Campartive Religion

Please click on the tabs below to read the article.

Jesus and Muhammad

Jesus and Muhammad (upon them be peace)

Brothers in faith and the challenge of walking in their footsteps in a secular world by Shaykh Naeem Abdul Wali (Gary Edwards),

If you would trust in God as is His right to be trusted He would give you your provision as He gives it to the birds, they leave their roosts hungry and return satiated”, said the final universal Messenger, Muhammad.  Similarly the author of the Gospel of Mathew has his closest brother, Jesus saying to the crowds around him, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.   Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?  Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.   Are you not much more valuable than they?”  A little later he addressed them as, “O you of little faith?”

The word faith originally meant something akin to placing one’s trust in someone as when we say we have ‘faith’ in a friend or in an ideal.  As Karen Armstrong said, “Faith  was not an intellectual position but a virtue:  it was the careful cultivation, by means of rituals and myths of religion, of the conviction that despite all the dispiriting evidence to the contrary, life had some ultimate meaning and value”.

It is the disease of the modern age that this understanding of faith being something inherently holistic that renders the heavenly dispensations perplexing to the children of modernity.  The Quran states, “It is not piety that you turn your faces to the east or west, but piety is a person who believes in God…  These words are quite significant in their Arabic original, unfortunately their fecundity being lost in the English translations.  For clearly they indicate that their must be an engendered personification of an abstraction, an idea of ‘piety’, or bir, and that the locus of this accident is man.  Bir, piety as the great Quranic exegete as-Suyuti said: “is the doing of good, in all its manifest realities”. Reflexively the author of Acts has Peter saying when asked to describe Jesus as, “…he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him”.  This is of the prophetic legacy and largesse.

The Prophet Muhammad said once, “Mankind are the dependents, or family of God, and the most beloved of them to God are those who are the most excellent to His dependents”.  It is in loving our brothers that true anchoring faith is manifested, for he said, “Not one of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself”.  Great Muslim scholars of prophetic tradition such as Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharafuddin an_Nawawi have said that the words ‘his brother’, or akheehee, mean any person irrespective of faith.   Similarly, the author of the Gospel of Luke has written concerning Jesus:  On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus.  “Teacher”, he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”   “What is written in the Law?”  He replied, “How do you read it?” He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with your entire mind’, and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Of course this the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone outside the orthodox Jewish tradition, yet a man manifesting the doing of good which characterizes the people of God.  Seeing beyond ourselves, to others is quintessential to true heavenly religion, something inherently antithetical to modernity.

Individualism uniquely characterizes modernity; in the language of classical Islamic spirituality it is called annaaniyya.  It impedes us from being able to walk in the footsteps of Jesus and Muhammad.  As Huston Smith rightly  says when speaking of it:  Modernity induces us to believe that there is no right higher than the right to choose what one believes, wants, needs or must posses. This gives us ‘the culture of narcissism’.   Yet, heavenly dispensations seek from us the setting aside of our ‘annaniyya’, our ‘I-ness’.   This is the prophetic norm, demanding of us emulation.

Emulation is cardinal in the divine economy.  The author of the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus saying:  A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.  It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.   Muhammad in speaking of ritual prayer said to his companions: “Pray as you have seen me pray”.  And God in speaking to the community of Muhammad says:  If you love Me, then follow me and God will love you.  For God situates between the sons and daughters of Adam prophets, that their faith is known in their setting aside themselves in preference to the prophet if their community.  Again the author of the Gospel of Mathew has Jesus say:  Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me;  anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  Anyone who does not take hsi cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it.  Muhammad said:  Not one of you truly believes until I am more beloved to him than his parent, child and all mankind!

When Moses asks God as to whom will he say has sent him to Pharaoh, the 2nd Century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint has God saying  ‘ego eimi ho On’, or ‘I am that which is’.  Similarly God through the Quran in speaking to Moses says at the burning bush, “Indeed it is I, your Lord, remove your sandals, for you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa, I have chosen you, so listen carefully to what is revealed, ‘Indeed I, I am God, there is no deity save for Me, worship Me and establish ritual prayer for My remembrance.” For Moses is to be sent to a man who transgresses, ‘God to Pharaoh for indeed he has transgressed’, but when Moses confronts him Pharaoh’s response is to address his own people and say , “I am your lord most high”.  It is this pharonic self description of the divine prerogative of true ‘I-ness’ that was his down fall and the bane of modern man.

Willaim Shaddon of Columbia University’s College of Physicians when reflecting back on his career remarked: “Continued observation in clinical practices leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that deeper and more fundamental than sexuality, deeper than the craving for social power, deeper even than the desire for possessions, there is a still more generalized and universal craving in the human makeup. It is craving for the knowledge of the right direction—for orientation”.

Muhammad and Jesus both came into the world, as the prophets before them, to keep God-centeredness the Reality which supersedes all other realities.   That the axis about which individuals, communities and ultimately civilizations pivot themselves upon is the vertical heavenly axis, not the horizontal ‘forward’ that is of modernity as Archibald MacLeith said, “a world ends when its metaphor dies, and modernity’s metaphor—endless progress through science-powered technology—is dead”. Both Jesus and Muhammad had their ascensions, for the Christians,  Jesus’ return is an expectation; for the Muslims, Muhammad’s return brought them heavenly provision that restores mankind, that first and foremost engendered in ritual prayer. The standing towards the qibla, the physical act direction of ‘turning’ one’s face towards the Kaaba, itself an earthy reflection of a paradisial, heavenly structure, the Bait l’M’amur, is about finding orientation.  So when man can not immediately ascend to heaven, God facilitates by manifesting something of it in the here and now of his earthly existence. Thus, in the upwardness of these ascensions points the prophetic compass; an indication, or ayat, for the people of God.

In 1882 Nietzsche in his The Gay Science declared that God was dead.  He told the parable of a madman running one morning into the marketplace crying out ‘I seek god!’ When the amused bystanders asked if he imagined that God had emigrated or taken a holiday, the madman glared.  “Where has God gone?” he demanded. “We have killed him—you and I!  We are all his murderers!” Nietzsche’s madman believed that the death of God had torn humanity from its roots, thrown the earth off course, and cast it adrift in a pathless universe.  Everything that had once given human beings a sense of ultimate direction had vanished.  “Is there still an above and below?” he had asked. “Do we not stray, as though through an infinite nothingness?” Without the compass of prophetic inheritance, the whole dynamic of our future-oriented, forward thinking, progressive culture renders us unable to orient ourselves. Perhaps it was the bitter fruit of this that William Shaddon had observed in the years of his clinical practice.  The paths laid out by Jesus and Muhammad become impossible to discern, and we become as the jurists of Islamic sacred law in describing a drunken man as being one who can not discriminate  between up from down.

Without God as the center, the heart of a man does not, however, remain a void, but is filled with something else, namely himself, as Karl Marx  a ‘prophet’ of the new age said: “Humanism is the denial of God and the total affirmation of man.”  The author of Luke has Jesus in the Parable of the Sower saying: “But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it and by persevering produce a crop.” Muhammad five centuries later affirms his brothers teaching by saying, “Indeed God has vessels among the people of the Earth, the vessels of your Lord are the hearts of His wholesomely righteous servants, the most beloved to Him are those which are most clear and gentle.”  He also said, “Is there not a morsel of flesh in the body that if it is healthy the whole body is healthy and if it is corrupted the whole body is corrupted?  Is it not the heart?”  We must ask ourselves, what does modern man know of the heart as spoken of by Yeshua and Muhammad, for it has become peripheral and the mind has taken center stage.  As the Quran teaches it is not the eyes of the head that are blind but the eye of the heart, it is the eyes of the head that are from the gateways to the intellects understanding of reality, again horizontal, but it is the heart that receives what it does from the divine from the heavenly, or vertical. 

Jesus in speaking of the heart spoke of persevering and thus ‘produce a good crop’.  God uses similar language in the Quran when He affirms, “Indeed the believers are successful!”, again the English misses the strength of the original Arabic. The word ‘falaah’, translated as success, linguistically means to cultivate the land and produce an abundant crop, the word ‘fallaah’ meaning farmer and husbandman of the soil.  Speaking of the soul God says, “Indeed acquiring abundance is for the one who purifies it, and laid to waste is the one who debases it!” Acquiring of this ‘abundance’ is in knowing how this is done not that it is to be done.  The alchemists of old searched for a tincture that would turn all metals into gold, it seems modern man with all his material based advancements fails to have the skill to undertake this let alone knowledge of the alchemy of the heart.

Muhammad said:  “Every heavenly dispensation [deen] has a unique character trait, the character trait of Islam is modesty, or haya”.  Haya is a derivative of the word hayya, which means to live.  Every prophetic message is about life-givingness, the author of the Gospel of John has Jesus saying:  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”.  This biblical verse indicates a universal, life-givingness at the same time it particularizes the unique character trait of Jesus’ call as being centered on love; the universal is confirmed by the Quran:  “O you who believe, respond to the call of God and the Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life.”  Muhammad one day while speaking to his companions said: “Show God modesty as is His right to be shown modesty”. In the Arabic he said, “istahyuu” an intensive of the verb ‘hayy’, it’s primary lexical meaning to ‘give life’ or ‘cause to live’. The prophetic demand than implies that there is a divine desire through the agency of the Muhammad for mankind to have life.

The Muhammadan differentiating characteristic though is mercy.  “We have not sent you except as a mercy to all creation”. A divine prophetic utterance, hadith qudsi, where God speaks through the Muhammad, not by revelation but inspiration has God saying:  “I am God, I am the All-Merciful (Rahman), I created the womb (rahim) and derived it from My name.” It is in the wombing quality of prophetic religion that life is ensured.  All that Muhammad brought from his Lord to mankind is about the means of making sacred life in this world, for it is merely a place of reflection of the reality of life which occurs in the Garden.  The act of revelation or ‘re- velum’ is a pealing back  of the layers to expose the Truth.

Modern man in his secular, homo-centric existence has lost the scent of Paradise. Before Anas ibn Nadhir was martyred he said to Sa’d ibn Muadh, “How wonderful the scent of paradise, O Sa’d, I find it coming from the other side of Uhud!”  That was the reality of men and women who sat at the blessed foot of a prophet; such is the loss of children of modernity.  For us to recapture that reality will only possible by holding on the rope of God: revelation  and prophetic precedent as handed to us by the chain of prophetic inheritors, for the Muslims the Saints and Scholars of the Islamic Sacred tradition.  God has not left us bereft of guidance, and as Sayyid Hossein Nasr said:  “In accordance with the real nature of things it is the human that must conform to the Divine and not the Divine to the human”.

“O mankind!  Verily, there has come to you the Messenger with the truth from your Lord. So believe in him, it is better for you. But if you disbelieve, then certainly to God belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. God is all-knowing, all-wise.”  [Nisa:  170]

The Trinity

The Trinity

A Muslim Perspective (Text of a lecture given to a group of Christians in Oxford, 1996)

Abdal-Hakim Murad


A number of difficulties will beset any presentation of Muslim understandings of the Trinity. Not the least of these is the fact that these Muslim understandings have been almost as diverse and as numerous as those obtaining among Christian scholars themselves. It is true that medieval Islam knew much more about Christian doctrine than the doctors of the Church did about Islam, for the obvious reason that Muslim societies contained literate minorities with whom one could debate, something which was normally not the case in Christendom. Muslim-Christian dialogue, a novelty in the West, has a long history in the Middle East, going back at least as far as the polite debates between St John of Damascus and the Muslim scholars of seventh-century Syria. And yet reading our theologians one usually concludes that most of them never quite 'got' the point about the Trinity. Their analysis can usually be faulted on grounds not of unsophistication, but of insufficient familiarity with the complexities of Scholastic or Eastern trinitarian thinking. Often they merely tilt at windmills. 

There were, I think, two reasons for this. Firstly, the doctrine of Trinity was the most notorious point at issue between Christianity and Islam, and hence was freighted with fierce passions. For the pre-modern Muslim mind, Christian invaders, crusaders, inquisitors and the rest were primarily obsessed with forcing the doctrine of Trinity on their hapless Muslim enemies. It is recalled even today among Muslims in Russia that when Ivan the Terrible captured Kazan, capital of the Volga Muslims, he told its people that they could escape the sword by 'praising with us the Most Blessed Trinity for generation unto generation.' Even today in Bosnia, Serb irregulars use the three-fingered Trinity salute as a gesture of defiance against their Muslim enemies. And so on. Much Muslim theologising about the Trinity has hence been set in a bitterly polemical context of fear and often outright hatred: the Trinity as the very symbol of the unknown but violent other lurking on the barbarous northern shores of the Mediterranean, scene of every kind of demonic wickedness and cruelty.  

To this distortion one has to add, I think, some problems posed by the doctrine of the Trinity itself. Islam, while it has produced great thinkers, has nonetheless put fewer of its epistemological eggs in the theological basket than has Christianity. Reading Muslim presentations of the Trinity one cannot help but detect a sense of impatience. One of the virtues of the Semitic type of consciousness is the conviction that ultimate reality must be ultimately simple, and that the Nicene talk of a deity with three persons, one of whom has two natures, but who are all somehow reducible to authentic unity, quite apart from being rationally dubious, seems intuitively wrong. God, the final ground of all being, surely does not need to be so complicated.  

These two obstacles to a correct understanding of the Trinity do to some extent persist even today. But a new obstacle has in the past century or so presented itself inasmuch as the old Western Christian consensus on what the Trinity meant, which was always a fragile consensus, no longer seems to obtain among many serious Christian scholars. Surveying the astonishing bulk and vigour of Christian theological output, Muslims can find it difficult to know precisely how most Christians understand the Trinity. It is also our experience that Christians are usually keener to debate other topics; and we tend to conclude that this is because they themselves are uncomfortable with aspects of their Trinitarian theology.  

What I will try to do, then, is to set out my own understanding, as a Muslim, of the Trinitarian doctrine. I would start by making the obvious point that I recognise that a lot is at stake here for historic Christian orthodoxy. The fundamental doctrine of Trinity makes no sense unless the doctrines of incarnation and atonement are also accepted. St Anselm, in his Cur Deus Homo, showed that the concept of atonement demanded that Christ had to be God, since only an infinite sacrifice could atone for the limitless evil of humanity, which was, in Augustine's words, a massa damnata - a damned mass because of Adam's original sin. Jesus of Nazareth was hence God incarnate walking on earth, distinct from God the Father dwelling in heaven and hearing our prayers. It thus became necessary to think of God as at least two in one, who were at least for a while existing in heaven and on earth, as distinct entities. In early Christianity, the Logos which was the Christ-spirit believed to be active as a divine presence in human life, in time became hypostatized as a third person, and so the Trinity was born. No doubt this process was shaped by the triadic beliefs which hovered in the Near Eastern air of the time, many of which included the belief in a divine atonement figure.  

Now, looking at the evidence for this process, I have to confess I am not a Biblical scholar, armed with the dazzling array of philological qualifications deployed by so many others. But it does seem to me that a consensus has been emerging among serious historians, pre-eminent among whom are figures such as Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford, that Jesus of Nazareth himself never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity. We know that he was intensely conscious of God as a divine and loving Father, and that he dedicated his ministry to proclaiming the imminence of God's kingdom, and to explaining how human creatures could transform themselves in preparation for that momentous time. He believed himself to be the Messiah, and the 'son of man' foretold by the prophets. We know from the study of first-century Judaism, recently made accessible by the Qumran discoveries, that neither of these terms would have been understood as implying divinity: they merely denoted purified servants of God.  

The term 'son of God', frequently invoked in patristic and medieval thinking to prop up the doctrine of Jesus's divinity, was in fact similarly unpersuasive: in the Old Testament and in wider Near Eastern usage it can be applied to kings, pharoahs, miracle workers and others. Yet when St Paul carried his version of the Christian message beyond Jewish boundaries into the wider gentile world, this image of Christ's sonship was interpreted not metaphorically, but metaphysically. The resultant tale of controversies, anathemas and political interventions is complex; but what is clear is that the Hellenized Christ, who in one nature was of one substance with God, and in another nature was of one substance with humanity, bore no significant resemblance to the ascetic prophet who had walked the roads of Galilee some three centuries before.  

From the Muslim viewpoint, this desemiticising of Jesus was a catastrophe. Three centuries after Nicea, the Quran stated:  

'The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers the like of whom had passed away before him . . . O people of the Book - stress not in your religion other than the truth, and follow not the vain desires of a people who went astray before you.' (Suratal-Ma'ida, 75) 

And again:  

'O people of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, nor utter anything concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say 'Three'. Desist, it will be better for you. God is only One God. . . . The Messiah would never have scorned to be a slave of God.' (Suratal-Nisa, 171-2) 

The Qur'anic term for 'exaggeration' used here, ghuluww, became a standard term in Muslim heresiography for any tendency, Muslim or otherwise, which attributed divinity to a revered and charismatic figure. We are told that during the life of the Prophet's son-in-law Ali, a few of his devoted followers from Iraq, where Hellenistic and pagan cultures formed the background of many converts, described him as God, or the vehicle of a Divine incarnation - hulul. The claim of course irritated Ali profoundly, and he banished those who made it from his sight; but even today marginal Islamic sectaries like the Kizilbash of Turkey, or the Alawites of the Syrian mountains, maintain an esoteric cosmology which asserts that God became incarnate in Ali, and then in the succession of Imams who descended from him.  

Mainstream Islam, however, despite its rapid spread over non-Semitic populations, never succumbed to this temptation. The best-known of all devotional poems about the Blessed Prophet Muhammad: the famous Mantle Ode of al-Busairi, defines the frontier of acceptable veneration:  

'Renounce what the Christians claim concerning their prophet,  Then praise him as you will, and with all your heart.  For although he was of human nature,  He was the best of humanity without exception.' 

A few years previously, the twelfth-century theologian Al-Ghazali had summed up the dangers of ghuluww when he wrote that the Christians had been so dazzled by the divine light reflected in the mirror like heart of Jesus, that they mistook the mirror for the light itself, and worshipped it. But what was happening to Jesus was not categorically distinct from what happened, and may continue to happen, to any purified human soul that has attained the rank of sainthood. The presence of divine light in Jesus' heart does not logically entail a doctrine of Jesus' primordial existence as a hypostasis in a divine trinity.  

There are other implications of Trinitarian doctrine which concern Muslims. Perhaps one should briefly mention our worries about the doctrine of Atonement, which implies that God is only capable of really forgiving us when Jesus has borne our just punishment by dying on the cross. John Hick has remarked that 'a forgiveness that has to be bought by full payment of the moral debt is not in fact forgiveness at all.' More coherent, surely, is the teaching of Jesus himself in the parable of the prodigal son, who is fully forgiven by his father despite the absence of a blood sacrifice to appease his sense of justice. The Lord's Prayer, that superb petition for forgiveness, nowhere implies the need for atonement or redemption.  

Jesus' own doctrine of God's forgiveness as recorded in the Gospels is in fact entirely intelligible in terms of Old Testament and Islamic conceptions. 'God can forgive all sins', says the Quran. And in a well-known hadith of the Prophet we are told:  

On the Day of Judgement, a herald angel shall cry out [God's word] from beneath the Throne, saying: 'O nation of Muhammad! All that was due to me from you I forgive you now, and only the rights which you owed one another remain. Thus forgive one another, and enter Heaven through My Mercy.' 

And in a famous incident:  

It is related that a boy was standing under the sun on a hot summer's day. He was seen by a woman concealed among the people, who made her way forwards vigorously until she took up the child and clutched him to her breast. Then she turned her back to the valley to keep the heat away from him, saying, 'My son! My son!' At this the people wept, and were distracted from everything that they were doing. Then the Messenger of God, upon whom be peace, came up. They told him of what had happened, when he was delighted to see their their compassion. Then he gave them glad news, saying: 'Marvel you at this woman's compassion for her son?' and they said that they did. And he declared, 'Truly, the Exalted God shall be even more compassionate towards you than is this woman towards her son.' At this, the Muslims went their ways in the greatest rapture and joy.  

This same hadith presents an interesting feature of Muslim assumptions about the divine forgiveness: its apparently 'maternal' aspect. The term for the Compassionate and Loving God used in these reports, al-Rahman, was said by the Prophet himself to derive from rahim, meaning a womb. Some recent Muslim reflection has seen in this, more or less rightly I think, a reminder that God has attributes which may metaphorically be associated with a 'feminine, maternal' character, as well as the more 'masculine' predicates such as strength and implacable justice. This point is just beginning to be picked up by our theologians. There is not time to explore the matter fully, but there is a definite and interesting convergence between the Christology of feminist theologians such as Rosemary Reuther, and that of Muslims.  

In a recent work, the Jordanian theologian Hasan al-Saqqaf reaffirms the orthodox belief that God transcends gender, and cannot be spoken of as male or female, although His attributes manifest either male or female properties, with neither appearing to be preponderant. This gender-neutral understanding of the Godhead has figured largely in Karen Armstrong's various appreciations of Islam, and is beginning to be realised by other feminist thinkers as well. For instance, Maura O'Neill in a recent book observes that 'Muslims do not use a masculine God as either a conscious or unconscious tool in the construction of gender roles.'  

One of Reuther's own main objections to the Trinity, apart from its historically and Biblically sketchy foundations, is its emphatic attribution of masculine gender to God. She may or may not be exaggerating when she blames this attribution for the indignities suffered by Christian women down the ages. But she is surely being reasonable when she suggests that the male-dominated Trinity is marginalising to women, as it suggests that it was man who was made in the image of God, with woman as a revised and less theomorphic model of himself.  

Partly under her influence, American Protestant liturgy has increasingly tried to de-masculinise the Trinity. Inclusive language lectionaries now refer to God as 'Father and Mother'. The word for Christ's relationship to God is now not 'son' but 'child'. And so on, often to the point of absurdity or straightforward doctrinal mutilation.  

Here in Britain, the feminist bull was grasped by the horns when the BCC Study Commission on Trinitarian Doctrine Today issued its report in 1989. The Commission's response here was as follows:  

'The word Father is to be construed apophatically, that is, by means of a determined 'thinking away' of the inappropriate - and in this context that means masculine - connotations of the term. What will remain will be an orientation to personhood, to being in relation involving origination in a personal sense, not maleness.' 

Now, one has to say that this is unsatisfactory. The concept of fatherhood, stripped of everything which has male associations, is not fatherhood at all. It is not even parenthood, since parenthood has only two modalities. The Commissioners are simply engaging in the latest exegetical manoeuvres required by the impossible Trinitarian doctrine, which are, as John Biddle, the father of Unitarianism put it, 'fitter for conjurers than for Christians.'  

The final point that occurs to me is that the Trinity, mapped out in awesome detail in the several volumes devoted to it by Aquinas, attempts to presume too much about the inner nature of God. I mentioned earlier that Islam has historically been more sceptical of philosophical theology as a path to God than has Christianity, and in fact the divine unity has been affirmed by Muslims on the basis of two supra-rational sources: the revelation of the Quran, and the unitive experience of the mystics and the saints. That God is ultimately One, and indivisible, is the conclusion of all higher mysticism, and Islam, as a religion of the divine unity par excellence, has linked faith with mystical experience very closely. An eighteenth century Bosnian mystic, Hasan Kaimi, expressed this in a poem which even today is chanted and loved by the people of Sarajevo:  

O seeker of truth, it is your heart's eye you must open.  Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him.  If you object: 'I am waiting for my mind to grasp His nature',  Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him.  

Should you wish to behold the visage of God,  Surrender to Him, and invoke His names,  When your soul is clear a light of true joy shall shine.  Know the Divine Unity today, through the path of love for Him. 

Projects News

Projects Events

Projects Donations