more thoughts on samaritans

1.  Are there Islamic grounds to consider the Samaritan Torah more accurate and faithful than the Masoretic text? Is one version of the Torah more consistent with Islam than the other?

2. Islamic Awareness: The "Samaritan" Error in the Quran? Some anti-Islam polemicists look to a mention of "al-Samiri" in the Quran narrative of the incident of the Golden Calf and accuse it of being of anachronism. This is addressed somewhat at the above link, but I wonder what other ways there are to understand this issue.

3.  The Samaritans themselves say they are the descendants of the children of Israel. So in the Quran, how do we understand the relationships between the Samaritans, the Yahudi, Bani Israel and the People of the Book? Christians and Jews might have their definitions, but what are some distinctively Muslim ways to understand these categories.

4. The Samaritan scriptures include their version of the Torah but rejects pretty much everything else. This makes an encounter between Jesus (as) and the Samaritan woman described in John 4, particularly intriguing:

[5] So he came to a city of Samar'ia, called Sy'char, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.

[6] Jacob's well was there, and so Jesus, wearied as he was with his journey, sat down beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.

[7] There came a woman of Samar'ia to draw water. Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink."

[8] For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.

[9] The Samaritan woman said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samar'ia?" For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.

[10] Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, `Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water."

[11] The woman said to him, "Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep; where do you get that living water?

[12] Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?"

[Note: The woman says "our father Jacob". So she seems to see herself a member of the children of Israel.]

[13] Jesus said to her, "Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again,

[14] but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

[15] The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw."

[16] Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."

[17] The woman answered him, "I have no husband." Jesus said to her, "You are right in saying, `I have no husband';

[18] for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly."

[19] The woman said to him, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.

[20] Our fathers worshiped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."

[21] Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

[22] You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

[23] But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him.

[24] God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

[25] The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ); when he comes, he will show us all things."

[26] Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."

[27] Just then his disciples came. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but none said, "What do you wish?" or, "Why are you talking with her?"

[28] So the woman left her water jar, and went away into the city, and said to the people,

[29] "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"

[This is interesting to me. It was my understanding that the Samaritans only accepted the Torah. But the concept of Christ very wrapped up being a king on the throne of David. So do Samaritans have their own distinct concept of Messiah? Could this provide insights into how to understand the Quranic  concept of al-Masih?]

[30] They went out of the city and were coming to him.

[31] Meanwhile the disciples besought him, saying, "Rabbi, eat."

[32] But he said to them, "I have food to eat of which you do not know."

[33] So the disciples said to one another, "Has any one brought him food?"

[34] Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work.

[35] Do you not say, `There are yet four months, then comes the harvest'? I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see how the fields are already white for harvest.

[36] He who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together.

[37] For here the saying holds true, `One sows and another reaps.'

[38] I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor; others have labored, and you have entered into their labor."

[39] Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me all that I ever did."

[This is also interesting. Did the Samaritans who believed then become Jewish? Or did they accept Jesus as fulfilling the Samaritan understand of the Messiah?]

[40] So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days.

[41] And many more believed because of his word.

[42] They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world."

[43] After the two days he departed to Galilee.

[44] For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

At one point in the Biblical gospels, Jesus is even accused of being a Samaritan: 

The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" (John 8:48)

the other torah

I wonder if there has been much Islamic theological reflection on the Samaritans? In popular Western imagination (especially in the parable of the Good Samaritan) they are primarily imagined as a racial / ethnic group but they are also a religious group representing an alternate version of Abrahamic religion. They claim to be the children of Israel, but they have their own distinct version of the Torah and their central holy place is Mount Sinai rather than the Temple in Jerusalem.

One area where the Samaritans might be particularly interesting to Muslims is that their version of the Torah gives us a more concrete way to talk about Biblical corruption.

For example, consider Tablet magazine's article The Other Torah on differences between the Samaritan and Masoretic texts by Chaive Lieber. There are literally thousands of variations between the texts:

The 6,000 differences between the two Torahs [...] can be split into two categories: 3,000 of the differences are orthographical, meaning there are spelling differences or additional words placed in the text, while the other 3,000 are more significant in changing the Torah’s narrative.

Some of the orthographical changes help make the story read more smoothly. For example, in Genesis 4:8, when Cain talks to Abel, the Masoretic version reads, “Now Cain said to his brother Abel, while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him,” whereas the Samaritan Torah contains additional words: “Now Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let’s go out to the field.’ ”

The Samaritan Torah also offers a slightly different version of some stories. It includes parts of dialogues that are not found in the Masoretic text: For example, in Exodus chapters 7 through 11, the Samaritan Torah contains whole conversations between Moses, Aaron, and Pharaoh that the Masoretic text does not.

The other differences that are significant in narrative sometimes change the story, and sometimes “fix” small sentences that appear incoherent.

In Exodus 12:40, for example, the Masoretic text reads: “The length of the time the Israelites lived in Egypt was 430 years,” a sentence that has created massive chronological problems for Jewish historians, since there is no way to make the genealogies last that long. In the Samaritan version, however, the text reads: “The length of time the Israelites lived in Canaan and in Egypt was 430 years.”

[...]

Perhaps the most variant of texts within the two Torahs is the differences in the Ten Commandments.

“The Commandments are all in the form of ‘do’ and ‘don’t do,’ ” Tsedaka asserted. “The Masoretic version includes the intro of ‘I am your God that took you out of Egypt,’ as a commandment, when we see it as an introduction. Our Ten Commandments start later, and we have our last commandment to establish Mount Gerizim.”

While an “extra” commandment to establish an altar on Mount Gerizim might seem random in the Masoretic text, the part that follows the Ten Commandants in the Masoretic version talks about the forbidden action of building stairs to an altar. Some scholars believe that the Masoretic text would not be discussing steps to an altar without talking about an altar first, and so some believe there might be a part of the text that is missing in the Masoretic version.

Until the 1950s, Bible scholars turned to the Jewish Masoretic text as the definitive version of the Torah, virtually ignoring the Samaritan text. However, in the winter of 1947, a group of archeological specialists searching through 11 caves in Qumran happened upon the Dead Sea Scrolls. After rigorous study of the scrolls, researchers have come to believe there were several versions of the Torah being studied throughout Jewish history, according to Eugene Ulrich, a theology professor at University of Notre Dame.

The scrolls they found in Qumran matched the Samaritan text more closely than the Masoretic text, leading some researchers to believe the Samaritan text held validity in the minds of Jews during the Second Temple period and that both texts were once studied together.

“Finding the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that there were two versions, if not more, of the Torah circulating within Judaism, but they were all dealt with with equal validity and respect,” said Ulrich, who served as one of the chief editors on the Dead Sea Scrolls International Publication Project. “The Samaritan Torah and Masoretic Torah used to be studied side by side. The Masoretic text wasn’t always the authoritative version. They were both seen as important during the Second Temple time period.”

[...]

Ulrich said after the destruction of the Second Temple, the people split into three groups, each with their own text: The rabbis took the Masoretic text for their own, the Samaritans took theirs, and the early Christians used much of a different version called the Septuagint—a Masoretic version translated into Greek in the 2nd century BCE—in what later become the Christian Bible.[...]

While most differences between the two Torahs are only slight and may not even be apparent to an untrained eye, according to Ulrich, the Samaritan Torah provides a more coherent reading because the story flows better in its text. “There are whole passages of stories missing from the Masoretic version,” he said. “A lot of the stories in Exodus and Deuteronomy are missing parts of the conversation, leaving the reader alone to do much assumption as the story goes on. In the Samaritan Torah, however, these gaps are filled, providing a smoother encounter of what actually happened.”

James Charlesworth, a professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton University’s Department of Biblical studies, said the Samaritan Torah is his preferred version for some readings of the Bible. “As the stories and histories go, the Samaritan Pentateuch appears to be more favorable because the voice of the text reads more clear[ly],” he said. “In my judgment, the Masoretic version has some corrupt parts of it, and the Samaritan Torah is the best reading we have. There are sentences scholars are left to either reinterpret or simply ignore because they seem they don’t belong.”

trans thoughts (part one)

Just thinking out loud...

1. It seems clear that there are people born  with exotic hormonal conditions, or exotic genetic conditions or exotic anatomical conditions which make questions of sexual identity complicated and challenging for them. And if someone is in that situation, young or old, they should certainly be supported in trying to find a way to overcome those challenges and find a life of meaning and wholeness and fulfillment. Even if young, those people should receive whatever medical intervention is appropriate to resolving their difficulties. Whether surgery or hormones or other treatment, just as if they had a cleft palate or needed their tonsils removed. 

2. On the other hand, it also seems clear that some people are in well-formed, well-functioning bodies of a particular sexual identity, but they nevertheless don't feel comfortable in their own skin. I  don't think I can understand that feeling. I have a hard time not seeing it as some kind of profound delusion or some kind of deep ingratitude towards God.  At the same time, such people must obviously be suffering and deserve empathy.

3. Questions of identity can be intimate and complicated. And certainly some issues which seem simple on the outside might not feel that way from the inside. So it can be presumptuous for outsiders to dictate to an individual what their identitiy should be.

 4. I keep thinking of the fact that Bruce / Caitlyn Jenner has lived as a male longer than I've been alive. Bruce was married to women three times. Has been a father a grandfather.  Also Bruce Jenner killed someone in February of 2015 and then came out as transgender in April in 2015. That's certainly not to say there weren't pre-existing difficulties around gender, but I know that if I had killed somebody, I would probably want to reboot my life as well. 

5. Adult citizens have the right to do what they want. Change their names, change their bodies with drugs or surgery. But children are generally not mature enough capable of making such profound decisions. The issues seem much trickier in their case.

6. I mean, if I had children and they came up to me saying "Dad, I don't want to be black. In fact I don't even feel black" I wouldn't want them to dye their hair blonde, get blue-eyed contacts, take skin lighteners etc. I would want to teach them to have self esteem and to love the body they are in.  So why would it be different if a child in a male body says they don't want to be male. Or if a child in a female body says they don't want to be female? What is the difference between body-postivity when it comes to race vs. sexual identity?

"to every people was sent a messenger..."

"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom." (Quran 31:27)

"To every people (was sent) a messenger [...]"
(Quran 10:47)

Evangelical missionaries tend to think that the Quran somehow endorses the 66 books of the Bible but I think they are thinking too small.

First of all, there were NO 66 Book Bible Christians in the milieu of the early Muslims. The ancient Christian churches all have bigger Bibles and accept many of the books Protestants consider apocryphal. On top of that, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (which is probably the church with the most meaningful interactions with the early Muslims) have the largest canon of any Christian church (they have 81 books). On top of that, there are significant connections between Quranic statements and certain non-canonical texts (e.g. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Arabic Infancy Gospel both mention the incident with Jesus (as) and the clay birds. The Acts of John, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Basilides have non-standard / docetic takes of the crucifixion, etc.)

On the Jewish side, one could argue that some parts of the Talmud contain actual revelation. Also the Sefer Yetzirah could be the "Suhuf of Abraham" (as) mentioned in the Quran.

The Quran recognizes John the Baptist / Yahya (as) as a prophet and so perhaps the Mandaean scriptures contain revelation.

There are indications in some Islamic texts that Siddhartha Gautama and Zoroaster may have been prophets, and so Buddhist and Zoroastrian texts may contain revelation.

Luqman was a man known for his wisdom (who some people identify with Aesop) may have been a prophet. So perhaps the stories of Aesop may contain revelation. 

In a well-known hadith, the prophet (saaws) is quoted as saying "Seek wisdom, even unto China". Does that suggest that perhaps Lao Tzu or Confucius were prophets? Is the Tao Te Ching or the I Ching a work of revelation? 

And finally, if we take seriously the idea that "to every people We sent a messenger" and the claim that there have been 124,000 prophets (according to one hadith) while only 25 or so are named in the Quran, we should be very open to the possibility that large numbers of pre-Islamic religious figures may have been authentic prophets. I'm not a card-carrying Perennialist, but I would argue that a Muslim should have a charitable attitude, towards pre-Islamic religions. Even if their current forms may contain errors, those faiths may also be repositories of authentic prophetic guidance. We just need to sift the wheat from the chaff.

clay birds

And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (Quran 3:49)

1 1 When the boy Jesus was five years old, he was playing at the ford of a rushing stream. And he gathered the disturbed water into pools and made them pure and excellent, commanding them by the character of his word alone and not by means of a deed.

2 Then, taking soft clay from the mud, he formed twelve sparrows. It was the Sabbath when he did these things, and many children were with him.

3 And a certain Jew, seeing the boy Jesus with the other children doing these things, went to his father Joseph and falsely accused the boy Jesus, saying that, on the Sabbath he made clay, which is not lawful, and fashioned twelve sparrows.

4 And Joseph came and rebuked him, saying, “Why are you doing these things on the Sabbath?” But Jesus, clapping his hands,  commanded the birds with a shout in front of everyone and said, “Go, take flight, and remember me, living ones.” And the sparrows, taking flight, went away squawking.

- The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

One of the interesting differences between the Quran and the mainstream Bible is the story of Jesus (as) animating clay birds as a child. The story does not exist in Matthew, Mark , Luke or John but it is found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and also the Arabic Infancy Gospel. So from a Muslim perspective should the later texts be considered as potential places where revelation might be found? Do they contain fragments of the Injeel? Another interesting question: where there Christians in the milieu of the early Muslims who treated either of these texts as scripture?

Allahu alim.

Early Christian Writings: Infancy Gospel of Thomas

Gnosis: Arabic Infancy Gospel

one soul

" On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." (Quran 5:32)

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world”. (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Yerushalmi Talmud 4:9)

I've been thinking a lot about how Christian evangelicals tend to grossly oversimplify the question of which earlier texts are "endorsed" by the Quran. The above is an interesting data point. The Bible doesn't have a passage which sounds like either of the two passages quoted above. So this seems to suggest that the Talmud might contain actual revelation. Christians tend to dismiss the Talmud altogether but for Jews there is a Written Torah (the Pentateuch) and an Oral Torah (which was ultimately codified and written down in the Talmud). Both are thought to be part of the revelation which was given to Moses (as) at Sinai. So the fact that the Quran is arguably affirming part of the Talmud, suggests that Islam has a much more complex relation with the scriptures of the People of the Book. Allahu alim.

what is the injil? (part one)

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِينَ

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (5:46)

  

The Quran clearly affirms something called the Injil or Gospel. But what exactly is it? I have seen LARGE numbers of Christians lazily assume is identical to the 4 Biblical Gospels or the New Testament overall.  But is this a reasonable assumption? What are some other possibilities?

First of all there are a huge number of different Christian texts (see Early Christian Writings ), dozens of gospels with competing versions of the teaching of Jesus (as) and the early church. Do any of them represent / contain or reflect the Injil which was given to Jesus according to the Quran?

If we focus on the fact that the Quran says the Injil was given to Jesus then the term Injil, strictly speaking, does not seem like it could possibly refer later texts which primarily contain the narratives and statements of members of the church after the end of Jesus' earthly mission. This would suggest that the Injil would be a revelation of words spoken or written by Jesus much as the Quran is revelation which was spoken by Muhammad (saaws), even if we understand their true origins to be from God. 

For  me this suggests that original Injil would be a sayings gospel like the  Sayings Gospel Q or the Gospel of Thomas.

Allahu alim.

"... seven times a day i praise thee for thy righteous ordinances..."

"Seven times a day I praise thee for thy righteous ordinances."

-Psalms 119:164

Growing up Protestant I really didn't have much experiential knowledge of other forms of Christianity. What I'm finding interesting is how similar some of the ancient forms of Christianity are to Islam. For example, Christians have a qibla (prayer direction), usually to the East.  Also, a surprising number of Christian traditions have fixed prayer times as well. 

I feel like there are some surprising harmonies and agreements among traditional forms of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, even the more modern forms (e.g. Protestants, Salafis, etc.) seem more prone to polemical disagreements.

el chojin: n.e.g.r.o

I was recently trying to repair some links on some old posts. One of my most popular posts is  mami el negro esta rabioso (el africano)  and in trying to fix some links which had gone bad I found another conscious song by El Choijin: 

"... all is perishing, except the face of allah..."

Following up on this Zensunni idea.... I often think about the verse:

 all is perishing except the Face of Allah...." (28:88) as suggesting a kind of impermanence or anicca (a Buddhist term). The same could be said about the Islamic notion that from moment to moment creation does not have any permanence and so God is contantly creating and recreating existence. And so perhaps as Muslims we can accept Buddhism as an insightful analysis of reality (apart from the Face of Allah).

For a more detailed and substantial discussion of the correspondences between Islam and Buddhism, we can look to Reza Shah-Kazimi's Common Ground Between Islam and Buddhism (With an essay by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Introduced by H. H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, H. R. H. Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad, Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali)

Planet Grenada: buddhist sufi

Planet Grenada: buddha and buddhism in the quran? 

Planet Grenada: i ching and the tao of islam

buddha and buddhism in the quran?

With the release of the new Dune film I've been thinking a bit more about the connections between Islam and Buddhism. (For those who don't know,  in the Dune universe, many of the dominant religious movements are broadly "Budhislamic", and most of the characters are Zensunni.

For a while now, I've known that the Ahmadiyya specifically claim that the Buddha was a prophet, and they identify specific references to the Buddha and Buddhism in the Quran. And the Bahais also recognize both Muhammad (saaws) and Siddhartha Gautama as Manifestations of God. But recently I've found examples of more orthodox Islamic voices who make similar claims: 

From Muslim scholar’s discourse on Buddhism: aliterature on Buddha’s position by Ahmad Faizuddin Ramli, , Jaffary Awang , and Zaizul Ab Rahman:

In terms of philology, it is based on three verses in the Holy Quran, the first two verses refer Siddhartha as the prophet Dhu al-Kifl:

و ِۖ ۡ ِكف ِ ِر ا ٱل ي َن ۡ ب ِّم َن ٱل ص َٰ ُك ٨٥ [ األنبياء:85-85 ]

“And (mention) Ishmael, and Idris, and Dhu al-Kifl. All were of the steadfast.” (85) [Quran al-Anbiyā’ 21: 85]

و ِۖ ۡ ِكف ۡ ِر ا ٱل ۡألَۡخيَا ِّم َن ٱ َو ٤٨ [ ص:48-48ُ ]

“And make mention of Ishmael and Elisha and Dhu al-Kifl. All are of the chosen” (48) [Quran Ṣad 38: 48]

As a guide to all mankind, the Quran describes the Prophets, either directly or indirectly. There are 24,000 of prophets sent by Allah to all mankind, and only 25 of them were selected as an apostle, while five of them were selected as the ulul azmi – the higher ranking of apostle. Among the apostle is prophet Dhu al-Kifl as stated in two verses above. The history of prophets Dhu al-Kifl is not discussed in many Islamic narrations. With regards to the founder of Buddhism, Siddharta Gautama, Muslims scholar like Muhammad Hamidullah (1974) and Hamid Abdul Qadir (1957) stated that the Buddha was Prophet Dhu al-Kifl in the Qur'an. Justification for this was made based on the word kifli, which means 'someone from Kifli'. The word of kifl is Arabicized from the Kapila phrase, is the short name for Kapilavastu. Kapilavastu is the birthplace of the Buddha, hence it is named by Dhu al-Kifl (Berzin, 1994; Imtiyaz Yusuf, 2013; Obuse, 2010; Perry Schmidt-Leukel, 2010).

Instead the terms of kifl, the word of tīn was regarded by Muhammad Hamidullah and supported by Hamza Yusuf (2010), Reza Kazemi (2010), Imtiyaz Yusuf (2003), al-Qasimi (2002) as a Bodhi tree where the Siddhartha mediated and attained the enlightenment (nirvana). Thus, only Gautama Buddha is the only closest figure in the Quran with the fig (tīn) tree. Allah said in the Holy Quran:

 و ١ ٱلتِّي ِمي ۡألَ ِد ٱ بَلَ ۡ َذا ٱل َٰ ]

“I swear by the fig and the olive (1), And mount Sinai (2), And this city made secure (3)” [Quran al-Tīn 95: 1-3]

The four symbols in the surah at-Tīn are ironically symbolic to the Prophet. Muslim scholars have different views on the tīn (fig) while they agreed with other terms such as alZaytūn as a symbol of Jerusalem the birthplace of the Prophet Isa., Sinīn (Mount Thursina) as a symbol for the place of Moses a.s., and al-Balad al-Amīn is symbolized as the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Early Muslims Exegesis scholars in the like of Ibn Abi Hatim (811- 890 M) quotes the view of Qatadah that the tīn is the name of a hill in Damascus, the blessed hill in Sham and contained a tree, while Muhammad bin Ka’ab interpreted the tīn as the Companions of the Cave (Aṣḥabul Kahfi) as Al-Qurtubi. Ibn Abbas and Mujahid hold same view by regarding it as a fruit that is ate by people (Ibn Abi Hatim, 1997), later followed by al-Tabari (2001), Ibn Kathir (2000) and Abdul Razzaq (1999) quoted Ibn Abbas views, it is a mosque built by Noah on the Mount of Judi besides repeating the al-Qurtubi’s view.

If observed, Muslims mufassirin differ in their views on the true meaning of the word tiin. Some interpret it as a fruit (Ibn Abbas and Mujahid), while some interpret it symbolical to some places (Qatadah & Muhammad bin Ka’ab). However, by using philological argument, Imtiyaz Yusuf (2017) suggests the precise interpretation is symbolical for a place in the Middle East. Using scientific argument, Imtiyaz Yusuf (2017) suggests the tīn (ficus religiose) refers to the Bodhi tree, due to the tree growing much in the Indian subcontinent and in Indo-China rather in the Middle east. Contrarily, the species of the Bodhi tree is from the ficus carica, not ficus religiose which only grows in the Middle East and West Asia. But the argument can be accepted since both are originated from the same family of Moraceae. Moreover, the Bodhi tree also known with seven names in Sanskrit tradition as Patala (Bignonia), Pundrika (Lotus), Sala (Shoria Rabusta), Saresha (Accaciassirisa), Udambra, Nyagrodha, and Asvatha (ficus religiousa). On the other hand, the Buddhist scholars define the Bodhi tree with different species like Dragon Flower tree, Champac tree, Dragon tree, Kesser Dragon tree, and Iron wood tree. In fact, not just in Buddhism, the species of ficus religiose is also considered as a sacred tree in the texts of Hindu and Jain, as in the Bhagavad Gita (Abdul Haq Vidyarthi & Abdul Ahad Dawud 2013). The claim to regard Buddha as a prophet, eventually recognized by contemporary Muslims mufassirin as one of the views (Al-Qasimi, 2002).

The Bodhi tree that related with Siddhartha’s history, on the other hand, was compared by H.O.K Rahmat (1984) with the story of Prophet Moses during receiving revelation. When Siddhartha was under the Bodhi tree, he decided not to move until he had the great truth and knowledge. For forty-nine days he meditated and eventually the 'light' came to him. While Moses was mentioned in the Qur'an (Ṭāha 20: 9-13): "And has come to you the story of Moses. When he saw the fire then said to his family: Wait! I have seen fire, may I bring you a flame from it, or I can guide you from it. When he came to him, he was summoned: O Moses! Behold, I am your Lord, open your two shoes, indeed you are now in the valley of Ṭuwa; and I have chosen you, then consider what is revealed”. So the ‘light’ for Siddhartha also can be symbolized as a ‘fire’ to Prophet Moses.

"no more water..."

It occurred to me that I've written about Noachides before and I'm starting to repeat myself (a little) . 

"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part one)

"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part two)

"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part three)

Something new which I will put out there.... I have a couple of creative works in progress (novels / novellas / graphic novels)  I'm working on. (Honestly I need to get off my behind and put more energy into them so I finish at least one). But one is sort of a post-post-apocalyptic story set in the distant future. I've been having fun extrapolating different religious developments.

One group was going to be based on the current alliance between the Church of Scientology and the Nation of Islam which somehow becomes an integrated path.

Another group I've been thinking about is a  futuristic version of the Noachides.  I'm imagining that after global warming really kicks in and sea levels rise, and major islands and coastal areas end up under water, people might start to reflect in new ways on the covenant of Noah (as). A likely prediction? They would be rooted in the seven laws and flesh them out into deep spiritual principles. But their sriptures could also include reflections on scriptures (especially the flood stories) of many nations. 

 

Planet Grenada: scientology and the nation of islam

Planet Grenada: is the mother plane joining the fight against xenu

sabians (part two)

Another more common theory on the Sabians identifies them with a group known as the Mandaeans.  They were largely concentrated in Iraq and Iran, but since the Iraq War of 2003 induced many of them to be displaced elsewhere. They claim to be followers of John the Baptist / Yahya (as) who weren't absorbed into Christianity. They are also the only living Gnostic tradition which has survived from ancient times.

When I first heard about this group, my mind was blown away at the thought there would be any significant difference of opinion between the followers of John the Baptist (as) and the followers of Christ (as). But eventually one can point to moments in the Biblical narrative which point to tensions which most Christians tend to gloss over.

The usual Christian interpretation emphasizes the moment of Jesus' baptism

[11] "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

[12] His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."

[13] Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.

[14] John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

[15] But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented.

[16] And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him;

[17] and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3)

Note that John here seems absolutely conscious of Jesus' status and he is depicted as an eyewitness to a powerful divine miracle supporting the role of Jesus.

But if we fast-forward to Matthew 9 we read:

[14] Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

[15] And Jesus said to them, "Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.

So note that John has his own disciples even after Jesus ministry has started. This seems odd when we contrast with the earlier passage. If John is not worthy to carry Jesus' sandals, why would have have his own disciples following a different teaching from Christ?

A second discrepancy which seems inconsistent with the common image of John's baptism is later on in Matthew 11:

[1] And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities.

[2] Now when John heard in prison about the deeds of the Christ, he sent word by his disciples

[3] and said to him, "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?"

So in contrast to John's earlier recognition of Christ and his witnessing of a voice from heaven, at this point John doesn't seem certain about Jesus' status.

In any case, I wonder if the Mandaens will provide a useful alternative perspective on the roles of Jesus (as) and John the Baptist (as) which will help Muslims get a deeper insight into events during the early history of Christianity.

The Gnostic Society Library: Mandaean Scriptures and Fragments

who are the sabians?

Those who believe (in the Qur’an) those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians any who believe in God and the Last Day and work righteousness on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve. (5:69)

Who are the Sabians? Their identity is an interesting mystery. The Muslim scholar Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (d. 786–787 CE), who was in Basra before his death, wrote: “The Sabians believe they belong to the prophet Noah, they read Zabur, and their religion looks like Christianity.”

This description makes me think a lot of the Noachides and makes me wonder if some pre-modern version of the group existed in Arabia in the time of the prophet. 

For those who aren't familiar, the Noachides are basically Gentiles who strive to follow the way of life which Orthodox Judaism teaches is universally binding on all human beings (i.e. the children of Noah). This is usually summed up as seven laws.

1. No idolatry.

2. No blasphemy.

3. No murder.

4. No eating the limb of a living animal.

5. No theft.

6. No sexual immorality.

7. Establish courts / governments to enforce the previous laws (the only positive commandment).

Each of the seven commandments can be broken down further into smaller components (in one breakdown, 66 commandments and in another, 30 commandments)  so perhaps it is best to think of these as seven categories of commandments. And there are other principles which don't necessarily fall neatly into a single category. 

I've been interested in the Noachides for almost as long as I've been Muslim. And there is an interesting resonance between the Noachide faith and Islam. Noachides are monotheists. They believe in a universal law largely consistent with the shariah. Depending on ones exact definitions, you could almost argue that Muslims are naturally Noachides. (Both the Noachide Faith and Islam are monotheistic Abrahamic religion. And the seven laws are, broadly speaking, already a part of the shariah. Among the points of controversy would be that according to some sources, to be a proper Noachide you have to follow the 7 laws ONLY because they were found in the Torah of Moses, not because of reason and not because they were given by some other prophet.).

One thing which makes the Noachides less attractive as a path is that they don't seem very fleshed out. Just consider, the overwhelming mass of Jewish effort would lie in determining how Jews can connect to the Creator. Figuring out how Gentiles can and should connect would necessarily be an afterthought. And in fact, modern-day Noachides seem to be struggling a bit in terms of how to practice the day-to-day elements of their religion. What is a Noachide funeral like? A Noachide wedding? Noachide birth celebrations or rites of passage? Noachide prayers? They aren't Jewish so simply copying Jewish rituals probably wouldn't be appropriate but then what is left? There have been some attempts to fill in those gaps but there is still a lot of work left.

The modern Noachide movement is one thing but there have also been evidence of earlier analogues. In the Bible there have been mentions of God-fearers, Gentiles sympathetic to Judaism without actually converting.

In Genesis 8-9 we can read:

[20] Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.[21] And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

[22] While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

Gen.9

[1] And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[2] The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.

[3] Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

[4] Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

[5] For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require the life of man.

[6] Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

[7] And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it."

[8] Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him,

[9] "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendants after you,

[10] and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark.

[11] I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth."

[12] And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations:

[13] I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

[14] When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,

[15] I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

[16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

[17] God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

So according to the Bible, before God makes a covenant with the Children of Israel at Sinai, and before he made a covenant with Abraham (as), there was a covenant made between God and Noah (and his descendants... i.e. all human beings, and all living things). 

Another significant passage where the Bible seems to connect to the Noachide covenant is Acts 15. One of the first conflicts faced by the early Church was the issue of what to do about Gentile believers in Christ. Some insisted Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism entirely, while others seemed to think that none of the Torah was binding on Gentiles. To resolve the contract Paul and others went to James, the leader of the Jerusalem Church who gave his decision:

[19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,

[20] but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.

If we look at James' instructions, they correspond well to the Noachide commandments. First of all, consider that the secular government would already enforce the rules about murder, theft and setting up courts. The rule against "what is strangled and from blood" corresponds to the rule against tearing a limb of a live animal (and the commandments in Genesis 9 regarding blood). "Unchastity" corresponds to the rule against sexual immorality. Rules against "the pollutions of idols" would correspond to the rules against idolatry and blasphemy. So essentially, James is telling the Gentile Christians to follow the Noachide law. 

So again, I wonder  if the "the Sabians" which Al-Farahidi knew were, in fact, some other permutation of Noachide.

Tablet Mag: The Gentiles Who Act Like Jews

50 reasons to never quote paul again

Bustin Jest (I think he formerly went by Christian Truther) is an ex-Christian YouTuber. Part of his path (to agnosticism) was a growing awareness of the problematic role of St. Paul in distorting the Christian message. He made several videos rounding up a large collection of arguments:

50 Reasons to Never Quote Paul Again Part 1

50 Reasons to Never Quote Paul Again Part 2

He makes some interesting points. Somewhere down the line I might revisit some of these arguments in a later post. 

modern day ebionites

Round up of interesting modern-day Ebionites (or Christians who seem somewhat critical of Paul)

The Ebionite Home Page

Yahhorai Ben YHWH

Essene Church of Christ

Early Hebrew Christian Resources List

Bet Emet Ministries

Talmidi Israelite Community (World Fellowship of Followers of the Way)

David H'Notsari

imam james the just

If Islam is true, then what does that mean about early Christian origins? According to the Quran, Jesus (as) is neither God nor the son of God and "they neither killed him nor crucified him" while most Christians generally believe something very different about Christ.

So a natural question would be where the mainstream Christians came from. And where did the original authentic Christians go?

The basic answer which most Muslims give for the first part is to blame Paul. Mainstream Christianity is "Pauline" and largely originates in Paul's distortions of Christian doctrine.

A tricky part is the second question. Can we point to which group or groups form the "real" authentic tradition of Christianity?

I'm not Ismaili, but one of the interesting perspectives I've seen on this question can be found in an article on the Ismaili Gnosis website:  The Imamat of James: Brother of Jesus, Successor of Christ & Leader of Early Christianity The article brings together a couple different ideas I've seen elsewhere. Basically, the author(s) locate the authentic non-Pauline Christian tradition in the Jewish Christian (Ebionite) tradition led by James. It is a really nice round-up of texts arguing for the high status of James in the early Church. For example: 

The disciples said to Jesus, ‘We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?’ Jesus said to them, ‘No matter where you go, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.’

Gospel of Thomas Saying 12

The article also presents evidence outlining the conflict between James and Paul which is there lurking in the Biblical texts, but also in some of the non-canonical writings such as the Clementine literature. Much of this is interpreted by scholars James D. G. Dunn and Robert Eisenman:

“Paul had in effect been disowned by the church which had first commissioned him as a missionary. Since Paul continued to believe passionately in the truth of the gospel which in effect had been rejected at Antioch, the relationship could not continue as before. It is not surprising, then, that in his continuing mission, as we shall see, Paul seems to have worked much more as an independent missionary… It would further follow that Paul saw the outcome as constituting an effective breach with the mother church in Jerusalem.” 

– James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making

I don't think I'd go along with some of the more Ismaili-specific concepts, but these days I'd definitely lean towards some of how they navigate through these controversies.

hadith about hanafi / maturidi / naqshbandi ruler and a larger perspective on islam / iman / ihsan

 Prophecy has been on my mind lately. I'm reluctant to use scripture to "decode" history but this is an interesting example since I would think of the Hanafi-Maturidi tradition along with the Naqshbandis as my "home base" as far as Islam is concerned.

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.