Religious vs. Political Islam

Having read Tariq Ramadan’s article, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim from the New Statesman website published on February 12, 2010, I find myself agreeing with his premises. He is correct when he points out that the term “terrorist” is subjective, and it is the “winners” or the majority that get to decide the labels; in this case, the West. I would argue, however, that “terrorist” is not a completely subjective term. The threat of and/or killing of innocents to promote fear in hopes of obtaining power will always be “terrorism” in my book, regardless of who is committing the acts. If we (America) are committing terrorism in the Middle East with our actions, I would hope that those of us with sound minds would condemn the acts just as if they were committed against our own people. The double standard that seems to play out these days leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I also agree with Ramadan’s stance that religious and political extremism or moderation do not necessarily go hand in hand. Where I disagree is the idea that you can completely disentangle socio-economic politics from religion. Our beliefs, often our religion, typically dictate our desires and actions. Our personal alignment in politics is based on those fundamental beliefs about life and how it should be lived. Tell me then, how you can have one (politics) apart from the other (religion).

I find myself frustrated because I agree with so much of what Ramadan wrote in this article, but instead of helping find a solution on how to move forward, I think he muddies the water by suggesting we only deal with political Islam. Perhaps I am simply not convinced that we will find a moderate religious Muslim as an extremist, although I do think it may be possible to find an extremist religious Muslim who does not act in an extreme political way. Maybe it is a rectangle-square relationship. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. Maybe all political extremists are also religious extremists, but not all religious extremists are political extremists. It would be interesting to find out via some study.

Until I can find the studies I am looking for, I personally intend to help the voice of moderate Islam rise. We are not invisible and we do condemn the actions of the fringe elements that inflict pain and injury upon the innocent.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Tariq Ramadan’s article, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim from the New Statesman website published on February 12, 2010 for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Reincarnation & Islam

It’s amazing how much one word can drive debate. Reincarnation seems to be one of those concepts that either a person believes or they don’t. There is no middle ground. So, the fact that it has been a debate in Islam is of no surprise to me. I've been debating the possibility of reincarnation since I was young. In fact, it was this very word, heard out of my mouth, which caused the first religious debate in my life – with my conservative Christian grandmother. I will never forget that day nor the first question she asked and my first reply.

I find it extremely interesting that this debate takes place in Islam as well, because up until I read this article, I had no idea it did, although I still held my belief in the possibility. However, because I do love to debate, I also like to play “devil’s advocate”. In doing so, I would point out that “dead” and “die” in the verse, "And you were dead, and He brought you back to life. And He shall cause you to die, and shall bring you back to life, and in the end shall gather you unto Himself" (2:28) could be figurative as well as literal. Death could be death to ignorance and rebirth into truth. In Christian theology, baptism is a type of death and rebirth, where the death is to the sinner and rebirth to the saved. The same could be said of Islam.

As for the critics against the concept of reincarnation, I can see how they also are reading the verses of the Qur’an. This, like so many debates in Islam and in religion in general, is a matter of interpretation. Beginning and leading out from there, you have perception. Until each and every human has exactly the same experiences in life, perception will remain, which means so will differing interpretations.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Reincarnation in Islam by Sultan Shahin, Asia Times Online, Dec 25, 2003, for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Paradise for the Perfect

While reading Sayyid Qutb's Qur'anic Commentary on sura 98, I found myself frequently commenting off to the side, “oh, really”. He makes several statements throughout his analysis about which he gives no support. As I stated in my last response paper, entitled “Sharing Jannah”, one of the first steps in analysis of the Qur’an is to pick your translation. Qut’b clearly picked one for surah 98. He then decided to interpret it to mean that only the believers will find Paradise and exist there forever and the rest will burn in the Hell fire.

One problem I have with his analysis is that he makes several statements about Jesus having been the last messenger of Israel and Mohammed as the last prophet period. I found myself asking as I stated above, “oh really?”. Where is his proof? Qut’b offers none. He makes the statement and fails to back it up. Is that because he believes that this is a universally accepted norm? Obviously it is his stance on the subject, but we don’t know why. For me, the rest of his argument based on these assumptions is worthless.

A second problem I had with his analysis is that he offers 109:1-6, “Say: ‘Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship; neither will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine’” as part of his proof against the polytheists. However, this same verse can be and has been interpreted to allow for pluralism and religious freedom. Perhaps what he means is that religious freedom and pluralism will exist and is allowed, but they (the others – the non-Muslims) will perish in the Hell-fire for eternity.

Finally, the third problem I have with his analysis is that it only allows for the perfect to find salivation and it does not give any credence to God’s mercy, compassion, and to be the final judge in the decision of Paradise or Hell. Once again, we find a human limiting God’s power.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Commentary for Quran - In the Shade of the Qur'an - by Syed Qutb for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Sharing Jannah

As a mother would say to her child, “if you want dessert, you have to finish your dinner” or, “if you keep fighting with your sister, you will go to bed early”, scripture, or God’s word tells us how to behave to receive reward or how not to behave to avoid punishment. Every family and every religion has rules. But what do these rules, in Islam, say about the “other”? It seems that it depends on who you ask. Since the scholarly opinions range from inclusion to exclusion, this is question does not seem to have a definite answer.

To demonstrate the pluralistic answer to the question of salvation of Muslims and non-Muslims, Mohammad Hassan Khalil shared opinions of five well-known Muslim scholars: Abu Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī, Taqiyaddīn Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and Muhammad Rashīd Ridā. The arguments these scholars make include an analysis of even more questions. Before an answer of who is saved can be determined, one has to decide first how to translate the verses, as many words have multiple meanings, from general to exact. Then, once a translation is made, one has to decide how to interpret them (ijtihad). Interpretation includes even more questions.  Should it matter if the verses are Medinan or Meccan? Does the historical context matter or is it a general statement… or rather, a specific statement for a specific time and place only? Have the verses been abrogated and thus null in meaning to today? So many questions! Oh, but we must back up even further.

What is Islam? Is it possible that non-Mohammed following others, such as the Christians, Jews, and Sabians (people of the book) are in their own way submitting to God in the way that God called them to? Are they “Muslims” of a sort? What about God’s compassion and Mercy? Can’t God decide to save anyone if so desired? So do the rules even matter? The mother might choose to punish the child for his or her naughty behavior, but then will still enfold him or her into her arms, giving forth her love to the child. Will God not be as forgiving, if not more?

As for me, I believe in inclusive love and that only humans limit God’s power and mercy, at a fault.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to MUSLIM SCHOLARLY DISCUSSIONS ON SALVATION AND THE FATE OF ‘OTHERS’ by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

The Golden Rule & Islam

If you asked the average, non-Muslim American if human rights were a consideration in shari’a law, they’d likely tell you “no”. If you asked Abdullahi Ahmed Al-Na’im, he might agree, but that would depend on if you meant God’s actual shari’a, or shari’a as it exists in the Middle East today. Some of the main problems he cites are the failure of the UN to define the terms “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms” in Article 1.3 and the differing frames of reference across cultural and religious boundaries. His solution is to take a new enlightened look at religion and the major traditions in order to find their common normative principal – essentially, the “Golden Rule” – to treat others as you would yourself want to be treated.

UN Golden Rule Poster

Why hasn't this concept brought peace? It is because people tend to apply the concept to members of their own groups, excluding the “others”. Islam has been no exception, although some believe it wasn't intended to be that way. The main issue is that too much emphasis is given to the Medinan verse without consideration given to the historical context. The Meccan verses are much more agreeable to human rights and freedoms and abrogate the earlier verses where Islam was under threat of being wiped out. It’s easy to take verses out of context scripturally and historically to twist words for any reason, but when you look from the perspective of context, a much different story emerges.

Self-determination is one of the rights and fundamental freedoms that every human should be able to enjoy. Part of self-determination is the ability to believe and follow the religion the heart, mind, and soul chooses. Some think that shari’a doesn't allow for religious freedom. They cannot be more wrong.

It is true that there is a tradition that calls for death for apostasy; however, Mohamed Talbi argues that this involves a misreading of the Qur’an. He cites 2:256 as proof that compulsion “is clearly incompatible religion” and 10:99 as proof that God willed that there be diversity and freedom in religious beliefs.

The Golden Rule requires that everyone treat each other as if they were our twin, which means that as humans, we are equal and deserving of the same rights and freedoms as each other. Respecting religious freedom is not mere tolerance; it’s a basic human right.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 18, 19, and 24 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Democracy, not Theocracy

Many Muslims believe that both their personal and public lives should be governed by Islam. That is, that they believe that a theocratic system, by which laws are governed by shari’a, is the only government that is allowed or worthy. However, even secular democratic government may not only be allowed, but in line with shari’a.

The Prophet Muhammad’s message was for spiritual purposes and because of whom he was, he was a leader of the people, much as Moses was in his time. He may have seemed like a king, but there was no kingdom established. He left neither a successor nor instructions for future governance.  This not only allowed for the people to create their own form of government, but necessitated it. Thus, the door was left open to the possibility of even a secular and/or democratic government. What was required is that the system be just, as that concept was certainly Islamic.

In addition to justice, other concepts that were of great importance to include in whatever government was to be set up were: social cooperation and mutual assistance; establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions. Democracy offers a great opportunity for promoting these ideals, as they naturally are co-aligned. A constitutional democracy further promotes and protects these ideals by setting to law some basic moral standards that hold both the rulers and the citizens equally accountable.

It is necessary for Muslims to be aware that although shari’a (as it literally means) is infallible, as Allah is infallible, humans are not. As such, the human interpretation of the Qur’an is subject to human experience and error. Any law written with Islamic intentions would still not reach the level of shari’a; rather, it would be fiqh, having the potential the potential to be in error. It is for this reason that consensus, or shura is such an important aspect to Islamic law, as what is best for the people is usually best determined by the people.

If we lived in a perfect world and if we were able to understand God’s word perfectly, then we would not need laws. In such an imperfect existence, laws provide some level of protections to human rights – some justice. Laws given in a constitutional democracy might be perhaps, a best-case scenario for upholding Islamic ideals.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to pages 3-46 of Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Shura and Democracy are One

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 1-4 and 9-10 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Ali Abd al-Raziq contended that the Prophet’s duty was to spread a message, not to form a state. He believed that the leadership of the message was so different from that of kings that they could be opposites. He also points out that the Prophet’s leadership was wider than that of a king. He offers many verses from the Qur’an where the Prophet’s mission was contrasted with that as a warden, guardian, or king. He was a reminder, not an oppressor or dominator, “sent to warn alone” (11:12). Thus, he believed that Islam was religious, not political, thus democracy as a possibility.

Muhammad Khalaf-Allah furthered the idea of Islamic democracy, believing it was not only compatible, but required his argument to support this belief rests on surah 3:159, “And seek their counsel in all affairs. And when you have come to a decision, place your trust in God alone.” It is this verse that he believes makes shura obligatory. He compares what the Europeans say about representation, majority ruling, and removal of a corrupt ruler is the same as follows in Islamic law.

Ayatolla Mahmud Taleqani speaks about the freedoms and mercies that should be the basis of Islamic order and the atrocities that have been foolishly committed in the name of God. This line of thinking is in line, again with the idea of democracy and perhaps suggests the idea of the separation of “church” and state.

Muhammed Sa’id al-Ashmawi explains how the politicization of shari’a and casting ancient jurisprudence as if of equal importance to the Qur’an and sunnah and covering it in concrete (made definitive and stagnant) corrupted the original intentions in the Prophet’s message, thus corrupted our idea of shari’a. He maintains the importance of itjihad and the importance given to the changes of time and customs.

Rachid Ghannouchi promoted the idea that it is better to have a secular democracy than no democracy at all, although an Islamic democracy is preferred. He explains that it is in Muslims’ best interest to be involved in secular democracy when an Islamic one is not possible to make sure the government is just and protects civil liberties.

Sadek Jawad Sulaiman explained how shura is no different, in fact, one in the same as democracy and that the more democratic, and more civil rights are protected, the more Islamic the system.

Originally written for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University - Sept. 2012

Bickering Brothers

The following is is a response paper originally written for the Modern Muslim Thought class that I took as part of my religious studies program at the university I attend.  I apologize that I am not able to supply the document that I am referring to in the paper, as I cannot find a corresponding link online already and I do not have permission to publicly distribute the pdf I obtained in my class. However, the topic is certainly research ready: it was an account of a fatwa debate about the Arab-Israeli Peace Initiative that took place between Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Shaikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz. The paper follows.

Oh, al-Quds / Jerusalem, what a quandary you are. I thought of the title to this response paper by linking what I understood to be the main issue at hand. I am also reminded of a song, but think that words should be replaced… “This land is my land, no this land is my land”… The undying war has reared its ugly head. I’m going to be upfront and admit my bias. I think they (the ever fighting siblings, the Palestinians and the Israelis – or if you prefer, the Muslims and the Jews), aka Ishmael and Isaac)) are all being idiots. I do want to highlight my use of the word “fighting” as I am only shunning the ones hell bent on destroying each other. I know that there are many on both sides praying for peace, and I also know that not all Palestinians are Muslim. Another cliché comes to mind: “Can’t we all just get along?”

Ok, so now for my take on these fatwas. 

Shaikh 'Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

I think the basic fault line between the two Shaikh is their Definition of what a Jew is. I think that Shaikh ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz thinks of a Jew as a person. A person who, because of religious and power differences throughout history, may or may not, be an enemy to Muslims. I think that he would rather see the end of this conflict, even if it means, to some extent, “giving up”. Sometimes we have to realize and cut our losses in life. I think he sees what many of us throughout the world see: continuing bloodshed and senseless death over a conflict that may never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, especially when satisfaction for either party means complete annihilation of the other (here I refer to the fundamentalists or further, the extremists, on both sides). I am afraid I have to put Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in the fundie box.

Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Shaikh Yusuf virtually spits hatred at Jews. Not just any particular Jew who has done him wrong, but ALL Jews. To me, he sees a Jew not as a person, but only as the enemy. I think that he might accept a situation that does not call for annihilation of all Jews, only if it meant that they surrendered Israel to Islam. I imagine by his arguments that he would see them leave as well (at least). Yusuf argues that ibn Baz’s fatwa cannot hold its own because it doesn’t apply to the reality at hand. He doesn’t see the analogy of the Quarysh tribe as making sense now. Because, that would only apply to regular enemies, not the JEW! At least that is how it read to me. The problem I find with his rebuttal to Ibn Baz is that reality is a matter that is subjective by nature. I think Yusuf sees surrender as not only weakness, but an affront to God, because how dare the Muslim give up when God is on his side? My answer? Perhaps he doesn’t understand God’s plan. What if God’s plan is to teach these disrespectful, bickering children to get along, once and for all.

What saddens me is what it usually takes to get estranged siblings to come back together…

Revealing the Progressive Revert

Recently, I was invited to participate as part of a "revert" panel at a Muslim Student Association event at the University I attend. I participated once before, a couple of years ago when I was still a baby in Islam. I was terribly nervous this time around. Over the past couple of years, I have gone through a lot while finding my Muslim identity, including my first true taste of discrimination. It took me a while to find my ummah, and now that I have, I am fairly proud to identify myself as a Progressive Muslim. However, I was a bit terrified that I might be too outspoken about my progressiveness at this event. I didn't want to alienate anyone from me, ruffle any feathers, etc, but I also didn't want to compromise who I am to "tone it down".

Although I only recently found my Muslim identity, I haven't really changed. I used to feel bad for not feeling the need to follow the traditional course, for not conforming, but every time I thought about conforming, it was to "fit in", and that to me was the wrong reason. Now that I know I am not alone out here, I am less apologetic for the way I believe, and maybe a little more outspoken about it, but it's not the popular voice that I speak with, if you know what I mean.

So, mere hours before the event I was sitting nervously, thinking about this dilemma I felt I had and I finally realized that I only had to ask for Allah's help and speak from my heart. Maybe, just maybe, there would be even just one other person in the room that felt lost like I did, and I could let them know that s/he is not alone and that if they needed another progressive shoulder to cry on, they might find it in me.

The first time I participated in this event, I did speak up about being a non-hijabi. When one of the reverts made a comment about "this is how a Muslim woman looks" - in full abaya and hijab (which I support and respect!), I raised my hand, told her I respected her but that I needed to say, pointing to myself, that "this is also what a Muslim woman looks like". So, I figured that this MSA crowd may already have a clue about how I am - the thought that occurred there was that maybe I was getting all worked up over nothing.

There ended up being six of us on the panel and I was not the long-winded one, for once. So, we didn't have much time for other than the "usual" questions. The final question of the night is the one that got me. Someone asked how hard it was to change our behaviors, basically to become good practicing Muslims - 5 prayers a day, wear hijab, eat all halal, etc. He was asking about rules and rituals, not about our hearts.

So, being the only non-hijabi on the panel (out of 4 women), and sitting in a dress that showed my calves, forearms, and my chest and neck (above my cleavage), I knew it was time to face it. I took the microphone and said, "well, rules and rituals mean less to me than intention and meaning, as you can see by looking at me." I went on to explain how frustrating it is to have everyone expect you to be the poster-child for Islam when you convert. How, I am not perfect, nor will I be, no matter how hard I strive to be... that I was human and had the same struggles as the rest of them. I explained how I nearly lost a dear friend of mine because I haven't fulfilled his expectations of me either and how my progressive line of thought disappoints and somewhat offends his traditional reason. I also explained that I do what I do with thought and intention behind it and that I am not one to do something I don't believe in just to fit in. That I have my reasons as to why I do what I do and that I have a relationship with God that is my own and if I have failings, and of course I do, I will face them and be responsible for them. I was unapologetic, but honest.

I am sure I ruffled some feathers, but I did notice a couple of people nodding as I was talking, which gave me strength. One was a male convert I am friends with and one was a female I didn't know yet. After we finished I had several women come up to me and thank me for being honest and wanted to have my contact information to be able to talk to me later about "stuff". My male fellow-convert friend also mentioned me and something I said about not putting us converts up on pedestals (he agreed) on his FB wall. It was interesting to see the conversation that followed. It seems that there are two views on converts, one is that we are somehow better because we chose Islam and have dealt with the struggles of that choice and the other is that we are not better because we have to struggle to be Muslim, whereas born Muslims grew up with the rules and rituals and that they are habits that they have now. And that frustrates me. They still are labeling us as inherently different, whereas I think we are more the same than they wish to admit.

Now I am just curious to find out if I will be invited back a third time...

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for interreligious dialogue is becoming very important amongst efforts for creating peace. It is for this reason that I returned to school to pursue a BA in Religious Studies and a career in interfaith relations. I intend to work closely with Muslim – Christian relations, and as such, knowing the contemporary arguments for religious ecumenism is as important as knowing the history for and against pluralism and salvation of the “other” in Islam.

In Mohammad Hassan Khalil’s “Salvationand the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (inEnglish)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions which is a main reason for the diversity in arguments for pluralistic salvation. Categorizing the arguments starts by categorizing the types of pluralists. It is of some importance to note that most of these pluralists write in English and reside in predominantly non-Muslim countries.

The esoteric perennialist school of thought began with Rene Guenon. Its core belief is that each of the major religions has truth and lead to God. Later, John Hick argued a congruous form of pluralism akin to the story of the elephant and the blind men – the seeming differences in religion are actually only because of perspective and frame of reference. Building on the perennialist thought and distancing from Hick’s view, Reza Shah-Kazemi uses the term universalism and suggests that in order for a religion to be a valid path to salvation, it need to be divinely inspired, not a human construct.

A critical issue with all of these arguments is that they frequently refer to the Qur’an almost exclusively, whereas the majority of Muslims view hadith to be authoritive. In order for many of these Muslims to be open to the pluralist arguments, there may need to be some reconciliation with their views based on hadith. Simply writing hadith off as fabricated or corrupt does a disservice to the debate, as it is akin to telling someone that what they believe in is lies.

The best way to move forward in the debate, which is one important to interfaith relations locally and globally, is to determine how best to help create a paradigmatic revolution. These paradigm shifts are possible, as history has shown us – in both the USA with the civil rights movement and in recent times, in the Middle East with the Arab Spring.

The House that Christ Built

A comparative look at the Gospels of Mark and Thomas

Originally written on 4/19/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

After reading both the gospels of Mark and Thomas with fresh eyes, I am struck with the idea that one is like timber available for building and the other is like a finished structure, ready for tenants.  The gospel of Thomas (hereafter: Thomas) is simply a list of sayings attributed to the person in history named Jesus. It is referred to as his secret teachings, although the secrets are not given away freely, as many of the sayings can be difficult to understand (ex: Thom 10, 17, 19, and especially 42). The gospel of Mark (hereafter: Mark), on the other hand, is a narrative – a story. It has a beginning, middle and, as most stories do, builds to a crescendo before coming to an end. There are no real secrets here, as what Jesus says is often explained to his disciples (Mk 4:14-20). 

When walking through the lumber yard of Thomas, the reader is not given a map, as no map would make sense. There is no seeming order to Jesus’ sayings and sometimes certain sayings even seem to be repeated, although with small variations (ex: Thom 2 and 94; 55 and 101). Although there is no apparent order to the list, one could sort the sayings into themes, the names by which might depend on the reader and his or her interpretations of the sayings.

It is the roughness of Thomas, the crude way it is written as only a list, that I think would have appealed to the first followers of Jesus. It allowed for variations of opinions, for interpretations by the self. Each person would have the same opportunity to find in it those things which resonated within.

Several themes that I noted within the gospel of Thomas may have found resonance with the early Christians. These include the search for knowledge or wisdom, the oneness of all life, the necessity to be like a child to experience the kingdom of God, what God’s imperial rule is like and simple rules to live within humanity’s communities. These themes may have been easily acceptable to any of the followers of Jesus that were familiar with the likes of Socrates, who also was a proponent seeking wisdom and of the concept of “Know thyself” (Thom 2, 3, 67, 92, 94).

Thomas may have also appealed as seeming more authentic, as if the author was writing the sayings down best as he could remember, without tarnishing anything with embellishments. At the same time, it could have put off those that found the list too confusing and difficult to understand, especially with the implication of these being secret teachings; when the reader didn’t understand, it would be too easy for him to disregard it as make-believe. For these people, Mark would be much easier to understand, thus easier to accept as authentic.

Tract Housing

As mentioned before, Mark is much more than a list of sayings, although when walking through the halls of the structure, pieces of Thomas seem to be peeking out through the paint here and there (ex: Mk  2:20, 2:21-22, 6:4-5, 12:17, 12:31,  and Thom 104, 47, 31, 100, 25 respectively). Although the reader can tell that the authors of Mark and Thomas visited the same lumberyard, it is just as evident that Mark’s author either missed much of the materials available, or only sought certain pieces for his structure. Perhaps Mark’s author had an agenda: to tell a story about Jesus from the perspective that he understood. If that was the case, then he would have selected those pieces that made sense to him and then added to them some structure so that other readers would see what he saw. Another possibility could be that Mark’s author knew more details than the author of Thomas. Finally, it is just as likely that the structure was not unique to Mark’s author, but instead was one of several tract homes. 

Mark’s appeal to the Jesus followers would have been the narrative he gave of the man that they followed, worshiped, and glorified. The author begins with Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit and flows through the geographical travels of his subsequent teachings and healings until the author concludes with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Themes found in Mark are the power of belief, the lack of belief in man, the coming of the kingdom of God, a sense of urgency, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is also defined in Mark as Christ, son of God, Holy, son of David, last of the prophets, and Lord (Mk 1:1, 1:24, 10:48, 12:6, and 16:19 respectively).  This stands in contrast to Thomas, where Jesus is defined as an angel, philosopher, and teacher, although Jesus rebukes the last saying, “I am not your teacher” (Thom 13).

The definition of Jesus in Thomas is not the only difference we find from Mark. There is no death and resurrection theme in Thomas; rather, the kingdom of God is already present for those that understand (Thom 113). It is not faith that brings salvation in Thomas (Mk 9:2, 22, 29). Instead, looking within and bringing what is inside out is what saves (Thom 70). Also lacking in Thomas are the references to the old testament that point to the idea of Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy in Mark (Mk 1:2, 10:48, 12:10, 14:49, 15:27). These differences may have separated audiences that paid heed to one gospel or the other (or both).

As mentioned previously, Thomas may have resounded more with Jews that were familiar with philosophers like Socrates. They may have been drawn to some parallel ideas and may even have been interested in the idea of having secret knowledge. I imagine the more philosophical type may have already been less interested in ancient readings such as those found in the Hebrew Bible (except for where wisdom could be gleaned) and would have already been along a path of introspection when Thomas was written. Thus, these people may have been less likely to be looking for the Messiah foretold in the ancient scriptures. Thomas would have also been easier for the gentiles to relate to as well. The Jews that were more scripturally bound may have been more drawn to the finished housing of Mark’s gospel.

Jews that knew their scripture and who were suffering would have taken much solace in learning the tradition of Jesus’ teachings and healings and salvation offered to them through faith in him and in God’s possibilities (Mk 10:27). The gospel as a historical type story would have also been familiar to them, as many of their ancient scriptures that they held dear were written as historical stories. The followers of Mark’s gospel likely saw overlap in Thomas, but may have turned away from it because of the lack of support of Jesus as the Messiah, come to save mankind.

The choice of which gospel one might follow still would have been individual, but I can see the draw to that which is more complete, explained, and feels like guidance. Thomas is given to the reader as a list of secret teachings (or sayings) of the person named Jesus. The sayings are not explained, but left bare, without embellishment. By contrast, Mark is a complete story with explanations given along the way. The house has been built, the walls painted, furniture moved in and waits for the tenant to move in and make it his or her home.