Friday night textbook fun

This one's easy. The first comment recites what Jesus' followers believed about him. It does not present the story as fact, but as opinion. The second describes the revelations of Muhammad as fact, not to be questioned.

Robert - you owe me a beer!

This is too easy for regular readers of this site because you have been too good in your educational efforts, Robert. You had better have a good deal lined up with a beer distributor. You're going to need it!

Posted by: Ernie Banks at October 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Agreed. That was far too easy, but the point is well-made.

Just today a co-worker showed me homework his son had. His teacher seems preoccupied with politics and presented a factbook of the policy differences between the two presidential candidates, skewing reality of course with several references to McCain's positions with "just like George Bush" and other transgressions.

They actually hold mock votes in class and my friend says the teacher refers to his son as my little Republican friend.

The boy is 9 years old.

Particularly piquant in light of the fact that Donald Kagan, Professor of History Emeritus at Yale, is the father of several well-known writers on world affairs, one of whom is an editor of "The Weekly Standard." One would have thought, given the enormous efforts being made by Muslims to control what is written about Islam, and matters connected to Islam, in textbooks all over the Western world, that authors would take care to read over how their final manuscript reads. Kagan, and no doubt his fellow authors, will not be happy to discover what has been done to intimate that he accepts, and willingly conveys, the received-version of Islamic belief, while merely transmitting "what Christians believe."

There must be more here, and there is -- all over this land. Authors, protest, demand corrections, demand an investigation into how this happens. Raise holy hell.

Exactly. Hearsay vs. established fact.

I found something different.

Jesus' message was universal - to redeem humanity and to bring immortality to those who believed in him and followed his way.

Muhammad's message was for Arabs only - the basic message Muhammad received was a summons to all Arabs to submit to God's will.

Good one Robert. This one will go out to family and friends.

I saw a college textbook just like this four or five years ago. Everything about Jesus was presented as the belief of His followers; everything about Mighty Mo was presented as absolute fact. At the time, I couldn't decide if the authors were fearful of giving offense, or if they were just anti-western. Obviously now, it's both.

I find myself flipping through my sons' history books to see what is written about all major world religions. Everything better say "follower of fill-in-the-blank believe" or the textbook is not just coming under fire, but going into the fire as well.

first passage states the Gospels as a belief whereas the second passage states the 'revelations' to muhammad as fact.

I like Warsteiner Dunkel. I'll buy the 2nd round.

My son went to an Anglican school. In newsletters etc the word "Bible" usually had a small "b".
"Dreaming" - that is the Aboriginal belief about their origins - had a large "D" and was taught as fact. By the way, why does Hugh always use a small "g" for "God"? When taliking abot "a god" it makes sense but "God" is a name. Just wondering.

If the writers of the text books are not Muslims, this is really demonic stuff. I can understand some biased Muslim plugging the truth of his/her religion, but if the secularists are attempting to downplay Christianity and promote Islam, it really makes me have new appreciation for all those Evangelicals and their spiritual warfare talk.

Something evil is afoot.

Passage #2 was likely required by Prentice Hall's Islamic masters, whereas was passage #1 was permitted by them.

I was thinking that this is what Robert might be alluding to, the idea that a third party reported "what God said and did". Without the context of the second passage, we can't be sure as to how distanced they claim Islam was reported.

That is, whether he was a madman or not, Mo said he began to receive revelations through this Angel Gabriel. Then it goes on to say they were collected after his death. That seems to indicate that it was put together after the fact. They also say "at irregular intervals" which puts more doubt into it from a reader's point of view.

On the other hand, they state that Jesus' resurrection was proof of his teachings [to the writers]. It seems like an if/then.

The whole thing seems relatively fair handed.

I can't get over how opposed the two figures are in actions and teachings, actually. They are antithetical.

Jesus teachings are profound. Muhammad seemed to just spout off laws, or questions that raised a point, and then hammered it home with the proper law-binding action. One is about human nature and denial, while the other is about constructionist appeasement.

If there are any Muslims that look on this board, I'd be curious to see a) if they trust anything the Bible says regarding Jesus and b) why the two figures are opposed in action, word, and thought.

I want a really thoughtful answer (or even attempt) not just some imam inspired "this is the real Jesus" blah blah blah.

The most ironic thing of this whole inter-faith dialogue is that if the Christians are lying, they've created a God that was innocent, blameless, unbelievably profound, and against personal violence/for self denial/against longing for material things and spoils.

Muhammad was all about those things. They were from pretty similar cultures regarding communities, tribes, imperial powers etc. Yet Muhammad ends up, 600 years later, to be SO different.

I'm trying really hard to even imagine how Muslims respond to this.

Always socratic,

Palamas

Oops, nix the second "was" in my post above.

Bill Ayers et al are the new Mohamed.

PG wrote:

By the way, why does Hugh always use a small "g" for "God"? When taliking abot "a god" it makes sense but "God" is a name. Just wondering.

Posted by: PG at October 24, 2008 6:26 PM

PG, Hugh is an athiest. That, I imagine is why.

Robert, good lesson, but I wish you would get out more! I'll buy you a (several) beers. Dos Equis?

Actually, the 2 paragraphs are the same in that they are islamic teachings related to Christianity and islam. Unfortunately, spouting islamic teachings of islam and other religions is doing our students a huge disservice and parents need to keep tabs on their childrens' textbooks.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63872

and

http://sixthcolumn.typepad.com/duckwalls/2008/06/more-on-biased.html

And, yes, James Martel, there is spiritual warfare going on all over the place and on many different fronts.

And from Family Security Matters

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/authors/id.88/author_detail.asp

There's no denying that passage #2, as quoted, is written from the perspective of a literalist Muslim believer, while passage #1 is written from a more objective stance.

Without the book, I wouldn't be able to rule out that there might be something before or after passage # 2, in its original context, that says "Muslims believe," or "according to Islamic tradition," thus qualifying the contents of the passage # 2. While I do believe that Robert has quoted this fairly--because anything I've seen him quote from the Quran, Hadith, etc., is quoted fairly--I would have a hard time using passage #2 as quoted to convince someone who needs convincing that this textbook is biased.

"Actually, the 2 paragraphs are the same in that they are islamic teachings related to Christianity and islam." --eve_anne_gelical

Good point, eve_anne_gelical. I suggested that passage #1 was written from an objective perspective, but taking both passages together--which is fair because they are written or at least approved by the same author(s)--both could have been written by a literalist Muslim believer.*

*Or someone who writes as though they are of that perspective, perhaps for other non-religious ideological reasons.

I've always wanted to meet Robert, and now if I ever get the opportunity I know just what to say:

"You owe me a beer, Bob."

It's a good thing this blog is worth $2,716,001.94.

Robert, I would be delighted to buy you a beer to thank you for your excellent work in producing this site. Every day you provide us with better armour and more ammunition.

Very simple. The top passage discusses Jesus as if claims about him aren't an objective truth. In the lower passed claims about Muhammed are reported as fact.

Slowly but surely while the apathetic sleep will the alien dictates disturb their slumber.

By that time, the sleep being rubbed from the eyes of the slumbering will be met with kicks to their teeth.

The nightmare will then commence forthwith.

Way too easy. Ready for the next test. Only a dhimmi apologist for Islam, in the Karen Armstrong mode, or a devout Muslim who would think that everything in this account is exactly right, would be clueless. The depressing thing, though, is that this would add up to something like two billion people.

Passage #1: True
Passage #2: False

Budweiser, please. Thanks for playing.

Wellington,

Amigo, I think you're being too exclusive. How many typical parents who only take a peripheral interest in the minutia of their children's school-work would even notice the contrast? How many people are not necessarily dhimmis, but just have no knowledge or interest in issues like this? I guess we could call them 'dhimmis-in-waiting'.

When all is said and done, we could easily double that 2 billion.

AMerican parents MUST write to the publishers objecting to this 'historical' writing. Either the author/s is/are a Muslim, or a Saudi whore, or being blackmailed to present Islam as a matter of fact and Christianity as a matter for only the Gospel writers and later, the believers.

This is easy, the first passage comes from a religious text whose flexibility and intent is capable ( under the right circumstances) of producing a fairly just, honest and industrious society. The second passage comes from a warlords manual, a cynical set of societal manipulations based on hijacked bits and pieces from Judaism and Christianity compounded with an unhealthy demand for rape, butchery and theft on national and continental scales as an entrance fee to paradise.

Garrison Brown Ale (you may have to import it)

1) Holy Trinity

2) Demonic Duo

I prefer Cadillac Margaritas - make it a double #/#

Cornelius: You put a dent in my optimism. I was thinking merely two billion and you proffer four. Holy hell, you could be right and so it's worse than I thought. Think I'll mull this one over with a good beer. Catch you later.

One would naturally assume that the title of the book actually has something to do with its content.

The first quotation is actually about "The Western Heritage."

The second is not.

You owe me a beer. But I'll buy you one any time you like.

Passage 1 presents Jesus' divinity and revelation as human inventions, or at most, the subjective belief of the authors of the Bible.

Passage 2 presents mohammed's "revelations" and conversations with an angel as fact -- historical fact no less. And the word "revelations" isn't even in scare quotes in the authors' text.

This is straight up mohammedan propaganda, no question about it.

The author's of this fraudulent "history" book should be tarred, feathered, flogged and then sued into bankruptcy.

Then they can go get jobs in some madrassa, preferably in the back hills of Absurdistan, where their talents will be put to their proper use.

Can you spot the difference between these two passages? If you can, I'll buy you a beer.
............................

Robert--JW readers are mostly pretty smart--I think you'd be buying a lot of beer! Luckily, I think most of us would rather buy *you* a beer, in thanks to all your excellent work against the Jihad--books, the JW website, lectures and interviews around the country.

I'm hoisting a virtual cold one in your honor.

from the article:

Both are from The Western Heritage...
........................

It's a small point, perhaps, but does anyone else here really consider Islam to be, in any substantive way, part of "The Western Heritage"?

Part of the "Western Heritage"? Yes - in that we inherited a hole where there used to be magnificent buildings called the "twin towers".

Not to mention 3,000 or so who were killed there.

Actually Robert, anytime you are in Vienna I'LL buy you the beer (Edelweiss) as you enjoy excellent cuisine.

First of all...

Jesus is Alive.

Muhammad is dead.

The textbook said so.

Now, the rest of the story.

Pt 1

"The authors of the Gospels believed Jesus was the son of God and that he has come into the world to redeem humanity and to bring immortality to those who believed in him and followed his way."

Pt 2

"The basic message Muhammad received was a summons to all Arabs to submit to God's will."

By this statement alone (in Pt. 2) , the entire reference to the Quran and Islam is nullified in this book (the Western Heritage). Arab religion, as stated by this textbook should have no logical part of 'Western Heritage'.

Because part 1 is referenced as past tense "belief" (by the confused or lying authors I would assume) and part 2 is written as factual information, the authors are contributing to furtherance of the cause of the 'Stealth Jihad' by promoting the assumption advocated by fundamentalist Muslims that all of mankind have been born into Islam and walked away from it- and therefore need to be brought back (or killed).

The authors continued use of the term "the gospel authors believed" implies that the authors of the book do not necessarily agree with the position of the Gospel authors, while at the same time the prose in Pt. 2 is written in a confirming, authoritative tone, which is intended as tacit approval (especially to young, impressionable minds).

I find it hilarious that the authors of 'Western Heritage' had the audacity to write "[T]o the gospel writers Jesus' resurrection was striking proof of his teachings."

Ummm, 'Western Heritage',.....Jesus said, "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it again". The way you wrote that sentence in your textbook, you imply that (a) He is risen, and that (b) you do not find that 'striking'(to use your own terms).

How many other 'figures' in His story have promised not only their death, but also their resurrection--and delivered?

NONE

Not even the 'seal of the prophets' prophesied about or promised his resurrection- or delivered on any other 'miracle' for that matter--except for the streams of water shooting out of his fingers.....but then again, who really saw that happen either?

Jesus, the Messiah, the One that Moses promised the Jews that God would raise up from His own people- never encouraged or commanded His followers to show anything but love and compassion for His creation (whether beast or man)- i.e. "do not repay evil for evil, vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord"; whereas the self-proclaimed 'seal' told his followers that the only way to gain paradise and "allah's" good favor was to die or shed blood killing those that didn't submit to Muhammad's allah.

Muhammad said "war is deceit".

Jesus said, "Satan is the father of lies.....who prowls around like an angry lion looking to devour man's souls"......

Very much like the description of the 'angry' angel that Muhammad told Khadija that he met in the cave where he received his revelations......
oh, wait....Muhammad called him (the aforementioned Gabriel) Satan as well.

Muhammad demanded that he not be worshipped.

Jesus said, "come to Me you who are weary and heavy laden (from the weight of your sins), My burden is easy and my yoke is light."

Muhammad believed that paradise was achieved only under the shade of the sword.

Jesus said that, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me."

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner can keep their "Western Heritage", I will treasure my Heavenly Heritage that was purchased for me by the blood of My Savior on the Cross at Calvary.

Salvation is by faith alone in God's grace alone, not by works (this would include jihad), lest any man should boast.....

Way to easy, the first tells you that the followres of Christ believed in Jesus and what "he"tought.....no real mention as to where Jesus got his message
the second states that sloMo got his right from his god (not my G-D), via angles.....so there for it must be real........he did get it from angles, fallen ones,and allah thinks he is a god but just another run of the mill fallen angle!

Robert l think l have it, the first passage for Jesus, it quotes "Jesus was the son of God and that he has come into the world to redeem humanity"

Christianity was created for all mankind, with all being equal.

Where as Islam is created for Arabs, all other not equal as quoted "Muhammad received was a summons to all Arabs to submit to God's will. (p. 200)

You and Hugh point out how Islam has made Arabs the superior people over all others, why it has made its followers learn arabic and pray towards Mecca, etc.
l think you owe me a beer, but l since l dont drink beer, some other drink can do.

Comparing anything about Mohammad, with anything about Jesus, is giving Mohammad way to much credit.

Mohammad's name does not deserve to be up in lights.

Mohammad stole Jesus, Jesus did not steal Mohammad...Mohammad was a thief...

The insidious suggestion that the revelations in the Quran were real, but that the gospels were just what the writers 'believed'. A not-so-subtle way of promoting one religion at the expense of the other.

I, too would prefer to buy you a drink as a token of thanks for your valuable endeavours. As the Sunnis of Iraq had their awakening, so you have given us ours.
See you in your local one day, when I find 'undisclosed locationville' on the map.

I read the two passages to my non-JW reading spouse, and we both agreed the answer was so obvious we could have gotten it even after the beer. Or 3 or 4 of them ...

Robert,

What a bogus test! I can tell the difference between the two paragraphs presented, but I don't like beer!

Now, if you'll make that a Drambuie and soda on the rocks...

Passage 1 quantifies the statement with the word "believed" this reduces the context of the information to an opinion held by the "believers". It also relates that the scripture was written by "authors", such as a novel, or any other prose of fiction.

"The authors of the Gospels believed Jesus was the son of God"

Passage 2 quantifies the statement with the words, "receive revelations". This elevates the context of the information beyond opinion into a fact based upon a divine revelations. Therefore it relates that Mohammad was just a listener reciting divine knowledge given to him by a divine source. Mohammad is not the author, and since there is no author, other than God, then it is divine not fiction.

"[Muhammad] began to receive revelations from the angel Gabriel, who recited God's word to him at irregular intervals."

Passage one is relating non-biased information from a purely secular standpoint.

Passage two appears to have come right out of a Madrassa. Its message is non-secular.

Passage two is stealth jihad, because it is preaching Islamist dogma to unsuspecting children. It would be interesting to know whom the author was, and whom pays his bills.

Beer me now.

Question: I always seem to receive this blog a day late. Today's is datelined 10/24 at the top and then 10/25 just below. Most comments are dated 10/24 with the last dated 10/25 at 12:01 PM. What's up?

Enjoy the dialogue and would comment more often if I received it more timely.

Maybe Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner should have included this song for American children to stand and cover their hearts and pledge allegiance to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4fdgv5S7Pk&feature=related

If one follows the number of Atheist websites and groups from all over the world, the conclusion is that religion, all religions make people insane. Insane enough to murder other people and force them to submit to one's version of god. The Christian bible is not sacrosanct either. Fifty million people were murdered also in the name of the Christian god. Reading the Talmud, or the Old Testament...is a testament to racial cleansing, remains so today.

If you go to www.evilbible.com/murder ....you can see all the bible verses which are "cherry picked" out and at this time ignored by the christians, who present themselves as "loving, and tolerant." This phenomena of a "loving and tolerant" christianity is only a recent phenomena.

As a former christian, I continue to listen to these greasy-haired, money grubbing, snake-oil salesmen christian televangelists....who when the time is right, and its coming will, once again pull out those ignored bible verses which say to "kill the infidel." Why anyone knowledgeable of the books of the bible would believe christians are any different in dogma than the muslims is from pure ignorance.

Its not been but a few decades since Atheists were denied the right to vote; executed for being an Atheist, or for questioning anything about the bible; and as such, continue to be harassed in small towns and rural areas where christianity dominant. George Bush Sr. who I use to admire said "Atheists should not be allowed to vote and should be denied citizenship." Where did he get this?

In polling young people, about 25 to 35% of them don't believe in god, or don't believe in the god-myth of their parents and community, and many are concluding there is no god...and stating out right they are atheist. I suggest that if one wants further proof, go to YouTube.com and type in Atheist or Atheism and see the overwhelming number of confrontational Atheists who now are bucking the formerly sacrosanct religious system.

Much current research is going into what the founders of the US actually said in their private correspondence, and why "god" is not in the founding literature of the United States. The real secret coming to the forefront among many, is that the US was founded on Atheism.

The term "deism" if one reviews their history is not about the Hebrew or Christian god, but about nature. Nature as god. Deism is about all that the founders of the US could stomach when inserting the term "deism" for political reasons and to make the religious happy. Why? Because the founders of the United States were erudite, educated thinkers, very knowledgeable of history, and skeptics who knew full well the history of religious oppression in Europe and wanted none of it here...for good reason.

In one letter, Thomas Jefferson calls himself an atheist and an epicurian. He was often skewered in the popular press as an unbeliever and a spawn of the Devil.

George Washington never took communion and was never confirmed as a christian. He went to church because his wife demanded it. Washington would listen to the sermon then leave.

If you look at the grave markers of nearly all the American founders, there is no evidence of a christian cross or any religious symbols on their grave stones. Its obvious why, they like many of us today know that religion is irrelevant and most often dangerous and teaches people how to function irrationally. No matter how much one thinks they are a "peaceful" christian or whatever, the basis for murder against nonbelievers is set in stone in the "bible" and can be pulled out at any time and used against nonbelievers. Listening to christian radio and TV sermons, that time may come sooner than we expect.

And it gets better: Epidemiologists are now finding some statistical evidence and relevance to "religious belief" (beliefs involving fantasies and myths) bipolar and psychiatric disorders, and the Borna Virus.

Keep tuned...

Amazing how the first presents what Jesus followers believed about him while the second presents Muhammad's claims as fact.

Unbelievable.

I'll take a soda, since I don't care for beer.

“Reading the Talmud, or the Old Testament...is a testament to racial cleansing, remains so today.”

Bullshit.

“Why anyone knowledgeable of the books of the bible would believe christians are any different in dogma than the muslims is from pure ignorance.”

Bullshit.

The real secret coming to the forefront among many, is that the US was founded on Atheism.

Bullshit.

“No matter how much one thinks they are a "peaceful" christian or whatever, the basis for murder against nonbelievers is set in stone in the "bible" and can be pulled out at any time and used against nonbelievers.”

Bullshit.

“And it gets better: Epidemiologists are now finding some statistical evidence and relevance to "religious belief" (beliefs involving fantasies and myths) bipolar and psychiatric disorders, and the Borna Virus.”

Bullshit.

“Keep tuned...”

No.

My first post is that a few of you are overreacting to this, but I will say this:

Given the way the first is stated, the second should undeniably include, at least, that "Muhammad SAID he received messages from the Angel Gabriel"

That would be akin to the "authors believed ..."

DeeVee,

People here, myself included, would be willing to hear what you have to say. One thing you must refrain from is fanatical assertions or distortions (Virus? psychiatric disorders?). I'm a physician and I know this is not true. Psychiatrically it could never be even postulated as being anywhere mainstream because it doesn't a)affect people crazily nor b) is it nominally accepted or practiced.

God is trying to find man. Man has a Creator that if he wishes to pursue, may reveal himself in many ways. Not understanding this about human nature is silly. A major problem currently is that people worship creation but not its creator. However majestic these things can be, there are also fallen. Only God can (and has) redeemed them.

There is no doubt that many people are affected by false teachings and terrible leaders with reference to God. That is why one must seek truth, but still others aren't blamed for reacting badly to bad teachings. It is best to pursue all things before rejecting all things based on a few experiences with particular individuals.

butterfly and palamas

let's refer those who, like dee vee, think there is no difference between the core teachings of Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and of Islam, on the other, to Mr Spencer's brief and well-reasoned 'Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is, and Islam Isn't'.

The more philosophically and poetically inclined might also like to sample the writings of Franz Rosenzweig, Jewish religious philosopher, in particular 'The Star of Redemption', or (in French) Jacques Ellul's 'Les trois piliers du conformisme'.

Rosenzweig regarded Islam as a species of what he called paganism. Islam has 'one' god, not many, but the bare fact of its monotheism does not mean that its god has to be identified, in any way at all, with the god worshipped by Jews and by Christians. Muslim cosmology, theology, anthropology, ethics, are flatly opposed to the way in which Jews - and Christians - understand the world, the divine, and humanity.

(I would add that Islam's wholesale appropriation of Biblical persons and stories does not alter this point; rather, it exposes it, through the gross distortions to which those persons and stories are subjected, distortions necessitated or produced by the fact that they have been ripped from their biblical context and are being used to promote a totally alien worldview, a worldview that is not merely *different* from that of the Bible, but specifically *opposed* to it).

Ellul's essay, Les trois piliers du conformisme, 'The three pillars of conformity', makes mincemeat of the usual canards of interfaith 'dialogue' which are presented in order to support a 'kinship' or identity of some kind, between Jews and Christians, on the one hand, and Islam, on the other.

Toward the end, he observes: "contrary to what people have often put forward, Islam is *not* a “Christian heresy” but a religion resolutely *not Christian*".

And what he says at the end is worth placing here:

- Je conclurai donc cette breve etude, qui pourrait etre approfondie (mais on obtiendrait les memes resultats), en disant qu'il y a des ressemblances de *mots* entre la Revelation biblique et l'islam qui cachent la difference fondamentale.

"I would conclude, then, this brief study, which could have been deepened (but we would have gotten the same results), by saying that there are *verbal* resemblances between the Biblical Revelation and Islam, which conceal the fundamental difference [between them].

- Il est question de Dieu, de Tout-puissant, d'un seul Dieu, createur, d'Esprit, de Peche, de jugement suivi d'une resurrection, le tout contienu dans un livre revele.

"It is a question of God, the Almighty, of one God, creator, Spirit, Sin, judgement followed by a resurrection, all contained in a revealed book…

Tout cela conduit evidemment a considerer qu'il y a une grande proximite avec la Revelation biblique.

"All this obviously leads people to think that it [Islam] is very close to the Biblical Revelation.

Mai il ne s'agit que de mots, et il faut alors en preciser le sens, et l'on s'apercoit du fosse infranchissable entre les deux. La Ressemblance des mots cache totalement les oppositions, a la fois du Sens et de l'Etre.

"But it is nothing more than words, and so we have to define their meaning; and one becomes aware of the un-crossable gulf between the two [Christianity and Islam].

"The Resemblance of words completely conceals the fact that they are opposite in both Meaning and Substance."

The word "believed" in passage #1 colors the entire passage not as possible fact, but as fantasy.

The 2nd passage makes more use of active verbs - making the content appear to be fact rather than conjecture or fantasy.

The 1st passage uses more passive verbs, haveing the opposite effect as the active verbs.

If some students DO get stuck with this as a textbook I hope these 2 passages are used as a study in word choice and the resulting effects on readers' comprehension.

"having" not haveing ---- sorry

The only thing I can add to all this is... Mine's a James Boag's thanks.

Robert we have not heard from you about your answer to the question, has it been answered yet or close, or do you think there more than one answer? just curious.

Jesus stated that if you (as an anyone) believes in me, then you will have eternal life and peace.

Muhammad stated that only Arabs will have peace if they submit to Islam.

Does anyone know where angel Gabriel came from?