In the essay (which, if you are really interested, you can read by CLICKING HERE) I explore the balance between 'orthodoxy' (right belief) and 'orthopraxy' (right action). Both religions have things to say about both - but the emphasis is different.
Let me try to make that a bit more easy to understand!
Christianity is based firmly on the principle that God has reached out to us, through Jesus, to restore the relationship between God and human-beings - a relationship otherwise prevented by human sin. We believe, in other words, that Jesus has done all that is necessary to make our relationship with God right again.
Islam, on the other hand, basically believes (and this is rather over-simplifying things!) that in order for human beings to be put right with God, it is up to human beings to 'submit' to the will of Allah. (The word Islam means 'submission').
For that reason, I argue in my essay, Muslims tend to be far more disciplined than Christians about 'doing the right thing' - and in particular, about observing religious rules, and actively doing 'good deeds'. This is especially true of the way in which Muslims observe the so-called Five Pillars of Islam:
- Confession (of the oneness of God)
- Prayer
- Fasting
- Giving
- Pilgrimage
My essay suggests that we do have something to learn from Islam in order to re-dress the balance.
I wonder what you think. Have a read of the essay (accepting my apologies for the academic turn of phrase!) - then why not tell me what you think?
Comment from Nadim Bakhshov:
ReplyDeleteYour essay was fairly evenly balanced between picking up good points and bad points but there was a peculiar mix in some of the negative insights - which struck me less insightful about Islam and more interesting about human nature. Perhaps that's what you wanted to get at - that Islam's approach seems to be a little 'fixed' on a certain idea of a human-divine relationship that is essentially one of dominance-submissive whereas in Christianity makes better use of God's grace and love?
My own feeling is that comparing the outward practices of one religion and another is intrinsically problematic. Each religion is not just a social practice but a whole universe, not only of sacred texts, but of cultures that have drawn from that religious universe and taken inspiration from it. The inward dimension of a religion is only partially visible to outsiders and it is the inward dimension that is the essence of the outward practices. You rightly point out how 'false' some people are - I've seen it a lot - in that an idea of religiosity is often nothing more than 'being seen to be doing the right thing'. But this isn't unique to Islam. How many Christian worshippers take Christianity inwardly, beyond the Sunday Service? It is more visible in Islam because of the orthopractic emphasis - as you call it.
As I say the problem is looking at outward practices. I think the question is mis-cast. I personally don't think we should treat other religions in their outward, exoteric face, and assume we can cast a judgement on it. All exoteric or outward practices - when they work - light up with inner meaning, the esoteric heart of the religion. Religions can talk to each other but I think it is a mistake to think of any religion as deficient and needing help from another. Yes, outward practices could be changed but that's missing the point. It's the inward meaning that no longer connects.
So, inwardly, are all those practising Muslims awake to the heart of their religion? Any more so than most Christians? Hmm! Difficult question. I wouldn't be so sure that carrying out 'outward' rituals in itself is a model of 'religiosity'. I'm not convinced. It may have been the case in the past or in limited cases but I'm not so sure. It's a question I carry with me being a non-practising Muslim (if such a thing exists). I affirm God's unity and the line of prophets from Adam to Muhammad but practice?