Ali Ataie – Jesus in Islam – On the Diffused Congruence Podcast The American Muslim Experience
Ali Ataie – Jesus in Islam – The American Muslim Experience
AI: Summary ©
The conversation covers various topics related to the theory of Trretionaryism and the holy eye, including the use of Jesus in various context, the history of the Christmas tree, and its use in shaping the storytelling to appeal to a larger audience. The speakers emphasize the importance of context in writing about it, and the use of shaping the storytelling to appeal to a larger audience. They also touch on the history of the Christmas tree and its use in shaping the storytelling to appeal to a larger audience.
AI: Summary ©
Welcome to diffuse congruence. This is episode 74 of the American
I'm here with my partner Pervez. Hey, welcome back listeners. Good
to get to be back. And it's good to be here in the beautiful
facilities and have nine to five and Pleasanton. That's right. It
was great. Listen to our episode last time that we recorded here
are sort of version of wage. And it's great to just hear the
crispness of the audio and all of that. So thank you again, to the
good folks that have nine to five. Well, it's very exciting to be
here. And we are recording this in the morning after Christmas, this
Christmas of an episode as we got Charlie Brown Christmas Special,
or diffuse congruence. But it won't be it won't be 60 minutes of
womp, womp, womp, womp, womp, womp womp. Right. We spoke and
hopefully, hopefully, it's not what you hear when you're
listening. And we're very excited to be joined by our returning
guest, Dr. Ali attack. And if I'm not mistaken, this is momentous,
because this is the fastest turnaround that we have ever had.
Like, what? I wish two episodes, do we only have one episode
between you and the last time you were on? Because because there
were things that were left unsaid. We this is called this do we call
this episode unfinished business? Okay.
But I don't even know how to segue from that. But yeah.
Yeah, no, but this one is gonna be a really interesting conversation.
Right? I like the idea was, was to have Dr. Atari on, just in time
for the holidays to talk about Christmas. But in a sense, because
I think that oftentimes,
whether it's for listeners of other faiths, or even I think for
Muslim listeners,
you know, the what is the sort of what is sort of Islam's normative
position on Jesus and Christ and Jesus of Nazareth? I wanted to
have a conversation about that. And I think maybe we can segue
that into conversations related. But um, I guess that's kind of a
starting places that I don't know where you where we can start with
that. I mean, I have some ideas. But if there's any place that you
think would be a good beginning, with regards to maybe just
establishing the sort of, I think, I think there's a sort of a set of
things that I think all Muslims kind of know, just being in this
kind of interfaith or multifaith context of talking points that
they have with regards to while Muslims believe that Jesus was
summoned. So So I think those are kind of, I think we can dispense
with, you know, like, dispense with those because those are
pretty easy. I think where it gets a little dicey is, is with regards
to probably the crucifixion. I think most people, whether Muslim
or non Muslim, kind of there's a set of things that they believe
with regards to Jesus prior to the events of the crucifixion, which
Yeah, yeah, it's an interesting topic. Yeah. It's it's quite a
divisive topic. I think it's probably the
the biggest difference other than the suppose a deity of Jesus is
what actually happened to him. The Christians always point out from
the very beginning, John of Damacy, John Jacques Damacy, or
John Damascus, as he's called the eighth century pointed this out as
well, that Muslims categorically deny the historicity of the
crucifixion based on his understanding of the text.
There's an interesting point that Todd Lawson makes in his book, the
Quran and the crucifixion that the oldest extant denial of the
crucifixion and writing actually comes from John Damascene,
although there are certainly things attributed to Muslim
authorities before him like there's something attributed to
even bass
which is basically the most popular theory because the problem
here is there's a very enigmatic statement in the Quran that nobody
really knows what to do with. While it can should be Allah home
right? So what do you do with that statement? It was made he was made
to appear so it was made to appear so it was made dubious to them. So
the way that had been as in this you know, the tough suit of Ibn
bass is dubious by itself. I mean, there's many orlimar classical
aroma that doubt whether it been a bass actually wrote that but you
He subscribes to the substitution theory that somebody else was
transfigured. I call it supernatural identity transference
to look like Jesus and this person was crucified. And that's how he
interprets well that can she'll be Allah home and this is mentioned
by Imam a Tubridy in his encyclopedic super commentary,
where he basically has a survey of all these opinions have been out
baths and things that are attributed to with Qatada in
Mujahid, and acidy is hawk. Imam Tabata is final opinion, however,
is a tradition that goes back to what even will not be, who was a
Yemeni scholar reputed to have been a scholar of Judaism and
Islam. Now, if you if you actually engage with classical authorities
as to the reputation of what have you get everything from
trustworthy to brazen liar. And there are many, many things
attributed to him. But the one that Imam tivity really likes is
that,
that all of the disciples of Jesus, they scattered when Jewish
authorities came to arrest him,
except for one disciple. And then this soul disciple was
supernaturally transfigured to look like Christ, and then
volunteered, obviously to be crucified. And that's, that's his
final opinion. Now, what's also interesting is if you study the
history of the exegesis of this idea, and I call it is with
saliva, the verse of the crucifixion, there's only one
explicit mention of the crucifixion and the entire Quran
and there's no Hadith that is here in metaphor, in other words, that
is rigorously authenticated. And it's not that goes back to the
Prophet salallahu Salam that has any details as to what actually
happened.
So so you don't get to when you get to Imam Arrazi. Many, many
years later, you finally have in a once in a while an exigent will
sort of hit what is it exegetical pay dirt with something and it'll
problematize sort of the standard interpretation of things. Imamo
raazi says that's unacceptable for God to supernaturally
transfer someone's identity on to someone else, because we depend on
our senses. In in, you know, in Georgia, potential issues and
court proceedings, and so on and so forth. So he doesn't like that
title. He considers that the type of deception that God would do,
and he finds it unacceptable. So he doesn't like that standard sort
of substitution theory. Imam has a machete who is immortality Lee,
right. exigent, he has something interesting to say as well.
Although he does repeat all the sort of standard substitution
legends. He does say well, that can should be Allah home. He says
here that the conceptual subject of should be hard because up has a
hypoxylon dominant and isn't pure anywhere else in the Quran. Nobody
knows what to do with it really. But he says he's conceptual
subject is not Jesus. Otherwise, it would mean that Jesus was made
to look like somebody else, not the other way around. So
substitution becomes untenable, according to the machete. So what
he says here is that these the conceptual subject of should be
high as the event of the crucifixion itself, that the
crucifixion was made dubious to the enemies of Jesus. And then
what do you do with Walmart, but to Allahu wa masala boo? Well,
interestingly enough,
we'll put that aside for now. But there are things that are
attributed to Jafar Assad, who is the great great, great, great
grandson of the Prophet sallallahu Sydenham, where he actually
affirms the historicity of the crucifixion.
What's interesting is that the Twelver Shia, almost all of them
deny the crucifixion even though they claim to take from his and
there's some question of whether it's authentic or not. Certainly
Todd Lawson calls it pseudo Jafar, he doesn't think it's, it's
authentically from Jaffa sada who will be the fourth Imam. Right.
Jeff, what I saw, I think is would be the fourth or the fifth Imam.
Okay. The fifth Imam. Yeah.
So he apparently affirms the crucifixion Zedi she is smiley she
are they confirmed the crucifixion. The iguanas suffer,
for example, who were a group of, I think it's translated the
Brethren of Purity. They were basically synthesizers of Greek
philosophy and Islamic theology. And in the they have a series of
writings called the rissalah or the rasa L and then one of them in
one that he saw that they, they basically just paraphrase the
Gospel of John, because they fully accept that these four books in
the New Testament is the authentic injeel. And they just basically go
through and say, Yes, Jesus was he was cute.
As He died on the cross, and then he was, he was resurrected by God
and then he ascended to heaven. So those are the smart EVs. Now
what's interesting is, it appears as though Eva Mala zali also
accepts the historicity of the crucifixion. Because his opinion
and there's it's difficult to pin him down, because sometimes he
sort of entertains the arguments of his opponents to argue against
them. But it appears as if he accepts that the or affirms the
text of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the injeel. And in that
case, would affirm the crucifixion.
So scholars have debated us to you know why he would take that
position. Oftentimes, they'll study the, the, the, the positions
of his theological opponents, and he won't completely reject all of
their opinions, he might actually take a few opinions from them. And
that's what appears to have happened here.
But I think the key to understanding this is for 157 is
too solid is, is two things. I think it's Philology, I think we
have to study language as it's being used in the Quran. And also
subtext.
So give you an example.
In the Quran, the word tau alpha is used 25 times this is a form
five verb to alpha, and one of the meanings is 23 out of 25 times
that it's using the Quran. You can read those ayat, it means
physical, biological death. It's very, very clear. There is an AI
where it's used to denote
a process by which ALLAH SubhanA wa Taala will will seize a
person's soul, but the person will remain sleeping, and then he'll
return the soul to the person. Right. So in Lisandro out Robin
mentor, he defines the word the verb to Wafaa as a couple of
Allahu Ruha, or Nuff said that God ceases the knifes or the soul.
That's somewhat ambiguous. But if you look at other places in the
Quran, by far this this verb actually means physical death.
So that's one thing in 355 of the Quran, Allah subhana wa Tada
speaking to a Silas and I'm directly in the Matoba Feeco Rafi
Okay, Laya. Right evening, Mama Tubridy. Here, he says this could
mean physical death. Right? He actually admits that. So it is
even cathedra. But they say in that case, you have to read these,
you have to read that statement backwards. They call it a
tough team Takimoto hot or something like that, where it
really means in the Rocky, Rocky layer, we're
Matoba fika that, that I will cause you to ascend first, because
I saved you from the crucifixion, and then later towards the end of
time at the park Lucia after the Second Coming, then I'll cause you
to die.
So I'm not really convinced by that. To be honest with you, I
don't think we need to do these types of acrobatic syntactical
acrobats or gymnastics, I think clearly it says, I will take your
soul, I will cause you to die. And then I will raise you know what,
what is the what is the nature of this raising? Could it mean God
will raise his soul from him, raise his body, body and soul will
he raises his rank. Imam Razi also mentions in his tafseer that the
referrer of Isa lace and I mentioned by the Wrath of Allah
who lay is actually a raising of his reputation, his stature, his
rank?
Very much like what a fan out.
Yeah, exactly.
So philology is really important understanding the the idea, and
then subtext is really important, I think, the most important so
it's very, very important for the Quran to be read and understood.
In its theological milieu, right? Oftentimes, the Quran is
responding to Jewish and Christian tradition or texts
that were very prevalent in the late antiquity. I'll give you one
example. There's a story in Surah 27, of the Quran of the Queen of
Sheba who's not named in the Bible, but in the Quran, she is in
the tradition is not the end of the Quran either. But in the
traditions she's known as build peace.
And so she was in the palace of Solomon, so they meant it. And she
was walking across the pavilion and she she she thought there was
some water right
on the on the ground there so she tucked up her skirt exposing her
shins the Quran says.
So, you know, I read that story years ago and I asked one of my
teachers will what
Does that mean why is that there? And he said, Well, you know, he
didn't really have an answer. And he sort of said, it sort of just
means, you know, to, you know, as a sort of advice to the young
women to stay covered. Right. And so what else is what else? Does it
mean? Is that is that the significance? Is that the main? He
said, Well, I don't I don't really know. And well, it turns out that
it was very prevalent amongst a Coptic Christians. And there's
also traditions and Talmudic Judaism, that the Queen of Sheba
was half demon, and that she had hooves for legs. Oh, interesting.
So in order to sort of prove to his household that she wasn't a
demon, and that he did not consort with evil women, he played this
ruse on her making it seem like there was it was a glassy floor. I
mean, it seemed like there's, there's actually water there so
that you might expose her shins. So you wouldn't know that unless
you're familiar with these Judeo Talmudic traditions that were
prevalent in the late antiquity at the time, and that's just one
example.
So, if you look at these, if we look at Iowa to solid before 157,
and the ayah, that comes before it, where I told Bhutan where
Maryam is, the the the, the slander against Maryam Alia
cinema, if you read that section in the Quran, it's clearly
responding to
Talmudic Jewish narratives. So in truth, for example, and tract
tractate 43 A of the Babylonian and Gomorrah which is the ton of
wood, it says that Yeshua, that's what it that's what it calls Jesus
was hanged on the Eve of Passover, right. But if you keep reading
that and hanged as a euphemism for crucifixion, but if you keep
reading what the rabbi's say there, they say that we stoned him
to death, we killed him. And then we crucified Him post mortem.
Right. And that's, and it's a really good book by Peter
Schaffer, who's at Princeton, who calls this a deliberate counter
narrative so the rabbi's that are writing this they know it's not
true, but they want to take they want to own Jesus as as a Hara
Jewish heretic. So the false narratives, the false counter
narrative, if you keep reading in the same tractate
it says that, Mati Mia salaam, assaulted Allah played the harlot
with carpenters, so there's the baton, there's the sort of the
false charge against marry. So here in the Quran, you have what
what Kohli will be covering McCauley him at a Mariama Bhutan
and Aviva and for their infidelity and their in their statement
against Mary. So obviously here the Quran is responding to these
counter narratives, these false narratives in the Talmud, yeah,
and then the very next is so these two eyes are connected
semantically, well, coli him in a Catalan Messiah is Maria Rasul
Allah and that latter part, you know, we, we killed, they said, in
boast, we killed the so called Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary,
the Messenger of God, even as a machete says, they don't really
mean to call him the Messiah. That's kind of like what Pharaoh
says to Moses, this so called apostle of yours isn't believe
he's an apostle, they're going to kill someone they believe to be
the Messiah. I say, Well, Mark, I'll tell you who am I Salah
Boohoo. Now notice the order here. They did not kill him by stoning,
nor did they crucify him after post mortem. Well, that can should
be Allah home, but it was made the event of the crucifixion was made
dubious to them. In other words, it seems like the Quran is
actually affirming the Christian crucifixion narrative and singing
the Christian crucifixion narrative, it appears as if he had
been killed by you. Right? So it's completely repudiating the the
Talmud ik narrative narrative, but it is sort of reinterpreting in a
novel way the Christian crucifixion narrative, that that
God seized the soul or the the rule. And it's interesting because
if you read the four gospels in the New Testament,
at the moment of the death of Jesus,
none of the gospel authors say that he died on the cross, they
don't use that word. Right? They use a euphemism. Now I'm not
saying that they're that they're saying that he didn't die, but
they don't like that word. And there's a word in Greek for die.
That is very, very apt within a school I think it's used 122 times
in the New Testament. So they were familiar with that word, but
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all of them, they say something to the
effect of he lifted up or yielded up or let go of his spirit of his
pinu Ma. Okay. Right. And then in the Quran, Cinematografica I will
seize your soul. So the way that I sort of read that is that he might
have died on the cross but he wasn't killed on the cross. Right
the he didn't die.
From crucifixion that God intervened, ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada
intervened and seized his soul in might have even returned it
actually, there's actually a, a tradition of Wahab that goes, Why
have they been banned, as mentioned by Ibn cathedra? Where
he says that Jesus might have died on the cross, and three days later
his soul was returned to Him, then He was resurrected. And then he
was ascended and even get there says no, he categorically rejects
it, you know, but it's also attributed to what have you been,
will not be. What's also interesting is that modern
Muslims, like reform, as most of you really say, it foretold and
Rashida radar, Muhammad Abdul, all of them are quoting from this book
called The Gospel of Barnabas. Yeah, in Gil Barnaba, right,
which is a total disaster in my opinion.
I mean, it's so cool to have in his in his Tafseer to feed the
line in Quran, he refers to the Gospel of John as Gubbi as
disgusting and, you know, he says it's written way too late, and so
on and so forth. Which is very interesting, because, you know,
the you have these four gospels that are written in the first
century, right? And apparently, you know, it's it's false, and
it's fabricated and adulterated. But then the Gospel of Barnabas
which is written there, I mean, there's no there's zero textual
witnesses to the Gospel of Barnabas that predate the 16th
century, and it's written in Italian. And there are doctrinal
errors in that text. I mean, it calls the Prophet Muhammad
sallallaahu. Salam and the Messiah. So that's, that's wrong
there anachronisms, I mean, it talks about the 40 day fast of
Lent in the Gospel of Barnabas, which wasn't around until the
fifth century or so. But,
but places that practice in first century Palestine, which is an
anachronism
so it seems like with these modern MUFA, 16,
they kind of buy into this idea of a clash of civilizations, the east
versus the West, Christianity versus Islam. So they they're at
pains to, to, to oppose Christianity at every turn. I
mean, if it sounds like Christianity just just don't. And
I don't think that's I don't think that's a good obviously not a good
method. I think if there's a way of reading the text that agrees
with the Christian tax, I mean, I mean, so what let the conclusions
take us where they will? That's right. I mean, it says in in
Behati, and people always ask the question, you know, you know, the
Quran, it says as Injeel, right? But the Christians believe in
analogy. The Quran says the gospel singular, but the Christians
believe in gospels. So you know, obviously, the Quran is talking
about some original revelation that was revealed to Christ, the
Syriac language, which is now lost.
So how could this be authentic? And? Well, it's interesting,
because if you read in Behati, Waka Nofal, I might have mentioned
this last time I was here, it Behati mentioned describes what
are called the NOFA. Of course, he was a cousin of Phoenicia to
cobra, even sir, it says what kind of Raju LANTERNA surah. He was a
man who converted to Christianity yet caught up in Gilboa, Arabiya
that he used to read the gospel in Arabic. So what is he reading? Is
he reading some archetype and Syriac that only he had access to?
And then, you know, he sort of hid it away. And what is he reading?
So the question is, why does the Quran and Hadith use the singular
injeel? Well, I think it's very, I think a little bit of research
gives the answer. There was a gospel harmony that was done in
Syriac in the second century by a man imitation. He was a student of
Justin Martyr, one of the pioneers of logos Christology, his student
was named tation. So basically, what he did is took makkink,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and he put them into one narrative, a
gospel harmony, it's called the DNS Iran. Now the DNS Iran,
according to Western scholars, was probably the most popular form of
the New Testament Gospels, in Arabia, during the Koran's milieu.
So it's a single gospel, but it's a harmonization of all four
gospels. It's a fourfold gospel. So this is probably what the
Christians, this is probably this is most likely what Watarrka is
reading and translating tations Diatessaron, from Syriac into
Arabic, which is a single gospel. So the Quran is in fact,
confirming, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But it's in one form,
it's in one narrative, you see. So
I think a little bit of research will will reveal that. And it's
interesting because in tations, do you test Ron, you have the first
five verses of the hymn to the logos? In the beginning was the
Word the Word was with God and I would say that sacred sanctified
or divine lowercase d was the word so on and so forth. And then
suddenly it switches to the birth of John the Baptist. I mean,
that's the old
orientations Diatessaron. In the Koran, we have the the story of
John the Baptist. And within that story, you have a reference to the
logos. Most of the family coming mostly from the collimated mean
Allah. So it seems like it's mirroring what's happening in the
Diatessaron. That that, that John is
confirming the fact that Jesus was the word the word Yeah, yeah.
Which in the Quran? I mean, I don't know where if it's in, or in
relation to this particular verse about John, where the Prophet Isa
describes himself as as the word of God. Yeah, right. Yeah, I got
him with me. No, maybe not law or something. Yeah, yeah. And there's
and then sort of Maryam there's a glimmer to Minho, sir yeah,
there's a story of a Silius and and then that he carries up no
matter yum. Oh, LOL happy lovely for him to know. Oh, well, happy
isn't accusative according to some of the Federal Art, which would
mean the aforementioned story about Jesus is true. But some of
the early bodies they would read that in the metaphor in the
nominative, oh LOL, happy lady feed em todo. In that case, it's a
direct reference to Jesus as the word of the truth. And ad hoc it
would be would mean Allah subhanho wa taala. It's also mentioned
going back to the crucifixion. Well, Mankato, aloo masala boo,
we're looking should be Ilhan Omar Cthulhu they did not kill him or
crucify him, while Nakata Lu Yochanan. In reality, in other
words on the surface, that's what appeared to have happened, okay,
that we killed the Messiah, but in reality that didn't happen. And I
think I mentioned this last time I was here as well. He mumbled as
Ali mentioned, menstrual holiday when he was being crucified. Yeah.
He was being you know, he was guilty of shots here. What is it?
Theo Pathik.
Blast blasphemous? Theo Pathik utterances I think is an Resha
melt translates the shots here. And as he was known how, by saying
no, right?
Yeah. And as you as he was being more famous crucifixion he was
saying to loony as the party in the Catholic hayati. You know,
kill me all my friends in my death is my life. And then as he was
being tied to the gibbet, he said, Well, malerkotla, aloo masala boo,
who will and should be alone? Wow, this is related by Imam Al
Ghazali. They did not kill him or crucify him, but was meant to
appear so unto them. So what does he mean by that? In other words,
you can kill my just said, and this is what Apple hatom out
Razzie, who is my really scholar, the way he sort of deals with this
is they can kill the NASUWT or the human side of Christ, but they
cannot touch his hood or his eternal or immortal aspect. And he
calls it LaHood. But it's not really theology is a bit
is a bit problematic for the Sunnis. So it's not really
theology sounds kind of like Nestorianism, which was condemned
at the Council of Ephesus and 431, of the Common Era. So in a story,
this was a bishop who said that he didn't believe in hypostatic
union, in other words, that Jesus was really two separate persons,
he was a divine son, and he was the human Christ. And so who was
killed on the cross, it was only that it was only the human Christ.
And that's considered to be blasphemy, according to
Trinitarians today, because Jesus has to die as God in order to in
order for there to be vicarious atonement of all of humanity's
right. So it seems like in some, some Western scholars have
espoused that the origins of Ismaili Christology really come
from?
Mr. Arianism. But I think what zali is saying is a little bit
different. He's not saying there's a huge or divine or deity aspect
of Christ. He's saying the spirit of his message cannot be killed by
them. So somebody might say, Well, that seems a little missed. Mr.
Cool, it's very esoteric, but if you read the Quran, you know,
falam talk to whom? There's a verse in the Quran, you know,
after the Battle of butter, you did not kill them, that God killed
them. Right? So in reality, so it seems like you killed them or you,
you slew them on the battlefield, but in reality that was according
to the well pleasing will of God. In fact, God literally did that
because God God is a doer of everything right? Well mount I may
even I may tell when the king Allah Rama, you did not throw
those pebbles when you threw God through them. So they didn't
really kill the Messiah. In other words, you know, that's what it
seemed like on the surface within reality. For some reason, this is
what God intended for the Messiah. Now the question becomes, why
would God intend that for the Messiah? Well, the Christians have
an answer. And it's been this is where we get to soteriology you
know, like, the study of salvation of course, Christians will say
because he died for your sins. But I think Mahmoud I YouTube has
something interesting to say here. So he says that there's definitely
no vicarious atonement in Islam, but there is
Something called redemptive suffering and redemptive suffering
has sort of two forms. There's redemptive intercession of direct
intercession. And there's also a direct exemplar that in other
words, Jesus is really setting an example of self sacrifice for
others to emulate. By doing that. Another way to look at it is that
Jesus was sort of sacrificing himself to save his nation, to
sort of stave off the invasion of the, or the punishment of the
Roman Empire. Kai F is actually the high priest of the Sanhedrin
makes some comment in the Gospel of John, it is expedient for one
man to die in order for the nation to be saved. In other words, we
have to placate the Roman right and kill somebody that is being
highly touted as our King, in order for them to sort of not
basically not attack our entire nation. So in that sense, the
death of Jesus sort of pushes back,
divine wrath upon Israel. And then about 40 years later, or so, which
was pretty much equivalent to the time of the Israelite wandering in
the wilderness. The temple was finally destroyed. So that was
sort of a state of execution, if you will, for Israel, the
disciples had 40 years to go out and preach the gospel. And then
finally, when it was almost universally rejected by Benny is
thrown at them, the wrath came and this is what early Christians like
origin and others would say happened.
This is how they sort of interpret the punishment, or the destruction
of the temple, which today is actually politically incorrect to
say, to say, for example, the Temple of Solomon was destroyed by
the Romans and 70, the Common Era, because because the Jews rejected
their Messiah is totally politically incorrect to say. It
wasn't. It was actually after Vatican two in the 1960s, the 21st
Ecumenical Council, when the Mosaic Covenant was re instituted
by the Catholic Church, right. And the pope recently
where there was this Pope with the last pope, I think it was his
current Pope Francis, who made a comment that we don't evangelize
Jews anymore. They don't even need Jesus anymore. Because they have
their covenant, which is very interesting, because Muslims who
believe in Christ as the Messiah, as a prophet that believe the
virgin birth, you can even deal with the crucifixion in ways that
affirms that they need the gospel. But Jews who don't who don't even
believe in Jesus,
who have no belief about Jesus, they don't need the gospel because
it's not politically correct. When you say not politically correct,
is it because it lends into these notions of like the blood libel or
whatever, which is Yeah, right. Yeah, that there's that they
killed? Yeah. And yeah, like mo duty, I don't think who was it?
There's a Catholic. There's actually a Catholic Islamist
system, Giulio Basanti Sani, who interprets that I Well, Monica
Tolu masala boo. He says, Yeah, they the Jews and killer crucify
him. It was the Romans. Right? Yeah. And, you know, I don't I
don't know about that. I mean, if you read the new tests, that's
like saying if a man killed another man, that man didn't do it
the gun did it. Right. I mean, certainly. The, the Romans, they
crucify Jesus at the behest of the Jewish crowds. Now, what's what's
very important to make the point to make is that Jews today have
absolutely nothing to do with obviously, and it's sad. We have
to make this point. Yeah, it actually nothing to do with the
blood of Jesus. Right? Just idea that because you know, Caiaphas,
according to Matthew,
you know, pilots sort of washes his hands of the blood and says,
you know, if you want to crucify Him, you see to it and then chi,
if is the high priest, he says, May His blood be upon us and our
children after us. And this is the verse that's used by Christians
all throughout Christendom to
advocate this idea of sort of transgenerational blood guilt.
Yeah, that all the Jews are necessary for the death of Jesus.
Pilate is punches punches Pilate, the Roman second magistrate that
the Jesus is brought before or the prisoner like to that he's taken
to. And then finally, neither of them want to sort of given the
execution order and what yeah, he was the Roman governor Judea.
Okay, so, so actually, the the, in this was a small group of a
Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. The vast majority of Jesus is Jewish,
his disciples are Jewish. Mary is she's the for a second because I
think that's another I think, what was the question I had for you?
Right, because the Pharisees are what? Jewish literalist. Yeah, I
mean, they're considered a religious authority, the Okay. The
orlimar. And many of them are corrupt. And yeah, yeah. And one
of the reforms that that Jesus advocates is a reform of these of
the Pharisees. He does I mean, he's certainly butting heads with
them, right. All throughout the Gospels, specially in Matthew, the
seven woes of Matthew 20
Want to use GRE? So what he's trying to do? He's not necessarily
attacking them doctrinal ly Okay, theologically, right. But he is
attacking them as far as
their their morality, their character. So he says, Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees. How can you escape the punishment of
*? You strain at a gnat and swallow the camel? Yeah, you're
like why did sup liquors on the outside, you're clean on the
inside they reek of death, right calling out their hypocrisy.
So he's constantly butting heads with them. Now there were actually
Pharisees who were the Gospels describe a secret disciples of
Jesus, Joseph era mithya. You have Nicodemus as well, who meets with
Jesus in John chapter three. What's really interesting is in
the 19th century,
there was a theory that gained a lot of popularity about what
actually happened during the crucifixion. And it's called the
spoon hypothesis or The Spoon Theory.
In confessional circles, I think it was, I think it started with
the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement,
Mirza Ghulam Ahmed in Sunni circles.
The founder of illega University said I met Han, he explicitly
subscribes to the Swoon Theory. Okay, so one theory is basically
that Jesus survived the crucifixion. Right?
And then goes off to like India. Well, that's the idea that I'm
IDSA that yeah, he survived the crucifixion. And then he, he died
an old man in Kashmir and to this day in a city called Srinagar. I
think there's a tomb of Jesus where 1000s Make pilgrimage to
valley. Yeah. So this idea actually gained acceptance in
Western academic circles as well. During this time, this was the you
know, the tail end of the Enlightenment, sort of rationalist
sort of wave reading. Yeah, the Bible now and what actually
happened and how do we detangle the mythical Jesus from the
historical Jesus and you have Albert Schweitzer's quest for this
horrible Jesus. So there was a German scholar of the Bible named
Karl Friedrich Bart, there's not Karl Barth isn't that's a
different one. Karl Friedrich Bart, and he had a very
interesting take on the spoon theory. So he says here that
Joseph of Aaron mithya and Nicodemus, this, you know, the
secret disciples of Jesus, they weren't actually Pharisees. They
were Essenes, which was a sort of monastic, like male only secret
society, as he describes them. And Jesus was also from the scenes and
Bart was a was a, you know, high degree Freemason, by the way. So
he's into the secret society to everything. Yeah. Anyway, so he
says it's very DaVinci Code. Exactly. According to him, he says
that, He says that,
that the, the whole thing was a conspiracy. Yeah, in order to sort
of get rid of this idea in the Jewish mindset of a militaristic
Messiah. So they basically Jesus and these two disciples, they had
this plot that they were going to fake his death. He was Jesus was
going to sort of bow his head as a sort of ruse to let them know
Okay, now I'm claiming to be dead. And then, you know, the Roman
Centurion didn't break his legs because they paid him off, you
know, and then, and then, you know, they took him down from the
cross very quickly, and they, they took him to the Garden Tomb, they
resuscitated him with healing herbs. And three days later, he
was able to walk and presto, a resurrected Messiah. Right.
So that's his sort of take on what happened. Now, modern Muslim
apologists, they they subscribe to this theory without the whole
conspiracy aspect. So like atma deedat Zakah Adenike should be a
rally in Toronto, all of them have espoused some form of a Swoon
Theory. Wow, that that Jesus was put on the cross, but he didn't
die. And then in the Mottola fika. They take that to mean yeah, that
his soul was taken, but he was asleep, and then it was returned
to him. Anything to avoid dying, right?
And then they use certain things like,
like Jesus and Luke, and John appears to be in disguise. You
know, why would he disguise himself if he use the resurrected
Christ? And obviously, he's afraid of being spotted by Pharisees or
by Roman authorities and, and killed again this time, for sure.
And so they have certain arguments to use for the for the spoon
theory. Okay. This I mean, this is fascinating to me in the sense
that it draws to mind the way today you have people
looking at the Kennedy assassination and coming up with
very elaborate sort of scenarios. And, yeah, I mean, it's like that
this feels inherently unknowable. Yeah, and the question I have, but
it's the thought that I have I'd love for you. I mean, do you do
you think the fact that there is
barely any mention of it in the Quran? There's no mention of it
nowadays. Is that not itself full of meaning? Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, that's a good
point. I mean, there's nothing. There's nothing inconceivable
about a prophet being killed. That's right, you know? And this
is why some of the some of the aroma played with this idea that
the Christian narrative is correct. But they didn't kill him
in reality, right that this was God was in control. And this is
what God destined for the Messiah.
So, I mean, it feels almost like we're focusing on the wrong thing.
Yeah. You know, a lot of times, Muslims, they sort of
I'm obviously very, I'm generalizing highly, but
there's, there's a sort of tendency amongst Muslim
scholarship to want to be divisive, for some reasons. So
you'll have scholars that insist that it was Ishmael to be
sacrificed Ishmael Ishmael. And I think they know better. Because
there were big Sahaba I mean, it's been Massoud. I've heard even
saying it, because the sun isn't named in the text of the Quran.
It's left ambiguous for a reason. Right? You know, so, I mean, one
of my teachers, he was doing a radio show. And some Muslim called
him because he took the position that it was Isaac, to be
sacrificed. And then somebody called in and, like, threatened
to, like, beat him or something like that, and to kill him. Yeah.
And he just said, you know, there's difference of opinion
about that. So, you know, on the issue of the cruise, I mean, I
used to debate Christians all the time, I used to, you know,
have theories on you know, Christ was was he was substituted for who
was it? And I Oh, it was probably Barabas. And I mean, that's,
that's, I think that's um, Mo duties position or a certain
certainly makes that
he sort of plays with that idea that this man Barabas was
crucified instead of Christ. Or Simon of Cyrene was crucified
instead of Christ. And it wasn't Judah, like the one who betrayed
like the disciple they betrayed him. Was that is that an opinion
is that's an opinion. Yeah, that's that's that's meant that's
actually widely mentioned, safe Cotabato takes that from the the
gospel and the Gospel of Barnabas as that, right.
Yeah. And there are some Western scholars that would say that, you
know, Judas is interesting name. Yeah, who does the Jew, right, the
Jew was killed. And so they would see that as a non historical sort
of anti semitic slight,
Aloha item. The point is, we don't really know the verses ambiguous.
Well, that can should be the home is very enigmatic. That's right.
It's an inherent vocal verse, right? It's inherently
by design, by design.
Because I always say, one of the one of the points I make in this
context is that,
you know, on the other side, on the other hand, when the Quran
deals with, for example, Trinitarianism Yeah, it deals with
it very categorically like, and it deals with a time and time again,
there's multiple places in the Quran, that God condemns this idea
of a triune. God, right, or Trinitarianism. However, with this
seemingly
major element of Christianity, such as the crucifixion, it's
dealt with in a very referential and truncated fashion, one verse,
which itself is,
you know, enigmatic in its interpretation. Yeah. So one way
to again in please, I would want I would love your opinion on this is
that, to me, it's not the who, what, where, when, with regards to
the crucifixion, it's rather the meaning that we take from it right
for Christina for Christians. The the crucifixion itself, the events
of the crucifixion, are probably less important than what is the
crucifixion mean? It's Christ dying for the sins of humanity, or
God sacrificing his only son. I mean, right. I mean, those are
those are more important issues that we have to contest with.
Exactly. Rather than the who, what, when, where, how, exactly.
It's the significance of the crucifixion. That's exactly that's
right. And I don't think you can square vicarious atonement with
the Quran at all. That's right. Yeah, or Trinitarian orthodoxy.
And so to me that that like what you said vicarious atonement, that
becomes the crux of the issue. That's the nature of sin, the
nature of salvation, these are the these are the sort of meta issues
that are that are being discussed here. Right, rather than again,
the who was Yeah, I mean, if you if you read the New Testament, I
mean, Luke chapter 15. This is Luke's travel narrative. I mean,
Jesus gives a beautiful parable. The prodigal son, you might have
heard that expression. My prodigal son were to the prodigal son
returns. Basically, this man had two sons, one stayed with him, the
other went out and was a spendthrift. He was a Muslim, he
was a sinner. And then after some years, he comes back and he sees
his father at a distance and his father greets him with open arms.
And that's the end of the Peric hippie and what is Jesus teaching
here? Is he teaching vicarious blood atonement? Or is he teaching
Toba? It's teaching
In Toba, you know, so that's sign repents and return exactly. That's
what it is tshuva in Hebrew is from the same root as Toba. And
it's that's clearly the teaching of the Old Testament.
In these equal for example, that you know the if the wicked would
turn from his wickedness and do that which is lawful and right,
turn right Tabea Tubu turn from his wickedness, reorient himself
towards God make Toba then he shall surely live spiritually. So
this is Musa Dicalcium, Albania de minutolo, Isa Ali salaam, he
confirms these salient aspects of Jewish theology.
So, I mean, this whole idea of, of
their belief is essentially God gave his own life. You know, so I
really like to talk about that, because I think this also lends
itself into a conversation around
Trinitarianism Yeah, because I think Muslims, inherently what I
would argue don't understand it, and are and you can, you know, you
can pull on the size it without truly understanding something. And
so I think that's kind of been the Muslim response to Trinitarianism.
Like, how can you make three is one one is three, and you've got
the, like, sort of apathy that the kind of bullet points. Yeah. And
so how do Christians make sense of Yeah, Trinity or Trinitarianism,
yet still believe or say that they are monotheistic? Yeah. So the
short answer is that they would say that God is one essence,
right? Like that this essence is manifested in three distinct
persons. Right, so the Greek terms of one Lucia one essence, one
substance, but three hypotheses?
So, I mean, explaining the Trinity is is nearly impossible. I think
Augustine of Hippo, who actually wrote in his book dates for the
Tati on the Trinity said, you know, I doubt very seriously most
people do understand what I'm saying here.
So,
you know, understanding the reality of the Trinity, I think
is, is impossible. But understanding, you know, what,
what is being said, and what the claims are, you know, the sort of
doctrine of the Trinity rather than its reality, I think we can
grasp it.
Albeit, it might be somewhat contradictory in our minds.
So when we're dealing with the realm of metaphysics with the
realm of, of transcendence, it's hard for us to sort of grapple
with that. Right? So as far as the relationship of, of the Son of God
to God, the Father, the Christian Trinitarian, would say that
although the father caused the Son, and they use those words, the
father caused the sun, there was no time when the father existed
that the sun did not. So this was done in pre eternality. Right, so
the father does not have temporal precedence over the sun. And since
the sun was caused from the WUSA, as Athanasia says, from the very
essence of God, then the then Then the father also does not have
ontological precedence over the sun. Now, you would say, Well, I
mean, if something is the effect of something else, if something is
if the if there's an effect of a cause, then it would seem
axiomatic that the effect is ontologically, inferior to its
cause? And that's the Neoplatonic position, actually. But the
Christian will retort here and say, No, it doesn't mean that at
all. Because the sun is actually produced or generated from the
very essence of the Father. And so they are absolutely, absolutely
ontologically equal.
And then we get to the Holy Spirit, which is the same type of
thing they don't they don't like to use the word. I mean, they say
the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father as well, but the Son is
begotten, while the spirit proceeds eternally from the
Father.
So they would say that this is sort of,
you know, Trinitarianism Trinitarian, mono theism as it
looks. It's monotheism because it's one essence it's one God,
right?
However, this God is manifested into three persons now what is a
person according to Trinitarian theologians, a person is a
collection of unique attributes. That's what a person is, okay? So
the father has a unique attribute of being the cause. The Holy
Spirit has a unique attribute of being eternally preceding and the
son has a unique attribute of being begotten, which is another
way of saying he's also caused.
So
that sounds very strange. It sounds cool.
contradictory. I mean, I know, the whole idea of a pre eternal son by
itself seems a bit oxymoronic that you have a son by definition who
was generated from something else, yet he's also pre eternal. Right?
But again, the Christian response here is when you're dealing with
the realm of metaphysics and transcendence. It's logical
theologically, but might be illogical, rationally, rationally.
Yeah.
But the real issue then is the incarnation. You know,
I mean, it's interesting, the mark Tesla, they would say similar
things about the Sunnis, they would say that we have sort of,
we're sort of Christianizing, our concept of Kalam, because we would
say that the attribute of God, right, I mean, the Christians say
the sun is a collection of unique attributes, the attribute of
Kalam, the Sunnis would say, is pre eternal, uncreated. And then
the motive, I would say, Well, that's what the Christians are
saying, about the Son of God. I think the difference, however, is
that the Christians would say that the Son in and of himself is fully
God, he's not a part of God, he's not a third of God. Right. Whereas
Kalam, although it is not the essence, nor anything other than
the essence, certainly, surely it is not God in and of itself, it
gives an additional meaning to the essence of God. So there is a
similarity to a point, but then the similarity sort of breaks down
where the analogy breaks down.
But the incarnation is really the, I think, so in other words, I
think of dealing with the realm of transcendence.
I think a clever Trinitarian theologian, would be able to
somewhat convince people that this is monotheism. And this is what it
really means for a person of God. It's a collection of unique
attributes. And it's really just one God. It's one essence that
sort of causing these collections of attributes that come even
though they're pre eternal.
So there's always so dealing with that I don't agree with it, but
there but the real issue, I think, for us, and for Jewish theologians
is the incarnation that that the second person the Trinity,
incarnated. In other words became or assumed flesh. Right. Now, does
all of this get if you pardon the expression flushed out?
Some 300 years? Is it true that it all gets sort of flushed out? You
know, in the Council of Nicaea? Since read 25 Yeah, so the Council
of Nicaea was, yeah, yeah. 324 first Ecumenical Council, this is
when the Son of God became officially God the Son. Okay, so
it was called for by Constantine was 318 bishops.
And the main issue at that time was the Aryan controversy, right.
So there was a Presbyterian in the church and Alexandria, who is
basically saying that the Son of God is an honorific title. It just
means he's the Messiah, or he's the first of creation. The father
is a monarch. He's the only one who is God. He is the the
sufficient cause of all things, including the sun, which makes him
ontologically superior to the sun. So he was espousing a type of
Unitarian monotheism.
Whereas Athanasius, his theological opponent, also his
teacher,
was espousing a type of Trinitarian monotheism, and in at
Nicaea, the ladder did win the day by vote, and became sort of the
official position
of the Catholic church at the time. As mentioned, I think I
mentioned this last time as well. Henry Chadwick says in his book,
The early church, that despite the Council of Nicaea, the vast
majority of bishops in that region continue to teach Aryan
Christology that the father and son are not Hama Luciano, they're
not the same essence. But they're rather homeboy or even hetero see
us, meaning they have similar essence or they're completely
different. Okay. So it's interesting, the aftermath of
Nicaea. And then 381 is the next Ecumenical Council, where the Holy
Spirit was also officially recognized as the third person of
the Trinity, pre eternal, co substantial.
And then what about like, is it the Council of Nicaea? Then we're
the idea of the Eucharist and
that doctrine sort of comes into play. I'm not sure about I mean,
the doctrine of that we're the Eucharist as a sacrament has
origins in the New Testament, okay. Certainly proto Orthodox
Church Fathers. In other words, pre Nicene Church Fathers they
would interpret those those scripture verses right take of my
flesh and yeah, like that. Okay, exactly. And a couple of Catholics
believe in the process Transubstantiation, yes, in which,
in which the bread and the wine are literally transformed in their
essence, to the flesh and blood of Jesus. Although the accidents
remain the same, so it still looks like bread and some
I was like bread and tastes like bread and so on and so forth.
Protestants will take that more symbolic. They don't believe it's
an actual
transformation into the literal blood and, and flesh of Christ.
But yeah, I mean, we're talking about the blood, the blood libel
earlier in the show. Yeah. I mean, the Christians and in, you know,
because once in a while somebody would, somebody would stumble
across descriptions of Jesus in the Talmud, and this would start,
you know, this sort of, sparked this massive sort of pogrom
against Jewish communities and in Christendom, yeah, in Christian
Europe, right. And then they started this rumor that, you know,
rabbis would sneak into churches, and they would take the leftover
bread. And they would go back to the synagogue and mail it to a
cross. It's literally the flesh of Jesus, that they're crucified over
again, and you'll see paintings depicting this.
What is it called?
The desecration of the host. That's what the official, you
know.
Wow. Which is very interesting, you know, that Jews throughout the
Middle Ages would seek refuge in Muslim majority countries under
Sharia law.
You know, because they were given a, they were given autonomous rule
according to their own courts, to practice Holika law.
Which is very interesting. Well, I, it's, it's interesting that you
made that point about, about the Jews living in Muslim lands,
because one of the I mean, before we sort of conclude, I did want to
talk about or move the conversation from,
you know,
Christology, or or Jesus alone into more of a broader
conversation about Al Kitab, or Jews and Christians.
One of the arguments and again, this is probably related to the
kind of politicized
political sides conversations that we have around these things. Is
that one of the arguments that you hear as well, when the Quran talks
about Al Kitab, or people of the book or people of Scripture, is
that is a historical term, and it is not a universal term that can
be applicable at all times in all places. What would be your
response to that? Well, I would say that's generally not the sort
of understanding of the early order. That's right. I mean,
initially, I had al Kitab, the most of the Muslims took Kitab to
mean Bible, because
Bible in Greek means book.
Now,
when the Islamic empire BillyOh from Yeah, exactly by Yeah,
biblioteka Please, guess what tolerably on in Greek means the
book of Kitab. And mocha does in Arabic, the Holy Bible, the holy
book. Now as the Islamic empire was expanding, Muslims came to
realize there are a lot more religions in the world, and just
Judaism, Christianity, and Judaism is very, very small. So what do we
do with all these Hindus and Buddhists are Ashtons
Zoroastrians. So the URL Amma they because this is HD hot, you know,
they would extend the title added Kitab to any religion, that that
professed faith and some scripture, no matter what that
scripture was, you know, so the term is I mean, this, and this is
something that's important, you know, that's
that, that we have to recognize that we need to grow. And we need
to, to be open to different interpretations. Obviously,
there's certain parameters that we do not exceed right. And sort of,
you know, who dude are hermeneutical parameters, right.
But I always argue that you can sort of stretch those borders a
little bit sometimes. And I call it thinking outside the box within
the box. Right, like this whole idea of crucifixion. Yeah. I mean,
I've been to places where I would ask a scholar, a very learned
scholar, is it okay for us to believe that Jesus was put
anywhere near a cross? And He said, No, this is cool. Florida,
and you can't do you? How dare you? You're imitating the kofod.
And, and, you know, I mean, that's just one example. It is, you know,
so, so I think we need to be open minded. Oh, well, I think our if
you will, I think you mentioned this last time, but, you know, I
think the Muslims have been largely anemic when it comes to
comparative theology. Yeah. And then which is why I think having
someone like you on the show is fascinating because of me, I think
you represent if you if you would, pardon me, saying this to you and
your faces you sort of rebel, one of a kind in terms of the real
scholar of both biblical languages and the Quran, and can really, you
know, negotiate these conversations in a very nuanced
and learned fashion as opposed to knee jerk or politicized or
polemic, hysterical, hysterical.
And what was comparative theology? I'm
it'd be that when the head or something ran middle when the
Millers donations increase. I mean, we started that right, right
middle middle. Yeah, I mean, Muslim theologians. They're the
pioneers of this discipline of all right, and I'll be I'll be ruining
my Shahada Stanny even even Mr. Kozar I mean, the why they are the
founder is recognized Imams shahada, Stani Kitab Oh Mila, when
the books, the book of nations and creeds, so this is getting back to
our roots. What is What is Islam essentially is a restoration. It
is a gift, people say, you know, you need a reformation of Islamic
reformation. Islam is in and of itself, essentially a reformation
of Judaism or Christianity. And that's why it's so important when
we read the Quran, to understand its subtext, and I can't stress
this enough, and the Quran is engaging with Jewish and Christian
and pagan and other texts. I mean, the Quran is making mention of,
you know,
there's another example of, you know, the little codename, you
know, the one with two horns and, you know, I was, I was teaching a
class on Tafseer at one time at basic tufts in almost all UT and,
and I mentioned, the codename is probably Alexandre of, of, of
Macedon and a Muslim brother in the in the audience and he just,
he just kind of lost his mind. How dare you say that? Because who's
Alexander he's, you know, he's probably a pagan and why would
Allah praise this man and, and, you know, it's just, um, so ut
actually says, It's mo Iskandar, Alexander. And you know, according
to Syrah,
the Jews, they, they told Abu Sufian, if you know how to ask the
prophets, Allah Lottie sent him about this person thought, a
codename, because they had something in their possession,
where they could check his answer, or else what's the purpose of the
question? So there's a document in late antiquity called the legend
of Alexander where details his three journeys and and so that the
answer that the Prophet sallallaahu Salam gave, agrees
with this document that was in possession of the Jews and Yathrib
at the time, so they can they can check his answer URLs, what's the
purpose of the question? Just tell us about the political name.
So the idea that one would get so perturbed by that that's sort of
fascinating. It's a type of triumphalism. I might even say
supremacy of SE. You know, we have to keep it. I mean, Alexander the
Great. He was a student of Aristotle, you can establish his
monotheism if you wanted to, you know, if you if that really means
a lot to you. You probably can. I mean, he was a student of
Aristotle. He was very virtuous man. But that's probably him. You
know, who's who's Look, man al Hakim? Yeah, there's something
attributive in our bass that he was an Abyssinian sage. But if you
if you read, you know what, those sections sort of look, man. That's
right. But his son, I mean, he's, he's all about pedagogy. He's
about education. And he sounds like Confucius. Right? So you have
you have the Hellenistic world you have, you know, the, the far
eastern wisdom.
Mama shahada Stani says that there is probably the Buddha so I was
gonna say, I mean, very similar, right? To fit that in the sense
that these are figures who espouse great wisdom, right in this and to
the extent that it's preserved in the Quran, yet they're not
prophets, Joe.
And speaking of Prophets, I mean, I think we'd be remiss not to
mention this on the show. The opinion of you know, scholars like
NASM, and I believe,
according to be that marry, yeah, right. The mother of Jesus insist
on it the instance Okay, she's a prophet. Right? And also Musa
Whoa, hang on me Musa that she received the type of washi and
that with all Atilla Mala, eager to Yama, Yama, right. So they
would insist that they're definitely female prophets. I
mean, it's a minority opinion, but it's a strong opinion. And
so I mean, this opinion that that we should we should highlight
That's right. You know, it's part of our scholarship to do that, you
know, but anyway, so, I mean, it's interesting because we read the
Quran is that Korea is a Salam is definitely a prophet. He's a he's
a Kohane of the temple. So he's a High Priest. He's an old man, he
is a wisdom of age. And he was taught a lesson by a 12 year old
girl Madea medicina he stopped making dua for a son because he
thought, well, it's not it's not possible. I'm too old. My wife's
too old and and then he saw a fruit out of season and here's
something else I mean, fruit out it where does that come from?
That's mentioned in the proto gospel of James the Quran is seems
to be
taking her facing Intertek, actually, with this gospel that's
actually outside the Christian canon, the reason why it's outside
the Christian camp.
enum is because it has very little to say about Jesus, it's about
Mary. So the Christian fathers, they thought, well, we're not
going to put this into the canon because it didn't say much about,
about Jesus. But this seems to be the sort of
the intertextual sort of touchstone of this of this episode
in the Quran, that there was risk. What is that risk fruit out of
season that was next to her. And then Zachary is Lamb who was a
prophet and a co Hain and a chef and he suddenly turned to a lot to
make dua and Allah subhanho wa Taala immediately gave him news of
the day. So now,
you know, it's right. And the other thing you just reminded me
of going back to the crucifixion narrative, yeah. You know, there's
a verse in the Quran or Salam aleikum, wa salam O Allah
Yamaguchi to Yamamoto Yama, rubato Hyah. So, you know, the, the sort
of one time another scholar said to me, there's no, there's no,
there's no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus anywhere
in the Quran. And so are you serious? And I quoted this verse
to him, it was Jesus speaking in the first person in peace be upon
it, that it was born, the day that I die, and the day that I'm
resurrected, and he said, let's talk about the end of time that
Jesus said towards the end of time, and it's, you know, 18
verses earlier, it says the same thing about John the Baptist.
So, I mean, I don't know if that really works for me, you know,
because in a why, why would ALLAH SubhanA wa, tada, single out these
two men and talk about their birth, their death and the
resurrection, when it's going to happen to everybody. So what's so
what's interesting? So, what's interesting also is here, I think
that the Quran is affirming the death and resurrection of Jesus.
And you said, What about John the Baptist? Well, if you read the New
Testament, and you read the subtext of it, there was a rumor
that John the Baptist had also been resurrected. And I think the
Quran is affirming that I mean, when Herod, Herod executed John
the Baptist, according to the New Testament, gospel of Mark, and,
and when he heard about Jesus, his immediate reaction was that John
resurrected, why would he think that is because probably heard a
rumor that John had been resurrected? Jesus asked his
disciples in the Gospel of Mark, who do people say I am? And they
say to him, they say, John the Baptist, or Elijah, or one of the
prophets, well, they knew that John had been resurrected, had
been killed, had been assassinated by Herod. So what they mean to say
is a resurrected John the Baptist. So I think these two men are
singled out here. Because because they sort of mirror each other.
Their births were miraculous. They were vehemently opposed by their
enemies might have been killed by their enemies, both of them, and
they were both resurrected, according to the text. Why would
these two men be singled out by the Quran? If you know everyone's
going to be resurrected at the general resurrection at the end of
time, there's something special about them. And, um, you also
reminded me of the fact that, you know,
many of the prophets that are mentioned are many of the great
prophets that Muslims believe and
there's sort of a missing father figure. And I wonder if there's
any significance there?
Yeah, that's true. I mean, if you look at the Odle, as Amina
Russell, yes, at least four of them didn't have their biological
fathers in their lives. So Allah subhanho wa taala, he took the
responsibility of raising them. This is called a ton of era by
Nia, the lordly upbringing. Yeah. And the word that Rob obviously
means someone who takes care of you in stages. And I've heard you
in another context talk about when the when when, when the new when
the New Testament talks about the Father. Yeah, it's it's not it can
be interchangeable with the rod. That's what that's what it means.
Oh, that's what Yeah, it's exactly I mean, if you I mean, in the in
the book of Isaiah, there's a prayer that says, I tried tonight
vino, You are the Lord our father. Now, if you read any rabbinical
exegesis of that, it'll say the meaning of that is Lord and
Cherisher and Sustainer. And father figure and it's
metaphorical. And this is how Jesus actually uses the term in
the New Testament. On the Sermon on the Mount, they asked him, How
do we pray and Jesus says in Syriac oven, the rush may have
never gotta smoke, Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy
name, hallowed be thy name. So because again, the we've talked
about the sort of hysterical responses that you see among
Muslims, like no, you know, any idea of like the Lord's prayer or
anything like that as being you know, is you wonderful? Yeah. Is
is heretical, like how dare you say the Father because as if
you're equating you know, that you automatically you're prescribing
to a Triune God or, you know, what's funny is I'm as we're
having this conversation, I'm reminded of, you know, when I was
living in Saudi Arabia when I was a kid, we went to an Arabic school
and you
Somebody had a pen in their pocket, like, clip over their
pocket. So it kind of looked like that. And they said, No, don't do
that it looks across.
You know, I was 11 maybe thinking like, really like, this is what
we're doing. It's a blow your mind. But you know, some who sort
of
people argue that you can't wear a tie, or a bow tie or a tie because
it's a cross. I mean, you've never heard that. I guess. I feel lucky
for having not heard
it. My point is,
I don't think I've ever seen you in a tie. I think I wore one when
I got married. I missed your wedding. Sorry. No, but I mean, I
think, you know, not to impugn people's good intentions, but it
feels like it's it's kind of it's the same thing that we're you
know, people in the Muslim community are doing the same thing
that you do when I on the Christian side, when they're their
entire faith is bound up and in the crucifixion, where it's like,
Well, Jesus was more than that. You know, I mean, I remember
watching
the film, you know, the passion of Christ, and I was horrified. I
mean, I was horrified I have ever had this conversation with
Christian friends. I was like, I found it disrespectful.
Because to me the idea that everything that you're gonna bind
up Jesus into his this depiction as opposed to everything he was
preaching or the entirety of life, you know? Yeah, and 90 minutes
snuff film? I know you're Yeah, exactly. I know you're a movie
movie buff. When I was a kid. In the 80s. on basic cable, they
would play these beautiful Jesus movie THE KING OF KINGS King
Jeffrey Hunter Hunter, Jesus of Nazareth. Look at look at the film
Ben Hur. Ben, here's my favorite. I think I think there's a scene in
Ben Hur, which I consider the most powerful scene in American film
history, and has nothing to do the crucifixion. Is it the water is
the water scene, right? It's incredible. And the way that they
treat it with such reverence, they never show his face. He never says
a word. Right? Right. But you can just in his accuracy, people
reacting to the Roman Centurion just kind of forgot where he was
for a minute, because he's looking into the face of Christ. It's just
incredible scene. But yeah, I mean, everything today is just
it's it's basically violence *. I mean, that's the whole movie,
The Passion of the Christ. Yeah. And it's, it's, I mean, it's not
even based on the Gospels. I'm familiar with the Gospels. Mel
Gibson. I mean, it's the Gospel according to Mel Gibson,
basically. I mean, he took a lot of that movie from the visions of
a Augustinian nun named and Emmerich who was a stigmatic, who
would bleed and things like that she had these visions of things,
and yeah, a lot of them movies, not based on the gospel. I mean,
just carrying the cross three gospels say that for some reason,
it didn't say why. It say the Romans pulled them out of the
crowd Simon of Cyrene, and he was compelled to bear the cross. And
Jesus was sort of followed behind or in front. But in the movie, you
know, he has both of them carrying I mean, we're what gospel is that
from? So you're combining gospels, you're creating your own gospel,
you know, but I mean, those are the movies when I was a kid, when
I saw those movies, and they would even the crucifixion scenes and
those, those classic movies, it was done with with with respect,
and it was it was more classy.
And I remember what the first time I actually read the Quran when I
was 19. I read that he was not crucified or he was not killed or
crucified. And I remember initially, I felt a type of
relief. Like, okay, good. That didn't happen to him. But then
there was tension. Like, what happened then? Yeah, and I became
obsessed with, with what happened. But those movies were very
powerful, and they don't make cinema like that anymore. I mean,
nowadays, what are the Christmas movies at home alone was a good
movie, you know, elf, and then die hard. Is a Christmas classic. Can
you believe her? Art is like Christmas classic. Up.
That is construed by some as a Christ metaphor.
Yeah. Oh, wow. Really? Yeah, sure. Well, as you said that I'm
picturing, you know, Bruce Willis jumping from the building.
The bleeding from his, from his feet. Right. Wow, I never I never
thought of that either. Yeah, it is brilliant.
I gotta think about that. Because I mean, like, I get Superman,
right. We talked about this on the last show, actually with Zachary.
Right. I mean, Superman, the Christ metaphor and the Moses
metaphor in a parent's putting him out
to save him. But we have run the gamut during this Congress, we
really have. But I wanted to say something. Because I think going
back to this idea of like the kind of responses you see among
Muslims. I think what's interesting and I think what needs
to be said is, you know, what, when when, in our in our classical
scholarship when we were able to talk about these issues,
I think what's often missed here is that it was from the vantage
point of a, a growing robust civilizational power.
And now when we talk about these issues we come at we approach them
from a point of like there's this defeatism. Right. Yeah, we've
succumb to, you know, our place in the world or there's this very
defeatist mentality. And so, when you when you when you approach
things from a defeatist mentality, there is the need to, to sort of,
you know, like you said, like, there's this sort of need to turn
to supremacy and sometimes he kind of caught you know, rhetoric
because it makes you feel better. Right? Because you're, you're, you
have an inferiority complex. Yeah. And I think that explains a lot of
the polygamous ism, that's happening, the the popularity of,
you know, sort of one line sort of Dawa.
Slow slogans have lit tearing pamphleteering. I mean, yeah, I
mean, I used to be like that. We I told the story last time I was
here, and, you know, it's just,
you know, I think we need to improve our scholarship, we need
to engage in sacred languages, we need to study history.
I mean, I think it was, say an ally, who said, you can learn
anything, and you can learn something even from a five year
old child, you know, you know, it just is an Arab proverb like, what
you don't find in oceans you sometimes find in rivers and
streams, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's, it's difficult. It takes
humility. I'm not saying I'm humble. But I sat with scholars,
Christian scholars, that I had massive difference of opinion, but
I didn't argue with them. I just I wanted to know, why do you believe
what you believe? I learned languages from them. I learned
theology from them, is very difficult to do for a lot of
people. Yeah. I mean, it's difficult for us to have an
interfaith dialogue, let alone go into a church and, you know, it's
hard to sit with, you know, a sheet or your brother and, and,
you know,
and talk about things in a respectful way, obviously.
But this is something we have to do, you know, those are on has a
very large heart. And,
and, yeah, and it's, it's an Allah subhanho wa Taala is a lot more
merciful than we are. So we have to keep that in mind when we read
the Hadith when we read the Quran.
And, and, you know, sort of broaden our, like I said, our
hermeneutical parameters, you know, we can we can do that, that
scholarship, and still stay true to the message of the Prophet
salallahu. Salam, let's but but, you know, we should push for
rigor, rigorous scholarship, especially in these in this arena
of comparative theology.
Because, again, I don't think the Quran can be understood. This is
just my opinion, I don't think the Quran can be understood adequately
without Biblical Studies. Because of context, because of context.
Exactly. Yeah. It just cannot be understood. Well, and I think I've
even said this on the show, or maybe it was it was the last time
I mean, you know, oftentimes in the Quran does talk about or this
was a conversation you and I had Jackie on the show, though. So it
wasn't the last time we had Dr. Italia on but
the when the Quran talks about a lot of this, a lot of the a lot of
the narratives that are common to, you know, biblical ones, or ones
that we find in the Torah.
It deals with it in a very again, truncated referential manner,
because it assumed that the audience does not know the
details. It is so full knowing reader exists, as Karl Ernst would
say, there you go. Yeah, it assumes that you that you have
your stuff together. That's right. That's familiar with the
conversation, I gave this analogy and in classes where I where I
were to talk about this, in context where I've talked, we've
spoken about this, which is, you know, if I, if I say Clark, Kent,
and Superman, like, you know, without you even if you're not,
even if you're not a comic book buff, or if you're not a film
buff, you know, the story, you get the general idea of what I'm what
I'm talking about, because it's so much in the milieu, right, I mean,
it's you, you've absorbed enough of culture, to be able to, to know
what I'm referring to. And so the Quran kind of adopts that similar
approach where Look, I don't need to We The Quran doesn't need to go
into the details, the numbers, the dates, etc. Because the audience
that initial response the audience and certainly, it assumes that we
are well informed readers at this point. Know the story know the
details can flesh it out for themselves? Definitely. So, you
know, and again, if I could quote you from what I've heard you say
previously, you know, much like in real estate, its location,
location, location. Oh, yeah. You know, hermeneutics is all about
and scriptural interpretations is all is all about context, context,
context. Exactly. So I think, yeah, yeah, definitely. She's
looking at the story of use of five days. I mean, it's the most
detailed story
In the Quran is right. The one exception I always Yeah, but
nowhere near the detail. There's still. I mean, interesting. Who
was it?
His name is Robert older, or something like that as UC
Berkeley's sort of the Hebrew Bible guy at UC Berkeley, where he
says, you know, he says like the story of Yusuf and the Torah is
written with a certain
slant, or emphasis, I should say, towards fraternity towards, you
know, tribal solidarity brotherhood because that's what
Benny is right? You needed to hear. The Quranic worldview is
more ecumenical. So it's the same story, but it's a different
emphasis. It's not necessarily canceling. It's on a corrective of
the biblical story. And this is a point that Imam Bukhari makes as
well, who affirms the text of the Bible. He says that, you know,
that, that these, these, these socities narrations are being
universalized. So, there's a different point of emphasis at
times, for example, in the use of story in Genesis, you know, Joseph
is in jail, and, you know, cellmates, they have those dreams,
those visions, and they asked him for the interpretation and
straightaway he gives the interpretation. That's it. In the
Quran. He says, Let me tell you something first, and then he gives
them to heed, right, because the Quran is more ecumenical. It's
trying to appeal to a larger audience. It's trying to establish
Tawheed first and foremost amongst the Arabs.
So it's not necessarily a contradiction, but a different
point of emphasis. So I think that's what's happening with with
many stories in the Quran, including the the Exodus story as
well and right in the Quran, you know, it's, you know, in the in
the Bible, it's, again more tribal that might people go in the Koran
once you let me guide you speak to Pharaoh a cold, cold and llegan a
gentle word, perhaps he might fear. Allah subhanho wa taala.
And, you know, it's not inconceivable to say that in the
Quranic version of the Exodus, many, many Egyptians also made the
Exodus with Moses, because he was proselytizing the faith to them.
He was calling them to Allah subhanaw taala. So it's not just
you know, Israelites leaving Egypt, it's believers leaving
Egypt and those believers were well, even the even the priests in
the in the island in Pharaoh's court. Exactly. They they've been
magicians, they bow down and they did prostration because of they
believed in the validity of
Moses, his prophecy, and you have the tradition of ossia in our
That's right, in our tradition, the wife of Pharaoh who's probably
Hatshepsut. I mean, there's, I have to do more research on this,
but there is a there is a, a tradition of an Egyptian Queen
Pharaoh, who,
who, whose tomb and memory was desecrated and tried to attempt it
to be written out of history for some reason. Her name was
Hatshepsut. But we have to, I mean, I, I teach a class. It's a
tyrannical Seminole ancient texts, and we went through sort of the
timeline, it could work, but I don't remember the details right
now. But there might be some, there's probably some obviously
there is some historical basis for that story, because it's mentioned
in the Quran, we believe it's a true story. No, I mean, you
mentioned you know, context in this kind of ecumenical approach.
I mean, to me, the ultimate proof of that is, you know, a lot a lot
of even what the, when the Quran does deal with these biblical
narratives and so on. They are in the medina in context. Yeah.
Meccan versus don't speak of Al Kitab. And don't speak. I mean,
correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, most of the, of what we
glean from the Quran of these stories comes in the medina in
context, because here the prophet is, in fact, you know, conversing
with Jews and Christians for the first time, whereas in Mecca,
it's, you know, there's not a standing faith community of Jews
and Christians true. Yeah. Yeah.
I think it's a great place. I mean, I think every time we get to
a point I was, you know, I think of more things to ask, but I
think, well, I'll save it for another day. We'll have to have
you back for more unfinished business. That's right. This is
great, though. Yes. No, thank you so much. For everyone agreeing to
come back so soon. I mean, I reached out to Dr. Italia and I
was like, I thought I wouldn't I wouldn't get a response for
something or I could really you want me back and like, it wasn't
just on deja vu, but thank you for taking the time. I know that my
mind was racing based on something exactly something of John McClane
and John the Apostle. I think that there is there is an analysis of
the first diehard that could certainly Yeah, allow for for a
deeper reading. I think there's a lot in that first one. Sorry. I'm
gonna ask one more thing because he you made me think of this and
which is, what would you say to the argument that has Christmas? I
mean, we are recording this the day after Christmas. Boxing Day,
as I'm told it is, yeah.
And it's the reason why it's called one
sealing which I just thought it was a Canadian holiday, but you're
saying, it's like, were you I'm pretty sure. I mean, I'm happy to
be proven wrong. But yeah, that Christmas has become so thoroughly
secularized. That
that can't can Muslims have Christmas trees? believe in Santa
Claus. Wow.
No, I mean, this is something you hear from people. Yeah.
You know, I would say no. Okay.
Moving the whole concept of Santa Claus. I mean, yeah.
I just wouldn't advocate lying to children, no matter what. Okay.
Yeah, unless it's absolutely necessary. You know, I mean, I
went to the mall a few weeks ago, and my daughter's four. And she
said, Oh, you know, what's, what's going on? And sort of explain
Santa Claus. And then she kind of just, you know, brushed it off.
And then a few days later, she said, You know, when Santa Claus
coming? And I said, Well, you know, there's not really, daddy is
daddy's or our
dress up, like, she still didn't quite get. Yeah, but you know,
like Christmas tree. I mean, it's interesting. Jehovah's Witness,
you know, they don't build Christmas trees. I mean, there's,
there's a, there's a verse in Jeremiah chapter 10, verse two, or
is it 210? I think I'm transposing the book and verse. But it says,
it's fallen out the way of the heathen. Who brings in trees from
the forest into their homes and deck them out with gold and
silver. So this was a an ancient pagan practice. But you said it's
so secularized now, then people don't know the they don't know the
origins of these things anymore. And I mean, I've even heard things
that it's permissible to go trick or treating and things like I'm
not gonna say who, who has those opinions? But
generally, for me, personally, I would, I would just be safe and
caution. I mean, yeah, I mean, becomes a slippery slope. But I'll
tell you this. I love I love the holiday season.
i Everything smells great. And, you know, everything looks
beautiful. And, and, you know, I love it. You Silius and, um, and,
you know, it's, I remember him in my heart. On December 25. He
probably wasn't born on December 25. Most likely, yeah. I think it
was Constantine in the fourth century who instituted December 25
as a birthday of Jesus.
But, you know, it's it's the Molad of a of a great prophet. And,
you know, so as they say, every day is Christmas, I guess. You
know, although, Adam. Thank you. I think that is perfect. Yeah,
exactly. So thank you, listeners. And if you have any questions,
comments or feedback, please do email us at diffuse
[email protected]. And you can also find us on Facebook
facebook.com/defuse congruence. And as always, especially during
this time of the wonderful holidays, and not to mention
towards the end of the year where you where you can make
your charitable contributions, please do visit our Patreon page
and support the show. Every little bit helps. And we want to we want
to thank those who have done so already and become patrons of the
show. So thank you so much for making all this happen. And just
to wrap things up, thank you, Dr. Ty. And thank you, thanks,
everybody, for making 2018 really awesome, that's our last show.
Most likely this is a show on the last show of this year, but
inshallah we'll be back in a few weeks with the hopefully Bold New
Start provable, both you start at our 75th episode, which will be of
some sort of interviews and and yeah into 2019 outputs