also:
I'd say that today, Christianity is as much "overlooked" in Islam as is Islam in Christianity. I'd also reiterate the point that Christianity preceded Islam by around 600 years, so the "overlooking" of Islam by Christians is a tad more understandable than is that of Christianity by Muslims. That said, Islam is a different
Abrahamic formulation: it mandates a belief in one omnipotent being, just as does Christianity, but it's also
Abrahamic because it explicitly agrees (more or less) with the Christian (and before that Jewish) Abrahamic story, as well as with other Old testament stories, and even some New Testament ideas and narratives.
It recognises Jesus and the Virgin Mary, for instance, but denies Jesus as being the son of God, and the idea of the trinity in general, which as far as I recall isn't explicitly mentioned in the NT, but is a later formalisation into dogma of terms such as the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son, into a single, tripartite entity. I'm reminded of Jonathan Swifts's
little and
big endians, different sects who broke their boiled eggs at either at the little or the big end -
a satire on religious differences:
Both nations follow the teachings of a prophet, Lustrog, as recorded in their scripture, known as the Blundecral ("which is their Alcoran or Bible, we don't really know"). Sectarian divisions exist in the debate between "Little-Endians" and "Big-Endians"
In passing, it's interesting here that Swift juxtaposes the Quran ("Alcoran") and the Bible as designations for the same scripture interpreted differently (little and big ends of the boiled egg). But it's a bit more complicated in that the Quran seems very confused -- if you've ever read (I suppose you have),
and understood it, you're a better man than I, because to me it makes little sense, is in no particular order except perhaps by Sura size, and seems illogical and even self-contradictory. Say what one wants about Judaeo-Christian scripture, it does in the main present a reasonably coherent narrative independent of sacerdotal interpretation.
One has to rely on other sources (hadiths and the sira) to make sense of the Quran - sources that even Muslims have to admit aren't divinely inspired. A lot of the dogma arises, in other words, from all-to-human influence, just as the dogma in Christianity is alleged to have arisen through the machinations of Roman elites.
If there is a true essence of Islam, and a true essence of Judaism and Christianity, it is imho masked by all the accretions arising from human meddling. I tend to think that the true essence of Islam, if it resides anywhere, is with the Sufis, who have sometimes been dubbed "secret Christians". In other words, at root, Christianity and Islam may be essentially the same thing. Christian (and before that, Judaic, Zoroastrian and so forth) mysticism have
much in common:
Idries Shah states that Sufism is universal in nature, its roots predating the rise of Islam and Christianity.[190] He quotes Suhrawardi as saying that "this [Sufism] was a form of wisdom known to and practiced by a succession of sages including the mysterious ancient Hermes of Egypt.", and that Ibn al-Farid "stresses that Sufism lies behind and before systematization; that 'our wine existed before what you call the grape and the vine' (the school and the system)..."[191] Shah's views have however been rejected by modern scholars.[15] Such modern trends of neo-Sufis in Western countries allow non-Muslims to receive "instructions on following the Sufi path", not without opposition by Muslims who consider such instruction outside the sphere of Islam.
I used to read a lot of Idries Shah, and think maybe he was right that there's
something common to all religions -- Sufism, he maintained, wasn't always called by that name; it has been called many names, indeed may have existed at certain periods without having any explicit name. As a term, "Sufism" may just be a placeholder, and the fact that it's associated mainly with Islam today may be a histrorical quirk as much as anything. Certainly, for someone like me brought up in a Judaeo-Christian culture, there's little if anything in Sufism (at least, as presented in the West by Shah and others) that doesn't gibe with my personal spiritual values.
Sufism isn't widely known and practised in the West, it's true, but Shah maintained that the essence of Sufism can be adapted by competent individuals to fit virtually any religous framework -- at least for a period, before its energy wanes and it has to be re-formulated to suit the current time, place and people.
In the East (by which I take you to mean Islamic countries), I'm not saying that it doesn't currently exist in such a form, but I do wonder whether or not it might not mostly comprise "fossilised" remnants. The whirling dervish dance, for example, is, according to Shah, something that has long outgrown its usefulness. According to him, it was initially formulated for Mediaeval Turks, whom he says were rather phlegmatic and needed the dance to stir them up a little. It was but part of an integrated system that worked at one time, but is currently inappropriate and serves mainly emotional ends for those who practise it.
Shah said there might be contemporary formulations of Sufism that many orthodox Muslims wouldn't recognise as remotely Islamic. I can't say for sure myself, but if he's right, then no conventional religious formulation, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam currently reflects true spiritual values. Which is not to say, of course, that there aren't in all religions some genuinely spiritual people -- but I tend to think if there are, they're such
despite and not
because of the dogmatic milieu in which they find themselves.[/QUOTE