Are Christianity and Islam incompatible?

There is nothing more the majority of the world could want more then world peace. The thought of a world united and not in a constant state of turmoil is unrealistic to say the least, especially when we fail to understand how most conflicts begin. Christianity’s adherents consist of around one-third of the earth’s population. While preaching love, grace, and acceptance through the incarnate Word-Jesus Christ; Christianity is no stranger to conflict. With a past of the Crusades, witch burning, the Spanish Inquisition under Torquemada, and Old Testament accounts of genocide, Christianity historically cannot claim that it will bring about peace anymore then Islam. Islam which claims around twenty-two percent of the world’s population is no stranger to conflict either. Non-Islamic societies often instill into its citizens minds that Islam is as far from peace as it gets. Deep in the roots of Islamic Theology is peace within its own society, of course this will come about through a theocratic-government while all citizens must be Muslims. Islam which consists of two major sects; the Shite (10-15%) and the Sunni (85-90%) have had a long history of “holy wars” in its history, reaching far beyond (in the minds of non-Muslims around the world) than any other religion in history. Can these two religions perspectives be compatible or reconciled? Do the “Co-Exist” bumper stickers hold any reasonable hope? I don’t believe so—as long as Christianity and Islam make up the majority of religious thought in the world they cannot be reconciled.

            As the top two major religions in the world, Christianity and Islam hold too many of the same beliefs and worldviews. First and most importantly, they both understand the other affirms the monotheism of a One True God. Both the Qur’an and the Bible affirm that God is sovereign, merciful, caring, mighty, wise, light, exalted, and much more. The Qur’an along with the Bible both affirms the virgin birth and miracle-filled, prophetic ministry of Jesus. Christianity and Islam are both considered Abrahamic religions, deriving their history and theology from Old Testament Patriarchs and other biblical prophets. Some of these prophets/patriarchs are: Abraham, Joseph, Elijah and his successor Elisha, Job, Jonah, King Saul, King David, and Solomon the Wise. Eternal Heaven (Paradise for Muslims) and Hell are both real factors found throughout the Bible and the Qur’an. John the Baptist and Jesus, along with the Bible are considered important in Islam. Also, interesting enough, both religions claim that there will be a day of Great Judgment upon the earth.

            Among the many differences Christianity and Islam share these appear to be the most important. The Bible teaches that God is knowable through Christ and reveals Himself, while the Qur’an teaches that God’s essence is not knowable and that He only reveals His will for humans. In the Bible, God invites life-transforming relationships, He is Triune (three in one), and there is an emphasis on sacrificial love. Contrarily in the Qur’an, God demands rightful obedience to commands, God is solitary in personality, and emphasizes sovereign power over sacrificial love. Christianity offers more of a “faith only” soteriology (doctrine of salvation); with some sects offering a works-based method. Islam has a solely works-based soteriology, adhering to the five pillars: belief in God, daily prayer, charity, fasting, and a pilgrimage. Muslims believe there is a book of every deed ever done and their good deeds must outweigh their bad deeds (no matter how small) and the only way to outweigh your bad and assure entrance into heaven is to become a martyr for the faith. While Christianity believes Jesus Christ to be God the Son, and the substitutionary atonement for their sins; Islam believes Jesus to be an important prophet of God who foretold the coming of Muhammad, the “another Comforter” Jesus speaks about in the Gospel of St. John. While both religions have held theocracies throughout time; Islam where it remains (along with some Eastern Thought religions) is the law of the land, the term for this is Sharia (Islamic law). As the Roman Catholic Church lost influence in Europe so it’s governing power; with Protestantism on the rise and Anglicism as the state religion of Britain—Roman Catholicism would never be a theocracy again. Christianity today seems to embrace the idea of a Biblical-theocratic-world-power, but the likelihood of this is slim anytime soon. Christians today struggle with government with regard to morality, but understand well enough that government will always be an obstacle for religion.

            The relations between Christianity and Islam are tainted by misunderstanding and fear. After several attempts (some continual) of dialogue, few stand up to the test of becoming productive. In the eyes of Christians, Islam and its aggression towards the West have been devastating in the eyes of Christian culture and beckons resentment toward any communication. On the other hand, Western Civilization (representing Christianity) constantly imposes its power into the Islamic world—influencing its leaders and oftentimes overthrowing its government to raise up leaders who see eye to eye with Western society. Both have been, and still are guilty of these very things. Islam’s ideology is to create a theocracy (Sharia) wherever Islam is present, which threatens sovereign nations ruled by democracies of the majorities will. Western society is constantly involved in the Middle East: establishing bases, giving foreign aid, training governments and creating them to be dependent upon the giver (the United States). If Islam and Christianity are to stay on the path they are on currently there will be no amends or understanding. With respect to both the Qur’an and the Bible, the Qur’an’s message to its believers on human character and being a representative of God is not as moral as the Bible. The Bible preaches love, kindness, grace, and mercy on others—oddly enough on believers and non-believers. The Qur’an too preaches about charity, being a good member of society, but lacks the moral teaching of bestowing grace and mercy upon the world. This is not to suggest that Muslims are not gracious towards non-believers, but speaking in terms about the Qur’an little to nothing is mentioned about treating non-believers morally, as is the Bible.

            With these fundamental disagreements between Christianity and Islam, I see it near to impossible of there ever being reconciliation between the two. With Islam’s focus on the complete sovereignty of God and Christianity on a personal, relational God; this will always come between the two. Both the Qur’an and the Bible claim divine inspiration, while both being similar in some aspects, the overwhelming differences is what will continually keep bridges among the two. As long as both sides continue in their ignorance of the others beliefs, no communication will suffice. Finally, and most importantly, the governmental aspect of each religion is inconsistent. As stated before, the Qur’an demands a theocracy, this (besides Muslims) is the only representation of God on earth and is to be taken with the utmost respect and reverence. Nations under Sharia often times stone adulators, homosexuals, prostitutes, and women who disobey their husbands on a weekly basis. The Bible though not as extreme on punishment, is guilty of the same immorality. Though “Christian” nations differ in influence and authority (Roman Catholic/Anglican/Protestantism), the toleration of abortion, gay-marriage, and racism/discrimination is a slap in the face to the teachings of the Bible. Muslims look at this as an example of why a theocracy is necessary, to hold the people accountable for their morality—to keep nations from falling away from God’s purpose and restoring God’s favor among the people. These two societies could never co-exist without serious doctrinal sacrifice, and if they were to sacrifice the legitimacy of each religion would fall and would not do any justice to their long history and traditions.

21st century Christianity.

I continually ask myself about other faiths constantly. Now, comparative religions is what initially brought me towards Christianity. Though I believe nothing can hinder that, nonetheless, other religions often times provide something that Christianity lacks, acceptance.

     This acceptance is more like tolerance, Christianity is made up of fallen people coming together as a Church attempting to follow the example of perfection--God's son Jesus Christ. Tolerance is something that is often talked about in church, sermons, and among the evangelicals in discussion. The fact is that Christianity holds to ultimate truth to the point that if something doesn't seem familiar it's regarded as foreign and most likely will not be looked upon as vitally important. Christianity IS guilty of ad hominem; the act of disregarding ones argument or experiences solely based on what they follow or what kind of person they are. 

Let's be honest here... If you were presented two books, lets for the sake of saying Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich or Islamic Theology by Binyamin Abrahamov. You and me both would pick Paul Tillich's book. The initial response is to read the Christian book to gain knowledge or to reaffirm already held beliefs. But, what if I told you that both were just as healthy to your spirituality? The Christian book no doubt would have amazing doctrinal insight. The Islamic book could even be a Buddhist, Mormon, or Hindu book for that matter. The truth is all these religions doctrines are the compilations of many years of scholarship and organized beliefs of people who have devoted their lives teachings and understandings to that system of beliefs. And should not be considered as nonsense.

     All truth is God's truth. No matter who says it, under what circumstance or location any truth spoken has its origin from God. The Dalia Lama a peaceful-humble leader of the Buddhist faith reminds me of what many Christians should attempt to be more like. Christians have a tendency to look through a microscope with a Christian film already shaping the view. Now this is acceptable when determining orthodoxy or orthopraxy, but should be avoided when looking at the world. What if the Dalia Lama's insight on spiritual matters actually in a sense reflects the humbleness Christianity continually tries to accomplish? 

     In the case of the Dalia Lama he is much like Christians for he affirms the use of faith to come first, but not because we are to willing to see the world through our faith, but because out of necessity we must see the world through faith. Throughout his writings he frequently states that whatever the simplest answer is usually the most correct one, but not always. He views faith (to me at least) as a somewhat inferior yet humbler way of viewing events and experiences. Not inferior in importance but in understanding, he realizes that natural events can be explained by science but affirms some simply cannot. Nature to him is like God, where science lacks clarity or understanding faith takes over for spiritual awareness of the littleness of humankind. The Dalia Lama shows that he attempts to harmonize nature with his faith.

     It's almost as if science or nature for this matter is always ahead of faith, but for certain instances faith must take over to ensure natures survival; to comfort it, to direct it, to save it. All while working together to come to an understanding that we are a grain of sand on a beach full of ongoing struggling--knowledge.

     What if the Jehovah's Witnesses are right about the constant awareness and reminders of the last days? What if Mormons are right about the eternalness of Family? What if the Muslims are right about theocratic rule? We generally disregard ideas because it doesn't fit into the common mold used by our theologians, philosophers, or church leaders; and as a result we become ignorant of potential knowledge in the universe--true or false, knowing which one it is-is the difference between ignorance and awareness. 

     I attend a Christian college for Theology, often times I get puzzled looks from other people even seniors when I tell them there is some truth to most religions. The concept of accepting something foreign invades their own bubble. They have indoctrinated into themselves the idea that certain religions or ideas are false without giving it any thought, instead, they rely on leaders or people in a position of power to think about these concepts for them. This is pure ignorance. To claim something as false you must have sufficient evidence of falsehood, quoting others to substantiate "evidence" does not cut it. 

     Now I understand (I included) cannot read up on everything being thrown at us and keep up to date. But, realizing the ad hominem in our beliefs we can come that much closer to truth. If one were to exam members of other faiths and then contrast them with Christians you would find that in some cases Muslims, Mormons, and Jews, and in most cases Buddhists and Hindu's seem more receptive and contemplative of spiritual matters. They are not condemning or damning anyone. They do not preach as if their knowledge was 100% true. Because theology and understanding is ever so changing, one cannot be entirely consistent in their own beliefs when they read others. These religions have an advantage--they are not ignorant, but accepting and understanding which is what Christianity will need to adapt to reveal to the world that we are not ignorant. 

     Affirm the Christian creeds and doctrines but be aware of the revolving wheel--whose center that all religions attempt to understand, the one constant remaining factor the--Great Spirit.

Neitzsche vs. Murdoch/ Morality as Anti-Nature vs. Morality and Religion

Morality as Anti-Nature vs. Morality and Religion

            Friedrich Nietzsche a prominent German philosopher in the 19^th century is one of the most well-read philosophers of the past two-centuries, his ideas regarding morality and nature continue to be discussed and debated to this day among scholars of all beliefs. Irish Murdoch perhaps one of the best novelists of the 20^th century; with her background in philosophy and literature always engages her readers into an unbiased discussion on moral-philosophy and its connection with religion and nature. Both of these philosophers deal with the problem of morality in a very similar, yet different way. Nietzsche presupposes subjective morality and atheism (arguably agnosticism) and argues from a naturalistic perspective on how religion is anti-nature and about how humanity is responsible for controlling their nature-given passions. Murdoch, like Nietzsche (though being a Deist, most likely a Buddhist Christian) argues that morality also comes from human nature. Murdoch in many cases does not presuppose objective morality in her arguments, but rather tries to argue for morality with and without God or religion being in the equation.

            In comparing both of these intellectuals’ arguments it seems evident that both take into account the presence of other philosophies that offer counter arguments. However, Murdoch unlike Nietzsche, engages these philosophies in great depth and incorporates them into her discussion. Nietzsche while using other intellectuals (majority being deists), instead gives little to no credibility to their beliefs or experiences. Oddly enough, both of these methods of dealing with opposition can be equally persuasive. While deists, scholars, and researchers can find heed in the engagement of other philosophies while reading Murdoch, she in turn gives readers the choice to accept or decline her argument at any point during her discussion. But this could also in the readers’ mind, open the possibility that the authors mind might still be unsettled, perhaps leading the reader to believe the author hasn’t made up their mind either. Nietzsche however in his rhetoric, affirms his beliefs in light of his opposition. By doing this the reader gets the feeling that while being an authority of philosophy, it provides a persuasive atmosphere for which you get a feeling that since he discounts these philosophers and novelists, they must by in error. Though this might be an exaggeration of what the reader ultimately believes, it does bear some relevance. Any reader who is interested in morality and human nature will (at most times) read or hear of Nietzsche or another scholar for that matter before he/she reads them. Since his writings have been read over the centuries it is only natural to assume they bear some truth. This while persuasive towards some, can backfire his arguments and deplete his credibility to those who seek scholarly engagement.

            Another comparable belief is that both Nietzsche and Murdoch derive their beliefs about morality from human nature. Nietzsche examines the inner passions of human beings to reveal the source of their own morality. Since Nietzsche denies objective moral values, each individual has a certain duty to carry out their passions, which determine if they are being immoral or moral. Nietzsche believes that as a part of our humanity we are given passions from nature. The strong-willed and reasonable person can dip into their natural passions and while controlling these passions reap the benefits without any of the drawbacks of the weaker-willed persons. There are also those who are not strong enough to control their passions, they in turn suffer greatly because their passions overpower them and to control it they must abstain from their passions altogether. Finally, the weakest of these are the ones that cannot resist the temptations of their passion; they (being clergymen, principalities, or rulers) are overpowered with oppression from their passions. They then begin to craft and label their passions as evil and tell others to abstain from it to hide their own weakness. These moralities as Nietzsche believes are covered in a religious cloak. The morality religion (dominantly the Christian Church in Nietzsche’s mind) teaches is actually unnatural-morality, which is why he claims that “the church is hostile to life.” An attack on naturally given passions is an attack in Nietzsche’s mind, on the roots of life, for what can be more immoral to go against one’s own passion? The greatest of moralities are those that accommodate nature, the weakest are those that deny it. Nietzsche provides for us a system that can benefit us in life, this system of discernment is not limited to morality, but also can be applied to love and hostility.  Murdoch however, takes a psychological approach and examines the virtue of duty. Murdoch argues that fulfilling one’s duty towards: others, institutions, and nations is a virtuous act outside of the realm of religion. She goes on to say that dutifulness is linked with reason, and if reason and morality can be linked then it is fundamentally in our human nature.

            In contrasting these two authors the major theme of their work consists of examining morality in light of religion. The focus of Nietzsche with regard to religion and morality is as previously stated, that the church is hostile to life; in other words it goes against the desires that nature gives us. Nietzsche provides for the reader an example as to how his morality is better than the typical religious mans’:

We others, we immoralists, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honor to be affirmers. More and More, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize all the holy witnesses of the priest, of the diseased reason in the priest, rejects—that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the answer.

Nietzsche’s use of this is to persuade the reader that his morals of accepting people’s passions and desires is a higher, more virtuous moral than of the priests that silence any passions that go contrary to what their predecessors (former priests, church fathers, or scripture) have taught them. The naturalist is more accepting than the Christian in the nature that God has provided them with to live and survive. Another compelling example Nietzsche gives is found in paragraph twenty:

Most of our general feelings—every kind of inhibition, pressure, tension, and explosion in the play and counter-play of our organs, and particularly the state of the nervus sympathicus—excite our casual instinct: we want to have a reason for feeling this way or that—for feeling bad for feeling good. We are never satisfied merely to state the fact that we feel this way or that: we admit this fact only—become conscious of it only—when we have furnished some kind of motivation.

Though the first half of this statement is good, the second part makes the reader realize that the naturalist accepts his passions and desires and embraces them and is not afraid of his natural instinct; as are the Christians when they feel guilt for pursuing a passion that is only but a natural instinct that life provides us with. Nietzsche makes it seem as if the Christian is being a hypocrite, because the very nature that man possesses, the Christian is denying by believing they need to change their nature. But, the immoralist embraces these passions and controls them and reaps the benefit, while the Christian hides behind the teachings of the Church and limits their involvement with the world.

Murdoch branches away from depths of the human psyche to examine an often overlooked reason for morality. Murdoch provides the reader with the concept that art pushes us into a metaphysical realm which we then examine from a third-person view (much like God) to contemplate reality as if there was something essentially wrong with it. Art steps us outside of reality to examine the world and our own life from a standpoint with no flaws, much like a perfect specimen looking at an imperfect world, attempting to gain insight on what went wrong. Murdoch describes this metaphysical state as proof of a morality, artists (while being in a self-controlled state, fulfilling their passion while reaping their benefits with pieces of art) would not aspire to create such works if there was not something wrong with humanity that needs to be understood. The very realization of art entails redemption, desiring to fix or to hold society up to a standard not currently being met—reveals the redemption that humanity continually desires. This goes against Nietzsche, because he denies that any sort of redemption is necessary because we are all following our nature desires, we are flawed for holding ourselves to a standard that we must conform to. Lastly, Murdoch believes that religion increases morality because it can instill a belief and conviction in a person when they are in an uncontrolled state; unlike Nietzsche’s philosophy of one’s own subjective passions determining morality. Murdoch reveals a potential flaw in Nietzsche’s argument. Instead of giving up one’s passion because of a weakness in self-control or the possibility of losing control altogether; being held to a higher standard such as a church, organization, or group could ultimately give the person a sense of “duty” to a specific cause that might aid them in the self-control of their passions.

While studying both of these essays strongpoints, I believe out of necessity Irish Murdoch has the upper edge in her views on morality. One of these upper edges is the belief in objective moral values, for Murdoch there is a right and a wrong, it is not based on any one person’s perspective. However, for Nietzsche where is the limit to morality? Could one man’s passion while being controlled harm people? The reality is that there has to be a line that is drawn. What if one person’s passion is to kill multitudes of people, does being in control of their passion only lead them to kill a few people? One man’s self-controlled passion could be equivalent to another’s passion getting the best of him and suffering as a result of it. Any passion whether it be charity, murder, or lust can be justified in a subjective moral stance. Since anything is permissible, Nietzsche has no right (morally) to discredit any of the clergymen’s actions. The clergymen could simply be following his passion to see others not be consumed by their passion, so instead of a war in the individuals psyche, the clergymen labels it as an evil to warrant no further suffering. Nietzsche has no authority according to his own belief to credit the clergymen’s actions as immoral. Though some aspects of Nietzsche’s arguments seem valid and would be for that matter—if morality was subjective