My friend Fakhri Owaisi tagged me in a post that was put out by my other friend, Nick Orzech, which was shared from an anonymous source about his/her preference for Islam and why, even though the individual seems to be a fallen-away Catholic, now Atheist (I think? Correct me if I’m wrong, guys…)
The commentary remarks upon Islam’s ability to unite goodness, truth, and beauty in light of “fitrah”, which is a belief in original innocence. I would say that, although Christianity does believe in “the condition of sin” that affects all human beings by our very nature, we also believe in the innate desire which transcends all desires, resting in union with the divine, often through the effects of goodness, truth, and beauty. So, Christians and Muslims are generally on the same page there.
I also would say that seeing God working in previous religious traditions, and leading up to your own, isn’t solely unique to Islam either. Christians have a long tradition of seeking out elements of truth in this manner, which enabled the survival of Pagano-Christian festive and folk traditions in Europe. This is because we believe in a Natural Law written on our hearts, and that we are made in the image and likeness of God. We also see these things as often containing some element that points towards ultimate fulfillment through the Incarnation.
The same shared principle applies to societal development in religious societies; it’s not just an Islamic thing, but something you also see in Middle Age Europe under Christianity. The university system is just one example of that. Obviously, some things flourished better in the Islamic world, which pulled ahead in the areas of math and science for example, but Christians were quick to learn from them through contact with them and ultimately learned to build upon it themselves in the same era.
Actually, Islam and Christendom, East and West, two halves of the world, cross-pollinated each other a lot in that time period when interaction became more common, thanks to the wars which sprung up between us. This is especially noticeable in literary and specially on scholastic levels. You can see Frankish poets using Sufi styles to woo their ladies fair, and Muslim scholars using Christian rhetorical styles to carry on debate.
The same goes for social justice issues, and the ethics of chivalry. We each shared quite a lot of ground-work, with regards to the way in which a noble “knight” should conduct himself. Basically, it was to honor God, defend your respective faith, protect the rights of the poor, be courteous, humble, and generous. You can read the letters of Saladin and Louis IX and get almost the same general vibe, which I find kind of awesome, really.
Obviously, neither of us always lived up to the ideal, but the ideal was there nevertheless. We all share these things, as human beings with Natural Law carved inside us (which I believe is part of the concept of “fitrah”; that innate pull towards the divine and His ways), and as Abrahamic people, with a common grounding source of our spiritual heritage. We should all acknowledge these points instead of trying to play the “one-up”game, which both sides tend to, now and again.
As for Muhammad in comparison with Jesus, yes, they obviously faced different things, with Muhammad being involved as a political figure and Jesus being apolitical. But I would argue that this is kind of telling with regards to our world views. Christ said that His kingdom was not of this world, but rather His mission was to be undone by the world, and thereby redeem it through dying to Himself. Basically, the heart of Christianity is a subversive sense of “losing” in order to win.
Muhammad, on the other hand, clearly believed he was called to establish a government (which would ultimately become an empire) that upheld the rightful worship of God as he understood it. And he was super successful at that. As a Christian, I don’t believe that makes him a bad guy, nor one who could not have fit in pretty well with the Old Testament style prophets, but I also don’t see that as the end game God wants when all is said and done, nor the secret manner in which we are “saved.”
This is not to say that individual Christian princes and pontiffs did not launch military campaigns and religious persecutions in the centuries following; quite a few of which are pretty cringe-worthy from a modern perspective. But still, the origin point of the Christian, the way in which it initially spread, and its sense of calling in the immediate aftermath of the major events recorded in the Gospels, was not military in nature.
If Peter, James, John, and Paul had dedicated themselves to trying to raise an army and raiding Roman posts, especially once the persecution got underway, the flavor would be more like the flavor of early Islam. But they did not. It’s not even a matter of not having the power to; they didn’t even give it a shot, because it’s pretty clear they did not see it to be a part of their mission. It was not to try and overtake governments, but to preach and teach populations.
And I think it’s fair to conclude this is because Jesus Himself gave no indication that military conquest was the thing to do to spread the Good News. Indeed, He foretold that persecution would come to His disciples, but never indicated that raising up an army was the game-plan to deal with it. There are countless saints who are martyrs, but the saints who are warriors are actually pretty rare (and even among the handful that are, several of them are known more for leaving the military than staying in it).
Again, I’m not saying the early Muslim companions of Muhammad were bad guys for taking the paths they did; it was a different time and place, and they were usually warriors born of a warrior culture. And they believed they were doing this for the glory of God, and oftentimes, for the common good in general. But the apostles were not warriors, nor did they have a Lord who indicated any warrior prowess Himself. Call that happenstance if you like, but I feel it’s a blessed happenstance, indeed a providential one.
Basically, I believe Christianity is like the unfolding of that great secret, the fulfillment of a promise that is like a twist ending to a plot. It’s totally not how we’d have expected it, but there you have it. And once that twist happens, it changes everything, even our own natures. So, it’s like a whiplash effect for me, thinking of going from Christ back to Muhammad, when it seems to me the Old Testament actually cracks open and reveals the New, and with it, a new era of grace.
So that’s why things change, like for example, rulings about marriage, how many wives you can have, when you can divorce, etc. You see things change with regards to dietary restrictions, being told that it is more important what comes out of your mouth than what goes in. And suddenly we have been made more than creatures, or servants (though both designations, of course, remain a part of our identity); we are now sons and daughters of God through Christ.
The core Islamic concepts, in so far as I have explored it, seem to fit into an OT mindset; there’s nothing wrong or evil about that. I can even appreciate that, respect that, see the goodness, truth, and beauty in that, just as I can do with Judaism. But if you have a NT mindset, and a belief in the Church that presides over this new era of grace, then it’s very hard to look back and see it as a “fulfillment” of what the Gospels proclaim.
Basically, it feels veritably the same (give or take some particulars) as what has come before, which might be interpreted as admirable consistency, and a return to the way things were supposed to be before Christian thinkers went bats and gummed them up. But it could just as easily be interpreted as a sort of being stuck, turning back the clock to a time before the “new creation” stuff happened, as if all these beautifully radical concepts were just a desperate mirage or a feverish dream. It’s to condemn the dream to die for blasphemy.
According to this form of fulfillment, we’d be back to “knowing our place”, as it were, because we overstretched ourselves. Not a bad place, to be sure; being a servant of God is actually a pretty huge honor as it is, and really all we rightfully deserve. But I believe grace doesn’t just give us what we deserve; it gives us a scandalous overabundance. It lavishes. It’s Christmas morning and sparkly packages and colored ribbons a thousand times over. That’s what all these holiday trappings represent: Grace, the bloodstream of the Body of Christ.
But rolling around to the finale of the statement of the reflection I am commenting upon, pertaining to the necessity of believers to be involved and serious about their religion, again, I think we all should of course hold to the concept of being “a priestly people,” whether we are Christian or Muslim, because we all are ultimately judged by our hearts and the way they “speak”, if you will. The heart speaks the realest part of oneself. We must teach it to speak love and truth before God, and ask that He breathe into them, to make them flesh, not stone.