what are the suhuf of abraham?

But those will prosper who purify themselves, And glorify the name of their Guardian-Lord, and (lift their hearts) in prayer. Day (behold), ye prefer the life of this world; But the Hereafter is better and more enduring. And this is in the Books of the earliest (Revelation),- The Books of Abraham and Moses.  (87:14-19)

 Evangelical missionaries like to insist that the Quran simplistically affirms the Bible. For example they tend to claim that the Injil refers to the first four books of the New Testament and the Taurat refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. But I've never seen any of them give any kind of explanation (Compelling or otherwise) of what is meant by the Suhuf of Abraham mentioned in the 87th chapter of the Quran. One theory is that it refers to the Testament of Abraham which is considered scripture by Ethiopian Jews. Another is that it refers to the Sefer Yetzirah which is a mystical Jewish text related to Kabbalah.Either text suggests really provocative possibilities in terms of where Muslims can go to find possible past revelation.

New Advent: The Testament of Abraham

michael heiser on mosaic authorship of the torah

Michael S. Heiser is an interesting guy. He is a Christian Bible scholar who believes in a literal resurrection of Christ (as) but he still thoughtfully engages with modern Biblical scholarship in a nuanced way. And while he doesn't believe in the full on Documentary Hypothesis, he still has a pretty radical view when it comes to Mosaic authorship of the Torah: Here is a summary in his own words:

My take is that we don’t have four sources writers with competing agendas. Rather, there was a Mosaic core, patriarchal traditions that began as oral history, a national history, rules for priests and Levites, and a primeval history section. This sounds a bit like sources, but it’s not quite the same. By way of a simplistic summary (this is just a loose description; I haven’t systematized this, since I find so many other things more interesting):

1. Israelites before Moses preserve the patriarchal traditions via oral history.

2. The above traditions pre-date arrival in the land, but got written down after Israel arrived at the land (at some point). That is, I don’t think Moses was writing them down during the trip, as most conservatives think. He had better, more pressing things to do. I don’t think this patriarchal document was written by two writers with competing agendas. I think the patriarchal oral history had “El language” for God since that was the name of God prior to the exodus event. The name of God associated with the exodus (Yahweh) was introduced by God as a way of commemorating the re-creation of the nation (this reflects my agreement with F.M. Cross at Harvard who saw “Yahweh” as meaning “he who causes to be”). Someone who took the Mosaic core (#3 below) and married it to the patriarchal material combined the names in various ways to ensure (and telegraph) theological unity.

3. Moses or someone soon after Moses’ death recorded events in Moses’ life and leadership period, from the exodus, to Sinai, and through the wilderness. I think the law and Sinai episodes were recorded, along with narration of events as the Israelites traveled. Who knows how much?

4. Parts of the above were included and re-purposed in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is therefore a hybrid: parts Mosaic; parts much later adapting Mosaic material and composing new material reflecting occupancy of the land, thereby necessitating adaptations in laws, for example. Same thing for Numbers and Leviticus; the material encompasses times, needs, and customs from the Mosaic period well into the monarchy. Moses, the law, the deliverance from Egypt, and the events at Sinai are constant touchpoints. And so the collective whole is, appropriately, the “law of Moses.” I don’t care what the percentages are of each hand. And I consider many hands played a role, not just four “source hands.”

5. Genesis 1-11 was written during the exile, as it has a Babylonian flavoring in terms of what it seeks to accomplish and respond to theologically (creation epics, flood recounting, Sumerian king list [antediluvian history], Babel. This section gives Israel’s rival understanding of the hand of Yahweh in pre-patriarchal history with specific counter-points to Babylon’s claims and the claims of other ANE religions (that is, in the process of composing Gen 1-11, the opportunity was taken to take aim at other belief systems / theologies besides that of Babylon).

All the above operated under the hand of Providence, regardless of how many hands and what order things were written. As many of you know, I view inspiration as a providential process, not a (small) series of paranormal events.

As a Muslim reading this, what makes the most sense to me is to treat only the original Mosaic core as the Taurat referred to in the Quran. The rest should be taken only VERY tentatively. Some parts may be revealed. Much of it just might be human history, secular tradition and should not be treated as revelation. 

many rabbis agree that ezra changed the torah text

It blew my mind the first time I learned that even many Orthodox Jews admit that there have been alterations in the Torah text.

Haaretz: Many Rabbis agree that Ezra changed the Torah text

Many, if not most, rabbis, even ultra-Orthodox rabbis, recognize that as Judaism evolved, changes were introduced into the Torah wording for a myriad of reasons. Tikkunei Soferim, which can be translated as “corrections by the scribes,” refers to at least eighteen changes, and probably many more, that were made in the original wording of the Hebrew Bible during the Second Temple period, perhaps sometime between 450 and 350 BCE.

yusuf ali on the injil

APPENDIX III. On the Injll 

(see v. 49, n. 757) 

 Just as the Taurat is not the Old Testament, or the Pentateuch, as now received by the Jews and Christians, so the Injil mentioned in the Quran is certainly not the New Testament, and it is not the four Gospels as now received by the Christian Church, but an original Gospel which was promulgated by Jesus, as the Taurat was promulgated by Moses and the Quran by Muhammad Mustafa. 

The New Testament as now received consists of (a) four Gospels with varying contents {Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John); and other miscellaneous matter; viz., (6) the Acts of the Apostles (probably written by Luke and purporting to describe the progress of the Christian Church under St. Peter and St. Paul from the supposed Crucifixion of Jesus to about 61 A.D.) ; (c) twenty-one Letters or Epistles (the majority written by St. Paul to various churches or individuals, but a few written by other Disciples, and of a general nature) ; and (d) the Book of Revelation or Apocalypse (ascribed to St. John, and containing mystic visions and prophecies, of which it is difficult to understand the meaning). 

 As Prof. F. C Burkitt remarks (Canon of the New Testament), it is an odd miscellany. "The four biographies of Jesus Christ .... are not all independent of each other, and neither of them was intended by its writer to form one of a quartet. But they are all put side by side, unharmonised, one of them being actually imperfect at the end, and one being only the first volume of a larger work. " All this body of unmethodical literature was casual in its nature. No wonder, because the early Christians expected the end of the world very soon. The four canonical Gospels were only four out of many, and some others besides the four have survived. Each writer just wrote down some odd sayings of the Master that he recollected. Among the miracles described there is only one which is described in all the four Gospels, and others were described and believed in in other Gospels, which are not mentioned in any of the four canonical Gospels. Some of the Epistles contain expositions of doctrine, but this has been interpreted differently by different Churches. There must have been hundreds of such Epistles, and not all the Epistles now received as canonical were always so received or intended to be so received. The Apocalypse also was not the only one in the field. There were others. They were prophecies of "things which must shortly come to pass " ; they could not have been meant for long preservation, " for the time is at hand. "

When were these four Gospels written ? By the end of the second century A.D. they were in existence, but it does not follow that they had been selected by that date to form a canon. They were merely pious productions comparable to Dean Farrar's Life of Christ. There were other Gospels besides. And further, the writers of two of them, Mark and Luke, were not among the Twelve Disciples "called" by Jesus. About the Gospel of St. John there is much controversy as to authorship, date, and even as to whether it was all written by one person. Clement of Rome (about 97 A.D.) and Polycarp (about 112 A.D.) quote sayings of Jesus in a form different from those found in the present canonical Gospels. Polycarp (Epistle, vii) inveighs much against men " who pervert the sayings of the Lord to their own lusts," and he wants to turn " to the "Word handed down to us from the beginning," thus referring to a Book (or a Tradition) much earlier than the four orthodox Gospels. An Epistle of St. Barnabas and an Apocalypse of St. Peter were recognised by Presbyter Clement of Alexandria (flourished about 180 A.D.). The Apocalypse of St. John, which is a part of the present Canon in the West, forms no part of the Peshitta (Syriac) version of the Eastern Christians, which was produced about 411-433 A.D. and which was used by the Nestorian Christians. It is probable that the Peshitta was the version (or an Arabic form of it) used by the Christians in Arabia in the time of the Apostle. The final form of the New Testament canon for the West was fixed in the fourth century A.D. (say, about 367 A.D.) by Athanasius and the Nicene creed. The beautiful Codex Sinaiticus which was acquired for the British Museum in 1934, and is one of the earliest complete manuscripts of the Bible, may be dated about the fourth century. It is written in the Greek language. Fragments of unknown Gospels have also been discovered, which do not agree with the received canonical Gospels.

The lnjil (Greek, Evangel=Gospel) spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive [e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St. Barnabas, etc.). Muslims are therefore right in respecting the present Bible (New Testament and Old Testament), though they reject the peculiar doctrines taught by orthodox Christianity or Judaism. They claim to be in the true tradition of Abraham, and therefore all that is of value in the older revelations, it is claimed, is incorporated in the teaching of the Last of the Prophets.

In v. 85 we are told that nearest in love to the Believers among the People of the Book are the Christians. I do not agree that this does not apply to modern Christians " because they are practically atheists or freethinkers. " I think that Christian thought like the world's thought) has learnt a great deal from the protest of Islam against priest domination, class domination, and sectarianism, and its insistence on making this life pure and beautiful while we. are in it. We must stretch a friendly hand to all who are sincere and in sympathy with our ideals. 

 Authorities: The first two mentioned for Appendix II, and in addition : Prof. F. C. Burkitt. on the Cannon of the New Testament, in Religion, June 1034, the Journal of Transactions of the Society for Promoting the Study of Religions; R. \V. Mackay, Rise and Progress of Christianity; G. R. S. Mead, The Gospel and the Gospels; B. \V. Bacon, Making of the New Testament, with its Bibliography ; Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible; R. Hone, The Apocryphal New Testament, London 1820 ; H. I Bell and T O. Skeat, Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Christian Papyri, published by the British Museum, 1935. See also chapter 15 of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, where the genesis of the earlv churches and sects in» the Roman Empire is briefly reviewed. S. VI. ) 288 | C. 76.

yusuf ali on the taurat

I thought Yusuf Ali's essays on the Taurat and Injil seem like good starting places for Muslim reflection on the Bible. They are found in the appendices of his translation of the Quran. Please forgive any typographical errors. The page I got this from seems oddly edited.

APPENDIX II.

On the Taurat (see v. 47, n. 753)

The Taurat is frequently referred to in the Quran. It is well to have clear ideas as to what it exactly means. Vaguely we may say that it was the Jewish Scripture. It is mentioned with honour as having been, in its purity, a true revelation from God.

To translate it by the words "The Old Testament" is obviously wrong. The " Old Testament " is a Christian term, applied to a body of old Jewish records. The Protestants and the Roman Catholics are not agreed precisely as to the number of records to be included in the canon of the " Old Testament." They use the term in contradistinction to the " New Testament, " whose composition we shall discuss in Appendix III. 

Nor is it correct to translate Taurat as the " Pentateuch, " a Greek term meaning the " Five Books." These are the first five books of the Old Testament, known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. They contain a semi -historical and legendary narrative of the history of the world from the Creation to the time of the arrival of the Jews in the Promised Land. There are in them some beautiful idylls but there, are also stories of incest, fraud, cruelty, and treachery, not always disapproved. A great part of the Mosaic Law is embodied in this narrative. The books are traditionally ascribed to Moses, but it is certain that they were not written by Moses or in an age either contemporary with Moses or within an appreciable distance of time from Moses. They were in their present form probably compiled some type after the return of the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity. The decree of Cyrus permitting such return was in 536 B.C. Some books now included in the Old Testament, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were admittedly written after the return from the captivity, Malachi being as late as 420-397 B.C. The compilers of the Pentateuch of course used some ancient material: some of that material is actually named. Egyptian and Chaldsean terms are relics of local colour and contemporary documents.

But there are some ludicrous slips, which show that the compilers did not always understand their material. Modern criticism distinguishes two distinct sources among the documents of different dates used by the editors. For the sake of brevity and convenience they may be called (a) Jehovistic, and (b) Elohistic. Then there ate later miscellaneous interpolations. They sometimes overlap and sometimes contradict each other.

Logically speaking, the Book of Joshua, which describes the entry into the Promised Land, should be bracketed with the Pentateuch, and many writers speak of the six books together as the Hexateuch (Greek term for Six Books).

The Apocrypha contain certain Books which are not admitted as Canonical in the English Bible. But the early Christians received them as part of the Jewish Scriptures, and the Council of Trent (A.D. 1545-1563) seems to have recognised the  greater part of them as Canonical. The statement in 2 Esdras (about the first century A.D.) that the law was burnt and Ezra (say, about 458-457 B.C.) was inspired to rewrite it, is probably true as to the historical fact that the law was lost, and that what we have now is no earlier than the time of Ezra, and some of it a good deal later.

So far we have spoken of the Christian view of the Old Testament. What is the Jewish view? The Jews divide their Scripture into three parts- (1) the Law (Torah), \?A the Prophets (Nebiim), and (3) the Writings (Kethubim). The corresponding Arabic words would be : (1) Taurat, (2) Nabtyin, and (3) Kutub. This division was probably current in the time of Jesus. In Luke xxiv. 44 Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. In other places (e.?., Malt. vii. 12) Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets as summing up the whole Scripture. In the Old Testament Book, II. Chronicles xxxiv. 30, the reference to the Book of the Covenant must be to the Torah or the original Law. This is interesting, as the Quran frequently refers to the Covenant with reference to the Jews. The modern Christian terms " Old Testament " and " New Testament " are substitutes for the older terms " Old Covenant " and " New Covenant." The Samaritans, who claim to be the real Children of Israel and disavow the Jews as schismatics from their Law of Moses, only recognise the Pentateuch, of which they have their own version slightly different from that in the Old Testament.

The view of the school of Higher Criticism is radically destructive. According to Renan it is doubtful whether Moses was not a myth. Two versions of Sacred History existed, different in language, style, and spirit, and they were combined together into a narrative in the reign of Hezekiah (B.C. 727-697). This forms the greater part of the Pentateuch as it exists to-day, excluding the greater part of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. In the reign of Josiah about 622 B.C., certain priests and scribes (with Jeremiah the prophet) promulgated a new code, pretending that they had found it in the Temple (II. Kings, xxii. 8). This Law {Torah— Taurat) was the basis of Judaism, the new religion then founded in Palestine. This was further completed by the sacerdotal and Levitical Torah, compiled under the inspiration of Ezekiel, say, about 575 B.C., and contained mainly in the Book of Leviticus, with scattered fragments in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua. We are entitled to accept the general results of a scientific examination of documents, probabilities, and dates, even though we reject the premise which we believe to be false, viz., that God does not send inspired Books through inspired Prophets. We believe that Moses existed ; that he was an inspired man of God ; that he gave a message which was afterwards distorted or lost ; that attempts were made by Israel at various times to reconstruct that message ; and that the Taurat as we have it is (in view of the statement in 2 Esdras) no earlier than the middle of the fifth century B.C.

The primitive Torah must have been in old Hebrew, but there is no Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament which can be dated with certainty earlier than 916 A.D. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language with the Jews during or -after the Captivity, and by the time we come to the period of Jesus, most cultivated Hebrews used the Greek language, and others used Aramaic (including Syriac and Chaldee), Latin, or local dialects. There were also Arabic versions. For historical purposes the most important versions were the Greek version, known as the Septuagint, and fhe Latin version, known as the Vulgate. The Septuagint was supposed to have been prepared by 70 or 72 Jews (Latin, septuaginta=seventy) working independently and at different times, the earliest portion dating from about 284 B.C. This version was used by the Jews of Alexandria and the Hellenized Jews who were spread over all parts of the Roman Empire. The Vulgate was a Latin translation made by the celebrated Father of the Christian Church, St. Jerome, from Hebrew, early in the fifth century A.D., superseding the older Latin versions. Neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate have an absolutely fixed or certain text. The present standard text of the Vulgate as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church was issued by Pope Clement VIII (A.D. 1592-1605). 

 It will be seen therefore that there is no standard text of the Old Testament in its Hebrew form. The versions differ from each other frequently in minor parti- culars and sometimes in important particulars. The Pentateuch itself is only a small portion of the Old Testament. It is in narrative form, and includes the laws and regulations associated with the name of Moses, but probably compiled and edited from elder sources by Ezra (or Esdras Arabic, 'Uzair) in the 5th century B.C. As Renan remarks in the preface to his History of the People of Israel, the " definite constitution of Judaism " may be dated only from the time of Ezra. The very early Christians were divided into two parties. One was a Judaizing party, which wished to remain in adherence to the Jewish laws and customs while recognising the mission of Jesus. The other, led by Paul, broke away from Jewish customs and traditions. Ultimately Pauline Christianity won. But both parties recognised the Old Testa- ment in its present form (in one or another of its varying versions) as Scripture. It was the merit of Islam that it pointed out that as scripture it was of no value, although it recognised Moses as an inspired apostle and his original Law as having validity in his period until it was superseded. In its criticism of the Jewish position it said in effect : " You have lost your original Law ; even what you have now as its substitute, you do not honestly follow ; is it not better, now that an inspired Teacher is living among you, that you should follow him rather than quibble over uncertain texts ? " 

 But the Jews in the Apostle's time (and since) went a great deal by the Talmud, or a body of oral exposition, reduced to writing in different Schools of doctors and learned men. " Talmud " in Hebrew is connected with the Arabic root in Talmlz, " disciple " or " student. " The Talmudists took the divergent texts of the Old Testament and in interpreting them by a mass of traditional commentary and legendary lore, evolved a standard body of teaching. The Talmudists are of special interest to us, as, in the sixth century A.D., just before the preaching of Islam, they evolved the Massorah, which may be regarded as the body of authorita- tive Jewish Hadlth, to which references are to be found in passages addressed to the Jews in the Quran. 

 The first part of the Talmud is called the Mishna,— a. collection of traditions and decisions prepared by the Rabbi Judah about 150 A.D. He summed up the results of a great mass of previous rabbinical writings. The Mishna is the " Second Law " : 285 ( Appendix it. Cf. the Arabic 77ja/i-m = second. " It bound heavy burdens, grievous to be borne, and laid them on men's shoulders " : Matt, xxiii. 4. 

There were also many Targums or paraphrases of the Law among the Jews. " Targum " is connected in root with the Arabic word Tarjama, "he translated." There were many Targums, mostly in Aramaic, and they constituted the teaching of the Law to the masses of the Jewish people. 

The correct translation of the Taurat is therefore " The Law. " In its original form it was promulgated by Moses, and is recognised in Islam as having been an inspired Book. But it was lost before Islam was preached. What passed as " The Law " with the Jews in the Apostle's time was the mass of traditional writing which I have tried to review in this Appendix. 

 Authorities: Encyclopaedia Brilannica, "Bible"; Helps to the Study of the Bible, Oxford University Press; A. F. Kirkpatrick, Divine Library of the Old Testament; C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism; E Renan, History of Israel; G. F. Moore. Literature of the Old Testament, and the bibliography therein (Home University Library); Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, 1936 * * • * * 

what is the zabur?

وَرَبُّكَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۗ وَلَقَدْ فَضَّلْنَا بَعْضَ النَّبِيِّينَ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ ۖ وَآتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا 

And it is your Lord that knoweth best all beings that are in the heavens and on earth: We did bestow on some prophets more (and other) gifts than on others: and We gave to David (the gift of) the Psalms. (17:55)

I've been thinking about ways to respond to Christians who want to insist that the Quran is telling Muslims to essentially affirm the Bible as valid with little to no qualification or criticism. InshaAllah, I will make a series of posts containing some modest reflections on the subject. The current post is on the Zabur.

As we can see above, the Quran describes the Zabur as a revelation which was given to David (as). But as we will see, we cannot simplistically identify the Zabur with the book of Psalms in the Bible. First of all, by its own admission, only some of the Psalms in the Bible are attributed to David, while others are attributed to other people (Asaph, the sons of Korah, Solomon, Korah, Moses, Ethan the Ezrahite, Herman the Ezrahite, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah).

Secondly, most modern Biblical scholarship assigns very late dates to final completion of the Biblical book of Psalms. Parts of the book were not even written until after Solomon's Temple was destroyed and rebuilt. So the Biblical book was only arranged in its final form hundreds of years after David (as) lived. So even if there is a Davidic core, other layers of text have certainly been added to it.

And finally there seems to have been some significant variations in the text over the years. For example as part of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran, archeologists found The Great Psalms Scroll or 11Q5.

The reason this manuscript is of such great interest to scholars is due to its major deviance from the Masoretic Psalter. Its textual makeup is that of “apocryphal compositions interspersed with canonical psalms in a radically different order”. It contains approximately fifty compositions, forty of which are found in the Masoretic text. While some maintain the masoretic order, such as some of the Psalms of Ascent, others are scattered throughout in a different order.

11Q5 has generated a lot of interest in scholars due to its large difference from the Masoretic Psalter, “both in ordering of contents and in the presence of additional compositions.”[ It contains several compositions that are not present in the Masoretic Psalter of 150 hymns and prayers and therefore, “challenges traditional ideas concerning the shape and finalization of the book of Psalms.” There are eight non-Masoretic compositions with an additional prose composition that is not formatted like a psalm. Three highlighted compositions include “The Apostrophe to Zion”, “Plea for Deliverance”, and Psalm 151; in addition, the prose composition is researched to be known as “David’s Compositions.” While these are non-Masoretic, some of them, Psalm 151, was known in the Septuagint.

[...]

The additional prose composition is also known as David's Compositions. It references many Psalms associated with David, including 364 songs for each day of the year, conforming to calendars found in distinctively sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. These songs were hymns attributed to King David, praising him for composing the Psalms, classifying the hymns and prayers he wrote. According to this list, David composed 3,600 psalms, 364 songs to be performed each day of the year during regular sacrifices, another 52 songs for the weekly Sabbath sacrifice, 30 songs for sacrifices of annual festivals and the new moon, and 4 songs for the sick. Therefore, 11Q5 concludes with the bold statement that David was an avid sage and hymnist, crafting upwards of 4,050 psalms.

In other words, the Dead Sea Scrolls seems to show at least one "book of Psalms" with a great number of non-trivial differences from the Masoretic Psalter found in the the Western Bible. Perhaps this is the true Zabur? Furthermore, if there are thousands of Psalms written by David, then perhaps those texts, not found in the Bible is where we might identify the Zabur of David to which the Quran refers.

Bottom line, while its certainly possible that the original Zabur of David overlap a great deal with the Biblical book of Psalms, it would be a mistake to claim the two were perfectly identical. Allahu alim.

the camel (part two)

At the risk of sending him more traffic, I thought I'd give the identity of the YouTuber I alluded to in the post: "if the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." His name is Ryan Thompson and his YouTube channel is Remnant Rendezvous.

 

I'm really reluctant to do takfir of anyone and I'm not trying to do that now but I feel like warning people since I see him actively trying to fool Muslims. Ryan frequently presents himself as a Muslim (but on other occasions admitting that he isn't) seasoning his speech with Arabic phrases, quoting the Quran. etc. but he basically does all that to bring Muslims to some version of Christianity (he comes from a Seventh Day Adventist background).

 

At first I thought he was just trying to reconcile Christianity and Islam in some honest but idiosyncratic way. But the more I've listened to him, the more I realize that he doesn't seem to take the "Muslim" part seriously. E.g. he rejects most hadith. He doesn't believe Jummah is important for its own sake but is really just an extended preparation for the sabbath, which he says is obligatory on all people. He doesn't really believe fasting in the month of Ramadan is obligatory [actually more recently he's been arguing that Laylat al-Qadr is Yom Kippur and Muslims are fasting in the wrong time of year altogether]. He says Muhammad (saaws) is guilty of shirk (audhubillah). He gives credence to the Petra theory that Islam wasn't even founded in Mecca. He also has been saying we don't have to pray five times a day because only three times are mentioned in the Bible. He argues that since the disciples of Jesus (as) were Muslim, that Muslims should accept the books of the New Testament (even the ones written by Paul). He strictly clings to the Bible and takes its verses very seriously (even to the point of moving with his family to Jordan recently because of his interpretation of some eschatological passages in Daniel and Revelation. So he reminds me a bit of Harold Camping) but he casually dismisses pillars of Islam and teachings that are known by consensus.

 

Basically, he is a Christian missionary who says he is Muslim. 

 

For an example of where he openly says he is not Muslim (and gets pretty thoroughly spanked on the Christian side by Sam Shamoun) see: "Steve and Ryan" on the Miracle Street Channel:

 

It would be one thing if he just had weird theological views. That's fine. And to his credit, he seems to be a Unitarian Christian. And I would have much more respect for him if he was open about that and made videos as a Unitarian Christian who seems to advocate for the beauty of Islam. But he doesn't really do that. More often than not, he only tries to superficially identify as a Muslim with the purpose of persuading Muslims to look more favorably on Christianity.

dusty cobwebs

I feel like I need to update the blog more often. I just checked my comments and realized I haven't moderated any comments in well over a year. A lot of it was spam but some of it seemed like genuine positive feedback or constructive engagement. I Feel bad that I didn't see it until today.

anti-facebook?

 

As I write this, Facebook has been down for the past two hours. And especially in the wake of revelations from the Facebook whistle blower, Frances Haugen, that the company has frequently chosen profits over the public good, its made me wonder (again) if it would be possible to create a robust alternative to Facebook somehow. At times I wish I had a better grounding in computer science so that I could better conceptualize what I"m talking about.. Over the years, there have been a couple of apps that have been identified as the anti-Facebook. But it is hard for them to break into a market so totally dominated by one company already. But what if a few of these apps somehow decided to cooperate? What if there could be a kind of shared space where people who use Ello, MeWe, Parler, Twitter, Blogger (maybe even Myspace...lol)  and certain other apps / platforms can easily share their content and explore the content on the other sites. That way, people who are parts of these smaller platforms could combine a form a kind of super-forum which could potentially give Facebook a run for their money. Just a thought.

afro-latin@ invisibility in "in the heights"

NPR: Lin-Manuel Miranda Apologizes For Lack Of Afro-Latinx Actors In 'In The Heights'

neurotology

 

the path

 Speaking of Hulu-series which indirectly deal with Scientology, I'd recommend checking out "The Path". It is a series about a fictional religion known as Meyerism which is  basically like Scientology except with more of a hippie liberal vibe. The followers progress through different levels called "The Ladder" and there is a hierarchy within the organization which depends on what level you are at. It is also like Scientology in that there is a disconnection policy  which is applied when family members reject Meyerism. 

The hippie liberal vibe comes in with the group's pro-environment, pro-immigrant 's rights activity, Also in contrast to Scientology's anti-drug stance, the practitioners of Meyerism seem to frequently use  marijuana and ayahuasca to achieve higher states of consciousness.

Meyerism also reminded me of The Celestine Prophecy  The book is a fictional story about secret scriptures which were discovered in Peru with nine, then ultimately twelve special "insights" which seem reminiscent of Meyerism's Ladder.  Also on the show, the founder Stephen Meyer and his group had a retreat in Peru where some of the most loyal disciples were based. Actually, I think there is a religious community of people inspired by the The Celestine Prophecy (with mostly an online presence) but my impression is that it is not intense enough to attract accusations of being a cult. 

anti-psychiatry

I'm at an age where I have been thinking alot about the "road not taken". What would my life be like if I had zigged instead of zagged? So while we are on the subject of Scientology and mental health, I feel like mentioning that in another life I might have been some flavor of shrink. (I've been facinated with psychology as far back as 8th grade when I had to do a huge  school project about Sigmund Freud. And my interest continued enough that I majored in psychology in college). 

Honestly, if I had had a vocation in mental health, I would probably be some kind of "anti-psychiatrist". To be clear, I'm definitely NOT an advocate for the extreme beliefs of Scientology which are categorically opposed to pretty much all forms of psychological or psychiatric treatment.  But many of the thinkers who appealed to me tended to be critical of the mental health field and were trying to push it in a new direction.

I was intrigued by Thomas Szasz  and his ideas about  The Myth of Mental Illness ("mental illness" is less a disease and more a metaphor for people who have some kinds of problems with living). For the record I do NOT believe mental illness is just a metaphor. There are certainly people with chemical imbalances in the brain or people who are neurodivergent. But I'd still think it is worth exploring other counter-points (like R.D. Laing's approach to schizophrenia or the implications of the Rosenhan Experiment). 

Another influence / source for me would be  Frantz Fanon and his ideas about how racism and colonialism lead to certain neuroses, and how poltical resistance can lead to healing (along with the publication  The Radical Therapist which looked at the social dimension of mental health, as opposed to just the individual component).

I'm also a fan of Na'im Akbar and the way he fused Afrocentricity in a natural way with Quranic ideas (In contrast to how other Afrocentrists framed Islam as an anti-African religon).  I also liked Laleh Bakhtiar and the idea of moral healing. And in general I'd think Sufism has some valuable insights in terms of mental states and personal development.

For another chunk of my teenage years I was really into existentialism.  And was really drawn to Existential Therapy along with Viktor Frankl and Logotherapy. I was especially impressed with Frankl's ideas about the need for meaning, and the capacity to find it, even in the most extreme of circumstances. 

And while it might seem contradictory to the above, I've also tended to like B.F. Skinner. While I would not follow the extremes of his radical behaviorism, I think he offered a valuable corrective to the way some psychologists tended to invent and multiply concepts, structures, diseases, etc. There is something useful in trying to focus on visible behaviors and minimizing the assumptions that we make.

shill / why i hate saturn

So I'm starting to watch "Shrill" and it is reminding me of the brilliant and hilarious graphic novel, "Why I Hate Saturn" by Kyle Baker. Both are about a white woman who writes for some kind of magazine / periodical and goes on zany adventures. Both have black friends who are not just the sidekick but have their own independent voices and perspectives. Both are full of social and political commentary. 

I wonder if Netflix / Hulu / Amazon would turn "Why I Hate Saturn" into a movie or series? It is over 30 years old at this point so it might have to be updated. 

Planet Grenada: Birth of a Nation: A Comic Novel

Planet Grenada: Kyle Baker on the Fourth of July

the handmaid's tale and scientology (part three)

This is actually an older link but I'm honestly a bit late thinking about this so I'm going to post it anyway. This is actually about a scene from the first season of The Handmaid's Tale. So apparently other people out there are are drawing connections between the content of the show and the faith and practice of Scientology.

Tony Ortega: Elisabeth Moss in this week’s ‘Handmaid’ sure sounded like FBI testimony about Scientology

another possible scientology connection to the handmaid's tale

 At the end of season 3 episode 2 there is an odd sequence. Emily is an ex-Handmaid who has spent years trapped in Gilead while her Canadian wife and son managed to escape across the border. At the end of season 2 she manages to escape across the border but she is still too traumatized to reconnect with family so she's living with June's husband and her friend Moira. At the end of the episode in question, the show spends several minutes showing us Emily going to an optometrist.

We don't really see her have any particular emotional breakthrough except after she is fitted with glasses she finally summons the courage to call her wife. 

What possible connection might there be between Scientology and eyesight? Is correcting one's eyesight symbolically connected to being "spiritually" clear? Perhaps.

Tony Ortega: Scientology and Eyesight

scientology and the handmaid's tale

I have been a fan of The Handmaid's Tale for a while. I read the novel when I was in high school. I saw the film a few years after that. And I have been really excited and intrigued by the way the Hulu series expands and fleshes out, and also slightly modifies,  the world Margaret Atwood created. (I haven't yet read the sequel novel called The Testaments) 

The Hulu series' first season covers roughly the same ground as the novel and film, supplemented by flashbacks and more detailed characterizations. The subsequent seasons move into uncharted territory. One of the most welcome changes: in the novel and the film, the Republic of Gilead was blatantly racist and essentially sends all Black people off to labor in the colonies as the cursed Children of Ham.  On the show, on the other hand, the regime is not so exclusive, and so we see people of color at multiple levels of society, as Commanders, Marthas, Handmaids, Wives, Econopeople (which means more jobs for  black actors, more representation, etc.) This also creates space for interesting kinds of intersectional analysis of June's character and the world of Gilead.

More recently, I've started to explore another way in which the show seems distinct based on the fact that its star, Elisabeth Moss (also producer, executive producer and occasional director) is a Scientologist. This season especially I've started to wonder if Scientology is influencing the way the story is told. 

In this current season (Season 4), after serving many years as a Handmaid in Gilead, the main character June Osborne (played by Elisabeth Moss) finally manages to escape and reunite with her husband in Canada. As a result, instead of being focused on really basic needs like survival, escape and not getting mutilated or raped (which is basically what the first three seasons were about), June finally has time to focus on less basic issues like dealing with severe psychological trauma and her relationship with her husband. June has some clear symptoms of PTSD.  The catch is that is that the Church of Scientology is famous for its stances against psychology and psychiatry. So its not likely that any show run by a Scientologist would ever depict characters benefitting from conventional therapy. And, Lo and Behold, that's pretty much what we see on the show.

See: Scientology and Psychiatry
Vice: Scientologists Really, Really Hate Psychiatrists

It would be really interesting if someone more familiar with Scientology could thoroughly unpack what is going on this season (and in earlier seasons) . We see numerous traumatized Gilead refugees in Canada, but they don't seem to be getting any professional mental health help. There is a kind of peer support / group therapy (?) lead  by June's friend Moira (who is a computer programmer, not an actual therapist).  But even so, June doesn't seem to quite fit into, or get much benefit from the group.  In fact, June seems to subvert the norms of the group. Instead of being interested in healing she seems to be all about promoting angry confrontations. 

For example, in episode seven of season four (called "Home") June spends most of the episode in a kind of trance, but does manage get noticeably "better" after she has a scene angrily  confronting Serena:

In a similar way, we see another ex-Handmaid named Emily also  confront Aunt Irene (a character we've never seen before but who turns out to be primarily responsible for much of the trauma Emily experienced in Gilead) and she  is also reduced to a sobbing kneeling mess on the floor.

In Scientology there is a whole course called "How to Confront and Shatter Suppression". (A "suppressive person" is a Scientology term for the ultimate anti-social type)  and I wonder if this "shattering" is what we are seeing in how June and Emily treat their  opponents. 

Another basic Scientology concept is the Silent Birth 

Silent birth, sometimes known as quiet birth, is a birthing procedure advised by L. Ron Hubbard and advocated by Scientologists in which "everyone attending the birth should refrain from spoken words as much as possible" and where "... chatty doctors and nurses, shouts to 'PUSH, PUSH' and loud or laughing remarks to 'encourage' are avoided". According to Scientology doctrine, this is because "any words spoken are recorded in the reactive mind and can have an aberrative effect on the mother and the child." Hubbard believed that breaking the silence during childbirth with words could adversely affect the child later in life

I mentioned it here because it occurs to me that on the show when June has her second baby  she managed to run off and have the baby alone. And then in the eighth episode of season three "Unfit" I noticed that there are two main childbirth scenes, and in both of them we see all the other handmaids telling the expectant mother to "push" and "breathe" while Moss' character stands noticeably apart from the group, silent (except for a voiceover) with her arms crossed (pictured above). Almost as if she were silently protesting the non-silent birth. 

One last possible connection between the show and Scientology (even if only tangential) which I'd like to consider is the notion of the Scientology stare. 

Tony Ortega: Scientology's fundamental feature: the thousand-year stare
Tony Ortega: Scientology Starts Out as Staring Contests
Wikipedia: Training Routines (Scientology)

A large chunk of Scientology training is apparently related to staring and maintaining eye-contact.  I imagine that some of the skills developed in their courses is probably legitimately good for actors.  And apparently Elisabeth Moss gets a lot of mileage out of this training since many episodes, especially the first and last scenes tend to feature intense close-ups of Moss staring into the camera. 

Post Apocalyptic Media:
Fans Can’t Stop Joking About Those June Close-Up Scenes on The Handmaid’s Tale

Well, those are my thoughts for now. I really do think it would be fruitful for others better versed in Scientology to further explore ways that Scientology concepts might percolate through the Hulu series. Are there other examples of Silent Birth? Are there other ways in which Scientology perspectives on mental health show up? Are the forces of Gilead not just generically "evil" but do they exemplify specific Scientology claims about "suppressive persons" ? Does character development on the show make sense in terms of the heroes overcoming the reactive mind and going clear? Anything else?

ADDENDUM: Another possibility which came to me after posting: I have not yet read the sequel novel The Testaments, but I've read some summaries. One of the interesting developments is that the character of Aunt Lydia in the books is revealed to have been a secret dissident opposed to the regime from the beginning. She lost her job as a judge when Gilead was created and quietly did what she could to destroy the regime from within. From what I remember of the first novel, that revelation is surprising but not inconsistent with the character. She did her job and mouthed platitudes but I didn't have the impression that she was extremely cruel.

On the other hand, the tv show's version of Aunt Lydia  (played by the amazing actress Ann Dowd) is pretty clearly a dyed-in-the-wool Gilead loyalist.  She's not just maintaining a cover. She sadistically enjoys using her cattle prod to punish the disobedient Handmaids and gleefully supports punishing dissidents. Now it would be interesting  if the show had gone in a direction more like the book where Aunt Lydia's loyalties were more ambiguous; where she cared for the Handmaids while serving the regime, but without being so sadistic.  (In Harry Potter terms, More Severus Snape, less Dolores Umbridge). 

Now, where could Scientology come into this? Well, it seems to me that the Scientology view is somewhat dualistic and unforgiving, especially when it comes to what is called a suppressive person.   And if Gilead is supposed to represent a regime of SPs, then perhaps Moss would be less inclined to have Aunt Lydia show as much moral complexity as suggested by the books. 

Ok, I'd like to reiterate, I'm not claiming that the above examples are evidence that Hulu's The Handmaid's Tale is some kind of Scientology-propaganda. But I would say that there are some interesting points of contact between Scientology doctrines and what we see on the show (especially when it comes to those elements where the show differs from the novels). And is intriguing to think about how Moss' personal views are being reflected in the show.  

wow, missionaries have no shame

 

angela davis statement of solidarity with palestine, gaza and sheikh jarrah

"if the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."

For a while I've been aware that Christian missionaries have targeted Jews and have put in great effort towards presenting "the gospel" in a way which is targeted towards disarming Jews by making the Christian message seem more "Jewish". (Using Hebrew, emphasizing cultural practices like yarmulkes, Hanukah, Passover, keeping kosher, etc.) Jews for Jesus is well known for this.

More recently, I've become more aware of Christian attempts to engage in similar strategies against Muslims.

A while back I started hearing about "Muslim friendly" translations of the Bible which would avoid using terms like "Father" or "Son of God".

But now, missionaries are engaging in something called The Camel Method. The method involves selectively emphasizing all of the positive things the Quran has to say about Jesus (as), the Injeel, the Torah, Christianity, Judaism and the Biblical prophets (while ignoring all of the negative and critical things the Quran has to say about the mistakes of Christians and Jews) and somehow leveraging that in an attempt to lead Muslims to becoming Christian.

The term CAMEL is ostensibly an acronym which stands for Chosen (Mary was chosen by God for a special purpose), Announced by angels, Miracles (Jesus’ power is revealed in his miracles), and Eternal Life (Jesus is and knows the way to heaven). It is also supposedly a reference to a so-called Islamic parable about how only the camel knows the secret 100th name of Allah. Both explanations seem implausible to me. And I can't help thinking about a different Arab parable warning against letting a camel get its nose in your tent.

For a while now, I've witnessed a number of odd interactions online with a particular Christian missionary who seems to come from a Seventh Day Adventist background, but has started to adopt all sorts of "Muslim" mannerisms, even to the point of claiming to be Muslim at times (but denying it at other times), going to the masjid, claiming to believe in Muhammad (saaws) and the Quran, all with the intention of doing Christian missionary work.

When I first encountered him I was intrigued. He seemed like he was on a sincere and principled personal religious exploration, trying to read the Bible and the Quran, while trying to reconcile both. He made me think of people in a "grey area" between Islam and Christianity whom I've looked at before:

episcopal priest tries islamic rituals for lent

"i am both muslim and christian" (part 3)

"i am both muslim and christian" (part 2)

"i am both muslim and christian" (part 1)

He also seemed very different from the Perenialists (like James Cutsinger), Integral Thinkers, Bahais, Universal Sufis, Theosophists, inclusivists (like Hans Kung for instance) or assorted syncretists whom I've had at least some exposure to and who give some mixture of acknowledgement to both Christianity and Islam.

But then the more I listened to him, the more I realized that he didn't seem to take the Quran or Islam seriously (For example, he argues that neither fasting in the month of Ramadan nor making salat facing the Kaaba nor Hajj is obligatory. He actually was even willing to give some credence to the whole The original qiblah was Petra nonsense which seems to be going around in evangelical Islamophobe circles). He didn't want to admit that any new binding commandments could come through Muhammad (saaws) and didn't accept Muhammad as a new messenger to humanity. Instead he seems to imagine that Muhammad was basically some sort of Torah-observant Christian pastor who was just sent to the Arabs. He wasn't "exploring" and "learning" as much as blatantly coopting and distorting.

Inshallah, I'll unpack more of my thoughts over time.

The Camel Method Training Manual

NY Times: On The Camel Method

Doug Coleman's Review of The Camel