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

medieval jain version of parable

 

lost property

Part of the reason I've been on an elephant kick lately is that the fable is one of the better ways to make sense of religious diversity. It is humble and modest. Many other approaches to religious difference end up coming from a place of arrogance or presumption. I mean, in order to have a grand unified vision of all religions you are almost necessarily claiming to be able to judge the merits of vast traditions and spiritual systems from a place of authority and knowledge. A very top-down vision. And sure, maybe there are certain scholar-saints with the comprehensive knowledge to pull it off, but they'd have to be few and far between in human history. Everyone else is going to have non-trivial limitations and "blind spots".

A more modest ground-up approach makes more sense to me. I'm not a Perennialist who claims to know the Sophia Perennis. I'm just a Muslim with a charitable view of other religions. So I'm tentatively open to the idea that Buddha, Zoroaster, Aesop, Akhenaton, Lao Tzu and others were prophets and that the Book of Coming Forth By Day, Mandaean scriptures, the Gathas, the I Ching and other writings contain prophetic guidance (or at the very least, some good advice).

I'm not trying to advocate for a syncretic approach. We should only follow one shariah, not mix-and-match among different rituals and commandments.

But at the same time, we should be willing to learn from various sources.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The word of wisdom is the lost property of the believer. Wherever he finds it, he is most deserving of it.”

(Sunan al-Tirmidhī 2687)

"of elephants and blind men" by david meng

 "Of elephants and blind men" by David Meng

grenada's past

 I don't want to do a lot of public navel-gazing on here but a certain amount seems unavoidable. From 2005 - 2010 I was blogging over 200 times a year. After 2011 I was down to a couple of times a month and then only a few times a year. This month I've started to blog a lot more frequently and I'd like to continue this uptick.... at least for a while. Let's see what my work schedule allows....

Also, as I've made a return to blogging I've started to go back and look at old posts. I now realize that, unfortunately, my tendency to share links to content I found interesting did not age very well and so a non-trivial fraction links to pages and blogs are no longer functioning. This means that some parts of Planet Grenada are like an internet graveyard. Occasionally I can fix the links for some content which can still be found elsewhere, but other times there is no real solution (which I hope folks can forgive).

elephant by beauchamp

 

I saw this on the Etsy page for Gregory Beauchamp

quarreling over names

A man gave four persons a silver coin. The (first) one (who was a Persian) said, "I will give this for (buying) some angûr."

An other one (who) was an Arab said, "No! I want `inab -- not
angûr, O deceitful (man)!"

The (third) one was a Turk and he said, "This (coin) is mine. I
don't want `inab. I want üzüm."

The (fourth) one, an Anatolian Greek, said, "Quit (all) this talk! I
want istâfîl."

3685 In (their) disagreement, those individuals were (soon) in a
fight -- since they were uninformed of the hidden (meaning) of the
names.

They were striking at each other (with their) fists out of ignorance.
They were full of foolishness and (were) devoid of knowledge.

If a master of (the meaning of) secrets, a venerable one (with
knowledge) of numerous languages, had been there, he would
have given them reconciliation and peace.

Then he would have said, "By means of this one silver coin, I will
grant the wishes of all of you.

"This coin will cause effects such as these when you submit (your)
hearts (to me) without deceit.

"Your one coin will become (like) four (coins) for the desired
(result). (And) four enemies will become (as) one from unity (of
friendship).

"The words of each one of you offer (only) fighting and separation.
But my words will bring you harmonious agreement.

"Therefore, you be quiet (and) stay silent! So that I may
become your tongue for (needed) conversation."

-- Rumi

Dar-al-Masnavi: Quarreling Over Names

Mughal painting of the blind men and the elephant, from the 1600s AD (now in Walters Art Museum)

the blind men and the elephant by katsushika hokusai

The Blind Men and the Elephant, by Katsushika Hokusai

The illustration, which accompanies this story is a Japanese version drawn by the famous artist Hokusai (1760-1849) and taken from his collected prints in the Mangwa- Vol. 8, in which he increases the number of blind men to eleven. Because of the fact that in Japan (according to a recent book) elephants are rather uncommon we can well believe that this fable in Japan was borrowed from China or India.

blind men examining an elephant

Blind men (here, monks) examining an elephant by Japanese painter, poet and calligrapher Hanabusa Itchō (1652–1724) 

 

elephant in the dark

"Elephant in the Dark" (trans. Coleman Barks)

Some Hindus have an elephant to show.
No one here has ever seen an elephant.
They bring it at night to a dark room.
One by one, we go in the dark and come out
saying how we experience the animal.
One of us happens to touch the trunk.
"A water-pipe kind of creature."
Another, the ear. "A very strong, always moving
back and forth, fan-animal."
Another, the leg. "I find it still,
like a column on a temple."
Another touches the curved back.
"A leathery throne."
Another, the cleverest, feels the tusk.
"A rounded sword made of porcelain."
He's proud of his description.
Each of us touches one place
and understands the whole in that way.
The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are
how the senses explore the reality of the elephant.
If each of us held a candle there,
and if we went in together,
we could see it.

-Rumi

the elephant in a dark room

 The Elephant in a Dark Room (trans. E.H. Whinfield)

Some Hindoos were exhibiting an elephant in a dark room, and many people collected to see it. But as the place was too dark to permit them to see the elephant, they all felt it with their hands, to gain an idea of what it was like. One felt its trunk, and declared that the beast resembled a water-pipe; another felt its ear, and said it must be a large fan; another its leg, and thought it must be a pillar; another felt its back, and declared the beast must be like a great throne. According to the part which each felt, he gave a different description of the animal.

The eye of outward sense is as the palm of a hand,
The whole of the object is not grasped in the palm.
The sea itself is one thing, the foam another;
Neglect the foam, and regard the sea with your eyes.
Waves of foam rise from the sea night and day,
You look at the foam ripples and not the mighty sea.
We, like boats, are tossed hither and thither,
We are blind though we are on the bright ocean.
Ah! you who are asleep in the boat of the body,
You see the water; behold the Water of waters!
Under the water you see there is another Water moving it,
Within the spirit is a Spirit that calls it.
Keep silence that you may hear Him speaking
Words unutterable by tongue in speech.
Keep silence, that you may hear from that Sun
Things inexpressible in books and discourses.

-Rumi

"an elephant is soft and mushy"

 

I remember seeing this image many years ago in a book of cartoons by Sam Gross with the title, "An Elephant is Soft and Mushy". I think it came out around the same time that Gary Larson's "The Far Side" cartoons were really popular. (And both cartoonists used a similar witty, bizarre one-panel style). This cartoon is a playful riff off of the famous fable of the blind men and the elephant (which I will try to explore over several posts).   Gross' work generally didn't make as much of an impression on me as Larson's but this one obviously stuck with me. The only other cartoon I remember of his also combined the scatological and the religious and was captioned "Jesus (as) turns wine into water" (and I will not be sharing the image but you can imagine it).

salman sheikh & babism

For a while now I've been checking out videos from Salman Sheikh. He's an interesting cat. He seems to be a Muslim and a Mason who wants to explore connections between Masonry and lots of other religious systems. He has a couple videos interacting with members of the Babi movement. (I'm not certain if he would identify as a Babi but he has a really positive non-judgemental demeanor where he seems to vibe with whoever he's speaking with.)

I thought this video was a bit more accessible than others as an entry point. I'm definitely not a Babi or even Shia but they seem to have some valid criticisms of the Bahai movement and they are interesting as a kind of "Islamicate" liberation theology.

 

Planet Grenada:

the number of the beast 

 Gentle Bahai

 review of brown skin, white masks

"armageddon has been in effect... go get a late pass!" (part one)

"armageddon has been in effect... go get a late pass!" (part two) 

 the afro-iranian community

bahais and divorce

since when was blindness a good thing? 

o son of being / the spark

"thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which have been done or will be done by thee"

Another point in time when the Biblical text was incredibly vulnerable to change and modification was the Babylonian capitivity. The Temple had been destroyed. Fundamental religious institutions had been disrupted. And knowledge of the law was essentially gone. In that time of "Jahiliyyah", Ezra had a mission to reform his society by rewritting the scriptures.

As we read in 4 Ezra (2 Esdras in many English translations), chapter 14:

[20] For behold, I will go, as thou hast commanded me, and I will reprove the people who are now living; but who will warn those who will be born hereafter? For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without light.

[21] For thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which have been done or will be done by thee.

[22] If then I have found favor before thee, send the Holy Spirit into me, and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days may live."

[23] He answered me and said, "Go and gather the people, and tell them not to seek you for forty days

[24] But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea, Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus, and Asiel -- these five, because they are trained to write rapidly;

[25] and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to write is finished.

[26] And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow at this hour you shall begin to write."

[27] Then I went as he commanded me, and I gathered all the people together, and said,

[28] "Hear these words, O Israel

[29] At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt, and they were delivered from there,

[30] and received the law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them.

[31] Then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you.

[32] And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given.

[33] And now you are here, and your brethren are farther in the interior.

[34] If you, then, will rule over your minds and discipline your hearts, you shall be kept alive, and after death you shall obtain mercy.

[35] For after death the judgment will come, when we shall live again; and then the names of the righteous will become manifest, and the deeds of the ungodly will be disclosed.

[36] But let no one come to me now, and let no one seek me for forty days."

[37] So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we proceeded to the field, and remained there.

[38] And on the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, "Ezra, open your mouth and drink what I give you to drink."

[39] Then I opened my mouth, and behold, a full cup was offered to me; it was full of something like water, but its color was like fire.

[40] And I took it and drank; and when I had drunk it, my heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom increased in my breast, for my spirit retained its memory;

[41] and my mouth was opened, and was no longer closed.

[42] And the Most High gave understanding to the five men, and by turns they wrote what was dictated, in characters which they did not know. They sat forty days, and wrote during the daytime, and ate their bread at night.

[43] As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night.

[44] So during the forty days ninety-four books were written.

[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;

[46] but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.

[47] For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the river of knowledge."

[48] And I did so.

So it seems like the Bible is saying that previous scriptures were miraculously re-revealed after being lost. But another possibility is that the texts were redacted at this point. 

if it was found, that means it was lost, right?

A lot of evangelical Christians have an unrealistic and simplistic picture of the continuity  of the Bible. For instance, sometimes you see the claim that it would have been impossible for the text of the Torah  to have changed because there were just too many copies and the text was too spread out. But in reality there were several  moments when the text was incredibly vulnerable  to change. An interesting account can be seen in the Bible itself. 

2Kgs.22

[3] In the eighteenth year of King Josi'ah, the king sent Shaphan the son of Azali'ah, son of Meshul'lam, the secretary, to the house of the LORD, saying,

[4] "Go up to Hilki'ah the high priest, that he may reckon the amount of the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the keepers of the threshold have collected from the people;

[5] and let it be given into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD; and let them give it to the workmen who are at the house of the LORD, repairing the house,

[6] that is, to the carpenters, and to the builders, and to the masons, as well as for buying timber and quarried stone to repair the house.

[7] But no accounting shall be asked from them for the money which is delivered into their hand, for they deal honestly."

[8] And Hilki'ah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." And Hilki'ah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.

In other words, the Torah was found in the Temple (implying that it was lost before this point). And lest you want to argue that this was just some kind of redundant  copy, consider the way the king and others seem to respond to the Torah as if it were new information. 

         

[9] And Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, "Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of the LORD."

[10] Then Shaphan the secretary told the king, "Hilki'ah the priest has given me a book." And Shaphan read it before the king.

[11] And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his clothes.

[12] And the king commanded Hilki'ah the priest, and Ahi'kam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micai'ah, and Shaphan the secretary, and Asai'ah the king's servant, saying,

[13] "Go, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us."

In other words, at this time, the children of Israel were at a particularly low point in terms of knowing and obeying the law, so much so that when the king read the book of the law he was genuinely shocked about what it said. 

[...]

2Kgs.23

[1]Then the king sent, and all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem were gathered to him.

[2] And the king went up to the house of the LORD, and with him all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests and the prophets, all the people, both small and great; and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.

[3] And the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people joined in the covenant.

So things got so bad that the king felt a need for the people of Judah to rededicate themselves to following the Torah The next dozen or so verses then go into vivid detail about how deeply entrenched paganism had become in the land and what steps had to be taken to uproot it.

[4] And the king commanded Hilki'ah, the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the threshold, to bring out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels made for Ba'al, for Ashe'rah, and for all the host of heaven; he burned them outside Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel.

[5] And he deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places at the cities of Judah and round about Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Ba'al, to the sun, and the moon, and the constellations, and all the host of the heavens.

[6] And he brought out the Ashe'rah from the house of the LORD, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people.

[7] And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Ashe'rah.

So even in the Temple in Jerusalem there had been idol worship and cult prostitutes! 

[8] And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beer-sheba; and he broke down the

high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on one's left at the gate of the city.

[9] However, the priests of the high places did not come up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brethren.

[10] And he defiled To'pheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech.

[11] And he removed the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun, at the entrance to the house of the LORD, by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the precincts; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire.

[12] And the altars on the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manas'seh had made in the two courts of the house of the LORD, he pulled down and broke in pieces, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.

[13] And the king defiled the high places that were east of Jerusalem, to the south of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ash'toreth the abomination of the Sido'nians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.

[14] And he broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Ashe'rim, and filled their places with the bones of men.

[15] Moreover the altar at Bethel, the high place erected by Jerobo'am the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, that altar with the high place he pulled down and he broke in pieces its stones, crushing them to dust; also he burned the Ashe'rah.

[16] And as Josi'ah turned, he saw the tombs there on the mount; and he sent and took the bones out of the tombs, and burned them upon the altar, and defiled it, according to the word of the LORD which the man of God proclaimed, who had predicted these things.

[17] Then he said, "What is yonder monument that I see?" And the men of the city told him, "It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and predicted these things which you have done against the altar at Bethel."

[18] And he said, "Let him be; let no man move his bones." So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Sama'ria.

[19] And all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Sama'ria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger, Josi'ah removed; he did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel.

[20] And he slew all the priests of the high places who were there, upon the altars, and burned the bones of men upon them. Then he returned to Jerusalem.

Things had gotten so bad that people had even stopped keeping Passover.

[21] And the king commanded all the people, "Keep the passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant."

[22] For no such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, or during all the days of the kings of Israel or of the kings of Judah;

[23] but in the eighteenth year of King Josi'ah this passover was kept to the LORD in Jerusalem.

[24] Moreover Josi'ah put away the mediums and the wizards and the teraphim and the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might establish the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilki'ah the priest found in the house of the LORD.

[25] Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

[26] Still the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manas'seh had provoked him.

[27] And the LORD said, "I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city which I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there."

[28] Now the rest of the acts of Josi'ah, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?

So what am I trying to say here? Maybe we can take the story at face value and the Torah was lost and then found intact. But if we are even just a little bit skeptical, this moment of Josiah's reforms presents a perfect opportunity for the text to have been redacted.

Allahu alim.

adam kadamon

I generally want to be really cautious when it comes to incorporating Isra'iliyyat .  But I've been reading about the concept of Adam Kadmon  and have been struck by how much it resonates with certain Islamic ideas and certain passages  in the Quran and hadith. I'm not saying that Adam Kadmon perfectly fits into Islam. But seems like there is enough common ground for there to be conversation about similarities and differences.

Adam Kadmon is  a spiritual/ heavenly /metaphysical Adam which is distinct from, and existed before the flesh and blood Adam. There are all sorts of resonances with the idea of the Perfect Man (al-Insan al-Kamil) ,the Nur (light) of Muhammad (saaws). There is also  idea of the Covenant of Alast when in pre-eternity all human beings were somehow taken out of Adam (which Adam?)  and asked by Allah,. "Am I not your Lord?

(from Wikipedia)

The first to use the expression "original man," or "heavenly man," was Philo, in whose view the γενικός, or οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος, "as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence; whereas the earthly man is made of loose material, called a lump of clay." The heavenly man, as the perfect image of the Logos, is neither man nor woman, but an incorporeal intelligence purely an idea; while the earthly man, who was created by God later, is perceptible to the senses and partakes of earthly qualities. Philo is evidently combining philosophy and Midrash, Plato and the rabbis.

(Side note: The concepts aren't the same but the phrase "original man" makes me think of the Nation of Islam catechism, the Supreme Wisdom Lessons: (Question: Who is the Original man? Answer: The original man is the Asiatic Black man; the Maker; the Owner; the Cream of the planet Earth - Father of Civilization, God of the Universe.) Perhaps the Nation had more of a mystical bent than they are usually given credit for? 

(Again from Wikipedia)

Kabbalism

In Kabbalah, before creation began, all that existed was God's Infinite Light. The first stage of creation began when God contracted His Infinite Light to create the vacuum. Then a ray of divine light penetrated the vacuum and the persona of Adam Kadmon was projected into the vacuum. The first stage of Adam Kadmon was in the form of ten concentric circles (igulim), which emanated from the ray. 

So is the "perfect image of the Logos" somehow connected to the  Light of Muhammad?  Is this Light connected to all the prophets (alaihi salaam) or just some of them? Can Muslims gain benefit from studying the kabbalah, the Tree of Life and the 10 sefirot?

Allahu alim.

Wikipedia: Insan al-Kamil

Planet Grenada: the light of muhammad (saaws)

Wikipedia: Adam Kasia

Jewish Virtual Library: Adam Kadmon

New Kabbalah: Adam Kadmon: Primordial Man

Jewish Encylopedia: Adam Kadmon

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.