Orthodox and Liberal: change in GOD's love

I remember watching a video of a Christian speaker well-versed in theology, stating that the problem with modern-day American charismatics was their lack of Biblical knowledge and the emphasis on "feeling" over facts. Likewise, a friend of mine attended a public seminar given by a well-known Catholic speaker in Auckland, New Zealand where said speaker stated that Protestants worshiped the Bible whilst Catholics worshiped the Church. The point I'm trying to make is that modern-day Christianity (at least the Pentecostal, charismatic kind) is almost at odds with its older, more regimented ancestor, and this causes friction. This is not so much the Catholic versus Protestant paradigm I'm referring to inasmuch as the heightened (and perhaps over-emphasized) focus upon emotionally-driven "spirituality" present amongst charismatics of the Pentecostal persuasion.

Likewise within Islam, the new progressives or "liberals" as I like to call them (which also includes me by the way), are also almost at odds with our older, more regimented ancestor, and this causes friction. I'm not referring to the jihadists and their ilk when I talk about an Islamic ancestor, as I don't consider them Muslims; on the contrary, I see them as bizarre individuals who use the name of the Lord GOD and the Quran to vindicate their violent criminal tendencies. This now covered the older, more "regimented ancestor" in my opinion are the orthodox Muslims who view any form of progression, change or adaption as a betrayal of the very foundation of Islam. This has been better discussed by others so there is little I can add here, apart from saying that when comparing Islam to Christianity, one sees the Orthodox as the Church (Catholic or Protestant it doesn't matter), and the Liberals as an Islamic version of the foot-stomping, tongues-uttering charismatics of the American strain.

I think this a very important point to bare in mind: as a Liberal myself I don't suddenly have free reign to reinvent the Quran or cast Islam into my own mold. Just because the jihadists have made Islam a source of global derision doesn't mean Islam actually is: the jihadists are, certainly, but not Islam. Yes, large parts of the Quran - and the Tanakh and the Bible - belong solely within their historical context. Absolutely and yes, parts of all three are dubious, metaphorical, symbolic, recent "additions" and even completely unrelated passages cobbled together at their author's discretion, and clearly many authors were involved in the creation of all three. These last two sentences are in fact another example of Liberal Islam: the Orthodox would be whipping the masses up over such statements into a fury of self-righteous zeal, the same kind that resulted from the Danish cartoons of Muhammad (oh, and some others the Danish imams decided to "include" just to stir the pot further - refer http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/775).

Whether latecomers like myself submit ourselves to GOD [Islam] or those who were Muslims for a very long time submit themselves afresh, we are ultimately submitting to the One first and foremost with an emphasis of spirit over rote (I admit I struggle with the concept of being "born" a Muslim, or a Christian or a follower of Judaism etc. as I personally believe that at regular points you and I must make a decision for or against GOD, away or towards GOD, and that this results in a daily submission to GOD that is continuously walked in, renewed and expressed). It is this very cry from our hearts to the lord GOD of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac that leads us towards the living GOD: not a historical icon wrapped up in Arabism and steeped in theological "schools" all heavily coated with rote-learning, repetition and systemic worship. If you or I had wanted this then neither of us would be on this internet site right now. No, it was Creator's drawing us towards Al-Haqq or The Truth that has led us to be believers in this time and for this time, in this place and for this place.

Islam never went through the reformation Christianity did (the Jews moved from their Levitical temple worship to the synagogue-based Judaism of today which hardly caused a ripple in their respective societies), so the gradual rise across the entire Muslim spectrum of revisionists, progressives, liberals or whatever terminology you employ is really quite astounding. I find this encouraging because I see the hand of GOD at work in our world redeeming Islam through the many men and women, young and old, who have woken up as if from a slumber and who have realized that Islam can support equality, human rights, democracy, freedoms (of expression, religion, meeting, media, travel, protest etc.) and who truly are submitted to GOD. What I would caution all of us to not do is to not get so carried away with what we are convinced of that such things as integrity, dignity, wisdom, empathy, kindness, compassion, love and humility are thrown out the door as we stomp all over men and women who really do love GOD but in an orthodox fashion. Please don't forget that: just because some Muslims may not see what you see, hear what you hear or even understand what you have come to understand, does not make them somehow spiritually illiterate and "lesser". GOD sees us all as equals.

Sura 7:205-206 reads "[Prophet], remember your Lord inwardly, in all humility and awe, without raising your voice, in the mornings and the evenings - do not be one of the heedless - [even] those who live in the presence of your Lord are not too proud to worship Him: they glorify Him and bow down before Him." In the Hebrew Bible (and by the way, as Mithst Muslims we strongly support the reading of all three of the Holy books given to the Abrahamic faiths), it reads: "For the eyes of the Lord seek to and fro across the earth to strongly support those whose hearts are truly His." Both these ayah sum up the correct heart-attitude you and I need to ensure we have because if any Jew, Christian or Muslim was to see this in the other, they could but only give thanks to GOD in recognition of Creator. So I think it's important as liberals who represent the reformation that we do not allow a sense of self-righteous pride to creep in but rather, servant hood and conviction that GOD consciousness will win out because I assure you, it will.

Lastly, religion is perhaps best described as the "vehicle" through which we know GOD, and if you have sat in the same vehicle your whole life, it's very hard to leave it or even consider that other "vehicles" are equally valid. We as Muslims need to continue finding common ground amongst ourselves and yes, even with Christians here in the West, because the similarities between us are greater than our differences. In the end you and I are ultimately responsible for ourselves, and I have always admired the words of the Prophet Isa (Yeshua/Jesus): "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?" There is no point in our rushing out to redeem, rejuvenate, reinvent or revitalize the Orthodox merely for the sake of being able to say we played a part in dragging them into modernity like some spiritual Kemal Ataturk, only to find our intent was impure. Creator looks at our intent and it is by this same nasikh we are measured; we are accountable solely for our own stories, so we must write them carefully. If you wish to redeem Muslims, redeem yourself first. If you wish to change Islam, change it with love. Thank you for your time and patience dear brothers and sisters, la ilaha illallah.

Mashallah, Arman Ogilvy
www.mithst.org

It's time we stood on our own two feet!

I got into a rather long and sometimes heated debate with a few friends over the weekend.

The subject of our conversation was my blog, and exactly what I was trying to promote as far as religion goes.

It was quite rightly brought up that I am quick to condemn all religions because of the stupid things people do in their attempt to follow the dogma of whatever faith group they are hostage to BUT, what did I have as an alternative?

I have to admit that even in my book "The Plain Truth About God" I state that my musings are not about what Religion IS, but rather what Religion IS NOT!

This might seem a small distinction, but none-the-less a very crucial one!

With the need to supply some sort of alternative and upon a bit of introspection I would guess that my message is to leave behind our childhood as a race behind and try to grow up a bit.

We are, and have been going through a physical evolution, but it's about time we concerned ourselves with a spiritual evolution as well!

Rather than a blind obedience to a particular dogma we should display a bit of maturity as a people and slowly become responsible for our own actions instead of leaving it all in the hands of a "Higher Power!" (God)

It does us no good to invoke such proclamations as Insh-Allah, ("God willing" or "If it is God's will") or to petition God with prayer, when we should be standing on our own two feet and trying to make things happen according to our own sense of right and wrong.

As a people we are far to ready to give out fate over to an outside force, since this is the easier way (And also the most childlike way) of doing things.

Maturity takes a while to develop in individuals and the same could be said for our race.

Rather than blindly accepting our lot in life or following an edict that we are told is God's Will, it's about time we started being responsible for our own future, (And morality) as this is a sign of our evolution to a higher plane.

So this brings us down to the question; Do I have a particular dogma or creed that we should be following, and the answer is NO!

I don't think it's my job (Or that I am even qualified) to give guidance in matters of morality, belief or behaviour. I can only point out misguided attempts by humanity to explain God and the Universe.

I hope that we will one day take some of the responsibility we attribute to our Creator and realize that it's about time we shouldered that burden ourselves.

Once we have a sizable portion of the population thinking for themselves and following the ideals that were espoused by Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, Buddha or even the Dalai Lama, instead of the blind obedience demanded by the clergy, is when we will truly be on our way to attaining a state of Grace.

Sure life is hard kids, but let's meet it head on, without blinders, clear headed, and with a bit of class!

Your Humble Scribe;
Allan W Janssen

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available as an E-Book H E R E ! and as a paperback H E R E !

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://allans-perspective.blogspot.com

Science and God need not be at odds!

Many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll — believe in some form of God.

This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science.

A handful of those folks — including Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, and William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, argue that the natural world and the world of faith are relatively separate, yet personally reconcilable domains.

"I think that we are all comfortable with the idea there are plenty of things in our lives that we will deal with outside of the scientific paradigm," Phillips told about 70 members of the public who attended the discussion of these issues between himself, Shermer and AEI theologian Michael Novak. "And while I think faith is a particularly important part of our lives that we should deal with outside of the scientific paradigm, it is certainly not the only one."

Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ...! From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."

In her booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.

"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.

"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."

Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered in the booklet by Kenneth Miller, Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Stuart Kauffman.

(Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.)

He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."

Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."

In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature, among other things.

This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.

A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.

Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but instead you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."

Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).

In his own words, here are some things She (yes, Hoodbhoy uses the female pronoun) could do, Hoodbhoy writes:

"Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic wormholes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results — the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory."

Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."

A total of 5,000 copies of the booklet became available on May 2. Free copies can be obtained at www.templeton.org.

Allan W Janssen is the author of the book The Plain Truth About God (What the mainstream religions don't want you to know!) and is available at the web site www.God-101.com

Visit the blog "Perspective" at http://Allans-Perspective.blogspot.com

Moderation in a Higher Place

By Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

An Orthodox Jew and an Egyptian meet on an international flight. The debate turns to whether there were or could be Muslim moderates. Think that you can predict who picked which position?

It was just not what I wanted to hear. The middle seat on the flight from Los Angeles to London had stayed unoccupied, and both of us at the ends hoped it would remain that way. Just before the doors closed, a gentleman walked on and sat himself in what could have been great extra space on a long flight. Then, he turned to me and began speaking, and the flight became longer yet.

"Hi!" he opened with a large smile. "I'm Egyptian."

We did not reenact the Yom Kippur War at 35,000 feet. We did wind up debating Middle East politics for a tolerable portion of the journey, but it did not go the way you might have expected. He turned out to be a Christian, a Copt to be precise, a group that has been persecuted for quite some time in Egypt, has had its churches burned and its adherents assaulted, and is under increasing pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood. The argument concerned whether there were or could be Muslim moderates. He refused to consider such a thing. It took me, the Orthodox rabbi, to argue the contrary both from history and from my own experience.

We parted friends, although he continued to look at me like some naïve Westener, who couldn't possibly know what was going down. The question is not academic. At stake is just what the Western world can and will do to stop the jihadist juggernaut. If Islam is locked into a model that permits, in the final analysis, only loyal Muslims on the one hand and dead people on the other, then what the rest of us must do is arm ourselves to the teeth, build larger walls, and try harder to ferret out the danger already in our midst. If, as I strongly believe, the centuries-old struggle within Islam can resolve itself if a way that more pacific voices prevail, then there will be a different response. We must still take all precautions in the interim, but also do our utmost to identify and deepen our relationship with those who can become a significant counterforce from within to the jihadists.

Not that small numbers are the only possibility. Late last year, a delegation of Indonesian religious leaders visited Israel as guests of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, led by a colleague, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Center in conjunction with the LibForAll Foundation. These religious leaders met with Palestinians, and visited Ramallah, but also saw Sderot up close. They visited Jewish and Christian holy sites, and prayed at Islamic ones. They danced with hesder yeshiva students celebrating Chanuka in Kiryat Shemonah. They presented President Shimon Peres with a kippah emblazoned with "Kedamiain" the Indonesian word for peace. They stuffed packages in a food distribution facility that serves poor Jews and Arabs in Yaffo. One of them openly wept at Yad Vashem. "How could this have happened? They were only children!"

These Muslim leaders are part of two religious organizations that comprise seventy million people of the 195 million Muslims in the most populous Muslim country in the world. What will come of the visit? Hopefully, a changed perspective on the part of the participants, and future visits by others. The initial press coverage was positive; it later precipitated inspired fierce argumentation on Indonesian blogs. After a week, the model response was, "OK, perhaps Israel wouldn't be my personal travel destination. But all they did was talk. How bad could that be?" Minimally, a debate has begun.

Can we dare, though, to think of more? Might it not lead to a few less terrorists in the future, or a few more teachers in classrooms who will deliver a different message than the one heard in Gaza, or a rediscovery by some people of the interpretative tradition that was once the rule in Islamic thought?

What happens to Muslims trained in Salafist madrassas, taught from childhood that Christians and Jews are pigs and monkeys, when they meet Christians and Jews who act different in every regard from the ugly stereotypes they took for granted? We know that in many cases they not only change their attitudes towards those they previously hated, but they are forced to painfully reexamine every other stereotype, every other extremist view they were taught. When some of these become journalists, professors, and clergy, how many people can they reach, in the space of very few years? Might some in time become potential bridges to the Palestinians?

Jews in particular have historical reason to be hopeful. For close to two millennia, we had good reason to believe that Christianity itself was an enemy of Judaism, and that some of its texts and traditions precluded any softening of its stance against the Jews. A hundred years ago, could anyone have predicted a document like Nostra Aetate, or a Pope's visit to the Western Wall, asking G-d for forgiveness for the Christian treatment of Jews? Protestant denominations ate supersessionism -- the doctrine that the Jews of the Bible had been replaced in G-d's favor by the New Jews, i.e. Christians -- for breakfast. Who would have thought that group after group of Protestants, standing shamefacedly in the aftermath of the Holocaust, would have moved supersessionism to a locked cellar, reached out to the Jewish people, and worried about the theological details later? (No, they did not eliminate antisemitism from their midst, and the record of some of those groups regarding Israel is appalling. But the change in attitude is still a step in the right direction.) Reason overwhelmed them and they found a way for faith to accommodate it. Decades of interfaith dialogue will not be as effective as multifaith contact that leads to change coming from within, not negotiated or compelled from without. Could this not happen to Muslims? This optimism may prove to be groundless, but does it make any sense for Christians and Jews not to try to facilitate change?

On my way back from London, the cabin attendants brought out the meals rather quickly. As I struggled through the various layers of covering of my kosher meal, the fellow sitting next to me peered at the food. "I see you are eating a kosher meal. I am Egyptian…"

Then I noticed that he, too, had a special meal: halal. This flight, however, was not going to be a rerun. He was not a Copt, but Muslim. This could turn into a long flight, I thought. But my cabin mate continued. "Hmm. The kosher meal reminds me of a good friend of my oldest daughter. Shoshana from Tel Aviv…."

Might I dream that the pleasant conversation that ensued will take us all, in time, to a better place between Muslims and Jews?

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is Director of Interfaith Affairs at The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. He is also a contributing member to AskMusa.org, a site that promotes understanding and tolerance between Muslims and Jews through knowledge and dialog.