One should be respectful, but firm and discerning in finding the Truth.

Truth will eventually prevail over all type of falsehood.

But we shouldn’t blindly follow anything without verifying it with people of knowledge and AUTHENTIC sources and books.

That way, we have a firm and unwavering belief in the Truth instead of instability.

Anyway, here is a good site to read, from an Islamic perspective, the many issues related to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), Mary (peace be upon her), the Gospels, the Bible and Christianity in depth:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/contents.html

May God guide those who truly seek the truth, to the straight path. Amen.

I converted after I met, but before I married my husband. The process of becoming a Muslim was one that had been in subtle motion in my life many years before I met him, and the loving support he gives me helped me to make that change in my life. Also helpful were the many amazingly intelligent blogs online by Muslim-born and Muslim-convert women. I think my conversion has been challenging in some ways to my husband and friends and family, but I have had a much easier experience than some have and insha’Allah they can see the happiness I have in Islam and the benefit it has been to me. I don’t want to take up your blog space with my personal story but if you or your readers have any questions I’ll be happy to answer them in another space.

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

Books: I agree. We all should read more about each other’s beliefs. I am currently reading “The Quran: Unchallengeable Miracles” by Caner Taslaman. This book was a bestseller in Turkey and they now translated it into English.

I do not know whether it is easily available in other countries but here in Turkey it is quite well known.

Also: exactly. As a Muslim you belief that we Christians hold erronous beliefs about the nature of Christ, who you consider to be a prophet but not the Son of God. Vice versa of course for Christians. There is nothing arrogant about that as far as I can tell.

Doma: no problem – I will not respond too much to it due to lack of time. Remember: I am still in Turkey.

Lovely response.

CS-
Using your hiking analogy, let me join you and your husband in mountain hiking. . While you and your husband use different approaches to choosing a path to the mountaintop of ultimate knowlege, I remain acutely aware that no mortal is in a helicopter above, able to simultaneously survey all the paths as a grid and also see the mountaintop to which they lead.

To think that someone is mistaken in choosing a different path is simply a difference of opinion. People can understand and respect the reasoning behind choosing another path, even while continuing to disagree (see Hana’s lovely
comment).

I do find that thinkimg that a certain path is the ONLY path leading up does indeed, involve arrogance, IMO, It can easily be mitigated, however, by a touch of humility, by remembering that man’s puny capabilities may simply not be up to understanding the enormity of the WHOLE TRUTH. The affirmation of faith I respect most is one that says,without fear or shame: “I don’t know, but I believe X to be true.”.

I hope I didn’t start a firestorm by using the word ‘arrogance’. I hope you undestand the difference between that and thinking someone is mistaken.

Gray, C Stanley and Lynx, you would be welcomed in your local mosque. Some mosques in very patriarchal societies don’t allow women in the main prayer space, and some have no real space for women at all, in spite to Muhammad’s injunction to not prevent women from visiting the mosques. Also, considering that Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock are very contested spaces, I’m not surprised that the locals are protective of them.

For anyone who’s interested, go to http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/salat/salat9.asp, and click on Salat: How to Perform Daily Prayers, right above the little illustration of the prayer movements. It’s a very lovely little video and explanation of prayer.

Oh, and hi Laura!

The way I see it, in our various explorations, some of us tend to map out and plan a route and then (understandably, I think) become determined to stick pretty closely to that particular course. Other people tend to want to explore the paths as they present themselves and wander a bit until one of the paths feels right, then feel free to divert to other paths that seem interesting or that seem to take them where they want to go. Personally I think it is good that there are both sorts of people.

In the literal sense of that analogy, I tend to be the latter type and my husband is the former. We hike a lot and sometimes my way wins out and we explore places that are off the beaten track which we’d never have found on a map. Other times, it’s better that hubs uses maps and GPS to keep us on course, or we’d not be able to navigate to certain known places that we want to visit (and we’d often put ourselves at risk of getting lost or entering dangerous areas).

In philosophical terms of how I view the world though, I’m much more of an orthodox person. I read, think and make up my mind as to which approaches to life and theology and politics seems most likely to approach the “Truth”, and then I follow that path where it leads. I’m agreeable to checking the map and considering diversions from the main path (which separates me, I think, from chauvanistic believers who won’t challenge their preconceived notions), but I’m going to consider them in the context of whether or not they might lead to the destination that I have in mind. In theological terms, I don’t think that all paths are equally likely to do so and I do think that some of the paths could put me at risk for losing sight of the ‘real’ path to God.

I don’t judge others who take a less orthodox approach, but I resent that some of them seem to judge my choice. I reserve the right to say to others that I believe that I’m following the correct path; I fail to see how others feel that there’s some sort of arrogance and/or ‘hatred’ in doing that. I could just as well say that they are being ‘haters’ by criticizing my choice of staying on course.

I owe you an apology, for diverting this thread to my personal interests. I didn’t realize when I started to write how far afield I would wander.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I was relieved to see that I had pretty much made myself understood as to my questions. I find it hard to find the appropriate vocabulary for ideas that umble in my head but for which there is no text I can follow, so I have iot make the phrasing up as I go along.
I’ve been discussing ideas along these lines with a friend in France off and on for some months.
Thanks for your input.

Conquest, competition for ‘who’s on top,’ who has the most money, dominion over others, has existed in hierarchies of religion /politics since, I think, ‘the beginning’. It isn’t what I’d personally understand politics or religion to be about. One, I think, was meant to be about governance not of people, but in service to the people. One is about governance not of others, but of one’s soul.

There is an old saying Domajot, which I am fond of: He who has seen God, Knows he has seen God, has not seen God. I’m not a cynic; I am an old believer–my experiences of God shake me to pieces. Still I know there is much more of God to know…. more than this little carapace can hold.

The allegiance you speak of, the ‘loyalty’ to all alliances that come from that… I think comes under the category of Chauvinism, which I wrote about here a few days ago. Chauvinism means to give unquestioned loyalty to an idea, person or principle. Chauvinism feels ‘safe’ because people bond to one another through ‘loyalty to the idea’ sometimes, to ‘a person’ as well. Viz GWB et al. People feeling so safe, are actually vulnerable, for they are held by only one slim thread; loyalty to not question, veer, have a new idea, act untoward or differently than the others. It is a religion with a patriarch, members, they make contributions, worship the same saints, et al. It is not even that that’s bad if the premise is for the true public good, is transparent in process, is not exclusionary.

Churches for decades have been run like a political body, a body politic… they have committees, fund raising, political influence, log roll, gerrymander, et al. That’s not bad either, if the premise is for the good of all souls, is transparent, is inclusive, puts more emphasis on social justice, the beatitudes, charity, than on gaining power over others.

there are parallels, as you astutely see, between religious political strife. I used to have a world map with a pin everywhere there was a war in the world. Often the fighting factions were driven by the heads of religious groups, who also happened to be the heads of state, or influential in politics.

To me, Domajot, everything, EVERYTHING is politics and religiosity in some way. I believe we are made that way; as seekers, lovers, and with natural instincts toward wise governance of all that puts itself under our protection.

I just wrote abut the body as politics. Joe and I had spoken a few days ago about this series I’ve been working on re the way the over-culture splits the body into also having only ONE true way of being, knowing, acting … With his go-ahead and encouragement, which I appreciate, I posted the second piece earlier tonight.

My experience of writing about the body or God, or both together as I often do…. at TMV, is that though readers sometimes write me privately with thoughtful comments and Q’s, sometimes my articles on God and body seem to draw sarcasm or condemnation as though religiosity and politics and the ecstatic, don’t belong with the body or sexuality, et al. I’m afraid I’m probably hopeless to change at this late date: I believe they do.

Here tonight, I am always made happy that commenters brave to say thoughtful things and propose questions which I think further rather than cut the conversations… about what they think and feel about this topic Michael wrote about. I am often struck by the insights and inquisitiveness of the commenters on TMV.

To me, self knowing, self governance is best married rather than split away from governance to serve others. I am still learning Domajot, so perhaps I am wrong. But, I think I am on the right track…

Thank you Michael, for letting me take up way more than my share of space on your article… which I liked. Braver to love than to hate. Just my two cents worth.
dr.e

In your reflections about religion, and the different ‘prarctioners’ of it, I wonder if you have come across any parallels between religious hatreds and political ones?

I was struck by this statement by Gray:” Sry, but there can’t be two truths.”
It seems to me this gets at the heart of both religious and political stiife. As it happens, it also goes directly against what I believe. While there may not be two ultimate truths. I don’t believe that any mortal is or has ever been in possession of such a thing as an Ultimate Truth. Instead we are all seekers on different paths. We all possess pieces of truth and fight over the pieces as if that’s all there is. Instead of MY Truth, we think we own THE TRUTH.

I ask about politics, because I note the same degree of allegience to political philosophies of late than to ones of religion. People agonize about whether an opinion on a specific issue or event fits into theri chosen political theory, and they worry about the sin of betraying that philosophy.
Re Pres. Bush, a lot of the criticism now is not about whether or not his policies did any good for American citizens but about the fact that he betrayed Conservatism. Again, its that question of allegience to THE TRUTH. It sounds a lot like the kind of reaction we would hear, if he renounced Christianity and became a Budhist.

I would be very interested to know if you see any parallels between religious and political strife, the truth vs THE TRUTH and allegience to the idea that My Truth is THE TRUTH instead of a stopover on the seeker’s road to knowledge and understanding.

I’m just about to put up a post about my learning about Islam that began when I went to Mosque services with Muslim women here right after 9-11.

I would just say wouldnt you, that there’s a difference often and sometimes between those who ‘publicly’ speak for Islam and those who practice it. And those who are afraid to speak. Just like there’s a difference often in timbre, tone and often belief
between Black spokespeople and the souls who are also black who are worshipping their ways. And Latinos. And many groups from Europe and all the world…?
dr.e

Ok, serious now,Mike. Congratualtions on your courage to get first hand experience of the everyday worship of Allah.

Why would any sane, normal person want to experience that. I’ll say it again, regardless of who is offended, I hate islam and its vile, hideous practitioners. I guess you losers will have to keep spending your time deleting my posts since you can’t handle the truth. This blog sucks and michael, you turned out to be a real pathetic loser.

Myself being a Catholic, I understand that he feels he has to avoid any unproper observance of something that might be a golden calf. Really, he went as far in tolerating Islam as Christians can go.

Yes exactly. This might be the first time that you, Christine and I all agree on the same issue.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/faith/Jesus_prophet/not_a_son01.php

I noticed that, too, C, but chose to ignore it. Hell, it’s awfully difficult to stay totally neutral on this topic. Maybe an atheist would have phrased this more neutral, but I see that Mike is a Christian, no matter how attracted by that right-wing, dark side of The Force. Myself being a Catholic, I understand that he feels he has to avoid any unproper observance of something that might be a golden calf. Really, he went as far in tolerating Islam as Christians can go. Sry, but there can’t be two truths.
:-/