Liam Neeson (who provides Aslan’s voice in the new Narnia movie
series) made the news by claiming that Aslan could represent Mohammed or Buddha. “Aslan symbolises a Christlike figure, but he also symbolises for me Mohammed, Buddha, and all
the great spiritual leaders and prophets over the centuries [sic].”1 While on one hand we should perhaps be grateful that Mr. Neeson was able to understand that there is religious and spiritual meaning to C.S. Lewis’ classic stories, in claiming that Aslan could represent any spiritual leader from any religion, Mr. Neeson demonstrates the inability of our postmodern culture to appreciate important differences between divergent beliefs and the characters important to those beliefs. One need not be religious at all to understand and appreciate these differences. Merely looking historically at characters such as Mohammed and Buddha demonstrates that they are as different from Aslan as they are from Jesus Christ himself.Of course, the differences between other religious leaders and Christianity’s Jesus have been written about extensively. Aslan is, however, nearly as poor of a candidate for a multicultural, multi-religious leader. Aslan, much like Jesus Christ, gives his life not only for his followers but for his enemy. Edmund was a traitor who betrayed not only his own family, but the return of Aslan and the plans for freedom. Aslan willingly laid down his life to preserve Edmund’s, trusting that the unproven “Deep Magic from before the dawn of time” would have the power to overcome the time-p
roven “Deep Magic from the dawn of time.” This willingness to sacrifice himself is something that is not seen in either Islam or Buddhism. Nor is Aslan portrayed as a great teacher or prophet; rather than discoursing to disciples or claiming to receive messages from heaven, Aslan is essential representative of “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.”2 He is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities.”3 Whether redeeming Edmund at the cost of his own life or weeping at the fragile state of humanity after the death of Caspian, Aslan demonstrates that his existence was not about himself, but about serving and redeeming his creation. This is not the example given by Mohammed and Buddha. They remained aloof in their ivory towers unconcerned with the tangible and true struggles of their followers. Aslan, like Christ, made himself one of his creation, willingly took on their suffering, and worked to redeem them.
Like Christ, Aslan is distinct from Mohammed and Buddha in his roles of creator and redeemer. Aslan is no mere “spiritual leader” or “great teacher” he is the creator of the entire world of Narnia, the son of the Emperor over the Sea, the true king, and the one who makes entrance into Aslan’s Country possible. Neither Budd
hism nor Islam ascribe to Buddha and Mohammed the role of creator, the power of deity, or the position of redeemer. Buddha and Mohammed left their followers to reach heaven (or Nirvana) on their own. Aslan made the way; it is only because of him that Aslan’s Country is reachable. As characters, Jesus Christ and Aslan (regardless of whether they actually exist) are fundamentally different from characters such as Mohammed and Buddha. This is not a matter of conjecture or opinion; this difference can be grasped merely by reading the different accounts of each character from each religion (or fantasy in the case of Narnia). Liam Neeson partakes of the common error of attempting to achieve political correctness despite the evidence; he also fails to accurately represent the characters of Mohammed and Buddha by equating them with Aslan.
hism nor Islam ascribe to Buddha and Mohammed the role of creator, the power of deity, or the position of redeemer. Buddha and Mohammed left their followers to reach heaven (or Nirvana) on their own. Aslan made the way; it is only because of him that Aslan’s Country is reachable. As characters, Jesus Christ and Aslan (regardless of whether they actually exist) are fundamentally different from characters such as Mohammed and Buddha. This is not a matter of conjecture or opinion; this difference can be grasped merely by reading the different accounts of each character from each religion (or fantasy in the case of Narnia). Liam Neeson partakes of the common error of attempting to achieve political correctness despite the evidence; he also fails to accurately represent the characters of Mohammed and Buddha by equating them with Aslan.
