Muslim view of The Passion

Written by a USAmerican Muslim this article gives a good insight into the apologetic concerns of Muslims vis-a-vis Christion faith. He says; " Muslims are perfectly poised to offer a view that no one seems to be talking about." which is true and he goes on to kind of avow and disavow a via media. The crucial [sorry!] point in this is "a Muslim would say there is no Christ killer and, therefore, no need to associate anyone with that indictment and no need to cause anyone to fear it". Of course the Muslim view struggles against the historical evidence at this point and this may be one reason why no-one is tlaking about it. The Muslim view has other difficulties since it is not necessarily based on an accurate/necessary reading of the qu'ran but is rather a custom of interpretation. It would be interesting to see this debate start up perhaps.

I think that the main insightful point is: "In an important way, "The Passion" is an accidental expose about the religious sensitivities of our times, about a wounded spirituality that seems to require sensationalism to keep the faithful going." And he isn't just tilting at Christianity when he says that. But it seems to me that there's a lot to agree with in that statement.

A telling comment is " a view that was also shared among some early Christian sects, like the Basilideans who believed that Christ himself was never crucified." I do hope that Christian apologists to Islam don't engage in similarly sloppy thinking and reading of the evidence with regard to Islam's history. Yes the Basilideans did so think, but they did so not because they had an authetic insight into history that the rest of the church and the world covered up, rather their Gnostic ideology of disparagement of the flesh couldn't countenance the idea. Gnostic ideas are generally not compatible with Islam either ...

The odd thing is that Abusharif says: " What happened to Jesus at the end of his life was not about violence, but about honor in the face of vehement rejection. God raised His prophet to Himself" which is actually pretty much what many Christians would assent to stated simply in that way -leaving of the next clause. In fact this statement is compatible with Christian theology and also the qu'ran. All that is needed by Muslims is to put away the traditional anti-Christian interpretation of their Book at this point. God made it seem that it was the Jews [yes that's how it is in the qu'ran -maybe not so via media after all] killed Christ but in reality it was the plan of God, just as at the battle of Badr.

And of course no comment form a Muslim source could be complete without something along the line of: "To deify Jesus, however, is considered an affront to the primordial foundation of the religion project: the oneness of God and His sole divinity." Just doesn't get it. We really do affirm the oneness of God guys. If Jesus actually is God in human form then we can't avoid the paradox but to imply that we are tritheists is unfair and an implicit accusation of duplicity.

In fact the qu'ran needs to be interrogated on this point: in it it seems to be implied that Christians worship a trinity of Father Son and Virgin Mary. We do not do what the qu'ran seems to condemn at this point. First, Mary is not worshipped as God and second if trinitarian theology is interpreted as saying anything other than there is one God then it is being misinterpreted or misrepresented.

I do hope that we can clear away such misunderstandings and so talk about the real issues...