Saturday, December 10, 2011
Dr. Todd Lawson's stimulating lecture - "Tafsir and the Meaning of the Qur'an: the Crucifixion in Muslim Thought"
Back on November 21, 2009 (LINK), I introduced my readers to Dr. Todd's Lawson's ground-breaking book, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an. (I also shared a few of my own reflections on this issue in the same thread). Yesterday, I discovered that back on October 23, 2010, Dr. Lawson delivered a lecture on one of the topics in his book.
Part 1 of the lecture is below:
Todd Lawson from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.
Part 2:
Todd Lawson (Part 2) and Daniel Madigan from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.
It seems that none of my readers chose to purchase Dr. Lawson's book (at least to my knowledge); perhaps the viewing of his lecture will stimulate greater interest in this very important topic.
Grace and peace,
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
David,
I finally had time to listen and watch this. You are right in that I did not buy the book. (There are too many books to buy and study; and not enough time.)
But these 2 videos were very interesting and I am learning a lot and I thank you for that - I learn details from discussing things with you that takes time, but not money; and this is the only way for me at this time.
Overall, Lawson seems to be promoting Gnostic/Mystic/Docetic/Sufi/ metaphorical / radical separation of the "spirit" from the body; and many of the questioners also come from that perspective - very compatible with Hindu and Sufi thought.
True Sufis - the Iranians I know who are real Sufis, were the most difficult to pin down and understand and witness to - because they always reserved the right to interpret anything anyway they wanted to and claimed that it was the inner, true, real, "spiritual", living, genuine meaning.
They in the video (both Lawson and the others who asked questions and made comments at the end) seemed to admit that they were getting away from the historical-grammatical - author's intended meaning to the esoteric/ metaphysical/Gnostic/Sufi/ spiritual sense.
I am not impressed with any of the apocryphal or Gnostic gospels - they were all goofy heretics - sorry - Irenaeus and Tertullian were right against them; period.
I had heard of Al Razi of course (for science and medicine), but didn't know those details that Lawson gave in his debates with Isma'ilis - very interesting.
Ibn Zakaria Al Razi basically said "how can Islam go against real, empirical history that Al Masih was crucified and killed?
He seems to be a secular-skeptic. Is he considered a heretic by Orthodox Muslims?
He has some very interesting material at his wikipedia article.
Especially the quote by Abi Sina (Avicenna) that "he should have stuck to laboratory stuff and urine and stool samples." That was hilarious!
During a debate with Biruni, Avicenna stated:
Or from Muhammad ibn Zakariyyab al-Razi, who meddles in metaphysics and exceeds his competence. He should have remained confined to surgery and to urine and stool testing—indeed he exposed himself and showed his ignorance in these matters."
This was especially interesting that Ibn Zakaria Al Razi said:
"If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed."
Sounds like many dogmatic Muslims all through history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi#On_Religion
The lecture was enjoyable, because I understand the Arabic words they use, because of Farsi.
They all throw lots of those words in there - but don't explain them; so for people who don't know any Arabic or Farsi; these kinds of lectures will go over their heads; or at least, they will not get the full impact.
Since the Sufis and Isma'ilis and Ahmadiyyahs are peaceful Muslims, then of course I appreciate that in today's world.
But, given all this Gnostic interpretation of the crucifixion, etc. - they still would not accept the Christian meaning of the crucifixion - atonement for sins; propitiation, forgiveness of sins - etc.
Hebrews 2:17
I John 2:2
I John 4:10
Luke 18:9-14
Romans 3:25-26
The esoteric trickery of always interpreting anything anyway I want - breaks down communication and in fact, violates the rules of communication.
I am happy for their peacefulness, etc.; but for witnessing and understanding that there is objective truth vs. objective false-hood; this kind of thinking makes witnessing and getting to the real issue - salvation from sin and guilt, much harder.
Those mystics were always more difficult to talk to than the Muslims who believed in objective truth vs. Objective falsehood.
Also, bringing my last two comments from Beggar's All article I wrote on the fact that Surah 4:157 is not on the Dome of the Rock, and that seems like it should have been there, given the place - near the place where Jesus was crucified and on the place of the Jewish temple. Hebrews says the sacrifice of Christ fulfilled all the temple sacrifices.
David Waltz wrote:
"Me: The huwa points to the true self, the 'he' of man that is the image of God. Huwiyya is a termed used primarily by Sufis, and seems (I could be wrong on this, but I think this is probably the most correct understanding) to be a combination of huwa and hayy; both of which point to the true 'self', that which in man is the very image of God."
David,
It is hard to know what the exact Arabic word is,(for Huwiyya and Huwa) in English letters, since there are two "h"s.
Is it هوا ؟
or
حوا ؟
The first one means "air" or "weather" - is not usually used for breath - although sometimes it is used for "desire" and "want".
The Second one is the word used for "Eve" - the wife of Adam.
I recognize "Hayy" as حی which means "living".
All three of these words, we have in Farsi - yet they are not used in the text of the Qur'an in 4:157.
And I have never heard them used of "the true self" - usually they use "Ruh" روح or نفس (self or breath) for that kind of speaking, the inner self.
There is a form of "Hayy" (living") in Surah 3:169, (they are alive) and we also have this in Farsi to mean "make alive".
أَحْيَاءٌ
Using 3:169 to interpret 4:157 seems very creative and inventive to me and still, which 4:157 is unique, it is not that complicated.
It is strange, because in the sense that 3:169 is speaking, all human beings are considered "alive" - especially the "righteous", (whether in an Islamic context or Biblical context) - that is the believers are alive in heaven with God/ or in paradise, etc.
So, it does not really make sense, because one could argue everybody is that way after they die.
It still does not deal with the clear grammar and clear declarative statement:
"they did not kill him, nor was he crucified, . . . for sure they did not kill him."
9:04 AM, DECEMBER 12, 2011
Ken said...
David,
Have you watched any or read any of the debates -
Do any of these Muslims make those arguments?
Bassam Zawadi
Sami Zaatari
Shabir Ally
Abdullah Kunde
Osama Abdullah
Abdullah Al Andolusi
Nader Ahmad
Adnan Rashid
others?
Even the late Ahmad Deedat, though he used the swoon theory, he did not take 4:157 the way you or Lawson are trying to take it.
or any of the others at
www.answeringmuslims.com
or
www.answering-islam.org
Do any of them even come close to that belief of Lawson (and the other ones you quoted from?)
Would the Grandverbalizer19 agree with you or Lawson's interpretation?
9:12 AM, DECEMBER 12, 2011
There is great significance in a plausible interpretation of the Koran that allows a more "Christian" understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ. Even if such an interpretation is incompatible with every kind of traditional Islamic belief, it would give credibility to those who would seek to synthesize the Koran with the Christian Scriptures.
Surely Dave is aware that most followers of the Koran both in history and today would reject Lawson's interpretation. But he isn't approaching the Koran with preconceived notions gained from traditional Islamic sources. Because of that, I don't see how we can point to Islamic tradition as a reason to reject Lawson's theory.
I don't believe in the Koran as Scripture. But that means that I cannot insist on interpretations from Muslim sources. If traditional Christianity (accepting no biblical canon after the apostles) is true, there is no official interpretation of Mohammed's book anyway. If Dave Waltz or Todd Lawson can offer a plausible interpretation of the Koran, they may do so without reference to historical Islam, and I am willing to admit that perhaps Mohammed believed in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ, regardless of what Mohammed's other unofficial interpreters have taught through the centuries.
Rory
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for taking the time to respond (and at length). In your post, you wrote:
==Overall, Lawson seems to be promoting Gnostic/Mystic/Docetic/Sufi/ metaphorical / radical separation of the "spirit" from the body; and many of the questioners also come from that perspective - very compatible with Hindu and Sufi thought.
True Sufis - the Iranians I know who are real Sufis, were the most difficult to pin down and understand and witness to - because they always reserved the right to interpret anything anyway they wanted to and claimed that it was the inner, true, real, "spiritual", living, genuine meaning.
They in the video (both Lawson and the others who asked questions and made comments at the end) seemed to admit that they were getting away from the historical-grammatical - author's intended meaning to the esoteric/ metaphysical/Gnostic/Sufi/ spiritual sense. ==
Me: I cannot help but think that you are letting certain presuppositions cloud Ayoub's Lawson's, Anderson's, et al. interpretation of Surah 4.157, rather than examining the insightful (IMHO) work such men have carried out.
I have mentioned to you before, than I am not a big fan of 'labels', for more often than not, they are much too broad; what it needed here (i.e. the issue of the interpretation of Surah 4.157) is a willingness to examine the evidence that is being presented without predisposed 'labeling'.
What I find more than interesting is the diversity of the worldviews of the individuals who are questioning the 'traditional' interpretations of Surah 4.157 (e.g. Christians, Muslims, Bahais, Western academians, beachbums...).
As for this, "seemed to admit that they were getting away from the historical-grammatical - author's intended meaning to the esoteric/ metaphysical/Gnostic/Sufi/ spiritual sense", given what I know about the exegesis of Jesus and His apostles, I suspect many of Jews of Jesus day leveled a similar response to His teachings. FACT: many of Jesus' (and his apostles) interpretations/exegesis of OT passages were 'spiritual' (interestingly enough, Jewish apologists make great use of this fact even in our own day).
In your third post, you penned:
== David Waltz wrote:
"Me: The huwa points to the true self, the 'he' of man that is the image of God. Huwiyya is a termed used primarily by Sufis, and seems (I could be wrong on this, but I think this is probably the most correct understanding) to be a combination of huwa and hayy; both of which point to the true 'self', that which in man is the very image of God."
David,
It is hard to know what the exact Arabic word is,(for Huwiyya and Huwa) in English letters, since there are two "h"s.==
Me: It seems that I was not very clear in what you quoted from me above; it did not intend, "a combination of huwa and hayy" in a strict sense (i.e. that the letters of the two words are actually combined), but rather that the concepts of the two words are combined.
I have been wracking my brain, trying to remember the book where I first came across the definition for huwiyya—I finally found it! In William C. Chittick's, The Sufi Path of Knowledge (a book on the metaphysics of Ibn al'Arabi), we read:
"The term He-ness is basically synonymous with Essence. 'Huwiyya signifies the Unseen Reality' (II 130.10) or 'the Reality in the world of the Unseen'...The term huwa is mentioned in many Koranic verses...Often the term can be translated more accurately as 'it-ness,' since the word huwa can designate anything absent or anything to which allusion can be made and is more general than the gender-specific 'he' might suggest. 'The word huwa is more inclusive than the word 'Allah'..." (Page 394.)
cont'd
cont'd
So huwiyya, means 'He-ness', and is directly related to the root word hu 'he'; though as Chittick, via Ibn al-Arabi, points out that it is more "inclusive". Basically, we are talking about the inner reality of the subject/object in reference.
As for Ibn al-Arabi, though he is classified as a Sufi, he was certainly much more. In his introduction, Chittick wrote:
"Few Muslim spiritual authorities are so famous in the West as Muhyï al- Dïn Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-'Arabï (A.H. 560-638/A.D. 1164-1240). In the Islamic world itself, probably no one has exercised deeper and more pervasive influence over the intellectual life of the community during the past seven hundred years. He was soon called by his disciples and followers al-Shaykh al-Akbar, the 'Greatest Master,' and few how have taken the trouble to study his works would dispute this title, though some would argue over the direction in which his greatness lies." (Page x.) [BTW, al-Arabi was born in Spain, and according to Chittock, he never went to Iran.]
Sincerely hope I have added something substantial to the dialogue...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Rory,
So good to see you showing up in this new thread. Though I personally found your entire post to be 'spot-on' (and eloquent), I would like to comment just briefly on the following:
== If Dave Waltz or Todd Lawson can offer a plausible interpretation of the Koran, they may do so without reference to historical Islam, and I am willing to admit that perhaps Mohammed believed in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ, regardless of what Mohammed's other unofficial interpreters have taught through the centuries.==
Me: I would think that a Protestant, such as Ken, would be much more open to the above than a Catholic, for he rejects a good number of interpretations that had a broad consensus within Christendom for centuries, prior to the Reformation.
God bless,
David
Hi Dave, I have to "protest" your suggestion that a Catholic might be less than willing to allow for unique or novel interpretations of the Koran.
The ONLY reason Catholics have for insisting on interpreting Holy Scripture through the lens of Apostolic Tradition is that we believe that the apostolic revelation was divinely committed to the apostles and in turn given to their successors, the bishops in union with the pope.
Holy Scripture is the only literature ever written that we believe has an official interpreter that is divinely guided by the Holy Ghost. We may have strong opinions about the interpretations of anyone before, after, or inbetween of great authors from Aristophanes to Solzhenitsyn. But we cannot argue on the basis of any exterior authority. Therefore, from a Catholic perspective, we discover the meaning of the Koran by the same means we would use to judge Shakespeare. Literary interpretations of human authors that are both novel and contradictory to received wisdom can never be summarily dismissed on the basis of authority.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church, through the Fathers of Trent entertained carefully the arguments put forward by the Reformers. This was important in order to demonstrate to the faithful why the Church teaches what it does. But there was never the slightest doubt about the outcome. Novel beliefs that are incompatible with Tradition will never be acceptable to the Catholic Church. But that rule could never be rightly applied to any other literature. In a way, it would be a denial of the faith to do so!
I understand that there are certain questions about the Shakespearean "canon" that are constantly debated. It is certain to me that this is legitimate since there is no divinely appointed authority and the literature was not "co-written" by the Holy Ghost. We must somehow try to discern what Shakespeare meant as the human author. The same must be said for every other human document.
With Sacred Scripture, it helps to know what the human author had in mind. It helps to know how the successors of the Apostles have understood it. And it helps to understand that the Holy Ghost would not and could never inspire writings that are conflicting or false in any way. Since Catholics would violate their faith to say those things about the Koran, it follows that we must treat it like other literature. To insist that any particular group of interpreters has an authoritative right to be believed with regard to the Koran, simply because it is religious in nature is impossible for Catholics.
Just as the earliest interpreters of Shakespeare might have misunderstood the author, so might the earliest interpreters of Muhammed. Furthermore, in the case of the Koran, these interpretations carried a weight of religious authority. As a result, the interpretations continue unopposed for centuries except by non-traditionalists interested in the Koran like you.
I wanted to be clear that Catholics can never ascribe to any other religious body, the authority to interpret their own religious writings, that we believe is given to the Catholic Church. It seems like any Christian is wildly inconsistent, if he disbelieves in any exterior divine authority to interpret his own Bible, but who proposes an appeal to an authoritative tradition for interpretations of the Koran.
Rory
I would like to propose an amendment in regards to why traditional interpretations of religious literature is less likely to be challenged:
"As a result, the interpretations [tend to] continue unopposed for centuries except by non-traditionalists interested in the Koran like you."
Also, I should like to add to my comment regarding Christians that are wildly inconsistent if "he disbelieves in any exterior divine authority to interpret his own Bible, but who proposes an appeal to an authoritative tradition for interpretations of the Koran."
I would add that the Catholic who believes in an exterior divine authority to interpet his own Bible, is more than wildly inconsistent if he does the same with the Koran. The Catholic would be guilty of ascribing prerogatives to a false religion that belong to the Catholic Church alone. Perhaps from thoughtless habit, he imposes an unwarranted authority structure on a false religion.
For that reason, in my opinion, Catholics would do well to allow the possibility that traditional interpretations of the Koran may be suspect and challenged. This is especially important when we consider the politics of Islam today. We must entertain the possibility, and I would say, the likelihood, the modern Muslims in the West at least, can find a way that is consistent with their holy book, to live peaceably among us.
I fear it may seem insulting to Islamic readers to hear me deny belief in their sacred book and the faith that follows. I truly intend no disrespect. It seems like we could mutually appreciate that we cannot believe in the Catholic Church and Islam at the same time! (Unless maybe your initials are D.W., heh.) That doesn't mean that we despise each other. It means that we are not driven by the sentiment that so commonly strives to ignore real and incompatible differences of view. I respect non-sentimentalists whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other worldview. For what it is worth, as I have tried to demonstrate, my view of the Koran allows me a latitude in my attitude towards contemporary Islam that might be missing if I was forced to believe in a traditional interpretation.
Rory
I had no clue that the Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified until listening to part of this.
David,
It is not "labeling", nor presuppositions - (no one can escape totally from one's presuppositions)
I would say it is discernment -
actually, I recognize the Gnostic/sufism/Docetism/esoteric/mysticism because I have actually been with Iranians since 1987; started learning Farsi formally in 1993; sharing the gospel of Christ with them and knowing their culture and thinking and some of their poetry, history, culture, etc.
Dualism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Darwishes, Manicheaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, Babism, Twelver Shi'ite Islam, Sevener Ismail'i Islam - all of these things are different manifestations of the deeper history and culture of Iranians.
I first just learned and ministered among Iranians, learning Farsi and their culture and then sharing the gospel and the Bible with them in their language. I did not know much about Shiite Islam nor about the Gnostic roots of Iranian culture, nor about Bahai'ism, etc.
Now, listening to Dr. Lawson, it all makes sense to me now - The Gnosticism is deep.
One Iranian friend showed me a film of Darwishes - from a Kurdish village of Sufi ascetics who cut themselves and put knives and spears into their bodies, etc. - like Hindus who do the same kind of things - seeking to prove something to their "Pirs" (elders, mediators, spirits in heaven) - by proving that matter is not real and if one has the right mental state, physical things and matter disappear. It was very dark and disturbing. I will never forget it.
Rory wrote:
"The ONLY reason Catholics have for insisting on interpreting Holy Scripture through the lens of Apostolic Tradition is that we believe that the apostolic revelation was divinely committed to the apostles and in turn given to their successors, the bishops in union with the pope."
That is official RC teaching; but there is no such thing as a Pope, in the early centuries, that is "a bishop over the other other bishops", that was in Rome. When Stephen, bishop of Rome, around 250-258 AD ( 256 -257 ?) [ I am not taking the time to be exact on that] made that claim, Cyprian, Firmillian and 86 bishops from all over the empire rebuked him.
all ministers were called "father" (papa) = spiritual father, like in I Cor. 4:13 and I Timothy, etc.
The bishop of Rome being exalted over and above the other bishops grew slowly, as ones like Leo I (440) and Gregory I (601) began exercising more and more power, and Islam conquered the east; and the Papal claims contributed to the split with the east in 1054.
I never claimed Al Arabi went to Iran.
yes, there are Sufi Gnostics in Arab countries also.
So, which word is it?
Hawa
هوا
or
حوا
؟
I have a pretty good idea it is هوا
Hafez, one of the great poets of Iran, uses this word in regard to the spirit and breath of Jesus:
http://ganjoor.net/hafez/ghazal/sh175/
هوا مسیح نفس گشت و باد نافه گشای
درخت سبز شد و مرغ در خروش آمد
"when the spirit of Christ breathes and the wind opens the trees become green and the rooster crows." (rough translation; it is poetry)
Rory wrote:
It seems like any Christian is wildly inconsistent, if he disbelieves in any exterior divine authority to interpret his own Bible, but who proposes an appeal to an authoritative tradition for interpretations of the Koran.
that is not true; because Protestants believe in external authorities that God has given to the church - pastors and teachers, but they are not "infallible exterior divine authorities" - the key word you left out is "infallible". the pastors and teachers can be wrong sometimes, but they are still the ones who are supposed to be faithful in interpreting the Scriptures properly.
Hi Ken,
You wrote:
==Dualism, Gnosticism, Sufism, Darwishes, Manicheaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, Babism, Twelver Shi'ite Islam, Sevener Ismail'i Islam - all of these things are different manifestations of the deeper history and culture of Iranians.
I first just learned and ministered among Iranians, learning Farsi and their culture and then sharing the gospel and the Bible with them in their language. I did not know much about Shiite Islam nor about the Gnostic roots of Iranian culture, nor about Bahai'ism, etc.
Now, listening to Dr. Lawson, it all makes sense to me now - The Gnosticism is deep.==
Me: Deep in all of the above? This is the first time I have heard the 12ers being described as Gnostic. As for the Baha'is being Gnostic, that too is new to me; quite frankly, I am 'scratching my head', trying to identify any of the tenants that scholars usually associate with Gnosticism in the Baha'i teachings.
And finally, though I believe that one can see an infiltration of some Gnostic concepts into later Zoroastrianism, I do not find any traces in the Gathas.
==I never claimed Al Arabi went to Iran.
yes, there are Sufi Gnostics in Arab countries also.==
Me: And I never claimed that you "claimed Al Arabi went to Iran".
As for al-Arabi being a Gnostic, scholars are divided on this issue. I think one has to ignore a good deal of his writings to make the charge 'stick'.
Grace and peace,
David
Ken you aren't even reading what I wrote. If the shoe doesn't fit, that's fine. I said, "if". I deliberately said "if". You say "not if". Therefore, I am not speaking to you.
Ken, you act as though you think I think I have established some truth. I am only talking about being consistent. Of course you think I am wrong. I never proposed that I was right.
I am proposing what would be consistent with my presuppositions. It should be nothing to you to admit that someone may have principles consistent with what is from your perspective, their errors.
But somehow, I am confident you will convince yourself that even if Catholicism, or anything but your very unique beliefs, were true, there is no such thing as a consistent principle based on an erroneous presupposition. We couldn't be farther apart in the way it appears to me that we think.
My motto is that nobody is wrong about everything. Yours seems to be that everybody who disagrees about anything with me is wrong about everything.
David Waltz wrote:
"This is the first time I have heard the 12ers being described as Gnostic. As for the Baha'is being Gnostic, that too is new to me; quite frankly, I am 'scratching my head', trying to identify any of the tenants that scholars usually associate with Gnosticism in the Baha'i teachings."
Maybe not in official doctrine; but the average Iranian is this way, after you get to know them. I have not dealt with scholars of 12ers nor Bahai scholars - this is just an observation of the average Iranian I have met. And I have meet many who say at the beginning that they are Shiite Muslim, but then later it comes out that they are really Bahai or their father was Bahai, but they have learned, it seems, to keep that hidden. (because of the danger and persecution in Iran) they have an attitude of "all monotheistic religions are the same" but don't like my evangelism that seeks to press upon them that Isa Masih (Jesus the Christ) is the only way to God the Father and only by repentance and faith in Him can one be saved.
Rory wrote:
"My motto is that nobody is wrong about everything. "
I agree with that.
Yours seems to be that everybody who disagrees about anything with me is wrong about everything.
No; not true. smile.
Sorry about the "if" statement. No personal offense was intended. Maybe I don't understand you totally.
the key issue for thinking Protestants, when challenged about church authority, apostolic succession, tradition, and theological development is that Protestants do believe in some kind of those things, it is just that all of those things are not infallible, only Scripture is; and no teachers or church leaders are infallible, only Scripture is.
It sounded as if you were saying that it is inconsistent for Protestants, who don't have the RC views of those things; to then question a modern or new take on Islam, when we are judging Islam by its traditional and historical and centuries long interpretation of Surah 4:157.
David W. seems to be saying that also. That I as an Evangelical Protestant/Reformed/Calvinist should give Islam's scholars the right to re-interpret their texts; because in his thinking, he things Luther and Calvin's views on several things were novel and new and never heard of before, and many other things that were allegedly ancient and ongoing for subsequent centuries, we reject.
Post a Comment