Last week I learned from a Sikh that the textbook in use now in Malaysian schools (Form 4) says something like “according to Christians, Christianity was founded by the Prophet Jesus.”

I say “something like” because I could not take notes; we were sitting elbow to elbow and I could barely move. Such was the crowd which showed up at the Sunday afternoon event at which Dr Ranjit Singh was one of several reputable speakers.

For my purpose in this post, it doesn’t matter whether my recollection of what he said is factually correct. His point is that the history books in use now are written from a Muslim perspective; the authors of all the history books in use now are Muslims.

Does the faith or worldview of the author of a history book matter? Would a non-Muslim author feel obliged to say “according to Christians?”

If your answer to the second question is “no” or “maybe,” you appreciate the dilemma faced by the Muslim author.

It’s a real dilemma, because many aspects (facts) about the uniqueness of Jesus are acknowledged by both Christians and Muslims, but their conclusions about Jesus are different.

Muslims and Christians agree Jesus was born of a virgin. Muslims and Christians agree Jesus was sent by God. Muslims and the vast majority of Christians agree about the miracles ”Prophet” Jesus performed, including raising people from the dead.

Muslims however have a problem saying Jesus founded Christianity, because according to them that was neither the intent of God nor of Jesus. And, though Muslims believe Jesus was crucified, they think Jesus neither died on the cross nor was resurrected.

Therefore, according to Muslims, Christian faith is founded on “facts” which are false. So how can a Muslim author say Christianity is founded by Jesus?

I appreciate the dilemma. There are even some non-Muslims who say Christianity was founded by the apostle Paul. In my opinion, they fail to take sufficient account of the fact that Paul was blindingly called by God to stop persecuting Christians and to become one. And that Paul was one of many commissioned by Jesus to preach His message – the core of which is His crucifixion, resurrection and coronation as King. [There is also evidence the first leader of the early church was apostle James, the brother of Jesus.]

Even those who are familiar with Jesus sometimes do not recognize the Christ.

Bible-reading Christians know the disciple Mary failed to recognize the resurrected Lord at his grave; the two disciples on the Emmaus road failed to recognize the resurrected Lord even during a long walk and conversation; and several others failed to recognize Jesus – though there was always an “aha” moment and the truth dawned.

There are many historical facts which attest to Jesus as the founder of Christianity.

People from the same era as Jesus were in no doubt that Jesus founded Christianity.

If you asked Christians of the time – some of whom were fed to the lions because they refused to call the Roman emperor “Lord” – they would have said they were subjects of Jesus the Christ.

If you asked the Jews and the Romans who persecuted Christians, they would have told you Christianity was founded by Jesus. There are Christian and non-Christian archaeological and documentary evidences to support this assertion.

Professional historians labour to weigh the facts and draw a fair conclusion, i.e. they interpret the facts. History is not just about facts, it’s also about interpretation, e.g. there’s little value in knowing what happened in Malacca in 1511 if there is no discussion of why and how it happened – and the evidence which, CSI-like, supports the conclusion.

The study of history should include discussion of whether the factors which most likely “caused” that event have recurred and may recur again.

Christians are a people of the book, a book of history – for much of the Bible is history.

Those who do not read the Bible are often shocked at the things recorded in the Bible – deception, incest, murder, rape – not just by “bad guys” but often by “good guys.”

The Bible is a fine example of honest history. Any Bible reader can easily tell whether a history book is “honest.” Any history of anyone or any period in which everything is black and white, good or bad, is propaganda.

In History Through the Eyes of Faith, the American historian Ronald A Wells says:

“Honest means more than merely telling the truth in factual terms but also telling the truth in all its ambiguity and complexity. Honest history differs from ideological history, in which the story comes ‘out right,’ according to the writer’s values. While history is usable in understanding ourselves, if we approach history mainly to find a ‘usable past’ with which to support an ideology or to advance a program, then we have not really studied history. There are some times when ‘our side’ does the wrong thing and ‘their side’ the right.”

Wells recalls the insight of historian George M Marsden drawn from the sketch which appears above. You’ve probably been shown it while being taught the importance of careful observation and listening. Do you see an old lady or a young lady?

Most people see the old lady first; some see the young lady first.

Upon closer observation – often someone has to go up to the image projected in front of the class and point it out – everyone realizes both ladies are there.

That’s an “aha” moment, a moment of insight which changes our perception of what reality is really like. The moment comes not through argument but through seeing.

People who believe in a God who is sovereign have a different perspective from those who do not. People of faith believe there is more to things than first meets the eye.

Problems occur when people of faith fail to be generous and humble, when they think only they have the truth: when they forget or ignore the fact that even within their own communities there is diversity of opinion.

That’s why it’s important not to have only people of one faith write textbooks. It’s important to present facts which may support alternative views, and allow students to weigh the evidence, debate and arrive at fair conclusions.

Though I am a Christian, I am not concerned about saying “according to Christians.” I simply ask that I be given the leeway to safely say “according to Muslims.”

Dr Ranjit has “called on the government to change the methods of teaching history to be geared towards active participation and live debates rather than memorizing and regurgitating facts.” I support his call.

Malaysians, have you signed the petition calling the government to review the history syllabus?

Rama Ramanathan maintains the blog Rest Stop Thoughts

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it,

about it, and subscribe to the blog RSS feed.