[Originally published in Turkish Daily News]
In yesterday’s Turkish Daily News, there was a photo of a group of Turkish demonstrators who gathered in Istanbul’s Taksim Square and held a banner that read, ”We are all Christians!” They were protesting against the attacks on Christian communities and especially the savage slaughter of three missionaries in Malatya seven months ago by a gang of ultra-nationalist brutes.
Fellow TDN columnist Orhan Kemal Cengiz, who is also a lawyer and the president of the Human Rights Agenda Association, made me recall, once more, how much Turkey needs that stance against our homegrown fascism. In his Nov. 22 piece, “What is going on in the Malatya massacre case?,” Mr. Cengiz shows how prejudiced the Turkish legal mind can be against Christians. These people, although they are our fellow citizens, are seen by some prosecutors as dangerous aliens, and their religious missions are looked upon with suspicion and distaste. When such a phobia about internal enemies becomes a norm within a state, it is only natural that some maniacs in society take violent action to teach them a lesson. Every level of that bigotry is a shame on our country.
The Carpenter of Nazareth
The only real way out seems to be accepting the basic foundations of democracy that every different creed and identity should have a place under the sun. Every democrat, of course, should stand by that principle and by those who are persecuted due to the lack of it. And I am sure that’s what the Taksim protestors had in mind when they cried, We are all Christians.
Yet I want to go further and sign up for that motto in a not just a figurative but also a literal sense. As a Muslim, I think all my co-religionists and I are indeed Christians.
That might sound odd, so let me explain. The whole Christian creed goes back, of course, to Jesus of Nazareth. He was, for many people, just an eccentric Jew who created some trouble for the Jewish orthodoxy and the Roman authority. For other people, though, Jesus was absolutely extraordinary. First of all, he was born of a virgin. Moreover, he performed miracles: He healed the sick and raised the dead. And he did all this because he was the “Word of God.”
This view of Jesus is commonly known as the core of the Christian faith, but it is also a part of the Islamic one. The Koran teaches all of the above and praises not just Jesus, but also his mother Mary and his apostles, in a very profound way. At the end of sura (chapter) 61, the Koran even commands Muslims to take the apostles as their role models.
To be sure, the Koran differs greatly from mainstream Christianity on the issue of the nature of Christ. The Muslim scripture denounces the Doctrine of the Trinity, which defines Jesus as a part of a triune God. But, interestingly, that issue has always been very controversial among Christians, too. In fact, one of the early Christian views on this matter, the one argued by Arius of Alexandria (d. 336), was compatible with the Koranic picture. The ”heretical” Arian doctrine was that Jesus was not God; rather he was created by God.
The big dispute over the Trinity will remain, of course, but this neither changes nor overshadows the striking fact that Christians and Muslims are the only two communities on earth who revere Jesus Christ. If the Old Testament is enough of a bond to speak of a Judeo-Christian theology, Jesus should be enough to search for a Christo-Muslim one, too.
Perhaps that’s why the Koran defines Christians as the best friends of Muslims. ”Nearest among men in love to the believers,” verse 5:82 says, ”you will find those who say, ’we are Christians’.” It also praises the morals of Christians, saying, ”amongst them are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.”
That’s why the earliest Muslims, led by the Prophet Mohammed, regarded Christians as their friends and allies in a world damned by idolaters. Yet soon political conflicts overshadowed theological affinities. As Islam unfolded in history, many military and cultural conflicts arose with the Christians. Yet the common bond of belief in God and in Jesus remained a potential source of reconciliation.
Theology versus politics
That source is still alive today and that’s why the theologically driven Muslim attitude in Turkey is generally cordial toward Christians. The best examples would be the Nur movement and its up-to-date version, the one led by Fethullah Gülen, which have always been in favor of dialogue and understanding between Muslims and Christians.
On the other hand, there is the politically driven Christophobia. It is based on garbage such as secret plots by missionaries to tear Turkey apart or the heinous effort to reclaim Istanbul as the capital of a “new Byzantium.” To combat that mania which appeals to many secular minds as well as the religious we need modern values of democracy and liberalism, to be sure. But theology has something to offer, too.
A NOTE: Kemalism Revisited
In yesterday’s TDN, fellow columnist Burak Bekdil quoted extensively from a reader who criticized my argument that in Turkey Atatürk has been turned into a demigod and Kemalism a religion. ”Kemalism is NOT a religion,” the critic claimed, ”it is not a guide on how to live our lives.”
Well, I am not sure. Kemalism actually has clear commandments on dress code. (”Thou shall not put a scarf or fez on your head.”) But of course it is not a traditional religion with details such as dietary laws. It is rather a “political religion” as defined by theorists such as Eric Voegelin.
Mr. Bekdil’s favorite critic also points to the similarity between ”the general reading the Nutuk” and a devout Muslim reading the Risale-i Nur, a Koranic commentary. He is totally right and that is precisely my point. Since Kemalism is a creed like many others, it definitely should have a place in the pantheon of democracy. But it should not be enacted as the official ideology. When you do that, what you get is just another sort of theocracy.
It is difficult for people who try to capture the essence of an issue to communicate their ideas and I am confident that you have found it as challenging as I have. Your reasonable approach leads me to think that you are intellectually humble enough to understand that no man, system, tarikat or nation has ever been able to claim a monopoly on truth.
I would be as comfortable saying that a true Christian is also a “Muslim”, in the sense that they are called to be submitted to God, as you are in saying the opposite since, as we all know, “Islam” is purported to have begun with Adam and every prophet is portrayed as a Muslim (person submitted to God), but unfortunately to be frank what we have today is a Mohammed-centric piece of Arab imperialism that falls far short of the universal call to faith and submission. What is particularly telling in this respect is the refusal of most devout Muslims to read the “other books”, when honest scholarship clearly shows that the Koran itself confirms the authority of the Tevrat, Zebur and İncil. (see Süleyman Ateş’ excellent work entitled Yeniden İslam).
It is unfortunate that “trinity”, a word that does not even occur in the Scriptures but is instead the product of theological attempts to understand the unique role and nature of İsa, has become such a stumbling block to Muslim’s who should be reading the other books. Why should the opinions of long-since-dead theologians put us off from reading God’s revelation. An honest reading of the Koran also clearly demonstrates the UNIQUENESS of İsa. If we are to establish real dialogue, then we must be honest first of all with our own “theology” and come to grips with the way in which “institutionalized faith” has been used to control the masses in the West AND in the Middle East.
Saygılarımla,
Mr. Akyol, you said: “To be sure, the Koran differs greatly from mainstream Christianity on the issue of the nature of Christ. The Muslim scripture denounces the Doctrine of the Trinity, which defines Jesus as a part of a triune God. But, interestingly, that issue has always been very controversial among Christians, too. In fact, one of the early Christian views on this matter, the one argued by Arius of Alexandria (d. 336), was compatible with the Koranic picture. The ”heretical” Arian doctrine was that Jesus was not God; rather he was created by God.”
This is incorrect. The Koranic view of Christ is nothing like Arius’ view. The Koran says Jesus Christ was simply a human being.
This was not the view of Arius. Arius taught that Christ was the Incarnate Son of God, through whom God had created the entire Universe. Yes, Arius’ philosophical tendency to equate all types of generation with creation led him to conclude that, because only God the Father was ingenerate, in the ultimate sense the Son was created by God.
But Arius’ view was certainly not to say that Christ was just a man. On the contrary, even Arius would qualify that this creative act that generated the Son was not the same thing as the creation of the other beings. For the Father created the Son directly, but He created all other things through the Son. The Son, to Arius’ mind, was created by God before the creation of the universe in order, through him, to create the universe. The Son, therefore, was a being that pre-existed his incarnation, and was the means through whom God created the universe. He was not just a human.
In short, Arius is not that far from orthodox Christianity, at least when compared to Islam. Arius’ main problem was that he equated all forms of generation with creation. But his distance from the Islamic view is very, very great, and I cannot understand how you can make the assertion that Arianism was “was compatible with the Koranic picture.” They’re most unlike, as far as I can see.
————————
AKYOL’S NOTE:
THANKS. BUT I DON’T THINK KORAN TEACHES THAT JESUS WAS JUST A SIMPLE MAN. A VERSE DEFINES HIM AS “THE WORD OF GOD”, WHICH IS SAID FOR NOBODY BUT HIM.
Thank you for your comment, but I would find it hard to accept that the Koran and Islam in general view Jesus as ontologically anything more than a human. I would be extremely surprised if in the Islamic view Jesus’ being called the “Word of God” had any metaphysical or ontological ramifications. Rather, I would expect that “Word of God” is taken simply as a declaration of Jesus’ prophetic status. He was, for Islam, simply one of the prophets, who were all but men. If I am wrong on this, I would be glad to be corrected on how “Word of God” is understood by Islam.
Hello Mr. Akyol, I alway read your web site and I very interested with your posting. I just have a little disagreement with you on the fact that Muslims are in fact Christians.That is a simplification of the reality. Islam and Christianity have common points for sure but are still two different religion. As a Christian myself I feel that your claim is diminishing the value of Christianity by saying that Islam have all what Christianity have, hence no need for a Christian faith and we should all be Muslim.This is an argument used by fundamentalist for persecuting Christians.
Dear Akyol,
You wrote that “THANKS. BUT I DON’T THINK KORAN TEACHES THAT JESUS WAS JUST A SIMPLE MAN. A VERSE DEFINES HIM AS “THE WORD OF GOD”, WHICH IS SAID FOR NOBODY BUT HIM.”
There is no such a verse in Koran says Jesus is the word of God. Lionel was right to mark the point:” He(Jesus) was, for Islam, simply one of the prophets, who were all but men.” Lionel totally was right according to Koran view Jesus was a human being and one of the prophets like Mohammed, Moses and the other prophets. Their missions was just to invite the people to the pure faith of oneness of God.
———————–
AKYOL’S NOTE:
PLEASE READ VERSE 4:171, WHICH INCLUDES:
The Messiah, ‘Isa son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He cast into Maryam, and a Spirit from Him.
Dear Lionel and Milad,
First of all, I certainly understand your points both theologically and otherwise, but we must not be put off by any “institutionlized” orthodoxy no matter where it comes from. The theological diversity found within those communities that identify themselves as Christians is hardly greater (maybe a little) than that found among those who call themselves Muslims.
Let’s start with the identity of Jesus (İsa). The Koran actually has very little to say about Jesus and his identity. What it does state emphatically is that there are NOT “three” gods and every “Christian” regardless of his theology can say a hearty “AMEN” to that! It is also clear from the Koran that in the Arabian experience some cult/sect/tarikat had come up with the idea that the ‘trinity’ as Father, Son and Mother since this is the ‘trinity’ that is criticized by the Koran and this is also something we ALL agree upon. Any idea of a Father, Son, Mother trinity is as repulsive to Christians as it is to any Muslim and since this is how the term is viewed it has caused problems. The sticky point always comes when Muslims insist that Jesus is not the “Son of God”, which the Koran maintains clearly and consistently. However, I believe that if Christians and Muslims were honest and studied the biblical texts they would understand that the term “Son of God” as applied to Jesus was a figure of speech that was also used of king David as a special title for the person chosen by God to rule his people. It is synonymous with Messiah as any examination of Matthew 16 or the dialogue with the high priest before his execution demonstrates quite clearly. It could/should be translated as Vice-Regent since the primary mission of Jesus was to proclaim the Kingdom of God and announce the fact that he had been uniquely chosen as the second Adam (the first male since Adam to have been born without a father – also see Kuran Ali Imran 59), that the prophecies of the Torah about a coming Messiah who would set up a spiritual kingdom was being fulfilled in his own person and that the sacrifices offered for centuries were a foreshadowing of his great sacrifice for sin.
In other words, I think “Son of God” is a rabbit trail as most Christians do not properly understand the term either and because the verses in the Koran are clearly directed at a view of trinity which was peculiar not to mainstream Chrsitianity but rather to an Arabian sect/cult/tarikat.
I think that more interesting conversation is indeed one about “Word of God”. This is also the title given to Him in the New Testament. What does it mean that “…the word of God became flesh and dealt among us”. We all know that God cannot die. He is afterall the “immortal, only wise God,” but Jesus died. His purpose for coming to the world was to die.* So, in what way was he “divine”. The NT is very clear on this point as well. The word of God did not “consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied itself and took the form of a bond-servant/kul.” In other words, the divine Word of God by which the universe was created set aside divinity and became a man so that as a man it could do what God could not – in other words die.
Jesus also lived the only sinless life ever lived on this planet and for this obedience he has been exalted and honored by God with a name above all other names. He demonstrated like no other person in history what it meant to live in total submission to God (in other words he was a Muslim). He is called the “image of the invisible God” for the perfect example of holiness which only he ever displayed.
Yes, Arius had a different Christology and mine is certainly closer to his than to most but in the end theology does not saves anyone. The eternal principle of both Old and New Testaments is “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.” Only God can save someone; they cannot save themselves or cleanse themselves of sin and yet the LORD “the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished…” The paradox of these verses is expounded on again and again throughout the Torah, in the Psalms and is the centerpiece of the New Testament. The problem of how to be both “just AND forgiving” is resolved in Jesus. After all, his message is called the “good news”. I don’t see that someone coming and laying down a new set of “thou shalts and thou shalt nots” is good news. After all, everyone has a conscience and knows already what is good and right. The good news was the message the His love is eternal, that God demonstrated his committment to forgiving and saving us in a tangible way on the cross and that we can share the glory of righteousness right now on this earth by saying “Yes” to His kingdom and “No” to the world.
Best Regards,
Mr. Akyol I have alot of respect for you, but you can’t possibly be serious. I am all for unity between Islam and Christianity whenever possible, but any unity that depends on the idea that “Muslims are Indeed ‘Christians’” is a non starter.
As for your argument for such unity, there are several problems. First, you argue that the Trinity isn’t really that important to Christianity. While there is some controversy in some liberal theological circles, and while there are some non-trinitarian approaches to Christianity, the vast majority of Christians of the world one way or another see the Trinity as defining feature of Christianity. You might as well try to argue that the Trinity wasn’t important to the Ebonites either, and my response would be so what, its important to me and most evangelical Christians, Catholics, and Orthodox.
Secondly you argue that because the Old Testament is the basis for unity among Jews and Christians, then Jesus ought to be the the basis of Muslim-Christian Unity. There are several problems with this. First, I think it would be very silly and won’t be taken very seriously if I go around telling Jews that “Christians are Jews” too. Secondly, the way Muslims relate to the Gospels is very different from the way Christians Relate to the Old Testament. While there are some differences between how the Old Testament is organized (and broken down by chapters, verses, etc.) and while different Jewish communities may not agree completely on what the (Old) Testament consists of (some consider only the Torah scriptures, and others include the prophetic writings, eg. Isaiah, for example), and while Christians interpret the Old Testament as leading up to Jesus Christ, there is NO Christian doctrine that the Old Testament is somehow has become corrupt. As far as I know, Islam regards the Bible as being corrupted by Christian and Jews. So, when Muslims claim to believe in the Bible, they certainly aren’t referring to the Bible Christians presently have. They are referring to the Bible they think Christians Ought to have. Which of course underscores the fact that the Muslims do not believe in the Jesus of Christians as their prophet, savior, and king. Muslims revere Jesus as his role as prophet ACCORDING TO ISLAM. Prophecy isn’t a basis of unity when you don’t agree on what the prophecy actually is. Thirdly, the most important flaw is that Christianity does not recognize the Koran as the final revelation of God. It doesn’t even recognize the need for such a final Revelation.
To conclude, unity is always a nice thing. But, I’m afraid that any unity that depends on Christians to see Muslims as fellow Christians is not going to get very far.
Dear Mustafa Akyol …
I witness that for the first time you have joined the fray in the comments section. Couldn’t resist, could you?
Are you a scholastic?
But we are no longer in the 12th century. Any similarities and/or differences which exist between Islam and Christianity have been epistemologically and historically settled long ago now. There is no need to re-visit. Your backward looking effort seeking to pigeon-hole these concepts into new categories is your desperate agenda and it will not work.
You are also a postmodernist.
Perhaps “post-modern scholastic” is the term which best describes this futile agenda of yours.
Good luck. You will need it. You can only succeed where there is ignorance, or where there is for one reason or another, a susceptibility to the P.R. marketing job you are trying to do for Islam. It won’t work.
The deficiencies are in Islam itself. Your own refusal to honestly engage with the hard work of genuine study in the respective epistemologies and histories of Christianity and Islam will only keep you and those influenced by yourself from seeing this.
UNDERSTANDING A MUSLIM’S VIEW OF CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY
As a Muslim, I see the sense in what Mustafa writes here. I must say that this text is more suited to a Muslim audience. Christians and other non-muslims will struggle with understanding the ‘continuity’ which we believe the prophet Mohamed (pbuh) brought to the teaching of Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) and the prophets before him.
If a Christian is defined as one who follows the teaching of Christ, then indeed all Muslims are ALSO Christian. We follow the teaching of all prophets, including Jesus, the most mentioned Prophet in the Koran.
The problem has arisen here because ‘Christians’, or at least the ones who have commented here, do not see Christianity as the following of Christ’s teachings. Our Christian friends here seem to believe being Christian is the worshipping of Christ. As one reader puts it, commentating on the Muslim narrative, ‘According to the Koran, Jesus was simply a human being’. He was indeed human! Thank God! A human, specifically chosen by God, to guide all of humanity to a righteous path and way of life. If this is not special then what is? And if he was not human, what was he then? A semi-man? semi-god? A god disguised as a man? Mythological mutant? Alien life form? God forgive me. Science and reason tells me he is a man, a special one, but still a man.
LET ME BE BLUNT
Mustafa Akyol is very obviously a very diplomatic man. He does not want to offend and tries to write in a way which can be ‘swallowed’ by all.
I will tell you how I see it, and how many other Muslims see it, like it or not. I do not speak for Islam and am simply a Muslim conveying my opinion which happens to be shared by many.
Muslims detain the truth of Jesus. Talking of Jesus(pbuh)as the son of God is a heresy. This does not befit the Creator. Many ‘renegade’ Christians understand this and are starting to approach their religion with a bit more ‘common sense’. Unfortunately, institutions and churches have corrupted the teachings of Christ. They have sidelined the words of Christ for the words of Popes, Bishops and other clergy who have indoctrinated masses and convinced them to worship Jesus as God. There are so many different versions of the bible, countless, as opposed to one universal Koran. I therefore believe that there has been a distancing from real Christianity. I believe that indeed ‘real’ Christianity is Islam. The rest is popery and other humans playing god. To follow Christ is to follow Islam, they are one of the same thing.
The prophecy of Mohamed and his message of Universal Mercy was indeed a gift from God to us all in order to correct the corruption brought to the teachings of Christ and the other prophets in order to restore their true narrative and meaning.
This does not mean the forms of Christianity being preached today are fundamentally bad teachings. I believe them to be full of good, at the worst confused.
THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE
I don’t understand why Mustafa is taking so much criticism here. We have to look beyond each of our personal quests for the truth and look at the bigger picture. Many Muslims of today, for very legitimate reasons, have developed a dislike or even hate for the West. Unfortunately, some Muslims, like unknowledged Christians, falsely associate Christians to the West. Some perpertrate crimes against Christians as acts ‘against the West’. It seems that Mustafa has tried to highlight the common ground to counter the ‘us’ and ‘them’ climate of today’s muslim and western world. Once again, I believe this article is more suited to a Muslim audience.
I applaud Mustafa’s attempt to make allies of Christians in our disgust for godlessness, materialism and other atheist fallacies. Unfortunately, even if we hold our arms open to them, I doubt they will do the same. Christians of today are a far cry from what we perceive ‘real’ Christianity to be, and without that logic, they will never want genuine dialogue. Look at the comments here, some Christians resent ‘us’ for appropriating ourselves with ‘their’ Jesus (pbuh). Regardless we will continue to follow all the teachings of Islam, including the Christianity, the uncorrupted one of course.
For those who are further interested in the place of Jesus in Islam, there is a documentary called ‘The Muslim Jesus’. It can be found on http://www.youtube.com. I thought it was an interesting and informative documentary trying to introduce the Muslim narrative to a western audience.Worth a watch maybe.
Peace be upon you all, whatever you consider, or don’t consider yourselfs!
Ceyan, I think your comments underscores some of the points raised against the issue that Akyol has made. You commented that:
“Muslims detain the truth of Jesus. Talking of Jesus(pbuh)as the son of God is a heresy. This does not befit the Creator. Many ‘renegade’ Christians understand this and are starting to approach their religion with a bit more ‘common sense’. Unfortunately, institutions and churches have corrupted the teachings of Christ. They have sidelined the words of Christ for the words of Popes, Bishops and other clergy who have indoctrinated masses and convinced them to worship Jesus as God. There are so many different versions of the bible, countless, as opposed to one universal Koran. I therefore believe that there has been a distancing from real Christianity. I believe that indeed ‘real’ Christianity is Islam. The rest is popery and other humans playing god. To follow Christ is to follow Islam, they are one of the same thing.”
All this stuff you mentioned comes from Islamic theology. Its been my experience that Muslims overstate the differences between “version” of the Bible and understante the one Universal Koran. The “versions” are different translations, and happends that versions tend to produce slightly differnt results. The King James version has characteritics than say, the New King James, or the New American Standard, or the Niv for example. And Muslims (at least the ones I talked to) seem to think that they are scoring a big point when they point out differences in the translations. Of course, if you point out differences between versions of the Yusuf Ali translation from say, from Abdel Haleem’s for example, you get disclaimers about how they really don’t reflect the original Arabic, which very few Muslims know how to read anyway. And even then, there is scholarship that shows that there were early Korans wich were ordered differently than the one you have to day, and which some had some verses and not others. The point here, is however, the way this point that somehow the Scriptures that Christian (or Jewish for that matter) are spiritually inadecuate, and that somehow that, in contrast, the Muslim one (the Koran) is unique and without this flaw is an artifact of the Islam belief system. I obviously don’t believe that as a Christian my Bible is inadequate, or that the Koran is immutable, perfect, etc. If I did I’d cease to be a Christian as I understand the term and begin to be a Muslim.
Now, like I said in my previous post, I have alot of respect for Mr. Akyol, and do think unity between Muslims and Christians is a good thing whenever possible, and my intention (and I believe the other Christians who responded to his post had similar intentions) was not to bring him down. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I think his heart is in the right place and he is doing a great service by bringing up these issues for discussion. My post It was basically an explanation to why Christian (like myself) cannot unite with Muslims using the foundation he suggested, namely that “Muslims are Christians too.” That doesn’t rule out other types of unities.
Ceyan, what I don’t understand is why you seemed suprised at the responses, especially after you, in a very clear way, also summarized the points that we raised (especialy the fact that Muslims and Christians have different doctrines concerning on who and what Jesus is. Or, as you put it, what we believe about Jesus being the son of God is a “heresy”). Why would you find it strange that Christians would not want to see Muslims as fellow Christians (or unite under this basis) if we don’t agree on this point.
Ceyan.
I reread your post, the first comment towards yours focused on the point that Mr Akyol attempted to make. The second:
“I applaud Mustafa’s attempt to make allies of Christians in our disgust for godlessness, materialism and other atheist fallacies. Unfortunately, even if we hold our arms open to them, I doubt they will do the same. Christians of today are a far cry from what we perceive ‘real’ Christianity to be, and without that logic, they will never want genuine dialogue. Look at the comments here, some Christians resent ‘us’ for appropriating ourselves with ‘their’ Jesus (pbuh). Regardless we will continue to follow all the teachings of Islam, including the Christianity, the uncorrupted one of course.”
I am going to make take a chance and say that your idea of dialogue is for Christians to meely listen to accept Muhammad as their prophet, the Koran as their Scripture, and to discard what you think are our flawed Bibles. Do I need to point out how what an arrogant thing to demand? If I am mischaracterizing you, please, correct me. I am sure that you feel like it is an act of generosity for you to share your faith, which you obviously value, and you feel hurt or frustrated when someone doesn’t share your excitement about it. And you’ve probably offended people in the process (some, of course, which may have overreacted). But, I’ll be blunt here, you are being arrogant if your concept of dialogue of Christian-Muslim Dialogue is a relationship where a Muslim tells a Christian what he/she ought to believe and the Christian passively accepts it. And perhaps, in the process you have run into Christians who were less than polite to you after you insulted them by calling them heretics for believing that “Jesus is the Son of God.” Well, shame on them for being impolite. However, I’ve been insulted by Muslims when they attempted to “dialogue” me into Islam and when I dared posed a genuine but challeging question that they did not have an answer for. And I’ll be even more blunt. From what I’ve seen, it is Muslims (although Akyol is an exception to this and is a great example of what good dialogue looks like) is a great exception to this, who are the most uncivil. When was the last time you heard of a Christian Lynch Mob demanding the execution of a Muslim who questioned the Bible or the Trinity. I’ve lost count of how many headlines I’ve seen from the Muslim world of riots, lynch mobs, etc. because someone “insulted” Islam.
Yes, Dialogue is important, we really need it. But that dialogue is over the moment one person demands conversion to the other’s religion.
Wow, this is one of the most interesting topics I’ve run into. Dialogue between Christians and Muslims. I think this post has shown some of the difficulties involved, but I think as difficult as it is, the posts show that dialogue is possible. It may not be easy, or pleasant sometimes, but its certainly necessary.
I think that we need to be clear on what the dialogue is for and what it purpose for it is, and my take is that the purpose of dialogue is to promote community, justice, and prosperity between Christians and Muslims. In my country, the US, Muslims are the minority and Christians the Majority, and in Turkey it is the other way around.
The immediate problem I see that needs to be overcome is the misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims. I think the people here do undertand each other’s beliefs, however, there are alot of Christians out there who really don’t understand Muslims, and the same goes for the other many Muslims.
For example, I keep running into fellow Christians who think that “Allah” doesn’t really refer to God (there is a theory going around in many circles that “Allah” refers to some pagan deity). There are Christians who don’t understand the contributions made by Muslims philosophers and theologians such as Ibn Sina, Ibn Rus, and al-Gazali to the world of Christendom (Ibn Sina is known in the west as Avecinna, and Ibn Rus is known in the west as Averroes).
I’ll leave it up to Muslims to discover ways that they don’t understand Christians, but here are two examples: Muslims believe (or at least seem to me to believe) that the doctrine of the Trinity is “Father, Son, and Mother.” I don’t know where this came from, and I don’t feel the need to defend a view of the Trinity I don’t hold. Another example of a Misunderstanding that Muslims have about Christians is what they think Christians believe about Jesus. While I don’t expect Muslims agree that Jesus is the Son of God, I think its fair to point out that Muslims don’t understand what we mean by that (even though what we do mean is not something that Muslims would agree with).
The point is, though, a good dialogue will permit Christians and Muslims to understand each other’s basic beliefs. If we disagree, and yes, we disagree about alot of things, lets disagree on what truly distinguish us, but lets not divide over what we misunderstand about each other. Imagine what a better world it would be if Christians and Muslims didn’t see each others through erroneous stereotypes.
I also want to point out what good dialogue is not. If the vision of a dialogue is an succesful conversion from Christianity to Islam, then forget it. I’m not interested in that conversation. If if a Muslim has gained my trust, tells me why I’m wrong about my religion, answers my objections, and so forth, and I convert, thats one thing. I suppose anything is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it. However, if conversion is a pre-condition to any dialogue, then the dialogue project is dead. To put it differently, it is ridiculous for Muslims to expect Christians to be open to the “Truth of Islam” as a requirement for dialogue.
Thats not a dialogue, its a monologue.
To Ceyhan:
I thank you for reinforcing my belief that Mr. Akyol had grossly overstated Arius’ affinity with Islam.
Without wanting to insult either you or Mr. Akyol, whom I respect and thank for providing a forum for this kind of conversation, I see the problem as follows: both you and Mr. Akyol are burdened by the belief that the earliest Christians were in fact indistinguishable theologically from Muslims, and that only at some point, much later, the Christians, to use your words, “sidelined the words of Christ for the words of Popes, Bishops and other clergy who have indoctrinated masses and convinced them to worship Jesus as God.”
Mr. Akyol did not put it quite so colorfully as you, but I believe his opening, and for mine objectionable, view that Arianism was compatible with the Koran reflects exactly the same historical hermeneutic as yours. His note to my opening post did not seem to clarify his position any, so I am assuming that, at bottom, it does not differ substantially from yours or the view I attributed to the Koran.
Wedded to this paradigm, both of you are left with no other option but to shoehorn Christian history into what the Islamist paradigm argues Christian history had to have been, without proper knowledge of what the real facts were regarding the Christians’ beliefs.
Otherwise, I suspect, you fear that Islam would lose its raison d’etre as the correction to what you argue must have been Christians’ rapid apostasy from Christ’s teaching.
As far as I can see, in your eyes my only choice as a Christian in dialogue with you is to accept that: (1) Christ, his apostles, the early Church etc., were no different from Muslims, and that (2) in the fourth century the Christians suddenly changed their tune and allowed the hierarchy and others to trample on the very beliefs for which the previous three centuries they had been dying, and introduce radically strange and wondrous doctrines made up out of thin air.
I am sorry, but my close study of Christian history simply does not allow me to ignore the evidence and subscribe to such an erroneous and tendentious interpretation of history.
Ultimately, the real difference between us has to do with something you said in your post: “This does not befit the Creator.” This is the very crux of our disagreement, and I ask you to ponder it for a moment.
Regards to all,
Lionel
There has been suggestions or even accusations against me that I have asked people to convert to Islam in this forum. A fellow reader Victor said:‘your idea of dialogue is for Christians to meely listen to accept Muhammad as their prophet, the Koran as their Scripture’. As you continued, you yourself already questioned whether this would constitute mischaracterization of my person. Indeed it is. I have re-read my text several times and failed to find any line asking or pushing to conversion. I would go as far as saying that any Christian reading a call to conversion from, as I put it, ‘just a muslim conveying his opinion’, might be experiencing some spiritual insecurity.
It is clear that some have perceived an element of arrogance or self-righteousness in my writings. At the most extreme, people have read ‘a call to conversion’. My intentions have only been to say what I believe, regardless of anyone else’s faith. Victor accentuated his annoyance with ‘Dialogue is important, we really need it. But that dialogue is over the moment one person demands conversion to the other’s religion.’ Dialogue is what is happening at this very moment. As I write,as you read, vice versa. I believe dialogue to be underlined by the importance of honesty. We will never achieve real social progress if we let our religious sensitivities, Christian or Muslim, overwhelm our emotional, blurring our rational.
In my piece, I noted that calling Jesus (pbuh) the son of God is a heresy. There has been confusion here, some have equated this with me calling all Christians heretics. This is only an act of heresy in a muslim context. If you do believe that Jesus was the son of God, it is no longer a heresy to say so, it is your belief. Why should the laws that I chose to adhere to be forced on you? It shouldn’t. You need to be judged within the scope of the laws you chose. It is very clear that many aspects of the Muslim narrative you disapprove of too. I musr accept this as a fact of life.
There always someone whose got to bring the idiots into an intelligent conversation. I am no going to go into the debate of how the ‘riots, lynch mobs, etc’ do not represent the Muslim world. There are idiots in all peoples who are willing to commit atrocities and use religion as a rallying force to do so. It’s not so long that Europe was Gazing Jews. Not many cared, after all, ‘they had killed Jesus’. I do not let such episodes, and there are many more, colour my view of Christianity in ANY WAY. I suggest you do the same with Islam.
Upset people aside now. I ask myself, even if I was preaching, why should you resent it? Would it not be possible to dialogue with a preacher? Would you not have solid arguments to counter my reasoning?
I am not a preacher but I have strong faith as Islam being a righteous path to God. I am more than happy if people convert to Islam and yes I do believe it should be encouraged. Is this a bad thing? People have described my intentions as that of a Saracen sword waving Islamic raider. Does this desire not constitute part of Christian religious practice? If not I apologize. The poor missionaries who have been murdered in Turkey, whilst all they must have been doing was enjoying our beautiful sunshine and countryside! The emotions being transcribed onto paper by some Christians here follow the same logic that these murderous thugs acted on in Turkey.
Some other people here are struggling with their understanding of Islamic theology. I find it helps when non-Muslims are reading about it for them to translate all Arabic words to their English equivalent. Islam becomes ‘submission’. A Muslim is a ‘submitted’, etc…Once this is done, it is easy to see why we consider all prophets to have been Muslim, including Jesus (pbuh). They were indeed ‘submitted’. Another reader, Lionel, wrote that this belief ‘burdens us’. I wish all my burdens were like that one! Such a sensical description is easy to adhere to.
Why I am surprised that Mustafa took criticism for this? Despite all our theological differences, Mustafa has expressed an opinion, which I share, and many others too, that we are able to put these aside in our revering of Christ. We are telling Christians that we consider ourselves to be Christian as well as Muslim. This does not make Christians happy but rather they resent it. It reminds me of the Catholics who refuse to recognizes protestants as Christians. Hardliners. Is this what we have here? Because not one Christian has said, ‘OK, we accept your claim to being Christian is legitimate’ despite us highlighting the consistency this has with Islamic theology. Christians, can you not let your forgiving hearts simply forgive the differences in narrative and accept that we both love him very much. A reversion to Islam would be good but I’d be happy with only your acceptance of this fact.
Best regards to all of you.
Ceyhan,
I would agree that this is a dialogue. Might be messy, might be uncomfortable, but I think its real dialgue.
This is what you wrote in the post I responded to
“I applaud Mustafa’s attempt to make allies of Christians in our disgust for godlessness, materialism and other atheist fallacies. Unfortunately, even if we hold our arms open to them, I doubt they will do the same. Christians of today are a far cry from what we perceive ‘real’ Christianity to be, and without that logic, they will never want genuine dialogue. Look at the comments here, some Christians resent ‘us’ for appropriating ourselves with ‘their’ Jesus (pbuh). Regardless we will continue to follow all the teachings of Islam, including the Christianity, the uncorrupted one of course.”
What your are essentially saying is that Christians will not want dialogue with Muslims until we change what you say is a faulty Christianity and adopt the “true” one which is the one provided/preserved, etc, by Islam.
Thats not my insecurity speaking, thats your insecurity speaking. And true, you agree that we are having a dialogue now, but you have to admit, you are having a dialogue with people who have a view that you consider “faulty” Christianity.
I just want to clarify, that I’m very impressed, though, with the conversation here. Everyone have a good day.
To Ceyhan:
Sorry for the delay in my response to you. My beef is not with what you Muslims believe, and whether you seek out converts–that’s all fine with Christians, as long as they can enjoy the same right without being killed (like in Malatya)–but the apparent willingness of both you and Mr. Akyol to misrepresent Christians. He said Arianism was theologically like Islam. False. You said, “Unfortunately, institutions and churches have corrupted the teachings of Christ. They have sidelined the words of Christ for the words of Popes, Bishops and other clergy who have indoctrinated masses and convinced them to worship Jesus as God.” Again, false.
It is one thing to say that Muslims do not believe Jesus is God–that is your inalienable right–but it is quite another to say that Christians once believed what Muslims do, but then changed it. Your approach seems to rely on aggrandizing your own religion by spreading a untruths about the history of other religions. This is pitiful. Your religion should be able stand on its own, without needing to spread falsities about other religions. Your religion should be able to deal with things as they really are.
See you.
I would like to make a couple of short comments to clear some of the questions above.
Firstly, I heavily believe in dialog where differences as well as similarities are discussed with respect, sincerity and accuracy without covering or changing their actuality.
Concerning The “Christian Muslim” Comment
There are always problems with “words” and their “meanings”
Let’s go through the basics
(Most of which you (should) probably already know)
Islam: Submission (Obedience, Peace, Sincerity)
A comprehensive meaning could be rendered as:
“Commitment to submit and surrender to God willingly so that one could attain God’s Pleasure thus can attain peace and tranquility”
Muslim: One Who does Islam. (see above)
Christ: A helenized (Greek) form of the word Mesiah (Hebrew), Mesheeh (Aramaic), MesiH (Arabic) which would roughly mean, anointed, wiped, selected.
(Please note, more recent Bibles translate this word as “deliverer” or “annoited” when it applies to other then Jesus (as) and leave it untranslated when it applies to Jesus (as) to create an illusion of special case word, as can be seen in other words as well)
Christian: A dragotary nickname given to the followers of Paul (Saul the Roman) by the Pagan King of he time.
(Nowadays it is the general name used to call broadly to the peoples that believe that blood-atonement of Jesus as the only way to pay for their sins)
Paul: Roman Citizen, anti-Law, anti-Jew, anti-circumcision, supportive of Roman Mithraism, claims to have seen “Divine Jesus” and receive revelation, which would mean he claimed Prophecy, not an apostle, he never saw Jesus before the alleged “hanging”. According to the Bible, “friends, brothers with family of Herod (Killers of John the Baptist) since he gave them greetings and called them my brothers
Nazoreans (Ebonites, Nazarites): The Jesus movement, pro-Law, not-Helenized headed by the most respected first leader James the Just, didn’t believe the divinity of Jesus(as), didn’t believe in Belief in Heart alone would save, believed in works and upholding God’s Law. Nazoreans were wiped out by Romans around 60 AD.
(Muslims could consider these guys Righteous Submitters to God’s will, but definitely not Paul or his followers whom mostly constructed the New Testament as we know it today)
The Trinity-Mary Comment.
We know it is F, S, HG.
The problem is not putting things and people in their due places.
God is God
– All Below is Creation of The Creator and cannot be compared to The Creator –
Messengers are Leaders, Deliverers, Chosen People, Servants and Submitters to God.
Prophets are followers, helpers of Messengers reiterating the message of God.
And there are people with high status due to their piety i.e. Mary(ra), which Catholics revered and prayed to along with Jesus and other saints. And some said horrible things about Mary (ra). Qur’an talks about this and puts her in the appropriate spot;
she’s a most pious woman,
she isn’t to be worshiped.
Similarly about Jesus,
he’s a Messenger of God,
he isn’t to be worshiped.
Because why?
Thou shall not have any Gods besides me.
There is no god, except God (alone)
Thou shall not make graven images of God.
(i.e. Paintings, Sculptures etc.)
etc. etc.
Trinity and Blood Atonement
Shortly, Christians believe in many different forms of the trinity. Most believe 3 but 1 theory, some believe 3 distinct (mormons, generally outcasted), some don’t (Unitarian?)
The common theme, blood-atonement.
You’re pre-sinful (or you acquire it here(Mormon))
Only way out is 1st century murder of the “infinite” and unjust blood-shed and torture “willingly” to save the world of sins.
(as believed by many pagan societies before Jesus (as) existed (Osiris, Adonis, Mithra), a fact dismissed as Satan’s game to test Christians’ faith)
Christian misconception correction: Jews and Muslims don’t sacrifice animals to atone for their sins. It is simply a form of obedience/worship just like Prayer, Reading Scripture, Purifying Your Heart, Being Mindful of God, and we actually eat and share the animal. It teaches humanity, respect and appreciation for life and blessings.
Requirement: Infinite and Willing Sacrifice.
Willing? :
Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachtani
(My God, My God Why have you forsaken me?)
or
Let this cup pass from me, but if it is Your will…
Jesus praying, pleading with his God, to not let this happen to him, but of course being a Submitter (Muslim) he’d accept whatever is God’s Will even if it is against his own will. (As a mater of fact there is a later verse that states because he was so pious his prayer is accepted as well, I’ll produce if contested)
Infinite?
Let’s assume cruci-fiction actually happened to Jesus(as) and let’s assume he was both man and God. (Many disagreements about this in early Church history itself)
When he “died” did Jesus the God die?
or
did Jesus the man die?
If Jesus the God die, then it’s infinite, and we have no God. (Well, that’s just horrible news)
If Jesus the man die, then it was another “Jew” killed by the romans just as they’ve been killing for years before him in the same fashion. Nothing special.
“Enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance, it is illusion of knowledge”
Peace of God be with all of us, May God Almighty Bless us all with understanding, Mercy, and Love.