Liam Neeson Angers Narnia Fans By Comparing Aslan to Buddha and Mohammed

narnia_aslan_225.jpgLiam Neeson, who voices Aslan, the Christ-like lion throughout the Chronicles of Narnia film series, has just caused a bit of controversy among Christian fans of the series during Voyage of the Dawn Treader press tour. Neeson said that to him, the lion symbolizes all great prophets including Buddha and Mohammed. I'm guessing this would have gone unnoticed if not for that Mohammed part, but let's take a closer look at these supposedly misguided, controversial statements and the ensuing criticism.

Neeson told The Daily Mail:

"Aslan symbolises a Christ-like figure but he also symbolizes for me Mohammed, Buddha and all the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries. That's who Aslan stands for as well as a mentor figure for kids -- that's what he means for me."

And cue the outrage. Walter Hooper, Lewis's former secretary and a trustee of his estate said "It is nothing whatever to do with Islam. Lewis would have simply denied that. He wrote that the 'whole Narnian story is about Christ.'" Added William Oddie, a former editor of The Catholic Herald, "I can't believe that Liam Neeson is so stupid..."

Whew. I'll admit that Lewis' text is as subtle as a sledgehammer in its Christian symbolism. But just to play (ahem) devil's advocate, shouldn't any serious work of art should be open to individual interpretation? It's not like Neeson put any words in Lewis' mouth. And is this really a bigger deal than having a professed-agnostic direct the film? Especially since Neeson is Roman Catholic and actually helped an order of American Catholic priests to bring out a CD of spiritual meditations for Lent two years ago?

In any case, I'm guessing the controversy will blow over once fans realize they can't actually think of anyone who could knock Aslan's voice out of the park the way Neeson has. Meanwhile, I'm much more interested in the charming and unpredictable Tilda Swinton's take on what Aslan symbolizes.

·Narnia fans' fury after Liam Neeson claims Aslan -- the symbol of Christ -- could also be Mohammed

[The Daily Mail]

·The Narnia Policeman [Christianity Today]



Comments

  • daveed says:

    Individual interpretation is fine, but it cannot supersede authorial intent, especially when it's so explicitly stated; Lewis has said that Narnia is Christian allegory. That's that. Not much room for interpretation there.
    Neeson is of course free to interpret all he wants, and if the character he voices reminds him of Buddha or Mohammed or 'The Rent is Too Damn High" guy, fine. But it doesn't necessarily make it truth.

  • Mooshki says:

    I guess they didn't bother to read the books. Aslan himself says (to an enemy soldier) that it doesn't matter what name you pray too - if you worship with good intentions in your heart, you are praying to him.

  • Renee Barthelemy says:

    I still believe that the Christian part of the character, Aslan, should be advocated a bit more. I understand it was his own interpretation, but to me it's like taking the author's intentions, twisting them around, and shoving it back into his throat. Especially as a fan of the CONarnia. For an actor who was supposed to get into the spirit of the character I am a bit surprised that he went and publicly stated this. Not saying that he did a bad job as Aslan, Im just surprised by this.

  • Mingus says:

    Well, since Christianity (and most other major religions) all originated from the same Pagan stories/myths, it is not unreasonable to say what Neeson said.
    Just because Lewis was a Christian and adhered to the their version of these myths, doesn't mean Neeson is wrong. Easter, Christmas etc are all Pagan holidays that the Christians appropriated to try and convert people to Christianity.

  • wap says:

    I am sorry that you feel that Christianity originated from Pagan stories/myths. Religions develop from an attempt by man to find greater meaning for himself. Christianity, however has its roots in a relationship that the Believer has with God, the Creator, through His Son Jesus Christ, not through cleverly devised fables.
    C. S. Lewis came to Christianity out of atheism and became an apologist for a Christian lifestyle out of his relationship with Christ. Lewis came to his decision to follow Christ in an intellectual fashion. His writings show his thinking. (See "Mere Christianity" for non-fictional apologetics.)
    You are correct about the fact that many of the holidays Christians celebrate have roots in or coincide with Pagan holidays. Some of these were designed to help persecuted Christians mask their celebrations and still be able to celebrate in their own fashion.
    I pray that you have not closed your mind to God or His love for you, His creation. You might look into "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell or "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel if you are interested in a true intellectual discussion of Christianity or simply read the Gospel of John in the New Testament for a first-hand account of Jesus' life and mission on earth.

  • Derek says:

    I like how you dismiss other religions as man trying to find greater meaning for himself. Other religions feel the same way about Christianity. Mohammed and Buddha were both great spiritual leaders just as Jesus Christ was. Neeson was not dismissing Aslan as a christ figure, it seems to me that he was stating that Aslan can be symbolic to the viewer in many different ways, he is a great spiritual leader to all.

  • Marianne says:

    It seems to be a given that if a celebrity expresses an opinion, the public assumes that that person is asserting that we must agree, that their opinion is truth and fact. Neeson doesn't appear to have said this - he just expressed in an interview how he experiences the fictional character of Aslan. People twisting themselves up in angry knots over a celebrity's opinion... well, haven't they got better things to do?

  • Rae says:

    Just about anyone and everyone should know (whether they actually read it or heard the various controversies in the media. *cough* Golden Compass *cough*) by now Narnia=Christianity. The way I see it, this is just another attempt to either be a) all inclusive/politically correct/'ethnically sensitive' or b) another push to cram Islam down our 'intolerant' throats.

  • jon says:

    "...he also symbolizes for me..."
    "...that’s what he means for me.”
    It'd be nice if the people up in arms over this "controversy" had actually listened to what Neeson said. It was an extremely neutral comment and he was obviously wording it in a way that he didn't step on anyone's toes.

  • Ray says:

    I pray that you have not closed your mind to Brahma or His love for you, His creation. You might look into the Rig-, Yajur-, Sama- and Atharva Vedas or the Dharmashastras if you are interested in a true intellectual discussion of Hinduism or simply read the Bhagavad Gita for a first-hand account of Krishna's life and mission on earth.

  • Elaine says:

    Of the religous figures mentioned, Christ was the only one to die to atone for our sins and rise again. This was clearly represented by Aslan in the first Narnia movie.

  • joe says:

    I'm amazed at all this outrage over Neeson's relatively innocuous comments. Especially when it's clear that Christ never existed and those who believe he did are like children believing in Santa Claus.
    It seems to me that those who are outraged must have a serious case of doubt about their god. Anyone who is secure in their beliefs doesn't give a damn what anyone else says about it.

  • joe says:

    Nice try but both Sobel and McDowell's works are full of the same holes as Christianity itself. Their books prove nothing. And intellectual discussion requires you to use your intellect and not willfully ignore evidence contrary to your stated beliefs.

  • Andrew says:

    Not quite. Krishna and Horus, both which pre-dates Christ, did essentially the same thing. I'm sure there are others too, but they come to mind first. By the time the Christians came up with the Jesus story, the myth was already stale.

  • Bryan Elliott says:

    Personally, for me, Aslan represents Harry Potter.

  • peacockpete says:

    Hang on, Obi-Wan Kenobi kind of came back. And Dracula's ALWAYS getting resurrected. Doctor Who's rolled the stone away from the front of the TARDIS a few times too.
    The lovely thing with fantasy is you can make it as allegorical as you want. Okay, Aslan was written to be Jesus, but a reader or a viewer can take what they like from it.
    It's such a non-story. The fact is, Liam Neeson has clearly given the part a bit of thoughtfulness and didn't play it simply as Talking Lion.

  • rx3 says:

    Heed the words of Peacockete for he is wise and furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, Liam Neeson is not asian.

  • lankyguy says:

    I'm sorry your response is so patronizing. I pray you open YOUR mind and do some real research. There are no true first hand account sof Christ's life, only records written decades after the fact by people that didn't even know him. Best of luck in all your future endeavors.

  • Deb says:

    It's OK, folks. Christians are just upset because now they have to actually share the stage with the rest of us. They can bitch and moan about the bogeyman of "political correctness" all they want, but the plain fact is that having to acknowledge other religions, agnostics, and atheists makes them uncomfortable. Losing your hegemony's a bitch, which is why it gets them so delusional that some will actually claim - in a country that is over 75% Christian, where our leaders are sworn into office on a Bible, and where "in god we trust" is on the money - that they are being PERSECUTED. Which is not only stupid, it's an insult to the ancient Christians who were actually persecuted. When THEY complained about a lion, it was because they were being EATEN by one.

  • daveed says:

    Neeson's comment had nothing to do with the validity or the origins of Christianity. It comes down to him declaring something about a work of fiction that contradicts that which is said by the author. Therefore, Neeson is incorrect.
    It's like me saying Milkman in The Song of Solomon represents the plight of Amazonian aborigines.

  • SMD says:

    The author does not own interpretation, nor does the author own the work once it has been read. What happens to the work once it has been put out into the world is the responsibility of the one who reads it. You can try to correct what others think, but the end result will likely not be in your favor.
    Likewise, intention can't ever truly be known. Not in a pure sense. We may express our intentions, but there's no way to know that what you say is your intention is actually what you intend--the mind is full of subconscious desires and impulses, often in forms that are more than just "instincts." If you know psychology to any minor degree, then you know the state of the mind and it's subconscious movements.
    In this instance, people are getting uppity over one man saying what a story means to *him.* He is not claiming totality in the interpretation. He's every explicit about that fact. It's what it means to *him.* Just because one takes Lewis' professed Christian project to only reference Christianity doesn't mean that it cannot, by analogy, apply to other religious mythologies, particularly when those mythologies are so closely tied to Christianity. Islam, after all, is an Abrahamic religion. Buddhism may not be, but much like Islam and Christianity, it has its own "Christ-like" figure (referring to some sort of divine presence that aids humanity in its journey on a divine level).
    If one can't see how all this ties together and that what is being said is not an absolute interpretation, but a personal one, then maybe the problem is yours and not Neeson's. You're, perhaps, so rooted in your religious dogmatism that you can't see the relationship between what you believe and what others believe, and how the analogies of one presumably religious text (and allegories) transfer over to other mediums. This is literature, folks. It's not religion incarnate. Get over it.

  • drew says:

    Yeah...umm...have you not read any biographies on CS Lewis? Or at least some study guides on the books? Lewis said, innumerable times, that he did NOT write the books as Christian allegory and that he is against reading them as such. This came as a shock to me too as I read the books straight through with a highlighter, noting all the references I could find. And then my youth group study guide tells me it's not that way? Hmm, also, if churches were to open their eyes to exactly what is going on in the series they'd be up in arms over this series as they were about Harry Potter. These books absolutely reek of pagan and Jewish mysticism with witches, wizards, and let's not forget, Adam's FIRST wife, Lilith, mother of all demons...seriously people...Aslan is Mohammed and Buddha...get over it...it's all a fucking book

  • Alana says:

    Mooska's right, here. It's in "The Last Battle" where Aslan explains that those who do good in the name of Taash honor Aslan, and those who do evil in Aslan's name honor Taash. It's not about the NAME. It's about the SPIRIT.
    Many mansions, folks. Who are you to limit what g/d can do, and how g/d can speak to each individual person? Is the name so important? Can Jesus only be pronounced "Jee-Suss" and to hell (literally with everyone who says "HaySuse" or "YaySue)? If you want others to believe, try acting on love instead of hate and fear. If there's a g/d, isn't he above the divisions of language?

  • Andrew says:

    I'm surprised at how intolerant and degrading most of these comments are. C.S. Lewis was a Christian, so Aslan can represent Christ. I doubt very much that C.S. Lewis would be so outraged by Mr. Neeson's comments because he was an educated loving Christian. If you are claiming to be a Christian and haven't found tolerance and unconditional love yet, you've missed the point.

  • Bear Grylls says:

    It is amazing that people get fired up about a name drop of a religious figure. If Neeson sees it that way thats fine, why must christians always get up in arms about other peoples points of view. He sees it that way that doesn't mean you have too. Get over yourselves, get over your imaginary gods. If I had a time machine i'd go back in time find the first person to write the resurection story and slap them in the face. These books are fictional books taken seriously. In a few thousand years who knows maybe someone will find Narnia books and start a religion on the Lion. "I have ancient texts about a place called narnia (like the garden of eden) in the old days a lion use to come and help people and died and came back. I beleive he will rise again" religion starts people go insane and the world continues to be full of d*ckheads.