Is it bad to like Islamic spirituality?

[josie_L]

I also studied some of the material in the book you suggested written by Robert Reilly.

No, you didn’t, you read a book review, moreover the text that you quoted from one of my posts, is not even from Robert Reilly’s book, but from another author by the name of William Kilpatrick, which means, Servant, that you didn’t even bother to look at this post when I initially posted it nor did you bother to visit the website from whence I found it. The book from which that quote was taken from is “Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West”. Maybe, you should take a look at it.

Here is a review of the book in the American Journal of Islamic Studies written by the Professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University. Professor Griffel is quoted in the review as follows:

academia.edu/1792939/Review_The_Closing_of_the_Muslim_Mind._By_Robert_R._Reilly

No, the book does not border on racist in any way, but was a critique of the Ash’arite school of thought and its effects on the Islamic world, so perhaps reading other reviews may be in order.

I think it harms our soul to read books such as this…

It harms the soul when one refuses to see the truth.

 

[PJM]

=ialsop;13383708]I am Catholic and I believe totally in Catholic theology. I am against all heresy, especially that of Islam which has waged war on Christendom and Europe.

That said, I do like Islamic spirituality and I use Islamic sources for prayer sometimes. What a contradiction, I know. I love Islam’s dedication to monotheism(they misunderstand the Trinity. I believe totally in the Trinity, but we ARE monotheistic and I love their fierceness about that).
I love their focus on fasting. Fasting is a HUGE part of Islamic life.
I love their traditionalism, in dress, government, and language. They pray in their religion’s mother tongue, they dress traditionally, and they generally accept more pre-democracy governments. I am a cultural traditionalist myself, so this is cool imo.
I am attracted to how they defend their faith. Islam tolerates no heresy, no blasphemy, no apostasy. I am talking about moderate Islam, NOT the liberal Islam of the US, nor the terrorists of ISIS, rather the normal moderates in the Middle East. They will drive heresy out of their country.
I LOVE how most governments of Islamic nations are actually Islamic governments, how the government is committed to safeguarding the Islamic faith.

I try to apply these ideas to Catholicism. Is that bad? A note, Catholicism was just like that in the Middle Ages, but only Islam is like that now, so I often find myself reading Islamic spirituality articles as I research traditional Christianity. Is that a bad thing for me to be like this? Am I hurting my faith, or common sense?

The short answer to your OPQ is “only if you don’t desire getting to heaven” Islam is not a Christian religion.

There are nearly countless GOOD Catholic Prsyers and Spirituality available.

READ John of the Cross and Saint Theresa of Avial for example. Also the Imitation of Christ by Thomas A’Kempis. TONS of good Catholic Spirituality exist. One need not go to Islam to find it:blush:

God Bless you friend,

Patrick

 

[josie_L]

Can you please give me a source for this please?
Where did you read this?

From “The American Journal of Islamic Studies” article from which you quoted from stated at the very beginning:

“I wonder whether they were all aware that the book they endorsed is, in fact, a Catholic refutation of Ash’arite Muslim theology, THE LEADING BRANCH OF SUNNI THEOLOGY.”

You also need to prove that there is fully rational behaviour in the God of the Old Testament.

Yes, He is fully rationally (at all times, always and forever, eternally so) because the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New testament, wherein it was revealed that the God that the Jews (and later Christians) were worshipping is “LOGOS”.

You also need to prove that the God of the Old Testament when saying pork is unclean, later contradicts Himself by saying it is permissible to eat pork (as per Romans 14:14)

He is not contradicting Himself so much as abrogating a dietary law because now that the whole world (Jew and Gentile) has been saved by the actions of Christ (new covenant), it is no longer NECESSARY to follow the Mosaic law (old covenant), which Jews were beholden to, when the law is now written on our hearts (baptism/sacraments).

 

[josie_L]

Dear josie,

I do not know how much clearer I can make it for you than this:

THE POPE says that the verse was revealed during a time when Muhammad was “still powerless and under threat”

“The overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars consider that verse to be a Medinan one,[4][5][6] when Muslims lived in their period of political ascendance”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256)

And so what time historically would that be??? After Muhammed accrued some followers, but before he and his followers started conquering vast quantities of land, which forced people to convert, die or become dhimmis???

Honestly, I find the whole “there is no compulsion in religion” rather inconsequential, when one views the history of Islam.

p.s. Either way, the pope was right in his view that a God of “LOGOS” abhors violence because it is incompatible with reason, but the same cannot be said of a God of “PURE WILL” because such a God transcends even reason.

Quran, Chapter 2, Verse 106: “Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?”

 

[Servant19]

p.s. Either way, the pope was right in his view that a God of “LOGOS” abhors violence because it is incompatible with reason, but the same cannot be said of a God of “PURE WILL” because such a God transcends even reason.

Yes, He is fully rationally (at all times, always and forever, eternally so) because the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New testament, wherein it was revealed that the God that the Jews (and later Christians) were worshipping is “LOGOS”.

Hi Josie, I’m truly surprised at your approach. If you could help me understand your position and your definition of violence please.

If the God of Logos abhors violence and it is the same God of Logos in the Old Testament, what is the explanation for the death and destruction at Canaan, the extermination of the Amalekites and Midianites, the Flood, etc etc.

How is the command to exterminate populations of people considered loving or non-violent?

.

 

[Servant19]

Honestly, I find the whole “there is no compulsion in religion” rather inconsequential, when one views the history of Islam.

.

The illegitimate practices of adherents does not diminish the teaching josie.

You have nearly 20,000 posts here josie, and I’m surprised you take this angle of criticism against a religion given the history of Catholicism when dealing with indigenous populations in Australia especially.

Should we say that the whole “love thy neighbour” rather inconsequential too?

.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie, I’m truly surprised at your approach. If you could help me understand your position and your definition of violence please.

If the God of Logos abhors violence and it is the same God of Logos in the Old Testament, what is the explanation for the death and destruction at Canaan, the extermination of the Amalekites and Midianites, the Flood, etc etc.

How is the command to exterminate populations of people considered loving or non-violent?

.

Good question, although I have it on good authority that the people in question were neither loving nor non-violent, in fact, they were quite ready and willing to wipe out the Jews, which is why wars ensued between these groups and the Israelites (defence is not a crime).

As to the flooding, we really don’t know how historically accurate, or if it is, in fact, an historical event. If it is, historically accurate, things must have been really, really, really bad, for God to have flooded the earth. Although, from all intents and purposes the Bible states that God would never do this again, hence, the rainbow.

I know, as per, the entirety of the Bible, and what was revealed during Jesus’s time, God is LOGOS, and therefore, violence committed in his name is abhorrent to Him (notwithstanding exceptions for defence and preservation).

 

[josie_L]

The illegitimate practices of adherents does not diminish the teaching josie.

You have nearly 20,000 posts here josie, and I’m surprised you take this angle of criticism against a religion given the history of Catholicism when dealing with indigenous populations in Australia especially.

Should we say that the whole “love thy neighbour” rather inconsequential too?

.

No, servant, I do love my neighbour, including Muslims, however, these were not illegitimate practices of adherents, Muhammed, himself, was involved in some of these conquests (and was compensated for such actions). Moreover, your explanation does not even begin to explain the nearly 400 years of Islamic expansionism (by war) that pretty much led to the Crusades, because by this point in time, not only had the Moors attempted to conquer Europe via the Iberian peninsula, but Jerusalem had been purposely cut off from the West.

The need to conquer Old (ROME) and New Rome (Constantinople) was an ever aspiring goal for Islam and in 1454, I believe it was, Constantinople (new Rome) fell under the Seljuk Turks, and Rome itself was almost conquered several times in the latter medieval era.

p.s. The Catholic Church did a lot more good than harm when it came to the indigenous peoples of the world, but be that as it may, the wrong-doing was not something that was religiously sanctioned, in fact, it went against the very heart of our Catholic faith.

 

[TheAtheist]

The illegitimate practices of adherents does not diminish the teaching josie.

Actually - i think you have that reversed.

The “illegitimate practices” are PRECISELY what diminishes a teaching or a philosophy or a religious viewpoint in the eyes of those who are -not- believers/adherents/etc.

Because the only metric we on the Outside of that faith really have to evaluate whether something is a societal good are those Actions.

Its a highly Consequentialist/Utilitarian turn on morality, but that tends to be the evaluative measure of the modern world in terms of more mundane affairs such as health care or education.

And like my own native India, it seems Islam as practiced isn’t winning too many friends outside of its House… As some of my Chinese/Japanese/Russian co-workers point out:

1.) Japan vs. Islamic State

youtube.com/watch?v=AlJpb7wCr2U

2.) China’s Crackdown on Muslim Population

youtube.com/watch?v=C5IwwnP5e78

3.) Moscow’s Muslim Population faces Violence/Suppression

youtube.com/watch?v=DRbQhWLXqUk

It matters very little even if the correct interpretation of Text or a Tradition may speak otherwise - on the ground, such theoretical affairs do little to effect Perception…or Policy as demonstrated by the above.

 

[Servant19]

Good question, although I have it on good authority that the people in question were neither loving nor non-violent, in fact, they were quite ready and willing to wipe out the Jews, which is why wars ensued between these groups and the Israelites (defence is not a crime).

As to the flooding, we really don’t know how historically accurate, or if it is, in fact, an historical event. If it is, historically accurate, things must have been really, really, really bad, for God to have flooded the earth. Although, from all intents and purposes the Bible states that God would never do this again, hence, the rainbow.

I know, as per, the entirety of the Bible, and what was revealed during Jesus’s time, God is LOGOS, and therefore, violence committed in his name is abhorrent to Him (notwithstanding exceptions for defence and preservation).

So you are saying it is a NON-VIOLENT GOD that can wipe out and destroy people who he considers not loving?

What exactly did the Midianites do to deserve having their entire male population wiped out, and all the women and children to be brought back as prisoners of war. Then He killed every woman from Midian who had ever slept with a man.

What did they do to deserve that? References would be appreciated from the Bible please.

And how exactly is this a non-violent God that acts rationally??

.

 

[Servant19]

Actually - i think you have that reversed.

The “illegitimate practices” are PRECISELY what diminishes a teaching or a philosophy or a religious viewpoint in the eyes of those who are -not- believers/adherents/etc.

Because the only metric we on the Outside of that faith really have to evaluate whether something is a societal good are those Actions.

Its a highly Consequentialist/Utilitarian turn on morality, but that tends to be the evaluative measure of the modern world in terms of more mundane affairs such as health care or education.

And like my own native India, it seems Islam as practiced isn’t winning too many friends outside of its House… As some of my Chinese/Japanese/Russian co-workers point out:

1.) Japan vs. Islamic State

youtube.com/watch?v=AlJpb7wCr2U

2.) China’s Crackdown on Muslim Population

youtube.com/watch?v=C5IwwnP5e78

3.) Moscow’s Muslim Population faces Violence/Suppression

youtube.com/watch?v=DRbQhWLXqUk

It matters very little even if the correct interpretation of Text or a Tradition may speak otherwise - on the ground, such theoretical affairs do little to effect Perception…or Policy as demonstrated by the above.

Actually in many senses I agree with you.

I have little to say about human beings and their failings. Religion is most certainly not a magical event.

But what religion is, for a Bahai, is a magical PROCESS.

The goals and the vision is proposed by the teachings.
No religion has fully understood how to narrow the gap between the lofty standards set by the teachings and the inept deeds of those who profess to adhere to those teachings.

I believe the Bahai religion is the closest thing we have at the moment to an answer to this empirically evident historical problem.

.

 

[TonyBS]

Actually - i think you have that reversed.

The “illegitimate practices” are PRECISELY what diminishes a teaching or a philosophy or a religious viewpoint in the eyes of those who are -not- believers/adherents/etc.

Because the only metric we on the Outside of that faith really have to evaluate whether something is a societal good are those Actions.

Its a highly Consequentialist/Utilitarian turn on morality, but that tends to be the evaluative measure of the modern world in terms of more mundane affairs such as health care or education.

And like my own native India, it seems Islam as practiced isn’t winning too many friends outside of its House… As some of my Chinese/Japanese/Russian co-workers point out:

1.) Japan vs. Islamic State

youtube.com/watch?v=AlJpb7wCr2U

2.) China’s Crackdown on Muslim Population

youtube.com/watch?v=C5IwwnP5e78

3.) Moscow’s Muslim Population faces Violence/Suppression

youtube.com/watch?v=DRbQhWLXqUk

It matters very little even if the correct interpretation of Text or a Tradition may speak otherwise - on the ground, such theoretical affairs do little to effect Perception…or Policy as demonstrated by the above.

I would agree with Servant but would add that the Messenger sets the Goal we are to acheive.

That we mostly fall short is not the problem of the Messenger or message, but our lack of ability to apply Free Will to reach the Goal Given.

To really understand ourselves, we really have to look within ourselves and try to understand the value of the choices we face and the value of making the right ones.

If all that follow a Faith and that would also include those who do not, make the right choices, then indeed the world would be a different place.

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

No, servant, I do love my neighbour, including Muslims, however, these were not illegitimate practices of adherents, Muhammed, himself, was involved in some of these conquests (and was compensated for such actions). Moreover, your explanation does not even begin to explain the nearly 400 years of Islamic expansionism (by war) that pretty much led to the Crusades, because by this point in time, not only had the Moors attempted to conquer Europe via the Iberian peninsula, but Jerusalem had been purposely cut off from the West.

The need to conquer Old (ROME) and New Rome (Constantinople) was an ever aspiring goal for Islam and in 1454, I believe it was, Constantinople (new Rome) fell under the Seljuk Turks, and Rome itself was almost conquered several times in the latter medieval era.

p.s. The Catholic Church did a lot more good than harm when it came to the indigenous peoples of the world, but be that as it may, the wrong-doing was not something that was religiously sanctioned, in fact, it went against the very heart of our Catholic faith.

I’m sure you will see many Muslims love their Christian neighbours too.

Besides, if Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, He sure has as much blood in His hands as Muhammad does.

All I’m asking for is fairness in our judgements.
It’s unfair to say Muhammad was ordered to kill by God, if Moses was similarly ordered to kill by God.

You can say it was justified or they were violent or unloving tribes as much as you like, but this rational God you say you believe in, sure was a violent reactionary.

In regards to adherents, Muslims and Christians all have done plenty of things in the past that we will cringe about today
The Catholic Church in Australia recently apologised to all Australian indigenous peoples for their involvement in stealing children from their families, but for me, that in no way diminishes the beauty of Catholic teachings.
But this appreciation of Catholicism came due to sincere study WITH Catholics, I would urge you to do similarly with your local Muslim scholar.

.

 

[josie_L]

So you are saying it is a NON-VIOLENT GOD that can wipe out and destroy people who he considers not loving?

First, off, God is a God of Justice, so when justice is meted out, then it is deserved, but God would not use his omnipotent powers to willy nilly destroy humanity, His actions are always rational and with a purpose that will bring about a better good. The same, however, cannot be said for people who use violence in order to conquer and compel others to their faith, this is anathema to God, who, in fact, has given us free will and a conscience in which to come to the truth via His revelations, graces, and reason. His being “LOGOS” means that faith and reason go hand in glove, that is, violence should have no part in our relationship with the God of “LOGOS”. It is furthermore an insult to God to USE our faith in a manner that is violent, unless, of course, we are given no choice, as in the case of a defensive war, which was the case for the Jews who had to fend off many enemies to get to Israel and remain there. So do not compare the justice that God metes out upon those who deserve it, with us mere mortals who do not have omnipotence and omniscient powers.

What exactly did the Midianites do to deserve having their entire male population wiped out, and all the women and children to be brought back as prisoners of war. Then He killed every woman from Midian who had ever slept with a man.

They conspired against Israel with the help of the King of Moab, their intent was to destroy God’s people.

What did they do to deserve that? References would be appreciated from the Bible please.

Well, here’s a text from the Jewish encyclopedia, which references scripture:

Wars.

In the time of Moses the Midianites are first mentioned as having had a priest by the name of Reuel or Jethro, who became afterward Moses’ father-in-law. Toward the close of the forty years’ wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the Midianites were allied with the Moabites in the attempt to exterminate the Israelites. For this reason Moses was ordered by God to punish the Midianites. Moses, accordingly, despatched against them an army of 12,000 men, under Phinehas the priest; this force defeated the Midianites and slew all their males, including their five kings, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba. It may be noted that these five princes of Midian are called by Joshua (xiii. 21) the vassals of Sihon, the king of the Amorites. It is possible that Sihon had previously conquered Midian and made it a dependency, and that after his death the Midianites recovered their independence. The Israelitish soldiers set on fire all the cities and fortresses of the Midianites, carried the women and children into captivity, and seized their cattle and goods. The Israelites were afterward ordered by Moses to slay every Midianite male child and every woman, sparing only the female children (Num. xxxi. 2-18). It appears from the same account that the Midianites were rich in cattle and gold. The narrative shows that each of the five Midianite tribes was governed by its own king, but that all acted together against a common enemy; that while a part of each tribe dwelt in cities and fortresses in the vicinity of Moab, another part led a nomadic life, living in tents and apparently remote from the seat of the war. For, after the Midianites had been “exterminated” by the army of Phinehas, they reappear some hundreds of years later, in the time of Gideon.

The Biblical account of the battle between the Midianites and Gideon (Judges vi.-viii.) asserts that the Israelites suffered at the hands of the Midianites for a space of six years. **The Midianites seem to have been then a powerful and independent nation; they allied themselves with the Amalekites and the children of the East, and they oppressed the Israelites so severely that the last-named were obliged to seek refuge in caves and strongholds; they destroyed their crops and reduced them to extreme poverty (ib. vi. 1-6). **The allied army of Midianites and Amalekites encamped in the valley of Jezreel (ib. vi. 33) after having crossed the Jordan. Gideon with his army encamped by the fountain of Harod, the Midianite army being to the north of him. With 300 men Gideon succeeded in surprising and routing them, and they fled homeward across the Jordan in confusion (ib. vii. 1-24). A point worth noting is that here only two Midianite kings, Zebah and Zalmuna, and two princes, Oreb and Zeeb, are mentioned (ib. vii. 25; viii. 3, 5, 10, 12, 18, 21). This would show that only two tribes bore the name “Midianites,” while the remaining three probably were merged with other Arabic tribes, their kinsmen, and perhaps partly with the Israelites also. Midian is stated to have been “subdued before the children of Israel, so that they lifted up their heads no more” (ib. viii. 28). In fact, aside from allusions to this victory (Ps. lxxxiii. 10, 12; Isa. ix. 4, x. 6; Hab. iii. 7), Midian is not mentioned again in sacred history except in Judith ii. 16, where the term “Midianites” seems to be a mistake for “Arabians.”

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10804-midian-and-midianites

Jews only fought wars when they were up against enemies who wished to destroy and/or annihilate them (by means of war and/or spiritual corruption and idol worship).

 

[josie_L]

I’m sure you will see many Muslims love their Christian neighbours too.

Besides, if Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, He sure has as much blood in His hands as Muhammad does.

You cannot even begin to comprehend why God did what He did, because you are neither omniscient and/or omnipotent, therefore, rather than accusing Jesus of having blood on His hands, which is unbelievably naïve of you to compare the actions of God to a mere mortal. Put into perspective what was at stake if the Jews were wiped off the face of the earth, being that they were God’s people ,and the ones with whom God had foretold through the prophets that salvation would come from for the sake of the whole world.

It’s unfair to say Muhammad was ordered to kill by God, if Moses was similarly ordered to kill by God.

Yes, it is fair, for the latter did so to preserve Judaism from annihilation, while the former used violence as a means to compel people to Islam.

 

[josie_L]

In regards to adherents, Muslims and Christians all have done plenty of things in the past that we will cringe about today

Yes, I agree with this, but much of the difference resides in the fact, that Islam’s means of spreading were rather violent from the very beginning, if not throughout most of its history.

The Catholic Church in Australia recently apologised to all Australian indigenous peoples for their involvement in stealing children from their families, but for me, that in no way diminishes the beauty of Catholic teachings.

In many ways, I’m sure they thought they were doing the right thing (in fact I’m pretty sure that these actions were state sanctioned), but I for one am glad that they apologized because they eventually realized that it was wrong. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church has done more good towards the indigenous people than bad, and one has only to read the lives of the saints who helped the indigenous people, and/or the schools, hospitals, orphanages set up by Catholic religious and lay people, which catered to the indigenous to see that any wrong-doing was an affront to the faith and not a true reflection of the Catholic Church.

But this appreciation of Catholicism came due to sincere study WITH Catholics, I would urge you to do similarly with your local Muslim scholar.

And which Muslim scholar would that be, it’s not like they all agree with each other, i.e,. there is no catechism or magisterium, which could help me out in understanding what Islam truly stood for. Moreover, I am not here to denounce Islam, but it would be nice if we were to commence with the realities that are plaguing Islam so we could get at the heart of why these problems are arising.

 

[Even_So]

Truth has a name and HIS name is Jesus Christ.

Amen and Amen!

 

[Even_So]

Finally a question I can understand

From the Baha’i understanding God will always be unknowable, but He wanted to be known, thus He created Man to be known. To do this He projects His perfect reflection in Man, a representative Chosen in each age by God. This man is Born of the Holy Spirit of God.

Now we have God, the Holy Spirit from God and the perfect reflection of the Holy Spirit in Man (In Christianity Jesus).

Now it gets Interesting - One Can Say Christ and God are One and the Same, One can Say Christ and God are not the Same. You will get Biblical Passages that support both these views. If you look at Christ the Human you will understand when He says the Father is Greater then I. If you Look at Christ the Perfect Reflection of God, you will see the Father and I are one.

We are told by Baha’ullah that both schools of thought are perfectly sound. That is you can Say Christ is God, or You can say Christ is a Messenger of God and it is only wrong when we turn it into argument and disagreement. We are Told if we disagree as to the Station of and Messenger being God or Only a messenger then we are both wrong and we may as well not have Religion at all. The point has been Lost, the point being the Love of God.

Of course this is a massive subject.

God bless and Regards Tony

If GOD is unknowable, then why are we, or you , questioning why He does what He does? A search of Logos and epistemology (huh?) comes back with some Scottish dude’s philosophy of studying knowledge as far as I can tell, which means very little for a simpleton like me. It would be a lot to those who are very smart, as knowledge is power to those who wish to impose their will upon others. I don’t try to figure Him out, just obey. I don’t think that is too different from you. On the flip side, it also seems you spend much time trying to figure your god out, which wastes time leading people to salvation. We do serve different Gods. Mine being the point of GOD is not just love, but the plan of salvation thru our LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST. We will not see heaven without accepting Him as LORD, which also makes Him GOD. GOD bless you, brother.

 

[Even_So]

God can even commit evil if He so wishes (He transcends concepts such as good and evil).

Fair bein fair, GOD is a Just and Righteous GOD. He can do no evil. Nor is He irrational.

 

[TonyBS]

Fair being fair, GOD is a Just and Righteous GOD. He can do no evil. Nor is He irrational.

I would agree - All unfolds through a Wisdom and Justice.

God allows our free Will to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Where God is, is at the end in all that is right.

Where we are is at the opposite end and given the opportunity to climb towards the top, shame the rope has grease that we put on it.

Regards Tony