www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Relations with Islam

Over the past two months, we've been berated with messages from the mass media and self-identified experts relating to Islam -- much of it rather conciliatory and semi-apologetic in tone. In Orthodox circles, I have heard much less positive things being said -- probably because of our different experience, historically, with Islam. That leads me to wonder whether there is, more generally, a difference in perspective between East and West concerning Islam. What do you think?

Hey there Brendan, nice to see you back!

All I can give you is what I have seen at the Melkite Parish I attend.

It seems that those who go there that were born in the USA seem to be a bit more open to Islam, a bit more positive about it, more open to dialogue with it.

Now, those that were born in the Middle East, mainly Lebanon are very negative in their approach to Islam to the point of disagreeing with the statement that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same God. They say the God of Islam is not the God of Judaism and Christianity.


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear Brendan,

It is good to see your name as a fellow poster again.

As usual, you raise a good question.

From my limited experience the response among Latin Catholics has been pretty agnostic about Islam. The learning curve is great and most of the teaching is being done by the media, secular and religious, and the government.

The opinions expressed by the ordinary parishoner that I've heard have been spread across the spectrum. Many have expressed the conciliatory position that Islam is a religion of peace and as that the terrorists do not represent that religion. Many others say that they don't know enough about Islam to say one way or another. They're angry about the attack and its aftermath. Others are less conciliatory and certainly less apologetic, in any sense of that word.

In one letter to the editor published in The Florida Catholic this week, the writer chastises the paper for allowing Moslems to present a picture of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. He then points out the precarious condition of Catholics and other Chrisitans who live in countries such Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others. He points out that a Moslem who converts to Christianity in Saudi Arabia is liable to death.

So it seems to me to be a mixed bag among the Latin Catholics when we talk about a Western perspective on Islam. I think the only position on which there is consensus is the need to pray for peace and to do whatever can be done to help survivors and support our military.

I look forward to hearing others responses to your question.

I also look forward to learning from you and discussing with you again. Welcome back!

Please do not allow the written expression impede the meaning or the love.

Steve

JOY!

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

The Western media has a thing about Christianity. Typically, clergy and nuns are presented as goofs and idiots. Bishops are horrible despots, full of evil.

Disney has no affection for Christianity with all of its "magic".

Western PC crowds give attention to learn what Islam is all about without criticism of their beliefs. Christianity, on the other hand, is mocked and riduculed to no end.

Our culture, once considered "Christian", has become a soft underbelly of jelly. We allowed Christmas to be stolen by the commercializers with all their hype about Santa, bunny wabbits with eggs, and witches. The Christian message was muffed out. It is OK in some states to burn a cross. But dare ya to burn a Star of David or a copy of the Koran.

I teach Comparative Religions. We are set to begin our segment on Islam. I can teach the "basics" which is mostly that they are truly an authentic expression of people's desires to serve God, that they claim to worship the same God as the Christians and Jews, and that "Jihad" is really an internal spiritual struggle. I don't think that covers everything that needs covering. There is simply too much evidence that points out that "Jihad" really isn't just an internal spiritual struggle for most of Islam. Nor is it simply a defensive battle against enemies. Rather, to at least a large portion of Muslims, it refers to a violent means of proselytism and worse.

Any ideas?

Dan Lauffer

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

"There is simply too much evidence that points out that "Jihad" really isn't just an internal spiritual struggle for most of Islam. Nor is it simply a defensive battle against enemies. Rather, to at least a large portion of Muslims, it refers to a violent means of proselytism and worse.
Any ideas?"

Well, history does not lie, and the history of Islam has been one long sad string of conquest and conversion by the sword. The great Hillaire Belloc does a great job expaining the history and personality of Islam and it does not match what the liberal media is force feeding us. Hilaire Belloc says concerning Islam that the islamic temper from it's begining was "not tolerant. It was on the contrary fanatical and bloodthirsty."

Very interesting topic!

I think there might be a slightly different take on Islam in East and West, depending upon where in the West one happens to be.

I think in North America, many RC's are definitely more sympathetic (not sure if that's the right word) to Islam than those in countries like France and Spain, simply because our experience of Islam is so limited.

From talking to some Roman Catholics from African countries, however, it seems that their views on Islam would be much closer to the perspective of many Orthodox Christians as there is a great deal of tension with Muslims in certain parts of Africa.

God bless!

I would be incredulous if someone claimed that Orthodoxy and Catholicism were in agreement as to our respective relations with the world of Islam. As you state, historically, our respective experiences are very different, and in the case of Orthodoxy, Orthodox countries such as Russia, Armenia, and Georgia are still at war with Islamic terrorists or have been very recently. One could also include Cypriots and Egyptian Copts as current victims of Islamic aggression. ( And let us not forget that Americans are engaged in a war against Islamic terrorists that we must win.) That is a macro summary of the issue.

The micro view is often very different. It certainly is not unusual for individual Orthodox or even families to have Muslim friends, or even Muslim family members. However, this circumstance usually exists where individuals or families have a purely ethnic or family view of religion which is indifferent to theology and doctrine. I have seen this social phenomenon among Albanians, who often remark, "the religion of Albanians is Albania."
But even secularized Turkish and Balkan Muslims will use religion as one element of many in the cause of nationalism, (Of course, Christians also do the same.) So, I believe it is very important to discriminate between those who are sincerely Islamic, even if fanatics, and secularists who use the religion as a battle cry, but with ulterior motives.


As individuals we certainly can have Muslim friends. But if I lived in Kosovo (for example), I would live in a house with an escape tunnel and would sleep with a revolver under my pillow. After all, it isn't Christian charity to make it easy for your good Muslim "friends" to kill you and break THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT!

I am sure there must be many admonitions in the Scriptures warning us to be prudent and "on guard."

Wisdom, O Lord

Bill

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Psalm 46 ]

In general, I think most Islamis are like many of their Christian counterparts -- sorta-kinda religious, but generally secular. In the Near East and the Balkans, one can find mixed families with both Christian and Moslem members, but this is not really the norm.

My problem with the Slamis is that the doctrinal elements of their faith allow them to both put down and even murder infidels. American Christians are really basically decent folks who are welcoming, but since they have no understanding of being in a "Moslem Society" and what that means for non-Moslems, there is no scepticism about their presence in the U.S. Unfortunately, this understanding of "Moslems in the U.S." is superimposed on what's happening over there. And that is just dangerous.

Samer's point about 'nationalism' being the counterfoil to islamic fundamentalism is very well taken. There are multiple currents that influence life in the Near East. And to use our experiences of life with Islamics in the U.S. to understand what is going on in the Near East is foolish. And dangerous.

Blessings!

The Muslims, the Muslims.....I can never speak enough of them, and my mind is usually overwhelmingly flooded with torrents of memory, ideas, and of the experience of a lifetime of living amongst these people, that I can never organize my thoughts into a coherent string of statements.

Let me put it this way. When Freud spoke of the convolution of admiration and spite man harbored towards woman, he might as well have been speaking about Muslims.

They can be your most intimate and loyal friends, especially in an amoral world such as ours, or your worst enemies.

They differ greatly from one region to the next as the current of Islam that stretches across the Islamic world encounters the many cultural, historical, religious, social, ethnic, and economic currents that vary from one area to the next. It's very, very complicated.

I say: Let history judge the religion. Unlike Christianity, Sunnite Islam whose adherents were led by the caliphic state that predominantly ruled over the Muslim world, does not have a divinely instituted teaching authority to interpret the "true meaning" of the religion, the standard by which the actions of those who invoked Islam may be judged. Because of the absence of such a "Church", I hold that history's witness to the Muslim state's actions functions as the only candidate that can be considered the ideal ambassador of the religion. The state I refer to (there were rival caliphic dynasties and Shi'ite kingdoms) is that started by Abu-Baker and up and finished with the last Ottoman sultan.

Dr. John, I'll have to see a Lebanese arms dealer I have connections with about those Uzis. I'll need time to arrange for their delivery though. (I'll get each of us some Uzo and Araq along with those)

However at the moment, I do have a compass in case my skirmishes with outsiders have to take place over desert terrain.

Funny though...it points towards Mecca. Do you think that will be helpful?

In IC XC
Samer

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: SamB ]

Very interesting thread!

May I add my own observation? Or rather what someone once told me?

When I was in seminary, my OT Prof. was a Russian Orthodox priest. He was annoyed at how many of our RC professors would speak of Islam on the same level as Judaism & other Christian groups. He maintained that Islam was the "Mormonism" of eastern Christianity, and this was key to understanding it. Like the Mormons, Islam co-opted an existing religions through the visions of a so-called prophet. Both belief systems have high moral standards for their members, but are fundamentally wrong (read heretical) concerning the basic truths about God, Christ, salvation, etc. This does not mean that Muslims are not sincere or decent people - but to say we share any common "faith" is problematic.

As far as the rhetoric we hear from our President and others concerning "peaceful Islam" and how the Taliban and bin Laden are to Islam what the KKK is to Christianity, well this is a gross simplification and even quite misleading. I've seen on some more thoughtful news media and read in books like "Among the Believers" by V.S. Naipul that the majority of Muslims in the world are very replused by a West they see as godless and a direct challenge to their way of life. Ths is not a minority! Remember, the common people in the Middle East celebrated to see "the great Satan" struck hard.

I recommend the book by Naipul to get an insider's view of Islam. I think he just won the Pulitzer or Nobel prize for literature. This book was written shortly after the Iranian revolution but it still has much to say of our current situation.

That's funny; I was thinking of a similiar simile, but not quite along those lines. Here's a tidbit. The Druze are the Muslims' Mormons. Amazing she is our Church. She doesn't allow any yahoo to start calling himself a new prophet. Gnostic esotericism is not our cup of tea.

[that the majority of Muslims in the world are very replused by a West they see as godless and a direct challenge to their way of life. Ths is not a minority!]

As for anti-American sentiments, well, you described mine perfectly

In IC XC
Samer

Hi everyone.

Thanks for your replies.

I agree with Steve that it is very hard to generalize -- I think here in the USA people are mostly ignorant about Islam, and this informs a lot of personal opinions about the religion. I think Mike's point about the opinions Western Christians in other places, such as Africa, is an excellent one.

I also agree with Dr. John that there is a tendency to superimpose the images of American (presumably patriotic American) Muslims over against the Muslims outside the West, and that leads to massive distortions.

As for Dan's question, I would agree with Sam that a religion like Islam has to be judged by its history. Historically, it has been a warrior faith from the very, very beginning, when Mohammed himself was raising armies, laying seige to cities, executing infidels -- all in the name of Allah and from the very beginning of the new faith. Therefore, to state that subsequent outbreaks of Islamic "militancy" are aberrational is itself a distortion that doesn't take into account the events of the earliest years of Islam. The warrior mentality is at the core of the faith -- Mohammed himself had it, and exercised it not just as a spiritual warrior, but as a military warrior. Islam will *never* be able to shake that, IMO, because it lies at the core of Islam itself.

Benedictine raises some interesting points as well. One Orthodox priest I have spoken with about this has described the Muslims as "our extreme Protestants" -- which is similar to the characterization of "Mormons" you mention. V.S. Naipaul has also written a follow-up to "Among the Believers" called "Beyond Belief" -- also well worth reading. In a recent interview with the NYT Magazine, Naipaul opined that it was pointless to speak of Islamic "moderation", because the very idea of Islam (attaining Paradise through struggle) excludes the concept of moderation -- how can one be a moderate about Paradise, IOW.

Our priest gave a sermon a few weeks ago about how Islam is not a religion of peace -- including quotes from the Quran, etc. It's almost taboo to say such things in the public square today -- which is unfortunate, because as a result there is a lot of wilful misinformation taking place.

Brendan

Dear Friends,

I would only add that Islam and any other religion is what is made of it by a particular historical community at a given point in time.

All religions have reacted in various ways to enlightenment ideologies and industrialization. They have all resisted, at one time or another, modernization and democratization. It is just that Islam is more adamant about opposing these than others.

Is Islam radically different from Christianity? Absolutely! So is every other religion when you come right down to it.

We are living in an age where the differences are highlighted more than any similarities and the former is called "fundamentalism." This is why Christians are persecuted not only by Muslims, but by Hindus and others as well in societies where they are a minority.

One problem with the ecumenical enterprise is its rationalism.

Secularized Christians like to say to Muslims and others, "Look, we all believe in one God, we all pray, we all have morals - let's like each other and pretend we're basically the same."

Well, we're not. Our God is a Trinity of Persons, each of Whom is God. Our Saviour is God who became incarnate and suffered what many consider to be the ignominy of the Cross. Our faith doesn't fit neatly into other people's religios categories, even though we may think that other faiths fit into ours.

I think we should be conscious of the real theological differences between us. We should avoid the anti-Muslim feelings that many Eastern Christians with a history of life in Islamic society would tend to have.

Our job is not to decide who is "close" to us and who is not in terms of faith.

Our job is to witness to the love of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, in order to transfigure the world in His life and grace.

Ultimately, this mission that our Saviour gave us 2,000 years ago is what continues to make us a threat to others.

The greatest threat we pose is to other Christians who remain unmoved by the challenges of their faith.

Salaam Alekum,

Alex

Brendan et all,

I must add one important note about the virtually unprecedented and strange circumstances Islam finds itself in today, which makes our judgements even harder to make.

One of Islam's core concepts is the Ummah. And that Ummah has always been led by a caliph and ruler. The Islamic state (or rather Islamic Empire uniting much of the Muslim world) is something many of our 20/21st century minded Muslims would scoff at, fight to prevent at all costs, and not fathom in today's world. And yet, this political structure was always essential in this religion's history and a kind of caesaropapism was at the head of the Islamic military forces whose wrath our fathers and ancestors have known. An Islamic Ummah and world without "al Amir al Mu'mineen" (Prince of the Believers) or some head of an Islamic state is a new occurence altogether. There are fundamentalists who smell the coffee and demand the overthrow of the Arabist governments and the return of the "khaleefah" (caliphate). These are not a bunch of cantankerous idiots who don't make sense; they have a whole history and religion to support their pleas with, even if their movement hasn't much drive in the Arab world.

Today, the Muslim world is as disorganized as ever and lacks a central authority, with rag-tag desert foxes like Bin Laden calling to the whole Muslim world for jihad through a TV camera. We must remember that Islam is a state religion and always has been. Like Judaism, it sets norms for society and deals with practical earthly affairs on a close level. When the last Sultan and the sick man of Europe fell, we had the equivalent of the Eastern Church and Oecminical Patriarch realizing they were still around while the Empire, which had so many theological undertones in the past, was ultimately destroyed with the fall of the City Protected of God (Take me back to Constantinople, no you can't go back......).

Now Islam has to adjust to a situation it never faced before--a huge power vacuum lasting for a good long while. In all honesty, the tactics of Bin Laden and suicide bombing are not orthodox. They resemble the MO of the estoteric, heretical Shi'ite sect of Assasins more than they do the instrument of conventional warfare that the Muslim state employed. The latter however had its vicious troops (Dr. John, you are well acquainted with that tragic reality known as the Janiserries; for one to use his enemy's own blood against him as a crucial means of victory, is much too tragic to contemplate) as a critical instrument who loved to sack, as Constantinople's last days show us. Also, the unruly mob was not a nice thing to face.

Saladin was quite an exception as we know. The Europeans loved him so much as a model of chivalry that stories were made up (or were they?.....yes, yes they were) of Saladin being secretly baptized.

The Turks had the spike. That instrument of death is probably the worst sort of punishment imaginable after crucifixion. Believe me, we know what "state terror" is. The Palestinians didn't just make those two words up. Muslims were not dirty guerrilas in peasant-garb blowing themselves up--they were a vicious state, and history's worst specimens were well-groomed men with clean, spick and span uniforms and funny mustaches who spook terrible Arabic. Jamal Pasha "the Butcher" as he was known, was the last of the barbaric wretches we dealt with before the Arabic uprising.

In IC XC
Samer

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: SamB ]