Reading about other people's religious crises makes me feel better.
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus is a religious memoir about Nabeel Qureshi, an ex-Muslim second generation American. It describes his journey from growing up Muslim to slowly accepting Christianity. The book is more theological than personal- the emphasis is on the religious texts and logic of the religion, rather than the interpersonal struggles.
Qureshi does an excellent job of bringing us with him in this journey. The challenge of turning his back on what he knows, of changing his definition of truth, is well written and it's hard not to feel for him when he faces this deep doubt.
Additionally, the initial parts of the book were also a delight. Qureshi describes the life of religious Muslims in a way that I hadn't seen before- with a lot of detail, care and honesty. As a second generation child, he really pinpoints the arduous middle ground of multiculturalism, of having Western culture and Eastern culture together. Of being torn between them, of becoming less Pakistani and more Asian-American.
It's also an educational book- I learned quite a bit both about Islam and Christianity. By including so many theological debates, we get to see how each religion faces different questions and answers various challenges.
However, some parts of this book were less than great.
Qureshi seems to view religion as science. That is, you make a claim, others can make different claims and ultimately, you fight until one is proven true and the others are proven false. In some ways, Qureshi's journey was based on trying to force people to convert to Islam by convincing them their religions are wrong. He then meets David, who is basically doing the same but for Christianity. They discuss, Qureshi manages to bring less proof and therefore, Qureshi converts.
Throughout the book, the emphasis is that if Islam is true, Christianity is false and visa versa. There's the assumption that it is possible to disprove of a religion through empirical knowledge. This perspective, in my opinion, is both false and dangerous. It's false because come on, if it was possible to prove a religion in such certainty, we'd all be believers already. Religion is cool precisely because it requires faith, it requires accepting that some things cannot be known, that rationalism is not all there is. "My religion might not be true for you" is a thought that should be expressed more often.
Now, the idea that religion can be proven through knowledge and logic is also dangerous because it encourages coercion. It motivates us to view other people's faith as wrong and ignorant, rather than as special and intriguing. To try to prove them wrong, to place faith on the same level as empirical knowledge gleaned by our senses.
There's a moment where Qureshi accepts Christianity and then goes, "look at all these people who don't yet know Jesus is their savior, they must know". On a surface level, this is a kind thought- he assumes that if knowledge of Jesus has brought him so much compassion and warmth, it will do so for everyone.
However, it's also a comment that ignores that Christianity's attempts to bring Jesus to people have often ended up terribly (yeah, still bitter about the Crusades). Missionaries have caused harm in poor countries, have often played a role in destroying local religions. What does sharing Jesus mean when people are not interested but are in need for help?
And it's presumptive. I found myself thinking, if I knew as a fact that Christianity was true, would I give up on Judaism? Would I cease to observe Shabbat? Would I view the Old Testament and the New Testament as the same? Would I disregard the Talmud? My answer is no. I might change my religious perception, might view Jesus as more than just a man but I wouldn't give up on my entire culture for it. I also do not appreciate Christians informing me that I must do so.
Not only is this frustrating, the entire book relies on many illogical concepts. For example, initially Qureshi seems to feel that Christianity is not true because the religious texts have changed and there are multiple translations. David counters this by pointing out that the various versions allow people to recognize and catch the differences.
This doesn't make sense. If there are some differences, they have no full way of knowing that they've found them all. Additionally, translation is constantly playing a role. For example, I would translate Deuteronomy 16:20 as "Justice, justice you shall chase". The word in Hebrew תרדוף is active, it comes from the root of hunting. It's a word that's sometimes used for persecute. And yet, various translations have used follow, pursue and seek. Each of these words has a different context. If we believe the purity of the text matters, this is a problem that David doesn't acknowledge.
And on the other side, Qureshi seems to give up on the Quran once he realizes that it was edited and that certain parts were cut out. This doesn't fully make sense- a text can be edited and still have spiritual significance.
However, there is also room to ask if this is even a question that matters. Neither David nor Nabeel ever take a moment to question why it matters that the text remains unchanged. Surely, such a change can reflect God's will? And there are other texts from the period that remain unchanged, is the purity of a text really what grants it it's religious authority?
And this is just one example. Most of the theological arguments are based on goal posts that are never fully explained. Why does it matter if Jesus said he's God? How does that change whether he is or isn't God? Does anyone really believe it's fully possible to determine whether Jesus died in the cross or not nowadays? And no matter what's the answer, why should that shape someone's faith now?
To conclude, if you enjoy theological debates, you'll enjoy this book (especially if you're Christian, I lowkey want to recommend this book to Muslim friends just to hear countering points for Qureshi's claims). It's definitely an educational look on Islam, Christianity, and faith in general.
What I'm Taking With Me
- The dream part was cool, like I don't really believe in religious dreams but it was neat that he found meaning there.
- Let's be honest, I'm too much of an existentialist for this, like if religion is meaningful to you, what does it matter what others believe?
- Everything he wrote about Judaism was wrong- Jews don't quite believe in bodily resurrection. It seems like non-Jews place a far bigger emphasis on Jewish prophecies than Jews themselves, like that stuff is esoteric.
- And Judaism genuinely doesn't about Paul which is fascinating considering what a role he plays for Christians.
- I always enjoy learning more on how similar Islam and Judaism are (though it seems the relationship to text is very different) but I also have to admit that Jesus seems like a better role model than Mohammad. That unconditional love idea is lovely, like the perception that everything has been offset by Jesus' death.
- I loved their Buddhist friend, that was an excellent vibe.
-------------------
Reading this book as a relatively observant Jew who doesn't really believe in God has been a great theological experience.
Review to come, if I don't lose my sanity during holiday season