Editorial
Salaam alei Kum!
26/11 is still fresh in our minds. The terrorists stormed into Chatrapati Shivaji Train Station and other famous land marks of Mumbai: The Taj, The Oberoi and the Nariman House and started shooting indiscriminately killing a number of people. We watched the entire episode spellbound over television for more than two days, which shook the whole world. As the result of the attack, a number of innocent people lost their lives and we lost a number of police and security personnel. The unanswered question that daunts us is, 'Why do such terrorist attacks take place in our country?'
India is a land with an ancient civilization. The most striking feature of our country is the variety of its people who are heirs to ancient cultures, religions and traditions. The world is amazed at the intricate mosaic of its many cultures, languages, beliefs and traditions. India is the melting pot of the world's major religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam and is the birthplace of many other spiritual traditions such as – Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. We too have a number of traditional or tribal religions with varying degrees of structured ritual and formal religious teachings.
Indians take pride in their religious and cultural values, such as love for silence and contemplation, simplicity, harmony, detachment, non-violence, the spirit of hard work, discipline, frugal living, and the thirst for learning and philosophical enquiry. We hold dear the values of respect for life, compassion for all beings, closeness to nature, filial piety towards parents, elders and ancestors and highly developed sense of community. Our family ties are quite strong and we hold the family to be a vital source of strength, a closely knit community with a powerful sense of solidarity. Indians are known for their spirit of religious tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
In spite of tensions and violent conflicts due to various religions and cultures our people have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for accommodation and openness to our mutual enrichment. These spiritual insights and moral wisdom is the core of 'being Indian'. In spite of the rich religious and cultural heritage, we are confronted with the onslaught of religious fundamentalism and terrorism. The time has come for introspection into our democracy, polity, religiosity and the mindset. We are pained and certainly ashamed to note the emergence of religious "Terrorism", in spite of belonging to an ancient culture of spiritual tolerance and mutual existence.
I read the statement of the accused Mohd Ajmal Amir Qasab aged 21 years, of the terrorist attack in Mumbai 26/11. It is sad to note the way he was led into the terrorist training camps in various places in Pakistan. An illiterate boy who had his education in a government school up to standard IV, and his search for an employment got him into such heinous criminal activity. He quarrelled with his father due to lack of experience of love in the family which piloted him into such a destructive way of life. He had rigorous training for almost five months in three different camps in different places before he was given the task of the terrorist attack in Mumbai. He was trained to handle all kinds of weapons, hand grenades, rocket launchers and mortars: AK–47, Green-O, SKS, Uzi gun, pistol and revolver. During these laborious and severe training he was also shown the clippings highlighting the atrocities on Muslims in India. It is an unfortunate story of an innocent boy, who was initiated into the LeT training camps due to various factors.
We have our affiliations to our religious beliefs and traditions, but should not despise, hate or deride the religious traditions of the other. We should live and let others live in harmony and peace. The venom of religious intolerance would only beget hatred and violence. We need to be careful about those initial perpetrators of religious violence, intolerance, hate-campaign and fanaticism in our country. The law of the land should tackle those individuals. Finally the government has come out with a new legislature to combat terrorist activities by introducing National Investigation Agency Bill.
More of inter-religious activities are to be encouraged to bring about awareness of pluri-religious presence in our country. Such initiatives are to be highly recommended and initiated. On October 13, 2007, an open letter by 138 Muslim representatives was sent to the Pope and other heads of Christian Churches and ecclesial communities. The Pope noted that the open letter "has received numerous responses, and has given rise to dialogue, specific initiatives and meetings, aimed at helping us to know one another more deeply and to grow in esteem for our shared values. The great interest which the present seminar has awakened is an incentive for us to ensure that the reflections and the positive developments which emerge from Muslim-Christian dialogue are not limited to a small group of experts and scholars, but are passed on as a precious legacy to be placed at the service of all, to bear fruit in the way we live each day".
The Pope reiterated the fact that only by starting with the recognition of the centrality of the person and the dignity of each human being, respecting and defending life which is the gift of God, and is thus sacred for Christians and for Muslims alike - only on the basis of this recognition, can we find a common ground for building a more fraternal world, a world in which confrontations and differences are peacefully settled, and the devastating power of ideologies is neutralised.
Therefore fundamental human rights will have to be protected for all people everywhere. Political and religious leaders should ensure the free exercise of these rights in full respect for each individual's freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. God's name can only be a name of peace and fraternity, justice and love. Let the people of good will come together and shoulder the responsibility of establishing peace and harmony in the society, in India and in the world at large.
Khuda Hafiz!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
TWO STORIES – CHRISTIAN AND MUSLIM
Paul Jackson, S.J.
Introduction
The aim of this article is to get an idea of the Christian Story and then of the Muslim Story. Both will be given in the broadest of outlines. The question a Christian or a Muslim reader is invited to ask is: "Do I recognize my story as it is told here?" Complete agreement is not the aim. After all, do any two people tell a story in exactly the same way? This is even more true when the stories themselves are different.
The Christian Story
God created heaven and earth and everything on the face of the earth. Finally, He created human beings, Adam and Eve, in His own image and likeness. They sinned, however, by disobeying His explicit command, and He drove them out of the Garden of Eden. The man had to earn his living by the sweat of his brow, and the woman had to endure the pangs of childbirth. God promised to send someone to defeat the wily serpent, Satan, who had tricked Eve into sinning, followed by Adam. Their son, Cain, killed his brother Abel. The whole long chain of human sin continued. Things got so bad that God finally destroyed human beings by sending a flood, except for Noah and his family, as well as the animals saved along with them in the Ark.
The next great event was the call of Abraham who was to become the model of all who believed in God as uniquely One. Through his son, Isaac, he became the father of the Jewish people. God tested him by requiring him to sacrifice his son Isaac but, at the last minute, He intervened to save the boy, as Abraham had been completely and utterly obedient to His command. God greatly blessed Abraham.
Joseph was providentially sold into slavery and ended up as second only to Pharaoh in Egypt. He was thus able to save his whole family when famine struck the land. After many generations had passed, a later Pharaoh made slaves of the Hebrews and forced them to work ever harder. God chose Moses to lead His chosen people out of slavery in Egypt by means of mighty deeds, including leading the people safely through the parted waters of the Red Sea. After a long sojourn in the wilderness of Sinai, Joshua led the next generation of Hebrews into the Promised Land, after crossing the Jordan River, which parted before them. God first sent Judges to rule over the people and, when they pined for a king, He gave them Saul, followed by David, Solomon and others. He promised David that a ruler would come from his family and initiate an everlasting kingdom. Solomon built Him a magnificent temple.
Even though the prophets repeatedly called the people back to faith in God, to repentance for their sinful behaviour, and to the practice of justice, they were stiff-necked and turned a deaf ear to them. God then sent the Jewish people into exile in Babylon. The prophets assured them that God would lead them back to the Promised Land one day. God made use of Cyrus the Great to do so.
After the return from exile, the Chosen People still had much to suffer at the hands of foreign invaders. The Maccabees fought for the freedom of their people so they could practise the Law given to them by God through Moses. When Jesus was born, the Holy Land was part of the Roman Empire. There was a Roman Governor and Herod was a puppet king.
The Angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary to invite her to become the mother of Jesus. Gabriel told her that Jesus would be conceived miraculously, without the agency of a human father, and would be called the Son of the Most High. Mary agreed. God informed her fiancé, Joseph, of this miraculous event in a dream, and told him to take Mary as his wife. Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem and was placed in a manger.
When Jesus grew up and was about thirty years of age he went to the river Jordan and was baptised by John the Baptist. A voice was heard from heaven saying, “This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. He then went into the desert, fasted for forty days, and resisted the temptations of the Devil. After this, he went around preaching, especially in Galilee, announcing that the Kingdom of God had come. He also cured many who were sick, blind, deaf, dumb or lame, and even raised some dead people to life. Disciples gathered around him and he chose twelve of them whom he called ‘Apostles.’ He also had the habit of rising early and going to a quiet place to pray to God Whom he addressed as Abba, Father. Moreover, when his Apostles asked him to teach them how to pray, he told them to begin by saying, Our Father in heaven…
Huge crowds of people flocked to hear his words and be cured. They even wanted to make him king. They thought he was the promised Messiah. His Apostles also believed he was the Messiah. They thought that he would drive out the Romans and establish a kingdom in which they would have the top jobs. The Jewish religious leaders did not like what they saw and plotted to have him arrested, brought before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and put to death. His followers fled. When he was crucified only one disciple, John, was at the scene, as well as his mother, Mary, and some other women. He was hurriedly buried, as the Sabbath was approaching. The Apostles were dejected and frightened. They gathered together in an upper room. All their dreams had been shattered! Their whole dejected frame of mind was realistically portrayed by two disciples walking to Emmaus. Then the unheard of happened. Jesus appeared in his glorified and risen body to Mary Magdalene, to the Apostles, and to the disciples on the way to Emmaus! He would suddenly appear in a room, but he also ate before their very eyes. There was a mysterious aura about him which evoked respect and awe. He finally departed from them, promising that he would send them the Holy Spirit. This he did on Pentecost Sunday and, filled with the Spirit, the Apostles went outside and boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. Thousands of people believed and became followers of this new Way. This was the beginning of the Christian community.
The Muslim Story
The Muslim story has many similarities. The creation, sin and expulsion from Eden of both Adam and Eve are along the same lines as the Christian story. The first major divergence occurs at the time of Abraham’s sacrifice. Although the Quran does not name the son who was about to be sacrificed, Muslims believe it was Abraham’s elder son, Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. Both Abraham and Ishmael travelled to Mecca, where they built the Ka`ba.
The story of Joseph is narrated in great detail. Moses is accepted as God’s special apostle sent to the Jewish people. The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, was given to Moses by God. The book of Psalms was given to King David. Many of the figures found in the Bible, beginning with Adam, and including Abraham, David and Solomon, are mentioned in the Quran, and they are referred to as prophets or apostles.
The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that God would bestow a son on her without her having intercourse. When Jesus was born, he spoke miraculously from the cradle, and even breathed on little clay birds and brought them to life. When Jesus grew up he went around preaching, miraculously curing people and raising the dead. He is considered a great prophet and apostle, as God bestowed the Gospel upon him. He was also referred to as the Messiah, Isa Masih. He was handed over by the jealous Jewish leaders to be crucified. God, however, did not allow them to put to death a prophet of his eminence. He raised him up to heaven and substituted someone else in his place. His second coming will be a portent of the Day of Judgement.
Muhammad’s father died before he was born and his mother died when he was about six years of age. His paternal uncle, Abu Talib, brought him up and became his guardian. As a young man, he began to work for Khadija, the widow of a rich merchant. Impressed by his sincerity, she married him. She was about forty years old, and he was twenty-five. Muhammad had developed the habit of praying in a cave on Mt. Hira, near Mecca. On one occasion the angel Gabriel appeared to him and began the process of revealing the Quran to him. Khadija was the first to believe that God had spoken to him. His cousin, Ali, also believed in him, as well as some other family members; a few distinguished people, like Abu Bakr, and a number of poor people and slaves. As his influence increased so too did the opposition of the leading Meccan families. They thought his uncompromising teaching about the uniqueness of God and his branding the gods and goddesses as mere ‘names’ would have an adverse effect on their prosperity. Why would pilgrims flock to Mecca and the Ka`ba if the images of all the gods and goddesses were removed? A persecution began. Eventually Muhammad migrated 400 kilometres north to Yathrib, which became known as Medina, at the invitation of the people of that city. This occurred in the year 622 A.D., and marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. In Medina Muhammad acquired the role of political leader in addition to that of being a prophet and religious leader. Circumstances compelled him to fight several battles. Eventually he returned victoriously to Mecca, where he issued a general amnesty. He returned to Medina. He led the farewell pilgrimage to Mecca early in 632. On his return to Medina he fell ill and died on 8th June 632. As he was the Seal of the Prophets, the line of prophets came to an end with him. Abu Bakr succeeded him as Caliph, the religious and political leader of the Muslim community.
Growth of the Communities
Before outlining in brief the growth of these two communities, it should be pointed out that the early part of the Christian story is, in fact, the Jewish story. Whereas Christians accepted Jesus as the prophet and promised Davidic Messiah, Jews considered him to be no more than an itinerant rabbi. They are still waiting for the coming of the Messiah.
Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond but, for the first three centuries, it had no political power. From time to time there were persecutions in the Roman Empire during which large numbers of Christians were put to death. At the religious level, however, the Church quickly became organized into units known as dioceses according to a hierarchical structure. Each diocese was headed by a bishop who had priests and deacons to assist him. The Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, was the leader of the Universal Church.
Because of challenges in understanding the reality of Jesus, believed by Christians to be the Son of God, several different interpretations arose. Hence an Ecumenical Council of all the bishops was convoked in Nicea in 325 in which the orthodox understanding was elaborated. This was further refined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There have been a number of ecumenical councils down the centuries, usually called to clarify or combat some heretical interpretation. The last one, Vatican II, was held between 1962-65. It was not called to combat any heresy, but to enable the Church to face up to the realities of the modern world and to understand its position and role in the world. It was a great modernising council.
After the Roman Emperor, Constantine, became a Christian, the Catholic Church gained political power. It fully endorsed and supported the Crusades. It used the Inquisition in order to eradicate heresy. Catholics and Protestants were engaged in the wars of religion that swept through Europe in the sixteenth century. The Pope was also the leader of what was known as the Papal States. Some Popes of this period even took to the battlefield. Christians made use of their status in the colonial powers in order to foster the spread of Christianity, though there were also times when European political power subjugated Christian missions, as happened in South America.
The present policies of the Catholic Church are based on the documents of Vatican II. While the Church insists on its right to propose and teach moral values, based on the Christian understanding of the dignity of the human person, in both the private and public domains, it eschews direct political power. It strongly advocates religious freedom, whereby a person is free to follow his or her religion; to propose it to others; and even to change it. This was not always so, as the sixteenth-century Inquisition reminds us.
Islam, on the other hand, quickly spread, as a religion and as a political power, beyond Arabia after the death of Muhammad. His successor, Abu Bakr, inherited a combined religious and political leadership role in 632 A.D. After quelling some local revolts he sent armies under extremely capable commanders to fight against the Byzantine and Persian empires. The combination of personal hardiness and fighting ability, when harnessed to capable military leadership, proved irresistible. The Caliph’s forces conquered Egypt, moved across North Africa and crossed over into Spain. They penetrated to Central Asia and to Sindh. At the same time Arab traders, who had embraced Islam, carried their religion to the shores of Southern India and beyond. The Caliphate lasted until 1258 when it gave way, formally as well as in reality, to numerous regional sultanates. Three great Muslim empires arose on the world scene: the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire and the Mughal Empire. It was the Ottoman Empire which was in direct conflict with Europe, particularly during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Ottoman Empire considered itself as the successor of the Baghdad Caliphate and was often referred to as the Turkish Caliphate. Attaturk formally abolished this situation in 1924 when he set about reshaping Turkey as a modern nation state.
Right from the time of the death of the Prophet the Muslim community has experienced its own inner tensions. Some Muslims thought that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, should succeed him as Caliph. Others followed the Arab custom of accepting, as the new tribal chief, a man chosen by the elders of the tribe. In this instance, Abu Bakr was chosen as Caliph. Struggles did take place, at the battle of Siffin, for example, but it was the killing of Husain, the grandson of the Prophet, along with his family members and a handful of retainers at Karbala, as he was making his way to Kufa, that fractured the community. This occurred in 680 A.D., (10th Muharram, 61 A.H., according to the Muslim calendar). Those who sided with Ali and his family are called Shias, while those who accepted Abu Bakr and his successors are called Sunnis. These latter form the great majority of the Muslim community. It was the martyrdom of Husain at Karbala that drove the wedge between these two groups. Even down to the present day there have been sporadic outbursts of sectarian violence. The Fatimids in Egypt and the Safavids in Persia were Shia dynasties. Present-day Iran is almost totally Shia, and about 60% of Iraqis are Shias, and Lebanon has an influential number of Shias.
During the period of European colonial expansion many Muslim countries came under colonial rule. After the Second World War these countries gained their freedom. They have different forms of government. Because of oil reserves, a number of Arab countries have become very rich and influential. This was due to the high demand for oil. Islamic law, in varying degrees, forms the legal framework for much of the lives of people living in these countries.
Efforts to Understand
Christians have the Bible as their scripture, while Muslims have the Quran. The Bible contains the Hebrew Bible of the Jews as well as the Greek New Testament, the specific scripture of the Christians. Christians see the fulfilment of God’s promises embodied in Jesus. The New Testament is a record of this fulfilment. For Muslims, the Quran is the final revealed Word of God and, as such, abrogates all previous scriptures. For Christians, Jesus is the Word of God in the fullest possible sense, while the Bible, though believed to be the Word of God, is considered to be so in a secondary and derived sense. While Christian traditions refer mainly to the early practices of the community, Muslims have a vast literary record of traditions which are said to go back to the words and deeds of Muhammad
Both the Bible and the Quran are given texts. Anyone can read them, either in the original languages or in translation, with the caveat that Muslims regard any translation of the Quran as simply giving its sense or meaning, but not as being the actual Quran. Christians do not make this distinction because, for them, the primary Word of God is Jesus. Textually, of course, the original Hebrew and Greek versions have precedence over any translation.
The texts are fixed documents, but the people who read them differ greatly. For example, they span many centuries, some twenty for Christians and fourteen for Muslims. They also differ according to language, race and culture. There are also the differences according to intellectual ability and language skills. Down the centuries there have been many believers who were illiterate and could not read their scripture. Each person reads – or listens to – scripture in the context of his or her total background. With the passing of the centuries many learned people have shared their reading and understanding of their scripture by writing commentaries. It is no secret that more commentaries have been written on the Bible and the Quran than on any other books. Indeed, the more serious and comprehensive commentaries often constituted the lifetime’s work of an individual scholar. They would work from the text in its original language and study the commentaries of previous scholars before giving their considered opinion. This means that individuals, with their own perspectives, whether of the Bible or the Quran, wrote all such commentaries. They were naturally influenced by the prevailing attitudes and assumptions of their particular age, locality and the community to which they belonged. The collective efforts of all such scholars constitute an enormous effort to understand these two books.
If we step back for a moment and look at another area of human knowledge we may get some insights about how to evaluate scripture commentaries. Take our understanding of what our earth looks like, for example. The ancient Hebrews thought the earth was supported on pillars and had a vast sea beneath it and a dome above it – the firmament – above which were more waters. Suspended in the firmament were the sun, moon and stars. If we trace the history of mapping we see how gradually ever more accurate maps came to be produced. We can see clearly the shapes of the continents. If we make use of a globe we get a more accurate picture of their relative sizes. Nowadays anybody with an Internet connection can go to Google Earth and zoom onto locations anywhere on the face of the earth, which is initially presented in the form of a globe which you can rotate as you like. If you are prepared to pay some $400.00 you can gain access to a much more detailed picture of anything on the face of the earth. This is because of the cameras in satellites. Never before has such detailed information been available, and on such a wide scale.
Has there been a comparable development in the accuracy of scripture commentaries? This is not a legitimate question. All forms of mapping, right up to Google Earth, are sense representations, whereas scripture commentaries are essentially directed to understanding the meaning of scripture. What can be said is that the tools needed for this work have become more potent with our vastly increased knowledge of languages, geography, history, culture and various social and economic dynamics. Let us take a simple example from the Bible. For more than fifteen centuries Christians unquestioningly accepted the first three chapters of Genesis as a literal account of creation. Nowadays Christian scripture scholars make a distinction. They say that these chapters affirm, as a religious truth, that God is the Creator of our earth and of the entire universe, but the description of how it took place is a mythical one. It is a story. It also attempts to explain the all-pervasive nature of sin by tracing it back to the very beginning of the human race. According to this understanding, Adam and Eve are mythical prototypes, not historical persons. In order to gain some understanding of the whole process of creation one has to make use of a variety of scientific disciplines. As a corollary of this, for example, the Catholic Church has had to admit that the assumptions that underpinned the condemnation of Galileo were incorrect.
In both Christianity and Islam there have always been varied theological currents which were intimately associated with particular philosophical schools. It is not possible to go into these in detail, but it is important to realize the existence of this variety. It is also important to notice that, while theological studies are important in both religious traditions, Muslim scholars have devoted a much greater proportion of their time and energy to studying Islamic Law than Christians have devoted to the study of Canon Law. On the other hand, because of difficulties in understanding the divine and human natures of Jesus, Christians have devoted much more time and effort to theological questions than have their Muslim counterparts.
One more dimension of both religious traditions has to be mentioned. This is the spiritual dimension. Both Christianity and Islam have long lists of recognized saints, usually called Sufis in Islam. Both have important traditions of religious orders, usually called silsilas in India. In both communities there are vast numbers of people who attach great importance to particular saints and are devoted to them. They seek their intercession for their various needs and look up to them as models of saintly behaviour. Moreover, the saints and their disciples, in both Christianity and Islam, have left behind a vast literary output of their understanding of what it means to make the worship of God the very centre of their lives. In both traditions this worship finds its flowering in service. It is not possible to over-emphasize the importance of the spiritual riches of holiness as constituting the lifeblood of both traditions. They provide comfort for hearts and nourishment for souls.
To sum up, we have listened to the stories of both Christianity and Islam. We have seen how both religious communities have grown and spread. We took note of the Bible and Quran as being the sacred religious texts of the two communities, pointing out the Christian understanding of the pre-eminence of Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, over the text of the Bible. Finally, we noted that, although the texts are there for one and all to read, their interpretation, for a whole variety of factors, has varied. Hence we should not be surprised if, in our own day and age, various interpretations are found. Their legitimacy depends on their fidelity to the texts of the Bible and the Quran. Any particular passage has to be seen in its specific context and in the more general context of the text as a whole. This is what hermeneutics is all about.
Introduction
The aim of this article is to get an idea of the Christian Story and then of the Muslim Story. Both will be given in the broadest of outlines. The question a Christian or a Muslim reader is invited to ask is: "Do I recognize my story as it is told here?" Complete agreement is not the aim. After all, do any two people tell a story in exactly the same way? This is even more true when the stories themselves are different.
The Christian Story
God created heaven and earth and everything on the face of the earth. Finally, He created human beings, Adam and Eve, in His own image and likeness. They sinned, however, by disobeying His explicit command, and He drove them out of the Garden of Eden. The man had to earn his living by the sweat of his brow, and the woman had to endure the pangs of childbirth. God promised to send someone to defeat the wily serpent, Satan, who had tricked Eve into sinning, followed by Adam. Their son, Cain, killed his brother Abel. The whole long chain of human sin continued. Things got so bad that God finally destroyed human beings by sending a flood, except for Noah and his family, as well as the animals saved along with them in the Ark.
The next great event was the call of Abraham who was to become the model of all who believed in God as uniquely One. Through his son, Isaac, he became the father of the Jewish people. God tested him by requiring him to sacrifice his son Isaac but, at the last minute, He intervened to save the boy, as Abraham had been completely and utterly obedient to His command. God greatly blessed Abraham.
Joseph was providentially sold into slavery and ended up as second only to Pharaoh in Egypt. He was thus able to save his whole family when famine struck the land. After many generations had passed, a later Pharaoh made slaves of the Hebrews and forced them to work ever harder. God chose Moses to lead His chosen people out of slavery in Egypt by means of mighty deeds, including leading the people safely through the parted waters of the Red Sea. After a long sojourn in the wilderness of Sinai, Joshua led the next generation of Hebrews into the Promised Land, after crossing the Jordan River, which parted before them. God first sent Judges to rule over the people and, when they pined for a king, He gave them Saul, followed by David, Solomon and others. He promised David that a ruler would come from his family and initiate an everlasting kingdom. Solomon built Him a magnificent temple.
Even though the prophets repeatedly called the people back to faith in God, to repentance for their sinful behaviour, and to the practice of justice, they were stiff-necked and turned a deaf ear to them. God then sent the Jewish people into exile in Babylon. The prophets assured them that God would lead them back to the Promised Land one day. God made use of Cyrus the Great to do so.
After the return from exile, the Chosen People still had much to suffer at the hands of foreign invaders. The Maccabees fought for the freedom of their people so they could practise the Law given to them by God through Moses. When Jesus was born, the Holy Land was part of the Roman Empire. There was a Roman Governor and Herod was a puppet king.
The Angel Gabriel was sent by God to Mary to invite her to become the mother of Jesus. Gabriel told her that Jesus would be conceived miraculously, without the agency of a human father, and would be called the Son of the Most High. Mary agreed. God informed her fiancé, Joseph, of this miraculous event in a dream, and told him to take Mary as his wife. Jesus was born in a stable in Bethlehem and was placed in a manger.
When Jesus grew up and was about thirty years of age he went to the river Jordan and was baptised by John the Baptist. A voice was heard from heaven saying, “This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. He then went into the desert, fasted for forty days, and resisted the temptations of the Devil. After this, he went around preaching, especially in Galilee, announcing that the Kingdom of God had come. He also cured many who were sick, blind, deaf, dumb or lame, and even raised some dead people to life. Disciples gathered around him and he chose twelve of them whom he called ‘Apostles.’ He also had the habit of rising early and going to a quiet place to pray to God Whom he addressed as Abba, Father. Moreover, when his Apostles asked him to teach them how to pray, he told them to begin by saying, Our Father in heaven…
Huge crowds of people flocked to hear his words and be cured. They even wanted to make him king. They thought he was the promised Messiah. His Apostles also believed he was the Messiah. They thought that he would drive out the Romans and establish a kingdom in which they would have the top jobs. The Jewish religious leaders did not like what they saw and plotted to have him arrested, brought before Pilate, the Roman Governor, and put to death. His followers fled. When he was crucified only one disciple, John, was at the scene, as well as his mother, Mary, and some other women. He was hurriedly buried, as the Sabbath was approaching. The Apostles were dejected and frightened. They gathered together in an upper room. All their dreams had been shattered! Their whole dejected frame of mind was realistically portrayed by two disciples walking to Emmaus. Then the unheard of happened. Jesus appeared in his glorified and risen body to Mary Magdalene, to the Apostles, and to the disciples on the way to Emmaus! He would suddenly appear in a room, but he also ate before their very eyes. There was a mysterious aura about him which evoked respect and awe. He finally departed from them, promising that he would send them the Holy Spirit. This he did on Pentecost Sunday and, filled with the Spirit, the Apostles went outside and boldly proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah and Risen Lord. Thousands of people believed and became followers of this new Way. This was the beginning of the Christian community.
The Muslim Story
The Muslim story has many similarities. The creation, sin and expulsion from Eden of both Adam and Eve are along the same lines as the Christian story. The first major divergence occurs at the time of Abraham’s sacrifice. Although the Quran does not name the son who was about to be sacrificed, Muslims believe it was Abraham’s elder son, Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. Both Abraham and Ishmael travelled to Mecca, where they built the Ka`ba.
The story of Joseph is narrated in great detail. Moses is accepted as God’s special apostle sent to the Jewish people. The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, was given to Moses by God. The book of Psalms was given to King David. Many of the figures found in the Bible, beginning with Adam, and including Abraham, David and Solomon, are mentioned in the Quran, and they are referred to as prophets or apostles.
The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that God would bestow a son on her without her having intercourse. When Jesus was born, he spoke miraculously from the cradle, and even breathed on little clay birds and brought them to life. When Jesus grew up he went around preaching, miraculously curing people and raising the dead. He is considered a great prophet and apostle, as God bestowed the Gospel upon him. He was also referred to as the Messiah, Isa Masih. He was handed over by the jealous Jewish leaders to be crucified. God, however, did not allow them to put to death a prophet of his eminence. He raised him up to heaven and substituted someone else in his place. His second coming will be a portent of the Day of Judgement.
Muhammad’s father died before he was born and his mother died when he was about six years of age. His paternal uncle, Abu Talib, brought him up and became his guardian. As a young man, he began to work for Khadija, the widow of a rich merchant. Impressed by his sincerity, she married him. She was about forty years old, and he was twenty-five. Muhammad had developed the habit of praying in a cave on Mt. Hira, near Mecca. On one occasion the angel Gabriel appeared to him and began the process of revealing the Quran to him. Khadija was the first to believe that God had spoken to him. His cousin, Ali, also believed in him, as well as some other family members; a few distinguished people, like Abu Bakr, and a number of poor people and slaves. As his influence increased so too did the opposition of the leading Meccan families. They thought his uncompromising teaching about the uniqueness of God and his branding the gods and goddesses as mere ‘names’ would have an adverse effect on their prosperity. Why would pilgrims flock to Mecca and the Ka`ba if the images of all the gods and goddesses were removed? A persecution began. Eventually Muhammad migrated 400 kilometres north to Yathrib, which became known as Medina, at the invitation of the people of that city. This occurred in the year 622 A.D., and marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. In Medina Muhammad acquired the role of political leader in addition to that of being a prophet and religious leader. Circumstances compelled him to fight several battles. Eventually he returned victoriously to Mecca, where he issued a general amnesty. He returned to Medina. He led the farewell pilgrimage to Mecca early in 632. On his return to Medina he fell ill and died on 8th June 632. As he was the Seal of the Prophets, the line of prophets came to an end with him. Abu Bakr succeeded him as Caliph, the religious and political leader of the Muslim community.
Growth of the Communities
Before outlining in brief the growth of these two communities, it should be pointed out that the early part of the Christian story is, in fact, the Jewish story. Whereas Christians accepted Jesus as the prophet and promised Davidic Messiah, Jews considered him to be no more than an itinerant rabbi. They are still waiting for the coming of the Messiah.
Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond but, for the first three centuries, it had no political power. From time to time there were persecutions in the Roman Empire during which large numbers of Christians were put to death. At the religious level, however, the Church quickly became organized into units known as dioceses according to a hierarchical structure. Each diocese was headed by a bishop who had priests and deacons to assist him. The Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope, was the leader of the Universal Church.
Because of challenges in understanding the reality of Jesus, believed by Christians to be the Son of God, several different interpretations arose. Hence an Ecumenical Council of all the bishops was convoked in Nicea in 325 in which the orthodox understanding was elaborated. This was further refined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. There have been a number of ecumenical councils down the centuries, usually called to clarify or combat some heretical interpretation. The last one, Vatican II, was held between 1962-65. It was not called to combat any heresy, but to enable the Church to face up to the realities of the modern world and to understand its position and role in the world. It was a great modernising council.
After the Roman Emperor, Constantine, became a Christian, the Catholic Church gained political power. It fully endorsed and supported the Crusades. It used the Inquisition in order to eradicate heresy. Catholics and Protestants were engaged in the wars of religion that swept through Europe in the sixteenth century. The Pope was also the leader of what was known as the Papal States. Some Popes of this period even took to the battlefield. Christians made use of their status in the colonial powers in order to foster the spread of Christianity, though there were also times when European political power subjugated Christian missions, as happened in South America.
The present policies of the Catholic Church are based on the documents of Vatican II. While the Church insists on its right to propose and teach moral values, based on the Christian understanding of the dignity of the human person, in both the private and public domains, it eschews direct political power. It strongly advocates religious freedom, whereby a person is free to follow his or her religion; to propose it to others; and even to change it. This was not always so, as the sixteenth-century Inquisition reminds us.
Islam, on the other hand, quickly spread, as a religion and as a political power, beyond Arabia after the death of Muhammad. His successor, Abu Bakr, inherited a combined religious and political leadership role in 632 A.D. After quelling some local revolts he sent armies under extremely capable commanders to fight against the Byzantine and Persian empires. The combination of personal hardiness and fighting ability, when harnessed to capable military leadership, proved irresistible. The Caliph’s forces conquered Egypt, moved across North Africa and crossed over into Spain. They penetrated to Central Asia and to Sindh. At the same time Arab traders, who had embraced Islam, carried their religion to the shores of Southern India and beyond. The Caliphate lasted until 1258 when it gave way, formally as well as in reality, to numerous regional sultanates. Three great Muslim empires arose on the world scene: the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire and the Mughal Empire. It was the Ottoman Empire which was in direct conflict with Europe, particularly during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Ottoman Empire considered itself as the successor of the Baghdad Caliphate and was often referred to as the Turkish Caliphate. Attaturk formally abolished this situation in 1924 when he set about reshaping Turkey as a modern nation state.
Right from the time of the death of the Prophet the Muslim community has experienced its own inner tensions. Some Muslims thought that Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, should succeed him as Caliph. Others followed the Arab custom of accepting, as the new tribal chief, a man chosen by the elders of the tribe. In this instance, Abu Bakr was chosen as Caliph. Struggles did take place, at the battle of Siffin, for example, but it was the killing of Husain, the grandson of the Prophet, along with his family members and a handful of retainers at Karbala, as he was making his way to Kufa, that fractured the community. This occurred in 680 A.D., (10th Muharram, 61 A.H., according to the Muslim calendar). Those who sided with Ali and his family are called Shias, while those who accepted Abu Bakr and his successors are called Sunnis. These latter form the great majority of the Muslim community. It was the martyrdom of Husain at Karbala that drove the wedge between these two groups. Even down to the present day there have been sporadic outbursts of sectarian violence. The Fatimids in Egypt and the Safavids in Persia were Shia dynasties. Present-day Iran is almost totally Shia, and about 60% of Iraqis are Shias, and Lebanon has an influential number of Shias.
During the period of European colonial expansion many Muslim countries came under colonial rule. After the Second World War these countries gained their freedom. They have different forms of government. Because of oil reserves, a number of Arab countries have become very rich and influential. This was due to the high demand for oil. Islamic law, in varying degrees, forms the legal framework for much of the lives of people living in these countries.
Efforts to Understand
Christians have the Bible as their scripture, while Muslims have the Quran. The Bible contains the Hebrew Bible of the Jews as well as the Greek New Testament, the specific scripture of the Christians. Christians see the fulfilment of God’s promises embodied in Jesus. The New Testament is a record of this fulfilment. For Muslims, the Quran is the final revealed Word of God and, as such, abrogates all previous scriptures. For Christians, Jesus is the Word of God in the fullest possible sense, while the Bible, though believed to be the Word of God, is considered to be so in a secondary and derived sense. While Christian traditions refer mainly to the early practices of the community, Muslims have a vast literary record of traditions which are said to go back to the words and deeds of Muhammad
Both the Bible and the Quran are given texts. Anyone can read them, either in the original languages or in translation, with the caveat that Muslims regard any translation of the Quran as simply giving its sense or meaning, but not as being the actual Quran. Christians do not make this distinction because, for them, the primary Word of God is Jesus. Textually, of course, the original Hebrew and Greek versions have precedence over any translation.
The texts are fixed documents, but the people who read them differ greatly. For example, they span many centuries, some twenty for Christians and fourteen for Muslims. They also differ according to language, race and culture. There are also the differences according to intellectual ability and language skills. Down the centuries there have been many believers who were illiterate and could not read their scripture. Each person reads – or listens to – scripture in the context of his or her total background. With the passing of the centuries many learned people have shared their reading and understanding of their scripture by writing commentaries. It is no secret that more commentaries have been written on the Bible and the Quran than on any other books. Indeed, the more serious and comprehensive commentaries often constituted the lifetime’s work of an individual scholar. They would work from the text in its original language and study the commentaries of previous scholars before giving their considered opinion. This means that individuals, with their own perspectives, whether of the Bible or the Quran, wrote all such commentaries. They were naturally influenced by the prevailing attitudes and assumptions of their particular age, locality and the community to which they belonged. The collective efforts of all such scholars constitute an enormous effort to understand these two books.
If we step back for a moment and look at another area of human knowledge we may get some insights about how to evaluate scripture commentaries. Take our understanding of what our earth looks like, for example. The ancient Hebrews thought the earth was supported on pillars and had a vast sea beneath it and a dome above it – the firmament – above which were more waters. Suspended in the firmament were the sun, moon and stars. If we trace the history of mapping we see how gradually ever more accurate maps came to be produced. We can see clearly the shapes of the continents. If we make use of a globe we get a more accurate picture of their relative sizes. Nowadays anybody with an Internet connection can go to Google Earth and zoom onto locations anywhere on the face of the earth, which is initially presented in the form of a globe which you can rotate as you like. If you are prepared to pay some $400.00 you can gain access to a much more detailed picture of anything on the face of the earth. This is because of the cameras in satellites. Never before has such detailed information been available, and on such a wide scale.
Has there been a comparable development in the accuracy of scripture commentaries? This is not a legitimate question. All forms of mapping, right up to Google Earth, are sense representations, whereas scripture commentaries are essentially directed to understanding the meaning of scripture. What can be said is that the tools needed for this work have become more potent with our vastly increased knowledge of languages, geography, history, culture and various social and economic dynamics. Let us take a simple example from the Bible. For more than fifteen centuries Christians unquestioningly accepted the first three chapters of Genesis as a literal account of creation. Nowadays Christian scripture scholars make a distinction. They say that these chapters affirm, as a religious truth, that God is the Creator of our earth and of the entire universe, but the description of how it took place is a mythical one. It is a story. It also attempts to explain the all-pervasive nature of sin by tracing it back to the very beginning of the human race. According to this understanding, Adam and Eve are mythical prototypes, not historical persons. In order to gain some understanding of the whole process of creation one has to make use of a variety of scientific disciplines. As a corollary of this, for example, the Catholic Church has had to admit that the assumptions that underpinned the condemnation of Galileo were incorrect.
In both Christianity and Islam there have always been varied theological currents which were intimately associated with particular philosophical schools. It is not possible to go into these in detail, but it is important to realize the existence of this variety. It is also important to notice that, while theological studies are important in both religious traditions, Muslim scholars have devoted a much greater proportion of their time and energy to studying Islamic Law than Christians have devoted to the study of Canon Law. On the other hand, because of difficulties in understanding the divine and human natures of Jesus, Christians have devoted much more time and effort to theological questions than have their Muslim counterparts.
One more dimension of both religious traditions has to be mentioned. This is the spiritual dimension. Both Christianity and Islam have long lists of recognized saints, usually called Sufis in Islam. Both have important traditions of religious orders, usually called silsilas in India. In both communities there are vast numbers of people who attach great importance to particular saints and are devoted to them. They seek their intercession for their various needs and look up to them as models of saintly behaviour. Moreover, the saints and their disciples, in both Christianity and Islam, have left behind a vast literary output of their understanding of what it means to make the worship of God the very centre of their lives. In both traditions this worship finds its flowering in service. It is not possible to over-emphasize the importance of the spiritual riches of holiness as constituting the lifeblood of both traditions. They provide comfort for hearts and nourishment for souls.
To sum up, we have listened to the stories of both Christianity and Islam. We have seen how both religious communities have grown and spread. We took note of the Bible and Quran as being the sacred religious texts of the two communities, pointing out the Christian understanding of the pre-eminence of Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, over the text of the Bible. Finally, we noted that, although the texts are there for one and all to read, their interpretation, for a whole variety of factors, has varied. Hence we should not be surprised if, in our own day and age, various interpretations are found. Their legitimacy depends on their fidelity to the texts of the Bible and the Quran. Any particular passage has to be seen in its specific context and in the more general context of the text as a whole. This is what hermeneutics is all about.
AN INQUIRY
Fr. Paul Jackson SJ
Some years ago I was teaching in a Summer Course on Islam jointly organized by the Henry Martyn Institute and the Islamic Studies Association. It so happened that I was the only staff member present one evening for the after-dinner discussion. One student, a Protestant Pastor, said that Muhammad had not acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God because, if he had done so, he would have been obliged to become a follower of Jesus, a Christian, and would lose his status as a religious leader.
My standard response to the failure to believe in Jesus as the Son of God was to quote what Jesus said to Peter after his confession of faith: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.” Faith in Jesus as the Son of God is a gift from God.
The particular objection raised by my young friend, however, was really an accusation of bad faith, implying that Muhammad really did believe in Jesus as the Son of God but, out of a desire for religious and political power, refused to acknowledge him as such.
If one turns to the Quran, however, one finds an abundance of evidence of the high esteem in which Jesus was held. He is sinless; a prophet; an apostle; bearer of the Gospel; miracle-worker; a model of poverty, alms-giving, devotion to his mother and to prayer; he is continuously blessed by God; he is a portent of the hour of doom; he has been taken up alive, in body and soul, to God; he is the word of God and a spirit from Him. It does not seem possible to extol him any higher than this. One gets the impression of a profound respect for Jesus. Moreover, there is no hesitation at all in ascribing to him qualities which the Quran does not ascribe to Muhammad, e.g. miraculous healings and even raising the dead to life.
Time and time again, whenever there is mention of the possibility of God’s begetting children, this is strenuously denied and God’s uniqueness is affirmed. The following passage illustrates this:
He brings forth the living from the dead, and the dead from the living. Such is God. How then can you turn away from Him?
He kindles the light of dawn. He has ordained the night for rest and the sun and the moon for reckoning. Such is the ordinance of God, the Mighty, the Knowing.
It is He that has created for you the stars so that they may guide you in the darkness of land and sea. We have made plain Our revelations to men who understand.
He sends down water from the sky…
Yet they regard the jinn as God’s partners, though He Himself created them, and in their ignorance ascribe to Him sons and daughters. Glory be to Him! Exalted be He above their imputations!
He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He had no consort? He created all things and has knowledge of all things. This is
God, your Lord. There is no other god but Him, the Creator of all things (Q6,95-102).
Referring to the three famous goddesses of the Meccans, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the Quran is dismissively explicit: “They are but names which you and your fathers have invented” (Q53,23).
“When Mary’s son (i.e. Jesus) is cited as an instance (i.e. of the signs from God), your people (i.e. the Meccans) laugh and say: ‘Is he better than our own gods?’ They cite him to you merely to provoke you” (Q43,57-8). This is Dawood’s translation. It seems to me that he has caught the nuances of the exchange better than other translations. The Meccans know of Muhammad’s great respect for Jesus and realize that, by tauntingly equating him to their own goddesses, they can provoke him to an angry outburst.
For the sake of argument, Muhammad even goes so far as to say: “If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him” (Q43,81). But this is not so, and could never be so! God is infinitely above such a conception! The classic expression is: “Say: ‘God is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him’” (Q112).
CONCLUSION
It seems to me that there are two models of God in Muhammad’s mind. One is of a god who has a consort by whom he begets sons and daughters. This was the faith world of the Mecca Muhammad grew up in. The other model was of the One, Unique, Creator God, Exalted far beyond such considerations, Peerless in Majesty and Power, Who has only to say, “Be! And it is.” In this conception the greatest possible sin, shirk, is to put anyone or anything on the same level as God, while the greatest dignity any human being can be raised to is that of being a Messenger or Apostle.
Muhammad forcefully rejects the first model and whole-heartedly embraces the second.
This seems to explain the exalted status of Jesus as a sinless prophet, apostle, miracle-worker etc., combined with a vehement denial that Jesus is the Son of God.
Some years ago I was teaching in a Summer Course on Islam jointly organized by the Henry Martyn Institute and the Islamic Studies Association. It so happened that I was the only staff member present one evening for the after-dinner discussion. One student, a Protestant Pastor, said that Muhammad had not acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God because, if he had done so, he would have been obliged to become a follower of Jesus, a Christian, and would lose his status as a religious leader.
My standard response to the failure to believe in Jesus as the Son of God was to quote what Jesus said to Peter after his confession of faith: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.” Faith in Jesus as the Son of God is a gift from God.
The particular objection raised by my young friend, however, was really an accusation of bad faith, implying that Muhammad really did believe in Jesus as the Son of God but, out of a desire for religious and political power, refused to acknowledge him as such.
If one turns to the Quran, however, one finds an abundance of evidence of the high esteem in which Jesus was held. He is sinless; a prophet; an apostle; bearer of the Gospel; miracle-worker; a model of poverty, alms-giving, devotion to his mother and to prayer; he is continuously blessed by God; he is a portent of the hour of doom; he has been taken up alive, in body and soul, to God; he is the word of God and a spirit from Him. It does not seem possible to extol him any higher than this. One gets the impression of a profound respect for Jesus. Moreover, there is no hesitation at all in ascribing to him qualities which the Quran does not ascribe to Muhammad, e.g. miraculous healings and even raising the dead to life.
Time and time again, whenever there is mention of the possibility of God’s begetting children, this is strenuously denied and God’s uniqueness is affirmed. The following passage illustrates this:
He brings forth the living from the dead, and the dead from the living. Such is God. How then can you turn away from Him?
He kindles the light of dawn. He has ordained the night for rest and the sun and the moon for reckoning. Such is the ordinance of God, the Mighty, the Knowing.
It is He that has created for you the stars so that they may guide you in the darkness of land and sea. We have made plain Our revelations to men who understand.
He sends down water from the sky…
Yet they regard the jinn as God’s partners, though He Himself created them, and in their ignorance ascribe to Him sons and daughters. Glory be to Him! Exalted be He above their imputations!
He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He had no consort? He created all things and has knowledge of all things. This is
God, your Lord. There is no other god but Him, the Creator of all things (Q6,95-102).
Referring to the three famous goddesses of the Meccans, Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat, the Quran is dismissively explicit: “They are but names which you and your fathers have invented” (Q53,23).
“When Mary’s son (i.e. Jesus) is cited as an instance (i.e. of the signs from God), your people (i.e. the Meccans) laugh and say: ‘Is he better than our own gods?’ They cite him to you merely to provoke you” (Q43,57-8). This is Dawood’s translation. It seems to me that he has caught the nuances of the exchange better than other translations. The Meccans know of Muhammad’s great respect for Jesus and realize that, by tauntingly equating him to their own goddesses, they can provoke him to an angry outburst.
For the sake of argument, Muhammad even goes so far as to say: “If the Lord of Mercy had a son, I would be the first to worship him” (Q43,81). But this is not so, and could never be so! God is infinitely above such a conception! The classic expression is: “Say: ‘God is One, the Eternal God. He begot none, nor was He begotten. None is equal to Him’” (Q112).
CONCLUSION
It seems to me that there are two models of God in Muhammad’s mind. One is of a god who has a consort by whom he begets sons and daughters. This was the faith world of the Mecca Muhammad grew up in. The other model was of the One, Unique, Creator God, Exalted far beyond such considerations, Peerless in Majesty and Power, Who has only to say, “Be! And it is.” In this conception the greatest possible sin, shirk, is to put anyone or anything on the same level as God, while the greatest dignity any human being can be raised to is that of being a Messenger or Apostle.
Muhammad forcefully rejects the first model and whole-heartedly embraces the second.
This seems to explain the exalted status of Jesus as a sinless prophet, apostle, miracle-worker etc., combined with a vehement denial that Jesus is the Son of God.
An Interview with Prof Christian W Troll SJ
Prof Christian W Troll was a professor of Islamic Studies at Vidya Jyoti, Delhi, lecturer for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations in Birmingham and professor at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. In 1999 he took over the direction of Christian-Islamic Forum of the Catholic Academy in Berlin. Since 2001 he is professor of the Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology of St Georgen, Germany. Recently, the Holy Father appointed him to the Catholic-Muslim Forum. He speaks to Victor Edwin SJ about the first meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum.
Is ‚Christian Muslim Forum’ a new chapter in the history of relations between Islam and Christianity?
I would not yet go so far as to qualify the creation of this Forum
as a new chapter in the total history of relations between Islam and Christianity, although it has the potentiality to become this. In any case, the Forum certainly adds to the important existing institutionalized, regular Catholic-Muslim dialogue initiatives – for instance, with al-Azhar University, with the Shiite establishment in Teheran and with the Muslim Call Society in Libya – an important new element.
New in the initiative of the core groups of Muslim leaders and scholars who have written the so-called ‚Letter of the 138’ is that their letter was able to gain the signatures of up to now 271 important Muslim personalities and, furthermore, that this Letter declares in unambiguous und eloquent ways the dual love commandment to be central not only in the light of the Hebrew and Christian Holy Scriptures but also of the Koran. In fact it quotes and discusses in some detail the relevant texts from these Scriptures.
Did the Conference give to both Muslims and Christians the opportunity to explain their understanding of the commandments to love God and love neighbour?
Yes, in their letter of October 2007 the Muslims had declared the dual love commandment to be the focus and centre of the Islamic doctrine. The Christians were able at this conference gratefully to take note of this Muslim declaration which is remarkable in the light of how the Muslims previously used to present Islam and Christianity. The Christians at the Conference made it however also clear, that for them the core of their faith is the affirmation of the primacy of the Love of God (cf. 1 Jn 4:16), made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ and in his love of God his Father and of the neighbor. They pointed out that it is God’s redeeming, liberating and transforming love that alone enables the believers to overcome sin, understood as alienation from God and the fellow human beings. And they spoke of the prayer to become instruments of God’s love who in the power of the Holy Spirit may practice the dual love of God and neighbour.
In the Common Word, Muslims argued that both faiths shared the dual commandment of Love for God and love for neighbor. What does this mean for both Christians and Muslims and how it can foster harmony between them?
From the point of view of the two delegations who in a short time were able to enter into a deep and mutually challenging exchange the sincere effort to practice love of God and neighbor should lead to palpable consequences in, for example the following areas: the recognition of human life as precious gift of God and the effort to preserve and honour it in all its stages; the respect of the human dignity of every person; the unconditional recognition of the person’s identity and freedom by individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal rights and full citizenship; the extension of human dignity and respect on an equal basis to both men and women; respect for the freedom of conscience and religion; respect of religious convictions and practices; the right to own places of worship; special care for the less privileged; the providing of sound education in human, civic, religious and moral values and providing accurate information about each other’s religions; the promotion of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole; renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.
What are the common responsibilities of Christians and Muslims in today’s world, emphasized by the conference?
In addition to those mentioned already I should underline the call of the conference upon believers to work for an ethical financial system in which the regulatory mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and as indebted nations. Furthermore the call upon the privileged of the world to consider the light of those afflicted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution and to work together to alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes. Another responsibility is to provide for the young people above all – who increasingly live in multicultural and multireligious societies – a solid formation not only in their own religious traditions but also objective information about other cultures and religions.,
What are some mechanisms developed during the Conference by which the Forum can carry forward dialogue?
The Conference agreed to convene a follow-up conference in approximately two years. The next meeting will be convened in a Muslim majority country yet to be determined. Furthermore, the conference agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim committee to coordinate responses to conflicts and other emergency situations.
Dialogue would be successful only if all believers have equal rights
everywhere, which is not the case in some Muslim countries.
Did the Conference discuss the issue of religious freedom?
The conference dwelled repeatedly, and at moments emotionally, on this point. The equal rights to private and public worship was unambiguously demanded in the final declaration. The catholic delegation comprised four bishops from Muslim-majority countries: the Apostolic Delegate for the diocese of Arabia (who resides in Abu Dhabi), the Archbishop of Kerkuk in Iraq, the Greek Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo in Syria and Bishop Andrew Francis of Multan in Pakistan. They spoke about the fundamental importance of this right in a plastic and urgent manner. The Grand Mufti of Bosnia, H.E. Mustafa Ceriç, on his part insisted vehemently on the same right from the point of view of an important Muslim minority in Europe.
What was the message of the holy father to the delegates and to the world in the end of the conference?
The Holy Father’s address echoed in a striking manner the main points of the final document of the Conference. The key passage of it, to my mind, is the following: “We should thus work together in promoting genuine respect for the dignity of the human person and fundamental human rights, even though our anthropological visions and our theologies justify this in different ways. There is a great and vast field in which we can act together in defending and promoting the moral values which are part of our common heritage.”
What are the main features of the joint declaration?
I have in this interview already hinted at the main content. I appreciate that the 15 points of the Final Declaration do not waste time with non-committal compliments. It emphasizes the straight connection between commitment to love of God and neighbour and the practical and shared responsibilities that follow from it for Muslims and Christians alike and make them responsible for acting together wherever possible.
--
Is ‚Christian Muslim Forum’ a new chapter in the history of relations between Islam and Christianity?
I would not yet go so far as to qualify the creation of this Forum
as a new chapter in the total history of relations between Islam and Christianity, although it has the potentiality to become this. In any case, the Forum certainly adds to the important existing institutionalized, regular Catholic-Muslim dialogue initiatives – for instance, with al-Azhar University, with the Shiite establishment in Teheran and with the Muslim Call Society in Libya – an important new element.
New in the initiative of the core groups of Muslim leaders and scholars who have written the so-called ‚Letter of the 138’ is that their letter was able to gain the signatures of up to now 271 important Muslim personalities and, furthermore, that this Letter declares in unambiguous und eloquent ways the dual love commandment to be central not only in the light of the Hebrew and Christian Holy Scriptures but also of the Koran. In fact it quotes and discusses in some detail the relevant texts from these Scriptures.
Did the Conference give to both Muslims and Christians the opportunity to explain their understanding of the commandments to love God and love neighbour?
Yes, in their letter of October 2007 the Muslims had declared the dual love commandment to be the focus and centre of the Islamic doctrine. The Christians were able at this conference gratefully to take note of this Muslim declaration which is remarkable in the light of how the Muslims previously used to present Islam and Christianity. The Christians at the Conference made it however also clear, that for them the core of their faith is the affirmation of the primacy of the Love of God (cf. 1 Jn 4:16), made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ and in his love of God his Father and of the neighbor. They pointed out that it is God’s redeeming, liberating and transforming love that alone enables the believers to overcome sin, understood as alienation from God and the fellow human beings. And they spoke of the prayer to become instruments of God’s love who in the power of the Holy Spirit may practice the dual love of God and neighbour.
In the Common Word, Muslims argued that both faiths shared the dual commandment of Love for God and love for neighbor. What does this mean for both Christians and Muslims and how it can foster harmony between them?
From the point of view of the two delegations who in a short time were able to enter into a deep and mutually challenging exchange the sincere effort to practice love of God and neighbor should lead to palpable consequences in, for example the following areas: the recognition of human life as precious gift of God and the effort to preserve and honour it in all its stages; the respect of the human dignity of every person; the unconditional recognition of the person’s identity and freedom by individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal rights and full citizenship; the extension of human dignity and respect on an equal basis to both men and women; respect for the freedom of conscience and religion; respect of religious convictions and practices; the right to own places of worship; special care for the less privileged; the providing of sound education in human, civic, religious and moral values and providing accurate information about each other’s religions; the promotion of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole; renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.
What are the common responsibilities of Christians and Muslims in today’s world, emphasized by the conference?
In addition to those mentioned already I should underline the call of the conference upon believers to work for an ethical financial system in which the regulatory mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and as indebted nations. Furthermore the call upon the privileged of the world to consider the light of those afflicted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution and to work together to alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes. Another responsibility is to provide for the young people above all – who increasingly live in multicultural and multireligious societies – a solid formation not only in their own religious traditions but also objective information about other cultures and religions.,
What are some mechanisms developed during the Conference by which the Forum can carry forward dialogue?
The Conference agreed to convene a follow-up conference in approximately two years. The next meeting will be convened in a Muslim majority country yet to be determined. Furthermore, the conference agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim committee to coordinate responses to conflicts and other emergency situations.
Dialogue would be successful only if all believers have equal rights
everywhere, which is not the case in some Muslim countries.
Did the Conference discuss the issue of religious freedom?
The conference dwelled repeatedly, and at moments emotionally, on this point. The equal rights to private and public worship was unambiguously demanded in the final declaration. The catholic delegation comprised four bishops from Muslim-majority countries: the Apostolic Delegate for the diocese of Arabia (who resides in Abu Dhabi), the Archbishop of Kerkuk in Iraq, the Greek Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo in Syria and Bishop Andrew Francis of Multan in Pakistan. They spoke about the fundamental importance of this right in a plastic and urgent manner. The Grand Mufti of Bosnia, H.E. Mustafa Ceriç, on his part insisted vehemently on the same right from the point of view of an important Muslim minority in Europe.
What was the message of the holy father to the delegates and to the world in the end of the conference?
The Holy Father’s address echoed in a striking manner the main points of the final document of the Conference. The key passage of it, to my mind, is the following: “We should thus work together in promoting genuine respect for the dignity of the human person and fundamental human rights, even though our anthropological visions and our theologies justify this in different ways. There is a great and vast field in which we can act together in defending and promoting the moral values which are part of our common heritage.”
What are the main features of the joint declaration?
I have in this interview already hinted at the main content. I appreciate that the 15 points of the Final Declaration do not waste time with non-committal compliments. It emphasizes the straight connection between commitment to love of God and neighbour and the practical and shared responsibilities that follow from it for Muslims and Christians alike and make them responsible for acting together wherever possible.
--
FINAL DECLARATION OF CATHOLIC-MUSLIM FORUM
The final declaration of participants in the First Seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum, which took place in Rome on November 4 – 6, 2008 on the theme: "Love of God, Love of Neighbour".
Each of the two sides in the meeting was represented by 24 participants and five advisers who discussed the two great themes of "Theological and Spiritual Foundations" and "Human Dignity and Mutual Respect". Points of "similarity and of diversity emerged, reflecting the distinctive specific genius of the two religions" the English-language declaration says.
1. "For Christians the source and example of love of God and neighbour is the love of Christ for His Father, for humanity and for each person" reads the first of the fifteen points of the declaration. "Love of neighbour cannot be separated from love of God, because it is an ex-pression of our love for God. ... Grounded in Christ's sacrificial love, Christian love is forgiving and excludes no-one; it therefore also includes one's enemies".
"For Muslims ... love is a timeless transcendent power which guides and transforms human mutual regard. This love, as indicated by the Holy and Beloved Prophet Muhammad, is prior to the human love for the One True God".
2. "Human life is a most precious gift of God to each person. It should therefore be preserved and honoured in all its stages".
3. Human dignity is derived from the fact that every human person is created by a loving God and has been endowed with the gifts of reason and free will, and therefore enabled to love God and others. On the firm basis of these principles, the person requires the respect of his or her original dignity and his or her human vocation. Therefore, he or she is entitled to full recognition of his or her identity and freedom by individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal rights and full citizenship.
4. "We affirm that God's creation of humanity has two great aspects: the male and the female human person, and we commit ourselves jointly to ensuring that human dignity and respect are extended on an equal basis to both men and women.
5. "Genuine love of neighbour implies respect of the person and her or his choices in matters of conscience and religion. It includes the right of individuals and communities to practice their religion in private and public.
6. "Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule.
7. "As Catholic and Muslim believers, we are aware of the summons and imperative to bear witness to the transcendent dimension of life, through a spirituality nourished by prayer, in a world which is becoming more and more secularised and materialistic.
8. "We affirm that no religion and its followers should be excluded from society. Each should be able to make its indispensable contribution to the good of society, especially in service to the most needy.
9. "We recognise that God's creation in its plurality of cultures, civilisations, languages and peoples is a source of richness and should therefore never become a cause of tension and conflict.
10. "We are convinced that Catholics and Muslims have the duty to provide a sound education in human, civic, religious and moral values for their respective members and to promote accurate information about each other's religions.
11. "We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.
12. "We call upon believers to work for an ethical financial system in which the regulatory mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and as indebted nations. We call upon the privileged of the world to consider the plight of those afflicted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution, and ask religious believers of all denominations and all people of good will to work together to alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes.
13. "Young people are the future of religious communities and of societies as a whole. Increasingly, they will be living in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies. It is essential that they be well formed in their own religious traditions and well informed about other cultures and religions.
14. "We have agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim committee to co-ordinate responses to conflicts and other emergency situations.
15. "We look forward to the second seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum to be convened in approximately two years in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined".
The declaration concludes by affirming that all the participants "expressed satisfaction with the results of the seminar and their expectation for further productive dialogue".
CONCLUSIONS OF CATHOLIC-MUSLIM MEETING
Here is the final statement of the 11th colloquium of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the World Islamic Call Society, which ended on December 17, 2008 in Rome. The theme of the Colloquium was "Responsibilities of Religious Leaders especially in Times of Crisis."
The Catholic and the Muslim participants agreed on the following:
1) The first and most important responsibility of religious leaders is one of a religious nature, according to their respective religious traditions, to faithfully fulfill them through teaching, good deeds and example, thus serve their communities for the glory of God.
2) Considering the role religions can and should have in society, religious leaders also have a cultural and social role to play in promoting fundamental ethical values, such as justice, solidarity, peace, social harmony and the common good of society as a whole, especially the needy, the weak, migrants and the oppressed.
3) Religious leaders have a special responsibility towards youth, who require particular attention so that they do not fall victim to religious fanaticism and radicalism, receiving rather, a sound education thereby helping them to become bridge builders and peace makers.
4) Taking into consideration that crises of diverse nature, including in interreligious relations, are possible, on a national or international level, religious leaders should learn to prevent, cope with and remedy these particular situations, avoiding their degeneration into confessional violence. This requires a mutual respect and reciprocal knowledge, both cherishing personal relations and building confidence and mutual trust, so as to be able to confront together crises when they occur.
The participants were honoured and pleased to be received by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who expressed his satisfaction and strong encouragement. The two sides agreed to hold the next colloquium in Tripoli within the next two years.
Each of the two sides in the meeting was represented by 24 participants and five advisers who discussed the two great themes of "Theological and Spiritual Foundations" and "Human Dignity and Mutual Respect". Points of "similarity and of diversity emerged, reflecting the distinctive specific genius of the two religions" the English-language declaration says.
1. "For Christians the source and example of love of God and neighbour is the love of Christ for His Father, for humanity and for each person" reads the first of the fifteen points of the declaration. "Love of neighbour cannot be separated from love of God, because it is an ex-pression of our love for God. ... Grounded in Christ's sacrificial love, Christian love is forgiving and excludes no-one; it therefore also includes one's enemies".
"For Muslims ... love is a timeless transcendent power which guides and transforms human mutual regard. This love, as indicated by the Holy and Beloved Prophet Muhammad, is prior to the human love for the One True God".
2. "Human life is a most precious gift of God to each person. It should therefore be preserved and honoured in all its stages".
3. Human dignity is derived from the fact that every human person is created by a loving God and has been endowed with the gifts of reason and free will, and therefore enabled to love God and others. On the firm basis of these principles, the person requires the respect of his or her original dignity and his or her human vocation. Therefore, he or she is entitled to full recognition of his or her identity and freedom by individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal rights and full citizenship.
4. "We affirm that God's creation of humanity has two great aspects: the male and the female human person, and we commit ourselves jointly to ensuring that human dignity and respect are extended on an equal basis to both men and women.
5. "Genuine love of neighbour implies respect of the person and her or his choices in matters of conscience and religion. It includes the right of individuals and communities to practice their religion in private and public.
6. "Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule.
7. "As Catholic and Muslim believers, we are aware of the summons and imperative to bear witness to the transcendent dimension of life, through a spirituality nourished by prayer, in a world which is becoming more and more secularised and materialistic.
8. "We affirm that no religion and its followers should be excluded from society. Each should be able to make its indispensable contribution to the good of society, especially in service to the most needy.
9. "We recognise that God's creation in its plurality of cultures, civilisations, languages and peoples is a source of richness and should therefore never become a cause of tension and conflict.
10. "We are convinced that Catholics and Muslims have the duty to provide a sound education in human, civic, religious and moral values for their respective members and to promote accurate information about each other's religions.
11. "We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.
12. "We call upon believers to work for an ethical financial system in which the regulatory mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and as indebted nations. We call upon the privileged of the world to consider the plight of those afflicted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution, and ask religious believers of all denominations and all people of good will to work together to alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes.
13. "Young people are the future of religious communities and of societies as a whole. Increasingly, they will be living in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies. It is essential that they be well formed in their own religious traditions and well informed about other cultures and religions.
14. "We have agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim committee to co-ordinate responses to conflicts and other emergency situations.
15. "We look forward to the second seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum to be convened in approximately two years in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined".
The declaration concludes by affirming that all the participants "expressed satisfaction with the results of the seminar and their expectation for further productive dialogue".
CONCLUSIONS OF CATHOLIC-MUSLIM MEETING
Here is the final statement of the 11th colloquium of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the World Islamic Call Society, which ended on December 17, 2008 in Rome. The theme of the Colloquium was "Responsibilities of Religious Leaders especially in Times of Crisis."
The Catholic and the Muslim participants agreed on the following:
1) The first and most important responsibility of religious leaders is one of a religious nature, according to their respective religious traditions, to faithfully fulfill them through teaching, good deeds and example, thus serve their communities for the glory of God.
2) Considering the role religions can and should have in society, religious leaders also have a cultural and social role to play in promoting fundamental ethical values, such as justice, solidarity, peace, social harmony and the common good of society as a whole, especially the needy, the weak, migrants and the oppressed.
3) Religious leaders have a special responsibility towards youth, who require particular attention so that they do not fall victim to religious fanaticism and radicalism, receiving rather, a sound education thereby helping them to become bridge builders and peace makers.
4) Taking into consideration that crises of diverse nature, including in interreligious relations, are possible, on a national or international level, religious leaders should learn to prevent, cope with and remedy these particular situations, avoiding their degeneration into confessional violence. This requires a mutual respect and reciprocal knowledge, both cherishing personal relations and building confidence and mutual trust, so as to be able to confront together crises when they occur.
The participants were honoured and pleased to be received by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, who expressed his satisfaction and strong encouragement. The two sides agreed to hold the next colloquium in Tripoli within the next two years.
THEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES SEPARATE ISLAM FROM CHRISTIANITY: THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, admitted yesterday that the Christian and Muslim faiths are so fundamentally different that both sides are still unable to understand each other properly.
Dr Williams, speaking at an interfaith conference in Cambridge, said that it was possible for Islam and Christianity, two of the three Abrahamic faiths, to agree around the imperatives to love God and "love your neighbour". Muslims and Christians agree about the need to alleviate both poverty and suffering, he said.
But at a theological level there was still massive disagreement. Dr Williams contrasted the "self-emptying" aspect of Christianity, a faith built on the failure and weakness of its founder through his death on the cross, to the Islamic narrative of "trial and triumph".
The Archbishop said: "Even in its narratives of Jesus, [Islam] questions or sidelines the story of the death of Jesus as Christians tell it – an issue that is still a live one as between our faiths."
He said that the two faiths' concepts of martyrdom were also different. In Christianity, martyrdom was a way of validating failure while in Islam, it constituted part of the "struggle" in fighting evil. "And how far an Islamic ethic would see love of neighbour as essentially involving the kind of self-abnegation privileged by Christianity is a point worth exploring," Dr Williams said.
The Archbishop was criticised earlier this year following a BBC interview in which he suggested that the adoption of some aspects of Islamic sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable". His lecture in Cambridge, however, illustrated a clear understanding of the issues at stake between the two faiths. Dr Williams did not in any form come across as an apologist for Islam but as someone using his formidable intellect in an attempt to bridge the divide.
Dr Williams was one of a number of leading Christian and Islamic scholars addressing the conference, A Common Word at Cambridge University. It marked the first anniversary of the publication of A Common Word Between Us and You, a letter from 138 Islamic scholars, clerics and intellectuals promoting understanding and tolerance between the two faiths. Addressed to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders, the letter warned that the survival of the world could be at stake if Muslims and Christians could not make peace with each other.
"If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world - with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before - no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants.
"Our common future is at stake," the letter said. "The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake."
The conference will make recommendations on how the two faiths can work better together, to be unveiled at Lambeth Palace, the London office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Wednesday. The closer cooperation will not just be at the level of religious organisations but will be enacted across charities and secular bodies at all levels of society.
The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr Ali Gomaa, who also addressed the conference, welcomed the Archbishop's speech. "It is clear from your response that you are fully prepared to enter into dialogue on a profound level. For our part we would like to tell you that we share your willingness for dialogue and that we take this great deal of common ground to be a foundation for promoting respect and understanding that will in turn lead to a deepening of our relationship. We hope this conference will result in new, practical, and groundbreaking recommendations," he said.
"Effective communication is our powerful tool for containing and managing crises.....Every action now in any place will affect others either positively or negatively. Isolation and seclusion are no longer an option. The only choice is to live together on this Earth. So what should we do? We must engage in dialogue and lay down foundations for it as God intended."
He said he hoped the two sides would be able to transcend dialogue and find partnership.
Dr Williams, speaking at an interfaith conference in Cambridge, said that it was possible for Islam and Christianity, two of the three Abrahamic faiths, to agree around the imperatives to love God and "love your neighbour". Muslims and Christians agree about the need to alleviate both poverty and suffering, he said.
But at a theological level there was still massive disagreement. Dr Williams contrasted the "self-emptying" aspect of Christianity, a faith built on the failure and weakness of its founder through his death on the cross, to the Islamic narrative of "trial and triumph".
The Archbishop said: "Even in its narratives of Jesus, [Islam] questions or sidelines the story of the death of Jesus as Christians tell it – an issue that is still a live one as between our faiths."
He said that the two faiths' concepts of martyrdom were also different. In Christianity, martyrdom was a way of validating failure while in Islam, it constituted part of the "struggle" in fighting evil. "And how far an Islamic ethic would see love of neighbour as essentially involving the kind of self-abnegation privileged by Christianity is a point worth exploring," Dr Williams said.
The Archbishop was criticised earlier this year following a BBC interview in which he suggested that the adoption of some aspects of Islamic sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable". His lecture in Cambridge, however, illustrated a clear understanding of the issues at stake between the two faiths. Dr Williams did not in any form come across as an apologist for Islam but as someone using his formidable intellect in an attempt to bridge the divide.
Dr Williams was one of a number of leading Christian and Islamic scholars addressing the conference, A Common Word at Cambridge University. It marked the first anniversary of the publication of A Common Word Between Us and You, a letter from 138 Islamic scholars, clerics and intellectuals promoting understanding and tolerance between the two faiths. Addressed to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders, the letter warned that the survival of the world could be at stake if Muslims and Christians could not make peace with each other.
"If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world - with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before - no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants.
"Our common future is at stake," the letter said. "The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake."
The conference will make recommendations on how the two faiths can work better together, to be unveiled at Lambeth Palace, the London office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Wednesday. The closer cooperation will not just be at the level of religious organisations but will be enacted across charities and secular bodies at all levels of society.
The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Dr Ali Gomaa, who also addressed the conference, welcomed the Archbishop's speech. "It is clear from your response that you are fully prepared to enter into dialogue on a profound level. For our part we would like to tell you that we share your willingness for dialogue and that we take this great deal of common ground to be a foundation for promoting respect and understanding that will in turn lead to a deepening of our relationship. We hope this conference will result in new, practical, and groundbreaking recommendations," he said.
"Effective communication is our powerful tool for containing and managing crises.....Every action now in any place will affect others either positively or negatively. Isolation and seclusion are no longer an option. The only choice is to live together on this Earth. So what should we do? We must engage in dialogue and lay down foundations for it as God intended."
He said he hoped the two sides would be able to transcend dialogue and find partnership.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Editorial
Salaam alei kum!
Communal violence against Dalits and Muslims has a long history in India. In the recent decades Christians too are at the receiving end. The Hindu nationalists in recent times have stepped up violence against Christians in Orissa, a poor state of eastern seaboard since August 24. The extremists who belong to Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrag Dal (BD) have destroyed 300 Christian villages and burnt down 4400 Christian houses. More than 50,000 people are made homeless and driven into jungles and relief camps. 59 Christians have been killed and around 18,000 were injured in the violence. Churches, schools and dispensaries have been destroyed. In one particularly brutal attack a young woman was burnt alive and another young religious nun was gang raped by the RSS and BD cadres. Elsewhere in Assam, the communal violence between Bodos and Muslims has brought death and destruction. The recent spate of bomb blasts in Delhi and other Indian cities continue to threaten security and well being of all Indian citizens. In these troubled times many people of good will like from different religious traditions, who have a secular frame of mind work tirelessly to promote peace and harmony.Every sane person in the country realises the importance of Inter-religious dialogue. In June 2008 the Rabita al- Alami al-Islami (World Muslim Council) organized an international conference on inter-faith dialogue. This was a major initiative. At the conference it was decided that an international institution would be established to promote inter-faith dialogue. With such initiatives, our Muslims brothers and sisters will play a vital role in establishing, promoting inter-faith understanding and peaceful dialogue.
According to Maulana Waris Mazhari (editor of Tarjuman Dar ul – Ulum, official organ of the Old Boy’s Association of the Dar ul-Ilum, Deoband) the biggest challenge facing Muslim throughout the world today is the dissemination of negative and distorted images of Islam. There are certain extremist elements in politics and media continue to spread lies about madrasas and the curricula in madrasas. Maulana Waris Mazhari feels that all suspicions could be healed by honesty, openness and genuine dialogue. It is important to note and affirm the very positive signal that come from the religious scholars like Maulana Waris Mazhari. Madrasas can indeed play a vital role in the promotion of inter-faith dialogue to combat communal hatred, violence and fundamentalism.
In a meeting with interfaith leaders at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Centre in Washington, D.C Pope Benedict XVI encouraged inter-faith cooperation and dialogue as a way of both building mutual understanding and the strengthening society. To bring to the youth the message of Interreligious dialogue, the recently concluded World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney the Australian the Jesuits organized an inter religious programme for the participants.
In the article “Beware of the Conversion Bogey” Dr. I. Vempany, with his vast knowledge and experience in the field of dialogue, reminds the readers that the Hindus by and large misunderstand the real meaning of conversion. They continue to attack the Christians blaming them of forceful conversion. In spite of sustained persecutions, the church continues and will continue to work for Justice, Freedom and Love, the values Christ and his Gospel.
In fact Inter religious dialogue has become a priority to many of the religious congregations. Dr.John Borelli in his article “Frontiers of Dialogue for Discovery and Renewal” brings out how Interreligious dialogue is integral to Jesuit service of Christ's mission. This was the core message of the General Congregation 34 of Jesuits. The GC 35 again reiterated the Society’s commitment to interfaith dialogue.
Ashar Ali Engineer is a well known Indian Islamic scholar. Quoting the Holy Quran and the Hadith (Traditions of the Prophet) extensively, the scholar brings out the point that Islam is a tolerant religion and from its beginning it has encountered Christianity and Judaism in an amicable and harmonious manner. There are many Indian Muslim thinkers, who have written and have expressed their positive attitude towards other religions. For example: Dara Shikoh, translated the Upanishads from Sanskrit to Persian, which exhibits his religious tolerance and understanding with Hinduism. He argued that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion as he found the concept of tawhid (monotheism) in Upanishads. He even compared the Hindu concept of mukti (liberation) to that of the Sufi concept of fana (annihilation in Allah). In general, Muslims today need to adapt to the present modern lifestyle wherever possible as the Quran does not say anything against such way of life.
‘Christian-Muslim Relations; Guidelines for Catholics in the Diocese of Parramatta’ is a useful guide prepared by Fr. Herman Roborgh SJ for the purpose of establishing and practicing Interreligious dialogue ministry in the Australian diocese of Parramatta. It shows that dialogue ministry is a pressing need of the society all over. Today Jihad is the most misunderstood word. Herman Roborgh explains Jihad in an interview he gave to Victor Edwin.
Khuda Hafiz!
BEWARE OF THE CONVERSION BOGEY
Dr. Ishanand Vempeny
In 1970 I was a P.G. student in M. S. University, Vadodara. At that time there was a popular Christian priest in the university doing PG studies in the department of psychology. When he had finished his supper at about 9.00 pm, two hostelites, natives of UP, came shouting using all sorts of abusive words against those who were having their meal. These two students were fully drunk. They began to pick-up puris and sweets from the dishes of other students without washing their soiled hands. They even over-turned the plate of one student when he expressed his displeasure at their behaviour. He was sitting near this priest. After pacifying the student he mildly advised the drunkards not to disturb the others. One of the drunkards caught hold of the collar of the priest and slapped him twice until other students intervened. They kept on abusing the priest and the students.
On the following day the priest with two other students reported the matter to the warden. According to the rules of the hostels in Gujarat anybody caught drinking alcoholic beverages could be expelled. Besides, their beating another student could have incurred serious punishment. But the UP boys knowing the seriousness of beating up a Christian Priest got the advice of a couple of RSS leaders and went about saying that in order to prevent his conversion activities they beat him up. Perhaps the priest might not have even thought of or talked about conversion during his 1.5 years of stay in the university hostel. But the conversion-bogey in some of the states like Gujarat was so viciously powerful even at that time that no action was taken against the UP students. Today, the all-powerful Sangh Parivar (SP) with numerous specialists, lying and lynching innocent people around, gang-raping consecrated Christian nuns as in Orissa or desecrating churches and crucifixes as in Mangalore, can easily escape punishment with the conversion-bogey.
In 2003 an international peace conference was held in the Gujarat University. There were many foreigners including quite a few NRI god-men with many Western, White Disciples with them. When one of the sadhus spoke against conversion by the Christian missionaries, a professor asked him how he could speak against conversion to Christianity while he himself was converting American and European Christians to Hinduism. His thoughtless answer with an air of infallibility made some professors laugh: "Christian Missionaries are CONVERTING people but we Hindu sadhus are TRANSFORMING people". The sadhu did not realize that the original Biblical word for conversion is metanoia (Greek), which etymologically means transformation.
About the conversion activities of the Hindu Missionaries in the West, a liberal Hindu professor in an IIT, Ram Puniyani writes:
While our VHP brethren decry the transparently beneficial Christian services in India, they have no word of criticism about their co-religionists engaging themselves in proselytization work in the most degrading manner in the West, or becoming billion dollar Bhagavans…. They offer the experience of levitation for 1500$. They promise Nirvana for 100$ a day. They assure you of instant salvation…. Acharya Rajneesh is supposed to have converted hundreds of thousands of Westerners to Hinduism. So did Maharshi Mahesh Yogi. So did other sanyasis, Godmen, Bhagavans, Acharyas… and Hare Krishna propagators…. Gopal Krishna Goswami Maharaj is quoted in Times of India, 2.9.1999 as saying that "devotees living in temples are engaged in full time missionary activities" (Conversion and Missionary, P. Ram and I. Vempeny, Varanasi: Satya Manthan Sanstha, 2000, pp.15-16).
Let us take the example of another incident which adds to this verbal weapon many nuances. In 1999 in Gujarat, when anti-Christian propaganda and attacks were going on in full swing, in January, some six hundred people from the Dalit Families of a village called Undhai, near Mehsana, declared that they were going to convert themselves to Christianity. They began to decorate their homes with Christian symbols like the pictures of Jesus and Rosaries. There were no Christian missionaries nearby to entice or motivate them. The Indian Express reported: "The saffron brigade has been affected by a deeper shade of red. For, tired of the continued harassment and social boycott by upper-caste Patels, a large clutch of Dalit families in Gujarat has decided to convert to Christianity. The Dalits have little or no idea of what Christianity is" (Jan.31, 1999, p.2). The mass conversion of a large number of Dalits, in Meenakshipuram, Tamil Nadu, some years back had the same story to tell. (For a more elaborate study on this topic, cfr. Ishanand Vempeny, Conversion, Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1999, pp.12-19).
Recently when I was in Mumbai during the first week of September (2008), I read a report in the Malayalam daily, Manorama, that the Orissa Christians who ran for their lives into the forest were forced to convert themselves into Hinduism. They were told menacingly by the weapon-wielding activists of the SP that if they wanted to get back to their villages alive, first get converted into Hinduism. For this, there and then they should submit themselves to the ritual of getting their hair shaved off ritualistically. In the villages they would undergo some other rituals the end of which would be a puja before a Hindu Idol, offering a coconut each. Then they would be publicly declared Hindus. In spite of the threats only few of them submitted themselves to these conversion rituals. Was it not conversion to Hinduism for these tribals who were Christians for two or three generations? Not at all. It is called shuddhikaran or gharvapasi. Incidentally Christian baptism with water is a ritual of shuddhikaran and gharvapasi, returning to "God's Family" accepting God as their Father-Mother and all human beings as brothers and sisters. The SP act of gharvapasi by force is a patriotic act whereas the free gharvapasi by baptism would be an anti-national act of conversion.
Reflections on the Conversion Bogey
Let us have a 'camera-check' of some of the allegations by the SP. If conversion of the Hindus is going on in full swing, how is it that the percentage of Christians is going down from census to census? For example, if the percentage of Christians in the 1971 census was 2.8% it was going down gradually from census to census until it reached 2.3% in the latest. Some years ago the Mother Teresa Sisters were attacked in North Kerala, by the RSS activists on the plea that they were indulging in conversion. But the truth is that both Mother Teresa and her followers had decided right from the beginning of their congregation not to convert anybody. Even today they stick to that policy. Similarly the contemplative Carmelite Sisters (Cloistered Carmelites) mostly remain within the walls of the convent spending most of the time in meditation and in necessary household works. But one of the chapels vandalized by the SP recently in Karnataka belonged to these sisters accusing them of conversion. In these instances, is the SP opposing only conversion or the good works of these Christians which attract people to them?
The Bogey of Conversion by Force
More than 95% of roughly 200 crores of Christians belong to the Main Line Churches (MLC). These churches come under the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant or Reformation Churches. The modern and the most authoritative views of the Catholic Church can be found in the documents of Second Vatican Council (Vat.II) and of the non-Catholic MLCs, in the documents of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Vat.II unequivocally opposes conversion by force or allurement as it can be seen in the following statement:
The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power, so that within due limits nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right (Dignitatis Humanae, No.2).
The WCC is equally emphatic in upholding religious freedom and opposing conversion by force:
Christian churches as well as community of other faiths cannot be faithful to their vocation without the freedom and right to maintain their institutional form and confessional identity in a society and to transmit their faith from one generation to another. In those difficult situations Christians should find a way, along with others, to enter into dialogue with the civil authorities in order to reach a common definition of religious freedom. With that freedom comes the responsibility to defend through common actions all human rights in those societies (J. A. Scherer and S. B. Bevans, (eds.), No.44, p.50).
True, during the colonial period the Western Colonial Powers used for conversion some intimidating techniques in Asia, including India, and in South America. At that time they followed the medieval axiom cuijus regio eijus religio (= the religion of the ruler is the religion of the ruled). This will partly explain some incident of forced conversion by the Portuguese in Goa.
It is difficult to say the exact number or the types of doctrines held by the Fringe Group Churches (FRG). Some of them have very exotic doctrines like the church led by Alexander Jones who committed suicide a few decades back together with almost a thousand followers in Georgetown in British Guyana. The New Life Church, accused of writing derogative remarks on Hinduism belongs to the FRGs. Even in these groups, because of their profession of fundamental human rights, human freedom and the dignity of man, no instance of forced conversion has been proved by the governments of Orissa, Gujarat, MP or Karnataka where allegations of forced conversions are at their loudest.
Conversion and Christian Works of Compassion & Love
It is a fact that the missionaries usually go to the economically poor and the socially marginalized. The Biblical word, in the Hebrew original to indicate such people is anawim (anawim literary means a person who cannot stand straight, a person with diminished human dignity due to economic poverty and social marginalization). In India most Dalits and Tribals belong to the category of anawim. Why do the missionaries go with such enthusiasm for the well-being of the anawim while the Hindu Missionaries in the West go for the rich and the affluent?
One of the most unnegotiable teachings by Jesus for Christian life and Christian struggles for salvation is compassionate help for the anawim. One of the typical texts in the Bible is Mt. 25: 31-46. It is a description of the scene of Last Judgement (kayamat) by Jesus himself as the Eternal Judge or Eternal King. This is what the Heavenly Judge tells the good people who would be made to stand on his right side as considered worthy of salvation:
The King will say to those on his right. Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me… (Then he replies to their query how they did such things to him). Amen. I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Mt. 25:34-36 and 40).
At the beginning of Christ's Public Life, in his inaugural speech (Lk 4: 16-22) He declares that His primary mission is to liberate the anawim from all sorts of oppression and slavery. This is the chief reason, if may not be the only reason, why missionaries in India have been going after the SC and ST, especially when untouchability and bonded labour were rampant.
Soon after the Korean War, an American nun was cleansing the foul smelling sores of a leper in South Korea. Her brother who came to visit her happened to see this work. He said: "Judy, if I were to get 50,000 dollars a month I won't do such a work". Pat came the reply: "Tony, neither would I have done this work had I been offered hundred thousand dollars. But for the sake of Jesus who loves me and makes me experience his resurrection every day, I will do even more repulsive works than this".
The Covert Reasons of SP for opposing Conversion
The SP is all out to capture power in the Centre and in the States. In a democracy like India number counts. In today's situation of hate-campaign and minority-bashing no thinking Christian or Muslim will vote for the SP. Hence the efforts by the SP to stop by hook or crook, by fair or foul means, any conversion from Hinduism to these two religions.
In the tribal belt in Gujarat there had been cases of the business community and some industrialists paying money to the parents of the tribal children for not sending their children to school especially to the Mission Schools. Conversion to Christianity meant good education, effective health care, socio-economic upgradation. These vote-bank groups of the SP want cheap labour and captive voters for the SP, but good education thwarts these designs.
To Conclude
The Great Hindu Reformer Sri Narayana Guru wrote in his famous Aatmopadesa Satakam:
Victory by fight is impossible here; one as against one,
No religion by attacking it gets uprooted;
Not knowing this the opponent of another faith,
Invites his own doom by a futile fight, beware!
(Free Translation from Malayalam)
The saintly Guruji must have been aware of the history of the spread of Christianity in Europe. The first three centuries of Christianity until the Edict of Milan by Emperor Constantine, Christianity was outlawed by the ruthless Roman Emperors like Nero. Any Christian could be killed with impunity during this period. But lo and behold! When one Christian was killed a thousand became Christians, until the whole of the Roman Empire became Christian. Emperor Theodosius the Great declared Christianity as the State Religion at the latter part of the fourth century. A great Christian Philosopher of the third century Tertullian wrote: "sanguis martyrum semina ecclesiae" (= "The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christianity"). Does the SP in Orissa know this when it is presiding over the most cruel of the persecutions of Christians in India?
In 1970 I was a P.G. student in M. S. University, Vadodara. At that time there was a popular Christian priest in the university doing PG studies in the department of psychology. When he had finished his supper at about 9.00 pm, two hostelites, natives of UP, came shouting using all sorts of abusive words against those who were having their meal. These two students were fully drunk. They began to pick-up puris and sweets from the dishes of other students without washing their soiled hands. They even over-turned the plate of one student when he expressed his displeasure at their behaviour. He was sitting near this priest. After pacifying the student he mildly advised the drunkards not to disturb the others. One of the drunkards caught hold of the collar of the priest and slapped him twice until other students intervened. They kept on abusing the priest and the students.
On the following day the priest with two other students reported the matter to the warden. According to the rules of the hostels in Gujarat anybody caught drinking alcoholic beverages could be expelled. Besides, their beating another student could have incurred serious punishment. But the UP boys knowing the seriousness of beating up a Christian Priest got the advice of a couple of RSS leaders and went about saying that in order to prevent his conversion activities they beat him up. Perhaps the priest might not have even thought of or talked about conversion during his 1.5 years of stay in the university hostel. But the conversion-bogey in some of the states like Gujarat was so viciously powerful even at that time that no action was taken against the UP students. Today, the all-powerful Sangh Parivar (SP) with numerous specialists, lying and lynching innocent people around, gang-raping consecrated Christian nuns as in Orissa or desecrating churches and crucifixes as in Mangalore, can easily escape punishment with the conversion-bogey.
In 2003 an international peace conference was held in the Gujarat University. There were many foreigners including quite a few NRI god-men with many Western, White Disciples with them. When one of the sadhus spoke against conversion by the Christian missionaries, a professor asked him how he could speak against conversion to Christianity while he himself was converting American and European Christians to Hinduism. His thoughtless answer with an air of infallibility made some professors laugh: "Christian Missionaries are CONVERTING people but we Hindu sadhus are TRANSFORMING people". The sadhu did not realize that the original Biblical word for conversion is metanoia (Greek), which etymologically means transformation.
About the conversion activities of the Hindu Missionaries in the West, a liberal Hindu professor in an IIT, Ram Puniyani writes:
While our VHP brethren decry the transparently beneficial Christian services in India, they have no word of criticism about their co-religionists engaging themselves in proselytization work in the most degrading manner in the West, or becoming billion dollar Bhagavans…. They offer the experience of levitation for 1500$. They promise Nirvana for 100$ a day. They assure you of instant salvation…. Acharya Rajneesh is supposed to have converted hundreds of thousands of Westerners to Hinduism. So did Maharshi Mahesh Yogi. So did other sanyasis, Godmen, Bhagavans, Acharyas… and Hare Krishna propagators…. Gopal Krishna Goswami Maharaj is quoted in Times of India, 2.9.1999 as saying that "devotees living in temples are engaged in full time missionary activities" (Conversion and Missionary, P. Ram and I. Vempeny, Varanasi: Satya Manthan Sanstha, 2000, pp.15-16).
Let us take the example of another incident which adds to this verbal weapon many nuances. In 1999 in Gujarat, when anti-Christian propaganda and attacks were going on in full swing, in January, some six hundred people from the Dalit Families of a village called Undhai, near Mehsana, declared that they were going to convert themselves to Christianity. They began to decorate their homes with Christian symbols like the pictures of Jesus and Rosaries. There were no Christian missionaries nearby to entice or motivate them. The Indian Express reported: "The saffron brigade has been affected by a deeper shade of red. For, tired of the continued harassment and social boycott by upper-caste Patels, a large clutch of Dalit families in Gujarat has decided to convert to Christianity. The Dalits have little or no idea of what Christianity is" (Jan.31, 1999, p.2). The mass conversion of a large number of Dalits, in Meenakshipuram, Tamil Nadu, some years back had the same story to tell. (For a more elaborate study on this topic, cfr. Ishanand Vempeny, Conversion, Anand: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1999, pp.12-19).
Recently when I was in Mumbai during the first week of September (2008), I read a report in the Malayalam daily, Manorama, that the Orissa Christians who ran for their lives into the forest were forced to convert themselves into Hinduism. They were told menacingly by the weapon-wielding activists of the SP that if they wanted to get back to their villages alive, first get converted into Hinduism. For this, there and then they should submit themselves to the ritual of getting their hair shaved off ritualistically. In the villages they would undergo some other rituals the end of which would be a puja before a Hindu Idol, offering a coconut each. Then they would be publicly declared Hindus. In spite of the threats only few of them submitted themselves to these conversion rituals. Was it not conversion to Hinduism for these tribals who were Christians for two or three generations? Not at all. It is called shuddhikaran or gharvapasi. Incidentally Christian baptism with water is a ritual of shuddhikaran and gharvapasi, returning to "God's Family" accepting God as their Father-Mother and all human beings as brothers and sisters. The SP act of gharvapasi by force is a patriotic act whereas the free gharvapasi by baptism would be an anti-national act of conversion.
Reflections on the Conversion Bogey
Let us have a 'camera-check' of some of the allegations by the SP. If conversion of the Hindus is going on in full swing, how is it that the percentage of Christians is going down from census to census? For example, if the percentage of Christians in the 1971 census was 2.8% it was going down gradually from census to census until it reached 2.3% in the latest. Some years ago the Mother Teresa Sisters were attacked in North Kerala, by the RSS activists on the plea that they were indulging in conversion. But the truth is that both Mother Teresa and her followers had decided right from the beginning of their congregation not to convert anybody. Even today they stick to that policy. Similarly the contemplative Carmelite Sisters (Cloistered Carmelites) mostly remain within the walls of the convent spending most of the time in meditation and in necessary household works. But one of the chapels vandalized by the SP recently in Karnataka belonged to these sisters accusing them of conversion. In these instances, is the SP opposing only conversion or the good works of these Christians which attract people to them?
The Bogey of Conversion by Force
More than 95% of roughly 200 crores of Christians belong to the Main Line Churches (MLC). These churches come under the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant or Reformation Churches. The modern and the most authoritative views of the Catholic Church can be found in the documents of Second Vatican Council (Vat.II) and of the non-Catholic MLCs, in the documents of the World Council of Churches (WCC). Vat.II unequivocally opposes conversion by force or allurement as it can be seen in the following statement:
The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power, so that within due limits nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right (Dignitatis Humanae, No.2).
The WCC is equally emphatic in upholding religious freedom and opposing conversion by force:
Christian churches as well as community of other faiths cannot be faithful to their vocation without the freedom and right to maintain their institutional form and confessional identity in a society and to transmit their faith from one generation to another. In those difficult situations Christians should find a way, along with others, to enter into dialogue with the civil authorities in order to reach a common definition of religious freedom. With that freedom comes the responsibility to defend through common actions all human rights in those societies (J. A. Scherer and S. B. Bevans, (eds.), No.44, p.50).
True, during the colonial period the Western Colonial Powers used for conversion some intimidating techniques in Asia, including India, and in South America. At that time they followed the medieval axiom cuijus regio eijus religio (= the religion of the ruler is the religion of the ruled). This will partly explain some incident of forced conversion by the Portuguese in Goa.
It is difficult to say the exact number or the types of doctrines held by the Fringe Group Churches (FRG). Some of them have very exotic doctrines like the church led by Alexander Jones who committed suicide a few decades back together with almost a thousand followers in Georgetown in British Guyana. The New Life Church, accused of writing derogative remarks on Hinduism belongs to the FRGs. Even in these groups, because of their profession of fundamental human rights, human freedom and the dignity of man, no instance of forced conversion has been proved by the governments of Orissa, Gujarat, MP or Karnataka where allegations of forced conversions are at their loudest.
Conversion and Christian Works of Compassion & Love
It is a fact that the missionaries usually go to the economically poor and the socially marginalized. The Biblical word, in the Hebrew original to indicate such people is anawim (anawim literary means a person who cannot stand straight, a person with diminished human dignity due to economic poverty and social marginalization). In India most Dalits and Tribals belong to the category of anawim. Why do the missionaries go with such enthusiasm for the well-being of the anawim while the Hindu Missionaries in the West go for the rich and the affluent?
One of the most unnegotiable teachings by Jesus for Christian life and Christian struggles for salvation is compassionate help for the anawim. One of the typical texts in the Bible is Mt. 25: 31-46. It is a description of the scene of Last Judgement (kayamat) by Jesus himself as the Eternal Judge or Eternal King. This is what the Heavenly Judge tells the good people who would be made to stand on his right side as considered worthy of salvation:
The King will say to those on his right. Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food. I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me… (Then he replies to their query how they did such things to him). Amen. I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Mt. 25:34-36 and 40).
At the beginning of Christ's Public Life, in his inaugural speech (Lk 4: 16-22) He declares that His primary mission is to liberate the anawim from all sorts of oppression and slavery. This is the chief reason, if may not be the only reason, why missionaries in India have been going after the SC and ST, especially when untouchability and bonded labour were rampant.
Soon after the Korean War, an American nun was cleansing the foul smelling sores of a leper in South Korea. Her brother who came to visit her happened to see this work. He said: "Judy, if I were to get 50,000 dollars a month I won't do such a work". Pat came the reply: "Tony, neither would I have done this work had I been offered hundred thousand dollars. But for the sake of Jesus who loves me and makes me experience his resurrection every day, I will do even more repulsive works than this".
The Covert Reasons of SP for opposing Conversion
The SP is all out to capture power in the Centre and in the States. In a democracy like India number counts. In today's situation of hate-campaign and minority-bashing no thinking Christian or Muslim will vote for the SP. Hence the efforts by the SP to stop by hook or crook, by fair or foul means, any conversion from Hinduism to these two religions.
In the tribal belt in Gujarat there had been cases of the business community and some industrialists paying money to the parents of the tribal children for not sending their children to school especially to the Mission Schools. Conversion to Christianity meant good education, effective health care, socio-economic upgradation. These vote-bank groups of the SP want cheap labour and captive voters for the SP, but good education thwarts these designs.
To Conclude
The Great Hindu Reformer Sri Narayana Guru wrote in his famous Aatmopadesa Satakam:
Victory by fight is impossible here; one as against one,
No religion by attacking it gets uprooted;
Not knowing this the opponent of another faith,
Invites his own doom by a futile fight, beware!
(Free Translation from Malayalam)
The saintly Guruji must have been aware of the history of the spread of Christianity in Europe. The first three centuries of Christianity until the Edict of Milan by Emperor Constantine, Christianity was outlawed by the ruthless Roman Emperors like Nero. Any Christian could be killed with impunity during this period. But lo and behold! When one Christian was killed a thousand became Christians, until the whole of the Roman Empire became Christian. Emperor Theodosius the Great declared Christianity as the State Religion at the latter part of the fourth century. A great Christian Philosopher of the third century Tertullian wrote: "sanguis martyrum semina ecclesiae" (= "The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christianity"). Does the SP in Orissa know this when it is presiding over the most cruel of the persecutions of Christians in India?
FRONTIERS OF DIALOGUE FOR DISCOVERY AND RENEWAL
John Borelli
Interreligious dialogue is integral to Jesuit service of Christ's mission. GC 35's unambiguous reiteration of this core message of GC 34 should be written large in the hearts and minds of Jesuits and those privileged to serve as their collaborators.
On this matter, GC 34 had been eloquent: "no service of faith without promotion of justice, entry into cultures, openness to other religious experiences; no promotion of justice without communicating faith, transforming cultures, collaboration with other traditions; no inculturation without communicating faith with others, dialogue with other traditions, commitment to justice; no dialogue without sharing faith with others, evaluating cultures, concern for justice." (GC 34, d. 2)
Thirteen years later, GC 35 rejoices that "in a decisive manner Benedict XVI confirmed what our previous General Congregations have said of our specific mission of service to the Church." (Decree 1, 5) Expressly, Decree 1 recalls the papal address to the General Congregation on February 21, 2008, when he reaffirmed how the church counts on Jesuits "to reach the geographical and spiritual places where others do not reach or find it difficult to reach." The pope mentioned particularly the heroic examples of Matteo Ricci in China, Roberto de Nobili in India, and the "Reductions" in Latin America—individuals and communities truly on the far frontiers of interreligious and intercultural exchange for their times. Pope Benedict, then, strongly encouraged Jesuits and their collaborators to recognize the signs of the presence and work of God in every part of the world, even beyond the confines of the visible Church, to build bridges of understanding and dialogue with those who do not belong to the Church or who have difficulty in accepting its position and message, and to adhere to the word of God and teachings of the church while doing so.
With passion borne of prayer and discernment, Decree 2 on Jesuit identity and the Ignatian charism declares new frontiers beckoning us to "plunge ourselves more deeply into that dialogue with religions that may show us that the Holy Spirit is at work all over the world that God loves." (24) In our contemporary globalized world, where technology and environmental and other concerns challenge traditional boundaries, the Society's mission of faith and justice and of dialogue of religions and cultures gives new meaning to the frontiers of knowledge and human encounter. (20) "All men and women are our concern for dialogue and for proclamation . . . to discover Jesus Christ where we have not noticed him before and to reveal him where he has not been seen before." (24)
This all-embracing mission directs us to reach out "to persons who differ from us in culture and religion, aware that dialogue with them is integral also to our service of Christ's mission." (15) Scripture serves as our guide to enter dialogue in places where others did not look or even avoided, as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman, Zacchaeus, a Syro-Phoenician woman, Roman centurions and repentant thieves and sinners. (12)
Even in collaboration itself, Decree 6 recognizes a frontier with new challenges: "We are enriched by members of our own faith, but also by people from other religious traditions, those women and men of good will from all nations and cultures, with whom we labor in seeking a more just world."(3) If the heart of an Ignatian work is the Spiritual Exercises, which many of us Catholic and other Christian collaborators have had the privilege to follow and live, how can the dialogue of religious experience be genuinely mutual, adapting the Exercises to other religious traditions and spiritualities and allowing these traditions and spiritualities to enrich our practice of the Exercises? (9) For many Christians and non-Christians, interreligious dialogue has become a spiritual practice. How can such spiritual companionship influence formation for Ignatian work? (15)
Decree 3 on the challenges to mission today reviews how the Jesuit history of interreligious encounters and dialogue predates Vatican II by 400 years. (15-17) Only with the documents of Vatican II did the Catholic Church formally adopt dialogue as a primary outreach to other Christians, to Jews, to followers of other religions, and to all people; yet, forty-three years after its close, dialogue, even ecumenical dialogue with other Christians, remains on the margins of ministry, theological study, and spiritual formation in the church. These margins are frontiers for Jesuits and their collaborators.
Decree 3 identifies fresh challenges on these borders: globalization, a wide-spread thirst for spiritual experience often sought outside institutional religion, "religious fundamentalism," the growing gap between rich and poor due to social, economic, and political forces, and transnational and other forms of exploitation fomenting conflict and violence. The wisdom of those in Jesuit ministries on these and other frontiers, for the last 40 years, even for the past 400 years, should be a resource for Jesuits and their collaborators and for the universal church.
Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, when asked to define "catholic" by the Board of Trustees of Georgetown University visiting Rome in May 2007, replied in this way: "I have always understood 'catholic' to mean bringing the experience of those at the frontiers of the church's mission back to renew the center."
Fr. Adolfo Nicholás, in his homily at the closure of GC 35, recalled how they have spoken and written about frontiers during their deliberations. "We have indeed gone," he said, "and we have encountered many problems and made many mistakes at the frontiers." He admitted he could tell of his mistakes. "Going," he said, means "entering into the culture." "Going," he continued, "means study, research, entering into the life of the people, solidarity, empathy, inculturation, respect for others. "Going to the whole world turns out to be more difficult than we had thought. We feel like children. Perhaps we have discovered the Kingdom of God."
Dr. John Borelli, National Coordinator for Interreligious Dialogue and Mission for the U.S. Jesuit Conference, is Special Assistant for Interreligious Initiative to President John J. DeGioia of Georgetown University. After receiving a Ph.D. in theology and history of religions (Fordham University, 1976) and teaching for 12 years, he served more than 16 years in ecumenical and interreligious affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This article appeared in the October 2008 issue of National Jesuit News (USA).
Interreligious dialogue is integral to Jesuit service of Christ's mission. GC 35's unambiguous reiteration of this core message of GC 34 should be written large in the hearts and minds of Jesuits and those privileged to serve as their collaborators.
On this matter, GC 34 had been eloquent: "no service of faith without promotion of justice, entry into cultures, openness to other religious experiences; no promotion of justice without communicating faith, transforming cultures, collaboration with other traditions; no inculturation without communicating faith with others, dialogue with other traditions, commitment to justice; no dialogue without sharing faith with others, evaluating cultures, concern for justice." (GC 34, d. 2)
Thirteen years later, GC 35 rejoices that "in a decisive manner Benedict XVI confirmed what our previous General Congregations have said of our specific mission of service to the Church." (Decree 1, 5) Expressly, Decree 1 recalls the papal address to the General Congregation on February 21, 2008, when he reaffirmed how the church counts on Jesuits "to reach the geographical and spiritual places where others do not reach or find it difficult to reach." The pope mentioned particularly the heroic examples of Matteo Ricci in China, Roberto de Nobili in India, and the "Reductions" in Latin America—individuals and communities truly on the far frontiers of interreligious and intercultural exchange for their times. Pope Benedict, then, strongly encouraged Jesuits and their collaborators to recognize the signs of the presence and work of God in every part of the world, even beyond the confines of the visible Church, to build bridges of understanding and dialogue with those who do not belong to the Church or who have difficulty in accepting its position and message, and to adhere to the word of God and teachings of the church while doing so.
With passion borne of prayer and discernment, Decree 2 on Jesuit identity and the Ignatian charism declares new frontiers beckoning us to "plunge ourselves more deeply into that dialogue with religions that may show us that the Holy Spirit is at work all over the world that God loves." (24) In our contemporary globalized world, where technology and environmental and other concerns challenge traditional boundaries, the Society's mission of faith and justice and of dialogue of religions and cultures gives new meaning to the frontiers of knowledge and human encounter. (20) "All men and women are our concern for dialogue and for proclamation . . . to discover Jesus Christ where we have not noticed him before and to reveal him where he has not been seen before." (24)
This all-embracing mission directs us to reach out "to persons who differ from us in culture and religion, aware that dialogue with them is integral also to our service of Christ's mission." (15) Scripture serves as our guide to enter dialogue in places where others did not look or even avoided, as Jesus did with the Samaritan woman, Zacchaeus, a Syro-Phoenician woman, Roman centurions and repentant thieves and sinners. (12)
Even in collaboration itself, Decree 6 recognizes a frontier with new challenges: "We are enriched by members of our own faith, but also by people from other religious traditions, those women and men of good will from all nations and cultures, with whom we labor in seeking a more just world."(3) If the heart of an Ignatian work is the Spiritual Exercises, which many of us Catholic and other Christian collaborators have had the privilege to follow and live, how can the dialogue of religious experience be genuinely mutual, adapting the Exercises to other religious traditions and spiritualities and allowing these traditions and spiritualities to enrich our practice of the Exercises? (9) For many Christians and non-Christians, interreligious dialogue has become a spiritual practice. How can such spiritual companionship influence formation for Ignatian work? (15)
Decree 3 on the challenges to mission today reviews how the Jesuit history of interreligious encounters and dialogue predates Vatican II by 400 years. (15-17) Only with the documents of Vatican II did the Catholic Church formally adopt dialogue as a primary outreach to other Christians, to Jews, to followers of other religions, and to all people; yet, forty-three years after its close, dialogue, even ecumenical dialogue with other Christians, remains on the margins of ministry, theological study, and spiritual formation in the church. These margins are frontiers for Jesuits and their collaborators.
Decree 3 identifies fresh challenges on these borders: globalization, a wide-spread thirst for spiritual experience often sought outside institutional religion, "religious fundamentalism," the growing gap between rich and poor due to social, economic, and political forces, and transnational and other forms of exploitation fomenting conflict and violence. The wisdom of those in Jesuit ministries on these and other frontiers, for the last 40 years, even for the past 400 years, should be a resource for Jesuits and their collaborators and for the universal church.
Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, when asked to define "catholic" by the Board of Trustees of Georgetown University visiting Rome in May 2007, replied in this way: "I have always understood 'catholic' to mean bringing the experience of those at the frontiers of the church's mission back to renew the center."
Fr. Adolfo Nicholás, in his homily at the closure of GC 35, recalled how they have spoken and written about frontiers during their deliberations. "We have indeed gone," he said, "and we have encountered many problems and made many mistakes at the frontiers." He admitted he could tell of his mistakes. "Going," he said, means "entering into the culture." "Going," he continued, "means study, research, entering into the life of the people, solidarity, empathy, inculturation, respect for others. "Going to the whole world turns out to be more difficult than we had thought. We feel like children. Perhaps we have discovered the Kingdom of God."
Dr. John Borelli, National Coordinator for Interreligious Dialogue and Mission for the U.S. Jesuit Conference, is Special Assistant for Interreligious Initiative to President John J. DeGioia of Georgetown University. After receiving a Ph.D. in theology and history of religions (Fordham University, 1976) and teaching for 12 years, he served more than 16 years in ecumenical and interreligious affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This article appeared in the October 2008 issue of National Jesuit News (USA).
ISLAM AND INTER-FAITH ENGAGEMENT
Asghar Ali Engineer
Islam is being projected as intolerant of other faiths. This perception of Islam is based on certain selected events, not on Qur'anic teachings or Prophet's ahadith. It is one thing to judge a religion by its teachings and another to see it in the light of some instances of intolerance by some individuals. Also, such events are picked up selectively to suit certain assumptions, often politically motivated.
First of all it is necessary to closely study the Qur'anic position both normative and contextual. Then we have to study certain historical event of tolerance or intolerance, also in proper historical context. Also, one has to study the Qur'anic approach of engaging with other religions. What Qur'an emphasizes as common with other religions and what it differs with. Does it find anything in common with other religions or totally rejects them? And what is its position where it totally rejects any religion?
Qur'an and other Religions
Qur'an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in two cities Mecca and Madina. The revelations began in Mecca and ended in Madina. Mecca was an international trade centre of great significance in that area and the main tribes of Mecca, particularly the Quraysh, a leading tribe of Mecca, was among those carrying on trade with Roman Empire who pursued Christianity. Then in Madina and in some other parts of Arabia, there were Jews. Thus Arabs were in touch with these two great Biblical religions. Arabs, for various reasons, had refrained from adopting these religions, though few Arabs on border region had embraced Christianity in its monophysite form, one different from Roman version.
In Mecca of course there were no Christians or Jews. The Meccan Arabs were all idol worshippers, having no revealed truth or scripture. The Prophet (PBUH) was also borne and brought up in Mecca. He seems to have instinctively rejected idol worship and began to meditate in the cave of Hira in search of truth when he receives revelation and he proclaims himself as the Prophet of Allah (Rasulallah or Messenger of Allah). He faced stiff opposition from his own tribe and his own close relatives.
However, he was deeply committed to his mission and readily faces severe persecution from his opponents. Despite this he proposes to his persecutors that "for you is your religion and for me is mine" (109:6). Thus Qur'an never imposed anything on unwilling hearts. It also pronounces same principle in surah revealed in Madina, "There is no compulsion in religion – the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break.(2:256)
Thus the Qur'an lays down a principle here: there is no compulsion in religion. Religion has something to do with ones heart and soul and appeals to ones inner conscience; and thus can never be imposed. All Qur'an does is to make right path distinct from path of error and leave it to people to accept right path or that of error. Those who accept right path are laying their hand on a firmest handle which will never break.
Thus both in Meccan and Madinian revelation Qur'an is firm about one thing, there cannot be any forcible imposition of religion, one can only show right path or warn about consequences of pursuing path of error and then leave it to the choice of the person concerned. Thus an individual and his/her conscience is at the centre of decision making. There is no mistaking about it.
The Meccans did not possess higher truth; they were immersed in superstition woven around various gods and goddesses on one hand, and, the upper class Meccan merchants were by and large hedonists – making super profits, enjoying life and hardly cared for morality and truth. The masses suffered due to poverty and neglect and found some solace in superstitious beliefs. The Qur'an tried to address this situation in Mecca and exhorted the Meccans to believe in revealed truth and not to consider this worldly life as an end in itself. The upper class Meccan merchants ridiculed the very idea of any revealed truth. Material pleasure was an end in itself for them.
However, there were other religions present in the area i.e. Judaism and Christianity. While Qur'an termed Meccans who possessed no higher truth as unbelievers (kafirs – literally those who hide truth) and Christians and Jews who possessed revealed scriptures as ahl al-Kitab (i.e. people of the book). The Qur'an accepts all Biblical prophets from Adam to Christ and those in between as prophets of Allah and calls them all either as anbiya' (plural of nabi – prophet) or rusul (plural of rasul – messenger).
In fact Qur'an requires Muslims to believe in all the prophets and forbids to believe in some and not to believe in others. Thus Qur'an says: "Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others; and desire to take a course in between – these are truly disbelievers and We have prepared for disbelievers an abasing chastisement." (4:150-51) that one should not make distinction between one prophet and the other is repeated in verses like 2:136, 2:285 and 3:86.
Thus Qur'an accepts truth content of all previous religions as this truth was brought by Allah's messengers. Thus Qur'an mentions various prophets by name in chapters like "The Family of al-Imran" (chapter 3), "Yunus", - Jonah (chapter 10), "Ibrahim – Abraham (chapter 14), "Al-Qasas", The Narrative (Chapter 28 and so on. The running thread of the Qur'an is the concept of what many Qur'anic scholars like Shah Waliyullah, Maulana Azad and others have called wahdat al-din i.e. unity of religions.
Shah Waliyullah has developed this concept in his opus magnum Hujjat Allah-i- al-Balighah 1 He extensively argues on the basis of various Qur'an which says, "To every nation We appointed acts of devotion; which they observe, so let them not dispute with thee in the matter, and call to thy Lord. Surely thou art on a right guidance." (22:61). This is again repeated in the verse 2:148 which says, "Everyone has a direction to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good deeds."
The clear implication of this verse is that there are different directions (and also different ways) of saying ones prayer. That is not the essence, it at best is symbolic. However, what is of substance is good deeds. Thus different communities may continue to pursue their ways and directions of prayer but what is more important is to excel each other in good deeds.
The Qur'an has expressed this in yet another way in verse 5:48 wherein it says: "For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds".
This verse clearly implies that Allah did not create all human beings as one community but created them as different sects and communities with distinct ways. If Allah had willed He could have created them all as one community but He did not do so to test them whether they can live in peace and harmony despite these differences and vie one with the other in good deeds.
Thus Qur'an clearly accepts plurality of religions and ways of life and different laws and treats it as a challenge for humanity to live and coexist with tolerance towards each other and strengthen forces of peace and moral order. Values and moral order is much more basic than differences of faith and devotion. So Qur'an in no way adopts hostile attitude towards other religions.
It also exhorts its followers "Abuse not those, whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people; have We made their deeds fair-seeming. (6:109)
In this verse Qur'an adopts very practical view towards other belief systems. It says one should not abuse those who worship other than Allah as they will also abuse Allah out of ignorance and thus it would lead to conflict or violence and spirit of coexistence will be destroyed. It then makes very important statement that for every people or community we have made their deeds fair-seeming i.e. every people think their way of belief and their way of living is best. Let everyone believe what they want to believe and all of you will ultimately return to Him and He will decide who was right and who was wrong.
This is very practical approach to maintain peace and promote coexistence in the world as world is plural and any belief system which exerts its superiority is bound to result in conflict. Each religion and religious belief system is unique. There may be outward differences but there is inward unity and it is this inward unity which is emphasized by the Qur'an on the basis that all religions have been brought by Allah's prophets and each people have their own law and their own road. According to ones hadith Allah has sent in all 1, 24000 prophets and he has sent His prophet's to all nations (13:7).
It is interesting to note that on the basis of the verse 13:7 many Sufi saints in India maintained that Allah must have sent His prophet's to India too. How can he forget a great country like India? Thus they concluded that Ram and Krishna who are highly revered in India might have been guides sent by Allah to Hindus. Mazhar Jan-i-Janan, a great Sufi saint of Qadiriya silsila in 18th century India had cogently argued that Hindus are monotheists as according to Hindu Shashtra (scriptures) Ishwar (god) is nirankar and nirgun (i.e. without shape and without attributes) and according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan it is highest form of tawheed (i.e. oneness of God) He also argues we should not take Hindus to be kafirs just because they worship idols.
He then argues that kafir is one who possesses no truth as pre-Islamic Arabs possessed none and refused to accept it when it was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and hence they were denounced as kafirs. But Hindus possess truth in the form of Bedas (Vedas) and Hindu scriptures do not prescribe idol worship. It is popular practice among Hindus who cannot conceive of abstract God and hence need idols to reach God who has no shape or attributes. Thus according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan these idols are like Sheikh for Sufis who act as a guide to reach God.2
Thus it is very helpful attitude for living together and respecting each others faith on the basis of inner unity of all religions. There were other religious thinkers in India who promoted mutual understanding. The most important thinker was Dara Shikoh who studied Hindu religion through its original sources. Dara Shikoh was a Moghul prince appointed as successor to the throne of India by his illustrious father Shah Jahan but ultimately lost to Aurangzeb, his brother who defeated Dara Shikoh and became Emperor of India.
Dara Shikoh translated The Upanishads from Sanskrit into Persian and named it Sirr-e-Akbar (The Great Mystery). He argued in this Persian translation that Hindus are monotheists and he said after Qur'an he found concept of tawheedi in Upanishads. He maintains that the Qur'anic verses 56:77-79 refer to Upanishads. He feels certain that the hidden book (kitab-i-maknun) is a reference to this very ancient book.3 Dara's Majma'ul Bahrayn is a classical work of Islam's engagement with other religions in India.
In this book Dara Shikoh compares religious terminology of Islam with Hinduism and conclusively shows that difference is of language, not of actual ideas behind it. He often refers to Hindus as muwahhidun-i-Hind i.e. monotheists of India. He says that mootheists of India also believe in qiyamat-i-kubra (i.e. the Great Day of Judgment) and in Hindu scriptures it is referred to as mahapralay. According to Dara Shikoh; Hindus also believe in heaven and hell and that after residing in heaven and hell mahapralay will occur. He also quotes verses from Qur'an like 72:9, 34:79, 68:39, 55:26-27 and 72:9 to prove his point.4
Dara Shikoh also compares the concept of mukti with the Sufi concept of fana fi' Allah i.e. annihilation in Allah as ultimate liberation and quotes the verse from Qur'an 72:9. He then throws detailed light on the concept of mukti (liberation) in Hindu religion and considers brahmanda (the Universe) as the God. According to him brahmanda in Islam is referred to as Alam-i-Kubra which manifestation of Allah.5
Thus there have been very positive efforts by some Muslim thinkers to engage with other religions. They upheld the Qur'anic spirit in this regard. While the Qur'an differs from Christians and Jews on certain crucial points, yet advises Muslims to engage with them in a manner which will promote understanding, not conflict. Thus Qur'an says, "And argue not with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) except by what is best." And this verse further emphasizes commonness among these religions when it says, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit." (29:46)
Again emphasizing commonness between Islam and people of the book, Qur'an says, "O People of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you, that we shall serve none but Allah and that we shall not associate aught with Him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah: bear witness. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness, we are Muslims.
The prophet wrote letters to Heraculeus in the year 6 A.H. (Bukhari 1:1) and similar letters were written to other potentates among whom was Muqauqis, the king of Egypt. According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, "In this verse the Jews and the Christians are called upon the basic principles of the faith of Islam. The reference in the sentence some of us shall not take others for lords is to the practice prevailing then among Jews and Christians, and at present among Muslims too, to take religious leaders as invested with Divine powers, which is more clearly enunciated in 9:31: 'They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah (9:31)".6
We find in Qur'an verse like 2:136 which states, "Say, we believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael and Issac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between an of them and to Him do we submit." (2:136)
This is very significant verse which shows commonness between these faiths and respect in which Muslims should hold all these prophets and are told not to make any distinction between one prophet and the other. It is part of their belief and one must act accordingly. Those who show any distinction cannot be true Muslims.
However, there are verses in the Qur'an which some can cite to show differences from Jews and Muslims and Christians too. Thus there is verse in the Qur'an which states regarding Jews, "Thou wilt certainly find the most violent of people in enmity against the believers to be the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt find nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, We are Christians. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud." (5:82)
Why Christians are described as friends and Jews as violent the reason is clearly explained. It is not because Jewish religion is more inimical to Islam and Christianity less so. Reason is more political struggle between Muslims and Jews. The Holy Prophet had tried his best to woe Jews when he migrated to Madina. He entered into a covenant with them and gave them full freedom to follow their own religion. He even prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. But Jews never took kindly to the Prophet or to the Muslims.
They saw Prophet and Muslims as those who were dominating Madina over which they had hegemony so far. The Meccan Muhajirs also were expert traders and the Jews feared these migrants will capture their trade. The Jews also often acted as arbiters between Aus and Khazraj, the two main tribes of Madina.
The Jews violated the covenant and conspired with the kuffar (unbelievers) of Mecca who attacked Madina. As per the covenant the Jews should have cooperated with the Muslims in defending Madina. Instead they helped Meccan kuffar and thus earned enmity with Muslims. On the other hand Christians so far had cooperated with Muslims. The Negus of Abyssinia had given refuge to Muslim migrants to Ethiopia before they migrated to Madina. Also, when a Christian delegation from Najran met the Prophet (PBUH) led by Abdul Masih, he (Prophet) met them inside his mosque and Prophet treated them with respect and in friendly way.
The verse also refers to Christian priests and monks who are not proud and always engaged in worshipping God and so there was no question of any clash in political sense. So controversy with Jews and calling them violent in enmity is not on account of their religion but on account of their socio-economic and political clash with Muslims in Madina. The Jews of Madina never extended hand of friendship towards Muslims despite all sincere efforts prophet made for friendship with them.
At one level the Qur'an treats all human beings on equal plane whatever their creed or colour or nation or tribe. It considers all as equally honourable. Thus a verse in Qur'an declares, "And surely We have honored the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We provide them with good things, and We have made them to excel highly most of those whom We have created." (17:70)
Here all human beings are equal. Qur'an also exhorts Muslims not to discriminate between people on any ground race, language, nation etc. All colours, languages and races are signs of God. Thus says the Qur'an "And of His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours." (30:22). Thus black colour is as much creation of Allah as white and Arabic as much as other languages. So no one should claim superiority over the other.
The Qur'an also takes very practical view that all human beings cannot believe in one religion or the other. They are bound to incline towards different faiths. It poses question to the prophet "If thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will thou then force them till they are believers?" (10:99). In another verse Qur'an puts the same thing little differently: May be thou will kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in this announcement." (18:6) Read these two above verses with "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and Qur'anic approach in plurality of faiths becomes very clear.
The Qur'an no where intends that all should accept Islam. It is not practical at all. Thus only way is to ensure freedom of faith, on one hand, and, coexistence, harmoniously, on the other. The truth of this assertion we are discovering in the contemporary world. Plurality of faiths is on the increase due mainly to economic migrations from poorer underdeveloped to highly developed nations.
Islam and Western World
At one time Europe and North America were mono-religious, mono cultural though Europe was multi-lingual. Today both Europe and North America have become multi-religious and they have developed theory of multi-culturalism as people of different religions and cultures are on the increase and they are substantial minorities in these regions now. The days of mono-religion are a history now.
Among others Muslims are the largest minority both in Europe and in North America. Naturally it leads to religious tensions. In European history there have been political clashes between Muslims and Christians. Crusades are part of European history and it is on account of these crusades that stereotype "sword in one hand and Qur'an in the other" persists in the European psyche even today. And thanks to the ongoing conflict between USA and the Middle East, this conflict has still not been resolved.
If anything it is getting exacerbated in recent times and 9/11 attack has further intensified it. The extremists among Muslims resort to violence in response to violence by the West in Middle East and it has become a vicious circle. Strong prejudices have been created against Islam in this region. The Muslim extremists invoke slogan of jihad (wrongly of course) to commit violence in western countries and this strengthens the stereotype that Islam is religion of violence and war and does not want to co-exist with other religions, especially Christianity.
We have seen above how wrong this impression is. But this is very widespread impression throughout non-Muslim world. What happens in history cannot be ascribed to Islam. I have already discussed in detail elsewhere7 that what happens in history is empirical reality, not religious truth and that religious teachings should be compared with religious teachings and history of religion with history of another religion and not with teachings of that religion.
Islam always coexisted with Judaism and Christianity peacefully on religious plane though there were clashes between Muslims and Christians in medieval ages (and not between Islam and Christianity). These clashes were among the ruling classes and not among Muslim and Christian masses. The Western press projects clash of interests as clash of religions and on the other hand, the Muslim 'fundamentalists'8 too make it appear as religious clash.
There is no clash of civilizations either as Prof. Huntington9 would like us to believe. The main thesis of Huntington is fundamentally based on wars and clashes between Christian and Muslim rulers, and not on clash of religious teachings. Even in medieval ages there were no clashes of religion, mostly clashes of empires – Christian and Muslim. Both Jews and Christians held important posts in Muslim administrations. Jews and Christians always lived in peace in Muslim countries though they were persecuted in Europe and were forced to live in ghettos. They never faced such persecution in Islamic countries.
Ahmed M.H.Shboul observes in his paper "Arab Islamic Perceptions of Byzantine Religion and culture", "Given the religio-political and military character of the rise of the Arab Islamic power, the sympathetic and tolerant attitude of Islam toward Christianity and Christians, and the actual history of the Arab-Byzantine military conflict, can one describe this conflict, during the period of the Arab conquest and after, as simply or even principally a religious conflict? It is my submission that such a description would be inaccurate and misleading." He then quotes Norman Daniel 'it is already to beg the question to speak of a religious war, before we have established that that is what it was.'"10
Mr. Ahmed further points out, referring to complex issues involved in Arab-Byzantine wars of conquest, “It is also true that Arab-Byzantine sources speak of economic, political, and tribal factors in this conflict. In a real sense, early Arab Islamic sources seem to depict the war more as a conflict between 'Arab and Byzantines' rather than; between 'Muslims and Christians' – a fact that is also confirmed by Syriac sources. At the practical level large numbers of Christian Arab warriors from Syria joined the Muslim armies against the Byzantines, while other Christians (and Samaritans) cooperated in several ways with the advancing Muslim Arabs.11
Thus we see even in medieval ages the wars fought between Christians and Muslims were not of religious but political and ethnic nature in which Christian Arabs cooperated with Muslim Arabs. We need to change erroneous perceptions of these wars between Christians and Muslims. It will have far reaching consequences for contemporary nature of conflict. Islam as a religion engages tolerantly and meaningfully with other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism.
Today a large number of Muslims live in Europe and North America. A substantial number of Muslims live as minority in the world, mostly under democratic dispensations. Thus there is great change between medieval and contemporary reality. In medieval ages Muslim empire was spread in large parts of the world and most of the Muslims lived under Islamic dispensation though there were some Muslims living in minority as well during those days.
Thus whole fiqh (jurisprudence) literature developed then by the Muslim jurists had its own context. Firstly Muslims were in majority. Secondly Muslims were rulers and Muslim regimes were monarchical and non-democratic. Thus whole corpus of fiqh in respect of Muslim and non-Muslim minorities must be reviewed and new fiqh should be evolved which should fit into new context. The concepts of darul harb (domain of war) and darul Islam (domain of peace) are totally outdated today.
The new fiqh has to be evolved keeping in mind democratic regime, on one hand, and on the other human rights and minority rights regimes, on the other. Our jurists should not mechanically repeat the opinion of medieval jurists who were working in very different context. They responded to various problems in the light of their own experience. We have to respond in the light of our own context.
The Quranic concept of ahl dhimma (people whose responsibility was on Muslim rulers for their safety) for the people of the book was very creative and responsible one. For these services to protect them, Qur'an suggested what is called jizyah (a levy for protection of the dhimmis). However, it does not hold any more. The very concept of ahl dhimma cannot be applied today in the changed context. The Qur'anic concept of dhimmi was contextual, not normative.
Today all minorities have been guaranteed equal political rights under the second generation of UNO charter of rights and international law. The new minority fiqh (jurisprudence) has to take this into account. Non-Muslim minorities are as much entitled to these rights as much as the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries like European countries, North America, India and several other countries.
The minority regime also guarantees religious and cultural rights. Of course under Qur'anic concept of ahl-dhimma also religious and cultural rights were guaranteed but not political rights. Now even political rights also have to be guaranteed. At one level, minorities are accorded full citizenship and in addition cultural and religious rights. Thus new minority fiqh has to take all this into account and Muslim countries also should make these rights available to their Christian or Jewish or other minorities.
At one level they all should be treated as citizens with full political rights and also they should be given full religious and cultural rights. Unfortunately in some Muslim states non-Muslim minorities do not enjoy full citizenship rights and though they are free to practice their religion they are still treated as secondary citizens. And in some Muslim countries they are not free to maintain their religious places or establish places of worship.
The Qur'an, on the other hand, wants all religious places to be equally protected and allowed to be flourished. It says, "Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. (22:40).
This the Qur'an guarantees perfect religious freedom not only of Muslims but of all other religions like Christianity and Judaism. Synagogues and churches should be protected along with the mosques. Minority rights must be guaranteed both when Muslims are a minority and when non-Muslims are in a minority. In medieval fiqh this spirit of Qur'anic injunction, clear as crystal, was lost more because of arrogance of power, than anything else.
In minority fiqh which I am suggesting this Qur'anic spirit needs to be revived. Large number of Muslims live as minority today in this globalised world and in most of the countries of West they enjoy equal citizenship rights. Islam today is flourishing in secular democratic countries though in practice there are some problems also.
Secular democracy has its own impact on laws and belief systems which have evolved under secular democracy. Thus secular democracy in western countries is impacting on Islam too. There is interesting parallel with communism. Communism also developed authoritarian system in Soviet Union. People did not enjoy basic freedoms. But communism in Europe was greatly influenced by democratic west and some communists developed the concept of Euro-communism which was more open and respectful of other systems and democratic in nature.
There is, similarly great need for developing concept of Euro-Islam which will respect pluralism, multi-culturalism and will be open to other faiths and would respect other faiths. It will also adjust itself to western way of life though not necessarily accept it. There is also question of practicing Shari'ah law. Most of the Muslims insist on practicing Shari'ah law as they have inherited. This creates complex problems.
The hijab controversy has rocked many European countries including France and England. French government has banned hijab in educational institutions which itself goes against concept of multi-culturalism, but Muslims also have to re-think some of their practices. In U.K., for example a school teacher refused to take off her niqab (which covered her face and only two eyes peeping out) even inside the class room insisting it is her religious belief.
This is simply not true. The Qur'an no where requires women to cover their face. It only insists on lowering the gaze and dress modestly (see 24:31). No Islamic jurists have insisted on covering face. All agree that face and hands could be kept open. At the most it is cultural practice developed in highly feudalized society and is being forced on their women folk.
In minority fiqh a review of such cultural practices which are practiced under religious garb, there should be re-think on these issues. No one suggests that Muslim women should adopt western way of dressing (which men have readily adopted without any Shar'I problems), but that they should go for modest dressing which will not make their sexuality focus of attention.
However, traditional Muslims go by opinion of certain jurists rather than by the injunctions of the Qur'an. The niqab is not at all in keeping with the Qur'anic injunction nor has it anything to do with Islamic teachings on sexual conduct. It is part of culture in certain Arab countries like Saudi Arabia which is mechanically imitated by Muslims in other countries as they think Saudi Arabia is a model Islamic state.
Such behavior creates problems between westerners and migrant culture. Of course, Europe and other western countries of North America have accepted multi-culturalism, and even religious pluralism, yet if one insists one would not go for any compromise or give and take spirit, tensions will arise between two cultures. One should not violate basic principles but should work for give and take.
In medieval fiqh there are surely feudal cultural elements which do not suit modern democratic culture based on human rights and women's rights. The new fiqh, if based only on normative Qur'anic injunctions is developed it will go a great way in accommodating modern values and Muslim women will have much greater latitude. In western society basic freedoms play very crucial role and medieval culture, being feudal, limits role of basic freedoms in life and imposes authoritarian culture, calling it 'divine'.
However, Euro-Islam will have to come to terms with role of basic freedoms in western society and shall have to develop a new fiqh fit for democratic culture. As Qur'an requires Muslims to respect other religions, it also requires them to respect other cultures, if they do not violate core Islamic morality. The Muslim intellectuals will have to play creative role in non-Muslim societies for developing its new fiqh.
In Muslim countries traditional 'ulama have great influence and hence it is very difficult to bring about any change but in European countries conditions are different. No doubt traditional 'ulama are being imported to these countries also and they deliver their traditional sermons in the mosques. And many Muslims do get influenced by these sermons and want to practice traditional Shari'ah.
Traditional Islam appeals to them for another reason also. That reason is sense of alienation and this sense of alienation pulls them back to their traditional native culture. Also racial attacks further aggravate this sense of alienation and it becomes very difficult to bring about accommodation between two different cultures. Of late political situation has also become quite hostile to Islam and Muslims.
Some Muslim youth are getting drawn to al-Qaeda network for very complex reasons and who are responsible for political policies towards Islamic world, particularly the Middle East. Today Islam is being equated with violence and fanaticism, thanks to these acts of violence.
The Qur'an lays great stress on wisdom so much so that it says, "And whoever is given wisdom, he indeed is given great good" (2:269) Why Muslims do not use wisdom to respond to the situation they are faced with? Responding with violence results in great loss of innocent lives and creates more hostility for them. You can match ability of western powers to use violence with bomb explosions here and there. It does no good at all. Instead if they use wisdom they can work to build favorable opinion in these countries and isolate the western rulers in the world opinion.
There are thousands of people in the western countries who oppose neo-imperialist wars by America. One must build on their support. By resorting to violence they earn media hostility too and in democratic era media make and unmake opinion. Wisdom lies using media sympathy through peaceful means. Thus there should be zero tolerance for violence. Wisdom lies in that.
The medieval Islamic fiqh lays more stress on jihad (through concept of jihad). Jihad also got distorted in the medieval environs wherein things were decided by sword and there was no concept of rights of people. This fiqh should be rejected and new fiqh should lay stress on peace and human rights. Peace is very central to Islam. Salam (peace) is integral to Islam as it is Allah's name also.
Thus in new fiqh salam, rahmah, hikmah and 'adl (peace, compassion, wisdom and justice) should be central values. And these values as integral part of new fiqh should be taught in all madrasas. These are most fundamental Qur'anic values. This will change entire image of Islam. It will be more humane and will command respect from its worst enemies. A new leadership should replace traditional ulama who will find difficult to develop new approach.
This might appear utopian to many but it is this Islam which will lead to honourable solution for our complex problems and will ensure peaceful coexistence in this war torn world due mainly to powerful American interests. But we should remember we strengthen American hands by responding through sporadic violence. Let us hope these ideas will generate response from new generation living in western countries.
----------------------------------------------------
1 - See chapter on "Essence of religions is one and laws and ways are different" in Shah Waliyullah Al-Hujjat al-Balighah (Deoband, India, nd) vol. I. pp-212-216.
2 - see Mirza Jan-i-Janan ke Khutut tr. From Persian into Urdu by Khaliq Anjm (Deli, 1989) pp-131. And also see pp- 131-34.
3 - See Introduction to Dara Shikoh's Majma'ul Bahrayn (Co-mingling of Two Oceans) by M.Mahfuz al-Haq (reprinted by The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1982), pp-13
4 - See Asghar Ali Engineer "A Muslim View of Hinduism" presented at a seminar in Glasgow University, Scotland (to be published in a book soon)
5 - Majma'ul Bahrayn op.cit. pp-106-107 quoted in Asghar Ali Engineer ibid.
6 -The Holy Qur'an tr. By Maulana Muhammad Ali (Lahore, Pakistan 1973) pp-150, footnote 446.
7 -see "Islam as Religion and Islam as History" in Islam and Modern Age vol. X. No.4 April 2007.
8 - Here I am using 'fundamentalism' in the pejorative sense in which western media uses though in Islam fundamentalism has positive connotation.
9 - Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (Penguin Books,1996).
10 - see Jacque Waardenburg ed. Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions – A Historical Survey (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp-125.
11 - quoted from Azdi Futuh al-Sham, pp-111 and 130 in "Arab Islamic perceptions of Byzantine Religion and Culture" pp-126.
Islam is being projected as intolerant of other faiths. This perception of Islam is based on certain selected events, not on Qur'anic teachings or Prophet's ahadith. It is one thing to judge a religion by its teachings and another to see it in the light of some instances of intolerance by some individuals. Also, such events are picked up selectively to suit certain assumptions, often politically motivated.
First of all it is necessary to closely study the Qur'anic position both normative and contextual. Then we have to study certain historical event of tolerance or intolerance, also in proper historical context. Also, one has to study the Qur'anic approach of engaging with other religions. What Qur'an emphasizes as common with other religions and what it differs with. Does it find anything in common with other religions or totally rejects them? And what is its position where it totally rejects any religion?
Qur'an and other Religions
Qur'an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in two cities Mecca and Madina. The revelations began in Mecca and ended in Madina. Mecca was an international trade centre of great significance in that area and the main tribes of Mecca, particularly the Quraysh, a leading tribe of Mecca, was among those carrying on trade with Roman Empire who pursued Christianity. Then in Madina and in some other parts of Arabia, there were Jews. Thus Arabs were in touch with these two great Biblical religions. Arabs, for various reasons, had refrained from adopting these religions, though few Arabs on border region had embraced Christianity in its monophysite form, one different from Roman version.
In Mecca of course there were no Christians or Jews. The Meccan Arabs were all idol worshippers, having no revealed truth or scripture. The Prophet (PBUH) was also borne and brought up in Mecca. He seems to have instinctively rejected idol worship and began to meditate in the cave of Hira in search of truth when he receives revelation and he proclaims himself as the Prophet of Allah (Rasulallah or Messenger of Allah). He faced stiff opposition from his own tribe and his own close relatives.
However, he was deeply committed to his mission and readily faces severe persecution from his opponents. Despite this he proposes to his persecutors that "for you is your religion and for me is mine" (109:6). Thus Qur'an never imposed anything on unwilling hearts. It also pronounces same principle in surah revealed in Madina, "There is no compulsion in religion – the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break.(2:256)
Thus the Qur'an lays down a principle here: there is no compulsion in religion. Religion has something to do with ones heart and soul and appeals to ones inner conscience; and thus can never be imposed. All Qur'an does is to make right path distinct from path of error and leave it to people to accept right path or that of error. Those who accept right path are laying their hand on a firmest handle which will never break.
Thus both in Meccan and Madinian revelation Qur'an is firm about one thing, there cannot be any forcible imposition of religion, one can only show right path or warn about consequences of pursuing path of error and then leave it to the choice of the person concerned. Thus an individual and his/her conscience is at the centre of decision making. There is no mistaking about it.
The Meccans did not possess higher truth; they were immersed in superstition woven around various gods and goddesses on one hand, and, the upper class Meccan merchants were by and large hedonists – making super profits, enjoying life and hardly cared for morality and truth. The masses suffered due to poverty and neglect and found some solace in superstitious beliefs. The Qur'an tried to address this situation in Mecca and exhorted the Meccans to believe in revealed truth and not to consider this worldly life as an end in itself. The upper class Meccan merchants ridiculed the very idea of any revealed truth. Material pleasure was an end in itself for them.
However, there were other religions present in the area i.e. Judaism and Christianity. While Qur'an termed Meccans who possessed no higher truth as unbelievers (kafirs – literally those who hide truth) and Christians and Jews who possessed revealed scriptures as ahl al-Kitab (i.e. people of the book). The Qur'an accepts all Biblical prophets from Adam to Christ and those in between as prophets of Allah and calls them all either as anbiya' (plural of nabi – prophet) or rusul (plural of rasul – messenger).
In fact Qur'an requires Muslims to believe in all the prophets and forbids to believe in some and not to believe in others. Thus Qur'an says: "Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others; and desire to take a course in between – these are truly disbelievers and We have prepared for disbelievers an abasing chastisement." (4:150-51) that one should not make distinction between one prophet and the other is repeated in verses like 2:136, 2:285 and 3:86.
Thus Qur'an accepts truth content of all previous religions as this truth was brought by Allah's messengers. Thus Qur'an mentions various prophets by name in chapters like "The Family of al-Imran" (chapter 3), "Yunus", - Jonah (chapter 10), "Ibrahim – Abraham (chapter 14), "Al-Qasas", The Narrative (Chapter 28 and so on. The running thread of the Qur'an is the concept of what many Qur'anic scholars like Shah Waliyullah, Maulana Azad and others have called wahdat al-din i.e. unity of religions.
Shah Waliyullah has developed this concept in his opus magnum Hujjat Allah-i- al-Balighah 1 He extensively argues on the basis of various Qur'an which says, "To every nation We appointed acts of devotion; which they observe, so let them not dispute with thee in the matter, and call to thy Lord. Surely thou art on a right guidance." (22:61). This is again repeated in the verse 2:148 which says, "Everyone has a direction to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good deeds."
The clear implication of this verse is that there are different directions (and also different ways) of saying ones prayer. That is not the essence, it at best is symbolic. However, what is of substance is good deeds. Thus different communities may continue to pursue their ways and directions of prayer but what is more important is to excel each other in good deeds.
The Qur'an has expressed this in yet another way in verse 5:48 wherein it says: "For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds".
This verse clearly implies that Allah did not create all human beings as one community but created them as different sects and communities with distinct ways. If Allah had willed He could have created them all as one community but He did not do so to test them whether they can live in peace and harmony despite these differences and vie one with the other in good deeds.
Thus Qur'an clearly accepts plurality of religions and ways of life and different laws and treats it as a challenge for humanity to live and coexist with tolerance towards each other and strengthen forces of peace and moral order. Values and moral order is much more basic than differences of faith and devotion. So Qur'an in no way adopts hostile attitude towards other religions.
It also exhorts its followers "Abuse not those, whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people; have We made their deeds fair-seeming. (6:109)
In this verse Qur'an adopts very practical view towards other belief systems. It says one should not abuse those who worship other than Allah as they will also abuse Allah out of ignorance and thus it would lead to conflict or violence and spirit of coexistence will be destroyed. It then makes very important statement that for every people or community we have made their deeds fair-seeming i.e. every people think their way of belief and their way of living is best. Let everyone believe what they want to believe and all of you will ultimately return to Him and He will decide who was right and who was wrong.
This is very practical approach to maintain peace and promote coexistence in the world as world is plural and any belief system which exerts its superiority is bound to result in conflict. Each religion and religious belief system is unique. There may be outward differences but there is inward unity and it is this inward unity which is emphasized by the Qur'an on the basis that all religions have been brought by Allah's prophets and each people have their own law and their own road. According to ones hadith Allah has sent in all 1, 24000 prophets and he has sent His prophet's to all nations (13:7).
It is interesting to note that on the basis of the verse 13:7 many Sufi saints in India maintained that Allah must have sent His prophet's to India too. How can he forget a great country like India? Thus they concluded that Ram and Krishna who are highly revered in India might have been guides sent by Allah to Hindus. Mazhar Jan-i-Janan, a great Sufi saint of Qadiriya silsila in 18th century India had cogently argued that Hindus are monotheists as according to Hindu Shashtra (scriptures) Ishwar (god) is nirankar and nirgun (i.e. without shape and without attributes) and according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan it is highest form of tawheed (i.e. oneness of God) He also argues we should not take Hindus to be kafirs just because they worship idols.
He then argues that kafir is one who possesses no truth as pre-Islamic Arabs possessed none and refused to accept it when it was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and hence they were denounced as kafirs. But Hindus possess truth in the form of Bedas (Vedas) and Hindu scriptures do not prescribe idol worship. It is popular practice among Hindus who cannot conceive of abstract God and hence need idols to reach God who has no shape or attributes. Thus according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan these idols are like Sheikh for Sufis who act as a guide to reach God.2
Thus it is very helpful attitude for living together and respecting each others faith on the basis of inner unity of all religions. There were other religious thinkers in India who promoted mutual understanding. The most important thinker was Dara Shikoh who studied Hindu religion through its original sources. Dara Shikoh was a Moghul prince appointed as successor to the throne of India by his illustrious father Shah Jahan but ultimately lost to Aurangzeb, his brother who defeated Dara Shikoh and became Emperor of India.
Dara Shikoh translated The Upanishads from Sanskrit into Persian and named it Sirr-e-Akbar (The Great Mystery). He argued in this Persian translation that Hindus are monotheists and he said after Qur'an he found concept of tawheedi in Upanishads. He maintains that the Qur'anic verses 56:77-79 refer to Upanishads. He feels certain that the hidden book (kitab-i-maknun) is a reference to this very ancient book.3 Dara's Majma'ul Bahrayn is a classical work of Islam's engagement with other religions in India.
In this book Dara Shikoh compares religious terminology of Islam with Hinduism and conclusively shows that difference is of language, not of actual ideas behind it. He often refers to Hindus as muwahhidun-i-Hind i.e. monotheists of India. He says that mootheists of India also believe in qiyamat-i-kubra (i.e. the Great Day of Judgment) and in Hindu scriptures it is referred to as mahapralay. According to Dara Shikoh; Hindus also believe in heaven and hell and that after residing in heaven and hell mahapralay will occur. He also quotes verses from Qur'an like 72:9, 34:79, 68:39, 55:26-27 and 72:9 to prove his point.4
Dara Shikoh also compares the concept of mukti with the Sufi concept of fana fi' Allah i.e. annihilation in Allah as ultimate liberation and quotes the verse from Qur'an 72:9. He then throws detailed light on the concept of mukti (liberation) in Hindu religion and considers brahmanda (the Universe) as the God. According to him brahmanda in Islam is referred to as Alam-i-Kubra which manifestation of Allah.5
Thus there have been very positive efforts by some Muslim thinkers to engage with other religions. They upheld the Qur'anic spirit in this regard. While the Qur'an differs from Christians and Jews on certain crucial points, yet advises Muslims to engage with them in a manner which will promote understanding, not conflict. Thus Qur'an says, "And argue not with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) except by what is best." And this verse further emphasizes commonness among these religions when it says, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit." (29:46)
Again emphasizing commonness between Islam and people of the book, Qur'an says, "O People of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you, that we shall serve none but Allah and that we shall not associate aught with Him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah: bear witness. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness, we are Muslims.
The prophet wrote letters to Heraculeus in the year 6 A.H. (Bukhari 1:1) and similar letters were written to other potentates among whom was Muqauqis, the king of Egypt. According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, "In this verse the Jews and the Christians are called upon the basic principles of the faith of Islam. The reference in the sentence some of us shall not take others for lords is to the practice prevailing then among Jews and Christians, and at present among Muslims too, to take religious leaders as invested with Divine powers, which is more clearly enunciated in 9:31: 'They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah (9:31)".6
We find in Qur'an verse like 2:136 which states, "Say, we believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael and Issac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between an of them and to Him do we submit." (2:136)
This is very significant verse which shows commonness between these faiths and respect in which Muslims should hold all these prophets and are told not to make any distinction between one prophet and the other. It is part of their belief and one must act accordingly. Those who show any distinction cannot be true Muslims.
However, there are verses in the Qur'an which some can cite to show differences from Jews and Muslims and Christians too. Thus there is verse in the Qur'an which states regarding Jews, "Thou wilt certainly find the most violent of people in enmity against the believers to be the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt find nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, We are Christians. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud." (5:82)
Why Christians are described as friends and Jews as violent the reason is clearly explained. It is not because Jewish religion is more inimical to Islam and Christianity less so. Reason is more political struggle between Muslims and Jews. The Holy Prophet had tried his best to woe Jews when he migrated to Madina. He entered into a covenant with them and gave them full freedom to follow their own religion. He even prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. But Jews never took kindly to the Prophet or to the Muslims.
They saw Prophet and Muslims as those who were dominating Madina over which they had hegemony so far. The Meccan Muhajirs also were expert traders and the Jews feared these migrants will capture their trade. The Jews also often acted as arbiters between Aus and Khazraj, the two main tribes of Madina.
The Jews violated the covenant and conspired with the kuffar (unbelievers) of Mecca who attacked Madina. As per the covenant the Jews should have cooperated with the Muslims in defending Madina. Instead they helped Meccan kuffar and thus earned enmity with Muslims. On the other hand Christians so far had cooperated with Muslims. The Negus of Abyssinia had given refuge to Muslim migrants to Ethiopia before they migrated to Madina. Also, when a Christian delegation from Najran met the Prophet (PBUH) led by Abdul Masih, he (Prophet) met them inside his mosque and Prophet treated them with respect and in friendly way.
The verse also refers to Christian priests and monks who are not proud and always engaged in worshipping God and so there was no question of any clash in political sense. So controversy with Jews and calling them violent in enmity is not on account of their religion but on account of their socio-economic and political clash with Muslims in Madina. The Jews of Madina never extended hand of friendship towards Muslims despite all sincere efforts prophet made for friendship with them.
At one level the Qur'an treats all human beings on equal plane whatever their creed or colour or nation or tribe. It considers all as equally honourable. Thus a verse in Qur'an declares, "And surely We have honored the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We provide them with good things, and We have made them to excel highly most of those whom We have created." (17:70)
Here all human beings are equal. Qur'an also exhorts Muslims not to discriminate between people on any ground race, language, nation etc. All colours, languages and races are signs of God. Thus says the Qur'an "And of His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours." (30:22). Thus black colour is as much creation of Allah as white and Arabic as much as other languages. So no one should claim superiority over the other.
The Qur'an also takes very practical view that all human beings cannot believe in one religion or the other. They are bound to incline towards different faiths. It poses question to the prophet "If thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will thou then force them till they are believers?" (10:99). In another verse Qur'an puts the same thing little differently: May be thou will kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in this announcement." (18:6) Read these two above verses with "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) and Qur'anic approach in plurality of faiths becomes very clear.
The Qur'an no where intends that all should accept Islam. It is not practical at all. Thus only way is to ensure freedom of faith, on one hand, and, coexistence, harmoniously, on the other. The truth of this assertion we are discovering in the contemporary world. Plurality of faiths is on the increase due mainly to economic migrations from poorer underdeveloped to highly developed nations.
Islam and Western World
At one time Europe and North America were mono-religious, mono cultural though Europe was multi-lingual. Today both Europe and North America have become multi-religious and they have developed theory of multi-culturalism as people of different religions and cultures are on the increase and they are substantial minorities in these regions now. The days of mono-religion are a history now.
Among others Muslims are the largest minority both in Europe and in North America. Naturally it leads to religious tensions. In European history there have been political clashes between Muslims and Christians. Crusades are part of European history and it is on account of these crusades that stereotype "sword in one hand and Qur'an in the other" persists in the European psyche even today. And thanks to the ongoing conflict between USA and the Middle East, this conflict has still not been resolved.
If anything it is getting exacerbated in recent times and 9/11 attack has further intensified it. The extremists among Muslims resort to violence in response to violence by the West in Middle East and it has become a vicious circle. Strong prejudices have been created against Islam in this region. The Muslim extremists invoke slogan of jihad (wrongly of course) to commit violence in western countries and this strengthens the stereotype that Islam is religion of violence and war and does not want to co-exist with other religions, especially Christianity.
We have seen above how wrong this impression is. But this is very widespread impression throughout non-Muslim world. What happens in history cannot be ascribed to Islam. I have already discussed in detail elsewhere7 that what happens in history is empirical reality, not religious truth and that religious teachings should be compared with religious teachings and history of religion with history of another religion and not with teachings of that religion.
Islam always coexisted with Judaism and Christianity peacefully on religious plane though there were clashes between Muslims and Christians in medieval ages (and not between Islam and Christianity). These clashes were among the ruling classes and not among Muslim and Christian masses. The Western press projects clash of interests as clash of religions and on the other hand, the Muslim 'fundamentalists'8 too make it appear as religious clash.
There is no clash of civilizations either as Prof. Huntington9 would like us to believe. The main thesis of Huntington is fundamentally based on wars and clashes between Christian and Muslim rulers, and not on clash of religious teachings. Even in medieval ages there were no clashes of religion, mostly clashes of empires – Christian and Muslim. Both Jews and Christians held important posts in Muslim administrations. Jews and Christians always lived in peace in Muslim countries though they were persecuted in Europe and were forced to live in ghettos. They never faced such persecution in Islamic countries.
Ahmed M.H.Shboul observes in his paper "Arab Islamic Perceptions of Byzantine Religion and culture", "Given the religio-political and military character of the rise of the Arab Islamic power, the sympathetic and tolerant attitude of Islam toward Christianity and Christians, and the actual history of the Arab-Byzantine military conflict, can one describe this conflict, during the period of the Arab conquest and after, as simply or even principally a religious conflict? It is my submission that such a description would be inaccurate and misleading." He then quotes Norman Daniel 'it is already to beg the question to speak of a religious war, before we have established that that is what it was.'"10
Mr. Ahmed further points out, referring to complex issues involved in Arab-Byzantine wars of conquest, “It is also true that Arab-Byzantine sources speak of economic, political, and tribal factors in this conflict. In a real sense, early Arab Islamic sources seem to depict the war more as a conflict between 'Arab and Byzantines' rather than; between 'Muslims and Christians' – a fact that is also confirmed by Syriac sources. At the practical level large numbers of Christian Arab warriors from Syria joined the Muslim armies against the Byzantines, while other Christians (and Samaritans) cooperated in several ways with the advancing Muslim Arabs.11
Thus we see even in medieval ages the wars fought between Christians and Muslims were not of religious but political and ethnic nature in which Christian Arabs cooperated with Muslim Arabs. We need to change erroneous perceptions of these wars between Christians and Muslims. It will have far reaching consequences for contemporary nature of conflict. Islam as a religion engages tolerantly and meaningfully with other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism.
Today a large number of Muslims live in Europe and North America. A substantial number of Muslims live as minority in the world, mostly under democratic dispensations. Thus there is great change between medieval and contemporary reality. In medieval ages Muslim empire was spread in large parts of the world and most of the Muslims lived under Islamic dispensation though there were some Muslims living in minority as well during those days.
Thus whole fiqh (jurisprudence) literature developed then by the Muslim jurists had its own context. Firstly Muslims were in majority. Secondly Muslims were rulers and Muslim regimes were monarchical and non-democratic. Thus whole corpus of fiqh in respect of Muslim and non-Muslim minorities must be reviewed and new fiqh should be evolved which should fit into new context. The concepts of darul harb (domain of war) and darul Islam (domain of peace) are totally outdated today.
The new fiqh has to be evolved keeping in mind democratic regime, on one hand, and on the other human rights and minority rights regimes, on the other. Our jurists should not mechanically repeat the opinion of medieval jurists who were working in very different context. They responded to various problems in the light of their own experience. We have to respond in the light of our own context.
The Quranic concept of ahl dhimma (people whose responsibility was on Muslim rulers for their safety) for the people of the book was very creative and responsible one. For these services to protect them, Qur'an suggested what is called jizyah (a levy for protection of the dhimmis). However, it does not hold any more. The very concept of ahl dhimma cannot be applied today in the changed context. The Qur'anic concept of dhimmi was contextual, not normative.
Today all minorities have been guaranteed equal political rights under the second generation of UNO charter of rights and international law. The new minority fiqh (jurisprudence) has to take this into account. Non-Muslim minorities are as much entitled to these rights as much as the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries like European countries, North America, India and several other countries.
The minority regime also guarantees religious and cultural rights. Of course under Qur'anic concept of ahl-dhimma also religious and cultural rights were guaranteed but not political rights. Now even political rights also have to be guaranteed. At one level, minorities are accorded full citizenship and in addition cultural and religious rights. Thus new minority fiqh has to take all this into account and Muslim countries also should make these rights available to their Christian or Jewish or other minorities.
At one level they all should be treated as citizens with full political rights and also they should be given full religious and cultural rights. Unfortunately in some Muslim states non-Muslim minorities do not enjoy full citizenship rights and though they are free to practice their religion they are still treated as secondary citizens. And in some Muslim countries they are not free to maintain their religious places or establish places of worship.
The Qur'an, on the other hand, wants all religious places to be equally protected and allowed to be flourished. It says, "Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. (22:40).
This the Qur'an guarantees perfect religious freedom not only of Muslims but of all other religions like Christianity and Judaism. Synagogues and churches should be protected along with the mosques. Minority rights must be guaranteed both when Muslims are a minority and when non-Muslims are in a minority. In medieval fiqh this spirit of Qur'anic injunction, clear as crystal, was lost more because of arrogance of power, than anything else.
In minority fiqh which I am suggesting this Qur'anic spirit needs to be revived. Large number of Muslims live as minority today in this globalised world and in most of the countries of West they enjoy equal citizenship rights. Islam today is flourishing in secular democratic countries though in practice there are some problems also.
Secular democracy has its own impact on laws and belief systems which have evolved under secular democracy. Thus secular democracy in western countries is impacting on Islam too. There is interesting parallel with communism. Communism also developed authoritarian system in Soviet Union. People did not enjoy basic freedoms. But communism in Europe was greatly influenced by democratic west and some communists developed the concept of Euro-communism which was more open and respectful of other systems and democratic in nature.
There is, similarly great need for developing concept of Euro-Islam which will respect pluralism, multi-culturalism and will be open to other faiths and would respect other faiths. It will also adjust itself to western way of life though not necessarily accept it. There is also question of practicing Shari'ah law. Most of the Muslims insist on practicing Shari'ah law as they have inherited. This creates complex problems.
The hijab controversy has rocked many European countries including France and England. French government has banned hijab in educational institutions which itself goes against concept of multi-culturalism, but Muslims also have to re-think some of their practices. In U.K., for example a school teacher refused to take off her niqab (which covered her face and only two eyes peeping out) even inside the class room insisting it is her religious belief.
This is simply not true. The Qur'an no where requires women to cover their face. It only insists on lowering the gaze and dress modestly (see 24:31). No Islamic jurists have insisted on covering face. All agree that face and hands could be kept open. At the most it is cultural practice developed in highly feudalized society and is being forced on their women folk.
In minority fiqh a review of such cultural practices which are practiced under religious garb, there should be re-think on these issues. No one suggests that Muslim women should adopt western way of dressing (which men have readily adopted without any Shar'I problems), but that they should go for modest dressing which will not make their sexuality focus of attention.
However, traditional Muslims go by opinion of certain jurists rather than by the injunctions of the Qur'an. The niqab is not at all in keeping with the Qur'anic injunction nor has it anything to do with Islamic teachings on sexual conduct. It is part of culture in certain Arab countries like Saudi Arabia which is mechanically imitated by Muslims in other countries as they think Saudi Arabia is a model Islamic state.
Such behavior creates problems between westerners and migrant culture. Of course, Europe and other western countries of North America have accepted multi-culturalism, and even religious pluralism, yet if one insists one would not go for any compromise or give and take spirit, tensions will arise between two cultures. One should not violate basic principles but should work for give and take.
In medieval fiqh there are surely feudal cultural elements which do not suit modern democratic culture based on human rights and women's rights. The new fiqh, if based only on normative Qur'anic injunctions is developed it will go a great way in accommodating modern values and Muslim women will have much greater latitude. In western society basic freedoms play very crucial role and medieval culture, being feudal, limits role of basic freedoms in life and imposes authoritarian culture, calling it 'divine'.
However, Euro-Islam will have to come to terms with role of basic freedoms in western society and shall have to develop a new fiqh fit for democratic culture. As Qur'an requires Muslims to respect other religions, it also requires them to respect other cultures, if they do not violate core Islamic morality. The Muslim intellectuals will have to play creative role in non-Muslim societies for developing its new fiqh.
In Muslim countries traditional 'ulama have great influence and hence it is very difficult to bring about any change but in European countries conditions are different. No doubt traditional 'ulama are being imported to these countries also and they deliver their traditional sermons in the mosques. And many Muslims do get influenced by these sermons and want to practice traditional Shari'ah.
Traditional Islam appeals to them for another reason also. That reason is sense of alienation and this sense of alienation pulls them back to their traditional native culture. Also racial attacks further aggravate this sense of alienation and it becomes very difficult to bring about accommodation between two different cultures. Of late political situation has also become quite hostile to Islam and Muslims.
Some Muslim youth are getting drawn to al-Qaeda network for very complex reasons and who are responsible for political policies towards Islamic world, particularly the Middle East. Today Islam is being equated with violence and fanaticism, thanks to these acts of violence.
The Qur'an lays great stress on wisdom so much so that it says, "And whoever is given wisdom, he indeed is given great good" (2:269) Why Muslims do not use wisdom to respond to the situation they are faced with? Responding with violence results in great loss of innocent lives and creates more hostility for them. You can match ability of western powers to use violence with bomb explosions here and there. It does no good at all. Instead if they use wisdom they can work to build favorable opinion in these countries and isolate the western rulers in the world opinion.
There are thousands of people in the western countries who oppose neo-imperialist wars by America. One must build on their support. By resorting to violence they earn media hostility too and in democratic era media make and unmake opinion. Wisdom lies using media sympathy through peaceful means. Thus there should be zero tolerance for violence. Wisdom lies in that.
The medieval Islamic fiqh lays more stress on jihad (through concept of jihad). Jihad also got distorted in the medieval environs wherein things were decided by sword and there was no concept of rights of people. This fiqh should be rejected and new fiqh should lay stress on peace and human rights. Peace is very central to Islam. Salam (peace) is integral to Islam as it is Allah's name also.
Thus in new fiqh salam, rahmah, hikmah and 'adl (peace, compassion, wisdom and justice) should be central values. And these values as integral part of new fiqh should be taught in all madrasas. These are most fundamental Qur'anic values. This will change entire image of Islam. It will be more humane and will command respect from its worst enemies. A new leadership should replace traditional ulama who will find difficult to develop new approach.
This might appear utopian to many but it is this Islam which will lead to honourable solution for our complex problems and will ensure peaceful coexistence in this war torn world due mainly to powerful American interests. But we should remember we strengthen American hands by responding through sporadic violence. Let us hope these ideas will generate response from new generation living in western countries.
----------------------------------------------------
1 - See chapter on "Essence of religions is one and laws and ways are different" in Shah Waliyullah Al-Hujjat al-Balighah (Deoband, India, nd) vol. I. pp-212-216.
2 - see Mirza Jan-i-Janan ke Khutut tr. From Persian into Urdu by Khaliq Anjm (Deli, 1989) pp-131. And also see pp- 131-34.
3 - See Introduction to Dara Shikoh's Majma'ul Bahrayn (Co-mingling of Two Oceans) by M.Mahfuz al-Haq (reprinted by The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1982), pp-13
4 - See Asghar Ali Engineer "A Muslim View of Hinduism" presented at a seminar in Glasgow University, Scotland (to be published in a book soon)
5 - Majma'ul Bahrayn op.cit. pp-106-107 quoted in Asghar Ali Engineer ibid.
6 -The Holy Qur'an tr. By Maulana Muhammad Ali (Lahore, Pakistan 1973) pp-150, footnote 446.
7 -see "Islam as Religion and Islam as History" in Islam and Modern Age vol. X. No.4 April 2007.
8 - Here I am using 'fundamentalism' in the pejorative sense in which western media uses though in Islam fundamentalism has positive connotation.
9 - Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (Penguin Books,1996).
10 - see Jacque Waardenburg ed. Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions – A Historical Survey (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp-125.
11 - quoted from Azdi Futuh al-Sham, pp-111 and 130 in "Arab Islamic perceptions of Byzantine Religion and Culture" pp-126.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)