I need to tell you something before I tell you anything else.

I was not a broken man when this began.

I was not sitting somewhere in the dark, empty, searching for meaning, hoping that something or someone would come along and fill whatever hole was inside me.

That is not my story.

I want to be clear about that from the very beginning.

Because if you come into this testimony expecting that kind of story, the lonely searching man who finds comfort in a new faith, you will misunderstand everything I am about to tell you.

I was sharp.

I was certain.

I was celebrated.

And I was in ways that I did not examine too carefully at the time dangerously proud.

I came into this not looking for God.

I came looking for a fight.

And the reason I begin with that is because I think it is the most important thing about this story.

The kind of person I was before all of this is the thing that makes what happened next either completely impossible or completely inevitable depending on how you understand the world.

My name is Hassan Alamin.

I was born and raised in a Gulf city that I will not name here.

Not because I’m ashamed of it, but because there are people I love who still live there and who have already paid enough of a price for what I’m about to tell you.

What I will say about the place is this.

It was the kind of city where faith was not a department of life.

It was life itself.

It was the frame around everything.

Hello viewers from around the world.

Before our brother Hassan continues his story, we’d love to know where you are watching from and we would love to pray for you and your city.

Thank you and may God bless you as you listen to this powerful testimony.

The first sound you heard every single morning was the fager adhan, the pre-dawn call to prayer, rising from the minouetses and moving through the streets in the dark like something breathing.

You did not need an alarm clock in our house.

The Adhan woke you, and if you somehow slept through it, the sound of my father’s footsteps in the corridor were your second alarm, and that was a considerably less peaceful experience.

My father was not a formally trained religious scholar, but he was what I would describe as a deeply serious man of God.

He prayed all five prayers without exception.

Not because someone was watching.

Not out of social obligation.

Out of something that was genuinely in him.

a [clears throat] devotion that was so consistent, so unperforming, so completely integrated into who he was that it never once occurred to me growing up that a person could be one thing in the prayer mat and something different everywhere else.

My father was the same man in every room he walked into.

That kind of consistency is rare.

I knew it even then, even as a child who did not have the words for it.

The prayer mark on his forehead.

The zeba, the darkened callous that develops over years of pressing your face to the ground in prostration, sat there like something permanent, like a signature that God had pressed into his skin.

I grew up looking at that mark and understanding in the wordless way that children understand the most important things.

What a man was supposed to look like.

Devoted, anchored, certain.

[clears throat] That mark was the first theology I ever learned.

And I learned it before I could read.

My grandfather on my father’s side had built one of the local mosques with his own money.

Not in one season, not in a year.

Over the course of seven years, brick by brick, funded by a man of modest means who gave what he had because he believed that building a house for God was the highest use of whatever a man possessed.

The story of that mosque was the founding myth of our family.

It was told at every gathering, every aid, every wedding, every funeral.

It was the story that explained who we were, what we were for, what our name meant.

We were not simply Muslims in the way that millions of people are simply Muslims by birth, by culture, by default.

We were a family that had put its resources where its faith was and built something that outlasted the man who paid for it.

That was the world I was born into.

That was the water I swam in from the first day of my life.

And I want you to understand that I am not describing it with bitterness or with the contemptuous distance of a man who has rejected everything it stood for.

I’m describing it with the complicated love of someone who was genuinely formed by it, who carries it in his bones even now, who would not be who he is without it, while also knowing, as I now know, that even the most beautiful room can become a prison if you mistake the room for the
whole of reality.

By the time I was 16 years old, I had memorized the entire Quran, all 114 suras, every verse, every word in the original classical Arabic.

I want to take a moment on this because I think people in the West sometimes hear that fact and nod without really grasping what it means in practice.

The Quran in Arabic is approximately 77,000 words.

The classical Arabic of the Quran is not the colloquial Arabic spoken in markets and on streets today.

It is a formal, layered, extraordinarily precise language that carries multiple registers of meaning simultaneously that uses rhythm and sound as part of its theological content that was considered by classical Arab scholars to be a linguistic miracle independent of its religious claims.

Memorizing it is not a feat of road repetition.

It is a years’sl long process of submitting your mind to a text until the text has become part of the structure of how you think.

It reshapes your relationship with language.

It reshapes your relationship with silence.

It gives you a kind of internal architecture that once built never entirely comes down even when everything built on top of it does.

The night I completed my memorization and stood before the congregation at our local mosque and recited the final verses of Surah Anas from memory.

My father wept.

I had never seen him cry before that night.

He was not the kind of man who allowed water to come to his eyes in public or in private as far as I ever knew.

But that night, standing in the mosque his own father had built, listening to his eldest son, complete the book of God from memory, he pressed both hands over his face and his shoulders shook.

I stood at the front of that room and watched it happen.

And something settled in me in that moment, some deep confirmation of who I was and what I was for that felt at the time like the most solid thing I’d ever stood on.

My mother made lamb for the celebration afterward.

My younger brothers looked at me with a mixture of admiration and bewilderment that only younger brothers can produce.

simultaneously proud of you and slightly resentful that you have done something they now feel obligated to attempt.

The shake of the mosque told my father that his son would be a great defender of the faith.

I was 16 years old and I already knew with the clean unexamined certainty of a person who has never been seriously wrong about anything that mattered exactly what my life was going to be.

By my mid20s, I’d formally studied under several respected Salafi scholars.

I had traveled to Medina, to Cairo, to Karachi, sitting at the feet of teachers who themselves sat at the feet of teachers in an unbroken chain of transmission stretching back through centuries of Islamic learning.

I had earned credentials in Islamic juristprudence.

I had developed working competence in classical Arabic, modern standard Arabic, Udo and this becomes important later.

I had taught myself coin Greek and biblical Hebrew.

Not because I loved those languages, because I needed them for what I had decided to do.

What I had decided to do was this.

I was going to be the man who dismantled the intellectual foundations of Christianity from the inside, not from ignorance.

Any uneducated person can dismiss another religion’s scripture from ignorance.

And that kind of dismissal impresses no one who matters.

I was going to do it from mastery.

I was going to learn the Bible better than most Christians learned it.

I was going to study the original languages, the manuscript traditions, the historical context, the internal contradictions, the development of Christian theology across the centuries.

I was going to be so thoroughly prepared that no Christian scholar, no theologian, no pastor or priest or academic, no one could sit across a table from me and walk away feeling that their position was secure.

My field was called comparative religion with a focus on biblical criticism.

That is the polite academic name for it.

What it actually was in practice was apologetic warfare.

And I was very, very good at it.

Let me tell you about the debates.

Not to boast.

I’m far past the place in my life where those debates feel like anything to be proud of.

But because the specific texture of what I was doing, the specific mindset I was operating from is essential context for everything that came after.

You cannot understand what broke me if you do not first understand how thoroughly I was fortified.

The Gulf had several international universities, institutions that drew students from across the world, including large numbers of Christian students from Africa, from Asia, from Europe, and America.

Many of them were devout.

Many of them had been raised in faith communities with deep roots the way I had been raised in mine, with family devotions, with community, with the sense that their belief was the foundation of who they were.

And many of them, particularly the younger ones, had never sat across a table from someone like me.

I would attend interfaith forums at these universities.

I would sit across from theology students, from campus ministers, from young people who had come prepared with their Bibles and their study notes and the quiet confidence of people who had never had reason to question their foundations, and I would dismantle them.

I knew the Council of Nika better than most of the Christians in the room.

I could walk through the political and theological context of 325 AD with the detail of a historian explaining how the specific language of the Nyine creed emerged from a process of institutional debate and political pressure framing it in ways that made the Trinity sound less like revealed truth and more like a committee decision.

I knew about the manuscript tradition of Mark’s gospel.

How the earliest and most reliable manuscripts end at chapter 16:8 with the women fleeing the tomb in fear and saying nothing to anyone, and how the additional verses that most people know, the ones with the great commission and the signs following, appear to have been added by a different hand at a later date.

I knew about textual variance.

I knew about the debates over authorship of the pastoral epistles.

I had read Bartman.

I had read the Jesus seminar.

I had read everyone who had ever made a serious scholarly case against the reliability or divine inspiration of the New Testament.

And I had synthesized all of it into a presentation that was coherent, carefully structured, and delivered with the dispassionate confidence of someone who has no personal stake in the outcome.

That dispassion was, I now understand, the most dishonest part of the whole performance.

I had enormous personal stake.

I just hadn’t examined it.

I remember one evening at a university forum, a young man sitting across from me, a theology student, someone who had clearly prepared carefully.

His Bible was tabbed, his notes were organized.

He had come to this conversation the way a young soldier goes to his first real engagement, nervous but committed, armed with what he had, believing in the cause he was representing.

Within the first half hour the confidence was gone from his face.

Not because I was cruel.

I was never openly cruel in these settings because cruelty is sloppy and I was not a sloppy person.

I was precise.

I was courteous.

I was relentless.

And the combination of those three things is in some ways more devastating than outright cruelty because it gives a person nothing to push back against.

You cannot respond to a man who is dismantling your foundations while smiling pleasantly and citing primary sources.

By the end of the evening, that young man looked the way people look when the ground has shifted under something they built their life on.

And I remember sitting in my car afterward and feeling not compassion, not even the straightforward, cold pleasure of winning, something more specific than either of those things, and considerably darker, something that felt like power.

the particular pleasure of making someone else feel small so that you can feel large by comparison.

I’m not telling you this to perform guilt.

I’ve done my accounting with God about all of this and that accounting is between me and him.

I am telling you this because I want you to understand exactly who I was and exactly what I was doing so that when I tell you what happened next, you will understand the full weight of it.

You will understand why.

When I say that what happened to me was impossible by any human measure, I mean it in the most precise and literal sense.

Outside of the in-person forums, I had built a substantial presence in writing and online.

Long treatises in Arabic and in English, dissecting Pauline theology, questioning the transmission history of the New Testament, examining the relationship between the synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John.

I had a following, thousands of people, mostly young Muslim men, who consumed what I produced and felt through it, a borrowed certainty.

They could not make these arguments themselves.

But watching me make them gave them the feeling that their faith was on the winning side of an intellectual contest, that there was nothing in the Christian scriptures that could withstand serious scrutiny.

I fed that.

I cultivated it deliberately and with full awareness of what I was doing.

And I told myself that it was righteous work, that I was serving the truth, defending the EC community, exposing falsehood, that the applause I received was confirmation that I was doing what I had been made to do.

My entire identity, every thread of it, was woven around being the man who could not be beaten in a theological argument.

I had no real idea who I was underneath that identity.

I had never needed to look.

Then came the night I made the decision that started everything.

It was late.

my study.

A room I loved.

Floor to ceiling shelves, four languages on the spines, the smell of old paper and strong coffee.

A single desk lamp throwing a circle of yellow light was quiet.

I was reviewing my body of work, considering what remained to be done.

I had covered the synoptic gospels extensively.

I’d written at length about Paul.

I had addressed Revelation, the pastoral [clears throat] epistles, the question of the Yanani community.

But as I looked at my notes that night, I became aware of something I had not formally acknowledged before.

A gap, a conspicuous, deliberate, carefully maintained gap in my otherwise comprehensive assault on the New Testament.

I had never made the Gospel of John my primary focus.

I sat with that awareness for a while.

I knew why.

I had known for some time in the part of my mind where honest things go when you are not ready to deal with them.

John was different from the synoptics.

It didn’t operate by the same rules.

It wasn’t primarily a narrative of events.

It was something more concentrated, more intimate, more difficult to handle with pure textual criticism.

The Christ who moved through John’s gospel was not just a historical figure making claims.

He was a presence.

He was, and I did not want to use this word at the time, but I will use it now.

He was alive on the page in a way that unsettled me in ways I’d never fully investigated, so I had avoided it.

The way you avoid the room in a house where you know something difficult is waiting.

That night I decided I was finished avoiding it.

I would write the definitive reputation of the Gospel of John.

I would go through it verse by verse in the original Greek using every critical tool available to me.

And I would demonstrate conclusively that its elevated christologology was a late theological development, a departure from the earlier tradition, the product of a specific community’s evolving and ultimately unauthorized theological speculation.

I would do what I had always done.

I would bring the full force of what I knew to bear on a text that needed to be examined, and I would follow the evidence where it led.

I cleared my calendar.

I stocked my apartment.

I told my colleagues I was working on something significant and would be unavailable.

I set a schedule of 12 hours a day.

I remember sitting down on the first morning with the Greek New Testament open in front of me.

The Nestle Leelon critical edition, the same edition used in seminaries around the world.

my lexicon beside it, my notebook ready, fresh coffee, everything in order.

I picked up my pen.

I felt in that moment completely in control, completely prepared, completely certain of where this was going.

I had no idea.

I say that to you now with the full benefit of everything that followed.

And I mean it without the slightest exaggeration.

I had absolutely no idea what I was walking into.

The first hours were exactly as expected.

I moved through the prologue, the opening 18 verses with my usual precision, annotating the Greek construction, noting the deliberate echo of Genesis, finding my critical footholds.

I felt good.

I felt sharp.

This was what I was built for.

And then I read the opening sentence again.

Not for the annotation, not for the argument.

I just read it again.

The way you sometimes reread a sentence, not because you didn’t understand it, but because something in you wants to sit in it a moment longer before moving on.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

I have read the Quran in Arabic since before I could read anything else.

I’ve read passages of the Quran that are so devastating in their beauty that the beauty itself feels like a theological argument.

The rhythm, the compression, the way the words fall against one another.

I say this so you understand that I’m not a man who is easily affected by religious language.

I’ve heard too much of it and analyzed too much of it to be moved by style alone.

But something happened when I read that Greek sentence again in the quiet of my study that first night.

Something I could not file neatly into any of my existing categories.

Something that changed the temperature of the room in a way that had nothing to do with temperature.

I told myself it was simply the elegance of the Greek construction.

I wrote a brief note and moved on.

But the room felt different after that sentence, and try as I might, I could not entirely explain why.

From the outside, those two weeks looked like exactly what I had planned.

I was waking before dawn for fogger prayer.

The same as always, making my tea the same way I had always made it, black and strong, working through the Greek text with the same methodical precision I had trained into myself over a decade of scholarship.

My notebooks were filling with exactly the kind of critical observations I had set out to make.

The analysis was proceeding from the outside.

Hassan Alamin was doing precisely what he had announced he would do.

But there was something happening underneath the surface of those days that I did not have a name for.

Something quiet.

Something that did not announce itself with drama or with vision or with any of the things that conversion stories are usually required to contain.

It worked the way that water works on stone, not through force, not through a single dramatic event, but through the steady, patient, completely unremarkable pressure of being always, always present, every day, every hour, every time I opened the text, the problem was simple and it was devastating.

Every time I sat down to dissect the Gospel of John, I kept running into him.

Not arguments about him, not theological propositions, not claims to be evaluated or doctrines to be assessed.

him, the actual specific, irreducibly particular person moving through the pages of this text, doing and saying things that I could annotate but could not, no matter how hard I tried, entirely reduced to academic categories, things that kept insisting on being read not as theology but as event, not as claim, but as encounter.

Let me be
specific because the specific things are the point.

Somewhere in the middle of the first week, I came to the 11th chapter of John Lazarus, the raising of a dead man.

I had encountered this story before in academic contexts.

I knew the critical arguments around it.

I knew why its absence from the synoptic gospels raised questions about historical reliability.

I had all of that ready.

I was moving through it carefully, verse by verse in the Greek.

And then I arrived at a moment in the story where Mary, the sister of the dead man, falls at the feet of Jesus weeping.

And the text says that when Jesus saw her weeping and saw the people around her weeping, something happened to him.

[clears throat] The Greek uses two different words in quick succession that scholars have argued over for centuries.

The first suggests a deep visceral emotional disturbance, not a polite sadness, but something that moved through him like a physical force.

The second suggests that he was shaken, agitated, troubled in a way that went beyond the performance of appropriate grief.

And then he wept.

Two words in the Greek eden hous.

The shortest sentence in the entire Bible.

Jesus wept.

I sat with those two words for considerably longer than my analysis required.

I’m not entirely sure I can explain to you what happened in that sitting, but I will try to describe it as honestly as I can.

Here is what I was looking at.

A figure who according to the internal theology of this very gospel is the eternal word through whom all things were made.

A figure who just verses earlier in this same chapter has stated plainly that he is going to raise Lazarus who has in the logic of the narrative already known the outcome of this story before it began.

And this figure is standing at a tomb and the tears are coming and the people watching them fall are not saying that he is performing grief for instructional purposes or demonstrating the appropriate human response to mortality.

They’re saying simply, “See how he loved him.

” They read his tears as love, unperformed, specific personal love for one particular dead man who had been his friend.

Love that didn’t evaporate in the presence of fornowledge.

Love that was present and real and wet on his face even while he already knew what he was about to do.

In my tradition, and I say this with genuine respect for my tradition, because it formed everything that is good in me.

The mercy and compassion of God are spoken of in vast cosmic magnificent terms.

Al Rahman, Alraim, the most gracious, the most merciful.

These are the opening names of the Quran.

And they are not small words.

They describe something real and immense and genuinely beautiful.

But what I was reading in those two Greek words was not cosmic compassion.

It was not the mercy of a great king looking down with magnanimity on the sufferings of his subjects from a safe and appropriate distance.

It was someone who had climbed down out of the cosmic and was standing in the specific local personal dirt of one family’s grief and crying because his friend was dead.

Because death was not how it was supposed to be.

Because love, real love, does not float above the grief of the people it loves.

It descends into that grief and sits in it and weeps inside it.

I wrote in my notebook after a long silence, “What kind of god weeps at a tomb he is about to empty?” I sat there for a while.

Then I closed the notebook and went to make more tea, and stood in my kitchen for a long time, doing nothing in particular, which was not something I normally did.

A few days later, I came to the eighth chapter.

The woman accused of adultery, dragged into a public space, used as a legal instrument in a trap designed for someone else entirely.

The men around her quoting the law, demanding the prescribed response, watching Jesus with the focused attention of people who are not really interested in justice, but are very interested in catching someone out.

I had used this passage in debates before.

I had correctly pointed out that most serious scholars acknowledged the passage was likely not in the original gospel, that the earliest manuscripts don’t contain it, that it appears to have been inserted later, that it moves around in different manuscripts, appearing sometimes in Luke rather than John.

All of that is accurate scholarship, and I had deployed it many times.

But that morning I set aside the manuscript question and simply read the story as it sat on the page.

Jesus does not rush.

That was the first thing that struck me sitting with it this time in a moment of intense social and legal pressure.

When the crowd is gathered and the accusation has been made and everyone is watching and waiting for the decisive word, he does not rush.

He bends down and writes in the dirt with his finger.

Nobody knows what he wrote.

Nobody has ever known.

But the act itself, the deliberate, unhurried act of a man who refuses to be stampeded into a response by the urgency of people with an agenda.

That act stayed with me.

Then he stands and he gives them a single sentence.

One quiet, precise sentence that doesn’t argue, doesn’t adjudicate, doesn’t engage with the legal question at all, but cuts straight through to the only question that actually matters.

And then he bends back down and writes in the dirt again as if the commotion of the crowd is simply not as interesting to him as whatever he is writing and the crowd disperses one at a time oldest first until it is only him and the woman and the silence of an empty square that
a moment ago had been full of righteous noise.

He asks her where her accusers went, whether anyone has condemned her.

She says, “No one.

” And he says something that I must have read 20 times before that morning and never quite heard in the way I heard it.

Then he says that he too does not condemn her, and he tells her to go and to live differently from now on.

I sat with the question of where the condemnation went.

This is what I kept coming back to.

Sitting there at my desk with my pen in my hand, not writing anything.

Within the logic of this gospel, he was the only one in that square who actually had the standing to condemn her.

The only one who was, by the gospel’s own claims, entirely without the sin that disqualified everyone else.

He alone could have picked up the stone and been completely justified in throwing it.

Instead, the condemnation disappeared.

It didn’t get argued away or legally dismissed.

It was absorbed.

He took it into himself somehow, and it ceased to exist as a force pressing down on this woman, and she walked away free.

Where did it go? I kept writing that question in my notebook in those days.

Where did the condemnation go? Because I was beginning to understand from reading this gospel as carefully as I had been reading it that the condemnation did not simply vanish.

This gospel had an answer for where it went.

And the answer was not abstract or institutional or theological in the cold sense of that word.

The answer was a place.

The answer was a specific event that this entire gospel was building toward.

The answer was a cross.

I did not write that in my notebook, but I thought it.

And once I thought it, I could not unthink it.

I want to be honest about what was happening inside me during these days because I do not want this part of the testimony to sound like a gentle, pleasant awakening.

It was not that.

What I was experiencing was much closer to the feeling of standing on what you have always believed is solid ground and hearing somewhere deep beneath your feet a sound you cannot identify.

Something settling in a way it was never designed to settle.

I was alarmed.

I was deeply, specifically, professionally alarmed at my own reactions to this text.

I was irritated at myself in the way that a surgeon might be irritated if he found himself emotionally affected by a patient he was supposed to be examining with clinical detachment.

I was suspicious, rigorously, systematically suspicious of every moment of being moved or unsettled, treating each one as potential evidence of weakness rather than as potential evidence of something real.

I doubled down on everything I had.

I spent entire days doing nothing but reading the critical scholarship.

Airman, Boltman, the historical Jesus researchers, the form critics.

I went back to my notes on the synoptic problem.

I reminded myself repeatedly of everything I knew about the compositional history of John’s gospel, its probable late date, its departure from the synoptic tradition, the theological agenda of the community that produced it.

I was trying to restore the proper distance between myself and the text, the clinical remove that had always served me, the necessary glass wall between the scholar and the subject.

But the glass wall was not working the way it was supposed to and I could not fix it and I did not understand why until much later.

The reason was this.

At some point during those two weeks without my permission and without announcing itself, the nature of what I was dealing with had changed.

I was no longer dealing with a text.

I was dealing with a person.

And you cannot maintain clinical distance from a person the way you can from a text.

A text can be footnoted.

A text can be historicized and contextualized and placed in a critical apparatus and examined from a careful remove.

A person is in the room with you.

A person looks back.

a person if [clears throat] the Gospel of John is telling the truth about anything at all is not confined to the pages of the document that describes him.

I did not want to think that.

I pushed it away every time it came, but it kept coming back.

The way a question keeps returning when the answer you’ve given it is not actually sufficient.

About 10 days into my isolation, I went to a gathering I had almost declined.

A colleague of mine, a man in the literature department at the university, a Christian, someone I had always managed to keep in the professionally civil but ideologically distant category, had invited me to an informal dinner at his home.

A small group of believers, he had said just a meal and conversation about faith.

nothing formal.

I almost didn’t go.

My stated reason was that I was too deep in my work.

My real reason was something I wasn’t examining directly, a vague, unfamiliar sense, that I was in an unusually exposed state intellectually, and was not fully confident in my ability to perform the role of Hassan Alamin, the unassalable scholar, with my usual clean authority.

But I went anyway, partly from the sheer force of habit that had always driven me toward rooms full of Christians, and partly from something else, something I could not name, something that felt like hunger, wearing the costume of intellectual curiosity.

The gathering was modest.

An apartment, a shared meal, 12 or so people, academics, a pastor, a few graduate students.

They welcomed me warmly, genuinely warmly, in the specific way of people who welcome someone they were not expecting to see and are pleased by the surprise.

The conversation turned, as it always did in those settings, toward faith.

I engaged.

It was what I did.

I was courteous and measured and precise.

I was not aggressive.

I was not hostile.

I simply represented my position with the confidence of a man who has represented it many times before and has never found it wanting.

But there was someone in that room who was different from everyone else there.

A man sitting in the corner, older than most of the others, with the hands of someone who worked with them physically.

the kind of quietness about him that people have when they are accustomed to listening more than they talk.

He was not an academic.

I could tell that immediately.

He was there because someone who loved him had brought him or because he belonged to the same faith community and had simply come along.

He said almost nothing for most of the evening.

At some point I made a particularly sharp argument, the kind I had made hundreds of times, the kind that lands cleanly and leaves a room slightly quieter than it was before.

The academics shifted, some engaged, some retreated into the particular silence of people who know they are outgunned and are not sure what to do about it.

And then the man in the corner looked at me, not with anger, not with the wounded expression of someone who has just lost an argument and is trying to recover their dignity.

He looked at me with something I’ve spent years trying to accurately describe.

And the closest I have come is this.

He looked at me with the specific clarity of someone who can see something in you that you cannot see in yourself and who is not frightened by what he sees and who is not going to pretend he doesn’t see it just to make you comfortable.

And then he began to cry quietly without drama.

His jaw tightened, his eyes filled.

He pressed his mouth together in the way of a man who is losing the battle against something he would prefer not to do in public.

And he looked at me directly and said something.

Just a few words.

Something about knowing that Jesus loved me and that he was going to pray for me.

That was all.

The room was quiet for a moment.

I want to tell you what I felt immediately.

The honest answer is contempt.

The specific professionally trained contempt of a man who watches an opponent retreat from intellectual engagement into emotion and interprets it as a concession, a waving of the white flag dressed up in spiritual language.

I thought this is exactly the problem with these encounters.

When the argument fails, the emotion appears.

But underneath that contempt, underneath it, pressing against it from the inside, was something I did not have a category for, something that the contempt was working very hard to suppress because the man’s tears were not a retreat from the argument.

That was what I could not process.

They were something else entirely.

Something that operated on a completely different frequency from argument that did not compete with argument that could not be addressed by argument.

You cannot cross-examine a man’s love for you.

You cannot find the logical inconsistency in someone weeping for your soul.

You cannot dismiss with all your lexicons and all your critical apparatus and all your scholarly training the specific and undefended love of a person who has just promised to pray for you without knowing your name without needing anything from you without the faintest expectation that you will respond with anything other than what you have just responded with.

I drove home that night, more disturbed than I’d been in years, unsettled in a way I could not diagnose or resolve or argue my way out of.

And underneath the disturbance, underneath everything, a small and completely unexpected thing that I refused to look at directly, but that was there nonetheless.

I was grateful.

I did not know why.

I done nothing to deserve it, but I was grateful.

The nightmares started that week.

I sleep heavily as a rule.

I do not dream often, or at least do not remember my dreams.

I want to say that clearly because I do not want you to think this was a pattern for me, something my subconscious routinely did with the material of difficult days.

What happened was too consistent, too specific, too structurally identical from one night to the next to be explained that way.

In the dream, I am in water.

But the water is not water.

It is language.

Arabic script, flowing Greek letters, square Hebrew characters, Latin marginalia.

Every argument I have ever constructed, every verse I have ever memorized, every sentence I have ever written in a debate or a treatise or a footnote, all of it surrounding me, moving around me, pulling me down.

I am sinking because I
am holding on to too much.

Because each word is mine, is part of me, is part of what I am made of.

and releasing any of it would mean becoming less than I know how to be.

Then a hand reaches through the surface of the words above me.

Just a hand reaching down.

The first time I had the dream I understood the hand be reaching down to pull me up.

And in the dream I pushed it away with a fury that shocked me even inside the dream.

a fierce, dignified, absolute refusal because I am Hassan alamin and I do not need to be rescued, least of all by a hand I did not invite and cannot identify, reaching through a surface I cannot see clearly.

The second time the dream came, just two nights later, I understood something different about the hand.

It was not reaching to pull me up.

It was reaching to put one finger against my lips, to do the single thing that in 20 years of scholarship and debate and public engagement no one and nothing had ever successfully done.

To silence me, not with punishment, not with judgment, with a gentleness so complete and so authoritative that it was more arresting than any force could have been.

A gesture that said, “You have said enough.

You have argued enough.

You have filled every silence with words for long enough.

Stop now.

Be still.

And for once in your life, simply listen.

I woke from that second dream at some point in the deepest part of the night and sat on the edge of my bed in the dark for a long time.

My heart was doing something specific.

s not the rhythm of panic or illness, but something more like the feeling of standing at a very great height and looking down and realizing for the first time with complete and sudden clarity exactly how far the fall would be.

I felt something I had not felt since I was a very small boy, afraid of the dark.

I felt very, very small, and I did not know what to do with that.

I did not have a procedure for it.

I did not have a framework or a footnote or a critical reference that addressed it.

I sat there in the dark for a long time.

Then I got up and made tea and sat at my desk and opened my notebook.

And for the first time in those two weeks of work, I did not write a single word.

By the time I reached the end of that second week, I had made a decision.

I want to describe the state I was in when I made it because the decision only makes sense in the context of that state.

I was not in crisis in any way that was visible from the outside.

I was still functioning, still waking before dawn for fajger, still making my tea, still sitting at my desk and working through the text, still carrying myself with the external composure that 20 years of public life had made second nature.

I had not spoken to anyone about what was happening inside me.

I had not reached out to colleagues or to family.

I’d kept the entire interior experience sealed.

The way you seal a room in a house that is giving you trouble.

Close the door.

Don’t go in.

Handle it later.

But inside that sealed room, something had been building for 14 days that I was no longer able to manage with the tools I had available.

Something that all my scholarship could not address, that all my critical distance could not contain.

that all my carefully maintained certainty could not override a presence, a person, something that was in the text but was no longer, it seemed to me, confined to the text, something that followed me into my evenings and into my sleep and into the quiet moments between one annotation and the next.

I tried reasoning with it.

I tried ignoring it.

I tried burying it under more scholarship, more critical reading, more deliberate intellectual effort.

None of it had worked.

And a man like me, a man whose entire identity is built on the ability to find a solution to any intellectual problem does not handle the failure of his tools gracefully.

I was not graceful about it.

I was frightened in a way I would not have admitted to anyone and barely admitted to myself.

and frightened people with limited tools sometimes reach for the most drastic option available.

My plan was this.

I would finish the analysis.

I would complete my notes and then I would take this Bible, this specific copy, this Nestla Alan Diglot that was by now covered in my handwriting layered with two weeks of questions and counter questions and arguments and the occasional margin note that I had written and then tried to
scratch out because it was moving in a direction I didn’t want to go.

I would take it to the small balcony of my apartment and I would burn it in the metal basin I used for burning draft documents deliberately, physically, literally.

I understand how that sounds coming from a man who has just spent the better part of two acts describing his rigorous academic credentials.

Burning a book is not the act of a rigorous scholar.

It is the act of someone who has run out of more sophisticated options.

But this is the thing about a genuine spiritual crisis.

And I was in one, though I was not yet using that language for it.

It dissolves the categories you have built to manage reality.

It does not respect your degrees.

It does not acknowledge your credentials.

It finds you underneath all of that.

And it deals with you not as the scholar, not as the public figure, not as the man with the reputation, but as the human being underneath all of that small, uncertain, running out of answers.

I was going to burn the book because I believed in whatever desperate corner of my mind had produced this plan that removing the physical object might remove the internal disruption, that there could be no presence if there was no text, that fire would do what
argument could not.

On the night I had decided to do it, I prepared the balcony first, placed the basin, checked for matches, everything ready.

I would pray Aisha, the final prayer of the day, and then I would perform Shiamu Lyle, the voluntary night vigil prayer, for as long as it took.

I would lay myself completely before God and beg him with every resource of Arabic prayer that 20 years of devotion had given me to remove whatever had gotten into me during these two weeks to clean out the disruption to restore the clarity and the certainty
and the clean untroubled conviction that had always been mine.

And then after that prayer, I would burn the book and be done with all of it.

I laid out my prayer mat facing Mecca.

I made my woodoo carefully.

The ritual washing, hands, face, arms, head, feet with the specific attention I had always brought to it.

the attention that comes not from legalism but from genuine reverence from the sense that you are preparing yourself to stand in the presence of something holy.

I had made this preparation thousands of times.

It was as natural to me as breathing and I did it that night with perhaps more care than usual because I was asking for something large and I wanted to come to the asking as clean as I could come.

[clears throat] I prayed Issha four rakas.

I stood and bowed and prostrated with the full weight of my intention behind each movement.

I recited al fatiha and the accompanying suras from the place deep in my memory where they lived.

not recited from the surface, not performed, but drawn up from somewhere below conscious thought, from the place where 20 years of repetition had deposited them like sediment.

Then I began hyam, the voluntary prayer, the night prayer, the prayer that is not required, but that serious believers perform in the deep hours of the night when they have something urgent to bring before God.

I do not know how long I prayed.

The quality of time during deep prayer is different from the quality of time in ordinary life.

It does not move in the straight measurable line that clocks suggest.

I was in sujud prostrate forehead to the mat and I was praying with everything I had with every word available to me asking to be released from whatever had settled in me asking for the clarity to return asking with full force of a lifetime of devotion and a scholar’s command of religious language to be made again into the man I had been three weeks ago.

And then the room changed.

I want to be careful here, very careful, because what I am about to describe is the part of this testimony that matters most and the part I am most likely to get wrong through imprecision of language.

So let me tell you first what did not happen because defining the boundaries of the experience is the only way I can begin to give you its shape.

The temperature in the room did not change.

There was no light, no visible physical light, no brightness or glow or illumination in any sense that my eyes registered.

There was no sound in the conventional meaning of that word, no voice that could have been captured by a recording device, no auditory phenomenon that another person standing in the room would necessarily have heard.

There was nothing cinematic about it.

nothing that resembled the conversion experiences in the religious films I’d watched and analyzed and critiqued over the years.

What happened was this.

Something filled the room.

That is the most accurate sentence I can give you.

Something filled the room with a quality of presence so completely unlike anything I’d encountered in 20 years of prayer and religious study and spiritual practice that the only way I can describe what made it different is to tell you this.

Every genuine moment of
religious experience I had known before that night had a quality of me reaching towards something of effort of the distance between a finite person and an infinite God being crossed partially through the finite person straining in that direction.

Every prayer I’d ever prayed had that quality, sincere, genuine, but always with the sense of reaching across a vast space.

This was not that.

This was not me reaching.

This was something arriving.

Something that did not need to be reached for because it was already there.

Had perhaps always already been there.

Was more present in that room than the furniture or the walls or my own body pressing against the prayer mat.

Something so completely and overwhelmingly real that the word real stops being adequate almost immediately.

And with it, immediately with no transition, with no escalation, came a fear unlike anything I’ve experienced before or since.

Not the fear of danger, not the fear of a threat.

Something older and more fundamental than either of those things.

The fear that comes not from what might be done to you, but from what you suddenly and completely understand about the gap between what you are and what you are in the presence of.

The fear that Isaiah describes when he sees the Lord and says he is ruined because he is a man of unclean lips.

the fear of the disciples on the water when the storm stops and they look at the one who stopped it and are more afraid in the calm than they were in the storm.

The fear that in every account across both testaments is the first response of any human being who encounters genuine holiness.

Not because holiness is threatening, but because holiness is true, and truth at that magnitude is the most exposing thing that exists.

I could not lift my head from the mat.

Not because I was being physically held down.

Nothing was pressing on me.

It was more that lifting my head felt genuinely inconceivable, like trying to stand up when the weight of everything you have ever been is pressing you into the ground.

And the ground is exactly where you belong.

And somewhere in you, beneath the pride and the credentials and the years of fortification, some part of you that had always known this is relieved to finally be in the right position.

I was certain in those first moments that I was going to die.

I mean that literally.

Continue reading….
Next »