Well, as I had written in my previous post, my last field observation was not quite pleasant. I was pondering for a while how to write about it or whether to write about it at all. Then, I realized however objective I try to be, I cannot write about the church and in the meantime remain neutral. So, I decided to clarify a few points.
First, I must give a brief on my conservative friend. We got friends in a meeting held by the Office of Multicultural Student Services to promote understanding about gays. The meeting went by the title: "God and Gays, Bridging the Gap" (after a documentary by the same name). There, after screening the movie, the producer and the director of the movie (who were practicing lesbian partners BTW) tried to show that there's nothing wrong to be gay and Christian at the same time. Although I didn't feel like attending what I (as a Muslim) consider an assembly of sinners, my sociological convictions overpowered me. However, with my sheer Islamic appearance, I felt the gaze on the black sheep since the beginning.
And as is the case with such events, there were a couple of evangelical Bible-wielding guys trying (inefficiently though) to discredit the fallacies of those proud Christian gays. OK, here's my first point:
when you're not knowledgeable/competent enough to defend your beliefs, you'd better keep silent. Defending a belief in a weak/inefficient way does more harm than good. And when you're in an atmosphere where emotions overrule reason, it makes your effort even more futile and miserable.
Anyway, my interest in following their line of reasoning through the different translations of Bible they carried, caused mutual interest on their side and more unfriendly looks on the other side (by the end of the meeting, the director's look this way was more like a glare).
After the meeting, I started exchanging beliefs with this young passionate Christian guy with whom I felt like a brother in belief. And after a while he (like any other evangelist) started giving arguments (or what he assumed to be so) to make me understand that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ and that he was killed in order to redeem us from our sins and anybody who doesn't believe that way wouldn't be saved. Apparently, he'd picked the wrong person.
I've had my pre-college education in an elite evangelical Islamic school. You may think of elite Catholic high-schools to get an idea of the style and quality of the education. Even when I got into college to study engineering, I still believed they (as a high-school) had a higher standard of education than my college. Their objective was to train religious professionals. When they founded the school (50 years ago), being religious and professional at the same time was (and ironically is still) considered mutually exclusive.
But in the meantime, although I'm ultimately grateful for what they taught us in math, science and computers back in 1980s and although I owe my religious knowledge to them (and I admire their dedication to their cause), I don't feel comfortable with the way they tried to indoctrinate us with their evangelical views of Islam.
Just as with Christians, there are similar views among some Shia theologians who believe that our third Imam was killed to guarantee us salvation. There's a difference between the common meaning of Imam (one who leads prayer in a mosque) and the special meaning of Imam (leader) in Shia theology. According to us, there have been 12 Imams appointed by God as the successors of our Prophet to keep Islam upright. In this special meaning, Imam is the exclusive representative of God on earth at any given time (in other words, there can't be more than one Imam at the same time).
Our third Imam (who was a grandson of our Prophet) lived during the rule of a self-acclaimed Caliph, named Yazid, who was the embodiment of corruption (you may think of Henry VIII to get a slight idea). And this guy was so arrogant and so out of his mind as to ask Imam Hussein to not only accept his rule but also pledge his allegiance to him as the Caliph (successor) of our Prophet and acknowledge his corruption as representation of true Islam.
Surely, he defied this call with his famous quote: "If the religion of Mohammad wouldn't stand upright unless I be killed, so swords come get me". And that's exactly what happened. He along with 72 of his associates and relatives were surrounded in a desert (presently known as Karbala in Iraq) by Yazid's army of mercenaries, were denied access to water for days and were brutally killed and beheaded in an unfair battle (not sparing even his 6 month old baby) with their heads sent to Yazid as trophies. And this was a turning point in the history and theology of Shia: you have to defy oppression and corruption at all costs (even your life).
Then, some Shia theologians came up with the idea that his brutal killing amid that desert 13 centuries ago would guarantee us automatic salvation (when I mentioned about this, my friend's first reaction was: a sinner cannot grant salvation; apparently Islam and Quran have more respect for other religions' sacred people).
Now, I put on my engineering hat for a while. In automatic control systems, we have 2 kinds of systems: with or without feedback. In the first type, a sample of the output is fed back through the controller (or compensator), the result compared with the desired value, the error is added/subtracted to/from the input and so on. This way, the system adapts itself according to what's desired at the output for the given input. In the second type however, the system continues working regardless of what input has resulted in what output.
An example of the first would be air-conditioning. You set a desired temperature for your room and then the thermostat measures and accordingly regulates the functioning of air-conditioner and as a result, you get the temperature desired. However, in a washing machine (which is an example of a system without feedback) the controller just pours water in a predetermined way, rinses, rotates and dries. And it doesn't care how dirty the laundry has been to adapt its functioning accordingly. It just works in a pre-determined way. And here's my second point:
True, Imam Hussein (as an Imam appointed by God) is in a position to grant us salvation through God if and only if we follow God's rules clarified by him (and the rest of Imams), but there is no guaranteed salvation going to sinners merely by calling upon Imams without following their path (or at least doing your best to that end). Our sixth Imam has clearly stated: "Our salvation won't reach people who disregard prayer (to God)". The same would apply to Jesus Christ and Christians. Neither Imams (for Muslims) nor Jesus Christ (for Christians) are automatic washing machines.
I have difficulty with accepting the idea that Jesus Christ would guarantee salvation for anybody who just calls him Savior no matter whether he's following Christ's teachings or not. So, if that were to be the case, why did he ever bother to preach so much (Matthew 7:21-23 and elsewhere) about how to live and how to follow his suit?
And it makes it even worse when you see yourself as the only one that would be saved just because you're the only one believing in such a doctrine and see yourself and your doctrine superior to anybody, again, just because you believe so. And again, there are similar views of exclusiveness and superiority just because of belief in this guaranteed salvation doctrine among some Shia people. And here's my third point for my evangelist friends:
I've been subject to indoctrination on guaranteed automatic salvation and have lived in a Shia culture drawing to such doctrines for far more years than the time you began to attend some Bible studies. And I don't find my belief and passion in Imam Hussein to be any weaker than yours for Jesus Christ (not that I'm not already in love with him).
If you believe you can do in a 5-minute stand-up crash-course what years of comprehensive indoctrination in my own religious tradition has failed to do, you're simply wasting your time (and mine). And worse so, if you try to establish a self-acclaimed exclusive salvation over holding to such an interpretation of Jesus Christ's words merely by repeating the interpretation as the sole proof to its validity.
Sometimes such a feeling of superiority of one's belief wouldn't renounce just other faiths; it could lead you to cast aside people of your own faith either. I was talking to one of my evangelist friends about Christians who don't view Trinity as holding Jesus Christ to be God and he exclaimed: WE don't consider them Christians.
And while my conservative friend and I were on our way to the church, I mentioned about Lutheran churches and he scoffed: "Lutherans believe that a sprinkle of water would save them, but salvation comes only through Jesus Christ". Later on, when I mentioned about this to a Lutheran pastor, he smiled. The prejudice (fed by ignorance) was so sheer that he didn't need to say much in defense.
Although I'm a practicing Shia, thankful to God for my beliefs and for my passion with our Imams, I don't find merely claiming those beliefs as a ground for being exclusively saved or being superior to anybody. One could be just hopeful in God's grace and mercy.
First, I must give a brief on my conservative friend. We got friends in a meeting held by the Office of Multicultural Student Services to promote understanding about gays. The meeting went by the title: "God and Gays, Bridging the Gap" (after a documentary by the same name). There, after screening the movie, the producer and the director of the movie (who were practicing lesbian partners BTW) tried to show that there's nothing wrong to be gay and Christian at the same time. Although I didn't feel like attending what I (as a Muslim) consider an assembly of sinners, my sociological convictions overpowered me. However, with my sheer Islamic appearance, I felt the gaze on the black sheep since the beginning.
And as is the case with such events, there were a couple of evangelical Bible-wielding guys trying (inefficiently though) to discredit the fallacies of those proud Christian gays. OK, here's my first point:
when you're not knowledgeable/competent enough to defend your beliefs, you'd better keep silent. Defending a belief in a weak/inefficient way does more harm than good. And when you're in an atmosphere where emotions overrule reason, it makes your effort even more futile and miserable.
Anyway, my interest in following their line of reasoning through the different translations of Bible they carried, caused mutual interest on their side and more unfriendly looks on the other side (by the end of the meeting, the director's look this way was more like a glare).
After the meeting, I started exchanging beliefs with this young passionate Christian guy with whom I felt like a brother in belief. And after a while he (like any other evangelist) started giving arguments (or what he assumed to be so) to make me understand that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ and that he was killed in order to redeem us from our sins and anybody who doesn't believe that way wouldn't be saved. Apparently, he'd picked the wrong person.
I've had my pre-college education in an elite evangelical Islamic school. You may think of elite Catholic high-schools to get an idea of the style and quality of the education. Even when I got into college to study engineering, I still believed they (as a high-school) had a higher standard of education than my college. Their objective was to train religious professionals. When they founded the school (50 years ago), being religious and professional at the same time was (and ironically is still) considered mutually exclusive.
But in the meantime, although I'm ultimately grateful for what they taught us in math, science and computers back in 1980s and although I owe my religious knowledge to them (and I admire their dedication to their cause), I don't feel comfortable with the way they tried to indoctrinate us with their evangelical views of Islam.
Just as with Christians, there are similar views among some Shia theologians who believe that our third Imam was killed to guarantee us salvation. There's a difference between the common meaning of Imam (one who leads prayer in a mosque) and the special meaning of Imam (leader) in Shia theology. According to us, there have been 12 Imams appointed by God as the successors of our Prophet to keep Islam upright. In this special meaning, Imam is the exclusive representative of God on earth at any given time (in other words, there can't be more than one Imam at the same time).
Our third Imam (who was a grandson of our Prophet) lived during the rule of a self-acclaimed Caliph, named Yazid, who was the embodiment of corruption (you may think of Henry VIII to get a slight idea). And this guy was so arrogant and so out of his mind as to ask Imam Hussein to not only accept his rule but also pledge his allegiance to him as the Caliph (successor) of our Prophet and acknowledge his corruption as representation of true Islam.
Surely, he defied this call with his famous quote: "If the religion of Mohammad wouldn't stand upright unless I be killed, so swords come get me". And that's exactly what happened. He along with 72 of his associates and relatives were surrounded in a desert (presently known as Karbala in Iraq) by Yazid's army of mercenaries, were denied access to water for days and were brutally killed and beheaded in an unfair battle (not sparing even his 6 month old baby) with their heads sent to Yazid as trophies. And this was a turning point in the history and theology of Shia: you have to defy oppression and corruption at all costs (even your life).
Then, some Shia theologians came up with the idea that his brutal killing amid that desert 13 centuries ago would guarantee us automatic salvation (when I mentioned about this, my friend's first reaction was: a sinner cannot grant salvation; apparently Islam and Quran have more respect for other religions' sacred people).
Now, I put on my engineering hat for a while. In automatic control systems, we have 2 kinds of systems: with or without feedback. In the first type, a sample of the output is fed back through the controller (or compensator), the result compared with the desired value, the error is added/subtracted to/from the input and so on. This way, the system adapts itself according to what's desired at the output for the given input. In the second type however, the system continues working regardless of what input has resulted in what output.
An example of the first would be air-conditioning. You set a desired temperature for your room and then the thermostat measures and accordingly regulates the functioning of air-conditioner and as a result, you get the temperature desired. However, in a washing machine (which is an example of a system without feedback) the controller just pours water in a predetermined way, rinses, rotates and dries. And it doesn't care how dirty the laundry has been to adapt its functioning accordingly. It just works in a pre-determined way. And here's my second point:
True, Imam Hussein (as an Imam appointed by God) is in a position to grant us salvation through God if and only if we follow God's rules clarified by him (and the rest of Imams), but there is no guaranteed salvation going to sinners merely by calling upon Imams without following their path (or at least doing your best to that end). Our sixth Imam has clearly stated: "Our salvation won't reach people who disregard prayer (to God)". The same would apply to Jesus Christ and Christians. Neither Imams (for Muslims) nor Jesus Christ (for Christians) are automatic washing machines.
I have difficulty with accepting the idea that Jesus Christ would guarantee salvation for anybody who just calls him Savior no matter whether he's following Christ's teachings or not. So, if that were to be the case, why did he ever bother to preach so much (Matthew 7:21-23 and elsewhere) about how to live and how to follow his suit?
And it makes it even worse when you see yourself as the only one that would be saved just because you're the only one believing in such a doctrine and see yourself and your doctrine superior to anybody, again, just because you believe so. And again, there are similar views of exclusiveness and superiority just because of belief in this guaranteed salvation doctrine among some Shia people. And here's my third point for my evangelist friends:
I've been subject to indoctrination on guaranteed automatic salvation and have lived in a Shia culture drawing to such doctrines for far more years than the time you began to attend some Bible studies. And I don't find my belief and passion in Imam Hussein to be any weaker than yours for Jesus Christ (not that I'm not already in love with him).
If you believe you can do in a 5-minute stand-up crash-course what years of comprehensive indoctrination in my own religious tradition has failed to do, you're simply wasting your time (and mine). And worse so, if you try to establish a self-acclaimed exclusive salvation over holding to such an interpretation of Jesus Christ's words merely by repeating the interpretation as the sole proof to its validity.
Sometimes such a feeling of superiority of one's belief wouldn't renounce just other faiths; it could lead you to cast aside people of your own faith either. I was talking to one of my evangelist friends about Christians who don't view Trinity as holding Jesus Christ to be God and he exclaimed: WE don't consider them Christians.
And while my conservative friend and I were on our way to the church, I mentioned about Lutheran churches and he scoffed: "Lutherans believe that a sprinkle of water would save them, but salvation comes only through Jesus Christ". Later on, when I mentioned about this to a Lutheran pastor, he smiled. The prejudice (fed by ignorance) was so sheer that he didn't need to say much in defense.
Although I'm a practicing Shia, thankful to God for my beliefs and for my passion with our Imams, I don't find merely claiming those beliefs as a ground for being exclusively saved or being superior to anybody. One could be just hopeful in God's grace and mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment