Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Decrypting the Da Vinci Code from an Islamic perspective

By Mansur Ali

Deep in the darkest chambers of the Louvre museum, Dan Brown spins his magnum opus. A myriad of enigmas and cryptic codes, pagan symbolism and Masonic didactics, secret societies dedicated to the sacred feminine. From an array of Vatican conspiracy to gruesome corporal mortification. Da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Jacques Saunière, Opus Dei, fleur-de-lis and the dark arts. Dan Brown includes them all in a fascinating and riveting read which made it to the big screen and like a bush fire in strong winds spread to the four corners of the globe. The book has already been translated into Arabic called ‘Shafeer Da Vinci.’
Nevertheless, the most spine chilling part of the book is its shocking conclusion, that our beloved Prophet Sayyiduna Isa (as) left offspring behind him. However entertaining the book or movie might be, but from a religious point of view, both Christian and Muslim, such a sweeping and preposterous theory, even at the level of pure fiction and entertainment, is highly insulting and offensive and to even entertain the very thought of it is deemed blasphemous. Here we go again… a fundamentalist speaking, bent out to obliterate all forms of pleasure from the face of the globe. However, this is not the case. In Islam we have a very good understanding of recreation and entertainment as it includes a part of the right that our body has over us. Saying this, the line has to be drawn. Religion cannot be compromised just to make people laugh or give them entertainment. It is a moral and religious crime to make symbols and aspects of religion that are revered by people as objects of entertainment or satire.
Sayyiduna Isa (as) a distinguished Prophet of Allah lived a very ascetic life, a life of celibacy where he completely annihilated himself to the cause of Allah. He fought no military battles and all his wars were spiritual of nature. Allah raised him to himself in the heavens and just before the end of time he will come back to the earth to become the Imam of the Muslims. He will fulfil aspects of his life as a human being which he did not complete previously, i.e. get married and have children. He will lead the Muslims against the kuffar army and on his hand will the Dajjal breathe his last. His whole life is a miraculous one right from its inception. His astounding birth is one conundrum that professor Langdon or Tom Hanks cannot decipher. Peace be upon him the day he was born, the day he will die and the day he will be resurrected.


Abu Hurayrah said...

assalamu alaikum Brother.

Thanks for the post. Also please post your article on the trend in the laxity of hadith research or something along those lines.

Yusuf said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yusuf said...

Salamu'alaikum wa rahmatullah Mansur Bhai

sajjaltu ismi li aqul Zawwaj Mubarak

wa atamanna lakum al-tawfiq wa al-sa'aadah fi al-Daarayn

La azaal ata'ajjab min qalamikum wa nad'u allah an yarzuqana al-jamee hadhihi al-diqqah wal 'umq fil kitaabah wa idraakil umur, 'umuman

la akad a'qil katheer min rududika duna al-ruju ila al-mu'jam :-)

antadhirukum la'alli astafeed minkum kamastafadtu min qabl

wa arju an la tansuni
ZadakAllahu sharafa bil hilmi ba'dal 'ilmi.



thestraightpath said...


Brother Mansur, I never heard back from ya? Either way, this post was excellent Mash'Allah. I pretty much felt the same way about the book/movie. I found it rather upsetting to see Muslims getting all excited about it...

Ahsan Irfan said...

as salam `alaykum

I don't get it.

Leaving aside the entertainment bit, which I completely agree with, doesn't our aqidah, at the very least, assign a possibility to the conjecture that Sayyiduna Isa (r.a.) might have been married?

I mean, the way I have learnt aqidah, I was always told that it is possible for a Prophet to get married. Given that, suggesting that Sayyiduna Isa might have been married doesn't degrade his status, does it?

Given that, doesn't the issue then boil down to whether or not our sources actually indicate the possibility of him being married? So if our sources indicate that he was not married, then that is all fine and dandy. But given the above arguments, isn't it far fetched to say that "...such a sweeping and preposterous theory, even at the level of pure fiction and entertainment, is highly insulting and offensive and to even entertain the very thought of it is deemed blasphemous."

Wouldn't it be "insulting" and "blasphemous" if the theory actually violated a fundamental part of our aqidah?

Am I understanding this right, or are the argument more nuanced than I am assuming?

Don't mind me, I'm just playing the devil's advocate, but I would appreciate an answer.


Ahmed said...

Mashallah a good blog you have here.
May I request you also add up www.haqislam.org here.

farah_s said...

salam, i have some questions about your fiqh tests. Do you have an email address i could contact u on?