Are the Calormenes metaphorical?

[inkspot]

Gah, Johan, your point was perfectly clear to me, but thanks for all those apologies, truly a nice display.

I think we are all agreed that Calormenes doesn't equal Islam, so I am not sure where Dr. Tumnus got that idea, particularly from your post, Johan. But I don't see why it's verboten to discuss the origins of religion? Tumnus wants us to read a history book, but not to talk about the origins of Islam, and I can't quite figure out why?

Perhaps because it might offend someone ... but here's the thing: if we talk about it in a rude, demeaning way, then yes, I can see where there's a problem. If we talk about it in a respectful and kind way, then I don't think there's much room for complaint. Sukapesta is Islamic, and she has not complained about the discussion of Islam, so I don't think we need to worry.

Now, Dr. Tumnus, you contend -- and Johan agrees -- that Islam is not evil. Yet both of you are Christians. I am curious whether, as Christians, you do not find it evil for a religion to tell its adherents that Christ is not Lord? I am not saying that Islamic people are evil (although the Bible tells us all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, so a case could be made that everyone is evil). I am saying that, as a follower of Christ, I think any faith that leads people away from belief in Christ as Savior cannot be a good faith.

The Bible seems to leave some wiggle room for people who have never heard the Gospel, Paul implies God will make some accomodation for them, so it seems to me the enemy's best bet is to develop faiths that doff their caps to Jesus but do not alow Him to be Lord: then the people who follow that faith will have heard of Jesus, but will be blinded to His offer of salvation.

This all stems from my worldview as a believer in Jesus Christ as God, and as Savior. It in no way implies that all the practices of Islam are evil or that all Islamic people are evil -- but I am curious how a believer in Christ can believe a religion that teaches adherents that Christ is not Lord is not an evil religion.

 

[Parthian King]

Dr. Tumnus, I am a Catholic-friendly, evangelically-minded Pentecostal. As such, what I say is in no way meant to demean Catholicism; I was raised Catholic but have specific reasons for belonging to another tradition now.

That said, I would ask you directly: If you feel that the connection between Evangelical practice and tradition today and Evangelical heritage sustaining that practice and tradition is no stronger than Hitler's twisted justification of his programme of violence, why do you call yourself an Evangelical? That you construed my brief statement to mean no more than that is, well, remarkable.

The issue of apostolic continuity and the Protestant Reformation is the question for Christ's divided Church today, and I have my doubts as to whether it can be settled here. I'm not quite sure this is the place for it, either. But I will say it seems a much more nuanced theological debate than the mere examination of historical places and names. I have found more of a sense of fraternal Christian love with a number of godly Catholics than with some "progressive" Protestants, and have perceived a similar kindred spirit in them toward me (in contrast to some nominal members of their faith). I believe this speaks to a deeper understanding of Church and continuity that the Lord Jesus, in His time, will bring to visible fruition.

As for the assertion that the pre-Islamic pagan Arab gods do not represent Allah, well, that was my very point. That's why I said that I think the Calormen people represent a pre-Islamic culture. Muslims (though riddled with other theological problems), would not openly worship an idol like Tash. (see post #64, this thread, where I said the same thing.)

As for the "insanity" of the assertion that a Christ-denying system is evil, allow me to quote the Apostle John:

Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22-23

How do you deal with this? Is John wrong? Would John agree with your stance?

I think we need to re-examine how we define words like "evil" and "antichrist." The real, biblical understanding has nothing to do with stereotypes, but rather with spiritual realities. If we can please God--either in this life or the next--without Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, then why did He die?

Just curious...

 

[inkspot]

As for the "insanity" of the assertion that a Christ-denying system is evil, allow me to quote the Apostle John: "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 1 John 2:22-23"

How do you deal with this? Is John wrong? Would John agree with your stance? I think we need to re-examine how we define words like "evil" and "antichrist." The real, biblical understanding has nothing to do with stereotypes, but rather with spiritual realities. If we can please God--either in this life or the next--without Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, then why did He die?

There, PK said it better than I did. As Christians, there are things we define as evil because they prevent people from seeing Christ as Lord. I would say Islam is one of those things, and it appears the Apostle John would agree with me. Not that Islamic people are more evil than me, and not that Islamic practice is evil in itself, but that the idea of Jesus as not-Christ is in itself evil, whether it is an Islamic person who espouses it, or a supposedly Christian person who proclaims it. If you deny Christ as Lord, then by the Bible's definition, you are doing something evil.

PK, I should have defended you on that Hitler thing, too, I forgot. That was not right at all, to compare modern evangelicals to Hitler just because he was supposedly a Protestant. That's just not logical.

 

[Parthian King]

Sweat not, Inkspot. I know your heart.

 

[PunkMaister]

Do you think the Calormenes represent the Muslims? (Assuming the Narnians are the Christians) After all, the two cultures bears certain resemblances. Who then, is Tash. As described in the novel, is Allah then the antithesis of Jesus?

hge funny thing is that there is absolutely nothing in the Qu'ran that says that women are nothing more than property and slaves of the human male population of this planet.
Never the less a lot of islamic countries are indeed very represive toward women etc. But then again so were we about a century or so ago, In fact there was a time when women could not even vote. Off course those days are history now but that's how it was.
I have friends on the internet from other boards that are muslim and you would be surprised how much they have in common with christians.

 

[Dr Tumnus]

to compare modern evangelicals to Hitler just because he was supposedly a Protestant. That's just not logical.

My reference to Hitler was not a comparison to modern evangelicals. Parthian King said that protestants are able to draw their heritage from Christendom 500 years ago. I understand that Christendom was not monolithic but it is difficult to follow the development of the various schools of thought; much like Islam. Hitler drew his heritage from some mythical white peoples that enslaved lesser dark peoples. Hitler's version of the Aryan invasion theory is obsolete. Protestants that draw their heritage from some catholic scholars that lamented the spiritual poverty of christendom are confused. As christians we are forced to rely on the Holy Spirit and not on scholarly explanations.

We can all post our personal beliefs based on the Bible until the cows come home. I see the Narnians as decent (Christian) people and the Calormenes as indecent people. I think that Muslims can very easily identify themselves with the Narnians. Aslan can represent the Prophet, or any of his successors; particularly his grandson. CSL's stories can ring true for everyone, even if he was a Christian author.

 

[onlymystory]

Aslan can represent the Prophet, or any of his successors; particularly his grandson.

I'm afraid I must take issue with that statement. CSL actually stated that Aslan was not a representation of anyone. Rather he said imagine there were other worlds, and in one of those worlds was Jesus but there he was a lion and known by the name of Aslan. I will try to find the source for that and post it. Judging by those words I don't see how Aslan could be anyone but Jesus.

I'm afraid I don't remember which of you mentioned the bit in the Koran where it says Jesus claimed not to be God but if anyone knows that part could you let me know? Otherwise I will just search through the Koran to find it.

 

[inkspot]

Protestants that draw their heritage from some catholic scholars that lamented the spiritual poverty of christendom are confused. As christians we are forced to rely on the Holy Spirit and not on scholarly explanations.

I misunderstood you, sorry. But I am still misunderstanding you, I think. I draw my "heritage" as a Christian from the men and women I read about in the Bible and count myself as one urged on by that great "cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1) -- so I am not sure which "Catholic scholars that lamented the spiritual poverty of christendom" you are referring to?

Also, I think as Christians we rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, where God has revealed His plan and will. Again, I am not sure where the scholarly explanations come in?

I think maybe we are talking about two different subjects, each thinking the other is on the same page ...

onlymystory, I may have said that about Jesus in the Koran, and I do not know the reference. I heard it from some Muslim friends that Jesus says in their holy book something to the effect, "Perish the thought I should ever claim to be God ..." but they did not give me a reference and maybe they were just busting my chops because I believe Jesus is Lord ...

 

[Parthian King]

Well, Dr. Tumnus, so far you have implied or indicated that shamefulness, ignorance, foolishness, dearth of logic, insanity, irrelevance, absurdity, and confusion are words that best apply to the positions taken by others in this thread (I invite anyone to go back and review his statements to verify this).

I am beginning to triangulate on your position, but being "confused" as I am it is taking a me a bit of time. You are an Evangelical Christian who believes salvation comes only through Jesus Christ. You believe that, historically speaking, the Catholics are the real Christians, and that Protestants have at most a present experience with the Holy Spirit but no claim to ecclesiastical history. You consider that Islam is not evil, seem to think it as legitimate a religion as any other, including Christianity, and that, in fact it has a stronger historical foundation than Protestantism. And oh, Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation (did I already say that one? I get so confused on these things...).

What I find interesting is that the legitimacy of Islam was not a direct discussion in this thread until you brought it up. Some were conjecturing about what the Calormenes signified for Lewis, and quite reasonably, some viewed them as Muslim-like enough to weigh some conclusions. I am at a loss to see the offense in that. But since you brought the issue up directly, and seeing no harm in responding (and perhaps great harm for some in not responding), the discussion must be joined. Will you really make your case then squash all opposition with the high-handed adjectives you appear to have such an affection for (not to mention bringing up Hitler, which pretty much nukes any sense of diplomacy no matter what a discussion is about)?

To suggest that Lewis signified by Aslan anyone but Jesus Christ, or that somehow Aslan might be appropriated as simply the supreme savior figure of whatever religion one might want, is a gross distortion of the texts. Goodness gracious, even the viciously secular movie reviewers see this! That it would be argued at all is a truly amazing display of postmodern relativism in action. The "Prophet," as you say (or any number of his relatives, for that matter), was not the Son of God (i.e., Son of the Emperor over the Sea), did not die for sin, and then rise from the dead (LWW). The ignominious death of such a figure is so abhorrent to Muslims that they literally deny that the crucifixion ever took place. The "Prophet" did not appear as a Lamb (VDT). The "Prophet" did not come into this world through a manger (LB). I would respectfully suggest that if you think that Lewis' central and only Christ-figure from his overtly Christian allegory could in any way be interpreted as a Muslim holy figure, then you'd better reconsider who it is that is confused in this discussion (I'll leave the other adjectives you like out of it).

You say that in Lewis' schema, Narnians are decent and Calormenes indecent. Then you extrapolate from that (presumably since the Muslims consider themselves decent), that Muslims may also consider themselves Narnians. Let me ask you: What people or culture, upon understanding and appreciating a story, would say among themselves "I see who we are in this. We're the indecent antagonists, and our mortal historical enemies are the good guys"? Just because a host of rank unbelievers watch the movie that has just hit the theatres, and while watching identify with the four Pevensies or even Aslan, that does not make them Christians, or even necessarily "decent" in any sense of the word. My goal is hardly to attack Islam as a purpose in and of itself. But the exclusivity of the Cross of Jesus Christ inevitably leads to conflict. Jesus said it would. And given that, one simply can't have it both ways. Do I appreciate Islam as a religion, rich in history and knowledge, that in its golden age was the cradle of philosophy, science, mathematics, and astronomy, and that bore then an image far different from the Islamist extremism that plagues certain corners of Islam today? Sure, why not? But what in the world does religion have to do with it? The question is, who is Jesus, why did He die for our sin, and what will be our response? That's the issue, and, BTW, that's the issue overwhelmingly for Lewis. If you want to go to bat for another religion, have at it. But don't try and hijack Lewis to do it. He's up to something quite different than you suggest.

 

[inkspot]

The question is, who is Jesus, why did He die for our sin, and what will be our response? That's the issue, and, BTW, that's the issue overwhelmingly for Lewis. If you want to go to bat for another religion, have at it. But don't try and hijack Lewis to do it. He's up to something quite different than you suggest.

Look at him go! Well said, chief ...

 

[sukapesta]

I have friends on the internet from other boards that are muslim and you would be surprised how much they have in common with christians.

yes, you would be surprised... it's a personal joy of mine when people are learning more about religions other than their own, and realizing that it's not all evil and hell on the other side...

anyways, you guys have made interesting points on religions... i'm sure you know about the subject far more than i do and i can't really follow the discussion anymore... just want to clarify that yes, we believe that angel Gabriel gave the Quran to the Prophet, and yes, we believe that Jesus never claimed he was God and we don't even believe it was him that died at the cross (i just found out about this actually)...

and regarding the interpretation of aslan (him being the Prophet and all that), i think if a muslim reader truly understands the religious meaning of the book, he should understand that aslan is jesus (this is so obvious in VDT and LB), he may not like it, but should understand it... otherwise he may not interpret it religiously at all, and accept the book for what it is: an excellent story about another world that is narnia... interpreting aslan as a representative of the Prophet is unlikely and pretty much unacceptable...

 

[Parthian King]

Thanks for your candor, Sukapesta. I hope you won't mind if I pray that God as He knows Himself to be would fully reveal Himself to you, even as I pray the same for myself.

 

[DunadainofArrakis]

I have been away from this forum for quite some time now. This thread has gotten really interesting, but it’s sad to see a group of people brutally misinterpret another poster's comments as some of the people on this thread have done. Let me just say to Dr Tumnus that I found your arguments for the most part to be very convincing and to the point. I must say that I’m also impressed by your knowledge of Islam.

It’s obvious that some of you on this thread had trouble in directly refuting what this poster Dr Tumnus was saying, so you had to take a part of his/her argument, misinterpret it, and make that the focus of the discussion. The way Parthian King handled the Hitler aspect of Tumnus’ argument was illogical:

(not to mention bringing up Hitler, which pretty much nukes any sense of diplomacy no matter what a discussion is about)?

Why did it do that Parthian King? It was immediately obvious to me what this poster was saying about Hitler. He/She wasn’t trying to draw any sort of direct comparison between a group of Christians and Hitler, he or she was merely trying to show a similarity in the way one evil dictator can draw his beliefs from somewhere and another group of Christians can too, even though the heritage they are drawing from do not directly espouse the beliefs that the respective adherents claim to believe in. Tumnus could have used a sect of Muslims or Jews in his example, so that part was irrelevant. But this was a minor point as the poster clearly states, but rather than dropping it, you seem to want to hold on to this as a means of making his argument look bad. One shouldn’t resort to these kinds of tactics as a means of ending the discussion because you disagree with something that another person has said.

Just because a host of rank unbelievers watch the movie that has just hit the theatres, and while watching identify with the four Pevensies or even Aslan, that does not make them Christians, or even necessarily "decent" in any sense of the word.

I really don’t know why you’re stating this. If this is in response to something that Dr Tumnus said (and it looks like it is), then you probably need to re-read Tumnus’ posts. Tumnus wasn’t saying that Muslims or anyone else will want to identify as Christians after having identified with the Pevensie children, but that its free to anyone’s interpretation to view the story any way they like. This holds especially true for Muslims, since there is a considerable amount of overlap between Christianity and Islam. And lets say that CSL wrote this as a Christian story. That doesn’t mean that a Muslim can’t analyze parts of the story and think that part of Lewis’ story is drawn from his own religious heritage, because naturally it would be. There are Aslan-like figures in Islam, such as the Prophet or even his grandson. Check out what some of these people have said about the Prophet’s grandson:

• "If Husayn fought to quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam." - Charles Dickens (Author)

• "The best lesson which we get from the tragedy of Karbala is that Husayn and his companions were the rigid believers of God. They illustrated that numerical superiority does not count when it comes to truth and falsehood. The victory of Husayn despite his minority marvels me!" - Thomas Carlyle (Scottish historian)

• "I learnt from Husayn how to be wronged and be a winner." - Mahatma Gandhi

• "Husayn marched with his little company not to glory, not to power or wealth, but to a supreme sacrifice and every member of that gallant band, male and female, knew that the foes were implacable, were not only ready to fight but to kill. Denied even water for the children, they remained parched under a burning sun, amid scorching sands yet no one faltered for a moment and bravely faced the greatest odds without flinching." - Dr. K. Sheldrake

Doesn’t this Husayn guy sound a lot like Aslan or even Christ? How can anyone say that Lewis wanted everyone to come out with the same exact message from his stories, and there is no room for a persons intellect or imagination to draw any real-world parallels? That’s ludicrous. A Muslim can even go as far as saying that CSL’s interpretation of religion is incorrect as evidenced by elements contained in his metaphor-rich chronicles. This is entirely up to the readers to decide for themselves. No one needs to tell me how to think and feel.

Also, I think as Christians we rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, where God has revealed His plan and will. Again, I am not sure where the scholarly explanations come in?

That’s an interesting belief, but not a very enlightened one. Much of what Christians believe in today, especially regarding the trinity and the status of Jesus was set forth in councils of Christian scholars. There are even some Muslims who try to make a similar claim to the Quran such as this. Tell me Inkspot, does the Holy Spirit talk to you? If that’s the case then he talks to me too. But then why do we differ in our beliefs? The fact of the matter is that you are free, just as I am, to look at what people in the past have said, to analyze their arguments, and decide for ourselves if it holds up or not according to logic and the basic precepts contained within scripture. For most of history, there have been controversies between Christians concerning even the divinity of Christ, which many Christians claim that if you don’t believe in it a certain way then you don’t receive Christ’s salvation and you therefore go to hell. In the early part of Christianity, there were Christians with a vast array of beliefs pertaining to Christ, some who didn’t even regard him as the son of God. Then one day a controversy breaks out between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and the presbyter Arius. These were two early Christians with two opposing views concerning the nature of the Trinity. So the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great decides to set up a council of Christian scholars, which would become known as the Council of Nicea. This council established what was to become accepted by all Christians, and so no one should say what Inkspot said- “Again, I am not sure where the scholarly explanations come in?”.

If you are going to respond to something that I have said, make sure you’re not taking anything out of context or misconstruing my text.

 

[inkspot]

Welcome to the discussion, Dunadain!

If you are going to respond to something that I have said, make sure you’re not taking anything out of context or misconstruing my text.

Oh, come on, my whole game plan is to misconstrue and take things out of context, silly! How can I possibly respond under these constraints?

I would encourage you, Dunadain, to pop over to the Lewis, Narnia and Mormonism thread for a long look at the creeds, the Council of Nicae, Arius, et al. I will not go into it here. I take it you are saying that the Councils which defined doctrines like the Trinity got it wrong, as you read the Bible differently? That's as may be -- but centuries of Orthodox Christian thought must then fly out the window.

But what I meant in my post (which you have taken out of context and misconstrued! JK) was an answer to Tumnus' assertion that the only thing Christians can base their belief upon is what the Holy Spirit tells them, and what I meant was that the Spirit will never tell them anything against the Scripture: if what they hear as the Spirit tells you something that contradicts Scripture (such as "Jesus is a prophet but not God"), then you are maybe not hearing the Holy Spirit.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My thought is that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and all that we need for salvation is explained in them. if I believe that, then I must believe that any religion that puts forth the idea that Christ is not Lord must be a religion that leads people away from the truth, and that is what I would define as evil -- from my viewpoint of orthodox Christianity.

If I insulted Tumnus in the way I said this, or you Dunadain, I certainly did not intend to.

(Cuz PK and I tend to believe the same way, maybe it came across as an ambush, but nothing like that was intended.)

Pax!

 

[Parthian King]

Well, it appears that YOU are the one who likes to take things out of context DA. Perhaps YOU ought to do some re-reading of some posts.

My remark about a reference to Hitler is a general one, and I know full well what Tumnus' intent was, as is indicated by my previous response. My point is that when one compares a movement or belief system to anything Hitler did, it sprays so much animosity all over the discussion that it is difficult to think straight. Perhaps if I were to say, "Well, DA, I get what you're saying. I once heard a serial axe murderer and rapist say a similar thing in his own defense..." After you object, I could say, "Hey, don't be so offended, it was just a loose parallel!" The choice of illustration obscured the point, and did, in fact, point to serious abuse. To suggest that Protestants are in danger of similar abuse is precisely what was indicated by Tumnus' words. If he wants to clarify, the forum is open.

As for your second quotation of my words, I suggest that you follow your own advice and do some re-reading. My statement is based on the fact that Tumnus argues the legitimacy of Muslims appropriating key elements of Lewis' myth based on the premise that they would naturally enjoy the story and identify with the protagonists rather than the antagonistic Calormenes. My reply is that it takes more than emotional identification to get past Lewis' rather explicit Christian worldview.

What is rather obvious to me is that you are the one not reading and considering carefully. You accuse a couple of us of being "brutal" in our response, but have no problem with Tumnus, whose language is habitually abusive (presumably because you agree with him). And BTW, you don't mention at all the words of Sukapesta, a young Muslim with knowledge of both traditions who rejects Tumnus' interpretation of Lewis and his characters, and says whether they like it or not, Muslims need to see Jesus in Aslan.

There are some "brutal" facts here: C.S. Lewis was a Christian apologist who wrote a Chistian allegory called the Chronicles of Narnia. Those stories are loaded with biblical allusion. They may be enjoyed as stories, without turning them into evangelistic texts. But to use them as mere springboards for whatever we'd like them to say is to distort them. To suggest that Lewis wrote these works as some sort of "chalkboard" upon which we could write whatever we'd please is simply wrong. That view of literature is the postmodern, reader-response method, and (lucky for him) Lewis never lived under its tyranny nor subscribed to its assertions. In other words, what you say about anyone being able to interpret the story anyway they like is completely at odds with Lewis' worldview and purpose. If I apply your suggested method to your most recent post in a "feel good" sort of way, I might interpret you to be saying that we should do lunch sometime after a brisk game of squash at the club. Not your meaning? I didn't think so. Reader-response ("it's all up the the reader") is for those who can't take what the text says, and want to invent their own reality. May I do this with the Quran, using it to argue for Christ's divinity and the absurdity that any significant prophet might come after Jesus? After all, I am free to do so--no one can tell me how to think...

I don't pretend to tell you how to think and feel (I have heard that line for years when someone faces opposition they don't like; does that mean I cannot say how I think and I feel?). But I will say this: Lewis makes very clear how he thought and he felt. And the idea that anyone would make Aslan into anyone but Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, would be repugnant to him and the most profound twisting of his meaning imaginable. Yet while you suggest we can do exactly that if we please, quite ironically, you are very sensitive to someone "misconstruing" your text. How would Lewis, a devout Anglican Christian, take your turning Aslan into anything or anyone other than he intended (which was Jesus)? If you're looking for some literary hero for what you believe (which clearly isn't Lewis' Christianity), you'd better look elsewhere. Lewis belongs to Jesus Christ, and says so over, and over, and over again in more ways than we can count.

Brief Edit: Let me simply observe that I am in NO WAY attacking Islam. That is neither my purpose nor the theme of this thread. The questions are whether the Calormenes are analogous to Muslims in Lewis' worldview (I have already expressed that I think the answer to this is "no"), and (more recently) whether one can take Lewis' story and symbols and draft them into one's own service with little or no regard for authorial intent. I have made my position clear there, as I have elsewhere, and it is no more antagonistic to Islam than any other position that does not agree with Lewis' position but wants to do this (see the thread on Mormonism).

I will add however, that it appears themes in this thread have turned to a discussion of the relative virtues and legitimacy of Islam, and even of Christianity. Previously, DA, you defend the origins of Islam. I consider that you had the right to do so, since Islam (your tradition, I presume) was questioned in previous posts--even if the thread has nothing to do with that issue. ( Incidentally, I had nothing to do with that.) My question is, what's with you attacking Christianity by questioning the establishment of Orthodoxy? I can't see 1) Where anyone here has done what you've done in regard to Islam, especially in the more recent posts, and 2) what any of that has to do with the questions on the table. Please let me know how attacking what C.S. Lewis, the author of the books discussed on this site, considered sacred, inviolable Truth has anything to do with the best unpacking of his meaning.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

As a Catholic with close ties to Evangelicals, and a student of Islam (especially the Ottoman Empire) who has (cordially) discussed theology with Muslims, I'm jumping in to say that I can't figure out how this thread has gotten where it is, and why so much acrimony is flying around. I can't figure out why some of the issues have been dragged in at all. Why try to disparage the Evangelical tradition of Christianity in comparison to Islam? Evangelicalism is, at heart, primitivist - they claim to be attempting to return to the simplicity and faith of the early Christian Church. That makes their roots much older than Islam.

And where is anyone getting the idea that to say that the Chronicles could not be used as an Islamic parable is somehow insulting to Islam? I'm certain that if I were to contact my Islamic friends and ask them how well Lion fit into their mythological framework, they'd just look at me funny. "Substitutionary sacrifice?" they'd ask. "Resurrection? Son of the Emperor? How could that possibly be Islamic?" They'd almost certainly suggest that to attempt to apply the Chronicles to Islam would be twisting either or both. Your attempt to drag in Husayn, DA, is a red herring - the point is not what we (Westerners) think of him, but how Muslims would view him - and they almost certainly would not look at Aslan and think, "Hey - Husayn!"

I guess I'm most baffled by how all this supposedly began as a discussion of the Calormenes and ended up here. Every serious opinion in this thread has expressed the same opinion: the Calormenes were not Muslim - a gilded idol in their main temple should be enough to establish that. The issue of Islam vs. Christianity, if anyone wants to take it up, should find another thread, don't you think?

 

[DunadainofArrakis]

Previously, DA, you defend the origins of Islam. I consider that you had the right to do so, since Islam (your tradition, I presume) was questioned in previous posts. ( Incidentally, I had nothing to do with that.) My question is, what's with you attacking Christianity by questioning the establishment of Orthodoxy? I can't see 1) Where anyone here has done what you've done in regard to Islam, and 2) what any of that has to do with the questions on the table.

Well Parthian King, I think I am beginning to understand where you're coming from. For most of this thread people have been discussing the origins of religions, specifically Islam. Someone even remarked that the religion may have originated from Satan. As you have stated, you had nothing to do with that, which is cool. Regardless, people are free to believe what they want. All I was trying to do in that last post, since the topic was brought up, was show that not everything that Christians believe as the official doctrines of their faith is accepted by all people (or even all Christians at various points in time). Just look at the Protestant Reformation as a recent example. Before that, various Christian religious groups were non-existent. During that time Catholics were the dominant group. I think Dr Tumnus probably knows a lot more about the history of Christianity than I do, so if Tumnus could shed more light on this matter, then he/she is free to do so.

I think what this shows is that just as Protestants can draw their religious heritage from a non-Protestant group, a Muslim can interpret the Chronicles according to his own heritage as if Lewis' writing is based off of that heritage. I see no problem with that. You can go ahead and tell me what Lewis' other writings say which shed light as to Lewis' own personal beliefs behind the things he wrote, but that still leaves me the option of comparing those beliefs to my own, and deciding whether or not Lewis' religious interpretation of reality is correct or not. Discussing all of this in the context of Narnia seems like a perfectly okay thing to do, as long as it is within certain boundaries. Islam seems to fall within this boundary somewhat because it is an Abrahamic religion along with Christianity, so they share many beliefs and much of the same history. What does "son of Adam" or "daughter of Eve" mean to a Muslim? It probably doesn't mean the same thing to them that it does to CSL, but who cares? There could be a Christian who differs from CSL on certain things pertaining to Christianity and therefore takes something from the Chronicles that CSL did not intend.

I don't have a problem with Christianity, its just a little confusing to me based on what I know and have learned over the years. My goal isn't to offend anyone or their beliefs.

Peace

 

[Parthian King]

Thanks Prince of the West for being a voix de raison in the discussion. I appreciate your cooling, balanced comments.

DA, thanks also to you. I think that perhaps you are understanding me better, and I you. Let me simply clarify that I think there is a significant difference between a Protestant drawing heritage from Christian (and historically Catholic) Church tradition, and a Muslim drawing a sense of heritage from Lewis' allegory. First of all, giving you deference, I believe that (for reasons best explained by Prince of the West) most Muslims would think that Lewis' thought rather cheapens the historical and theological richness of the Islamic tradition, not to mention that it simply does not line up with it. Second, I believe you'll agree that there is hardly any real comparison between a seven volume series of children's books and 1500 years of faith tradition.

If what you mean is merely the idea of comparing, and finding certain parallels, then, well, yes, of course. I take that assertion to be self-evident and not even in need of discussion. As far as that goes, why go through Lewis? I find is very helpful to compare Jesus Christ to Mohammed, and the Budda, and even to other major contemporary figures to bring out what differences and similarities there are. Goodness, I do it almost by second nature now. What I object to is the idea that someone can take Lewis' text and disregard his paradigm and completely supplant it with another. That is, to say something like, "Who cares who the author was and what he thought. I'm going to interpret this however I want, and if at some point I can't make it fit, I'll ignore the issue or justify it away," well, that's unconscionable. But to say, "Look, here's a story written by a prominent Christian apologist. His myth is expressly and unavoidably Christian. But there are some spiritual truths that bear some resemblance to truths in our tradition." Why would I object to that? By all means, read away. Lewis, I'm sure, would be delighted.

It was never, never my goal to offend your beliefs either. I'm just a stickler when it comes to Lewis being hijacked, it it appears clear now that you are not doing that with your most recent statement.

 

[DunadainofArrakis]

If what you mean is merely the idea of comparing, and finding certain parallels, then, well, yes, of course. I take that assertion to be self-evident and not even in need of discussion. As far as that goes, why go through Lewis?

Its funner to compare to CSL's works because the CoN is an entertaining fantasy story. Even as a child when I read these books (and didn't have much of a clue as to the religious meaning behind it), I found the basic themes very inspiring and characters easy to relate to. My favorite genre is fantasy/scifi. You can find many books of this genre to be of the same calibre and entertainment and so it's fun to make comparisons. As you can tell from my user name, I am a fan of both Lord of the Rings and Dune. Most of you on this forum have probably already read LOtR, but probably not Dune. Dune is arguably the best scifi book around, and that book contains tons of religious ideas and beliefs taken directly from Islam, but also other religions too.

It seems like we have cleared much of the confusion in this discussion concerning the real meaning behind CoN as intended by CSL, which obviously is the Christian one, but let's not set such narrow boundaries around the discussion.

 

[Parthian King]

I am very familiar with Dune, and my friends and I played role games in high school based around it. I am also nuts about Tolkien and Lewis.

I agree that much of the confusion has been cleared. My point, again, is simply to understand as a starting point what Lewis' story meant to him (and he is certainly the most overt in the expression of his Christianity among fantasy writers), and to keep that in mind as inspiriation and parallels are made, even as we explore other possibilities.

DA, have you read Lewis' Space Trilogy? His Till We Have Faces? I think you would find them most inspiring if you have not.