Continue reading »]]> Saturday, December 31, 2011

LAHORE

AN NGO held a three-day Interfaith Harmony Camp at St Anthony’s High School, Lawrence Road, Lahore.

The camp was aimed at enabling young students of three religions to develop mutual understanding and trust among each other. A group of 60 students aged 14-16 years from Muslim, Christian and Sikh religions participated in the camp.

“Through this, we hope to promote a sense of harmony, tolerance, co-existence and respect in these young minds”, said Tooba Fatima, the camp manager.

The students from 14 private and government schools of Lahore and one school of Nankana Sahib participated in the camp, attending various creative and educational activities. The participants played team games and met group challenges while dialogues were held among them which explored the similarities among all religions.

During the dialogues sessions, the students explored the similarities among all religions and used some time to share basic values, customs and celebrations that each religion holds as important.

The acting Consulate General of the US Consulate, Lahore, Ted Gehr and Public Affairs Officer Brinille Ellis distributed the certificates of participation among the campers and appreciated the efforts of the NGO for promoting peace.

Sajjad Ahmad, country director of the NGO, thanked the audiences, their parents and the young members of the organization to create this opportunity for the students who rarely had such an opportunity in their lives to spend three days together.

source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=85011&Cat=5&dt=12/31/2011

Continue reading »]]> -THE OTTAWACITIZEN.com

NOVEMBER 27, 2011

Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario.

It hasn’t always been fashionable to consider seriously faiths other than one’s own. My co-worker remembers telling a friend and church-mate that she was soon to marry but not in their small-town church. In total surprise, the friend asked of the groom, “Well, what is he then?” In their one-church community, it seemed unimaginable that someone might worship elsewhere. Now, in our increasingly diverse nation, we are all usually members of one or another minority faith, and “What is he?” is more often the default question.

The Christian-Buddhist dialogue movement has grown over the past few decades, as these different faiths recognize the benefit of learning from each other. In Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue, Perry Schmidt-Leukel proposes three phases of interfaith engagement. At the lowest and least useful level, the one most like adolescent high-school debates, each side presents their faith. They analyse, criticize and challenge (even mock or condemn) the other, trying to prove how their faith is vastly superior. Claims of superior logic on one hand or supreme power of one’s “book” on the other, keeps both sides from really learning much. The next level is where the mocking or combative element disappears and there is some attempt to learn, but always from the safe assumption that “my faith is the true one.” This is mere tolerance. The third and most useful kind of interfaith dialogue is open to gaining new insights about one`s own faith by practising and studying with others in their faith. This Schmidt-Leukel describes as “the challenge of mutual transformation.”

Interfaith dialogue will improve when the participants in that dialogue move beyond self-promotion and self-defence. The entire project of faith activity is one of opening ourselves up to new and deeper understandings, and in that there can be little room for the kind of smug defensiveness or bitter attacks that hobble too many contemporary interfaith endeavours. Doubt, risk, open investigation at the intellectual level and sincere, respectful sharing at the spiritual level belong in religious dialogue. A closed mind and a closed heart are signs of spiritual stagnation, not vitality.

Rev. GEOFFREY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Ottawa.

Genuine interfaith dialogue hinges on respecting the freedom of the participants to hold their respective beliefs. It is not about trying to synthesize a “common religion” out of the beliefs of different communities because to have a genuine dialogue everyone must be prepared to respect each community’s teachings. Interfaith dialogue fails when participants try to use it as an opportunity to “convert” their dialogue partners. In 1984, Professor Leonard Swidler of Temple University wrote an article in which he outlined “Ten Commandments” of interfaith dialogue. The first rule gives a foundation upon which to have productive dialogue: “The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn; that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20:1, 1984). Each of his remaining commandments highlights the need for mutual respect and a genuine desire to learn from each other without an ulterior motive. In areas of the world where one faith is endorsed as the sole state religion and where other faiths are persecuted or repressed, there is little possibility for dialogue or interfaith understanding and respect. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us “the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person” (CCC n. 1738). To improve interfaith dialogue we need to recognize the fundamental human right to freedom of religion and we must pray for the grace to encourage honesty, mutual respect and a genuine desire to learn from one another about our respective beliefs.

ABDUL RASHID is a member of the Ottawa Muslim community, the Christian-Muslim Dialogue and the Capital Region Interfaith Council.

The Creator of humanity blessed it with the unique faculty of speech (Holy Qur’ãn, 55:4). It provides us with the ability to talk, explain our points of view to each other and understand our differences and commonalities. This is what the various forms of interfaith dialogues across the world are engaged in.

There are regular meetings and dialogues taking place between various faith groups at the local, regional and international levels. Canada can take pride in the establishment of an Interfaith Parliamentary Friendship Group. It holds an annual breakfast in which members of various faith groups, diplomatic corps and Parliament take part. Our City is rich in promoting several interfaith groups. Just last month, there was an interfaith prayer service where 17 faith groups participated.

The Holy Qur’ãn informs us that human diversity is Divinely-ordained (30:22). And, in respect of differences of faith and belief, the Qur’ãn tells us that “if God had so willed, He would have made you a single people but (His Plan is) to test in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues” (5:51).

The various faith groups, while loyal to their own faith teachings, have found a common core. When we study the scriptures of different faiths, we find that the conceptual framework underlying them is, if not identical, very similar. All human beings are the creation of the same God and we all share responsibility to provide care to them irrespective of colour, caste or creed.

Our world has become global, which is the common abode of human family. The members of this family must interact and talk. Interfaith dialogues increase mutual recognition, understanding and respect.

KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the centre for Inquiry, Canada’s premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers.

Within 30 seconds of attending my first interfaith discussion, I made a faux pas. It was the first time I had entered a mosque, which provided my red-faced excuse. Entering the prayer space, I beetled over to sit on the closest chair. I immediately noticed not only that my row was dominated by women, but also a backward glance revealed the whole section was female — and they were looking at me as if I were a freak. I had forgotten the Islamic gender thing.

Uncomfortably seated in my proper place, I listened to the argument — Does God Exist? The table was weighted: three Abrahamic religions to one lone infidel perched on the end.

After the God side won, the assembled crowd continued the debate over sweets and coffee. I became a curiosity once I spoke of my atheism. The sparring was friendly, if not tiresome; thank God and Allah.

One subject arose which could be a key to improving dialogue between the faiths and faithless; at least it was for us that evening. We talked hats. I pointed out to some of the younger group that their kufis — after being corrected for yet another slip — were beautiful with their unique patterns and colours. This led us down a path of engaging, faith-free discussions. We had connected.

As the reception winded down, one of my new friends threw me a humorous dig for rejecting his God, and I tossed one right back at him. We laughed at our playful teasing, accepting that what divides us is of less importance than the respect we had gained for each other.

With that we shook hands and went on our separate ways, seeking answers to the big questions of life.

Read the full article: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Religion+Experts+improve+interfaith+dialogue/5774502/story.html#ixzz1eynOcDeV

Continue reading »]]> “‘Abraham Jam’ Interfaith Music Concert Organized By Students of Duke, NC State and Chapel Hill”

By Yonat Shimron – HuffingtonPost

11/21/11

DURHAM, N.C. (RNS) Say the word “interfaith” and the next word to roll off the tongue is probably “dialogue.” It’s hard to think of one without the other. But college students know there are other ways to communicate, and music may be chief among them.

Students from three North Carolina universities — Duke, North Carolina State and the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill — on Wednesday (Nov. 16) hosted an interfaith concert they dubbed “Abraham Jam” in an attempt to “do interfaith” in a novel way.

The two-hour concert at Duke featured three singer-songwriters — a Jew, a Muslim and a Christian — plucking their guitar strings onstage and crooning their way toward a new spirit of understanding.

The concert was held as a sort of opening act for Thursday’s fifth annual Amazing Faiths Dinner Dialogue Day, a nationwide effort to break down barriers between people of different religions around a shared vegetarian meal.

Started by the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance at Rice University in Houston, the dinner drew an estimated 500 people to dialogue around dinner tables in Houston. Similar dinners were held around the Raleigh/Durham area, in Greenville, S.C.; Wichita, Kansas; and Chicago.

The North Carolina students’ initiative was their own attempt at talking across boundaries — only this time using the universal language of music.
The three invited musicians were no amateurs. Dan Nichols is one of the nation’s most beloved Jewish rockers; Dawud Wharnsby, is a Canadian troubadour living in Pakistan; David LaMotte is a singer-songwriter and peacenik in the old folk tradition.

The three had never met until this week, but at LaMotte’s instigation, and with the help of funding from area churches, synagogues and Muslim civic groups, the event helped create an aura of goodwill and reconciliation.

“Having a large interfaith event based around music is unique,” said Matthew Stevens, president of the Muslim Students Association at UNC Chapel Hill. “It allows people to reach out to one another in a new way. I haven’t seen it done in the area.”

A committee of students from each of the three schools picked the musicians. Four performance poets and a dancer were added to the lineup, lending the event an edgier, hipper, more updated feel.

The songs ranged from Wharnsby’s “The People of the Boxes,” (“We’ve got to tip the lid and let some sunlight in”) to Nichols’ “All This Rain,” about the biblical Noah (“Why was I the one and only?”)

LaMotte, in addition to singing, strumming a guitar, and beating a drum, had the trickiest role — as emcee.

for the full news: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/abraham-jam-interfaith-music-concert_n_1102107.html

Continue reading »]]> by Leonard Swidler,

Temple University

Dialogue in the interreligious, interideological sense is a conversation on a common subject between people with differing views undertaken so that they can learn from one another and grow. The Dialogue Decalogue formulated by Prof. Leonard Swidler sets forth the ground rules for dialogue.

FIRST COMMANDMENT

The essential purpose of dialogue is to learn, which entails change. At the very least, to learn that one’s dialogue partner views the world differently is to effect a change in oneself. Reciprocally, change happens for one’s partner as s/he learns about oneself.

SECOND COMMANDMENT

Dialogue must be a two-sided project: both between religious/ideological groups, and within religious/ideological groups (Inter- and Intra-). Intra-religious/ideological dialogue is vital for moving one’s community toward an increasingly perceptive insight into reality.

THIRD COMMANDMENT

It is imperative that each participant comes to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerity. This means not only describing the major and minor thrusts as well as potential future shifts of one’s tradition, but also possible difficulties that s/he has with it.

FOURTH COMMANDMENT

One must compare only her/his ideals with their partner’s ideals, and her/his practice with their partner’s practice. Not their ideals with their partner’s practice.

FIFTH COMMANDMENT

Each participant needs to describe her/himself. For example, only a Muslim can describe what it really means to be an authentic member of the Muslim community. At the same time, when one’s partner in dialogue attempts to describe back to them what they have understood of their partner’s self-description, then such a description must be recognizable to the described party.

SIXTH COMMANDMENT

Participants must not come to the dialogue with any preconceptions as to where the points of disagreement lie. A process of agreeing with their partner as much as possible, without violating the integrity of their own tradition, will reveal where the real boundaries between the traditions lie: the point where s/he cannot agree without going against the principles of their own tradition.

SEVENTH COMMANDMENT

Dialogue can only take place between equals, which means that partners learn from each other—par cum pari according to the Second Vatican Council—and do not merely seek to teach one another.

EIGHTH COMMANDMENT

Dialogue can only take place on the basis of mutual trust. Because it is persons, and not entire communities, that enter into dialogue, it is essential for personal trust to be established. To encourage this it is important that less controversial matters are discussed before dealing with the more controversial ones.

NINTH COMMANDMENT

Participants in dialogue should have a healthy level of criticism toward their own traditions. A lack of such criticism implies that one’s tradition has all the answers, thus making dialogue not only unnecessary, but unfeasible. The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, which is impossible if one’s tradition is seen as having all the answers.

TENTH COMMANDMENT

To truly understand another religion or ideology one must try to experience it from within, which requires a “passing over,” even if only momentarily, into another’s religious or ideological experience.

for the full article as PDF: Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious, Interideological Dialogue

source: http://institute.jesdialogue.org/resources/tools/decalogue/

Continue reading »]]> dalailama.com[Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:23]

Chicago, Illinois, 18 July 2011: On his last day of this two-city current tour of the United States, on July 18, 2011 morning, His Holiness participated in a dialogue with interfaith leaders in a session entitled, Building Bridges: Religious Leaders In Conversation With The Dalai Lama. Hosted by the Theosophical Society and held at the Harris Theater for Music and Dance in Chicago, it was attended by a sold-out crowd of 1500 people.

Theosophical Society President Tim Boyd introduced His Holiness to the audience. He recalled the visit of His Holiness to the headquarters of the Theosophical Society in America, located in Wheaton, Illinois, in 1981. He said His Holiness had given a talk at a local school then but not many students knew who he was. Since then things have changed greatly, Mr. Boyd said adding that His Holiness has now become one of the most recognized and the most respected persons in the world. Mr. Boyd said that His Holiness’s continued call for adherence to the universal qualities to bring change to human hearts and minds have made him one of the greatest teachers in the world.

Thereafter, Mr. Eboo Patel, the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based international nonprofit that aims to promote interfaith cooperation, moderated a brief session with His Holiness alone before inviting the other panelists. Mr. Patel called His Holiness as probably being the world’s leading example of religious tolerance.

A short documentary on the artwork created by religious organizations about their perception of other religions was screened.

Mr. Patel then said that he would be asking His Holiness some questions, which have been compiled through different channels from different individuals. In his first question, Mr. Patel asked His Holiness the reasons that led to him adopting religious harmony as one of his commitments, in addition to the promotion of human values and resolving the Tibetan problem.

His Holiness responded that if we use common sense then it would be clear why he was stressing on the need for religious harmony. He said every day we hear news about violence, some of which are related to different religions. Having a feeling of sadness for a short moment in such situations was not the right approach. He said that while praying for the wellbeing of all sentient beings may be seen as unrealistic there was the need for considering the wellbeing of the nearly seven billion human beings on this planet. He added that there was the possibility of all people co-existing in harmony.

His Holiness referred to the harmony among different religious practitioners in India as an example. He talked about how Muslims in Bodh Gaya have friendly relationship with the Buddhists there despite the historical fact that they are descendants of people who may have been involved in the destruction of Buddhist institutions in the past. He made the case for the need of the existence of the different religious traditions to fit the different mental dispositions of the people. He talked about the projection of the entire Islamic community negatively in the wake of the September 11 incident and how he had come to defend Islam.

His Holiness stressed on the need for religious communities to be more involved with society. He praised the Christian community for their involvement in the health and education sectors. He also said that Buddhist monks in Thailand and Burma were active in ecological preservation.

In response to a question on how the young interfaith leaders, who are humanists, should play their role, His Holiness talked about his commitment to promote basic human values through secular moral ethics. He said we could all work to cultivate warm-heartedness, which builds trusts, which in turn builds friendship. Saying that his concept of promotion of moral ethics was not based on religion, he said this makes it possible to easily introduce it in the education system. If moral ethics is to be based on religious faith, His Holiness said that it couldn’t become universal.

Thereafter, Mr. Patel invited the other panelists to the stage. They were Rabbi Michael Lerner, founding editor of the progressive Jewish interfaith magazine Tikkun, which is dedicated to building bridges between religious and secular organizations; Dr. Ingrid Mattson, Hartford Seminary Professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations; and Rev. Peg Chemberlin, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches.

for the full article: http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=His+Holiness+highlights+role+of+interfaith+leaders+in+promoting+religious+harmony&id=29780

Continue reading »]]> by Karen Peake
July 6, 2011

A new Ipsos MORI poll has found that religion still matters to most people in the world.

The global survey looked at the views of over 18,000 people across 24 countries, including the UK and US.

Seven in 10 of those surveyed said they had a religion but there was a marked difference between Christians and Muslims when it came to the importance they placed on their faith.

In Muslim-majority countries, 94% of those with a religion agreed that their faith was important in their lives, compared to 66% in Christian-majority countries.

Muslims were far more likely to believe that their religion was the only true path to salvation, liberation or paradise – 61% compared to 19% in Christian-majority countries.

They were also more likely to say that their faith or religion was a key motivator in giving time and money to people in need – 61% compared to 24% in primarily Christian societies.

Overall, 30% said that their religion motivated them to give their time or money to people in need, while more than half (52%) said that their religion made no difference to their giving because they saw it as important in any case.

Globally, faith was found to be important to young people. Almost three-quarters (73%) of under-35s said their religion or faith was important in their life.

A third of all respondents across the 24 countries said they had no or almost no friends or acquaintances from any religion other than their own.

Chief executive of Ipsos MORI, Ben Page said: “The survey is a good reminder to many in western Europe of how much religion matters – and is a force for good – in much of the world.

“Our analysis shows people would rather keep politics separate from religion, but that in a globalising world, it still matters more than many in old Europe think.”

The results were also welcomed by Tony Blair, a practising Catholic and patron of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.

“This survey shows how much religion matters and that no analysis of the contemporary world, political or social, is complete without understanding the relationship between faith and globalisation,” he said.

“The evidence is that, though people fear the prospect of religious strife, even here in Britain, there is much to encourage the view that people can learn to respect those of another faith and live with them peacefully.

“Inter-faith dialogue and action today is not just an interesting but peripheral minor subject, it is the essence, central to creating greater social cohesion and harmony.”

sourcE: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/religion.still.matters.global.survey.finds/28257.htm

Continue reading »]]> By SAMAR FATANY | ARAB NEWS

Conflict between different faiths today is caused by deviant viewpoints and misinterpretations of the divine scriptures

To move Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations forward we need to resolve the ideological crisis that has long allowed extremely radical views to permeate our societies. The perpetuation of outmoded customs and traditions entwined with Islamic principles need to be untangled to separate the medieval societal customs from the true principles of Islam.

Saudi Arabia has taken major steps to spread the culture of moderation and confront extremism and radicalism that have been permitted to masquerade as the message of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and sullied what should be the reputation of faithful Muslims around the world.

In December 2005 a special Islamic summit was held in Makkah to reaffirm the consensus of all Muslim countries to renounce violence, extremism and terrorism, and to promote values of dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect among religions and cultures.

In May 2008 Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah met with Muslim scholars of different sects in Makkah to promote the genuine message of Islamic tolerance during the International Islamic Conference for Dialogue.

The Ministry for Islamic Affairs also does its part across the country to advance a proper interpretation of Islam and allow us to move forward. The Prince Khaled Al-Faisal Chair was inaugurated in 2009 with the objective to empower the community to reject the culture of extremism and fanaticism and promote moderation.

Meanwhile, academics and researchers continue to address the challenges of extremism. During a forum on the concepts of moderation, terrorism and intellectual security, King Abdulaziz University professor Abdul Rahman Al-Wahabi said: “Discussions about concepts of moderation in contemporary Saudi culture has emerged on a large scale due to the perception of the danger posed by extremist concepts and the prevalence of extremist ideology, particularly in religious thought.”

He also noted “activating the process of moderation does not come simply by making wishes but rather through intensive educational agendas that are followed by application in real life in an organized manner via a series of social activities.”

“Moderate thought is the acknowledgment of others, accepting them and co-existing with them,” said Islamic researcher Zaki Al-Milad. “Moderation should be the attribute that permeates all our ideas and actions, far from radicalism and extremism and far from reclusion and isolationism.”

Young people today are confused over what is modern and what is Western, what is hard-line and what is required of a good Muslim. They are struggling to find direction that can help them advance and modernize. There are summer camps and cultural activities offering guidance and mentoring to promote better citizenship, so young people can contribute to humanity and serve the Muslim nation worldwide.

The whole country is on a mission to empower an educated and more-tolerant generation that can command respect for its spirituality and academic excellence. Academic institutions encourage progressive thinking and allow students to embrace innovative ideas without compromising their Islamic values and principles.

Our brothers and sisters who are living in the West or in other Muslim countries need to be aware that Saudi religious scholars and the Saudi people promote moderation and reject extremism under the leadership of King Abdullah.

Every Muslim today should make it his or her duty to promote the religion of peace and repudiate the misconceptions about Islam that have started with Samuel Huntington’s theory of a clash of civilizations and later fueled by suspicious allegations by right-wing outlets and extremists. These extremists are unfortunately aided by biased authors, like Daniel Pipes, and many others. There are those in the West, whose growing hostility toward Islam leads to discrimination and sometimes even hate crimes and who use extremist tactics to drive a wedge between Islam and the West.

The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 compounded the suspicions and fears against Muslims and created extreme prejudice against them. The principle of collective guilt was applied to all Muslims, and a decade after 9/11, a vicious campaign continues to label Islam as monolithic and incapable of adapting to new realities, that it is a religion inferior to those of the West and that it does not share common values with the other major faiths.

There are many global Muslim organizations confronting this unjust attack; however, despite all their efforts Islamophobia is on the rise, and Muslims are still stereotyped as inferior, violent and recalcitrant. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Muslim World League and other groups continue to address the rise of Islamophobia that openly targets innocent Muslims around the globe.

The conflict between different faiths today is caused by deviant viewpoints and misinterpretations of the divine scriptures. Extremists on both sides undermine the noble efforts of the peace loving people of the world. It pains me to hear Muslim extremists attacking the moderates when they speak out for understanding. It also saddens me to listen to the bigotry and hatred against Muslims in the West fomented by extremist Christian preachers.

The time has now come for all the peace-loving people to unite and stand against radicals who continue to undermine global efforts to promote peace and coexistence. Domestically, we hope to see the carefully crafted plans of our leaders begin to bring the much needed positive changes for progress and development. Globally, we hope to see the beginning of a new era in which each human being — man and woman — can be assured of the respect and freedom that only a just and peaceful world can provide.

— Samar Fatany is a Jeddah-based broadcaster and author.

source: http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article465651.ece?comments=all

Continue reading »]]> by DNA Correspondent
Jun 11, 2011

It is often assumed that inter-religious dialogue is a product of sectarian conflicts which are afflicting the world. But as a group of scholars described it at a meeting on Friday, such talks are as old as religion.
The first such meeting took place between Jews and Zoroastrians in Mesopotamia in fifth century BC, said Dr Homi Dhalla, president of the Foundation for Unity of Religions and Enlightenment of Citizenship, a group set up former president APJ Abdul Kalam.
Emphasising the importance of inter-religious dialogue, Dr Dhalla said that the 10-year old conflict in Mozambique was put to an end after religious leaders in the country sat for a meeting. Similarly, a group working for the resolution of inter-religious conflict, the New York-based World Council of Religions for Peace also played a role in ending the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
“Now, Christian-Muslim dialogue is taking place in Turkey, Tunisia, Qatar, Bangladesh and Philippines,” he said, adding that animportant requirement for successful talks between religious groups was the jettisoning of pre-conceived notions about other religions. Islamic scholar Dr Engineer described the astonishing similarities between Hindu and Muslim scriptures.
“Few people know the similarities between the Gayatri Mantra and the Sur-e-fateha, the first chapter of the Koran. Mohammad Iqbal (the poet) translated the Gayatri Mantra into Urdu to show the similarities. After all, we believe in one god. But because there are different languages in which the word ‘god’ is expressed, other religions feel alien,” he said.
He said that religious scholar Dara Shukoh learned Sanskrit in Benaras, and showed that the only difference between Hinduism and Islam was the languages the scriptures were written in and not substance. “Satyam, Shivam and Sundaram — the names for god has an equivalent in the different names for Allah — Haqq (truth), Jabbar (powerful) and Jaleel (Sublime),” he said.
“Two religions never collide; it is our interests that clash. We use religion for our interest.” Dr Narendra Desai, trustee of International Society for Krishna Conciousness (ISKCON) said that the main reason for religious conflicts was egoism and greed.
Most speakers talked about the role played by Sufis in bringing peace between religions. Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi was spoken of as the best example.

source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_conflict-is-of-interests-not-of-religion_1553989

Continue reading »]]> By ARAB NEWS
May 24, 2011

JEDDAH: Deputy Education Minister Faisal bin Muammar emphasized the importance of interfaith dialogue in order to promote peaceful coexistence among the followers of different religions and cultures.
“It is also essential to make joint efforts to stop the deterioration of moral values and fight poverty, terrorism and other crimes,” the minister said while addressing the Bordeaux Religious Leaders Summit.
He announced the plan to establish an international interfaith dialogue center in Vienna. “Saudi Arabia, Austria and Spain have agreed to sign an agreement to establish the center within a few weeks,” he said.
The new center will be named after Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, who initiated the dialogue between various faith communities.
“The world is badly in need of peace, security and prosperity and establishment of justice and love and Saudi Arabia gives utmost importance to these principles and values,” Muammar said.
He referred to the growing number of crimes, cases of poverty in different parts of the world and the damage caused to the environment, adding that these challenges required joint action by all faith groups.
Muammar emphasized the importance of promoting dialogue between followers of the various religions and cultures in order to create understanding and make use of their synergy for the progress and prosperity of the whole humanity.
“Dialogue is essential to understand the similarities of the various religions and cultures and strengthen cooperation among peoples,” he said.
King Abdullah visited the Vatican in Rome and held talks with Pope Benedict XVI in July 2007. The historic meeting, the first between a Roman Catholic pope and a Saudi king, took place during his European tour.
In June 2008, King Abdullah invited 500 Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders from the different parts of the world to discuss the need for promoting interfaith dialogue. He launched the first dialogue conference in Madrid on July 16, 2008 attended by 300 leaders representing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. “If we want to make this gathering successful, we have to look at the things that unite us, most importantly the faith in God and the noble values and morals that represent the basis of religions.”

source: http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article427679.ece

Continue reading »]]> SINGAPORE: Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP for Chua Chu Kang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), has said young Singaporeans must take on the work of sustaining inter-faith dialogue and harmony, even as Singapore has come a long way in embracing religious diversity.

He was speaking at an inter-faith Vesak Day celebration organised by the Buddhist Fellowship on Tuesday. He said it bodes well for Singapore that a Malay-Muslim MP such as himself has been invited to officiate at the event.

Mr Zaqy said Singaporeans have become more respectful of religious observances of others and asking someone about his or her dietary restrictions before planning a meal together has become a common practice.

“The food retail market has also grown to accommodate more diversity. We’re seeing more Halal restaurants, and more vegetarian dishes being accommodated at events,” he added.

“While it is easy for us to discuss commonalities across faiths and religions, the difficult challenge for us is to talk about differences…..Quite a lot of effort that we need to do to just sit down, be able to understand each other and have that level of trust before we can start talking about differences,” said Mr Zaqy.

Religious harmony, he said, must never be taken for granted.

Mr Zaqy also said that it is important for young Singaporeans to take on the work of sustaining inter-faith dialogue and felt this has to be done through more face-to-face meetings rather than online.

He said: “For such a sensitive area like inter-faith, there needs to be more than just a regular online platform; there has to be more governance, education; there has to be more context to it and perhaps some leaders to lead discussion. It’s sometimes hard to talk about religious context without a deep understanding…you may even end up giving out more misconceptions than the truth.”

With party renewal talk surrounding the People’s Action Party (PAP), the 36-year-old Young PAP leader was also asked if the public can expect more young MPs at public events.

He said younger MPs will start to gain profile and acceptance soon and added that he hopes to see more of them coming forward.

- CNA/ir

sourcE: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1129413/1/.html

Continue reading »]]> by Philippine Daily Inquirer
05/09/2011

RALLIES protesting the killing of Osama bin Laden by American forces have broken out in Gaza and Pakistan. Since Gaza is dominated by Hamas, a conservative Islamist group classified by the US and the European Union as a terrorist group, the protest rallies there had been expected. But the demonstrations were led by the Salafist, rival of the Hamas, which broke up the rally because of the unity deal it signed recently with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his more secular Fatah movement. Although the Hamas head in Gaza Ismail Haniyeh has denounced Bin Laden’s killing as an assassination “of an Arab holy warrior,” Hamas has sought to distance itself from the extremism of al-Qaida and Salafist. The latter considers Hamas too moderate. Hamas knows that peace in Palestine depends on a rejection of jihadist violence, not a glorification of it.

The rallies in Pakistan were expected. The raid against Bin Laden in a suburb of the capital Islamabad was carried out by the US without Pakistani leaders being given prior notice. Although it’s unfair to accuse Islamabad of harboring the al-Qaida leader, it is well known that he had popular support among Muslims there, which made it difficult for Pakistani authorities to capture him. The support was reaffirmed by the rallies protesting his killing.

But the fact that majority of Muslims stayed away from the rallies should indicate that from 2001 when the Twin Towers fell and 2011 when Bin Laden was killed, there has occurred a sea-change in the mainstream Muslim world that the extremism of the sort that al-Qaida espouses is anathema to Islam. As a result of the terrorist attacks that have been carried out in the United States and other non-Islamic countries, the Islamic world, by and large, has come to believe that al-Qaida, Jemaah Islamiyah and other jihadist groups have been misrepresenting the tenets of Islam.

The kings of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have expressed common cause with Christians against the abuse of Islam by terrorists. Some 130 Islamic scholars have written a broad letter containing an explicit invitation to dialogue with Christianity. It also provided an interpretation of Islam that immediately places it in dialogue with Christianity.

Pope Benedict XVI has warmly welcomed this invitation. He has also outlined two points that Islam needs to clarify: “the questions concerning its relation to violence and its relation to reason.” The first question he had dealt with some controversy, especially when he delivered his by now famous Regensburg address in 2006, in which he quoted the late medieval Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus addressing a Persian Muslim interlocutor “with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable,” the Pope took care to point out, regarding Mohammed’s command “to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” To the Byzantine leader, violence cannot be ascribed to the monotheism of Christianity and Islam. “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul,” the Pope said.

The second question is related to the first. As Benedict put it, “The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” But as scholars of Muslim history have pointed out, intellectualism has never really been accepted by Islam. The introduction of Greek thought into the Islamic world has been seen as a greater threat to the religion than the crusades or the Mongol invasions. Strictly speaking, there’s no Muslim theologian; the counterpart to the Christian theologian is the Islamic legal scholar. The Muslims’ supreme duty has been less to know the truth than to do what is right.

It is a cause of concern and dismay that despite the thousands who have been killed by Bin Laden and others like him who invoke Islam to justify their violence, many Muslims still rally to mourn his death and manifest their approval of Islamic extremism and its campaign of carnage and destruction. But it is also a cause of quiet optimism and comfort that it did not draw as much support as rallies of a similar nature would have before. This shows that the Muslim mainstream is distancing itself from the more fanatical movements that portray Islam, wittingly or unwittingly, as a religion of hate and destruction. The task now is to encourage the mainstream to build up into a critical mass that would challenge the hegemony of Islamic extremism. This can be done by encouraging Islam to dialogue with Christianity, other religions and contemporary society.

Continue reading »]]> AhlulBayt News Agency) – Second round of Islam-Buddhism interfaith dialogue titled “Role of Religions in Confronting Violence in Human Societies” is to be held in the holy city of Qom. The preliminary session for this conference is to be held in the Organization of Culture and Islamic Communication on April 16.
Second round of interfaith dialogue between Islam and Buddhism is to be attended by Mohammad Reza Dehshiri, educational deputy and Mohammad Hussein Mozaffari, head of interfaith dialogue center and also, Nanarata head of Pali Buddhism Study Center.
The conference is to be held in the University of Religions and Denominations of Qom on April 18, 2011.
End item/ 149

source: http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=236828

Continue reading »]]> By IRIE PRICE
March 26, 2011
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL

“First and foremost, it is a perspective of the word becoming flesh,” said Jim Beck, professor of Missions and Bible at Lubbock Christian University and missions coordinator at Monterey Church of Christ.
“I think more about sharing my personal experience and my sense of spirituality,” said Rabbi Vicki Hollander of Congregation Shaareth Israel.
“I think Christians, they don’t want to just share the Gospel, they want to change hearts,” posited Glenn Austell, area director for the evangelical ministry Young Life.
With such divergent views of what it means to share one’s faith, many people are understandably hesitant to discuss their beliefs. The phrase “sharing faith” generates images as violent as the Crusades, and as benign as the conversations in interfaith panels. When embarking on a faith-sharing conversation, some people are not sure what kind of conversation they will be in for.
Even some contacted for this article showed their unease with the topic. Several atheists, for example, were nervous enough about discussing their world view to request anonymity before agreeing to an interview. Another interviewee responded by email to gather his thoughts before broaching the subject. Yet another expressed concern at the end of the interview that his words be placed in their spoken context, lest he be misunderstood.
Nine religious leaders and experts spoke with The Avalanche-Journal about faith sharing, and imparted wisdom about wading into what Austell called “those deep waters of dialogue.”
‘We are not here to convert each other’
One the reason the phrase “sharing faith” raises eyebrows is its seeming similarity to proselytizing.
“The edgy part is, you know, when I’ve had the random time when someone was trying to convince me to leave my tradition for theirs,” Hollander said.
“And that was not OK for me because I have a very deep attachment to my tradition.”
“I want people to know Christ,” Austell acknowledged. But, he added, “Is it my job to change their hearts? No. the Holy Spirit is going to do that.”
“If they respond to that, great. If they don’t respond to that, guess what? We’re going to keep loving them anyway, and keep chasing after them,” Austell said.
Imam Samer Altabaa of the Islamic Center of the South Plains holds a similar view.
“We believe that when a person converts, it comes from God,” Altabaa said.
“My mission is to convey the message of God to (non-Muslims),” he added. “We have to convey, not convert.”
He said he did not always feel that way. When Altabaa was first invited to an interfaith panel 11 years ago, he saw it as a prime opportunity to convert the other religious leaders.
“I tried to convince everyone with my faith,” Altabaa said, laughing at his younger self. “And people were very respectful.”
But after the meeting, a Christian minister pulled him aside and said, “Imam, we are not here to convert each other. … We are here in this meeting to know about each other and find out what we have in common and work together for our communities.”
That experience challenged Altabaa to study what the Quran says about interacting with non-Muslims. A group of verses from Surah 109.2-6 proved pivotal for his views on the matter. A translation of the verses reads, “I do not worship what you worship. Nor are you worshippers of what I worship. … For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.”
Beck also looks to his holy book for guidance in conversations about faith.
“I don’t see where Jesus went around saying to ‘Accept me,’ ” Beck said. He said Jesus’ method was of sharing faith was more invitational than coercive: “Follow me.”
“We think we’re supposed to convict the world,” Beck said.
“If I read it right,” he said of a verse in John 14, “we were commissioned to love and the Spirit of God will convict.”

‘I’m looking for an open door’
Timing is everything when it comes to sharing one’s faith, said many of those interviewed.
Movie theater urinals, wild fraternity parties and busy airport corridors were all named as inopportune times for discussion. But sitting next to someone on an airplane? That could prove fitting, said the Rev. David Wilson, pastor of Southcrest Baptist Church.
“To me it’s always appropriate (to share my faith),” Wilson said, “but it’s not always the right time.
“I’m looking for an open door,” he explained.
Those open doors come more easily in established relationships, according to many of those interviewed.
“Demonstrate consistency, faithfulness, in their world,” advised Austell, whose life’s work is sharing his faith with high school and college students. He noted the importance of shared experiences in establishing trust and limiting offense.
Austell said, “You look up one day and this great bridge of trust has been built. … When the time is right, we cross that bridge with the Gospel. We’ve earned the right to be heard.”
Wilson called such moments of sharing faith through relationships “relational evangelism.”
“Maybe there has to be that element of trust,” Wilson said.
Trust is such an important element that Hollander does most of her faith-sharing only after a person has “asked me or they’ve shown they’re desirous of speaking on that level.”
“Just as I wouldn’t walk into someone’s house (without an invitation) so I wouldn’t walk into an exchange without that invitation,” Hollander said.

‘Don’t bruise the fruit’
Even with an open invitation at conversation, there exists the possibility of offense when discussing matters as weighty as spiritual truth and eternal salvation. For some, offense may come with the territory.
“This concept of offense matters little in a world where you are perceived as carrying out the divine will,” said Saad Abi-Hamad, assistant professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern History at Texas Tech.
The Rev. Chris Galanos, pastor of Experience Life Church, acknowledged his views of Christ’s message might rankle.
“When you share the truths of the Gospel, sometimes people are going to be offended because truth is, by definition, narrow and exclusive,” Galanos said.
“A Christian can’t ultimately control whether the truths of the Gospel offend someone, but what they can control is how they present them. The Bible teaches that we should present the truth in love.”
Abi-Hamad, who is not Muslim, said intentions can go a long way in faith-sharing endeavors. “Generally, if you’re attempting to be respectful (and) sensitive, people will forgive you a lot.”
But, he said, “If you insist, then you become offensive.”
Austell put it bluntly. “I’m not going to get in some shouting match. ‘Your religion’s weird! My religion’s awesome! So stick it!’ ”
”What I would be privileged to do is enter into a friendship, not with some agenda, but because God has called me to love people,” Austell said.
To that end, Altabaa and Wilson each advised that people not disparage each other’s beliefs in faith discussions.
“Don’t bruise the fruit,” Wilson recommended.
Within Christianity, where churches sometimes disagree over the meaning of certain Scriptures, faith sharing can certainly make for some bruised fruit; one need look no further than the Reformation for evidence of that.
Beck said that when he tries to share his faith to Christians with political or economic power, listeners sometimes bristle.
“If you want to see (Jesus) get offensive,” said Beck, look at Jesus’ interactions and language concerning the rich or powerful.
A message that requires those with means to rethink their status can be off-putting, Beck said. He cautioned that whether one is speaking to a person from another faith or from one’s own faith, the underlying approach should be the same.
“Make sure we love them first.”
Mary Vines, who has facilitated the Lubbock Interfaith Dialogue meetings since 1985, aims for a similarly graceful approach when engaging others about their faith.
“I think we all have to examine ourselves,” Vines said. “We’re all on a journey in sharing our faith.”

To comment on this story:
irie.price@lubbockonline.com • 766-8796

source: http://lubbockonline.com/faith/2011-03-26/dont-bruise-fruit-sharing-faith-without-offending

Continue reading »]]> by Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick

The Universality and Uniqueness of Prophecy

Prophecy is the means whereby God offers guidance to human beings through human intermediaries. Just as God’s mercy takes precedence over his wrath and thereby determines the nature of wrath, so also God’s guidance takes precedence over his misguidance. Guidance itself demands the existence of misguidance. Without the misguidance that is embodied by Satan, the prophetic messages would be meaningless. Without distance, there can be no nearness; without wrong, no right; without darkness, no perception of light. All the distinctions that allow for a cosmos to exist depend upon the diversification and differentiation of the divine qualities. On the moral and spiritual level, this diversification becomes manifest through the paths of guidance and misguidance, represented by the prophets and the satans.

Wherever there have been prophets, there have been satans. The Koran uses the word satans to refer both to some of the jinn and to some human beings. To be a satan is to be an enemy of the prophets and an embodiment of misguidance:

We have appointed to every prophet an enemy-satans from among mankind and jinn, revealing fancy words to each other as delusion. Yet, had thy Lord willed, they would never have done it. So leave them with what they are fabricating. (Quran 6:112)

Just as Adam, our father and the first prophet, was faced with Iblis, so also we are faced with Iblis, his offspring, and their followers. Misguidance is a universal phenomenon, found in the outside world and within ourselves. In the same way, guidance is a universal phenomenon. In other words, the human race is inconceivable without both prophets and satans, because human beings are defined by the freedom they received when they were made in the divine form. They are able to choose among the divine attributes, because all the divine attributes are found within themselves. Just as they can choose God’s right hand by following guidance, so also they can choose his left hand by following misguidance. Without that choice, they would not have been free to accept the Trust.

As we have seen, the fundamental message of the prophets is tawhid. In the Islamic perspective, all prophets have brought the first Shahadah: “We never sent a messenger before thee save that We revealed to him, saying, There is no god but I, so worship Me’” (Quran 21:25). In contrast to the first Shahadah, which designates a divine guidance that is embodied by all prophets, the second Shahadah refers to the domain of the specific message brought by Muhammad. Other prophets had their own messages that correspond to the second Shahadah:

Every nation has its messenger. (Quran 10:47)

We have sent no messenger save with the tongue of his people. (Quran 14:4)

To every one of you [messengers] We have appointed a right way and an open road. (Quran 5:48)

The Koran insists that Muslims should not differentiate among the prophets of God. Each prophet, after all, was sent by God with guidance, and the primary message of each is the same:

Say: We have faith in God, and in that which has been sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets by their Lord. We make no distinction among any of them, and to Him we have submitted. (Quran 2:136; cf. 2:285, 3:84)

The Koran tells us in several verses that the later prophets came to confirm the messages of the earlier prophets:

And when Jesus son of Mary said, “Children of Israel, I am indeed God’s messenger to you, confirming the Torah that has gone before me… .”(Quran 61:6)

He has sent down upon thee the Book with the truth, confirming what was before it, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel aforetime, as guidance to the people. (Quran 3:3)

At the same time, the Koran makes clear that the details of the messages differ. Any distinction that can be made among the messengers has to be made on the basis of the difference in their messages:

And those messengers-some We have preferred above others. Among them was he to whom God spoke, and He raised some in degrees. And We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear explications, and We confirmed him with the Holy Spirit. (Quran 2:253)

And We have preferred some prophets over others, and We gave David the Psalms. (Quran 17:55)

The idea that every messenger comes with a message that is specific to the people to whom he was sent and that differs in details from other messages is deeply rooted in the Islamic consciousness and is reflected in the titles that are customarily given to the great messengers in Islamic texts. Each title designates the special quality of the messenger that distinguishes him from other messengers. Thus, one of the verses just quoted refers to him “to whom God spoke.” Most commentators think that this is a reference to Moses, to whom Islamic sources give the title kalim (speaking companion), because God spoke to him from the burning bush without the intermediary of Gabriel, and because the Koran says, “And unto Moses We spoke directly” (Quran 4:164). But the commentators add that it may also refer to Adam, to whom God spoke in the Garden, and to Muhammad, to whom God spoke during Muhammad’s ascent to God (the mir’aj). In a similar way, Jesus is usually called God’s “spirit,” and Abraham his “close friend” (khalil).

In Islamic countries, especially among people untouched by modern education, there is a common belief that all religions accept the first Shahadah, but that each religion has a specific second Shahadah that differs from that of the Muslims. Thus it is thought that the Christians say, ‘There is no god but God and Jesus is the spirit of God,” while the Jews say, ‘There is no god but God and Moses is God’s speaking companion.”

The Koran recognizes explicitly that, although the first Shahadah never changes, the domain covered by the second Shahadah differs from message to message. Hence, all the laws that are proper to Jews, for example, are not necessarily proper for Christians, nor do the rulings of the Muslim Shariah have any universality (despite the claims of some Muslims). For example, in the following verse, God explains that the Jews have prohibitions that do not apply to Muslims:

And to the Jewry We have forbidden every beast with claws; and of oxen and sheep We have forbidden them the fat of them, save what their backs carry, or their entrails, or what is mingled with the bone. (Quran 6:145)

Similarly, the Koran places the following words, which are directed at the Children of Israel, in Jesus’ mouth, thus indicating that his Shariah differs from that of Moses.

[I have been sent] to confirm the truth of the Torah that is before me, and to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you. (Quran 3:50)

An often recited prayer at the end of Sura 2 of the Koran says, “Our Lord …, charge us not with a burden such as Thou didst lay upon those before us” (Quran 2:286). The commentators say that this refers to the Torah, which is a heavy burden, in contrast to the Muslim Shariah, which, in the words of a hadith, is “easy, congenial” (sahl samh).

One of the most delightful expressions of the differing messages entrusted to the prophets is found in the standard accounts of the Prophet’s ascent to God, the mi’raj. Muhammad met a number of prophets on his way up through the heavens. When he met God, God gave him instructions for his community. On the way back down, Muhammad stopped in each heaven to bid farewell to the prophets. In the sixth heaven, right below the seventh, he met Moses. Moses asked him what sort of acts of worship God had given him for his community. He replied that God had given him fifty salats per day. Moses told him that he had better go back and ask God to lighten the burden. He knew from sorry experience that the people would not be able to carry out such difficult instructions. The Prophet continues:

I went back, and when He had reduced them by ten, I returned to Moses. Moses said the same as before, so I went back, and when He had reduced them by ten more, I returned to Moses….

Finally, after Muhammad had moved back and forth between God and Moses several times, God reduced the salats to five. Moses then said to Muhammad:

Your people are not capable of observing five salats. I have tested people before your time and have labored earnestly to prevail over the Children of Israel. So go back to your Lord and ask Him to make things lighter for your people.

But by this point, the Prophet was too embarrassed to continue asking for reductions. Hence he said: “I have asked my Lord till I am ashamed, but now I am satisfied and I submit.”

Nowadays, discussion of Islamic teachings about prophecy can quickly raise emotions among Muslims. Probably the main reason for this is that in many Islamic countries, religion plays a far greater role in daily life than it does in Europe and America. Hence, generally speaking, political positions are posed in religious terms, and opposition to the policies of other countries can take the form of criticism of other religions.

A second factor that helps keep emotions high in discussions of prophecy is that modernized Muslims commonly take the attitude – as do many people in the West as well – that it is not they who are at fault. Shortcomings must belong to other people, and so whatever the problem may be, the blame must lie in the opponent’s court. This attitude is common throughout the world. For those who recognize the truth of myth, it is highly significant that Iblis was the first person to put the blame in the other’s court. It is he who said, “Now, because You have led me astray . . .” (Quran 7:16). If people followed the example of Adam and Eve, they would look more closely at themselves and find room to recognize that “We have wronged ourselves” (Quran 7:23).

Do not think that Iblis’s position is found only in politics. It is an everyday reality for all of us. For example, think about the way in which students react when they receive their grades. It is not uncommon to hear someone say, “I got an A in physics, but that lousy English teacher gave me a C-.” This is Iblis’s reaction-the light is mine, but he led me astray. I did good, but any evil is someone else’s fault. The reaction of Adam and Eve would be the following: “How kind of that physics teacher to give me an A, but I really messed up in English and received a C-, so I will have to work much harder to make up for my own shortcomings.”

In short, in the contemporary political situation, ideology is often posed in terms of the war of good against evil. In such a situation, those who would stress the universality of the Koranic message rarely meet with much success. It is too easy to think that the other guy is at fault and we are fine. And in order to think that way, it is necessary to forget that God’s mercy extends to all creatures. If people did remember that God’s mercy takes precedence over his wrath, they might have to start searching for faults in themselves and to leave the others to God. They might have to accept that the C- was a gift and that they should have flunked.

Excerpted from the book “The Vision of Islam” by Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick. Please Click on image below to buy this book.

source: http://www.islamicity.com/articles/Articles.asp?ref=IC1012-4399

Continue reading »]]> by Chris Stedman
December 5, 2010

“‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart.” So said Philip Pullman, author of The Golden Compass, in a 2007 interview with The Atlantic. He might be right, but I can’t help but wonder: What if we could reach both the head and the heart?

It’s a question I asked myself many times over while writing my Master of Arts in Religion thesis on narrative and religion last year. Now, as the Managing Director of State of Formation, a new online forum for emerging religious and ethical leaders founded by the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and run in partnership with Hebrew College, Andover Newton Theological School and collaboration with Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions, I am so excited about the content that has flooded the site in its inaugural week — and how our religious and philosophical academics are using both their minds and their hearts to enter into dialogue.

Our initial group of nearly 70 contributing scholars contains Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant (among them Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and others), Hindu, Secular Humanist, Sikh, Agnostic, Greek Orthodox, Unitarian Universalist, Mormon, Evangelical Christian, Atheist and Lindisfarne participants. Some were born in the Bible belt; others grew up in places like Jamaica, Singapore, Japan, and Germany. They are gay and straight, liberal and conservative, religious and secular.

There is also a wide range of experience among them. Some have been engaged in interfaith dialogue and social action for years — others are brand new to it. There are Ph.D. students, people in Master of Arts in Religion, Master of Divinity, and Master of Education programs, some fresh out of graduate school, community organizers and activists, and even a recent Master of Fine Arts graduate and current professor of creative writing who is at work on a memoir about growing up as an Evangelical Christian. Many live in various parts of the United States of America, and there are several in England, Israel, Australia and other parts of the world.

It’s an eclectic cohort, to be sure, and already their dialogue is rife with questions, disagreements and attempts at answers. The singular consensus among these religiously varied emerging leaders? This dialogue matters.

Jason A. Kerr, a doctoral candidate in English at Boston College and a lifelong Mormon, has high hopes for this project. “I’m hoping that State of Formation will enable its contributors and readers to forge a new community, one that can amplify the capacities for good now present in those communities to which we already belong,” wrote Kerr in his first post. “We’re undertaking a very difficult sort of dialogue here, but also a very necessary one.”

Kari Aanestad, a Master of Divinity student spending a year in Oxford, England, where her husband is a Rhodes Scholar studying the history of science, agrees. “Interfaith work … is absolutely crucial, and as a Lutheran I could not be more committed to this dialogue. One of the primary tenets of my faith is that I am free to love and serve my neighbors, which challenges me to go beyond my local culture and hear the stories of those outside, to meet new people (yes, even non-Lutherans!) and learn from them,” Aanestad wrote in her first post, a reflection on what she is discovering about interfaith dialogue by living in a context dramatically different from the Midwest, where her Lutheran heritage was commonplace. “While I have ultimately learned that my spiritual identity is not synonymous with Minnesota culture, perhaps there’s room for a new potluck where everyone’s dish is welcome.”

Every contributor comes from a particular religious or philosophical background, but this difficult and enriching dialogue also enables each to be an individual, not just a representative of her or his tradition. “While I hold no illusions that my contributions to this space represent the Islamic perspective on any particular issue,” wrote Garfield Swaby, a student working towards a Masters in Islamic Studies and Muslim-Christian Relations at Hartford Seminary, “I hope only to blog new reflections into existence informed by my understanding of Islam, or by any of my other commitments, for that matter.”

By engaging with one another’s commitments, they are already getting to know one another and making their dialogue more about mutual understanding than about academic knowing. “As young scholars, practitioners, and activists, our intellectual lives, our spiritual lives, or our careers might be in states of formation, but the public conversations about religion and ethics in the United States are also in a state of formation,” wrote Joshua Eaton, a Buddhist and recent Master of Divinity graduate from Harvard University. “My hope is that State of Formation can help put some meat on the bones of that conversation by giving voice not just to the what of religion, but also to the who, when, where, why, and how. Religion could not be more important to our public life; we cannot afford to be uninformed.”

This is a new and exciting endeavor for all involved, but perhaps maybe for none more than Brandon Turner. In his first post, Turner explored why an online forum may be an ideal platform for this challenging and transformative dialogue.

“Why did an individual who has never blogged, tweeted, or facebooked (is this the term?) decide to apply to a new interreligious initiative that will exist almost exclusively in the online world?” asked Turner. “I believe that … those who are a part of this ever growing community are truly embarking on something unique. As we get to know each other over the next few months, I believe we will be, in many ways, defining what ‘interreligious dialogue 2.0′ will look like in the future.”

To see the future religious and philosophical leaders of tomorrow begin to redefine the discourse on religion and ethics together today, please take a look at the website. We invite you to weigh in; as our diverse group of Contributing Scholars can attest, this is a conversation that not only needs everyone — it needs everyone’s heart and mind.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/future-religious-and-ethi_b_788464.html

Continue reading »]]> Wednesday 30 June 2010,

A three-day long Buddhist-Muslim Dialogue and seminar ’Addressing Violence: Religious Resources for Conflict Resolution 2010’ , is being held at Leh.

Hosted by Mahabodhi Devachan Centre, the objective of the seminar has been to bring together influential representatives of these two great religious traditions.

Expert theologists have endeavoured to create a deep and enduring partnership between the Buddhist and Muslim faiths, so as to enable them to understand each other.

Another objective of this seminar has been to tackle the various challenges on a peaceful basis, mutually strengthened by generous co-operation and genuine friendship.

Addressing the delegates, Nawang Rigzen, Minister for Tourism and Culture, Jammu and Kashmir, said that religion is a code of conduct for the human beings to lead a peaceful life and let others live in peace and harmony.

“Religion should be a strictly private affair. It is between you and your creator. It is for you to be a good human being. Be of help to others to lead a happy life. But today in the name of religion we have conflicts. There are stalk of clashes of civilisation”, he added.

“This meeting would create a friendly environment between the Buddhists and the Muslims.”

“A dialogue always bridges the gaps and helps in overcoming the differences. Religion does not divide people but always unites them”, said Imam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi, President All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques.

The Buddhist-Muslim dialogue series was initiated to create and foster new perspectives on how Buddhism and Islam will harmoniously respond to the multitude.

source: http://www.buddhachannel.tv/portail/spip.php?article16503

Continue reading »]]> By SCOTT JAMES
Published: October 21, 2010
Looking resplendent in red vestments, the Rev. John Jimenez conducted mass on Monday before about 20 congregants and reminded them the date was the Feast of St. Luke. “Luke is the patron saint of doctors,” he said, “so it has some special meaning here in the hospital.”
Father Jimenez conducts midday mass Sunday through Friday here at the small chapel inside San Francisco General hospital, a city-financed facility. These days the Roman Catholic service is no-frills: the altar is a metal cart draped in scarlet cloth and wheeled in just before the service. The faithful sit on worn folding chairs and kneel on carpet remnants to pray.

Until recently there was a large altar and pews that ran nearly the width of the room. Years earlier, a crucifix hung on the wall. Visually, at least, the chapel was a Roman Catholic place of worship.

Not anymore.

In a sign of changing times, the 1960s-era chapel is getting a decidedly modern face-lift. Work that is scheduled to be completed by December will transform the space to welcome all faiths, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Pagans — and even those who do not believe in any god at all.

“This is a public space,” said the Rev. Elizabeth Welch, an Episcopal priest serving at the hospital’s Sojourn Chaplaincy, which offers spiritual counseling. “Not everyone is Christian.”

The chapel is an interior room with no windows, but new flooring indicates the directions of the compass — essential for Muslims who must face east toward Mecca to pray, and vital to other beliefs, including Native American faiths and Wiccans. Moveable, nondenominational furnishings made from reclaimed teak are being added, allowing the chapel to be configured for a variety of ceremonies.

The renovations reflect how religious demographics have shifted. In the 1950s, half of the city’s population was Roman Catholic. When the hospital surveyed its patients in 2009 and asked about religious affiliation, the largest response (8,006 of nearly 18,000) was “no reported preference.”

Some people might have declined to answer because of privacy concerns, but there seems little doubt that a sizable percentage of patients today do not belong to organized faiths. Of those who said they did, 4,632 patients identified as Roman Catholic, followed by 3,568 who said they belonged to Christian Protestant and Orthodox denominations, 295 Buddhists, 261 Muslims, 123 Jews, and 926 who said “other.”

Tolerance for different religious traditions could have been divisive in redesigning the chapel — consider the contentious debate over a planned Islamic cultural center in Manhattan. Critics have called it the “ground zero mosque,” but others have pointed out is neither a mosque nor actually at ground zero. Instead, the evolution of San Francisco General’s worship space brought together leaders of nearly every faith.

The Rev. Will Hocker, an Episcopal priest and executive director of the Sojourn Chaplaincy, helped lead the redesign effort and about a year ago gathered more than a dozen local religious leaders to rethink the space. “We had been feeling for a number of years that it should not be an exclusive worship place in a public hospital,” Father Hocker said.

Traci Teraoka, a designer and interim executive director of Maitri, a hospice that embraces all beliefs, attended the discussion and said the different faiths discovered their commonalities, like a devotion to nature, which will be incorporated into the final design. “It was powerful,” Ms. Teraoka said of the gathering.

for the full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/22bcjames.html?ref=religion_and_belief

Continue reading »]]> by Mohammad Jamil
September 04, 2010

It is true that cultural conflicts are increasing and are more dangerous today than at any time in history. Yet the fundamental reason for the turmoil and tension in the world is the absence of a just economic order

Power has its own dynamics, and there are many instances in history when the victor and the vanquished belonged to the same religion. Of course there were military expeditions of European Christian powers during the 11th to 13th centuries to recapture the holy land from Muslim powers, which both sides claimed as their own. At present, the world is in the throes of violence and turmoil and the threat of nuclear war looms large on the horizon. Therefore the need for interfaith harmony has never been as urgent and great as it is today. However, to achieve the laudable objective of creating interfaith harmony, first of all there is a need to rewrite history. The focus should be on achievements in science, art, literature and culture, and ideas that have helped mankind. And all the wars and savagery demonstrated by the Greek and Roman Empires, the British and Ottoman Empires or US imperialist outreach should be condemned. Of course, of equal import is the need to establish a new just economic order instead of the New World Order.

It has to be mentioned that the cause for tension or friction between Islam and Christianity at present is not because of a difference in perception regarding the teachings of Islam or Christianity but because of an unjust world economic order. As a matter of fact all religions gave the message of peace and love. And God assigned all the Prophets with the task of making human beings humane and reasonable with a view to establishing a society where people could live in peace, so that they could achieve intellectual, spiritual and material welfare. However, religious shysters gave a spin and misinterpreted religion to create hatred between the followers of different religions. It is true that some Muslim religious scholars in an effort to prove the supremacy of Islam try to belittle the importance of other prophets and religions. Nevertheless, religious leaders of Christians, Jews and Hindus also demonise Islam for the acts of a few extremists, terrorists and warmongers. It has to be acknowledged that today Muslim countries are backward or underdeveloped, and are on the receiving end.

In the past, many a great writer, philosopher and eminent person like Bernard Shaw, Michael H Hart, Lamartine Edward Gibson and Simon Ocklay, etc, had paid tributes to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and Islam. H G Wells wrote: “The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behaviour, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance…Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity.” Today, the international media and many writers paint Islam as contrary to the perceptions of the great men mentioned above. A very recent example is an article in Time magazine (August 30, 2010) titled ‘Is America Islamophobic?’ in which author Bobby Ghosh, while dwelling on the subject, tried to denigrate Muslims. To prove his point he relied upon a new Time-Abt SRBI poll, which stated: “Forty-six percent of Americans believe Islam more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against non-believers. Overall 61 percent oppose the Park51 project, while just 26 percent are in favour of it. Another 23 percent say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.”

There is no denying that Pakistan and almost all Muslim countries condemn suicide bombings and attacking non-Muslims. All peace loving people of the world including a great majority of Muslims believe in combating the bigotry manifested in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism and condemn hate speech aimed at inciting people against any religion. In July 2008, Saudi King Abdullah, while opening an interfaith conference in Madrid had said: “Most of the dialogue between religions has ended in failure.” The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was candid in acknowledging the eidetic reality when he described Islamophobia as the new term for an old and terrible form of prejudice and called for ensuring human dignity for all. On November 13-14, 2008, an Interfaith Conference was held on the initiative of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as a follow up of the Madrid Conference in which the king told world leaders at a UN interfaith meeting that terrorism is the enemy of all religions, and called for a united front to combat it and promote tolerance.

It is true that cultural conflicts are increasing and are more dangerous today than at any time in history. Yet the fundamental reason for the turmoil and tension in the world is the absence of a just economic order. Ruthless exploitation by subjecting weak countries to colonialism, neo-colonialism and globalisation has brought the world to the present pass. Despite all scientific achievements, more than one-fourth of humanity is confronted with deprivation, hunger, disease and illiteracy. We find ourselves in a paradoxical situation — the paradox of misery in the midst of plenty. However, the artificial world order is collapsing, and this is the period of history when values undergo a fundamental shift. This happened in the Hellenic period when from the ruins of the classical world the Middle Ages were born. It happened also during the Renaissance, which opened the way to the modern era. The distinguishing features of such traditional periods are a mixing and blending of cultures, and of course in the process consistent value systems collapse.

The development of science with its faith in rationalism as objective reality and empiricism has led to the birth of modern technological civilisation, which spans the entire globe, firmly binding all societies, and subjecting them to a common global destiny. But simultaneously enemies of peace are at work in Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish societies, and it is here that the role of leaders assumes great importance. Unless leaders are endowed with vision, wisdom and courage, they cannot see the intense conflict between dynamic reality and static forms. Hegel describes the fate of those leaders who were chosen by history to become the executors of its ‘will’ and who have fulfilled the task that was their destiny. “When their object is attained, they fall off like empty shells from the kernel. They die early like Alexander. They are murdered like Caesar. They are transported to St Helena like Napoleon. The leaders today must possess the vision that enables them to remain at the crest of the movement that brought them to power; otherwise they are bound to become the flotsam and jetsam of history.”

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com

source: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\09\04\story_4-9-2010_pg3_5

Continue reading »]]> by Dalai Lama

WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today.

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

Such tensions are likely to increase as the world becomes more interconnected and cultures, peoples and religions become ever more entwined. The pressure this creates tests more than our tolerance — it demands that we promote peaceful coexistence and understanding across boundaries.

Granted, every religion has a sense of exclusivity as part of its core identity. Even so, I believe there is genuine potential for mutual understanding. While preserving faith toward one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions.

An early eye-opener for me was my meeting with the Trappist monk Thomas Merton in India shortly before his untimely death in 1968. Merton told me he could be perfectly faithful to Christianity, yet learn in depth from other religions like Buddhism. The same is true for me as an ardent Buddhist learning from the world’s other great religions.

A main point in my discussion with Merton was how central compassion was to the message of both Christianity and Buddhism. In my readings of the New Testament, I find myself inspired by Jesus’ acts of compassion. His miracle of the loaves and fishes, his healing and his teaching are all motivated by the desire to relieve suffering.

I’m a firm believer in the power of personal contact to bridge differences, so I’ve long been drawn to dialogues with people of other religious outlooks. The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths. And these days we need to highlight what unifies us.

Take Judaism, for instance. I first visited a synagogue in Cochin, India, in 1965, and have met with many rabbis over the years. I remember vividly the rabbi in the Netherlands who told me about the Holocaust with such intensity that we were both in tears. And I’ve learned how the Talmud and the Bible repeat the theme of compassion, as in the passage in Leviticus that admonishes, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

In my many encounters with Hindu scholars in India, I’ve come to see the centrality of selfless compassion in Hinduism too — as expressed, for instance, in the Bhagavad Gita, which praises those who “delight in the welfare of all beings.” I’m moved by the ways this value has been expressed in the life of great beings like Mahatma Gandhi, or the lesser-known Baba Amte, who founded a leper colony not far from a Tibetan settlement in Maharashtra State in India. There he fed and sheltered lepers who were otherwise shunned. When I received my Nobel Peace Prize, I made a donation to his colony.

Compassion is equally important in Islam — and recognizing that has become crucial in the years since Sept. 11, especially in answering those who paint Islam as a militant faith. On the first anniversary of 9/11, I spoke at the National Cathedral in Washington, pleading that we not blindly follow the lead of some in the news media and let the violent acts of a few individuals define an entire religion.

Let me tell you about the Islam I know. Tibet has had an Islamic community for around 400 years, although my richest contacts with Islam have been in India, which has the world’s second-largest Muslim population. An imam in Ladakh once told me that a true Muslim should love and respect all of Allah’s creatures. And in my understanding, Islam enshrines compassion as a core spiritual principle, reflected in the very name of God, the “Compassionate and Merciful,” that appears at the beginning of virtually each chapter of the Koran.

Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever. As a species, we must embrace the oneness of humanity as we face global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster. At that scale, our response must be as one.

Harmony among the major faiths has become an essential ingredient of peaceful coexistence in our world. From this perspective, mutual understanding among these traditions is not merely the business of religious believers — it matters for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is the author, most recently, of “Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World’s Religions Can Come Together.”
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25gyatso.html?hp

Continue reading »]]> by Hermann Krause
The world religious summit was definitely one of the biggest events of its kind that ever took place in Moscow. The unique meeting was initiated by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexi the Second.

Its main objective was however not really religious in nature, but rather political. The world’s religious leaders worked out ideas about how their congregations can contribute to finding solutions to global political problems on the agenda of the G 8 summit in Saint Petersburg.

Denouncing attempts to justify extremism by religion

Metropolitan Kyrill is in charge of the Patriarchate’s foreign policy. He explained that terrorism and extremism, xenophobia and tolerance had been the main topics in Moscow:

“What should the churches do in order to help defuse tensions? All religions have a common basis. That’s why our message should be based on a moral and ethical approach. Even if we address political problems, we should stay away from political declarations.”

It’s not always easy to draw a clear line between politics and religion. And one cannot overlook the fact that the world religious summit in Moscow did have a political function after all: Before the start of the G8 summit in Saint Petersburg, it was to demonstrate to the world that the Russian President does attach great importance to the dialogue between the world’s different religions.

Where as in the old days of the former Soviet Union, people were persecuted for their religious beliefs – things have now radically changed, and the new role of religion in Russia is to help establish peace and to contribute to the wellbeing of Russian society.

Building bridges between different religions

The world religious summit in Moscow was officially organised by an interreligious council consisting of representatives of various religions – among them Aser Allijew, one of the leading representatives of Islam in Russia.

“In Islam, there are clear rules governing the relations with other cultures,” Allijew says. “For example, there is a rule spelling out how a Muslim should behave in a Christian or Buddhist monastery. And one of the main tasks concerning the education of young Muslims is to build bridges between different religions.”

So far, Chechen rebels who justified some of their terrorist activities with the Koran, have not been able to convince Russian Muslims of their views. Approximately twenty million Muslims live in Russia. So it is not surprising that the Russian government tries to improve relations between Christians and Muslims, as well as between Russia and neighbouring Islamic states.

Definitely not on the agenda in Moscow were relations between various Christian denominations, in particular those between the Russian Orthodox and the Catholic Church which have been improving lately.

Yet another religious leader who was conspicuously absent from the Moscow summit was the Dalai Lama. The organisers of the summit were concerned that the Russian foreign ministry would refuse to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama out of consideration for China.

2006

source: http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-308/_nr-43/_p-1/i.html

Continue reading »]]> by Kenan Cetinkaya

E-mail: kchetinkaya@hotmail.com

THE SANCTITY OF WATER IN CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS (ESPECIALLY IN ISLAM)

Introduction

In this paper, I am going to examine sanctity of water in detail in Christianity in terms of using in the first sacrament; Baptism. Afterward I will compare water’s role in Christianity and Islam.

In the beginning, I will try to find out the historicity and theology of the using of water in the other religions –especially in Judaism– before Christianity. In the main body of the paper I will deeply discuss the role of water in the New Testament and in Catholic Tradition and Theology. Then, I will touch the sanctity of water in Islam and its similarities and differences from Christianity.

Common features of the Water in Cultures and Religions

Water, especially, following water, whether of a spring or river has always struck man with its “powers” and efficiency. It moves, it heals, it inspires, it prophesies. It empresses one with its life which seems to be continually renewed. Water are and are life. The symbolism and sanctity of water, says, Eliade, expresses at the same time the “performal, virtual, the chaotic.[1]” The waters before the world of creation and the waters which submerge continents periodically are expressive of this cosmic symbolism of water.[2]

Secondly, water is undoubtedly one of the most ancient and universal of all religious symbols.[3] Without water there is no life, yet water has the power to destroy as well as to create in general religious view. We can see that in many stories of the several religions and myths. In common view humankind is at the mercy of water just as people are at the compassion of the God. The significance of water manifests itself differently in the religions and beliefs but it is these two common features of water that underlie its place in the cultures and faiths.

A) ROLE OF THE WATER IN THE WORLD RELIGIONS

1) Hinduism

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world known history. Role of water in Hinduism has a special place because it is believed to have spiritually cleansing powers.  To Hindus all water is sacred, especially rivers[4]. Although Hinduism encompasses so many different beliefs among those that most Hindus do share is the importance of striving to attain purity and avoiding pollution.  This relates to both physical cleanliness and spiritual well-being.[5]

The Ganges River is the most important of the sacred rivers Hindus attach great importance to bathing in and drinking the water of the Ganges River in India as a means of enjoying rest after death. Water of the river is used for praying and for testing of people who going to die soon.

The other function of water: Morning cleansing with water is a basic obligation for Hindus daily life. Also, “Tarpana”[6] is the point at which the worshipper makes a cup with his hands and pours the water back into the river reciting from “mantras”[7].  After sipping some water, he may then apply the distinguishing mark of his “sampradaya” (tradition), and say the morning prayer, “samdhya”.

2) Buddhism

For Buddhists symbolism and ritual is senseless because they usually search reality from unreality. It does not give much important to matter but spiritual way. Nonetheless water has important feature in Buddhist funerals where water is poured into a bowl placed before the monks and the dead body. [8]

3) Shinto

Water is universal in its all religious uses, but nowhere more central than in Shinto. From ancient times, the Japanese have used water for purification (harai) according to ancient Chinese records of the Wei Dynasty. Japanese families bathed themselves in a river after attending a funeral. The custom of taking baths is a long one in Japan, all of which implies a deep desire to be ritually pure. This attitude probably led to the ascetic practice known as “misogi shuho”. In modern Shinto, harai takes many forms, and may not even use water. A waterfall, river, or pond may also be used. The open sea, because of its salt content, is a considered most effective. Immersion one of these is referred to as “misogi”.[9]

4) Zoroastrianism

Water is also important fact in Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrians believe that pollution is evil and that water, when pure, is sacred.  Zoroastrians themselves must avoid pollution of any kind and must perform ritual ablutions before saying their prayers (which are said 5 times a day facing a source of light) and before any religious ceremonies such as weddings.

Purity and impurity are essential concerns in Zoroastrian thought and practice.  For minor pollutions, “padyab-kusti” is performed, which involves washing and saying special prayers. On the other hand, serious pollution, for example contact with a dead body, requires the nine day “baresnum ceremony” which is held in the temple area and includes periods of prayer and washing with the aid of priests. Also one of the six benevolent divine beings is feminine and creator of water and represented by water in priestly acts of worship.[10]

5) Judaism

a) Role of Water in the Rituals

In Judaism using water for purification is so important and it is acknowledged by Torah and Talmud.  Washing the hands[11], and the feet, or total immersion which must done in flowing – living water like river, spring or in a “mikveh”.

“Mikveh” means a gathering of water for ritual immersion is a Jewish ritual bath used for cleansing after contact with a dead body or after menstruation. It can also be used for immersing vessels and as part of the initiation ceremony for converts.  Only water that has not previously been drawn into a container can be used, and there must be no leakages.  The “mikveh” has its origins in Ancient times when people had to be purified in a “mikveh” before they could enter the Temple area.  Water in this case is important for its cleansing properties. . Its water would be rainwater, springs, snow and ice.[12]

In the temple area ablutions were practiced by priests, converts to Judaism as part of the initiation rites and by women on the seventh day after their menstrual period[13].  Moreover, priests had to wash their hands and feet before taking part in Temple services.  The ritual washing of hands is performed before and after meals and on many other occasions.[14]

b) Role of Water in the Old Testament:

Because of it is sacred both for Jews and Christians; I will look at the Old Testament very deeply in terms of sanctity of water. There are many verses which role of water is important. However, I will touch on some very familiar and very relevant to the subject. The story of the Great Flood is mentioned in Genesis 6-8. The flood is a divine punishment from which Noah and followers of him continued to exist because of their righteousness.[15] The Flood washed away all the sins of the world so that people could start afresh. For some interpreters washing of world with flood is baptism of world itself.    This event also echoed in Christianity by the death and resurrection of Christ that removes sin so that nothing will stand in the way of man and God.

Secondly, the Red Sea as instrument of God’s punishment to the people who insist on do evil against God’s enjoins. On the other hand this miracle was a reward for the faith of Moses and the Israelites, God’s Chosen People. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers emphasizes the two different functions of the water in here, too.[16]

Moreover, some Prophets such as Elijah, Jeremiah and Haggai predicted and expounded drought of water as punishment from God. For instance : in 1 Kings 17:1 “And Elias the Thesbite, of the inhabitants of Galaad, said to Achab: As the Lord liveth, the God of Israel, in whose sight I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to the words of my mouth.” And also Jeremiah 14: 1-6 and Haggai 1: 10-11

Polluted and undrinkable water was also very serious role of water in the Old Testament.  One of the plagues of Egypt was turning the waters of the Nile river to blood (Exodus 7:14-24).  Again, when the Israelites left the Red Sea and came to Marah they found the water there bitter and complained to Moses.  God allowed Moses to perform the miracle of making the water sweet and restored the Israelites faith in Him (Exodus 15:22-27).

Water is also important for cleansing.  Priests were washed at their consecration (Exodus 29:4):  And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.

Special ablutions were demanded for priests on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:4, 24, 26) “16:4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on”. And water is used for all men for the removal of ceremonial pollution (Leviticus 11:40 and 15:13 and Deuteronomy 23:11 ): And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even: he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.

Water is also symbolic of God’s blessing and spiritual refreshment and is used many times in the Bible.  The following are just a few examples:

Isaiah 35:6-7

6- Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. 7- And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

Isaiah 41:17-18

17-When the poor and needy seek water, and there is none, and their tongue faileth for thirst, I the LORD will hear them, I the God of Israel will not forsake them. 18- I will open rivers in high places, and fountains in the midst of the valleys: I will make the wilderness a pool of water, and the dry land springs of water.

In Ezekial’s vision of God’s house the waters that poured from under the threshold represent the unrestricted flow of God’s blessings upon his people (Ezekiel 47:1-12).

Another important point which Dr Klein points out is water as metaphor for Torah. According to the author in Exodus 15:22 it says that “ and they traveled three days in the wilderness and found no water.” So, it can be said that children of Israel went for three days without Torah.  When they found water they actually find the Torah, the living source. [17]

B) SANCTITY OF THE WATER IN CHRISTIANITY

Water, bread, and wine are not simply reminders of God’s love: they bring God to us. In baptism we are set free from the slavery of sin and dressed with Christ. In the Eucharist, Christ himself becomes our food and drink.

(Henri J. M. Nouwen, Bread for the Journey, 1997)

From the Christian point of view as, very close to Old Testament view, three essential dimensions of water symbolism are important. The first one can be termed cosmic dimension. According to this dimension, there can be no life without water, and because of this primitive man identifies water with the principle of life, sees in it the primarily essential matter of the world: “ … and the Spirit of God was moving on the face of the water”(Gen, 1:2). Secondly, it is the symbol of destruction and death. It is dark habitation of the demonic powers, and the very image of the irrational, uncontrollable, and elemental in the world. And finally, water is the principle of purification, of cleanliness, and therefore of regeneration and renewal. It washes away dirties; it recreates the pristine purity of the earth.[18]

1) Baptism

Baptism is one of the most important sacraments of the Christianity which accepted by almost all Christian groups. With deeply symbols of the baptism, role of water in this sacrament is undoubtedly important. For instance, baptism with water naturally brings to mind the rites of cleansing, purification, and initiation as it largely has been mentioned in Gospel of John.[19]

Before introduction to role of water in Baptism it is important to say that before Christianity the rite of baptizing was employed by several Jewish sects of the period, for example, the Essenes. Thus John was not an innovator in this respect.[20]However, in Christian tradition it has been shaped in new form and owned by Christians. In baptism, role of water begins with blessing of holy water.

Blessing of Holy Water

The blessing of water is necessary element in the celebration of baptism.  This prayer is wedded to the sacramental act in its essential sacrament as the prayer is an integral part of the liturgical action.[21]

2) Water Symbolism and Water (as Baptismal action) in John’s Gospel “Living Water”

The role of water is very evidently in Gospel of John. The most important item in this instruction of Christ’s is however the description of the new birth as effected by water and the spirit.[22] This is the clearest statement in the New Testament of the role played by these two essential elements in Christian Baptism.

Another conversation, that between Jesus and the Samaritan woman near the well, contains important baptismal doctrine. The distinction Jesus makes on this occasion between well-water and “living water” (water flowing in a brook or from a spring) would appear to be source of the Church’s insistence from earliest times upon the use of flowing water in the administration of baptism.

In John’s narrative, moreover, “living water” is a symbol for a mysterious supernatural reality. “Any man who drinks this water” (that drawn from Jacob’s well) “will be thirsty again. Whoever drinks the water I shall give him, will never again experience thirst. For the water I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water that leaps up unto eternal life”.[23] Among the fathers of the church, Justin and Irenaeus understand these words of baptism. Moreover, the evangelist himself explains this “fountain” or “rivulets” of “living water” as the Spirit whom those who came to believe in him were destined to receive.[24] This ‘living water’ which symbolizes the Spirit is the sacrament of Baptism. According to Dr. Worden, Christ’s promise that this divinely given ‘drink’ will satisfy thirst forever is a reference to a quality of Baptism which distinguishes it from the Eucharist: the impossibility of its being repeated.[25]

According to Worden, the most important item in this instruction of Christ’s is the description of the new birth as affected by water and the Spirit.[26] This is the clearest statement in the New Testament of the role played by these two essential elements in Christian Baptism. Furthermore, he says that by certain symbolic acts sinful people try to return to union with God-by washing in water, for example: water very fittingly symbolized the living God, and by immersing himself in water a man could be symbolically united once more with God, the source of all life.[27] In addition, Bruno Burki points out that Christian baptism in water and the Spirit has its stage set for it by the anamnetic recall of God’s action as Savior of all, by means of water, and by appeal to the Holy Spirit as a Person of Blessed Trinity, to intervene anew.[28]

On another hand, Dr Lawler points out another considerable aspect of the water using in Baptism in early Christianity. He shows us the early Syrian and Palestinian Church as an example. In respect of him, in the early Syrian Church the emphasis of the water ritual fell on womb and birth, as in John’s “useless one is born of water and the Spirit; he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jh.3:5). On the other hand, in the early Palestinian Church the emphasis fell on tomb and death and resurrection, as in Paul’s “were buried, therefore, with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, [they] too might walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Lawler concludes the examples as saying that “The tomb and womb, death and life, meanings came together, and the baptismal ritual was explicitly interpreted in both ways.” [29]

3) The asperges

This is the ceremony of sprinkling altar, clergy, and people with holy water on Sundays. Leo IV (d.885) ordained that each priest should bless water every Sunday in his won church and sprinkle the people with it. At the same time, Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, made a similar disposition for his diocese. [30]

Such sprinkling on Sundays was remiscent of Baptism; the same is true of modern rite of Asperges. The antiphon Asperges me (but during paschal time, Vidi aquam) accompanies the sprinkling. The baptismal water, blessed at the Easter Vigil service but separated before the infusion of the holy oils, is used for the sprinkling in church on Easter day, and in homes and other places. [31]

4) Use in other Functions

It is known that in the earliest Christian times, water was used for expiatory and purification purposes, to a way analogous to its employment under the Jewish Law. For this sacrament flowing water, river or sea water were used by early Christian Area.[32]

Some early documents[33] have information about blessing of water beside oil during mass. At mass, the priest’s mingling a few drops of water with the wine to be consecrated symbolizes the union of two natures in Christ, the unity of Christ and his people, and the water that came out with blood from his side. This is possibly based on the Jewish custom of taking water with their wine. In baptism, water represents death to one’s old self and a new life in Christ.[34]Also, we can see many examples from the life of early Christians that refers the sanctification of water by signing the cross over water. In early time, moreover, it is believed that blessed water will cure some certain diseases. [35]

Also, in John 13:1-15 it shows us very important role of water in Christian life especially in Eastern Churches. Because of that event, it became a ritual for Christians.[36] Also, water is used to mix with water during the mass ceremony.[37] For purifying the chalice after communion the water is used again.

Further, a strictly liturgical use of water is also made in such offices as the laying of the foundation stone of a church and the consecration of a cemetery, though here the blessing consists only of the five prayers commonly used for making ordinary holy water. In the blessing of a bell, however, and in the dedication of a church special features occur. In the case of the bell an entirely new prayer, “Benedic, Domine, hanc aquam”, is inserted, and with the water thus consecrated the bell is afterwards completely washed inside and out.

For the consecration of a church a special lustral water is prepared after the bishop has entered the building, and the various ingredients, viz. salt, water, ashes, and wine, before being mixed together, are blessed with prayers which differ entirely from those employed in the case of holy water for common use. This lustral water is sprinkled while the bishop seven times makes the circuit of the altar and three times that of the interior of the church. The rite of washing the high altar on Maundy Thursday is performed in the Roman basilicas and some other churches with a certain solemnity, and was in old times an even more noteworthy function than at present. For this purpose wine and sometimes rose water were employed as well as the pure element. Again at the opening of the holy doors in the Roman basilicas when the year of jubilee begins, the penitentiaries, provided with sponges and towels, wash and wipe the threshold, after the previously obstructed door has been unwalled. Less strictly liturgical is the use of water which is blessed with various special formulae for devotional purposes.[38]

It is habitual to have a holy water font at the entrance of a church and for one to use the sacramental by making the sing of the cross. Holy water is ordinary water sanctified by the blessing of the Church. The blessing consists of exotcisms of water and salt; the salt is added to the water in the form of a cross to signify that this water is now preserved from corruption. The practice of putting salt into water comes from the incident of the miraculous cure of the poisonous well where the prophet Eliseus used salt to purify the water of the well (see 2 Kings 19-22). [39]

Christians are permitted to take holy water home with them to sprinkle the sick, their homes, fields, etc. it is recommended that they put it in fonts in the rooms of their homes and use it to bless themselves daily and frequently. Water blessed during the Easter Vigil is known as Easter Water. It is customary for millions the world over to obtain for their homes this Easter water which has been blessed on Easter Saturday.[40] Finally, the liturgy frequently calls for the washing of hands or objects (such as bells or chalices, for example) as a necessary or symbolic purification.[41]

5) Role water in the New Testament

Because we focused on the role of symbol of water much, we will only touch on other some important verses in the New Testament. In the New Testament water is connected with the gift of eternal life.  Some examples are

John 4:14 “But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

Revelation 21:6

“Then He said to me, “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.”
Water is also connected with the baptismal cleansing for the forgiveness of sins as in Hebrews 10:22

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”

Also, Acts 10:47; 11:16 departs between water baptism and Spirit-baptism; baptism of the Spirit can even precede water baptism. In 1 Peter 3:19-21, baptism is designated an image of salvation through water.  John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 The whole event, the symbolic action of water baptism and the Spirit-baptism in faith to a new Christian life, can be summarized as “being reborn” or the “washing of rebirth”.[42]

C) SANTITY OF WATER IN ISLAM

1) Role of Water in the Rituals

Islam requires physical and spiritual cleanliness. On the physical side, Islam requires Muslims to clean their bodies, clothes, houses, and community, and they are rewarded by God for doing so. While people generally consider cleanliness desirable, Islam insists upon it and makes it an indispensable fundamental of religious life. In fact, books on Islamic jurisprudence often contain a whole chapter on this very requirement.[43] Pure water is used essentially in matters of purification or “wudu” and “gusl”. Hence the necessity to investigate water’s purity, water has four essential attributes: smell, color, taste, and fluidity.[44]

In Islamic ritual daily ritual life there are three kinds of ablutions.  First one is ghusl, the major ablution which is the method of bath that one should make ablutions, and then pour water over the entire body, from head to foot, at least three times.[45] Muslims are obliged to perform “ghusl” after sexual intercourse, after a woman completes her menstrual cycle and after a woman gives birth which incur state of major ritual impurity.[46] Ghusl is also recommended before the Friday prayer, the two main feasts of Islamic calendar (Ramadan and Feast of Sacrifice), and before touching the Quran.  Ghusl must be done for the dead before they are buried. [47]

The second cleanliness way is “wudu”[48], which can be named as the minor ablution, which is performed to remove minor ritual impurity from everyday life.  This must be done before each of the five daily prayers and involves using pure water to wash the face with pure water, rub the head with water, washing the hands and arms up to the elbows and the feet up to the ankles.[49]Every mosque has running water for “wudu”.  The third type of ablution is performed when no water is available: “tayammum”.  In this case clean sand is used.

2) Role of Water in the Quran

Islam describes water with very sacred qualities such as a life-giving, sustaining and purifying resource. It is the origin of all life on earth, the substance from which God (Allah) created man[50], and the Holy Qur’an emphasizes its centrality: “We made from water every living thing”.[51]Water is the primary element that existed even before the heavens and the earth did: “And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and his Throne was upon the waters”.[52]

The water of rain, rivers and fountains mentioned in the Qur’an are symbolized Allah’s benevolence: “He sends down saving rain for them when they have lost all hope and spreads abroad His mercy”[53] At the same time, the believers are frequently reminded that it is Allah Who gives sweet water to the people, and that He can just as easily hold back it: “Consider the water which you drink. Was it you that brought it down from the rain cloud or We? If We had pleased, We could make it bitter”.[54]

Furthermore, from the many Quranic references to cooling rivers, fresh rain and fountains of flavored drinking water in Paradise; we can infer that water is the essence of the gardens of Paradise. According to Quran water flows beneath and through them, bringing coolness and greenery, and stopping thirst. The believers will be rewarded for their faithfulness by “rivers of living water; and rivers of milk unchanging in taste, and rivers of wine, delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of honey purified”[55]. The Qur’an also equates the waters of Paradise with moral uprightness: “In the garden is no idle talk; there is a gushing fountain”[56]

In the Hadith (Saying of the Prophet)

“The key to the heaven is salat(daily prayers), and the key to Salat is purification”[57]

Prophet Muhammad gives importance to cleanliness in daily life and religious acts. So that he says: “Cleanliness is half of faith,”[58] He also mentions the spiritual role of water while one practice the small ablution. He says: “When a believer performs ablution (Wudu) and rinses his mouth, sins go out from his mouth. When he snuffs up water, the sins go out from his nose, when he washes his face, sins go out from his face, so that they go out from under his eyelashes. When he washes his hands, sins go out from his hands, and from under his fingernails. When he wipes his head, sins go out from his head and frim his ears. When he washes his feet, sins go out from his feet and from beneath his toe nails. Then walking to Masjid (temple of Muslims) for praying (salat) provides extra blessing for him.”[59]

One of the most famous saying of the Prophet Muhammad he points out the effect of sincerely ritual with water hereafter. He says: “The believers will come on Resurrection Day with brightness on their foreheads, wrists and ankles from the effect of ablution.” [60]

CONCLUSION

Water is one of the most important elements in life of humankind. Not only humankind but all living beings were created by water. Therefore it is very evidential in all religious theology and ritual daily life.

On the other hand the similar affect of water can be considered especially in two theistic religions; Islam and Christianity. In the Bible, it mentions the water before creation of the world while “Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”[61] In the Quran, likewise it says that everything was created by water. And before existence of the universe God’s rule and sovereignty were on the water.[62] Furthermore, In the New Testament, all three synoptic Gospels begin with the baptism of Jesus which the water is so important for this the most important act. Also Jesus washed his disciples’ feet with water also he walked on the water.[63] In Islamic perspective Prophet Muhammad shows many miracles with help of God by using water. He flowed water between his fingers, he increased the quantity of food and water.[64] In both religions water means both cleanness and pure also can be used for punishment of God as in the flood story. Christians and Muslims also use water for their prayers. Muslims have to use water before five time daily prayers and before touching Quran and pilgrimage of Kaba, holy place in Mecca. Water is meaningful when Christians communicate it with the Jesus’ mission and relate it with the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Muslims use it for spiritual purification before meet and prayer for God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hamidullah, Muhammad, Introduction to Islam, Turkish Religious Foundation, Ankara, Turkey, 1997

Buyukcelebi, Ismail, Living in the Shade of Islam, The Light Inc, New Jersey, 2002

Kazi, Mazhar U., Guidance from the Messenger, Al Huda Publisher, Richardson, Texas, 2002

Williams, John Alden, The word of Islam, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1994

Sacraments in the Scriptures, Edited by T. Worden, Springfield, Illinois, 1966

Vorgrimler, Herbert, Sacramental Theology, Liturgical Press, 1992

Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotion and Practices, Intr. Ann Ball, Indiana,2003

New Catholic Encyclopedia, V 14, Theodicy, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1962

Klein, Isaac, A guide to Jewish Religious Practice, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1979

Neusner, Jacob, Tamara Sonn and Jonathan E.Brockopp, Judaism and Islam in Practice, New York, 2000

Sappenfield, William J., The Chaos of Grace, The Living Pulpit, January-March 2005/The Living Pulpit

Demetrio, Francisco, Symbols in Comparative Religion and the Georgics, Ateneo University Publications, 1968

Schmemann, Alexander, Of Water and The Spirit, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974

Burki, Bruno, The Blessing over the Baptismal Water, Studia Liturgica, v.26, 1996

Collins, Adela Yarbro, the Origin of Christian Baptism, Studia Liturgica, v. 19, 1989

Picken, Stuart D.B., Historical Dictionary of Shinto, The Scacecrow Press, London, 2002

[2] Demetrio, Francisco, Symbols in Comparative Religion and the Georgics, 32

[3] Schmemann, Alexander, Of Water and The Spirit, 39

[4] There are seven sacred rivers Ganges, Yamuna, Godavari, Sarasvati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri

[5] Dougan, Jane, see http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Po-Re/Religions-Water-in.html

[6] The rituals after death in Hinduism, see http://www.hinduism.co.za/tarpana.htm

[7] Mantra is a religious or mystical syllable or poem, typically from the Sanskrit language see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantra

[8] Abrams, Water in Religion, see http://www.africanwater.org/religion.htm

[9] Picken, Historical Dictionary of Shinto, 231-2

[10] http://www.africanwater.org/religion.htm

[11] Neusner, Jacob, Tamara Sonn and Jonathan E.Brockopp, Judaism and Islam in Practice, New York, 2000, 47

[12] Klein, Isaac, A guide to Jewish Religious Practice, 518-20

[13] Neusner, 55

[14]Klein, 49, likewise, after burial, washing as  mitswah and washing hands in the morning, See Klein, 3, 63.

[15] Schemann, 39-40

[16] Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 9 see also, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

[17] Klein, 27-28

[18] Schmemann, 39

[19] Jones, Larry Paul, The symbol of water in the Gospel of John, ,49

[20] The New Catholic encyclopedia, this baptism of john was not the Sacrament; rather, for those who received it, it was an external manifestation of interior sorrow for personal sins. See also, Collins, Adela Yarbro,  the Origin of Christian Baptism, 28

[21] Burki, Bruno, The Blessing over the Baptismal Water,178

[22] See Jn. 3:5

[23] See Jn. 4:13-14

[24] See, Jn. 7:38-39

[25] Sacraments in the Scriptures, 54-55

[26] See, Jn. 3:5

[27] Sacraments in the Scriptures, 132

[28] Burki, Bruno, The Blessing over the Baptismal Water, 178

[29] Lawler, Michael G., Symbol and Sacrament, 64

[30] New Catholic Encyclopedia, water

[31] Ibid, water

[32]New Catholic Encyclopedia, Holy Water, see  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07432a.htm

[33] Such as Testamentum Domini and  The Pontifical of Scrapion of Thumis

[34] Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotion and Practices, 655-56

[35] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Using of Water

[36] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Washing Feet and  Hands, see also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15557b.htm

[37] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Using of Water, see also,  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15564a.htm

[38] Liturgical Use of Water, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15564a.htm

[39] Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotion and Practices, 656

[40] Ibid, 656

[41] New Catholic Encyclopedia, water

[42] Vorgrimler, Herbert, Sacramental Theology,105-107

[43] Buyukcelebi, Ismail, Living in the Shade of Islam, 155

[44] Buyukcelebi, Ismail, Living in the Shade of Islam, 155

[45] Hamidullah, Muhammad, Introduction to Islam, 297

[46] Williams, John Alden, The word of Islam, 70

[47] Neusner, 42

[48] Neusner, 42

[49] This comes from the Quran 5: 7/8 “O you who believe, when you prepare for prayer, wash your faces and your hand to the elbows; rub your head and your feet to the ankles” and is elaborated on in great detail in the “Sunna” See also, Williams, John Alden, The word of Islam, 69

[50] Quran, 25:54

[51] Ibid, 21:30

[52] Ibid, 11:7

[53] Ibid, 25:48

[54] Ibid, 56:68-70

[55] Ibid, 47:16

[56] Ibid, 88:11-12

[57] Kazi, Mazhar U., Guidance from the Messenger, 21

[58] See Sahih-i Muslim, Tahare, 1

[59] Kazi, Mazhar U., Guidance from the Messenger, 21

[60] Chate, Francesca De, Ibid

[61] Gen. 1:2

[62] Quran 11:7

[63] Matthew 14:22-33

[64] http://sunnah.org/history/miracles_of_Prophet.htm#Water

Continue reading »]]> Islam: Pluralism and Interfaith Dialogue

by Shah Abdul Halim

In the recent past several seminars were organized in the country on interfaith dialogue. These seminars made great contribution in strengthening already existing communal harmony and exposing the hollowness of the propaganda of the interested quarter to malign and defame Bangladesh. These seminars however failed to address the key issues of misperception of the Muslims and non-Muslim alike. Here in this article I shall make an attempt to address some of the texts which hitherto have been misunderstood.

No doubt Islam stands for pluralistic order. Pluralism is the design of Allah. Al Quran states: If it had been your Lord’s will, they would all have believed, all who are on the earth. Will you then compel mankind against their will to believe [10:99]? In another verse Al Quran states: To each among you have We prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds [5:48].

An examination of the texts of these two verses makes it clear that diversity is the will of Allah. The text of the aforementioned verses also makes it clear that compulsion in the matter of faith is forbidden which is also corroborated by another verse of the Quran which states: Let there be no compulsion in religion [2:256].

A critical look of the text of the verse 5:48 manifests that the purpose of these differences is to test, what we do with the revelations and how we behave with the precepts and teachings of Islam and who strive as in a race in good deeds. Diversity of religions, nations and peoples is a test and the teachings of Islam require that we manage the differences and live a peaceful harmonious life in this world. This is pluralism.

Al Quran states: And did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief [2:251]. In another verse Al Quran states: Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much would surely have been pulled down [22:40].

The teaching of the aforementioned two verses is very significant in the present world context. The ever lasting teachings, the universal dimension of the message of Islam of these two verses are that if there are no differences between people, if power is concentrated in the hands of one group alone, be it one nation or one race the earth would be corrupt because human beings require others to control and limit their irresponsible impulse and behavior for expansion, supremacy and dominance. Verse 22:40 indicates that the scheme of Allah is to protect monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques which establishes pluralistic religious nature of Islam.

Islam is basically a tolerant religion. The difference between peoples, nations, races and religions may lead to conflict and therefore mans’ responsibility remains in establishing peace and tranquility in the society. It is important that a balance is established in the society based on mutual respect, love and compassion rejecting all types of arrogance, whether it is material or intellectual and establishing such balance between different nations and communities is possible only by sharing knowledge about each other.

Al Quran states: O mankind, We created you from a single pair of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other [49:13]. Knowing and respecting each other and dialogue and communication is the best way to avoid mistrust and overcome differences.

Establishing harmonious relations between peoples have been repeatedly emphasized in Islam. Al Quran states: Allah forbids you not with regard to those who fight you not for your faith nor drive you out of your homes from dealing kindly and justly with them for Allah loves those who are just [60:8]. In another verse Al Quran states: Invite all to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious [16:125]. In another verse Al Quran states: And dispute you not with the People of the Book except in the best way, unless it be with those of them who do wrong [29:46].

Confusion also exists among scholars and general people alike as to the meaning of the words Kafir, Kuffar, Kafara, Kafaru, Yakfuru which are commonly misunderstood both by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as being disbeliever, infidels or miscreants. But the word has also been used in the Quran in the sense of deny, deniers, denial, denied. Verse 3:28 states: Let the believers (Muslims) not take as allies the deniers (Kafirin) rather than believers. Arabic notion of Kufr or Kafir has often been mistranslated. Etymologically the general meaning of Kafir could be rendered as a denier with a veiled heart, veiled, shut off in their hearts to the extent that they deny the presence of the Creator. The dictionary meaning of Kufr also includes hide and cover up.

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, the greatest poet-philosopher of Islam, affirmed that Hindus could not be considered as kafirs as they believe in the supremacy of God [Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Gayatri Mantra, Urdu tr., Introduction quoted in Rafiq Zakaria's Indian Muslims Where have they gone wrong?, Popular Prakashan and Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, September 2004, p 246]

But Kafir may also indicate one who denies the evidence of the truth as is apparent in the revelation. Iblis knew the existence of Allah as he spoke to Him, but he refused to obey. Al Quran states: He (Iblis) refused, became proud and was among the deniers (min al kafirin) [ 2:34]. It would be pointless to say that Iblis, who had a dialogue Allah Subhanahu Wa ‘Taala, did not believe in Him. This is neither logical nor a consistent translation.

So to apply the term Kafir to Jews and Christians is justified as they do not recognize the Quran as the last revealed book. They deny (Yakfuru) the truth of the message and its Prophet, but this does not mean we call them miscreants in the sense that their faith in God is not recognized, which would be an inaccurate assertion [Tariq Ramadan (Professor of Philosophy at the College of Geneva and Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland), Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004, pp 206].

It is apparent that these scholars do not feel it appropriate to call Jews, Christians, Hindus etc. as Kafirs because they do not deny the existence Almighty God. They are of course non-Muslims.

The pluralistic nature of Islam is evident from the fact that the duty of a Muslim is only educating and passing the knowledge of Islam, near and far. Al Quran states: And admonish your nearest kinsmen [26: 214]. The responsibility ends with educating, transmitting and communicating faith. To pass on the message is to call and invite people to the way of Allah. Conversion is something that only Allah can alone accomplish. It is an affair of the heart and does not lie within anyone else’s purview and jurisdiction. It is only the prerogative of Allah. This is the real meaning of Litakunu Shuhadaa Ala Al Nass- bear witness to the message before mankind.

The pluralistic nature of Islam is further established by its principle of justice in all circumstances, in relation to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Al Quran states: O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do [5:8]. The principle of justice in Islam constitutes the fundamental norm after faith in the oneness of Allah (Tawhid).

This principle takes precedence over one’s own interest, the interest of relatives, interest of race, interest of nations and so on. If, for example, Muslims are called to participate in a war that is unjust or based solely on the longing for power, conquer land or control of territory or resources and other interests, they should not take part in such a war. Muslims are not allowed to fight for money, wealth or resources, grab power or occupy territory. They must avoid oppressive war.

Muslims cannot participate in unjust war, whatever is the identity or religion of the enemy. Belonging to particular faith does not mean that Muslims are required to accept or support injustice simply because it is committed by another member of the same faith. On the contrary, Muslims, according to the teachings of Islam, are required to oppose and even stop such injustice even if it is committed by another Muslim. Prophet Muhammad said: Help your brother whether he is unjust or the victim of injustice.

One of the companions asked: Messenger of Allah. I understand helping someone who is the victim of injustice, but how should I help one who is unjust? The Prophet replied: Prevent him from being unjust. That is how you will help him [Bukhari. Muslim]. Another Hadith reports Prophet Muhammad said: Whoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hands; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart- and that is the weakest of faith [Muslim quoted in An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith, tr. Ezzedin Ibrahim and Denys Johnson-Davies, Holy Quran Publishing House, Damascus, 1977, p110]

To erase the misgiving from the peoples’ mind another issue that need to be addressed in interfaith dialogue is the truth of the claim of killing of 400 to 900 Jews tribesmen of Banu Qurayza in cold blood and later buried in trenches in Medina by Prophet Muhammad for breaking treaty and joining enemy ranks as related by Ibn Ishaq in Sira, the biography of the Prophet. This narration of Ibn Ishaq, as examined and proved hereunder, is a later innovation and challenged by the scholars.

Imam Malik, a contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, denounced Ibn Ishaq as an outright liar [Uyun al-Athar, 1, 2] and imposter [ibid, 1, 16] for transmitting such stories. Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, doubted that Prophet dig trenches. Ibn al-Qayyin in Zad al-Ma’ad ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers killed. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind about the narration of Ibn Ishaq [Tabari, Tarikh, 1, 1499 (where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, 11, 513); Zad al-Maad (ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970), 11, 82; Ibn Kathir, IV, 118]. The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn Ishaq’s version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnation and outright rejection.

One of the weakness of the authors of Sira including Ibn Ishaq is that, unlike the compiler of Hadith who applied critical criteria for checking accuracy of the Hadith, they are not meticulous and did not apply the strict rules of traditions, did not provide chain of authorities, did not verify whether the narrators are trustworthy or not and therefore Sira cannot be really taken as absolutely authentic.

The reference of the Quran to this incidence is also very brief: Some you killed, some you took prisoner [33:26]. Scholars are of opinion that the reference of Quran as to the killing can only be those who were actually killed in the fighting.

The truth of killing of 400 to 900 Jews tribesmen of Banu Qurayza by the Prophet is rejected by scholars as Islam permits punishing only those who are responsible for sedition. To kill such a large number is also opposed to the Islamic sense of justice Al Quran states: No soul shall bear another’s burden [35:18]. It is also against the Quranic injunction regarding the prisoner of war. Verse 47:4 states that when the enemy is brought under control, the prisoners are to be treated with generosity (i.e. release the prisoner to freedom without ransom) or ransom is recommended.

Moreover it is unlikely that Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed them to go. Indeed Abu Ubayd b.Sallam relates in his Kitab al-Amwal that when Khaybar fall to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by excessive rude abuse of the Prophet. Yet the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke [ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388/1968, 241].

This happened after the surrender of Banu Qurayza. If so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place of Medina and trenches were dug for the burial, it is strange that there is no trace whatsoever of all that – no sign, no visible mark to point to the place of massacre or burial trenches.

Had this slaughter actually happened jurists would have adopted it as a precedent? In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists and their rulings have been more according to the precepts of Islam. Al Quran states: No soul shall bear another’s burden [35:18].

Indeed Abu Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kitab al-Amwal which is a book of jurisprudence, not of Sira (biography). He narrated an event of trouble among a group of the People of the Book (Ahal al Kitab) in Lebanon when Abdullah b. Ali was the regional governor.

The governor put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved to elsewhere. Imam al-Awzai, contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, in has capacity as the leading jurist of the time immediately objected to this decision of the governor. His argument was that the episode was not the result of the community’s unanimous agreement. He argued that under Islamic Shariah many people cannot be punished for the fault of the few. Islamic Shariah on the contrary stipulates the punishment of the few for the fault of the many.

If Imam al-Awzai had accepted the story of slaughter of Banu Qurayza as related by Ibn Ishaq as true he would have treated it as a precedent and would not have come out with an argument against authority represented by governor Abdullah b. Ali and would have advised the governor to act according to precedent of Banu Qurayza.

The later scholar after scrutiny agreed that it would be reasonable to conclude that a few specific persons of Banu Qurayza tribe as having been put to death, some of whom were described as active in their hostility and were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished – not the whole tribe.

The sources of the story of the killing of Banu Qurayza as related by Ibn Ishaq are extremely doubtful and the details are utterly opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Quran. Credible authority is lacking and circumstantial evidence does not corroborate and support it. This means that the story is doubtful. In fact Ibn Ishaq quoted as source such persons who were already dead at the time of occurrence of the incident.

The story of killing of Jews in Medina according to some other scholars and historians however has origin in earlier events. Prof. Guillaume is of the opinion that Jews arrived in Medina after Jewish Wars [A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1956), 10-11]. According to Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew, Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes [De bello Judaico, 1, 4, 6]. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960 [ibd, VII, 9, 1].

Clearly the similarity of the numbers killed is most striking. This is indeed more than a mere resemblance. The origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of Jews who fled south of Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Flavius Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of their descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provide Ibn Ishaq’s story.

Thus Muslims and non-Muslims alike must make sincere efforts to be acquainted with the true teachings of Islam and authentic history of Muslim culture and civilization for that can ensure peace and tranquility in this conflict ridden world. This is also important as that can alone change the western mindset which is vital to bring an end of hegemony and unilateralism. Allahu Alam. Allah knows best.

*********************************************************************************
*The writer is the Chairman of Islamic Information Bureau Bangladesh. The author is greatly indebted to W. N. Arafat for using her scholarly research work New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1976, pp 100-107. Email:sah1947@yahoo.com. Website: www.shahfoundationbd.org

source:http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/islam_pluralism_interfaith_dialogue_debate.htm

Continue reading »]]> I. Introduction
Twenty years ago, during the period between the second and third sessions of the Second Vatican Council, two

panels of experts were given the task of drafting texts on Islam to be included in the evolving documents on the church and on ecumenism. The material, discussed early in the third session, was incorporated into a new “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions,” which was essentially completed in November, 1964, and definitively approved in October, 1965. Nostra aetate’s remarks about Islam seem quite reserved and polite in retrospect, but, given the prior history of Roman Catholic attitudes toward-or simple inattentiveness to-Islam, the texts on Islam were quite remarkable and even revolutionary. A great deal of action and reflection on relations between Christians and Muslims has occurred during these two decades, especially among Christians at the ecclesiastical level or with church sponsorship of one sort or another. In May, 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians, with a special department on Islam. Two years after sponsoring landmark meetings between Muslims and Christians in Cartigny, Switzerland (1969), the World Council of Churches established its “Sub-unit for Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies.” In 1977 the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. formed a Task Force on Christian-Muslim Relations, with headquarters at the Hartford (CT) Seminary.

Christian interest in the possibilities of and need for dialogue between Christians and Muslims has grown steadily since Vatican II, and a number of important church-related documents have appeared since 1969. An overview of six such works is presented here in the hope of bringing to light some of their major themes and emphases. Because the writings I have selected vary in many ways, they are not simply comparable. It is possible, nevertheless, to discern in them thinking about Islam that various church groups have been engaged in lately.

The documents I have chosen are listed here chronologically, in order of publication: The Vatican Secretariat’s Guidelines for a Dialogue between Muslims and Christians1 (hereafter VS 1); A New Threshold: Guidelines for the Churches in their Relations with Muslim Communities,2 from the British Council of Churches (hereafter, BCC); the World Council of Churches’ Christians Meeting Muslims: “WCC Papers on Ten Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue3 (hereafter, WCC); The Muslim-Christian Dialogue of the Last Ten Years4, published by Pro Mundi Vita, “an international information and research center under Catholic auspices” (hereafter, PMV); Orientations pour un dialogue entre Chretiens et Musulmans,5 from the Vatican Secretariat (hereafter, VS 2); and Christian-Muslim Relations. An Introduction for Christians in the United States of America,6 sponsored by the N.C.C.C.U.S.A. Task Force (hereafter NCC).

What follows is a summary of the documents, based on a consideration of four facets of the material: (1) the shape of the documents-their purpose, scope, and method; (2) background information on the participants in the dialogue (especially Muslim), from the point of view of amount and importance, type, level, and organization of information; (3) various approaches to dialogue itself-its history, theoretical foundations or presuppositions, actual practice, and prospects or suggestions for the future; and (4) a somewhat lengthier recapitulation of the principal religious and moral/social themes in dialogue.

II. The Shape of the Documents. Purpose, Scope, Method

Beginning with the most specific and the narrowest in scope and proceeding to the more general and broader treatments, one discovers considerable variety among the documents. WCC offers an anthology of fourteen relatively brief “reflections, statements, memoranda of ten years of Christian-Muslim dialogue,” plus an introduction. The collection is intended to help the reader “pause for a moment and look back at the problems faced and the results achieved,”7 Nine of the items (if one includes the introduction, “Present and Future Patterns of Christian-Muslim Dialogue”) deal specifically with Christian-Muslim interaction; four others contain reflections and suggestions from a solely Christian perspective regarding the concept and conduct of dialogue itself; and two report on meetings attended by members of traditions other than Christianity and Islam, as well as by Christians and Muslims. Of the nine pieces in the first category, six report on actual Christian-Muslim conversations, and three are unilateral Christian reflections about the nature of Christian-Muslim dialogue, its presuppositions, implications, etc. In general, WCC’s material is highly positive in tone. Ile book offers no serious overall evaluation of the reports and is not intended to be a critical analysis of the discussions.

PMV’s Muslim-Christian Dialogue of the Last Ten Years written by Maurice Borrmans, covers a time span equal to that of WCC, but PMV begins and ends slightly later. The middle twelve pages (of fifty-two) summarize the proceedings of some fifteen Muslim-Christian meetings held between 1969 and 1978. Though its scope is comparable to that of WCC, BMW’s purpose and method are very different. Borrmans begins with a short identification of “Muslims today”, and a sketch of the histories of Islam and of Christian-Muslim relations through the centuries. He then establishes a clearly Roman Catholic context and perspective, referring to Vatican II as containing the “new charter of Muslim-Christian dialogue,” and suggesting that the Vatican Secretariat’s 1969 Guidelines is a fuller articulation of that charter. More importantly, PMV attempts a critical analysis, a “rough balance-sheet of this decade of encounters and colloquia, in order to evaluate successes and failures, strengths and weaknesses.”8 The largest single segment of PMV is given over to posing some hard questions and making some suggestions as to which specific issues need further attention. Borrmans sounds hopeful but is quite frank in his criticisms. Some of the PMV material reappears (evidently verbatim in some cases, insofar as that can be ascertained by comparing the English of PMV with the French of VS 2) in Borrmans’ 1981 writing of the newer Vatican Guidelines to be discussed below.

Two documents move beyond a consideration of the more “official” of formally organized type of interaction. BCC and NCC present their materials in response to the actual and growing need for Muslims and Christians living side by side to understand each other.

BCC was inspired by the increasing number of people in Ireland and Great Britain from non-Christian traditions. ‘”The largest group of these are Muslims, and their strongly expressed resolve to affirm their separate religious and cultural identity poses questions both to Christians and to those institutions in our society which have grown out of our Christian heritage.”9 BCC’s forty pages are devoted to three main areas of concern: information about Muslims, theological issues (the most important single section), and practical problems and suggestions.

NCC attempts to do, on a larger scale, for Americans what BCC seeks to do for British churches. NCC’s author, R. Marston Speight, acknowledges that “the image projected by Islam upon the imagination of the average American is one of an intolerant, legalistic and fatalistic religion practiced by backward, ferocious and scheming people.” As a growing but as yet not fully recognized religious minority, “Muslims have become the neighbors and fellow citizens of Christians in the United States.” Hoping to “provide background for Christian-Muslim rapprochement” and to suggest ways of avoiding the growth of bigotry-but without judging Islam in terms of Christian beliefs-the author refers to himself as a “sympathetic observer who tries to understand that religion as Muslims do, that is, insofar as it is possible for a non-Muslim to grasp it.”10 Nearly half of NCC is given to reducing prejudices and stereotypes by providing three chapters of background on the origin and history, religious practices, and present shape of Islam as a global phenomenon. Another thirty-two of its eighty-five pages discuss the history of Muslim-Christian relations and key theological issues especially related to the intersection of the two traditions. The remainder of NCC contains practical suggestions and information.

The Vatican Secretariat has sponsored two relatively lengthy documents, VS 1 in 1969, and VS 2 in 198 1, the latter a substantial-almost total-rewriting of its forerunner. These are the broadest in scope of all six documents. Their stated purpose is more general, and their method is more theoretical than practical. Evident facts of cultural, ideological, and religious pluralism, in the face of which simple tolerance and mere coexistence are no longer sufficient to maintain peace in the world, form the point of departure of both Vatican writings. They affirm the absolute necessity of dialogue, but caution that their goal is not to “fix definite formulae for such a dialogue, but rather define the spirit in which it should take place.”11 In general, the purpose of any dialogue is to “stimulate those taking part not to remain inert in the positions they have adopted, but to help all concerned to find a way to become better people in themselves and to improve their relations with one another….”12 In the words of VS 2, “true dialogue involves the bold venture of individuals who wish to be enriched by their differences, to share their common values, and to respond as individuals to the calls the Lord addresses to each one most intimately.”13

VS 1 and VS 2 take the need for specifically Muslim-Christian dialogue to be virtually self-evident; it must be seen as an essential dimension of life wherever believers of both traditions “live, work love, suffer, and die” together.14 Given that need, however, both documents emphasize the further need to focus on Islam as a religious faith, as a”progress towards God and final realization of’ human potentialities. Muslim-Christian dialogue must be kept from deserting the spiritual level in favor of the temporal, for “One will never really get to know any Muslim … until one has discovered” in that person the religious values for which he or she lives15.

Both VS 1 and VS 2 are constructed in six chapters. Borrmans has kept many of VS 1′s topic-headings, especially in the last three chapters. There he has retained both the order of chapters and, on the whole, the order of topics within them, but he has transformed VS 2 into a genuinely new approach by changing the overall emphasis and tone, rearranging the order of the first three chapters adding a good deal of totally new material, and especially by addressing each topic from a slightly different angle and filling out the discussion with new illustrations and more extensive documentation from Vatican II and from both Muslim and Christian Scriptures. All things considered, VS 2 is a significant improvement on its predecessor, even though the former is in some ways more academic and seems to presuppose more background information about Islam. A slightly more detailed comparison of the two documents will emerge in subsequent sections of this article. For now, one example will suggest their difference: Whereas VS 1 begins with “The Attitude of a Christian Taking Part in Dialogue,” followed by two chapters containing background on Islam as a religion and as a contemporary global phenomenon, VS 2 begins by introducing both parties to the dialogue as one finds them now, then describes attitudes required of both sides, and finally sets forth the Islamic religious values with which Christians need to be better acquainted.

III. The Use of Background Information

A second set of evaluative criteria can be found in the various ways the six documents use, or even omit, “factual” information about the participants in the dialogue-particularly about Muslims. Information usage follows directly, of course, from a given document’s purpose, scope, and method. Here I have tried to take into consideration the amount and type of information (for example, historical, religious/devotional, explicitly theological, social/ethnic); organization (for example, use of Muslim or Christian categories in speaking of religious matters; use of geographical, political, moral frames of reference, etc.); and level of complexity or sophistication (for example, previous knowledge taken for granted, use of skeletal outline format, more analytical treatment, and interpretation geared to highlighting concepts and attitudes rather than simple statement of “beliefs and practices”).

WCC is the least “informative” of the documents, understandably, for its purpose is to report on discussions among Muslims and Christians presumed to possess ahead of time the requisite familiarity with the crucial issues on their meeting agenda. Paradoxically, a Muslim would learn far more about Christianity from the collected papers than a Christian would about Islam. The reports summarize directly more explicitly Christian than Islamic matters. On the whole, one can get some sense of attitudes of both Muslim and Christian participants toward dialogue, world community, religious freedom, the need to face shared social problems, and so forth. The single most discussed, religious issue is that of mission; some key features of that discussion will appear in the fifth section of this article.

PMV’s background survey provides some more-or-less predictable fundamentals about Islam. Data about Christianity includes only information about the history of its encounters with Islam, beginning with the seventh century. The focus is on the need to appreciate Islam’s “twofold design for temporal civilization and spiritual adventure” in contrast to the way the “Church has given up its dreams of Christendom in order to be at the exclusive service of the Gospel,”16 and on problems arising from the resultant differences in attitudes toward religious minorities (depending on which is the dominant tradition in a given place).

BCC gives a very sketchy summary of Islamic religious tenets, of Islam’s geographical spread and ethnic diversity, and of the principal subgroups within the larger community of Muslims. Following that is a similarly skeletal outline of Christian-Muslim interaction century by century, with a short inventory of “the main factors which must be considered in any assessment of relationships between the two religious in this modern age.”17 Further information occurs under the heading of theological issues related to the eventual development of a “theology of religions.”

Of all the documents, it is NCC that gives the most extensive treatment of historical, religious/devotional, and ethnogeographical background on Muslims. It includes, as do PMV and BCC, a historical survey of Muslim-Christian relations, but it has a somewhat heavier emphasis on attitudinal and moral issues immediately pertinent to its discussion of dialogue itself. NCC’s informational chapters are excellent. The first of them summarizes historical origins and developments under the headings of “A People: The Arabs,” “A Man: The Prophet Muhammad,” and “A Book: The Quran,” with some important correctives to still-prevalent stereotypes about the early spread of Islam. Religious and devotional practice is treated under the two classic Islamic categories of duties of worship and duties of human relationships. The author has succeeded in making the expected mention of “The Five Pillars” come to life even for the jaded professional Islamicist. A chapter on contemporary Islam gives a very helpful four-page segment on “Islamic resurgence in the modem world.” This situates the need for Christians to understand Islam in a context that is immediate and concrete, and it short-circuits the all too common tendency to regard Muslims as oil merchants who must be humored if the “Western” driver wants to stay on the road.

VS 1 and VS 2 both contain similar kinds of background information, but as suggested above, VS 2′s rearrangement of the opening chapters gives it a significantly different overall tone and approach. Both of the Vatican documents differ “pedagogically” from PMV, WCC, and NCC in type and level of information as well as in organization. First, whereas PMV and NCC begin with historical data about Islam and then move to more specifically religious topics (with which BCC begins) and finally go on to identify who and where Muslims are today, VS 1 and VS 2 present historical data only incidentally or by way of illustration. Second, neither VS 1 nor VS 2 is as concerned as any of the other documents with the particulars of Christian-Muslim interaction through the centuries. Third, information about Islamic religious values occurs in VS 1 especially, and to a slightly lesser extent in VS 2, from the perspective of the Christian’s encounter with those values. For example, VS 1 addresses briefly the questions of how a Christian ought to speak about and read the Qur’an.

Fourth, both Vatican documents eventually get around to providing a picture of Islamic religious values that takes into account the major topics contained in NCC, but the perspective is different, particularly in VS 2. For example, NCC’s second chapter and, to some degree, VS 1′s second chapter present information under headings that tend to “objectify” and focus on what Muslims believe and do. VS 2′s third chapter has succeeded in capturing an authentic sense of attitudes, aspirations, and ideals, rather than listing the contents of a creedal statement. Where NCC talks of “Belief in Prophets,” and VS 1 of “The Message of the Prophets,” VS 2 explores the Muslim desire for “Imitation of a Prophetic Model.” Fifth, treatment of who and where Muslims are now varies considerably. In BCC, NCC and VS 1, surveys of Muslim unity and diversity appear after sections on religious themes, while VS 2 and PMV (both written by Borrmans) begin by presenting the people of Islam as one finds them today. VS 2 identifies Muslims as “interlocutors” in the dialogue and prefaces its description of the contemporary Muslim community with a brief acknowledgement of the other interlocutors, the Christian churches. This is the only mention of specific details from the history of Christian-Muslim interaction to be found in either VS 1 or VS 2, and it is largely a surnmary of PMV.18

Finally, I find NCC the most successful in presenting an overall objective summary of Islam as a historical religious tradition that has now achieved truly international and global stature, while VS 2 succeeds most admirably in focusing the reader’s attention on the essential humanity and ideals of Muslims.

IV. Approaches to Dialogue

Several of the documents make a special point of attempting to draw material for reflection from the history of Muslim interaction-alternately described as encounter, hostile or friendly, or as a deliberate attempt at true dialogue. According to NCC, one “overall feature that has marked the encounter of Islam and Christianity through the centuries has been that of alternating ascendency and descendency,”19 that is, the dominance of one or the other as a civilizing force especially in the Mediterranean area. Speight spotlights several key controversies of long standing, and points to a new and growing spirit of conciliation that is itself, however, not without its own historic precedents. History reveals two areas of religious concern, the doctrinal and the moral, that contain potential for both unity and division. NCC outlines briefly a “new approach” in which doctrinal difficulties “should be met frankly and then bypassed.” Two steps are needed: careful listening, and a willingness to cease insisting that the “other become like ourselves.”20 Moral issues need to be subjected to the “right kind of mutual moral critique,” in such a way that one’s moral choices can be “tested by the ethical insights of the other.” Unifying factors are likewise related to “common elements in our beliefs” and to “our common situation in the modem world.”21 Once the areas of disagreement have been met frankly and bypassed, dialogue can begin to “capitalize on our similarities.” NCC then suggests an analysis of common themes in Christian and Muslim prayer as one example of accentuating the positive.

PMV, VS 1, and VS 2 all take their cue from a key text in Nostra aetate: “Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. This Sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding, for the benefit of all…”22 PMV adds to that text a comment that very well sums up the tenor of the three Catholic documents in this regard. Once it had acknowledged past enmities the Council chose not to go into a detailed “pronouncement as to their cause, expressions, or consequences.” What was sought was a mutual understanding that leads to a change of mind and heart that brings freedom from prejudices and, above all, “joint action to safeguard and foster social and global values which are closely allied to faith and religion: justice, peace, and freedom.”23

All three Catholic writing allude liberally to the Qur’anic injunction to believers to “vie with one another in good deeds.” In its further elaboration of what is needed for the spirit of dialogue, PMV describes three virtues that are quite similar to those recommended in NCC: “knowing how to keep silent, how to listen, how to be moderate.” The first involves putting aside preconceived ideas, allowing the others to be what they are and what they want to be. The second means the capacity to wait for a “moment of grace,” when the other unveils his or her secret “dreams of sanctity.” Moderation demands that one put aside the arrogance of “striking declarations, blunt assertions, and long-winded conclusions,” ever mindful that “people live in the current of history, amid what is provisional, and in sin.”24 Given the historical record, this will take “one or two generations of persistent effort on either side to get rid of prejudices, renew attitudes, and deepen spiritualities.”25

VS 1 and VS 2 both devote two full chapters to picking up where Vatican II leaves off. VS 1 entitles its first chapter “The Attitude of a Christian Taking Part in Dialogue” and its fourth, “How to Prepare for Dialogue.” VS 2′s parallel chapters, two and four, are entitled, “The Occasions and Paths of Dialogue” and “Bearing in Mind Present Obstacles.” Chapter one of VS 1 and chap. 2 of VS 2 overlap to some extent in choice of topics discussed, but VS 1 is slanted almost exclusively toward what is encumbent on the Christian partner in dialogue. The latter begins with two “general conditions” of dialogue: dialogue involves relationships among persons, not comparison of systems, and is therefore concerned more with today’s problems than with those of the past; second, Christians must be willing to “belong psychologically’ to the world of Muslims-that is, have some genuine cultural appreciation for it. VS 1 then discusses four “attitudes to be adopted in practice” in relationships at any level of interaction: authentic friendship, accepting the Muslim as he/she wishes to be known, serious preparatory study, and willingness to learn from one another. The third section of the chapter describes four attitudes associated explicitly with religious interaction: frank statement of one’s Christian position, making clear that one is a Christian, renewing knowledge of one’s own faith, and a new understanding of what Muslims consider true and holy. VS 1 then moves into a fuller coverage of these last Islamic values in chap. 2.

VS 2′s expanded and thoroughly refashioned approach to “Occasions and Paths” (chap. 2) contains four sections, after a short introduction that reiterates the conviction that dialogue is “constitutive of the person.” “Places and Times” points out some of. the primary sociocultural contexts in which Christians and Muslims can expect to meet each other-work, schools, etc. A second section suggests four “Ways and Means,” which are the more “general attitudes” of VS 1 but refocused so it is clear that both Christians and Muslims need to adopt them. They include: welcoming one another, understanding one another, living and sharing with one another, and the willingness to dare and risk. A short section on Christian attitudes on the faith of others advises, “It is in this spirit of welcoming, understanding and sharing that the Christian is called by the Church to consider and ponder the mystery of the religious search as it is expressed and embodied in the great historical religions.” It is a thoroughly positive approach based on a belief in the “unfathomable mystery of the religious choices of individuals.”26 Believers in Dialogue,” finally, must cultivate four essential attitudes: dialoguing in the presence of God and under God’s impulse, becoming demanding witnesses for one another, attempting the impossible, and settling for the provisional and incomplete.

The topics explored in “How to Prepare for Dialogue” (VS 1) and “Bearing in Mind Present Obstacles” (VS 2) are almost exactly parallel, but VS 2 has rearranged some of the topics in the second section, made the issues in the third section more specific, and added a fourth section, “Not Forgetting the Obstacles that Remain.” Both chapters begin with the need to acknowledge and move beyond past injustices. The two central sections of each recall the most common Christian stereotypes of the Islamic faith as well as prevalent Muslim views about Christianity. Among the former are suspicions that Islam is fatalistic, legalistic, laking in moral standards, fanatical, static, and obscurantist, and a religion of fear. Widespread Muslim beliefs about Christianity include, for example, that Christians have altered their Scriptures so as not to have to face the more demanding truth of the authentic word of God; that the doctrines of Jesus’ divinity, the redemption, and the Trinity are either simply unacceptable or redundant; that Christian monotheism is not of the purest; that the church is nothing but a temporal power; and that Christians have not been faithful to the message of Jesus.

These are some of the very difficulties NCC suggests we must meet frankly and bypass. VS 2 agrees altogether; however, while it is on the subject of divisive elements, it is at pains to recall that some obstacles cannot be made to vanish or be forgotten except at the price of a “false irenicism.” Practical difficulties are, for example, directly tied to such matters as the prohibition of certain foods for Muslims, the feasibility of mixed marriages, inappropriate proselytism, and the treatment of religious minorities. In its conclusion VS 2 envisions four levels of dialogue: of the heart, where partners share as brothers and sisters; of daily life, where they together promote human values with God as the guarantor; of speech that is at once about God and humanity; and of silence, so that God can speak directly to the heart of each person.27

It is more difficult to characterize WCC’s stance since the document is a collection and is not representative of a clearly unified position. WCC is in some ways at the opposite end of the spectrum from VS 1 and VS 2, to the extent that WCC is given wholly to summarizing actual meetings, while the Vatican papers are almost entirely theoretical. Nevertheless, WCC does make some important statements on the past, present, and future of dialogue. Dialogue between Christians and Muslims is necessary because of the common historical roots of the two religions, the attitude of “selfcriticism” they share, and the increasing intermingling of Muslim and Christian populations.28 Through dialogue both parties can “honour together our conscious dependence upon God in a world that often seems to deny’ God. In other words, one may speak of a motive beyond that of a sense of interdependence. Dialogue holds the hope of “some convergence” short of having to settle for the least common denominator, and must be conducted according to three principles: frank witness, mutual respect, and religious freedom.29 Lest it be reduced to an exercise in comparative religion, dialogue must maintain a highly personal dimension. From the perspective of authentic dialogue, conversion takes on a new meaning as “a growing mutual awareness of the presence of God in an encounter in which each becomes responsible for the other and where both seek openness in witness before God.”30 And there are further theological foundations for this dialogue. Both parties have received an ethical mandate from a loving and loved All-Merciful God. Both have been given creation and the power that it entails as a trust. Acknowledging their shared spiritual affinity with Abraham, Muslims and Christians can own their divergences as well, for both traditions agree that there can be no compulsion in religion.31

An apt conclusion to this section is a statement produced at a 1976 meeting held in Tripoli. Although it does not appear in WCC, PMV quotes it as the “charter for Muslim-Christian dialogue today”:

-to learn the lessons taught by history in order to retain the fruitful experiences and to avoid the errors of the past;

-to see to it that each side comes to know the other as it wants to be known: revision of textbooks, utilization of the mass media, increase in the number of professorships in Islam and Christianity, and cooperation between them.

-to be fair enough, on either side, to guarantee to all religious minorities all the rights and obligations the majority enjoys;

-to recognize each religion’s “duty of apostolate” and the authentic witness each must give, while respecting human liberty-which involves condemnation of any kind of proselytism;

-to define more clearly the exact scope and methods of dialogue.32

Several of our documents also go into some detail on the most practical ways of providing and/or recognizing concrete circumstances suitable for ongoing dialogue, such as seminars, socials, and joint neighborhood projects, to name only a few. Interested readers are directed especially to NCC’s and BCC’s last chapters.

V. Themes in Dialogue

As the foregoing section has made clear, the nature of dialogue itself is one of the predominant themes in dialogue. In addition, all six documents eventually come around to dealing with what VS 2 calls the “triple perspective of all authentic dialogue,” namely, issues relating to the wonders of the universe, human dignity, and the grandeur of God.33 The differences among the documents have to do largely with emphasis, points of departure, and organization.

Taken together, they present a broad spectrum of approaches, ranging from simply reporting actual themes taken up in past organized dialogue sessions (WCC), through a restatement of those themes along with critical analysis and commentary and sketchy suggestions as to topics that need to be addressed in the future (PMV), a selective and more in-depth look at several central themes (NCC), and the more sweeping and theoretical treatment of virtually all the major themes listed in PMC and WCC (VS 1 and VS 2), to a small-scale attempt to situate the central issues in a still broader systematic context-not less than a proposal for a “theology of religions” (BCC).

In its summary of deliberations of past colloquia, PMV suggests that their themes “fall easily into two categories-specifically religious topics or action programmes realizable more or less immediately.”34 The former include agreements on belief in one, subsistent Creator who has spoken through prophets and who will bring history to its fulfillment, and disagreements on such central tenets as the meaning and mission of Muhammad and Jesus and the respective roles of da’wah and mission in Islam and Christianity. The latter have to do with possible collaboration in articulating how faith relates to science and technology, to cultural and economic problems, and with the clear need to come to terms with the “different designs Islam and Christianity have for organizing and inspiring society.”35 As for the future of dialogue on specifically religious topics, PMV recommends an emphasis on convergence of attitude about the mystery of God (to be taken up, perhaps, in colloquia devoted to the “Names of God,” connections between faith and reason, and the “vision of God” in the two traditions). Human dignity could be studied with a focus on its scriptural sources, its exemplification in heroes and saints such as Abraham, and the concept of sanctity itself. Talk about Muhammad and Jesus, the Qur’an, and the various Christian “mysteries” mentioned earlier will remain very touchy for some time to come. Meanwhile, concerted action “in the service of life, justice, freedom, peace, brotherhood” will have to face such issues as contraception and abortion; suffering death and euthanasia; war, racism, and materialism-to mention only the most obvious.36

WCC is likewise helpful in providing an inventory of important topics. Since its papers are all brief, none treats a single issue in great detail (with one exception; see following paragraph). Some of the reports seem a bit more confident than PMV about the potential for fruitful discussion around major theological differences,37 but most of WCC proposes questions that need to be addressed. One of the reports suggests further study of four issues, in the belief that “theological and spiritual renewal can prepare us for social renewal.” First, achievement of a wider vision of world community as interracial, intercultural, and international, for example, would involve Muslims and Christians together in seeking justice for the Palestinians. Second, reconsideration of notions of revelation “may help us to be more faithful to our own tradition as well as being more appreciative and coherent with our neighbour.” Third, a variety of political and cultural contexts must be seen as viable possibilities for interaction-that is, not merely either a secular state or a religious state. Fourth, since dialogue is listening to God as well as to one another, the “spiritual basis and eschaltological dimension of worship and prayer” must be seen as essential to dialogue. In other words, Muslims and Christians need to talk about how they relate their spiritual lives to demands for “justice, brotherhood, and human dignity.”38

WCC’s report on a 1976 “Planning Meeting for Next Steps in Christian-Muslim. Dialogue” constitutes the most detailed single scheme of its kind to be found in any of the six documents. A section on preparation for dialogue outlines several goals and several types of behavior to be avoided, such as the preceding section of this article brought up. Three further sections speak of: “living in dialogue,” including education, family life, worship, and prayer; sociopolitical issues-especially faith and politics in both traditions, social justice, and development-all with specific application to trouble areas in the Middle East, developing nations, and situations where Muslims and Christians find themselves in political tension; and theology and dialogue, with a focus on four areas: revelation; interreligious attitudes; faith, science, technology, and the future of humanity; and Christian mission and Islamic da’wah.39 This last item is a recurrent theme in WCC. Perhaps more than any other issue, it renders dialogue absolutely critical even as it makes it more sensitive.

Much hard feeling remains among both traditions as a result of past practice of mission and da’wah; debate over what positions ought to be adopted in the present is quite heated; and there is strong consensus that this topic cannot be sidestepped in the future. One of WCC’s papers discusses only this question and explains why misunderstandings and barriers to communication have developed around it. At least from the Muslim point of view, negative effects of the “arrival of the Christian missionaries in the company of European colonizers” are still very much in evidence. WCC contains a report on a 1976 “Consultation of Christians and Muslims Concerning Christian Mission and Islamic Da’wah,” to which it has prefixed the editorial remarks published in a collection of all the papers from the Consultation. The Muslim co-editor makes four important points: First, Islam was misrepresented and portrayed in such a way as to discredit it and its adherents. Second, Christian missionaries often took advantage of the sick, the poor, and the immature by offering education, financial help, and medical treatment, often acting “as an organic part of colonialism and cultural imperialism.” Third, Islam was often subverted in favor of “nationalism, secularism, modernism, socialism, even communism.” Fourth, Christians have often considered Muslims political rivals, and the former sometimes appear more zealous for the de-Islamization of the Islamic world than they are troubled by the de-Christianization of the Christian world.40 Ibis Muslim’s Christian counterpart presented neither a rebuttal nor a similar critique of Islam. The Consultation’s joint “official” statement acknowledges that there may in some instances be good reason for continued Muslim suspicion of Christian intentions.41

In its chapter on “Theological Perspectives in Christian-Muslim Relations,” NCC examines in greater detail some of the questions only hinted at in PMV and WCC. Speight has selected six tightly interconnected themes (in addition to the theme of dialogue itself, to which he turns briefly at the conclusion of the chapter): Islam’s view of other religions, Christianity’s view of other religions, absolute truth as a guiding concept, mission and conversion viewed from both perspectives, religious liberty, and the nature of the Christian mission. After calling attention to several of the positions mentioned in VS 1 and VS 2′s sections on Muslim beliefs about Christianity (see the sixth paragraph of section IV, above), NCC offers an excellent summary of the Qur’an’s view of religious pluralism: God wants people to “outdo one another in good deeds,” and the Scripture seems to assume that all religious communities are ultimately oriented toward God. Speight’s commentary on the Qur’anic text is intriguing.

He [God] saw that for the sake of humankind’s clear grasp of duty and capacity to judge between truth and error, a diversity of religions would serve better than uniformity. However, there is no need in the diversity for theological rivalry among the religions, since the question of ultimate truth is not at stake … [it is] a contest out of which all will emerge winners.42

Controversy has, nontheless, developed and is an undeniable feature of Muslim-Christian relations.

However, Christianity, NCC notes, has no satisfactory explanation for religious pluralism. It suggests that we move beyond the three commonly expressed approaches to the question-that other religions are merely human and therefore enemies (does not allow for dialogue at all), or are alternate paths to God (a view that surrenders too much and denies uniqueness), or are true and good but incomplete (too imperious in seeking to subordinate all to Christianity). Recognizing that no rational solution is readily available, the Christian must fall back on his or her Christian identity by confessing that “God has met us in Jesus Christ.” Christians must admit to having no monopoly on truth and must seek to “discern in Islam that which reflects sympathetically what we know of God’s revelation to humankind,” while bearing in patience the fact of divergences.43 This naturally raises the issue of relativism. Speight advises that Muslims and Christians stay with their respective “points of contact with Truth,” in the awareness that these are not Truth itself, and that “the Truth to which they expose themselves is greater than their grasp of it.”44

On mission and conversion NCC points out that Islam’s apparent flexibility toward Christianity is, however, more theoretical than practiced, (Islam considers Christianity a divinely revealed religion, whereas the converse is not the case.) In practice, both traditions are highly exclusivist. Speight proposes as a solution a new understanding of the concept of conversion as essentially a change in one’s relationship to God, without explicit reference to confessional allegiance. For the Christian, to insist that there is no possibility of a relationship to God apart from Christianity is to take a presumptuous step beyond affirming the revelation Christians have received. “We cannot,” says Speight, “be certain of the existence of other ways to God, nor can we deny the existence of such ways. We can hope for such; we can infer from the character of God that they exist; but finally, Christian faith is founded on only one certainty: Jesus Christ is the way to God.”45 NCC finds “ample scope for interfaith cooperation: in an understanding of conversion as above all a turning to God that results in, “among other things a commitment to maintain and enhance the well-being of the human family.”46

NCC suggests that American Christians keep in mind three things about the key matter of religious liberty. First, Christians may seem to be more tolerant than Muslims toward members who depart from their ranks, but what appears to be tolerance may actually be indifference resulting from the “disintegration of the Christian communal life during the last two centuries or more.” Second, the idea of complete freedom of religion is a nonbiblical concept. It is the result of an extreme form of individualism that sets the individual in potential conflict with the community. Third, individualism is not as common elsewhere as it is in the U.S.A.; where Islam is a majority presence, religious liberty means protecting the community against divisive forces such as unbelief or erosive ideologies. That said, the problem of how religious minorities are treated remains serious. “How can the full dignity of minorities be assured without encroaching upon the freedom of the majority to be itself full?”47

Finally, NCC makes three points about how a deeper understanding of Islam can clarify the Christian’s idea of mission. First, mission involves all Christians in a loving approach toward others in the name of Christ. Second, mission is not for the purpose of planting an ideology, but “to explore… the scope of similarity and to bear the burden of separation from others, in the hope that, by the power of God, the separation might be overcome.”48 Third, the mission to “all nations” is to make disciples not of the church, but of Jesus Christ; the living Christ must not be confused with cultural baggage or with social, political, economic, and theological values. The key is to personalize the interreligious encounter by “manifesting the power of a transforming friendship with the Living Christ.”49

Moral and religious themes occupy two chapters each in VS 1 and VS 2. Each document’s fifth chapter treats shared human projects. In its “Perspectives for Muslim-Christian Dialogue,” VS 1 discusses two major developmental issues, those relating to the human personality of the individual and those relating to a more brotherly-sisterly society. Pressures of modem society on the individual, models of the family in Christianity and Islam, and the interaction for cultures viewed as expressions of the “social personality” of nations are the main topics. In a short reflection on how dialogue can lead to truly sister-brotherly attention to the world’s most pressing problems, VS 1 focuses on economic and social development and the interaction of diverse peoples. The document cautions that these matters are to be addressed always within an explicitly religious context and with reference to an Absolute.50

Once again, VS 2 takes a fresh look at the material, referring more frequently than VS 1 to both the Qur’an and Vatican II (especially Gaudium et spes). A chapter on “Requisite Human Collaboration” speaks of the need for people of good will to respond together, united in message and action, to the most blatant inequities many suffer. The chapter’s four sections recall explicitly the “triple perspective of dialogue.” The first section describes the “fulfillment of the world” as a call for a new creation through discovery of new relationships between humanity and nature. The second and third sections, the lengthiest of the four, analyze needs for “The Service of Humanity” and “Stewardship in the (Earthly) City.”

The former of the two examines the two traditions’ views on the source of human dignity, inquiring how the two might respond to the dignity of life (all that has to do with embodiment), of the spirit (seeing all education, culture, and science as an intervention of the Spirit of God), of conscience (objective norms of morality), and of freedom (with adequate education and guarantees). That section concludes the Beatitudes call Christians to collaborate with Muslims in serving the marginal, oppressed, aged, infirm, poor, strangers, and all who are deprived of rights. The third section attempts to propose ways of laboring together in pluralistic societies. Five urgent challenges present themselves: preservation of the dignity of marriage and family, maintaining progress in the arts and culture in forming a world that is at once humane and technological, insuring economic and

a social balance that avoids the excesses of both collectivism and capitalism, guaranteeing human rights through harmony of political communities, and establishment of community of nations and international peace by repudiating all forms of violence.

VS 2 places all these themes in a solidly religious context in it, final is section on “The Human Imitation of Divine Action.” For Christians this is a question of embodying the ideal of Jesus Christ; for Muslims, of living out the divine qualities of knowledge, justice, and mercy. In both instances there must be a kind of “exchange of attributes.”51

More properly theological themes appear in the final chapter of VS 1 and VS 2. What the earlier document calls “‘Me Spirituality of a Christian Taking Part in Dialogue” the later entitles “Possible Religious Convergences.” For both Vatican documents, the key concept is that of an “open spirituality” that allows one to marvel at the work of the Spirit in other religious traditions. An “Ecumenism. of the People of the Book” (VS 1) is made possible only if one is converted from a static spirituality, in which one is a prisoner of extrinsic certitudes and values, to a dynamic spirituality which recasts those same values and certitudes into a passionate search for the traces of God’s word among human beings.

Both documents then elaborate on their chosen themes so as to highlight aspects of convergence between Islam and Christianity. The wording of subheadings is strongly suggestive of differences in tone and emphasis in the two works, with those of VS 1 hinting at parallel concepts and those of VS 2 at more direct convergence; for example, “The Great God and the God of Love” (VS 1) and “The Mystery of God” (VS 2), “The Book and the Word of God” and “The Gift of the Word,” “Prophets and the Prophetic Mission” and “The Role of Prophets,” “Community and Church” and “The Presence of Communities,” a sixth “station along the mystical journey of meeting and sharing,” entitled “The Paths of Holiness.” In all but the section on prayer, VS 2 makes considerably greater use of Qur’anic and Biblical texts.52

Perhaps the most theologically ambitious of the documents, especially Oven its brevity and the size of its intended readership, is BCC. Its opening statement gives only a tiny clue as to what will follow:

The blunt fact is that the Churches in Britain are ill-prepared to discuss the theological questions raised by the existence of other faiths, simply because they have hitherto paid little attention to them. Christian theology has been written by and large, and even within the universities, as if other faiths had nothing to teach them about the relationship of God with his world. It will take some years for the theologians and governing bodies of our Churches to adjust to the realities and perspectives of the pluralist society which Britain, in common with the rest of the world, is rapidly becoming.53

Author David Brown’s observations are clearly applicable to churches all over the globe, which is all the more reason for him to make his rather bold proposal for a “theology of religions.”

BCC’s approach consists of five main elements: First, an authentic response to the “unique act of God in Christ” makes Christians responsible for witnessing to that mystery, in full awareness that their affirmation of it “is different, in its essential inner meaning, from Muslim statements about God.”54 The second has to do with Christians’ responses to other religions and to Islam in particular. Authentic responses to the presence and action of God can be discerned across the whole spectrum of religious belief and practice. Christians must strive to interpret the Islamic experience in light of that. They can find a model for such an interpretation in their own recognition of the Hebrew Bible; here is a precedent for Christian relationship with a religious tradition that does not accept Christian faith as a whole. At the very least, the Christian can in no way presume to limit the action of the Holy Spirit. To sum up the second point: “It is possible, while using Christian categories, to accept that there is, and always has been, a living relationship between God and the peoples of Islam, which has been grounded in part, though not fully, in what they have learnt of him as they’ practiced their our religion.”55 Third, it is important to take account of factors that unite Muslims and Christians (common humanity, citizenship, religious heritage-many of the items discussed in VS 1 and VS 2, for example) as well as those that divide (social problems and theological differences).

In the fourth element, Brown stresses the need to develop a “theology of religions” on the basis of two principles of interpretation. The first principle is an “inclusivist” interpretation of God’s revelation in Christ that underscores its “relevance to everything else in the universe.” Human unity under divine kingship, the universality of Jesus’ ministry, the patterns of early Christian encounters with “the nations,” and the New Jerusalem’s openness to receive all people are but a few Biblical incitements to an inclusive view. The second principle, a variation on the first, is an inclusivist or universalist view of Christ. Whereas the idea of Christ as Savior tends to be exclusive, “Christ the Word” and “Christ the Second Adam” are inclusivist interpretations of Jesus’ divinity and humanity, respectively.56

Fifth, Christians live in “the modern Antioch,” and their task is, finally, to cross a new threshold, as the early Christians did more than once, toward an “understanding of other faiths in relation to the purposes of God.” Three new insights will emerge: (1) that “God is to the universe as our Lord was to his contemporaries in Palestine,” which will lead to the “writing of new ‘theologies of religions,’ to stand between the present expositions of natural and of revealed theology, and the revision also of biblical theology in inclusive rather than exclusive terms”; (2) that Christians will regard with greater humility the human dimensions of ecclesiastical institutions and customs; and (3) that what is unique of Christianity will emerge with new clarity.57

VI. Conclusions

Since the documents described here are so varied, it is difficult to make an across-the-board evaluation of them. One might, however, suggest as a touchstone the deceptively simple question, “To what extent does a particular document truly advance the cause of Christian-Muslim dialogue?” I propose five specific ways of assessing the degree to which the six documents contribute to that cause.

First is the question of effectiveness in persuading readers that Christians and Muslims must dialogue. Judged by this standard, none of the works sounds so urgent an alarm as to rouse more than a few who are not already convinced of the need. All in some way presuppose an awareness of the necessity of dialogue and depend for their efficacy on the conviction of the already-convinced. None of the six is quite a match for the almost diametrically opposed approach of a work such as L. Sumrall’s Where Was God When Pagan Religions Began? with its chapter on “Islam: Worshipping the Wrong God.”58 What is lacking in all the documents is a way of “reaching the unecumenized” and of persuading even those amenable in principle to Christian ecumenism that Christian-Muslim dialogue is critical to the broader ecumenical engagement of Christians with non-Christians. A focus on the issue of secularization and the ways in which Christians and Muslims respond could provide a starting point.59

Several of the documents can, nevertheless, be quite useful as tools in the hands of those who are already conscious of a pressing need. Judged by the second standard, educative value, NCC will prove the most helpful. Soon to be more readily available and specifically written for an American public, NCC is highly recommended for schools, adult education, and church study groups. Used with some imagination by a sensitive leader or teacher, the book will go a long way toward raising American awareness.

Potential for stimulating in-depth reflection, the third touchstone will be found preeminently in VS 2. Even when its translation into English (now in progress, I am told) becomes available, VS 2 will pose no little challenge to its reader. It is a highly sensitive and beautifully conceived work which is rather “heady” in some ways, but on the whole it is well anchored in genuine human concerns. The kind of reflections VS 2 can facilitate will require and presuppose the educative potential of a book such as NCC. Finally, VS 2 is actually a product of over a dozen years’ work, refining and polishing as it does the initial offerings of VS 1.

Fourth, stimulus to action is an important criterion. Here again it is NCC that is most successful and practical. Its careful suggestions cover a wide range of activities that can bring Christians and Muslims together, as well as a variety of situations in which Christian tact and considerations toward the needs of Muslims will produce far more immediate results than any organized “official” dialogue can hope for.

Finally comes the matter of hard-headed realism about the possibilities of Muslim-Christian dialogue. Only PMV begins to address this issue directly enough, and its caveat is worth quoting here at length:

There is too much ready talk about wider ecumenism with the People of the Book, in the mistaken idea that Muslims and Christians are intent on unity and common truths after the manner of Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox ecumenism. This only does harm, because the aims and methods of Muslims and Christians are thus confused with the brotherly and evangelical exchange between various Christian communities. While dialogue should be marked by the same ecumenical spirit, based on respect, understanding and reconciliation in prayer, the difference between [interreligious] dialogue and ecumenism needs pointing out. Muslims and Christians together will never envisage any kind of reunion or unification. Though together able to honour God and proclaim the dignity of man, they know that, for all, Jesus Christ remains the “sign of contradiction” and therefore of absolute difference. The Muslim-Christian dialogue can never be equated with ecumenism. The very word “dialogue” is ambiguous: some eople prefer to use the word “encounter.” It would seem, however, that over the last ten years Muslims and Christians have got used to “dialogue” in a vague sense, a sense which they can make richer as progress is made in their exchanges within the framework of “holy rivalry” proposed by the Koran to the People of the Book.60

Closely connected with the need for Christian realism is another matter hinted at in PMV but otherwise not approached in the six documents. It is the evident fact that there are surely as many Muslims as there are Christians who have given no thought to, much less actively desire, dialogue. Muslim-Christian dialogue is simply not “popular” in any sense of the word. As mentioned earlier, NCC and VS 2 are especially good on a general sense of Muslim views of Christianity. However, in the final analysis, realism in dialogue requires that one acknowledge, without losing enthusiasm for dialogue, that not everyone is willing to listen. With that we have returned full-circle to the first criterion.

In Muslims in Dialogue: The Evolution of a Dialogue, L. Swidler, ed, The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY, pp. 182-201, 1992.

http://global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/muslim.htm

Continue reading »]]> Full Text of the Madina Charter

1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation — Ummah.

2. The Quraysh Mohajireen will continue to pay blood money, according to their present custom.

3. In case of war with any body they will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice common among Believers. (Not according to pre-Islamic nations where the rich and the poor were treated differently).

4. The Bani Awf will decide the blood money, within themselves, according to their existing custom.

5. In case of war with anybody all parties other than Muslims will redeem their prisoners with kindness and justice according to practice among Believers and not in accordance with pre-Islamic notions.

6. The Bani Saeeda, the Bani Harith, the Bani Jusham and the Bani Najjar will be governed on the lines of the above (principles)

7. The Bani Amr, Bani Awf, Bani Al-Nabeet, and Bani Al-Aws will be governed in the same manner.

8. Believers will not fail to redeem their prisoners they will pay blood money on their behalf. It will be a common responsibility of the Ummat and not of the family of the prisoners to pay blood money.

9. A Believer will not make the freedman of another Believer as his ally against the wishes of the other Believers.

10. The Believers, who fear Allah, will oppose the rebellious elements and those that encourage injustice or sin, or enmity or corruption among Believers.

11. If anyone is guilty of any such act all the Believers will oppose him even if he be the son of any one of them.

12. A Believer will not kill another Believer, for the sake of an un-Believer. (i.e. even though the un-Believer is his close relative).

13. No Believer will help an un-Believer against a Believer.

14. Protection (when given) in the Name of Allah will be common. The weakest among Believers may give protection (In the Name of Allah) and it will be binding on all Believers.

15. Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

16. Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

17. No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

18. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

19. The peace of the Believers (of the State of Madinah) cannot be divided. (it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of the population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace).

20. No separate peace will be made by anyone in Madinah when Believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.

21. Conditions of peace and war and the accompanying ease or hardships must be fair and equitable to all citizens alike.

22. When going out on expeditions a rider must take his fellow member of the Army-share his ride.

23. The Believers must avenge the blood of one another when fighting in the Path of Allah (This clause was to remind those in front of whom there may be less severe fighting that the cause was common to all. This also meant that although each battle appeared a separate entity it was in fact a part of the War, which affected all Muslims equally).

24. The Believers (because they fear Allah) are better in showing steadfastness and as a result receive guidance from Allah in this respect. Others must also aspire to come up to the same standard of steadfastness.

25. No un-Believer will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the State.

26. No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy).

27. If any un-believer kills a Believer, without good cause, he shall be killed in return, unless the next of kin are satisfied (as it creates law and order problems and weakens the defence of the State). All Believers shall be against such a wrong-doer. No Believer will be allowed to shelter such a man.

28. When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

29. The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

30. The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

31. The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

32. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).

33. The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.

34. Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.

35. No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.

36. Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.

37. The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

38. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help.

39. They (parties to this Pact) must seek mutual advice and consultation.

40. Loyalty gives protection against treachery. Those who avoid mutual consultation do so because of lack of sincerity and loyalty.

41. A man will not be made liable for misdeeds of his ally.

42. Anyone (any individual or party) who is wronged must be helped.

43. The Jews must pay (for war) with the Muslims. (this clause appears to be for occasions when Jews are not taking part in the war. Clause 37 deals with occasions when they are taking part in war).

44. Yathrib will be Sanctuary for the people of this Pact.

45. A stranger (individual) who has been given protection (by anyone party to this Pact) will be treated as his host (who has given him protection) while (he is) doing no harm and is not committing any crime. Those given protection but indulging in anti-state activities will be liable to punishment.

46. A woman will be given protection only with the consent of her family (Guardian). (a good precaution to avoid inter-tribal conflicts).

47. In case of any dispute or controversy, which may result in trouble the matter must be referred to Allah and Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah will accept anything in this document, which is for (bringing about) piety and goodness.

48. Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

49. The parties to this Pact are bound to help each other in the event of an attack on Yathrib.

50. If they (the parties to the Pact other than the Muslims) are called upon to make and maintain peace (within the State) they must do so. If a similar demand (of making and maintaining peace) is made on the Muslims, it must be carried out, except when the Muslims are already engaged in a war in the Path of Allah. (so that no secret ally of the enemy can aid the enemy by calling upon Muslims to end hostilities under this clause).

51. Everyone (individual) will have his share (of treatment) in accordance with what party he belongs to. Individuals must benefit or suffer for the good or bad deed of the group they belong to. Without such a rule party affiliations and discipline cannot be maintained.

52. The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.

53. Anyone who acts loyally or otherwise does it for his own good (or loss).

54. Allah approves this Document.

55. This document will not (be employed to) protect one who is unjust or commits a crime (against other parties of the Pact).

56. Whether an individual goes out to fight (in accordance with the terms of this Pact) or remains in his home, he will be safe unless he has committed a crime or is a sinner. (i.e. No one will be punished in his individual capacity for not having gone out to fight in accordance with the terms of this Pact).

57. Allah is the Protector of the good people and those who fear Allah, and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) is the Messenger of Allah (He guarantees protection for those who are good and fear Allah).

source: http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/macharter.htm

Continue reading »]]> The Qur’an always accepts forgiveness and tolerance as basic principles, so much so that “the servants of the All-Merciful” are introduced in the following manner:

And the servants of (God) the All-Merciful are those who move on the Earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say: “Peace.” (Al-Furqan 25:63)

When they meet hollow words or unseemly behavior, they pass them by with dignity. (Al-Furqan 25:72)

And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: “To us our deeds, and to you yours.” (Al-Qasas 28:55)

The general gist of these verses is that when those who have been favored with true servanthood to God encounter meaningless and ugly words or behavior they say nothing unbecoming, but rather pass by in a dignified manner. In short: “Everyone acts according to his own disposition,” (Al-Isra 17:84) and thus displays his or her own character. The character of heroes of tolerance is gentleness, consideration, and tolerance. When God sent Moses and Aaron to a man who claimed to possess divinity, as the Pharaoh had done, He commanded them to behave tolerantly and to speak softly (Ta Ha 20:44).

The life of the Pride of Humanity, peace and blessings be upon him, was led in an orbit of forgiveness and forbearance. He even behaved in such a manner toward Abu Sufyan, who persecuted him throughout his lifetime. During the conquest of Makka, even though Abu Sufyan said he still was not sure about Islam, the Messenger said: “Those who take refuge in Abu Sufyan’s house are safe, just as those who take refuge in the Ka’ba are safe.” Thus, in respect of providing refuge and safety, Abu Sufyan’s house was mentioned alongside the Ka’ba. In my humble opinion, such tolerance was more valuable than if tons of gold had been given to Abu Sufyan, a man in his seventies, in whom egoism and chieftainship had become ingrained.

In addition to being commanded to take tolerance and to use dialogue as his basis while performing his duties, the Prophet was directed to those aspects in which he had things in common with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians):

Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God; that we speculate no partners with Him; that we take not some from among ourselves for Lords other than God.” (Al-Imran 3:64)

In another verse, those whose hearts are exuberant with belief and love are commanded to behave with forgiveness and tolerance, even to those who do not believe in the afterlife:

Tell those who believe to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of God: It is for Him to recompense each people according to what they have earned. (Al-Jathiya 45:14)

Those who consider themselves addressed by these verses, all devotees of love who dream of becoming true servants of God merely because they are human beings, those who have declared their faith and thereby become Muslims and performed the mandated religious duties, must behave with tolerance and forbearance and expect nothing from other people. They must take the approach of Yunus Emre: not to strike those who hit them, not to respond harshly to those who curse them, and not to hold any secret grudge against those who abuse them.
source: fgulen.org

Continue reading »]]> By Jason Barker

As stated in the previous article, interreligious dialogue consists of “discussions for mutual understanding held among differing religious bodies.”1 This vague definition does not, however, provide the guidelines within which formal interreligious dialogue should be held. How can Christians dialogue with members of other religions without compromising their beliefs and lapsing into syncretism, while at the same time being respectful toward non-Christians?

One of the foundational documents in interreligious dialogue is Leonard Swidler’s “The Dialogue Decalogue.”2 Swidler provides ten “commandments” for engaging in constructive interreligious dialogue. These commandments are (to paraphrase):
1. The purpose of dialogue is to increase understanding.
2. Participants should engage in both interfaith and interreligious dialogue.
3. Participants should be honest and sincere.
4. Participants should assume that other participants are equally honest and sincere.
5. Each participant should be allowed self-definition.
6. There should be no preconceptions as to areas of disagreement.
7. Dialogue can only occur between equals.
8. Dialogue can only occur where there is mutual trust.
9. Participants must be self-critical of their religious traditions.
10. Participants must attempt to experience how the traditions of others affect them holistically.
Swidler’s decalogue has three general categories: 1) who should participate, 2) what participants should expect from the dialogue, and 3) how the dialogue should be conducted. Evangelical Christians may profitably examine these categories to see how they can participate in interreligious dialogue.

Who Should Participate?

Swidler is explicit: dialogue should only occur between equals (or, as the document on ecumenical dialogue from Vatican II says, par cum pari3).On the surface, this means simply that the participants should be equal in authority or position within their religious communities (and, when possible, equals in education). A dialogue between a leader of one religious group, and a recent convert to another, would not be a true dialogue; the recent convert would likely be unable to facilitate a nuanced discussion.

Paul Griffiths states that the participants should be the “representative intellectuals” of a religious community who “typically engage, among other things, in the formulation and defense of sentences expressing doctrines of the community.”4 These intellectuals must have, to quote Vatican II, “Equality in sacred and secular learning and equality in the level of responsibilities held.”5

One area in which the participants should have an equal education is in regards to the religion(s) with whom they are dialoging. Each participant should be knowledgeable about the beliefs and practices of the other religious community. For example, each participant may hold a doctorate in an area of religious studies; however, the dialogue will be unequal if only one participant is knowledgeable about the other’s religion.

Swidler’s belief that there should be mutual trust between participants indicates the necessity for the participants to be known by the others. This does not mean that the participants must be close friends. Rather, it emphasizes the importance of participation by representative intellectuals. The scholarship of intellectuals will be known and available for review by other intellectuals, allowing all participants to develop respect and trust for each other before beginning the dialogue. The ability to review the scholarship of participants will also ensure that all motives for dialogue are honest and sincere. A participant with ulterior motives, or whose truthfulness is suspect, will typically be identifiable from the quality of his or her scholarship.

In addition to being solid scholars and religious leaders, participants must be self-critical of both themselves and their religious traditions. To engage in analytical criticism of another religious tradition while refusing to objectively consider any objections to one’s own tradition is hypocritical, and will fail not only in dialogue, but also in evangelism. Only by honestly considering the criticism levied against one’s own religious tradition can one effectively respond to the criticism.

What Should Participants Expect From the Dialogue?

As stated in the previous article, the primary goal of dialogue should be increased understanding of the similarities and differences between religious communities.

Calvin Shenk notes that participants should first see the other participants as people created in the image of God, and secondarily as members of a foreign religious community.6 One goal should thus be to find a way in which people can peaceably coexist in a pluralistic society. Terry Muck states, “This growing political and social reality [i.e., pluralism] means that in order to be civically, socially, politically and theologically responsible, Christians need to be able to talk with those of other religious traditions.”7 Sincere understanding of different traditions can lessen the risk of the sectarian strife that occurred during religious conflict, such as during the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War, and continues in Ireland and other areas.

Another goal is that interreligious dialogue will increase the efficacy of evangelism. By clearly understanding the beliefs and practices of other religious communities, evangelists can more effectively identify the ways in which the gospel can be presented. Apologetics will also improve as Christians understand more clearly the objections that other religions have to Christianity.

Finally, encounters with other religions will increase the appreciation that Christians have for their faith. This can inspire Christians to address concerns and weaknesses in their local churches, resulting in increased retention of members who might otherwise have been attracted by the vibrancy of other religious communities.

How Should Interreligious Dialogue Be Conducted?

The potential for successful interreligious dialogue hinges upon the guidelines that are followed during engagement. Violation of the common principles of dialogue, so clearly outlined by Swidler, invariably results in failure. These common principles include:

Dialogue Is Not Debate

Interreligious dialogue is not a forum for debate and hostile argumentation. The purpose of dialogue, as LDS scholar Stephen Robinson stated in his dialogue with evangelical Craig Blomberg, “Is neither to attack nor to defend – there will be no winner at the end of it.”8 Instead, because the purpose of dialogue is to increase understanding, formal debate should occur outside of dialogue.

This does not mean that there will not, or should not, be open disagreement during dialogue. Because differences that are at the core of peoples’ belief systems are at issue, there will be frequent disagreement. However, dialogue is not the forum for attempting to prove the superiority of one belief system over another. Open disagreement should primarily occur only when a participant believes that another participant has made or promoted a misconception of the first’s beliefs or practices. For example, in the hypothetical case of dialogue between an evangelical Christian and a Mormon, it would be inappropriate for the evangelical to tell the Mormon that the LDS concept of God is erroneous, even though the teaching is not in line with orthodox Christianity. It would be appropriate for the evangelical to present the evangelical view of God and note the differences between that exist evangelicalism and Mormonism; the evangelical would only be restricted from openly criticizing the LDS view. However, if the evangelical were to claim that the LDS Church continues to officially promote polygamy on earth, it would be proper for the Mormon to correct this misconception.

It is important to remember that dialogue is not a monologue. It is a forum for speaking with participants from other religions, not for speaking at them.

Participants Must Be Allowed Self-Definition

This principle, clearly related to the above principle, is one of the most crucial rules in interreligious dialogue. Participants must be allowed to define their beliefs, and their understanding of their religion’s teachings, without contradiction from other participants.

Shenk clarifies this point:
It is important to understand the difference between the meaning we project onto religions, and what other religions understand as their own meaning. Even if we know well the religious system, we must listen to the person’s perspectives of faith and truth, and be open to the faith as the faithful hold it. It is misleading to interpret what others are saying in terms of our concepts and worldview.9
In other words, participants must not claim that another participant is not accurately presenting his or her beliefs. Instead, participants must assume, unless evidence proves otherwise, that the stated beliefs accurately reflect the faith as held by that participant.

This does not mean that all self-definitions must be naively accepted. It is perfectly appropriate to question a participant about the orthodoxy of his or her beliefs when those beliefs seem to differ from the historic faith of the religion in question. If an evangelical participant in a dialogue with the Unification Church were to claim that evangelicals believe that the crucifixion was insufficient for the forgiveness of sins, it would be appropriate for the Unification participant to question whether the statement is considered orthodox in light of its deviation from historic evangelicalism.

Also related to this point is that participants must be able to recognize themselves when their faith is defined by other participants. Swidler states, “For the sake of understanding, each dialogue participant will naturally attempt to express for herself what she thinks is the meaning of the partner’s statement; the partner must be able to recognize herself in that expression.”10 If a participant believes a definition to be inaccurate, then open disagreement would be appropriate.

Rhetoric Must Be Moderate

Just as interreligious dialogue is not a forum for debate, it is also not a battleground in which polemical rhetoric is appropriate. The highly charged, inflammatory rhetoric used in many counter-cult endeavors has no place in interreligious dialogue.

An example of this rhetoric can be found in an article written by Ed Decker about his interaction with members of the LDS Church:
I have noticed something very similar in so many of the letters [from Mormons]. There is a thread tying it all together. I hate to use the word, brainwashing, but that is the closest word to fit.Minds seem to go blank. Often, eyes dilate and a testimony is chanted out almost by rote.Any person familiar with hypnosis knows the signs. We called it brainwashing during the Korean War. They call it bearing their testimony.11
It is regrettable that such writing is common among some in the field of counter-cult apologetics; even this author must confess to having fallen into the trap of using aggressive polemics. While it is virtuous to defend the truth, it is ignoble to use pejoratives in the process. Such virulent rhetoric has absolutely no place in interreligious dialogue.

The rule for participants in interreligious dialogue, as it should be for Christians in all areas of life, is to speak the truth in love.12

Participants Must Be Self-Critical

Participants must be as willing to critically examine their own religion as they are to examine other religions. This does not mean that participants will not be dedicated to their own faith traditions; such people invariably fall into the error of syncretism. Instead, it means that participants must take seriously the objections that others have to their religion.

Such objectivity is not only essential to successful interreligious dialogue; it is also biblical. Paul praised the Bereans for checking his teachings against Scripture.13 Being self-critical enables Christians to separate the true gospel from the cultural trappings that too often color the understanding of Christian teaching. Self-criticism also enables Christians to effectively answer objections that others may have to Christianity.

Participants Must Objectively Utilize Other Perspectives

Participants must be willing to honestly consider how people in other religions understand and live their faith. In other words, participants must be willing to walk in the shoes of others.

Such a position is not syncretistic; it is simply sympathetic. It allows participants to realize that “a religion is not merely something of the head, but also of the spirit, heart, and ‘whole being,’ individual and communal.”14 Christians who are passionate about their faith should be sensitive to the experiences of others, even if those experiences conflict with what Christians know to be true. Such sensitivity allows Christians to understand the temporal benefits people receive from their faiths. It also allows Christians to understand what motivates people in other religions to reject Christianity, or convinces Christians to convert to other religions, and thus sharpens the Christians’ apologetics and increases awareness of weaknesses that may exist in the church.

Vocabulary Must Be Clearly Defined

One of the central areas in which interreligious dialogue can be useful is in clarifying religious terminology. John V. Taylor states,
Communication between one [religion] and another is fraught with difficulty which must not be underestimated. As dialogue begins, therefore, we shall frequently find that the same word carries an entirely different cluster of meanings in the different traditions; we may also discover with surprise that quite different words are used to mean the same thing.15
Miscommunication can easily arise in interreligious conversations; formal dialogue is a method for clarifying the vocabulary.

A Forseen Objection to the Objectives of Enhanced Evangelism and Apologetics

It would be unrealistic to assume that many current participants in interreligious dialogue will approve of the stated goal of using interreligious dialogue as a means to clarified understanding of other religious communities, and then using that understanding to increase the efficacy of evangelism of the communities and apologetics against their criticism of Christianity. John Saliba, an expert in dialogue with new religious movements, clearly states the objection to these objectives:
Those theologians involved in dialogue between the various Christian churches and world religions do not stress the kind of conversion that involves a change of church membership but, rather, inner conversion within one’s religious tradition. They argue that the conversion of non-Christians is not to be identified with the church’s mission of evangelization. The Christian witness to others, though a necessary part of Christian life, is not to be directed to lead, much less to force, non-Christians to abandon their religious traditions and commitments.16
He adds, “Anybody who proposes one belief system as the ideal faith to which everybody should conform in a society that implements that religion’s moral and theological objectives is liable to put obstacles in the path of dialogue between people of different faith and ideologies.”17

Saliba’s position is not insignificant; the majority of participants in dialogue are opposed to active evangelism and apologetics. While many participants would agree with the guidelines listed above, they would object to the evangelical motive for engaging in the process.

The latter statement by Saliba is also important. The evangelical emphasis on evangelism and the defense of orthodox Christianity will alienate many potential participants in dialogue whose motive is acceptance as equals in spiritual endeavors. His statement that “in dialogue no one is a second-class citizen; no one belongs to an elite religious group possessing secret knowledge; no one monopolizes divine revelation; and no one claims total and absolute superiority.”18 means more than simply refraining from criticism during dialogue: it means that, according to scholars such as himself, all religions should be accepted as equal in terms of their relation to Truth.

An Evangelical Response to this Objection

It is important that evangelical Christians who intend to participate in dialogue realize that conservative theology will serve as an obstacle in the path of dialogue. Many individuals and communities will refuse to dialogue with a Christian who is committed to the essentials of historic Christianity, even if that Christian is engaging in dialogue in order to gain an accurate understanding of other traditions and will not evangelize or criticize during the dialogue.

In such cases, evangelicals must, of course, simply acknowledge that the missiological differences between evangelicalism and the religion in question make dialogue impossible. As Saliba states, “The response to these groups must be guided by the Christian principles of charity and justice and by the dictates of common sense.”19

Christians are commanded in the Bible to both evangelize and engage in apologetics.20 These commandments cannot be compromised through syncretistic religious agreement. Douglas Groothuis admirably states the Christian position vis-a-vis other religions: “Given their contradictory claims and the nature of truth, [other religions] cannot all be one with the truth. They offer vastly different views of spiritual reality and salvation. Yet in Christ, we are offered spiritual reality in the flesh, a reality that welcomes all to partake of his grace.”21

Nonetheless, even though the exclusivistic nature of orthodox Christianity is a barrier to dialogue as understood by many non-evangelical scholars, conservative Christians must endeavor to engage non-Christians in dialogue. The definition of dialogue, as even Saliba admits, is not limited to the consensus of non-evangelical scholars.22 Evangelicals must attempt to engage in dialogue not only because the clarified understanding of other religious communities will increase the efficacy of evangelism and apologetics, but also because that understanding will improve the ability of Christians and non-Christians to peaceably co-exist in a pluralistic society.

1 Donald K. McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms (Philadelphia: WJK, 1996), 147.

2 Leonard Swidler, “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 20.1 (1983): 1 – 4.

3 Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians, “Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue,” in Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Vol. 1, ed. Austin Flannery, O.P. (Northport, NY: Costello, 1992), 542.

4 Paul J. Griffiths, An Apology for Apologetics (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 17.

5 Secretariat for the Promotion of the Unity of Christians, “Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue,” 543.

6 Calvin E. Shenk, Who Do You Say That I Am? (Scottdale, Pa: Herald, 1997), 213.

7 Terry Muck, “Evangelicals and Interreligious Dialogue: A History of Ambiguity” (paper read at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Francisco, Calif, November 1992.

8 Stephen E. Robinson, introduction to How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1997), 21.

9 Shenk. Who Do You Say That I Am? 215.

10 Swidler, “The Dialogue Decalogue,” 2.

11 Edward Decker, “A Note from Ed,” March April Newsletter 1996 [Online]. URL http://www.Saintsalive.com/newsltrs/newsmarch_april.htm.

12 Ephesians 4:15.

13 Acts 17:11.

14 Swidler, “The Dialogue Decalogue,” 3.

15 John V. Taylor, “The Theological Basis of Interfaith Dialogue,” in Faith Meets Faith, ed. Gerald Anderson and Thomas Stransky (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 1981), 98.

16 John A. Saliba, S.J., “Dialogue with the New Religious Movements: Issues and Prospects,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 30.1 (1993): 71.

17 Ibid. 72-73.

18 Ibid. 65.

19 Ibid. 79.

20 Matthew 28:19-20; Jude 3.

21 Douglas Groothuis, Are All Religions One? (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1996), 28.

22 Saliba, “Dialogue with the New Religious Movements,” 64.

source: http://watchman.org/reltop/guidelinesdialogue.htm

Continue reading »]]> Commentary by Adil Salahi
A report that Abdullah ibn Amr, a companion who was well versed in Hadith had a sheep slaughtered. He repeatedly asked his servant: “Have you sent some meat as a present to our Jewish neighbour?” When he said that several times, he added: “I have heard Allah’s messenger (Pbuh) saying: “Gabriel has repeatedly recommended me to be good to my neighbour until I have thought that he would include him among my heirs.”

http://www.islamicvoice.com/2001-05/hadith.htm

The companions of the Prophet who were addressed directly by the message of Islam used to ask the Prophet (Pbuh) about every detail. They realized that he was among them to provide guidance. The more they learnt from him, the better they were able to understand the message of Islam and to act on it. They realized that if they did not ask the Prophet about something which they needed to know, there was no other authority to explain to them what they needed. Their attitude was of great benefit to all future generations of the Muslim nation. Without such an attitude on the part of the companions of the Prophet, we would have been left with no guidance on many details of different aspects of our religion. We should be grateful to them for this attitude which has ensured that we have the information we need in order to approach everything we want to do in a way which earns us reward from Allah.

Some people may suggest that seeking guidance on every detail may restrict us to a certain pattern of behaviour and deprive life of what they term its rich variety. This is a totally mistaken idea. The Prophet provides us with certain principles and opens for us certain doors. It is we who act on these principles and decide how to approach those doors and what to do after we have entered. His guidance tells us how not to slip. Moreover, much of what he teaches us is voluntary. It provides a certain approach to the implementation of a principle he has laid down. His recommendations provide the perfect approach. If we act on them, we achieve a very high standard. If we seek to implement that principle in a different way, we will soon find out that it lacks something or another in its details. It is for this reason that we should always try to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet. By doing so, we are not only certain of our footsteps, but we also earn reward from Allah.

Among the neighbours those whose door is nearer to us deserves our kindness and hospitality more than those whose doors are at a distance.

Moreover, the companions of the Prophet were able to understand his guidance fully. When they hear a particular statement by the Prophet, they knew to which area it applied. Let us consider the Hadith with which we started this series of articles, which quotes the Prophet as saying: “Gabriel has continued to recommend me to be good to my neighbour until I thought that he would include him among my heirs.” This sets a general principle. It is important to know which of our neighbours are entitled to our kindness. The practice of the Prophet’s companions provides very important guidance in this regard. We have, for example, a report that Abdullah ibn Amr, a companion who was well versed in Hadith had a sheep slaughtered. He repeatedly asked his servant: “Have you sent some meat as a present to our Jewish neighbour?” When he said that several times, he added: “I have heard Allah’s messenger (Pbuh) saying: “Gabriel has repeatedly recommended me to be good to my neighbour until I have thought that he would include him among my heirs.”

Another version of this story quotes a person called Mujahid as saying that he and others used to visit Abdullah ibn Amr frequently. He had flocks of sheep and they used to drink warm fresh milk when they visited him. One day he gave them cold milk to drink, and he explained that he had to change the area where his sheep grazed. Mujahid mentions that Abdullah’s servant was skinning a sheep he had just slaughtered. Abdullah said to him: “When you have finished, take a portion to our Jewish neighbour.” He repeated that three times. One of his guests said to him: “May Allah guide you, you do mention this Jew frequently.” Abdullah then mentioned the Hadith he heard from the Prophet.

From this report, we learn that the companions of the Prophet were certain that every neighbour, regardless of his religion, is entitled to our kindness. Everyone knows that the Jews have always been hostile to Muslims, throughout the history of Islam, although they enjoyed good and kindly treatment by Muslims, the like of which they rarely experienced elsewhere. We note in this report that Abdullah ibn Amr considers his Jewish neighbour as entitled to his kind treatment as any other neighbour he may have had. When he is questioned about mentioning him too often, he does not reply that the Jew is a good neighbour or that he has been very hospitable to him, but his only reason for his kindness to that Jewish neighbour is the Hadith he heard from the Prophet. That tells us that the application of this Hadith is general, and that every neighbour is entitled to be treated well by a Muslim, regardless of his religion.

The Holy Prophet is said to have defined the “neighbour” in these words: Your neighbour is 40 houses ahead of you and 40 houses at your back, 40 houses to your left and 40 houses to your right.

One may have many neighbours and if he is expected to give a present to each, he may find that very difficult. It is, therefore, important to know who is a neighbour and who of our neighbours should be given priority. In answer to the first question we have a Hadith which is classified as “Mursal,” reported on the authority of Al-Hassan Al-Basri. A “Mursal” Hadith is one which in its chain of reporting does not go as far back as the Prophet, but ends with someone like Al-Hassan, who belonged to the generation following that of the companions of the Prophet. He was asked” “Who is a neighbour?” He answered: “Your neighbours are forty houses ahead of you and forty houses to your back, and forty houses to your right and forty houses to your left.” When we consider that all these people are our neighbours, and we note how strongly the Prophet recommends us to be kind to our neighbours, we can realize what sort of community Islam creates in every locality. This, however, is bound to raise the second question of whether there is any degree of priority which makes certain neighbours more entitled to our kindness than others.

Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, asked him: “Messenger of Allah, I have two neighbours. To whom shall I direct my present?” He answered: “To the one whose door is closer to yours.” (Related by Al-Bukhari and Abu Dawood). Abu Hurairah, a companion of the Prophet, is quoted as saying: “Do not begin with your distant neighbour before the one who is closer to you. Rather, give priority to your nearer neighbour ahead of your more distant one.” (Related by Al-Bukhari in “Al-Adab Al-Mufrad”)

These two Hadiths are self-explanatory. They hardly need any comment. But we note, however, that kindness to neighbours is taken for granted. There must be something which tells us what is the minimum degree of kindness to neighbours. This is explained in the following Hadith in which Abdullah ibn Abbas, the Prophet’s cousin, states that he heard the Prophet saying: “A believer is not the one who eats his fill when his neighbour is hungry.” (Related by Al-Bukhari in Al-Adab Al-Mufrad, Al-Hakim and Al-Baihaqi). This is a very significant statement. It speaks of mutual care by neighbours. They must know how their neighbours live, and if they are poor, then they must send them food. Indeed, this has been a tradition of Muslim societies which has survived for centuries. The Prophet even gives us a hint of how we can share our food with our neighbours without increasing our expenses a great deal. He tells his companion, Abu Tharr: “If you cook something with gravy, increase the gravy and send some of it to your neighbours.” (Related by Muslim, Ahmad and Al-Bukhari). The Prophet is telling us here not to think too little of anything which we can give to our neighbours. Even a person who is not rich can give his neighbours some food which may not be the best they can have, but would be more than useful in a neighbourhood where poverty is common.
source: http://www.islamawareness.net/Neighbours/cultivating.html

Continue reading »]]> by El-Sayed M. Amin
The neighbor holds a special status in Islam. Islam encourages Muslims to treat their neighbors in a gentle way that reflects the true and genuine spirit of Islam as exemplified in its tolerant aspect especially with people of other faiths. It makes no difference whether the neighbors are Muslim or non-Muslim. ‘A’ishah, the Mother of the Believers, (may Allah be pleased with her) stated that she once asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), “O Messenger of Allah! I have two neighbors. To whom shall I send my gifts?” He said, “To the one whose gate is nearer to you.”

It is clear from the above Prophetic Hadith that Muslims are encouraged to not only treat our neighbors kindly, but also to exchange gifts with them. The wording of the Hadith does not indicate whether the one with whom we exchange gifts is a Muslim or not.

It was even reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had a neighbor who used to harm him and insult him at every encounter. Some days elapsed without the Prophet getting his share of this man’s abuse. Thinking that there must be some reason behind the man’s absence, he (peace and blessings be upon him) paid him a visit and found him sick. The man wondered how the Prophet could meet his bad treatment with such great behavior. To him, such noble character as taught by Islam was completely new.

If your neighbors are Muslim and relatives, then they have three rights on you: the right of the neighbor, the right of kin, and the right of the co-religionist. If they are non-Muslim and relatives, then two rights are due to them: that of neighbor and kin. And if they are non-Muslims outside of the family, you owe them the right of the neighbor only. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says what means, (And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and into the neighbor who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbor who is not of kin and the fellow traveler…) (An-Nisaa’ 4:34 )

Enough to say that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) stated in one of his Hadiths that Angel Jibreel (Gabriel) kept exhorting him to treat neighbors kindly to the extent that the Prophet imagined that a neighbor could inherit from his neighbor.

Below are some tips on how to approach your non-Muslim neighbors in a kind way that exemplifies Islamic manners:

1. Being good to neighbors is not only restricted to those who share the same building with you. Your roommate at the dorm is your neighbor; the person sitting behind you or next to you in a bus or at a bus stop is your neighbor; the one sharing your office at work is your neighbor; the person enjoying fresh air next to you in a public garden is also a neighbor. You ought to treat all of those people kindly and socialize with them within the permitted scope of Shari ‘ah.

2. Introduce yourself and your family to your neighbors when you move into a new place or when new neighbors move in. This will also help to relieve any fears or tensions they may have about Muslims. Also, don’t forget to say good-bye when you or they move away.

3. Care for them continually, especially at times of need and distress, as “the neighbor in need is a neighbor indeed.” If a neighbor is elderly or chronically ill, offer to run errands or shop for him or her.

4. In dealing with neighbors, it is safer to deal with those of the same sex as yourself. This does not mean that you should stop socializing at work or school with your non-Muslim workmates or classmates of the opposite sex, but be aware of Satanic snares. After-hours socializing should be with your same sex.

5. While socializing with non-Muslims, be cautious of becoming too lenient at the expense of your creed and principles. For example, don’t go out drinking with them. They will respect you more for sticking to your principles than for breaking the rules.

6. In addition to sharing ideas, you can share meals with them by inviting them to dinner on the weekend or accepting their invitation to the same, provided that you let them know about your dietary restrictions as a Muslim.

7. Conduct mutual visits so that the families can interact in a constructive way. If the discussion does turn to religion, focus on areas of common ground. For example, if your neighbors are Christian, then you should not enter into a futile argument with them about whether Jesus is God incarnate or not. Rather, tell them to what extent Islam honors all God’s Prophets and Messengers as a whole, and that Jesus is granted a special status among God’s Prophets and Messengers.

8. While socializing with neighbors, present your deen (Islam) in the best way. If you are faced with a difficult question or a distortion about Islam, do not be ashamed to stop for a while and tell them that you will try to contact a more knowledgeable person to seek the guidance regarding the issue raised. Thus, common grounds should be enhanced, and areas of dissension should never be raised.

9. If your neighbors show an interest in Islam, invite them to attend Islamic events, and even to accompany you to the mosque to see what it is like. It may be that their hearts become softened to Islam, and if they remain non-Muslim, at least you have succeeded in breaking the barrier. You can also visit the church where your neighbors pray if they invite you to do that, but here you should be cautious not to perform any act that your religion prohibits. In brief, be only a watchful monitor.

10. Always keep in mind the mighty reward that is in store for you in the Hereafter when you show kindness to a neighbor.