Letters

Dear Christis,

Warning: This is only for those who care for truth, others please don’t waste your time.

I learnt by accident of Steve Nicolle’s letter in your 10th issue written in reply to my article “Jesus in Islam” (issue 8) and I found it far away from the truth, hence I include a brief discussion of Steve’s points.

Though I said “this is a very brief account…”, Steve calls it “full and accurate” and uses his own judgement against me later to blame me for not saying this or that. In his introduction, he seems to understand that we, Muslims, believe that “Judas Iscariot was substituted for Jesus on the cross” though I said that Qur’an does not elaborate on that and it is in the possession of history.

About his 4 points:

1. I didn’t ask you (he says: “ask us”) to consider Barnabas as a book of truth — in fact, I myself don’t believe in that as it contradicts Qur’an in some places but I said “It may be of certain value to compare the version told by the officially recognised gospels with that of Barnabas” because I believe it to be another historical account (not necessarily right but equally valid) as the others. They also contain “glaring factual inaccuracies” an example of which is in Matthew: (12:39–40) it says that no sign will be given but that of Jonah “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”. This same author (Matthew) says (27:46) that Jesus died about the 9th hour (Friday) and said (in Aramaic) My God, why have you forsaken me? (Remember that the author says that he chose to die willingly.) Now, in Matthew (28:5) it is said that on Sunday at dawn, Jesus wasn’t in the tomb. Apart from the fact that Jonah didn’t die in the belly of the fish, how on earth can we count 3 days and 3 nights between Friday evening and Sunday morning?!! (Of course Muslims believe that Jesus was never there in that tomb and they don’t worry about this calculation.)
2. The first verse quoted is not correctly referenced in the first place, it comes after 7 verses and the meaning given by Steve is incorrect. Though the Arabic is the only reference counted upon as it is the language of the word of God, I checked more than 4 available English attempted explanations by different authors (which are not Qur’an as they stand alone) and I couldn’t find Steve’s claims but I would be grateful if he kindly shows me his reference as my messages to him are still unanswered. The Arabic verb “tawaffaa” is completely different from “amata” which means “to cause a living creature to die” and the first is used there. The second (Qur’an 19:34) “and peace be upon me the day I was born and the day I die and the day I’m raised to life” tells nothing more than the fact that Jesus (peace be on him) is already born, that he will die and will be raised again same as all the other humans and same as John about whom God said the very same thing in the same chapter (19:15). So what? We believe that Jesus will die and will be raised again (after his second coming to earth) just like others including me and Steve.
3. The blame waged against me for not mentioning some of Jesus’ titles in Qur’an in my Full Account (according to him of course), namely the titles of “a Spirit from God” and “the Word of God”, this blame is baseless and I ask Steve (and I’m sure he can read English better than I) What is written on lines 17 & 18 (left) on page 7 of the 9th issue of Christis?
4. Finally he says “in Greek, the original language of New Testament…” and I say Yes, but it is NOT the language of the INJIL that was referred to in Qur’an because Jesus himself never spoke Greek but Aramaic (which is similar to Arabic) and ancient Hebrew. The currently available accounts of the life of Jesus are not the Injil (though they contain some of the teachings of Jesus Christ). Luke says many people wrote life accounts of Jesus. I haven’t seen the rest and I don’t know Greek myself so I can’t comment on Steve’s claim that “Ahmad sounds similar to spirit”, but I know from John (14:16) “And I will ask the Father and he will give you ANOTHER COUNSELLOR to be with you for ever — the spirit of Truth” not the spirit of God!

A-R Khooli

Dear Christis,

I have just read my first copy of Christis and may I congratulate the Christis team for a “job well done”.

I am writing this in response to a letter by Wulf Forrester-Barker in Issue 10. I was pleased to see that his account of why he does not condone homosexuality seems to be based on a lot of thought and was not simply a list of bible references chosen to justify a homophobic “gut reaction” to the subject. Wulf may also be pleased to hear that one does not get the impression that he is “missing the spirit by hanging onto the words”. His search for the “Spirit” in Leviticus 18:19 suggests otherwise, although I disagree with his conclusion as the text emphasizes an uncleanliness of menstruating women rather than their vulnerability.

I am a Christian who is sharing her life with another Christian of the same sex. As such I try to be aware of my biases. Wulf’s open and uncondemning account of his views has prompted me to try and express my views in the same manner. Had the letter been narrow minded and condemning, like the response of many Christians, I would not have attempted this as I would not feel listened to, let alone respected!

It is clear that Wulf sees homosexuality as a sin. I respect his view as I firmly believe we must all come to our own conclusions about how God wants us to act. We must do this through whatever sources are meaningful to us-be they our own experiences, Jesus’ teachings or the bible as a whole. It is by this route that I have come to believe the opposite to Wulf.

On reading Matthew 5: 17–30 we see what Jesus thinks of the Jewish Law. I feel he is telling us that the Law was designed to prevent wrongful acts, but that God’s wishes go beyond this-that we should strive against the unloving, highly selfish motivation in our hearts and spirits that lead us to such acts. In Matthew 15: 12–14 it is pointed out to Jesus that he offends the Pharisees by suggesting one is not defiled by eating or touching things that are “ritually unclean”. He said of the Pharisees: “‘Leave them alone; they are blind guides, and if one blind man leads another they will both fall into the ditch.’” As Jesus is the only being with true understanding of God to have addressed the world, he is the only real guide we have. For this reason I trust his insight rather than that of the Old Testament Laws. So what ‘Laws’ does Jesus suggest we follow? In Matthew 22:36 Jesus clearly speaks his views. We are to love God, and hold others in love in the manner we would wish for ourselves.

It is these “ground rules” communicated by Jesus that I make my tool in deciding whether my actions and motivations are sinful or not. By this reasoning I can not see any sin in living my “alternative lifestyle”. My love of God is strengthened by sharing my faith with my girlfriend — in fact it was through her that I found God! And no one could say (as far as I am aware) that by loving her I am hurting my “neighbours”.

There are some other definitions of sin that I recognise. Sin can be thought of as ‘everything that does not come from God’ or ‘anything that prevents one being close to God’. But who knows what does and does not come from God? It is my firm belief that God is Love. As such (and from my experience) I believe my love for my partner is “heaven sent”. As for the latter definition, not only does sharing our faith strengthen it, but our feelings for each other give us a greater knowledge of love, and hence a greater understanding of God.

I hope I have not offended anyone with my views, rather that by speaking out I have prompted thought that may lead to a greater tolerance and respect for others like myself.

Helen Priddle