Are the Calormenes metaphorical?

[Ithilien]

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?

[waterhogboy]

I think they may represent muslim culture definitely. The architecture, complexion and everything suggests this. I think as a metaphor it can stand for any religion that doesnt trust in Jesus......

[Ithilien]

Their weaponry and clothes too.

I think that by writing about one Calormene's entrance into the new Narnia, Lewis might be advocating that even Muslims (those who are good and love their God) can gain entrance to Heaven.

[holyboy]

I think that by writing about one Calormene's entrance into the new Narnia, Lewis might be advocating that even Muslims (those who are good and love their God) can gain entrance to Heaven.

I think them entering fake(?) Narnia represents the Muslims entering the early Christian lands of Egypt and what not. They come in, confuse the locals, and try to gain control throught the sword.

No offence to any Muslims intended, but through my understanding, that is what happened in the early Muslim days.

[waterhogboy]

Hmmmmmmmmm.... how did the calormenes get there!?!??!?

[tgraveline]

I don't remember, but yeah i had that feeling as well. I just hoped that this was not going to be a bad thing once they produced this movie.

tg

[Capstick]

While there are similarites between Middle Eastern culture and the fictitious Calormenes, I think we need to be careful about reading too much into Lewis' works; especially since Lewis himself stated that one thing he hated was people criticiquing what he wrote and reading all kinds of other meanings into them - meanings which he had never intended.

There might have been an allegorical point that Lewis was trying to make when the Calormenes invaded Narnia, or there might not have been.

The issue in the Last Battle of the Calormene who makes it into "New Narnia" has alsways been something that I had problems with (for those who have been here over a year, you might remember the thread I started regarding that very issue, so I won't get into it here - since some of the other threads have been closed due to "hostilities", I'll try to stay on the good side of the mods, and keep the controversy to a minimum :)).

However, I don't think that Lewis was advocating Universalism in LB - in Mere Christianity he makes some very clear statements to the effect that only those who believe in Jesus can be saved - all of the other religions do not lead to the God of Christianity, and hence, can't provide salvation.

[GrayCloak]

However, I don't think that Lewis was advocating Universalism in LB - in Mere Christianity he makes some very clear statements to the effect that only those who believe in Jesus can be saved - all of the other religions do not lead to the God of Christianity, and hence, can't provide salvation.

Very true Chappy, I read once that Lewis was quite scathing of his writing hero George Macdonald in his work Lilith which advocates Universalism. Lewis makes himself quite clear in his books on faith (Mere Christianity being the one that pops to mind, and I belive Screwtape Letters as well) that he belives Christ to be the only route to salvation; it's quite strange that Emeth, the Calormen in question should be found in 'New Narnia'.

[Johan 72109]

I think them entering fake(?) Narnia represents the Muslims entering the early Christian lands of Egypt and what not. They come in, confuse the locals, and try to gain control throught the sword.

No offence to any Muslims intended, but through my understanding, that is what happened in the early Muslim days.

Erm... yes... it did... But I have my doubts that that was what the invasion of Narnia represents, mainly because the Islamic conquests were marked by BOTH sides trying to gain control of territory through the sword, and by massacres and pillaging on BOTH sides of the war. Indeed, one idea (emphasis on idea) of why Islam came about was as a means of uniting the tribes of Southern Saudi Arabia who had been oppressed by the so called Christians of Northern Saudi Arabia, thereby allowing them to turn into a great nation, making an empire that lasted a thousand years. It seems unlikely that C.S Lewis would write about the 'evil' Calormenes attacking the 'good' Narnians as allegory for what was essentially an ordinary war, with heroes and villains on both sides, a war with very little to do with religion beneath the surface of lies and propoganda cast by the leaders of both sides.

Most of the time the Narnia series seems to have closer ties with spiritual matters than historical matters (except, of course, for its allegory of the cross and Jesus' death.)

[inkspot]

Welcome, Johan, I don't remember seeing you post before.

I think Lewis had an admiration for things Arabic, which we can see particularly in HHB. The Calormenes come across as grand and courteous with a style of story-telling that is excellent, with beautiful cities, great architecture, handsome people. But sadly, many of the people could not excel, because the Calormene culture oppressed them.

I think in HHB we receive the message that any repressive regime (not just an Islamic one) can hobble the people -- the heroine of HHB was beautiful, spirited, and proved herself heroic, but under the cruel Calormene regime, she would have been consigned to a loveless marriage with an old man for political reasons: one message regimes that devalue women tend to discourage all citizens from reaching their full potential. That is still true today.

I don't think Lewis regarded the Calormenes and worship of Tash as an allegory for Islam -- in part because of the reasons Johan mentions, and also because I am not sure Englishmen of Lewis' age took Islam very seriously. (I could be wrong on that account.)

[Wallis]

What if we were to look at the Calormenes as representative of governments that are more or less repressive?

The Narnian monarchy reminds me a bit of the British monarchy. There seems to be a great deal of democracy practiced in Narnia as well as religious freedom. Notice that the citizens of Narnia "worship" Aslan in their own way without theocracy in place to dictate dogma, etc.

The Calormenes not only have a very rigid government and strict (controlling) hierarchy, they appear to have both a controlling theocracy that completely supports the overbearing government. We can cite examples of this type of government throughout the world and throughout history without specifically limiting the examples to the Middle East: Asia, Africa, and even Old Europe.

I may be stretching the point a bit, but we notice the theocracy is first introduced into Narnia in the Last Battle. The Ape is supported by the Calormenes.

Tash may represent all things that are not necessarily Anti-Christ in the strictest sense but all things that become stumbling blocks to knowing Christ. Tash could represent such things as power, money, blind dedication to a cause, etc.

I agree that Lewis was not a supporter of Universalism, but at the same time, I don't think he was ready to close the door on human beings who cannot, for one reason or another, come to Christ.

One additional thought: it is rather interesting that being that Aslan is a lion, animals could readily identify with Aslan as being God. If we humans in this world were to start worshipping/following an animal, we would be accused of worshipping/following an idol. The Calormenes "created" a god who would look more or less human, even though it had a vulture's head and four arms. The illustrator Pauline Baynes even gave Tash legs with claws, probably representative of power, terror (a god to be feared), demanding strict obedience or else. I may be getting a bit deep here, but when people act like Calormenes and take on a god to worship, we may then feel that this god is very demanding, overbearing, a slave-driver, et al to the point where we feel "lost."

[inkspot]

when people act like Calormenes and take on a god to worship, we may then feel that this god is very demanding, overbearing, a slave-driver, et al to the point where we feel "lost."
Very deep -- and right, I would think. And you know what? Sometimes people who grow up in Christian homes that are real strict regarding behavior and works that must be done to satisfy God, they feel the same way toward Jesus, or they abandon Him as impossible to please -- when just the opposite is true! He saves by grace and no works of ours are necessary. :D

[Gryphon]

the calomorens are based off of the muslims. calomorens worship a god named Tash. if any of you have read the last battle, there is one point in the book where C.S. Lewis explains how Tash and Aslan are two compleatly diffrent people. Like Allah and God are two compleatly diffent people. Muhammed said that an angel of the lord gave him the gospels he preached but in the bible, it says condem any angel that gives you a gospel. besides, demons are fallen angels and i have little doubt in my mind that muhammed did see an angel. the angel, i believe though, was a fallen demon. same goes to mormons.

[holyboy]

but in the bible, it says condem any angel that gives you a gospel.

I am not doubting your word, but where is that passage found? I am curious for where it says that in the bible, as I do not recall that passage off-hand...

[waterhogboy]

Hmmm....... however, Tash really existed, whereas Allah does not.... Thus the Calormenes cannot be based on Muslims.

[inkspot]

I am not doubting your word, but where is that passage found? I am curious for where it says that in the bible, as I do not recall that passage off-hand...
Galatians 1:8 says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

I agree with WHB that the Calormenes are not supposed to represent Muslims, because as believers, we know there is no other God but YAHWEH, so in our mindset Allah doesn't exist -- but Tash did exist. I think Lewis based the Calormene culture on a sort of Arabian Knights motif because he admired much about the architecture and the mysery of the stories, etc. but did not intend their worship of Tash to be seen as analagous to Islam.

[inked]

KUDOS to Wallis and Inkspot! Good explications, ya'll!!! :D

[inkspot]

KUDOS to Wallis and Inkspot! Good explications, ya'll!!! :D
Aw ... shucks ... :o

[Gryphon]

Hmmm....... however, Tash really existed, whereas Allah does not.... Thus the Calormenes cannot be based on Muslims.
what do you mean Tash exsisted? you mean in the Narnian world? I dont think he did exsist in Narnia. where does it say he was?

[inkspot]

***TLB Spoilers***

Did you read yet "The Last Battle"? In it, Tash shows up in Narnia. And he's bad!

[Gryphon]

oh yeah, i forgot. i cant believe i forgot that part. :D Tash could be any number of any gods, even though he was real. maybe he is a reflection of demons. i dont know.

[unleavened]

Ok, what I'm about to say is not a confermed fact. I read a book by some muslims who converted to Christianity. These 2 fellows have come to believe that Allah is actually Saten. Of course, most the things he says he can do as a god are lies.

Although, even if Allah is not actually Saten himself, it has been speculated (and I think it quite possible) that many gods woshiped in other religions are actually demons and the religion they are the god of is the pack of lies they stand on to veer people away from the truth. So in that sense Allah could actually exist, so the callermons could actually represent the muslims.

[holyboy]

You have to remember that the truth is in the eye of the beholder. I believe Christianity is the one true religion, but a Muslim may believe that HE is in the right.

CSL is a Christian, and I believe he was writting in a CHristian point of view. Do the Calormans represent the Muslims? Maybe. But to confirm that, we will have to look at what CSL thought a Muslim would act. If the Calormans are an acurate reflection of CSL's belief of what a Muslim is, that the Colarman probably do represent Muslims.

[waterhogboy]

Very philosophical HB!!! I like it!

[inkspot]

Welcome, Unleavened. I didn't see you post before. I had never heard that about Allah, from Muslims or anyone, either.

I don't think the Calormenes represent Muslims for another reason: in Narnia, things don't "represent" things in that way --Aslan is Jesus, he doesn't represent Jesus. And there aren't any "representations" of other faiths, you don't see any Hindus in there ...so why would Muslims be there?

[Gryphon]

because western europe is swarming with muslims? and the calomorens could represent many different parties. and what do you mean there arent any representations? it's an allegory. its all about the battles we face whether muslim or hindu. everything represents something. jesus wasn't an actual lion even though he is depicted as one. and i have no problem beleiving that a demon, maybe satan maybe not, did give muhammed his "revelation" because he said it was given to him by an angel. and demons are fallen angels. i have no doubt that they still look it.

[waterhogboy]

I think you may have a point there Gryphon - there is every possibility that it could have been a demon who revealed the Qu'ran to Mohammed. But I would argue on the grounds of good relations between Christians and Muslims, that if we were to say that publicly, it would spark more controversy than if we said that Allah is simply a Muslims recognition that there is a God, but they havent quite grasped his true nature (which is the Christian God).

In this way, I would also argue against equating Calormene with Muslim - because that again could cause more division. I mean - what are the casting people gonna do when they cast HHB?? It would look quite racist if the bad guys were Middle Eastern and the good guys are white??

[Johan 72109]

because western europe is swarming with muslims? and the calomorens could represent many different parties. and what do you mean there arent any representations? it's an allegory. its all about the battles we face whether muslim or hindu. everything represents something. jesus wasn't an actual lion even though he is depicted as one. and i have no problem beleiving that a demon, maybe satan maybe not, did give muhammed his "revelation" because he said it was given to him by an angel. and demons are fallen angels. i have no doubt that they still look it.

I personally am not sure that Muhammed really was visited by an angel/demon... it may well be that he simply used the story of the angel to lend his argument some weight when he spread his religion amongst the tribes of southern saudi arabia. In my opinion, Islam has the feel of a man-made religion - it was originally a political, rather than a religious structure, used to give the seperate tribes of arabs a common purpose and unite them against the christian oppression which they had been facing for centuries. Indeed, Islam is still more a political than a religious structure - just look at Islamic states throughtout the middle east and parts of africa.

The point would extend to Mormonism as well, though for different reasons - the religion was essentially designed to appeal to the middle-class white american male. The idea was have lots of wives, blacks are inferior, jesus came over to america too, very appealing at the time - indeed appealing for certain types of people even today. Also note that the founder of Mormonism made alot of money from it.

About your point on Western Europe 'swarming' with Muslims... first of all, Eastern Europe contains just as many - look at Albania for an example. But also, I may be wrong about this of course, but I don't think there were as many muslims in Europe at the time of the books being written. Also, C.S Lewis stated himself that his books were not allegory - Aslan IS Jesus in his books.

I myself still doubt that Calormenes are a direct representation of Muslims... as other people have said, I think they've more to do with the romantic Arabian Nights imagery.

[unleavened]

I personally am not sure that Muhammed really was visited by an angel/demon... it may well be that he simply used the story of the angel to lend his argument some weight when he spread his religion amongst the tribes of southern saudi arabia. In my opinion, Islam has the feel of a man-made religion - it was originally a political, rather than a religious structure, used to give the seperate tribes of arabs a common purpose and unite them against the christian oppression which they had been facing for centuries. Indeed, Islam is still more a political than a religious structure - just look at Islamic states throughtout the middle east and parts of africa.

Also recognize that things that seem man made DO have spiritual forces behind them. That's what I believe anyway. If man "invents" something contrary to God's truth, Saten was probably in on it somehow.

Chew on this mentally for a bit. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It poses a real threat to Christianity, more real than many religions. (That is as threatening as someting can be to the God of the universe.) I wouldn't put it past Lewis to figure this out and draw a bit of a parallel in his book even if it is not a direct parallel.

As for why the Callerman culture seem so majestic in the books, I have an alternate possiblility, not to say you are wrong. Just another look from a new angle. When I read the books (spacifically HHB and LB) I found that the contrast in the beauty in the callerman culture and the hidous thing they worshiped to be a little disturbing. Perhaps this was beauty was insterted to represent the contrast between the fasinating majesty and horrific deception in many pagan cultures.

[Ithilien]

I found the representation of the Calormene in HHB and LB slightly different, too: LB being slightly more sinister and bloody in nature. The last book does seem to present Tash as the traditional pagan god, demanding blood sacrifices and exulting in death and destruction. I think (and I take back what I posted ages ago when I started this thread) the god of Calormene is the god of paganism and all things evil; LB relates Christianity's eventual triumph over it.

[Green Knight]

Tash might be Ahriman to Aslan's Ahura Mazda. (Zoroastrianism, one of the precursors to Christianity.)

[inkspot]

and what do you mean there arent any representations? it's an allegory. its all about the battles we face whether muslim or hindu. everything represents something.
As to whether the stories "represented" things in our world, Lewis himself said:

"You are mistaken when you think that everything in the books "represents" something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way. I did not say to myself "Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia": I said "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."

That's what I meant about why should there be Muslims in Narnia if there are no Hindus or whatever; I don't think the Calormenes "represent" anyone in that sense. That they have an "Arabian Knights" kind of grandeur and mystery is of course obvious, but that doesn't mean they represent Arabic people -- I guess you could say the Pevensies "represent" Christian English children, but it's not that, they are Christian English children, but they are from our world and the Calormenes are not.

[TimmyofOz]

Just as it is foolish to beleave that Aslan and Tash are the same. Attempts by Muslims to make Allah and Jehovah the same God but different names is foolishness to any Christian. And history shows the Name "Allah" is of different origin than any Jewish influence. :o

[TimmyofOz]

Whether the Calormen are directly compatable to Muslims is not CS Lewis's style, But Narnia and her surrounding kingdoms match the geography and cultures of Europe from England to the Mediterranean Sea with no English channel but a desert to replace it. :)

[inked]

As to whether the stories "represented" things in our world, Lewis himself said:

"You are mistaken when you think that everything in the books "represents" something in this world. Things do that in The Pilgrim's Progress but I'm not writing in that way. I did not say to myself "Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia": I said "Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as He became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen."

That's what I meant about why should there be Muslims in Narnia if there are no Hindus or whatever; I don't think the Calormenes "represent" anyone in that sense. That they have an "Arabian Knights" kind of grandeur and mystery is of course obvious, but that doesn't mean they represent Arabic people -- I guess you could say the Pevensies "represent" Christian English children, but it's not that, they are Christian English children, but they are from our world and the Calormenes are not.

O Great and Wonderful INKSPOT,

I am so thrilled to have an ally with reference to TCON not being allegory! And one informed by the author himself! O joy! O splendour! O frabulation!

Come, let us reason together to stamp out this pernicious plague of allegorists! :D Or, at least, by opposing end their allegations and misunderstandings.

It is precisely this allegorical allegation that links specific recent acts or individuals or peoples to specific Narnians that does damage to the books and those holding the views! Calormenes symbolically represent those without knowledge of or belief in Jesus, not any specific peoples. And Calormenes by any description would fit some known earth analogue. Thus, Lewis was using a symbol and not an allegorical representation.

[inkspot]

Thanks, Inked! But don't you know, I like to call CON and LOTR allegories just to nettle you!!! :D (Bad Inkspot! Bad.)

But I know they aren't. An allegory has a one-to-one correspondence to the thing it represents, yes? And clearly CON does not.

I agree with you in your post: Calormenes for us symbolize people who do not know or follow Christ.

But what do they symbolize for non-religious people, I wonder? What does any of it symbolize for someone who doesn't believe in Christ?

[Green Knight]

Just as it is foolish to beleave that Aslan and Tash are the same. Attempts by Muslims to make Allah and Jehovah the same God but different names is foolishness to any Christian. And history shows the Name "Allah" is of different origin than any Jewish influence. :o

Mohammed was not out to create a new religion, he was trying to reform Judaism and Christianity. When Islam first started, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, not Mecca. During the Middle Ages, Islam was seen, by many, as a heretical sect of Christianity.

[TimmyofOz]

Jerusalam doesn't become really important to Islam for many years. Mohammed incorporated Judaism and Christian characters under an Arab God. Just as the tribes of Isreal made a Golden Cow and called it the LORD. Islam worships the Arab culture and it's God. Jerusalem is important becuase they conquered it 1300 years ago and what Isalm conquers they hold dear to. They wish to conquer the name of Jesus to make him just an Arab prophet. Mohammed reformed the religions of Arabia using Judaism and Christain characters. To call Allah the Islam name of JHWH is a straight from the mouth of Satan that Islam teaches.

[inkspot]

As I learned in a different thread, there are so many sects of Islam today that we cannot make many generalities about the religion without being wrong on some score, so it is probably best not to debate it here until we all become experts, which I think would take a lifetime.

Regarding the origins of the faith, dunno if this adds any light, but here is what I read at http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/gcsere/revision/big6/4.html:

Little is known about Muhammad's childhood. He was orphaned at the age of 6 and brought up by his uncle. As a child, he worked as a shepherd. He was taken on a caravan to Syria by his uncle at the age of 9 (or perhaps 12). Later, as a youth, he was employed as a camel driver on the trade routes between Syria and Arabia. Mohammed later managed caravans on behalf of merchants. He met people of different religious beliefs on his travels, and was able to observe and learn about Judaism, Christianity and the indigenous Pagan religions.

After marriage, he was able to spend more time in meditation. At the age of 40, (610 CE), he was visited in Mecca by the angel Gabriel. He developed the conviction that he had been ordained a Prophet and given the task of converting his countrymen from their pagan, polytheistic beliefs and what he regarded as moral decadence, idolatry, hedonism and materialism.

He met considerable opposition to his teachings. In 622 CE he moved north to Medina due to increasing persecution. The trek is known as the hegira . Here he was disappointed by the rejection of his message by the Jews. Through military activity and political negotiation, Mohammed became the most powerful leader in Arabia, and Islam was firmly established in the area ... Many do not look upon Islam as a new religion. They feel that it is in reality the faith taught by the ancient Prophets, Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus. Mohammed's role as the last of the Prophets was to formalize and clarify the faith and to purify it by removing foreign ideas that had been added in error.

It sounds like a combination of what Timmy and Green Knight are saying.

But I don't think they are Calormenes, anyway.

[Johan 72109]

But what do they symbolize for non-religious people, I wonder? What does any of it symbolize for someone who doesn't believe in Christ?

Isn't that the dwarves in TLB?

[Johan 72109]

Also recognize that things that seem man made DO have spiritual forces behind them. That's what I believe anyway. If man "invents" something contrary to God's truth, Saten was probably in on it somehow.

Chew on this mentally for a bit. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. It poses a real threat to Christianity, more real than many religions. (That is as threatening as someting can be to the God of the universe.) I wouldn't put it past Lewis to figure this out and draw a bit of a parallel in his book even if it is not a direct parallel.

Your first point, I have to agree with... Anything against Christianity, in my opinion, is influenced by Satan. This doesn't mean that it is Satanic, or morally false, (necasarily), but it means that Satan is using it to guide people away from God's truth. I hope I put that right, and didn't come across as slating other religions and saying everyone in them is evil... :( Not my intention, if so... However, this does not mean that he is directly physically involved. Satan didn't appear to Neitszche, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, or many other of the men and women who have contributed to the sufferings of so many people... And yet the deeds they did are clearly Satan's work. I always think of Satan using our own natural prejudices and needs, and turning them into something vile.

And the point about Islam... to be honest, I see Islam as less of a threat than other things. History is shown that the harder Christian's are oppressed and persecuted, the stronger they become. Please don't think I'm putting down how nasty Islamic States can be, because I'm not. But it is perhaps an equal danger being in places where Agnosticism and Atheism are expanding a huge amount. I don't know how Christianity is in America, but in Britain...
I'm in a school of 1500 people. I have met perhaps two other people who go to church, and I think that they're agnostics. It's rather depressing.

As always however, these are just my opinions, which, knowing me, may very well be wrong... Just take them as something to think over and throw away if you wish. :)

[inkspot]

Isn't that the dwarves in TLB?
Sorry, I meant:
when a non-religious person reads CON, does he see any symbolism in it? If so, what symbols does he see?

[Johan 72109]

Oh, whoopsie... Silly me... :o

[inkspot]

But it is perhaps an equal danger being in places where Agnosticism and Atheism are expanding a huge amount. I don't know how Christianity is in America, but in Britain...
I'm in a school of 1500 people. I have met perhaps two other people who go to church, and I think that they're agnostics. It's rather depressing.
Very much agree, Johan. Faith in Christ is alive in America, but I work with many missions organizations that share your concern: the UK and Europe have become "post-Christian," where Christianity once flourished and Christian values helped to make life better for everyone, people feel they no longer need Christ. And once a society has become atheistic/agnostic, it becomes very difficult to interest individuals in religion -- they see it as backward and primitive, something they are now "beyond."

[benjamin_narnialover]

people feel they no longer need Christ. And once a society has become atheistic/agnostic, it becomes very difficult to interest individuals in religion -- they see it as backward and primitive, something they are now "beyond."
i very much agree with this. i live in vancouver, and that sums up most of my old school. there most my classmates (who mostly were awesome people, and i was friends with a lot of them) had very little interest in christianity.

[Sam]

Yeah, I find agnosticism incredibly prevalent- specially at University. The problem we have is (I go to a college that is famous for being liberal and welcoming to all different kinds of people) that people think that believing anything is somehow offensive or exclusive to other people. Of course, in one way that's true, but all it means is that there are tons of people milling around not committing to anything or even thinking that they should.

[unleavened]

Your first point, I have to agree with... Anything against Christianity, in my opinion, is influenced by Satan. This doesn't mean that it is Satanic, or morally false, (necasarily), but it means that Satan is using it to guide people away from God's truth. I hope I put that right, and didn't come across as slating other religions and saying everyone in them is evil... :( Not my intention, if so... However, this does not mean that he is directly physically involved. Satan didn't appear to Neitszche, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, or many other of the men and women who have contributed to the sufferings of so many people... And yet the deeds they did are clearly Satan's work. I always think of Satan using our own natural prejudices and needs, and turning them into something vile.

And the point about Islam... to be honest, I see Islam as less of a threat than other things. History is shown that the harder Christian's are oppressed and persecuted, the stronger they become.
I agree with you in the first paragraph completely.

Looking back on my comment about Islam being the most threatening, I'd like to say perhaps that was said too hastily. It's not for me to rate the threats Saten presents. You are correct in saying Atheism and Agnisticism are also very prevolent in the oposition of Chistianity.

I've been thinking about the original question a little. Lewis did a very good job of intigrating many characteristics of forces oposing Christianiy into Calermine religion and culture.
Depiction of tash - think totum polls and Egypt's God's
Turbins - think Islam
Bowing out of room (in HHB) - thin eastern cultures.
"the tisrock, may he live forever" - also like Egypt in glorifying human rulers
I don't know much about Rome and Greece or at least I can't remember it now, but it's likely that they are in there too.
In conclution: The parallel is, in my opinion, not so much only to Islam, but to many cultures and religions.

[unleavened]

Why didn't the quote thing work?

[holyboy]

Why didn't the quote thing work?

At the end of your quote your missing a [

It currently shows become. QUOTE]

It needs to say, (with the red symbolizing the change:) become. [QUOTE]

[unleavened]

That didn't work. I'm inept. :(

[holyboy]

That didn't work. I'm inept. :(

I also forgot you need a /. so the last tag should say

[/QUOTE]

My mistake :o

[unleavened]

Oh, so you're inept. ;)

Thanx, HB, that fixed it.

[Inklet]

Predictions:

When the Calormenes finally appear on screen in the new movies, they will not wear turbans, wield scimitars, or have skin any darker than the average Italian.

Perhaps they will be "re-imagined" as Germanic tribesmen? Pre-Christian Celts with blue facepaint? Or something more daring?

I know!

A Bible-thumping horde of fundamentalist Christians seeking the destruction of the diverse, tolerant, rationalist state of Narnia!

Okay, so that's going too far. But I'm bracing myself for a "New Lewis for a new millennium."


Oh, and Tumnus will be gay. ;)

[unleavened]

Save us.

10 thing

[samven582]

the calomorens are based off of the muslims. calomorens worship a god named Tash. if any of you have read the last battle, there is one point in the book where C.S. Lewis explains how Tash and Aslan are two compleatly diffrent people. Like Allah and God are two compleatly diffent people. Muhammed said that an angel of the lord gave him the gospels he preached but in the bible, it says condem any angel that gives you a gospel. besides, demons are fallen angels and i have little doubt in my mind that muhammed did see an angel. the angel, i believe though, was a fallen demon. same goes to mormons.

Sorry to tell you this but there is no concept of fallen Angels in Islam. IN Islam Angels are created by to serve god only. They have no free will. So they can't not disobey god's commands.

[unleavened]

Sorry to tell you this but there is no concept of fallen Angels in Islam. IN Islam Angels are created by to serve god only. They have no free will. So they can't not disobey god's commands.
But remember that just b/c Islam doesn't acknowledge fallen angels, doesn't mean they don't exist. The Bible tells us they do, So I believe they do. We normally call them demons. What Samven is saying is that Mohamed did see an angel, just not the kind of angel he thought it was. He thought it was God's messenger, while many, including myself, suspect that what he saw was actually a fallen angel or demon, though he didn't recongnize it as such.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Folks, don't confuse the Calormenes with Muslims. The fact that they worship an idol clearly indicates that even if they were Middle-Eastern transplants (which I'm sure he was thinking), it would have been from the pre-Islamic days. The culture and mannerisms ar clearly from Mesopotamian/Persian region. The question of how Islam opposes Christianity is a valid one, but I think you're entangling the Calormene question unnecessarily.

[samven582]

But remember that just b/c Islam doesn't acknowledge fallen angels, doesn't mean they don't exist. The Bible tells us they do, So I believe they do. We normally call them demons. What Samven is saying is that Mohamed did see an angel, just not the kind of angel he thought it was. He thought it was God's messenger, while many, including myself, suspect that what he saw was actually a fallen angel or demon, though he didn't recongnize it as such.

We normally call them demons.

We called them jinns. The Quran says that God created three beings. Angels made out of light, jinns made out of fire and man

What Samven is saying is that Mohamed did see an angel, just not the kind of angel he thought it was.

Your right Mohammed (SWT) say Angel. It was angel gabriel. The same Angel or holy ghost you say gave Mary the good news she was having a son.

He thought it was God's messenger, while many, including myself, suspect that what he saw was actually a fallen angel or demon, though he didn't recongnize it as such

you should read this article

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Quran/2004/07/article22.shtml

[DunadainofArrakis]

Folks, don't confuse the Calormenes with Muslims. The fact that they worship an idol clearly indicates that even if they were Middle-Eastern transplants (which I'm sure he was thinking), it would have been from the pre-Islamic days. The culture and mannerisms ar clearly from Mesopotamian/Persian region. The question of how Islam opposes Christianity is a valid one, but I think you're entangling the Calormene question unnecessarily.


Hello everyone. I am new to this forum, but I hope I can contribute something meaningful to this interesting discussion right away.

First let me say that I agree with PrinceofTheWest. To me, its obvious the Calormenes represent Middle Easterners, but not necessarily Muslims persay. Also, the Middle East includes many cultures and religions from many different time periods, and I think that Lewis seems to be focused on the Pre-Islam Middle East. This fits well within the historical timeline if one were to assume that Aslan and Narnia are metaphorical for Christendom. Christianity came centuries before Islam and conflicts between the Greek/Roman empires of the Mediterranean, who heralded many of the ideals espoused by Western tradition, and the monarchial/dictatorial Persian empire of the Middle East, had already been taking place for centuries. The reason why these fantasy authors like Lewis and Tolkien juxtapose a kind of European/Christian society with a Middle-Eastern one is because the societies and cultures are so different and are therefore intended to contrast with one another for various literary and plot purposes.


Also, the previous post by Gryphon does not accurately depict Allah or what was revealed to Muhammad by a long shot. Here is the quote:


"the calomorens are based off of the muslims. calomorens worship a god named Tash. if any of you have read the last battle, there is one point in the book where C.S. Lewis explains how Tash and Aslan are two compleatly diffrent people. Like Allah and God are two compleatly diffent people. Muhammed said that an angel of the lord gave him the gospels he preached but in the bible, it says condem any angel that gives you a gospel. besides, demons are fallen angels and i have little doubt in my mind that muhammed did see an angel. the angel, i believe though, was a fallen demon. same goes to mormons."


Any speculation as to whether Tash is metaphorical for Allah and Allah being the devil is simply ludicrous. There is a reason why Islam is called an Abrahamic monotheisic religion. Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham, not the devil. Allah is just an Arabic word for God, and it is the same exact word in Palestinian Aramaic(which makes sense since Arabic and Aramaic are related linguistically), which is the language originally spoken by Christ and the people who lived in his area. So the way that Christ referred to God was the same exact way that Muslims refer to him, as "Allah". This is not just a coincidence of a linguistic nature, as it holds a deep symbolic significance for those who speak Arabic including both Arab Christians and Muslims as well as Non-Arab Muslims. Muslims believe that they worship the same God that Christ worships, and the same God that Jews worship.

The devil in Islam is not a fallen angel, but the member of another race that God created called the Jinn. And from this race are helpers of the devil, who are called Shayaateen (A word for the devil in Semitic languages including Arabic is Shaytan, which is probably where the word Satan derives from, and hence his helpers are derived from this name as well) This is especially interesting in light of the fact that Lewis writes in one of the chronicles(I forget which one) that the White Witch is part Jinn, which would tie her character more to the devil than does Tash. As far as I know, Christianity has no concept of Jinn except for the loosely defined term of "demon". But Lewis doesn't use the word "demon", but rather the word "Jinn".
So in conclusion I think there is more of a parallel between Jadis and the devil rather Tash and the devil.

These are just some of my thoughts. I hope I haven't offended anyone or anyone's beliefs.

[inkspot]

So in conclusion I think there is more of a parallel between Jadis and the devil rather Tash and the devil. These are just some of my thoughts. I hope I haven't offended anyone or anyone's beliefs.
Welcome, Dunadain, I didn't see you post before. Your thoughts are very valid, and I had not thought of Jadis' ancestry connecting her to Satan (more clearly than Tash can be connected), but I can see what you mean.

Also, I don't think Gryphon meant to imply that Muslims think they are worshipping Satan or the devil. Rather, I think she meant that the angel who told Mohammed to worship God in this new way (Islam) might have actually been a demon who hoodwinked Mohammed into forming a religion that does not believe in Christ as Savior, which would, of course, leave them outside His saving power unless they rejected their Islamic faith and trusted Him. You can see why a demon would want to do this. (I mean, if you believe in Christ, you can see why His enemies would want to found a powerful religion that doesn't believe in Him ...)

[unleavened]

On subject, I don't think the calermenes' religion is a direct parallel to Islam at all. I think it has some similarities, but it also has similarities to other cultures relgions too. I think Lewis cleverly integrated several relgions into the Calermene culture. I posted on this a while back, if you care enough go ahead and find the post.

BTW, thanks Samven for that interesting artical. I can't say I agree with it, but I won't discuss it here, seeing as it's a little off the point. However, if you have anything to add, I'd be happy to communicate using PM. Understand that I don't mean to squash you or anything. I just want to the truth to be known.

[Wallis]

The Horse and His Boy has always been an interesting yet oddly "out of place" story for me. I've been doing some reading, and I'd like to share some insights (for me, at least).

One of the Bible's important leitmotifs centers around a desert. In the spiritual journey back to God, it was necessary for the Israelites to return to the desert, sojourn for a while, and then return to the "Land of Milk and Honey."

We find this leitmotif first in the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve are in perfect spiritual harmony. Then they fall from grace and are cast out into the "cold, cruel world."

We find that Abraham and Lot lived in a land that was very wealthy and abundant. But, a few hundred years later, Israel is enslaved by Egyptians, and it takes Moses to lead the people back to the Homeland. However, the Israelites must wander around the desert for forty years (a purification number) before they can return.

Then, when the Jews are allowed to return from their captivity, we find Jeremiah expressing the whole return as wandering back through the desert, as Jerusalem is described as a desolate ruin.

Using this leitmotif--that in our spiritual lives we move close to God, then fall away, and then crawl back to God--the desert is not seen as a barrier but as a purification process of our spiritual selves.

Bree and Hwin obviously wish to return to the "Land of Milk and Honey." Living under slavery (represented by the Calormenes) and apart from the Homeland (God's Kingdom), they will do anything to get back. Along with Bree and Hwin, Shasta is a young boy who was taken away from his Homeland and raised in Calormene--against his wishes you might say, although he did not have a choice. I could find a parallel with Joseph. And then there is Aravis, who desires something more than the life she has, which will eventually provide her with an enviable materialistic wonderland.

Their journey to break away from the materialistic bonds that keep them slaves, even if those bonds are only within their minds, is fraught with danger. Lewis did a good job of showing how doubt, fear, backsliding, and other obstacles tempt us from going into the desert to return to God. Yet, at the same time, Aslan (Christ) is with them all the way, even if His presence tends to terrorize them at times.

So, my new perspective, if you will, is that the Calormenes represent more of the world as viewed with materialistic eyes and the finite ability of the human brain to embrace one's existence. We find ourselves enslaved by the flesh. Yet, all the while, we yearn to release ourselves from this bondage and free our souls to fly back to the loving embrace of the Creator. In this, I believe that Lewis has succeeded: our beloved characters have passed through the desert and returned Home.

[DunadainofArrakis]

Welcome, Dunadain, I didn't see you post before. Your thoughts are very valid, and I had not thought of Jadis' ancestry connecting her to Satan (more clearly than Tash can be connected), but I can see what you mean.

Also, I don't think Gryphon meant to imply that Muslims think they are worshipping Satan or the devil. Rather, I think she meant that the angel who told Mohammed to worship God in this new way (Islam) might have actually been a demon who hoodwinked Mohammed into forming a religion that does not believe in Christ as Savior, which would, of course, leave them outside His saving power unless they rejected their Islamic faith and trusted Him. You can see why a demon would want to do this. (I mean, if you believe in Christ, you can see why His enemies would want to found a powerful religion that doesn't believe in Him ...)


Thank you for the kind welcoming inkspot. Let me just start off by saying that I agree with everything in Wallis’ post. There is a lot to lend to that kind of interpretation of the Horse and His Boy.

To go back to what was said earlier, after all of that stuff about Tash and Allah, let me just say that if they do make a movie for The Horse and His Boy or the Last Battle, that they should depict the Calormenes with turbans, scimitars, and camel jockeys if you will, and whatever else is associated with Middle Eastern society and culture. The Calormenes are a desert race that most closely resemble the Arabs and Persians.

What they should not do, however, is have the Calormenes shouting "Allahu Akbar" or even "Tash Akbar". That would be kind of funny, but wrong on so many levels.

To address the comments made by Gryphon concerning perceptions of the Prophet of Islam as having possibly received revelation from a "demon", let me just say I find that entire notion wholly (no pun intended) inaccurate.

I would have to question a demon (who, by definition of the word demon, is ill-intentioned) for having provided a man during the 7 century with the means to end the practice of idolatry in Arabia and in many other places, to bring men and women to the worship of one God (a.k.a the God of Abraham), to end racist practices, to end the practice of burying newborn daughters (which is something the Arabs did quite frequently before Islam), to tell his followers to respect Christ and his mother, and above all else, not to equate anyone with God even if he/she/it is of virgin birth and made many sacrifices for a noble cause (This is not the same as saying that Muslims don’t accept Christ as a protective and guiding force, because they do in a way, which will be mentioned later when I discuss his role in the Islamic prophecies concerning the Apocalypse).

To understand the Islamic perspective and how this could all possibly relate to the metaphorical meaning in the Chronicles, one has to talk to Muslims and read their books. I think that Lewis' story is primarily geared towards Christians, but Lewis himself had to have read at least some Islamic texts or heard something about Islam. You can't just say well I think that their Prophet had a demon whisper in his ear and Muslims don't accept Christ/Aslan and therefore Tash is Allah, i.e. the devil. You have to get the real story from the horse's mouth, or the Muslim mouth rather. I personally know and talk to a lot of Muslims, and it’s really interesting to hear what they have to say about their own beliefs. After having read a little on Islam, I do believe that Muslims accept Christ on at least some level. They regard Christ as being pure and perfect, having been a Prophet of God who continued and elaborated on the messages of his ancestors Abraham and Moses and all of the other biblical figures. They even believe that Christ was of virgin birth and that his mother Mary was pure and infallible. Christ for them is not the son of God just because of his virgin birth and sacrifices, and neither is Adam who didn't have a mother or a father. Christ was sent to make the Jewish people and other like-minded peoples think about the state that they were in and accept a new kind of teaching that would bring them closer to salvation, which relates to what Wallis was saying about mankind’s materialistic corruption and how they can be drawn closer to teachings of Aslan to achieve salvation.

Now, as Christ pertains to the eschatological events of the world of Narnia, an even greater understanding and appreciation of Muslims toward Aslan can be made. Muslims like Christians believe that Christ will be a major component in the army of God against the Anti-Christ, or the Messeeh ad-dajjal ('the imposter messiah) as they call him. In fact, Christ will be the one to strike the death blow to the Anti-Christ.

Furthermore, if we are talking about the Last Battle, then we are talking about the Apocalypse and are finally getting away from the idea that Tash is Allah. Tash has to be the anti-christ. Its clear from the Last Battle that there is confusion as to how people perceive the Tashlan character when in reality there will be a similar confusion in the way people will perceive Christ and the Anti-Christ, thinking one is the other and vice-versa. Ultimately the forces of Aslan triumph over Calormene as well as their deity and leader Tash. This is why I think that Aslan holds a similar kind of messianic force for Muslims as he does for Christians.

So despite all of these similarities between how Christians view Christ and Aslan and how Muslims view them, the main difference here does indeed concern Christ. Christians regard Christ as being the divine son of God while Muslims regard him as a pure and perfect Prophet sent by God, Allah, or whatever you want to call him. And to which view does Lewis cater to? It is most definitely the Christian one. But this doesn’t mean that Islam can’t factor into any of this.

[Parthian King]

I like what Prince of the West has indicated, and that is that the Calormenes are probably best described as pre-Islamic. Tash is an idol, and Muslims are definitely not into idols. So given that, the whole issue is sort of moot. Besides, there are a whole lot of Muslims today (Iranians, Pakistanis, and Indonesians, to name a "few") that are Muslim, but not Arab.

As for Muslims having some acceptance of Christ, that is an odd statement for me, since the Christ they accept is hardly the same, as you have noted, Dunadain (hope you don't mind the abbreviation). As Lewis said, we really only have three options for how we see Jesus Christ: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. "Great Prophet" is not an option He grants us, and that's where Islam goes wrong, even in its most pacific forms.

[G.E. Boehm]

Though physically the Calormenes are very similar to the muslims I believe that its not all muslims. I believe that C.S. Lewis was looking more at the Ottoman Empire when they expanded with the wars. C.S. Lewis was really into old world history so I don't believe you can attach all muslims to the Calormenes. And in the last battle when Aslan said to the one Calormene solider that over all the years when he said in the name of Tash that he was really giving honor to Aslan there C.S. is bulding a bridge between the two similarities in Christianity and Islam. Though there is a main difference he reminded us that Christians and Muslims are alike in more ways. Look up Timur the Lame and you will see a number of similarities between the Prince and Timur.

[inkspot]

Welcome, GE. I didn't see you post before. I don't know if you can say that Tash as Allah is completely wrong because Lewis certainly did not intend for the Calormenes to resemble Muslims in one breath, and in the next say that the interplay between Emeth and Aslan is a bridge between Christianity and Islam in the next -- either Lewis intended a relationship to Islam with the Calormenes, or he didn't. You can't have it both ways, if I understand what you are saying -- perhaps I don't.

I personally agree with PK that the Calormenes worship an idol (Tash) and so their religion cannot be contrasted with Islam at all, as Islam completely rejects idol worship.

But I do have more questions for Dunadain: are you, by chance, Islamic? you do not believe a demon would have inspired Mohammed to found Islam, because of all the good things Islam did for the region -- why would a demon want to stop things like the sacrifice of babies, etc. that were going on pre-Islam, you wonder. I can answer that, but first I wonder if you think it was indeed an angel that delivered the message to Mohammed?

If so, I don't want to insult you or your faith at all. From a Christian perspective, I will say: a demon would be interested in stopping religions that were propagating evil at that time, if he could replace them with one that would last longer and deceive more people than the wicked worship of various idols or false gods was doing. Yes, those religions at that time may have been causing no amount of harm, but Islam, if it is wrong, is dooming millions today to eternal darkness, and still growing. So the demon might like to take short-term losses of wicked little sects in the Middle east in order to gain worldwide soul destruction. I don't imply this is what happened, but you can see how it would make sense, if it were a demon that deceived Mohammed?

And now ... Tash = Antichrist. I don't think so, at least in the evangelical Christian take on the end-times prophecies, that idiotic Puzzle in his lion skin represented the anti-Christ (it deceived people into believing it was the Christ, but then it commanded them to do the opposite of what Christ would have wanted) and the stupid ape was the false prophet mentioned in Scripture.

What do you think?

[DunadainofArrakis]

There are clear and convincing proofs as to why God, and not a demon, communicated the revelation to the Prophet of Islam. A person who claims to be the bearer of a mission from heaven and to have a message from God, to be in contact with another plane of existence, has to give the people a clear proof of that being the case. For the Prophets mentioned in the Quran and Bible, these proofs came in various forms and confirmed their claims of having received revelation and inspiration from God.

Many scholars say that these proofs depended on what was regarded as the most prominent and highly regarded science and body of knowledge for a given time period. For the time of Moses, the body of knowledge that was at its pinnacle was sorcery and magic. That is why Moses provided the people with that particular style of proof that made so many from amongst the Egyptians and Hebrews believe in his message. When Moses placed his staff on the floor in the court of Pharaoh and it turned into a snake, the Pharaoh’s magicians thought that it was a good magic trick that they could do themselves. But when Moses’ snake ate all of the magicians’ snakes, the people in the court (including the magicians) knew that Moses “magic� came from a higher source the likes of which no one had ever been witness to in that time period. According to the Islamic version of that story, those same magicians then converted to the religion of Moses, whereupon Pharaoh had them all executed because of his arrogance and desire for the magicians to regard him as the all-powerful authority in the universe. No one said that Moses’ power came from a demon, because there had never been a demon that had delivered a clear and convincing proof like that before nor could a demon ever do something like that. In the case of the Prophet of Islam, there is an even clearer and more convincing proof that his message was not given to him by a demon, which I will discuss later.

For the time of Christ, the body of knowledge that was considered to be at the pinnacle of human thought was medicine. That is why so many of Christ’s proofs deal with healing people like the lepers and the blind. He showed the medical authorities of his time period that God had an even higher form of medical knowledge that no one else possessed and that that power was something that Christ himself could tap into. Proofs like these are the reason why so many people during Christ’s time believed so strongly in his message. Again, it could not have been a demon responsible for Christ’s proof because no body of knowledge contained within the physical universe could produce something even close to what Christ was able to do, proving that his proof came from another world and had in fact come from the Highest power and authority, as Christ himself knew all along. Christ would have had a close spiritual proximity to the entity he was receiving revelation from, which means he himself would had to have known something about that entity and that it was in fact God.

Finally, during the 7th century in the region around Arabia, poetry was regarded as the highest form of knowledge and human thought, especially to the Arabs. When the Prophet began his mission of Islam, he started at the age of 40. He was well known amongst the people for his honesty and moral conduct, but was never known for his literary abilities as he had never participated in any literary or poetry contests, which were really important and popular in Arabia at that time. As the Prophet began to reveal the verses of the Quran to the people, the challenge was made that could potentially end the religion of Islam once and for all. This challenge was presented in the Quran:

002.023
And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.
002.024
But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.

The Quran is in a literary style in and of itself. It isn’t poetry, nor is it prose, its just “Quran.� The first challenge was to write 10 chapters of the Quran, but no one could do that. Then the challenge for one chapter was made (the smallest chapter of the Quran is only 3 verses), and the Arab leaders thought that this was their best chance. When the Arabs were presented with this challenge by the Prophet, they met in councils to see how they could produce something in the style of the Quran so that they could put an end to this upstart religion. The greatest poets of Arabic in all of human history lived during this time period, so if anyone could do it, then someone from amongst these very groups of people would have been able to do it. There were many attempts made, and the story of one poet stands out from all the rest. There was an Arab poet named Labeed ibn Rabi’ah who was hailed as the greatest literary mind in Arabia. He was hired at the behest of the wealthy Arab pagans to produce a chapter of the Quran. All he requested was that they take care of his living expenses for a year and that he would do it. The Arab leaders agreed and he was off to it. When he was given text from the Quran, he began to marvel at its literary stature. After that, he abandoned his writing of poetry and converted to Islam. He never once again wrote poetry because in his mind it would be a disgrace so long as a text like the Quran existed. This story and other stories of Arab poets who were hired for the same purpose and who were not Muslim but then embraced Islam are very similar to the story of Moses and the magicians.

Many attempts throughout history were made to produce a chapter of the Quran. All of these attempts were not even close to meeting the challenge. In most cases, someone might have changed one or two words in a chapter and then said “There, I have done it!�, when the chapter they were trying to pass off as their own was essentially the same chapter found in the Quran. There is something about the unique style of the Quran that when people hear it, they will immediately start to pay attention to it, and that no one has ever been able to reproduce.

What actually proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Prophet did indeed receive revelation and inspiration from God and not a demon is the fact that he ascended into heaven during his life. In one of the earlier posts it was mentioned that maybe the Prophet was being honest and forthright with his revelation but that he didn’t know he was receiving revelation from a demon. The account of his ascension to the highest level of heaven while he was still alive completely refutes that claim. If the person who made that post will accept the Prophet being honest and forthright, then he must accept that the Prophet received revelation from God and God only because of this proof. The Prophet knew exactly who he was receiving revelation from because heaven, hell, and the throne of God were all shown to him. It is said that the angel Gabriel was guiding him on his ascent, and when they got to the seventh and final level of heaven, the angel Gabriel was incapable of proceeding upward, and thus only the Prophet went all the way up, whereupon he entered and took witness to the throne of God. This verse from the Quran confirms the ascent:

017.001
Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).

Another interesting story related to this topic is about the Jinn, who could possibly be regarded as demons. These are the first 6 verses of a chapter in the Quran called Al Jinn or the “The Jinn�:
072.001
Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur'an). They said, 'We have really heard a wonderful Recital!
072.002
'It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord.
072.003
'And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son.
072.004
'There were some foolish ones among us, who used to utter extravagant lies against Allah;
072.005
'But we do think that no man or spirit should say aught that untrue against Allah.
072.006
'True, there were persons among mankind who took shelter with persons among the Jinns, but they increased them in folly.

Here is a link for the rest of this chapter found in the Quran with 3 different English translations provided:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/072.qmt.html#072.001

There are many traditionalists who believe that this group of Jinn believed in some form of Christianity because of verse 3. When they heard the Quran from the Prophet, the proof was clear to them that this Prophet represented the office of God and heaven. These Jinn had never heard anything like this before, as no Jinn or demon was capable of something like this. It seems that the accusation that the Prophet was in consultation with a demon has been around since the very inception of Islam, but it is one that has been refuted by clear arguments in the very beginning as well. If one were to argue that the Prophet was inspired by a demon, one could argue that the Torah and the Bible were demon-inspired as well using similar evidence and logic.

Now as to my own personal beliefs, there is still a lot about Judaism and Christianity that I need to learn about, but I think it is pretty obvious based on my posts what religion I am leaning towards. Again I hope I have not offended anyone’s beliefs with these posts. To all of the Christians, I respect Christ and I hope that one day I can reach even a fraction of his level of understanding and piety.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The main difference between Christianity and Islam lies not in the style of teaching nor the avenue of appeal (i.e. sorcery in Moses time, healing in Jesus' etc. I think that a bit of a stretch, by the way, but I'll leave it alone), but in the persons of those delivering the message, and the effect on the followers. Though Islam holds that Jesus is a prophet, it maintains that he is one in a line of prophets preaching an ever-perfecting message that reached its pinnacle in the revelation to Muhammed. The Quran itself holds in several places that the disciples of Jesus said to him, "we are muslim" - i.e. submitted, in the sense that we are submitted to the message being delivered to us. (I wish I had the reference, but I don't have my copy with me.) The clear implication is that this was acceptable for them at that time, since it was the best that had been given, but now that a more perfect message had been delivered, they should become muslim to that.

On the other hand, Christianity maintains that Jesus was the incarnation of the eternally existent Second Person of the Trinity, who came not primarily to preach a message but to die to satisfy the just judgment of a holy God against human sin and rebellion. By means of the grace provided through that sacrifice, Jesus opened a way for his followers to be brought into the divine life (not to become divine themselves, mind you) as adopted children of God. We Christians do not say, "we are muslim", because that is the posture of a slave - a willing slave, certainly, of a benevolent Master, but a slave nonetheless. We say, "by God's grace, through the way opened by Jesus, we are adopted sons and daughters of God."

So the issue is far deeper than just a style of teaching or even a message. It lies in the identity of the messenger (Divine? Or just another good man?) and the nature of the mission (Just to deliver a perfected set of rules to which to submit? Or to open a way to a new kind of life?) See the first part of the Letter of Hebrews in the New Testament for an exposition of the difference between Jesus and all who had come before him.

[Parthian King]

On the other hand, Christianity maintains that Jesus was the incarnation of the eternally existent Second Person of the Trinity, who came not primarily to preach a message but to die to satisfy the just judgment of a holy God against human sin and rebellion. By means of the grace provided through that sacrifice, Jesus opened a way for his followers to be brought into the divine life (not to become divine themselves, mind you) as adopted children of God. We Christians do not say, "we are muslim", because that is the posture of a slave - a willing slave, certainly, of a benevolent Master, but a slave nonetheless. We say, "by God's grace, through the way opened by Jesus, we are adopted sons and daughters of God."

So the issue is far deeper than just a style of teaching or even a message. It lies in the identity of the messenger (Divine? Or just another good man?) and the nature of the mission (Just to deliver a perfected set of rules to which to submit? Or to open a way to a new kind of life?) See the first part of the Letter of Hebrews in the New Testament for an exposition of the difference between Jesus and all who had come before him.

I am reminded that in certain sections of Scripture (Acts 10-11, for one) certain stories and truths are repeated simply for emphasis' sake. Since I cannot improve on this, which Prince of the West has written, I simply repeat it, giving credit where credit is due.

Since this is really a website having to do with Lewis and his thought, I guess I'm still fishing for why we are discussing the particulars of Islam at all, though it hardly offends me. Lewis did not subscribe to Islam for the simple reason that it stands opposed in substance to orthodox Christianity. To what extent the Calormenes (or his reference to the "Saracen" in That Hideous Strength) may or may not refer to them may be debated, but wherever that discussion ends up, the rest of his words stand firmly against the tenets of Islam.

I repeat: We are not given the option of reducing Jesus Christ to the status of prophet. He claimed, "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58). That is, He is the God that always was. Either we buy it (I do), or we don't because we consider Jesus of Nazareth to be either insane or the devil himself. Other options are not granted us--this is one of Lewis' favorite maxims regarding the identity of Jesus Christ. To read the Gospels, and walk away admiring Jesus' piety and virtue, but not recognize His deity is to shred those documents at the most fundamental level, since all His virtues, teachings, and miracles are carefully woven together to point us to one inevitable conclusion: He is the unique Son of God, and Lamb of God. To come to any conclusion other than that means you've missed the point of His virtues and teachings entirely.

[sukapesta]

first of all i'd like to say that... wow, there are not a lot of muslims in this board, are there? it's interesting that now narnia's getting popular in indonesia (where i'm from) and i wonder how people are gonna think of the series if they know there's an interpretation that calormenes are supposed to represent muslims...

As for Muslims having some acceptance of Christ, that is an odd statement for me, since the Christ they accept is hardly the same, as you have noted, Dunadain (hope you don't mind the abbreviation). As Lewis said, we really only have three options for how we see Jesus Christ: Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. "Great Prophet" is not an option He grants us, and that's where Islam goes wrong, even in its most pacific forms.

ah but again, this is your belief and whether or not "great prophet" is an option is also your belief... i'm a muslim btw, and for muslims, jesus is a great prophet... i think it's difficult for non-muslims to comprehend how much we respect jesus the prophet... for me personally (a lot of muslims would argue me on this, if there were muslims on this board in the first place) muhammad is no greater than any other prophet, including jesus (meaning the jesus we muslims believe in, and the point here is we think of jesus as a totally different person... none of us can claim that the way the other person sees jesus is wrong), muhammad just happens to be the last...

being raised in a mixed-marriage family (my dad's christian) i grew up listening to my parents discussing religions (my dad's very educated on islam and so is my mom on christianity) and to be honest i agree with some of what christians believe in and disagree with some of what muslims believe in (mostly because muslims tend to read too much into the quran)... and i'm not saying this to argue with any of you; just expressing my opininon - actually honestly i don't see why because we believe one religion's teachings to be true, then ALL the teachings of the other religions are wrong... i don't know, this is why i'm not a very good muslim i guess (that and the fact that my parent's marriage is considered sinful in islam)

anyways, back to the original topic, when i read about the calormenes in HHB and LB, like someone said before in this thread, the image that came to mind were from pre-christianity persians, like the persians in that film "alexander"... and i don't know what lewis intended but i don't think any religious interpretation (and yes, the christian allegory in the series is so obvious to me) can overcome the fact that the reason narnia is so good simply is a captivating storyline...

[inkspot]

i don't think any religious interpretation (and yes, the christian allegory in the series is so obvious to me) can overcome the fact that the reason narnia is so good simply is a captivating storyline...
So true, Sukapesta! Welcome to the discussion, I didn't see you post before. There's so many new threads, I have not had time to look in everywhere, sorry I have missed you.

I think it's quite nice to have Muslims on the forum, as there are so many Christians and we are all the time agreeing with each other .... nah, we argue a lot amongst ourselves, too.

I dont mind when the threads wander off the subject of Narnia and we get into other topics that are interesting, so if you check back in, Sukapesta, please tell us why, in your family's mixed marriage, you chose to follow Islam rather than Christianity? Also, is your father an engaged Christian -- I mean, does he have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and focus on serving God and alllowing Christ's Spirit to live through him? Or is he sort of an "ethnic" or "cultural" Christian? Many people in America are Christian, but what they mean is the church they don't attend is a Christian church, and they are neither Islamic nor Muslim ...

Just curious. :) You don't have to answer if you think it's too personal.

[onlymystory]

I always thought the calormenes were more like sukapesta said and sort of pre-christianity persians. They just seem different than muslims to me. Arabic yes muslim no. Also, to follow a bit of what Parthianking said and to reference CS Lewis, early on in LWW, the professor tells Susan and Peter that if Lucy is not mad (which can be gathered by simply observing her), she is not lying (this because she is usually truthful and her story is rather difficult to make up), then she must be telling the truth. Its the same idea with Jesus. It is not so much that one is ignoring His deity by only allowing Him the status of a prophet or teacher, but that Jesus did not leave that option open. Jesus said He was God. So either He was lying, He was crazy, or He was telling the truth. It is difficult to imagine Him lying because of all the miracles He performed. He would have to be some kind of magician and there are many witnesses to Jesus character outside of the disciples and most agree that there is no sign of madness. So if He isn't lying or mad, He must be telling the truth. I also wonder at so many people being able to follow a man to the death if it was all a lie.
Finally, in response to sukapesta again, I don't think that we have to toss out all other religions' ideas. CS Lewis actually argues this point early on in Mere Christianity. The point is that while the idea of honoring your elders is a good characteristic of Confucianism, the key is that the faith is wrong. Certain actions and principles probably match very well with the Bible, but if they don't believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven then it is a wrong religion. I know that many disagree with me especially in this age of relativism but ask yourself two things first, is there any religion out there that does not restrict those entering heaven/paradise? and secondly, if every religion is a path to God why is yours so special? If I don't believe that mine is the only way then there is no point in believing in it in the first place. I don't know how much sense that makes but I do like the direction this thread is taking. Its a good discussion.

[sukapesta]

hey, checking back in...

to cut the long story short, my brother and i were raised as muslims but we've attended christian schools our whole lives, it's a deal my parents made so we'd be educated in both religions (mainly because christians can't go to islamic schools and really, i ended up knowing more about the history of christianity than the history of islam), and we were asked to choose when i was around 12 (and again when i was 14 and 16 just to make sure) and both of us chose islam because it feels right... when we pray, or fast, or read the quran we just know that it's what we're supposed to do... there's no logical way to explain it, but that's religion i guess... but like i said as much as i love the religion, there are some things so-called high-ranked muslims out there are doing or saying that i don't agree with...

anyways, i think my father's a good christian... he goes to church every week, he doesn't drink, gamble, or smoke, he donates a percentage of his salary to the church (and another percentage indirectly to the mosque actually since my mom doesn't work), and every month the big family would get together and pray and sing and that kind of thing... i mean he has bad temper sometimes and he loves to shop, and obviously he doesn't preach about christianity in our family (he gets along really well with my mother's family), but overall he's a good christian i guess... he knows a lot about other religions yet he still believes in his faith and i respect him very much for that...

in response to onlymystory... again, i respect christianity a lot and i respect your beliefs, but we muslims feel that there is no one-hundred-percent proof that jesus claimed he was god... this conspiracy theory thing's getting a lot of attention now because of the da vinci code and whatnot, but this is what muslims have believed in all these years... then again, we might be wrong, or you might be wrong, it's just a matter of faith... and which religion is right or wrong is also a matter of faith, except that some people take it to the extreme unfortunately... and yeah i agree with you about the heaven/hell thing, in fact, islam is one of the most extremes when it comes to "infidels will burn in hell for all eternity"... like i said there are some things in islam that i don't personally believe in, but that's just a matter of interpretation... i don't wanna get too deep into my personal beliefs lest i should anger anyone (muslims especially) but that's how i was raised, with a very liberal, very tolerant view of religions i guess...

[inkspot]

Thanks! That is interesting, and I appreciate your answering. I wasn't asking was your dad a "good Christian," I am not sure what that is ... just whether it ws a cultural thing or a relationship with Jesus. Thank you for answering. More later.

[onlymystory]

I just wanted to clarify on Jesus claiming to be God. When Jesus is at court He is asked "Are you the son of God" Jesus replies "I am." I Am is a name used for God in the Old Testament and in that simple statement Jesus was saying that He was God. i appreciate hearing all your input though.

[Dr Tumnus]

In my opinion, Islam has the feel of a man-made religion - it was originally a political, rather than a religious structure, used to give the seperate tribes of arabs a common purpose and unite them against the christian oppression which they had been facing for centuries. Indeed, Islam is still more a political than a religious structure - just look at Islamic states throughtout the middle east and parts of africa.

I have been lurking on this message board for a while. I love the chronicles. I am an evangelical Christian and I think that the Calormenes represent any Eastern religion/cult. I am constantly ashamed by the many christians that expose their ignorance so readily. How can anyone claim to understand Islam or guess why it was created? Islam is similar to many religions in most respects. Most muslims do not seem to understand their own religion.

The Calormenes seem to be Turkic by description and from what I understand Turkey was a fascinating culture to many Westerners because it seemed to be the antithesis of Western culture. I think CSL used them for that purpose. It was no coincidence that when Edmund was sinning he asked for Turkish delight.

The Calormenes' religion has more elements of hinduism. I bet CSL thought that Islam was just a mixture of Christianity and random eastern beliefs (Islam was considered a Christian heresy for most of history). Tash is not like the god muslims worship, he was more like a hindu god.

As a christian I believe that the religion that muslims believe in is difficult to tackle. They actually have a historical basis for their beliefs. I cannot point at the Evanglical Christian community 500 years ago, but muslims can pinpoint their centers of belief throughout all their history. My religion is based on pure faith, it is impossible to prove. The Catholics seem like the true christians from a historical point of view.

To all the Christians that speak foolishly about the status of muslims and Jesus I would like to say read a history book.

[inkspot]

How can anyone claim to understand Islam or guess why it was created? Islam is similar to many religions in most respects. Most muslims do not seem to understand their own religion....To all the Christians that speak foolishly about the status of muslims and Jesus I would like to say read a history book.
Welcome to the discussion, Dr. Tumnus. Are you refuting Johan's assertion that Islam is more political than religious, or the idea that it could be a man-made religion as much as a spiritual revelation? I am surprised, if you are an evangelical Christian, that you believe Islam has supernatural (or I should say heavenly) origins. When you ask how we can guess why Islam was created, I think we could guess from a Christian viewpoint that it was created by the evil one to lead people astray by co-opting Jesus to the role of minor prophet so that the lost cannot recognize Him as Savior. I think, as secularists, we could guess that Mohammed created the religion because he wanted to unite his region and save his neighbors from the idolatrous practices they had fallen into, such as infant sacrifice. Either could be valid reasons for the creation of a religion, if we were guessing.

But I think Johan's assertion was valid, and he is a pretty erudite young man whom I imagine has read a history book or two in his time. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in your post as regards Islam.

When Jesus is at court He is asked "Are you the son of God" Jesus replies "I am." I Am is a name used for God in the Old Testament and in that simple statement Jesus was saying that He was God.
I think Muslims believe that some of the New Testament Scripture has been corrupted, so I think they do not believe that Jesus claimed to be God. I think in the Koran, they have a record of Jesus claiming not to be God. Although i could be wrong about that.

[Parthian King]

Greetings Dr. Tumnus! Great observation about the Turkish Delight. I might add that the medium through which the satanic voice speaks in That Hideous Strength is the disembodied "Head of the Saracene." I also agree with you that the Carlormen probably do not represent the Muslims directly (there are, after all, Muslims of all kinds, not just Arab Muslims), but perhaps impressionistically in Lewis' mind the cultures and peoples who later became Muslim in our world. I guess I don't see the Hindu connection, and if we look at pre-Mohammedan Arabs it becomes unnecessary since they did worship such gods.

Beyond this, I'm with Inkspot. There are, believe it or not, Evangelical Christians who knew what was up in Christendom 500 years back, and draw their heritage fom it, and there are a good many Muslims who don't know what was up with their forefathers that far back. And we ought to be carefull really, about throwing about statements like "foolish," and "read some history books," when one's own post includes admissions of ignorance. Sometimes people have read books (perhaps even more than we), and decide on a point of view very different from our own. Does that make them foolish?

[Dr Tumnus]

I am surprised, if you are an evangelical Christian, that you believe Islam has supernatural (or I should say heavenly) origins. When you ask how we can guess why Islam was created, I think we could guess from a Christian viewpoint that it was created by the evil one to lead people astray by co-opting Jesus to the role of minor prophet so that the lost cannot recognize Him as Savior.

I never said Islam has supernatural origins. CSL describes the Calormene religion as obviously evil. In reality Islam is not obviously evil. To argue this is insane.

I quoted Johan because his assesment in that quote is not logical. As an Evangelical Christian I believe that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. I also believe that other religions are followed as Christianity is followed. As we judge their religion they judge ours. Whether or not their religions were created by a demon or some lunatic is not relevant; discussing this is absurd.

There are, believe it or not, Evangelical Christians who knew what was up in Christendom 500 years back, and draw their heritage fom it, and there are a good many Muslims who don't know what was up with their forefathers that far back.

First of all a quick study of the history of Islam would prove that the god of pagan Arabs is not the same as Allah. Just look at the writings of Rabbi Moshe bin Maimon on Islamic monotheism. Second, the statement I quoted from Parthian King is disconnected from my assertion. Knowing the history of Christianity and providing evidence of the existence of an Evangelical Christian community 500 years ago are two separate things. Adolf Hitler drew his heritage out of his you know where but it did not make it valid.

The Calormenes could definitely include the Muslims but Calormenes does not equal Muslims. Pointing out the problems in other peoples' religions is not fruitful. Islam is a pretty sturdy religion. The Twelver Shia school of thought is extremely balanced, even though it is difficult to see beyond the political situation in Iran and Western biases. They do not believe in a four-armed god with a vulture's head called Tash.

[Johan 72109]

Hello Dr Tumnus! :)

I can see that I haven't exactly painted an entirely favourable picture of myself to you have I... :o My apologies - I am renowned for putting across a point badly...
I think you have slightly misunderstood me in some places. You appear to think that I believe Islam to be evil, that Calormenes do not refer to Muslims (I'm not sure whether you think that I believe this idea - I may have misunderstood), and that it is fruitless to discuss the origin of religions.
You'll be surprised to hear that I agree with you on every one of these points.

Never have I stated that Islam is evil - in fact my post was in reply to others that had come across as implying that it is (no doubt unintentionally). If you look among other threads referring to Islam, you will discover that I frequently am in disagreement with certain members - those who sometimes can come across as a little hostile towards it.
Upon the scrutinising of the origins of Islam, I would point out that I was not endeavoring to pick holes in it. My comment was in response to posts suggesting that the religion had in fact been started by a fallen angel. My proposal is perhaps not that unfounded on facts. There are three major possibilities as to the origin of Islam, so far as I can see - there may be more. As I've said before, my opinions are proved wrong with depressing regularity :o
Islam could have been started as per the Muslim view - the inspired word of God, given to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. I didn't state this as, firstly, it would insult people's intelligence - it's obviously a possible (and highly valid) cause. Secondly, I figured I'd probably get something wrong, as usual, so it seemed best for a muslim to state it. And finally, as at the time there weren't any muslims involved in the thread to my knowledge, I assumed the comments were referring to christian attitudes towards Islam.
Islam could have been started by a fallen angel giving Mohammed a false religion - I was arguing against this, as it seemed possibly offensive, and didn't seem to fit in with the christian opinions of the sources of other religions.
Or it could have been started for political or social reasons like most other ideologies. This was not intended to be offensive. I obviously do not subscribe to the belief that Islam is inspired by God, as I am a christian. Thinking it to have been created for social or political reasons does not imply that it is evil - for the arab people, Islam was the best thing that could have happened. It strengthened them with a common belief, enabling them to forge the Ottoman empire, which in its day was incredibly powerful, and (for the time) benevolent. My sources for this opinion come from a mixture of history concerning the rise of the Ottoman Empire, and from ex-muslims who, despite no longer believing, still fervently love the culture and history of Islam, and have studied it in detail.

I agree, discussing origins of religions is not helpful - the above is merely to explain my position to you, and explain why I may have come across as offensive, when I did not intend to. Previously, I was responding to others in a discussion concerning christian attitudes towards the origins of Islam.

And your point about Calormenes not being Muslims - there we are in complete agreement, as you will no doubt see if you look through other threads about this.

Anyway... again, apologies if I seemed offensive and ignorant - you misunderstood me over my opinions (though, I am indeed ignorant in an awful lot of matters... :p )

[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! :p 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.

[adibmuhammad88]

Hullo there.

I personally think that each religion has its own God, and each God are as different and unique from one another. So, I don't see why Waterhogboy would think that Allah is actually the Christian God.

Secondly, Muhammad was given the knowledge of the Quran from Allah through an angel. This angel, called Jibrail (or Gabriel, in the Bible) has been given the task to ensure that the knowledge descended from the Heavens will be taught to as many people on the face of this Earth as Muhammad could taught. Clearly, one can see that an angel and a fallen angel (satan) are two different beings. It is mentioned in the Quran that these two types of creatures originally worshiped Allah. However, when Allah commanded both angels and Satan(s) to give respect to Adam as God's most perfect creation (as in human beings), Satan refuses. In return, Satan promises to ensure that human beings would always be forgetful of their own God(s) and lure them to the gates of Hell, where those who are on Satan's side, would be the burning fuel of Hell.

Plus, any people of a certain faith would think that their religion is the True One. Why should Christians be any different? What makes it so sure that Christianity, Islam, or any other religion in the world, is the True One?

Unleavened, you mentioned that Allah might be actually Satan Himself. To clarify on this matter, Allah is the one Who creates Satan. He can't be a thing he created, just as we can't be Him who created us. Which brings to this: If Jesus Christ is the Son of God, why do Christians worship Him? Why don't God Himself, the "Father" of Jesus Christ, be worshipped?

On the matter of Calormene, one must bear in mind that they doesn't represent Muslims as a whole. True, some Muslims believes in Paganism, and act really nasty and evil. But isn't that just what a human being is? There are many kinds of human beings living in this world, so I don't find it surprising that people of any religion acting in such, unaccepted ways. I much agree with the thought that Calormene actually represents the ancient Arabian Knights of a more romantic era, than the Muslims Arabs of the now.

I seriously don't want to offend other faiths and religions any more than you do, but if you could debate on the matter of Allah being non-existent, I believe I have the same right, as well.

[narnia4eva]

don't bother trying to figure it all out that takes away the fun of reading the books! EXCEPT

I am the prisoner of the WHITE WITCH
I'm in her tower, she is only letting me use my computer once a day
HELP ME ASLAN

--long live narnia long live PRINCESS PETAL the true princess of narnia--

[adibmuhammad88]

I not asking you guys to figure it all out, you know. It's just I felt that there are representations of any religions in Narnia, eventhough C.S. Lewis had written from a Christian point of view. I had no problems with that, I assure you, for most of the time, I kept coming across symbolism of Islam in it, as well. (You do know that Christianity and Islam have a lot in common?)

I just wanted to make a point in that there's no reason to go on discussing about Gods of other religion when we ourselves aren't sure (100% sure) that our own religion is the True One.

So, enjoy reading the Chronicles while I try to get hold of the Space Trilogy...

Adib.

[narnia4eva]

want to be friends

[adibmuhammad88]

I am. In fact, everyone in this forum is. Seriously.

Adib.

[narnia4eva]

JEEZ just be honest! your so mean...ablib madlib I totally forget your name

[DunadainofArrakis]

I'm trying to decide which book out of Space Trilogy and Till We Have Faces to read, cause I'll probably only have time to read one of these during my winter break off from school. Which book should I read?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Tough call. Faces is the more powerful book (nothing against the others), but it's also more subtle, and you're less likely to get something out of it the first (or second) time. If you've not read the Trilogy, I'd recommend that. You may get as far as Perelandra, which would be well worth it. It's hard to go wrong, since for years Perelandra was Lewis' favorite, until he wrote Faces. You'll love them!

[onlymystory]

Not to underride POTW, but I would vote for Till We Have Faces. Its my favorite out of all of Lewis's books.

[Rhyanidd]

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?
I guess they might be, though I never really thought about it, hmmm seems like Lewis might be a little racist.....but maybe not......i dun know

[Rhyanidd]

Tough call. Faces is the more powerful book (nothing against the others), but it's also more subtle, and you're less likely to get something out of it the first (or second) time. If you've not read the Trilogy, I'd recommend that. You may get as far as Perelandra, which would be well worth it. It's hard to go wrong, since for years Perelandra was Lewis' favorite, until he wrote Faces. You'll love them!
I have read Perelandra and Faces and I find that Perelandra is boring up till the end, Faces is really good howeverI am still confused on his message, also right now I have gone back and am reading Out of the Silent Planet which is the first book in the space triology (I read Perelandra for a book group) and I think it too is boring at the begining though not quite as boring as Perelandra but they are all awesome I do like them all...just they tend to be boring at first I would do TILL WE HAVE FACES first!

[inkspot]

I don't find any of the Space Trilogy boring -- That Hideous Strength starts out with sort of mundane stuff but pretty quickly becomes engrossing.

[TolkienGoddess]

I just finished HHB a few days ago, and I was thinking the exact same thing about the Calormenes being Muslim. Not so much "Muslim", but just different from MN and LWW. Everything up until HHB seemed very British. Then when HHB starts they talk of turbans and deserts, and the pictures show harem like scenes and very Middle Eastern looking. I wondered why Lewis had switched things up so much. Was there anything historical going on at the time of its publishing that would have him focus on the Middle East?? :confused:

[inkspot]

The Middle East had been much entwined with Great Britain -- remember Lawrence of Arabia? I think that Lewis felt the Middle East with its exotic customs and beautiful people would add a touch of "Arabian Knights" type mystery to the stories, and I think he was right. Also in HHB, Calormen proved an excellent backdrop to show how far-removed Shasta was from his rightful heritage. If you are a follower of Christ, this can show how far-removed from our rightful place with God when we are living in a sinful state ...

[polly&digory]

I have heard that before. I think that he couldn't just come up with a race of people without adding similarities of existing cultures. So you can debate which culture it mirrors but i think it wont be found. These books are small and don't seem deep but there are things that are hidden that we wont know about. Only CSL knows!

[Jood]

Polly and Digory, do you represent a sister and brother? or two friends? or do you just like the names.... or is it none of the above?? :confused:

[lionessofgod]

I think that he/she just likes the adventure that they shared together and the thought of their friendship, that's probably why that's their name. ;)

[onlymystory]

she likes the story and it was one of the best combinations of narnia names without having to toss in numbers.

[polly&digory]

Um well since Polly and Digory where the main characters of the magicians nephew, thats why i chose it. Not too deep for you i hope.

[Starkindler]

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?The Calormenes are polytheistic, so they can't be Muslims. Tash is not the only Calormen god (like Allah), just their primary god (like Zeus, Ra, et.al.). More likely they were modeled after pre-Muslim Middle Eastern cultures. As for Tash, Christianity says that false gods are really demons, so that would make Tash a demon, and hence in opposition to Aslan.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Opposite in intent, perhaps, as Aslan makes clear in His talk with Emeth in Battle, bu t not opposite in nature or power. If Tash is a demon, and I think you're right on that, he would be a created being, albeit one in rebellion. Aslan is uncreated and all-powerful, and as such no other being can be compared with Him.

[slideyfoot]

It seems to me the answer is much simpler, and has already been mentioned earlier in this thread.

To repeat what I said in elsewhere on the forum, I think The Horse and His Boy is quite clearly modelled upon One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, a Persian collection (the source isn't completely clear; the 'Thousand Stories' or Hazâr Afsâna, has been suggested as one possibility. However, what is certain is that they are Persian, perhaps including elements of Indian and Arabic story telling as well. Its original title is The Book of One Thousand and One Nights, Kitāb 'Alf Layla wa-Layla in Arabic, Hazâr-o Yak Šab in Persian).

Not only the setting, but also the style of The Horse and His Boy is remniscent of the Persian precursor. For example, this little snippet could have come straight out of one of the tales:

Sometimes if Arheesh was there Shasta would say, "O my Father, what is there beyond that hill?" And then if the fisherman was in a bad temper he would box Shasta's ears and tell him to attend to his work. Or if he was in a peacable mood he would say, "O my son, do not allow your mind to be distracted by idle questions. For one of the poets has said, 'Application to business is the root of prosperity, but those who ask questions that do not concern them are steering the ship of folly towards the rock of indigence'."

The fisherman theme recurs throughout the original tales, but of course those are not what Lewis would have been familiar with. More likely he would remember translations and selections from his youth (remember he was born 1898, living in a house lined with books), such as various that are available on Project Gutenberg - that of Andrew Lang (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/128) (1844-1912), John Payne (http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/p#a1745) (1850-1894) and perhaps the best known, Sir Richard F. Burton (http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/b#a898) (1821-1890). Aside from Project Gutenberg, this (http://www.wollamshram.ca/1001/index.htm) is another good site containing translations of the tales, and for further info there is always Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_One_Thousand_and_One_Nights).

To take an example of a man in Arheesh's occupation, there is the famous story of the Fisherman and the Genie, which starts like this (in Payne's translation):

There was once a poor fisherman, who was getting on in years and had a wife and three children; and it was his custom every day to cast his net four times and no more. One day he went out at the hour of noon and repaired to the sea-shore, where he set down his basket and tucked up his skirts and plunging into the sea, cast his net and waited till it had settled down in the water. Then he gathered the cords in his hand and found it heavy and pulled at it, but could not bring it up. So he carried the end of the cords ashore and drove in a stake, to which he made them fast. Then he stripped and diving round the net, tugged at it till he brought it ashore. Whereat he rejoiced and landing, put on his clothes; but when he came to examine the net, he found in it a dead ass; and the net was torn. When he saw this, he was vexed and said: 'There is no power and no virtue save in God the Most High, the Supreme! This is indeed strange luck!' And he repeated the following verses...

The "O, my son" business is another indicator; to take another section from Payne:

..."O my son, I mean to give one to thy brother Zoulmekan and the other to thy sister Nuzhet ez Zeman." When Sherkan heard that he had a brother (for up to that time he had only known of his sister) he turned to his father and said to him, "O King, hast thou a son other than myself?" "Yes," answered Omar, "and he is now six years old." And he told him that his name was Zoulmekan and that he and Nuzhet ez Zeman were twins, born at a birth. This news was grievous to Sherkan, but he hid his chagrin...

..."O captain, I see nothing to right and left save sky and water, but ahead I see something looming afar off in the midst of the sea, now black and now white." When the captain heard the look-out's words, he cast his turban on the deck and plucked out his beard and buffeted his face and said, "O King, we are all dead men, not one of us can be saved." We all wept for his weeping and I said to him, "O captain, tell us what it is the look-out saw." "O my lord," answered he, "know that we lost our way on the night of the storm and since then we have gone astray one-and-twenty days and there is no wind to bring us back to our true course...

Then there is the depiction of the people. You'll see plenty of turbans:

Then he set his turban on top of the cane and tied a girdle round the middle of the effigy and planted it in the place where he used to say his prayers...The Khalif was pleased and said, 'O Kerim, put off thy clothes.' So he put off a gown of coarse woollen stuff, patched in a hundred places and full of disgusting vermin, and a turban that had not been unwound for three years, but to which he had sewn every rag he came across...

Along with scenes like this:

So he turned back and mounted and drew his scimitar; then he gave his horse the spur and he started off with him, like an arrow from a bow, whilst he brandished his naked blade and cried out, "God is Most Great!"

You'll also find plenty of Viziers:

...the elder king yearned after his brother and commanded his Vizier to repair to the latter's court and bring him to his own capital. The Vizier replied, "I hear and obey," and set out at once and journeyed till he reached King Shahzeman's court in safety...

One thing you won't find is polytheism. From what I've read, the Thousand and One Nights, under all its various names, remains an Islamic text. There is mention of a 'devil', but it appears to be in a similar context to the Christian - I haven't found any demons, but then I'm doing a basic search in Word. ;)

Furthermore, at the time Lewis was born, 'orientalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism#History_of_Orientalism)' would still have been a major influence on how people like Lewis might have thought of the mysterious 'East'. For example, this is the kind of thing painter Rudolf Ernst (1854-1932) was producing:

http://tinypic.com/kdu24i.jpg


So, to conclude that mountain of quotes, my opinion is that the Calormenes are simply Lewis' version of the 'other', to provide Narnia with an antagonistic force. If your main characters are white-skinned, rather European-looking individuals, then the obvious counterpoint (for someone who hadn't travelled much and had memories of orientalism flitting about his head) is found in the exotic East. I don't think he intended them to be equated with Muslims, at least not in any direct sense. For me, The Horse and His Boy is basically The One Thousand and One Nights lands in Narnia, trailing stylistic fragments from its source.

Of course, it would be an incredibly bad idea to put the Calormenes into a film as they are in the books - todays climate is very different to the 1950s, and I can't see how dark, bearded men wearing turbans, living in a desert, wielding scimitars and worshipping a different god could not cause offence, no matter how innocent Lewis' original intentions may or may not have been. The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths - I can't think of a worse time to bring up that kind of theme in a cinematic format (Kingdom of Heaven had to be very, very careful).

[idji]

I lived in Turkey for 2 years.
'aslan' is simply the Turkish word for lion.
http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/dict.php3?lang=1&word=lion&direction=1
I have read "The magician's nephew"="Büyücünün Yeğeni" in Turkish. Aslan is called "Liyon" in the Turkish version.
"Tash" is simply the Turkish word for "stone".
http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/dict.php3?lang=1&word=stone&direction=1
So Jack is simply saying that Tash is a false god.
"Turkish delight" is the obvious first reference to the Turks.

'narnia' is not a Turkish word, for those who are wondering and there is no place with that name there.

[slideyfoot]

I am Turkish, and I would argue that the Calormenes are based on Persians by way of the book mentioned above, rather than Ottoman Turks, as discussed in another thread (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2973).

Two Turkish words and some lokum does not convince me, though it is of course a possibility. Having said that, I'd be interested to know if Lewis really was aware of the phonetic similarity between taş and Tash, or if that is merely a coincidence (not to mention he could probably have been rather more specific than 'stone'). From the brief bit of biographical reading I've done, I haven't seen much evidence that Lewis had knowledge of Turkish (indeed, he didn't even travel until much later in life, and then only on a typical British holiday, IIRC), but perhaps he had more than I realised.

[Saruman]

Of course, it would be an incredibly bad idea to put the Calormenes into a film as they are in the books - todays climate is very different to the 1950s, and I can't see how dark, bearded men wearing turbans, living in a desert, wielding scimitars and worshipping a different god could not cause offence, no matter how innocent Lewis' original intentions may or may not have been. The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths - I can't think of a worse time to bring up that kind of theme in a cinematic format (Kingdom of Heaven had to be very, very careful).

I'm about to go on a slight tangent, so bear with me.

I think it would be an incredibly wonderful idea to make a film that presents the Calormenes exactly as C. S. Lewis intended them to be. However, to say that it would not be a good idea because it might "offend" very deeply grieves me, for it somehow conveys to me the thought that C. S. Lewis' ideas, thoughts and views should be filtered simply to evade the offense of another person whose beliefs do not fall in line with his, or who might feel slurred or spurned because of them. Such notions, I must concede, are the outcome of the adoption of liberal ideologies and thinking in societies today and they show a dangerous constriction of freedoms that are naturally every man's to hold and to enjoy.

Would it be better to show the Calormenes as white men wearing the traditional garb and speaking the traditional tongue of Vikings? Perhaps that may help to avoid the offense of others, though it now offends another group of people who never viewed or pictured the Calormenes as Vikings, because the author intended them to see a different picture coupled with different views and thoughts.

I do apologize if I may sound so harsh, but truly, I find the whole notion you present above to be a little pathetic. If one is going to make a film about C. S. Lewis' books, then he very well ought to stay on track with the original book, else he has created a new story of his own just to suit the every whim and want of every society.

As a side note, I think Andrew Adamson did a very excellent job in bringing LWW to the big screen, even if it was slightly "toned down." He nevertheless stuck to the book and to the clear message it presents. Oh goodness, that has offended many, many people! Why are we watching such things that others don't want to watch? Heaven and earth, have we in this "modern" day and age become so shallow? If Adamson is going to continue with the Chronicles, I think he should present the Calormenes exactly as Lewis created and intended them to be.

The allegorical implications of The Last Battle don't help much either, as that could very easily be interpreted as a conflict between two faiths

So this should automatically prevent film-makers from creating a film as its author very well may have intended? If it offends, it offends. Those who do not like it just don't have to watch it, but that shouldn't suddenly deny others the right to see, think and believe in like manner.

Enough said on that. My tangent is over. :)

[slideyfoot]

Very much the point which Parthian King made over in the 'father christmas' thread.

I do apologize if I may sound so harsh, but truly, I find the whole notion you present above to be a little pathetic. If one is going to make a film about C. S. Lewis' books, then he very well ought to stay on track with the original book, else he has created a new story of his own just to suit the every whim and want of every society.

No need to apologize, though its always refreshing to find a forum where disagreements can be made politely. :)

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it. I wouldn't call the desire to avoid insulting a large percentage of the world's population a 'whim', but a rather sensible perspective for a film studio to hold, particularly if they want to turn a profit. As the Narnia films are very clearly 'blockbusters', in the sense that a major studio is releasing them with serious money behind it, I doubt we'll see a direct adaptation of The Last Battle in the cinema. The Passion of the Christ managed it because a wealthy Christian fundamentalist stumped up a significant amount of cash himself; the film was successful, but certainly angered a lot of people, in particular the Jewish community. An accurate adaptation of The Last Battle would be equally if not more offensive to the Islamic community as The Passion of the Christ was to the Jewish.

Its not impossible that Disney would risk widespread outrage - after all, The Passion of the Christ made money - but I think its unlikely. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what choices a studio might make in adapting The Last Battle - I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't personally offend me either way, although I would be disappointed if a studio felt the Islamic audience was irrelevant. Like The Passion of the Christ, it would certainly produce a lot of free publicity.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it. I wouldn't call the desire to avoid insulting a large percentage of the world's population a 'whim', but a rather sensible perspective for a film studio to hold, particularly if they want to turn a profit.This presumes that the group in question chooses not to be insulted. Interestingly, some of the most vigorous critics of the Ottoman Empire were the Wahabi Muslims, so if the Calormenes are seen as "Ottoman-ish", I don't see why any devout Muslims should take offense - unless they wish to.The Passion of the Christ managed it because a wealthy Christian fundamentalist stumped up a significant amount of cash himselfslideyfoot, you've been soaking yourself too much in the Western media. Mel Gibson is a traditionalist Catholic, which is worlds from fundamentalism. Only shallow people like Western journalists who don't do their homework confuse the two. the film was successful, but certainly angered a lot of people, in particular the Jewish community. An accurate adaptation of The Last Battle would be equally if not more offensive to the Islamic community as The Passion of the Christ was to the Jewish.Again, you're being selective as to who you read. Just because a few loudmouth hotheads at the ADL issue press releases does not mean that "the Jewish community" was offended by Passion. Many orthodox Jewish sources hailed the message of the movie (see www.jewishworldreview.com) - which is, at the simplest level, about the injustice behind the crushing of a noble, devout man by a corrupt theocracy. Furthermore, the much-threatened anti-Semetic backlash never materialized.

Really, slidey - I expect better of you. A little serious research next time before you go throwing around terms you don't understand, perhaps?

[slideyfoot]

Interesting - going by the media I've read, The Passion of the Christ was seen by many as a piece of anti-semitism.

For example, it had trouble being shown in Israel, with only a small percentage of cinemas willing to take it on:

...An art house cinema in Israel will show The Passion of the Christ after commercial distributors in the Jewish state refused to handle it....Mel Gibson's blockbuster has been accused of being anti-Semitic.

Israeli distributors turned it down because of the controversy and concern they would not recoup their investment...

Others blamed it for anti-semitic violence:

...A report by a Jewish advocacy group has cited Mel Gibson's controversial The Passion of the Christ as the cause of a sharp rise in the number of anti-semitic attacks in Canada last year...

Further Jewish opinion:

...Last year, Gibson was accused by some quarters of producing an anti-Semitic aberration.

Vermes was one of the first people to see it in the UK. The professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University is best known for his work on the historical figure of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. His reaction to The Passion was unequivocal.

"I absolutely hated it, " he recalls. "It was gratuitously violent and gory, completely distorting the Gospel account. Without added words you can twist things simply by altering images. For instance, in the Gospels, they say that the Jewish priestly leaders were pretty tough on Jesus: that's one thing. To be showing them enjoying it is a different thing."

Or this syndicated story by Jeffrey Weiss (who appears to be attempting an objective approach):

...Before and after the movie's release, on Ash Wednesday, some expressed concern that it was anti-Semitic in how it portrayed the role of Jews in Jesus' Crucifixion. But no watchdog organization has reported any attacks on Jews or Jewish institutions as a result of the movie.

Jewish leaders, however, say they've heard from parents who claim their children were taunted as "Christ-killers" by schoolmates. A poll by the Pew Research Center indicated that Americans who'd seen the movie were twice as likely as those who had not to hold Jews responsible for Jesus' death.

And some foreign newspapers, particularly in the Arab world, used the release of "The Passion" as an excuse to attack Judaism and Israel.

No doubt you could produce some opinions to the contrary. Depends entirely which sources you count as most reliable. ;)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Indeed. The BBC? The Guardian? "Anti-semitic incidents" including a phone call and a statement by a televison preacher? Come now. Anti-semitism is a serious problem, but it's wellspring is not orthodox Christians, but rather secular nationalists like those in France and Germany. Kind of like the Hindus in the Indian subcontinent who are persecuting Christians in the name of ethnic purity - when some of those Christians have been there since before Europe was Christian.

[EveningStar]

With a certain amount of liberty (not anarchy, liberty) in the costuming department, development of a distinctive accent and culture, the perception of the Calormenes as Arab could certainly be downplayed.

Let's take a stroll over to Star Trek. If you watched the classic Trek, clearly the Klingons were Mongol warriors whose customs and methods were very like Genghis Khan...fight ruthlessly but keep your sense of honor.

In the later cinematic films the alien aspects of Klingons were emphasized. Brow ridges, odd uniforms, their own language with its distinctive gutteral sounds. They weren't oriental at all, but they were clearly Klingons.

My suggestion is that the book The Last Battle is like Kang fighting Captain Kirk, but the movie could easily be Be'Tor fighting Picard. I just hope the line "He's dead, Jim!" doesn't pop up. :rolleyes:

[slideyfoot]

You stated the Jewish community wasn't offended by the film. According to certain sources, a significant proportion would dispute that - the fact mainstream Israeli distributors refused to show the film would seem to strongly indicate this (if we take Israel to be at all representative of the Jewish community).

At least one UK academic of Jewish studies categorically states that he "absolutely hated it", because it was "gratuitously violent and gory, completely distorting the Gospel account", and in his opinion, showed Jews revelling in brutality towards Jesus Christ.

A third source cites the film as responsible for anti-semitic attacks, while another remarks on the film resulting in children suffering verbal abuse and further attacks on Judaism and Israel in various newspapers.

But like I said, I'm sure you have other sources you could show that present a contradictory opinion, or perhaps you doubt the veracity of the news source, of indeed the subjects of those stories?

The point is, films like The Passion of the Christ can cause serious offence to large communities, and according to certain news sources, both verbal and physical assault. It seems to me that a comparable situation would ensue if The Last Battle was released into the cinema if it did not receive similar modification as in Adamson's take on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe.

However, I'm not putting this perspective forward because I believe that films should be censored if they happen to offend people; plenty of films and books I enjoy are no doubt offensive to many groups. For example, a lot of Christians took offence at His Dark Materials, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was some angry Christian reaction when the films get released (considering something as innocuous as Harry Potter caused a hostile reaction in some quarters). After all, there is already the precedent of complaints from the clergy when the stage play came out.

The problem with the presentation of what could be interpreted as Muslims, or by extension Arabs, Persians and indeed Turks, in The Last Battle is that this is not merely a religious grouping, but racial. Religion can be criticised on the basis that it is ultimately a choice made by the individual; for example, you could query attitudes to contraception in certain denominations of Christianity, or attitudes to women in Islam; there are arguments on both sides that could be made, but the acceptance of religious ideology is ultimately a choice. While you can choose your religion, you cannot choose your race. You can criticise someone for deciding that they should follow the tenets of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or a political body like the Labour Party, the Conservatives, Republicans etc, but you can't sensibly criticise someone for have dark skin or almond-shaped eyes. They have no choice in the matter.



As I've said this many times now, what I'm mainly interested in is how a major studio would bring what I see as an unpalatable text to the big screen. Would they modify (for example, in the manner Chakal suggests) so as not to cause offence? Would they simply follow the source with no regard to the consequences? There are numerous possibilities; I'm intrigued as to which will be chosen.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I guess the thing that keeps mystifying me is why slideyfoot is worried about anybody offending anyone. As a self-professed materialist atheist, the only moral code he acknowledges is that nobody should do anybody else "harm" (though he's unclear on why even that should matter). That a person or group is offended has nothing to do with their being harmed. Heck, I can sit in a room all alone and work myself into a state of high dudgeon over slights real or imagined, but that doesn't mean I've been harmed.

In essense, slideyfoot is saying that Walden should not make something like Horse and His Boy or Last Battle as written, lest it offend a group of people. But any time you say "should" or "shouldn't", you're appealing to a moral code. Even based on his moral code (and he offers no reason why anyone should do that), "offense" falls far short of "harm". Besides, why should Mel Gibson, Walden Media, C.S. Lewis, or anyone else care about what slidey or anyone else thinks? And it's no good saying something like, "Gibson should care in order to be consistent with his own beliefs", since then you have to explain why consistency is something that should apply to all men.

Without a moral code to which to appeal, all this is just expression of personal preference - and nobody can say anyone else's personal preference is "better" than another's.

[EveningStar]

Prince of the West, behave yourself young man... :D

Even the most materialistic of people prefers not to have a plane crashed into their skyscraper during business hours. At least that's how I read Slidey's letter. Offended as in "Death to the Crusaders of decadance."

Or am I mistaken?

[slideyfoot]

Prince, as you keep bringing up this point about morality (although to be fair, I keep taking the bait ;) ), have you read anything by Alonzo Fyfe (http://www.infidelguy.com/members/AlonzoFyfe/index.shtml)? Not that I particularly agree or disagree with what he says (I haven't read enough to make a judgement), but his arguments about morality from an atheist perspective might interest you.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I will take a look at them, though I have done research into the grounds for morality from an atheist perspective, particularly the arguments of Bertrand Russell and John Stuart Mill, whose viewpoints neatly cover and summarize pretty much all the bases. However, the issue is not JSM or BR or this guy's theoretical basis for atheistic morality, but slideyfoot's.

With respect, with your posts about potentially "offensive" film projects, you are the one who keeps bringing up morality. What I am trying to do is get you to provide some basis whereby you can justify saying that anyone else should or should not do anything at all. The best you've been able to do to this point is state a personal opposition to harming anyone. You have not been able to establish why anyone else should share your views on that or any other topic. Yet when you imply, for instance, that it is somehow wrong, or at least discourteous, to criticize people on the basis of their race (four posts back) - well, that is an appeal to a moral standard.

So I guess what I'm trying to do is get a consistent answer. On one hand you imply that your basis for morality is a personal choice inapplicable to anyone else - like a taste for scotch or opera. But the tenor of your posts imply that you understand that there's a standard out there that other people - and particularly the religious ones, it seems - fall short of. Which is it?

[Midnight Rider]

Their weaponry and clothes too.

I think that by writing about one Calormene's entrance into the new Narnia, Lewis might be advocating that even Muslims (those who are good and love their God) can gain entrance to Heaven.
Incorrect. I think Jack[don't tell anyone i'm calling Lewis that!:)] did NOT mean it like that.

[inkspot]

Incorrect. I think Jack[don't tell anyone i'm calling Lewis that!:)] did NOT mean it like that.
I call him Jack alla time -- he likes it. Welcome to the discussion, Tootsila!

Why do you think the example of Emeth does not imply that goood people who sincerely serve the wrong god might in heaven get the opportunity to choose Jesus, or to realize it was Jesus they would have served, had they known Him.

Slidey and PoTW -- did I miss something? Has Slidey defined his moral code as "do no harm"? I was not aware of that ... But I've been offline for several days. If that is indeed the case, I am with PoTW and curious as to how we define harm and on what basis we are to know that causing harm is wrong? Lewis says curing a cancerous tumor may save a man's life, but it certainly means death for the cancer ... in some cases harm may be unavoidable in pursuit of the greater good?

[slideyfoot]

Slidey and PoTW -- did I miss something? Has Slidey defined his moral code as "do no harm"? I was not aware of that ..

Neither was I. ;)

I've mentioned it as a very simplistic premise with a whole bunch of caveats, the main one being that I fully understand 'harm' is an extremely tricky concept to define in this context, and earlier provided examples.

You have not been able to establish why anyone else should share your views on that or any other topic.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to share my views; as I mentioned, I doubt very much anyone's opinion on as personal a topic as your 'moral code' has ever been changed by what they read on an internet forum. I'd be rather worried if it had. :)

But the tenor of your posts imply that you understand that there's a standard out there that other people - and particularly the religious ones, it seems - fall short of. Which is it?

Not an implication I want to make, so I apologise if thats how my posts read. Of course, as an atheist, there are various aspects of religious doctrine I dislike, but thats a different issue.

To reiterate what I've been saying about 'offence'; at no point have I meant to state that The Last Battle should not be adapted to film. I am simply pointing out that I personally feel it would be difficult to do so without causing offence - thats not quite the same as saying it shouldn't be adapted because it would cause offence. Chakal's suggestion (using an apt Star Trek analogy) that they could simply modify the Calormenes so as to remove any overt relation to Arabs, Persians, Turks, or in a broader sense, Muslims, would seem to be a sensible one.

[unleavened]

Why do you think the example of Emeth does not imply that goood people who sincerely serve the wrong god might in heaven get the opportunity to choose Jesus, or to realize it was Jesus they would have served, had they known Him.
I think you are right. Lewis did imply that they would have the opportunity to choose (providing they had not refused the truth on earth). However, I don't think as sf was saying that if you faithfully serve whatever god on earth you can automaticly be let into heaven. There still has to be that choice. I believe, in order for this senario to be possible, the person would have to abandon any other religion they held on earth. And as I said if they'd refused the truth before they either wouldn't accept the second time or they might not even have that chance.

[inkspot]

That's true, UL. But it brings us to the weird question: do we choose Jesus at all, or has He already chosen us before the world began? Some Scriptures imply that we who are believers were already chosen to be so and could not refuse the call. That being the case, perhaps those of other faiths who recognize Christ in the afterlife will be similarly unable to refuse Him?

or is this just the same way of saying what you already said: those who would never surrender their false faith on earth will be unable to do so even when faced with the truth in the afterlife?

I'm so confused ...

[Saruman]

Once a man dies, inkspot, he can no longer make a choice that will suddenly change the course of his future. God has given us this time, the here and now, to make our decisions. If we choose to refuse the call of Christ, after we have heard the truth of the Gospel, there remains no excuse for sin. When we die, our choices will already be set in motion. You can't suddenly choose Christ in the "afterlife."

As for those who, perhaps as in Emeth's case, never heard of the Gospel before, I know that our God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I believe He has a way to reach them with the message, whether through missionaries or even through the testimony of angels. But I know He is a just and merciful God...we will know with certainty when the time comes.

[Saruman]

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it. I wouldn't call the desire to avoid insulting a large percentage of the world's population a 'whim', but a rather sensible perspective for a film studio to hold, particularly if they want to turn a profit. As the Narnia films are very clearly 'blockbusters', in the sense that a major studio is releasing them with serious money behind it, I doubt we'll see a direct adaptation of The Last Battle in the cinema. The Passion of the Christ managed it because a wealthy Christian fundamentalist stumped up a significant amount of cash himself; the film was successful, but certainly angered a lot of people, in particular the Jewish community. An accurate adaptation of The Last Battle would be equally if not more offensive to the Islamic community as The Passion of the Christ was to the Jewish.

I think PotW addresses your thoughts very well. While perhaps the majority of Jewish communities were not offended, as PotW points out, there were those who did voice their vehemence against The Passion because somehow they believed this was painting a portrait of them in a negative light: they were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. To address their unfounded arguments that the movie was anti-Semitic, I will quote their forefathers who stood outside of Pontius Pilate's embassy:

When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: you see to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. (Mt. 27:24-25)

This was not a movie about anti-Semitism. The Jews made a choice to kill Jesus. If anything, they're calling their forefathers "anti-Semitic."

Also, I'm not saying it's the Jew's fault that Jesus died, because I realize that it is the fault of every living human being, past, present and future. Because of our sin, we put Him to death on the cross.

As far as the idea that Muslims will be offended, I've learned an old proverb: You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. It's not necessarily Lewis intent to bash Muslims, when all he does is paint a portrait of the ancient Persians/Ottomans. After all, they were a bloody people, just as much as the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, the Babylonians, the Syrians, the Greeks, the Romans, and a host of others, were.

Its not impossible that Disney would risk widespread outrage - after all, The Passion of the Christ made money - but I think its unlikely. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what choices a studio might make in adapting The Last Battle - I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't personally offend me either way, although I would be disappointed if a studio felt the Islamic audience was irrelevant. Like The Passion of the Christ, it would certainly produce a lot of free publicity.

When it comes to The Passion, I know the truth of the history is going to offend many. But when it comes to The Last Battle, if there are people who are so shallow as to take personal offense, then it's quite a shame. But it would be an outrage to allow for a liberal film adaptation of Lewis' work: perhaps the Calormenes should be men dressed in pink tutus? That certainly wouldn't offend the said audience you mention.

I am rather struck, though, by your self-contradiction, for you write:

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it.

But, almost in the same breath, you write:

I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't personally offend me either way

What choice will you make? You can't be one and the other.

[inkspot]

Once a man dies, inkspot, he can no longer make a choice that will suddenly change the course of his future. God has given us this time, the here and now, to make our decisions.
I believe that, of course, but I was curious why Tootsila, who posted on the previous page, was saying that Emeth's coming to Aslan already in the New Narnia didn't imply that a man might come to Christ after death ...

[Nur]

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?

I don't know if any one informed u about Allah, but I will tell u: Allah is one of the names of God....

[inkspot]

Allah is the name of the Muslim God, right? But Christians or Jews would never call their God Allah, as I understand it ...

[Nur]

Hullo there.

I personally think that each religion has its own God, and each God are as different and unique from one another. So, I don't see why Waterhogboy would think that Allah is actually the Christian God.
...
hi...may be its an old topic but I agree with u about what u have written except ur ideas which is written above...I mean in fact all religions has the same God, and God is one...But by the time passes some peple changed some rules of God and that made differences between some beliefs.The other eason of some differences is the people who lived in the time the prophets lived.For example Muslims or Christians don't have the 10order(I am not sure if in English it's told like that-I know it's Turkish-, if it is wrong sorry...)while the Jewishs have...But the basic rules r nealy the same in all religions...
have a good day...

[Spare Oom]

[Inkspot:] "Allah is the name of the Muslim God, right? But Christians or Jews would never call their God Allah, as I understand it ..."

Christian Arabs do call God "Allah," because it's the Arabic word for God. It is used in Arabic Bibles. The Aramaic word, "Elaw," is very similar. Look under "Christianity and Narnia" at the thread on "Islam." Post number 78 by Samven582 contains detailed information on the word "Allah," written by a Christian Arab.

[inkspot]

hi...may be its an old topic but I agree with u about what u have written except ur ideas which is written above...I mean in fact all religions has the same God, and God is one...But by the time passes some peple changed some rules of God and that made differences between some beliefs.
I don't think this is so. All religions don't have the same God ... as I understand Islam, the idea of a God crucified and dead on the cross is abhorrent to them, so obviously they cannot worship the same God as Christians, as we believe Christ did indeed die on the cross. And Hindus, I think, believe God is a sort of higher consciousness or super-soul who will receive our little souls into itself (like a drop of water into the ocean) and so this is very different again from the Islamic or Christian Gods. Perhaps I misunderstood what you said?

[Malacandra]

I am rather struck, though, by your self-contradiction, for you write:

If a major studio can adapt The Last Battle without delivering an enormous affront to Islamic groups, then I'd love to see it.

But, almost in the same breath, you write:
I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't personally offend me either way

What choice will you make? You can't be one and the other.

It's not self-contradictory at all, Curumo. Though slideyfoot would not personally be offended by a version of the film that did affront Islamic groups, he himself would prefer to see it made only if it didn't. I take his point to be that one should not offend Muslims; whether through good manners or pragmatism is beside the point. I'm inclined to agree. Mind you, I don't believe that Calormenes are Muslims at all, or at any rate no more Muslim than, say, Aladdin's wicked uncle.

[Saruman]

In which case it would become much of a contradiction, since he declares it wouldn't offend him either way but then again he wouldn't want to see the film made exactly as the book was written, apparently because it then would be offensive. It is clear it concerns him and he cares about it a great deal, otherwise I do not believe he would have even bothered creating a large, long post about it. I don't know, this just appears to be a non sequitur in my opinion.

I am glad you do not believe the Calormenes are representative of Muslims. I agree. Then I think it would be most appropriate to present them exactly as the author originally intended.

[Malacandra]

I don't see the problem here, Curumo. I can declare that something doesn't offend me but know very well that it will be offensive to others, and prefer that it not be done in order not to offend them, surely?

You and I know that Calormenes are not Muslims, and can advance reasoned arguments to that effect, but wouldn't it be naive to hope that everyone else will see reason or even listen to the arguments? I would very much like to see LB filmed, and I hope it will be, of course. I particularly like Emeth's declaration that it would be worth dying a thousand deaths to look even once upon the face of Tash (whom he conceives, of course, as being holy and utterly admirable, not the horrid demon he is in reality). I can well see why Aslan claimed Emeth as one of his own.

[kralicek]

Maybe Calormenes are people that believe in power, and that is why the God they worship exists. They don't believe in faith, which is invisible. It just doesn't take a spiritual person to state that a certain religion is bad. I think there are innocent and good people in every religion. The ones that escaped to Narnia did not want to deal with the material world which depends on politics, and were hoping for something better, more iternal.

[umbrellaxscenexcore]

Calormenes r not muslims...I'm muslim got questions don't hesitate just pm me... calormenes r Hindus(Hinduisme)

[inkspot]

Calormenes r not muslims...I'm muslim got questions don't hesitate just pm me... calormenes r Hindus(Hinduisme)
What on earth gives you the impression Calormenes are Hindus? This is something I have not heard before.