. But a person could do and leave undone what he wished, so long as he did not break the laws or disturb the order. Let us return once more to Deuteronomy 12:8, where Moses says: "You must not do as we are doing here today, each one doing whatever is right in his own eyes." This makes it perfectly clear in what manner Moses had led the people — this stiff-necked, rebellious, stubborn people. It shows how great the freedom of this people was. When we read the books of Moses, one might come to the conclusion that God was a very strict leader of his people, yet this text proves that we have a false picture of him. One cannot overlook how much freedom God gave the Israelites. To give someone freedom means to value them. Where the freedom of human beings is severely curtailed, little worth is ascribed to them. God always places a very high value on his creatures, even if someone may appear worthless in our eyes. So when we say "God reigns as king over all his creation," that does not mean he has organized everything. Nor will the Messiah use an organization in his mission to transform the earth into a paradise. How do we know this, and on what basis can we make such a claim? By observing his way of acting on earth and his teachings (e.g., Matthew chapters 5, 6, 7 and John 8:32). We must be careful here not to confuse two things with each other. When two or more persons reach an agreement, make an arrangement, or enter into a contract, compliance with that agreement is binding on all parties involved. This cannot be compared to an organization. Organization means making a plan and bringing persons together into a community or association in order to realize and carry out that plan. An agreement is a compact between two or more persons that carries corresponding responsibility. However and for whatever reason, a signed agreement inevitably carries responsibility with it. Even if someone later regrets this step, they must honor the agreement! I can at any time reach an agreement, make an arrangement, or conclude a contract with someone — yet that does not mean I am organized together with the other person. I can borrow money from someone or lend it to them, but that does not unite us in an organization. An agreement binds us in a certain area, for both sides must adhere to specific terms. Of course it may be that one of these two parties feels the necessity or the desire for an organization in order to be able to keep the agreement. That is up to the individual, but it is not a logical or compelling consequence of the agreement. Some people feel the urge to organize themselves in everything they do — that is, they impose rules and laws on themselves — while others refuse to have their freedom restricted and try to use their reason, their love, their sense of responsibility, their conscience, their faith, and so on, to reach their goal. An organization does not function in this way (according to the explanation given above) and has nothing to do with an agreement or a compact. In an organization, not every individual has the right to make independent decisions in every area — except, of course, when the individual's decisions align with the goals of the organization and its rules. In order to achieve their goals, organizations must issue commands, receive them, and carry them out. Whether one likes it or not, everyone is expected to comply. Both a compact and membership in an organization carry responsibility. If an agreement also carries responsibility, why cannot that responsibility be met through the exercise of freedom? But an organization does not grant this freedom — it cannot grant it. If it does, it soon ceases to be an organization. What happens then? Whatever may happen, that now goes beyond our actual subject. Is the only difference, then, that an organization grants no freedom? Let us pursue the topic further. God made an agreement with the people of Israel, a covenant with them, in which the entire people, through their declaration "we will do everything God has spoken," effectively set their signature. When we read the account in Exodus 20–24, we see that God first communicated to the people what he expected and what he commanded. He then left it to them, to their freedom of will, whether they were willing to keep his commandments and to assent to this covenant. How did they respond? Exodus 24:3 says: Then Moses came and related to the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judicial decisions, and all the people answered with one voice and said: "All the words that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do." Only after that does Moses go up the mountain, and in the following forty days he learns in detail how they were to live out God's commandments in practice. Exodus 24:12. One could compare this roughly to a situation today in which two persons draw up a contract for the purchase or sale of a car. The two are bound to each other by the contract until the buyer has paid the full purchase price. The seller assists him in material and moral terms so that he is able to honor the contract! Is such a thing imaginable in our day?? But expressed in simple terms, it represents the relationship between God and the people of Israel — or, stated more precisely, that is the relationship between God and his servants. When we say "God gave the Israelites laws they must keep," that is this agreement. God gave them these commandments to train them in the way of life. The point was not to organize them! The priests and Levites were appointed, so to speak, as representatives. They were mediators between God and the people. But they did not rule over the people. Even if they served as judges, that does not mean they ruled as a king does, for example. Yes, a judge pronounces judgment in accordance with the interests of the king. In this case it was God who could be designated as king over Israel. For this reason one also cannot say that the priests and Levites in Israel, who handled and decided legal cases, were kings. That they did not lead the people by force or pressure can best be seen from the biblical book of Judges. In Judges 17:6 it says: In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. This shows that organizational thinking and the spirit behind it were not present among the priests and Levites. One should also not forget that the Law brought death — we will return to this point later. Wherever there is human leadership, there are organized institutions. Had God led and guided the Israelites through an organization, he would not have permitted such a thing. If that is not freedom, what is? Did God punish them for it? No. I do not mean to say that God never punishes. Only when they went so far as to leave God and began to serve idols — even then he did not punish them, but left them. Had God been a God of organization, he would never have allowed things to go that far. In organizational thinking there is no room for freedom, individuality, faith, love, or mercy. On the contrary, organizations destroy these things. In organizational thinking there is receiving and executing commands. There is no room for expressions such as: "But I think such and such..." or "I believe, as I have understood it..." or even "I would like to do this in such and such a way..." — such a person simply cannot say these things. This organization may be a community, an army, the Mafia, or some association under the name of religion. Its members or followers are gradually turned into slaves — but at some point this organization will disappear. Interestingly, it is eliminated again by human beings. Or to put it plainly: most of the time it is even the organization's own followers who eliminate it or contribute to its downfall. After that, many of those people freed from such an organization seek out a new one, convinced that it is better, or they found one themselves. The result is always the same. It is like a perpetual cycle. For this reason some say: history is a constant repetition of events. And they are not wrong, for a dictator or cruel ruler is overthrown at the cost of many victims, much bloodshed, and then another regent is placed in his position, and the same thing begins anew. The system is an organization; only the name may change. Monarchy, dictatorship, communism, and so on — and finally democracy. But the system is fundamentally always the same; it is always organization. Will the democracies, therefore, not also disappear one day? It is a matter of time. Where are the Pharaohs and their kingdoms of old, where are the Assyrians, where is Babylon, the empire of the Medes and Persians, and so on? Where is Alexander the Great, where is the Roman Empire and many others — where are their splendor, their glory, their power, their authority? Did they not all have well-organized states, governments, and armies? All of these governments, these peoples, these religions, beliefs, cultures, and riches we have enumerated — and still more we have not enumerated — have all disappeared. In more recent times we have witnessed with our own eyes the collapse of the Communist system. And the USA — will it perhaps endure forever? On the contrary, its end will come, according to the Bible, even more unexpectedly. Which of the names mentioned was not organized? And were some of them not even very well organized? Yet all have disappeared, and those that still exist will disappear!

Earlier we said that the Israelites in the time of the Judges did what was right in their own eyes — yet this does not mean we are saying that this way of acting was correct; we merely wanted to highlight what freedom God left them. On special occasions the people sometimes gathered and made a decision together, but that again does not mean they were organized, or that organizational thinking drove them to this behavior. For example, when a man was visiting the tribe of Benjamin, his wife was raped to death. In response, all the tribes assembled to take action against this terrible deed. We can read about this event in Judges chapters 19–21. It was not organizational thinking that brought them together, but a problem that had to be solved together — and was ultimately solved after they had consulted God about it. It says literally: And all the people rose up as one man and said ... Judges 20:8. In an organization there is no such thing. When a problem arises, it is handled by those in charge, by the leaders, behind closed doors, in secret, and then a resolution is passed. Everyone is then naturally expected to comply with the resolution, whether they consider it good or not, whether they accept it or not. This is also how it works among the Witnesses. They operate according to the model of the military, as they themselves admit. In doing so they do not have a heavenly army in mind, but a human, earthly one — which they otherwise view as bad and condemn — and yet they take it as their model for their order. If all military forces are under the influence of Satan, as the Witnesses themselves say, then it is not difficult to guess under whose influence the Witnesses' organization stands. They are condemned by their own words.

If we return briefly to the event described in the book of Judges, one might ask what happened to those who had not gathered with the people. With few exceptions, they were all killed by the sword. Where, then, is the difference from an organization? At first it may appear as though there is no difference in the procedure, but let us think once more of what we said above: we must not confuse organization with an agreement or a covenant. The reason the Israelites gathered to resolve the problem lies in that agreement which was concluded through Moses between God and the people of Israel. For in that covenant it is stated, among other things: "Innocent blood shed must without fail be avenged. The guilty party must without fail be found and punished; otherwise God would call the entire people to account." That was one of the commandments to which the people had said "Yes." So if someone enters into this covenant and then fails to keep it, is his punishment not justified? Those who defend the organization will argue in much the same way: "We also have our rules and laws, and everyone who wishes to become a member must agree to them before being accepted. If he does not comply, we use the authority given to us by God to punish these persons. Why, then, should organization be a tool of Satan?"

The difference is actually quite simple. First: the gathering of the whole people as described in the book of Judges is no proof of an organization. It was much more a matter of fulfilling a duty to which they were obligated by virtue of their covenant — and for that they did not need to organize the form of their love, their mercy, their justice, their punishment, or their responsibility. Second: it is simply not true that they inform their prospective members of all the rules in advance. When they grandly say "we speak the truth openly and openly show what awaits them," this is merely a method to recruit new members for their own ranks. We would like to tell a simple example to illustrate this, after which you can judge for yourself whether our portrayal is accurate. We wish to cite the Witnesses' organization as an example again, since they are so set on this concept of organization. This does not mean we are particularly against the Witnesses — at this point one could cite any other political, religious, economic, or whatever kind of organization; but then it would fill an entire book if we were to address all these organizations. We want to pick out just one example here, representative of all, for that is what we want to say — that the same principle always lies behind them all.

Let us take a closer look at the way the Witnesses operate. It is true that before someone is accepted into the Witnesses' organization they go through a fairly extensive training program. This training program takes place both at the private level in the so-called home Bible study and in their meetings at the Kingdom Hall. That is how they have organized it. Among other things, they teach the following important thought: What matters is not merely what one personally believes — one should also examine the teachings of the faith community to which one belongs. Are their doctrines truly based on the Bible, or more on human traditions? If we love the truth, we will not shrink from such an examination. It should be all of our sincere desire to come to know God's will for us precisely and to align our lives accordingly. — John 8:32 ("Truth book" published by Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 13; Jehovah's Witnesses have often boasted that this book, in over 100 languages with a total print run of over 100 million copies, stands in third place among the best-selling books.)

These and similar words are frequently encountered in Watchtower literature and are in themselves quite positive, since people are motivated to engage in honest, sincere searching. But as we have said, such grand words are not applied by the organization itself; they demand them only of others, or use them as bait. That is precisely the case with the Witnesses. All this sincerity, the search for truth, the hunger for justice, these encouragements to overcome the fear of man — all of this is present only until someone has become a part of the organization; after that, the picture changes. Once someone is inside, they are expected to accept and believe everything the organization tells them. Although they themselves admit that they are imperfect and make mistakes, anyone who cannot accept or believe something exactly as they teach it is removed from their ranks on the grounds that he has risen against "God's channel" and thereby against God. To stand against God is equivalent to eternal destruction! Now no one speaks with him any longer; they do not even greet him. As proof of the correctness of their conduct, they cite verses from the letters of the apostles — for example, 2 John 9–11, where it says: Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works. But it is precisely this verse that proves this organization cannot be an institution of God. For they themselves do not live according to what they teach, as we have just shown by means of an example. They are condemned by their own words. In time, therefore, every Witness comes to this conclusion: any negative thought about the organization is sufficient to get one thrown out. Although the organization itself never apologizes for its own mistakes, it on the other hand expects its followers to defend the organization by all means — even if they must resort to lying in the process. But after all, what matters is the interests of the organization — it is a matter of unity! This unhealthy, indeed idolatrous attitude toward the organization leads to grotesque situations, such as have already occurred at Witnesses' congresses: a speaker stands on the stage, holds up a brown book, and says: "Brothers, if the organization says this book is black, then it is black!!" — and the audience applauds on top of it!! They truly think the way expressed in the motto: "Better with the organization on the wrong path than alone on the right one." This makes it particularly clear where organizational thinking can lead people, why it is so dangerous, and that Satan has a powerful tool in his hand.

The political system under Hitler's leadership functioned in essentially the same way. The entire people were organized in the same way as is the case with the Witnesses. The difference between the two consists fundamentally only in the position of power. If they had the power Hitler had at the time, we would soon be longing for him. I do not mean to say that the correspondence between Hitler's Germany and the Witnesses consists in the fact that they were or are organized. I want to show that they both derive their power over people from the fact that they have organized them. The issue here is not good organization or bad organization, but the fact that they receive commands from a single source. Everyone else must comply with these instructions. Who is not imperfect and makes mistakes? Added to that are our deliberate mistakes, which we commit out of our own wickedness. And now everyone applies without reservation all the laws and rules that come from a human authority! Through an organization a false, bad idea can spread quickly like a virus, like a deadly disease. If 98% comply with an instruction, the remaining 2% will also be forced to follow. In this way no one is spared from this disease. The only success of organizations lies, perhaps, in the fact that they have spread such diseases — that is, sins, false ways of thinking, wickedness, and so on — quickly. It is precisely the opposite of God's way of thinking, for he says: You must not follow after the crowd to do evil, and you must not testify in a legal case by going with the crowd to pervert justice. Exodus 23:2. In case your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife whom you love or your companion who is like your own soul, should try to entice you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods..." you must not yield to him or listen to him, nor must you feel sorry for him, nor must you feel compassion for him. Deuteronomy 13:6–8.

So clear is the difference between God and organization, if we are willing to see it. An organization defends unity at any price; God defends righteousness, justice at any price! God has absolutely no regard for a unity or a majority that tramples his laws underfoot and nullifies his justice. And numbers are utterly insignificant to him. In the Flood, when God destroyed the entire human race, only a handful of people survived — exactly 8 persons. Before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, God had only Lot and his 2 daughters — 3 persons in all — brought out beforehand. Several million people left Egypt — Israelites and mixed company — but of those who were counted, only 2 persons entered the Promised Land. In the dialogue with Satan, God directs his attention to Job by saying of him: "...that there is no one like him on the earth, a man who is blameless, fearing God..." In this God shows that he is proud of his servants, and if it is only a single individual, he is not ashamed of it, for he regards them as precious. (Genesis 7:1, 23; 1 Peter 3:20; Genesis 19:29; Numbers 14:26–30; Job 1:8) For organizations, on the other hand, the basis of their boasting lies in numbers, statistics, power, and wealth. They would be ashamed of the examples cited above, because they do not see the individual person as precious.

Admittedly, many organizations behave as described above — but that has nothing to do with organizations being fundamentally bad, one might rightly object. That would be like fundamentally rejecting the police because one has encountered some cases in which police officers broke the law, even though their very task is to apprehend lawbreakers. This reasoning is certainly logical and correct. There are surely organizations — smaller ones, at least — that do not need to resort to lies and deceit, that are always honest with the outside world and with their own members. Certainly they are the exception, if any such exist at all. But let us assume that they do exist — after all, it is the ideal that all organizations strive toward. That is precisely our subject — not whether the Witnesses' organization lies, deceives, and acts hypocritically, or whether an organization is always honest or not. The real problem is that all of humanity is organized, whether they are Witnesses or not. Apart from the fact that organizations can spread a disease, a virus, very quickly and thoroughly, they are above all successful at undermining or even destroying a person's will, freedom, and joy. Organizations think only in fixed patterns, and therefore want to turn people into conscienceless, feelingless robots who cannot think independently or make their own decisions. People are, for those who lead an organization and pursue a goal through it, merely an obstacle or at best a means to an end. People are in the way when it comes to pursuing higher goals! That is how they regard their own followers. This is comparable to a farmer who trades in milk and keeps cows for that purpose. "Ah, if only it could be done without cows, everything would be so simple," he says to himself. He thinks only of his profit, his own advantage. On the other hand, there are farmers who genuinely care about their animals and tend to them with affection. Sometimes they milk the cows only to give them relief. In doing so, he thinks not only of money, nor of the milk. He also has the well-being of the animals at heart.

Jesus also cited some examples on this subject. We would like to briefly consider one of them here: Then Jesus said to them again: Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, however, who is not a shepherd and does not own the sheep, abandons the sheep and flees when he sees the wolf coming; and the wolf seizes them and scatters them. He flees because he is only a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. — John 10:7–15

In this comparison that Jesus uses here, he shows that a good shepherd is even willing to lay down his life for the flock, for every single animal. He does not speak about the unreasonableness, the stubbornness of the sheep, or the fact that they constantly cause him problems. No — as a good shepherd, his eyes are not fixed on his own advantage, on money, on profit, or on his honor. He sees only what he loves, namely the sheep. For his happiness springs from his love for the sheep. His goal is that they may have life, life in abundance. Even though I address the topic of organization only relatively briefly here, I nonetheless hope that by the end you will be able to form a picture of what I am trying to convey. People often see God as someone who punishes because we do not keep his commandments. Yet it is also simply a matter of an agreement that God has made with us — one he made solely for our benefit and our advantage. He does not compel us to keep his commandments, even though he would have both the power and the right to do so; instead he gives us the following counsel: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life." — Deuteronomy 30:19 … says God. But an organization allows no freedom of choice. It compels or coerces, however honest and open it may be. Yet does God not also grant human beings their freedom, even if only for a limited time? So what is the difference? Does it consist only in the fact that God allows more time, has more patience? In the end God destroys those who do not conform to his will as well, just as organizations do — does he not? Yes, that is true, but God does not act on the principle of organizations. Just because both kill, one cannot lump God together with organizations. In one case, those concerned freely choose either the path of life or the one that leads to death; but in organizations pressure is always exerted — regardless of how good or bad a person is — and it has nothing to do with free will. Often the followers of an organization simply go along — frequently without being aware of it and without being clear about themselves and their own goals. God, on the other hand, abhors this condition, because he is just. He wants every person to openly and clearly confess what he is or what he wishes to do. That can only be achieved by granting freedom, never by exerting pressure. That is also the reason he gives Satan the freedom to rule over the earth. Why else would he allow it? God's goal is to give freedom, joy, and eternity. None of these is ever the goal of an organization, nor can it be. They could give none of these things, even if they wanted to.

Let us return briefly to the point that people are punished, possibly even with death. This by no means implies that the idea of organization is thereby supported. On the contrary — in order for a judge to pass judgment in accordance with his sense of justice and in accordance with the law, he must be free. The fact that a judge sentences a guilty person to death does not mean he supports an organization. Likewise, the fact that God will sentence people to death does not mean that he supports organizations or their way of thinking, or regards it as right. It would therefore be nonsensical for an organization to find a similarity or even an agreement with God's way of acting in this matter of punishment and then to claim: "We act no differently than God." There are very many systems of government — kingdoms, dictatorships, democracies, communism, for example. Although they differ enormously from one another in their ideology, all of them have an institution for punishing lawbreakers. Are they therefore the same, simply because they all convict criminals? We are speaking here of entirely different things. What does the transgression of a law and the just punishment of the offender have to do with organization? We must not equate the existence of laws with organization. God has given many laws, that is true, but God did not found an organization to enforce them. He hates to see his creatures in an organization, supposedly to carry out his laws!

Let us suppose for a moment that organizations are genuinely useful. Let us compare it to a medicine, say aspirin. Aspirin generally helps with headaches. In Paradise, however, no one will have headaches anymore, because everyone will also be physically perfect; therefore aspirin will no longer be needed either. No matter how much someone might then still extol the benefits and effects of aspirin, all of that will be of no significance to God's servants, because they will no longer need it. What use to me are the advantages of something I will never need? It would never interest me. "Yes, but our heads hurt now, so we take aspirin now," someone might object. Aspirin is only a comparison, but let us stay with it nonetheless. Those who advocate for organization do not say: "Aspirin is for sick people." In our aspirin example they say: "This medicine God will always use, for all eternity!" — "God has always had an organization," say the Witnesses. That is the nonsense we wish to draw attention to here. They even portray God as though he needs an organization in order to carry out his purpose. It is as though they are saying — to return to the aspirin comparison — "God will always make use of it."

Let us suppose there is an organization that accepts my line of thinking up to this point. This organization says it regards the establishment of an organization as only a temporary arrangement. Even if that were so, scarcely anyone would seriously defend the idea that an organization is useful or necessary for bringing people closer to God. Neither now nor in Paradise. If someone does, he cannot expect to receive support from God. And it is plain to see that no organization, no religion, has any support from God. If this is a solution, a medicine, then God has absolutely no need of it and will therefore never make use of it. God has created his creatures so that they are dependent on him alone, not on an organization.

On one occasion, when certain individuals wanted to put Jesus to the test, he pointed out how important it is not to place worldly affairs on the same level as God's affairs: Then they sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians, saying: "Teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for you do not look at the outward appearance of men. Tell us, therefore: What do you think? Is it lawful to pay head tax to Caesar or not?" But Jesus, knowing their wickedness, said: "Why do you put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the head-tax coin." They brought him a denarius. And he said to them: "Whose image and inscription is this?" They said: "Caesar's." Then he said to them: "Pay back, therefore, Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God." — Matthew 22:16–21

The states all operate according to the organizational principle anyway, perhaps everything in this world does. The point is not how we can free ourselves from these organizations. God lets them run their course. But we can be sure that God looks upon it with revulsion when we try to come to him by this means — that is, through an organization. That is why the Bible clearly separates the works of God from the works of the world. Consider history alone — the events we have heard about the Catholic Inquisition. Simply because Galileo said "the earth is not the center of the universe," he was threatened with death. The system that forced Galileo to recant his scientific work and the truths he had discovered was an organization. God would never impose such a punishment merely because someone believes something or makes a claim, even if it does not correspond to the facts. Did God perhaps punish the angels because they had a mistaken idea or opinion? (Baqara 2:30; 1 Peter 1:12; Ephesians 3:9–10) No — even in Paradise, God will not kill anyone on account of a wrong opinion. We must not equate perfection with omniscience. Having a wrong view or even false knowledge is one thing, but sinning is an entirely different matter. I have dealt with this distinction in more detail under the topic of "Perfection" (found in the book "Die Religionsmafia").

It was also the organized churches that burned people alive at the stake, simply because they had read the Bible or were endeavoring to make the Bible accessible to the people. What has become of these mighty church systems? Do they still exist today? The historical record shows that their sphere of influence has retreated far, and we can see that today as well. From these great and mighty churches, smaller sects and splinter groups have emerged — the Witnesses, Adventists, Mormons, Baptists, the Church of God, and so on and so forth. All of these groups have in turn tried to realize their dream of a worldwide church with great influence, and we can only be glad that they have not achieved it. Let us just imagine the consequences if the Witnesses were a world religion, with a power and authority like that of the Roman Catholic Church at its height! Where would there still be any such thing as freedom? When the Witnesses had approximately 4 million members, an average of 36,000 persons per year were disfellowshipped. If they numbered 2 billion worldwide, then the form of disfellowshipping would also change, because until now their means have been restricted by law. If we scale up the ratio of 36,000 disfellowshippings per 4 million Witnesses to 2 billion Witnesses, then each year approximately 18 million people would be expelled. Among these are not only persons who are prostitutes, criminals, or murderers; frequently they are persons who simply do not share certain doctrinal positions of the Witnesses, or who merely said, "You are mistaken on this point." According to these statistics, within four years a number roughly equal to the entire population of Germany would be expelled. What a remarkable achievement! This organization boasts of such achievements. "In order to maintain unity, we do this and remove such people from our ranks. The organization must remain pure!" they say, and their followers believe and support it.

On one occasion, a Witness woman lodged a complaint with the organization. She asked for permission to separate from her husband. The elders of the congregation — the responsible men — told her that if she did so she would be transgressing God's commandment, because the Bible clearly states that God does not approve of divorce except on grounds of sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32) Her husband had been having sexual relations with another woman — but anally! Others who wanted to separate because their spouse was engaged in extramarital but homosexual relations, or worse, in sexual intercourse with animals — the organization gave no green light for divorce!! According to their understanding at the time, it did not constitute adultery as defined by the Bible! God's channel had spoken! Over time — probably because the complaints multiplied — the organization changed its position on this topic, and such divorces carried out for the reasons mentioned above are now permissible. But what about those persons who could not endure the situation at the time, got divorced, remarried, and were disfellowshipped? In the eyes of the Witnesses, those who were disfellowshipped and did not return are lost anyway and will receive their eternal punishment from God. But when the organization changes course, does anyone go and apologize to those who were unjustly disfellowshipped? No — on the contrary, the expectation is that such persons come back and apologize humbly!! Someone who has left us, for whatever reason, has shown that he is not loyal to us — an unreliable friend — therefore he must apologize!

How should the person apologize, and in what words? He might, for example, say something along these lines: "I know that you now think the same as I thought before, but I should under no circumstances have run ahead. From now on I will not do such a thing again, but will blindly trust you. It is enough that you command." Or he could also say: "The way I acted was not humble; I elevated myself above you — I should not have done that." If the person does not speak in this or a similar way and apologize, he will not be accepted back regardless. According to their understanding, that is true humility and modesty. Even if you know the truth, you should keep it to yourself and not speak about it. You must not get ahead of the organization. But every day you should go from house to house and bring the truth to people, calling their attention to it without ceasing. But not a word against your own organization!! Why then did he leave his former religion at all? Could he not have stayed there and waited until the truth was revealed? (When someone does not agree with the official doctrinal position, it is customary among the Witnesses to say: "We must wait on Jehovah until he reveals the truth to us.") Why then did he run ahead in his religion and get upset that they had concealed God's name from him, that he had been lied to or falsely taught? If someone does this in another religion, it is not impudence and a lack of humility — but only if he does it within the Witness community. If someone left his former religion for these reasons and became a Witness, applause is given at the conventions — but if he expresses the same attitude within the Witnesses' organization, he is not humble!

If humility, modesty, and endurance are measured by that standard, why should these qualities only be demonstrated once one has become a Witness? If a certain mode of behavior is right and desirable, then it is so always and everywhere. But in organizational thinking, this simple, clear logic does not apply. That is how those who see only themselves or their organization as right act and think — and those are the fruits of their way of thinking. As I said, the Witnesses are only one example among thousands.

Some may protest at this point: "You cannot compare dictatorships with religions just because both are organized." This treatise is primarily concerned with understanding organizations. Therefore I recommend: read on.

An engine or a machine should run and function continuously — like organs or an organism. The various parts of this machine must work well together. But you cannot compare this to human beings. Human beings are creatures with feelings and sensations, endowed with a mind and a free will. To compare a human being with something lifeless and to place him on the same level as a machine or an organ is nonsensical and dangerous. But all organizations see their members as parts of an organ or machine that must function in a uniform way. This applies to all of them — starting with the military, through religions, companies, hospitals, schools, political parties, all the way to criminal associations; all work according to the same principle and have the same expectations of their members. Just as little as one asks a motor about its well-being or its thoughts or ideas, just as little are they interested in their members — the main thing is that they function. The members or followers have certain tasks to fulfil, without murmuring or complaining, just as one expects of a motor or an organ. This does not mean that these people are not granted rights. Of course they are given opportunities to recover, to take breaks for eating, drinking, and sleeping — all things that are allowed to some degree even to a motor or an organ. Everyone knows that every technical device, every engine requires a certain measure of care and maintenance in order to remain operational as long as possible and to be able to fulfil its function. There are people who love their car or their motorcycle more than their wife!

Satan tries to turn people into machines, robots, or organs, because it is his best means of turning people against God. God has created people with outstanding qualities, but since Satan is no creator, he tries to bring people under control through organizations. It is therefore not surprising that everything in the world is organized. Organizations are the most effective means of stripping people of their valuable capacities — such as love, joy, vitality, their capacity for thought, freedom of decision — and of making their conscience insensitive, so that they ultimately lose their faith. The qualities listed here, and several more, are highly valued and are encouraged as long as one serves the interests of the organization. But the moment one uses one's abilities against the interests of the organization, the problems begin. Just try saying "No" to the organization's expectations!

A related thought, closely connected to what has been said here, is also addressed under the topic "Whom does God use?" Students of the Bible may perhaps raise the question at this juncture: Did not even Paul compare the congregation to a body and the members of the congregation to the members or organs of a body? In the Bible there are many such comparisons — sometimes it is about sheep, sometimes about a shepherd, then again about a seed or a farmer. The point is to understand the meaning behind them, to see what statement is being made. The meaning is what matters, not the things depicted. In this case, Paul actually uses this example to support our view on this topic. He spoke of how all parts of this body should care for and look after one another — not elevate themselves above each other. He does not say, "If the hand causes you problems, cut it off," or because the eye is unsightly, "tear it out." On the contrary, he encourages us to honor one another and not to despise one another, saying, "The parts that seem to be less honorable we clothe with greater care…" (1 Corinthians 12:12–31) By this, Paul is not calling on us to cover up one another's failings and defend them before outsiders in order to preserve unity.

At this point I should briefly insert a thought to prevent misunderstandings. When Jesus says: "If, now, your right eye is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away from you. For it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be pitched into Gehenna," this does not mean that we should literally gouge out an eye. According to the Mosaic Law, someone who was blind, lame, or had some other physical defect was not permitted to serve at the altar, and elsewhere there is an explicit prohibition against inflicting wounds or injuries on oneself. Did Jesus here call for the violation of this commandment, or did he mean, instead of our bodily members, our bad habits and weaknesses? (Matthew 5:27–31; Leviticus 21:5, 6; 21:16–24) Who tears out his own eyes because he looks where he does not want to look? What is easier — tearing out one's eye or controlling it?

Since people are imperfect — that is, inclined toward sin — and since Satan's power over the world is enormous, the easiest course seems to consist in organizing people. (Luke 4:5, 6; Quran, Surah Al-A'raf 7:11–18; Surah Al-Hijr 15:37–39) Let us accept this line of reasoning. But in connection with God — when it is a matter of serving him, of drawing closer to him — this idea is utterly unacceptable. Who should organize in God's name? Why, and for what purpose? If God had wanted, could he not have created us as robots straight away? And we can be sure that he would have done it perfectly. But he did not do so — he created us in his image, so that we resemble him. We resemble neither robots nor machines nor organs.

Every organization has laws and rules. The covenant with the people of Israel also included laws and rules. Although this concerned the keeping of a promise, as already mentioned, there is nonetheless a commonality in legalism — in the orientation toward laws. Let us note what God himself says about the law: For all those who depend on works of law are under a curse; for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in the scroll of the Law by doing them." (Deuteronomy 27:26) Moreover, that no one is declared righteous before God by means of law is evident, because "the righteous one will live by reason of faith." (Habakkuk 2:4) The Law does not adhere to faith, but "the one who does them will live by means of them." (Leviticus 18:5) Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: "Accursed is every man hung upon a stake." (Galatians 3:10–13; Deuteronomy 21:23)

If the law is so bad, why did he give it to the Israelites? Paul gives the answer in the following verses: However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being handed together into custody, looking to the faith that was about to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our guardian leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous by reason of faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian. For you are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus. — Galatians 3:23–26

These verses show, on the one hand, how important faith is, and on the other, that no one can come into a righteous standing before God by means of works of law. So God, through the body of Jesus, has freed us from the curse of the law — because the law brings death, not life. Since God hates everything that brings death, he himself abolished the law covenant, even though he himself had introduced that law. Perhaps you will recall that I mentioned repeatedly that one must not equate law with organization. If God does not hold back and curses his own law because it harms people, how does he regard organizations, which have nothing to do with his justice and his laws?

Many Muslims, and perhaps some Jews, claim that through the Quran God has reintroduced the law. However, only someone who is unfamiliar with either the law or the Quran could say that. Two thousand years ago, especially among the Jewish followers of Christ, there were some who absolutely wanted to reintroduce the law. The Quran does not reintroduce the law — that is simply a statement made by people who are obsessed with living under a law.

Has God, after having abolished the law covenant and having repeatedly emphasized the value of faith, introduced — or endorsed — lawlessness? Should we all live according to our own ideas, according to what we consider right, without rules or regulations, because God places so much value on faith? Let us read how we human beings are meant to live without the law covenant and without organization: Moreover, the holy spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days," Jehovah says: "I will put my laws in their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," [he says afterward:] "And I will by no means call their sins and their lawless deeds to mind anymore." — Hebrews 10:15–17; 8:7–13; Jeremiah 31:33, 34

Is there an organization that can achieve this? Does history not show that what would be possible for human beings has been and continues to be undone by organizations? I have here quite deliberately compared the law with organization in order to make God's purpose for humanity clear. In my view and experience, religions are nothing other than a new version of the law, with the difference that they are based on human laws and human methods of enforcement. Can mankind be chained together by certain rules, laws, and commands? And that by human beings who are no different from themselves. Are human beings so simple in their makeup?

When God, after the creation of Adam, gave him the commission: "… fill the earth and subdue it…," he did not mean that they should elevate themselves above other people, but over animals and plants. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1–7) Must an organization be formed in order to make God's word known? God's word is to be found everywhere on earth anyway. One can receive and read God's word (both the Bible and the Quran) often free of charge or for a small amount — rarely more than the price of one or two packs of cigarettes. By now there are very many websites offering a free download of the Quran and the Bible. When it comes to making this word known and teaching it, the organization fails anyway, since it only corrupts it. The first Christians had no organization for two centuries. It was only when Christianity established itself as a state religion that the dark Middle Ages began, with all their terrible consequences. Faith became organized. Many bloodsucking wolves crept into God's flock. A hierarchy developed with various offices and positions, and many senseless teachings made their way in — pastors, bishops, cardinals, popes, nuns, confession, the Trinity doctrine, indulgences, celibacy, inquisition courts, and so on. We know their fruits well enough. Those are the fruits of organization. Only an organization made it possible for a thought, a teaching, a virus to spread so quickly.

One might object at this point that an organization, if it can spread a virus or a harmful idea so effectively, ought to be equally capable of spreading a good, positive thought just as rapidly. When the goal is to draw closer to God and to please him, it is important to see that God has already equipped people with this desire. Whether we are quick or slow about it remains up to each person individually. Not every person is the same. Whether we walk this path, God leaves entirely to our free will; he would under no circumstances use pressure, fear, or compulsion to bring us closer to him. On the contrary — if we do not of our own completely free volition strive to draw closer to him, we will become estranged from him. We may perhaps think that we stand before him every day and bring him joy, but instead we will only provoke his displeasure. For the organization, for religion, however, this appears to be a great success, since they look only at outward appearances.

All the things that are valuable in God's eyes and that he wants us to develop — such as our capacity for thought, our love, our feelings, our conscience — all these things the organization blocks and seeks to suppress and restrict.

— Don't think so much! We decide for you. — Do not listen to your conscience and your feelings; they can deceive you! — Do not develop your own ideas. — Leave the thinking and deciding to those who are more experienced. — We show you what to believe, whom to love, and whom to hate.

They want followers who show unconditional obedience. Anyone who acts outside of these expectations will quickly find disciplinary measures taken against them to bring that person back to "reason." Every available means is exhausted for this purpose. Such people are quickly labeled traitors and apostates — and who wants to be called that? I have repeatedly emphasized that we must acknowledge our fallibility, our imperfection in every area. Founding an organization means giving one person or a group of persons decision-making power over others. How can these persons — whether one, two, several, or hundreds — prove that they are more intelligent and more error-free than everyone else? It has happened that a ten-year-old was right about something where I was wrong, even though I was far ahead of him in age and experience. Who doesn't know that? Surely it has happened to each of us. It then comes down to our pride and our honesty, how we conduct ourselves in that moment. While writing this book, something occurred to me. Using an event from my own life, I would like to illustrate once more where an organization can lead us and what partly terrible consequences it can have. I had a friend with whom I explored the Bible and also the Quran together. I can remember that at his workplace we sometimes sat and talked until four in the morning. His understanding of God, his faith, and also his love for God were not like mine. I do not mean to elevate myself above him or to diminish him in any way. If he had invested as much time and interest as I did in reading and studying the Holy Scriptures, I think he might perhaps have been ahead of me in faith and love. He saw the Bible for the first time in his life when he met me; at that time I had already read the Bible through many times. In this respect I was far ahead of him in knowledge and experience — or rather, that is what I thought. With this friend I had exchanged views on many topics. Through my many years of association with the Witnesses, my attitude toward blood transfusions was wrong. I can say that easily today — that my attitude was wrong — but I had lived with it for nineteen years. Fortunately nothing terrible had happened during that time; otherwise I would probably have committed a great act of stupidity. I have a son, and if he had needed blood due to an accident, I would have been firmly against it, even at the risk of his losing his life! As I said, thank God I was never faced with that decision! But there are thousands, indeed tens of thousands, who live as Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you know what the worst thing would be? The day when one realizes that the faith by which one has lived was empty and does not correspond to God's will — on the contrary, even angers God. Then one realizes that one was deceived and feels a great rage and outrage. All the more so if one has had terrible experiences in the name of that faith. One has fought like a lion to prevent blood being given to one's own beloved child, spouse, friend, or other loved one — and then that person dies. Then one realizes at some point that this view was wrong! Just imagine the burden of conscience you would feel then! And if one does not have much strength to forgive, it is no wonder if one then goes to pieces and perhaps even runs amok. I can only emphasize once more how glad I am that nothing like this happened to us. With the friend I mentioned I discussed this topic for hours, during which he repeatedly defended the view that it is right to give blood — or to receive it — when life is at stake. I continually tried to convince him, using the Bible, to think as I did — that blood transfusions are not acceptable according to the Bible, and that doctors and medical professionals are also only human and one cannot really rely on them in such a case, since they too make mistakes. Honestly, I had little success with him in convincing him of anything — regardless of whether my view was right or wrong. Regarding blood transfusions, I say in retrospect: it is good that he did not accept my view. In other areas I would have been glad if he had sometimes accepted something, but one never knows. Let us come to the point of why I told this story. Let us imagine that I were the head of an organization, filled with zeal and conviction. Then things would go badly for my friend. Not just for him — for his family and a thousand others. My entire task would be to work toward making everyone think as I do. I would even do this with good intentions. I would do everything to make others follow me and my foolishness, without having any personal advantage or any bad motives. If in my conviction I had even gone so far as to be willing to let my own child die, then you can imagine for yourself how far a person will go for his convictions and what harm he can cause. Let us assume I am the chairman of a well-organized religion, a very large one with many millions of members. No matter how good my motives might be, how much knowledge and experience I might have, even if I were far ahead of everyone else — the example of blood just mentioned shows what devastating effects this can have. Until recently I still held such a twisted view about blood transfusions! Over time I recognized my foolishness. "How fortunate that I am not the head of a religion," I thought to myself while writing these lines. In any case, I would not commit such a folly as to strive for a leadership position and take upon myself the responsibility of judging over people. But evidently there are many who scramble for just that. In order to maintain unity within an organization under all circumstances, one must have a heart of stone and be prepared to walk over corpses quite literally. And in the many organizations, whatever they may be called, one finds such people in abundance. Even if someone at the beginning of his career is perhaps not of that nature, over time it is expected of him and the organization does everything to make him become so — otherwise he must expect difficulties. And it makes no difference what position one holds in an organization. Sooner or later the point comes when the organization takes one over. By this I mean that in every organization one reaches the point at which one sells out. One throws one's good principles overboard, acts against one's conscience, and tramples noble principles underfoot. That is the success of organizations! In a concentration camp, where workers were in the process of constructing a building, a Jewish architect responsible for the construction goes to the camp commandant and shares her concerns that the building, as it is being built, will not be stable enough, and she makes urgent recommendations about how it should be built. The commandant takes out his pistol and shoots her. He then gives the order that the building be constructed exactly as she had recommended! That is the way a dictatorship gives someone their due. It gives the person their due, but simultaneously kills the one to whom it gives it. It kills, because it cannot allow anyone to contradict. If the architect had not lodged her objection, the building would eventually have collapsed and the architect would have been held responsible for it — which would also have ended with her being shot! In this case, it will always end with her death, no matter what she does. If she keeps silent, she is killed because she did not do her job properly; if she speaks up, she is executed because she contradicts the leadership. Of course someone may now object: "Why are you drawing a connection here between hatred, crime, and hostility on the one hand and organizations on the other? These things don't necessarily go together." True, at first glance there appears to be no direct connection. But let us not forget: if this hatred and hostility and prejudice has passed into the flesh and blood of these people, then this is the result of the work of a handful of people who lead the organization. In reality it is only these few persons who hold such an attitude, who carry this hatred and hostility and prejudice within themselves — but through the organization this mindset is transmitted to others like a virus! We experience the same thing today in Germany as well, but that is not our topic now. If they were not organized, such a negative thought and such an attitude would perish together with those few people. From this arises the natural question: "What if these few people were not full of hatred but full of love and compassion — if they were good people?" There we would first have to ask: "Are there good people?" We have already established further above that because of our imperfection, our inclination toward sin, there are no truly good people. God tells us this quite plainly as well (Psalm 53:2,3). Even if they had good intentions, at best they would be only as the world in general is. Which people, which nation could one hold up as a model today? Have we not read in the Bible that God is in judgment with all the peoples of the earth? If we acknowledge all of this, one wonders how one can come to the idea of organizing people in order to lead them to God. Organization is always in opposition to humanity. If we have not yet completely destroyed ourselves, then the first and most important reason is God; in second place, responsibility lies with the initiative of individuals who have not followed the instructions of the organization one hundred percent, who have listened to their conscience and their convictions. Furthermore, political organizations and states are not so impertinent as religions in that they do not intrude into people's private lives and intimacy, but grant more freedom. But this makes the matter even worse, because it causes suffering to last longer — like someone who is physically very robust and strong and then contracts cancer. In such a person the suffering drags on longer. We find similar problems in Islam as well, after the death of Muhammad. If Muhammad had been inspired by Satan, he would certainly have tried to organize. But history shows that only after his death did the dispute over his succession begin, followed by the splintering into various groupings and sects, which continues to this day. Sects, divisions, hatred, bloodshed — all of this goes back to their desire to have a leader over themselves. Unity is spoken of, but what is meant is slavery. They desire to make others into slaves — not slaves of God, but slaves according to their own notions. But God desires worship with the whole heart. (Exodus 25:2; John 4:23,24) For them it is not about the heart, the love, the conviction of the individual — things that God values — but about how they can best and most quickly achieve their goal. What their goal is, only they themselves and God know, but their followers have no idea about it and do not even want to know. Behind all of this stands Satan the Devil. For him it is easier to lead millions through a handful of people, which is why he strives to organize people. It is a masterpiece of his that many people, when they hear the word "organization," think of order, unity, and success. Is it not the same for you when you hear that word? Do I mean by this that everyone should do whatever they like — kill, murder, commit adultery, steal, deceive, and so on? Of course not. Nor do I say that every person will naturally do what is right and good, or that people's feelings, thoughts, ideas, decisions, and reason are without error. If someone is opposed to organization, that does not mean that he advocates lawlessness. I mean only that the good and right thing that ought to be done cannot be compelled by an organization — least of all when it is connected to the desire to draw closer to God. Even if for a short time it appears successful to outsiders, inwardly it is full of hypocrisy, secrecy, falsehood, and window-dressing. With these qualities one cannot draw closer to God — one can at most move further away from Him. Even if we join an organization in the belief in God and in order to please Him, we must still work as individuals on our personality, on our character. Each person should lay aside his old personality, as Jesus said: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross day by day." — Luke 9:23 We should therefore not, like animals, simply follow every one of our desires and feelings, but like human beings master our impulses and live in such a way that we can attain true happiness. In doing so we should give our love, our faith, our trust, and our obedience to God alone, not to an organization that expects us to perform our work like organs of a body. That is what matters. We should live as people who feel themselves bound first and foremost to God. Of course we are all under a yoke, and this means we have a burden to bear. Who would voluntarily take a yoke upon themselves and thereby pull a load? Yet Jesus says the following: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." — Matthew 11:28–30 There is one more fact I would like to emphasize: we are all dependent on God. No one can live without God. But this fact applies only to God. There are some people who want to throw off every yoke and be absolutely free. That is nonsense, however — it is not possible. No one on earth is free in the absolute sense. Everyone, whether king or beggar, has a burden, a yoke to bear. Everyone lives in a state and must abide by the laws of that state, must pay taxes. Whether they wish to or not, they are governed by those who are in power. That is a yoke that has been imposed on all of us from birth. I am not concerned here with whether that is right or wrong; I merely wish to draw attention to a fact. Since Jesus was aware of this fact, he offered to take his yoke and his burden. As I said, there are some kinds of yoke that we cannot choose for ourselves — such as paying taxes, the family and culture into which we are born, and so on. But beyond these imposed burdens there are others that we take on ourselves more or less voluntarily. What kinds of burdens are those, the ones we load upon ourselves additionally? Religions, for example. That is something we can choose for ourselves. That is why Jesus says, "Take my yoke upon you." It is voluntary, our decision. If it were not so, he would say, "I lay my yoke upon you." If Jesus had said it that way, there would clearly be compulsion behind it, no free exercise of will. But God is a God who grants freedom, and He desires that people serve Him willingly and gladly, not out of compulsion or by yielding to pressure. In the Gospels, which report on the life of Jesus, we find no indication that he organized anything or carried out his activity in an organized way. Neither in the sermons he gave, nor in the healing of the sick, nor on any other occasion. On the contrary, all of these events arose out of the situation at hand and people responded to them spontaneously. He never made an appointment with anyone. He never said, "Come back tomorrow." We see his attitude most clearly in his dealings with his disciples, his closest confidants. He never put them under pressure, never compelled them, never used force to make them do anything or follow him. He never gave anyone that feeling. Not a single person who came to him did he turn away. When someone rejected him and did not want to follow him, he left it to that person's will. If applying pressure were necessary, who could do it more powerfully and effectively than God? Everyone knows that no one equals Him in power and strength. Even when it comes to instilling fear, no one could do it more effectively than God. With whom can we compare God? No one is equal to Him or like Him. Because He created us in His image and likeness, we resemble Him in some respects. But of course everyone would acknowledge that the Creator and the creature are not the same. What do we actually think when we act in His name? Do we believe that we are protecting His interests, or His name and His honor? Or do we really think that we represent Him? When we punish others, do we think we are doing so as His extended arm, so to speak? Has He appointed us as judges? Even though in reality we are so far removed from Him in our thinking and actions and our words. (Matthew 14:13–21; 15:29–39; 20:29–34; John 6:66–69) Even though God also desires that we serve Him willingly and gladly, He will ultimately put to death those who hate Him and His sovereignty. In the Bible book of Proverbs it is written: "For he that findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." — Proverbs 8:35–36 Yes, someone may now perhaps object: "Are not Jesus as King and Priest and his 144,000 co-rulers — this number may also be understood symbolically — appointed to transform the earth into a paradise, and will they not do this also through an organization?" The answer is given by Jesus himself: "No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you." — John 15:15 With this attitude these people have been entrusted with the task of making the earth a paradise. This is written in their hearts; it is a part of their personality. It will not be achieved through organization. What organization can act as Jesus did, can extend such trust? Let us imagine a very easy, simple task. With our previous mindset we might perhaps think that the goal can most easily be achieved through organization. Something that seems impossible to us is something easy for God. We imagined a simple task — but what about transforming the entire earth into a paradise? Is that perhaps something easy? Can this immense work be carried out without a perfect organization? That is precisely the task that was entrusted to the first human pair, Adam and Eve. How did God organize them so that they could achieve their goal? The biblical account says: And God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." — Genesis 1:28 How were they to fulfill this weighty command, which is summarized here in a single sentence? By organizing? No — through joy! For obeying this command corresponded to their human nature. Unfortunately, however, they did not obey but gave up their good qualities and put their trust in the lies of the Devil. To do that they had to force themselves — it did not correspond to their natural inclination. That is all. For God did not say they were to rule over one another. The Bible says plainly elsewhere that man has dominated man to his harm (Ecclesiastes 8:9). And in another place: "...for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7) That is something an organization cannot achieve. But this command is anchored in the human being in his heart and mind from the time of his creation. If doing God's will is anchored in the minds and hearts of people, why then were the very first people, Adam and Eve, disobedient? That is certainly a legitimate question. For one thing, the fact that they were deceived plays a great role. But nevertheless, in order to be disobedient they had to force themselves — it did not correspond to their natural inclination. They forced themselves and transgressed the law of God. Moreover, they were not robots who were automatically obedient. What they did, they did out of their free will. It was not difficult for them to be obedient to God. The difficulties arose only after they had been disobedient. They became estranged from God and became unhappy. For them it was no longer about living forever in happiness and harmony and transforming the earth into a paradise. Has the hope of a paradisiacal earth now vanished entirely through Adam's disobedience? No, certainly not. What does God Himself say about how He will restore the earth, without organizing? At this point I would like to repeat the verse mentioned above once more: "...I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people." — Jeremiah 31:33b In the light of these facts we also understand the prophetic words that God spoke to Satan with regard to both angels and humans: "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." — Genesis 3:15 We know that "bruising the heel" is something painful, whereas "crushing the head" is fatal. That is the future that has been predicted for Satan — clearly and plainly. Or do you perhaps believe, as some religions also teach, that God did not know beforehand what Satan or Adam would do and then had to quickly make a decision in that moment? There are religious communities that portray God in such a strange way! But God sees the future of all His creatures, and He says, in confidence in His creatures, as an answer to Satan's malicious insinuation against the Creator and His creatures: "...he will crush your head." If God had doubts about His creatures, He would have said: "...I will crush your head." But God is certain of His works. Accordingly we can also be certain that His prediction will be fulfilled. Not through an organization, but according to God's plan. And His plan will be fulfilled. If it were not so, this prophecy would not be fulfilled — then God would be a liar. But the fact that God makes this prophecy right at the beginning, when these difficulties arose, shows that He trusts His creatures, for He knows what He has placed in their minds and hearts. To this day there has not been a single prophecy of God that has proven to be a lie. Please research this, and if you find one, please let me know. What is more valuable, makes us happier and more content — something one does from the heart, with love, or something one does out of obligation, fear, or yielding to pressure? Of course something done from the heart is far more valuable. That is exactly God's order! Is there any organization that can achieve something like that? The wise King Solomon said through the spirit of God: "The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe." — Proverbs 29:25 In light of these words it is truly not difficult to understand how God thinks about organization. Organizations are always at pains to intimidate people, to frighten them, to apply pressure, to compel them. They lay their burdens on people and expect to be carried by them, so that with their help they can achieve their goal — a goal of which they themselves do not know whether it is right or wrong. It is simply about having people serve them and their advantage. Those who follow them I would not like to call human beings here, but rather donkeys, since they are willing to carry these burdens and to follow their leaders wherever they go. They do not even want to be freed from this condition — on the contrary, they are even offended when someone draws their attention to it and resist this portrayal with hands and feet. Whoever finds this portrayal here to be exaggerated is welcome to prove the contrary. People have put it in their heads: "...let someone rule over us who is like us"; or those who absolutely want to rule say: "...bring us to power and entrust us with your soul, your faith, your reason, and you will see how well we govern you. Have no fear — we will be accountable for you; you only need to trust us." In this way they have organized everything and persuaded people that without organization nothing works. When two people want to do something together, a third person comes along to organize and determine how everything should proceed. That is why there are so many organizers today. People have grown so accustomed to this that they do nothing anymore unless someone is standing behind them giving orders and instructions. That is why the advocates of organizations then naturally say: "You see — without organization nothing works." God's prophets and also Jesus were far removed from the idea of organization. As has already been mentioned several times in this chapter, God has no need to use an organization that applies pressure to achieve its goals and blocks the development of people in many respects. Instead, He loves people who live and give joyfully according to their abilities. Only in this way do the different abilities and personalities also come to light. An organization, however, takes no pleasure in the free development of individuality; instead it suppresses insight and faith. It tries to unite people around the thoughts that come from a few selected individuals. In its eyes that is a great success. Why do we view organized action as pressure? Not only in the spiritual and religious sphere is it the case that organized work often brings no joy. The organization dictates how a plan is to be put into action and who does what — not the persons themselves. The organization does not merely assign people, as organs in a body, to their places — it expects them to function as such as well. Could we imagine that our heart could speak and say: "I don't feel like beating anymore, I'll take a break"? Would we allow that? Or if our kidneys said: "We need two weeks' vacation"? What we expect of our organs is that they work continuously, without interruption, without difficulty. After all, our life depends on it. Such expectations can be placed on inanimate things that have no will of their own — such as organs, machines, or tools — but never on human beings. Does a person feel diminished by such a statement? On the contrary, it makes him more valuable. A robot can work more effectively, more quickly, without taking a break, without needing to use the toilet. But the human being, who after all is the "creator" of the robot, is far superior to any robot, regardless of how capable and fast it may work. Have you ever seen a robot, a machine, an organ that laughed? Has your spleen, your kidneys, or your bladder ever told you that it loves you? Or has your computer told you that it is happy? We don't expect such nonsense anyway. But to organize people for a particular purpose means to bring them down to the level of machines and organs and to take away their joy — and in so doing we also destroy the value of what is achieved. Let us think for a moment about history. Nearly everything valuable and useful that human beings have invented was found by so-called freethinkers who were not under the pressure of any organizations. The things discovered, developed, and found under pressure and compulsion have tended to be to the disadvantage of humanity. If some people enjoy this at first — following the instructions of the organization — how long will that last? The point will come when it becomes monotonous, routine; the joy disappears and one loses the respect and esteem that one felt at the beginning. But God does not accept an offering that is given reluctantly or unwillingly — Genesis 4:4,5. For an organization this makes no difference; what count for it are numbers, power, influence, and statistics, by which it measures its success. Love, mercy, forgiveness, and spirit are unimportant to the organization and are more of a hindrance. It values visible things. As already mentioned, besides the Witnesses there are still other organizations. Throughout all of human history people have always been bent on organizing. (Genesis 11:1–9) How happy have people become under the organizations they have founded? I think that the hell with which they have always tried to frighten us cannot be worse than the world in which we live. If someone, with all this knowledge in mind, still says: "I prefer to go the wrong way with an organization rather than go the right way alone" — then that person must of course decide that for himself, but he should not forget the following verse in doing so: This is what the LORD has spoken: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD. He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land. Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD. He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit." — Jeremiah 17:5–8 If we think logically, can we say in the light of the facts discussed that God is a God of organization? Would He then have left the rebellion of Satan unpunished at that time? Or Adam and Eve? Or let us think of the first murderer, Cain — should God not have killed him immediately as well? How did God react at that time? After Cain says to God: "...whoever finds me will kill me," God answers: "Therefore, whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance sevenfold." And He even placed a special mark on him so that he would not be killed. — Genesis 4:14,15 If we now again proceed from the organizational mindset and something stands in the way of an organization's plan, and the organization has unlimited power — what would it do? It would destroy everything that stands in the way of that plan. Organization is a death-bringing virus. Do not see it as a success when it spreads quickly and brings the world under its control! In closing I would like to clarify one more thing, so that this discussion is not misunderstood. Even though I do not believe it is necessarily required, there are things and areas that can be organized, given the fact that we are sinful and imperfect. Organizing something can be seen as the fastest and most successful way, because we are short-lived and impatient. Some things should be organized. We cannot well stand against the entire system that governs the world. But once again I want to emphasize here: in spite of everything, no one can draw closer to God through organization, nor can they bring others closer to Him! The most important thing to God is that all who come to Him do so in complete freedom and with joy. Everything else — fear, pressure, compulsion, threats, reporting hours, the desire to be regarded well by others, zeal for God in order to secure our entrance into paradise, running from house to house with Bible in hand and the cry: "Come to us, for only we will be saved!" — and many other impertinences that spring from an arrogant, self-satisfied spirit — is in God's eyes not only worthless but positively repugnant to Him. An organization can achieve these things that are repugnant in God's eyes, but it can never give people freedom and joy and in this way bring them closer to God. It has never achieved that anywhere or at any time, and will not do so in the future either. We therefore wish to recommend to all our readers that they learn to stand spiritually on their own feet and not be lazy, while we continue to look forward to the fulfillment of God's promise to transform the earth into a paradise, free from the influence of Satan or any organization, and with a humanity that has a different mindset than today. This was God's purpose from the very beginning of creation. This purpose was never to be carried out through an organization, but in a way that would bring joy and contentment to all creatures. Without applying pressure of any kind. May all whose hearts are with God trust in Him with courage and resolve.

WHO DOES GOD NEED?

There are some words in our vocabulary that we use more or less frequently without truly being clear about their meaning. We utter them just as they suddenly come to mind. This is not about grammatical nuances, about periods and commas. Rather, what concerns us in this section is the effect that certain words have on us, and how we ought to use them meaningfully and effectively. If words did not have an extraordinarily powerful effect, the Bible would not place such emphasis on the power of the tongue: "Look, even ships, great as they are, and driven by fierce winds, are steered by a very small rudder wherever the impulse of the steersman directs. So too the tongue is a small member and yet makes great boasts. See how great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!" James 3:4 — The tongue, then, is not merely a simple organ of flesh. Through the tongue we form words that can be tremendously effective, as is clearly evident from the verse above. It is therefore certainly appropriate to speak about the importance of the way we use words. The Apostle Paul says in his letter to the congregation in Corinth: "There are, it may be, so many different kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without meaning." 1 Corinthians 14:10,11 Just as Paul acknowledges here in this verse, we must admit that words have a meaning — and ought to have one. We should always be conscious of that. It can even be tremendously significant. Under certain circumstances, the words that come out of our mouths may cause us to be regarded as righteous or as guilty. Those particularly well trained in the use of words are surely the members of the professions of politics and law. Even if this does not apply to all of them, one can rightly say that in their profession it is especially important to choose words carefully. But this is important for all of us. There are some people who handle words very well and are therefore also very influential. Some have drawn masses of people along behind them solely on account of their gift with language. Others again are not such gifted speakers but are more skillful in written expression. They express themselves so adeptly that through their words they influence the thinking of their readers and sometimes even reach their hearts. They are rightly called good authors. Both the orator and the writer are distinguished by the art of handling words. The first humans, Adam and Eve, also encountered a problem when Satan attempted to deceive them with carefully chosen words — and succeeded. The consequences of this deception, this lie, are felt by all of humanity to this very day. We must acknowledge that words can indeed be deadly. At this point we want to take a closer look at the word "use" — in the sense of making use of a person. In interpersonal relationships, this word is perceived as deeply negative. Even an employer would never say about his workers that he uses them or makes use of them — even if he pays a very good wage, this is an extremely demeaning and disrespectful way of speaking. He might say "these are my workers," "they work for me," or something similar, but to say "I use them" is shameful. To be used by God is something that not only many religions, sects, and faith communities claim for themselves, but that certain individuals also think of themselves. Although no one wishes to be used by another person, being "used" in connection with God is regarded as a special honor! Yet in Holy Scripture we find nowhere a single verse that states that God "used" someone. This expression does not appear anywhere. It does say that God commissioned or commanded prophets, gave them instructions, sent them as messengers, and the like — but neither in the Quran nor in the Bible do we find the expression that God used someone. But why is it that we see this as something bad when people do it to one another, yet when God supposedly does such a thing, it is considered good? The idea that God uses people is in contradiction to God's personality as we find it in the Holy Scriptures. God created both the angels and human beings with a free will. And in every area that is in harmony with his will, God has stretched out his hand to help, and he still does so today. But he never interferes with the free will of his creatures. That would be in contradiction to his own principles. With such a form of expression, what is really meant is: "We are servants of God; he can do anything with us, including using us." Furthermore, the intention is: "In this way we humble ourselves before God" — and this is thus impressed upon people's minds. Do we thereby think we are behaving humbly? No, quite the contrary — in this way we demean God. Moreover, through the act of using and being used, both parties are degraded. If God were to use someone, it would logically imply that he was dependent on that person, which in turn would demean him. On the other hand, when the person who is being used — the one created by God — is considered, his free will, abilities, and sound judgment are disregarded, which demeans him. While all his bad deeds and impurities are projected onto God. God has neither done such a thing to the humans he created, nor does he wish anyone to do such a thing. For God cannot be tempted by evil things, nor does he himself tempt anyone. (James 1:13)

This can best be seen when we read the account of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in the Bible. What took place at that time between the humans and Satan reveals God's personality. God pronounces a just verdict for each of those involved. How does Adam defend himself after eating from the forbidden tree? It is best if we open the Bible and follow the account in Genesis chapter 3 starting at verse 11. After God asked Adam: "Have you eaten from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?" Adam answered: "The woman whom you gave to be with me — she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate." Behind Adam's answer lies the following thought: it is not my fault, I bear no guilt. The woman you gave me is to blame. As though God had given him something utterly bad when he created Eve. In essence, Adam is accusing God here. What does Eve say? From verse 13 we read: Jehovah God then said to the woman: "What is it that you have done?" The woman replied: "The serpent — it deceived me, and so I ate." Well, imagine that — neither of them is guilty; everyone else is at fault, just not these two. That is their defense. Have human beings changed over the past six thousand years? Sadly, no — if anything, they have changed for the worse. But did their defense and their refusal to accept guilt spare them from punishment? No. If God had used them, however, then one could not speak of any guilt on the part of the humans toward God. We do not want to examine the entire biblical history from the perspective of "does God use people," but rather to speak directly about our own times. Even today many communities, religions, sects, and organizations say: "God uses us." "We are the only channel of God." "We are God's representatives on earth." "If you do not join us, you cannot be saved." Even many clergy and religious leaders are convinced that both good and evil are used by God. That, after all, is the meaning of using. As though God holds strings in his hands and at will uses or manipulates people like puppets. When a religious person does something bad, it is said: "Satan led me astray." When he does something good, then "God used me." As we can see, he takes no guilt upon himself — but he does take the credit. Is it not similar to what Adam and Eve did? Let us illustrate this with an example — and the best example is the Jehovah's Witnesses. They should not be offended by this, but for one thing we know them well, and for another, their views lend themselves very well to clarifying our subject. For over a hundred years they have claimed that God uses them and that they are the sole channel of communication from God. For a time they expected the end in 1914, and it did not come; then the date was moved to 1918, but nothing happened. Further dates followed: 1925, 1935, ... and finally 1975. Those who did not believe it were expelled — from their point of view, even to eternal damnation. Many of those who had believed it and were disappointed when nothing happened subsequently left the organization. What did the organization do? Did it apologize, did it admit that it had made a mistake? Quite the contrary! They defended themselves with the following words: Some had harbored false or inappropriate expectations with regard to a date. When these were not fulfilled, they left God's only earthly organization. In this way God allowed their faith to be tested. Those who failed this test were sifted out, and in this way the people of God were cleansed.

When we read this explanation carefully, the organization made no mistake. God is even in a sense responsible for the false date-prophecies. Those who failed to maintain their loyalty were sifted out. But the organization has clean hands! Do we now understand why religions always say "God uses us," while in reality they use people? In principle, it is the same as the defense that Adam and Eve had already offered. What does the Bible actually say about the claim that "God tested, or tempted, his people"? "Let no one say when he is tempted: 'I am being tempted by God.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he himself tempt anyone." James 1:13 Or let us think of the words of Jesus: "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the one through whom the stumbling block comes!" Matthew 18:7 (Good News Translation) But religions claim essentially: "God tests his people through lies" — much like Adam said to God: "the woman you gave me." God bears the blame for everything! Like a schoolchild who says of a bad grade: "the teacher gave me that" — but of a good grade: "I earned that." Either we say "God uses us" and thereby take the credit for ourselves, or we say "the devil led me astray" and thereby deflect all blame from ourselves. In our view, what the Witnesses do is just as brazen as what other religions do, for they bring reproach upon God's name in exactly the same way. Besides those who speak about God in this fashion and use other people, there is an even greater number of people who allow themselves to be used — voluntarily! They say: "Think for us, decide for us, believe for us. We are convinced that as long as we do what you say, we will be saved." That is a form of voluntary slavery. Slaves of other human beings — but in the name of God! They complement well those who say: "If you do not join us, you cannot be saved." As the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, said: "Religions are like communities that sell admission tickets to paradise. And people are happy to buy them and feel comfortable with them." But in reality they often seem to have no alternative. Where else are they supposed to go? People seek security and community; they want to lead a fulfilled life, with seemingly good works. All of this is offered to them by the religions, which in this way cater to people's desire for comfort. One does not have to work for faith — everything is served up ready-made. The thinking is: "Do it all for me, buy the ticket; all I have to do is enter paradise." What does God say about those who promise others the way to salvation? Through his prophet Ezekiel he says the following: "The word of Jehovah came to me: 'Son of man, if a country sins against me by acting treacherously, I will stretch out my hand against it ... and I will send famine against it and cut off from it both man and beast. Even if these three men were in it — Noah, Daniel, and Job — they alone would be saved because of their righteousness,' declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ... Or if I were to send a plague into that land, and pour out my rage on it with bloodshed, to cut off from it both man and beast — even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,' declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'they would save neither son nor daughter; they alone would be saved because of their righteousness.'" Ezekiel 14:12–14 and 19–20 Remarkable — these faithful, righteous men would be able to save only their own souls, but no one else. And the religions today all boastfully declare: "Follow me and do what I say and you will be saved." Jesus, on the other hand, said of such people: "Leave them alone. They are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." Matthew 15:14 Is that not an apt description of such people? How can those who allow themselves to be used by others justify themselves? Even though Adam and Eve deflected the blame from themselves and shifted it onto someone else, it did not save them. That is what is so striking about it — that many people, when they commit errors, say "he led me astray," but when they do something good, they boast: "I did that." If such a person wishes to bear no part of the punishment for a bad deed, then it is only just that they receive no part of the reward for a good deed either. Another question arises: Did God not use the people of Israel as an example for the whole world, and to accomplish his purpose? Did he not use the people to, for example, cleanse the promised land and execute punishment upon the pagan, immoral nations? Let us allow God himself to answer. And let us pay particular attention to the words that God used. Let us read what is written in Deuteronomy 7:7,8: "It was not because you were the most numerous of all the peoples that Jehovah showed affection toward you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples. Rather, it was because Jehovah loved you, and because he kept the oath that he had sworn to your forefathers, that Jehovah brought you out with a mighty hand, to redeem you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh the king of Egypt."

God does not say he used the Israelites — he says he chose them. Is that a significant difference? Of course it is! When someone is chosen for a task, they are honored by that very fact — by having been selected for a particular assignment. At the same time, they are also given a responsibility. But when someone is used, the one carrying out the task never has to give account for what he does wrongly or badly. For the one who is guilty is the one who used him — in our case, God! Who can put God in the dock? Do you see the tactic, how cunning they are? The credit, however, they claim for themselves at every opportunity! But for their mistakes they are innocent! When people want to be, they are very capable of handling words with great skill. Is there anything more to add to establish that Satan is a master at influencing our thinking? He often achieves this through a clever choice of words as well.

Think for a moment about some work you carried out successfully with a great deal of effort and dedication. It is a very valuable piece of work, regardless of who you did it for. After the successful completion of this work, that person says: "I used him." What would you think of that person? I cannot imagine that anyone would describe him as good. Why not? Because through these words he has nullified your entire work, your personal effort — regardless of whether you were paid for this work or received his support in some way — he has taken all the credit for himself. Everything that was invested on your part in terms of personal engagement, dedication, strength, energy, time, and talent in this project is swept away with these few words, with a wave of the hand. A person can use objects, tools — a hammer, a pair of pliers, a computer, a car, and so on. None of these tools has a free will or the capacity to make decisions as a human being does. But when a person uses one of these tools, the credit belongs to him, not to the tool. The tool has no will, no zeal, no dedication, no love, no strength — but it is an effective instrument in the hands of a person. When a light is burning, especially when we urgently need it, we are glad for the light and for the one who invented it. We praise the light, but we mean the one who made it possible for us to have it — because the light, the car, the hammer, and so on are all lifeless things. They have no will, no love, no passion, and no feelings. Simply put, all these things arose from the mind of a human being. Whether he was very clever or not, whether his intentions were good or bad — that may be so. What I mean by this is that the things a person does say something about him, even if many other factors may also be at play. A gifted person reveals his gift through the things he does. A workplace may nurture and bring to light the talents of such a person; nevertheless, it would be shameless for the employer to say "I used him." He may have created the conditions that allowed this person to contribute his talents and abilities, or he may have deliberately fostered that talent — but he did not use that person. A person can only use objects, but never other human beings. Up to this point we have spoken about "using" only in a positive sense — but about the negative sense we surely do not need to speak here; it is quite clear to all of us that it is utterly repellent. It would then have the meaning of abuse and is completely beyond discussion. If, then, as we have seen, "using" someone so thoroughly diminishes their abilities, character, and talents, why are especially religious people and communities so insistent on saying that they are used by God? They say this with pride. Do we not also see it as a reason for boasting when we say "God uses me"? God does everything; they themselves do nothing. They only do what God does through them. They act as though they have no will of their own or as though they would not use it. The human being is thereby presented as though he were a hammer or some other tool. For only tools and objects of use should be used — but never human beings. Can a human being never be used, then? Of course he can — whether for money or without compensation, whether with love and persuasion or with pressure and compulsion; people are constantly endeavoring to use one another for their own purposes. The root of this lies in their selfishness, in their lack of love. And then there are plenty of people who are happy to be used. These too pursue a purpose by doing so. Both behave in ways that are displeasing to God. For this reason, what interests me most in this subject is how people use the word "use" in relation to God. "God uses me and I use you." With this attitude and approach they have alienated many people from God. They present themselves as humble and modest by calling themselves "your serving brothers of the class of the faithful and discreet slave." Every general, minister, or dictator who has nothing to do with religion does so in his own name and takes responsibility upon himself — but these religious people do this in the name of God as well, without taking responsibility for their actions. Even though the words come from their own mouths and the thoughts they express are their own, they claim to be making known the word of God. Jesus says about such people:

Beware of false prophets! They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. - Matthew 7:15

God created us with a free will, and He values that we use this free will to love Him with all our heart, all our mind, all our strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Mark 12:29) That is something we must do ourselves, each one of us individually, something no one else can do for us. There are many who say: "that is exactly what we encourage our fellow believers to do," but at the same time they are also the ones who encourage obedience to themselves — not to God — and who make people into their slaves. What value does free will have then? Can someone else think, speak, and believe for us? Do we want to appear before God in that way? As we have already mentioned, we could not find a single verse suggesting that God uses people. But He commands us to use all the abilities He has given us ourselves. Does He not say that we should use our hearts, our minds, our strength, our time, our talents, our words, and so on, to do His will? God says the following to us: For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. ... But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. — Deuteronomy 30:11–14. As we have seen, God expects us to do something, and He does not say: do not worry, I will use you as I see fit. We wish to show through this treatise that those who insist so strongly that they are being used by God, and who continually emphasize this, bring upon themselves nothing other than the wrath of God. Finally, we would like to draw attention to a verse in the Quran that applies to all those who make an organization or a religious community their refuge: And Satan says, when the matter has been decided (by the Last Judgment): "God made you a true promise. But I made you a promise and then broke it. I had no authority over you. I only called you, and you listened to me. So do not blame me — blame yourselves! I can neither help you, nor can you help me. I deny that I was ever an equal to God, whom you previously associated with me."… Surah 14 (Abraham), Verse 22. Is Satan lying here? No, he is telling the truth. But then who bears the guilt?

BELONGING

More than twenty years had passed in the meantime. During that time — from when I came to know the Witnesses until today — I realized that I still had much to learn. I had come to believe in the existence of God after reading the first book of Moses in the Bible. And I began to love this God whom I had come to know on those pages. Starting with the story of Adam and Eve, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Joseph who was sold as a slave to Egypt — all these events are found in the first of the 66 books of the Bible. It was not difficult for me to love Him and believe in Him after what I had read about Him in the first book of Moses. That faith and that knowledge were enough for me. Yet strangely, many people feel the need to belong somewhere. But instead of feeling they belong to God and seeking His nearness, most people make themselves slaves to a religious system, a faith community, and try in this way to satisfy that need. Instead of drawing closer to God, they move ever further away from Him. Yet that is precisely the opposite of what the scriptures wish to tell us. But all people, sooner or later, will realize on this path that something is not right. Yet these organizations have of course known this for a long time and have an answer ready. "Yes, we are imperfect and make mistakes — that is why one should always be ready to forgive." For they know that their followers are not blind.

When someone enters such a community, he is new and inexperienced and initially occupied with changing himself, so he has not yet developed the capacity to judge the community. Not infrequently these people are sincere, but simply completely inexperienced. Here I speak only of the truly sincere people. Then there are countless others who join such a community for the most varied of motives, regardless of what name the community may bear. It might be a girl he finds attractive and wants to marry, or someone who hopes to improve his chances of obtaining a residence permit in a country by joining a faith community. For others it may be desirable to build a career in such a community because they enjoy speaking and impressing others. Another tries in this way to escape his loneliness. As I said, there are many different reasons why someone joins such a community, but I am only concerned with the sincere people who genuinely desire to draw closer to God. I think I am not exaggerating when I say that of those who join a religious community, only a very small percentage — possibly only 1 or 2% — do so in complete sincerity. Ultimately only God knows why they really do it. I say this based on my experience, based on what I have seen with my own eyes; there is no statistic I can cite and say "it is certainly no more than 1%." But it seems probable to me, and in making this statement I am surely being rather optimistic — possibly it is only 1 in 1,000 who is honest and sincere. Or am I completely off the mark? Then perhaps Solomon was also off the mark with his statement in Ecclesiastes 7:28. I would ask you to look that up for yourself.

Yes, let us speak of these few sincere people. The question is then why these people want to join a community, even though their actual goal is God. If someone is not honest and only seeks his own advantage, then he will do so always and everywhere, regardless of where he finds himself. He constantly says "give, give" — he knows nothing else. Such people are like parasites who only cause harm. Everything revolves around their problems and worries, their comfort, their interests. You can never satisfy them and they will never appreciate what is done for them. They are full of lies and deceit; they do not even listen to what you tell them, unless they hear something that is to their advantage. But as I said, these people cannot be helped in any case — we do not want to waste any more time on them here. But the honest, sincere people have earned our time and our attention; it is them we wish to help. They can understand and appreciate the value of what is said here.

Belonging somewhere gives people a feeling of security. It provides security and satisfaction. Satisfaction I can understand, but security strikes me as dubious. Let us first speak of this satisfaction that people feel in it. A person sees his views and opinions confirmed, and that is why he joins this group. He is aware that he will not find this at every street corner in daily life. This person sees himself confirmed in his views and no longer feels that he stands alone with those views, nor that he is crazy. What this person has learned and believed about God has met with rejection in his environment. His closest friends and relatives have made negative remarks and perhaps even issued open threats. That is what happens when, going beyond all conventions and traditions, one sincerely seeks God.

If someone grows up in a Muslim society and becomes involved in a mosque, the reaction will hardly be negative — unless the family has other plans for him, such as a professional career. It will be similar for a person living in a Christian society who, for example, decides to live in a monastery. There may be the occasional negative remark, but by and large such decisions are accepted. It always depends somewhat on one's surroundings. Things become difficult when someone drops out of medical school at university and decides on a religious life. Understanding for such a decision is often lacking. In all these situations, however, it is a matter of someone finding a new place within the society in which they grew up and which they are accustomed to and have accepted. The struggles they then have to face can vary greatly. The situation is entirely different, however, when someone changes sides. Then the Last Judgment descends upon such a person. Let us take the Jehovah's Witnesses as an example again. There are of course many other groups to which this applies, but let us stay with the example we have used from the beginning. You may mentally substitute any name you wish. Let us suppose that someone distances himself from the religion of his parents. Immediately everyone turns against him and tries to exert pressure to influence him in his decision. It is pure fanaticism — no clear, logical argumentation. It is then similar to the contest between the sun and the wind that I mentioned earlier in this book. The wind grows ever stronger, becomes a storm. The greater the resistance, the more tightly he clings to his decision. He will then seek protection, a shelter, to bring himself to safety. It is not hard to guess who offers this protection and this security. The Witnesses extend their helping hand. The person is already confused, since the people who were previously close and familiar to him have suddenly turned against him and behave as though they have become enemies. He may have been thrown out of his home. No one seems to understand him. The person is unable to properly assess this new situation. As I said, he is young and inexperienced. Organizations love such inexperienced people. The most valuable and hardworking donkeys can be made from such persons. No matter what burden is loaded onto them, they carry it all without objection, without complaint. They never say no. How could they? They have no one left — no relatives, no friends; for them there are only the Witnesses. Both groups have contributed to making this person into a donkey: both the former friends, the former environment that now rejects him, and on the other side the faith community, the organization, the Witnesses, or whatever name they may bear. In this or a similar way it unfolds when someone feels the need to belong somewhere at all costs. It looks as though all the people who love this person have done everything possible to save them. Yet all of them have only contributed to this person becoming a donkey among the Witnesses and having a saddle placed on him. When you think back to the beginning of this development, it actually began quite harmlessly, and this person may never have intended to join a group like the Witnesses. Perhaps he only wanted to take the pulse of certain matters or satisfy his curiosity, but the reaction turned out to be unexpectedly fierce. This person is completely surprised by it, for when the secretly smoked cigarette or the party with friends came to light, the reaction was by no means as exaggerated as now, when the subject is merely religious — seemingly harmless — topics. This person has a curiosity about the truth regarding God and would like to learn more. But suddenly he finds himself in a completely unexpected situation — excluded and under attack. It is an entirely unjustified reaction. The foolish things he did in the past provoked no comparable reaction, but now it concerns God, it concerns something very good — so why this fierce reaction? The foolish things he did before also troubled his conscience, but now? This does not seem to fit together at all. Why is everyone suddenly against me? Is it not also in the spirit of the God in whom everyone believes? It is nothing bad. The reaction of the family and the closest circle of friends may perhaps be well-intentioned, but they are destroying the very person they wanted to help. Either they are themselves completely clueless in this area, or at the very least they have little knowledge. There is a Turkish proverb that says a doctor with half-knowledge takes someone's life, and a clergyman with half-knowledge takes someone's faith.

If we set aside those who grew up in the Witness religion, the situation described above applies to most of those I came to know among the Witnesses. Among those who have joined this community, very few have taken this path of their own free will — without pressure, without any outside influence — purely out of the desire to please God. As I said, perhaps 1 in 1,000. And over time such a person will leave this community again, or be thrown out, provided they keep their love of God alive and do not allow other motives to creep in. But this is usually not made known, since they are not interested in the motives anyway. Like many other things that are not supposed to come to light, this too is kept as secret as possible. When such a person distances themselves from such an organization, or even when they are expelled, the human capacity to make decisions plays a major role. This will be addressed in greater detail later in this book.

Such, or something similar, is the development for those who encounter resistance within their own family. But then there are also those for whom this is not the case. Usually it is the situation where the family has already distanced itself from society, for whatever reason. When within such a family someone arrives with thoughts about the truth concerning God, they are not immediately opposed to it but first listen. Since they stand at the margins of society and are not in conformity with much in their surroundings, they will welcome this new idea with joy. The truth about God also concerns the justice of God and the day of reckoning with wicked humanity. These thoughts are like a balm for this family, for injustice has been done to them, which is why they have cut themselves off, and they are unable to take revenge in any way themselves. Moreover they do not possess much, so the thought of an approaching paradise is also very comforting. Yet it is not only the Witnesses who promise these things — other religions make similar promises too.

Have you noticed that in this whole story it is never actually about the love of God? They see God in this matter merely as a giant who fulfills their wishes. But you will have this experience everywhere: that no one is truly interested in whether you love God or not. They speak much about it and everyone nods in agreement. Yet such feelings are completely foreign to them and they have no great interest in them either.

Yet even within such families, perhaps not all will immediately accept the so-called "truth." Then the wind comes from another direction — namely from the Witnesses, or from the faith community one has approached. Increasingly frequent gatherings and meeting points are then organized at this family's home. The person in question may not agree with this but lacks the courage to openly speak out against it and feels uncomfortable. The reason may not even be clear to him. But most of the time this person is the most sincere one in the family. True, this person or the whole family has suffered injustice at the hands of their environment, relatives, friends, or neighbors — but what does that have to do with God? Loving God and serving Him is one thing; rebelling against injustice, protesting, and withdrawing from society is quite another. I do not know of course whether this person sees it that way, but somehow he cannot accept the situation as it stands. There may be reasons for it, but in any case this person will no longer be left in peace. In this house only this one topic will be discussed, only this literature will be read, and a prayer will always be said before meals. Meetings, congresses, the preaching service — all of this leads to a filled life. A person who does not say yes to everything is helped along by constant questioning and subtle pressure — not openly, but very burdensome for the one affected. This also depends on the position of the person within the family. Even if it concerns the father of the family and he cannot assert himself, he will be pushed back further and further. His children will think of all fathers and mothers when it comes to the Mosaic commandment "honor your father and your mother" — but not of their own father. If his wife then thinks of him the way many wives come to think of their husbands after many years, then he has no one left in this family who stands by him. If the man, on the basis of his experience, sees through their hypocrisy or senses it, then he is already on the family's blacklist. Sooner or later the man will explode. He will either give in and ultimately accept everything, or openly oppose it. If this person takes a clear stand against it and says a definite "No," it is only a matter of time before he has to vacate the field. I have come to know families in which the other family members joined forces simply to drive this person out of the house. There is one exception, however: when this person is the main breadwinner and the others depend on him. Then respect and honor suddenly take on greater importance again — not because God has commanded it, but because it is in their own interest. God has not changed, nor have His commandments. Those who have changed are the people. Then from the side of the Witnesses as well, the commandment to honor father and mother is continually emphasized. I like to compare organizations to insects, which are often true masters of survival and capable of adapting to the most adverse circumstances. They do everything possible to ensure their survival. They also expect their followers to do everything for the benefit of the organization.

Regardless of which of the two examples mentioned we take, in either case people are far removed from God's intention and will. The people in both examples are concerned only with belonging and being recognized by the community. What matters is being part of it, being a member of the group one has chosen — even if not everything goes the way one would like; but that is secondary. Our world is a colorful patchwork, if one were to compare every religion to a color. Satan has arranged it so that there is something for every taste. Is the color too bright for you? There are darker ones — then just take that one. Or would you prefer pastel shades? No problem, those exist too. Pick something, just make sure you choose a color and want to belong. As we have seen in the examples, it is quite possible that a person who is oppressed because they are part of a minority and suffers under that can become entirely inconsiderate toward others when they are part of a majority. In both cases, individuals and organizations keep their distance from those who do not say yes to everything, but occasionally voice their own opinion and have the courage to say no. Interestingly, the people involved are often unaware of this themselves. They are in the middle of events and simply go along. But in this story, you should not let yourself be influenced by a label or a name, because more or less all the organizations resemble one another. People are all very similar to each other. It is often only upbringing and culture that makes it easier for some to control themselves and their feelings, while others find it somewhat harder. In the course of events both feel joy or anger — one shows it openly, the other reins in his emotions. Nor can it be denied that organizations play a large role in the disciplining of people. There are many religious communities that do not approve of openly displaying one's feelings. Because they can master themselves so well, they appear to us as wise, reasonable, and trustworthy. But as already said, they often have nothing whatsoever to do with love for God or for their neighbor. When they walk from door to door for many hours, this has nothing to do with love for God; it is about fear of men and false expectations and many other motivations besides.

In my time spent with the Witnesses, I noticed that everything related to the topic of God was treated by them like work, like an obligation or a task. Meetings, preparation, underlined answers in their literature, congresses, field service — all of these were tasks to be completed; that was the extent of their service to God. I rarely experienced joyful, heartfelt conversations about God. To put it simply, they are not permeated by the Spirit; they do much superficially with an outward show of devotion to God — just as one would fulfill a duty, a task. Yet in contrast to this, one of God's apostles tells us what the effect of God's Spirit actually looks like:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace, patience, kindness and goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I would like to ask you to read the verses quoted above in context in the book of Galatians 5:19–26. There the contrast is made very clear: what it means to be led by God's Spirit versus following one's selfish desires. Judging by these verses, God's Spirit is at work in none of these organizations. As already said, it is quite possible that there are individuals who strive to live by God's Spirit, but over time the organization robs these people of their joy. That is the purpose of the organizations, which thereby evidently serve the will of the devil — whether they are aware of it or not. There is no doubt that there are some persons who have joined one of these organizations sincerely and with good motives.

If someone has the attitude "as long as they leave me alone, I don't care," then they cannot perceive reality in any case. But it is also certain that this subject will affect everyone, sooner or later, in one way or another. No matter who or what we are, we should all develop love for our neighbor according to God's law — if we do not yet have it. If someone constantly hungers for truth and justice and fights to maintain his spiritual vigilance, it is only a matter of time before he sees through the true face of the organization. However much they may beg for mercy and emphasize that they are imperfect, one will see that this applies only to themselves. Toward others — especially their own followers — they show absolutely no grace. Once someone says "no," they have already lost. That person will feel the full force of the organization's power, and disciplinary measures will be brought against them. The others look away out of fear, closing their eyes. But those who do so should not forget that in that moment they are selling themselves and behaving like a prostitute. How can someone sell themselves like a prostitute through their behavior? Just as the unfaithful people of Israel did in those days. Through his prophet Ezekiel, God had a parable told to the people about two sisters. The people at the time were divided into a kingdom of two tribes (Judah) and another of ten tribes (Israel), which by then had already been carried off into exile in Assyria. These two sisters represent those two kingdoms. (Ezekiel 23:4) And in the book of Revelation there is mention of the great harlot Babylon, who represents all religious communities and organizations, including the Jehovah's Witnesses. (Please read Ezekiel chapter 23 and Revelation chapter 17.) We should not think that a harlot is necessarily someone who sells herself for money. The word "prostitution" carries the meaning of "putting oneself on display." For someone to prostitute themselves does not necessarily mean they receive money or any other compensation in return. In the story the prophet Ezekiel tells, he recounts that the two sisters even gave gifts and valuables to their lovers. Their lovers were idolatrous peoples and their gods.

The Witnesses are ready to remove someone who does not agree with everything without further ado, and I am certain they would even go so far as to kill such a person. That of course depends on how much the person knows and how dangerous they might become. Who would suspect anything if such a person were suddenly to die? All of this happens quietly and without notice, and who would arrange an autopsy for the person concerned? Of course such things do not come to light immediately, but it is all only a matter of time. Moreover, they are able to operate very much in secret, since they are not yet so much in the public spotlight and are rather regarded as an exotic minority. Raymond Franz, who worked for several years in the highest governing body of the Witnesses and then left, evidently did not possess enough knowledge — otherwise they would not have let him live. What he writes in his works about the Witnesses contains hardly any dangerous knowledge. What he writes is something anyone could discover and recognize with a little research. But who actually knows how large the Witnesses' assets are? How high their revenues are, where the donations flow, how much their real estate is worth? That Raymond Franz did not know all of this is certain, even though he was, as mentioned, an active Witness for over 40 years and spent 9 of those years in the highest governing body. How then would an average Witness know? Where there is money — especially a great deal of money — quite a few things go on. If an organization operates so much in secret and does not put all its cards on the table, it will never earn trust. It is obvious whom this organization serves. To those who still believe it is God's organization, I can only say that they are blind people who do not want to see and deaf people who do not want to hear. Such claims without evidence are of course baseless. If I put forward a claim here, I gladly invite you to observe their ways and the fruits they produce. In principle, they truly operate like the Mafia. If they cannot stand someone or tolerate them in their ranks, they gather every piece of evidence they can to damage that person and remove them from their ranks. The judicial committee that is then convened to judge this person is nothing but a show — the outcome has long since been decided. The accused has absolutely no chance to defend himself; he does not have the right to bring a defender, a witness who could testify on his behalf, or a friend as moral support. He stands alone before his accusers, who are at the same time his judges! Such "hearings" are of course a dream for an organization that is far removed from any standard of justice. They can do as they please. Who would even hold them accountable for a wrongful verdict? If someone has sacrificed 40 years or more for this organization, it is all over in an instant. And what senseless reasons are often behind it. One person said, "I do not believe everything the Governing Body says"; another, "I have doubts about whether what is taught about the year 1914 is correct"; or "I think we are mistaken in our understanding about blood." All such statements can mean the end within this organization. Of course it also matters greatly to whom and under what circumstances such remarks are made. Among them there are some people who like to act as a secret police and take pleasure in denouncing others, just as Judas betrayed Jesus. If one makes doubtful remarks in the presence of such persons, one has already lost — or at least finds oneself on the list.

On the other hand, they have no qualms whatsoever about admitting asylum seekers into their ranks who fraudulently obtain state assistance through obvious lies and deception. Nobody says to him: "What are you doing? This is not right! You are lying and thereby defrauding the state, you are defrauding the health insurance, you are trying to obtain every possible advantage through lies and deception and are cheating the people who are trying to help you — and then you call yourself a Witness of God." On the contrary, they even help him fill out forms so that he receives money from the state to buy clothing and food, even though he has several thousand euros under his pillow. Do they have no idea? Even if they do know, they would help him anyway. A short time later, the person who was helped in this way opens his own shop with 50,000 euros. And then nobody asks: "Didn't you recently ask me to fill out a form for you to receive state assistance? Where is all this money suddenly coming from?" As I said, in such matters they turn both eyes away at best — and not infrequently they even help along. But woe to anyone who dares to utter a word against the organization, the faithful and discreet slave, the Governing Body!

Toward such persons and organizations, God issued the following warning through the prophet Micah:

You will cry out to the LORD for help, but he will not listen to you. He will turn away from you because of the evil things you have done. As for the prophets who lead my people astray, they announce peace and prosperity for anyone who gives them food, but they declare war on anyone who does not feed them. Therefore, the night will come over you, without visions, and darkness, without divination. The sun will set for the prophets, and the day will go dark for them. The seers will be ashamed and the diviners disgraced. They will all cover their faces because there is no answer from God. Micah 3:4–7 (Good News Bible)

What I have described above shows how they deal with people who rise up against them. If someone has committed a grave sin, they are treated differently. Someone, for example, has stolen or committed adultery with another person's partner. Or someone watches pornographic films or interferes with young girls. In many cases a simple apology suffices, and then the matter is forgotten — or the person is formally excluded from the community for a year or two and then readmitted. They are thrown out the front door and let back in through the back. For instance, someone has abused an 8-year-old girl and a few years later sits in the same hall or even in the same row of seats as that girl. This is not uncommon. The very ones who present themselves as so good and holy, as though they would never act immorally, are no better than those they look down upon — on the contrary, they often behave far worse. Raymond Franz writes in his book about branch office representatives who maintained adulterous relationships over a long period of time, in one case with a prostitute and in another with the wife of a missionary in the same branch office. At world headquarters, entire filing cabinets stand full of records of offenses committed by Witnesses. The guilt and the transgression are plain for all to see, and yet such people are treated with great consideration and compassion. No one even dares to say their offense to their face.

Is our urge "to belong" such that we join ourselves to such a community? Most of what I have written in this book is about the community of the Witnesses. If I were to begin writing about other communities as well, one book would not suffice. What I write here is from the perspective of an observer who stands at a distance; but if we were to see everything from God's perspective — all that is done in secret — we would probably be constantly sick to our stomachs. Even the little we do know is enough to make us feel ill.

What I want to emphasize at this point is the fact of how differently offenses are handled here. Someone who does not say yes and amen to everything gets to feel the full harshness of the system. Raymond Franz, for example, was a member of the Governing Body, which at that time consisted of 15 persons. Is there a higher authority than this body among the Witnesses? How could they decide to expel him from the community without him having had any inkling? This leads to only one conclusion: that others stand behind the curtain pulling the strings. Who that is, is not known. The decisive criterion in everything is money. Everything revolves around it — in the religions as well. This is probably regulated by only 2 or 3 persons among themselves. They try to conduct this as secretly as possible; someone like R. Franz is not let in on it. When an organization is in play, one is ready to betray father and mother. Love has no chance there and is out of place. During the time when the New Testament was being written, these things were handled in an entirely different way. The apostles went completely different paths than the Governing Body. When Paul saw that Peter was acting wrongly, that he was being hypocritical, he rebuked him openly in front of everyone. He did not consult with others about how to get rid of Peter and hatch corresponding plans and intrigues to achieve his goal. He corrected Peter on the spot, and with that the matter was settled.

How could the apostles have the wisdom to discern the spirits? Let us read what the Bible says:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. — James 3:13–18 (Good News Bible)

According to these verses, it is not difficult to judge which spirit stands behind such organizations. From such an organization one can truly expect every kind of injustice. I have seen and experienced this, and I am convinced of it. The book they carry with them — the Bible — confirms that these are the fruits they produce. Since they are willing to do anything for the organization, to sell the truth or one another, as long as it serves the organization. That is why I said they are even willing to kill, if it brings the organization any advantage. That may perhaps sound exaggerated and unbelievable right now, but what is still hidden today the whole world will know tomorrow. They are no different from the Vatican. There it is not uncommon for someone who went to bed in perfect health the previous evening to be found dead in bed the next morning. And these organizations are the offspring of the great church. A person who claims to serve God should above all be willing to hear other standpoints, other opinions. These religions also advocate freedom and openness — but only until one has become part of the organization. They are then the first to be against freedom. They then forbid all books, magazines, films, and broadcasts that in any way speak out against this organization or even voice the mildest criticism. Some things they forbid even where there is no direct criticism of the organization at all. But they try to justify all their prohibitions on the basis of the Bible. Reference is often made to an event that took place during the time of the apostles, after the death of Jesus. The Bible reports that in one city the disciples of Jesus gathered together their books that contained spiritistic content and subsequently burned them. No one had compelled them to do so, either directly or indirectly; they did it out of their own conviction. In any case, it was never the method of the apostles to compel anyone or to exert pressure. With the exception of this one event, there is nothing in the Bible that points to any action being taken against "degenerate literature." As I said, this is the only event in this context, and behind it stood no general call to action, no prohibition, no compulsion or pressure. Their conviction, their free will drove them to it. There is no indication that they would not have been received into the community of Christians had they not burned those books. (Acts 19:19) Furthermore, one should not forget: the Witnesses themselves are among the communities that have had to endure the most resistance. How can it be, then, that this very community so greatly restricts the freedom of its followers and forbids them from reading certain literature or visiting certain websites? Did not many of those who became Jehovah's Witnesses come to this religion through researching, inquiring, and reading? The literature they distribute contains criticism of the community to which the recipient of that literature belongs. If, for example, a Catholic objects to the Witnesses' literature because it contains criticism of the Catholic Church, then such statements come from the devil and are typical of a world ruled by Satan — because the devil wants to obscure the truth. But when the Witnesses themselves forbid certain literature, what then? Who is behind that? How many Witnesses will actually read my book? Or better put: how many have the courage to admit that they read it? That fact alone is enough to be expelled from their community. In the Middle Ages it took great courage to write a book, because all literature was then controlled through the censorship of the Church. If the Church authorities found something in a book that displeased them, not only would the book not be published — the author's life was in danger. During that time, the greatest freedom for art and artists existed in the Ottoman Empire. There were great advances in development in the Ottoman Empire at that time, while in Europe a cultural and ideological decline was being registered due to the rule of the Church. That is why one also speaks of the dark Middle Ages. Yet instead of drawing a lesson from the negative development in Europe, the Ottomans began to organize their own empire and align it along European lines. The result was that the Ottoman Empire fell into conditions similar to those of medieval Europe. Why did the Ottomans act this way? Were they perhaps impressed by the marauders who fought in the Crusades and were willing to give their lives far from home and ride blindly into a war? It was indeed the case that many thousands of people at that time sacrificed their lives without questioning, without doubting. Could it be that this form of life — in which people place themselves like donkeys in the service of others — had an appeal for the Ottomans? It seems that it was so, for they adopted this model. They adopted the model of the Church. They now also label everything that does not suit them and their ideas as the work of the devil! They forbid everything that contradicts their notions and call it sin. The Witnesses imitate this example today in the 21st century. And not only in underdeveloped countries — no, in countries like Japan, for example, they have been very successful. Judge for yourself how far humanity has advanced. The Japanese are a particularly extreme example. There, approximately one in every three Witnesses is said to carry out pioneer service, meaning they must spend at least 70 hours per month in field service. Previously it was at least 90 hours. On the other hand, this behavior among the Japanese should not surprise us. For them, an organized life, receiving orders, being obedient and humble, is a part of their upbringing that is deeply anchored in their culture and tradition. An organization, of course, does not teach anyone the concept of freedom. They would only harm themselves by doing so. Whether the Japanese preferred the organizational model from America over their own, I do not know. The Japanese have developed to the point where they are capable of cutting threads into a metal pin the diameter of a human hair — unimaginable! But have they ever heard of the freedom of the spirit? We speak of the progress of humanity, but do we think about in which direction this progress is heading? I do not mean this as a slight against the Japanese. I only want to show that on the one hand they have a very strong drive toward technical progress and advancement, put forth great effort in pursuing it, and demonstrate great diligence — yet on the other hand, in matters of faith in their Creator and on the path to freedom, they act very carelessly and comfortably. Just as most people in other countries do as well. These were the experiences I gathered over approximately 20 years of dealings with the Witnesses and other communities. But they practically spurred me on to research and examine the Bible thoroughly. The alternative would have been to say yes and amen to all their teachings. I have never regretted having acquired this knowledge. I would never consider it wasted time. I have constantly implored God that nothing and no one should separate me from love for Him, and I still do so today. There are so many countless factors that can distance us from God. I believe that the exchange between God and the devil described in the Quran truly took place: He (the devil) said: "My Lord! Because You have led me astray, I will surely make things on earth seem fair and attractive to them and I will lead them all astray, except Your sincere servants among them." God said: "This is the path that leads straight to Me. Over My servants you have no authority, except over those who go astray and follow you." Al-Hijr 15:39–42

This passage shows that Satan too is limited in his power. He has no power over the servants of God. We should be careful, however, not to understand this in the way that many would prefer — as though this privilege were automatically granted by God, as though one were simply chosen for it. If that were the case, then we should truly do everything in our power to ensure it remains so: to continue with all our strength, our energy, our thoughts, and our actions to be pleasing to God, so that we remain in His favor. If we genuinely strive from the heart to keep ourselves far from all intrigue, from all filth, and make the effort to live honestly, sincerely, and humbly, without sin — even though no human being can do this perfectly, we should still do everything possible to come as close as we can. For then we can be certain that God will be with us. If He is with us, who can be against us, who can defeat us? (Hebrews 13:5,6; Romans 8:31) But if we forsake Him, He will forsake us. In all of history it has always been human beings who have taken the step away from God; never has God first abandoned anyone. Therefore we should not make the mistake of — after we have sinned, and even the prophets have sinned — remaining in that sin. We should not think that it no longer matters now and continue on a sinful course. We would only be throwing good money after bad. It should remain our aim to pursue useful, virtuous goals. The prophet and king David also sinned, but he showed genuine remorse. God accepted his repentance because he did not persist in his sin or continue to sin. It was surely painful and bitter for him. We should not forget that everything has its price. Even if God accepts our repentance and forgives us, this does not mean we get off scot-free. Some may deceive themselves about what paying that price means. They tell themselves: that only happens to the simple-minded, the foolish, and the careless. But God, by sending someone like Adam as a sacrificial offering to the earth and being willing to sacrifice him, has already drawn our attention to the fact that everything has its price. (Romans Chapter 5; Surah Al-Baqarah 2:128; Surah Al-Imran 3:59; Surah At-Tawbah 9:111) Through this God shows that Adam's sin had its price and could only be paid in this way. Yes, sometimes we do not have to pay this price ourselves and are given something as a gift. But then we should certainly express our gratitude for this gift through the way we live. God has paid a price for us and thereby redeemed us. This fact is stressed by both the Bible and the Quran. We only see it if we want to see it.

We once had a Turkish teacher — I will not forget his name, it was Imdat. There were things about him that I found deeply troubling. What bothered me most was that he could become harsh in unjust ways. Yet on the other hand, he was the best teacher of Turkish language and literature I have ever known. He practiced his profession with passion, or perhaps he was driven by the desire to be good and tried to make the best of things. One day he explained to us the difference between "original" and "vulgar." To do something that no one has done before is called original, he said. But to take off your trousers in a public square and relieve yourself is called vulgar, not original — even though no one has done that before us either. Yes, perhaps no one before us has done it, but it is ugly, repulsive, and indecent. Then he concluded by saying: "Do things that no one before you has done, things that are valuable, virtuous, and praiseworthy — that is what it means to be original." I can still hear his words today.

If we absolutely need to feel that we belong somewhere, then that place should be God Himself, our Creator. All human beings, on the other hand, should be our brothers. Regardless of whether they are wicked or good. Regardless of whether they are intelligent or uneducated. Regardless of who or what they are, we should never place them above us as a head in the worship of God.

They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the marketplaces, and being called Rabbi, Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted. But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. — Matthew 23:7-15 It is fitting that we ask ourselves the following questions: Is it possible to love God without belonging to any organization? To serve Him? To do His will? To develop a character pleasing to Him? Should all of this not be enough to make us happy?

MAKING DECISIONS

God has endowed all rational creatures with the precious capacity to make decisions. Organizations have for many thousands of years made every effort to weaken or completely eliminate this capacity. Free will, and with it the ability to make one's own decisions, are things that the devil particularly hates. Of course I am speaking here of the proper use of this capacity. As with all other abilities, it is a matter of practice, of use. It is like our brain or our muscles. The more we use and exercise them, the stronger they become. On the other hand, it can happen that we neglect them, and then they grow weaker and we also lose our power of thought. Someone who wants to keep their body in shape must train constantly. Regardless of age, muscles must be constantly moved and used in order to develop and grow stronger. The same is true of our ability to make decisions. This valuable quality can only be cultivated and further developed if we make abundant use of it. And if we do not employ it, it will atrophy, and over time — regardless of our age — we will regress to the state of a child, indeed even of an infant.

Since we human beings are imperfect, we will inevitably make mistakes. The goal of a good teacher is to bring his student to the point where he is able to make decisions on his own — ideally the right ones. Let us imagine an apprentice, in whatever trade. One expects that in the course of his training, through the instruction of his master, the apprentice will become capable of making independent decisions and thereby following in his master's footsteps — indeed even surpassing him one day. There is even a well-known proverb that says: "If the apprentice does not surpass the master, the trade will die out." That is what one expects, and that is how it should be. If earlier generations had taken all their knowledge and insight with them to the grave without passing it on, we would not today possess the advanced technology we have. In every field, we have only been able to develop our technology this far because we built upon the knowledge of our forebears, of preceding generations. If Edison was able to invent the light bulb, it was only because he gathered together knowledge that others had already discovered and passed on before him. Or if we think of the knowledge that was necessary to develop an internal combustion engine, the initial discoveries go back several hundred years. Science is capable of launching a rocket into space. Behind this lies an incredibly vast investment of research and experimentation. Mathematical calculations in the fields of chemistry and physics laid the groundwork for it. The knowledge of many generations and many experts was gathered together to make such a project possible. But having this knowledge alone, bringing the individual components together, is not enough. There must be someone who makes a decision. Without people willing to make decisions, none of the progress described above would have been possible.

We cannot of course enumerate here all the examples to which this principle applies and which have been developed over the last few decades. For many thousands of years, animals performed heavy labor that machines carry out today. Or let us think about the transmission of information. Today, messages are transmitted in fractions of a second that once might have taken days, weeks, or even months to arrive. And we can often not only read or hear the message, but actually see it. And this from any point on earth to any other point on earth. As for the advances in the development of weapons of mass destruction, we would rather not even speak of them. With a few keystrokes, human beings are capable of destroying the earth several times over. Remarkable things have also been achieved in the field of medicine. Or when we think of the many "simple" things we use every day, such as a radio — I have no idea how it works, let alone how to build one. It is apparently possible to build a functioning radio using the energy stored in a potato. There are books with construction guides for such and similar experiments. I have never read such books, whether out of laziness or lack of interest I cannot say. But there are millions of other things I have never read and have no idea even exist. Our lives are far too short to engage with all these subjects and acquire the knowledge they require. Moreover, it is not only about accumulating knowledge; what we learn should also bring us joy.

But in this context, our concern is with the subject of making decisions. And of course this is not about scientific or technical matters, but far more about spiritual matters — about will and discipline. As already said, it is one of the most important qualities of the human being. Without it, not the least of the advances mentioned above would have been possible. When I say "advances," do I then also include the example of weapons technology? Of course I do not regard the development of ever more effective weapons as progress for humanity, but what I am speaking about is the intellect that makes it possible. Even if an atomic bomb is a terrible weapon, behind this technology lies a brilliant mind. If a number of things are brought together — or something is removed — and it is then put to evil use, that is a different matter. If we look closely, we find many things that are brilliant in their discovery or invention, yet were then used to the detriment of humanity. And by this I do not mean only weapons. Let us think about how greatly we have by now contaminated our forests, lakes, and seas. Even if this is not directly related to our subject, we do not wish to leave it unmentioned here.

What this means is that we human beings have the capacity and the potential to continue developing. Because our time on earth is very limited, it is part of all our responsibility to pass on our knowledge, our experience, and our discoveries to others. Sometimes knowledge that humanity has painstakingly acquired only after thousands of years of experience and research can be conveyed in just a few sentences. For example, the fact that the earth is a sphere was something people did not know or understand a few hundred years ago. A man named Galileo even risked his life for passing on this knowledge. He was only able to save his life by publicly recanting his statement. In a sense, we are inheriting a ready-made nest, because we possess knowledge that others worked hard for. Yet at the same time, this also places a responsibility upon us. We should prove ourselves to be students who surpass the teacher. By this I do not mean to encourage self-display or egoism. In my view it is great foolishness to boast: "Look, I have surpassed my teacher." You were only able to surpass him because he passed his knowledge on to you and you learned from him. Had he come after you, he would have surpassed you. But people are so eager to claim honor and praise for themselves. And if they can say "I am greater than all the others," that is something very special to them; they give everything for that. Whoever sits on the shoulders of a giant can of course see further than the giant. The entire spirit of competition is oriented solely toward being bigger, more famous, more successful. If the teacher, for example, began with 10 kg of knowledge and added another 2 kg to it, then the student starts, so to speak, with 12 kg and perhaps reaches 15 kg. That is normal and no cause for boasting; it is no reason to exalt oneself and look down upon others.

We have cited only a few examples from history to show in which areas humanity has continued to develop. There have been many advances, but also setbacks. All these things — both progress and regression — were only made possible for humanity through the exercise of the capacities they received from God at creation. Either they used these capacities selflessly, for the benefit of others, or they thought only of their own advantage. In any case, the power of discernment, the ability to make decisions, plays a great role in all of this.

If we think again of an apprentice, one of the first important lessons they learn from their master is how to make mistakes. An apprentice will learn his trade successfully by making mistakes. That is how his master learned, and that master's master before him. In this same way they each became masters in their field. The reaction to mistakes made will certainly differ from teacher to teacher. While one teacher reacts immediately with great anger and strictness, another takes the mistake more lightly and responds with corresponding calm and understanding. An experienced teacher makes an effort to get to know his student well and to assess his abilities correctly. Whether at school or in a profession, mistakes will be made. And every mistake brings consequences in its wake. This may be a poor grade, a reprimand, a dressing-down, or some other disciplinary measure. The point is to understand that a mistake has consequences. Every mistake must be paid for in some way. There are mistakes for which one pays one's whole life. Here we should not only think of mistakes that harm others. An accident we ourselves caused may result in our carrying a physical disability for the rest of our lives. This knowledge produces fear in us. We are afraid of making mistakes. But we are speaking here of mistakes — of unintentional occurrences, not of deliberate intent. Many things play a role in this: our upbringing and education, how much we love what we do, how much we are capable of disciplining ourselves, our abilities and talents, and our environment. It is healthy to develop a fear of making mistakes, but the degree of that fear matters. An excess of fear makes us passive and paralyzes us. On the other hand, we should be clear with ourselves that we have only learned through mistakes. We all learned to walk by trying to stand up, putting one foot in front of the other, and falling down again and again. We surely cannot remember that anymore, but perhaps we remember the first time we sat on a bicycle. Who among us learned to ride a bicycle without falling off? Yet we did not let ourselves be discouraged by this; we got back up and tried again, even when it was sometimes painful. Or driving a car? There too, at the beginning we made mistakes and perhaps even caused an accident. One could give countless examples of this. Who does not know this and has not been through the same thing themselves? If someone says, "I learned everything without making mistakes, without causing an accident," we call such a person a braggart and a show-off. When we consider all of this, is it not completely normal for someone to be put off and to develop a fear of making mistakes?

There are two different kinds of fear. One kind is healthy and protective; the other is unhealthy, uncalled for, and paralyzes us — it can even make us ill. It can ultimately develop into a phobia. There are all manner of forms of phobia. They range from fear of death to fear of garlic. Better known forms include fear of heights or fear of flying. There are also no small number of women who are afraid to drive a car. Some of them have been driving for many years already, yet are constantly afraid of getting stuck in traffic somewhere. They drive constantly with this fear and the stress that this fear causes. And there are also many housewives who live with the constant fear that they will not be able to think of what to cook for their family. Countless people are afraid of spiders or snakes, of darkness, of mice, of the sea or of water in general. And when we think again of our subject, we would not need to ask whether there are people who are afraid of making mistakes or of being tested — but rather: are there people who have no fear of it?

It is told of Emperor Napoleon that during a campaign, one of his soldiers came into his tent and woke him in great agitation from his sleep. Asked about the reason, the soldier said: "The enemy has surrounded us and is attacking." Napoleon is said to have replied with relief, half-asleep: "And here I thought we were being put to a test." That is how the story was told to us. This means that this man had no fear of battle or of the enemy, but he feared being tested. Evidently the examinations during his military training had been so rigorous that they left such a lasting impression. These are all forms of fear that we all know to a greater or lesser degree.

There is, however, another kind of fear that is healthy and protects us. This fear keeps us from strolling across rooftops, from driving a car or motorcycle at uncontrolled speeds. It helps us to be careful when handling a chainsaw, or not to be reckless around someone with a contagious illness. This kind of fear is a protection, warning us of real dangers. You could place an eighteen-month-old child on a rooftop, and it would begin to crawl and eventually tumble off — laughing heartily as it fell, feeling only a pleasant sensation, with no fear at all. The child has not yet learned this feeling; it has not yet developed within it. We should truly regard this kind of fear as a gift.

There are still other kinds of fear. For example, the Bible shows us through the words of the prophet Isaiah that the fear of God is a gift, something to be earnestly desired:

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, Jehovah, are our Father; our Redeemer from of old is your name. Why, O Jehovah, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we do not fear you? — Isaiah 63:16,17 This would mean that God gives the fear of God as a gift; He does not force it upon anyone. We should therefore also continually ask for this fear of God in prayer. Yet until now, the fear of God has never been taught to us as something positive, something wholesome — this kind of fear has always been presented negatively. We carry an image of God as a judge or an executioner, one who waits only to find a fault in us and deliver the punishment we deserve. This form of the fear of God is negative, destructive, not constructive. The exact opposite should be the case: the fear of God should protect us from sinning, because we love Him and do not wish to disappoint Him. We do not wish to destroy this precious relationship, this friendship with God. This kind of fear protects us from doing or even wishing harm to other people; it protects us from envy and jealousy, from hatred and resentment, and from every form of desire and selfish longing. This kind of fear is constructive, positive, and helps us to grow. Since we fear doing things that disturb our inner peace and trouble our conscience, it has a positive effect and is therefore healthy. The unhealthy kind of fear, by contrast, holds back our development, sets us back, and can harm us to the point where our physical and mental health are seriously endangered.

Simply put, the fact that every mistake brings consequences should not frighten us so much that we stop doing anything at all. That would be absurd. Then we stay at home, stop going out into the dangerous world, never board an airplane — better yet, no public transport either — and we had better not get a driver's license. People have drowned in knee-deep water, so it is better not to go fishing. Best of all, we never set foot outside the door. On the other hand, most accidents happen at home! It is clear that the fear of making mistakes has a genuinely inhibiting — indeed almost paralyzing — effect. And yet making mistakes is the best possible way to learn. If we never undertake anything, fear will always accompany us and hold us back. But if we do act and make mistakes in the process, we can only learn from them; we will improve and eventually make very few mistakes. And no fear will cloud our joy or diminish our quality of life. So genuine joy and happiness come to us when we learn to control our feelings and to discipline ourselves. We will experience the happiness and contentment of seeing and living through many things. Moreover, we will see ourselves making progress in our own development, which in turn increases our joy and gives us a will to live.

Let us imagine a child to whom we give a toy with which it can assemble various pieces in various ways. The child begins playing with it joyfully and, in its inexperience, tries somehow to fit the pieces together. What if we were immediately impatient and snatched the toy from the child's hands and said: "That's not how it's done — step aside, I'll do it" — and then presented the finished figure to the child? How does the child feel about that? How much enjoyment does it get from the toy then? The figure may be perfect, but the child will take far more delight if it can do something on its own, even if it does not work right away at first. It takes pleasure in the things it builds — and in the things it breaks. We all still feel, as adults, the same joy that child feels about things it has made itself, especially when no one helped. We all know this joy, and it is a gift from God, who has equipped us with these abilities and qualities. Or when a child rides a bicycle for the first time without anyone holding it — what joy it feels. It is not so much about the joy of having achieved something or being able to achieve it, but about the joy of savoring what has been achieved.

With these examples we want to show how fundamentally making mistakes belongs to being human. This will always be so — not only for us, but for all people, until humanity is made perfect, as foretold in the holy scriptures. But it is only the fearful who will, as a consequence, become passive in order to avoid making mistakes — as if to say: he who does nothing does nothing wrong. The more a person employs his abilities, the more successful he will be. Sometimes it is genuinely difficult to make decisions — who does not know that? We make so many decisions, some daily, some only once in a lifetime. A scientific article once said that we make around twenty thousand decisions a day. We do nothing all day long except decide. It begins when we wake up and decide: should I stay in bed a little longer, or get up now? Once we are up, we decide what to wear. These are the small things we decide every day; then there are bigger decisions that we face only occasionally, some only once in a lifetime. Which clothes to buy, what food to cook, what purchases to make, which car, which computer, which profession, which schooling we want to pursue. And most of the time the decision is not easy. We have all seen people sitting in a restaurant with the menu in their hands as if they mean to memorize it. They agonize because they cannot decide what to order. Our modern age with its computer technology has not exactly made deciding easier for us. No one is pleased when a piece of technology they bought is selling for half the price a month later. Or a few days later you get the same device for the same price but with the latest technology or a better specification. Or not to mention the feeling we have when we have bought something and then, one meter away in another shop, see the same device — or dress or shoes, and so on — for a cheaper price. Such experiences make us yet more cautious when it comes to decisions. This book is primarily about religions. Who can make a good decision about which religion is the right one? And as I said, making decisions and fear are closely connected. We are afraid because we know that every mistake also has its price. The fear of that price we must pay holds us back from making a decision. And even when we have seen that a decision was wrong, we do not immediately turn back from it out of fear! And yet we should bear in mind: the sooner we turn away from a wrong path, the better. Fear prevents people from making decisions; it prevents them from making the right decisions. The greater the fear, the stronger the doubts will be. But this confusion has a purpose. It is precisely what the devil wants to achieve in us. The more we fear doing the right thing, fear making the right decisions, the more strongly doubts will take over and the more hesitant we will be to do what is right. That is exactly what Satan rejoices in. Or can we imagine that we are thereby bringing God any joy?

The unwillingness to take responsibility holds people back in their progress. It is precisely this lack of willingness to take responsibility that makes people recoil from making decisions. Since bearing responsibility means taking a burden upon oneself, many prefer to be passive, to make no sound, and to do whatever they are told, whether it is good or bad. There lies the root of indecision. But we must decide. Even when we are inclined to push every responsibility and decision far away from us, our conscience, our feelings, and our reason still press us toward it.

Hitler wanted to have the elderly, the disabled, Jews, Gypsies, and political opponents killed by a simple, fast, and efficient method. To find the best method he commissioned, among others, physicians. Some of the perpetrators stood accused at the famous Nuremberg trials. They generally defended themselves with the argument: "We only did what we were ordered; we had to obey, or we ourselves would have been killed." But this excuse did not save them from the death sentence. The court ruled, in effect: "'We only followed orders' is not justification for murdering people and executing them in the most cruel manner." The excuse of being mere order-receivers did not save them. They had many thousands of innocent people on their consciences, and in return they had to give their own lives. Of course we know that only a small number were actually convicted; many thousands of the guilty were never caught or at least never brought before a court. To this day the situation has not changed much. At medical congresses it is continually made clear that the number of elderly and people in need of care is ever rising, while at the same time the health funds are running ever emptier. Even if no one states it quite so plainly, this thought is again and again brought into awareness. Those who can read between the lines receive positions of responsibility in the clinics; the others will always play only a subordinate role. This awareness, combined with the typical German conscience that believes it must do everything for the fatherland, has caused the number of deaths in hospitals to rise steadily. Beyond that, patients are regarded as a good source of income. We hear ever more frequently of unnecessary treatments or operations that are also carried out very sloppily. Who survives these treatments or does not is decided by whoever is in charge at the clinic. If you are a pensioner, or are about to become one — if you are unemployed, or Turkish, or belong to another nationality that the doctor finds unsympathetic — then you have a poor hand. I do not wish to go into detail here about which methods are applied to ensure that these people do not leave the hospital healthy. That is also why so many useless questions are asked, questions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the illness. Because they know that it irritates people to answer all these questions every time, this information is stored on a chip on the health insurance card. And everything is presented as if one truly wants to help the patient. But this time there is no Hitler, no authoritarian regime, standing behind it and forcing people to do such things. It is solely their love of the fatherland that makes them act this way! And physicians are virtually untouchable in nearly every state. One has no legal recourse against them.

These people too make decisions. These decisions are terrible and cruel, but they make them with a clear conscience, because they are saving their fatherland! The more they act this way, the more such decisions they make, the worse the conditions become.

In biblical history there are similar occurrences. God had given the people of Israel into the hands of their enemies because of their sinful way of life. Before doing so, He had the following said:

...and because they feared other gods and walked in the statutes of the nations whom Jehovah had driven out before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, who had made them; and the children of Israel did things secretly against Jehovah their God that were not right. — 2 Kings 17:8,9 In these verses God shows that the people allowed themselves to be led astray onto a wrong path by their own kings. Who can stand against the law of the king? But did it benefit them that they submitted to the commands of the king out of fear of losing their lives? No — by bowing to the wrong things, they did not die by the hand of the king, but rather by the hand of their enemies. In the end they paid with their lives all the same, and they also angered God into the bargain. In contrast, Daniel and his friends had not allowed themselves to be intimidated by the threat of being thrown into a fiery furnace — or, on another occasion, into the lions' den. They nonetheless chose the right thing. Because they showed this unconditional obedience to God's commands, even with the willingness to give their lives for it, they were rewarded by God, who freed them. (Please read these accounts in the Bible yourself in the Book of Daniel — they are short, gripping stories that can be read in one sitting.) Even if God had not intervened and saved them — and there are enough examples of that, especially later among the Christians and the followers of Mohammed — that would not be proof that they had made a wrong decision. With their decisions they had lost nothing; on the contrary, in God's eyes they had won. At any rate, it has become very clear that it does not save us to choose obedience out of fear. How then can we believe we will be saved if we voluntarily play the donkey for politicians, for religious leaders, or for whatever organizations? All the less so when we have witnessed the crooked dealings they carry on. Often we do not want to take responsibility and bury our heads in the sand. Do we truly believe that this will keep us out of danger? We must accept that all of us must make countless decisions every day — great and small, from the color of the socks we put on in the morning to the question of which route to take to work. There are also important, serious decisions we must make. Even if we live under a strict order, within an organization — such as the military, or under a dictatorship — much depends on which decisions we make. Our decisions have an influence on the situation we find ourselves in. We will see a corresponding reaction depending on what attitude we have, how we conduct ourselves. Simply put, then: none of us can say, "I don't need to make decisions." Even in systems where everything down to the smallest detail is regulated and prescribed, our decisions can be very important — even vital. What should we do, then, given that making decisions can be so important, and bearing in mind the price a wrong decision can cost? How can we learn to make independent decisions? What is the secret of making decisions without making mistakes? As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, an athlete is the more successful the more he trains. A student who studies diligently and repeats what he has learned will pass tests with all the more success. A musician who does not practice constantly will not get far. Every athlete, every artist, every student, and all parents know that success depends on practice, learning, and training. If this is so in all the fields mentioned, why should it be any different when it comes to developing the ability to make decisions? But mistakes we will make, whether we want to or not, regardless of how old or young, how experienced or inexperienced we are. That cannot be avoided. If our intention is to make no more mistakes, then we can abandon everything, for it will not work. But if we desire to reduce our error rate to a minimum, that is a good resolve and the right attitude. Of course it would be ideal to make no more mistakes at all, but as I said, that is unrealistic. If we want to make progress in any field, it stands to reason that we should turn to a specialist in that field. No one can compare their knowledge with someone who has no idea about it. As I mentioned, I have used a radio all my life. Having used various radios over the years is one thing, but understanding how a radio works is quite another. My knowledge of radios is naturally not comparable to the knowledge of someone who assembles or manufactures radios himself. If you were to hand both of us a broken radio, I would have no idea what to do first, quite apart from the fact that I would probably not even be able to open it without damaging the casing. A specialist, on the other hand, does not need to think long before making a decision about how to proceed. He immediately has the right tool at hand to open it and also knows at once where to look for the cause of the fault. He is able to make a quick decision — and the right one. Any comparison with my efforts would be unrealistic. But it is not out of the question that I too could be equally capable of making decisions just as quickly and well, if I were to acquire the appropriate training and experience. Let us come to the main point in this subject. Since my book is primarily about people's relationship with their Creator, will the religions not immediately object here and say: "Exactly — because it is as described above and we need specialists, therefore one should obey the religions and their leaders, for they are the specialists when it comes to the subject of God"? Of course they will object in this way, and they do. So let us try to consider the subject from their point of view and to defend it. Let us try to concede that they are right, on the basis of what we have so far investigated and established on this topic. Let us assume you are ill. To whom do you go? To a doctor, of course. Let us assume it is a problem with your teeth. Would you then sooner go to a dentist, or fix the problem yourself? In the past, in very remote areas, and when a doctor was hard to reach, these problems were also attended to by the barber or the blacksmith. It is not hard to imagine that this often had very unpleasant consequences for the patient, and sometimes the procedure ended in a painful death. In others, certain nerves were damaged and afterwards the patient could no longer move the tongue, the lips, or other facial muscles. These things are no secret. Therefore it often suffices for the word "Dr." to appear on the sign in order to inspire confidence. People entrust their lives to such a person precisely because they rightly assume that this person has more experience and knowledge than a barber, a blacksmith, or they themselves. Suppose we are ourselves a dentist with experience and knowledge — even then we would not carry out such a procedure on ourselves but would entrust ourselves to someone else. For our colleague is better placed to treat us than we are to treat ourselves. That has nothing to do with knowledge or skill. Conversely, we are better positioned to treat that colleague than he is to treat himself. Before going to a doctor, do we ask questions such as: Is he known as a liar? Does he cheat on his wife? Does he go to the casino? Is he fair or unfair? Is he a compassionate, empathetic person? Does he drink alcohol or smoke? I have never yet met anyone who has conducted such inquiries before going to a doctor or being treated by one. What truly interests us has to do with his profession. Is he considerate in his manner of treatment? How does he give injections? Are treatments with him painful? Do problems frequently arise after a treatment? These are the questions one normally asks before deciding on a doctor. Beyond that, one is perhaps also interested in whether he takes time for his patients and whether he is likeable. But all these questions we only ask when we have time in advance and can choose between several doctors. Otherwise it is entirely normal, when we urgently need a dentist and are in an unfamiliar area, to settle for the nearest available one without asking many questions. We entrust ourselves to him. But why do we do this, even though we have never seen him before? We know that he has more knowledge and experience in this field than we do, even if he is a bad person. Moreover, we feel unwell and need help; under certain circumstances our life may even be at stake. Let us return to our subject, then — religion and God. Who has more knowledge and experience: someone who has merely held the holy scriptures in their hands and never read a single page, or someone who reads these scriptures daily and perhaps even knows them by heart? Naturally we will say that the one who reads and works with the scriptures daily is the specialist — he knows his way around them. In light of what we have so far said on this subject, it is also clear that we would take his side. And that is exactly where the problem begins. People have, as in every other field, sought or appointed someone to look after this domain and become, as it were, our specialist in it. They sought someone who corresponded to their culture, their preferences, and their traditions, and made him the expert in religious matters. "Be our expert when it comes to religious questions. You have more knowledge and experience with these things." Is this not the same attitude we find in other professions as well? Those who were selected for this position have naturally exploited the situation. But this is not the case in religion alone. We spoke earlier about physicians in Germany. Are there specialists who have not abused their leading position? Of course there are, but it would be an exaggeration to say that all people misuse their positions. A man named Bernd once told me of a conversation he had had with a pastor about the pastor's profession. The pastor himself said that it was a profession like butcher, baker, or locksmith — he had simply chosen the profession of pastor. In my opinion he was being very candid. We spoke just now about the example of entrusting ourselves to a dentist when we have problems with our teeth. But there are other life-threatening difficulties we can have with other parts of the body — the heart, liver, kidneys, spine, or other things. We entrust our lives to the hands of a doctor even though we may have seen him only very briefly, or not at all, before the operation. And we are also aware that he is only human and can make mistakes, that he has bad days — and yet we are willing to take this risk and willingly sign the form in which we are informed of all possible risks. We are talking about placing our lives in the hands of another person, entrusting our life to him. Is that easy? By no means. But if we are nevertheless willing to entrust our life to someone we do not know, who can make mistakes, in this domain — why do I then examine religions so thoroughly? Why am I not willing to extend the same trust in this domain? On the contrary, I say clearly and plainly: in the domain of religion, we can trust none of the religious leaders. So far we have considered the subject purely from the standpoint of profession and specialists, without taking the spiritual aspect into account. We want to do that now. In every profession the goal of the apprentice should be to become a master himself. We said that one can rightly expect the apprentice to eventually surpass his master. What does God say on this subject? Jesus made the following statement: A student is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the student to become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. — Matthew 10:24,25 That is the attitude that God has conveyed through His prophets. But when we look at the religions, we see exactly the opposite. They do not aim to make students into masters. On the contrary, they forbid the reading and understanding of the books. Those who tried to make the holy scriptures accessible and understandable to others were persecuted by the church and burned alive. The Islamic world is not much better in this regard — only a few years behind. To this day the religious leaders insist that the Quran must be read in Arabic and they exert pressure on those who think differently. We should not, however, allow ourselves to be deceived by those who hold the book in their hands and call on others to read it — as the Jehovah's Witnesses do, for example. To lure people to their community they give this appearance of openness. Raymond Franz, who himself was actively a Jehovah's Witness for more than forty years, including nine years on their highest governing body, explains in his book: "The progress a person makes in the first one or two years, he will not make again even after many years of activity." "Because," he goes on, "the organization keeps its members in a state of constant dependency; it works toward keeping them like children." To this, based on my many years of experience with the Witnesses, I can only say: "That is absolutely true — I have seen it with my own eyes." The understanding of scripture that I had acquired within a few months was something I could not find in forty-year-old elders of the congregation who had grown up in that religion. That had truly astonished me and I could not explain it — even though they had reached a level where they regularly gave talks at their large events, the congresses. Only many years later did I understand that the organization itself stands in the way of these people's further development. Yet they are happy to point out that they print and distribute an enormous amount of literature precisely in order to help people develop further on a spiritual level, and they gladly cite the Bible verse that says "the path of the righteous is like the glowing light that grows ever brighter" (Proverbs 4:18). This verse is one of the most frequently cited scriptural passages among the Witnesses. But these writings they publish — which every Witness is expected to read and study regularly — keep revolving around the same themes. Take an issue of a Witness magazine from fifteen or twenty years ago and compare it with a current issue. The presentation, the design, and the pictures have changed, but the content barely. You might object at this point: "But the Bible itself has not changed either — why should one then expect this from this literature?" That is true: the Bible has been unchanged for many hundreds of years. But these people speak of an ever-brightening light! On the contrary, they pride themselves on "brightening light" and then permit things that were once permitted, then in the meantime forbidden. If this is light, then it has been burning for a long time. They themselves are the ones who have put out the light. When they turn it back on, what have they illuminated? For example, a few years ago organ transplants were forbidden among the Witnesses. Later it was permitted and declared a matter of conscience. Blood was fundamentally forbidden and could not be used in any way; it had to be poured out on the ground. By now very many components of blood are permitted for medical purposes — and do not be surprised if in a few years' time it is said that the use of all components of blood is a matter of conscience. But their concern is: what will they say to the surviving family members of those who gave their lives in obedience to this "law"? That is why they proceed in small steps, and it is mentioned in passing, as though the organization had never said anything different. For if someone actually has the courage to call the organization to account, they will say again: "We never gave such an explicit prohibition — some people went beyond what we said and thereby harmed themselves and others"! On the contrary, by saying that it is a matter of conscience, they present themselves as very noble and generous. They mean that in doing so they are siding with those who suffered unnecessarily. These intrigues and dishonestries know no end. Their methods strongly resemble the approach of the German physicians who believe they are rendering their country a service by sorting people out and in some cases deliberately treating them to their deaths, as described above. But since this book is primarily concerned with religious topics, I want to write about why the religions avoid knowledge and also prevent their followers from learning more. On the one hand they say that one should read the Bible, and their literature regularly encourages it, but on the other hand they make very clear that they are against anyone understanding or explaining the Bible differently from what they say — they do not even permit criticism of their biblical interpretation. (The following explicit statement is found even in one of their publications: Does "the faithful and discreet slave" approve of Jehovah's Witnesses getting together informally to examine and debate Bible topics? (Matt. 24:45, 47). No. Nevertheless, in various parts of the world, some who are associated with our organization have formed groups to examine the Bible independently. Some are studying Biblical Hebrew and Greek together with others in detail, in order to examine the accuracy of the New World Translation. Others are researching scientific topics related to the Bible. Websites and chat rooms have been established so that views can be exchanged and debated. Meetings have also been held and publications have been produced to make the results of study public and to supplement our meetings and our literature… Therefore, "the faithful and discreet slave" does not endorse any literature, websites, or meetings that are not produced or organized under its oversight (Matt. 24:45-47). — Kingdom Ministry 9/2007) Whoever reads the Bible must therefore understand it precisely as they say, and must believe it thus and teach it accordingly. Those at the top — the members of the Governing Body — who again and again in their writings encourage everyone to attend all meetings regularly and also to go out in the preaching service regularly, do not all follow these standards themselves. Even a former president of the Watch Tower Society, Rutherford, never went from house to house himself, although he spoke contemptuously of those who did not take part in this service. While most people in the most varied professions strive to carry out their work well and to pass on their knowledge, the religious leaders behave quite differently. Even those among them who give a very zealous impression and claim to serve God block any further development on a spiritual level and do not support the passing on of knowledge and the growth of insight and understanding. But this too is not a modern phenomenon we can observe only among the Witnesses, or in the world of Islam, or in the Middle Ages in the Catholic Church — it runs through the history of all religions like a fundamental law. Jesus expressed their attitude toward the religious leaders of his day as follows: Woe to you, teachers of the law! You have taken away the key of knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering. — Luke 11:52 — New Geneva Translation But should it not be exactly the reverse? In every other profession one strives for progress, but when it comes to knowledge about God, one acts in precisely the opposite way! Among people there has always been envy, jealousy, and egotism. It is said that knowledge is power. Are they perhaps withholding knowledge and insight about God in order to keep God's power in their own hands? In other professions too, knowledge is not always passed on so readily. We spoke at the beginning of this chapter about a good teacher, an exemplary master. Is every teacher good? This question cannot of course be answered with yes. Not every teacher is eager to pass on their knowledge. The point for us is to understand why the religious leaders are reluctant to pass on their knowledge. In this they also show that they are not good teachers. What stands above everything for them is the fear that growing understanding and knowledge of the scriptures will allow people to see through the machinations of the religious leaders — and that their power and influence will thereby wane. Just look at the religions of this world and their leaders. It becomes especially clear in the case of the three great religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Ignorance about these religions and their scriptures is very widespread. If someone has actually gained knowledge and understanding, it is generally because they made the effort themselves and worked for it. There is no real instruction on such topics, neither in radio and television, nor in school, nor in the so-called worship services. This is not a matter of groundless accusation but of presenting the facts. Let us look at the countless TV channels — what they present to us twenty-four hours a day: sex, violence, horror, action, and endless series that never end, as well as talent shows in ever greater numbers sprouting from the ground. The series in particular are very popular, even though they deal only in intrigue, power games, and superficial relationships. Or perhaps that is exactly why they are so popular. There are hardly any edifying programs dealing with God or religion. When such topics come up, it is usually only questions concerning the area below the belt — that is their favorite subject. These are the things that occupy people; their minds and hearts are filled with them. As I said, I am speaking here about religions in general — this is not only about the Witnesses. All religions are against knowledge and understanding, and they want everyone to remain students for life and to make no progress. It is as Jesus said: these people do not themselves go through the door of knowledge, nor do they permit others to pass through. They themselves have become masters — not in understanding the ways of God, but in exploiting others, in sowing enmity, in causing others suffering, in deceiving, in threatening, in doing things in secret, in egotism, sanctimoniousness, arrogance, love of money, and much else that is negative. Up to this point we have compared the religious leaders — those who present themselves as God's representatives — with masters in other professions: how they pass on their knowledge, how they train others to likewise become masters in their trade. But we have not yet gone into the depths. We have established that in this comparison they fare very poorly — that they are truly very bad teachers and instructors. But we have also established that the need, the demand for such teachers exists, and that we are prepared to trust such competent people. In the example of the doctor, we have seen that we are even willing to place our lives in the hands of such a person, even though we have never seen them before and therefore do not know them. We entrust our lives to a doctor even when we know he is not a good teacher, that he has a bad character and is unjust. None of that interests us; what matters is our life or at least our health, our well-being. He is to free us from our pain, even if he does it solely out of love of money, or out of duty! It may well be that such a doctor is not a good teacher and is also otherwise not worth much as a human being. Why do we on the one hand entrust our lives to such a person, while on the other hand we scrutinize a religious leader very closely and expect exemplary conduct from him? In both cases it is fundamentally about our life: in the one case it is about healing now; in the other it is about our future, about eternal life. If we look at reality, however, it is the other way around: we try to find out more about the doctor who treats us than about the people we call our religious leaders — these we follow with blind trust. We do not bother to get to know those who say, "without us you cannot enter paradise." They are merely creatures of our imagination; we do not actually know them. There are occasions when a person has no confidence in their doctor, but those who promise us paradise we follow with flags waving. We are convinced that they will take responsibility before God on our behalf and hand them a general power of attorney for religious matters! "Command us, and we will obey. What shall we do? Give us instructions and we will follow everything." We do not behave like human beings — more like donkeys. But that is precisely what they expect of us. Interestingly, the fewest people actually live for their religion — what they so staunchly defend is for them only like a mascot, an amulet that is supposed to protect them always and everywhere. They have neither any interest in God nor in His ways, and least of all do they want to change for His sake. But they defend their religion with hands and feet — they fight for it, give their lives for it, and are also willing to kill. In the Bible we occasionally find examples in which people are compared to animals. For instance, believers are contrasted with those who do not believe and stubbornly resist. Some are compared to sheep, others to goats (Matthew 25:32,33; Mark 6:34; John 10:1-15). The people back then were very familiar with these species of animals and their behaviors. Sheep are regarded as easy to lead; they know the voice of their shepherd, especially if he is a good shepherd. Goats, by comparison, are difficult to lead, do not listen, and are often stubborn. It is said that it is easier to lead a hundred sheep than ten goats. By such a comparison the animals are not meant to be denigrated — only their character, which they have by nature, is being highlighted. The point of the comparison is to show that it is only to our own benefit if we behave like sheep and let ourselves be led by God. And on the other hand it would harm us if we behaved like stubborn billy-goats, wandering first in one direction and then in another, away from the herd and away from the protection of the shepherd. These are illustrations that help us better understand a matter and enrich the narrative. But interestingly, neither sheep nor goats carry someone else's burden. They do not do so by nature. Have you ever seen a goat or a sheep with a saddle — apart from a few rare exceptions? We associate saddles only with horses, donkeys, or camels. That does not make these animals inferior either. When I sometimes compare certain people's behavior to that of a donkey in my book, I am comparing the behavior of some people to donkeys — meaning that they carry someone else's burden without thinking. A donkey also does not have the fearlessness of a horse or a camel, which were used in wars in former times — and partly still today. The camel is a very patient and enduring beast of burden, capable of traveling through hot desert regions for many days without water or food. The camel is truly a remarkable creature. Although the horse, beside the camel, is comparatively elegant and delicate and not as robust, it has a better image. The superiority of these two animals over a donkey lies in their greater versatility. They are capable both of carrying loads, of pulling a heavy load, and of moving quickly; but above all they can be used in war, since they can charge fearlessly at armed armies. A donkey, by contrast, is only conditionally suited for carrying loads — it depends entirely on its mood. God Himself said something interesting to Job about the horse, which you are welcome to read in the Book of Job, chapter 39:19–25. What I want to say here about donkeys, then, is that we people like to behave like donkeys — but far more than that, the religious leaders want us to be that way. In reality they are not looking for sheep or goats; they are looking for beasts of burden, they are looking for donkeys, to relieve them of their load. Those people should not ask many questions or doubt things. They should simply do what they are told. They should not be stubborn. The stubborn ones they would not take into their ranks in the first place — and if they did, they would try to get rid of them again quickly. I am very fond of donkeys, but when a human being behaves this way, it is pitiful and unworthy of a person. Therefore I want to call out to people through this book: "Stop behaving like donkeys." God does not call people to Himself who behave like donkeys. He seeks people who show through their behavior that they are higher creatures, made in the image of God. If there is anyone who can help us to make progress in this area, to develop further, to instruct us on the basis of His experience and knowledge, it is God. He took Jesus up into heaven, exalted him to His side, and appointed him as King. (Acts 17:31; Daniel 2:44; Surah Al-Ma'idah 4:158) He gave his life for us and stands in stark contrast to the religious leaders who bring us not the smallest benefit. God has chosen such a King. God has had His many thousands of years of experience with humankind recorded in the holy scriptures. These books were written so that we might learn from this long history of humanity. From what happened to our forebears we are to draw a lesson. The scripture reports it to warn us — us, who live at the end of the age. — 1 Corinthians 10:11 We have established that in every field there is a master. When it comes to God, then, where should we go? To whom can we trust? Does God expect us to go, as with other professions, to someone who has chosen this as his profession and to trust him? For many religious leaders it is the case that they earn their living by this profession, even if they do not admit it so openly. As we have already seen, however, it is impossible to acquire all knowledge and understanding in every area of life. That alone is impossible because our life is too short for it. Well, that is clear to all of us — but what then does it look like with knowledge of God's ways? Can coming to know God be made into a profession by which one earns one's living? Have we ever met people who have never seen their parents, or a parent, and set out to find them? What do these people not take upon themselves in order to find them? Most would probably say: "Everything." But when it comes to getting to know our Creator, we do not say: "We are prepared to do everything." When it comes to knowing God, He wants all of us — every one of us — to become a master, a teacher, an expert. If it is important in no other area of our lives, it should be the goal we all reach in this area. If God had said "choose yourselves people to make your teachers and instructors, and follow them" and had added "I will call them to account on your behalf," then I would say: let us carry on as we are and behave like donkeys. Then everything would be in order. But it is not so, for God says clearly: And you shall love Jehovah your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. And these words that I am commanding you today shall be on your heart; and you shall impress them on your son and shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. — Deuteronomy 6:5-7 Many will object here that it was only a commandment for the people of Israel. But in the same book, a few chapters further along, we read the following: Not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, but with whoever stands here with us today before Jehovah our God and with whoever is not here with us today. — Deuteronomy 29:14,15 ...and further it says: And it shall come to pass that when someone hears the words of this oath, and blesses himself in his heart, saying, "I shall have peace, even though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart" — so that the well-watered is swept away with the thirsty — Jehovah will not be willing to forgive him, but then the anger of Jehovah and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and every curse written in this book will settle upon him, and Jehovah will blot out his name from under the heavens. — Deuteronomy 29:19,20 This means, then, that the covenant mentioned here and these vitally important words are directed by God not only to the Israelites but to all people. God had the holy scriptures written so that through the stories told and the experiences recounted He might instruct and train all people. If we still say, out of stubbornness or out of convenience, that the Bible has been altered and we believe only in our own book, then we are like someone who follows a football club or a political party. Then we are still behaving like donkeys and will not escape the judgment of God either. We run after whoever we are trying to satisfy and from whom we expect salvation. Let us return once more to the example of the doctor and entrusting our life to him. When we go to a doctor, we want him to make us well — not to instruct us. We come as a patient, not as a student. A doctor does not expect to train us. If we want to become a doctor ourselves, we go to a university and study medicine. We expect a doctor to apply what he has learned to our benefit; for that he is paid. But how should we regard the fact that we entrust our lives to this person? Entering into such trust also means accepting the risk of losing our life. Who today is not aware that a high risk is connected with this? If there is a better alternative, we should surely prefer it. For me, for example, it means that I prefer to have my health problems treated in Turkey since Mr. Erdogan has been in power. Before that the healthcare system in Turkey was in a very poor condition, significantly worse than in Germany. There it is not a question of the love of fatherland — it is a matter of insufficient funds, inadequate facilities, and a lack of order. But when we have no choice, we must simply comply. And is it not only about losing our life? Who among us will live forever? Since we are all going to die and must, so to speak, constantly reckon with it, we should spend less time thinking about when and how we will die and more time thinking about what kind of life we lead, what we make of our lives. It is far more important what our relationships with our fellow human beings are like, what our relationship with God is like, what attitude we have toward His commandments, and whether we have the desire to live accordingly. Whether we die in an accident, from an illness, or from some other unforeseen event is not so important. Of course no one wants to die — we all want to live, and it is not our Creator's intention that we should die (Ecclesiastes 3:11). That is why He also gave us the assurance of resurrection. (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28,29; Surah Al-Isra 17:49-51; Surah Al-Hajj 22:7) It is one thing to submit oneself to people and serve them in the name of a religion, far removed from God's way, thereby incurring God's wrath and dying at the end of the road; it is another thing to entrust oneself to a doctor in illness and to die on the operating table through his mistake or inexperience or out of his love of fatherland. What does God place value on? Is it important in God's eyes to live long? Or does it make no difference to Him? Life and death are ultimately in God's hands anyway. Therefore God does not take account of the things that are in any case not in our hands, but rather of what we say, what we do, how we treat others, what we think, and what goals we have — for all of that lies in our hands. Simply put, then: in most cases we have to do with the most varied professions only briefly. When our car breaks down we take it to the workshop and expect our car to be repaired there — not to be instructed there in how to repair cars. But someone doing their apprenticeship there rightly expects to be taught and trained to become a master. The one is a customer, the other a student. The goal is to make the student into a master, not the customer. So when someone joins a religion, what does he expect of his religion? Does he not rightly expect to be trained there, on God's path, to become a master? Or has he only joined this organization as a patient or a customer, dropping by briefly? If it is right and important that learners be made into masters — and that in every profession — why should it be wrong in religion? Anyone who wants to become a master himself does not necessarily have to receive money for it. Why should the religions not make it their goal to instruct their adherents in God's way, to train them and help them to make the right decisions on God's path? Religion does not mean going to church on Sunday morning and joining in the singing. It does not mean attending religious gatherings and repeating pre-set answers. People have by now had enough of empty sermons — nothing moves them; they have grown weary to the point where they can no longer even hear the truth. That is precisely the goal of the religions: to make people have enough of empty words, of boring sermons; to make them have no more interest in hearing the truth; to make them hate everything connected with God's path. That is what the devil is after. For this reason the last book of the Bible — Revelation — fittingly shows that all religions will disappear all at once. (Revelation, chapters 17 and 18. The Babylon mentioned in these two chapters is a symbol for all religions. Even if this is not stated directly, one can recognize from the description that religions are meant. The voice of the bride and the bridegroom refers to the religious organizations, since religions normally play a large role at weddings. Even if this is handled somewhat differently in Islam, religion also plays an important role in marriage in Islam.) The time is very near when the dirty laundry of the religions will be revealed one by one and become obvious to everyone. This too is entirely in accordance with the will of God. When all these prophecies are fulfilled against the religions, then the following words from the Book of Jeremiah apply: And when you ask in your heart, "Why have these things come upon me?" — it is because of the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts have been uncovered and you have been violated. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good, who are accustomed to do evil. I will scatter them like chaff that is driven away by the desert wind. This is your lot, the portion I have measured to you, declares Jehovah, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, that your shame may be seen. Your adulteries and your lewd whinnyings, your abominable deeds on the hills in the fields — I have seen your abominations. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean? — Jeremiah 13:22-26 All of this will be fulfilled against all religions. If God did not spare His own chosen people Israel — together with the Temple that He Himself had had built — what reason is there for Him to spare the religions today, with all their wickedness and their ugly deeds? And He had not chosen them. If God is prepared to sweep away a people He has chosen because of their sins, what will He then do with a people He did not choose, and who have heaped up sins to the heavens? When the time comes, the people who have fanatically defended their religion and given their best years to it will begin to hate everything connected with God. They will beat themselves and lament why they allowed themselves to be deceived and taken in so easily. "Why did I make a donkey of myself for them?" they will ask. I can already now imagine their disappointment and their hatred. But that is precisely Satan's goal. He draws people to himself in the belief that they are following God and turns them into enemies of God. It is like counterfeit money. Some notes are so well reproduced that it takes many years of investigation and experience to see through the forgery. Many will say at this point: "I have no intention of becoming an expert or a master in the domain of my religion myself." Freedom means making your own decisions and taking responsibility for them. Many people are aware of this. For this reason many people flee from this freedom; they regard it as a burden they are not prepared to bear. They are afraid to make a decision that might turn out to be wrong, and do not want to pay the price for it then. We have seen this in the example of Adam and Eve — neither was willing to take the blame upon themselves. In the end they laid the blame on an animal, a serpent. We know that they meant Satan by this, for they knew it was Satan (Genesis, chapter 3; Surah Al-A'raf 7:22). No matter how much we fear making wrong decisions, not wanting to take responsibility because we are not willing to pay the price — in order to get out of all of this, we are even willing to prefer behaving like donkeys. As if the one we have loaded onto our backs would always make the right decisions. Even if we think very optimistically, it is not conceivable. As imperfect and fallible as we are, so too, more or less, is the one for whom we play the donkey. Who knows us better than we know ourselves and can therefore make the right decisions for us? That is what I have been getting at throughout this entire book. Who keeps the religions and their leaders alive? Do they not live only through us? Only because we support them — only by that means can they go on living as they do. If no one gives money to beggars, will there still be beggars? If we do not make ourselves available as donkeys, there will also be no one to place burdens on our backs. Let us not forget: the one who sits on the backs of others bears the same guilt as the one who makes his back available. What answer will God give us when we say: "We only obeyed; we were taken in and deceived"? What answer did the judges give, at the famous Nuremberg trials, after the fall of the Third Reich? We know that they did not accept cadaverous obedience — the willingness to kill others merely in order not to be killed oneself — and we all regard that verdict as just. The only thing we found unjust was that only a tiny fraction — out of millions — were sentenced at all. Fittingly, in connection with our topic, Jesus told the following parable. A man goes away to receive kingly power. He distributes his assets among his servants. They begin to trade with them and to multiply the goods entrusted to them — with the exception of one servant, who dug up the money entrusted to him and buried it in the earth out of fear. When the master returns he demands an accounting of the assets he had entrusted to them. But the one who had received the one talent also came forward and said: "Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed, and I was afraid and went and hid your talent in the earth. Here, you have what is yours." But his master answered him: "You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received what is my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will have an abundance; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." — Matthew 25:24-30 This parable is about what we do with our spiritual wealth. What is our reaction to what we learn, to what we know? If, like the lazy slave in the parable mentioned above, we keep to ourselves out of fear the things we have seen and heard and do not share them with others, then in the end it will go for us as it went for him. Incidentally, who is it who wants us to become experts, masters, on a spiritual level? Let us read what an apostle of God has to say to us on this subject: For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food. For everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. — Hebrews 5:12-14 God does not want us to remain like small children in a spiritual sense, but to develop further — to become people who make their own decisions and become expert in doing so. This is not something left to our personal preference, like a hobby. It is the duty, the responsibility of every individual. It is the only decent way to live. We must recognize that it is vital — at least as necessary as going to the doctor when we have a serious health problem. Of course we are free to decide whether we want to do this, but we must then also live with the consequences and pay the price. As we can see from the verses quoted above, the goal of every believing person should be to become a teacher. Because the recipients of his letter had neglected this, the apostle corrects them. This means that it is not only the task of those who have chosen it as a profession — priests, pastors, popes, hodjas, imams, elders, governing bodies. That is how we have been taught, but it should not remain so. When the Bible exhorts us to "obey those who take the lead among you," this is a time-limited instruction — for everyone should eventually be capable of teaching and training others themselves. For in the following verses the apostle says: Therefore, leaving behind the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity... And this we will do if God indeed permits. — Hebrews 6:1-3

All of Holy Scripture encourages us — indeed, it commands us — to make progress and to grow in maturity. But let us return once more to the verse just mentioned, which religious leaders so readily use to turn people into donkeys and then work to keep them that way.

Obey those who are leading you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you. — Hebrews 13:17 The leaders mentioned here are persons whom we ourselves have chosen as our leaders. That is also logical. For if it were not so, the Witnesses would have taken great guilt upon themselves. Because before this religion was founded, they themselves were under a leadership within their respective faith communities. They decided against that leadership, rebelled against it, and turned their backs on it. That is not wrong in itself. We can read in the history of Israel that in times when the priests had abandoned the way of God and were spreading teachings that did not accord with the word of God, God-fearing people distanced themselves from those priests. There are many examples of this: the prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, the apostles in the days of Jesus, and many thousands of other Jews who believed in Jesus. They all distanced themselves from the religious leadership among the people of Israel and did not accept them as their leaders — and this despite the fact that the priestly class was an institution ordained by God himself. The law also gave the people no choice between distinguishing good and bad priests. But all Israelites knew one important fact: their greatest leader, to whom they all owed absolute obedience, was God. On this point there was no alternative. We can only choose between the way of Satan with death at its end, or obedience to our Creator God, which ultimately means life for us. And God has the right to demand this obedience from us, since we are His creatures.

What is meant in the second part of the verse quoted above, when it says "for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account"? Many believe they find in this text a confirmation that the religious leaders will render an account on our behalf, that we are absolved of all responsibility, and that we must therefore obey them in everything. This verse is about the responsibility borne by those who are teachers — not about blind obedience to them. Does the Bible only say that we should be obedient to these teachers, or does it not also speak of our being obedient to our parents and to governments? That all these groups of persons also bear responsibility for their positions is obvious to us all. And what about us? What about us — do we have to render an account to no one and for nothing? As has been emphasized several times in this book, and as I have tried to demonstrate through many examples from the holy scriptures, there is no valid excuse for us — neither our ignorance nor our cowardice. These reasons have never acquitted anyone and will not do so in the future either. Is God unjust and cruel because He does not accept such excuses? How do we feel when people murder, plunder, and pillage in the most brutal ways and give as their justification that they were only following orders and acted out of fear? Is that an excuse we can accept? How were Hitler, his officers, the doctors, the judges, and many of his other henchmen judged in the Nuremberg Trials after the end of the war — was this justification accepted as an acceptable excuse? We know what verdicts were handed down, and in some cases they were even too lenient. If we already perceive these as just verdicts, how can we then expect that God will not judge in the same way? Of course He too will judge our transgressions justly. And we can even be certain that we will be condemned by our own words (Matthew 7:2; Mark 4:24).

But let us return once more to the leaders who "watch over our souls." First, one must say that they abuse their office. If I am therefore disobedient and do not submit to their directives because they are abusing their position, whose fault is that? There are thousands of religions that want these words applied unconditionally to themselves. For whom should we decide, when they all claim this authority for themselves? My answer to such religious leaders is: "Why did you yourselves not apply this principle and take a stand against the religion, church, mosque, or temple you were originally in? And now you have left those communities and claim the same authority as the deceivers whose backs you turned on!" Why did we leave our previous religion and not accept its leaders as authoritative for us? The one who wrote the words above, an apostle of Jesus, himself rejected the authority of his original religion — and we do the same. He and many others of his time likewise yearned for justice, truth, and integrity and therefore left their community. In doing so they did something that pleases God. But if we think that by regularly attending meetings and worship services we are doing something special, and force ourselves to go, and perform our worship as if it were alms tossed to a beggar — that we are doing something good by this — we are deceiving ourselves. Is it not the same thing that the followers of the many other religions of this world also do, religions that we condemn? And that, even though all those religions have not the slightest connection with justice, truth, or love of God or neighbor. And then there remains the question of how God regards such absolute obedience toward human beings. (Acts 4:17–20) But in the Bible the apostle Paul states very clearly whom we should recognize as leaders:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; the head of a woman is the man; the head of the Christ is God. — 1 Corinthians 11:3

This verse makes it completely clear and evident that the head over a man is not the elders, the governing body, an organization, the church, the priest, the temple, or a rabbi. That honor belongs to Christ alone, and through him to God. So all religions teach in contradiction to this statement and place themselves directly against God when they give themselves a position that belongs only to Jesus and God. And those who nonetheless accept these people as leaders and think they owe them obedience thereby show that they are rejecting the leader appointed by God, Jesus Christ. We should not expect them to literally present themselves as Messiah or Christ. They are not that foolish. But what do their words and their deeds say? Do they truly teach that one's leader is first and foremost Christ, or do they claim this position for themselves by expecting absolute obedience and also exerting pressure to enforce it?

Jesus said: "See that you are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, 'I am he,' and, 'The appointed time has drawn near.' Do not go after them. — Luke 21:8 Can one warn any more clearly than this?

The Witnesses themselves argue against participation in political elections, on the grounds that doing so amounts to rejecting Jesus as ruler. If in their eyes it is the case that someone who involves himself in politics places his hope in political systems and thereby shows that he does not trust the king appointed by God, Jesus Christ — an argument with which I fully agree — what then should one say about the fact that they demand absolute obedience toward their governing body? Other religions have other leaders who likewise demand such exclusive devotion. Those who elect their political leaders are usually only halfheartedly obedient to those they have elected, but the others cannot even choose their leaders themselves.

I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from him who called you with Christ's undeserved kindness to another sort of good news. But it is not another; only there are certain people who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: Whoever it is that declares to you as good news something beyond what you have accepted, let him be accursed. Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ's slave. — Galatians 1:6–10 When one reads these verses, does one not reach the conclusion that every religion that misrepresents Jesus or God is accursed? Among them, certainly the most diligent are Jehovah's Witnesses, who function like well-trained robots. They impress by having certain Bible texts at hand and being able to show them directly from the Bible. However, anyone who makes the effort and has the will can achieve this within six months, or even sooner. But then they stop at that point. They remain forever like six-month-old toddlers. There may be some who are eager and curious and, through their own initiative, make further progress and reach the level of two- or three-year-olds. But at the latest at that point, efforts are made to ensure that the person stays at that level, and pressure is also applied to achieve this. They have a very extensive program to reach precisely this goal. To an outsider this program may seem very impressive and look like thorough, in-depth training. But those who have participated in it for many years know that it always revolves around the same topics. But ultimately the goal of this program is achieved: one no longer has time to think for oneself or to do one's own research. The organization is not interested in promoting progress; on the contrary, it consciously fosters dependency. The Witnesses are repeatedly made aware of their dependence on the organization, and they cannot make their own decisions. For them, independence, freedom, independent thinking — these are all concepts that come from the devil and are dangerous. They prevent a person from learning to stand on their own two feet spiritually. They break their legs and then give them crutches. But these crutches may only be used as long as one obeys them; otherwise they take the crutches away as well. The symbolic legs that are broken are a valuable ability with which we were created: the ability to make our own decisions. Preserving or acquiring this ability is not easy in this world. By killing off this ability — one that has been laboriously acquired since childhood — they bring people into the spiritual condition of the disabled or the paralyzed. The crutches one receives only help one to move within their community; that is why, over time, all closer connections outside of it will be severed. People who do not go along or who are opposed are seen as "worldly" or even as followers of the devil. Once one is integrated into this program and actively involved, little time is left for other things or other people. Those on the inside are slowly, without realizing it, caught and drained like a fly in a spider's web. This goes on for many years, decades, and what remains is an empty shell. They cannot even bear the slightest, gentlest criticism. I can best illustrate what I mean with an example — an event I myself experienced. This event shows the state into which people fall when they are no longer capable of making their own decisions. A few years ago there was a knock at my front door. It was spring; the days were getting longer and warmer. Two Witnesses stood at the door, out doing their door-to-door service. Both were already somewhat older, around sixty. I invited them in. They obviously knew nothing about me. I am nobody in any case, but among the Witnesses I was known, because gossip is the order of the day among them and news spreads quickly. By that I only mean to say that they would not have rung my doorbell had they heard about me. The reason was probably that I had been in contact with the Turkish-speaking congregation while they came from the German congregation, which was also situated somewhat farther away. This became clear to me quickly, and I looked forward to the conversation, for speaking with people who have no preconceptions is more enjoyable and more edifying. For that reason I also did not tell them that I had regularly attended their meetings for many years, that I was very well acquainted with their teachings, and that they had done everything possible to remove me from their ranks. They began to speak about God. It was important to me to stay on one topic. I noticed something about both of them that had already become apparent to me before. Both had been with the Witnesses for a long time. One had been with them for over forty years, and yet — or precisely because of it — they both did not know some of the basic teachings of their religion. Or they had forgotten them over time, though some of the teachings are important ones that are not so easily forgotten. Inwardly I made a plan for the conversation. These people — the two men sitting across from me — would give the answers that their organization had prescribed for them. No matter how convincingly I spoke, regardless of how well they knew the topic, they would defend the line of argument they held to be the official teaching of the organization. For that reason I wanted to steer the conversation in a different direction. I presented the organization's teaching as my own conviction, and what I had learned from the Bible and the Quran and was truly convinced of, I presented as a teaching of the Witnesses that I did not understand. It was like theater that I was performing. The topic at hand was whether God foresees the future of each individual. The Witnesses reject this; they do not believe that God always sees the future. The topic is discussed in detail in an earlier chapter of this book. As mentioned, Bernd was expelled from their community solely because he did not accept their position on this point and had spoken with others about it. But let us return to the two Witnesses sitting across from me at the table. I began asking them questions. First I asked them whether they believed that God foresees the future. "Of course he sees the future," they said. What they here still called "of course," I intended to refute through my argumentation. They thought that what I was presenting was my own conviction, and that they would be defending the teaching of the organization. I heard astonishing things. These two Witnesses were in reality defending my views. I listened to them as though I were against them, but was inwardly very satisfied with what I heard. I contradicted them and tried to show them that they were on the wrong track, using arguments I knew from the Witnesses' literature. Both tried to convince me that God always and everywhere foresees the future, showing Bible verses as they did so — just as I had done in my countless earlier conversations with the Witnesses. I felt sorry for the two of them. Based on what they knew from the Bible, they could reach no other conclusion than what they were now presenting as arguments to me. It was going for them as it had once gone for me. But the organization had corrupted their thinking, and such simple truths had been twisted. That was the cause of many distorted and nonsensical teachings. I looked at the two of them and said: "Please don't be angry with me, but I must tell you something." What I was doing, the game I was playing with them, did not sit right with me, but at the time I saw no other way to open their eyes. It was the simplest and best way to make something clear to them. It was never my intention to humiliate these people, to demean them, or to make them look foolish, for I would have to answer to God for that. "What you have told me and how you have argued corresponds exactly to my conviction," I continued. "Well then, everything is fine, there's no problem," they said, but looked somewhat uncertainly at my face. "For me there is no problem," I said, "but for you — if you were to speak within your congregation, which you have attended for many years, the way you have spoken here, you would have to reckon with being expelled." At that they began to laugh and looked at me in disbelief. I told them that the view I had been defending during our conversation was in reality the view of the organization. Since they did not believe me, I took the Reasoning from the Scriptures book published by the Witnesses and opened it to the topic "Fate." There it is treated in connection with the sin of Adam and Eve. I opened the relevant page and placed the book before them on the table. First they looked at the book, then at each other. I tried to salvage the situation and said that I also believe as they had argued and believed earlier in our conversation. It was because of this topic and some others that I had not become a Jehovah's Witness, and others who had expressed the same view as they had just done had been expelled. The two became agitated, grew excited, but did not believe me. One of them finally said: "We're not very knowledgeable in this area. We'd like to come back another time and bring someone who knows it better." This man, who was over sixty years old and had been a Jehovah's Witness for more than forty years, says "he doesn't know this area very well" — meaning the topic of God's foreknowledge. Yet we had spoken at great length about this very topic before I had shown them the official explanation of the Witnesses. During that time I had not had the impression that he lacked knowledge about this topic; on the contrary, he knew it well and could argue convincingly. But the pressure and manipulation of the Witness organization unsettles them and shuts their mouths. That is exactly what the organization wants: people should feel unsettled and uninformed, or at least feel that way — then they dance more readily to its tune. "Of course you can come back," I said. We arranged a time and they said goodbye. This time the one who had only been with them for a few years and had been quite jovial did not come. The man who had been a Witness for forty years came with another, approximately the same age, tall and very arrogant. They came in, we sat down, and he began to talk and did not stop. He talked incessantly and did not let me get a word in at all. That is not an exaggeration. We had agreed to talk about a specific topic, and I noticed that the visitor from last time was insistent that I raise this topic, but it was not possible. It became clear to me quickly that this man would never allow the kind of conversation the other had envisioned, no matter how many times they visited. I therefore resolved not to discuss that extensive topic with him, but instead to choose another, simpler topic from the Witnesses' Insight book. Under the entry "Nebuchadnezzar," on page 442, at the end of the left column under the heading "His Dream of a Great Image," it states: "The book of Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar had a dream in the 'second year' of his reign (apparently reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem (607 B.C.E.) and therefore actually his 20th regnal year)..." Here the Watch Tower Society simply takes it upon itself to make a correction to the Bible! I have compared this verse with other translations; all of them say "second year of reign" here, including their own New World Translation. But it can easily be demonstrated that the statement "second year" in the Bible is correct. There are several verses in the Bible that make this clear. I have also published a table with a timeline on the website http://mesias.de, under the link "Chronologie." The man talked without interruption, without pause, about the typical topics of the Witnesses, with which I was thoroughly familiar. I asked him several times to give me just five minutes — and I meant a literal five minutes — to speak. Each time I said this, he answered: "Gladly another time, but we were actually just about to leave." I looked at the clock; by then one and a half hours had passed and he was still talking. He sat across from me like an embodiment of Watch Tower literature. When someone reads it for the first time, it is interesting and draws one in, but after a few years it is merely boring and uninteresting, as the topics always go in circles. I tried a few more times, then I said: "Give me at least five minutes to speak. Since you've been here you've been constantly saying 'we're just about to leave' — by now six and a half hours have passed; if you won't give me even five minutes, this is no conversation." He was arrogant and impertinent. Just to convince them that I would not speak for longer than five minutes, I offered to get a stopwatch. "I will speak only for these five minutes, and when they are up I will fall silent," I said. No chance. "When we come back we can do it that way," he answered. He had served as a missionary abroad for some years. He was clearly a big figure in his congregation. He had experience in how to drive donkeys around him. One doesn't need to be a prophet to do that. The poor fellow he had brought along was shrinking smaller and smaller and would gladly have sunk into the floor. That he felt uncomfortable and was annoyed was plainly visible. He had gone quite red in the face, but of course did not feel as free as I did to express his opinion here. I describe myself here as free, yet I was sitting across from this chatterbox out of politeness for six and a half hours. At the time I was around forty years old — no ten-year-old boy. Well, a ten-year-old would not have listened to it for that long anyway. So the two stood up and said their goodbyes. We arranged a date for the next visit. They absolutely wanted to discuss a brochure with me on that occasion. I agreed, but added: "If you don't let me speak for at least five minutes, I won't do anything at all." What could I do — it had to make some sense. It was already clear to me that they saw in me an excellent opportunity to log many hours of preaching to report. They sat in the warm and dry, could eat and drink as they did so, and such opportunities do not come along for a Witness very often. The Witnesses were always very keen to clock their hours at our place. I am also a patient conversation partner, but I do have my limits. When those are crossed, people end up hating me. So they came back at the arranged time. It was early morning, eight o'clock or half an hour later. Such was the will of the Lord! As if we were working in a factory. The evening before I had made preparations for the visit. I looked out the brochure they wanted to discuss with me and deliberately set it on top of a table upstairs. On the morning in question I went down to the living room and set out glasses and drinks, made tea and coffee, and put everything on the table so that we could talk undisturbed without me having to constantly get up and fetch things. Our small house is two-storied with an interior staircase. I also set the stopwatch out on the living room table. They came; we sat down in the living room. Barely had they taken their seats when he began talking again. I interrupted immediately: "Stop," I said, "last time I listened without interruption for over six hours and you did not let me speak for even five minutes — that should not happen again." I was embarrassed to have to remind him of his disrespectful behavior. "Very well," he replied, "what do you want to show us?" "I only want to draw attention to a small error. But first grant me the five minutes before we enter into a discussion." For it was obvious that I would again only be listening. These people truly seek donkeys, not human beings. He agreed — what choice did he have? The other one immediately seized the opportunity and said to me: "Tell us about what we discussed last time, about Adam and whether God always foresees the future." It was clear to me that I could not deal with this topic in five minutes, and also that they had already spoken with each other about it beforehand. He would therefore not really listen to me, would give his prepared answers, and thereby confuse the thinking of the sixty-year-old child sitting next to him. Our entire discussion would be fruitless. If we had more time that would be no problem, but since I only had five minutes to begin with! I therefore decided to begin with a simple mathematical topic. Whether it is two years or twenty years, any preschool-age child who knows addition and subtraction can easily understand and follow the argument. What interested me was this man's reaction — this man who enjoyed such high esteem in their congregation. More precisely, I of course anticipated the reaction, but my aim was to make this reaction visible to the other one. Even though he had kept saying beforehand that it was nonsense to get a stopwatch and time things exactly, he immediately objected when I started to speak: "Wait, start the stopwatch first," he interrupted me. The person who talks nonstop for over six hours now expects me, because I want to speak for five minutes, to start the stopwatch! Well, it is his right — after all, I myself had made the suggestion. So I started the stopwatch and began to show the Bible verses that prove that the indication in the book of Daniel of two years is correct, and not twenty years as the Watch Tower Society claims. When the five minutes were up, I pressed the stopwatch and said: "If you have questions about this, the time naturally counts separately." Now I even had to ask permission and fight for speaking time — and in my own home! This is the tactic they use to try to teach me "the truth"! When I had finished, the man said, thoroughly indignant and furious: "Who are you to presume to understand the Bible?!" I answered calmly: "What you are, I am also." But he went on and said: "Who gave you the authority to understand the Bible? Even I do not understand the Bible. Only the faithful and discreet slave of our organization understands the Bible and has the authority to interpret and explain it. From whom, then, did you receive your authority?" "God has given this authority to all people, to all who wish to serve Him. There is neither a monopoly on the Bible nor on the Holy Spirit." And by then I was no longer staying calm, and I said: "Do you see the poor fellow sitting next to you? You could still learn something from him — humility and modesty, for example." At that he grew even angrier and said: "When we came in here and I saw that you had not brought out the brochure we wanted to discuss, it was clear to me that nothing could be done with you." I replied: "I do have the brochure ready; it is on top of the table upstairs. I deliberately did not bring it down." But he was no longer really listening, had already stood up and wanted to leave. "Don't you want to know why I didn't bring the brochure down?" He asked "Why?" and I answered: "I deliberately did not do it, because I knew you were arrogant and like giving orders. Look — the man who brought you here absolutely wanted me to talk with you about a specific topic, but I first tried to give you something light; you could not even tolerate that. How am I then supposed to discuss weightier topics with you?" I said this while looking at the poor fellow who did not know how to conduct himself. But the big sixty-year-old child had already walked to the door and said on his way out: "I will never come back here!" It was evident that I had angered him. But I could not hold back and added: "Regardless of how respected you are in your congregation, and how others look up to and admire you — when you come through this door, we are all human beings. Those who have supported and elevated you so highly should reflect on that!" And then he was gone. I felt sorry for the other one. He was somewhat disabled and could not put his shoes on so quickly. He had by then gone bright red in the face and was ashamed. I shook his hand and said: "Do you understand now what I meant?" He was not able to speak, but nodded his head slightly in agreement. Sometime later the one with the disability came back. We sat on the terrace and drank a lemonade. He did not refer to that incident, nor did I. We talked about trivial things. After that I did not see him again. He was a nice fellow. Perhaps with that visit he wanted to let me know that he had not agreed with his colleague's behavior and had been embarrassed by it. But he too was unable to break free from this organization. The one he had brought along, who had been so arrogant, was in the end only following the rules of the organization. The other, on the other hand, had acted on his own initiative, his humanity and his love, and thereby, unknowingly, had reinforced the organization in what it does. The reason such organizations continue to exist is precisely because of such people within their ranks — people who have become their slaves, and yet from time to time show personal initiative and love of neighbor. If, in contrast, all followers were to strictly adhere to the rules and dictates of the organization, as that arrogant man did, the organization would collapse within a short time. Those who are aware of this rely on such examples of people within their own ranks who express their love of neighbor and compassion independently of the organization, in order to brand people like me as liars. Should they not instead be doing everything their organization prescribes for them? Yet because they use their positive qualities to portray something that is actually bad as good, and to defend it, the following statement from the Bible applies to them: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. — Isaiah 5:20, 21

The conversation mentioned above was just one of many experiences I had with the Witnesses in countless discussions. I mentioned another incident in the letter I sent to the Governing Body on behalf of my wife. It concerns a matter about which elders from a congregation in the United States had written to the Governing Body seeking advice. A woman whom they had previously disfellowshipped, but who nonetheless continued attending the meetings regularly, was having trouble getting her pram up the steep steps to the entrance of the hall. What was the problem? The elders simply did not know how they should behave! They wrote to the Governing Body at Watchtower headquarters and asked: "Should we help her, or not?" Such a question comes from the people responsible for a congregation — experienced, grown men! This is the pitiful state their upbringing within the organization reduces them to. They cannot decide such simple things. Because the organization wants it that way. I have also recorded the contents of this letter, in which that incident is described, in this book — under the subheading "A Letter to the Organization."

We must, however, have the will to make our own decisions. That is, we must decide to decide for ourselves. Then we begin to stand on our own two feet. We must choose whether we want to stand on our own feet in a spiritual sense — whether we want to live, leap for joy, and laugh — or whether we would rather forgo developing our leg muscles and remain permanently dependent on others. All of that lies solely in our own decision. Should others do our walking for us when it comes to faith in God? If they walk for us, how are we to follow them on our crutches? Religious organizations never want you to develop further, to become strong and independent. Their concern is always their own advancement. For them, progress means first and foremost their own comfort, then money and the number of followers. It is about possessions and making a name for oneself.

Jesus Christ compared those who believe in him to two groups — the wise and the foolish — both waiting for the coming of the bridegroom. The wise were those who had prepared themselves; the others had not prepared and were therefore called foolish. Let us therefore distance ourselves as quickly and as far as possible from religious organizations that only lull us into a false sense of security and make us spiritually drowsy. We should make a serious effort to regain the ability to make our own decisions. Let us remember that those who arrived too late in Jesus' parable are called the foolish. (Please read the parable yourself in Matthew 25:1–13.)

Should we allow others to decide over our lives, our faith, our minds, and in the literal sense over our organs and our blood — simply because we are afraid to take responsibility? And that based on groundless rules and commandments that are far removed from God's way. And do we truly believe we are free of responsibility when we hand our decisions over to a religious organization and practically beg them, "you decide for me"? We are relieved of making decisions — but do we really think that those to whom we allow the power to decide over us can also save us? This is why I urgently urge you to think seriously about the subject of "making decisions." It is important — indeed, vital.

As I said at the outset, we will make mistakes when we make our own decisions, but that should not discourage us. When a child learns to walk, it falls — and it falls very often. Would we on that account forbid it to walk, or discourage it by saying, "give it up, you'll never learn"? And what about us adults — do we not still fall from time to time? The story of many scientists who have made important inventions and discoveries was not always a success story from beginning to end either. Think only of Edison's life — a man who received barely any formal schooling because he was expelled from school and then taught by his mother. He probably heard more than once, "you'll never amount to anything." He is said to have attended school for only three months. This fact is often concealed, probably to prevent it from casting a dark shadow on the American educational system. After that, not everything went smoothly either. Twice as a young man his physics experiments burned down a building. But he refused to be discouraged by these setbacks. Edison, for instance, needed more than a thousand attempts, despite the most precise plans, to invent the light bulb. Through people like him, humanity was also literally illuminated. When we think of Edison, we always think of the light bulb — but he filed around 1,300 patents and is credited with some 2,000 inventions, many of which represented genuine progress for humanity. He did the pioneering work for so many things we use every day: the fax machine, the telephone, sound recording such as the gramophone, the record player, the Walkman, and much more. If such people had given up at the first mistake and not pressed on courageously, where would we be today? Could Edison have developed these things if nothing but prohibitions and obstacles had been placed in his path? Out of thousands of examples I have chosen only one.

Let us turn back to the religious sphere and look at what the Bible says about certain people who devoted themselves to moving humanity forward in such areas as love of God, justice, and truth. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. These two brothers brought offerings to God on the basis of their own decisions. The gifts of one were accepted, those of the other were not, because his works were evil. By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith. He trusted in God completely and in this he stood entirely alone in the world. He chose obedience and built the ark. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance; and he set out without knowing where he was going. Abraham too had to make a decision. On that journey he was alone, except for his family. All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, and they admitted that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. By saying such things they showed that they were looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country — a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them. All these faithful people had to make decisions — and they made them. And their decisions are mentioned with praise in God's Word as examples worthy of imitation. By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death. This was a symbol.

Abraham made his decisions without being directed by any organization or leadership. God had commanded it, and he obeyed. It was entirely his own decision. Others decide differently. There is no reason to think that all people automatically listen to the voice of God. On the contrary, it was always important to God that people come to Him of their own free decision. By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. (At that time there was a command from Pharaoh to kill all newborn males.) No one stood behind this couple and told them what they should do. No people and no organization stood behind them. They showed their courage and their love not in the name of any people or organization — it was their own decision. And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were put to death by stoning; they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated — the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground. These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect. (Einheitsübersetzung) These faith-strengthening texts are taken from the eleventh chapter of the Letter to the Hebrews. I have included them here because they show very well that in matters of faith we must make a decision for ourselves. You are welcome to read the entire chapter 11 again for yourself in the Bible.

All the people mentioned in these verses — Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others who were not named — all began alone. They stood alone, believed, and made their decisions accordingly, decisions that proved to be right. They did not look at what the masses were doing and let themselves be swayed by it. They were often mocked and persecuted, but that did not keep them from their path and their decisions. Yet they were not stubborn, obstinate, self-willed people who refused to listen to anyone. On the contrary, the Bible says of Moses: Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. Numbers 12:3 (Einheitsübersetzung) These people began when they were alone. That they persevered on their path was never the result of stubbornness; rather, they were driven by love for their Creator, love for truth, and love for their fellow human beings. That was the foundation of their decisions. How happy they were on that account. Happy is every person who is resolved to stand on their own two feet. How happy are the people who are like sheep — humble and modest. How happy are the people who resolve no longer to carry the filth and dirt of others like donkeys. How happy are the people who decide to see the facts, who are willing to advance toward maturity by coming to know their Creator better, by becoming masters of making their own decisions.

Atatürk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, once delivered a speech to the youth of his people. What he said has validity not only for the Turkish people, but for all peoples, all human beings. Religions do not think much of Atatürk. I do not know whether it is because he was an honest, sincere idealist, or because he had stood against the influence of religion and its leaders. I do not wish to go into that in detail here. But his speech became famous. In brief, he sets up in his speech a scenario in which the country has been occupied by foreign powers and its own army has been defeated or scattered. Or worse still — the country is governed by fools who have allied themselves with hostile powers. He thus describes a situation that appears utterly hopeless. Yet he speaks one sentence that imparts courage and confidence: The strength you need is mighty in the noble blood flowing in your veins. This strength is present in all of us, for it was given to us by our Creator — the strength to make our own decisions and to walk that path with resolve. Let us therefore use our free will to develop this ability further. We cannot prevent others from ruling over us, dominating us, or even killing us. God even calls on us to obey them in certain situations. We should accept that, even when it may sometimes be difficult. But our faith and trust in God and our love for Him should show us the right path and help us walk it with resolve and without fear. I do not know whether noble blood flows in every person's veins, but the ability to make one's own decisions and to stand on one's own feet — that God has given to all of us. Only when we continue to develop this ability will the likelihood of making the right decisions increase. It may well be that in this area we have no one around us to look to as a model. That is a fact. When I say that we were created with this ability, I also mean to say that we must do something with it. Just as we must do something in order to convert food into energy. If we eat very healthily but lie in bed all day and do nothing, our muscles will hardly develop. But if we are physically active and exercise, our body converts food into energy. It is somewhat similar with making decisions. If we are comfortable and let others decide for us, this ability will atrophy in us. But if we stand on our own feet, are willing to make decisions and bear the consequences, we will grow stronger over time and be able to make progress.

Earlier we spoke about how little I know about the radio and how it works. My point there was to show how important it is to become a master — not whether it is important to understand or build a radio. But the ability to make decisions is something we should regard as very important. It can not only save our own lives, but also give others the courage and knowledge to walk the path of life.

Can one manage this entirely alone? It is difficult, but not impossible. From the examples we discussed above, we could see that the prophets, and also very often scientists, were sometimes entirely alone. Not only were they alone — they also had to cope with many obstacles and open hostility. Some had to fear for their lives. We know from God's Word that walking the path of love and knowledge of God is very often bound up with great sacrifice and a high price. On the other hand, today we have very many and very easy ways of acquiring knowledge and thereby finding the truth — more easily than any other generation in human history. Today this requires no particular level of education or any special privileges. This knowledge is accessible to almost all people today. The following words of Jesus should therefore give us courage: So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! — Luke 11:9–13 (Neue Genfer Übersetzung) These words comfort us, for they show that in reality we are never alone. Can we imagine that if someone turns to God in all sincerity and simplicity, in modesty and humility, asking for help and understanding because they have reached a dead end in their thinking — that He would do nothing and perhaps even take malicious pleasure in it? Would God act that way? The verses above say the opposite. He helps us in our loneliness when we ask sincerely, more readily than when for the sake of comfort we follow the masses and go in the wrong direction. Yet religions teach the opposite: "I would rather go with the organization on the wrong path than alone on the right one." In the end, every person judges and condemns themselves by their own words.

We must be clear that we have a decision to make. Each person must do that for themselves. One path leads to life, the other to hatred, to shame, and to death. (Deuteronomy 30:19–20)

Yet the subject of "making decisions" is not concluded here. It runs through the entire book as an important theme we encounter again and again. In addressing it, I try to encourage you to choose the right path. I say deliberately "encourage" — I am not making the decision for you. If you do not want to, no one else can make the decision for you. If someone does make it for you, this does not affect your relationship with God. But if you do evil because others do it, you are evil in God's eyes. And if you do good because others do good, it does not make you better. It carries little weight before God. This principle is made clear in the following verses:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: "Ask the priests what the law says: If someone carries consecrated meat in the fold of their garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, some wine, olive oil or other food, does it become consecrated?" The priests answered, "No." Then Haggai said, "If a person defiled by contact with a dead body touches one of these things, does it become defiled?" "Yes," the priests replied, "it becomes defiled." Then Haggai said, "So it is with this people and this nation in my sight," declares the Lord. "Whatever they do and whatever they offer there is defiled." — Haggai 2:11–14 (Einheitsübersetzung)

RELIGION AND AUTHORITY

Imagine standing before God and being asked why you did this or that, or why you believed this or that. Would you say: "Because that is what I was taught; because they demanded it of me — for that reason alone"? When we speak with people, we often hear the idea that in order to be saved, one must do what one is told. There is no other path to salvation. We find this motto among Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, the military, political parties, and so on — this same principle applies across all religions and rulers. This essay concerns the relationship between people and religion and its leaders. Of course, everyone is imperfect and makes mistakes — religious leaders included — but only in theory; in practice they are considered flawless and are virtually deified. Even when they make mistakes, they are deemed to be in the right. In the Catholic Church this was even officially confirmed through the papal dogma of infallibility. Others do not make it so explicit, but in principle it is applied the same way. Although people do not know these leaders, have never seen them, and partly do not understand their writings — and sometimes cannot even believe what they write — they trust them blindly and are even ready to die for them. And when they die, they believe they have rendered a service to God. But to which God?? And who are these people for whom so many are prepared to die? Their word is accepted as the word of God! There are Kurds who set themselves on fire on the command of their leader Öcalan. Because they said so. Others did similar things for Marx, others for Lenin, for Hitler, for Napoleon, for the Pope, for their idol, their leader, king, president, board of directors, general, governing body, and so forth. Strangely, people have always loved to revere someone who is just as weak and imperfect a human being as they are themselves. They put such people in the place of God. Yet the Bible states clearly that there is only one God. (1 Corinthians 8:5; Galatians 1:8; Revelation 22:9) In the Bible there is an illuminating example found in 1 Samuel 8:5–7. The Israelites desperately wanted a human leader, even though they were ruled by God himself. They went to the prophet Samuel: ... and said to him: "Look! You yourself have grown old, but your own sons have not walked in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us, like all the nations." But the matter was evil in Samuel's eyes, that they had said: "Give us a king to judge us," and Samuel began to pray to Jehovah. Then Jehovah said to Samuel: "Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for it is not you they have rejected, but me they have rejected, that I should not be king over them." God had clearly laid out for the Israelites all the disadvantages that would come with having a human king, and yet they insisted on it regardless. (1 Samuel 8:10–12) As we can see from this account, we human beings have always chosen for ourselves those who stand over us and lead us. We have wanted them so badly that we can no longer do anything without them. When a public restroom is set up, someone is immediately appointed to instruct us how to use it! In time, people grew disenchanted and desperately wanted democracy, with the reasoning: "No one should rule over us; we want to decide for ourselves." But then they began again to elect one or two persons — each worse than the other — to govern and determine things. Through this, the people were silenced. When things started to go wrong, they blamed one another with the argument, "You chose them yourself." But we do not wish to talk about politics; we wish to talk about the fact that people have always desperately wanted to be governed by others — and that this is especially true in the realm of religion. Our concern in this essay is above all the relationship between human beings and God. Let us consider a Bible text that these religious people love to quote: Matthew 10:40, 41 — Whoever receives you receives me also, and whoever receives me receives him also who sent me. Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward. (New World Translation) They are deeply enamored of this text and then claim: "This refers to us. You must accept us so that God will accept you." But in this connection we must also cite a verse that these religious leaders are reluctant to apply to themselves: Matthew 7:15–16, 21 — Be on the watch for false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inside they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them. Do people ever pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. (New World Translation) For all those who believe it is sufficient to obey the commands of others in order to enter Paradise — even when one neither understands those commands nor truly believes in them — the story of Adam is a fitting warning. After Adam had sinned and was called to account by God, he immediately shifted the blame onto Eve. Eve in turn shifted it onto the serpent. But neither of them was acquitted by God! In the Bible we find many more such examples, in which even prophets led others astray — and in one case even a fellow prophet — through their bad example. (1 Kings, chapter 14) Even the otherwise so exemplary King David drew many others into his sin through his reckless behavior. (2 Samuel, chapter 24) And it is well known to Bible readers how the priests, through their corrupt conduct, often led the entire people into sin. All these examples say plainly that before God the excuse "I did it because others told me to" is not acceptable. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. — Matthew 22:37 God expects people to come to Him and to use both their mind and their heart in doing so. With these words, Jesus gives no one the counsel to submit to an authority in order to reach this goal. Throughout all of human history, people have always seen the above commandment as something unattainable, so they thought that by placing another authority over themselves they would be relieved of this responsibility. They believe that the love God requires of them is exhausted by bearing the burden of those whom they have chosen as their authority. To this day, people constantly try to draw closer to God by this path. And to this day they have learned no lesson from the sorrowful history of mankind. Even when they have come to hate and deeply despise this path, they still say constantly: "You shall rule over us; tell us what we must do to draw closer to God." Guided by the spirit of God, the wise King Solomon spoke the following fitting words: All of this I have seen, and I applied my heart to every work that is done under the sun, during the time that man has dominated man to his harm. — Ecclesiastes 8:9 Since those who exercise authority are equally aware of this, they exercise their dominion primarily through fear. They make slaves of those over whom they rule. And these allow themselves to be made into slaves — not because they do not know the truth, but because they are not prepared to pay the price for the truth. That is why they hate the truth. Fear and shame cause them to bury the truth. The fear is not without reason, for those in authority expect unconditional obedience. They hate the word "No"; they cannot bear it when someone uses it. Therefore it is a success for them when the people fear them. "The common people can only be led this way" is their motto. The more fear the people have, the more successful the leadership. The more they oppress the people, the better. They feel all the stronger the more they can destroy. But they do not carry out this destruction themselves. They do not dirty their own hands. They let others do it for them. Even Hitler had part of the dirty work in the extermination of the Jews done by other Jews. Religious leaders are the same. They do not dirty their own hands. Is someone to be shunned, declared an outcast, accused of heresy, or even executed? None of that do they do themselves, but they have it done — and there are always those who are glad to do it. They issue commands, but would never lay a hand on anyone themselves; they do not even want to see it with their own eyes. It makes them sick. In the meantime, something very important has completely vanished from our consciousness: a clear conscience. The Apostle Paul placed great importance on a pure, undefiled conscience before God. He said: Men, brothers, I have conducted myself before God with a completely clear conscience down to this day. — Acts 23:1 Yes, just as Paul did, we should be able to say before God: "I have done everything with a clear conscience, out of the conviction that it was right and that it pleases You." There is no reason to bend the truth simply because this or that person said this or that. Of course we care for one another, and Paul said that a man is concerned with pleasing his wife. But to throw truth, justice, and what is right and true overboard in order to please someone is neither good nor right, and would mean that we sell ourselves. In doing so we do many things that may be empty or fruitless — but how can we abandon God, or turn away from His path, even in small matters, when God's Word ultimately leads to our own good? If there is anything — be it a president, a leader, a state, a general, a dictator, any power whatsoever, our friends, our relatives, material possessions, or anything else at all — that can lead us away from God's path, then we do not belong to Him. It is that simple. Is this our own idea, or does the Bible not say this in Romans 8:35, 38–39 — Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or the sword? For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor governments, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God's love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. From whom do these words come? From a sinful human being. If he acted according to these words, then God also calls upon us to imitate him. Unfortunately, experience shows that we human beings rarely develop genuine zeal for good things. As a rule we choose the easy, comfortable path. It is ultimately in vain that we console ourselves with the words "we did it for them because they commanded us." We kill for it and allow ourselves to be killed. We think that by doing so we can quiet our conscience. Yet let us remember: it is not the same conscience that the Apostle Paul mentions a few sentences above. We are not at all clear about the pitiable, wretched condition into which we bring ourselves by doing this. We must cling to someone and follow them, no matter where they lead us. They shape and determine our lives. In doing so we feel comfortable and console ourselves with the words: "They will have to give account for it. That is their responsibility." True — they will have to give account for it. And we? To whom must we give account? To them? No. To ourselves? Absolutely! When we marry, do we ask our pastor whom we should marry? When we look for work, do we consult the bishop beforehand? Or do we ask the archbishop before buying a car, which color or which model we should choose?? But when it comes to serving God, we are greatly afraid of deviating in any way from the instructions of the church, the synagogue, the congregation, or the like. That would be a betrayal of our leadership!! But in saying this we do not mean to imply that all leadership or authority is bad. There have been many individuals who sincerely used their authority for the welfare of those under them — for example, King David, or his son Solomon who became famous for his wisdom, and a number of other kings and rulers who served the people with their whole hearts, including their faults and sins. These are only a few examples we find in the Bible. Apart from these, and from others not mentioned in the Bible, there were a great many other good rulers. Yet as the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata Salazar once said: "Learn to govern yourselves." The Bible supports a similar thought in Ecclesiastes 8:9. To rule or to exercise authority is truly not easy, but those who are so keenly set on it should not forget that they will give account not only for themselves, but also for those over whom they have ruled. Are we looking for role models for our lives? Do we want to follow someone?

God has had the lives of many people recorded in His Word as examples for us — people who were blessed and praised by God for their exemplary lives, their manner of thinking and acting. What more do we need? How we should live and what God expects of us He shows us, for example, in 1 Thessalonians 4:1, 3 — ... for this is God's will: be holy... What does it mean to be holy? Do we have to withdraw from human society and live in a monastery? Do we have to bow before God in prayer five times a day? Or must we dedicate our lives to God and renounce marriage? Or should we mortify ourselves and fast for days on end? Or does being holy mean attending a worship service weekly and spending a certain number of hours per month going door to door to bring the good news from the Bible? If we do not know the answer, why do we not simply let it be given to us through the Word of God? Let us throw off fear and comfort and do what is right. Let us rid ourselves of falsehood, hypocrisy, selfishness, love of money, and immorality. Let us use our minds not only to think about how we can gain an advantage. (Please read Colossians 3:5–9 in the Bible in this regard.) Let us ask ourselves what we are occupied with most of the day. What do our thoughts revolve around? What did God say before He brought the Flood upon humanity in the days of Noah? ... and God saw that the wickedness was exceedingly great and that the thoughts of the people were bent on doing evil at all times. — Genesis 6:5 If God destroyed the people then because they were evil, why should the same God hold back today from removing the wicked? Are we any better than the people of that time? Never; I am convinced that the opposite is the case!! We can therefore also be quite certain that the destruction of the wicked is imminent. God does not sleep, nor does He forget. He who created the eye is not blind. Will He always be silent about what He sees? No! In accordance with 2 Peter 3:9, God inspired Peter to write the following: God is not slow, as some consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. I would like to draw attention here to the fact that he does not say "he is delayed" but "he is patient" — of course also long-suffering. We are now living at the end of God's patience. We should therefore ask ourselves: what are we making of our time? What is the substance of our short lives? What are our goals? Let us use the time and turn away from our wicked path. Let us leave behind all quarreling, gossip, envy, jealousy, and hatred. Our goal should not be to change them. We should not run after all these authorities and self-appointed rulers, but we cannot change them either. That is not our task, nor is it a commandment of God. However, it is a commandment to change ourselves. This applies to each one of us, for we have all sinned (Romans 5:12). With one Bible verse I would like at the close to encourage all readers: Let the one who is doing wrong continue to do wrong, and let the filthy one continue in his filth; and let the righteous one continue to practice righteousness, and let the holy one continue to be made holy! Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work, says Jesus with the authority he has received from God. — Revelation 22:11–12

A LETTER TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY

The letter I reproduce below was written together with my wife and with her consent. Bernd was present and contributed some of his own thoughts. The Bible contains the rule that one should not judge a matter unless at least 2 witnesses are involved. (2 Timothy 5:19) That is also the reason why God enlisted as many as 4 witnesses to record the life of Jesus — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For some people these may seem like unnecessary repetitions. But all of them report what they themselves saw and experienced in connection with Jesus, and each brings his own view and perspective. In this way the overall account is completed and creates a more comprehensive, clearer picture. While one leaves some things unmentioned, another reports in great detail. The three of us sat down and composed this letter with the agreement of all three persons, in order to lend weight to the statements made therein. I had placed great importance on my wife becoming a Jehovah's Witness. My goal was to encourage her to read more, to research more, and to gain more knowledge about God. I myself was young and inexperienced in my own experience and knowledge in this area. Our general knowledge about God is equal to zero — I think most people would see it that way. So I encouraged her to become a Jehovah's Witness, in the hope that through greater knowledge of God she would also come to love Him. Yet our experiences and what we had by then learned about the organization troubled both me and my wife. We could no longer reconcile with our conscience that she was part of this organization. The fact is that my wife did not have the same knowledge and the same zeal in this area that I had. Everyone must decide that for themselves. My part, the only contribution I can make, is to encourage. In this area one cannot and should not compel anyone. Pressure and compulsion produce only hatred. But one can encourage, build up, and arouse curiosity. I had absolutely no desire to contribute in any way to someone beginning to hate God. Who knows what damage we may already have caused in this regard to others, unknowingly and unintentionally. That is why I always want to encourage everyone to become specialists, experts in this area. Then our mistakes will also become fewer. The only response we received to this letter was the question: "Do you want to remain a Jehovah's Witness or not?" My wife replied: "In this letter we have asked questions to which we would like answers. Is that not our right? Did you not encourage us to question everything about our former religion and to leave it, precisely because we did not receive satisfying answers?" The witness who directed this question to my wife was a pleasant man. He said: "Yes, it is your right to receive an answer." Yes, that is what he said — but he gave none! And they did not send anyone else who could have given an answer. They did not even condescend to send us a written message. I also sent this letter to Josef, who had been my first acquaintance among the witnesses and with whom I had discussed my first questions about God, and whom I also hold in high regard. He was by then already old and very ill. When no word came from him, I called him. "Did you receive our letter?" I asked. "Yes," he said, "but I haven't read it yet." At least a week had passed and he still had not read the letter! We had known each other for a good 20 years. A few weeks earlier I had already spoken with him about a few thoughts from the letter. He therefore knew its contents roughly. He apparently regarded it as a sin to open and read the letter. "We are old people, please leave us in peace," he told me on the phone. I respected his request and did not call again after that. If my call disturbs them, I take that into consideration — unlike the witnesses, who keep calling even when one says one does not want visits, or who sometimes quickly stick a foot in the door so one cannot get rid of them again. I have never tried to impose myself on someone when the other person has clearly signaled that they do not want that. It is their decision. Yet before I hung up I said: "Whatever it is that this letter contains, if you have known someone for 20 years, should you not read this letter — if not for the years, then at least for the qualities you have seen and come to know in that person? That is an act of respect. If what is written there is wrong, then tell me. But if it is right and much in the organization is wrong, then you do them no good by protecting them." Thereupon he promised to read the letter. But I heard nothing more from him after that. Some time later I heard that he had died. I hope that after the resurrection he will become a courageous person. After all, he had grown up in a Catholic family and had shown very great zeal and courage when he wanted to become a Jehovah's Witness, because he was convinced that they alone are honest people. Yet this love and this zeal for what is good is put to the test at every phase of our lives and at every age — we should not forget that. The letter that my wife sent to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is printed below in full:

Dear Brothers and Sisters, With this letter we wish to share with you something that has been troubling us for some time. To remain silent out of fear would not be appropriate, for in fear there is no love, as the Apostle John says. But we write this letter out of love. More precisely, the love we have learned from God and Jesus compels us to write you this letter. (1 John 4:18–19) We have learned to ask the right questions in order to examine our own religion and to see its errors. You taught us this, and we did it accordingly — not out of obedience to you, not merely because you said so, but because it was right and it is the will of Jehovah God. You showed us that it is wrong to lie, to bribe, to kill, to fail to render assistance, to practice hypocrisy, and so on. That is why we tried to change these things in our lives and to keep away from them. We did not do this out of obedience to you, but because it was right and because through our research we learned that it corresponds to the will of God. We also learned to be sincere and open — so open and fair that there is nothing one needs to conceal. For only things that are unpleasant and of which one is ashamed does one try to hide. That too we did, not because you said so or out of obedience to you, but because it was right and it is in accord with the will of God. The points listed above are only a few of hundreds; we wish to be as brief as possible in this letter. Those were good words, advice, and encouragement. About 18 years ago we came to know each other; three years later I was baptized, the only one in my family. Unfortunately, during this time we did not see the points mentioned above put into practice in the way they are preached. For this letter we have concentrated on only the most striking points, with the help of my husband and a brother who had served as an elder and whom you removed from your midst simply because he says that God foresees the future of each individual. I remember very well the congress of 1988, when during a resolution we all stood up and declared that we abhor various things in false religion (for example, false teachings, contempt for the name of God, immorality, and so on). At each point, I myself cried "Yes" with full conviction and was happy in doing so. That is what I mean. We abhorred those things because they are wrong. These are matters that one cannot excuse with imperfection. It is precisely for this reason that we write you this letter. This does not mean that we are better than you, or that we know more than you, or that we elevate ourselves above you in any respect. In your own words: we write this letter not from "above," but from far "below." This attitude was also not one we held in our former religion. What matters to us alone is what God expects of people, not who bears which label or holds which position or power. We have also learned from Jesus that we are all brothers and sisters. Sadly, however, we have not seen this in practice either. What do we mean by that concretely? Please read the contents of the letter; it will certainly make clear what we mean. Once one is inside the organization, it is not looked upon favorably when one asks questions. Simple questions arising from lack of understanding are permitted — they are even welcomed. But when questions arise from serious inquiry and informed reflection and call the teachings and actions of the organization into question, it is predominantly customary to attack the questioner and his motives rather than to address the question. We mean questions of the kind that cannot be answered satisfactorily. For example: the end was prophesied several times (1874 – 1914 – 1918 – 1925 … 1975); although none of these came to pass, errors were never admitted — on the contrary, ever greater efforts were made to justify them. And to this day the year 1914 is still clung to. These things may perhaps not matter to us, but those who do not believe in them are declared permanently dead by means of disfellowshipping — in the name of God! These are dry numbers here, but many people organized their lives in full trust in these predictions and have had to suffer greatly as a result. Some forewent a good education, or the opportunity to marry and raise children. Others postponed important operations or had their pensions paid out immediately. But it gets still worse. The brothers and sisters in Malawi lost not only house and home; women were raped, some were burned alive, and thousands were forced to flee — why? Simply because they were not prepared to carry a party membership card. It was the official instruction of the organization. Even though it was the only party in the country and possession of this card served merely as a form of identification. It was a legal requirement to carry this card, for which one had to pay a small fee. For some senseless reason the witnesses refused, thereby needlessly making themselves a target for the hostility of this new government. This nonsense cost countless witnesses their lives and brought unimaginable suffering, hardship, and misery upon these people. One must truly be outraged about this; but the whole thing becomes even worse when one learns that simultaneously, at the other end of the world, a completely different practice was common. In Mexico it was standard to obtain by bribery a document that certified one as having served in the military. The brothers there, as well as those responsible, felt uncomfortable about it and it burdened their consciences. They therefore wrote to headquarters and wanted to know how they should conduct themselves in future. The reply was simply that there was no reason to change the existing procedure. In plain terms: while the brothers in Mexico are allowed to obtain a military document through corruption, lying, and deception, it is forbidden for the brothers and sisters in Malawi to acquire by honest means — without selling themselves out, without resorting to lies, without transgressing God's word in any other way — a document that serves them practically as identification! And they need not vote for anyone or support a party, since, as stated, there was only that one party. Who ordered this? God's channel!! Who bears responsibility for this bloodguilt?? Something similar occurred in Germany while Hitler was in power. To that mad dictator you wrote a letter — a letter that is spoken of positively in congresses even to this day. A letter addressed directly to Hitler, written by the witnesses in America. That letter was provocative — practically a threatening letter. There is the saying about letting sleeping dogs lie. That is exactly what you did. Very well, those who wrote the letter in America felt none of the consequences — they sat comfortably in their armchairs. What reaction were you actually expecting at the time? I can still remember well that when this letter was mentioned at a congress, my very first thought, even before I knew the consequences, was: those poor witnesses in Germany — they are the ones who have to pay for this. And indeed Hitler's reaction to this letter was brutal. While they sat comfortably in their armchairs in Brooklyn, thousands had to suffer or even lose their lives. While the steadfastness and loyalty of the witnesses in Germany at that time were truly admirable, one can only marvel at such an irresponsible letter. However, in connection with the claim of being the chosen and only channel of God and therefore speaking on God's behalf, such a letter is blasphemy. What we cannot understand is your provocation — and therefore your intention!!! For it cost a great deal of innocent and unnecessary blood. Even if the witnesses in Germany themselves had written it, this would not speak for wisdom and courage. What does one actually want to prove by it? Did you improve anything through it? Why do you still indulge in self-praise in connection with this letter? We do not know how Hitler would have treated the witnesses further without such a provocative letter. But this is not about Hitler — it is about your conduct. We can see nothing positive in connection with this letter; on the contrary, through this foolishness you not only committed a grave error, but thereby also share responsibility for the subsequent bloodshed that resulted from it. These are the kinds of questions we mean — the ones that one cannot put to you. Who has heard of these things, or who knows what is actually true? Only a handful of people! How do we know all this? From the very top — from one who was actively a Jehovah's Witness for 43 years, nine of them on the Governing Body: Raymond Franz. He published his experiences and his knowledge in two books: "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom." Some of the points mentioned above naturally also fall under the categories of lying, fraud, and bribery. We are not talking about the kind of lying that is common practice (among the witnesses) when someone, consciously or unconsciously, says something contrary to the organization and then denies it afterward, or when someone states an untruth in order to defend the organization. They do not even have a bad conscience about it, for supporting the organization and presenting it in no unfavorable light under any circumstances is the highest priority — and for that one can well tell an untruth and still feel good about it. We do not mean such cheap lies, in defense of which we cite the Apostle Peter and say that he too had grown weak and lied, even denied Jesus. With such examples we ease our consciences. Peter had not planned this and had not resorted to such systematic dishonesty as you practice. Nor is it unusual to fail to tell the truth at the door — one is pursuing a good purpose, after all — for example, in a Muslim area, to answer "yes" to the question of whether one has read the Quran, even though one has only read a few verses. One deliberately misleads the householder. Do you think that with such dishonesty you can bear good witness about God? Or in divorce proceedings, the witnesses are given advice like lawyers in this system, solely so that no bad light falls on the organization. In such cases too they do not shy away from lies — least of all in proceedings directly against the organization. You pride yourselves on the fact that no Jehovah's Witness would ever take up a weapon and shoot at others. That in no war has a human life ever been taken at the hand of a witness. But as we mentioned above, through your rules and commandments many people — thousands — have been sent to their deaths. The examples of Malawi and Hitler's Germany are only 2 cases among these. What truly astonishes us in this connection, however, is the fact that in not a single case have you accepted responsibility for this, or even acknowledged that your conduct was not wise. There has been no apology of any kind from you. You say of yourselves that you are imperfect, but in reality you see yourselves as infallible — that at least is what your conduct demonstrates. Although we knew you were not prophets, we listened to you as one listens to a prophet, as a spokesman, as a channel of God. I am convinced that many still serve you — but unfortunately not God — with this same attitude. Nevertheless, the following words of Jesus give us courage: Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. — Matthew 10:41 With this promise in mind, we maintained our relationship with you. If you do not produce the corresponding works, that is your problem, not that of those who believe in it. But what about those who use your religion as a crutch for faith in order to draw near to God? They do so primarily out of fear or convenience. What will they do when Jehovah soon takes this crutch away from them? Do you not say yourselves that before the end comes all religions will be banned — what will those people do then, those who have not trained their own power of discernment but whom you have made dependent on you? "We are the channel of God and God teaches through this channel," you claim. A faithful, God-fearing brother knew he would soon die of his grave illness. This brother had decided to accept a blood transfusion in order to delay his death by a few days — just so he could see his children one more time, since they had a long journey to make. He was disfellowshipped right there in the hospital, shortly before he died. With what kind of conscience, with what kind of attitude does one do such a thing? He was dying anyway!! What sense does it make to stamp someone who is, so to speak, still alive with the mark of "unworthy of eternal life"? Simply because he accepted blood?? On one hand, blood transfusion is portrayed as a great sin; on the other hand, you are willing to accept almost all components of blood. But we will go into this topic in greater detail later. Let us assume for a moment that this brother sinned gravely by accepting a blood transfusion. (Of course this sin cannot be all that grave, since he received blood directly — and yet your missionaries who are sent to African or Far Eastern countries are vaccinated with a substance that is also derived from blood; approximately 15 liters of blood are required to produce this substance!) Despite these facts, let us assume for a moment that he sinned gravely. Is it then necessary to officially sever all contact with him, given that he will in any case die very soon? Must one, through this course of action, make it unmistakably clear to him that he is cut off from God's mercy and is without hope?? Is that what it means to follow Jesus? Has Jesus not said often enough to people like you: I desire mercy, not sacrifice? How did Jesus judge the woman who was caught in adultery? Have you not read that Jesus said: "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone," and the Jews disappeared one by one until Jesus was alone with this woman — and even then he did not judge her? Do you not claim to be the true followers of Jesus? Bravo. But you are not alone in this — there are unfortunately enough people like you on earth. Your elders, who are instructed by this channel, put the following question to the Governing Body in Brooklyn: A sister who had been disfellowshipped still continued to attend meetings. She was struggling up a steep staircase with a baby carriage, going backwards, slowly, step by step. Nobody helped her, out of fear of making themselves guilty! At least not everyone's conscience was so entirely numbed that they asked the question: "Are we allowed to help her carry the baby carriage up?" These poor elders put this question! I wonder to myself why they did not ask their own conscience and: "What would Jesus have done?" But no, they turn with this question to Brooklyn because they are unsure how to conduct themselves. That is precisely why I also called them "poor elders." What does Jehovah say through the prophet Jeremiah about such people: "They are stupid sons; and they are not such who have understanding. They are wise in doing evil, but in doing good they have no knowledge." — Jeremiah 4:22 When at a congress an overseer stands on the platform holding a brown book in his hands and says: "Brothers, if the organization says this book is black, then it is black!" and the audience applauds — what is one to say to such a people?? Hitler was guilty, yes — but what about the German people who applauded him, and many of whom still applaud him today? But such statements reveal not only the attitude of the speaker and the organization, but also those of the people who listen and applaud. That is why God allows all these things to happen. I was ashamed when I heard this incident at the congress, and I hope that some of you will have exactly such feelings. Jesus had after all predicted that there would be those who would applaud. We write this here because perhaps in this way we can help one person or another to recognize the truth and understand whom we all truly must serve. Moreover, you will not be able to say "we did not know this" when you have to give an account for your actions. Did you not also always warn us and draw our attention to errors? Why should we not do the same? In this way we pay our debt. Moreover, it is a commandment of God. We can also be certain that God does not think in hierarchies as you do, and does not judge the value of such a letter by whether it comes from "above" or from "below." (Ezekiel 3:18) Even though we do not genuinely believe that you will acknowledge and admit any error, we point it out nonetheless. It is gradually time for you to write about your own errors in your countless magazines and books. For over a hundred years you have been doing nothing but praising yourselves. Even the Catholic Church admitted an error after several hundred years (in the dispute with Galileo). Or do you perhaps also need that much time as the Church? Are you certain that you will be granted so much time? Just as you have denounced and judged the errors and the falsehood of the Church, so too will you be judged — or do you think otherwise? In your view the Church is destined for destruction; and what judgment awaits you? We have also come to know that the number of those who could no longer bear the pressure the organization exerts on individuals and therefore took their own lives is very large. But such facts too one does not learn from your magazines — silence is maintained about them. In the 20 years in which I have come to know your organization more closely, I have read nothing but self-praise, nothing but positive things about you. Yet this spirit of self-glorification is completely contrary to the spirit of the Bible. In Proverbs 27:2 it says: Let a stranger praise you and not your own mouth; let a foreigner do it and not your own lips.

When it serves the interests of the organization, you are glad to use verses from the Mosaic Law. But it is also written there: "I will require the blood shed innocently in Israel from your hand..." Something similar is also found in Deuteronomy 21:7–8. The blood that was shed in Malawi, in National Socialist Germany, and in other places because of your instructions — Jehovah will require it from your hand. And what about those you have removed from your ranks even though they faithfully served the organization for many decades? And why did you throw them out? One, because he ate with his superior who had shortly before left the organization; another, because he told his friend: "I don't agree with everything the organization says either." When he was removed from the congregation he was 91 years old!! After that he had no one left to help him or stand by his side, since you immediately forbade any contact with him. Another you threw out simply because he said: God always foresees the future, not just occasionally! A widow you removed from your midst because she cleans in a barracks to earn her livelihood. On the other hand, a woman in the same barracks can clean in the general's house without "sinning," because she receives her wages from the general's private account, while the other woman is paid by the military! Such examples exist in droves: one person is disfellowshipped who worked as a gardener because he maintains the church's garden, another because he laid electrical cables!! If someone says: "I no longer want to be a Jehovah's Witness," his relatives are not allowed to see him, or else they themselves risk being expelled! Grandmothers, grandfathers, grandchildren — none are spared. Or the previously mentioned example of the old sick man on his deathbed who accepts a blood transfusion just to see his children one last time!! These are certainly not all the cases! The words of God from the book of Ezekiel come to mind: This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "Look! I am against the shepherds, and I shall certainly demand my sheep from their hand and cause them to cease from feeding the sheep, and the shepherds will no longer feed themselves; and I will deliver my sheep from their mouth, and they will not become something for them to eat." Ezekiel 34:10 My sheep kept straying on every mountain and on every high hill; and on all the surface of the earth my sheep were scattered, without anyone doing the searching and without anyone doing the seeking. Ezekiel 34:6 ...because with side and with shoulder you kept pushing, and with your horns you kept pushing all the sickened ones until you had scattered them to the outside. Ezekiel 34:21 Do you think God will not require the blood of all these people from your hand? If he did it in the past, he will do it in our time as well. Just as Jehovah once cast off the people of Israel, so he will do with you. And this even though they were a people called by Jehovah himself; who called you? You called yourselves! Do you perhaps think your hands are less stained with blood than those of Muslims, Catholics, or Protestants, just because you refuse military service?? We are convinced that is not the case. Also beware of exalting yourselves and saying: "You only came to know God and the Bible through us, and now you are so ungrateful." The apostle Paul had a completely different attitude, even though he certainly had more reason to boast. He says through the Spirit of God: "What, then, is Apollos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers. ...so that neither he that plants is anything nor he that waters, but God who makes it grow." 1 Corinthians 3:5–9 He emphasizes how important it is to give all glory to the one who makes it grow — God — and not to the one who plants or waters. If therefore neither Paul nor Apollos is anything, then even less so is your organization, which you elevate to the heavens in an almost idolatrous manner! Who, then, is something? Paul says only: "God." Is there such an attitude among you? We have not seen it. Whose spirit's channel you truly are is easy to recognize. In the Catholic Church, Mary, the Mother of God, is elevated above God or at least placed on equal footing; among Muslims, the Prophet Muhammad, and so on. You give all the honor that belongs to Jehovah God alone to the organization, and are therefore no better than the groups you condemn so loudly. I write this only because you view yourselves as so unique and pure. I know that through this letter I will only reap your hatred. But as the prophet Amos says: "They have hated the one reproving in the gate, and the one speaking what is perfect they detest." Amos 5:10 Jesus Christ says, "no one comes to the Father except through me," and in 1 Timothy 2:5–6 it is written: "There is one God and one mediator between God and men." But by making salvation dependent on an organization, you have denied both the Father and the Son! The Bible says clearly that there is salvation in no other name except through Jesus, and that he has transferred this authority to no one else. Did Jesus not, on the contrary, issue the following warning according to Luke 21:8: See to it that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying: "I am he," and: "The due time is near." Do not go after them. Is there any text in the Bible from which it is clear that we must be connected to an organization? Unfortunately, not even the word "organization" or anything similar appears anywhere in the Bible!! Who, then, is this "faithful and discreet slave" to whom we are so eagerly and repeatedly directed? Jesus sheds light on this question with the following words: "For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:50 Whoever acts on earth according to this principle is a "faithful and discreet slave." That is what we understand from the words of Jesus. But you rarely draw your members' attention to the following verse. So let us at least touch on it briefly now in this letter. Among the slaves there would also be wicked slaves, as Jesus further explains in his parable. He says: "But if ever that evil slave says in his heart: 'My master is delaying,' and starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be." — Matthew 24:48– We know that as a matter of principle you apply everything positive from the Bible to yourselves, but everything negative to those who are not associated with you. As we have already said, whether you want to hear it or not, we will continue to speak — or rather write — because our conscience compels us to. The above description of the wicked slave fits you far better than that of the faithful slave. If our words are hard for you because of your deeds, then your feelings should not be directed against us for addressing this, but rather toward how you can free yourselves from this organization that uses you. Do not read this letter as though it were coming from an enemy; it comes, to be sure, from "below," but it is truly intended as a well-meaning warning — even if I have no hope that you will accept or even change anything from it. After all, for 18 years we ourselves were victims of you. Even though we followed God's Word, we still could not say that we were free from all your unscriptural teachings. In following your teachings, we too committed fanatical foolishness. (Such as the view on blood.) The following words of Jeremiah come to mind: Perhaps they will listen and return, each one from his bad way, and I will feel regret over the calamity that I am thinking of bringing upon them because of the badness of their dealings. Jeremiah 26:3 As you have also rightly recognized, Scripture nowhere says that the congregation or the assembly is the head of the man. But the apostle Paul says clearly and distinctly: "...the head of every man is the Christ...," according to 1 Corinthians 11:3. He does not speak of a congregation, an organization, or any other institution. He gives no one the authority to be such a head — no elder, no overseer, nor any other rank or position — but says clearly and distinctly: "the Christ." This makes it clear that Jehovah God has given no one except this person appointed by him the authority to be our head, and only through his recognition in this position can we expect to be guided and directed by the help of his spirit. There is an admonition to obey those who take the lead in the congregation, but this statement is to be understood in the same way as the admonition to be subject to the governing authorities. If therefore it is our duty to comply with the requirements of governments, but to say "no" when it conflicts with God's Word, why should obedience toward elders be any different? We see clearly from the Bible that God has given no one the power to exercise authority over others — with one exception: Jesus. Only by holding to this can we also expect to be supported by the spirit of God. At the beginning, we too were seduced by your words and also seduced others. Another example: The statements in the Awake! of February 22, 1985, in the article "Gaining God's Approval Through Open-Mindedness" highlight the necessity of open-mindedness, and so we also believed that you yourselves were open-minded. Also in the Watchtower of January 15, 1989, in the article "Are You Open to New Thoughts?" attention is drawn to this valuable quality. You teach a person all these important qualities until they have become part of your community. You show how important it is to examine one's own religion, what questions one should ask about it, that one also has the right to receive scripturally based answers. You also encourage him to examine the history of his own religion, and so on. But these same principles do not apply to a Jehovah's Witness. Once he is baptized, he must accept everything the organization says, whether he believes it or not, without offering his own interpretation or criticizing anything; he must live by it, and also die by it. Has the organization made a mistake? Never mind. It is better to go the wrong way with the organization than to go the right way alone!!! These words are certainly not unfamiliar to you. In the "Truth Book" on page 13, it states what a person must do, among other things, to arrive at the truth: "We must examine not only what we personally believe but also what is taught by the religious community to which we may belong. Are its teachings fully in agreement with God's Word, or are they based on the traditions of men? If we love the truth, we need not be afraid of such an examination. Each of us should sincerely want to know God's will concerning us and then do it (John 8:32)." Why do we not start immediately by examining the history of our organization to see whether the teachings of the past 100 years were human doctrines, or whether they have truly proved to be divine teaching? We might ask ourselves, for example, why none of the predictions came true. And why those who ask such questions are removed from the ranks. "You should ask these questions in your own religion, but when you are with us, be quiet and wait on Jehovah." What kind of justice and integrity is this? Through your teaching you have not only taught black as white, day as night, but also taught that no questions should be asked about it. Is this the truth you offer to people and invite them to accept? You yourselves have not accepted the truth and do not allow others to accept it either!! How fittingly Jesus said the following about people like you: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men! For you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Gehenna twice as much so as yourselves. — Matthew 23:13–15 The founder of the Watchtower Society, C.T. Russell, himself says that membership in an earthly organization plays no role in the selection for heavenly glory. (Watchtower 1881, p. 295) That is how you used to think; today, however, you are on exactly the opposite course. Do not try to explain this by saying that the light of the righteous keeps growing brighter, for your development is moving ever more into darkness rather than toward the light. On the one hand, you have discouraged your members from building houses, making new acquisitions, or even solving their health problems, on the grounds that "the end is near," while on the other hand you have constantly upgraded Bethel and printing facilities and built new branch offices with the help of free labor. The organization is essentially saying: "Do what I say, it is for your good. Do not worry about the future. Do not burden yourself with the troubles that arise from acquiring new things or even building a house. Instead, you should carry our burden and help in expanding the Kingdom work." And they say this without so much as blushing. Jesus also described this fittingly with the words in Matthew 23:4, 5, 27: They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. All the works they do they do to be seen by men... ...because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men's bones and of every sort of uncleanness. In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. You boast of "enlarging the fringes of your garments," like your forefathers. But all these buildings, the modern printing technology, the branch offices you are so proud of — you have built them on the backs of these poor people whom you taught to throw off their burdens, and the running costs are met with their contributions. These people do this willingly, with joy, because they feel they are doing something for Jehovah God. But you are not the only ones in this world who have learned to lead a comfortable life by misusing people's fear of God for your own purposes. But as you yourselves say, the end is near — yours included. Or do you perhaps think you will be saved then? We say with certainty: No! Or do you also consider God a criminal? ...and you want to come and stand before me in this house upon which my name has been called, and say: "We shall certainly be saved" — despite all these detestable things that you have done? Has this house upon which my name has been called become a mere cave of robbers in your eyes? Here I myself have also seen it, is the utterance of Jehovah. Jeremiah 7:10–11 In writing this letter — as Paul says — do we seek to please men or God? Galatians 1:10 For an organization, unity is especially important. That is why you have so thoroughly indoctrinated your members with this idea of unity that they feel obligated to defend the organization under all circumstances, whether they themselves stand behind these views or not, whether they understand the organization's positions or not! And it seems to matter not at all how serious the "apostasy" is. One is expelled because he does not accept the chronology pointing to the year 1914 and speaks about it; another, because he says: "Jehovah always foresees the future of every person." On the grounds of apostasy he is removed from your ranks, since he is destroying the unity, and you forbid every one of your members to speak with him, or even to greet him. To illustrate the necessity of unity, you are not even ashamed to cite the military as an example — even though you yourselves say that the military and wars belong to Satan's world. But then you still say with full pride: we are soldiers of Christ! Whom did Jesus ever discipline into faith with military disciplinary measures? Did Jesus ever turn away anyone who wanted to come to him? We know of no such example; if you know of one, then tell us!! I therefore ask you: with what attitude can you go from house to house and say: "If you do not examine your religion, leave it, and come to us, you cannot be saved" — when at the same time you teach your followers that it is important to maintain unity under all circumstances? Why is it right when you do it, but when someone from another religion does or says the same thing, it is wrong! Others should speak openly about the mistakes in their own ranks, but your followers must wait until Jehovah God sorts the matter out! With this knowledge in mind, you should once reflect on your self-praise, on how much time and energy you spend in the preaching service, and then on the number of the many different religions and on the many people in these religions who, simply to preserve the unity of their community, say things that are wrong or unreasonable. Are they therefore worse, more unreasonable, or harder-hearted than you, and do they therefore rightly deserve the wrath of God? We must again say: No! Did not Jesus say we should first remove the rafter from our own eye so that we can see more clearly how to remove the straw from the eyes of others? And Peter says in 2 Peter 2:18–19: "For they utter swollen words about freedom...19...While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are existing as slaves of corruption." Truly a most fitting warning for our time! At this point I would like to briefly return once more to the topic of blood. Since we had no knowledge on this subject, we trusted you and must now conclude that we were deceived in this area as well! For more detailed information on this topic we would again like to refer to the book by Brother R. Franz, "In Search of Christian Freedom." On pages 143–158 one can find extensive scientific and biblical knowledge on this subject. In this letter we wish only to briefly point to what are perhaps the most important points in our own words, as far as we have understood them. A comparison of the Bible's statements about blood with your positions makes it clear where fanaticism leads and what terrible excesses it can take on. Organ transplants are permitted among you and you have accepted them for several years now. Yet the same elements present in organs — such as white blood cells (leukocytes) — are also present in blood. In an organ transplant one receives more leukocytes than are in blood, and yet they belong to the "forbidden" components!! And mother's milk contains more leukocytes than the same quantity of blood. Another point concerns the use of other blood components needed in certain vaccinations. In order to be able to send your missionaries to certain countries, you removed these components from the prohibited list, even though obtaining them for a single vaccination requires several liters of blood that had previously been stored. In the USA, of all blood donations each year only about 6% are processed as whole blood — in other countries the numbers are probably similar — and the rest, that is 94%, are separated into individual components and processed for various medications. Hemophiliacs and those who have suffered severe burns benefit from this, including Jehovah's Witnesses, for all of that is permitted. What remains, then, that you refuse to accept? Blood plasma is also on the prohibited list. What does this plasma consist of? 95% water. The rest is made up of various proteins, such as immunoglobulins, albumin, and the like. Not a single one of the components of blood plasma is on the prohibited list, but plasma as a whole may not be taken. A doctor described this situation with the following comparison: It is as though one forbids someone to eat a sandwich but at the same time permits all the individual ingredients of the sandwich to be eaten — just not all at once! That is the logic of your organization. "We do not take blood, since God expressly commanded to abstain from blood." Yes indeed — which is why someone is always at the bedside keeping watch, so that no doctor has the opportunity to give blood, or so that your fellow believer does not give in in a moment of weakness and accept a blood transfusion. The concern for the sick person is of course put forward as the reason. With this you have truly rendered God a valuable service!!! These are only a few points on the topic of blood from a scientific, logical perspective. What is naturally interesting now is the question: what does the Bible actually say about the intake of blood? Does it really say that one should not receive blood, or is it, as with so many other topics, merely an error in the interpretation of the Bible — like, for example, the chronology pointing to 1914 C.E.? Blood is mentioned for the first time in connection with God's command to Noah. After the flood, Jehovah said to Noah: "Only flesh with its soul — its blood — you must not eat. And, besides that, your blood of your souls shall I require. From the hand of every living creature shall I require it; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I require the soul of man. Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed." Genesis 9:4–6 In these verses, Jehovah God makes it clear to people that they do not have the right to take life and that in acknowledgment of this fact they should pour out the blood of a slaughtered animal on the ground, thereby symbolically returning the life to the Creator. When it came to the shedding of human blood, there was no compromise. In this way the Creator showed that life is something sacred. How did Jesus at the time expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who had been upset over a healing on the Sabbath? Which of you will not pull his donkey or his sheep out of a pit, even on the Sabbath? Does he not thereby violate the Sabbath law? How then can one say today that it is a sin to give someone blood and thereby even save his life, when the one donating it does not even have to suffer? If God says that life is in the blood and that blood thereby becomes something sacred, then one can give and receive blood to save life. If saving the lives of human beings — or at least improving their health — is not something sacred, then what is?? What is more valuable, a donkey or a human being? Is the life of a sheep worth more than that of a person? The Sabbath law is there to prevent an Israelite from suffering economic harm. For a dead sheep or donkey found in the field did not make the people guilty. But when a human corpse was found, Jehovah says expressly: "I will require his blood from your hand!" By this he shows the value that the life of a human being holds in his eyes. When God forbids people to eat blood, he is not thereby causing them physical harm; on the contrary, it is beneficial. Thus blood as a foodstuff should be rejected, but when one receives blood as a means of survival — as medical treatment — and it thereby becomes a component of one's body, as in an organ transplant, it does not violate any prohibition of the Bible. If our Creator therefore says clearly that the shedding of human blood will not go unpunished — in order to prevent murder and bloodshed — with what right can we, with our modern technology and our possibilities, forbid a person to receive blood when his life is at stake? We deny someone blood on the grounds that it is sacred, while at the same time letting someone die, even though blood becomes sacred only through life!! Here the words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of his day apply perfectly: If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is under obligation. [You] blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Matthew 23:18–19 That you think just as perversely as the Pharisees does not surprise us. Blood means life! If Jehovah considers life sacred, why do you then forbid the taking of blood when someone is facing death because of heavy blood loss or illness? Is life more sacred, or blood?? Of what value is blood without life? Blood is sacred because it is a symbol for life. What is greater, the symbol or what it stands for?? Blood becomes sacred only in connection with life, and it remains sacred as long as it keeps its possessor alive. Does not the Bible teach us that something holy must serve man? Did not David, by eating the sacred loaves, prolong his life and that of his companions — something they were not permitted to do? It is written in Matthew 12:3–4: He said to them: "Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests?" The Bible teaches us exactly the opposite of what you have taught us!! It is something sacred and good to do everything to save a person's life, since life is sacred! But were it not your forefathers who became angry because Jesus healed sick people on the Sabbath? You are not very different. I can hardly believe there is a Witness who does not know the text from Acts, "abstain from blood." You have taught them that. But if we understand this word "abstain" in an absolute sense, the way you interpret it, then no one would be allowed to come into contact with blood at all. Then every operation, every blood test would already be a violation of the commandment. We would also not be permitted to eat meat, since there is no absolutely blood-free meat. Under German law the blood content may even amount to 3% without any special declaration being required. And what about the use of morphine? Why does none of you undergo an operation or a period of suffering without the help of morphine — you who will not even smoke a cigarette? Is there not also a difference between someone injecting morphine for pleasure and someone taking it as an anesthetic or painkiller? Why does no fanatic say: abstain from morphine — and mean it in an absolute sense? That would be nonsense — but that is exactly what you have done with blood and continue to do. The difference between consuming blood and a blood transfusion is that in the case of intravenous intake, the blood is not digested and excreted but becomes a component of the body and remains in that state — just as with an organ transplant! God is against the use of blood as a foodstuff, but he is not against using blood to save life. I was once myself in the situation of having to decide the question of blood transfusion, yes or no. Before an operation I spoke with the doctor about it. I personally knew very little about this topic, but through my association with you I had been taught that accepting a blood transfusion was a violation of God's commandment. In my naivety I also expressed this view to the doctor at the time. It means nothing to me to be faithful to God's commandments and to give my life for them. Yet it has always been very important to me not to bring shame upon the name of God as a blind fanatic. But thanks to your help, that is exactly what I did. With these explanations we do not wish to ignore the medical risks associated with blood transfusion. Anyone who has had an operation knows that one must sign a form in which the risks associated with anesthesia are pointed out. Among the many possible side effects, death is also mentioned. Almost all medications we take come with a leaflet containing an often very long list of possible side effects, yet we take these medications. With blood it is not very different. A health risk is associated with every procedure. Until 1980, organ transplants were also forbidden. Did you admit your error by permitting them? On the contrary, you even tried to present yourselves as generous and merciful by saying: "Organ transplants may be performed; each person must decide that with their own conscience." A similar change of direction will probably come at some point in the blood question as well. But who will take responsibility for those who have already lost their lives because of it by that time, or for those you expelled from your community because they had accepted blood? Since we see that your understanding in this area is inadequate, and we see the hypocrisy in your manner of acting, we feel obligated to say all these things, otherwise we would be making ourselves complicit. You have far more knowledge than we do, but you use it for evil. Does that mean we are more righteous than you? No. We do not claim to be righteous, as you do. Among you there are also very valuable people. Especially some of those whom you have expelled from your ranks for apostasy, we have seen as valuable people — because they do not serve an organization out of fear of men, but because in their faith in God they strive to please him. They give glory to God and his Messiah, but not to an organization. The letter has become very long, and yet we have only touched on a few topics. As I mentioned at the beginning, I wrote this letter with the help of my husband, who had urged me to become a Jehovah's Witness, and of a brother whom you expelled simply because he says that Jehovah does not only occasionally but always foresees the future. Without that I would not have been able to gather so much material and formulate it so well. Even as we rejoice over the truths we have come to know, we are all the more saddened by you. That is why our earnest plea to God is that he may help you to become free from the organizational thinking, and that, becoming spiritually independent, you may learn to rely on Jehovah God and not on men. Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthly man and actually places flesh as his arm, and whose heart turns away from Jehovah himself. — Jeremiah 17:5 Every form of organizational thinking removes people from God. Brother C.T. Russell and Brother R. Franz recognized this very well and have also explained it in detail. Jehovah does not need an organization, and as already mentioned, this word does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The purpose of the Mosaic Law was to school the people of Israel. (Galatians 3:24) But Jehovah did not organize the people! Organization is a tool of Satan. States, governments, armies, schools, companies, mafias, and terrorists function only through organization. In the new world there will be nothing of the kind! Neither the angels in heaven nor life on earth will be organized. This will be so because God has inscribed his purpose in the hearts and minds of men. You will probably not understand this! Let us suppose for a moment that God organized the people of Israel. (This was in fact never the case, as shown above, but let us assume it here.) What happened to this organization in the course of time? It disappeared. And who can organize better than God? There is an additional point: God hates the idea of organization! For organizational thinking destroys happiness, spirit, initiative, spontaneity, thought, love, mercy, faith, and whatever else is connected with freedom. Only people who stand under an organization receive commands and must carry them out, whether they want to or not, whether they believe in it or not, whether they love it or not. This appears right and necessary to us imperfect human beings because we think that otherwise there would be no unity and no success. But God does not use this method. That does not mean that God does not issue commands, but under an organization people are made into slaves — or rather, robots. Jehovah God, on the other hand, has called us and every individual to freedom; a freedom that begins now and not only in Paradise. Shortly before his death, Jesus said the following to his disciples: I no longer call you slaves, for a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called you friends, because I have made known to you all the things I have heard from my Father. — John 15:15 Does any thought of an organization come through in these words? What organization is as open and honest as Jesus was toward his disciples?? Organizations of whatever form have always served the interests of the Devil, never those of God. He hates every form of organization. How God thinks about organization can be seen very clearly from the account in Genesis chapter 11. When the whole earth had but ONE language and they then shared a common thought — this people organized themselves to build a city and a tower. How did Jehovah react? He confused their languages before they could finish the building. That is God's reaction to a people that had the attitude: "We must preserve unity, whatever the cost"! Genesis 11:1–9 1.) Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words... 4.) And they said: "Come, let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we may not be scattered over all the surface of the earth..." 9.) That is why its name was called Babel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth. In the book by Raymond Franz there is something truly apt on this subject: Totalitarian control, whether in the religious or political sphere, fears individuality and sees it as a threat. This fear is a sign of weakness, not of strength. In the same way, falsehood fears truth, shies away from its light and wants to hide from it. Perhaps it tries to extinguish it by force or cunning, but it will avoid openly confronting it. Unity based on enforced uniformity may appear solid from the outside, but it is actually brittle. Unlike unity founded on truth and love, such enforced unity is not strong from within; it sustains itself only through manipulation, coercion, and fear. It is easy to pay lip service to the examples of individuals from the past who refused to be intimidated from seeking and proclaiming the truth, and who often paid a great price for it. Watchtower publications frequently contain laudatory articles about earlier martyrs and reformers and how they were persons of integrity toward truth and their conscience — men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Michael Servetus, or Jan Hus, who resisted the religious censorship that suffocated them and died unbowed by the coercion and condemnation of ecclesiastical power. Other articles speak approvingly of various splinter groups, nonconformist minorities such as the Waldenses, Lollards, Anabaptists, all of whom declared that they placed loyalty to biblical truth above unconditional obedience to the power and teachings of an organization. One can only marvel at all this, since even the spiritual powers of Jesus' day were, as he said, "building the tombs of the prophets and adorning the monuments of the righteous." And they further said: "If we had been living in the days of our forefathers, we would not have shared with them in shedding the blood of the prophets." Despite their protestations, the course of these spiritual leaders showed that they were of the same spirit as their forefathers who brought the prophets to their death — prophets whom their power structure had rejected. The Watchtower organization honors the dissident individuals and nonconformist groups of the past, but in a comparable manner uses the same weapons that were directed against them — censorship by a power structure, intimidation, pressure, coercion, and expulsion — to silence any attempt at free, open discussion of the legitimacy of its teachings and exercise of power. All its members must regard persons it today labels as "heretics" as dead. It praises the courage that kept men and women in the past holding to their convictions, but condemns the same course today as the product of a destructive, arrogant spirit and as proof of rebellion against God. And in doing so it uses language that strongly echoes the ecclesiastical condemnations of the past. Nevertheless, the history of humanity will certainly be enriched by the example given by such men and women, who, following their conscience, stood up for freedom. (In Search of Christian Freedom, p. 549) And what about the first Christians? Does the account of the apostles and the early congregations anywhere contain the concept or the idea of an organization? But when the Christian congregation was organized as a Roman state religion in the second and third centuries — that is, when it received fixed structures and a hierarchy — then the dark Middle Ages began, and the spiritual darkness whose effects reach into our own time. That is what an organization achieves!! In contrast ...God loves a cheerful giver, according to 2 Corinthians 9:7. That is something an organization cannot achieve. An organization is not interested in love, faith, mercy, but in numbers, statistics, revenues, prestige. But these things are achieved not through love but only through pressure. There would be much more to write on this topic, but the letter has already become very long as it is. In this letter we have not written about things you do not know; all of this is well known to you, and I am convinced that it represents only one-hundredth of your deeds. We have written this because these are the things we have seen, heard, and personally experienced. And I think that is enough. I left my former religion without investigating it as deeply, since I did not have for it the same trust and affection I had for you. I say this not to suggest that I regret that step, but to show that you are no better than the other religions. As we have said, all these things did not happen behind your back and without your knowledge, for otherwise we would only warn you and could even hope that you might change and turn around and ask for forgiveness. But we have found that you do these things knowingly and in secret, which is why we have written this letter — so that many may hear of it who are just as uninformed as we were. Our intention is not to change you; that we cannot do. With this letter we inform you that we have changed. We have written this letter so that those who cling to this organization — which does not bring forth works that lead to life, but works of death — cannot say: we knew nothing of this! Thank you for the time you have taken for us. My official congregation is Murrhardt, but the congregation with which I was actually connected and which I was also able to attend regularly was Neckarsulm — Turkish. (They sent me to another congregation with the indirect explanation that "I would be spying for my husband" (!!!!)) N. Kiper I. Kiper B. Penack

2nd Letter to the Watchtower Society — January 19, 2005 — Am Steinfels 65618 Selters/Taunus

With this letter I wish to refer to my letter of October 10, 2003. I had not expected a reply to my letter in any case. In the meantime it has become clear to me that an organization is not leading us toward life but, on the contrary, toward death. God is a God who has given us freedom and who seeks worshippers who serve Him independently, resolutely, and of their own accord. (Galatians 5:1) But He has never intended, as you claim, that an organization should think, speak, and decide for all people. (Luke 12:57) That is a system you are imitating from the world. You compare yourselves to worldly soldiers and the military, even though you know it is a satanic system. My own sins already reach up to heaven — how then am I to carry yours on top of that? The reasons I left my former religion are comparatively minor and insignificant compared to what I have seen and endured among you. It may be that their sins have accumulated more over the course of history than yours — if only because they have existed for many centuries and their number of followers is many times greater than yours — but I did not research them as thoroughly as I researched you before I left them back then. What I mean to say is that I showed you far more faith, trust, patience, and understanding than I showed them. With these words I do not wish to elevate myself above you or above other people, but as mentioned above, I am not willing to also carry the sins of others. I have therefore decided to have nothing to do with your works, since I do not believe as you do that there is, or ever was, an organization that represents God on earth. I firmly reject you as a religion, but that does not mean I wish to have nothing to do with you as my fellow human beings. Among people I make no distinctions based on nationality, skin color, or religion, but I do not wish to have an intermediary between myself and God, since I regard it as an act of impertinence toward Him. For there is only one mediator who died for us all, and that was Jesus. I therefore ask you to destroy my name from all your records. Please comply with my request and send me written confirmation of this.

Yours sincerely. P.S.: Enclosed I have attached once more the letter of October 10, 2003, so that you know what this concerns. N. Kiper I. Kiper B. Penack

Third and final letter!

To the Watchtower Society — Am Steinfels 65618 Selters/Taunus — July 14, 2005

With this letter we wish to write to you one last time. Although we have already written to you twice with an explicit request for a reply — or at minimum a simple confirmation that we no longer wish to be part of your organization and do not support any form of organizational thinking — we have received no response from you so far. We also understand why you have not responded: because we are leaving of our own accord, and you cannot use the withdrawal of fellowship as revenge and a threat against us. Raymond Franz already wrote in his book that the organization cannot tolerate someone leaving voluntarily, because then it has no more power over that person, and we can only confirm this observation from our own experience. It was clear to us from the beginning that by criticizing the organization we would only draw your wrath upon ourselves. Furthermore, we are convinced that all your members are aware of this, which is why they do not criticize. But should one not expect a different reaction from someone who goes from house to house with the Bible in hand to preach? How did David react when he was criticized — did he react with anger? (2 Samuel 12:1–15) Would anyone have feared to criticize David, afraid of making him angry? Even if they were actually in the wrong? (2 Samuel 16:5–13) And what about Jesus? He was, after all, the best example for all of us. How did He respond to criticism? In all the years we have come to know you as an organization, we have never seen a manner of conduct or an attitude that even remotely resembles that of David — and of Jesus we do not even wish to speak. According to our knowledge and conscience, this organization does not correspond to the moral standard of God as we have come to know it from the Bible. We do not expect a reply to this letter; it is merely a final confirmation of our decision. N. Kiper I. Kiper B. Penack

WHY HYPOCRISY AND NOT WHOLEHEARTEDNESS?

After people have searched for God and believe they have found Him, God expects wholeheartedness. What does that mean? How can a person know whether they believe in God and serve Him wholeheartedly or not? It would certainly be interesting if there were a measuring device one could connect to one's heart to determine whether it is undivided. Of course, no such thing exists. But there is someone who does exactly this with our hearts: God. We too must examine our hearts closely and know them well. Let us picture a round cake and cut it through the middle — then it is divided. We could continue, cutting the cake into many small pieces. Our heart could be compared to such a cake. We divide our heart, in a sense, among the things that matter most to us. One part of our heart we give to our hobbies, to our desire to become rich, to our career, to our car, to our children, our spouse, our appearance, food, drink, furniture, our fears and worries, illnesses, and so on — and one portion of our heart we have perhaps reserved for God. Depending on the culture and religion in which we live, we carry out certain forms of worship as a kind of duty. The more these things claim our attention, occupy us, and grip our hearts, the more divided our heart becomes. But our Creator expects us to draw near to Him with a whole, that is, an undivided heart. (Luke 10:27 — Matt. 22:37 — Deut. 6:5 — Joshua 22:5) If we wish to maintain a good relationship with our Creator, then we should have the attitude of His servant David, who prayed as follows: Search me, O God, and know my heart. Try me, and know my anxious thoughts. And see if there is in me any hurtful way. — Psalm 139:23–24 This is precisely the attitude God expects of us, and it is a condition for our salvation. How many people do you know who have the courage to take such an attitude? How many pray to God and say: "Try me, know my heart"? And what about you? Many people cannot even endure the thought that God sees everything, that their thoughts are laid bare before Him and their heart is exposed to Him. They say: "I do not believe in a God who sees everything." And there are not a few who claim to believe in Him, yet whose lives show they do not mean it seriously. Their actual attitude is more along the lines of: God sees everything — but not me. When we read the cake comparison described above, we immediately resist it. Does it mean we are not allowed to do anything for ourselves at all? No pleasure, no vacation, no purchases...? If our heart is divided on account of such things, and God therefore does not accept us, then it would be better not to live at all — for everyone has such occupations and worries and so on. This is precisely the point, and it is important that we understand it. Why God expects us to come to Him with an undivided heart is best explained by a verse from the Bible. Then we also understand whether the things mentioned above divide our heart or not. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus speaks of the time of the end and compares it with the time of Noah. For just as the days of Noah were, so will be the presence of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away: so will be the presence of the Son of Man. — Matthew 24:37–39 We should now ask ourselves the following: until now we have heard that God brought the flood upon mankind because the people were wicked and violent — what then did Jesus mean to say with these words? If Jesus had said the people back then were money-loving, selfish, brutal, immoral, depraved, and so on, we could more readily understand it. But He speaks of people eating, drinking, and marrying. What is wrong with that? Why did they have to die? Of course, eating, drinking, and marrying are not sins — they are in fact things our Creator has given us. What is decisive is what place these things occupy in our lives. If our heart is divided on account of such things — or if we are concerned only with these things and have no time or interest for our Creator and His purpose — then it is sin. Why did God destroy the world back then, and why might He do so again? What does He expect from me, from all people? If we do not reflect on such questions, then these concerns have no place in our hearts. We must eat, drink, and do many other things on which our very lives depend; but if we place these things above doing the will of God, then it is wrong. Jesus knew this, which is why He used precisely this description for the time of the end — and it is truly an apt description for our time, for sadly people are preoccupied only with these things. Even when they busy themselves with all manner of things, it is not with God. His purpose interests no one. No one wishes to speak about it. Some even claim, "I don't need God," simply so they can live their lives in peace. Nowadays it is not even considered impertinent to say such a thing. God is often portrayed as someone who wants to restrict our joy and our freedom, who has issued a great many rules, regulations, and laws, and who is bent on punishing us. But are there no longer any religious people? Have all turned away from God? Throughout human history, the influence of religion has always been very great. 2.3 billion Christians, 1.4 billion Muslims, 889 million Hindus, and further millions of Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and others (as of 2009, with a world population of 6.79 billion; source: Wikipedia). All of them say they believe in God, and some are even willing without hesitation to give their lives for it. But when you live in their midst you see that no one — with a few exceptions — is willing to actually live by it, or even to examine more closely the book they claim to believe in. Those who are well-read and experienced in this area are fanatical, devoid of love, conceited, or have cultivated a feigned form of humility. Above all, it is also they at whose hands the blood of billions of people sticks. Our Creator says, however, clearly and plainly that He desires no hypocritical or half-hearted worship, when He says: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind. The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these." — Mark 12:30–31 Even if the religions today no longer wield such great influence because of their hypocritical conduct, they are nevertheless responsible for the moral decay and the great suffering on earth. Religion and its representatives have not brought us closer to God or helped us come to know Him. Instead, they have made people their slaves. They have placed the crown on dictators and served them. Not only did they make common cause with politicians, but religion itself has made politics and has seated itself on the throne in the name of God. They have oppressed and exploited people. Spiritually they have given nothing to the "sheep" entrusted to them, to their fellow believers. They have brought hatred, strife, genocides, and poverty. They are what Jesus called "ravenous, greedy wolves who have disguised themselves as sheep." Jesus used a simple illustration so that we could distinguish between right and wrong, between good and evil. Even so, every good tree brings forth fine fruit, but every rotten tree brings forth worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear fine fruit. ...So by their fruits you will really recognize them. Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in the heavens. — Matthew 7:17–21 Is all of this not known to religion? Both the First and the Second World War were played out largely in the heartland of Christendom. Both sides prayed to God for victory, each with the Bible in hand. That very book they held in their hands says: I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. — Matthew 5:43–45 How should one describe such prayers? In my eyes, hypocrisy is the most fitting word. Or is there a better one? Suppose you come home from work. Before you even reach the front door you hear shouting: "Dad, Dad, help me kill my brother!" Which of your two sons would you help? What nonsense — I would obviously help neither of them, you say? But that is exactly how the religions act. They have driven millions of people to their deaths, motivated only by fear or self-interest. Their prayers do not spring from the book they claim to believe in. No — they spring from their broken hearts. Are their hearts undivided, as God desires? No, certainly not. God feels abhorrence toward such conduct. Have people learned from their past? The answer is obvious. Our concern is not to judge others, but to draw attention to their errors and to avoid repeating those same errors ourselves! Only when we see ourselves in the situations described and truly examine our hearts — as King David did — and are genuinely willing to seek God with an undivided heart, can we be confident that we will find Him even now, in this momentous time, because He reveals Himself. For God seeks worshippers "who worship Him in spirit and in truth." — John 4:6–26 We therefore wish to encourage you to seek God sincerely by engaging intensively with both the Bible and the Quran.

JUDAISM – CHRISTIANITY – ISLAM

Since these three religions have existed, they have been constantly fighting and waging war against one another. And really, which religion does not stand in enmity toward another? Everyone shouts: "We have the truth, we are the true servants of God — you are on the wrong path, you follow the devil!" Along with this, they hold the conviction that others cannot be saved, even if they do good works. God will punish them, destroy them, torment them in hell — so they believe, and so they teach their children, in school and at the workplace. They do this with a completely clear conscience, convinced they are doing the right thing, for they have never learned anything different that might bring them to their senses. When something happens to someone on the other side, they rejoice: God has given them the punishment they deserve — good! They do everything in their power to harm the other, or even to destroy them. And in doing so, they believe they have rendered God a service!! Only their methods differ. Some go about it in a somewhat more civilized manner than others. Is what is written here slander, lies, exaggeration? What does history say? Even when attempts have often been made to erase the traces, the stench of crimes committed in the name of religion still seeps through! Whoever cannot smell or see this gives the impression of simply not wanting to see it — they close their eyes to the truth, whatever the reason may be. But these persons are not the focus of our discussion here. We have spoken about how people of different religions treat one another. But what about those who go to the same church, mosque, synagogue, assembly, congregation, or the like? Let us look around in our immediate surroundings — how much do they love one another, how friendly are they to each other? Can one say they are truly ready to die for one another? Is not the exact opposite the case when, during wars, members of the same religions turn on each other and kill? And this does not apply only to Christendom, which led the way during both World Wars; Muslims and Jews have not behaved any differently. The Holy Scriptures report in detail on the hatred among Jews toward one another. When we speak of this religious hatred, we must not forget that it often does not find open expression, and that attempts are not infrequently made to show friendship and love outwardly — as we know from politics. In politics — called "diplomacy" — this is done for the sake of one's own advantage or the advantage of one's country or party. But when religious people act this way, it is far more dangerous and reprehensible, for they do it in the name of religion — they take the name of God upon their lips!! That is why it says in the Letter to the Romans 2:24: "...for the name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you." God caused this statement to be written down with regard to all these religions and their hypocritical followers. Particularly interesting, however, about the three religions mentioned is that the books they claim to believe in all speak of the same God. That is to say, the book in which Christians believe also contains the book in which Jews believe. And in the book in which Muslims believe, it is stated clearly that the books of the Jews and the Christians are the word of God and that every Muslim must believe in them. For example, it says in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 4: "...and who believe in what has been revealed before you (Torah – Prophets – Gospel)." Interestingly, someone who believes in a previously revealed book does not accept a later one. So Jews do not believe in the Gospel and the Quran, and Christians do not believe in the Quran. And Muslims revile both Christians and Jews as unbelievers because they do not recognize their book. Thus all three groups stand in enmity toward one another and fight each other. How much blood has been shed because of this! And no end is in sight. Then there are also many who see no way out of these conflicts and try, with a liberal attitude, to give themselves the appearance of generosity and tolerance by saying "your religion is for you, mine is for me" or "each should find their own path to salvation." One wraps oneself in the cloak of tolerance, but in reality one is constantly scheming how to harm the other. One searches for opportunities, and if none arise, one creates them. Even if a person does nothing at all to harm the other, they feel no love — perhaps only hatred. And yet it is an explicit commandment of God to all people that they are to love one another. (Matthew 5:38–48) This does not mean that we should approve of or even love all faults and wickedness, but we should love other people as ourselves. Who abides by this commandment, or at least makes an effort to live by it? Such is the state of the followers of religions who believe in different books — but what about those who believe in the same books? As already mentioned, the same hostility reigns among them. "My interpretation of the Holy Book is correct, yours is wrong." This state of affairs is visible in all three of these religions — among Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. Within these major religions we find so many sects, splinter groups, and factions, most of which are fighting one another. And what has become of those who have broken away and founded a new church, mosque, synagogue, or congregation? If you belong to such a group, you are certainly saying: "We are unique. There is no other religion, congregation, or the like like ours anywhere!" But in this you are mistaken. There is a bank advertisement that describes precisely the situation of those who believe they belong to a truly exceptional group. The bank says about itself: "Actually there is no difference from other banks, but we are the ... Bank." Well, someone might now object that it is in fact the case that all these thousands of religions, sects, congregations, assemblies, and so on all lead to the same goal — just as in the bank advertisement. That may be how it appears to someone who has little knowledge in this area. Our Creator has not allowed the whole matter — and after all, it is about Him — to become so complicated that no one can see through it any longer. On the contrary, it is even easier than one thinks. Please read Deuteronomy chapter 30, verses 11 to 20. There it says in part: For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, and it is not far off. It is not in heaven, so that you would say: Who will go up for us to heaven and bring it to us, and let us hear it, so that we may do it? And it is not beyond the sea, so that you would say: Who will cross the sea for us and bring it to us, and let us hear it, so that we may do it? For the word is very near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. (Verses 11–14) Certainly many have already asked themselves the questions discussed above, or have thought about them at some point, and everyone has their own method of finding an answer. Personally, I went about it by reading the books of these three great religions — that is, the Bible and the Quran — without any reservations, and I was very surprised! Either the books I had read were wrong — for many believe that these books were incorrectly translated or incorrectly transmitted — or the religions that claim to believe in them were wrong! So I obtained the translations from which the clergy read, which they use for teaching. The result was the same, even if there are minor differences in wording among the various translations. Therefore I am also convinced that these books have been transmitted to us very accurately, for otherwise the religions would have altered the scriptures in their favor. Yet in the end the differences are very minor. To give just one example here: In the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses, the arrangement of an eldership was applied in the early period, following the pattern of the first Christians. But then this was abolished (over a period of 40 years), and the word for elder was rendered in the Bible translation as "older man." This small change in rendering altered the actual meaning of the word. These forms of alteration of the word of God are just one of countless examples in which the word of God is adapted to suit one's own rules and teachings. Yet today we have very diverse possibilities for finding this out and recognizing such forms of deception. I also do not wish to go further into the distortion of certain verses that the Catholic Church has carried out in order to maintain the doctrine of the Trinity. But all these distortions do not remove us from God. If someone sincerely searches the scriptures, they will recognize these inconsistencies. If the books had actually been altered or falsified in a serious way, then I would have to join one of these religions or throw the books in the trash. But simply through searching the scriptures myself, I was able to see that the religions were on the wrong track. Would that have been possible if the books had been falsified? Why does a Catholic translation condemn the teachings and rules of the Catholic Church just as much as any other translation? Why have they not falsified the books to the extent that they are in the right through the books, or appear in a favorable light? Let us return, then, to the subject of how religions that claim to believe in the same book treat one another. Is there peace and harmony among them? A simple example: Both the First and the Second World War broke out, so to speak, in the very heart of Christendom. And on both sides, prayers for victory were directed to the same God, book in hand. What did they pray for? "Let us destroy our enemies." Who were these enemies? Their brothers in faith!! But what does the book they hold in their hands say? "You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father, who makes his sun rise on good people and wicked people alike." — Matthew 5:43–45 These words were spoken by Jesus Christ. This is one of the most important statements in the Gospel. In light of this statement by Jesus, let us ask ourselves again: to whom were the clergy praying before they sent the soldiers off to war? The situation is not much different among Muslims and Jews. And let us not consider the whole matter solely from the aspect of war. These people show through their entire way of life that they are far removed from God. In 2 Timothy 3:1–5 we find a description of the time of the end: Know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power. And from these turn away. Is this prophecy intended only for Christians? For Muslims or Jews? No, for all of humanity. So how should one describe what these ostensibly religious people do when they take their Holy Book in hand and claim to believe in it, yet do not live accordingly? Is that not hypocrisy? By acting so obviously against their own doctrine of faith, they work directly against their agreement with God. It makes no difference whether what is written in these books is the truth or not, for they themselves say that they believe in this book and regard it as a revelation from God. For this reason alone, they are guilty before God and human beings and must give account for it! How does God regard such people? Since He will judge each person according to their deeds, these people too will be judged according to their hypocrisy. Revelation 22:11, 12. What do we mean to say with these observations? As we have seen in our comparison, believing in the same book, having the same religion, and worshiping the same God is no solution. And the hatred among religions? That is nothing but an excuse. An excuse for their egotism, for their own weaknesses. For what they love most is themselves, not God. But for their hatred they have found many excuses and countless justifications: religion, language, race, skin color, nationality, political conviction, possessions, and so on. But in a very short time, God will put an end to all religions, as He caused the prophets to foretell. Revelation chapters 17 and 18; Daniel 8:9–12; 11:30, 31 ... 36–38. Will people then love one another more? No. How people in the last days will conduct themselves we have already read above, in the quotation from 2 Timothy. Furthermore, we have seen that religion is not the only reason for human hatred. Can such a humanity be happy? What will God do with this humanity? But the most important thing is that we ask ourselves: W h a t m u s t I d o? Above we said that it is simple. First we must set aside every group or religious way of thinking. This means we must not leave a matter as important as the worship of God to any religious leaders! God said through Jesus: Why do you not judge for yourselves what is righteous? — Luke 12:57. Yes, why do we actually not do that? Why do we not learn to stand on our own feet and make decisions for ourselves? With the words above, Jesus shows us that we all have this capacity and this possibility. Every person is capable of acquiring the knowledge to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. But for people who are filled with fear, or who are without character or selfish, this challenge does not present itself. In the verses quoted above from Deuteronomy 30:11–14, Jehovah* God says in part through his prophet Moses: ... for the word is very near to you, in your own mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it! *(According to Exodus 3:15, this is His name; unfortunately, out of a misguided fear that the name might not have been transmitted correctly, this holy name was removed from most Bible translations and rendered with the impersonal LORD! They probably committed this foolishness out of jealousy toward the Witnesses.) So that the word of God can be in our heart and in our mouth, we should search His word with prayer and supplication. I am convinced that we need the knowledge of God today more than ever before in the history of humanity. This knowledge of God can save not only our own life, but also the lives of those who see us and perhaps imitate our God-devoted way of life. What religion did Moses belong to? Jesus? Muhammad? These people belonged to none of the religions that existed at the time! On the contrary, it was precisely these religious zealots who made their lives difficult, who persecuted them, hated them, and even killed them. We should therefore ask ourselves: Whom do I wish to follow? If the prophets and faithful servants of God had such a hard time of it back then, what will we face today when we sincerely wish to serve God? But if we serve God with resolve and zeal, then we can be certain that eternal happiness awaits us, regardless of what difficulties we may be struggling with right now. Revelation 21:3, 4 says: ...and God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away. — Titus 1:2. That is the assurance given to us by God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Who can promise us anything comparable? What government, what religion? No one but God himself, in accordance with the statements of the Holy Books of all three religions. This is what you should believe and live by — and it is to encourage and embolden you in this that this writing has been composed. To draw closer to God you should have the courage to free yourself from all the chains of slavery to human beings, organizations, cultures, customs, and religions. For the path to God leads through none of these. The path to God is as near to you as the things within your own heart.

DIE GLÄUBIGEN und UNGLÄUBIGEN

Have you ever had a conversation with people who believe in God? No matter whether they are Muslims or Christians, or what group they belong to, there are certain things in common that one finds in all who believe in God or claim to believe in God. Many of them are sincere in their faith, although on some points they force themselves more or less into believing. Talking with such people about their religious views can sometimes be very irritating, because for some of their views there is no basis or reliable source. They often say very nonsensical things that contradict common sense. Much of it is based on hearsay. But they defend it with a passion, as if they had seen and experienced everything with their own eyes. I would like to give a few examples right away.

A conversation with a Muslim:

God first created Adam with a height of 300 meters. Adam then complains to God: "Why did you make me so tall? Make me smaller so I can eat the fruit more comfortably." Adam only receives the ideal height after complaining to God several times and having his height corrected again and again. Something similar was also the case with some animals that had complained and were corrected. (The creatures are smarter than their Creator!) Over time, Adam felt the urge to empty his bowels. Afterward, out of curiosity, he began to play with the excrement and smeared it on his body. At those places on his body, hair later grew. (Body hair as a result of Adam smearing himself with filth!!) Dream interpretation books are very popular. Many people see an old man with a long white beard in their dreams. Every dream has a different meaning, depending on whether this man is drinking something, eating, sitting, and so on. They do not read the word of God, but such books about dreams are studied in great detail!! In the course of conversations, the most impossible things often come up, and one is astonished that in our enlightened age such religious views are still widespread. In Islamic culture there are many devout, well-known, famous, and holy men around whom many stories and legends have gathered. These people are venerated, altars are set up for them, prayers are addressed to them, their graves become places of pilgrimage where money is thrown in the hope of bringing good luck. From my childhood I can remember a place somewhere in the middle of Istanbul. There stands a coffin between shops, behind bars. Through a window one can throw money onto the coffin. This coffin always had money on it — bills and coins — but because of the bars one could not take the money. On the same street, poor and hungry people often sat begging and needing help. When things were going badly for me, I too would often pass by that coffin and stare at the money lying there. If I had had the opportunity to take it, I certainly would have. Others naturally thought the same as I did — that is precisely why the bars had been put up. Who collected this money and for what purpose I do not know. Why such a thing was permitted I also do not know. Understanding the person who collected the money is not difficult, but understanding with what thought or for what reason people threw the money there — that is hard to understand and should give us pause. On the other hand, if there are people who believe the things described above and have such a conception of the Creator, then it is not at all surprising that there are also many people who throw money onto a grave, coffin, or the like. The stories cited above are only a small excerpt from the enormous quantity of stories that are told and believed. Such views are found not only among simple, uneducated people. Doctors, professors, and engineers believe in them just as much as the simple laborer. In the Quran it says in Surah An-Nahl, verse 62: And they attribute to God what they themselves find objectionable. But let us now turn to the Christians who live in the heart of Europe, in civilized, highly developed countries.

Conversation with a Christian:

God is not one, but three!! God observes humanity and, in order to help people and understand them better, he himself becomes human and comes to earth as Jesus. But if Jesus himself is the Almighty, why does he pray to God before he is killed? Does God pray to God?? (Matthew 26:39) They then explain it with courtesy. Jesus prayed to God out of courtesy. For everything they somehow find an explanation. At this point an example is often brought up as well: A person tries to help ants, but they do not understand him and even attack him. So the person says to himself: one must become like an ant and think like one, so that they can understand you. But did the person create the ant, for this example to be applicable to the relationship between humans and God? This kind of teaching and speaking is called demagoguery. One tries to present something false as true! What a twisted logic. Must the designer of an engine, when it breaks down, think and feel like an engine, or even become an engine in order to repair it? Or have you ever gone to a mechanic who said, I am a specialist in changing spark plugs — I used to be one myself?? He designed or built the engine himself and therefore knows where the fault lies; just so, and (far beyond our imagination) our Creator also knows how he can help us, without becoming human. How beautifully and clearly does David describe the abilities of our Creator in Psalm 139:

14 I will praise you because I have been fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw even my embryo, and in your book all its parts were written down, regarding the days when they were formed, and not one of them was yet among them. What truths David reveals, inspired by the Spirit of God, and what notions we hold!! David then says in verse 17:

How precious, therefore, are your thoughts to me!

Is it not astonishing that, while David considers God's thoughts about us to be of great value, we say God had to become human in order to understand us! That is what learned religious leaders believe. The common people, by contrast, differ little in their beliefs from what we said above about Muslims: the death and resurrection of Jesus (Easter) is connected with a rabbit that lays eggs. What connection there is, I have not understood to this day. Had one taken a rooster and eggs as symbols, a connection would be visible. But that a rabbit lays eggs and what that has to do with the death of Jesus — in the forty years I have now lived in Germany I have not understood it, and no one has been able to explain it to me. Some say that the rabbit and eggs are symbols for blessing and fruitfulness; others maintain that the human body particularly needs eggs at this time of year. Both may well be true. But what connection exists to the death of Jesus, and what does it have to do with God's will?

The birth of Jesus is also celebrated in an interesting way: a man dressed in red with a long white beard, and the Christmas tree not to be forgotten!! If one reads the Gospels a thousand times, one will surely find not even the smallest hint of any of this anywhere. As for the reason why there is so much suffering and misery on earth, some say: since God does not know in advance what we humans will do, he watches curiously to see what we will do. In this way God himself gains experience and knowledge. In this or a similar fashion, many of those who are convinced that they possess the only truth explain their faith. Let us consider for a moment: is it training for us humans or for God that so much suffering occurs? In their view, it is for God. In contrast, Job 35:14 says: How much less, then, when you say you cannot see him! The case is before him, and you should wait for him. Or in Isaiah 65:24: And it will actually come to pass that before they call, I myself will answer; while they are yet speaking, I myself will hear. God already knows in advance what we will ask for. How fortunate we can be. Our God, who has created everything, is almighty! His power and might extend to everything he has purposed. He is the source of knowledge and wisdom. And we — we tell our children that God made mistakes in the creation of Adam, that Adam pointed this out to him, and that is why we now function well. We compare humans to ants and portray God as a person who does not understand the ants. Others compare God to a gardener, for whom wicked people are nothing but weeds. Therefore he takes no interest in them and does not foresee their future either. (That was the position of Jehovah's Witnesses on the subject of foreknowledge; it is why they expelled Bernd.) It is not hard to guess who, in their view, those wicked people are. We use such comparisons to make God more understandable to our children! And once we begin to read the holy scriptures, we already see ourselves as halfway a prophet or a chosen one. We say this to no one, of course, because we know how they think about it; but if we were sure they would take us seriously, we would tell everyone. Perhaps we see this as normal, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to be a prophet. As Moses said in Numbers 11:29: ...Would that all of Jehovah's people were prophets... On the other hand, it may well be that this is the case, that we feel this way, and that is not always wrong — but we should not forget that lying is a form of deception and does not come from God. For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives his own mind, says Paul in Galatians 6:3. Unfortunately our world today is full of such illogical and nonsensical religious views. Not only among Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Their conception of God springs from their own imagination and has nothing to do with the true God. Especially the forms of worship through which they believe they are serving God are a disgrace. Muslims have themselves circumcised because God wills it so — even though it is stated neither in the Quran nor was Muhammad himself circumcised. But they evade the point and tell Jewish fairy tales that Muhammad was born already circumcised. In addition, they have countless invented holidays and rituals. There would not be enough space to list them all. In Christendom it is no different. The birth of Jesus is celebrated on December 24th, an arbitrary date to which they cling with religious fervor, even though no one knows the date of his birth — to say nothing of the fact that Jesus nowhere commanded that his birthday be celebrated. They call out proudly in their assembly, "we are Christians," yet they do not follow the one whose birthday they celebrate. "Why don't you take part in wars?" they cry accusingly — even though wars are not the will of Jesus but of Satan. Since they have been in power, they have done nothing but incite people against one another. They forbid marriage so as to be closer to God; yet on the other hand their missionaries cut off the heads of thousands of people for not being Christians. Their attitude has not changed much to this day! In the course of history it also became apparent what terrible things have taken place behind the thick walls of monasteries. These are the same persons who burned others at the stake — persons whose crime was to read the Bible!! In Islam, among the various sects, different forms of self-mortification are common. Some pierce themselves with spears, others walk over glowing coals or shards of glass, and so on. Through such things they believe they are serving God and drawing closer to him. Such forms of worship naturally change over time — whatever happens to be in fashion. One tries to adapt to the times and to changed circumstances, but no one tries to conform to the true Creator! What does God say about all these efforts and aberrations, according to Micah chapter 3:9–11:

This is what Jehovah has said against the prophets who are causing my people to wander, who bite with their teeth and actually call out: "Peace!" — who, when someone puts nothing into their mouth, actually sanctify war against him: ...those who are detesting justice, and those who are even making crooked everything that is straight, 10 those who are building Zion with acts of bloodshed and Jerusalem with unrighteousness. 11 Her own heads judge for a mere bribe, and her own priests instruct just for a price, and her own prophets practice divination simply for money — yet upon Jehovah they keep supporting themselves, saying: "Is not Jehovah in our midst? No calamity will come upon us." Do these words not apply precisely to such people? What do they want to say with all of this? Actually it is simple to understand. After one has spoken with devout people, those who say they believe in nothing appear more reasonable and even more just and reliable than those who do believe. Jesus once said to those who believe sincerely: ...for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light. Luke 16:8. We address our words in the first place to those who sincerely believe in God — in the true God, in the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Muhammad, and Jesus. Do not allow the true God within you to be smothered by fairy tales!! For especially today the words of 2 Timothy 4:3–4 are being fulfilled:

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but in accordance with their own desires they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will be turned aside to false stories. We do not want to dismiss this warning of God through his prophet as unimportant. Perhaps someone is telling us stories and claiming to have read them in the Bible. We have already heard that the Bible tells of serpents or donkeys that speak, of a sea that was divided, of water that was turned into blood, of daughters who had relations with their father* (*that was not the will of God; not everything that is recorded in the Bible and that happened at the time was approved by God) ...and so on. All these things, however strange they may appear to us, do not portray God as ridiculous or powerless — on the contrary, everything was recorded to reveal the greatness and glory of God. But the stories that people themselves have invented — those are the ones that portray God in a bad light, that put him in the dock or even make him a laughingstock. God gives no guarantee that we will understand his writings on the first reading, but he gives us the following assurance according to Proverbs 2:4–5:

If you keep seeking it as if it were silver, and you keep searching for it as if it were hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, and you will find the true knowledge of God.

Who acquires money today in an easy, comfortable way? Is it easy to search for and find valuable treasures? Our Creator knows that great effort is connected with this — but it will be crowned with success. Let us think for a moment of how hard we toil for our daily lives and daily needs. Quite apart from that, the fact is that in many countries people work even harder, not merely to meet basic needs but to build up and secure prosperity. Since we all in fact have death before our eyes, is it not fitting to make efforts to get to know our Creator, our Owner, our God — who makes no material demands of us and who has only our eternal happiness in mind? Is it not worth changing one's life in order to please him? Have we not already made many other changes in our lives for useless, empty things — often for people who later disappointed us? Regardless of what the religions, groups, or nations mentioned above do or do not do, let us be determined, like God's prophet Micah:

For all the peoples will walk, each in the name of its god; but we will walk in the name of Jehovah our God forever and ever. Micah 4:5

WHERE SHOULD WE GO?

Let us pose this question right away: What are we to look for there, or whom are we to seek there, in the place we wish to go? This is a question many people ask and want answered. Many people believe they absolutely must belong to a community; otherwise, they think, they will not be saved. When a so-called Christian searches and reads the Holy Scripture, a natural desire to worship God develops. For example, when someone reads the Gospel, he wants to go to a church; and when a so-called Muslim reads the Quran, he wants to go to a mosque. It is well known that people enjoy community, and so they want to share their faith with others. But can a person teach himself? There are exceptions. The general thinking is that one must belong somewhere. Whenever a person begins to sincerely seek God, the problems begin. The inner feeling that one must belong somewhere brings one into the fateful situation of either beginning to hate God and religions, or losing sincerity, wholehearted devotion, and love — and continuing to attend the chosen community hypocritically nonetheless. Which of these kinds of people pleases God? None, of course, but unfortunately that is how it is. No religion on earth exerts an attractive pull on God; rather, through its very nature, each repels him. There are many people who know this to be so and simply accept it. We do not wish to discuss the reasons why all of this is the case, but rather, with the help of God's Word, we wish to explore where we should go in order to please GOD. While all the others were leaving him, Jesus asked his disciples: "You do not want to leave too, do you?" Simon Peter answered him: "Lord, to whom shall we go?" and in doing so he himself supplied the answer by saying: "You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:68–69. With these words the apostles wanted to emphasize a truth: in the chosen nation of God in which they lived — Abraham's seed, the priesthood appointed by God — they had the Law of God; yet they had nowhere to go where they might obtain eternal life. No nation had ever received such a privilege from God as this one. The magnificent temple in Jerusalem, countless synagogues and places of worship in every city and every village, many scribes and sects — all of this meant nothing to the apostles. But why did it mean nothing to them? Was Jesus perhaps very boastful and handsome, so that the disciples would not leave him? The Bible book of Isaiah, chapter 53, tells us that this was not the case. They were looking for only one thing: the truth about the true God and his words. How is it in our time? Is it any different now? What did the apostles do before Jesus came? Were they very religious — did they worship God in the temple day and night? No. Some were fishermen, others tax collectors or farmers; that is to say, they were ordinary people. Yet each one had a deep love for God of which they themselves were not aware. Yes, it is not difficult to understand that all of these people were in search of the truth. They hated the fact that people were oppressed and exploited through hypocrisy and deceit in God's name, and that those who held dissenting views were destroyed by violence when necessary. For those who speak such things show that they are earnestly seeking a place that is truly their own (Hebrews 11:14, 38). Therefore they were temporary residents, strangers, prisoners, and the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains and caves and the crevices of the earth. (Please read these verses from the Bible.)

When one reads all the Holy Scriptures, it becomes clear that there is nowhere — no place — that can be said to be the house of God. When Jesus spoke with a widow, he emphasized that one need not worship God on a mountain or in Jerusalem. "The hour is coming when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth; indeed, the Father is looking for such people to be his worshippers" — so it stands in the Gospel of John 4:21–24. On this topic the Apostle Paul, with the help of God's Spirit, expressed remarkable truths. In 2 Corinthians, chapter 6:16, it is written: "…for we are a temple of God, just as God said: 'I will reside among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.'" With these words God did not say that we must go to a community in order to serve him; on the contrary, God commands us that if we wish to be saved, we must separate ourselves from such religions and communities. He even says: "And what agreement does God's temple have with idols? For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: 'Therefore, get out from among them, and separate yourselves, says Jehovah, and quit touching the unclean thing, and I will take you in.'" (2 Corinthians 6:16–17.) Who else would give us such a great assurance? There is something we must make clear at this point: this does not mean that God is opposed to community, but he is not dependent on religions and communities. All the religions and sects claim: "Nothing is possible without us." In this they are gravely mistaken. Their older Israelite brothers thought exactly the same way back then, but we read what God felt about that. This is what we wish to emphasize here with force — it is what we have learned from God. We actually have a panicked fear of leaving our religion. The thought does not even occur to us, even when we never regularly attend a mosque, church, or any place of worship, and even when we do not believe what is preached there; yet we still do not dare to say: "We do not belong to you." Take the worst drugs that exist, go to a brothel and sell yourself or sell others, start stealing or cheating and so on — all these things they regard as harmless, and these things do not seem so dangerous to them. They even try to help in their own way, saying: "Oh, you poor thing — how can we help you?" But try once to seek the true God and the truth — not according to their will or your own will, but according to the will of God. Only then does one see their true face, their hatred. They begin to threaten; they spit in your face and publicly distance themselves from you by saying: "This person is no longer our brother — or our sister!" But they will not name the reason. It could be contagious, after all, if their little sheep begin to think the same way; what would they do then, especially when they want their robes to be long and want to live well? And those who hear this are supposed to start thinking: "What terrible thing did he do? What crooked dealings did he get up to? Did he steal something, or kill someone? He always seemed so respectable. I would never have expected this of him." When the little sheep begin to think this way about the person, the shepherds can sleep soundly. Why do the shepherds actually want their little sheep to think this way about the person? It may be that someone has said something to the Muslims: "Why do you get circumcised? Even if you do circumcise yourselves, you should not do so in God's name. For nowhere in the Quran does it say that you should be circumcised — there is not even the slightest hint of it in the Quran." At this they say: "Oh, who are you, you unbeliever, to tell us what we should and should not do? What business is it of yours what we do with our private parts! We circumcise what we want! Throw him out, beat him, and if necessary even kill him — then you will have done something good." The so-called Christians are even more interesting. Among them, for example, someone says: "There are no three Gods in the Gospels. Jesus has never said or implied anywhere that one should celebrate his birthday. Besides, he was not even born on that day. Nobody knows the exact date. But we ought to and must commemorate the death of Jesus. And instead of commemorating and honoring this day of his death, they have invented many strange things for it — for example, rabbits and eggs; and they call this Easter." Another example: Does God see the future? One cannot describe God's foreknowledge as a television channel … So, when I worship God, is he on a different channel? How am I supposed to know whether at that moment he is listening to me or busy with another channel? The teaching you spread is simply nonsense, idolatrous — it is not the true God. It is only what you have brought forth from your own hearts." "Who are YOU to teach us anything?! We have studied the Holy Scripture for a long time. Excommunicate him immediately, exclude him — no one is to speak to him or even greet him." These measures come from those whose power is not yet so great. But those who have great power and influence — their measures are naturally even harsher. They flog them, throw them into dungeons, behead them, or hang a Bible around their neck and burn them alive. What we have described above is no fairy tale. All of these things have happened throughout the history of mankind; and they still happen today. All these people who spoke the truth and served the true God received this as their reward from them. But is it not good that this is so? Should there not be a difference between these two parties? Should we not be glad? Yes — very much so. Because God foretold this from the beginning. In John, chapter 16:2–3, Jesus said: They will expel you from the synagogue. Indeed, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he has offered a sacred service to God. But they will do these things because they have not come to know the Father or me.

Should there not be, if there is one God, only one religion? Somehow I hear all the religions crying out in chorus: "Yeeees, of cooourse!" And then I hear them screaming at one another again: "All of you get off the stage, because only we alone are allowed to dance on it!" On this topic there is a verse in the Quran (Reclam translation): The Prophets Surah (21) 92–93: Behold, this your religion is one single religion, and I am your Lord (God); so serve Me. 93. And they tore their affair among themselves… Is this not a logical and concisely summarized thought? The following truth stands in verse 93: thousands upon thousands of divided and torn religions and sects. With long fingernails and great horns they search for someone they can give a powerful blow. Under their nails one finds innocent human flesh and blood. On their horns are the wounds left by people whom their thrusts have scattered across the whole earth. Again, there is a verse in the Quran that sheds light on all of this: The Consultation (42):13: He has ordained for you the faith that He prescribed for Noah, and what We have revealed to you, and what We prescribed for Abraham and Moses and Jesus: "Uphold the faith and do not divide within it." A similar verse we find in Ephesians 4:4–6: There is o n e body and o n e spirit, just as you were called to the o n e hope of your calling; o n e Lord, o n e faith, o n e baptism; o n e God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Which Muslim religion or sect could accept this truth? The persons mentioned — Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad — are recorded in the writings called Holy Scriptures. Which born Muslim takes the trouble to read these writings? For him they are pagan books that have been corrupted. In reality, they deny the very Quran they hold in their hands. They should not think that Jesus or Moses will judge them. In reality it is Muhammad, in whom they trust, who will judge them. Just as Jesus said in the Gospel of John 5:45–47: Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you, Moses, in whom you have set your hope. In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words? Will Muhammad not say the same words to the Muslims? According to the Quran we can be certain that he will. We are certain that there are many people who believe as we do. They are simply scattered across the whole earth. They have no power and no label. That this is so we can read in the Bible in the book of Ezekiel, chapter 34. We should not apply these verses only to Israel of that time; they point to all people, regardless of what era they live in.

What the religious leaders did: (Ezekiel 34:1–6) And the word of Jehovah came to me and said: "Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy, and you are to say to them, to the shepherds: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who have become such as feed themselves! Should not the shepherds be the ones to feed the flock? The fat you eat, and with the wool you clothe yourselves. The sleek animal you slaughter. The flock itself you do not feed. The sick you have not strengthened, the ailing you have not healed, the broken one you have not bandaged, the stray you have not brought back, and the lost one you have not sought to find, but with harshness you have had them in subjection, yes, tyrannically. And they were gradually scattered because there was no shepherd, so that they became food for every wild beast of the field, and they continued to be scattered. My sheep kept straying on all the mountains and on every high hill; and over all the surface of the earth my sheep were scattered, with no one making a search and with no one seeking them."

God's judgment against the religious leaders: (Ezekiel 34:7–10) Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of Jehovah: "As surely as I live," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, "surely because my sheep have become prey, and my sheep have continually become food for every wild beast of the field, because there was no shepherd and my shepherds did not search for my sheep, but the shepherds kept feeding themselves and did not feed my sheep themselves," therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of Jehovah. This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "Here I am against the shepherds, and I shall certainly reclaim my sheep from their hand and make them cease from tending the sheep, and the shepherds will no longer feed themselves; and I will deliver my sheep from their mouth, and they will not become food for them." The hope for the scattered people: (Ezekiel 34:11–14) For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: "Here I am, I myself, and I will search for my sheep and will attend to them. According to the attention of a shepherd toward his flock on the day when he comes to be among his scattered sheep, so I will attend to my sheep; and I will deliver them out of all the places to which they were scattered in the day of clouds and thick gloom. And I will bring them out from the peoples and collect them from the lands and bring them to their soil and feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streambeds and by all the dwelling places of the land. On good pasture I will feed them, and on the mountains of the heights of Israel their pasture ground will be. There they will lie down in a good pasture ground, and on the mountains of Israel they will feed on rich pasture." God will judge those who have been lost with love and justice: (Ezekiel 34:15–16) "I myself will feed my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. "The lost one I will seek, and the stray I will bring back, and the broken one I will bandage, and the ailing one I will strengthen, but the fat one and the strong one I will annihilate. I will feed them with justice." God speaks about the false teachers: (Ezekiel 34:18–19) Is it not enough for you that you feed on the best pasture, and yet the remainder of your pastures you should trample down with your feet, and that you drink the clear water, and yet what is left you should foul by your feet? As for my sheep, should they feed on what your feet have trampled down, and should they drink what your feet have fouled?" Who did God mean by his "sheep"? (Ezekiel 34:31) "And as for you, my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, you are earthling men. I am your God," is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah.

Where should we go? With all these verses we have learned that we do not need to belong to a particular religion, sect, or any society in order to be saved. On the contrary, it could even mean our death. But where are we to find encouragement? Who will support us? If we have a concern, who will run after us? And where and how should we spend our free time? Let us answer all these questions with God's words. We have read what God has said about all these leaders. The condition in which we human beings find ourselves on earth is well known to all. And all these religions have had their negative share in it. How then can we expect encouragement from them? Jesus said: "Let them be. They are blind guides. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit." (Matthew 15:14.) In Ezekiel 34:11 we have read that God said: "…and I myself will search for my sheep and will attend to them." Moreover, when Joshua came in place of Moses, God supported him with these words: This book of the Law should not depart from your mouth, and you must read it in an undertone day and night, in order to observe carefully all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then you will act wisely. Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not be struck with terror, and do not be dismayed, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go. (Joshua 1:8–9.) Who else can give us such security and shelteredness? Whatever trouble or difficulty we encounter, if it is his will, he will help us. And even if he does not help us — God also allows many things; that does not mean he wills them, but he allows them — he is still the best comforter; one cannot compare him to anyone. One cannot compel God to help. If he gives us something or does something good for us, it is a gift or the grace of God. None of us has deserved it. But God's eye is everywhere, as it is written in 2 Chronicles 16:9: "For as regards Jehovah, his eyes are roving about through all the earth to show his strength in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward him." Joy and laughter are beautiful things. Having a picnic with some religious group, organizing trips, or paying visits may also be pleasant. All these things one might perhaps miss from one's former religion. But instead of enjoying such things with an empty head and heart, we should do something we may perhaps never have done before, or something that only very few do: let us take the time to nourish ourselves with God's knowledge and then put it into practice. God gives his creatures freedom. Is all of this not more beautiful than letting others lord it over our faith? (2 Corinthians 1:24.) As Paul said. Therefore we should buy up the time for such things, for God says that the time is wicked. We should be aware that the present opportunity will not always be there. Therefore we should try to fill ourselves with the real truth. We already spend enough time on our amusement. Before Jesus ascended to heaven, he revealed an important commandment: …Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations… teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And look, I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things. (Matthew 28:19–20.) By this I do not mean going from door to door like the Jehovah's Witnesses; but if so, then in the way that Jesus told his disciples: "…do not be transferring from house to house" (Luke 10:7). Another wise conduct is also: Now wherever you enter into a city or village, search out who in it is deserving, and stay there until you leave. (Matthew 10:11; Mark 6:10.)

Yes, learn and teach, so that we may please God. It does not mean being all-knowing, or pretending to be. Do not forget either what value you assign to other people — that is the measure of what you can expect in return. When someone asks who you are, answer with humility and respect that you carry no label and that you simply try, in a straightforward way, to do God's will. Try not to demand charity from anyone. On the contrary, be generous. For our Creator is generous.

The truth is scattered across the whole earth. Bringing it all together should be your task. You should listen to everyone, but not believe everything. As John said: Beloved, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1) In order to be able to test, however, we need a sound knowledge. We have often suffered because of our ignorance. We should be ready, as Peter said: But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you... (1 Peter 3:15) If the secular chronicle and our understanding, which we have set out on our site, is correct, then by the end of the year 2005 all religions would be banned. God indicated through His prophet Daniel, chapters 11:28–40, and in the book of Revelation, chapters 16 and 17, that this is how it would be. (The whore or Babylon mentioned there refers to all religions collectively.) Beyond those chapters, there are many other prophecies that clearly point to the same thing. In closing, we want to encourage and comfort one another with the words Paul spoke to the Colossians in chapter 3:22–25: …Slaves, be obedient in all things to those who are your masters…not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing God. Whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; it is the Lord Christ you are serving. He who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done wrong, and there is no partiality.

For this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in the heavens, that you should say: "Who will go up to the heavens for us and get it for us, so that we may hear it and do it?" Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say: "Who will cross over to the other side of the sea for us and get it for us, so that we may hear it and do it?" For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it. (Deuteronomy 30:11–14)

SECURITY OR HAPPINESS

Someone who has read this book up to this point may conclude that what matters is not belonging to any religion, being free, and not submitting to any yoke. It is true that in this book we have emphasized that freedom is important, that one should shed unnecessary burdens, and that one should under no circumstances become a slave to any religion. But if one does not examine the reasons for this and remain conscious of them, then these are nothing but empty words and hollow phrases of no value whatsoever. We should also not forget — we are not the only ones who proclaim freedom. Many people have died in the name of freedom; others have given all their possessions for it; countless novels have been written, poems composed, newspaper articles published, and films made, all of them taking freedom as their theme. Throughout the course of human history, every conceivable attempt has been made to deprive people of their freedom: they have been imprisoned, tortured, or pressured in other ways. Although people do not like to submit, they do everything to make others do so. They force others to do what they themselves hate. Such people place absolutely no value on love. That others hate them for their actions does not concern them. They have practically compelled people to hate them — even people who had never felt hatred before. There are admittedly hardly any people in the world who do not hate someone, but people such as those just described have positively produced hating human beings. One has to ask whether, through their actions, they actually want to rid themselves of their enemies, or whether they are creating even more enemies by behaving this way. If one looks at the whole matter logically, one must say that everyone who acts this way — every person, organization, state, religion, employer, family — provokes only enemies and hatred. Who does not know this? Why, then, do they act this way? Why do hatred, pride, rage, arrogance, selfishness, and other base motives lead people to act in this manner? Just as some are not troubled by being hated, others see it as a sign of strength and honor to behave this way. Still others see it as a success to obtain the things they desire through love. They too think only of their own advantage and lie, cheat, and even kill others to reach their goal — but it disturbs them, it troubles them, when they are hated. Being loved is a success for them; losing that love is a defeat. Whereas the first type of person sees love only as a sign of weakness and does not care that he is hated, the second type places great value on love and sees it as a sign of strength. His effort lies in being loved; being hated is weakness and defeat. As already said, he buys love through deceit and lies, or even through the shedding of innocent blood — but he places a higher value on love than on hatred. Which king is the stronger: the one who is loved by his people, or the one who is hated? And which of the two will feel more self-satisfaction and inner peace? Even though, among the two types of people described, one values love and the other values hatred, both are driven by base motives. Let us look at a third type of person: someone who earns the love of his fellow human beings through honesty and justice. What does his self-satisfaction and inner peace look like? He will differ greatly from the other two. He has truly earned the love of his fellow human beings by being honest, open, and fair.

Let us think of three athletes, all of whom have won the gold medal in their competition. They received the prize because they achieved what was expected of them. Let us assume that one of these athletes does this very reluctantly; he must constantly force himself to do it and is driven by fear. He is compelled by his parents or someone else. His parents constantly put pressure on him to be successful. He may even try somehow to influence the judges by unfair means. Let us assume, then, that through his talent, his pride, fear, greed, and by influencing the judges, he has won the medal, even though he does not love this sport. The second athlete in our example is someone who has no self-discipline and no diligence. He loves life with all its pleasures and fun. But since he is ambitious, he is determined to be successful and does not shy away from doping or other unfair means. Despite these negative traits and character flaws, his extraordinary talent and perhaps other fortunate circumstances help him to win the gold medal. We come now to our third athlete. He pursues this sport with great dedication and joy. His whole life revolves around this sport alone; it is what he loves to do. His success does not consist in his ambition or in winning a prize. He loves this sport, he trains a great deal, and he uses every free minute for it. That is all — that is what drives him and makes him content. Others then urged him to take part in competitions, because they saw his zeal and love for the sport. "Show everyone what you can do," they said. So he joins in and wins the gold medal. But he does all this not out of love for the prize, but solely because he loves this sport. Whether he comes in first place or not is not important to him. Of course he is pleased about the medal, but he is not sad if he receives no prize.

Let us ask ourselves: which of these three athletes is the happiest, the most content? As in this example, every athlete naturally rejoices in winning a medal, but winning also gives them a sense of security. All three athletes in the example have won a gold medal, but only one of them does not place his trust in that prize. Whereas the others had the goal of winning this medal at all costs, the goal of the third was simply to have his joy in the sport. For the others, the medal means fame, honor, prestige, a future of prosperity, and security. But for the one who pursues his sport with joy and dedication, the medal simply means a gift. He does not draw his self-confidence from winning this prize. Whether there are such athletes in our world? No idea. And if one does exist, it is debatable whether he can maintain this attitude without being corrupted by others.

We see that the possession of something, or trust in one's own strength, changes one's attitude toward others. This applies not only to individuals but to entire nations, organizations, cultures, and religions. What kind of change is it that takes place? There are certainly several reasons one can give for this change, but fundamentally it all rests on the feeling of self-assurance, on trust in one's own strength. "Nothing can happen to me; I am strong and I need no one." In general, people think that this is when they are content and happy. For most people this is a highly desirable goal, and they do everything to reach it. Gambling, a large lottery win, becoming rich — these are the dreams they pursue, and for them they are willing to sell everything. They sell their body, their character, and their soul. This is the only reason some women want to marry a rich man. We deliberately say "man," not "husband," because they are not concerned with a good marriage or a beautiful family life, but with security through prosperity. A strong army, buying and accumulating property, every conceivable kind of insurance — life, household contents, unemployment, building insurance, and so on — all of this has the goal of giving us security in one form or another. If we say that people prefer security over happiness, we are surely not wrong. They are unaware of this, because they think that with the feeling of security comes happiness and contentment. The opposite of security is: insecurity, doubt, uncertainty, danger, anxiety, fear, misery, poverty, hunger, darkness, and ultimately death. Who wants that? No one, of course. But is it really so? Or is it possible that we are looking for security and confidence in entirely the wrong direction, and that our efforts in that regard are rather clumsy? Let us examine this together.

To whom do all the gold, silver, and treasures of the earth belong? Even if many do not believe it, they will still say "God" in answer. We say with full faith and conviction: "Everything belongs to God." Would it not therefore be wise and reasonable to seek His counsel and opinion on this subject? No psychologist, no therapist, and no one else, however much he may have occupied himself with human beings, their actions, and their history, possesses so much knowledge about people and at the same time so much love. For we are all the work of His hands. It is therefore only wise and reasonable to ask Him for counsel on the subject of security and happiness. God had long known in advance that the Israelites would want a king, before they themselves knew it. He had long beforehand had the following law set down through Moses:

When he has become king, he must not acquire a large number of horses for himself. He must not send people back to Egypt to acquire more horses, for the LORD has told you: "You must never go back that way again." He must not take many wives for himself, or his heart will go astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. When he sits on his royal throne, he is to write for himself a copy of this instruction on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It is to remain with him, and he is to read from it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to observe all the words of this instruction, and to do these statutes. Then his heart will not be exalted above his countrymen, he will not turn from this command to the right or to the left, and he and his sons will reign for many years over Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:16–20)

Horses represented military strength in those days, women were a symbol of pleasure, and silver and gold were of course wealth. God regards the striving after all these things as steps toward elevating oneself above others and thinking too highly of oneself. And yet, strangely enough, we human beings pursue precisely these things! And yet these very things, which we desire so greatly, God has forbidden. Why? All these things give us joy and lend us a feeling of security and freedom from care, do they not? Are we not pursuing these things precisely because we seek security? Strength, power, pleasure, and independence — that is what we want. Why, then, does God warn us against them?

In another place, God tells the people of Israel through Moses, shortly before Moses' death: Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God by failing to observe His commandments, His ordinances, and His statutes which I am commanding you today. Otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. He led you through the great and terrible wilderness, with its fiery serpents and scorpions and thirsty ground where there was no water; He brought water for you out of the rock of flint. In the wilderness He fed you manna which your fathers did not know, that He might humble you and that He might test you, to do good for you in the end. Otherwise, you may say in your heart, "My power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth." (Deuteronomy 8:11–17)

From these words it becomes clear that pride of heart and arrogance are rooted in wealth and in trust in it. That is why God warns people again and again against it. Sometimes things happen that make one shake one's head. Let us take another example from the Bible. After God had freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, He gave them laws they were to keep. One of them was to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath law stated that they were permitted to work six days in the week and were to rest on the seventh day. The law applied to everyone, including the animals; on the Sabbath, work was forbidden (Exodus 20:8–11). Since work on the seventh day was forbidden, God arranged things in the wilderness, when He supplied the people with manna, so that on the sixth day the Israelites could gather twice as much manna. On the sixth day they were also to gather for the seventh, so that they could rest on it. If on other days they had gathered more than they could eat that same day, the manna was spoiled and inedible by the next morning. But on the sixth day He had arranged by a miracle that it was still edible the next day as well. In this way God gave them the assurance that they could keep His commandment (Exodus 16:14–36). Such miracles our minds cannot grasp. They had to learn to obey God through trust. Yet in spite of everything, they did not obey: they gathered manna for two or more days and found that it was inedible, or they wanted to gather on the seventh day even though they were not supposed to. Some even lost their lives because they were disobedient by gathering wood on a Sabbath day, thereby clearly transgressing a law. (Exodus 31:14–16 and Numbers 15:32–36) Why did these people transgress the commandments, even though it was a law for their own benefit? It comes down to security. People are so obsessed with gathering. Why? To set something aside for hard times. We have such fear of being dependent and in need. Yes, it is true that being dependent on people can be very bad. But is it equally bad to be dependent on God, so that we are so intent on always having something "put away for a rainy day"? While we human beings always tend to save and accumulate, God gives food for the day at hand. Gather what you need today; tomorrow I will give you fresh manna again. Did anyone go hungry, or become poor? No, not a single one went hungry. Even though they wandered for forty years in the wilderness, not even their sandals wore out. Are there such shoes that can withstand a forty-year journey? Let us assume such shoes could be manufactured — what about the feet? What feet can endure that? The account in the Bible says: Your clothing did not wear out on you, and your foot did not swell these forty years. (Deuteronomy 8:4) While the people wandered through the wilderness for forty years, neither their feet swelled nor their garments wore out. When God did occasionally allow them to fall into hardship, it was to educate them, to bring them back to their senses (Deuteronomy 8:2–6). What do we think of the Israelites when we read this account? We come to the conclusion that they did not truly know God and therefore had no trust in Him. Even though they had insufficient trust in God and did not obey Him, they did so because they were seeking security for themselves. Better to gather enough for several days — perhaps tomorrow I will not feel well, I may not be able to gather manna, so at least I will have enough to get by, they may have thought. Or: what happens if our relationship with God is no longer so good and He no longer helps us? We live today in a time in which, on the one hand, there are people who have nothing to eat at home, and on the other hand people who lay in provisions for several weeks or even months. And not only food provisions. They have accumulated food, clothing, valuables, jewelry, and money — to say nothing of those who throw away nothing at all and hoard everything, out of fear and anxiety that they might need it someday. And for all of them it ultimately comes down to satisfying their need for security. This greed for gathering and hoarding is found above all among wealthy people. While poor people are quite willing to share the little they have, for wealthy people the worst thing that can happen to them is having to share something with someone. My son has had similar experiences at school. He says that among the pupils it is perfectly normal to share, to lend someone something, or to ask for money that will naturally be returned the next day, at the next opportunity. But the more well-off, wealthy children always had problems with this. Either they ate what they had to eat in secret so as not to have to share, or they hid what they had from others. If they had ever lent money, they did not return it. Although they had more pocket money available per week than most had in an entire month, they were never willing to lend anyone anything. Is a child — or an adult — who behaves this way happy? What do you think? These people are afraid of losing something or of appearing like fools who can be taken advantage of. They do not behave like normal people. Is someone who behaves this way and harbors such fears really happy and content? Go into a neighborhood where wealthy people live, or into a prosperous country where people live in abundance. Do you hear children laughing there, or see children playing in the street? But in the poor districts, children play in the streets, laughing and shouting, even though they are hungry and wearing tattered clothes. Why is it not the same in the districts of the wealthy? Because it is unseemly to romp about in the street? No, that has nothing to do with it. The children of the wealthy are conceited and do not stoop to playing with others. When children play, it is perfectly normal that they quarrel and even hit each other. While children ordinarily make up quickly and play together again the next day, the well-off children withdraw from one another into their houses and avoid contact. At home, within their four walls, they have ample opportunity to keep themselves occupied — from watching DVDs to computer games to gaming consoles with their seemingly endless possibilities for play, or their mobile phones. A small problem, a disagreement, a misunderstanding, any trivial matter drives them apart and they no longer speak to each other, waiting for the other to make the first move. They do not need one another; they have everything to keep themselves occupied. Hence their vanity, their lack of willingness to forgive, to seek compromise, to reach out to one another. Their countless possibilities at home give them a feeling of security. But children who grow up in poverty depend on one another. They need friends, companions to play with. Their joy, their happiness depends on this community. That applies to every single one of them. I have noticed that friendships in boarding school and in the military were quite different. Some say that friendships in prison are something special — why? Everyone is suffering under the same difficult circumstances and depends on one another. This dependence does not apply only to material things. Prosperity makes people miserly; poverty and hardship, on the other hand, make them generous and open-handed. People who suffer the same hardship together forgive one another, protect each other, share their feelings, and listen to one another. They laugh and cry together. They share, and that makes them happy. Very well — but for how long? This goes on until the feeling of security sets in among them. This feeling of contentment and security drives people almost mad. Then they lose their friendships, their love, the happiness of sharing. They are no longer those who weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. Why? Because now they no longer need one another. They no longer have that feeling of depending on one another. Now each one has what he needs. Yet no matter how much a person may possess — a house full of electronic toys, a luxury apartment, a car with all the extras, or even a yacht — all this lifeless property will not give him the satisfaction and joy he felt in being together with people. The greatest discomfort that being with people brings him is the thought: "I hope I don't have to give something away or share something." That is the worst thought. Without going into further detail here, I want to make it clear that property or prosperity negatively influences human relationships and tends to make the owner unhappy. And yet even a simple friendly greeting toward a stranger — especially a poor person — makes that person happy, without any negative thoughts arising; whereas a wealthy person is more likely to respond with a serious expression, or not to react at all. He is afraid that someone wants something from him. That is why, among the prosperous class, people tend to look with suspicion on friendly, smiling, humble people. They live in constant fear that someone wants something from them, that someone has set his sights on their prosperity. Hence it is customary in such societies not to greet one another, to best not register others at all, and always to wear a serious expression. They have become prisoners of their prosperity, their label-thinking, and their security-thinking. In the wealthier countries, children learn this from a very young age; it becomes the very essence of their culture. They have everything, depend on no one, and therefore want nothing to do with anyone. If someone is friendly, he is only being so because he expects something in return. Either he wants to sell something, is an insurance agent, or has some other agenda. If such a person moves into a neighborhood, he is constantly asking for things, taking advantage of others, or always complaining. But to get a new neighbor who is truly honestly and genuinely nice, friendly, and obliging is like winning the lottery. The system in which we live pushes us to be this way, but ultimately it is we ourselves who make ourselves this way. We bring ourselves to be one way or another. At heart we are all the same — not just a few of us. Often it is only circumstances that set us apart from one another.

We human beings lie, kill, feel fear, play the hypocrite, put on a show for others, call the good bad and the bad good. Behind all of it stands the fear of losing something we already possess or hope to obtain. We have a house, a car, a wife or husband, children — all of this gives us security. We have a country, a religion, a social circle, friends, labels, and we dread losing any part of it. All of this gives us security. Yet that alone is not enough — we also take out insurance. Everything is insured: our lives, our cars, our homes, our old age and our future care. We insure ourselves against being alone in old age. That gives us additional security and confidence. We believe that things which are hard to get, things we desire especially strongly, will make us happy and content. But is one really happy when one finally receives what one has longed for so much? Those who possess such things give a clear answer: "no." This means: to be happy, it is not enough to feel secure. Great is the disappointment when people realize that the security they trusted so completely bursts like a soap bubble. They discover that they have been looking in entirely the wrong place and at entirely the wrong source. For humanity, the greatest and highest goal is to live cheerfully and carefree, without fear. To live free and without fear, completely independent of other people — that is, so to speak, the summit, the highest goal they try to reach. "What is wrong with that?" someone might rightly ask. I am not claiming that a life without fear, and as little dependence on others as possible, is something bad or not worth striving for; rather, the question is how we achieve it. In order to guarantee our security, we have sacrificed our honour, our character, our self-respect and our happiness. And have we actually achieved what we strove for so hard? Since the beginning of humanity there has been no such guarantee. Honestly speaking, only God has prevented us from completely wiping one another off the face of the earth.

In earlier times it was no different, and people have always tried to enjoy life and live in peace. Some, who were cleverer, tried to keep at arm's length everything that would mean an unnecessary burden. They recognized that having a king, a leader or a large military force would only be an obstacle to reaching that goal. In the past there were communities that understood this and lived accordingly. They chose happiness over the security that a military force would have given them. They did not build high, thick walls or barricade themselves behind fortresses; they did not acquire a large army, nor war chariots nor horses. They set no king or leader over themselves. They kept at a distance everything that might needlessly burden them. The territory in which they lived provided everything they needed. They were not dependent on others and did no evil to anyone — but also no good. That was what mattered to them. "Leave me / us alone" was their motto. The Bible speaks of a people who lived in Laish (or Layish), and interpretations and speculations have been made about this story that are wrong, or at least do not hit the core of what the Bible says. This people is described in the biblical book of Judges, which records a time when there was no king in Israel yet. In the Bible we find the following description: Accordingly, the five men went on and came to Laish, and they saw how the people who were in it were dwelling in security, in the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and unsuspecting, with no one in the land humiliating them in anything, as they were far away from the Sidonians and had nothing to do with other people. — Judges 18:7

In some translations it is added that they were prosperous and dependent on no one. That statement would be consistent with what these five men reported later. These five men are members of the Israelite tribe of Dan. Their task is to scout the territory assigned to the tribe of Dan, many years after the people of Israel left Egypt. Today we would say they were spies reconnoitring the land. When one reads the account from the Bible cited above about this people, one gets the impression of a quiet, modest, innocent people who want no trouble with anyone. Essentially they resemble what we described earlier as children of wealthy parents. They were clever enough to live — at least in part — the freedom we have described in this book. They protected themselves from making themselves the beast of burden for others by setting neither a king nor a ruler over themselves. They also saw no need to raise an army. It goes without saying that a people who act this way will become rich and prosperous fairly quickly. Since they placed no ruler over themselves, they also know nothing such as taxes. And they did not have to set money aside to bribe corrupt officials. Evidently they had recognized that organization — which like an octopus with many arms exploits people in many forms — is a system of the devil, and they therefore kept their distance from it. The reason they kept their distance was not the fact that it is the work of the devil; rather, it was their own advantage they were concerned with. The Bible does not say that this people lasted long. We do not know where they came from or from whom they descended. But we can say with certainty that they did not endure as long as some world powers. The path they chose made that impossible. The reason they eventually disappeared was not the fact that they had no king or ruler. For at the same time it was the same among the Israelites. They too had no one to rule or oppress them. From time to time God permitted them to fall into the hands of their enemies and be oppressed by them, but the reason was not that they had no king — rather, they had their own self-inflicted conduct to thank for it. They sinned again and again against their God and distanced themselves from Him. For this period we find the following verse that describes the situation of the Israelites: In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone was accustomed to do what was right in his own eyes. — Judges 17:6 So it was not the fact that the inhabitants of Laish had no king that led to their ceasing to exist. They were certainly clever people and within a short time they became wealthy and prosperous. But then the same thing happened to them that usually happens to rich, prosperous people. At this point we need to go a little further afield and explain by means of examples what we mean. I can best illustrate this by reporting on my experiences in Germany. But at this point I also want to state explicitly that although I have had these experiences with Germans, it applies in essence to all prosperous peoples. Even though reunification has corrupted the Germans in many respects, in some respects they are superior to many other peoples. To be more precise, they used to be. This change certainly has its reasons. It has nothing to do with their being German, or with the superiority of a race or a people. All human beings display certain patterns of behaviour under similar conditions and circumstances, entirely regardless of what nationality they belong to. It does not depend on whether we are German, American, English or inhabitants of Laish, for we all descend from Adam and Eve. The Bible states unambiguously: … And he made out of one man every nation of men … — Acts 17:26 People who are so proud and arrogant and look down on other races and peoples, who despise people of a different skin colour, ought to reflect on this statement. But we do not wish to go further into that subject here and will return to our example instead. Politicians in Germany like to blame foreigners for all problems, especially when an election is approaching. On the other hand, we have also heard repeatedly that Germany is among the countries that provide the most aid to others. Since reunification, however, they have been more preoccupied with their own problems. Yet Germany is still very active in international aid operations. Even so, at least among ordinary people, foreigners — above all Turks — are held responsible for increasing unemployment and violent crime. When Germans are among themselves, one of their favourite topics is the Turks and the problems they cause. Listening to them, one gets the impression that the Turks are the cause of all problems in Germany. Every problem would dissolve into thin air if the Turks were expelled from Germany. In the meantime the picture has shifted somewhat and refugees are increasingly identified as the source of the problems. There was once a time in Germany when people said the very same things about the Jews. Except that back then they did not think it necessary to tell them: they ought to integrate! Back then they tracked down the Jewish population in every country they had conquered and subsequently murdered them in the most brutal fashion. Today it is against the Turks; before them it was the Italians, and before them the Spanish. Their spirit and their attitude have remained constant; only the times and the names have changed. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, those who came from East Germany to the western part were given a welcome payment of one hundred marks. How many of them used that money first to search for relatives and friends from whom the border had separated them for many decades? Most set off immediately to go shopping. The supermarkets near the border were so overwhelmed that only some of the waiting customers could be admitted at a time, and then the entrance was closed again. Such was the onslaught on the shops. It would otherwise have been completely impossible to get through and shop, the crush was so great. Naturally there were also plenty of thefts, violent altercations and other ugly incidents, but nothing of the sort appeared in the press. All of that was swept under the carpet — but when a Turk commits an offence it is immediately a headline in the Bild. I have been living in Germany for many years, but no one has ever pressed 100 DM into my hand and said "go and do some shopping." Why would they? What was generously handed out there as a gift had nothing to do with philanthropy; it was intended as a weapon against the Eastern Bloc. It was the end of the Cold War, and the 100 DM that were distributed were meant to make clear to people the advantages of the West. So even gifts were used as a kind of weapon. That is how perfectly the Cold War had been conducted against the Eastern Bloc, with every step carefully considered. But no one thought about what would happen when the war was won! How should things proceed, in what state would the world then be? But this subject would go beyond the scope of this book. If one were to ask the Germans "what do you think of sending the foreigners, above all the Turks, back to their homelands", I am sure that most would celebrate it. And I would understand them very well. They really believe that all their problems would thereby be solved. They want nothing to do with anyone. By this I mean their fear that someone greeting them on the street wants something from them. But their cars, their tanks and their weapons should be sold all over the world. Japanese or French cars have no business on the German market. All countries are, however, welcome to grow citrus fruits, bananas, kiwis, cocoa and coffee so that Germans can enjoy the variety of exotic fruits. A few decades ago many Germans had never encountered watermelons or honeydew melons, aubergines or olives. Who does not delight in the variety of fruit and vegetables? This stems from a mentality of skimming the cream from all countries while wanting nothing to do with the rest, with the waste. But this "rest and waste" consists of human beings. No matter how bad they may be, they all descend from our common forefathers; they are all children of Adam and Eve. Who knows — perhaps people have been taught that foreigners come from another planet, that they are extraterrestrials? But it is human beings who cultivate melons, kiwis, bananas and cocoa, who plant and harvest them. Cocoa, which we love so much and from which chocolate is made! These are the kinds of people on whom we impose the worst, the dirtiest, the most demeaning tasks among us. We try everything possible to prevent them from climbing the career ladder. Many of them have grown up and come of age in Germany. In the wishful thinking of the Germans, these foreigners should carry out simple, menial work, work until midnight, preferably for nothing. They should ensure that we have food, bake us fresh rolls and pretzels, ensure that we have something tasty to eat at every occasion — but we do not want to see their faces. They should clean everything at night: the public toilets, the railway and bus stations — but with them personally we want nothing to do. When we call them, they should come; when we send them away, they should go; when we say "stand up," they should stand up. Not even a dog does what we expect of foreigners in our wishful thinking. That is the wishful thinking of the people, we said. What about the laws? I would like to say that the laws are not so narrow-minded and primitive — but unfortunately they are so only on paper. Especially since Angela Merkel, born in East Germany as the daughter of a theologian, came to power, the laws and their application have become increasingly contemptuous of human beings. The West has more and more become the East. The very causes that led to the collapse of the East are being increasingly applied in the West. The blessings they had previously were due to the fact that they were somewhat more humane. By now the laws are no longer applied as humanely and justly as before. As already mentioned, I take the Germans and developments in Germany only as an example, because I have already lived here for many years and therefore know the country and its people well. Had I lived in England I would take the English as my example, or in the USA the Americans, in Turkey the Turks. What would it be like if things had been reversed and the Germans were Turks and the Turks Germans? Then perhaps we would search by candlelight for their kindness and humanity and not find it. Many people give no thought to this and do not want to know about it. But regardless of whether we are German, Turkish, American, English or belong to another nation, we will all have to give an account of our lives. Let us return once more to our subject — where prosperity and self-satisfaction lead a people. Let us look at the inhabitants of Laish, who wanted nothing to do with anyone, who took nothing from anyone but also gave nothing. They knew only their own contentment, their pleasure, their excess, their own advantage. Do not think they received this as a gift. They earned for themselves what they possessed. And what was the relationship of the inhabitants to God? Zero! How do we know that? When God showed the Israelites the land He had promised them, He made clear that the land and its inhabitants had drawn His wrath upon themselves through their ways and traditions. The Israelites were for God the executive power that carried out the judgment God had pronounced upon the inhabitants of the land. We should not conclude from this that God was dependent on the people of Israel for help. In many of the wars the people fought, the biblical account states that more died by the hand of God than by the sword. (Read the account in Joshua 10:11.) Reports such as these make clear that these wars were truly approved by God and that the inhabitants had defiled the land through their way of life. Among them were the city of Laish and its inhabitants (Deuteronomy 9:4,5; Leviticus 20:1–23). Despite all of this, there is a people that lives under the same circumstances in the same territory yet is different. Because they feared God and loved their lives, they were also willing to lie and make peace with the Israelites. The Israelites promised to spare them (Joshua 9:3–27). In this way the entire people was saved. God was willing to forgive them, since they were God-fearing and, out of fear of His judgments, sought peace with God's chosen people. Yet this people was the most courageous of all the peoples living there (Joshua 10:1,2). The others were comparatively weak and yet they went to war — essentially against God. To repent and to humble oneself has to do with the attitude of the heart. It does not depend on strength, power or courage. And then there is this people that sees, hears and observes all these events and yet goes about its life in complete detachment and undisturbed, wanting nothing to do with anyone. Yet to whom did the inhabitants of Laish owe their prosperity and their peace? Who created all the peoples of the earth? To whom does the world and everything in it belong? If we could ask them this question today, they would surely answer with full pride: "We created all of this ourselves; we worked hard for our prosperity; we are simply better than other peoples." But such an attitude is very dangerous, and it is precisely for this reason that God issued the following warning to the people of Israel:

Do not say in your heart, when Jehovah your God has driven them out from before you, 'It was because of my own righteousness that Jehovah brought me in to take possession of this land,' whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah is driving them out from before you. Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to take possession of their land; rather, it is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah your God is driving them out from before you, and in order to carry out the word that Jehovah swore to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. — Deuteronomy 9:4,5 (New World Translation) These words were addressed to the Israelites, who with good reason brought God's judgment upon themselves. What else did we read: and you may indeed say in your heart, 'My own power and the strength of my own hand have produced for me this wealth.' — Deuteronomy 8:11–17 (New World Translation)

Yes, that is how the inhabitants of Laish thought. They trusted in themselves. They were convinced that they had created their paradise with their own hands and had therefore truly earned it. Their selfish, self-serving mindset was far removed from God. They became a proud, arrogant people. They resembled the spoiled and pampered children of wealthy parents. We have already noted above that wealth and prosperity not infrequently lead to arrogance and pride. The inhabitants of Laish had developed such an attitude. We can assume that their moral outlook did not differ greatly from that of their neighbors. In the biblical account, we see that, among a few other abominations, they also engaged in sexual intercourse with animals and thereby degraded themselves. But let us return to the relationship between Turks and Germans. Is there anyone who would disagree with the description of Turks in the book "Cevap veriyorum" by the Turkish author Yasar Nuri Öztürk (not published in German)? In it he writes that the Turks were punished by God and scattered to many parts of the world because they love money, are corrupt, do not love what is good and just, but are enemies of people who love justice. Have they learned anything from this and changed? No, the Turks are still their own greatest enemy. It is as though they take pleasure in deceiving and cheating one another. When Germans and other nations hate the Turks, I cannot agree with that, but to deny the sides that make the Turks unlikeable would also be dishonest. When I write these lines here, I do so in the hope that they will feel ashamed of what they have done to one another and to others. But to understand something and to admit it to oneself requires a humble and sincere heart. On the other hand, whether Turks or Kurds, they will receive from God the share that is due to them, or they have already received it. And what about the German people? Will they also be tested? We can be certain that they will be tested and will receive the share due to them. Everyone, every people and every person will receive what is owed to them by God. And what actually became of the inhabitants of Laish? The account in the Bible says the following: And the sons of Dan went their way; … and they marched to Laish, against a people that were quiet and unsuspecting. And they struck them with the edge of the sword, and burned the city with fire. And there was no deliverer, because it was far from Sidon, and they had no dealings with anyone; and it was in the valley that belongs to Beth-rehob. — Judges 18:26–28 These words make clear what happened to them, for their deeds were wicked. In their minds there was only evil; they thought only of themselves, of their degenerate pleasures. They cared only for their own rest and peace, which had led them to prosperity and wealth. But that lasted only until God's judgment was executed upon them. Writing this passage about the inhabitants of Laish was very important to me, because I fear that some who read this book might possibly conclude that one ought to live as these people lived. Very few people truly understand what freedom means. They see freedom as something boundless. But that is not what it is — freedom can only exist within certain limits. The moment one causes harm to others or to oneself, freedom ends. And freedom has absolutely nothing to do with irresponsibility. On the contrary, freedom can only exist in connection with responsibility. Is someone who lives selfishly, self-centeredly, and recklessly truly free? Such people are prisoners of their feelings and enslaved to them. Jesus Christ made the following statement: Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. — John 8:34 And the Apostle Peter expresses the same thought in these words: They promise freedom, but they themselves are slaves of sin. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. — 2 Peter 2:19 (New Living Translation) Everyone says they love freedom, but when we look at the world, the trend is going in exactly the opposite direction. They strive to make themselves slaves of sin. More important than what we say or what we wish for is what we truly want and sincerely try to achieve. Some understand freedom to mean that others fear them and that they rule over others. Others see democracy as the epitome of freedom, but only when the party they want comes to power. Still others — such as Jehovah's Witnesses, for example — speak negatively about those who do not agree with their views, and if they are apostates, they forbid their members even to speak to or greet such people. They cry out for freedom when it comes to resistance against their literature, their activities, or their teachings. It is no surprise that on the one hand they spare no effort to fight for their freedom before the courts, yet within their own ranks they tolerate neither freedom of thought nor freedom of speech.

There is a feature film called The Beach from the year 2000, with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role. The plot of the film is as follows: An American backpacker traveling in Thailand hears of a beach that is like a paradise and is inaccessible to tourists. Using a map, he sets off with a French couple he has met along the way in search of this beach, where paradisiacal conditions are said to exist. They eventually find this beach and come upon a commune consisting of about twenty to thirty people. The island is used by cannabis farmers, who tolerate this commune on the condition that its members tell no one about the place. This beach gives the dropouts who have settled there the illusion of a paradise — but an illusion only. It is obvious that a paradise cannot function with the kinds of characters who live together here. I do not want to recount the entire film, but it quickly becomes clear that they behave inhumanely the moment a problem arises, because they are selfish and concerned only with their own well-being. One person kills a shark and is celebrated as a hero, while another is seriously wounded by a shark. They refuse to allow the injured person to be taken to a doctor or to have one called, out of fear that their hiding place might be exposed. While the wounded man writhes in pain and screams, everyone simply watches. They throw him out of his shelter because they can no longer bear his screaming. Only one single person looks after him and stands by him. After a few days he finally dies. In this artificial paradise there are of course a great many other problems — envy, jealousy, and ill will. But what ultimately causes the barrel to overflow is the fact that one of the inhabitants of this paradise had given someone a map of the place before setting off for it himself. Those who had received the map from him initially did not take it seriously, but eventually they set off in search of the beach and then showed up there. That was too much for the cannabis farmers, and they ultimately drove everyone off the beach. At first this beach and the commune appear to be a unique paradise, as though one had drawn the winning ticket. Few people know of this place and it is supposed to remain a secret — that makes the place even more attractive. There are virtually no rules or laws. The supreme commandment is to keep the place secret. The other rules follow from that. They are willing to do anything to preserve this unity, to ensure that the beach remains secret. They are even willing to kill someone who breaks this rule. This is how most organizations have started as well. At first it is about addressing people's happiness, contentment, and secure future. But with time, the organization that was founded for the purpose of helping people becomes the center of everything, and the supreme goal of all is to preserve and protect this organization at all costs. And so they themselves become slaves and servants of rules and regulations. No matter how well-planned and forward-thinking the effort may be, there are always certain mistakes and gaps, and life is full of surprises that no one anticipated. So they begin to introduce even more rules and regulations to protect the organization. Whatever the cost, the organization must be preserved. The goals have changed. Whereas at the beginning the person was the center and the organization was founded to serve people, with time it is only the organization that matters, and people must serve it. Therefore organizations are always at pains to equate their own demise with the demise of their members. They try by every means to preserve unity. When everyone ultimately works with full force and effort for the preservation and benefit of the organization, everything living is suffocated. It is only a matter of time how long it takes. While watching this film, I kept thinking of the inhabitants of Laish. To be sure, the circumstances under which they lived were very different, but their attitude was not. In that respect they were very much alike. Unfortunately there are many peoples, many groups, and many individuals who are very similar to the inhabitants of Laish. These people are similarly in search of security, peace, pleasure, and privilege. Yet none of that makes them happy — on the contrary. They seek rest and security in the wrong place and in the wrong things. That is why they find neither contentment nor happiness. They only make life difficult for one another and anger God. He has shown in many ways that the pursuit of wealth, prosperity, recognition, and honor — and the trust in labels, strength, and power — is empty and leads to misfortune. History is full of countless proofs of this. Where are the vast, mighty peoples of Babylon, Egypt, Assyria, Rome, or Persia? Where are their famous and fearsome rulers, kings, and emperors? They chased after all the same things people still pursue and seek to obtain today. But where are they now? Do we say of them today that they lived and died happy? Hardly — history tells a different story. Even if some of them were fortunate in their lifetime, that does not mean that all their days were happy and contented. Moreover, they all did things for which they must give account not only in this world, but above all before God on the Day of Judgment. No one can escape that judgment. Until now God has kept all His promises; we can therefore be certain that what He foretold about the Day of Judgment will also come to pass. People fundamentally believe neither in a resurrection nor in a Day of Judgment, and they do not want to believe in it either. What matters to them is living a pleasant life here and now, spending a few pleasant days — nothing more. They are determined to have as much pleasure as possible, whatever the cost. And if that is truly so, why should I invest my time and energy in something that I know will not make me happy? Everything has its price, as we have said, and so it is — that price must be paid. Nothing is easy to attain, even if what we regard as peace and security in reality resembles a soap bubble. But I am in favor of asking about everything: "Is it worth it?" What do we want to achieve? Do we want to attain security, or is it our happiness that concerns us? Many say, "Those two things are directly connected and are not opposing goals." How can someone be happy if they do not feel safe? There is of course nothing wrong with wanting security and a sense of belonging. But the way in which we human beings try to achieve this goal is sometimes laughable and often alarming. Let us first look at people who are full of self-confidence and pride in what they have achieved and accomplished. King Nebuchadnezzar, who was king over the world empire of Babylon when it was at its height, was walking one night on the roof of his palace and said to himself in his heart: "Is this not Babylon the Great, which I myself have built for the royal house with the strength of my power and for the dignity of my majesty?" While the word was still in the mouth of the king, a voice fell from the heavens: "To you it is spoken, O King Nebuchadnezzar: 'The kingdom has departed from you, and from among men you are being driven away, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field. Grass they will feed to you just as to bulls, and seven times will pass over you, until you come to know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that He gives it to whom He wants.'" — Daniel 4:29–32 When one reads the following verses, one sees that these words were fulfilled immediately, at once. This event was later recorded by the king himself. The entire fourth chapter of the biblical book of Daniel contains the words of the king. We can conclude from this that the king had obviously learned an important lesson. History tells us that King Nebuchadnezzar was a very successful king. From a very young age he had his own army and was a successful military commander. At the age of twenty-one he ascended the throne and in that same year waged war against Jerusalem, taking some captives to Babylon. Among these was the prophet Daniel. The king was very successful in all his undertakings. One success followed another. With success came of course fame and wealth — and with these the superior sense of security. In his own eyes he was the greatest, and nothing could happen to him! Moreover, he was not dependent on anyone. But the Bible rightly says in Proverbs 16:18, "Pride goes before destruction." Yet this king had one very good quality: as soon as he recognizes his error, he immediately changes his attitude and repents. But not all kings in the Bible are so repentant. On the contrary, many became angry and stubborn when a mistake was pointed out to them. At this point I would like to briefly compare King Nebuchadnezzar with Pharaoh of Egypt. We all certainly know the story of when Moses appeared before Pharaoh and in the name of God requested the release of his people, even performing a great multitude of miracles. His heart hardened, and ten terrible plagues came upon the Egyptians and the entire land. Ultimately Pharaoh had to give in and reluctantly let the Israelites go. But scarcely had he done so when he regretted his decision, gathered his army, and set out in pursuit of the Israelites. He was, in effect, waging war against God. What a contrast to the conduct of King Nebuchadnezzar! The starting situation of the two was very similar. Both were rulers of world empires; both had no enemies to fear in their time. But their disposition of heart was fundamentally different. Nebuchadnezzar too became arrogant and proud and was at first stubborn. But as soon as he realized who he was dealing with and recognized the mighty hand of God, he humbled and abased himself. He gave up his proud, arrogant stance, recognized and repented of his error, and even made this known to the whole world. Which king, which ruler, or which leader shows such humility? And who goes so far as to be willing to confess his mistakes and follies before all the world? Yes, it is true — among the kings of Judah there were also kings like that. But interestingly, both of the kings we have just spoken about never truly came to know the true God. They grew up in a culture far removed from the knowledge of God. The upbringing and education they had received from childhood had nothing to do with the truths and revelations that the people of Israel had received. Yet the conduct of both kings was completely different. While one was willing to wage war even against God, the other humbled and abased himself. How fortunate are all the kings and rulers who have a heart like Nebuchadnezzar's. We all make mistakes and are at times proud and arrogant, or too full of ourselves. Especially when things are going well for us materially and we have attained a certain measure of prosperity, we feel secure and have the sense that we need no one and are not dependent on anyone. It is precisely then that we begin to be proud and arrogant, or to treat others mercilessly. Prophets who were aware of this danger therefore prayed to God in the following words: Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. For if I grow rich, I might deny you and say, "Who is the Lord?" And if I am too poor, I might steal and thus disgrace the name of my God. — Proverbs 30:8–9 (New Living Translation) No one disputes that money and prosperity hold power. God knows this too, of course. There is a saying that there is no door that cannot be opened or closed with money. Thousands of pages have already been written in literature about the influence and power of money. The Bible too has something to say about it. In short, clear words it warns: Trust in your money and down you go! But the godly flourish like leaves in spring. — Proverbs 11:28 (New Living Translation) Riches won't help on the day of judgment, but right living can save you from death. — Proverbs 11:4 (New Living Translation) Wisdom and money can get you almost anything, but only wisdom can save your life. — Ecclesiastes 7:12 (New Living Translation) When we look at the facts, we see that neither money nor wealth, neither fame nor possessions nor unity nor anything else that people strive after and seek to obtain has truly brought them happiness and contentment. To say nothing of happiness — it has not even given them the security they hoped for. Kings who ruled over their people for years as powerful rulers have fled at a single moment of danger and found no safe hiding place, no refuge for themselves. It came upon them suddenly. Neither their wealth, their billions in the bank, nor their fame, their bodyguards and soldiers, nor their great and fearsome palace could save them. If this happens even to strong rulers who appear invincible, how much less are we protected from it?

It is frightening to see what things people do to cheat others. Women already make plans, before they marry a rich man, about how much money they can get out of him in a divorce. With such a mindset they start a family! Bringing children into the world is, above all in the Western hemisphere, a kind of cash cow for women. At separation, especially because of the children, they can count on alimony with which they can live more than well. Such things one reads in the media every single day. People hardly even try to hide their intentions anymore. It is not embarrassing to them; no, they talk about it quite openly. What used to be talked about only behind a cupped hand is today carried out into the public, and they go to court to claim their right. And the courts grant them their right. In the wealthy, affluent Western countries, men are in a pitiful state compared to women. By now all the rights have been given to the women. Yet it is not about the courts protecting the rights of women or children; it is only about transforming humanity into a stinking quagmire. Apparently this seems to be the whole intent of the laws.

The men, on the other hand, think only of sexual pleasure. When a man becomes self-employed and founds a company, the first person who is hired is in any case a woman, whether she is talented for the work or not. The man already takes delight in being together with this woman. In former times it was so that when a woman was looking for work, people said: "Go, fetch your husband, let him come." Today people say to the man: "Go, bring your wife, let her come." My older sister, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and pretty much the rest of the world defend the rights of women. Among the Witnesses the men are beaten by the women and they do not dare to open their mouths. But woe betide a man who beats his wife. In my twenty years of experience with the Witnesses, only literature has fallen into my hands that is about the oppression of women.

In the Western world, which they regard as so progressive and civilized, being a man means the same thing as being a woman in Arab countries. The standing is the same, and both cultures are terrible and inhuman. These two opposing cultures get their strength and confirmation from their respective laws. And the laws are surely not made by some random donkeys wandering about. These cultures made their laws themselves. The kings from the biblical book of Esther are no longer alive by now. The world today is populated by "Jezebels" and "Vashtis" (for this please read the 1st chapter of the book of Esther as well as 1 Kings 18:4; 21:25 and 2 Kings 9:7), or with men like Nabal. Yet the women lacked nothing, even when they lived at the side of a man like Nabal. (1 Samuel 25:2-38) In my thoughts I go through the persons of the Holy Scriptures and look for a man who tormented his wife, ruined her life, a man who encouraged or even compelled her to falsehood and hypocrisy, to immorality, or perhaps even drove his wife to death. Conversely, for women who did such things to their husbands there are many examples, but among the men Nabal is still one of the worst, and even he neither encouraged his wife to falsehood nor did anything that would have led his wife to sin. As I said, even with such a man the women did not fare badly, and the only lack that they may perhaps have felt would be of a mental, spiritual nature. But could this woman not also have felt this spiritual lack at the side of so exemplary a man as David? Almost all women feel this kind of lack. Or am I mistaken? In the Holy Scriptures many valuable women and men are mentioned. But when it comes to relationships between man and woman, it is more often the women who lead their men to sin and encourage them to evil. Where have the efforts of the last decades led, which have fought for the equal rights of women? Among other things, to children who grow up without a father, to more separations and divorces, and to more burden and responsibility for the women. When God says something, we always try to do the opposite of it. The results are bad and we torment ourselves, but we hold fast to our course. Am I thereby defending the men and disparaging the women? Neither one nor the other; I neither defend the men nor praise the women. I am only expressing here how we act as humanity, how we toil for something false and bad. Through their zeal they will in the end inflict the greatest damage upon themselves and upon their cause. With our small brain we imagine that the further we move away from God and His laws and commandments, the better. Yet life, reality, teaches us better. The misery and distress in the world keep growing greater. For this please read the entire 28th chapter of the 5th book of Moses. Everything you read there will come upon this generation that is now living. And there no distinction is made between men and women. Is it only about what the women do wrong? People do say that the smallest cell or unit of society is the family. So if there is no trust within the family, is it any wonder that the world looks the way it does? When the people who live together under one roof, eat, sleep, and seek protection, peck out each other's eyes, can one then expect that they treat others lovingly? How many families are there that are truly built on love and hold together? Even in films it is ever more rarely about love. In this world it is mainly about sexual and other pleasures. Was it that way in former times too? Yes, but not so widespread and so brazen. The whole upbringing and culture that we see and receive through the media, through films, our parents, the schools, the politicians, and above all the hypocritical religions are a preparation for the end. Sometimes there are situations in which there is no other choice. Thus the whole of humanity steers at high speed and with unerring aim toward its end (Proverbs 8:36; Ecclesiastes 8:11). And yet people seemingly have only the one goal of living in "security and contentment"!

Let us once more look at this subject specifically from the viewpoint of religious people. We have said that the whole world, merely in order to be able to live in security, chases after money and is bent on acquiring prosperity and wealth, and for that is ready to trample values underfoot and to disregard them. From the viewpoint of religious people, these people are a part of the world; they are so-called "worldly people." Then let us take a look at what these people, who believe in God and are so religious, do; how they try to find protection and security. In all the years that I have lived I have not yet come to know a single person who truly relies only on God. If there is one, then I have not noticed it. If such people exist, then in any case they are not eagerly intent on drawing attention to themselves and standing in the center. All this I again say from my own point of view. Even though I cannot imagine it, I do wish that I am very much mistaken and that I am wide of the mark with my view. My experience with people who give fiery speeches, fight at the very front, and have sacrificed decades for their religion is especially frightening. The greatest love of money and greed I have seen in these people. With the exception of a very few, I have found in them no real sincerity and devotion to the truth. Often they themselves were not aware of it. When someone notices it and points it out, then people say about him: "Keep away from him, he sees everything negatively, he is only trying to discourage us; do not listen to him, he is the devil, and do not read any books by him either." If there is a devil, do you think you can escape him by getting out of this person's way? Is the devil only in this one person? Does the devil only enter persons who have a certain label? Are you exempt from it because you enjoy a kind of immunity? As I said, even those who appear very open-minded and sincere fall into panic and are overcome by fear when they are confronted with the truth. It sounds incredible, but there are Jehovah's Witnesses who are in this community and remain there out of fear of their wives. Does this person really believe that he is serving God if he stays in it only out of fear of his wife's reaction, out of fear that she might leave him? Others are afraid of being cut off from the religion, from the community, and left to themselves. This makes them buckle so much that they stay. Yet others fear losing what they have laboriously acquired. They have made a career within the community and attained a certain standing and position. "One does not simply throw away such a thing with a wave of the hand!" Remaining within this community gives them a strong feeling of security and contentment. They lack not only love and trust in God, but also toward their marriage partner with whom they live under one roof. Their relationship is built on a false notion of security. It is a form of hypocrisy that rests on one's own comfort. Do they really think that they thereby attain security? Is it the life that gives one true security and trust? Is it a great sacrifice that one makes by continuing to close one's eyes to the hypocrisy and falsehood, to the immorality of this community, this organization, the religion? Do we think that we are doing good because we remain loyal to the community and do not say "no"? Even if they do not want to admit it to themselves, in the end it is only about their own advantage, because they simply want their peace and quiet. For a time I had together with a friend and his family studied the Holy Scriptures, and I had tried to help them understand these scriptures and encouraged them to live by them. One day this friend said to me: "If we do what you say, that is, live according to what is written in these books, then everyone will turn away from us, no one will visit us or invite us anymore." This friend had "Islam" written as his religion in his identity card. Yet interestingly he had told me that he had no real friends. He did not feel drawn to these people, by whom he feared being shunned; he did not like them. Although that was the case, the prospect of being cast out frightened him. So how did this community, his social environment, these people with whom he did not like to be together, give him any form of security at all? This friend of whom I am telling here was not religious and felt drawn to no religion either. Nevertheless a religion stood in his identity card, as with most other people too. If you ask me, people are looking for an excuse, something behind which they can hide. Their heart does not feel drawn in love toward God; moreover they have no real knowledge or understanding and above all no interest. People have always occupied themselves with everything else, only not with God. God's name one hears only in certain places, on certain days, in connection with ceremonies and traditions, and it is generally associated with boredom, with negative things, and above all with fear. If the person opposite you says: "God commanded it so," then every discussion is at an end. How is one to argue against that? Through this many people have unconsciously come to know God as a despot, as someone who commands and tolerates no contradiction, who sets up prohibitions and punishes. How can one love such a God or trust Him? So where do people seek security and confidence? And what is the relationship of people among one another who are not religious? Anyone can imagine that for himself, when one thinks how hard a time the people have who have learned love in the name of God and about whom I have written in this book. Above all I would like to emphasize one thing clearly: nowhere else can we truly find security than at the side of God. And true happiness and contentment depend only on that. He is the one who created us, therefore He also knows best what is good for us. I already hear again how some protest and say, "Let's see whether you are still happy with God when things go badly for you and you suffer hunger." But what does the love for God have to do with whether I suffer hunger? Do we perhaps think: "If God gives me this or that, then I love Him"? What does that have to do with love? People have always sold themselves out of worry for bread, that is, for their material well-being. Therefore their life is determined by worry, fear, and insecurity. But in order to attain security they have turned their backs on God and have decided on a life far from God. Jesus Christ, who was very well acquainted with the worries and needs of people, said the following both to the people living back then and thereby also to all of us: Do not pile up riches in this world! You know how quickly moths and rust devour them or thieves steal them! Rather, gather for yourselves treasures in heaven, which are imperishable and which no thief can take away. For where your treasures are, there will your heart also be." "The eye gives you light. If your eyes let in the light, you will also live in the light. If your eyes close themselves to the light, you live in darkness. But if the light within you has gone out, how deep then is the darkness!" "No one can serve two masters at the same time. Whoever wants to serve the one rightly will not be able to attend to the wishes of the other. He will commit himself to the one and neglect the other. You too cannot live for God and for money at the same time. Therefore I say to you: Do not worry about your livelihood, about food, drink, and clothing. Life means more than food and drink, and the human being is more important than his clothing. Look at the birds! They sow nothing, they reap nothing, and they gather no stores either. Your Father in heaven provides for them. Do you not think that you are much more important to him? And no matter how much you worry, you cannot prolong your life by a single moment. Why do you worry so much about your clothing? Look at how the lilies bloom in the meadows! They can neither spin nor weave. I tell you, even King Solomon in all his glory was not so splendidly clothed as one of these flowers. If God lets even the grass grow so beautifully, which today is green on the meadow but tomorrow is already burned, how then could he forget you? Do you trust God so little? So do not rack your brains anymore with questions like: 'Will we have enough to eat? And what will we drink? What shall we wear?' Only people who do not know God occupy themselves with such things. Your Father in heaven knows very well that you need all this. Be concerned above all about God's new world, and live according to God's will! Then he will provide you with everything else. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow—the next day will take care of itself! It is enough if each day has its own burdens." - Matthew 6:19-34 Hoffnung für Alle (and the parallel account in Luke 12:22-31)

Jesus Christ here speaks on God's behalf; he conveys to us His message, and here he tells us very clearly which things ought to be important for us. Who knows us humans best? Whoever wants to deceive himself may calmly do so. Whomever or whatever we run after, from that we expect security and happiness. Yet the rich and also their descendants say that they have not found true happiness. And among the religions and their adherents, it is often already the number of suicides that speaks a clear language. (For example, it was the above-average high number of suicides that contributed to the decision not to grant the community of Jehovah's Witnesses in France the status of a recognized religious community.) Well then, let us assume that we have attained security and prosperity, perhaps only imagined, but in any case only temporary. But who can really give us happiness, lasting, enduring happiness? Who is capable of that is hinted at in Sura 23:116 in the Koran. There it says, according to the translation by Osman Nebioglu: He is the God who sits on the throne of happiness. Even though this verse is rendered somewhat differently in other translations, it is not hard to understand that this statement is quite fitting. In the Psalms the question is posed, "Can he who created the ears himself not hear? And he who created the eyes not see?" If we follow this logic, one can also rightly say: does he who created happiness himself not know what happiness means? God has a special interest in people being happy and rejoicing. In the laws that God had given to the Israelites through Moses, it says regarding the Feast of Tabernacles: On the first day you shall take fruits from beautiful trees, palm fronds and branches of leafy trees and brook willows, and be joyful for seven days before the LORD your God - Leviticus 23:40 (Luther 2017). There are many further statements that make clear that the whole legislation had the purpose of enabling joy and happiness for the Israelites, not of burdening them with unnecessary loads and rules. Just as God is the source and the origin of wisdom, of power, and of love, so He is also the source of happiness. I am quite certain that if we turn to Him in the search for happiness, we will in no case be disappointed. It will bring us much relief if we turn away from all religions, faith communities, and organizations and draw near to God with our whole heart. For all these institutions take away from us the happiness and the contentment. Yet the bad thing about it is that they act in the name of God, and therefore people connect their unhappiness and discontent directly with God. We should not commit this error. From where comes strife, from where war among you? Does it not come from this: from your lusts that war within your members? You are covetous and do not obtain it; you murder and envy and gain nothing; you quarrel and fight; you have nothing because you do not ask; you ask and do not receive, because you ask with an evil intent, namely that you might squander it for your lusts. You adulterers, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever wants to be a friend of the world will be God's enemy. - James 4:1-4 (Luther 2017). God let the person whom He calls "my beloved Son" come into the world in a stable. He saw the light of the world in a feeding manger from which sheep, donkeys, and cattle feed. Jesus Christ, who came into the world in order to free the whole of humanity from sin through his sacrifice, was born under such poor conditions, according to the biblical account in the Gospels (Luke chapter 2; Mark 1:11; Matthew 3:17). Why did the people who trusted in God never complain about the lack of gold, silver, and other riches, when after all everything belongs to God? In the question already lies the answer: because they trusted in God. Gold, silver, and whatever else there is that is desirable are dead things that can give us neither happiness nor contentment. The mere fact that millions of people strive after these things does not mean that they are truly valuable and that their possession makes happy. Humanity has always followed some leaders or other and was ready to give up its life for them, even though it did not understand the meaning. With enthusiasm they served them and bowed down before them right into the dust of the earth. They made people who, like themselves, are of flesh and blood into gods and served them. Lifeless things like money and wealth they put in the place of God. People's thoughts are full only of all possible forms of pleasure, such as parties, weddings, idle talk, jealousy, and envy. They do not approach one another with love and openness, but dishonestly, hypocritically, and in enmity. What has become of humanity, which has behaved this way for thousands of years? The answer everyone can give for himself. Everyone who rushes after such lifeless things and sets his hope in them should expect nothing from God. Everything that we put in the place of God we make into an idol. That can be money, that can be a person, or also pleasure, or anything else. As I said, if we expect something from someone or from something that we ought to expect from God, then we put that in the place of God and make it into our idol. With the word "idols" we should not think of the statues and figures of ancient times. Everything that we put in first place is for us God, that is, an idol. That which we put in first place is what we carry in our heart and with which our mind constantly occupies itself. That is what we strive for in our life. We understand only when we have attained what we longed for how senseless our exertions and our striving are. I do not wish to elaborate further on this subject here, for it is generally known, but only few live by it. We should therefore not deceive ourselves. If we pretend to truly love God, then we should think of the following words of the apostle John: For to love God means nothing other than to follow his commandments; and his commandments are not difficult. Every child of God can win the victory over everything in this world that opposes God. Yes, our faith has already conquered this world. For only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (not as the Christians or the Muslims understand this) can win this victory. - 1 John 5:3-5 (Hoffnung für Alle). I have mentioned these verses here quite deliberately. The Muslims have understood the term "Jesus the Son of God" the way Christendom believes it. That is why they cannot bear it. But they have never read the Holy Scriptures themselves and were also never encouraged to do so. It is presented as if Christendom has the monopoly on the Bible. Yet who can claim a monopoly on the Word of God? But the Muslims look at the world of Christendom and move even further away from God, from whom through their works they are already far removed anyway. Yet if we want to conquer the world, we must remove our old personality and the form into which the world wants to press us, and be born with the new personality shaped by God. That means that we must make the effort to lay aside old habits, ways of thinking, and patterns of behavior, and to let ourselves be shaped by God's spirit. That lies solely in our hands, whether we truly want it (John 3:1-21; Ephesians 4:17-31). Those who strive after wealth and prosperity and are successful at it should not deceive themselves and pat themselves on the shoulder. The Koran says the following about this: Whoever desires the earthly, We quickly prepare for him therein what We will, for whom We please; thereafter We have appointed hell for him; into it he will enter, condemned and cast out. But whoever desires the hereafter and persistently strives for it and is a believer—their striving will be rewarded. - Isa Sura 17:18,19

Not everyone will be pleased by what they read here, especially because it contradicts what they have heard and learned up to now. It is truly as we said at the beginning of this chapter: people seek happiness and satisfaction in places where only dissatisfaction can be found, and they insist on continuing to search there. The best and most vivid example of this is ourselves, with all our expectations and ideals, with everything we hoped to achieve or to receive. All of this we hoped to obtain from this world — but the state of this world is plain to see.

In working through this topic I have jumped back and forth a great deal from one point to another. I have tried, with many examples and illustrations, to call to mind things that are, at bottom, familiar to us all. For you know: "Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil." — 1 Peter 3:10–13

IS MOHAMMED THE LAST OF THE PROPHETS?

Islam teaches that Mohammed is the last prophet and that no one will come after him. Yet anyone who reads the Quran attentively and investigates will arrive at a different conclusion. But first we want to clarify what the word "prophet" actually means.

In a dictionary we find the following explanation: A proclaimer of divine messages (Wikipedia).

A proclaimer of divine messages conveys not only predictions about the future, but also instructions, counsel, and warnings. A person who receives messages directly from God or through angels is referred to as a prophet, regardless of whether that person is a man, a woman, or even a child. Such a person does not simply carry on a conversation with God but is commissioned by Him in a special way. It also does not matter whether these words were recorded in a book. There were also entire groups of persons who appeared as prophets. That is, God had spoken to them or inspired them through His Spirit. These people passed on what they had heard to others.

A prophet is not a person who is without fault, perfect, and never lies. Such people do not exist. Nor does the fact that someone is a prophet of God mean that he will be saved. A person can be an exemplary, God-fearing individual and be chosen by God for that very reason to serve as a prophet. Yet he is still a human being with a free will and can therefore later turn away from God and take a different path. A prophet — that is, someone to whom God has spoken — can also do things that displease God, and may even go so far as to deserve death. In the course of this chapter we will look at examples that confirm what has been said above.

Many of the things we have been taught about prophets, and that we think we know about prophets, have nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with reality. The three great religions that this book is concerned with — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — have each chosen a prophet and elevated him above all others. They have placed him on such a pedestal that they have put him in God's place. They give him more honor than they give to God. Like children they quarrel among themselves: "Your prophet is small, mine is much greater." They argue, hate one another, and even wage wars over it. As though prophets cannot be shared among each other. The more they quarrel, the more they strive to give their prophet a special status. They idolize them. And by giving them the honor that belongs to God alone, they have turned the prophets into idols. Among the Jews this position belongs to Moses, among Christians to Jesus, and among Muslims to Mohammed. But they praise these prophets only with their lips and exalt them above all else, while not being willing to make these prophets their actual role models. I do not, however, wish to use their mutual hatred and their wars as evidence of this. We have discussed that more than enough; it is common knowledge and so utterly senseless that I do not want to waste any more words on it here. Let us leave these people to their hatred and quarrels and turn to our actual subject.

Above we said that a prophet can be a man or also a woman. That will surely surprise some people. "How can a woman be a prophetess of God?" Yes, it is indeed the case that God also chose women to pass on His message. In the Bible we find in the Book of Judges the account of the judge and prophetess Deborah (Judges 4:4). In 2 Kings 22:14 the prophetess Huldah is mentioned. In connection with the story of Jesus's birth and childhood, the prophetess Anna is mentioned in Luke 2:36. In Acts 21:9 a man is mentioned who had four daughters who prophesied. Their names are not given. There are also several other women who prophesied, guided by the Spirit of God. Among these are, for example, Mary the mother of Jesus, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, Miriam the sister of Moses, and Hagar the servant of Abraham and mother of Ishmael (Luke 1:26–45; Exodus 15:20–21; Numbers 12:1–2; Deuteronomy 21:17–18). They are not directly identified as prophetesses in the account, but they did prophesy.

In the Quran, in Surah An-Nahl (16), verse 43, it says: And we sent before you only men whom we inspired. We find the same verse also in Surah Al-Anbiya (21) in verse 7. Many readers conclude from this that there were no female prophets, but this does not fit with other verses of the Quran. For example, it is said of Mary the mother of Jesus that she received a message from an angel of God. In John 10:8 Jesus says, "All who came before me are thieves and robbers." By this Jesus does not mean that all the prophets who came before him were thieves and robbers. In other translations it says, for example, "all who came to my sheepfold before me are…" But if someone appeared before him and presented himself as the promised Messiah, then he was a thief and a robber. That does not mean, however, that all who were anointed before him — such as the kings Saul or David — were in his eyes thieves. (Messiah means "Anointed One.") What the Quran is saying with these words is simply that no woman was given as great a responsibility as a prophet as the male prophets were given.

Some people associate the term prophet solely with the foretelling of future events. In German usage it is common to say that someone is a prophet when he predicts things or events. A prophet does sometimes predict things, but that is not the sole and exclusive task of a prophet.

When a prophet receives revelations from God, that does not mean he is also the one who commits those revelations to writing. There are some among the prophets who never wrote a single word in their own hand. It is known, for example, that this was the case with Mohammed. Only after his death did his successor Uthman ensure that the knowledge of the many disciples of Mohammed — who had memorized the revelations he had received — was written down. In those days the main writing materials were stone, clay, and scrolls of papyrus, leather, or linen. Writings that were considered valuable were recorded primarily on leather (parchment). Somehow these writings have survived to the present day. It is said of Jeremiah that he himself did not write, but had everything recorded by his scribe Baruch (Jeremiah 45:1). There is much to suggest that the story of Job was recorded by Moses. In addition, Moses committed to writing the stories and narratives about the prophets Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the events of Adam and Eve. Virtually all the Muslims I had spoken with reacted with great surprise at the claim that there were also female prophets. This was because they were more or less familiar with the above-mentioned text from the Quran. But that text does not say "no woman can become a prophet." To understand a verse correctly one must sometimes read very carefully, word by word. Moreover, the statement of the verse must be brought into harmony with other statements of the Quran; otherwise we have misunderstood something. There were also, at times, entire groups of prophets (1 Kings 18:13; 2 Kings 2:15). All the persons mentioned here were true prophets of God. But there were also plenty of false prophets throughout history. That has not changed to this day. The prophets spoken of here, however, are not false prophets. But there were also persons who prophesied through the Spirit of God and yet were not good people. Even if we would not judge these people as particularly bad by today's standards, they did not have God's favor. Nevertheless, God allowed His Spirit to work through these people on certain occasions. This was the case with King Saul, for example (1 Samuel 10:11–13). Or also with the prophet Balaam. It is best if you read the full account of him in Numbers chapters 22–24, as well as 31:8; 2 Peter 2:14–15; Revelation 2:14. These people had a good beginning and were blessed by God, but then they turned away from Him, became unfaithful, and He withdrew His blessing from them. But there were also prophets who quite plainly lied. Even if they did so with good intentions, their lie had deadly consequences and was the cause of God's wrath. There is an interesting example of this in the Bible. I have often used this incident in my conversations with the Witnesses. Some sincere ones among them encouraged me to join them by saying: "Come to us — if what you say is right, God will reveal it to our Governing Body, and if you are wrong, then you can at least save your life by belonging to us." Whether they said this because they had seen my sincerity or because they had recognized the truth themselves, I do not know. At that time I was still defending the Witnesses, because I thought they were the religion that produced the best fruit — that is, the one that at least had some good deeds to show. That is why some said to me: "If we are the best religion, then join us and put your truths on ice for now — time will show whether you were right or wrong." They were trying to help me in this way! In response I told them the story of the prophet who had lied. I will retell the story from the Bible here briefly in simple words: God had commissioned a man to go to the king of Israel and warn him on account of his evil deeds. God also expressly said that he should not return by the same road, and should neither eat nor drink along the way. After the king had witnessed a miracle at the prophet's hand, he was so impressed that he invited the prophet to his home and offered him food and drink. The prophet declined and said that God's commission had clearly forbidden him to accept such offers. So the prophet set out and returned home by a different road. Anyone would understand the prophet. But another prophet hears of this event and asks his sons which way the prophet had gone. He saddles his donkey and follows the road the prophet had traveled and eventually finds him sitting under a tree. He invites him to come home with him. But the prophet again declines with thanks, explaining that God has expressly forbidden him to do so. But the second prophet then says: "I am also a prophet, and God has told me through an angel: 'Go, find the prophet and invite him to your home and give him food and drink.'" But that was a lie. It was not a lie that he was a prophet of God, but it was a lie that he had been asked to invite the other prophet. The first prophet, however, believed him and accepted the second prophet's invitation. While they were sitting together eating, the second prophet — in whose house they were sitting — received the following message from God:

And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came to the prophet who had brought him back. And he cried out to the man of God who had come from Judah, saying: "This is what the Lord says: You have defied the word of the Lord and have not kept the command the Lord your God gave you. You came back and ate bread and drank water in the place where he told you not to eat or drink. Therefore your body will not be buried in the tomb of your ancestors." When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled the donkey for him. As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with the donkey standing beside it, and the lion standing beside the body. — 1 Kings 13:19–24

In this account God shows us that prophets are also human beings with weaknesses and faults; they can err and they can also lie. Yet the account also shows us clearly that there is a price to pay for believing a lie. How readily the prophet was willing to believe a lie, because it corresponded to his wishes. It may seem a small thing in our eyes, but it was enough to bring this prophet down and ultimately cost him his life. These verses were a comfort and encouragement to me whenever I was called to stand firm and hold closely to the truth — even though I did not always succeed and from time to time fell into that very trap myself. God had these and similar events written down so that we might learn from them. Those who say, "I will remain loyal to my religion, my organization, no matter what happens," will surely receive from God the same answer as this prophet received. He will teach the same lesson as the prophet who believed the lie, regardless of who these people are to whom they wish to remain loyal. Let us consider the words of the Apostle Paul, who said that we should not even believe an angel from heaven if he does not speak the truth — we should not listen to him or follow him (Galatians 1:6–10). That is a requirement of true love. Let us pay attention to what God said to the prophet Ezekiel: If I say to a wicked person, "You will surely die," but you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself. Again, if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before them, they will die. Since you did not warn them, they will die for their sin. The righteous things that person did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. — Ezekiel 3:18–20

If, then, out of fear of the anticipated reaction, we say "yes and amen" to everything these people do — people of whom we say that we love them — will they not feel all the more confirmed in what they are doing? Their conviction that what they do and say is right will grow stronger. But if we are resolute and stand by what is true and right, and are also willing to confront the other person and say, "I'm sorry, but I cannot accept what you are doing — the path you are showing us is not right," then we may perhaps prompt reflection and bring the other person to turn around, thereby contributing to that person's salvation. If they do not turn and persist on their path, at least they can no longer make excuses, and we can have a clear conscience. We are no longer co-responsible for what they do. Moreover, we will not be dragged down into the abyss with them.

These verses also make it plain that God never gives us the right to persecute, torment, or kill others simply because they do not believe us or do not listen to us. We have no permission to set ourselves up as judges over the faith of others; on the contrary, we are even obligated to help those who do not share our faith, to stand by them in their need (Matthew 5:43–48; Romans 12:19–20; Exodus 23:4–5; Surah Yunus 10:99). This obligation is not limited by the nationality, skin color, religion, language, or character of the one who is suffering. God has not appointed us as judges over the faith of others, nor as their executioners. The wars in the Old Testament and the laws were the laws of a nation. The laws of that nation God made Himself. Just as every country has a constitution, so God also gave the people of Israel a constitution. Whoever did not obey this law was guilty and was punished, and in some cases even with the death penalty. No one was put to death without being sentenced. A court was convened through judges, and everyone had to abide by the decision of the court. The punishment for the guilty was also handed down by the court. There was therefore neither punishment according to whim, nor did God permit judges or executioners to act as they saw fit. So even if the whole world has gone astray and is on the wrong path, and you alone stand as a righteous person, you do not have the right to judge, condemn, or execute anyone else. In this connection the Quran also speaks unmistakably of defense. It grants the right to defend oneself when attacked and compelled to resist evil. It is the same in the Bible. Jesus did indeed say, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword," but by this Jesus did not mean, "You are not allowed to defend yourselves" (Matthew 26:52). In saying this, Jesus — and thus God — does not grant the right to revenge, hatred, or the right to repay evil with evil. It is only a matter of defending one's soul, one's life, or the lives of one's loved ones when attacked. That is a natural right. At no time has God called upon anyone to attack and destroy a country or a nation because they are unbelievers. Quite the contrary: however far a nation may be from God's justice and morality, that is for them to deal with and for them to account to God for. What we write here is of general validity. When we read the Old Testament, however, we see that there are exceptions. Concerning the states in which we live today, the Apostle Paul says that we should "give to them what is due to them." He expresses it as follows: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: if you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. — Romans 13:1–7

According to these verses, God does not give us the right to take active action against the unjust behavior of states or state authorities. Everyone will receive their judgment from God. When we rebel against state authorities, we are also protesting against God's justice, since He has not established these states but does tolerate them. Whoever does not believe this and does not trustingly rely on God's intervention and justice only brings harm upon themselves. On the other hand, this does not mean that one should simply accept every injustice. Of course we will defend ourselves against injustice and make clear that we do not agree with it. But we should do so only within the boundaries that God has set for us. For God does not approve of our submitting like donkeys to a situation or decree with the reasoning that "God's paradise will come soon anyway and He will set everything right"! If everyone stays silent and no one reveals their mistake to the wrongdoer, how will that person turn from their path? Did Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, or any other prophet remain silent? And how will someone be able to recognize their guilt if no one draws their attention to it? Perhaps they act this way without reflection. And even if they act badly on purpose, we still have the obligation to point it out, according to the words addressed to the prophet Ezekiel that we read above. Above all, we should become active when it concerns things being forbidden that God has commanded us to do. There are interesting accounts in the Bible book of Daniel on this matter. At this point I would like to recommend reading the entire book of Daniel in the Bible — it comprises only 16 pages.

One cannot of course say that everything revealed in the Quran applies to all times and to every person. In the time of Muhammad, God commanded that war be waged against those who tried to kill the Muslims and destroy Islam. After that, Islam became a state religion. Then the instructions in the Quran became law for that state, just as the Law of Moses also became binding for the whole people of Israel. The holy scriptures — the books of Moses and also the Quran — contain instructions on how to deal with those who rebel against these ordinances or act disrespectfully (Deuteronomy 13:6-18; Surah Al-Hajj 22:39; Surah Muhammad 47:4). These verses give the right — or rather call — to wage war against such people. Moreover, these laws exist to protect the people, so that they do not stray from God and the path of righteousness. If someone disagrees with this law, no one is forcing them to live in that land, but as long as they live in that land, they must abide by the law. Not infrequently these verses that call for war are described as nonsensical and inhumane, yet one finds roughly the same statements in the Bible and in the basic laws of most countries as well. The only difference is that this law was issued once by God and another time by human beings. Some people see the statements in the Quran — "strike them wherever you find them, kill them, stone them" — as a license to use violence against anyone who disagrees with them. But, as we have seen above, this is a call to those responsible in the state, to judges and law enforcers such as the police. Today, instead of swords and spears, bombs, tanks, and rockets are used. Those who make use of them because they bear responsibility for doing so must answer to God for their actions. Someone might object: "But they only use their power for evil, only for their own advantage." That may be so. Do you think God does not know this? If God permits it, who are you to rebel against it? We possess neither the power nor the authority to set the world right again. Let us give expression to our wishes and hopes in patient and persistent prayer to God. Let us also remember that no matter how greatly we are angered by injustice, God hates injustice even more. We must also not forget: if we are treated unjustly and seek vengeance by the same methods, we will receive the same judgment from God.

Let us imagine that all people stand before God and are judged one by one according to their deeds. If God then asks us: "Why did you do this or that?" — what will we answer? Will we say, "that person treated me badly and they were unjust to me, so I paid them back accordingly"? Then God will say: "The others are standing behind you; I will question them too about what they did. But now I am asking you about what YOU did." What will we answer? Can we make others responsible for our own mistakes and wrongful conduct? In Galatians 6:5 it states unmistakably: "Each one shall carry his own load."

Our topic was Muhammad and what it means that he is described in the Quran as the last prophet. But I could not avoid the topic discussed above. When it comes to Muhammad and the Quran, the questions surrounding war in the name of religion are the first thing that comes to a Christian's mind. And when we look at our world, that is understandable. As stated at the beginning of this book, our concern is to encourage people to research and seek. It is impossible to summarize in a single book everything we have learned from the holy scriptures about life and our understanding of it. We are aware that avoiding knowledge and insight will bring much suffering in its wake. Even if someone wishes to avoid all kinds of knowledge — which is partly understandable — it is still to put one's life at stake to ignore or consciously reject knowledge and understanding of our Creator. It is therefore a great foolishness and recklessness to leave the investigation and learning about God — the one who created us and who has a plan for us — to clergymen, pastors, hodjas, rabbis, or religious leaders of any kind. God Himself tells us this in Proverbs 1:23-33.

So let us now come to the question of whether Muhammad is the last prophet. And does the Quran actually say that?

This view, which is very widespread in Islam, rests on a single verse in the Quran: Surah Al-Ahzab 33:40: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the last of the prophets; and Allah has full knowledge of all things." This verse is very clear; there is nothing to interpret there. That is how we find this text in several translations. In all the Turkish translations I had read, it was unfortunately translated in this way. Unfortunately, I say, because it is not correct. Yet I did not become aware of this issue until many years later. The more I researched and read, the clearer it became to me that both the Bible and the Quran were writings that God had revealed to His prophets. Therefore both scriptures must be in harmony with each other. For someone who has no experience or not yet enough knowledge, this is not so apparent — especially if someone is biased and does not read these books objectively. But if someone reads these books sincerely and objectively, they will recognize that both scriptures come from the same source. At least that is how I saw and understood it. It is best if I briefly describe how I came to this understanding, and you can then form your own judgment.

If one reads the entire Quran under the assumption that Muhammad is the last prophet, the Quran would contradict itself — to say nothing of the Bible. For better understanding I would like to offer a few examples. Let us read Surah Al-A'raf 7, verse 187. There it says: "They will ask you about the Hour — when is it to come? Say: 'Knowledge thereof rests with my Lord alone. None but He can disclose it at the proper time. It weighs heavily upon the heavens and the earth. It shall come upon you only suddenly.' They ask you as though you were well informed about it. Say: 'Knowledge thereof rests with Allah alone; but most people do not know.'" When we read this verse, we see that the people of that time were curious about an impending end. There was nothing reprehensible about that — it is only a matter of what motive one has for wanting to know. God promises people a paradise, eternal life without pain and suffering in the complete absence of evil — which person who believes in this promise would not want to know when it will happen? That is a perfectly natural reaction. Even the prophets believed in it and inquired when it would occur. The apostles asked Jesus about this. Even the angels in heaven wanted to know it. (Daniel 12:8,9; Matthew 24:3; 1 Peter 1:11) It is therefore natural to want to know this, and at no point in the scriptures does God rebuke those who ask for wanting to know. On the contrary, this question proves that they believe in God's promise. If in the answer to this question no definitive date was ever given, it is for our benefit. Yet unfortunately in the past — and still in the present — people's curiosity has been exploited and abused, which is why the question of "When?" has acquired a bad aftertaste. After the countless negative experiences that have been had in this connection, that is easy to understand. The holy scriptures therefore encourage people, in view of an expected end, to be patient and to use the time to make progress — in developing a God-pleasing personality and in doing good works — rather than focusing on a date. (Acts 1:6,7) As I said, throughout the whole of human history there have always been those who exploited this natural curiosity. If they had been sincere in doing so and had simply made an error, this would have become clear through their deeds over time. But when we look back and see how they used their power over others, we cannot say, "well, they meant well." How can one say, "they simply made a mistake out of ignorance, it was unintentional," about an organization that is far removed from honesty and integrity and would never be willing to admit a mistake? It is not so difficult to recognize the difference between sincerity and dishonesty. An honest, sincere person asks for forgiveness, admits their mistake, asks for help, and is humble. But these organizations expel from their midst those who do not believe their lies, portray them as evil, and forbid contact with them — there is no point even speaking of admitting mistakes! The Witnesses still today throw people out of their community who do not believe in a date they announced 100 years ago and which has never been fulfilled to this day — as unbelievable as that may sound! Humility? That cannot be expected from them. They have no idea what that even is! It would never occur to them to say, "we were mistaken; let us research and study together to find the truth"! To say such a thing would be, in their eyes, an admission of defeat! They would sooner take their own lives than admit they made a mistake, ask for forgiveness, or even correct their error! But let us return once more to the statement in the Quran: "None but He can disclose it at the proper time." What does this verse have to do with whether Muhammad is the last prophet? Quite a great deal, in fact. If God intends to reveal insights regarding the time of the end, how would He do so? How has He until now brought revelations to mankind? By revealing Himself through people, through prophets. And so He will do it again. But in making the argument we do not want to rely on only this one verse. For example, in Surah Ghafir 40:15 it says the following: "The Exalted above all ranks, the Lord of the Throne! He sends the Word by His command to whomever He wills of His servants, that he may warn of the Day of Meeting…" This verse states clearly that God has the warning of that Day made known through someone whom He chooses. How do we describe such persons who are chosen to carry God's word forward? Are they not prophets? Yes, they are God's prophets, for they pass God's word on to others. But if the text here speaks of the end of the wicked — an event that from the Quran's perspective still lies far in the future — and accordingly the prophets who would announce it had not yet appeared, why then should the Quran say that Muhammad is the last prophet? Not only the Quran but also the Bible states very clearly that prophets will appear in the time of the end. Even though some Christians, similar to Muslims, believe that no further prophet will appear after Jesus, the statement in the book of Acts is very clear: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." — Acts 2:17-21. The Apostle Peter here quotes from the Bible book of Joel. Many think these words were also fulfilled at the time when Peter spoke them on Pentecost. Peter himself also gives the impression through his words that everything Joel prophesied was fulfilled in his time: "…but this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel…" Acts 2:16. God did actually let His prophecy — spoken by the prophet Joel — be partially fulfilled in the first century, but it was not yet the last days and it was not yet "that great and notable (awe-inspiring) day of the Lord." The darkening of the sun and the moon turning to blood was to happen only in the last days and was not fulfilled at that time. This is clear both from the words Jesus spoke in connection with the last days and from other verses in the book of Revelation (Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:24; Revelation 6:12; Joel 2:28-32). What took place at that Pentecost on a limited scale was to be fulfilled in the future on a worldwide basis. That is why Jesus in his words also combined the events of the apostles' time with the events of the end time. The similar events that would be fulfilled at different periods of time are brought together in a single prophecy. On the one hand, Jesus' words were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century, and on a worldwide scale they were still to be fulfilled in the future. Only if one reads this prophecy very carefully and attentively, and compares it with the statements of the other Gospels, does one recognize the difference between the fulfillment concerning the city of Jerusalem and an end that affects the entire world (for example Matthew 24:3-28; Mark 13:5-27; Luke 21:7-28). But let us return to our actual topic. Both the Bible and the Quran point to the fact that God will draw attention to the impending end through His servant. But if this servant chosen by God makes God's word known, then he is a prophet. And how then can Muhammad be the last prophet? At the time I had only this one Quran translation at hand. It was written in both Arabic and Turkish, but I could neither read nor understand Arabic. However, I also had a Quran in German. It was evident that this translator had been objective. Perhaps he did not even believe in the divine origin of this book. Fortunately, it seems that was the case. This sounds contradictory as I formulate it here, but my experience has shown that someone who is a believer also translates with bias and therefore does not render some things correctly, whereas someone who is an unbeliever does so more accurately. Such people simply render what they know as experts in the field of language, without any interpretation. So I took the German Quran and searched for this verse. I read it and was both surprised and very pleased. I was surprised because the word "last" did not appear in it. I was pleased because the statement there agrees with the whole word of God. The verse was rendered as follows: "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets." The translator had added a footnote explaining that Muslims, on the basis of this verse, believe that Muhammad is the last prophet. This means that the translation "the last prophet" is also merely the result of translators who attempt to let their own interpretations and beliefs flow into the translations — similar to what the Witnesses did in their Bible translation. And now one would actually have to give credit to those who say that the holy scriptures have been falsified! The entire Islamic world says this about the Bible anyway. And what should one now think about the Quran and its translations? Why do they do such things? Simply translate what it says there and leave all interpretation and explanation to the reader who understands it as God grants them understanding — or does not. Nevertheless, I did not immediately trust this one translation. Should one trust Islamic scholars or a German professor who has translated the Quran? So I searched for evidence. One day a Jehovah's Witness came to visit us, wanting to convince us that the Quran is not the word of God. I asked him about this verse and about the meaning of the Arabic word in the original text — for he was an Arab. At the end of our conversation I opened the Quran to that passage and showed him the Arabic text. "Does the Arabic here say the word 'seal'?" I asked him. Since he did not know where I was going with this, he explained the whole verse to me. It was about Muhammad as the last prophet, he said. "Yes," I replied, "but does the word 'seal' appear here?" "Yes," he finally said, "in Arabic it says 'seal' here." At that I was very pleased. That meant the German translation was correct. The more I researched in the Quran, the more my trust in this book grew.

Some may now object: "What difference does it make whether it says 'Seal of the Prophets' or 'the last Prophet'?" It is not entirely unambiguous. If the Quran and the other scriptures gave no indication that prophets would still appear in the last days, one could certainly equate these expressions. But as we have seen, the word of God is clear on this point in predicting the coming of prophets. If we therefore wish to interpret Muhammad as the last prophet on the basis of the verse we have discussed, this would lead to contradictions.

The Witnesses, for example, apply to themselves the verses from Joel and the Acts of the Apostles that we mentioned above. "By going from house to house with the word of God, we are prophesying," they say. As already noted, there are many charlatans in the world. In my view, they have no desire to teach or learn the meaning of prophecy themselves. Is everyone a prophet simply because they pick up a holy scripture and go from house to house? When the Witnesses also like to claim this for themselves, they reveal by their own actions that they are false prophets. God says: "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?' — when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." — Deuteronomy 18:20–22. On the other hand, they do not openly say that they are prophets, because they know this verse very well. They think they can thereby conceal their hypocrisy. They are not consistent — neither in what they say nor in what they do. They try to deceive people with cheap methods. One can speak about the word of God, discuss it, exchange opinions, prompt reflection, and also express one's own views. Everyone may have arrived at a certain measure of knowledge, understanding, or faith in this regard. However, one should be aware of one's limits and above all always keep this in mind. By this I do not mean those who express this only through empty words. We should all genuinely acknowledge and recognize that we can be mistaken, and express this attitude through our behavior. It is hypocrisy to say, "I am imperfect and make mistakes, but if someone does not believe my words and follow me, I want nothing more to do with that person and they deserve death"! This does not accord with God's principles and His purpose. Such modes of expression, or such modes of conduct, are common in the military, in the Mafia, or perhaps in all organizations. A commander is aware that he can make mistakes, yet he demands absolute obedience. The one who disobeys is given a bullet in wartime; in peacetime he is thrown in prison or at least discharged from military service. What all these organizations demand we have examined at length in a previous chapter. The military, political parties, and much else besides are organized communities. But all these organizations have nothing whatsoever to do with God. Just as God generally permits much evil and injustice on earth, so He also permits these organizations to have their way — that is all. The worst among them are the religious organizations. The Witnesses, for example, regard the military as an institution of Satan and would never support it, yet they apply the rules and principles of military obedience within their own organization — and they are even proud of the unity they have achieved in this way! This would mean that, by their own words, they pronounce judgment on themselves, and that through their conduct they serve not God but the devil, since they apply his rules within their own ranks.

But let us return to the verse from the Quran that forms our actual subject: Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. At its core, this verse is not difficult to understand. With these words God confirms Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets — as the one who confirms all the prophets who came before him. A seal conveys the meaning that something has been signed and confirmed by an authority; it can also signify the conclusion of a matter. But as we have seen, this verse clearly speaks of Muhammad's role as a supporter and confirmer of the previous prophets, and also as someone who sheds light on prophecies. This is evident from the entire context of both the Quran and the Bible. We find a similar statement in the Bible about Jesus. It says there: "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has set his seal." — John 6:27. If we were to interpret this verse as saying that Jesus is the last prophet, we would fall into the same nonsense as the Muslims or the Christians. Some translations therefore also render the word "seal" here as "approval" or "favor." This is not wrong in this context either. It thus becomes clear that the verse is not speaking of the last prophet. But on account of such verses, the Muslims have become so fixated on seeing Muhammad as the last prophet, and the Christians on seeing Jesus as such. We find such tendencies in all religions. "Our prophet is the last; after him no one else comes!" But how the Muslims arrived, on the basis of this verse, at seeing Muhammad as the last prophet, and what their motivation was, I do not know. Did they believe they were thereby protecting their religion from false prophets? There will always be false teachers and deceivers. But how do Muslims then respond to true prophets under the influence of this teaching? Was this really meant to provide protection against false prophets who might appear, or was it meant to prepare Muslims to reject the true prophets who were yet to come? Let us not forget — God has foretold in both the Quran and the Bible the coming of true prophets in the end times, but Satan will of course also ensure that false prophets arise to deceive and lead people astray through signs and wonders. Their number may even far exceed that of the true prophets. The mighty deeds and miracles they perform will hardly fall short of the wonders that the priests of Pharaoh performed when they stood against Moses. The appearance of such deceivers was already indicated in the Bible with the following words:

Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. — 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12 (Good News Bible)

Yes, we must resist him and persevere. Therefore we need understanding — understanding of God and His purpose. We should become masters in this area. That will protect us from running after every claimant and help us to be resolute, to know what we want and what our goal is. We will then have the resolve and the strength to cling to God and His truth (James 1:5–8). Let us pray to Him for help and protection. Prayer is a great help in preserving and strengthening our resolve. We should therefore make it a habit to pray regularly. In doing so we should not use words we do not understand. That does not edify us; it only confuses. Simplicity and heartfelt sincerity are the only necessary prerequisites. Let us never place anything or anyone in God's place. We may not do this obviously or consciously, but if we seriously and thoroughly test the hope we place in other people, we will find that we place in them expectations and hopes that only God can fulfill, and that we extend to them more trust and faith than we extend to God. No one would openly admit that in place of God they are serving a person, a group of people, an organization, or a religion. Let us guard ourselves against self-deception in this regard, for in the end it will bring us only pain and disappointment. We may encounter people whose kindness, helpfulness, and perhaps even their honesty and openness inspire us. We can regard them as a friend, as a brother, sister, or father — but no more. Thousands, indeed millions of foxes and wolves roam about in the guise of harmless, pleasant people. 1 Peter 5:8 gives us the following warning: Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

My stepfather, who has since passed away, told me a story I had not heard before and which I wish to set down in this book. He was a retired agricultural engineer at the time. I called him "Nihat Baba." During the time of Atatürk he had been a civil servant at an agricultural enterprise in Yalova, and he had also come to know Atatürk personally. I mention this because he lived through that era, which makes this story credible. I also spoke with him often about religion, and it was clear that it agitated him. Why it agitated him — or perhaps even made him angry — will be understandable to anyone who has read this book up to this point. When he was driving, he would often murmur certain sentences to himself in Arabic. He was probably praying. He was an educated man and, just like all of us, a sinful human being. He was not one who went regularly to the mosque. When I first got to know him he was long since retired, but he was still performing various tasks in responsible positions at the Ülker company. He loved conversation — or more precisely, he loved to talk. He talked a great deal and at great length about the past. I often marveled at how someone could still retain so many details in his memory.

Well-read, educated people are often better able to conceal their character weaknesses. Compared to simple, uneducated people, conversation with an educated person is quite different — even arguing with one has a different quality. An educated person has a different logic and is afraid of saying anything foolish. But an ignorant, dim-witted person considers himself clever in his own eyes and thinks he knows everything. Nowadays it is sometimes hard to tell the two groups apart.

In my view, I have spoken with all kinds of people a great deal about God. In doing so, my manner of conversation differed greatly from the conversations conducted by pastors, hodjas, or other clergy. Clergy who also present themselves with that label generally have before them people who agree with them. Their experiences with people are therefore quite different. In my case, whoever I was speaking with — whether believer or unbeliever — invariably disagreed with me. Conversations with those who agree with you go quite differently, but unfortunately I have only ever known the other side.

The topics that so agitated Nihat Baba included, for example, his prayer in Arabic. When I asked him, "What does what you are saying mean?" he answered, "That is Surah XY from the Quran." I asked further, "And do you know what those words mean?" "No," he said. That an educated, cultivated man of standing should admit, regarding something he had done automatically his entire life every day, that he does not know what it means — that shows his humility. Whether he answered so openly because he liked me or because he was shrewd, I cannot say. One evening I asked him whether he would like to know the meaning of these Arabic prayers. "Yes, gladly," he said with great curiosity. I took the Quran and read him in Turkish one of those surahs he had so often recited from memory in Arabic. He listened and simply sat there in silence. I could see that he was deeply disappointed. I could understand very well what he felt in that moment. The same thing had happened to me. It happened to him as it had happened to the Arabs in the Sultan Ahmet Mosque who were beaten because they laughed while the Turks around them were weeping. When someone learns surahs from the Quran by heart and recites them to themselves, one thinks one is doing something special, something sacred. No matter what or how many sins one has committed, one only needs to speak these words and one is cleansed of all one's sins. Such absurd methods of cleansing one's conscience are called narcotics. One actually numbs one's clear mind, one's conscience, when one resorts to such methods and relies on them. It is as though one is taking alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, or heroin. Communities that call themselves religions are very adept at these methods. There is thus good reason why the saying "Religion is the opium of the people" — generally attributed to Marx and also to Lenin — has become so popular. Indeed, for centuries people have used religion in God's name like a kind of drug. And those who are in power exploit this for their own advantage. Every religion has its own methods for numbing the conscience. Among Jehovah's Witnesses this is done through attendance at their meetings and above all through the door-to-door preaching work. The Jews soothe their conscience at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Among Muslims it is, as mentioned, the memorized sentences in Arabic that they recite to themselves while sliding the tespih (a kind of rosary) through their fingers or bowing to the ground in ritual prayer. The methods differ according to culture and upbringing, but in every case Satan achieves his goal of numbing conscience and reason. He knows very well what significance our God-given conscience holds. He seduces and encourages us to do all manner of things that distance us ever further from God; and at the same time he gives us a means of calming our conscience. We then simply say a few memorized sentences whose meaning we do not know, and our conscience is at rest. Is it not ultimately about living with a clear conscience? Then we can carry on. What we are writing here is nothing new; humanity has recognized this truth again and again throughout its history. In communist thought this idea is a fixed component. Yet instead of simply exposing these false and dangerous methods of religion, they set themselves against everything having to do with God and religion. That is the easiest method. According to biblical prophecy, the ruling powers will do the same thing worldwide with all religions in the near future. It is already strange that people again and again turn away from God — or set themselves against Him — on account of what religious people do. Of course all people, because of their imperfection, will always sin and make mistakes, and have a bad conscience because of it as well. We are all different, and therefore the way in which we ask for forgiveness and calm our conscience will also differ. That varies from culture to culture. That is not the problem either. The problem, however, is the manner in which one tries to cleanse oneself before God. Can one approach God and ask Him for forgiveness with words one does not understand oneself? "That doesn't matter," some will interject — "God understands what we want to say." Of course God understands what we want to say before we even say it, but is the one saying it edified by it? Why do we pray for the coming of God's Kingdom and that His will be done on earth? Will this come to pass simply because we pray for it? Or will God not ensure it regardless, whether we ask for it or not? The promised paradise He will bring about on earth in any case. Why then should I pray for it? What is the point of asking for something that will happen anyway? Just as we thank someone for something we have received or that has happened, we ask for something that is yet to happen. Through our words and petitions we show gratitude and appreciation. But above all it strengthens and edifies us ourselves. There is indeed a difference between asking God for forgiveness by saying something one does not understand and has memorized by rote, and approaching Him with words that come from the heart, in humility, showing sincere repentance. To which of these will God attach more value? How do you expect someone who wishes to apologize to you to do it? What is more convincing — words that the one apologizing does not himself understand, or heartfelt, sincere words of repentance? This does not change even if you as the recipient of the message do understand the words, but you know that the one apologizing does not understand them. In your eyes it will be like a parrot. And you will perceive it as disrespectful. With words repeated like a machine, one is neither asking for something nor apologizing. If we would never do such a thing to a fellow human being, why do we do it before God — and feel good about it?

Nihat Baba had recited these words from the Quran everywhere — on the bus, in the car, in moments of danger, when he was afraid, when he was happy about something and felt grateful, and of course when he had a guilty conscience. He would murmur these memorized suras to himself, aloud or in a low voice. When you recite such things to yourself, it fills you with a sense of sublimity; you feel as though you were floating. You are removed from all the wickedness of the world and filled with an inner calm and contentment. I know what I am talking about and can readily sympathize, because I practiced this myself thousands of times. It probably goes more or less the same way for everyone who has made a habit of it. But let us return to the moment when someone discovers what these words actually mean. It is sobering — a great disappointment takes hold. It is as though the world were collapsing and everything you have believed in until now suddenly loses its value. You feel deceived, cheated, and taken in. Yet the worst of it is that in that moment the word of God itself loses its value. It is a grave spiritual loss. But God encourages us toward active, logical, and considered, right action. Reciting memorized verses by rote, preaching from door to door, or lamenting at a wall — none of that is enough. That is not what should give us inner peace and contentment. For example, God calls on us to "treat others the way you would like to be treated." Then go ahead and speak those memorized verses aloud in your own language. And apply what you say — to yourself and to others. If you do not, your conscience should trouble you. That is what it means to have a healthy, well-trained conscience. Then you will also not need any sedatives. One calms one's conscience by living according to what one has actually understood — not by speaking words one does not understand and performing actions one cannot explain.

All of this I also discussed openly and directly with Nihat Baba, even though we always treated each other with care and respect. He said nothing. Only after a few days — he obviously had to digest it first — did he say, "We were not properly raised and educated in this area." "Yes, of course," I replied, "but you are only shifting the blame onto others — we too bear some responsibility." Then he told me at great length stories about various venerable figures and saints, naming four of them. In the eyes of many people they are a kind of patron saint or guardian. As I said, in this domain there is no logic or reason; the stories are full of fairy tales and miraculous accounts. One day we went out together to eat. Nihat Baba knew the place. It was summer; we were near Gemlik on a hillside with a beautiful view of the sea. The establishment was a cross between a café and a restaurant, a simple place thrown together in haste, but with a magnificent view. It was in the middle of a village and we wanted to sit outside to eat. Then Nihat Baba took me by the arm and led me a few meters further on. We arrived at a spot where a piece of wood or metal had been pushed into the ground, with white cloths tied to it. It looked like a tomato stake, but I could not find any plant. The cloths tied to it obviously did not serve to hold anything in place either. According to Nihat Baba's words, we were standing before the grave of a patron saint! Some people had hung scraps of cloth on it to commemorate him. When I saw how devoutly and earnestly Nihat Baba stood before this memorial, I could no longer contain myself. I simply laughed. But he was serious. He did not register my laughter at all. Sometimes I was genuinely angry and irritated with him. He was an old, experienced man, capable of thinking and arguing rationally and logically on every subject, and he had held positions of responsible leadership. Why was he so illogical and senseless in this area? I am quite sure that he himself did not really believe in it either, but he had certainly acquired belief in it under the influence of the people around him. My mother sometimes listened to him, but at other times she gave him a piece of her mind. He was not someone who always had to be right, nor did he talk his way out with nonsense when you argued logically. But let us now turn to the actual historical event that Nihat Baba told me about. It bears directly on our subject and on the Quran.

Atatürk had commissioned Mehmet Akif Ersoy — who wrote the text of the Turkish national anthem — to decipher and explain the Quran. What the true motive was for entrusting Mehmet Akif with this task is speculation. The fact is, however, that Mehmet Akif did not always share Atatürk's political views. Evidently Atatürk was convinced of Mehmet Akif's sincerity and knew that he would not act out of political calculation or hypocrisy. That he was an honest, upright man is also evident from a statement he made later. Atatürk generally had respect for sincere people, even when they did not share his opinions. The task was to explain the Quran, and for this purpose a committee was to be formed from Quranic scholars from across the entire Islamic world. The task of this committee was to decipher the Quran word by word. Atatürk's aim was to make the Quran accessible to the people and to no longer be dependent on clerics. In addition, Turkey had for several hundred years occupied the role of the Caliphate — comparable roughly to the role of the Vatican, or more precisely of the Pope, for the worldwide Catholic Church. I do not know exactly what year this took place, but it must have been in the 1920s. Scholars came together from all Islamic countries; Turkey's representative was Mehmet Akif Ersoy. If I remember correctly, the committee convened in Egypt and was to remain there until the work was complete. In the meantime, approximately three years had passed and they had completed only three chapters. The Quran consists in total of 31 chapters, which are subdivided into a total of 114 suras. The longest suras are at the beginning; after that the number of verses per sura steadily decreases. They got as far as roughly the middle of the third sura, Al Imran. During this time the committee arrived at an important realization. Many of the verses they were trying to explain contradicted one another. That is to say, if one verse said one thing, then in another verse an entirely different statement could be found that contradicted the preceding one — such as, for example, the verse stating that Muhammad was the last prophet. They therefore reached the following conclusion:

"We have tried to explain the Quran, but God has not granted us the insight to do so. Let us therefore burn everything we have compiled over these three years, so that these documents do not fall into the hands of the people and they do not accept and spread them as the correct explanation of the Quran." With the agreement of all those involved, they did exactly that — the details are not known — and each returned to his homeland. When Atatürk asked what had become of the project, Mehmet Akif answered: "We could not decipher it, my lord." Atatürk smiled with satisfaction.

I have genuine admiration and respect for this decision and for the integrity of this group of men. They did not act as many religious leaders do — and in this the Witnesses are a striking example — publishing an explanation at all costs for fear of exposing themselves. On the contrary: even when they do not truly know something, they publish it as though it were the final word of wisdom, and all their followers must accept it as revealed truth, even though it is nothing more than interpretation and speculation. From the heart I can only say bravo to this committee for having made such a decision. After this event, the Islamic countries each established their own committees for the explanation and understanding of the Quran. Around this time a committee and later a Presidency of Religious Affairs were also established in Turkey. Whether it was shortly before or after this I do not know — perhaps it was simultaneous with the event mentioned. The historical details and dates are not important in this context; what matters are the events and the attitude of those involved. What matters is their honesty and sincerity, and their courage in making such a decision. Moreover, I have told the story at this point because I wanted to show the stage we are at when it comes to understanding the Quran. Mehmet Akif himself, as the person chiefly responsible for the project, said that he did not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the subject. Which religious leader, entrusted with such a task and responsibility, has ever had the humility to utter such words? Is someone unreasonable or even foolish because he says the right thing in all sincerity? And who can claim to know the Quran as well as Mehmet Akif? Which is right and wise — to say "we know everything and can explain every verse, and whoever does not listen to us we will punish in the name of God," or to say "we do not know everything, and some verses we do not understand at all, or cannot explain"? What the committee did at that time was genuine humility, not feigned. How hard it is for people to say "I don't know"! It would undermine confidence in their wisdom, their knowledge, and their understanding! But can you trust someone who claims to know everything and yet turns out to be wrong in thirty percent of his statements? It may be that of ten statements seven prove correct and three prove false. When he then makes another statement, you naturally wonder whether it belongs to the three or to the seven. Trusting such a person is like playing the lottery. Every person can err, can make mistakes, and will make mistakes. Whoever cannot accept this lives far from reality. Nor is it about whether we make mistakes or not — nor does the number of mistakes matter. What matters is our attitude toward our mistakes. If you know that you make mistakes and can be wrong, then you cannot present your own statements as the word of God. And what is the harm in sometimes saying "I don't know," or "it could be this way or that, but I'm not sure"? If only all people had such humility and modesty as Mehmet Akif. I am certain that Mehmet Akif's honest answer disappointed many people, but Atatürk valued this honesty and modesty. He was an idealist. He was not one of the countless politicians who sell themselves out. He evidently had great confidence in Mehmet Akif, for otherwise he would not have entrusted him with this task on behalf of Turkey. Otherwise he might perhaps have said to him, "do whatever you like, but do not do it as a representative of the Turkish state." It is certainly not an event that would be recorded in the history books in a positive light when a delegate stands empty-handed after three years of work and has evidently not fulfilled his task. Even if in many people's eyes it is a failure, I see it rather as something praiseworthy. Not understanding something may be cause for sadness, but to face up to that fact and admit it is a success and is in any case praiseworthy. If we truly expect insight and understanding from God, we can be certain that He gives it when He wills and to whom He wills. The Presidency of Religious Affairs did not approach the subject with the same attitude. They felt obliged to offer people explanations — preferably explanations that served their own interests. Mehmet Akif, on the other hand, said clearly and plainly, "I don't know." Bravo, I can only say again. Truly, hats off to such an attitude. This event ought to be known and made known in Turkey — but no matter how much I researched on the internet, the accounts of this story are very sparse or not mentioned at all.

To close this chapter I want to state once more clearly: there is no verse in the Quran that says Muhammad is the last prophet. Evidently through the influence of false teachers, some have translated the expression "Seal of the Prophets" as "the last of the prophets." The original Arabic is very clear. In the light of the Quran and the whole Bible, this expression must be understood to mean that Muhammad is a confirmation of all prophecy and of all the prophets. Simply put, the word "seal" here carries the meaning of "confirmation." If someone considers this explanation nonsense and wishes to hold on to his earlier understanding that Muhammad is the last prophet, then he must cut out and discard many verses from both the Quran and the Bible. Please read the indicated verses in the holy scriptures yourself and draw your own conclusions. Do not believe it because you read it here — research it yourself. If my statements and my belief are correct and I live accordingly, then I can only save myself — perhaps. But under no circumstances can I save someone else's life. This fact too we can read plainly in the word of God (Ezekiel 14:12–20). Read and search for yourselves, and also help others to do so (Matthew 28:18–20).

TO ALL PEOPLES, NATIONS, AND LANGUAGES

...with these words begins a letter that a ruler had written down thousands of years ago. We find this letter printed in the Bible book of Daniel, chapter 4. This King Nebuchadnezzar received, in the form of a dream, a message from God that concerns the future of all mankind. If this dream had been merely a message for Nebuchadnezzar alone, the king would not have composed this document for all peoples and nations. Moreover, this message would not have been recorded in the Holy Scriptures. But the dream and its message have prophetic significance that will be fulfilled in our own days. The king spoken of here, Nebuchadnezzar, became king of Babylon in the year 605 B.C.E. and ruled for 43 years. Under his reign the Babylonian Empire experienced its golden age and was the dominant world power — comparable roughly to the position the United States holds today. This supremacy lasted until 516 B.C.E., when the Medes and Persians conquered Babylon. (This date was determined solely through research in Biblical chronology, since as the Word of God it is the most reliable source, including in matters of historical data.) Let us now turn to the dream and its message. In the Bible book of Daniel, chapter 4, beginning at verse 4, it reads: I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace. 5 I saw a dream, and it began to frighten me. There were visions in my mind as I lay on my bed, and the images terrified me. 6 So I issued a command to bring in before me all the wise men of Babylon, so that they might make known to me the true interpretation of the dream. 7 Then the magic-practicing priests, the conjurers, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers came in, and I told them what the dream was, but they did not make its interpretation known to me. 8 At last Daniel came in before me — he whose name is Belteshazzar, after the name of my god — and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. I told him what the dream was: 9 O Belteshazzar, chief of the magic-practicing priests, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and its interpretation. 10 As for the visions of my mind as I lay on my bed, I looked, and there was a tree in the middle of the earth, and its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its very height finally reached the heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole earth. 12 Its foliage was beautiful and its fruit was abundant, and there was food for everyone in it. The beasts of the field would ordinarily seek shade beneath it, and the birds of the heavens would dwell in its branches, and all living creatures would feed from it. 13 I continued watching in the visions of my mind as I lay on my bed, and look — a watcher, a holy one, came down from the heavens themselves. 14 He called out loudly, and this is what he said: Chop down the tree and cut off its branches. Shake off its leaves and scatter its fruit. Let the beasts flee from beneath it and the birds from its branches. 15 But leave the stump of its roots in the ground, with a band of iron and of copper, among the grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of the heavens, and let its portion be with the beasts among the vegetation of the earth. 16 Let its heart be changed from that of a man, and let the heart of a beast be given to it, and let seven times pass over it. 17 By the decree of watchers is the matter, and by the word of holy ones is the request, to the end that the living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants, and he sets over it even the lowliest of men. 18 This was the dream that I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw; and you, O Belteshazzar, tell what the interpretation is, since all the other wise men of my kingdom are unable to make the interpretation known to me. But you are able to, because the spirit of holy gods is in you.

Daniel tells the interpretation. 19 Then Daniel himself, whose name is Belteshazzar, was stunned for a moment, and his thoughts began to frighten him. The king spoke up and said: O Belteshazzar, do not let the dream and its interpretation frighten you. Belteshazzar answered and said: My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your adversaries. 20 The tree that you saw, which grew great and became strong, whose height finally reached the heavens and which was visible to all the earth, 21 whose foliage was beautiful and whose fruit was abundant, and in which there was food for everyone, beneath which the beasts of the field were dwelling and in whose branches the birds of the heavens were living — 22 it is you, O king, for you have grown great and become strong, and your greatness has grown so great that it has reached to the heavens, and your rulership to the extremity of the earth. 23 And as for the king's having seen a watcher, a holy one, coming down from the heavens and saying: Chop down the tree and destroy it. But leave the stump of its roots in the ground, yet with a band of iron and of copper, among the grass of the field, and let it be wet with the dew of the heavens, and let its portion be with the beasts of the field, until seven times pass over it — 24 this is the interpretation, O king, and it is the decree of the Most High that must befall my lord the king. 25 You will be driven away from mankind, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field, and you will be given vegetation to eat just as bulls are; and you will be made wet with the dew of the heavens, and seven times will pass over you, until you have come to know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that he gives it to whomever he wants. 26 And as for the instruction to leave the stump of the tree's roots: your kingdom will be secure for you after you have come to know that the heavens are ruling. 27 Therefore, O king, may my counsel seem good to you, and remove your own sins by doing what is right, and your iniquity by showing mercy to the poor. Perhaps your prosperity will be prolonged. These prophetic words have a twofold fulfillment. First, they were fulfilled literally upon King Nebuchadnezzar himself, lasting probably 7 years, until his health was restored. But we also recognize from the explanation of the prophet that a greater fulfillment was connected to this dream. The tree represented not only the ruler Nebuchadnezzar himself, but also his kingdom Babylon, for even in his humbled, sick condition his dominion still extended to "the extremities of the earth." And even after his death, little changed — Babylon remained the dominant world power and "provided food for all." With the felling of the tree — that is, with the fall of Babylon — the 7 times therefore begin. During this period of time God made evident that he stands above human rulers and gives his kingdom to whomever he wants. That is why the tree stump was to be left in the ground and bound with metal bands until the one comes whom God deems the proper king. The tree did not represent God's sovereignty, for there never was an earthly ruler who represented God's dominion on earth. Even though God had chosen some of the kings of Israel, it was not his will that his covenant people be ruled by kings, and he made this clearly known (1 Samuel 12:17). From the Bible we clearly discern that Jesus Christ is the king chosen by God. And in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 17, it states: 31 Because he has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has provided a guarantee to all men by resurrecting him from the dead. When, then, do the 7 times begin? What significance do they have for us? The 7 times began with the fall of Babylon as a world power, brought about by the Medo-Persian Empire in the year 516 B.C.E. How do we arrive at this year? Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in the year 586 B.C.E. and was to lie desolate for 70 years. (The year 586 B.C.E. is the only figure in this calculation that relies on non-biblical sources. All other data are based on the statements of the Word of God as the most reliable source.) After the tree was felled, 7 times were to pass.

How long are these "seven times"? The Bible shows that three and a half "times" correspond to 1,260 days (Revelation 12:6, 14). Double that span — seven times — equals 2,520 days. Yet at the end of that short period nothing remarkable happened. If, however, one applies to Daniel's prophecy the rule of "a day for a year" and counts 2,520 years forward from 516 B.C.E., one arrives at the year 2005 C.E. (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6). From October 516 B.C.E. to October 1 B.C.E. = 515 YEARS. From October 1 B.C.E. to October 2005 C.E. = 2005 YEARS. SEVEN TIMES (combined total) = 2,520 YEARS.

This could mean that in the year 2005 Jesus Christ will begin to reign as king. What effects will this have for us? Since Jesus is now a spirit person, he will not literally be visible even as he reigns as king, but we will be able to clearly feel the effects of his reign here on earth. In the Bible book of Isaiah the following is said prophetically about Jesus: Isaiah chapter 11:2–5 — And the spirit of God will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of God; and he will find delight in the fear of God. And he will not judge by what appears to his eyes, nor reprove simply by what his ears hear. And with righteousness he will judge the lowly, and with uprightness he will reprove in behalf of the meek ones of the earth. And he must strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; and with the breath of his lips he will put the wicked one to death. And righteousness will prove to be the belt of his hips, and faithfulness the belt of his loins. Let us imagine what that will mean! Then the whole earth will be governed by someone who truly loves justice and also has the power to put it into practice. But it also means that mankind must first pass through a phase of grave upheaval. This period of time is described, among other places, in the book of Revelation and is given a length of 3.5 years. It will be a time filled with terrifying events. These events will directly affect every inhabitant of the earth, which is why it is necessary that we prepare ourselves for them. It does not mean that the end comes immediately thereafter, for the Bible emphasizes that no one knows either the day or the hour (Matt. 24:36). But Jesus, in his prophecy about the time of the end, mentioned certain signs pointing to the end — signs whose fulfillment we have already been able to observe for a number of years: wars, famine, poverty, earthquakes, an increase in crime and lawlessness, love of money, selfishness, and a form of godliness that is merely put on display. Since these described events, as well as those yet to come, affect the whole earth, they will also affect us personally. But what will affect us most of all is the fact that God is concerned with each individual person. He has indeed done so ever since mankind was created, but this time, when God acts against the wicked, evil elements and people of this world, it will matter which side we are on. Our life and our future depend on it. There will be no one who is saved by chance, or whom God might have overlooked. This letter aims above all to encourage a way of life pleasing to God, for knowledge of historical events, or an understanding of biblical chronology alone, saves no life. In 1 Timothy 2:4 God says that it is his will that all people come to an accurate knowledge of the truth and be saved. That means it is not important to him what we have done in the past, but whether we now take hold of the hand he extends and accept his help. Only a few Bible texts relevant to this subject have been cited, in order to keep this letter as brief and simple as possible. What is even more important than the chronology and the dates is the fulfillment of prophetic events. We have seen often enough in history that we — myself included — can be plainly wrong regarding chronology. The only thing we can do is to direct our attention to the signs that have been foretold in the prophecies. Yet even in this we can be mistaken, as experience has shown us. May God stir your heart to action, and may you recognize the need to do something. That is the purpose I pursue with this letter. With this in mind, I wish you all the best. This letter was not produced on behalf of any religious group or church. I remain in the hope that God will move your heart and that you will recognize the need to do something. Note! We must emphasize something here without fail. These are not prophecies of our own; rather, we are attempting to understand the prophecies. In that understanding, errors are very likely present. Such topics are open to discussion. We do not have the audacity to say: "Only what we write is correct and everything else is wrong." We do not want to become blind fanatics. But we are grateful if someone would correct us. (2 Corinthians 10:12–13 and 16–17)

--- 7 Times Chronology --- Nebuchadnezzar Babylon's fall and Jeremiah destroys Jerusalem Prophecies about Jerusalem B.C.E. 586 2 Kings 25:8 End of the 70-year captivity. Jeremiah 52:12 B.C.E. 516 2 Chr. 36:20–21 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Years 586 581 576 571 566 561 556 551 546 541 536 531 526 521 516 B.C.E. Tree felled for 7 times, i.e. 2,520 years Daniel 4:14–16 Daniel 4:23 Jesus Christ will reign in heaven. Satan is cast out of the heavenly Fall of Babylon, new world power realm. Medo-Persia. Daniel 5:30 2 Chronicles 36:22 Daniel 2:44 Rev. 12:7–12 516 416 316 216 116 16 C.E. 85 185 285 385 485 585 685 785 885 985 1085 1185 1285 1385 1485 1585 1685 1785 1885 1985 2005 0 100 200 300 400 500 C.E. 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2,520 years 7 Times = 7 years x 360 = 2,520 days. One day for one year (God's principle) 2,520 years Numbers 14:34 Ezekiel 4:6

AN ADDITIONAL PROOF

In the article "To All Nations..." and the accompanying chronology, we attempted to prove, on the basis of the Book of Daniel, that Jesus Christ will begin to reign as King in the year 2005. We are very well aware that many mistakes have been made in this field, and also that false predictions based on a faulty understanding of Daniel's prophecy have led in part to catastrophic reactions, including collective suicide. In our time, the best-known group pointing to an "end" is certainly Jehovah's Witnesses. They continue to hold to dates that have never been fulfilled, and they even expel those who draw attention to this fact from their own ranks! This self-assurance and the way they treat those who think differently has prompted many people to turn entirely away from religion and to hate it — perhaps you are among them. This is why it is important for us to emphasize that in writing what follows we are only trying to set forth our knowledge and understanding of the prophecy, and it is our sincere wish that our readers draw our attention to any possible errors. We are aware that we are imperfect human beings and can readily make mistakes, even though we have endeavored to research this topic very carefully. We are therefore always open to criticism or other thoughts. We also expect you, dear reader, to read these articles with that in mind. We say this not to feign humility — it is simply and plainly the truth. If God were to speak to us directly, we could make statements with absolute certainty, without the slightest doubt as to whether they might be correct. But we are not prophets and can therefore only examine the words of the prophets and try to understand them. We do this, of course, with a prayer to God that he may help us understand his words. For he alone is the Revealer of secrets. But he is God, and he grants understanding to whom he wills; we cannot impose limits on him in this. To the prophet Daniel, the angel said: "Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant." — Daniel 12:4

Now let us turn to the second proof. When we read the Book of Daniel, we encounter many prophecies. One of these prophecies is mentioned three times, each time from a different perspective. This prophecy concerns the description of a dream that Nebuchadnezzar had, in which he saw a statue. (Daniel 2:31–45) Even though Daniel explains the dream, we want to briefly summarize it here once more. We will immediately write in the corresponding nation each time so that it is easier to follow. In order to follow the explanations more easily, you should absolutely have a Bible at hand and follow the prophecy in it.

1) The head of gold is Babylon. (Daniel 2:31–45) The breast and the arms of silver represent the dual world power of Medo-Persia. The belly and the thighs of bronze stand for the Greek world empire. The legs of iron represent the Roman Empire and the world powers that emerged from it — Anglo-America. The 10 toes of the feet represent 10 nations — evidently the 10 most influential nations of our day.

2) These world powers are depicted in the same order in another scene. Daniel 7:4–8 and the explanation in 7:16–28. The four wild beasts again represent four world powers: the lion stands for Babylon, the bear for Medo-Persia, the leopard or panther for Greece, and the fourth — described as frightening and terrifying — for the 10 world powers in the final part of the days, since it has 10 horns.

3) In chapter 8, Daniel describes another vision. The ram with two horns mentioned in verse 3 represents Medo-Persia, while the male goat with one horn stands for Greece. That one horn is broken off, and in its place four horns come up. This is an apt description of the sudden death of Alexander the Great and the four generals who afterward divided his empire among themselves. If we add Daniel chapter 11, which speaks of the struggle between the king of the north and the king of the south in the end time, we would have yet a fourth prophecy on this subject. Much speculation has surrounded the identity of these two kings. At one time it was France and England, at another France and Russia, later Russia and the USA, and now there are even some who believe it is the USA and Iraq. At the moment it seems best to say: we do not know. To determine that, one would have to go into very great detail. We can, however, assume that one of the two kings is the USA.

On our first page, entitled "To All Peoples, Nations, and Languages," we discussed Daniel chapter 4 — Nebuchadnezzar's dream in which he saw a tree. That tree represents Babylon. With that prophecy it was important to recognize when the time reckoning was to begin. When a prophecy involves time reckoning, one must know from which point one must begin to count. In some prophecies of the Book of Daniel this starting point is very important. For example, in Daniel 9:24–27 the coming of the Messiah is foretold, and to determine the exact date one must know from when to start counting.

In our calculation we arrived at the year 2005 as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2. The reason we had previously pointed to the year 2000 was that we had adopted an incorrect chronology from others. We will explain this error in connection with the time reckoning. In order to determine the precise moment of fulfillment of a prophecy, one must have knowledge of the chronology of human history. Perhaps we understand the prophecy correctly and can also explain the connections correctly, but if our knowledge of history is wrong or incomplete, we arrive at an incorrect result. And could it not even be that our understanding of the prophecy and its interpretation is entirely wrong? Even if we do not think so, that is no measuring stick. That is to say, we are convinced that we currently understand the prophecy correctly, but this does not mean that we regard it as a universal standard by which everyone must align themselves — that would be extremely arrogant. There are enough religions that think and act that way. Humanity has been punished enough by it. If we feel such an aversion to what these religions have done and are doing, how can we then follow their example and commit the same error? Much good that they have done has been undone by this attitude. They have not shown the required humility — they have not even apologized for the simplest things. Instead, they have constantly tried to cover up their mistakes, and those who pointed them out they expelled or even burned alive. In fact, they should have been glad that there were people who drew their mistakes to their attention. Through their militaristic, cruel, greedy, and unyielding stance they have ultimately brought much disgrace upon the name of God and his Son. Instead of distancing themselves from the sins and errors of their forebears, they defended their forebears' mistakes and thereby took on additional guilt of their own.

Because we fear treading in the same footsteps and thereby jeopardizing our relationship with God, we have written this note and drawn attention to this danger — not in order to cast doubt on the thoughts we have set forth here. The reason we point so confidently to the year 2005 is connected with the above-mentioned prophecy from Daniel chapter 8. It is clear that the angel here is speaking of Alexander the Great. This is made plain by his explanation in 8:20–21. Through our knowledge of history we conclude that it must be Alexander being referred to here. For our discussion, the portion beginning at verse 9 is of particular significance. After the one great horn had been broken, four smaller horns came up in its place (signifying 4 generals, as noted above). The prophet then speaks of a small horn coming forth. This appears to be the starting point of the prophecy — the point from which we must begin to count, and through which we arrive at 2005 as the beginning of Christ's reign. (This does not yet mean the end.)

Word for word, Daniel chapter 8:9–14 reads:

9 And out of one of them came a rather small horn, and it kept getting very much greater toward the south and toward the sunrising and toward the Decoration. 10 And it kept getting greater all the way to the army of the heavens, so that it caused some of the army and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it went trampling them down. 11 And all the way to the Prince of the army it put on great airs, and from him the constant feature was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down. 12 And an army itself was gradually given over, together with the constant feature, because of transgression; and it kept throwing truth to the earth, and it acted and had success. 13 And I got to hear a certain holy one speaking, and another holy one proceeded to say to the particular one who was speaking: "How long will the vision be of the constant feature and of the transgression causing desolation, to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on?" 14 So he said to me: "Until two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; and the holy place will certainly be brought into its right condition."

So the first task, once again, is to establish the starting point of the prophecy, and from that date to add 2,300. After the emergence of the 4 generals and the wars they waged among themselves, another small horn would come forth. This is evidently the starting point of the prophecy, for this horn will be active until the end and plays an important role in the prophecy. This horn represents Anglo-America, which emerged from the Roman Empire.

Alexander the Great died in 323 B.C.E. After that, his empire was divided among his four generals. This division, which stretched over many years and is known as the Wars of the Diadochi, ended in the year 300 or 301 B.C.E. according to most sources. But there seems to be an inconsistency here. We had taken our starting point from that year (301 B.C.E.) and arrived at the year 2000 as our expectation of the fulfillment of the prophecy. Many others also had special expectations for the year 2000; some believed the end would come — but all of these expectations and hopes have nothing whatsoever to do with our calculation. Most were simply influenced by the fact that 2000 is a round number. But what concerns us here is a different important matter, for our research has led us to a specific date for which we have so far found no confirmation in other sources — namely the year 297 B.C.E. as the point when the Wars of the Diadochi ended. It cannot be the year 301 B.C.E. if it is to be in harmony with the other prophecy of Daniel. For this we need the support of readers with expertise in history, and we hope to receive a pointer.

To summarize briefly: we are looking for the date when the division of the Greek empire following Alexander's death was completed — that is, when the small horn in the above prophecy came to the fore — so that we can add 2,300 years to that date and arrive at the date of fulfillment of the prophecy. We assume that this is a parallel prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. In that prophecy we arrived at 2005 as the year of fulfillment. If we count backward from 2005 and subtract the 2,300 years, we arrive at the year 296 B.C.E.

What we do not know or understand, however, is exactly what will then happen. For the wording says: "Until two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; and the holy place will certainly be brought into its right condition." What does it mean to be "brought into its right condition"? Does it point to the time when Jesus intervenes as an enthroned King to cleanse the earth of all wickedness? Or only to the fact that all religions will be banned because of their sin? If the constant feature is a symbol for worship, it would point to an end of these forms of worship. If all religions have, through their conduct, brought shame and disgrace upon the name of God, would the disappearance of religions not conversely mean a cleansing — a restoration of something to its right condition?

In the last Bible book, Revelation, it says symbolically about the religions: "And another, a second angel, followed, saying: 'She has fallen! Babylon the Great has fallen, she who made all the nations drink of the wine of the anger of her fornication!'" — Revelation 14:8

Is this announcement by the angel the parallel to Daniel 8? But we must also not forget that the angel himself gives an explanation of this prophecy in Daniel 8:15–27. The ruler who exalts himself all the way to the army of the heavens and takes away the constant feature will ultimately be broken or removed — but not by human power. We find this expression — "not by human power" or "not by hand" (NW Translation) — also in connection with Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, but there it means the end of all nations. It reads there:

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; 45 forasmuch as you beheld that out of the mountain a stone was cut not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the copper, the molded clay, the silver, and the gold. The Grand God himself has made known to the king what is to occur after this." — Daniel 2:44, 45

These words refer to the statue; the words in Daniel 8, by contrast, refer to the vision of the ram and the male goat. One could also interpret the angel's explanation as pointing to the end time, but verse 13 seems to contradict this, for it says there:

"And I got to hear a certain holy one speaking, and another holy one proceeded to say to the particular one who was speaking: 'How long will the vision be of the constant feature and of the transgression causing desolation, to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on?'"

Here the angel does not say "when will this be over" — he only asks "how long will it last." He is not asking about an end, only about the restoration of the holy place and the army. Some understand the 2,300 days here as literal days, which would correspond to a period of approximately 7 years. We only know that the 3½ times, or 42 months, or the 1,260 days are to be understood literally, since three different descriptions are used for them. It is also said of the 10 toes — the 10 nations — that they will reign for 3½ times. — Daniel 7:23–27; Revelation 12:14; 13:5; 11:2, 3

But the most important pointer in this connection is the following, in Daniel 12:11: "And from the time that the constant feature has been removed and there has been a placing of the disgusting thing that is causing desolation..." The angel directs attention specifically to this moment, in our view. Jesus also emphasized this. In Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14–23 he mentions this "disgusting thing that causes desolation" in connection with the approaching end. However, since he is simultaneously speaking about the end of the Jewish system in 70 C.E., this indicates that similar events will occur. In the vision of the 2,300 days it becomes clear that the angel in his explanation directs attention to the same event. In 8:13b it continues: "How long will the vision be of the constant feature and of the transgression causing desolation, to make both the holy place and the army things to trample on?" This is precisely what the angel draws our attention to — the disgusting thing that causes desolation — and it is precisely this to which Jesus pointed in his prophecy. Although it is mentioned in two entirely different places in the Bible, it is the same event that is being spoken of. This event appears to take place when all religions are banned.

If we can establish when the small horn came forth, we can also fix this coming point in time — the elimination of religions. Since we do not know that point in time, we take as our starting point the date when Jesus will begin to reign as King in heaven. Since Jesus Christ will begin to reign as King in heaven at the end of the year 2005, and since the events described in Revelation are connected with his enthronement, we conclude that this prophecy will be fulfilled between the end of 2005 and the beginning of 2006 — though we cannot fix a more precise date.

But something else seems certain in this connection: since the 10 nations will have power for only 3½ years, the overthrow of Babylon must fall within that period. Since these events did not come about in either 2005 or 2006, we do well not to focus our attention on dates but much more on the prophetic events and their fulfillment. Moreover, we are certainly taking the better path if, in calculating times and dates, we do not make ourselves dependent on secular historiography but orient ourselves by what the Bible actually says. That is, of course, my opinion.

One thing is certain: the words of Jesus, the prophecy about the end of time — "...this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen." (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) By the signs, the time must have begun with the First World War. (Matthew 24:1–14) Up to now, some religions and sects have taken an average from World Bank statistics or national death statistics for what a generation's duration means, and have called it 80 years. These assumptions were and are based on human logic, but one cannot determine the duration of a generation in that way. God stated how long human days after the Flood should be — namely 120 years. (Genesis 6:3) By the duration of a generation, Jesus meant the same as God — that is, also 120. That is a clear and certain measure for a generation. According to this understanding, "nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" (Matt. 24:7) was not realized until the First World War in 1914. Since, according to the prophecy, 1914 was the beginning of the generation, and 120 years is the duration of a generation, we still have until 2034. I can say with certainty that I firmly believe in this understanding.

It should not, however, be misunderstood: it does not mean that the end will come in the year 2034, but that it will happen by 2034. Meanwhile, one of these signs is also that all currently existing religions will be banned by the political powers. This is above all also the will of God. For all these religions have taken on a great blood guilt and have done terrible things in the name of God, thereby bringing much shame and disgrace upon his name. The prophecy described above refers to this event — the end of religions. But this simultaneously means the beginning of a difficult time for believing people. Jesus said about the end time: "...you will be hated by all the nations on account of my name." — Matthew 24:9

Yes, the remaining time is really very short, and so we should ask ourselves whether we are prepared for it. What have we learned about God in our lives? Have we made an effort to do his will? We have invested much and exerted ourselves for our pleasures, for parties, for eating and drinking, for our greed, or simply for our entertainment and relaxation — but what can we expect in return for that? Our goal is to foster in our readers a love of God, not a fear of an approaching end, as some religions do. If a person's death in any case means his end, is it not then appropriate to be watchful every day and to do the will of God, as Jesus said? There is then no going back for all our efforts, our desires, our goals, our struggles, our hatred, and our malice. These things should always matter more to us than any dates and calculations.

On the other hand, we do not consider it right to conceal our knowledge in this area, which is why we publish it here on this page. But this knowledge alone does not lead to salvation. We wish our readers all the best and hope to have encouraged them to continue exploring the word of God. We gladly receive criticism and ask our readers to draw our attention to our errors.

(Eljakim) Jehoiakim reigns 11 years as king --- Chronology of Babylon concerning the destruction of Jerusalem --- 2 Kings 23:36 2 Chr. 36:5 Jeremiah 32:1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Nebuchadnezzar's Jehoiachin reigned 3 months 1st year and fought against Zedekiah becomes king 832 souls go Jeremiah 25:1 and reigns 11 years. into exile. 2 Kings 24:8 2 Chronicles 36:9-11 Jeremiah 52:29 2 Kings 24:18 Jeremiah 52:1 Nebuchadnezzar's 8th regnal year 2 Kings 24:12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 B.C. 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 3023 Jews go Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar's dream into exile came to besiege Jerusalem. with the statue. Daniel 2:1 Jeremiah 52:28 2 Kings 25:1-2 Jeremiah 52:4-5 Nebuchadnezzar became king and took Daniel with him. Daniel 1:1 B.C. 605 Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon took the city of Jerusalem and destroyed Jehovah's temple in his 19th regnal year. B.C. 586 2 Kings 25:8 Jeremiah 52:12 This desolation would last 70 years until B.C. 516. A LETTER FROM A FORMER WITNESS TO WITNESS ELDERS

Hello Markus, after our last phone conversation I thought once more about some of the things you said to me. They are really always the same arguments. For you it is important to belong somewhere, to a community, a congregation, an organization. Why do we not prefer to belong to God and his Son, as He advises us in the Bible and as the prophets, the apostles, and many others have shown us by example? You mentioned the Bible verse Hebrews 4:2 several times. I have now taken a closer look at this verse and consulted several translations in the process. Hebrews 4:2 For indeed we have had good news declared to us also, just as they did; but the word that was heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. — New World Translation For good news was preached to us as well as to them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. — Luther For a good news has been proclaimed to us as well as to them; but the word of the proclamation did not benefit them, because it was not mixed with faith in those who heard. — Elberfeld For the gospel was proclaimed to us just as to them; but the word that was heard did not profit them, since it was not united with faith in those who heard. — Bengel ...and for we are having been brought good news according to which even also those, but not benefited the word of the hearing those not having been mixed to the faith to the having heard. — Kingdom Interlinear... since they were not united with those who listened with trusting faith. — Good News (footnote) see also Turkish translations of this verse!! The translations cited here actually already show what matters: faith, not coming together with others. Let us first assume for a moment that this verse has been translated correctly in the NW Translation (as well as in the footnote of the GN Translation), then it would mean that here Paul is speaking of people who had h e a r d the word of God but derived no benefit from it, because they were not united in faith with those who l i s t e n e d. What sense do these words make? Who is the group that heard the word, and who is the group that had heard it, with whom they were supposed to unite themselves? Interestingly, the context of the text does not show either that a coming together or some kind of connection between these groups would be of significance. Paul is speaking here quite unmistakably of the necessity of faith, of the importance of combining what was heard with faith. (Heb. 3:18; 4:3) This statement would thus be identical to what Paul says in Romans 10:17: So faith comes from hearing the message... (Good News). Not necessarily, of course, as we all know, but hearing the message is at least a prerequisite. But not everyone who hears believes. Apparently the WT Society does not use this text to substantiate the institution of the congregation either; at any rate, I found nothing on the Watch CD. It is certainly no mistake if we try to grasp the meaning of such statements, what our Creator wants to tell us through these verses. In doing so, we can always follow principles that are valid for everyone, everywhere, and at all times. If, according to your understanding of the statements in Hebrews 4:2; 10:24,25, it is absolutely necessary to come together with others, then one must ask what weight this statement carries. Is it at all times of vital necessity for all people? What was the situation then with C.T. Russell when he separated himself from his religious community? Did he not then transgress this important commandment? What about the many thousands who separated themselves from their churches and religious organizations simply because they were not prepared to go along with everything that contradicted the word of God? Did they thereby incur guilt? Certainly not. But the question is not whether it is wrong to come together with other people and exchange ideas; rather, it is about the manner in which it should happen. A Bible commentator wrote the following commentary on the subject of gatherings: A consideration of the biblical sources concerning the early Christian community reveals the striking fact that we simply find no fixed pattern for what Christian gatherings look like. Originally, immediately after Pentecost, the apostles and others came together daily in the temple for discussions and exhortations. The assumption that most of them could have continued this practice after this initial period is unrealistic, and there is no indication of it either. Mentioned in connection with the gatherings in the temple are also the communal meals with their brothers in various houses, and since meals frequently gave Jesus Christ the opportunity to distribute spiritual blessings in an informal manner, that was probably the case here as well. In Ephesus, Paul went to the synagogue during the first three months, that is, once a week on each Sabbath. Then he turned his back on the synagogue and "spoke daily in the hall of Tyrannus," for a full two years. It is illogical to assume that those who came together with him were the same persons every day, for only a few could afford to spend their time that way for two years. We know that Paul was there day by day; but we do not know clearly whether anyone else was present every day. And nothing documents whether the Christians thereafter in Ephesus — or elsewhere — met with the same frequency. In many cities of the Roman Empire the proportion of slaves in the population was very large, easily amounting to a third of the inhabitants of larger cities such as Rome, Ephesus, Antioch, and Corinth. Many of them were certainly not mere laborers but occasionally held positions of considerable responsibility; nevertheless, it is unlikely that most slaves could attend gatherings at will. The Christian scriptures are indeed full of all kinds of exhortations, but alongside these accounts in the book of Acts they simply contain nothing that outlines or recommends a specific program for the Christian gathering, whether with regard to time, frequency, or structure. There is the appeal to come together out of love for fellow brothers. It is stated what the essential goal and purpose are, namely to stir one another up to love and good works; but the manner and form remain open. At this kind of informal gathering, people could open up, be themselves, speak from their innermost being; they did not merely have to repeat material presented to them and participate in a tightly controlled, formulaic, catechetical question-and-answer exercise. People genuinely got to know one another; they noticed what someone actually felt and did not merely hear someone express something that represented the thinking and opinions of others rather than their own. That is what I mean. It is about the spirit — not about complying with a call to gather. — 2 Corinthians 3:6 — the written code condemns to death, but the Spirit gives life. At this point I would like to insert something fundamental. In connection with the worship of God, it is a l w a y s about the spirit behind it. It is not about doing or not doing certain things, but about the motivation behind it. That is why I have always liked the text from Ephesians 5:1: Become imitators of God as beloved children. Imagine a father who wants his grown children to gather in his house every Wednesday and eat together. That is certainly not an unreasonable demand, for on the one hand the children see each other and family bonds are strengthened; on the other hand, the father is so loving and attentive that he always has an open ear and wise advice for each of his children. So every time the children are there, it is an encouragement for them. But would it be reasonable and loving on the part of the father to insist every time that everyone be present, and to be offended or hurt if one of the children does not come simply because they do not feel like it, or even to take disciplinary measures? It may seem insignificant whether one views the text from Hebrews as a law, a requirement, or an encouragement, but it changes the picture we have of Jehovah and that others receive through us. I will continue to firmly turn away from any organization that conveys such a picture of God and abuses religious feelings by exercising pressure and power. Do you think I am exaggerating? Why is it then that in the 30 years I was part of it I never heard (perhaps 1–2 times at most) that someone had not attended the congregation meeting simply because they did not feel like it. This was certainly not uncommon, but who actually says that. One prefers to say that one was not feeling well, had a headache, or the like, in order to avoid discussions or "exchanges of thought." Why does one create such an atmosphere that one does not even feel free to express one's feelings? In Turkish there is a nice saying: Zorla güzellik olmaz (roughly: "You cannot force beauty"). What does God gain if we attend the congregation meeting but our heart is elsewhere. On the contrary, if you don't enjoy going, it is better not to go at all, so that hatred does not develop! All things considered, I cannot imagine that anyone truly and seriously believes that mere membership in a community brings some kind of advantage when we are judged by God. There is a fine comparison in the Bible: Hag. 2:12–14. Similar to what is described in these questions, we cannot become holy by touching what is holy, but we can certainly become unclean by touching what is unclean. Even if we assume that something like a true religion exists, membership in it cannot bring us any advantage as long as we are not ourselves sincerely convinced of it from the heart. But if this community is unclean before God, we can defile ourselves through it. Hence also the urgent call not to touch the unclean and to flee out of Babylon. Membership in a community therefore cannot bring about our salvation, but under certain circumstances it can bring about our death. It is truly sad to see how people cling to an organization, for it has absolutely nothing to do with God, even if some good works are performed. But we can be certain that Jehovah will take from us everything (or rather, He permits it to be taken) that we place in His stead. We must learn to trust in HIM alone in our life. I am convinced and I trust that you see it the same way, and until recently I was also convinced that this was likewise the aim of the organization — to teach us this. But by now I know better. The very fact that I did not feel well in the first few months showed me that the organization is not striving to raise its members (followers or whatever) into spiritually strong, independent individuals; on the contrary, it tries to create dependency. It demonstrates this plainly, among other ways, by claiming that no one can come to God except through the faithful and discreet slave (the Bible, incidentally, does not say that)! Then I was told repeatedly: What will you do without us? Whoever says something like that reveals clearly that he wants to see the other person in a state of dependence and not in the freedom given by God! Christ has set us free; he also wants us to remain free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. God has called you to freedom, my brothers and sisters! But do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. — Galatians 5:1,13 Interestingly, the word freedom always has a negative connotation among religious communities, as if someone seeking freedom is being selfish. But it is a natural desire that our Creator has planted in our hearts. Only when we are free does it become apparent whether we are selfish or not, for what matters is how we use our freedom. As Paul says: For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. — 1 Corinthians 9:19 At this point I would like to return briefly to Hebrews 10:24,25. The context of the text shows that this is a matter of something truly serious. Christian wrote to me in a letter that in his opinion the importance of the congregation meeting is even being underemphasized, since according to the 10th chapter of the letter to the Hebrews it can even be seen as a rejection of the ransom sacrifice (or rather, Jehovah sees it that way). But if we think again about what I described above, namely the father-son relationship, then it is easy to explain what is meant by this text: once again it is about encouraging one another in love and faith, not about being present somewhere at fixed times. Some go so far as to claim that every congregation meeting is a personal invitation from Jehovah and that staying away is tantamount to rejecting the invitation, and that by doing so one hurts Him! The Good News translation renders the verse as: Some have fallen into the habit of staying away from the community gatherings. That is not good; rather, you should encourage one another. The foreground is again the aspect of love and mutual encouragement — that is what matters. The point is that we should not be like shepherds who feed only themselves, but rather demonstrate genuine love of neighbor by showing interest and compassion. There would certainly be more to say about these two texts, but I wanted at least to touch on them briefly here, in order to show how I think about this and what these verses are actually trying to tell us. Fundamentally, our whole life is about who we are, why we do something, and what we want to be. It is never about where we are, what position we hold, or the like. That would be another interesting topic: the Christian congregation and authority!

A VERY IMPORTANT DAY

About 3,500 years ago (around 1500 B.C.), God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt — which was the world power of that time — through Moses. The Egyptians had made the lives of the Israelites extremely bitter. (Exodus 1:8–14) Who, actually, are the Israelites? They are descendants of Abraham, who is described in the Bible as the "friend of God." God judged Egypt with many plagues and gave Israel laws that they were required to keep. One of these laws was the Passover Feast. This day was to be preserved in their memory — a reminder that God had freed them from captivity. It is a day the Israelites were to hold in the highest regard. (Exodus 12:1–14) According to the Jewish calendar, it was to be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan. How can one calculate this date? I am no expert in this field, but I would like to briefly explain how the date can be calculated based on what I know from the Bible. Strangely, it seems difficult to grasp or complicated to many. Admittedly, it is somewhat complicated if one has no knowledge of it. Just as the path of the Earth around the Sun can be calculated, so too can the orbital period of the Moon around the Earth be calculated. The laws of the universe are therefore very reliable. (Genesis 1:14) There is something I must emphasize here: it is impossible for anyone to calculate today's date precisely to the minute or hour. And no one knows with certainty in which year Jesus was killed. We therefore wish to commemorate this day just as the Israelites and Jesus did in their time. In truth, it is not so difficult that one could not work it out oneself. The Israelites did not use a solar calendar as we do, but a lunar calendar. According to the Jewish calendar, the year begins in spring, and each month begins with the new moon. The month of Nisan is the first month in the Jewish calendar. (Exodus 12:2) Therefore, the 14th of Nisan (Exodus 12:6; Numbers 28:16) must always fall on a date after the beginning of spring — that is, after March 21st, which is also the vernal equinox. With the lunar calendar, a correction must be made every few years, similar to our own calendar system (in our calendar system a leap year is added every 4 years; in the lunar calendar, an entire month is inserted). What is decisive for our calculation is always the new moon that falls closest to the vernal equinox. Based on my research, among the Israelites the month always began with the appearance of the crescent moon — that is, one day after the new moon's emergence. If we take that day as the 1st of Nisan, then reaching the 14th of the month is simply a matter of counting forward 13 days. In the year 2008, for example, the new moon falls on March 7th and April 6th. If we were to calculate from March 7th, we would arrive at the 21st of the month — a date before the start of spring — and so that does not work. It should never fall on or before March 21st; that is the key to the calculation. So in 2008, one takes the day after April 6th as the 1st of Nisan. According to this calculation, the date of the memorial meal falls on March 24th, because in that year (2005) the new moon closest to March 21st falls on March 10th. This is how I have understood it from the Bible — not so much how the lunar calendar is calculated, but that it should be commemorated at a specific time each year. As with many other topics, one may be mistaken here too, and so no one should say: "I know best; only I have the truth." Even though we attach importance to the accuracy of this date in order to follow Jesus' instructions, what is far more important is the significance we assign to the meaning of this special day. In the calculation, errors can happen — as they have happened to me. Based on these calculations, this day should fall on the following dates in the following years: Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Monday, April 2, 2007; Sunday, April 20, 2008; Thursday, April 9, 2009; Monday, March 29, 2010; Sunday, April 17, 2011; Thursday, April 5, 2012; Monday, March 25, 2013; Sunday, April 13, 2014; Friday, April 3, 2015; Wednesday, March 23, 2016; Tuesday, April 11, 2017; Saturday, March 31, 2018; Friday, April 19, 2019; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Saturday, March 27, 2021; Friday, April 15, 2022; Tuesday, April 4, 2023; Sunday, March 24, 2024; Saturday, April 12, 2025; Thursday, April 2, 2026; Monday, March 22, 2027; Sunday, April 9, 2028; Thursday, March 29, 2029; Tuesday, April 16, 2030 … and so on. I would like to add something here. According to Jewish reckoning of that time, the day did not begin at midnight as we are accustomed, but at 6 p.m. This understanding also underlies the writing of the Bible. In some older translations, this confuses the reader — just as is the case with weights or lengths, so it is also with the beginning of day and night. Thus, in 2018 the new moon falls on March 17th, though at what location on Earth I do not know — it begins at 14:14 hours and 19 seconds. For this reason, some Jewish calendars begin the first day of the month of Nisan/April at 6 p.m. on March 17th. To this day I have never calculated the new moon to the precise hour, and on top of that, the day began at 6 p.m. I cannot even say that this constitutes an error. This is why some arrive, for example in 2018, at March 30th. Under this understanding, one would possibly need to adjust the dates listed above as well — but I will not do so. It is sometimes very difficult to determine at what exact hour and at what location the new moon occurs. When consulting Jewish calendars, one cannot always follow how they arrived at their date. As with many other religions. I will therefore continue to use only the day as the guideline for my new moon calculation. May God judge and forgive us according to our sincerity.

What do these things have to do with us? Are we Israelites? First and foremost, we must emphasize something. Whatever God did, whoever he spoke to through his prophets — in reality he said and did it for all of humanity. We must not forget that. If in the past God spoke to the Israelites, or to the Greeks, or to the Arabs, we cannot say: I am none of those. It may be that those people belonged to this or that nation; but God does not look at nationality when he enters into contact with human beings. His words are beneficial to all of humanity and are there to be read, to be understood, and can lead us to salvation. He chose one nation on the entire earth as an example in order to fulfill his purpose in this way. We should therefore set aside the nationalism and similar patriotic feelings with which the world seeks to infect us. (Deuteronomy 29:14)

What is this Passover Feast? Who was required to celebrate it? As mentioned above, the Passover Feast is a remembrance of the day the Israelites were freed from Egypt. The feast also had rules. This subject is addressed in Exodus 12, where God explains in detail how it is to be celebrated. On the day when all the firstborn of the Egyptians were killed by God, Israel was spared. At the Passover Feast they were to slaughter the lamb and roast it. Only on that day — so that their firstborn would remain alive and so that the angel of destruction would not enter their houses — they were additionally to smear the blood on the doorposts. (Exodus 12:21–23) They were to eat their meal dressed and in great haste. In this way they were to remember the day. For in the morning they had left Egypt in great haste. Without going into all the details now, one can say that it was a law for all of Israel; they all had to celebrate it. A foreigner was not permitted to eat of the flesh. And if a resident alien wanted to celebrate the Passover for God, the male members of his household had to be circumcised. Only then was he permitted to approach and celebrate it. (Exodus 12:43–44, 48)

What about the Israelites? Were all of them permitted to eat of it? Yes, all of them — all of Israel, with its priests, high priests, Levites, even the very poor who belonged to the least significant tribe of Israel, were permitted to eat of it: "The whole assembly of Israel shall celebrate it," God says in Exodus 12:47. On the contrary, if an Israelite were to deliberately refrain from eating of it, it would have meant his death. (Numbers 9:1–13)

This law has been in force for nearly 1,500 years. It is still practiced among Jews who do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Does this mean that those who believe in Jesus as the Messiah should not celebrate this day? That is precisely what this treatise is about. The Passover sacrifice pointed forward to Jesus' ransom sacrifice. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

Shortly before Moses died, he said the following: "A prophet like me Jehovah your God will raise up for you from your own midst, from your own brothers; to him you should listen." He spoke these words prophetically about Jesus — Deuteronomy 18:15. In the Gospel of John 1:17 it says: For the LAW was given through Moses, but undeserved kindness and truth came through Jesus Christ. Why did Moses compare himself to Jesus and not to the many other prophets? Moses was a mediator who rescued the Israelites from captivity and slavery. And Jesus rescues us from the slavery of death. We are enslaved to death because through our sins we are unable to keep God's laws. God indicated through his prophets that the Law pointed toward Jesus. The one — Moses — freed people from slavery; and the other — Jesus Christ — freed us from the slavery of death. In John 3:16 it says: For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Those who call themselves Muslims and Jews do not believe in the Bible verses cited above. With such an attitude, they accomplish nothing other than bringing upon themselves God's wrath. Muslims justify this because the Quran states (Surah 4, for example — The Women — verses 171–172): God is to be praised, and one should not place a son beside him as God. With these verses, the Quran intended to warn Christians not to make Jesus alongside the Almighty God into a God. Christianity prays to Jesus as though he were an almighty God. Because they have read in the Gospel that between God and Jesus there exists a relationship like that of father and son. This father-son relationship does not give us the right to turn one God (the Almighty) into multiple almighty Gods! However, God also refers to all the angels as sons of God — and not only that; God even said of the imperfect Israelites in Deuteronomy 14:1: "Sons of Jehovah your God you are." (and 2 Corinthians 6:18) With the verses cited above, God wishes to show how close he is to his creatures. But that does not mean that we should worship them! (Revelation 22:8–9) While Christians go astray on this subject, Muslims go astray in their interpretation of the Quran. With their mistaken understanding, they then nullify the entire Bible by completely denying the father-son relationship. In doing so, they go in a different direction — but one that is equally wrong.

Before examining such details, however, let us briefly touch on a few of the religions' errors in a general way. On the day before the people celebrated Passover, Jesus was killed. That is precisely the day on which the Israelites were freed from Egypt. On the 14th of Nisan/Abib (April), sometimes at the full moon. (In the East they used a lunar calendar; in Europe a solar calendar.) (... Jesus did not eat the Passover with the Last Supper, as the entirety of Christian teaching has believed and as translations have led people to think. It is a false teaching, and it has led to confusing translations — John 13:1–2; 18:28)

Jesus said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." John 6:53

What does this mean? Sin came through Adam, comparable to a contagious disease that leads to death. Romans 5:12 says: That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned.

The Quran gives us an explanation. After Adam sinned, God said in Surah 2:38: "…Get out of here, all of you! And when guidance comes to you from Me, whoever follows My guidance — no fear shall come upon them, and neither shall they grieve." By "guidance" here, it is clear — as Moses also said — that Jesus is meant. Surah 3:59 says: See, Jesus is before God as Adam … in a similar verse, Surah 20:122.

We have emphasized that Moses said similar words about Jesus when he declared: "A prophet like me." With these prophecies, God pointed to a savior. Neither Muhammad nor any other prophet said that he was the savior or the Messiah. (Surah 72:21) But Jesus is the Messiah — the savior. That he is the Messiah is mentioned multiple times in the Quran. In the Quran, Jesus is the only person who is resurrected from the dead and exalted to God. (Surah 3:55)

For through one man came death, and again through a human sacrifice came everlasting life. Romans 5:19 and 6:10 and 23 say: For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man many will be made righteous… For [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to God… For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.

The day on which Jesus died for us is one that we must and should hold in the highest regard. On the evening when Jesus and his disciples were eating together, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after saying a blessing, he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said: "Take, eat! This means my body." He also took a cup, and after giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying: "Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26–28)

Let us recall what Jesus said: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53–54) Of course, the wine and the bread are represented symbolically here. What is being conveyed is that Jesus presented himself as a sacrifice for the salvation of all who believe in him. The God who cannot lie said to Adam: "If you eat from the tree, you will die." These words could not be taken back. According to God's justice, someone like Adam — perfect — would have to sacrifice himself in order for Adam's sin to be forgiven. That is why in the Gospel and in the Quran, Jesus is compared to Adam. God created Adam perfect — perfect, but with free will. Not only Adam, but all of God's heavenly creatures as well God created perfect, yet with free will. That is why not just any human being could sacrifice himself for Adam. It would have to be someone who was just as perfect as Adam. That is why Jesus had no human, biological father. And his birth did not occur in a natural way. The Holy Scriptures indicate that he had already lived in heaven and that God created him first. John 1:1 and 14 says: In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was a god… So the WORD became flesh and resided among us.

John was obviously speaking about Jesus. Here Jesus is presented as a god, which is why even the Jews accused him of making himself out to be a God and wanted to stone him for it. Jesus knew they had misunderstood him and said: The Jews answered him: "We are not stoning you for a fine work, but for blasphemy — because you, although you are a man, make yourself a god." Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your LAW: 'I said: "You are gods"? If he called those people "gods" against whom the word of God came — and the scripture cannot be nullified — do you say to me, whom the Father sanctified and sent forth into the world: 'You blaspheme,' because I said: I am God's Son?"

We cannot address all the evidence here, for we wish to keep this treatise as concise as possible.

In our day, Christians celebrate it with rabbits and eggs. They do all sorts of things that Jesus never said and never asked for. By now these come in every color and form — sweets are produced especially for Easter. With such things, they have managed to lead people in the wrong direction. Nobody knows what any of that has to do with Jesus' death. People who have knowledge of such matters know very well that these are pagan customs. But we wish to commemorate and honor this day as Jesus said, according to God's will.

Who is permitted to drink from the wine and eat from the bread? Above we spoke about the origin of the feast. The Israelites were to hold it as a memorial celebration of their liberation from captivity. God's intention from the beginning was that this celebration should point forward to the death of Jesus and make clear its significance. Not only were all the Israelites permitted to eat of the sacrifice, but foreigners could also participate and eat, provided they had themselves circumcised. And what does Jesus say about this? Who should drink his blood and eat his flesh? Everyone. Did he have a particular class in mind? Yes — everyone who exercises faith in him and afterward lives worthily.

Christianity has taken this matter to excess. They celebrate it not only once a year, but even daily or weekly, and everyone takes part. Of course, no one can be prevented from eating of the symbols. But just as the Passover Feast had a rule, so too does this Lord's Evening Meal have a rule that we cannot and indeed must not ignore. What were they? Just as in the time of the Passover the condition was circumcision, so today the condition is baptism. This baptism signifies that we die to our sins as we go under the water, and rise to a new life that we then live for God as we come up out of the water.

We are all sinners — this we must be aware of. The Apostle John shows that not all sin is equal. 1 John 5:17 says: All unrighteousness is sin, and yet there is a sin that does not lead to death. This means there is a difference between sins as well. We all sin. But sin that does not lead to death is not an obstacle to participating in the symbols. If we are leading a life worthy of Jesus Christ, we must absolutely eat and drink of the symbols. It is a great impertinence when someone refuses to take the symbols, or forbids others to do so.

What is meant in 1 Corinthians 11:27? There it says: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty with respect to the body and the blood of the Lord. In short: whoever leads a life unworthy of a Christian. Such a person should not take the symbols — even if they are present at the celebration, they should not take of the symbols. Of course, if someone repents, turns back, and gives up their sins, they can once again take of the symbols.

What kinds of conduct would make us "unworthy"? It is well known, for example, that soldiers are blessed by clergy before going to war, that Mafia members go to church before carrying out their assignments, and so forth. According to Jesus' teaching, we can of course never regard such people as worthy of drinking his blood or eating of his body. "…so that they did things that are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greediness, and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless. Although these know full well the righteous decree of God — that those practicing such things are deserving of death — they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them." (Romans 1:28–32)

To our knowledge, the so-called Witnesses are the only ones among Christians who do not take the symbols. It appears that they themselves do not regard themselves as worthy — consciously or unconsciously. According to their understanding of the Bible, only those people who will reign in heaven with Jesus Christ are permitted to take the symbols. In their view, this means that Jesus' blood and flesh were sacrificed only for these 144,000 people. Interestingly, the Bible does not make even the slightest suggestion in this direction. With this belief, they forbid all their members in the congregation from taking the symbols. It is a great impertinence toward the blood and body of Jesus. But the members must believe what their organization tells them. Otherwise they will be disfellowshipped, and then no one will speak to or associate with them. (Because the Bible says so — no wonder; they killed Jesus too, according to God's law!) Just as soldiers, officials, and police in every country are obedient to their superiors, so too are the Witnesses obedient to their organization — and they say so with pride! It is obvious that many people enjoy being robots.

Something we must not forget: when it comes to doing bad things, people are very obedient and bold; but when it comes to doing what is good, just, and right, they are skeptical, fearful, and very slow.

The Jews give the honor to Moses, the Christians to Jesus, the Muslims to Muhammad, and the Witnesses to their organization — instead of to God. Although they are all truly this way, they still hate those who point it out. They have given honor to everyone except God. This is something Moses, Muhammad, and Jesus never said or demanded. If they have laid this yoke upon themselves as a burden, what are we to say? But we must never forget: whoever we honor and whoever we fear — that is from whom we will receive our reward.

When and how often is it to be celebrated? After sunset (Exodus 12:10; Deuteronomy 16:6; Leviticus 23:5; Matthew 26:20). Just as they did it back then, we should commemorate this day with humility and reverence.

It is quite possible that some of you are encountering this for the very first time while reading this, and that the thought is entirely new. That is fine — but you have until next year, a full year, to prepare yourselves spiritually and to keep God's commandments. It does not matter now what you have done up until now, who you are, what nation you belong to, or how old you are — we should all learn what God's will is, repent of our sins, and be baptized, so that together in these days next year we may eat Jesus' blood (wine) and body (bread), thereby showing that we value Jesus' death. Show through your actions that you live for God.

Among other things, 1 Corinthians 11:23–28 is often misunderstood because people think that Paul is here giving them permission to celebrate the Passover as often as they wish. The phrase "as often as you do this" is taken by many to mean that Christians may take bread and wine whenever they please. The correct explanation of these words is found in verse 24. Please note that the Passover is a memorial, a commemoration. "Commemorations" are held annually. Verse 26 shows that this commemoration refers to the "death of the LORD," which took place at the Passover (recall 1 Corinthians 5:7, which shows that Christ is our Passover). In ancient Israel, the Passover was always held once a year. Verse 28 shows that the Passover memorial celebration — requiring prior, careful self-examination — could not logically be performed daily or weekly, even if a person had preferred to do it often. (Leviticus 23:4–5; Numbers 9:2–3; Mark 14:12)

And particularly noteworthy — and finally: even Christ himself says in Matthew 26:29 that he would no longer take the "Lord's Evening Meal" until he returned to the earth, to his Kingdom. However, Luke writes in 24:30 that at a later time Jesus is seen sitting at table to eat with his disciples. He broke bread and blessed it on that occasion. This means that Jesus explicitly said he would not celebrate it again as long as he was on earth with his disciples — yet he afterward broke bread with them again. Therefore, "breaking bread" simply means eating together. The problem is rather that people have chosen a side and defend that side regardless of what arguments stand against it. To admit that one is wrong even on a single point means betrayal of one's own side — as if one were betraying one's country, one's homeland, one's family. This is why people cannot think and decide clearly. I know this feeling all too well.

"Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved……" Acts 4:12

When was the last time Jesus ate the Passover? Most people would answer "one day before his death," which is incorrect. We will try to explain why that is wrong. And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples: You know that after two days the Passover comes… Matthew 26:1-2. Now after two days was the Passover and the feast of unleavened bread… Mark 14:1. Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Passover. Luke 22:1. Jesus therefore came to Bethany six days before the Passover, where Lazarus was, who had died, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. John 12:1. The words of John seem to contradict the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What did John really mean, or is there a translation error? Yes, it is mistranslated through faulty interpretation. Although Matthew and Mark report "the Passover feast after two days," Luke says "the feast is approaching." John surprises the reader with the words "six days before the Passover." According to the Bible in the original Greek texts, the words of John should carry the following meaning: "Now Jesus came to Bethany, where he had raised Lazarus, who had died, six days before the Passover." In fact, Jesus comes to the village of Lazarus, where he had raised him from the dead six days before the Passover. When does he come, according to John 12:1? According to John's account, we do not know. John views the event from a different angle and provides different details than the other Gospels. With this he does not intend to say, as almost all Bible translations render John 12:1, "Jesus came to Bethany six days before the Passover." Of course, every translator knows this difference. They translated it that way in accordance with false doctrine and commentaries. Unfortunately, this is not the only problem of this kind. As can be seen in other verses, there are clearly false teachings and misunderstood translations that have been produced over the centuries through the force of established practices and interpretations. Now on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him: Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover? (Matthew 26:17). Nearly all translations, including those of Mark's Gospel, have indicated a mistaken time. Some Bible translations provide footnotes for "on the first day": Alt.: "On the day before [the . . . bread]." This rendering of the Greek word πρῶτος (prṓtos), followed by the genitive of the next word, is consistent with the sense and with the rendering of a similar construction in John 1:15, 30, namely: "He existed before [prṓtos] me." According to Bauer, col. 1439, "πρῶτος [can] stand for πρότερος [próteros]." Cf. LSJ, p. 1535. In reality, the sentence should have been translated: "Before the first day of unleavened bread, the disciples came to Jesus and said: Where do you want us to prepare for you to eat the Passover?" By contrast, John 13:1 reads: "Before the feast of the Passover…" The translation and the wording here shed clear light on our overall understanding and are in harmony with all the Gospels. "And during supper, the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him." John 13:2. This makes it unmistakably clear that this meal cannot be a Passover meal. Just one verse earlier it states plainly, "Before the feast of the Passover." What am I saying with all these explanations? Based on the understanding that the Christian world has arrived at, and the interpretations made through these interpretations, we believe that the last supper Jesus ate was the Passover feast. The evidence I will present to you will show that this is simply not the case and cannot be. In certain places Jesus speaks to his disciples about how much he desires to eat the Passover meal with them: "And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer." (Luke 22:15; Luke 22:8). His words might give the impression that he ate it on the last day. Yet Jesus does not eat a Passover meal — he was killed on that very day. Let us look at the events more closely. Jesus and his disciples go to a house to prepare the Passover. At the Passover feast, all the men of Israel were to gather at the place God had appointed, that is, in Jerusalem. After sunset, the sacrificial animals had to be slaughtered, and everyone was to eat the Passover meal in a house. After 6 o'clock in the evening, the seven-day feast began. The first and seventh days were like the Sabbath, on which no work was to be done (Leviticus 23:3-8). We also read, when we look at the Gospels, that the religious leaders and the people were in constant haste on the day Jesus was killed. (John 19:31; Mark 15:42-43; Deuteronomy 21:22-23). If Jesus had eaten the Passover on the evening before, the following morning would have been a feast day, and no one could have been executed, just as on the Sabbath. After supper, Jesus is arrested with his disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane and questioned until the early morning hours. (Matthew 26:36; 27:1; Mark 14:32; 15:1). Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the governor's hall. Now it was early. And they themselves did not enter the governor's hall, so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. (John 18:28). So the Passover meal had not yet been eaten. In fact, this feast had been celebrated for nearly 1,500 years, and the Passover sacrifice pointed to Jesus Christ. Let us read what is written in Hebrews: For the law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things… Hebrews 10:1. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10. In light of all this, Jesus Christ must have died completely on the 14th of April according to the Jewish calendar, because he himself was the Passover sacrifice. If it had been after the Passover meal, it would have been the 15th of April, which was a feast day, and the people would not have been hanged after the feast meal — and that would disrupt the harmony with the prophecy of the entire Bible. (Deuteronomy 21:23; John 19:31). In short, the meal on the last evening was not the eating of the Passover feast. There are many more verses, but at the very least there are numerous translation errors that clearly do not fit the events as described in this edition. The most precise and straightforward understanding is found in the translations of the Gospel of John (13:1-2). From this example it is clear that the counsel of the Spirit of God is in the right place. My son, if you receive my words and store up my commandments with you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom and apply your heart to understanding; if you call out for insight and raise your voice for understanding, if you seek it like silver and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of the LORD (YHWH) and find the knowledge of God. Proverbs 2:1-5

Author of the book: Ihsan Kiper. "Certain/Some Rights Reserved" — no alterations to the book may be made without the consent of the author. However, it may be freely redistributed without changes, as widely as desired, at no cost. § 303a Data Tampering: (1) Whoever unlawfully deletes, suppresses, renders unusable, or alters data (§ 202a para. 2) shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or a fine. (2) The attempt is punishable. (3) For the preparation of an offense pursuant to paragraph 1, § 202c applies accordingly. Also § 303b Computer Sabotage.