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. 

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.