Trial of Jesus [a] and the Sanhedrin

In this thread I would like to analyze the trial of Jesus , depicted by the New Testament, in front of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin was essentially an ancient and holy religious court in Palestine. It consisted of an assembly or council of 23 Jewish judges, one from each city of Palestine. The Sanhedrin would hold trials for the Children of Israel and rule based on the Mosaic laws and works of scholars. It was formally dissolved due to Roman persecution.

In relation to the Gospels, the Sanhedrin conspired against the Messiah by paying Judas Iscariot 30 pieces of silver in exchange for Jesus . The witnesses at the trial of Jesus claimed that he had committed blasphemy, which was a capital crime.

In John 18:31 we find: "Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected." (John 18:31). However, according to Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews", James the Just was stoned to death by the order of the Sanhedrin.

Anyway, there are 22 conditions that a trial must pass before heading to the Sanhedrin. The Jews hold these conditions and traditions very highly, as it is a well-documented religious tradition that was carried out for centuries. If a trial had violated any of the 22 conditions, it was immediately thrown out and not conducted. I wanted to analyze the trial of Jesus according to the Gospels in relation to these 22 conditions, to see if this trial was probable and really could have taken place.

Laws of the Sanhedrin Regarding Trials:

1. There was to be no arrest by religious authorities that was effected by a bribe Ex. 23:8
2. There were to be no steps of criminal proceedings after sunset.
3. Judges or Sanhedrin members were not allowed to participate in the arrest.
4. There were to be no trials before the morning sacrifice.
5. There were to be no secret trials, only public.
6. Sanhedrin trials could only be conducted in the Hall of Judgment of the Temple Compound.
7. The procedure was to be first the defense and then the accusation.
8. All may agree in favor of acquittal, but all may not argue in favor of conviction.
9. There were to be two or three witness and their testimony had to agree in every detail. Deu. 19:15.
10. There was to be no allowance for the accused to testify against himself.
11. The High Priest was forbidden to rent his garments. Leviticus 21:10
12. Charges could not originate with the judges; they could only investigate charges brought to them.
13. The accusation of blasphemy was only valid if the name, of G-d, itself was pronounced (and heard by 2 witnesses).
14. A person could not be condemned on the basis of his own words alone.
15. The verdict could not be announced at night, only in the daytime.
16. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and guilty verdict could not occur at the same time but must be separated by at least 24 hours.
17. Voting for he death penalty had to be done by individual count beginning with the youngest so the young would not be influenced by the elders.
18. A unanimous decision for guilt shows innocence since it is impossible for 23-71 men to agree without plotting.
19. The sentence could only be pronounced three days after the guilty verdict.
20. Judges were to be humane and kind.
21. A person condemned to death was not to be scourged or beaten beforehand.
22. No trials are allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or on a feast day.

More info: http://jdstone.org/c...es/s_trial.html http://jdstone.org/cr/pages/jezuz.html

1. Was there a bribe? Yes - the council allegedly bribed Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples of Jesus . "Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, ‘What will you give me if I betray him to you?’ They paid him thirty pieces of silver. And from that moment he began to look for an opportunity to betray him." (Matthew 26:14-16)

2. The criminal proceeding was happening throughout the night. My proof is Matthew 26, when Jesus is arrested, taken to the criminal hearing, and Peter denies him three times. Verse 34 "this night before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times". Verses 40 and 45, the disciples are sleeping. Verses 57-68, the criminal hearing, testimonies, and witnesses are taking place. 69-74, Peter is outside in the courtyard denying Jesus. Verse 75, the rooster crows. All of this was at night, and therefore, illegal by Jewish trial laws.

3. Chief priests, elders, and scribes took part in the arrest. "And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders." (Mark 14:43)

4. No trials before morning sacrifice - see point number 2.

5. I don't know if the trial was conducted in secret, but Luke 22:54 alleges that Peter had followed the arrest in a distance. John 18:16 says Peter stood outside the courthouse, at the courtyard (which is confirmed by other Gospels). In other words, Peter, who was the best friend of Jesus had secretly followed those that arrested him and did not walk inside the "public trial".

6. The trial did not take place in the Hall of Judgment or Temple Compound. It took place in a house. "Having arrested Him, they led Him and brought Him into the high priest's house... (Luke 22:54)

7. In none of the Gospel accounts was Jesus given a defense procedure prior to their accusations and the trial's false witnesses, which yet again breaks another Sanhedrin code.

8. All argued in favor of conviction; we find no evidence that any of them were not in favor. "Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put him to death" (Matthew 26:59) First person not in favour was Pilate.

9. The testimonies of the witnesses are all thrown out by the Sanhedrin in Mark 14:55. Then two witnesses said that they had heard Jesus say that he will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. Mark 14:59 says even these two testimonies did not agree. Therefore, not fulfilling this requirement.

10. Jesus practically testifies against himself by keeping silent as the witnesses bore false testimonies. In all accounts, Jesus kept silent when questioned if he had threatened to destroy and rebuild the Temple, which according to Mark, was a false and inconsistent testimony. Jesus MUST answer to this accusation to fulfill the requirements of the Sanhedrin. Also, to claim to be the son of God (in Hebrew, it means a righteous person) and/or Messiah is not a crime in Mosaic law, and therefore a blasphemy sentence cannot be achieved from this.

11. There is no information on the high priest's garments that I know of - it is plausible that they had passed this condition.

12. The initial charges in Mark 14:56-59 were not the ones acted on. The Sanhedrin had acted on the question posed by the high priest in verse 61, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?", in 62 Jesus says he is, in 63-64 the high priest says "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" and all condemned him to death. Therefore, the charge acted on was the one initiated by the high priest and not the ones brought forth from the witnesses.

13. Jesus did not pronounce the name of God (YHVH) and therefore did not blaspheme.

14. One cannot be condemned based on words alone - Jesus was condemned based on his words alone, in every version of the trial. His crime was the claim to be the son of God and Messiah, both of which are not a crime in Mosaic law.

15. The trial and verdict was all done at night before the rooster had crowed, as proven earlier.

16. The trial and verdict was all done within the same night, therefore, violating the 24 hour gap rule.

17. The high priest announced the verdict initially, and not in order from youngest to oldest (or any particular order).

18. A unanimous decision in the Sanhedrin equals innocence, since an entire council of 23-71 men cannot agree together without illegal plotting. The council was unanimous, therefore Jesus would have been let free and not convicted

19. The council immediately brought Jesus to Pilate in Mark 15:1, and the crucifixion took place in the third hour of the same day (Mark 15:25).

20. The Judges, elders, and scribes had beaten the Messiah throughout the trial, mocked him, and later followed him to the crucifixion, mocked him more, made a crown of thorns, etc.

21. Mark 14:65, Jesus was blindfolded and beaten at the courthouse.

22. Mark 14 indicates that it was indeed Passover (verse 14). Luke 22 as well.

Therefore, I conclude that the trial of Jesus according to the Gospels violated at least 21 of the 22 conditions. The only condition it did not violate was concerning the garment of the high priest. Traditionally, in Judaism, a trial is thrown out if one condition was violated, but here we see the violation of the entire structure of this trial and sentence.

These facts speak volumes about the historical accuracy of the New Testament. The likelihood of this taking place is very improbable, as the Sanhedrin strictly followed its code and traditional procedures in all trials. What we find in the Gospels resembles the Sanhedrin in no way. This means that either a) the authors were awfully misinformed on the traditions of the Sanhedrin, as they were Greeks, b ) the Jews had unusually and deliberately violated all of their traditions without the Gospel writers making note of this, or c) the trial simply did not occur. Either way, the story does not really add up.

The Gospel of Thomas

I thought this would be interesting. I wanted to do an analysis of the Gospel of Thomas, and keep it all in this thread - everyone is welcome to post their own tidbits of information about the Gospel of Thomas; I encourage that as many people contribute useful information as possible.

Where can I read the Gospel of Thomas?: Here - http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

What is it?: To give a little background, the Gospel of Thomas is a text from the Nag Hammadi library, found in Egypt in 1945, along with many other texts (gnostic works).The document is nearly completely preserved in a Coptic papyrus manuscript, and contains 114 sayings of Jesus . It is sometimes called the fifth Gospel, as it can be rightfully placed in its own category that may historically be at par with the canonical Gospels.

Structure: It differs from the canonical Gospels in many ways; most importantly is the structure. The four Gospels of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are written more or less in a chronological order, in the form of a narrative. They tell a story, some from the birth to to alleged death of the Messiah . The Gospel of Thomas, however, is simply a list of narrations. The significance of the order of these narrations are unknown, but interesting nonetheless.

Authorship: to quote from wiki: At the beginning of the document, the writer calls himself Didymus Judas Thomas and this is the source of its name, but most modern scholars do not consider Apostle Thomas its author and the author remains unknown.[April D. De Conick 2006 The original Gospel of Thomas in translation ISBN 0567043827 page 2] The document was most probably for a school of either early Christians or Gnostics who claimed Thomas as their founder. Didymus (Greek) and Thomas (Hebrew) both mean twin.

I find it interesting that the Gospel is written in the perspective of Thomas. Although it is doubtful that he had written the work, the author still attributes it to Thomas, while all of the canonical Gospels are written completely anonymously.

When was it composed?: Scholars disagree with when this text was written. There is the "early camp", which argues that it is a first century text (dating between 50 CE and 100 CE) and the "late camp", arguing that the text is dated sometime between 100 CE and 150 CE.

Early camp arguments:

-The genre of a "sayings collection" is indicative of the first century (like the Q document)

-Independence from the canonical Gospels: apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels. This would mean it was produced either before the Gospels were popular, or before they had existed.

-Relationship between the Gospels of Thomas and John; how John could have been a counter-narrative to Thomas. This issue can be a thread on its own.

-Role of James the Just: Albert Hogeterp argues that the Gospel's saying 12, which attributes leadership of the community to James the Just rather than to Peter, agrees with the description of the early Jerusalem church by Paul in Galatians|2:1-14, and may reflect a tradition predating AD 70.Meyer also lists "uncertainty about James the righteous, the brother of Jesus" as characteristic of a first century origin.

Late camp arguments:

-Text might be dependent on the unique Syriac versions of Matthew

* Matthew 10:16 parallels Thomas 39.
* Matthew 10:37 parallels Thomas 55 and 101
* Matthew 10:27b parallels Thomas 33a.
* Matthew 10:34–36 parallels Thomas 16.
* Matthew 10:26 parallels Thomas 5b.


-Lack of apocalyptic themes: Bart Ehrman argues that the Gospel of Thomas has a gnostic tinge to it. For example, it does not mention Jesus' imminent second coming like the older canonical Gospels and instead emphasizing that salvation/the kingdom of God depends on the understanding of Jesus' phrases and their hidden meanings. Esoteric, mystic, and therefore likely to be an early gnostic work.

Either way, it can still be considered an early text, which possibly dates to when the 4 Gospels were being written, or even before, and this point is very significant.

What makes Thomas stand out from other Gospels?: I would say this would include some of what it leaves out. No mention of the crucifixion, resurrection, trinity, or atonement of sin. Instead, salvation relies on the understanding of the sayings, where through one can attain sonship and shall not die. The very first line says:

1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." (Thomas 1)

This indicates that if the Gospel of Thomas was being written at the same time as the Gospels, which is likely, then many of these concepts must have been in debate amongst the early Christian community.

Gospel of Thomas in relation to Shi'ah Islam: I'd like to quote my brother macisaac on something he said two years ago about this subject:

--

Quote

Gospel of Thomas
This is partly so that I can begin collecting my thoughts on this one, and perhaps work on something more substantial, in sha Allah. I've long been interested in the Gospel of Thomas (the one found at Nag Hammadi), even before becoming a Muslim. For those who don't know about it, this was one of the Coptic texts found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. It wasn't the only "gospel" found amongst that collection, but out of all them this has gotten the most attention. Some biblical scholars in fact would consider it a "fifth gospel", of equal or even greater merit than the ones that were included by the Church as authoritative, though of course this is controversial.

The structure of the gospel is different from the four in that instead of talking about events from Jesus' life, it purports to relate a number of "sayings" from him. Some of the sayings are parallel to ones found in the Bible, others are not. The work introduces itself this way:

These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.

(1) And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."
Thus, the knowledge that the teaching relates is in the salvific role. This calls to my mind the emphasis that the Imams placed on the `ilm, the knowledge, that they inherited from the Prophet. To say interpretation, calls to mind the notion of "tawil" as related to the meaning(s) of the Quranic verses (ayat, signs), which they were the guardians of. The role that Christ is ascribed to in the text in some places reminded me of some of the more esoteric aspects of Imamism, that is, of Shiism, but God knows best.

Anyhow, I read it again recently, not having done so in while now, and I was struck by a number of things. So much so that I think it would be interesting to write a commentary on it from a Shia perspective. Some of the sayings are difficult, and I cannot say with certainty what I believe about the historicity of the text, but as a meditation it is interesting.

Before discussing this I want to make clear that what I'm writing here is thoughts that come to my mind when reading this, I cannot authoritatively say or claim that this is of a certainty what the text (and texts) actually means. But to give a taste, some parts that strike me in particular:

- one is the number of logia or sayings in it, 114. A Muslim might quickly recognize that number as being the same number of chapters (sura) in the Quran, 114.

- saying number 19 (itself possibly an interesting number. sura 19 in the Quran is Sura Maryam (Mary) part of which tells the birth story of Jesus, and some would see the number 19 as being significant to the structuring of the Quran (no, I'm not referring to that liar Rashad Khalifa, I mean other work such as that done by Bassam Jarrar), Allahu `alam). It reads:

(19) Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."

He who came into being before he came into being reminds me of the teaching of the Muhammadan Light, the Light of the Prophet which was the first thing created (the hadith also refer to `aql (Intellect) as being the first thing. this is understood to be referring to the same reality, but expressed in another way.)

What's particularly striking though is the reference to "five trees" and that whoever knows them will be saved (not experience death). What are these five then? What comes to my mind is the five pure ones, the ahl al-kisa, that is, the Prophet Muhammad, his daughter Fatima, his cousin and her husband `Ali, and their children al-Hasan and al-Husayn.

The use of the imagery of a tree to represent a person (and it would seem that this is an image here, and not meaning a literal tree as in this world) calls to mind the first Psalm which says:

1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Interestingly, there's also this passage in the book of Revelations:

1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Which might bring to mind this passage from Matthew:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
- so, I thought, well why not do the Shia thing again, and see what saying number 12 says... Keep in mind, the word Imam translates to leader, and refers to the Shia belief in the rightful (spiritual and temporal) succession to the Prophet, from `Ali to the Mahdi, God bless them all.

(12) The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

Interesting, the one logia that clearly speaks of the leadership after Jesus should be the twelfth... Perhaps correctly, traditionally Shias will have believed that it was Simon Peter (Sham`un as-Safa) who was the wasi of Jesus, and the Bible does have some support for this idea. However, studying the life of James does yield some interesting facts, particularly when one compares him to the first Imam, `Ali. James was called the brother of Jesus (as was `Ali called the brother of the prophet), while traditionally Christians have believed that he was actually a cousin of Jesus (which is what `Ali was to the Prophet as well.) It is traditionally believed that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church (or perhaps more accurately community) after Jesus' time. Certainly, successor or not, he did hold an important role amongst the followers, and Paul makes mention of him as such (however interestingly, it seems they did not see eye to eye on a number of things). In the end though, he is reported to have died a martyr's death (as did the Imam). Today, his role is seen as being particularly important in terms of understanding the early "Jewish-Christianity", such as the Ebionites, which stood in contrast to the developing Greek/Roman church.

Again, this is not meant as a definitive statement that this is what I think the texts of a certainty say (you have to be careful with this, especially with regards to religious texts).

And in all, Allahu `alam.

End quote
--


Comments are encouraged

Apologetics and Islam

Peace.

It's been a long time, and I apologize. I've been busy with university work, as well as pursuing my own personal research into Islamic topics.

Some time ago I finished transcribing Allamah al-Hilli's book "Bab al-Hadi 'Ashar" for tashayyu.org . It goes over logical and philosophical reasoning for Shi'i aqeeda, starting with the existence of God and ending off with the Resurrection.

You can read it in its entirety here: http://www.tashayyu.org/kalam/al-bab-al-hadi-ashar

The other reason for the lack of updates is because I've been trying to do a lot more reading than speaking. I feel that I still need to study Muslim literature and finalize my position on several topics before writing more blog entries. Insha'allah you will see more soon. For now, I leave you with this:

From the ShiaChat thread: "Are the shia wasting their knowledge?"
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234971647-are-the-shia-wasting-their-knowledge/page__pid__1992929__st__0&#entry1992929

...Apologeticism (through speeches, debates, etc.) is essentially a basterdization of knowledge. Actual tangible literature will always be worth more academically than a speech or debate, because through writing, one could present references, quotes, and simply more precise and resourceful language in general. Actually pulling out an Islamic source and reading it will usually do you better than listening to what a sheikh has to say. So from that perspective, yes, our school's standards are much higher than the likes of Jimmy Swaggart and Zakir Naik.

But where I disagree is here: how many people pursue religion as an interest? How many have the time and patience to look through resources for themselves? How many have the mind to think about deep theological, political, historical and philosophical matters? Very few. Most people are disinterested in this sort of thing. We're losing Islamic youth pop culture; music, sex, drugs, alcohol, parties, secularism, liberalism, "conservatism", and worst of all, ignorance.

Speakers are necessary to reel in those of either simple mind or simple taste. So even if that means simplifying knowledge and getting it out there in a charismatic manner, I think it's well worth it, because it will at least slightly push the masses in the proper direction, and inspire more to look into matters closely. The only request is that such people are knowledgeable. And I don't mean a university graduate; I mean someone who has really spent many years and even decades learning before speaking.

Israeli soldiers morally and consciously reject

Al Babu l'Hadi 'Ashar

Salaam 'Alaykum

Recently I've been busy with a myriad of things, but more recently with the transcribing of Allamah al-Hilli's "Babu l'Hadi 'Ashar" or "The Eleventh Chapter", al-Hilli's most famous work. It covers proof of God, His Positive qualities, His Privative Qualities, His Justice, Prophecy, Imamate, and the Resurrection.

I'm writing it for MacIsaac's http://www.tashayyu.org , but I will put up a little sneak-peak of section 1 here on Advent Islam. Expect the full text on Tashayyu.org soon.

AL BABU 'L-HADI 'ASHAR

"A Treatise on the Principles of Shi'ite Theology"
Hassan b. Yusuf b. 'Ali ibnu'l-Mutahhar al-Hilli
Translated from Arabic by William McElwee Miller, M.A., B.D.
London. Published by the Royal Asiatic Society. 74, Grosvenor Street W. 1928.
Transcribed by Qa'im ibn Mohamad

Section 1: Proof of the Self-Existent

Concerning what is incumbent (wajib) among all mukallafs regarding the knowledge (ma'rifa) of the foundations of religion (din).
And the doctors have all agreed in considering incumbent the knowledge (ma'rifa) of Allah, the Most High, and of His Positive and Privative Qualities, and of what is proper for Him, and of what is impossible for Him, and of Prophecy, and of the Imamate, and of the Return.
And all of this is by proof, (dalil), not by imitation (taqlid)
And so it is necessary to mention those things regarding which it is not possible for a single Muslim to be ignorant, and whoever is ignorant as to any of them is outside the bond (riqba) of believers and deserve everlasting punishment.
And he has arranged this chapter in sections. The first chapter is in proof of the self-existent (wajibu'l-wujudi li-dhatihi, the necessarily existent in itself). So we say that every object of thought is either necessarily existent objectively in itself, or is possible of existence in itself (mumkinu'l-wujud), or else is impossible of existence in itself (mumtani'u'l-wujud).
And there is no doubt that here [in the universe] there is that exists of necessity. If this be the necessity in itself, then that is what we were seeking. And if it be the possible, then it would need a bringer-into-existence (mujid) which would bring it into existence or necessity. Now if the bringer-into-existence be the necessary in itself, then that is what we were seeking. And if it be the possible, then it would need another bringer-into-existence. If it be the first, then it is a circle, and that is a fallacy of necessity. And if it be another possible, then it is an endless chain, and that also is a fallacy. For all the links in this chain which include all possible existences (al-mumkinat) are possible of necessity. Hence they share the impossibility of existence in itself. Hence they need some bringer-into-existence necessarily outside of themselves. Then that is the necessary (al-wajib) of necessity - which was what we were seeking.

Update

Salaam 'Alaykum,

May the peace, blessings, and mercy of God be upon you all, and on His righteous worshipers.

I haven't been posting very often due to a recent business in my everyday life. Work has been taking a lot of hours from me, and I have been awfully sick. I have the flu (not swine, just the regular flu), so I have been on anti biotics and taking as many naps as I can when I'm at home. I've got a constant headache, throat ache, stuffy nose and I've been overall drowsy. Alhamdulilah, praise be to God, that I am not worse, and praise be to God that I am getting better. And He is the best Healer.

I've also been working for brother MacIsaac on his Tashayyu.org website. I'm currently transcribing an English version of 'Alama al-Hilli's book, al-Bab al-Hadi-'Ashar (the 11th Door), which is an analysis of concepts such as God, His Justice, Prophethood, Imamate, etc. If all goes as planned, insha'allah I will have it on his website by next week.

I plan on returning for regular articles here @ Advent Islam sometime next month. Until then, you will hear from me once in a while. You can find me at ShiaChat.com as well, under the username Qa'im.

Please remember me in your du'a,

May God bless His prophets and His worshipers,

- Qa'im

tashayyu.org

May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you all.

Our good brother MacIsaac, a prominent Shi'i Muslim revert and an admin at the ShiaChat forums, has started a database. This website, www.tashayyu.org , is a dedicated effort towards compiling and translating classical Twelver documents.

It already includes a small collection of ahadith, works of kalam fiqh, as well as other studies. It is a work in progress, but insha'allah, brother MacIsaac will be expanding it.

http://www.tashayyu.org/