Answering "answering-islam.org"
Part 9
Islam And Christianity
The following is a summary of a lecture by a western Islamologist and Theologian which has been given to a Christian student group. I think that more people might profit from reading it. The article is posted with the permission of the original author. May it help towards a better understanding among Muslims and Christians and help to clear up some of the many mutual misconceptions about the other faith.
Comment:-
Though the author tries to be objective, it is written from a Christian point of view.
Islam is quite tolerant towards Christianity and Muslims do not really have any quarrel with Christians. They can believe what they like. The problem has been the attacks against Islam by Christians.
"They are not all alike. Of the people of the Book there is an upright community, reciting the revelations of Allah throughout the night, falling prostrate (in Surrender). They believe in Allah, and in the last day, and bid intelligent (or right) conduct, and forbid what is stupid (or wrong), and vie with one another in good works; these are among the righteous." 3:113-114
"Thou wilt surely find that the strongest in enmity against those who believe are the Jews and the idolaters (Pagans); and thou wilt find the nearest in love to those who believe to be those who say, "We are Christians". That is because there are amongst them men devoted to learning (or priests) and men who have renounced the world (or monks), and because they are not proud." 5:82
"Verily, whether it be of those who believe, or those who are Jews or Christians or Sabaeans, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and acts aright, they have their reward with their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." 2:62
"Say: O ye people of the Book, come to an agreement between us and you, that we will not serve other than Allah, nor associate aught with him, nor take others for lords rather than Allah. But if they turn away then say, "Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered." 3:64
Christian:-
Christianity and Islam share much common ground. Both trace their roots to Abraham. Both believe in prophecy, God's messengers (apostles), revelation, scripture, the resurrection of dead, and the centrality of the religious community. This last element is especially important. Both Christianity and Islam have a communitarian dimension: what the church is to Christianity the "umma" is to Islam.
Comment:-
This is correct. But it is also important to mention that they share Jesus. It is this fact which becomes also the cause of controversy.
Christian:-
Despite these significant similarities, however, these two world religions have a number of significant differences as well. I would like to comment on these -- not to engage in any kind of polemic (since I consider polemic a sign of religious immaturity) but to foster better understanding. A true dialogue between religions can be built only on nuanced understanding and not caricature.
I will discuss these differences under four general headings:
I -- The Understanding of God
Muslims and Christians believe there is only one God / Allah. The basic testimony of Islam is called the 'shahada', the first clause of which states that "la ilaha illa Allah" -- "There is no god but God." This is certainly a statement that Christians would affirm. But how Christians and Muslims conceptualize God in their respective theologies is actually quite different.
Comment:-
One could say that because the concepts differ they do not really worship the same God, though both consider Him to be the creator of the Universe and all things in it.
Christian:-
The emphasis in the Islamic theology of God can be summarized by one word: 'tawhid', which means "absolute unity." Muslims insist that there is no distinction within the Godhead. God is sublimely one. Thus the Islamic polemic against Christianity has centered on the doctrine of Trinity. This is the central doctrine that causes problems for Muslims when they consider Christianity. Muslims have caricatured Christians as tritheists guilty of "shirk", that is, attributing an associate to God. By believing in the Trinity, Muslims say, Christians believe in three gods. This attitude is expressed in the Qur'an: Say not "trinity", Desist. It will be better for you. For God is One God (4:171). They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no God except One God (5:76).
Comment:-
In fact Quran 4:171 says "Say not Three."
Christian:-
But every one who knows Christian theology well knows that the doctrine of Trinity was articulated precisely to oppose the idea of believing in three gods! Apparently the understanding of the Trinity was very inadequate among the Christians with whom the earliest Muslims interacted. Early Muslims, therefore, came to understand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in very distorted, inadequate terms. It seems that some even believed that Christians worshipped Mary as part of the Trinity! This misunderstanding of the Trinity found expression in the Qur'an itself: "And behold, God will say; O Jesus the Son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, "Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God?" (5:119).
It seems that in the era of the Qur'an it was assumed by many people that the Trinity was the Father, the son Jesus, and Jesus's mother Mariam (Mary)! So the Trinity was misunderstood.
Comment:-
This is not the problem. Jesus and Mary were certainly worshipped and are worshipped by Christians even today. The Trinity includes the Father, whom Jesus calls God and Muslims call Allah, Jesus as the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Muslims do not regard either of these two as God. This is because they were sent by God and were required to serve God. They are certainly distinguished from the Father. That is why the Christian concept is regarded as Tritheism in fact, whatever Christians might say.
Christian:-
This is not to place blame on the people back then. The Trinity is not easy to understand; in fact, it is an ineffable truth, not graspable by the human mind. How many heresies in Christian history have arisen because people attempted to detract from the mystery of the Trinity, coming up with doctrines that were more easily "digested" by the human mind. No, the doctrine of Trinity cannot be reduced to the pale categories of human reason. It is arrogant for anyone to think that he or she can grasp the mystery of the Godhead! So the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is not readily understandable in terms of human reason should not worry us. This is what the proper Christians response should be to any polemic against the doctrine of the Trinity. We, in all humility and submission to God can only say this: God has revealed himself as Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We do not rationally understand this.
Comment:-
The Islamic position is that the Trinity was not taught by Jesus and was made up by the Church. As it causes confusion it ought to be discarded. In any case, it is superseded by Islam. This does not mean that Christians must discard it, but Muslims must. It is not consistent with Islam. Nor does it necessarily mean that the notion might not have had some function in the past or some people. Otherwise the Quran would also have condemned the rituals connected with it.
Christian:-
Perhaps the best way to enable our Muslim friends to understand why we believe that God must be a Trinity is to emphasize Christianity's fundamental teaching regarding God, namely that GOD IS LOVE. Now, love can 'never' be exercised in isolation. You cannot be all-loving and be alone. Love is manifested 'in relationship', and for that reason the God who is LOVE must exist within a "community within himself," that is, within a community of three Persons, among whom their mutual love is so perfect that they, though three, become perfectly One! This is the fundamental truth underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. So do not try to come up with a rational explanation of the doctrine of Trinity to try to "prove the Trinity" to your Muslim friends. That is a waste of time. Rather, try to help them understand how affirmation of the mystery of the Trinity - despite the limitations of human reason -- is part of the Christian's surrender and submission ('islam') to the God beyond all understanding!
Comment:-
If Christians tell us that Religion (Islam) rather than God are represented to us by God, the Messenger (who carries the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit which informs both the Messenger and those who follow him, then this is perfectly understandable for Muslims. The Love of God is conveyed through the Spirit to man.
But to say that God Who transcends all things and has created all things is divided into three cannot be accepted because this refers to relativity and creation, not to God, Who is Absolute and existed before creation. Love connects one to another, which is distinct and did not exist before creation of something to be loved. Besides, Allah has many attributes besides Love and cannot be restricted.
Christian:-
It is from this same perspective -- that GOD IS LOVE - that we should try to explain how Jesus can be the Son of God. Such a statement is blasphemous to Muslims; they believe that God is "far above" having a son. On the contrary, Christians see the Sonship of Jesus not as a blasphemy but as a testimony to the divine love, which is so intense (again, beyond all human understanding) that God was not content only to bless his creation from outside of it. No, actually humbled himself to the point of becoming a part of his creation through the Incarnation of his Son Jesus Christ! By becoming part of the created order, by taking on a full and a complete human nature, God sanctified humanity "from within," so to speak. Both Islam and Christianity say that God is totally other and beyond human comprehension, completely beyond the ability of humans to grasp, yet Christians add something completely different: that God sanctified the world by deigning to become part of it, by loving us so much that he was willing "to come down from his throne" to became part of this mess which we call the world. In this bold -- and wonderful -- assertion, Christianity stands apart from both Judaism and Islam, which stress the total otherness and transcendence of God to the point where it is incomprehensible to them that He could become part of the created order.
Comment:-
Yes, we understand your theory.
But God is omni-present any way and does not need to incarnate. The Christian has misunderstood the Islamic position. God is both transcendental and imminent. He is also personal in that his spirit is within man (Quran 15:29, 32:9).
Muslims do not deny the symbolic use of the term "Son of God" as defined in John 1:12, John 3:3-7, Romans 8:14 and John 10:34 which refers to Psalms 82:6. The Quran denies the literal understanding of this phrase because it was widely misunderstood. That is why Islam abolishes it and replaces it with "slave of God" which is, of course, more compatible with the notion of "Surrender" (Islam).
Christian:-
II -- The Understanding of Revelation :
Christianity believes that God revealed Himself in order to redeem us, to save us -- that is to lead us to a fullness of life, freed from the bonds of sin both in this world and in the world to come. According to Islam, on the other hand, revelation is not for the purpose of redemption, but for the sake of "guidance". That is, God's revelation is meant to provide guidance for living in this world.
Comment:-
Correct. Man has been given a certain amount of autonomy and was made as a Vicegerent to serve the purposes of God. He is to learn and is to be tried and tested. It does not make sense that man should be made to sin and then redeemed all without any effort on his part. This seems entirely purposeless.
Christian:-
In Christianity, revelation is mediated. We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but we do not believe that God mechanically transmitted it through certain people as if they were "channelers" of some sort. Christians hold that the Bible was written by human beings under divine inspiration, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The divine revelation was thus "filtered" through a human lens and written in human words and within human history. That is why our scriptures refer to historical circumstances; it describes not some mystical, ahistorical revelation of God but rather chronicles God's wonderful intervention in human history.
In Islam, on the other hand, the Qur'an is considered the "unmediated" word of God. In other word, Islam stresses very strongly that in receiving his revelation Muhammad was illiterate--and hence completely passive. He simply recited what was put into his mouth, without any input of his own. ("Qur'an" means "recitation.") The Qur'an -- which is seen as eternally existing in heaven -- simply descended (another name for the Qur'an is 'at-tanzil', "that which descended") and was expressed through Muhammad as a passive instrument of revelation. Anyone familiar with modern critical linguistic theory would have to question such a view. According to such theory, 'all' communication is mediated; as soon as a thought is put into words, it is mediated. The very fact that a thought is put into words means that it is "processed" and passed through a human lens, so to speak. The whole purpose of revelation is for God, whose thoughts are so far above ours, to mediate his communication to us through human language. God does not think in human language; to say so is to limit his omniscience, which is far beyond the constraints of human language! Thus Christians must call the Islamic view of "unmediated revelation" into question on both linguistic and theological grounds.
Comment:-
This is very strange. This Christian was speaking about God's works and then he tells us about human linguistic theories to prove his point! But he ignores his own scripture:-
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Deuteronomy 18:18
Christians think that this refers to Jesus. And Jesus says:-
"The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he doeth the works." John 14:10
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John 8:28
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." John 16:13
Apart from this the mediator in the revelation to Muhammad was Gabriel. The Quran on earth as recited or written down is certainly in Arabic but that does not imply that the "Quran in heaven" is in Arabic.
Christian:-
It should also be noted that Qur'an is much more a 'book-centered' religion that Christianity. It is wrong to assume that what the Qur'an is to the Muslim the New Testament is to the Christian. Not so! The appropriate analogy is this: what the Qur'an is to the Muslim, 'Christ himself' is to the Christian. We are not 'book'-centered; we are 'Person'-centered (that is, 'Christ'-centered)! Muslims say that the Qur'an is the Eternal Word of God; but we do not say that the New Testament is the Eternal Word of God. Only "Christ" is the Eternal Word! Therefore be sensitive to Muslims. Never insult the Qur'an; to insult the Qur'an would be as offensive to a Muslim as insulting Christ would be to a Christian!
Comment:-
The comparison is not quite true. Islam is teaching centered and this teaching is always with us unchanged. Whereas Jesus, the person is not with us, but reports and commentaries by third parties about his doings and sayings are.
Christian:-
By the way, Muslims, in affirming the eternity of the Qur'an, face a theological problem that is directly analogous to the one faced by Christians who affirm that Christ is the Word, existing from all eternity. Muslims ask us how we Christians can say that there is One God, who alone is eternal, and yet claim that Christ existed from all eternity. They accuse us of ascribing an associate to God in saying this. But they face the same problem in teaching the eternity of the Qur'an. How can one claim that something besides God -- namely the Qur'an -- exists from all eternity without ascribing an associate (in this case an object, rather than a person!) to God? It is interesting that both Christians and Muslims solved these parallel theological dilemmas in virtually the same way: Islam asserts that since the Qur'an is the Word of God, it always coexisted with God -- "as part of God," so to speak, since God could never be without his Word. We use the same reasoning in defending the Christian doctrine of the eternity of Christ: as the Word of God, Christ always existed with God the Father. Christ is co-eternal with the Father since God the Father could never exist apart from his Word! One Eastern church Father, Gregory of Nyssa, explained this mystery in this way: God eternally spoke his Word (namely, his Son). And when he eternally spoke the Word, there came forth eternally from his mouth the Spirit (namely, the Holy Spirit, "ruh ul-quddus"), by which the Word was spoken. (Breath, after all, is necessary for speech!) Thus, from all eternity, the Word and the Spirit co-existed with the Father! Islam claims the same thing about the Qur'an as the Word of God! Do you see the similarity in reasoning?
Comment:-
Some Muslims might reason this way. But it is not similar. The Word and Spirit cannot be independently gods. We do not say that the Quran IS God. The Quran also agrees that Jesus is a Word of God but denies that he is God. No one's words are that person. There is no doctrine about the co-eternalness of the Word and Spirit in either the Quran or the Bible. The Word and Spirit derive from God but are not God. But they do represent God.
Christian:-
In short, while both Islam and Christianity affirm that God has spoken and revealed Himself to humankind, still there is one great difference: whereas Islam teaches that the Qur'an is God's Word to humanity, Christianity proclaims that Jesus Himself is God's Word to humanity. For Islam, therefore, God has spoken through a Book: for Christianity, on the contrary, He has spoken through a Person. In Islam, the written Arabic Book is the marvel; in Christianity, the Person of Christ is the true miracle! Christians believe that if Almighty God can reveal His will perfectly through a Book, as Muslims assert, surely He can do so even more perfectly and fully through a Person. For if God is a personal God, then a personal life would clearly be a far better means of revealing Himself than any Book, however excellent it may be.
Comment:-
The critic has failed to understand the Islamic position. Firstly there is no difference between Christians and Muslims in regarding Jesus as the Word of God. Secondly, God is a personal God because His spirit is in man. Thirdly, the Quran itself is understood as a revelation by the reader.
"We verily created man and We know what his soul whispers to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." 50:16
"Nay, but it (the Quran) is a clear revelation in the hearts of those who are endowed with knowledge, and none deny Our revelations save the wrongdoers (or unjust)." 29:24
"O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." 8:24
Christian:-
We must also mention here another standard Muslim argument against Christians: that their scriptures suffered corruption and distortion. This is called the doctrine of 'tahrif'.
Articulation of the doctrine of 'tahrif' began with the Qur'an itself. Islam affirmed the veracity of the earlier revelations given to the People of the Book; theoretically, they were fully consistent with the Qur'an. Jews and Christians, therefore, were urged to accept the revelation given through Muhammad: "O ye People of the Book! Believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was (already) with you.(4:47) "And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings and confirming (the revelations) which came before it." (6:92)
When Jews and Christians brought arguments against Muhammad and his followers on the basis of what their scriptures taught, however, Muslims had to account for the discrepancies. How could the text of the Old and New Testaments contradict that of the Qur'an if the latter was a confirmation of the former?
A number of responses to the problem are found in the Medinan 'suras'. The Jews are accused of knowingly perverting the word of God after having heard and understood it (2:75). Some actually "write the Book with their own hands and then say, 'This is from God'" (2:79); these "transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them" (2:59). Others corrupt the text by displacing words, changing them from their right places (4:46, 5:14), or by "twisting" their tongues and reading it incorrectly: "There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues. (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God," but it is not from God. (3:78) "Of the Jews there are those who displace words ...and say: "We hear and we disobey ... with a twist of their tongues.... (4:46)
Moreover, the charge of concealment (ikhfa') is leveled against the People of the Book. They know the truth as they know their own sons, "but some of them conceal it (2:146); they thereby "swallow fire" and will receive a grievous penalty for their duplicity (2:159; 2:174). "Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood," the People of the Book are asked, "and conceal the truth while ye have knowledge?" (3:71) Muhammad is depicted as coming to reveal to them much of what they used to hide in their Book (5:16). Jews are further chided for dismembering the Torah by making it into separate sheets "for show" while concealing much of its contents (6:91). Of Christians, it is said that "they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them" (5:15).
It was a creative way of trying to explain the discrepancies between the Qur'an and the earlier scriptures, but it is has absolutely no basis in the manuscript tradition. Anyone who has studied the manuscripts of the Jewish and Christian scriptures knows that there is no evidence whatever for the corruption posited by the doctrine of 'tahrif'. In fact the manuscript evidence, if it establishes anything, establishes how carefully the texts of the Old and New Testaments were passed down!
Comment:-
Here the Christian is speculating and denying what the Quran says and, therefore, implying that the Quran is wrong and not a true revelation for which he has no reason.
This is obviously not the Muslim position. The fact is that the Quran is condemning misinterpretations and presenting these as revelations. It is not necessarily the text itself that is altered. But on the other hand we have already discussed what is meant by revelation in Islam and how it differs from the Christian view. The New Testament is not revelation from the Islamic point of view, but consists of third party reports or interpretations about what Jesus did and said.
Christian:-
III -- The Understanding of Sin and Salvation :
Sin and salvation are central categories in Christian theology and spirituality. Christianity teaches that the effects of original sin have corrupted the world and the human beings who exist in it. In Islam, however, there is no such a thing as original sin. The Qur'an does indeed state that Adam and Eve sinned, but according to Islamic belief, they repented and were fully forgiven so that their sin had no repercussions for the rest of human race.
Comment:-
The Islamic position is given thus:-
"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low; Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing." 95:4
Adam and Eve can be regarded as representing mankind as a whole.
Christian:-
I believe the Islamic rejection of original sin is really the rejection of a 'specific understanding' -- what I would consider to be a 'narrow' understanding -- of original sin. Islam rejects the doctrine of original sin that asserts that all human beings inherited the guilt -- the culpability -- of the sin of Adam and Eve. This seems unfair to the Muslim: Why should we have to accept guilt for someone else's disobedience?
To respond to such a question, we Christians must move beyond a narrow Augustinian understanding of original sin, the view that "in Adam's fall we sinned all." The Calvinists later carried this view to an extreme, saying that the result of Adam's sin is total human depravity; that is, that original sin has made human beings completely incapable of doing anything good without the assistance of divine grace! Such a notion is thoroughly incomprehensible to Muslims!
There are, however, other (in my opinion, better) understandings of original sin in the history of Christian theology. These can explain original sin to the Muslim inquirer in more palatable terms. Western Christians (both Protestants and Catholics) need to move beyond the traditional Augustinian-Calvinist understanding of original sin and look toward the ancient Christian East for what I would consider to be more satisfactory explanations. Eastern Christianity understands original sin in this way: No sin that is committed is without its effect. Every sin that you and I commit -- every sin that is ever committed -- disrupts the entire cosmos. Your sin has an effect not only on you but on everyone and everything else. Any sin that you and I commit has a reverberation throughout the world, throughout the cosmos. Every puff that you take on your cigarette pollutes the air that everyone else breathes, so to speak. So when the Old Testament claims that the sin of the father will be visited upon the children, it is not issuing a threat; it is simply describing reality. Think about this proposition, and I think you will recognize that it is true. Is it realistic to claim, as Muslims do, that Adam and Eve's sin -- the first of the human race! - had no effects in the world into which all other human beings were born? I do not think so!
Comment:-
It is being implied here that "original sin" is not a revealed notion but a man made one, and not only this but the idea is presented first and then explanations are to be found for it afterwards! Why not discard it? It is also a New Testament teaching that every one "reaps as he sows". Justice requires it and God is just. Is this Christian denying this?
The actions of a person certainly have effects both internally in modifying him and externally in producing influences that cause changes in the environment. But sin according to the Quran is defined as doing damage to one's soul:-
"He who accepts guidance (or does right), accepts it only for his own soul: and he who errs, errs only against it; nor shall one burdened soul bear the burden of another." 17:15 Also 10:109 and others.
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 91:7-10
Islam is concerned with personal responsibility. Whatever, the situation he might be put into, he will be judged individually and justly which means that his efforts in relation to the situation are taken into account and probably his effects on his surroundings also, depending on his knowledge and intentions.
Christian:-
No, sin indeed has a "snowball effect": it accumulates throughout human history, impacting upon all who are born into the world. (Actually, we feel the effects of sin even before our birth, while still in our mother's womb!) What started this off was the sin of Adam and Eve -- the first, or original, sin in this process. For the Eastern Christians to say that all suffer the effects of original sin is not to say that all are "born guilty" but rather that all human beings have to deal with the powerful force of sin that has accumulated from the sin of our First Parents until the present day. If we explained original sin to our Muslim brethren in this way, perhaps it would be more understandable to them (and to us, I might add!).
Comment:-
It explains this Christian's idea of original sin, but it does not explain why they then teach that salvation comes from faith without works which also denies "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
Christian:-
Once one understands original sin in this way, I think the need for salvation -- the ability to break loose from the overwhelming bonds of sin that have grown stronger and stronger through the ages -- becomes evident. With sin's effects everywhere around us, we have an undeniable proclivity to sin; and no one of us sitting in this room this evening is capable of freeing himself or herself from sin's grip. Because Islam has understandably reacted against the deficient understanding of original sin I described earlier, it has tended not to be receptive to this more realistic understanding of the pervasive effects of sin on all human beings. Thus, it sees no need for salvation; it cannot understand how Christ's death and resurrection brings salvation. "Salvation from what?" they ask. Just as it is unthinkable to Muslims that one person should have to shoulder the guilt for another person's sin, it is unthinkable that another person (in this case, Christ) would be able to pay the penalty for another person's sins.
Comment:-
Muslims are Muslims because they believe the Quran, which they believe is revelation from God. These arguments are irrelevant. But if we wish to be rational then we can see that one person can pay the fine that others incur or go to jail instead of them, but these acts have spiritual consequences for all those involved. Justice depends on natural laws.
If the argument is that the original sin, the sin of Adam, has had a cumulative affect down the ages and it is claimed that Jesus annulled the sin of Adam, then the implication is that this original sin exists no more, which is the Islamic position. But Christians presumably say that the original sin is only wiped out for those who accept the crucifixion of Jesus without any works on their part at all. But Jesus tells us:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21
Christian:-
Furthermore, because Muslims believe that prophets are sinless (this doctrine is known as isma'), it seems a blasphemy to say that Christ died the shameful death of a sinner on the cross. They therefore deny that it was Jesus that was crucified; they say that it was Judas (whom God made to look like Jesus so that he would suffer his rightful penalty for betrayal). Through such a story, Muslim see themselves as protecting the prophetic integrity of Jesus, since a true prophet, according to Islam, could not suffer the indignity that Jesus did. Muslims affirm that Jesus ascended to heaven but deny that he died on the cross.
Comment:-
The Christian really ought not to write speculative theology for Muslims. In order to promote understanding, the Christian ought to have confined himself to stating the facts of the faith. Prophets do make errors but repent and are forgiven. That is why they are sinless. They do not deny that Jesus was crucified because of the reasons he states, but because the Quran denies that he was crucified by the Jews.
Christian:-
But back to our main point: because Muslims do not recognize the universal and corruptive power of sin, unleashed as a result of original sin, they see no need for salvation in the Christian sense. If there is no sin that has a throttle-hold on you, you do not need to be saved from it. What you should do, according to the Islamic view, is to live a good life, pleasing God in all that you do. Submit to God and follow His directives. Religion, to the Muslim, does not mean salvation from sin; it means following the right path, or the shari'a, mapped out by Islamic law. While Christianity is a faith concerned primarily with "orthodoxy," or "right belief," Islam is a faith concerned primarily with "orthopraxy," or right practice. It is a religion of law, and it sees Christianity's rejection of the Law (as taught by St. Paul in his writings, especially Romans and Galatians) as a serious deficiency in the Christian way of life. This, of course, does not mean that Islam is not at all concerned with right doctrine or that Christianity is not at all concerned with right practice. It simply means that the emphasis is different in the two religions.
Comment:-
Yes there is a difference of emphasis which need to be understood. Christianity emphasizes Love and Islam emphasizes Truth, though Justice and Love are also included.
There are three levels to be considered:- (a) correct action must be based on (b) correct faith which must be based on correct understanding of doctrines. Actions are not correct if they do not have the right intentions behind them based on correct understanding of the ethic, which of course comes through the heart from Allah. Surrender, therefore, has levels:- surrender in action to law, surrender in motive through faith and surrender of being which is righteousness.
Christian:-
But that difference in emphasis is very important. If one recognizes the pervasive power of sin, salvation is not just an option; it is a necessity. Christians lament the fact that a faulty presentation of original sin led early Islam to "throw out the baby with the bath water" with regard to their understanding of sin. By reacting against an anemic understanding of original sin, as I have described it, they have missed what Christians consider to be the central truth of human existence: that no matter how hard one tries to conform to "right practice," he or she will fall short of the goal. We cannot live the kind of life that God wants by our own power.... And that is why salvation is necessary.
These matters, of course, are very profound, and I do not pretend to have exhausted what should be said about them. In this part of my presentation, I simply wanted to point to the divergent Christian and Islamic understanding of the crucial issues of sin and salvation.
Comment:-
It is necessary to point out that Jesus did not bring a new law, nor did he come to abolish the Hebrew Law. Jesus added the emphasis on correct motives. The motive was to be to love God with all your being and your neighbour as yourself. But Christians abandoned it and had to adopt Roman Law designed to control the citizenry. Whereas a law, which is an instruction for action, can be obeyed, it is not possible to love when ordered. The difference between a secular and religious law is that the latter is designed to create the conditions, the discipline and the way of life, which facilitate the development of the correct motives and the required state of being.
Muslims do not think that we can overcome sin by our own efforts, but with the guidance and help of God. That is what prayer and the other religious practices are for, to purify us so that we can receive the power from God. In addition, the social conditions and the interactions with the rest of the environment were also to be controlled in order to create the best conditions in which spiritual development could be facilitated. Indeed, man had a duty not only to his own spiritual welfare, but also towards the society and the environment and these three - the spiritual, social and environmental factors of life are inter-dependent and are to cooperate in a mutually beneficial manner.
Christian:-
IV -- The Religious Community :
Let me conclude on a theme that reverberates in the hearts of both Muslims and Christians: religious community. What the church is to the Christians is what the "umma" is to Muslims. Christians and Muslims both consider themselves as accountable to a community of faith. It is not enough to believe in isolation; we must link our lives to brothers and sisters in the faith.
Nevertheless, there are some noteworthy differences between the Christian and Muslims visions of religious community. There is no ordained ministry or "hierarchy" in the Islamic umma. Also, in the Islamic umma there is more stress on homogeneity -- on a common pattern of life throughout the Islamic world, regulated by the 'sharia', or religious law -- than in the Christian church at large. Christians have attempted to "incarnate" Christianity as much as possible in local culture. For example, the Bible, hymns, and liturgical texts are translated into the local language and adjusted to the local culture. On the contrary, one must learn Arabic if one wants to be a good Muslim. The Qur'an is considered to be "untranslatable"; that is, to the Muslim the message of the Qur'an is inextricably link to the original language. Yes, one can attempt to render the text of the Qur'an in English, French, German, etc., but then it is no longer really the Qur'an, only an interpretation of it. Thus, when he did his famous translation of the Qur'an into English, the British convert to Islam, Marmaduke Pickthall did not call his work 'The Glorious Koran' but 'The MEANING of the Glorious Koran'. A translation is thus seen as a deviation. To the Muslim, Arabic is a sacred language; therefore one can perceive the perfection and inimitability (i`jaz) of the Qur'an only in Arabic, according to Islam.
Comment:-
Christianity is based on personalities. That is, the Christian has links with God through a third party, Jesus. That is also why it has an organized Church and Priesthood. Islam attempts a direct link between the Muslim and God and that is why it is called "Surrender" and has no intermediaries such as priests and organized Church hierarchy. Each person is responsible for his own salvation, but has some responsibilities towards others. But in order to keep the community together without this imposed organization a different way had to be found. This consists of the single unaltered Quran, the Kaaba as a centre of orientation, gathering and pilgrimage, and the various common rituals. These things have both a social and spiritual aspect, an outer and an inner dimension.
It is true that at present Muslims are at a disadvantage compared to the more mechanically organized West, but I think the future is for Islam, when this stage gives place to a more organic and spiritual system. Things do evolve from inert matter to living things to conscious beings. A similar trend can be seen in the development of the sciences from physics to biology to psychology. Social and Political development will take the same form. It is not a question of either this or that, but of changing emphasis and values.
Christian:-
Moreover, Muslims and Christians have different understandings of worship. Now, I recognize that it is difficult to talk about "Christian worship" as a single phenomenon because, as we all know, there are many, many different traditions of worship in Christianity. Different denominations worship in markedly different ways because they have all responded to different social and cultural contexts. In Islam, all Muslims worship the same way, throughout the world, with no significant variations, regardless of social and cultural context. In all fairness, it seems to me that there are strengths both to the Christian emphasis on adaptability and the Muslim emphasis on uniformity.
Comment:-
Islamic worship involves the whole man because the aim is "wholeness" (holiness) inner psychological integration as well as social unity and harmony with the environment. It therefore involves thought, feeling and action and a concentration and directing of each. These aspects of man always interact. The outer actions and postures must be such that they facilitate appropriate inner states of feeling and mind.
The format of the worship is designed to be appropriate for the people within a certain general social, cultural and ideological system that Islam has itself formed or modified. As all aspects of man affect each other, it is not difficult to see that without a comprehensive and self-consistent system there will be a great amount of wastage and "spilling" of psychological energy and neutralization of efforts and effects owing to contradictions and conflicts.
Unfortunately the original system has broken down and Muslims are left floundering except within some communes that do not get publicity.
Christian:-
When discussing differences between Christian and Muslim worship, we should also note that Muslims are very attentive not just to the interior aspects of worship but to the external aspects as well. In this Muslims have much more in common with Eastern Christianity than with Western Christianity, especially Protestantism. Like Eastern Christians, Muslims use their whole body in prayer. Both groups, for instance, make prostrations before God in their worship. This seems strange to many Protestants, whose worship consists of sitting (or maybe standing from time to time) in a comfortable setting (on cushioned pews, in air conditioned churches, etc.) What one does with the body in most Western Christian worship seems almost unimportant. Not so in Islam. The submission of the spirit is symbolized by the submissive gestures of the body, made according to a ritualized pattern. Muslims have a much easier time, therefore, understanding the spirit behind the highly developed liturgical worship of the Eastern Christian than they do understanding what they consider to by the overly informal, unregulated worship of the Evangelical Christian. This, to me, is an interesting topic in Christian-Muslim relations that needs to be explored more fully in scholarship and inter-faith dialogue: Christians and Muslims need to examine more fully -- and more objectively -- the similarities and differences between their experiences of prayer and worship.
Comment:-
It seems to me that most of the disputes between Christians and Muslims is based on misunderstandings on both sides, not just of each others doctrines and practices but also their own. That is: I believe that the majority of Christians do not understand the teachings of Jesus or understand it at a naive level. And I also believe that the majority of Muslims (though a smaller number than Christians) do not understand Islam or understand it often at an even more naive level. But then others could say the same about me and have a different opinion.
These two religions ought not to be confused with each other just because of certain resemblance. Each is a self-consistent system and the parts and aspects should be understood with respect to its own whole and not that of the other.
It is also necessary not to confuse the words with the reality for which they stand, or the specific example with the universal phenomena. Though the verbal formulations and practices and institutions might differ they refer to the same Reality which cannot be fully captured in the limits of one's understanding of words.
From this point of view and from the fact that the Quran has removed some of concepts that cause confusion and has to a large extent demythologized religion, Islam is considered to have superseded other religions. But this not make them invalid.
Allah knows best.
"And unto thee (Muhammad) have We revealed the Book in truth, verifying what was before it, and preserving it. Judge then between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their lusts (prejudices, fantasies), turning away from what is given to thee of the truth. For each of you have We appointed a Law and a traced out Path. Had Allah pleased He would have made you one nation, but that He may try you by that which He has given you. Therefore, vie with one another in virtue. Unto Allah will you all return, and He will then inform you concerning that wherein ye dispute." 5:48
----------<O>----------
Answering-AIorg-10..........Contents