| Da Vinci Code and Muslims |
|
|
| Tuesday, 23 May 2006 | |
|
Should Muslims support Catholics demanding a ban on the Da Vinci Code movie? Or should they stay neutral? Well, some Muslim leaders in India and Canada have already issued religious decrees seeking a ban on the movie. In fact, a few Muslim leaders from Bombay went even further threatening violent demonstrations if the movie was released. What is the Da Vinci code and why should one take it seriously even though it is a book of fiction. The issue at hand is not the literary style and the descriptive narratives or the mystery it weaves around its characters, it is the distortion of some of the historical facts around the character of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him - ), which is at the center of the controversy. The book and the movie deal with a number of issues related with faith, history and culture. They definitely erode the foundations of faith for both protestants and Catholics as they present Jesus in a manner that an average Christian is not familiar with. From the perspectives of Muslims, some of the assumptions reinforce their own religious views on Jesus , while the others are contrary to Islamic beliefs. For instance, on four issues, Da Vinci code essentially presents a view point similar to that one finds in the Quran as well as in Muslim history. The book and the movie assert that Jesus was not viewed as God until the fourth century. Muslim historians concur with that assertion. The movie highlights the role of emperor Constantine in projecting Jesus as God and Muslims agree with that analysis. The movie suggests that the Roman emperor unified Christians on the divinity of Jesus and forced a version of New Testament upon them that suited this ideology. Muslims' view is slightly different. They argue that it was the split within the Church that caused this issue to dominate the Christian scene and priests rather than politicians influenced the decision of the Roman emperor. The final point on which both Muslim and the author of the book agree is that the message of Jesus was distorted to suit the will of Emperor of Rome and his supporters. However, when the movie talks about the character of Prophet Jesus, Muslim viewpoint does not agree with the views of the author. Muslims support Christians claim that the movie distorts the figure of Prophet Jesus . The movie shows that Jesus and Mary Magdelene married secretly. Muslims do not agree with this assertion and believe that even if he did it would not diminish his character. The movie further says that the two had a daughter whose name was Sarah and whose progeny still survives in Europe. Muslims reject this claim as well. The argument is simple. Those who are revered by billions of people all over the world can not be subject to fictional distortions. Religious figures should be spared from harsh criticism by those who rely only on selected and subjective sources. The movie also asserts that the Catholic church is involved in murders and assassinations of those who knew of this secret and wanted to expose it. Obviously, it is an assertion that exists in the imagination of the author. The second issue is that the Church is aware of the truth and is deliberately trying to cover it up. Both assumptions are based on fiction and both are meant to create more confusion. The film and the book supporters present the first amendment in support of their work. In their zeal of freedom of speech they fail to recognize that freedom does not give them a license to assassinate the character of religious icons. The movie is promoting fictional falsehood about the character of Jesus . We hope that the true nature and mission of Jesus will bring the essence of the Lord of all Creation into our lives.
Dr. Aslam Abdullah is editor-in-Chief of the Muslim Observer and the director of the Islamic Society of Nevada as well as the director of the Muslim Electorates Council of America.           Readers have left 18 comments.
Ali Abdullah:
Quote
At least we shouldn't give them any money by watching it, either at the cinema or on DVD.
(1)
2006-05-24 02:10:11
S. Benari:
Quote
Why should religions be protected in the manner that the author seeks? The sole rationale would be if those religions are so weak in their assertions and their adherents so weak in their faith that they require protection. Thus if religions believe that their creeds are true and thuis strong they should need no protection.
All belief groups (religious and political) deal in fictions, and do so to promote their particular paradigm. An example of this is the repeated assertion in Christianity that the Samaritans were a separate ethnic group from Jews. However anyone living in the "Holy Land" knows that they are the same ethnic group and are simply in dispute over the validity of the Talmud. All religions abound with happy stories which illustrate the true path, but are fiction. Christians tread the Via Dolorosa on a daily basis believing it to be the final route of Jesus, but in truth the road did not exist during Jesus's life. The best thing to do with the Da Vinci Code novel is laugh at it and those who take it seriously.
(2)
2006-05-24 09:12:06
Abdulallah:
Quote
What Jesus (pbuh) having a child and a wife how far fetched can you get!
This is close to insanity; however Jesus (pbuh) managed to turn water into whine, walk on water and rose from the dead. All those hard proven facts! I don't get why Muslims should stick up for the Vatican like that. I mean all the prophets had wives and kids. We believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is the favourite prophet and he had wives and kids. So why can't Jesus (pbuh)? We Muslim have had books written against us too you know. One book is a celebrated piece if literature Dante’s inferno which spoke of the prophet in an offensive manner. In fact we have more books written against us everyday than any other faith.
(3)
2006-05-24 10:43:32
jacare:
Quote
To S. Benari:
I agree with you that religions that do not want to be held under scrutiny are religions that are weak in their assertions. But, there is a big difference between holding a debate discussing the truthfulness of a religion in a calm, civilised and rational manner and writing books, making movies, documentaries and drawing caricatures that slander the religion and those who adhere to it without giving an opportunity for those attacked to defend themselvs. I am indifferent for the moment to the DaVinci issue as I haven`t studied it yet, but I believe that Islam, unlike Christianity, can withstand any scrutinity as it is based on a timeless miracle, known as the Qu`ran, that any sincere rational mind can comprehend the nature of its miracle.
(4)
2006-05-24 11:16:52
Razia:
Quote
r u people serious?
So you object to the fictional idea of Jesus having a child. How about objecting to the fictional idea of him being the son of god, and being a god as part of the holy trinity and the biggest con of all - Jesus dying on a cross. If anything - the Da Vinci code disputes the idea that Jesus was son of god and therfore devine. Surely these cracks in christianity are a good thing?
(5)
2006-05-24 12:21:39
SirB:
Quote
Isa Jesus is a beloved prophet of Islam, and we love him like we love all the prophets PBU Them all.
(6)
2006-05-24 13:49:20
Mr Truth:
Quote
Benari should we assume then that the Talmud should also be allowed to be scrutinised for alleged racism within its pages, without being intimindated by theats and smear by those who would abuse the word "anti semitism".
Or is it only other faiths that are allowed to be scrutinised?
(7)
2006-05-24 14:26:21
S. Benari:
Quote
Truth
You can scrutinise the Talmud as much as you like for whatever you like. (I believe that it has recently been translated in its entirety into English and published on the web) I understand that it contains all sorts of statements by vast numbers of rabbis etc, some of which are very offensive to Muslims, Christians and others. The difference between the Talmud and the Bible / Koran is that it is merely the expressions of people not prophets or Gods. It, of course, would be much better if people sought to examine the claims and expressions of all religions in a calm rational manner and not through the filter of their own prejudices. It is quite interesting to listen to Jews, Christians and Muslims expound upon each others faiths from positions of almost total ignorance. Interesting insofar as here are 3 closely linked religions that have managed to not communicate with each other for centuries.
(8)
2006-05-24 15:41:06
jay:
Quote
Both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud were compiled several hundred years before the advent of Mohammed, the writing of the Koran by him, and the appearance of Islam as, in the first place, a local religion meant for the Arabs and the Arabs alone. S. Benari's obsevations, therefore, seem to be anachronistic. How could anything in the Talmud be offensive to Muslims? Islam did not exist then. and in any case both Talmuds were compendiums of law meant to regulate the lives of Jews.As for the Bible (Old Testament) Torah Orthodox Jews believe that it is the actual word of God- just as Muslims believe that the Koran is the actual word of God. Muslims expect non-Muslims to accept their beliefs, Muslims might try accepting that the beliefs of non-Muslims are important to them (non-Muslims) and stop trying to demolish those beliefs. We all might then be closer to a true observance of pluralism and mutual acceptance.
(9)
2006-05-24 18:19:15
A Christian:
Quote
jayism only proves it wants to wipe out real religions & replace it with devil worship
(10)
2006-05-25 09:57:57
S. Benari:
Quote
Jay, as Islam traces itself in essence to Abraham and thus does not consider that it replaces Judaism, the apparent anachronisms you refer to do not exist. That which occurred between remains a deviation and the Prophet heralded a return to the true path and the enumeration of that through the Koran. This paradigm is distinct to that of Christianity which asserts that the martyrdom of Jesus and the subsequent Pauline Covenant relieved mankind of its obligations described in Mosaic laws. Christianity ascribed to itself an exclusivity that Judaism did not claim, and therefore assigned to non-Christians eternal damnation. The modern day relativism that western Christians claim is something that has evolved in the last 50 years, and certainly not shared by all Christians.
Historically all three faiths have carefully avoided offending one another when they do not feel secure. Thus Christians and Jews sought to avoid public offense being given to Muslims in pre-1917 Jerusalem, but it did not prevent them expressing to one another views which were frequently highly offensive, and in particular the Christian sects exhibited considerable anymosity to one another, and still do. With the rise of Humanism in the west, the respect that dominant religions claimed for themselves was challenged, and it was an integral element of the social and political freedom that produced the astonishing wealth and security the west enjoys.
(11)
2006-05-25 12:09:02
jay:
Quote
Your statement that the Talmud contains statements that are insulting to Muslims remains an anachronism. Historically, Islam had not yet been born and Talmudic laws and regulations were addressed to Jews alone. Even if Islam traces its spiritual heritage back to Abraham, the first monotheist, no one in the area was a practising Muslim. He or she was either a Jew, a Christian, a Zoroastrian, polytheist or pagan. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes here.
Just one further remark: it is a pity that Muslims were open in their contempt for Jews in pre-1917 Jerusalem, frequently assaulting them openly in the streets and using the area of the Western Wall as a depositary for garbage. so much for Islam's sense of tolerance.
(13)
2006-05-26 13:32:07
S. Benari:
Quote
Jay, I believe that you may not appreciate some of the perspectives of Islam where they conflict with your perceptions of your historical truth. No matter we all have our views. We can all feel insulted by anothers intemperate words.
To my knowledge the relations between Jews, Muslims and Christians varied very greatly depending upon what was happening at the time. Nevertheless cordial and respectful relations did exists between neighbours. But it would be absolutely untrue to echo the claims of Hanan Ashrawi when she claims that people were unaware of other religions and the communities were cohesive and merged. Religion, and sub-sect defined the individual traditionally. It is however also true that the Ayanes, the feudal ruling class, and the Ulema exploited both Christians and Jews mercilessly to the point that the entire economy was dependant upon it. (Christians benefitted from intervention by the Western powers and often acted as middle men (Dragomen). When in 1860 the millet system was applied, this source of income dried up. This then initiated a cycle of events where the Ayanes exploited the Fellahin through first usury and then foreclosures, then land sales to Zionists. I believe that in the late 19th C, desert land in Palestine was worth 10 times as much as fertile land in the Mid-West US. The absence of honesty about the past makes it almost impossible to create a peaceful future.
(14)
2006-05-26 20:28:11
Jahangir:
Quote
There is a hadeeth which mentions That Isa (as) will come down from the heavens to the Great Mosque of Damascus in Syria and he will fight the Dajjal and his armies. Once he has defeated them there will be peace on earth and he will than complete his life on earth by getting married and having children.
For Muslims this should re affirm any notions of the Mary Magdalene conspiracy.
(15)
2006-05-28 12:44:44
Steve Smith:
Quote
The Christian world has been under attack by the “American” media for many years, as its Christianphobia is again being made into another movie, the same hatred for the Muslims as well. It has yet to make a factually correct or racially / religiously balance move nor will it ever.
(16)
2006-06-05 18:33:18
Kamal:
Quote
Although I did not get to read the whole article, however the starting sentence had a good question.
(17)
2006-06-06 05:52:15
shareek:
Quote
more we discuuses more truths come out, why do we beleive? and why dont we beleive??
(18)
2006-06-25 12:51:03
|
Search MPACUK.org
Latest Discussions
Recommended Books
