Mick Hartley

MEMRI (via Allah Is In The House) looks at reactions in the Arab world to Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”.

There are some thorny doctrinal problems to be addressed at the start:

From an Islamic point of view, the film presents two fundamental problems: First, it depicts the crucifixion and death of Jesus. However, according to Islam, Jesus was neither murdered nor crucified but taken up to Heaven by Allah, and his “likeness” was crucified in his place. This “likeness” is identified variously as the Jew whom the Romans forced to help Jesus carry the cross, Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus and handed him over to the Romans, or one of the apostles. [3] The Qur’an speaks of the Jews’ opposition to Jesus and the apostles, but also states clearly that the Jews did not kill or crucify Him (Qur’an 4: 157-158).

The second problem with the film is that it actually portrays Jesus. Muslim jurisprudents prohibit the personification of the prophets and messengers in any physical medium, maintaining that mere mortals cannot rise to their level and therefore are incapable of properly portraying them.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), explained the Islamic attitude to the film: “I do not recommend Muslims to watch this film or any other film depicting the life of Allah’s Prophets and certainly not those that are not based on authentic sources. We are not supposed to support or promote falsehood in the name of Allah and His Prophets and Messengers. The film ‘The Passion of the Christ’ is an exaggeration and dramatization of certain alleged events in the life of Jesus… The concept of his crucifixion is totally false. It never occurred… However, if someone has sound knowledge of Islam and wants to correct the misconceptions of others and for this reason wants to watch this film, he/she is allowed to do so. In general, we should discourage Muslims from watching this type of film.”

So what of the film itself?

In the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram, ‘Adel Hamooda described the film in detail, emphasizing a number of points. “Not only did the film depict the last 12 hours in the life of Christ,” he explains, “but it is a courageous challenge to the political, financial, and media power of the Jews, who have been successful in exonerating themselves of all the crimes that they committed everywhere throughout history, including washing their hands of Christ’s blood…”

‘Adel Hamooda explains that all the Jews supported the priests insofar as the crucifixion of Jesus, some openly and others silently. He then focused on the symbolism of the Devil in the film saying: “In every scene where the Devil is depicted, he appears behind Jews. He is not seen behind Judas Iscariot, or behind the Roman soldiers or their commanders. He appears only behind the priests and the murderous Jews. This is Mel Gibson’s clear and courageous message that needs no explanation or interpretation.” […]

Various writers and public figures compared Jesus’s suffering to the suffering of the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians. Arafat’s media advisor Nabil Abu Rudeina, who saw the film together with Arafat, stated, “The Palestinians are still being exposed to the kind of pain to which Jesus was exposed during his crucifixion.” […]

In an article titled ‘The Torment of Christ and the Torment of the Region,’ Dr. Turki Saqr wrote in the Syrian government daily Teshreen: “Those who accuse Mel Gibson of antisemitism think that his shedding light on the role of the high priest in the persecution of Christ and his mission, including his execution, may reignite hatred of the Jews… However, what is more worrisome in this film to the Zionist movements are the scenes that may highlight the similarity between the tortures inflicted on the Palestinian Eastern Christ [i.e., Yasser Arafat] as a result of Jewish incitement, and the tortures the Palestinians are suffering at the hands of the Israeli occupation soldiers – especially since the Zionist media have been trying to mislead American and Western public opinion by depicting Israel as peace-loving and the Muslim or Christian Palestinian as a hateful murdering terrorist…” […]

In another article in Teshreen , Nasser Shamali says: “There is discussion in some world capitals whether the film is antisemitic (i.e. anti-Jewish) and whether it contradicts the modern-day exoneration of Jews from the crime of spilling sacred blood. This is a bizarre and impertinent discussion, because it had been better if the film had depicted the ongoing torments and sufferings of the sons of Christ, especially in Palestine where he preached. They are crucified every day at the hands of the American and Jewish-Zionist executioners. Even suckling babes are not safe from crucifixion…

“What kind of exoneration are these criminals, who continue to shed sacred blood, talking about?… Now the Iraqi people are facing the same ordeal and walking the same Via Dolorosa. [This means] that the carnivorous beast does not always come from among the Jews – otherwise, how could we classify people like Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, if we did not classify them as Zionists? What is the torment of Christ if not the anguish of his sons?… The lesson that we are learning from reexamining the sufferings of Christ must make us [sympathize] with his tormented sons regardless of their color and creed, against the carnivorous beasts regardless of their color and creed. What is the story of the life of Christ if not the story of the Palestinian Intifada against oppression and corruption, and against the oppressor and the corrupt? The Palestinian Intifada is nothing but a return to the Intifada of Christ by his sons…” […]

The film has stirred religious controversy in Kuwait, where the authorities have not yet decided whether to approve its screening. While the Sunni majority in the country opposes the film because parts of it contradict the Muslim faith, the Shi’ites are calling for showing it. Kuwait’s leading Shi’ite cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir Al-Muhri said there was nothing wrong with showing the film. He argued, “It’s a good opportunity to reveal the crimes committed by Jews against the Christ and many other prophets.”

All this will no doubt cheer Mel no end. There’s a problem, however:

Hani Naqshabandi, editor in chief of the Saudi family magazine Sayyidaty, criticized the notion of the Jews’ extraordinary powers: “The real irritation in the film is that it revealed a lie that we, the Arabs, tell ourselves everyday. This lie is that we are hated in the world because the Jews control Hollywood, the film industry, and the entertainment industry in America. We say that this control has distorted the Arabs’ image everywhere, causing us to be hated by everyone. However, ‘The Passion of the Christ’ has revealed the exact opposite: It revealed that we are hated in the world because we hate each other and we don’t know how to conduct our business… The Jews have nothing to do with it at all. They are innocent of the accusation of harming our image in the world… If the Jews had ultimate control over Hollywood and what happens there, as our fathers, grandfathers, writers, and books say, a film against them would not be produced by the hub of the world’s film industry…”

“I am not saying that they [the Jews] have no impact or influence. They do indeed, but not as we think or claim, and not as we imagined when we accused the Jews, Hollywood, and the Zionist lobby here and there for our failure to communicate with others. This is not a defense of the Jews or a promotion for the film, but an attempt to reveal that we must stop accusing others for our mistakes… We shouldn’t make Hollywood and the Jews the excuse for our backwardness. It goes deeper than that…”

Who’d have thought? The film has actually made someone question their deepest prejudices. Truly, God moves in mysterious ways.