Bism Allah, al-Rahmen, al-Raheem....

From only the cover of the 1993 book "Christian & Islamic Spirituality: Sharing a Journey" by Maria Jaoudi (ISBN 0-8091-3426-8) this would certainly seem to be a unique and admirable addition to interfaith communication and understanding. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend it for that purpose. While Dr. Jaoudi's intentions certainly seem to be good, her over-all effect will, in my opinion, only damage communication and understanding. I need only refer to the first fifteen pages of this book to show that this is the case. This is a very flawed book, in my opinion. So flawed throughout, in fact, that it can be taken apart page by page, line by line.

Dr. Jaoudi completely misrepresents Muslim teachings and beliefs. Indeed, I perhaps have mischaracterized this book as an addition to the interfaith literature. It should more properly be described as an addition to the ecumenical literature. That is, it attempts to display forth, or produce an integration of Christian and Muslim beliefs. In order to achieve this integration, however, Dr. Jaoudi must walk all over the actual beliefs of Muslims, which can be quite different from Christian beliefs! Dr. Jaoudi seems to ignore these important differences in service of her implicit ecumenical agenda. The book unfortunately, thus ends up sounding somewhat insulting to the Muslim ear. While not explicitly, nor by intention, anti-Muslim, this book is, however, in effect anti-Muslim in that it so misrepresents Muslim thought.

In order to achieve this implicit ecumenical goal Dr. Jaoudi resorts to philosophical and psychological concepts I can only describe-- with horror-- as "new age" or as "pop." I say "with horror" not only because I find such beliefs and concepts astoundingly naive and inaccurate, but because this book is published by Paulist Press which is Catholic. Dr. Jaoudi teaches in the Department of Religious Studies at Nazareth College in Rochester, New York, which is a Catholic college. I assume she too is Catholic, but one would not know that, nor that she is an academic, due to the "new age" and other "pop" influences evident in her writing.

Right off the bat, in her Introduction, Dr. Jaoudi insists on utilizing a traditional Catholic understanding of growth in spirituality called the way of purgation, illumination and union with God. There are two things here:

1) The author renames two of these classic terms: "purification" is substituted for purgation and "transformation" for illumination. Union with God remains the same as in classical formulations of the Catholic understanding of this developmental pattern. These words are not synonyms. Hints of the new age popism that is to come!

2) In no way is this the Muslim understanding of spiritual growth. In no way would any standard Muslim theologian EVER say that we achieve "union" with God. If such a phrase appears at all in Muslim literature it can only be understood by Muslims as a poetic expression of love for God. As a theological statement it borders on the outright blasphemous in standard Muslim thought! This attitude is expressed throughout the entire book (i.e. "the goal of life is union with God," "the actions one performs... reveal the extent to which the divine has become one's own self..." "For both Christianity and Islam, the state of union with God is our true existential state." etc.) This cannot be construed as representing Muslim thought or belief by any stretch of the imagination. Not at all.

We must immediately ask: How could the author make such a grand error? Where has her information about Islam come from such that she would so casually use "union with God" in spite of the fact that it is a downright offensive phrase to Muslims? Well, Dr. Jaoudi, in fact, references only from the styles of Islamic practice generally called "Sufi" and then, for all intents and purposes, only from two representatives of this strain of Muslim thought.

While the Sufi literature is certainly a part of Islam it is in no way representative of standard Muslim theology-- it is but a strain of thought within Muslim theological variety. Indeed, not all Muslims agree that the Sufi approach is even valid! Dr. Jaoudi seems completely unaware of this. Frankly, this is unconscionable in a person of her academic standing who would propose to write about Islam.

Dr. Jaoudi relies only upon the writings of the famous Rabi'a and Rumi. In essence, she is using books of Muslim poetry and devotional writing-- not books of actual Muslim belief and practice. What is worse is that because the author appears to have no real knowledge whatsoever of the theological background and belief system within which Rabi'a and Rumi were functioning she completely misrepresents them! For instance, right on page 4 she implies that Rabi'a recognizes that "God lives within the self." In no way, shape, form, by any stretch of the imagination would any Muslim worth his or her salt say, think or believe such a thing! In Islamic thought God and creation are ontologically separate. God is not "in" creation at all. For a believing Muslim to read this as being representative of standard Muslim teaching is for that Muslim to feel a bit sick to his or her stomach! If it is a Muslim who already is uncomfortable with Sufi theology it only adds fuel to the fire of that discomfort.

For all intents and purposes, Jaoudi completely ignores the Qur'an and sunnah, which are the foundations of all Islamic practice-- in all its variety. In effect, what she does is like trying to talk about Christian beliefs without referring to Jesus and the Gospels. Or it is like trying to teach what Jews believe without referring to the Torah. Clearly, clearly there is something wrong here. Rabi'a and Rumi are Muslims who prayed five times a day, fasted the month of Ramadan and followed Muslim jurisprudence. They followed, as best they could and with their understanding, the Qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad. Their writings can only be understood within that Qur'anic context-- which is completely ignored by Dr. Jaoudi.

She continues: "There have been theologians in both Islam and Christianity who have preferred, unfortunately, to regard themselves and the rest of us as slaves, rather than friends of God." (emphasis mine)

This is a problematic statement on a number of levels:

1) It shows a complete ignorance of how slavery has been practiced throughout the world and in different cultures. We can assume she only thinks of the American form of chattel slavery that was practiced. As much as we today find the idea of slavery in any form abhorrent, her failure to place the religious use of this term in the fullness of its context and use is, in my opinion, poor scholarly/educational practice.

2) Muslims do indeed consider themselves as slaves of God. That is a fact. Even a familiar Arabic name such as "Abdullah" is actually "Abd Allah"-- slave of God. Only great spiritual masters and messengers from God-- such as Abraham-- are called "friends of God" in Muslim literature.

3) This touches on the "new age" attitude in Jaoudi's writing: God as "my big buddy." In Islam the transcendent awesome unity and uniqueness of God is what is stressed. God is never "my big buddy." God is my awesome and glorious creator.

With one fell swoop Jaoudi has brushed away essential components of a Muslim's self-identity before God as well as vast realms of Muslim theology. She reveals her own cultural-centric view and approach. This is ironic give her intentions with the book. She continues to display this mawkish cultural-centric view on page five when she writes "The way of love begins with personally working through one's own psychological healing..." This is questionable. Some-- especially in the Catholic tradition-- would argue that the way of love begins with doing for others and becoming other-centered. It is with unsupported and debatable statements like this that Jaoudi also brings us into the realm of pure pop psychology-- the world view of the self-help movement. This is disturbing in someone of her academic credentials and position. It certainly does not correlate with Islamic thought which often stresses duty to God-- a concept dismissed by Jaoudi. Or rather, she again displays her pop approach saying that the essential meaning and purpose of a duty or ritual (as if they are the same!) is present only when there is love. This simply isn't true. While one's capacity for love certainly can add to the meaning of duty or ritual it is not a necessary condition for one to enter fully into the essential meanings. I have a duty to go to work. I don't love it, but I do fullfill it in toto!

A great sin in Islam would be to attribute a saying or teaching to Muhammad that he never said or taught. Jaoudi writes on page 5 "Both Muhammad and Jesus explain that the first commandment is first for a reason...." I challenge Dr. Jaoudi to cite a source for her saying that Muhammad taught on this subject.

On page 10 she makes a statement that again not only displays a complete lack of knowledge of standard variation in Muslim theology, but again, with one sweep, dismisses vast populations of devout and caring Muslims: "....antiquated cultural norms which, in effect, is like asking people to wear cloaks and sandals because that is what Jesus and Muhammad certainly wore...." Unfortunately for the author, there are indeed Muslims who do this, and it is a legitimate theology (though I personally do not do this). There is nothing Muslims love better than imitating Muhammad who we love so much. For many people it is part of their spiritual discipline, growth and development to eat like Muhammad, dress like Muhammad, talk like Muhammad and look like Muhammad-- and in this way closely follow the principles of the Qur'an. Others do place more stress on Muhammad's personality characteristics than these other factors such as clothing, but most assuredly all accept this style of Islamic practice as well. So, frankly, Jaoudi has no right and is way out of line, to write about this Muslim practice in such a dismissive and insulting manner. Clearly she knows not the slightest thing about actual Muslims!

So ignorant of Islam is she that on page 13 she translates "Qur'an" as meaning "The Book" which is actually "al-Kitab" in the Arabic. "Qur'an" means "Recitation." The newest, youngest Muslims will know this. Also on this page we see something that appears to be in almost all non-Muslim writing: the failure to consistently translate "Allah" thus subtly communicating to many the idea that "Allah" is not the same as "God." This is, in my opinion, a subtle indicator of a particular author's prejudice or ignorance. In addition, she compares Muhammad to Plato's philosopher-king. I know Platonic philosophy quite well and of course have read Plato's Dialogues. Muhammad is NOTHING like Plato's philosopher-king. A possible bigotry is also displayed when she uses the word "conquer": "....[Muhammad was in] a position of leadership that was to conquer most of the Arab world..." Echoes of "religion of the sword" Doctor? She has not recognized her own bias.

On page 14 she makes an extraordinary error that shows she has done absolutely no reading in Islam whatsoever: "Each [Muslim] household gives alms comprising twenty percent of the family's income." This is an unfortunate error that completely destroys Dr. Jaoudi's credibility, in my opinion.

Sunni Muslims-- the vast majority-- are required to give 2.5% of their assets, not income. This is called Zakat and is one of the famous Five Pillars of Islam.

Need I go on? It would certainly be easy-- to list, page by page, the errors and insults (unintended though they may be) Dr. Jaoudi heaps upon her readers and upon Muslims.

I am willing to do such a tedious task, but I think the quality and nature of this book is plain, just from what I've written here.

In my opinion, Paulist and Jaoudi should recall this book or Dr. Maria Jaoudi should be called upon to explain herself and defend her writing. If she can!

And Allahu 'alim.