faithisnotsimplyrightbelief,buttrueislam,orthetotalsurrenderofthehumanwillanddestinyto God.
orthopraxy ( ME Islam) v. orthodoxy (W Xity)
faithisnotsimplyrightbelief,buttrueislam,orthetotalsurrenderofthehumanwillanddestinyto God.
orthopraxy ( ME Islam) v. orthodoxy (W Xity)
Thetwogreatpowersheremeant,andwhichprovidethecontextforboththeChristianandIslamicviewoftheworldandofhumanhistory,aretheDivineandtemporalpowers
Ayoub's starting point: God + human >>> worldview + history-making practices
many Germans understood the conflict between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires to be a struggle not between two polit-ical powers but between the forces of Christendom and that of its archenemy, Islam. In the most severe terms used, it was a struggle between Christ and Anti- Christ, between God and the devil.
Conflation between politics and religion seen in Christian-Muslim perceptions of the other today.
That Islam recognised some aspects of Christian teaching on Jesus but rejected the fundamentals of Sonship and Incarnation resulted in seeing Islam not as a separate faith but rather as a Christian heresy and therefore a teaching which was as threatening as it was deceiving. Mu.hammad and the Qur’ān dwelled on God but they rejected the human manifestation of God, the very nature of reciprocity between God and man. Muslims believed in Jesus but not in a life which participated in Christ. In denying the crucifixion, Muslims denied not just an event but the ontological necessity of the ultimate expression of God’s love.
This pair of sentences really work together to highlight the relationality that is central to Christian conceptions of God. It also highlights the threat that Islam posed to Christianity from a similar-but-different vantage point.
then why are the Son and Spirit, in that they are Son and Spirit, particularities of the Father, rather than each of them being Father and the Father a particularity to them
Trinitarian controversy! He's not wrong though. Here Al-Baqillani points to an age-old problem for Christian doctrine.
he ends on the complex issue of Jesus’ divinity, commenting that even those within the same sect of Christianity cannot agree on the nature of Jesus’ divinity. To believe in this doctrine, one needs unqualified submission, which Al- Jāh.iz argues is probably the only way one can believe in the divinity of Christ.
I'm interested in Al -Jahiz's conception of "unqualified submission" here. Is his not what is required of Muslims with regard to Allah? What is the distinction he is seeing between the two faiths? Is it a numbers game?
He did not leave the Jews a feast, without abolishing it; a Sabbath, without infringing it; a circumcision without gently rejecting it; a sacrifice, without forbidding it; an altar, without despoiling it; and a priest, without calling him adulterous and profligate.
I need to interrogate these claims a bit further but he's not off-base in his assertion that prophets came to undo past promises.
In both schools, a defining feature of their theological refutations of Christianity was concerned not so much with Christianity as a unified set of beliefs, but rather with the Trinity and the Incarnation, the uniting of the divine and the human in Christ.
More road-mapping wherein Siddiqui lets us know where we're headed. Seems no matter which way you slice it, Muslims had some trouble wrapping their heads around a divided yet undivided God.
In this chapter we shall analyse how certain concepts continued to drive mutual percep-tions. This period of history takes us from the eighth/ninth centuries to the sixteenth century, and our focus is primarily on the Christians of the Latin West and Muslims across many parts of the East
Here Siddiqui orients us to what she's up to and which chronological sandbox we'll be playing in.
represents a stunning reversal in American race politics.
Does it? Isn't he just saying the quiet parts aloud, thereby revealing the gaps between "liberty and justice" and "for all?"