good friday (part two)

Corpus Hypercubus by Salvador Dali

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: (4:157)

 

For a while now, I've started to become aware that "the" Islamic understanding of the crucifixion is not *quite* as simple as I once believed. Most Muslims maintain, based on 4:157 that Jesus (as) in no sense, died on the cross, nor was he ever even put on it. In this camp, some maintain that somehow Judas was made to look like Jesus and that he was put on the cross instead.   But there have also been minority opinions which to varying degrees have allowed for more points of contact with the Christian narrative (including some which even affirm Christ's biological death on the cross).

One good resource in this area is the book by Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Quran  which looks at a wide range of Muslim commentaries on 4:157. The author is a Bahai, and so perhaps one could argue that he wrote the book, in part, out an interest to gather evidence which supports Bahai interpretations of topic. (The Bahais affirm that the Quran is "absolutely authentic" including  4:157. But they also accept the validity of much of the Bible, in particular they, affirm the basics of the Biblical passion narrative. According to Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith, "The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Qur'ánic version is that the spirit of Christ was not Crucified. There is no conflict between the two.")

Whatever his agenda, Lawson's book is an interesting and valuable round-up of different tafsirs on the crucifixion verse and different Muslim narratives on the end of Christ's ministry on Earth. 

If you have the time (roughly 2 hours), Dr. Ali Ataie, a professor at Zaytuna College, has a lecture where he gives an overview of different Muslim perspectives of the crucifixion which takes heavily from Lawson's book. 

What is also interesting is that Dr. Ataie himself seems to affirm the bodily death of Jesus. I would recommend listening to his own words on the subject. But his basic point is that 4:157 says "they killed him not" which still allows the possibility that Jesus (as) gives up his life willingly. As the Bible says: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father." (John 10:17-18).

I don't mean to be flippant, but I am almost tempted to compare this to the scene in Star Wars when from a distance it only seems as if Darth Vader kills Obi-Wan Kenobi. But in reality, Vader neither killed Kenobi, nor cut him with a light saber. It only appeared so. In reality Obi-Wan chooses to surrender to the Force at the end of his earthly life. He primarily engages in a duel with Vader to distract him and give the rebels enough time to escape the Death Star.

Another point which Dr. Ataie makes has to do with the question: What is accomplished by Jesus' death? And his interesting (and actually plausible) answer is Jesus death literally saved the people of Jerusalem from the wrath of the Romans for a generation.  As the Bible itself says after the raising of Lazarus:

John 11

[45] Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him;
[46] but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
[53] So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death. 

or if you are a fan of Jesus Christ Superstar:

In other words, Jesus' growing popularity while associated with messianic claims  (i.e. claiming to be the king of the Jews when under Roman occupation)  was politically subversive in a way which would bring about massive retaliation from the Romans. (And in fact we know this was realistic concern because only one generation later a different popular Jewish rebellion would cause the Romans to strike against the Jews and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.) Dr. Ataie seems to be arguing that if it weren't for Jesus' death on the cross, this destruction would have occurred much sooner.

Also note that according to John 11, Caiphas "did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation". This is an interesting, but seldom discussed point. The Jewish authorities who sought to kill Christ were not just acting out of jealousy or resentment over Christ's popularity or a selfish fear for their own political position. They were at least partially motivated by a legitimate concern for the fate of the Jews under Roman occupation.

Ismaili scholar Khalil Andani has also done some really interesting work elaborating on Muslims who have affirmed the material reality of crucifixion. (Apparently this is the mainstream Isma'ili position)

First here is Dr. Andani giving a talk on Shi'a Isma'ili Muslim Christology with an emphasis on the crucifixion:

And then here is a paper which covers much of the same ground but with more detail: “They Killed Him Not”: The Crucifixion in Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam 

What is really interesting here (and this is elaborated on in both the paper and the video) is that the Ismailis don't just tentatively concede the physical reality of the crucifixion. Instead they give full-throated support to the crucifixion as a theologically significant event (although it still isn't some atoning sacrifice as Christians generally believe). And they even go so far as to say the symbol of the cross can be esoterically identified with the shahada of Islam)

Lots to unpack...

Planet Grenada:

Good Friday

"jah would never give the power to a baldhead/ run come crucify the dread."

"jah would never give the power to a baldhead/ run come crucify the dread."

(this is actually an old post which ended up getting republished)

I've been listening to Bob Marley's Natural Mystic in my car these days. And I'm especially intrigued by the song Time Will Tell (which is where the title of this blog entry comes from). To be honest, I still don't know for sure how the different groups of Rastafari understand the crucifixion of Christ, but whenever I hear this song I can't help but wonder if the Rastafarian perspective is similar to the Islamic one. In any case, this is all just a roundabout way of introducing the following (see also Grenada and the crucifixion) :

Story of Jesus Through Iranian Eyes By LARA SETRAKIAN TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 16, 2008 

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. “The Messiah,” which some consider as Iran’s answer to Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ,” won an award at Rome’s Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue. The movie will be adapted into a television series, shown on Iranian TV later this year. Filmmaker Nader Talebzadeh spoke to ABC’s Lara Setrakian in Tehran. 

LS: Why did you feel a movie showing Islam’s take on Jesus needed to be made? 

NT: I’ve been witnessing what’s been going on in Iran for the past 28 years; I’ve been living here after I lived a decade in America. Everybody knows Jesus, so why not make a film about something everyone relates to? And made in Iran.

LS: What are the key differences between Jesus through Islam’s eyes and Jesus through the traditional Christian perspective? 

NT: We are talking about the same beautiful man, the same beautiful prophet, the same divine person sent from heaven. In the Koran, it emphasizes maybe three main points: about the birth, about the fact that he was not the son of God, and then, that he was not crucified. The rest is [the same] Jesus … the sermons, and the miracles, and the political situation.

LS: So, when it comes to Jesus, the message and the reverence are there.

NT: Yes.

LS: But the virgin birth, the crucifixion… 

NT: The virgin birth was the same. The difference in the Koran, God says Jesus was saved. Instead of having him hung and crucified, the person who betrayed Jesus was crucified. This is how the Koran sees it, through the Gospel of Barnabas.

LS: So, you gave the alternate ending.

NT: Yes, two endings. I thought, the Christians, when they see it, it'll be important for them. [In the Koran] God says, emphatically, he was not crucified. Somebody was crucified in his stead. In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are explications of this. The majority of [Muslims] say the one who betrayed Jesus [was crucified].

LS: There's plenty of news today about Christians being persecuted, or even killed, today, in Muslim countries. So, where does the Muslim reverence for Christians go off-track?

NT: It doesn't go off-track. The Muslim reverence is very high for Jesus and Mary. This is the misunderstanding in the West — especially in America.

LS: So, then, why in your mind do Muslims, in some places, kill Christians?

NT: Well, those are not Muslims. They're murderers. First and foremost, they're murderers, and they dress as Muslims. Today, we have that problem. There is an evil strain in those people. They're, first, evil, and then they find a religion to address that evil, or to explain it, or as an excuse. But that's a minority that is aggrandized, and it's elaborated — it's constant. So, when you hear the word "Islam," you get a shock. Every time you hear "Islam," you get a little shock. What we lack is communication.

LS: While production on this movie was happening, Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" came out. What did you learn from watching that film?

NT: We were almost finished filming when Mel Gibson started shooting. I saw the film, and it's the first time the Gospel of John has ever been depicted. It was nice. But it was the wrong story. In my film, I respect that common belief with all the good intentions the Christians have ... according to what Islam says. Yet, Jesus, at the night of the last supper, ascends to heaven [without being crucified]. A beautiful man, a beautiful prophet. Why should he be bloodied that way?

LS: What kind of response have you gotten from Christians? What kind of feedback and interchange has there been since the movie was released?

NT: Many thought this film is a good step for serious inter-religious dialogue. Many of them liked it — seeing the Koran-based ending. And I was very happy that the practicing Christians were very happy with the film. I have never found one case among practicing Christians who are offended [by the movie]. American Christians, I respect them very much. I think these Christians, the born-again Christians, especially, are a very interesting group that Iran is not aware of, because a whole generation of Iranians haven't been able to travel to America. And those who do move to America, stay in America. So, how to create serious communication, not at the political, but at the religious level? I thought this would be a shortcut.

LS: Any plans for a movie that would help the dialogue between Muslims and Jews? 

NT: This film is about Jesus, who is the last Jewish prophet. The audience has to realize that Iranians have been living with Jews and Christians for centuries. Jews were saved by Iranian kings. This was always their home, and it still is their home. Also, the first Christian church was built in Iran. The first Christian tribe that became Christian, the first tribe — was the Armenians. Armenians were part of the Persian Empire ... they found comfort living with the Iranians.

LS: What is your hope for the movie?

NT: The film is an excuse to sit down and talk. Iran is so consistently demonized. Once an American visits Iran, they know it's a different story. So, how do we export our thinking? It's the movies. This is a film for students and for practicing Christians, for people to become curious, and go investigate more. My hope for the movie was, and is, and will be, to make people think about how God sees the prophets, how God talks about Jesus in the Koran. What was the main message of Jesus? And what was censored out of history? Part of the message of Jesus was censored out, which was the coming of the next prophets. If you listen to what Jesus said, Jesus talked about the Prophet Mohammad, many, many times. And it was eliminated in the Gospels and the Bibles that [made it through] history. In 325, the Council of Nice was out to destroy all the other Gospels. One of those Gospels was the Gospel of Barnabas, which I used in great detail.

LS: And what did that say that was left out?

NT: It had a lot of sermons of Jesus that you do not see in the Bible; miracles, and at least a hundred references to the Prophet Mohammad, about his coming. It's one of the biggest censorships of history. So, I thought somebody should say this, and then others might disagree, say, "Ahhh, this could not be! This is blasphemy!" But it's OK — this is the 21st century. It's time for information. It's time for communication. They can go check it out.

LS: Anything else you felt while making the film?

NT: I thought about Americans when I was shooting this ... I was thinking that I have very good memories of the '90s, living in Virginia, remembrances of kindness. The misunderstanding of the past three decades really burns my heart. There's so much misunderstanding about Islam today. And one of those key missing links, that would bind the chain together, is Jesus Christ. I thought, we should work on talking through something that's much more dear to us than other things. I thought that, through art, you could do a lot more than with the politics.

ABC News

jesus in india

I've been noticing that recently a lot of the people who have been making their way to Planet Grenada have come here looking for an Islamic perspective on The Da Vinci Code. So to help quench their thirst I'd thought I'd also pass along a link to the book Jesus in India which suggests that Jesus survived the crucifixion and travelled to Afghanistan (where he possibly married and had children) and moved on to Kashimir where (it is alleged) his tomb can be found. I'm not claiming the theory is true. And I'm definitely not saying that this is THE Muslim perspective on these matters. I would just say it is an example of sustained speculation on the subject of what happened after the crucifixion from someone claiming to be Muslim. And y'all might be interested.

See also: holy blood, holy grail

holy blood, holy grail

a belated "holiday" piece....
I've been reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I just finished a few days ago. The book has been getting some attention these days because the authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, recently lost a plagarism lawsuit against Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code. Certain themes from the Da Vinci Code were pretty clearly inspired by Holy Blood, Holy Grail except The Da Vinci Code admits that it is fiction while Holy Blood, Holy Grail is presented as non-fiction. (It seems like a basic Catch-22. If Baigent and Leigh are just doing history, then the Da Vinci Code is just an example of historically-based fiction. But if Baigent and Leigh want to take credit for their story and say that Dan Brown stole their work, on some level, it means admitting they more or less made it up.)

Baigent and Leigh argue that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and their descendents became part of European royalty (specifically the Merovingian dynasty). Furthermore, a secret society called the Priory of Sion has an elaborate master plan to place Christ's descendants into positions of political power in Europe (and possibly the world).

Some of the details of their theory are of special interest to Muslims:

1. Baigent and Leigh suggest that Jesus may have survived the crucifixion.

2. They suggest that Jesus did not claim to be God but was a human Messiah. So instead of following the typical Christian interpretation that Jesus was killed because his theological claims were blasphemous to monotheistic Jews, they argue that his claim to be the messiah, (a human hereditary priest-king) was a political threat to Imperial Rome (which is why he would have been sentenced to crucifixion in the first place).

3. In order to make Christ's message more popular in the Roman Empire, the political message was de-emphasized and replaced with anti-semitic elements. (Blaming the Jews instead of the Romans)

4. The Priory of Sion was also behind the founding of the Templars who had a long term goal of trying to unify Jews, Christians and Muslims under one system; an actual theocratic government ruled by the descendants of Jesus. As they put it:

For if Jesus were acknowledged as a mortal prophet, as a priest-king and legitimate ruler of the line of David, he might well have become acceptable to both Muslims and Jews. As king of Jerusalem, his lineal descendant would than have been in a position to implement one of the primary tenents of Templar policy - the reconciliation of Christianity with Judaism and Islam.

The authors try to bring together various threads to weave a complex story, but to be honest, they aren't always very rigorous in terms of making their argument and so some of the pieces don't hold. For example, the Priory of Sion was probably a hoax. (It seems the 'real' Priory of Sion is not a 1000 year old secret society but was founded in the 1950's by a French con artist as part of an elaborate scam). Nevertheless, the book was an interesting read, and provided some food for thought. (I was most persuaded by the idea that Christ's mission was more political than is usually acknowledged).

the da vinci code
the (real) da vinci code
angels and demons
the black stone

Good Friday

[...] they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Quran 4:157 (Yusef Ali translation) 

 For a long time now it has occured to me that the Islamic concept of the non-crucifixion seems almost like an inversion of the doctrine of transubstantiation. The Catholics say that even though it looks like wine and crackers, the substance underneath the appearance is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Quran says that even though it looked like the body and blood of Jesus Christ was up there on the cross, in reality, underneath the appearance, something else was going on entirely. 

Sometimes modern-day evangelicals and anti-Muslim missionaries will dismiss the non-crucifixion without any consideration, but it is interesting to note that even before the revelation of the Quran, several different ancient Christian groups also had radically different understandings of what happened on Good Friday which might also be considered "non-crucifixions".

The followers of the 'heretic' Basilides taught that Simon Peter took Jesus' place on the cross. (And in the Gospel of Barnabas, an interesting but highly flawed document, after Jesus prays for the cup to be taken from him, Judas miraculously is made to appear like Jesus and is crucified in his place) Adoptionists taught that Jesus' essence or power left his body so that he never really experienced death (those who take this view argue that this gives the real meaning of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"). According to the Acts of John, Jesus appears to John in a cave at the same time that the crowds believe he is up on the cross. And some of the Gnostic groups questioned whether Jesus had a flesh-and-blood body to begin with.

The idea that Jesus only "appeared" to die on the cross (or that he only "appeared" to have a body) is called Docetism, and this concept had many varied expressions in early Christianity. The Gospel of Peter (which in many respects is quite similar to the canonical gospels, was also excluded from the Bible specifically because of alleged docetic tendancies.

Some of these theories make more sense than others, but I tend not to hang my hat on any one in particular. As the Quran says: those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. From a certain point of view, Islam has benefitted greatly by not insisting on using Greek philosophy to do its theology. Instead of trying to describe the abstract mysteries of what happened or didn't happen, it sticks to the concrete. You may think that he died, but your eyes sometimes lie to you. And things aren't always as they seem. Even when it comes to saying who is alive (in reality) and who is dead (in reality). More than that leads down to the road of angels-on-pinhead-counting. 

 [2.154] And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive.

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.

"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.

the gospel from outer space

For a number of different reasons I've been thinking a bit about fictional belief systems and mythologies these days (e.g. Kurt Vonnegut's Bokononism). I've also been thinking about liberation theology. The two sort of come together in the following excerpt from Slaughterhouse-Five:

The Gospel from Outer Space

It was The Gospel from Outer Space, by Kilgore Trout. It was about a visitor from outer space, shaped very much like a Tralfamadorian, by the way. The visitor from outer space made a serious study of Christianity, to learn, if he could, why Christians found it so easy to be cruel. He concluded that at least part of the trouble was slipshod storytelling in the New Testament. He supposed that the intent of the Gospels was to teach people, among other things, to be merciful, even to the lowest of the low.
But the Gospels actually taught this: Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn't well connected. So it goes.

The flaw in the Christ stories, said the visitor from outer space, was that Christ, who didn't look like much, was actually the Son of the Most Powerful Being of the Universe. Readers understood that, so, when they came to the crucifixion, they naturally thought, and Rosewater read out loud again:
Oh, boy -- they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!
And then that thought had a brother: "There are right people to lynch." Who? People not well connected. So it goes.

The visitor from outer space made a gift to Earth of a new Gospel. In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had. He still got to say all the lovely and puzzling things he said in the other Gospels.
So the people amused themselves one day by nailing him to a cross and planting the cross in the ground. There couldn't possibly be any repercussions, the lynchers thought. The reader would have to think that, too, since the new Gospel hammered home again and again what a nobody Jesus was.
And then, just before the nobody died, the heavens opened up, and there was thunder and lightning. The voice of God came crashing down. He told the people that he was adopting the bum as his son, giving him the full powers and privileges of The Son of the Creator of the Universe throughout all eternity. God said this: From this moment on, He will punish horribly anybody who torments a bum who has no connections!

Reminds me a bit of the previous discussion on Cornel West and Constantinian Christianity in islam and the passion (for social justice)

a philosophical view of easter

Today I picked my copy of The Cornel West Reader and reread one of the pieces called "A Philosophical View of Easter". In it, West engages in a rather sophisticated explanation of what he means when he says resurrection claims of Christianity are "true". He lays the foundations by giving a thoughtful critique of Hume and what he calls sentential reductionism ("the view that sentences have their evidence for or against their truth or falsity isolated from and independent of other sentences."). And then he questions the empirical foundations of modern science by pointing out that even things like electrons, magnetism and black holes cannot be perceived directly and are mere theoretical constructs which we only have indirect access to.

By the same token, for West, the truth or falsehood of Christianity isn't a matter of whether the tomb was empty the Sunday after the Crucifixion, but is also something indirect. As West puts it:

I am suggesting that the primary test for the "truth value" of particular Christian descriptions and their resurrection claim is their capacity to facilitate the existential appropriate of Jesus Christ. This means that any "true" Christian description makes the Reality of Jesus Christ available, that it promotes and encourages the putting of oneself on the line, going to the edge of life's abyss and finding out whether the Reality of Jesus Christ... can sustain and support, define and develop oneself in one's perennial struggle of becoming a fuller and more faithful self in Christ.

I think this alternative notion of truth is definitely interesting but it seems a bit of a cop out. I sympathize because I think I went through something similar in terms of my own path but in general, if you have to go through a great deal of mental gymnastics in order to justify a certain religious label to yourself, then maybe it is time to think about shopping for a different religious tradition? Just a thought.

quranic eucharist?

Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith."

They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle."

Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)."
[Quran 5:112-114]

Sometimes the above-described event is identified as a kind of feeding of the multitudes but when I get to the part where the disciples of Jesus (as) describe it as a solemn festival "for the first and the last of us" I can't help but wonder if it is a reference to some sort of Eucharist. The Didache, one of the most ancient Christian texts, contains a Eucharistic prayer which includes the words: "You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant." but without any kind of association to the the Last Supper or the crucifixion. Perhaps this is the spiritual meal being referred to in the Quran.

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

I think "O Mary don't you weep" is one of the more interesting gospel tunes for a number of reasons. (I really like Aretha Franklin's version off of her Amazing Grace album. The closest I could come to it in terms of a link was the Yolanda Adams version) I'm bringing it up now because at least the Springsteen version has the line "God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water the fire next time" which seemed relevant to the previous discussion of the Noachides.

Secondly it is one of the least objectionable hymns from an Islamic theological perspective. (No talk of Trinity, Incarnation, Crucifixion, etc.)

In fact, I would suggest that it makes a very good "ashurah hymn" (see day after day after day...) If you go by the most rigorous Sunni textual standards, Ashurah celebrates God rescuing the Jews from the forces of Pharaoh. And of course for Shias it commemorates the death of Hussein. But there are also soures which associate the day with other acts of God's mercy throughout sacred history, including the landing of Noah's ark, the healing of Job, the ascencion of Jesus and other events which are all superimposed on one another much as they are in the song:

God gave Noah the rainbow sign
"No more water but fire next time"
Pharaoh's army got drownded
O Mary don't you weep

The same God who is willing to enter powerfully in history and drown an army to save a nation, is the same God willing to raise one person to comfort a crying woman.

You Tube: O Mary don't you weep (1930's Georgia fieldhands)
You Tube: O Mary don't you weep (Bruce Springsteen)
You Tube: O Mary don't you weep (Yolanda Adams tribute to Aretha Franklin)
Lyrics to O Mary don't you Weep (Springsteen version)

old story, new tribes

Published on Thursday, October 13, 2005 by Inter Press Service
Venezuela to Expel U.S. Evangelical Group
by Humberto Márquez

CARACAS - Venezuela will expel the U.S. evangelical group New Tribes Mission, which has been active in indigenous communities along the southern border with Colombia and Brazil since 1946, President Hugo Chávez announced Wednesday.

"They will leave Venezuela," said the president. "They are agents of imperialist penetration. They gather sensitive and strategic information and are exploiting the Indians. So they will leave, and I don't care two hoots about the international consequences that this decision could bring."

New Tribes, an evangelical organisation that has long had close ties with the U.S.-based Summer Institute of Linguistics, is active in a number of countries in Asia and Latin America, and in Venezuela has focused its efforts on the Yanomami, Ye'kuana and Panare indigenous groups and other ethnic communities in the southern part of the country.

Since the 1970s, New Tribes has drawn heavy criticism from many quarters, including leftist political groups, environmentalists, indigenous organisations, academics, Catholic Church leaders and even members of the military. The controversial group has been accused of prospecting for strategic minerals on behalf of transnational corporations and of the forced acculturation and conversion of indigenous people.

Sociologist and environmentalist Alexander Luzardo, who 20 years ago published a report on the New Tribes Mission's operations in the Amazon jungle, welcomed Chávez's decision.

He told IPS that the decision "complies with what is stipulated in the constitution of 1999, which establishes indigenous peoples' right to self-determination and to respect for their beliefs, values and customs.

He also said the expulsion of the group would be in line with the recommendations of numerous government and parliamentary reports that had warned about the group's activities in Venezuela.

"New Tribes has westernized indigenous people by force, while spreading a sense of shame and guilt, disguised as teaching the gospel: they taught the Panares that Satan had turned into a Panare Indian and that they were guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ," said Luzardo.

The now defunct National Identity Movement, which grouped together cultural, environmental and indigenous organisations in the 1980s, maintained that New Tribes acted as a cover for the prospecting of geological and mineral wealth coveted by corporations that provided funding for the Summer Institute of Linguistics. These included General Dynamics, a defence industry contractor, and Ford

Chávez stressed that "we are not going to run roughshod over anyone, we will give New Tribes time to pack up their things and go."

(full story)

eucharist

Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear Allah, if ye have faith."

"And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger. they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims'".

They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle."

Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)." (Quran: 5:111-114)

From my perspective as someone coming from a church background, one of the most striking aspects of Islam, especially when I was first learning about it, was how old Judeo-Christian elements were rearranged in "new" ways which were fresh yet familiar. Joseph and his brothers. Moses and Pharaoh. Noah and the flood. In some cases, like the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary the similarities are fairly clear. In the case of something like the non-crucifixion of Jesus the differences are quite radical.

The miracle described in the above provocative passage from the Quran seems to fall somewhere in the middle. At once, it is reminiscent of Christ (as) feeding the multitudes, Moses (as) calling down manna from heaven, and even of the "daily bread" mentioned in the Our Father. But an argument can also be made that it refers to the Christian celebration of the eucharist. Heavenly food. A solemn festival. For the first of us (followers of Christ) and the last of us (the later generations of Christians). I might even suggest that from a spiritual perspective the Quran is actually evoking all of these associations at once. Just as there are other examples in Islam of entire worlds of meaning being compressed and represented by simpler elements. (allahu alim)

the (real) da vinci code

So I finished the Da Vinci Code yesterday. It was a pretty entertaining book. Not great, but interesting. Assuming they get some decent actors and a good budget, the movie should do pretty well. A friend of mine already lent me a copy of Angels and Demons (the book to which The Da Vinci Code is actually a sequel which deals with the Illuminati and the Vatican).

Anyway, part of the The Da Vinci Code really focuses on a secret stash of documents which establish a radically different alternative understanding of Christian history. I'm not going to spoil the novel by giving away whether the characters find this hidden stash or not. But in the "real world", if you are curious, you might be interested in checking out some of the many resources out there associated with early alternative forms of Christianity.

The most significant alternative form of early Christianity is Gnosticism.

A good resource for looking at many of these alternative texts (Other gospels, the Nag Hammadi texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) is the Gnostic Society Library

Another good place to look is the Wesley Center Online's page on Noncanonical Literature or the early Christian writings page

There is a large amount of overlap among these pages but you they each have their differences too.

From a Muslim perspective this literature is especially interesting because it can help fill a particular gap: If Jesus was a Muslim, then where did the original Christians go, and where did the Pauline Christians come from?

By looking at these alternative texts maybe we can come closer to the actual Gospel of Jesus; the Injeel described in the Quran. And by looking at the history of these other groups perhaps we can understand the process by which Christianity went from the original teachings of Christ, to spreading and "mutating" into a larger movement with ALOT of theological diversity, and then changing again into the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire.

For example, some Christian groups had different understandings of the crucifixion and saw Jesus as a human and not as the divine second person of the Trinity.

the da vinci code

So I finally got on the bandwagon and have started to read The Da Vinci Code. It really interesting so far but the concepts don't seem terribly original. In fact, alot of its ideas have been appearing in the culture lately

For example, there is Stigmata a film which is, in a visual sense, very well done. There are many shots of the movie which are set up like powerfully beautiful photographs. Aspects of the movie are inspired by the Gospel of Thomas and (like the Da Vinci code) part of the plot involves a group within the Catholic Church who is apparently willing to go to great lengths in order to gain control of a powerful secret.

Dogma is a Kevin Smith comedy. It certainly isn't for the easily offended. I won't say very much about the plot except that like The Prophecy and Constantine (two movies which are in other respects also VERY similar to one another... but The Prophecy came first) it features angels as the "villians". And like the Da Vinci code it also plays with the idea that Jesus has living relatives in the modern-day.

My favorite thing to mention about Dogma is the fact that Chris Rock's character, Rufus the black disciple, is *actually in the Bible*. He's possibly mentioned twice:

Right before Mark's description of the crucifixion we can read:

And they compelled a passer-by, Simon of Cyre'ne, who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. And they brought him to the place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull). (Mark 15:21-22)

Cyrene is in Northern Africa. And then as a part of the introduction to one of Paul's letters he writes:

Greet Rufus, eminent in the Lord, also his mother and mine. (Romans 1:13)

Millenium is a tv series by the makers of the X-Files. Except where the typical X-files episodes might have to do with aliens and psychic phenomena, the typical episode of Millenium has to do with serial killers and apocalyptic/satanic cults. And like the Da Vinci code, a big part of the series had to do with the idea that Jesus has relatives who are alive in modern-times.

Actually, I understated it when I said that the Da Vinci is based on ideas which have already been floating around in the culture. In fact the authors of another work Holy Blood, Holy Grail (which claims to be a non-fictional work about secret societies, the Holy Grail and the descendents of Jesus) are trying to sue the author of The Da Vinci code for plagarism.

Even so, the Da Vinci Code seems like an engaging book so far and I'm eager to see how it ends.

the last temptation of christ

I just saw The Last Temptation of Christ last night. When it came out there was a great deal of contraversy associated with the film, especially for Christians living in the West, because the film portrayed Jesus (as) saying and doing a number of things which departed in radical ways from the traditional Christian understanding of Christ.

Although the film didn't exactly portray a "Muslim" Christ either, there were some interesting aspects to the film from a Muslim perspective. The Last Temptation portrayed Jesus in a much more human and vulnerable light, unsure of what he was going to say or do for most of the film.

Secondly, apparently Peter Gabriel (who was in charge of the film's score) wanted to give the music an authentic feel so he used contemporary Middle Eastern musicians, from Turkey, Ethiopia, Egypt, Senegal, and even Pakistan (Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan). I don't know if the filmmakers made this choice consciously or not, but an interesting result is that during parts of the film, including the last Supper scene you can actually hear Baba Maal singing words from the adhan in Arabic! [La ilaha illa Allah - no god but Allah (God)]

Another provocative point is how the film deals with the crucifixion. Jesus is shown to be nailed to the cross but as he is hanging up there an angel appears to him:

ANGEL
Your father is the God of Mercy, not punishment. He saw you and said, 'Aren't you his Guardian Angel? Well, go down and save him. He's suffered enough.' Remember when he told Abraham to sacrifice his son? Just as Abraham lifted his knife, God saved Isaac. If he saved Abraham's son, don't you think he'd want to save his own? He tested you, and he's pleased. He doesn't want your blood. He said, "Let him die in a dream. But let him have his life." Come with me.

JESUS
All this pain is a dream?

ANGEL
Just a dream.

JESUS
I don't have to be sacrificed.

ANGEL
No. No you don't.

In terms of the movie, this angel is really the devil trying to divert Jesus from the true mission, but of course from a Muslim perspective, the angel's words actually ring true. Jesus didn't really have to be sacrificed and God has a long track record of saving his prophets in their moments of adversity: saving Abraham from the fire, Daniel from the lions, Jonah from the whale, etc.

There are even a number of Old Testament passages which (in contrast to typical Christian claims that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin") state that God doesn't want or require sacrices and that he cares more for the state of the heart. (Psalm 51:16-17, Psalm 40:6, Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 6:6)

And finally, another incredible moment in the film is the point when Jesus (after being rescued from the cross) meets Paul preaching in the street:

PAUL
Look around you! Look at these people.Do you see the suffering and unhappiness in this world? Their only hope is the Resurrected Jesus. I don't care whether you're Jesus or not. The Resurrected Jesus will save the world -- that's what matters.

JESUS
The world can't be saved by lies.

PAUL
I created the truth. I make it out of longing and faith. I don't struggle to find truth -- I build it. If it's necessary to crucify you to save the world, then I'll crucify you. And I'll resurrect you too, whether you like it or not.

JESUS
I won't let you. I'll tell everyone the truth.

PAUL
Shout all you want. Who'll believe you? You started all this, now it can't be stopped. The faithful will grab you and call you a blasphemer and throw you in a fire.

JESUS
No, that wouldn't happen.

PAUL
How do you know? You don't know how much people need God. You don't know what a joy it is to hold the cross, to put hope in the hearts of men, to suffer, to be killed -- all for the sake of Christ. Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God. Messiah.

Jesus is listening intently now.

PAUL
(continuing)
Not you. Not for your sake.(pause) I'm glad I met you. Now I can forget you. My Jesus is much more powerful.

Of course, for most Muslims (and many other Biblical scholars for that matter), Paul bears the primary responsibility for founding Christianity and moving it away from Christ's original teachings. And some of that is obviously reflected in the above exchange.

All in all, I would say that the movie is a very interesting experience especially if you are fairly familiar with the regular Christian version of events and are not easily offended. Reading Nikos Kazantzakis' original novel is even better. But if you don't have time/money for either, you can actually read the Screenplay of The Last Temptation of Christ online as well.

Palm Sunday

So today is Palm Sunday. I've sometimes wondered how to think of the difference between Islam and Christianity on this point. Both in the Hegira to Medina, and then the Return to Mecca, Muhammad (saaws) was able to have a triumphal entry without a crucifixion. Not that sacrifices weren't made, but that a community was actually established and managed to persist and grow, despite certain significant setbacks, without Muhammad facing the kind of dramatic violent gory death experienced by others. A state was established, tribes were brought in. And after the passing of the prophet, the community was lead by "rightly-guided" successors.

In the case of Christianity, the true kingdom of God never materialized on earth as a living community. Or at least, that seems to be the thinking of most of the Christian groups around today. The Roman Empire was the dominant political order. The Jewish institutions and leadership had a measure of influence underneath them. It wasn't till later (Constantine I believe) that Christianity had a government and by that point it had already gone radically off track anyway.


I wonder if it is appropriate to introduce the prophet's grandson Hussein (as) into the equation. Muhammad (saaws) had the triumphal entry but Hussein was beheaded and his death is remembered in vivid passion plays.

What is it about the world that it needs to assassinate its truth-tellers. The world can't allow them to live. John the Baptist (as), Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Lincoln, Gandhi, etc.. (I'm going to stop before including 2Pac and Biggie.. to paraphrase Chris Rock "They didn't get assassinated. Them two n****** got shot")