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 Sabir Shah
September 27, 2011

LAHORE: Although the July 16, 2008 World Conference on Dialogue, jointly organized by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia and King Juan Carlos of Spain in the Spanish capital of Madrid had shown rulers all over the world as to what efforts were actually required to inculcate harmony among the followers of different faiths and religions, not much has since been done at the level of governments to promote this cause.

The July 2008 World Conference on Dialogue was planned by Saudi Arabia and Spain to call upon the believers of the world’s leading faiths to defeat the extremist viewpoints, find a common cause, foster the spirit of peace and focus on the common denominators that were bonding the humanity together.

This moot was attended by representatives of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism etc to reinforce the common values shared by their respective faiths.

The above-mentioned Madrid conference, according to the website of the Saudi Embassy in Washington DC, was actually a follow-up of the June 2008 Makkah dialogue among the leading Islamic scholars.

In 2007, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had also met Pope Benedict XVI, the first-ever meeting between a Saudi King and the leader of the Catholic Church. In 2008, the Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement was created at the University of Southern California (Los Angeles) through the collaboration of the Hebrew Union College, the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation and the university’s Centre for Religion and Civic Culture.

This think tank has since been hosting religion-based study programmes across Los Angeles and is busy promoting dialogue, understanding among the oldest and the newest of the Abrahamic faiths since its establishment.

By the way, it is also forming congregational and academic partnerships on regular basis. The Centre for Muslim-Jewish Engagement Centre at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles comprises of a Jewish Seminary, a Muslim foundation and a research centre.

This institution has till date facilitated two international conferences, besides having taught the visiting Muslim scholars under the auspices of the United States State Department and the International Visitors Bureau.

In January 2009, the 14th Dalai Lama (the Buddhist religious figure) had inaugurated an interfaith “World Religions-Dialogue and Symphony” conference in Indian Gujarat.

Prestigious British newspaper “The Independent” had mentioned in its December 16, 2010 article “History of Interfaith Dialogue” that this symposium was attended by Professor Samdhong Rinpoche, the Prime Minister of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile on Buddhism, Diwan Saiyad Zainul Abedin (Ajmer Sharif) on Islam, Dr Prabalkant Dutt on non-Catholic Christianity, Swami Jayendra Saraswathi on Hinduism and Dr Peshtan Hormazadiar Mirza on Zoroastrian.
It is a pity that Pakistan, which claims to be the fort of Islam, is yet to hold an inter-faith dialogue of virtue. Most will agree that it is Pakistan which desperately needs to take initiatives such as this because it continues to witness a lot of blood pouring on its soil for decades due to the menace of religious intolerance — a lot more frequently than any nation existing on the planet perhaps!

In 2010, King Abdullah II of Jordan had addressed the 65th United Nations General Assembly meeting at New York and had proposed the idea for a ‘World Interfaith Harmony Week’ to further broaden his goals of faith-driven world agreement by extending his call beyond the Muslim and Christian community to include people of all beliefs.

A few weeks later, the proposal of King Abdullah II was presented before the UN General Assembly, where it was adopted unanimously as a UN Observance Event and the first week of February, every year, was subsequently declared a United Nations World Interfaith Harmony Week. (Reference: The official 2011 summary of the First UN World Interfaith Harmony Week, published by the Kingdom of Jordan)

It, however, goes without saying that the International Student Conference of Jews, Christians and Muslims in Europe (JCM) is being held fairly regularly since 1972 at least to promote dialogue, understanding and solidarity amongst the members of the three Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

for the full text: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=69607&Cat=2

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 »]]> July 18, 2011 02:03 AM By Sughra Ahmed

The Daily Star

Many young British Muslims – who comprise over 50 percent of the Muslim population in the United Kingdom – feel confronted by a world that objectifies and stereotypes them as anti-social or troublemakers who do not contribute to a productive society. In recent years, these youth have felt the need to rise up in response to these misjudgments and make their voices heard through engagement with others.

In 2009, I wrote a report, “Seen and Not Heard: Voices of Young British Muslims,” for the Policy Research Centre at the Islamic Foundation, which specializes in research, policy advice and training on issues related to British Muslims. The report explores some of the challenges young British Muslims face, how they feel about them, as well as the positive work in which they are involved.

From grassroots to national and international initiatives building relationships between faith communities, young British Muslims have been hard at work, contrary to what many of us might think. In recent years they have become active members of multi-faith initiatives like the Interfaith Youth Core, the Tony Blair Faith Foundation’s Faiths Act Fellows, and the Christian Muslim Forum of which Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is the patron.

Theater productions such as those by the MUJU Crew, which provides a platform for Muslim-Jewish collaboration through art, and the Khayaal Theatre Company in London, which brings together Muslims and non-Muslims for education-oriented theater, have raised the bar when it comes to creative ways of building interfaith relations in Britain. They aim to raise awareness and break down barriers among faith groups by helping people regard others first as human beings. Initiative such as these and other local programs instill not only a sense of creativity in participating youth but also a responsibility to go on and continue to foster interfaith understanding.

However, I find that a lot more needs to be done to build ties along faith and community lines before we can feel content about an integrated, vibrant future community and the proactive role that the British Muslim population can play. First, there is a great need for more innovative projects that young people in the U.K. – including Muslims – can become a part of. Projects like the ones described above demonstrate the kind of creativity that is often lacking in the interfaith world. For most young people, this is a hurdle that frequently prevents them from becoming a part of interfaith work.

Other projects – such as feeding the homeless as the Islamic Society of Britain has been doing, and Undergraduate ParliaMentors programs by the Three Faiths Forum, which equips the next generation of leaders with the skills, experiences and networks they need to advance leadership careers – provide youth with an instant reward: feeling useful and seeing the immediate results of their good work.

Young Muslims, like other youth, struggle with issues like low self-esteem, particularly given negative media attention surrounding their identity and faith community. But working collaboratively on these kinds of projects that benefit the larger community pulls like-minded youth together across faith lines and gives them a chance to explore their abilities, interpersonal skills and dynamism. Many of those who succeed in building bridges go on to become role models for others.

But I’ve found that there are two areas that are almost entirely inactive: the first is intra-faith dialogue, between different Muslim communities, something that is challenging for any faith community. The second is interfaith dialogue between Dharmic faith groups – in other words, Hindus and Sikhs – and Muslims.

In most places there is no dialogue between these faith groups, perhaps because the communities are very small. In places such as Leicester, which has significant groups of each of these faiths, interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Dharmic faith groups has been reasonably successful, but more needs to be done so that larger numbers in these communities will join. The potential success of interfaith in a place like Leicester lies in making this type of work attractive and meaningful for young people.

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Commentary/2011/Jul-18/Young-Muslims-contribute-more-than-you-know-in-Britain.ashx#ixzz1SatPYXKv (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)

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 »]]> Hindu statesman Zed to participate in Hartford seminar

By Hartford Seminary
May 26, 2011

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed will partake in the “Religious Leadership in an Interfaith World” seminar of Hartford Seminary (Connecticut) from June 6 to 10. About 30 religious leaders from all over USA, including one from Switzerland, will be attending this seminar, who include Christian (various denominations), Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. This maiden seminar of the Seminary will reportedly become its annual feature.

Well known ethicist Dr. Lucinda Allen Mosher will coordinate this seminar. Other speakers include Dr. David A. Roozen, Director of Hartford Institute for Religion Research; Dr. Timur R. Yuskaev, Director of Islamic Chaplaincy Program of Duncan Black Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations; and Dr. Yehezkel Landau, Director of the Building Abrahamic Partnerships. It will reportedly include field trips also.

“In a diverse religious culture, effective religious leadership must include awareness and engagement with faith traditions other than one’s own”, the seminar announcement says.

Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, stresses that all religions should work together for a just and peaceful world. Dialogue would bring us mutual enrichment, he adds.

Hartford Seminary, whose tagline is “Exploring Differences, Deepening Faith” and whose traces go back to 1833, claims to be “an educational institution where a consciousness of God is cultivated and shared.” “Hartford Seminary’s influence reaches far beyond the walls of churches, mosques and synagogues. Its work strengthens the moral character of society”, it adds. Dr. Heidi Hadsell is President, while Dr. Efrain Agosto is the Dean.

Rajan Zed is a Hindu religious leader who has taken up interfaith, religion, environment, Roma and other causes all over the world. He has read opening prayers in US Senate, various state senates and houses of representatives/assemblies, counties and city councils all over the country and was invited by President of European Parliament in Brussels for a meeting to promote interfaith dialogue. Bestowed with “World Interfaith Leader Award”, Zed is panelist for “On Faith”, an interactive conversation on religion produced by The Washington Post; Senior Fellow and Religious Advisor to New York headquartered Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy; Director of Interfaith Relations of Nevada Clergy Association; Spiritual Advisor to National Association of Interchurch & Interfaith Families; etc.

source: http://www.shorelineplus.com/shplus/information/news/News_1/Hindu-statesman-Zed-to-participate-in-Hartford-seminar132191321913219.shtml

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 »]]> 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 »]]> 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 SYED ALI MUJTABA SYED
August 15, 2010

In the context of Islam and interfaith dialogue, there are three categories of people to deal with. First are those who have the will and inclination to understand the fundamentals of Islamic faith.

This category of people tries to read, learn and understand about Islam through various means. They buy books, magazine and talk to Muslim friends and improve their knowledge about Islam. In the age of internet their task has become easier as they can browse the websites on Islam and even hold interactive sessions there to clarify their doubts.

The second category of people is those who have an allergy towards Islam. They have a closed mind and do not entertain invitations to know about Islam. They have fixed opinion about Islam and do not want to listen anything positive about this faith.

The third category of people have empty mind towards Islam. Since the positive voices of Islam hardly reach them, they are influenced by anti-Islamic propaganda and fall prey to many misconceptions about Islam. They view Islam with a non-friendly attitude but are open entertain positive ideas and thoughts of Islam.

The challenge before those working towards interfaith dialogue between Islam and other religions in India is to engage all the three categories of people and reach out to them with the message of humanity and peaceful coexistence.

An Islamic academy in Bhtkal, Karanataka has taken a lead in this direction and trying to reach out to the people with the intention of interfaith dialogue between Islam and other religions in India. The academy has various projects running very successfully and their initiative needs to be emulated in other parts of the country and other faiths too can a lesson or two from them.

The project of the academy is to conduct college level essay competition regularly, where students of non – Islamic faith and are asked to write an essay on ‘Islam, a religion of peace’ and other such themes.

The academy is conducting the competition on regular basis and for a minimum of 500 entries; it gives prizes to the best of three essays. The best essay gets a cash award of 50, 000 rupees, the second best 25,000 and third 15,000. This competition is currently being conducted in Karnataka, Kerala, UP, Jharkand and Bihar.

In the last competition the academy received around 7000 entries. Some of the essays reflected deep understanding of Islam and quoted various Islamic sources to reflect their reading on Islam. The essays surprised the organizers as the essays forceful articulation of Islam as a religion of peace.

Although the participants were asked to write the essay with the maximum length of about ten pages, some of the participants wrote as many as 150 pages, almost the size of a book.

The academy feels that this could be one of the many ways to reduce the misconceptions about Islam and a way forward for interfaith dialogue between Islam and other religions of India. It keeps on changing the theme of essay and wants to reach out to many people to other states of India as well. The academy wishes that the entries could reach to 50,000 and then plans to double the cash prize.

The second project of this academy is to prepare booklets based on stories in holy Quran that teaches moral values. Some of the booklet that are already being produced and many more similar ones are underway. One of the booklet is based on stories of Abraham entitled ‘cold fire.’ It talks about how Abraham led a virtuous and pious life.

The second booklet is about the wonderful dreams of Yusuf. According to holy Quran, Yusuf was a dream teller and people use to come to him with their dreams and he use to interpret and tell their future.

The third booklet is about the impossible voyage of Noah’s Ark. The holy Quran describes in some detail about the storm and the impossible voyage of Noah.

These booklets are in multicolor and printed on art paper. These books are distributed to the school children and they are asked to read the book and write one or two page what they understand about the book. The academy gives prizes are given to the best write-ups.

These booklets have created a deep impact on the minds of non Muslim children and the feedback is the young minds have gained knowledge about the positive contribution of Islam.

The academy’s third project is to invite non- Muslims for a spot competition. Books on Islam are distributed and the competitors are asked to read them on spot and the answer of two questions after reading them.

The first is; what’s their opinion on Islam as a religion of peace? The second is; what are the misunderstandings that have been removed after reading the book?

The academy promises to give a cash prize of five thousand rupees to the best two answers and three thousand rupees to best three answers. The entire competition is wrapped up in two hours time.

The result of this competition is amazing. There were large numbers of people who voluntarily participate in this competition. The competitors wrote there answers in many pages and some refused to take the prizes. They said being adjudged first second or third was a prize for them and requested the organizers to use the prize money for further promoting the cause of interfaith dialogue.

The fourth project is geared towards non Muslims social and political leaders and highly placed government officers. The academy has selected some three hundred people and has written letters to them requesting to pen their thoughts on Islam. The comments are supposed to be published in the form of a book in English, Arabic and regional languages of India.

The response to this has also been encouraging. The contributors have written back saying they are pleased to write their impressions on Islam as a religion of peace and want to buy time to read books on Islam and improving their understanding before writing their comments. This project is under progress. The academy promises that such nook is soon going to be published.

The fifth project is conducting debate competition among school, college, and university students. Such debates are organized in many institutions and students are asked to speak on the theme Islam, a misunderstood religion’, ‘Islam a religion of universal brotherhood’, ‘Prophet Mohammad a messenger of peace’ etc. This project is very successful and students have debated the given topics with great academic interest.
.
These are the few experiments that are being done at the ground level to turn the wheel of interfaith dialogue in India and bridge the yawning gap that exits between Islam and other faiths.

The academy feels that such experiments should be replicated in other parts of the country as this could be the only way how people could be educated about other faith and after understanding them their respect may grow better.

source: http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Turning-the-Wheel-of-Interfaith-dialogue-in-India/2927384

Continue reading »]]> by ABDUL AZIZ V.K

Arab News’ efforts to highlight the message of dialogue, especially ‘positive dialogue’, as introduced by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, is of significant value and will catch the attention of millions interested in the global movements toward world peace.

The concept of interfaith dialogue has wide influence around the globe and the world is witnessing formation of such platforms for the restoration of peaceful and harmonious co-existence from varied religious groups.

What King Abdullah initiated in the name of “interfaith dialogues” is not a new idea, but rather it is deep-rooted in religion. The king has rightly considered the interfaith dialogue, besides dawa and debate, as the instruments for the achievement of our cherished vision: World peace.

Confrontation and conflict was never a practice of Islam. It was indeed, positive dialogue, by inviting other believers and ethnic groups, toward commonalities that was divinely intended. Occasionally, when any dispute occurs, a healthy debate may be used to clarify the matter concerned. But these debates should never be used for insult or mud-slinging.

As degeneration set in, Muslims shut the door on seeking knowledge, “rituals” replaced “religion”, “debate” became ‘dawa’, while “dialogue” disappeared from the arena.

Given the bleak global scenario worsened by communal hatred, and anti-Islamic feeling — Islamophobia — currently sweeping the world, initiating and institutionalizing such a dialogue had become all the more important. Humanity is suffering a loss of moral values and is going through a critical phase where terrorism and crime are on the rise, the poor are being increasingly exploited, and the institution of family is disintegrating.

Inspired by King Abdullah’s initiative, the Muslim World League under the aegis of. Dr. Abdullah Abdul Mohsin A. Turki, the MWL secretary-general, embarked on a series of dialogues with other faiths and cultures in many parts of the European world. This has indeed given a very positive impression about Islam and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has helped to clear out a lot of misunderstandings about Islam and Muslims. And this has certainly given an impetus to the idea to grow on its own. And grew, it indeed. The concept took new wings in newer areas, in newer but significant climes and regions.

India has always been a hugely important country in terms of Islam. Housing the second most Muslim population after Indonesia, India despite being a non-Muslim country has a secular character and a heterogeneous population of different faiths and beliefs. Indian society is no less similar to that of Madinah during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when around 20 percent of the population consisted of Muslims and the rest were followers of other religions.

As a consequence of the spiritual void people suffer when they forget God, India witnessed much communal and religious violence of late. The solution for these problems lies on a united approach through dialogue among religions and cultures. The plurality of India demanded an understanding of other beliefs as extremely fruitful for the harmonious coexistence of different religious faiths. The country naturally welcomed the concept of the dialogue, and hence saw in recent times a flurry of important activities.

In February this year, an “International dialogue between Islam and Eastern Religions” was held in New Delhi, which was inaugurated by the Vice President of India Hamid Ansari, and which was attended by leaders and scholars of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. On the national level, it was the first initiative of its kind which was jointly organized by major Indian Muslim organizations, and which was hailed by non-Muslim organizations and eminent scholars and individuals.

India is the citadel of multiculturalism for thousands of years. We find culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse people in this subcontinent. The riot-ridden and prejudicial atmosphere has to be replaced with an era of religious dialogue and co-operation between various sects. Only through dialogue with various communities and ethnic groups, we can positively enrich the culture and diversity of the Indian society for the establishment of peaceful South Asia and thus do greater thing in ensuring conflict deterrence in this volatile region. The organizers of the event hoped that such events would lead to a better understanding and co-existence between the followers of these religions especially in Asia in general and the Indian subcontinent in particular.

King Abdullah’s interfaith dialogue mission was further elaborated to include an intra-faith platform called the “Forum for Intellectual Dialogue” – was established in Kerala, the southern state of the country.

Besides, a new movement, “International Interfaith Dialogue-India” was launched at New Delhi on Feb. 21, 2010, with the patronage of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the former Judge of Supreme Court of India. Dr. K. J. Yesudas, the famous Indian vocal artist and humanitarian activist was declared as the “Peace Ambassador” of the newly formed dialogue movement. Also Prof M. D. Nalapat of Manipal University UNESCO Peace Chair and great thinker and dialogue veteran was designated as the Chairman, Justice P.K. Shamsuddin, Justice K. A. Abdul Gafoor, Rev Fr Albert, Rev Fr Dr Thomas, Colonel VSM Makkar, Prof. Bahaudin, Swami Agniveshji, Omkar Anand Saraswathi like around 20 dignitaries as directors.

Through dialogue one can chink away at walls; dialogue, in reality, is an effort to meet another person. Peace is a process which is continuing, changing state that needs constant attention and effort. Let us rededicate ourselves to global peace, human dignity, and the eradication of injustice that breeds rage and vengeance. As the Custodian of Two Holy Mosque is enthusiastically interested to spread the noble vision to other parts of the world, we dream for a dialogue under the aegis of Muslim World League conducted in India too in the near future.

source: http://arabnews.com/opinion/columns/article55889.ece?comments=all

Continue reading »]]> by Maulana Waris Mazhari
trans. Yoginder Sikand

The first step in the quest for inter-community dialogue is the search for common ground. Religious and cultural differences divide Hindus and Muslims from each other. This diversity need not necessarily be seen as intimidating, however. In fact, the Quran explains that diversity is natural. The Quran instructs us thus: ‘If God so willed, He could make you all one people’ (16:93).

Commenting on the above-quoted Quranic verse, the noted Islamic scholar Imam Razi writes in his Tafsir-e Kabir that this refers to the fact of diversity of religions and customs among human beings.

Nature desires diversity, not uniformity. That is why we should aim not at eliminating these differences but, rather, to tolerate them in accordance with the demands of Nature.

Man is a social animal. It is ingrained in his nature to seek to live in peace with others. That is why there are no two communities in the entire world that have nothing in common between them. It was for the common purpose of protection, peace and justice that the Prophet entered into a treaty or pact with the Jews of Medina. This is an instance of practical inter-community dialogue based on common values and concerns.

The basic task before is to seek to develop and promote that spirit among both Hindus and Muslims that would urge them to ignore their differences and, instead, focus on what they have in common or on issues of common concern that can bring them closer to each other. We must not let what sets us apart overwhelm what we have in common. A key aspect that we Indian Hindus and Muslims have in common is our Indianness, the fact of belonging to the same land. Another key issue and concern that can bring us together is a common quest for preventing moral decline in our societies, which both Hindus and Muslims are faced with. Anti-religious forms of secularism and liberalism invented in the West that claim to have ‘liberated’ human beings from God have led to horrendous anarchy throughout the world, including in our own country. This calls for Hindus, Muslims and people of other faiths, who take their religions seriously, to work together to combat such dangerous tendencies. This is a duty we all owe to God and to humanity, which we must undertake in cooperation with each other.

Hindu-Muslim dialogue involves efforts at both the intellectual as well as practical levels. But, all these efforts can make no headway without sincerity of purpose. If these efforts are made simply for political gain or fame they can produce no positive results. Parties to the dialogue must be conscious of the fact that they need each other. They must realize that they can and, indeed, must, learn from each other. They must know that the progress of our common homeland, and, therefore, of each and every community that inhabits it, is impossible without Hindu-Muslim cooperation. For meaningful dialogue between Muslims and Hindus, both must consider themselves not as opponents but as friends, or at least as potential friends.

Hindu-Muslim dialogue, or inter-community dialogue more generally, must focus, among other issues, on addressing and removing mutual misunderstandings, which are often rooted in deeply-held but misleading negative stereotypical images of the ‘other’. Some of these misunderstandings are rooted in our traditional ways of thinking about the ‘other’. One such contentious issue is the way Muslims understand the status of the Hindus and their religion in terms of the shariah. While many ulemasee nothing of worth in the Hindu religion and consider all the Hindus to be polytheists, some of them are of the view that the basic principles of monotheism and prophethood can be discerned in the religious traditions of the Hindus. The founder of the Dar ul-Uloom at Deoband, Maulana Qasim Nanotavi, was of the opinion that Ram and Krishna might possibly have been prophets of God and that is why Muslims must not say anything bad about them. Some scholars, including a leading Sanskrit scholar Pandit Ved Prakash Upadhyaya, claim that the Kalki Avatar or Antim Rishi mentioned in some Hindu scriptures actually refers to the Prophet Muhammad. If this is true, then obviously these scriptures cannot be said not to have been of divine origin.

Another issue that continues to be discussed in ulemacircles is the status of Hindus in terms of the shariah. This question needs to be resolved in the interest of Hindu-Muslim dialogue. If, as the ulema claim, the Hindus, or many of them, are polytheists (mushriks), are they to be considered mushriks in the same sense as Muslims understood the pagan Arabs at the time of the Prophet? I personally believe that a distinction should be made between the two. Even the classical jurists and Quranic commentators differentiated between the Arab pagans, who virulently opposed the Prophet, and other pagan so that the commandment for jihad vis-à-vis the former did not apply in the same way to the latter. It is critical to distinguish the Hindus from the Arab pagans because of the tendency of many ulema to relate and apply Quranic verses about the pagan Arabs to the Hindus of today, as, for instance, the verse which says, ‘Strongest among men in enmity to the believers will you find the Jews and pagans’ (5:82). Clearly, this is unacceptable.

Yet another issue that must be clarified if Hindu-Muslim dialogue is to proceed is the distinction between Islam and Muslim history. We must not, as we often do, adopt a defensive attitude towards the latter by seeking to justify the misdeeds of Muslim rulers or argue, through erroneous interpretation of Islamic sources, that all the actions of the Sultans and Muslim religious figures were actually in accordance with the teachings of Islam. If the policies of many Muslim rulers of the early Islamic period, which many Muslims regard as a ‘Golden Age’, were not just un-Islamic but even anti-Islamic, how can we expect Muslim rulers of the later period, which Muslims consider to have been characterized by widespread deviation from Islam, to have been models of Islamic virtue?

A basic cause for mutual misunderstandings between Hindus and Muslims is lack of proper knowledge and awareness of each other. They have made no serious attempts to understand the religious traditions and beliefs of each other from their original sources, in an objective manner. Muslims have viewed Hinduism in a polemical fashion, not as the Hindus themselves understand it, and not using the same framework as the Hindus use to relate to their faith tradition. And vice versa. This explains the virtual absence of any literature that can enable Hindus and Muslims to understand each other seriously, in a balanced way. Not a single book of this sort on the religious traditions of the Hindus has been written by Muslims ever since Al-Biruni wrote his famed Kitab al-Hind more than a thousand years ago. Barring a few exceptions, our madrasas do not teach about other religions. That is why their students, our would-be ulema, have only a very superficial and partial understanding of Hinduism and other religions. This urgently needs to change.

A key form of Hindu-Muslim dialogue is for Hindus and Muslims to work together for common social purposes on a wide range of issues. The opportunities for this, however, are becoming alarmingly restricted today as, especially in urban areas in northern India, Muslims are becoming increasingly ghettoized, for various reasons. In recent years, especially in the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Masjid and the ensuing wave of anti-Muslim violence that culminated in the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat, there has been a perceptible trend of Muslims seeking to shift from mixed localities to almost wholly Muslim ghettos. Numerous leading ulema and other Muslim leaders have openly supported this trend, claiming that there are numerous Hadith reports wherein the Prophet had advised Muslims to do so. This, to my mind, is a wholly incorrect deduction from Hadith reports wherein the Prophet is said to have advised Muslims not to stay in the same localities as polytheists, because these reports actually relate to those Muslims who had stayed behind in pagan-dominated Mecca even after the Prophet had migrated to Mecca. Heavily outnumbered by their pagan opponents, their lives and properties were gravely threatened. This is the particular historical context for these Hadith reports. To argue, as some of our ulema do, that the same rule applies for Muslims in India, even in places where Muslims do not face any such threat, is incorrect. If Muslims were to restrict themselves to Muslim ghettos and thereby cut themselves off from people of other faiths, they would be unable to relate to, and interact with, others in the social, economic and political spheres, and would also have no opportunity to engage in the task of da‘wah or communicating the true message of Islam to them. Hence, this ghettoisation process must be reversed, for it is harmful particularly to the Muslims themselves.

In fact, Muslims must make all efforts to promote closer interaction at all planes with Hindus, rather than isolate themselves in a corner. In this regard, we would need to exercise a certain degree of flexibility in the matter of some fiqh rules about relations between Muslims and others that were developed in the period of Muslim domination and which may not be relevant in today’s context. In the light of these medieval fiqh prescriptions, many Muslims have grave reservations on a host of issues with regard to people of other faiths, such as participating in their functions, greeting them on their festivals, wishing them, exchanging gifts with them, and sharing in their joys and sorrows. In the face of this, it is imperative that we develop a contextually-relevant ‘fiqh for Muslim minorities’ (fiqh ul-aqalliyat) through which we can review and rethink these fiqh rules so as to enable us to adopt a more expansive and open stance on these matters.

Similarly, in line with medieval fiqh formulations, many Muslims take a very extreme position with regard to the prohibition of imitating or following the ways and customs of non-Muslims. Traditional understandings of this question also need to be reviewed if we are to establish closer links with Hindus and people of other faiths. On this issue, the influential medieval Islamic scholar Ibn Taimiyah, who is known for having adopted a rather extreme position in this regard, made a clear distinction between Muslims in a state of cultural domination and those in a condition where they are culturally dominated by others. In the latter case, he opined, for Muslims to adopt some of the external practices of non-Muslims might actually be desirable from the point of view of the Islamic cause. Indeed, he went on, it might even become necessary for this purpose. As he explained in his bookIqtiza us-Sirat ul-Mustaqim:

‘Saving oneself from imitating non-Muslims and distinguishing oneself from them applies only in the context of [Muslim] dominance. When in the early period [of Islam] Muslims were weak, this commandment was not given. This commandment was given only later, when Islam became dominant and acquired power. Likewise, today, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands are not obliged to distinguish themselves externally from non-Muslims, because this might cause them harm. Indeed, under some circumstances, it is appropriate or even necessary for Muslims to share [some of] the external practices of non-Muslims if this is in the larger interests of Islam or for a noble purpose.’

The time for Hindu-Muslim dialogue is now. It cannot be put off until later.

(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted onw.mazhari@gmail.com

Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)
source: http://twocircles.net/2010may04/common_bases_hindu_muslim_dialogue.html

Continue reading »]]> By Mumtaz Alam Falahi, TwoCircles.net, 02.20.2010

New Delhi: The International Dialogue Between Islam & Oriental Religions began in New Delhi today with religious and community leaders calling for unity on the basis of common values shared by the religions in Asia. “Initiation of the dialogue is timely as such dialogues have already started between Islam and Judaism and Christianity,” said Hamid Ansari, Vice President of India while inaugurating the 2-day conference.

“While there is a dialogue between Islam and Judaism and Christianity in the West there is no such dialogue between Islam and Oriental religions in this part of the world. Initiation of such dialogue is timely,” said Hamid Ansari. “There is a need to establish contact between Islam and Hinduism,” he stressed and added: “Religions share common values but politics and government sowed hatred.”

Presiding over the first session of the conference being attended by people from several countries, Maulana Arshad Madani, president of a faction of Jamiat Ulema Hind, said: No clash among followers of religions has ever been in the past in India as Muslim rulers had Hindu officials at high ranks while Hindu rulers had Muslims. There was no religious conflict. First Mughal emperor Babar’s advice to his son Humayun while on death bed was historic, he said.

“It was the British government which sowed religious hatred by their divide and rule policy,” said the Maulana adding that communalism can’t be checked by communalism. “For peace it is must to strengthen peace and communal harmony.”
Jagatguru Shankaracharya Onkaranand Saraswati of Prayag Peeth called for unity among followers of religions for the sake of the country. “The unity once needed for freedom of India is again needed,” he said. “Islam does not teach terrorism, it cannot talk about division. No religion instigates hatred or communalism. We all are human being of One God. We all are equal. There is no conflict between Islam and Sanatan Dharma. There is a need to highlight values and teachings that call for unity.”

Najeeb Jung, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia said that all religions are under attack as Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians have great disbelief among them. “Truth lies in mysticism of all religions which their followers miss to understand,” he said.

Prof. Ali Mohiuddin Qaradaghi, President, Muslim Minorities Committee and Alami Ulama Council, while representing Allama Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi said: “We have come to India, the country with rich culture and civilization, so that we could be acquainted with each other through mutual talk, live peacefully and do something unitedly for the building and progress of our countries. In fact, the good of all of us lies in living together peacefully and in this way only we can bring about economic progress, prosperity and stability for all of us.”

source: http://twocircles.net/2010feb20/global_interfaith_dialogue_begins_delhi.html

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 »]]> In a thoughtful series of reflections on the future of Hindu-Christian Dialogue, Klaus Klostermaier observes that there are “few Hindus who are interested in (contemporary) Christian theology, and

there are fewer still who have a desire to enter into dialogue with their Christian counterparts”1 Others have noted that, with few notable exceptions, the initiatives for dialogue, in recent times, have been from the Christian side.2 In an earlier study, I suggested, briefly, a few possible reasons for this lack of interest on the Hindu side. The memories of colonialism and its association with aggressive Christian missionary activity, misrepresentation of other religions, and the lack of genuine interest in the study and understanding of these traditions are not easily erased.

There are still barriers of mistrust to overcome.3 I interpreted this lack of interest, also, as a reflection of certain popular Hindu attitudes towards religious pluralism. The famous Rg Veda text, “One is the Truth, the sages speak of it differently,” (I.64.46) is often employed to explain away doctrinal differences as merely semantic ones. The point of this text, as its context makes quite clear, is not really to dismiss the significance of the different ways in which we speak of the One or to see these ways as equally valid. The text is really a comment on the limited nature of human language. Such language must by nature be diverse in its attempts to describe that which is One and finally indescribable. The text, however, is widely cited in ways that seem to make interreligious dialogue redundant.

Klostermaier laments the trend in contemporary Christianity and Hinduism “to dismiss the intellectual approach to religion as irrelevant and to cultivate only its emotional and pragmatic sides.” Arguing that intellectuals and scholars must be allowed to play a more vital and central role in the development of these traditions, Klostermaier affirms that Hindu-Christian dialogue “must recover the intellectual substance of Hinduism and Christianity and must contribute actively to the ongoing search for truth/reality in all spheres of life. The intellectual dimension of life has not lost its importance in our time.”4

The loss of intellectual vigor in contemporary Hinduism is a matter of deep concern and the causes are many and complex. There are also serious implications for the Hindu interest in dialogue with Christians and for the nature of such dialogue. In this article, I want to identify what I perceive to be one major cause for the erosion of intellectual life in Hinduism and its divorce from spirituality. I wish to reflect also on significance of this for Hindu-Christian dialogue.

It is my contention that the decline in the significance of Vedic exegesis and the reinterpretation of the authority of the Vedas in contemporary times vis a vis personal experience are connected closely with the weakening of scholarship in Hinduism and its lack of interest in vigorous dialogue with Christianity. It is not possible, here, to describe in detail and to trace the historical roots of this process of reinterpretation and I have already attempted this elsewhere.5 I will, however, highlight some of the salient and relevant historical developments and draw attention to their significance for Hindu-Christian dialogue.

The Western impact on India in the eighteenth century had far reaching implications for almost every aspect of Indian life and served as a catalyst for the cultivation of attitudes of rational inquiry and criticism. The earliest Hindu reformer to reflect the impact of the West in his thinking about Hinduism is the Brahmo Samaj leader, Rammohun Roy. While Roy’s attitude to the authority of the Vedas had an element of ambiguity about it, even among his own followers, it is quite clear that his approach to the texts was different from orthodox P rva Mimamsa exegetes or from Advaita Vedanta interpreter, Sankara. Roy applied an extrascriptural criteria of “true” religion in his evaluation of the worth of any text, including the Vedas. He did not see religious truth as being limited to the texts of the Vedas or see the Vedas as being indispensable for our knowledge of God. The texts, themselves, and not only their interpretations, he argued, must be subject to rational analysis.

What I perceive as a watershed in the attitude of contemporary Hindu interpreters to the authority of the Vedas occurred under the leadership of Roy’s successor, Debendranath Tagore (1817-1905). The change was initiated as a consequence of a debate sparked by the conversion to Christianity of Umesh Chandra Sarkar and his wife. Sarkar was a student at Alexander Duff’s school, and there was vigorous opposition to the school. Duff responded with a challenge to the doctrines of the Brahmo Samaj, questioning, in particular, the belief in Vedic infallibility.6 The Samaj initially defended the doctrine, but this stirred a great degree of unease in its ranks. In an effort to resolve this issue, Debendranath Tagore sent four brahmin youths to Benares to study the Vedas. His own visit to the city in 1847 was partly in pursuit of the same inquiry. Finally, the doctrine of Vedic infallibility was abolished in 1850.7 Perhaps the main reason for Tagore’s rejection of the doctrine of infallibility was his refusal to accept passages in the Upanisads affirming the identity of atman and brahman. He chose to see brahman as lord and regulator of the universe and to see the atman as dependent on brahman for its existence.8

From that time onwards, the nonauthoritative status of any text became enshrined in the creed of the Brahmo Samaj. Nature and intuition took the place of scripture as twin sources of knowledge. The basis of Brahmoism became “the pure heart filled with the light of intuitive knowledge.” Tagore himself became increasingly reliant on personal intuition as his authority and the notion of divine command (adesa) assumed a significant role in his life.

Tagore’s successor to the leadership of the Brahmo Samaj, the charismatic Keshub Chandra Sen (1838-1884), rejoiced in the rejection of Vedic infallibility. He saw it as a grand step in the evolution of the Samaj and its embrace of monotheism which “was not confined to Hindoo books, to the scriptures of their own countrymen, but was to be found in human nature in all the races and tribes and nations of the world.”9 Keshub propagated a general theory of revelation in which he included nature, history, by which he means “great men,” and inspiration. He clearly emphasized inspiration, as the most direct and significant form of revelation. He described it as “the direct breathing-in of God’s spirit – which infuses an altogether new life into the soul, and exalts it above all that is earthly and impure. It is more powerful, being God’s direct and immediate action on the human soul while revelation made through physical nature and biography is indirect and mediate.”10

Sen went much further than Tagore in his denunciation of what he regarded to be doctrine and dogma and his unfavorable comparison of these with “fire of inspiration.” Doctrine and dogma which relate to intellectual cognition, reasoning and logical thought were cold and lifeless and had nothing to do with the attainment of salvation. He spoke of direct perception as the only reliable, conclusive and self-evident means of gaining spiritual knowledge and saw this perception as affirmed in the Upanisads. “No expression is more frequently used in the Upanisads than the ‘perception’ of God (darsan). It appears that Hindu sages, not content with intellectual conceptions of the Almighty or abstract contemplation of certain Divine attributes, sought earnestly and indeed successfully, to behold the Supreme Spirit directly and to apprehend Him as a distinct and vivid reality in their inner consciousness.”11 Towards the end of his life, Sen, like Debendranath Tagore before him, gave increasing prominence to the authority of divine command (adesa) and claimed to have received a special revelation and dispensation from God. The significance of scriptural revelation was reduced by his claim that the texts of this New Dispensation (Nava-Vidhan) included “the whole of science, physical, metaphysical and moral and also the science of religion.”

At the time of Keshub’s death in 1884, the center of religious attention in Calcutta had already shifted to Ramakrishna (1836-1886) who had taken up residence in the Kali temple at Dakshineshwar. Primarily through Vivekananda and the Ramakrishna Mission founded in 1897, Ramakrishna, like the Brahmo Samaj, has exerted significant influence on the character of contemporary Hindu attitudes to scriptural authority. While Ramakrishna’s background was different from that of the Brahmo Samaj leaders in that he was virtually unexposed to Westernizing influences, he concurred with them in his disdain for scripture and in his championing of personal experience.

Ramakrishna possessed a deep aversion to formal learning and education. Learned persons were likened by him to kites and vultures, which soar to great heights in the sky but whose eyes are forever focused on the decaying carcasses below. There were also described as similar to foolish people in an orchard, who count the leaves and fruit and argue to estimate their value instead of plucking and relishing the juicy fruit. Reason and the intellectual life received little attention or recognition in his teachings.

Ramakrishna confessed skepticism about the value of scriptural study. The scriptures are diluted, containing, as he puts it, a “mixture of sand and sugar,” difficult to distinguish and separate. They are of no use in conveying the feeling of God: “This feeling is something very different from book-learning. Books, scriptures, and science appear as mere dirt and straw after the realization of God.” Like Keshub Chandra Sen, the direct vision of God was the main theme of his instruction. It was the only form of verification: “But seeing is far better than hearing. Then all doubts disappear. It is true that many things are recorded in the scripture; but all these are useless without the direct realization of God.”12

Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902), the foremost disciple of Ramakrishna has, more than any other Hindu in recent times, influenced the popular understanding of Hinduism in India and abroad. There is very little in modern Hindu, particularly Vedanta, apologetic writing which does not carry the imprint of Vivekananda’s influence. His attitude to scriptural authority was shaped by the teachings of Ramakrishna, but also by the stand of the Brahmo Samaj in whose circles he was active as a youth. He developed the suggestions and outlines from these sources into an elaborate rejection of the necessity for scripture.

Vivekananda followed his teacher, Ramakrishna, in attributing a low value to scriptures and in upholding the supremacy of personal experience. The adequacy of scriptures is compared to the utility of a map to a traveler, before visiting a country.13 The map, according to Vivekananda, can create only curiosity for firsthand knowledge of the place and can communicate only a vague conception of its reality. Maps are in no way equivalent to the direct knowledge of the country, gathered by actually being there.

Vivekananda understands the Vedas to be records of the spiritual discoveries of others and the methods by which such discoveries have been made. These findings, however, have no validity unless they are personally rediscovered by each person:

There are certain religious facts which, as in external science, have to be perceived and upon them religion will be built. Of course, the extreme claim that you must believe every dogma of a religion is degrading to the human mind. The man who asks you to believe everything, degrades himself, and, if you believe, degrades you too. The sages of the world have only the right to tell us that they have analyzed their minds and have found these facts, and if we do the same we shall also believe, and not before. That is all there is in religion. (CW, 2:163).

The proof of the truth of the Vedas is the direct knowledge of the individual, not the fact of its embodiment in any text. The individual must verify the text and this verification is likened to ordinary direct perception.

The proof, therefore, of the Vedas is just the same as the proof of this table before me, pratyaksa, direct perception. This I see with the senses, and the truths of spirituality we also see in a superconscious state of the human soul. (CW, 3:253).

The imperative, therefore, for Vivekananda, is that everyone should become a rsi. The chief characteristic of rsi status is the possibility of a direct apprehension of truth. The possibility and requirement of every individual to become a rsi is one of the important points of contrast that Vivekananda emphasized between Hinduism and other religious traditions. In the latter, he claims, insight is limited to a few select individuals through whom truth is made available to the many. “Truth came to Jesus of Nazareth, and we must all obey him. But the truth came to the rsis of India – the mantra-drastas – the seers of thought – and will come to all rsis in the future, not to talkers, not to book-swallowers, not to scholars, not to philologists, but to seers of thought” (CW, 3:283). Vivekananda often asserted that only in becoming a rsi does one understand the scripture properly. His argument appears to be that as products and records of direct perception, these texts were not written for the intellect, or for understanding through a process of rational inquiry and analysis. They become meaningful only when one has lifted oneself to the same heights of perception. At that point, however, they are useful only to the extent that they confirm what one has known directly (CW, 4, 165, 7:85, 89). An opinion, like this, seems to deprive the scriptures from having even the preliminary worth of a map.

Scriptural analysis is described by Vivekananda as intellectual opium eating (see CW, 1:45, 4:168). Scripture are specified by him as unsatisfactory theoretical religion and included among the non-essentials of religion. Among other non-essentials, he listed doctrines, dogmas, rituals, temples, images and forms.

S. Wesley Ariarajah identifies four different types of interreligious dialogue, each with its unique contribution to make.14 Dialogue of life is an encounter which takes place in the course of everyday life among people of different traditions who live in the same community. There is no conscious or explicit articulation and exchange of religious belief. Such explicit exchange of beliefs and perspectives is a characteristic of the dialogue of discourse. In the dialogue of spirituality, participants seek “to go beyond words to encounter the other at the level of the heart.” It attracts those “who feel that the essential unity of humanity cannot be expressed in words, but must be celebrated in worship and meditation.” Finally, the dialogue of action is characterised by cooperation among people of different faiths for the attainment of desirable ends of their common existence such as peace, justice, protection of the environment, human rights etc.

While acknowledging the various forms of interreligious dialogue, it appears to me that what Ariarajah calls the dialogue of discourse will continue to be one of its necessary and vital forms. While not prominent in the other forms, it seems to be implied in them. The sharing of thought and reflection, the understanding of the scope and limits of reason and language in other traditions, and the mutual enrichment which comes from exposure to each other’s wisdom (jnana) are facets of dialogue which, if engaged in with commitment, humility and a passion for truth can never become “ivory tower” intellectualism. Such dialogue needs to find a prominent place in the meeting of Hinduism and Christianity.

The decline of intellectual vigor in any tradition through the denigration of reason and the intellect will be reflected in the quality of its interest in other traditions and in the kind of interreligious dialogue in which it desires to engage. The championing in contemporary Hinduism of personal experience over the authority of scripture, which I have briefly traced in this essay, has contributed to the divorce of scholarship from spirituality. Examples of scholarship without religious commitment and religious commitment lacking the self-critical insights of scholarship abound. Their creative combination in modern Hinduism is rare. The disconnection between scholarship and spirituality in Hinduism limits the quality of the Hindu dialogue with Christianity. The dialogue of discourse is most enriching when it occurs among participants whose lives reflect the integration of both.

The divorce to which I am referring can be illustrated by highlighting the classic approach of Sankara or Ramanuja. For Sankara, the Vedas are the definitive and unique source of our knowledge of brahman, the gain of which leads to the discovery of moksa. The Vedas are a valid source of knowledge in the form of words (sabda-pramana) and saving knowledge depends on the proper comprehension of the meaning of these words. Scriptural learning and exegesis therefore, become very important along with such disciplines as grammar and etymology that aid interpretation. Proper principles for arriving at the meaning of the text are important.15

The acceptance of the Vedas as an authoritative source of knowledge did not mean the abandonment of a very important role for reason. Reason is important for deciding between different interpretations of passages and for reconciling conflicting ones. Reason also plays an important role in assessing and responding to rival views. Sankara obviously takes differences of doctrine very seriously and in responding to the claims of rival systems which do not accept the authority of the Vedas, he is constrained to demonstrate the validity of Advaita on the basis of the reasonableness of its propositions.

The decline of the significance of the Vedas as a pramana and its characterisation as secondhand religion has contributed to the devaluing of scriptural scholarship. Its study, exegesis and interpretation are not of utmost significance. Vivekananda contemptuously dismisses scriptural scholarship as an activity at the theoretical and intellectual level. With an emphasis in contemporary Hinduism on the gain of knowledge through the transcendence of reason and not on its mediation, reason, argument and intellectual activity, all important qualities of interreligious dialogue, assume more of an obstructive character. There is an impassioned derogation and belittlement of the human intellect in Vivekananda, the leading Neo-Vedanta interpreter, which is not at all found in his classical predecessors: “The intellect is only the street-cleaner, cleansing the path for us, a secondary worker, the policeman; but the policeman is not a positive necessity for the workings of society” (CW 2:306). Paradoxically, it would seem that where the Vedas are upheld are a valid means of knowledge, reason has a more positive role to play in clarifying, explaining and defending its propositions. Where the attempt is made, on the other hand, to supersede the necessity for faith in the scripture in the interest of being more rational, reason becomes almost insignificant.

The rejection of the primary authority of scripture, the derision of scholarship, the ridicule of dogma and doctrine and the belittling of reason, which we see in so many modern interpreters of Hinduism have other important implications for Hindu-Christian dialogue. Perhaps most important is the tendency to overlook the significance doctrinal differences. Because conclusive insight is understood to be gained through an experience which transcends reason, interpreters, like Vivekananda, are able to dismiss what they perceive to be preoccupation of the rational mind. It is only by overlooking and dismissing the importance of different doctrinal claims that one can so easily assert, as many Hindus do, that all paths lead to the same goal. Such scant regard for differences of doctrine is often frustrating for many Christians who engage with Hindus in dialogue.

I do not wish to deny the vital role of the experiential dimension in the human search for truth or to claim that it without significance in the Hindu tradition. Sankara, himself, at various points in his commentary on the Brahma-sutra acknowledges this role.16 While Sankara, as I believe, acknowledges the ultimacy of scriptural revelation for our knowledge of the absolute, his understanding of the relationship between scripture and personal experience (anubhava) is dynamic and creative. It offers scope for vigorous life of the intellect by preserving for it a necessary role in the spiritual quest. By being more faithful to the Upanisadic ideal of the unity of learning (srotriyam) and commitment to spiritual truth (brahmanistham) it offers a more promising and rewarding model for Hindu dialogue with Christianity and other religions. The complete subordination, on the other hand, of scriptural revelation to the authority of personal experience and the associated vilification of reason, the role of the intellect, discussion and language, have sadly engendered skepticism about the worth of dialogue in which these have a prominent role. The devaluation of learning and intellectual skills in a prominent heroic interpreter of Hinduism, like Vivekananda, must not go unchallenged.

Since the latter half of the 1960′s, the Hindu population of the United States has been growing steadily. Until that time, the doors of welcome were virtually shut to immigrants from Asia. The Chinese exclusion act of 1882 was applied broadly to include all people of Asian origin. In 1965, a new immigration law, initiated by John F. Kennedy, abolished quotas based on national origins and opened the country to immigrants from India. Today, there are lively and flourishing communities of Hindus in most of the major cities of North America and temple construction has been rapidly following the establishment of such communities. Hindus are prominently among those whom W.C. Smith described as “our neighbors, our colleagues, our competitors, our fellows.”17

The context of interrelated living offers fruitful opportunities for the “dialogue of life” between Hindus and Christians and this is clearly taking place. I think that most Hindus in North America will easily identify occasions and moments in their lives when they had to articulate some aspect of their faith and practice to people of other religions. Hindus, on the whole, usually embrace the opportunity to do this. Our interrelated lives in communities of diversity will also require of us more engagement in the “dialogue of action” through which we will be called upon to work with others for the advancement of mutual interests. While there are many groups in North America whose beliefs and practices are influenced by elements of Hinduism, the “dialogue of spirituality” which Ariarajah describes as involving participation in each other’s worship and meditation is still exceptional for Hindus. There is only one Hindu -based organization, of which I am aware, The International Society of Krishna Consciousness in West Virginia, which prominently promotes dialogue of this kind. Ariarajah points to the concerns which many people have about the possibility of meaningfully entering the worship of another tradition and fears of uncritical syncretism.

The dialogue of discourse between Hinduism and Christianity in North America is lacking both in frequency and depth and in this essay I have offered another reason for what many have discerned to be the lack of Hindu interest and initiative for such dialogue. The questioning of uncritical attitudes about the supremacy of personal experience, and the recovery of its existing but overshadowed traditions of vibrant learning and spirituality seem to me to be a necessary condition for fruitful dialogue of discourse between both traditions. Modern Hindu commentators have not only upheld the authority of personal experience but they have affirmed this to be the uniqueness of Hinduism. I am convinced that the affirmation of a more creative relationship between revelation, reason and experience will reveal many more exciting areas of common interest for discussion between our two religions.

Anantanand Rambachan is a Hindu scholar from Trinidad and Tobago and Professor of Religion at St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA.

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd32-02.html

source: http://www.interfaithdialog.org/reading-room/the-nature-and-authority-of-scripture-implication-for-hindu-christian-dia.html

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 »]]> Hindus and Muslims have lived together in the subcontinent of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh for over 1,000 years.

During this time many kinds of conflict-for example, historical/political, socioeconomic, cultural, theological, philosophical, psychological, and personal-have existed between these two religious communities. There have also been periods of violence when members of one community (generally the majority community) have perpetrated acts of aggression upon members of the other (generally the minority community). Sometimes these acts of aggression have been brutal to the extent of being barbarous, and sometimes their magnitude is shocking, as was the case when-in the bitter aftermath of the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan in August, 1947-a bloodbath took place in which tens of thousands of human beings (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and others) were massacred. The nature and number of communal (particularly Hindu-Muslim) riots1 which have taken place in post-partition India are undoubtedly causes of serious concern to those who would like to see the peoples of this ancient land live together in peace. The troubled history of Hindu-Muslim relations in this area is, thus, clearly recognized at the outset of this essay. I do not attempt to negate or mitigate the fact that, in a number of ways, Hindus and Muslims are, and have always been, antagonistic to each other’s realities as well as aspirations-and that this leads at times to all kinds of negative consequences, including physical violence.

The perspective from which this essay is written, however, while acknowledging the problems of Hindu-Muslim relations in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and (chiefly) India, focuses on the possibilities of Hindu-Muslim dialogue in this region. This perspective is grounded in my belief that, despite all the problems that Hindus and Muslims have had vis-à-vis one another through the centuries, they have been able in their millennium of coexistence in one geographical area to develop and maintain a pluralistic society which is as genuine as may be found anywhere in the world.

Since human beings are imperfect, any human society they create is imperfect. No pluralistic society in the world is free from a sense of dis-ease or tension, but this state of dis-ease or tension is not necessarily an evil. In fact, very often it is a blessing since it militates against a society’s becoming stagnant and apathetic. Pluralism is good precisely because it embodies points of view which are not identical or even harmonious and thus cannot lead to a totalitarianism in which human differences are not tolerated and all human beings are subjected to the supreme oppression of having to conform to uniformity imposed from without. It is the effort to evolve a pattern of “the good life” within the framework of differing perspectives and values which makes pluralistic societies creative and dynamic.

As most Americans have heard, ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch.” There is a price to be paid for pluralism, just as there is a price to be paid for democracy. Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent have paid, and are paying (especially Muslims in India2), the price for pluralism, but -given the state of the world in which we all live-I believe that their experience of coexistence represents a significant achievement. The spirit of this experience is reflected in what may be called “a dialogue of life,” which has been going on for centuries between Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent. Such a dialogue was, and is, unavoidable and inevitable, given the fact that Hindus and Muslims have inhabited the same physical and cultural world since the tenth century.

The dialogue of life which emerges out of the processes of life is not a contrived matter. It arises “naturally” as it were from the interaction, positive and negative, obvious and subtle, verbal and nonverbal, between various peoples or persons. This dialogue is not the sort of dialogue we talk about in academic meetings because this dialogue proceeds not in accordance with rationally debated, mutually agreed-upon criteria or guidelines for dialogue but in accordance with the existential needs of those who generate this dialogue. However, to ignore either the reality or the importance of this dialogue of life in any discussion of Hindu-Muslim dialogue in the subcontinent is to cheat oneself of what is perhaps the most valuable resource available to those of us who are committed to bringing about better understanding and relations between the two major religious communities of this ancient and vast civilization. In today’s world many theologians realize the need for making “theology from above” coalesce with “theology from below.” Likewise, there is a great need today to make “dialogue from above” coalesce with “dialogue from below.” While it is true that the reflections and discussions of scholars produce ideas and schemata which play an important, perhaps even a crucial, role in molding the ideas and attitudes of the common people, it is even more true that grass-roots dialogue is what has the greatest impact on pragmatic reality.

While we must never permit ourselves to forget the violations of human rights which occur in and between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and seek constantly to strive for justice on behalf of all those who are discriminated against by the political and cultural systems prevailing in these countries, we must also seek to remember that for a millennium Hindus and Muslims have not only been neighbors in one physical region but have also had to face the same kinds of problems: the curse of massive illiteracy, poverty, and superstition; the burden of an ever-increasing population pressure in an area where tremendous inequities exist in terms of distribution of power and wealth; the difficulties of survival in societies run by incredibly corrupt persons-to mention just a few of the many problems which confront the common Hindu and Muslim living in the subcontinent. Facing common problems creates a strong bond between human beings regardless of caste, creed, or color. Anyone who has lived in the subcontinent understands what is meant by the first whole truth of Buddhism-that life is dukkha (suffering)-and this truth which is learned experientially by the teeming masses of Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis militates against self-centered isolationism or selfish indifferences toward the plight of others. Suffering may not always lead to wisdom or compassion, but wisdom and compassion are seldom found in those who have not suffered. It is my belief that the people of my subcontinent-Hindus, Muslims, and others-possess much wisdom and compassion and that this is born of their suffering.

It is perhaps an irony or a paradox that those who are able to suffer deeply are also able to rejoice deeply. In few places in the world have I experienced the deep sense of joy I have felt in the homes of the people of my subcontinent. It is hard to describe to those who do not belong to this world what human relations mean to people of this world-Hindus, Muslims, and others. In this world, human relations are cherished far above material things, and the joy which a person feels in having or in being a mother, father, brother, sister, spouse, child, relative, or friend to another radiates through all the vicissitudes of fortune. In their attitude to family and friends, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, and other peoples living in the subcontinent are amazingly similar. They are also very similar in believing that people should meet and greet each other with courtesy and respect, especially when they address someone older in age, and in considering hospitality to others a very important value and virtue.

Aside from these similarities which provide the basis for a dialogue of life between Hindus and Muslims (and others) in the subcontinent, there are also other cultural bonds. One of the most important of these is the bond of common language. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs who speak Punjabi, for instance, gravitate toward each other. I have met Hindus and Sikhs living in the Western world who become tearful when they hear that I come from Lahore, a city loved by all the Punjabis, even as Delhi is loved by all those who speak Urdu. How important language is to a people is illustrated dramatically in the case of the alienation of the people of what was formerly East Pakistan from the state of Pakistan. This process of alienation began in the early 1950′s. Bengali was not given the status of Urdu, which was declared to be the one national language even though the Bengalis constituted the majority of the people of Pakistan. The insensitivity shown by the federal government of Pakistan to the East Pakistanis’ sentiment regarding Bengali did not diminish with time and continued to exacerbate the problems existing between the two wings of the country.

Here it would not be inappropriate to refer to the supreme irony embodied in the secession of East Pakistan from Pakistan, a country which had been created so that Muslims could live together according to the Islamic Shari’a. Critics of the creation of Pakistan had always upheld that religion could not be made the basis of statehood. For instance, Maulana Abu’l Kalam Azad, an outstanding Muslim who became a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, said in his autobiography:

It is one of the greatest frauds on the people to suggest that religious affinity can unite areas which are geographically, economically, linguistically, and culturally different. It is true that Islam sought to establish a society which transcends racial, linguistic, economic, and political frontiers. History has, however, proved that after the first few decades, or at most after the first century, Islam was not able to unite all Muslim countries into one state on the basis of Islam alone.3

Having watched the course of events preceding the 1971 civil war from which East Pakistan emerged as Bangladesh from very close quarters as a senior officer in the Federal Ministry of Information in Pakistan, I am convinced both that East Pakistan would not have seceded from Pakistan if a political instead of a military solution had been attempted, and that the loss of East Pakistan represents not so much an inability on the part of Islam to hold together two physically noncontiguous and culturally diverse regions as it does the failure of the Pakistan government to uphold Islamic principles of justice in the country as a whole.

The creation of Bangladesh did not represent a rejection of Islam as a way of life, as the majority of the people of Bangladesh continue to be devoutly Muslim, nor did it represent a well-considered rejection of Pakistan as a state as is shown by the tragic fact that today there are tens of thousands of Bengalis from Bangladesh who are working in Pakistan, having acquired forged papers making them citizens of Pakistan. At the same time, it must be pointed out that cultural bonds can and do at times transcend religious convictions. During the pre-war period, for instance, the East Pakistanis revolted violently when the government of Pakistan prevented Radio Pakistan, Dacca, from broadcasting the writings of Rabindranath Tagore since he was a Hindu. It is sad but not surprising that the culturally illiterate government of Pakistan should have failed to appreciate the universalism of Tagore since it is unable, to this day, to appreciate the universalism of Iqbal and insists jingoistically on making him exclusively the poet-philosopher of Pakistan.

Moving beyond the Hindu-Muslim dialogue of life, which is rooted in a common culture, I would like to refer to another extremely important realm of life in which the Hindu-Muslim dialogue has existed since the advent of the first Sufis into India: this is the realm of spirituality. All students of this area know how deep the spiritual quest of the children of this soil has been since the worldliness of the Vedic Aryans was superseded by the otherworldliness of the Upanishadic way of life and vision as well as the teachings of Buddhism, Jainism, and other ascetic sects. The Muslim mystics who came to India found the ground prepared for their work. Their passionate proclaiming of the existence of a loving, forgiving, saving God with whom a personal relationship could be established through single-minded devotion touched many hearts. It was Muslim Sufis, not Muslim soldiers, who converted masses of Hindus to Islam. Such conversions ought to have pleased the custodians of the Islamic Shari’a and Muslim rulers in India, but they did not. To holders of both secular and religious power in Islam, the Sufis have, since the early centuries of Islam, appeared as a great threat since they acknowledge the authority and sovereignty of no one but God and also because their devotion to God does not always exhibit itself in prescribed ways. For instance, knowing how important music was to the worshipful people of India, many Sufis adopted music in their worship-a practice frowned upon by the so-called “Shari’a-minded” Muslims. Regardless, however, of the attitudes of the Islamic establishment toward them, the mystics of Islam developed a spiritual bond with masses of Hindus, both those who converted to Islam and those who did not. The influence of Islamic mysticism on the Hindu bhakti movement and of Hindu mysticism on Muslim spirituality is well known, and it is noteworthy to mention here that Iqbal was very proud of being “a Brahmin’s son” who represented a synthesis of Hindu and Muslim spiritual insight.4

Many messianic ideas are also common to Hindus, Muslims, and the other peoples of the subcontinent, and veneration is shown generally to all “saints” irrespective of their religious origin. Muslim scholars such as Fazlur Rahman deplore the appearance of messianism in Islam and attribute it to foreign influences, but I believe that there were also substantial reasons and forces within the Islamic tradition which contributed to it and that, although the Qur’an does not provide explicit support for it, it nevertheless has important spiritual, psychological, and emotional value for the masses of Muslims and constitutes a bond with other people who share their messianic hopes and ideas across the barriers of differing religious ideologies.5 I have heard of Hindus visiting Muslim shrines, and I used to know Bengali Muslims who kept icons of the goddess Kali in their homes as protection against the evil eye. These Muslims were not idolatrous, since they did not deify Kali but regarded her as a savior-or intercessor-figure to whom they could address their fears and aspirations in much the same way that they would to Sufi saints.

Besides the dialogue of life and dialogue at the level of spirituality and the interchange of ideas and practices related to messianic beliefs, Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent have also had a continuing dialogue on the basis of their common intellectual-aesthetic heritage. Literature, music, and philosophy are but a few areas in which Hindus and Muslims have much in common. There are many Hindus who love Iqbal, just as there are many Muslims who love Tagore. I remember how deeply touched I was several years ago when as a doctoral student working on Iqbal’s philosophy I asked Mulk Raj Anand, a noted Indian novelist and scholar, about his feelings toward Iqbal, and he told me that one of his life’s deepest desires was to visit Lahore and pay homage at the tomb of Iqbal, who had been his mentor at one time and whom he loved deeply despite the alienation brought about between Hindus and Muslims by the Muslim separatist movement in India. A year later, Mulk Raj Anand wrote to me telling me that he was happy in that he had indeed been able to fulfill his desire and pay his respects at Iqbal’s mausoleum.

Having mentioned the areas in which I believe a dialogue already exists between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent, let me refer now to two areas in which there is either no, or minimal, dialogue between Hindus and Muslims living in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The first is that of dialogue relating to historical/political issues; the second, dialogue relating to theological issues.

The first area is exceedingly difficult for a number of reasons, including the basic one that dialogue presupposes that a peer relationship or a relationship of equality exists between the dialogue partners. Dialogue of certain kinds cannot take place between obviously unequal people. That is why dialogue seldom takes place between masters and slaves and between men and women. In India, Muslims are not equal to Hindus; in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus are not equal to Muslims in many ways. In the matter of writing history, particularly of the last 1,000 years, the historians of the subcontinent encounter serious difficulties. There is great pressure on Hindu historians to write history from the Hindu and the Indian nationalist point of view and on Muslim historians to write history from the Muslim and the Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationalist points of view.6 Both viewpoints are obviously limited and biased. There is imperative need for writing a history which is comprehensive and just, which shows the mirror to Hindus and Muslims alike. Confronting our mutual history can sometimes be as painful as confronting our personal history if this history is a checkered one, but it is necessary to do so in order to be free of the shadows of the past. Knowing what we did or did not do does not alter the history of the past, but this knowledge-if accepted with courage and honesty-can lead to a different kind of future. It is one of the prime tasks of those interested in promoting Hindu-Muslim dialogue in the area of historical-political discussion to emphasize the need for an accurate chronicling of all the facts which led to the alienation of Hindus and Muslims in the pre- and post-partition periods and leads, every now and then, to violence and the violation of the rights of weaker people.

Included in this “objective” history must be the role played in Hindu-Muslim relations by the British imperialists who left India in great haste once they accepted the fact that the golden days of the British Rai were over. So many problems-political, geographical, economic, cultural, and psychological-were the legacy of this Raj to the people of India: Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and others. Although almost four decades have gone by since the departure of the British from their most prized imperial possession, people of the subcontinent are still discovering how variegated, widespread, and vicious the results of the British colonial policy of “Divide and Rule” have been. One very important part of any endeavor to establish better relations among the peoples of the subcontinent must be a thorough review of the British role in India, so that the responsibility for the atrocities which were committed against the various victims under the different phases of this rule-particularly the momentous upheaval of the pre- and post-partition period-can be correctly allocated.

As a Muslim and a person committed to dialogue, I do not believe in carrying the baggage of recrimination and bitterness from one life-period to another, but I do believe very strongly that peace is predicated upon justice, and a just evaluation of the past is necessary for establishing peace in the present and the future. Criticism of the British conduct in India does not, of course, mean that the British should be made scapegoats for all the problems which arose among the major religious communities in India. There are undoubtedly a number of problems which preexisted the coming of the British and are related to fundamental differences among these communities.

Without honest and deep self-probing and self-criticism, authentic dialogue with oneself or another is impossible. Hence it is necessary for all the peoples of the subcontinent to look into their own traditions and into their own hearts and minds and souls to discover the sources of these negative feelings and thoughts toward the “other” that periodically erupt in destructive modes of conduct. As stated by a philosopher, those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. We who come from a civilization which is not only one of the oldest in the world but also one of the most complex and reflective must understand our history if our future is to be better than our past, but this understanding of history must be comprehensive, not selective. We have to look not only at those periods or events in history which prove our particular bias but also at all the good and the bad together, and to take responsibility, both as individuals and as communities, for our own contribution to the difficulties which exist in our part of the world. However, we must not acknowledge guilt for that for which we are not responsible. The world, it is said, consists of givers and takers. It also appears to consist of persons who acknowledge guilt for everything and those who acknowledge guilt for nothing. Neither attitude is correct from the perspective of Islam, for neither conforms to the idea of justice. A just evaluation of our past requires that the specifics of history be examined closely and that responsibility be allocated for significant events, negative or positive, after proper consideration of all available evidence. And even that is not enough. It is not enough to hold any group-Hindus, Muslims, British, or any other-responsible for any particular event without specifying also which person or persons within the group were involved and what other circumstances (such as the time period) surrounded the event. We distort history by simplifying it. An extremely good example of this is provided by the way in which American television gives world news, particularly in situations (for example, the U.S. hostage crisis in post-revolutionary Iran) in which Americans are involved, directly or indirectly.

Authentic dialogue is not based on abbreviations, even as it is not based on hairsplitting elaborations of known facts. It is based on a clear and careful understanding of what we call “facts” seen in their historical context. Once we are able to identify the sources of a conflict correctly, it becomes possible to transcend the conflict-to forget and forgive, as it were-but as long as we continue to evade a just evaluation, we are trapped in a process of scapegoating either ourselves or others. This, in Qur’anic terminology, is “Zulm,” and God tells us not to be “zalimin.”

While speaking of history, perhaps a few words are in order about the way in which Muslims and Hindus view it philosophically. According to Kana Mitra, for Muslims, “the universal ideal needs to be concretized in society and in history,” whereas, for Hindus, “the concrete is a stepping stone to the universal ideal but the universal can never be fully concretized in history.”7 While her first statement is correct, Muslims would have no difficulty in also affirming her second statement. Like Hindus, Muslims also do not believe that the universal or the transcendent can ever be fully embodied in a material entity. If they believed otherwise, they would be guilty of deifying history as the Marxists are. Here, the following quotation from W. C. Smith’s Islam in Modem History is relevant:

Not that Islam … even in its most legalist form, ever became fully idolatrous. Attention was never confined to the this-wordly manifestation of value. For the Muslims, involvement in history, though absorbing, is at the most only the obverse of their coin, the reverse of which, polished, brilliant, and pure gold, is in the other world. Islam begins with God, and to Him it well knows we shall return. Its endeavor to redeem history, though total, is derived; it is an endeavor to integrate temporal righteousness in this world with a timeless salvation in the next.8

Finally, we come to the area of theological dialogue between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent. This is, in a way, the most difficult or problematic of all the areas discussed so far. In view of the fact that I have virtually no personal experience of participating in a Hindu-Muslim theological dialogue, I am hesitant to theorize regarding the methodology to be employed in such dialogue. What I can offer are some reflections and suggestions which might be useful to those who believe, as I do, that theological dialogue between Hindus and Muslims is urgently required in order to eliminate the gross ignorance regarding the “other” which leads to unjust behavior in times of peace and to gross brutality in times of stress.

Any Hindu-Muslim dialogue on theological issues must be carried out against the backdrop of the fact that Muslims entered the subcontinent as conquerors and that it was natural for Hindus to identify the religion of the conquering people as an embodiment of imperialism and militaristic power. The scope of this essay excludes the possibility of exploring the conduct of various Muslim rulers in India in general to determine if and to what degree Hindu allegations regarding Muslim aggression toward non-Muslims in this area are warranted by history. Such questions, of course, need to be asked and must be answered in the context of the political/historical dialogue mentioned earlier. However, in the context of theological dialogue it is more pertinent to look at questions or issues which effect the way in which Hindus and Muslims perceive each other’s religious traditions and the impact which such perceptions have on their daily lives.

There is no question at all that the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world, if they have heard of Hinduism at all, think of Hindus as idol-worshippers. In a religious tradition as strictly monotheistic as Islam, where even in the realm of art no human representation is permitted, the making and revering of icons is bound to be regarded as “shirk” or association of anything with the One and Only God of humanity and all creation. Not only do most Muslims see Hindus as “mushrikin,” but they also see them as “kuffar” or disbelievers in the one creator God of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In view of this belief, most Muslims consider interreligious dialogue with Hindus to be an exercise not only in futility but also in sinfulness, since believers ought not to take unbelievers for friends, and dialogue is a friendly encounter which should take place only between or among believers.

At this point it is pertinent to mention that, historically, Muslims have had little or no interest in interreligious dialogue even with other believers in God, including the “Ahl-al kitab” (“People of the Book”-Jews and Christians) with whom they have strong theological and historical links. A partial explanation of this attitude may also be found in A. Toynbee’s statement9 that all three religions of revelation which sprang from a common historical root-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-have a tendency not only toward exclusivism and intolerance but also tend to ascribe to themselves an ultimate validity. Muslims, who consider themselves the recipients of the final revelation, have, in general, taken the truth of Islam to be self-evident and have not expressed any great interest in having an open-ended philosophical and theological dialogue with people of other faiths, except” perhaps in places where they have formed a minority component in a pluralistic environment. Also, the fact that until colonial times it was relatively easy for Muslims to assume the superiority of Islam to all other religions is, at least in part, responsible for their unwillingness to probe deeply into the question of the nature and implications of their Islamic identity.

One means of persuading at least some Muslims to participate in a theological dialogue with Hindus is to point out to them that such dialogue is called for by the spirit of many statements in the Qur’an.10 For instance, the Qur’an refers to the fact that God not only created and honored the humanity of all human beings (Surah 17: Bani Isra’il: 70) but also intended Muslims to communicate the message of Islam to all. That the Qur’an is addressed to all is stated many times in the Qur’an; for example:

Blessed is He Who

Sent down the Criterion (Qur’an)

To His Servant, that it

May be an admonition

To all creatures

(Surah 25: Al-Furqan: 1)

This is no less than

A Message and a Qur’an

Making things clear:

That it may give admonition

To any (who are) alive,

And that the charge

May be proved against those

Who reject (Truth).

(Surah 36: Ya-Sin: 69-70)

This is no less than

A Message to (all)

The Worlds.

(Surah 38: Sad: 87)

Verily this is no less

Than a Message

To (all) the Worlds:

(With profit) to whoever

Among you wills

To go straight.

(Surah 81: At-Takwir: 27-28)

The universal mission of the Prophet of Islam is also affirmed by the Qur’an; for example:

We have not sent thee

But as a universal (Messenger)

To men, giving them

Glad tidings, and warning them

(Against sin), but most men

Understand not.

(Surah 34: Saba’: 28)

There are a number of verses in the Qur’an which refer to God’s mercy and justice toward all creatures; for example:

And God careth for all

And He knoweth all things.

(Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 268)

Unto all (in Faith)

Hath God promised good.

(Surah 4: An-Nisa’: 95)

That plurality of religions is sanctioned by God and is, in fact, a part of God’s design for humanity is attested by the Qur’an; for example:

To each is a goal

To which God turns him;

Then strive together (as in a race)

Towards all that is good

Wheresoever ye are,

God will bring you

Together. For God

Hath power over all things.

(Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 148)

If it had been God’s Plan

They would not have taken

False gods: but We

Made thee not one

To watch over their doings,

Nor art thou set

Over them to dispose

Of their affairs.

(Surah 6: Al-An’am: 107)

If it had been thy Lord’s will

They would have all believed,

All who are on earth!

Will thou then compel mankind,

Against their will, to believe!

(Surah 10: Yunus: 99)

That there is to be no coercion in religion and that the Prophet’s mission is simply to communicate the message of Islam is stressed by the Qur’an in many ways; for example:

Let there be no compulsion

In religion.

(Surah 2: Al-Baqarah: 256)

But if they turn away,

Thy duty is only to preach

The clear message.

(Surah 16: An-Nahl: 82)

The Truth is

From your Lord:

Let him who will

Believe, and let him

Who will, reject (it).

(Surah 18: Al-Kahf: 29)

If then they turn away,

We have not sent thee

As a guard over them.

Their duty is but to convey

(The Message).

(Surah 42: Ash-Shura: 48)

That the Qur’an advocates gracious conduct and religious tolerance as a lifeattitude is clearly seen from the following verses:

When a (courteous) greeting

Is offered you, meet it

With greeting still more

Courteous, or (at least)

Of equal courtesy,

God takes careful account

Of all things.

(Surah 5: Al-Ma’idah: 86)

Revile not ye

Those whom they call upon

Besides God, lest

They out of spite

Revile God

In their ignorance.

Thus have We made

Alluring to each people

Its own doings.

In the end will they

Return to their Lord,

And We shall then

Tell them the truth

Of all that they did.

(Surah 6: Al-An’am: 108)

…If the enemy

Incline towards peace,

Do thou (also) incline

Towards peace, and trust

In God: for He is the One

That heareth and knoweth

(All things).

(Surah 8: Al-Anfal: 61)

If one amongst the Pagans

Ask thee for asylum,

Grant it to him,

So that he may hear the word

Of God; and then exort him

To where he can be secure.

(Surah 9: At-Taubah: 6)

That God’s message has been intended, from the beginning, for the guidance of all humanity is shown by the verse:

The first House (of worship)

Appointed for men

Was that at Bakka:

Full of blessing

And of guidance

For all kinds of being. (alamin)

(Surah 3: Al-‘Imran: 96)

And, further, the Qur’an holds the promise:

One day we shall raise

From all peoples a witness…

(Surah 16: An-Nahl: 89)

The first problem to be confronted by anyone interested in bringing about a Hindu-Muslim theological dialogue would be to motivate both sides to enter into such dialogue with openness and seriousness. To have such a dialogue in a Western setting where dialogues are in fashion nowadays is one thing; to have it in India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh is quite another, and to bring it -about would require much talent and commitment. If Hindus and Muslims could be persuaded in the interest of truth-seeking or peace-making to engage in a theological dialogue, the major task would be to determine what should be the beginning point of this dialogue.

My experience of Muslim-Christian-Jewish dialogue has convinced me that it is disastrous to begin any dialogue with a discussion on the concept of God, which many theologians assume to be the natural starting point of any theological dialogue in the framework of monotheistic religious tradition. I have never seen any dialogue which begins with a discussion of the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim concepts of God get past the point of hair-splitting definitions and disagreements, leaving the dialogue partners flabbergasted and wondering whether they are indeed talking about the believers in the same God. Any theological dialogue between Hindus and Muslims which begins with a discussion of the concept of God is even more likely to be doomed to disaster. I do not see any way in which the great majority of Muslims can be persuaded to appreciate the 330,000,000 gods of Hinduism, even if they are told that these gods are not ends-in-themselves but merely symbols of ultimate reality. Iqbal is certainly an exceptional Muslim in that he has the courage to say:

The “kafir” with a wakeful heart praying to an idol is better

than a “believer” asleep in a sanctuary.11

Such is the absoluteness and starkness of Islamic monotheism that any reference to images of God or incarnations of God turns Muslims off so deeply that most of them feel compelled, theologically as well as personally, to abandon the dialogue. Most of the theological problems which Muslims have had with Christians have also revolved around the issue of Jesus’ being the incarnation of God. However, the case of Christianity is different from that of Hinduism in that it preserves the Creator-God of Genesis and thus, from the Islamic point of view, does not lapse into total idolatry.

In my view, in order to eliminate the Muslims’ stereotype of Hindus as idol-worshippers, it is better to begin by looking not at Hindu concepts of God but at Hindu experiences of God, particularly at those experiences which Muslims can empathize with. It would, for instance, be very difficult for a God-loving Muslim not to be deeply touched by Tagore’s Gitanjali: Gift Offering of Songs of God. Some Muslims may feel a little uneasy at the human imagery used by the Hindu poet to depict the divine, but, then, Islamic mystic literature also abounds with such imagery, and the Qur’an itself uses anthropomorphic images for God (“I made a human being with both my hands” [Surah 36: Sad: 72]).

Some people-theologians and others-think that theological dialogue does, or should, lead to theological agreement. This, in my judgment, is an erroneous point of view. For instance, no amount of theological dialogue between Hindus and Muslims can lead to the reduction of the monistic principle upheld by many Hindus to the monotheistic belief held by all Muslims, and vice versa. But why should the achieving of theological agreement be so necessary? Why should it not be sufficient for Hindus and Muslims to understand correctly what the religious experience of each is without trying to merge them together? Like many other Muslims, I also believe that there are some Hindus who, in fact, do identify idols with Brahman and, thus, are idolators. But I also believe that there are some Muslims who identify the Word or Law of God with God and, thus, are idolatrous. Whatever be the religious experience of some Hindus or some Muslims, and whether we approve of it or not, I think that it is important to remember in the context of Hindu-Muslim theological dialogue that the two religious worldviews have some extremely important things in common.

To begin with: both Hinduism and Islam conceive of ultimate reality as spiritual, thus making the believer aware of that which is beyond the here-and-now, the eternal and transcendent, which gives human life a purposefulness it would not have if reality were confined to the material. Both Hinduism and Islam insist that all aspects of life are related and must be integrated in order to achieve wholeness, which is the goal of Hindu yoga and Muslim salat. Neither Hinduism nor Islam permits the bifurcation of life into mutually exclusive domains: the secular and the sacred, the public and the private, the inner and the outer. Again, both Hinduism and Islam hold that knowledge of external and internal reality is to be obtained not only through reason but through all other human faculties as well, with particular emphasis on “the heart,” which the mystics regard as the seat of “intuition.” People of the Western world-founded as it is upon the Graeco-Roman civilization which upheld reason as the highest human faculty through which alone one could obtain knowledge of ultimate reality-rarely understand what “the heart” or “intuitive faculty” is, but it is due primarily to this faculty that Hindus and Muslims have evolved what are perhaps the two greatest mystic traditions in the history of civilization.

Finally, both Hinduism and Islam have put unequivocal emphasis on the idea that human beings are accountable for their actions and that ethical action is the goal of religious striving. In both there is great emphasis on duty-fulfillment and on the idea that duty to God is inseparable from duty to fellow human beings.

Having pointed out some of the common perspectives on which a Hindu-Muslim theological dialogue can be based, I consider it necessary to point out also that, as a matter of fact, much assimilation of religious/cultural ideas and attitudes has occurred in the Hindu-Muslim world. Both Hindus and Muslims might wish to stress their distinct identities and insist that Hinduism and Islam are utterly different ways of life, but the plain historical reality is that Indian Islam bears the clear imprint of Hinduism, and Hinduism has absorbed much that is clearly Islamic in origin. For instance, while many Hindus have been deeply affected by Islamic monotheism,12 many Muslims follow a caste system as strictly as the Hindus and take great pride in being “high-caste” (which generally means being descended from the Prophet Muhammad or his blood relatives), even if they are so only by virtue of their descent from high-caste Hindus!

Before I conclude my comments on the various kinds of Hindu-, Muslim dialogue which exist, or ought to exist, in the subcontinent, would like to mention something very close to my heart: the need for a dialogue between Hindu and Muslim women. As a Muslim feminist, I have been deeply concerned for a long time about some negative ideas/attitudes/customs relating to women which are found widely among Muslims of the subcontinent. Some of these practices (for example, demanding the dowry or bride-price for girls at marriage) and concepts (for example, the husband is the wife’s “majazi khuda” or god in earthly form) are clearly un-Islamic. In fact, the “deification” of the husband is tantamount to shirk (association with God) and, thus, an unforgivable sin. However, they have become so deeply rooted in Muslim culture that their association with, or derivation from, Hindu culture has long been forgotten, and they are regarded by many Muslims to be part of the Islamic “Shari’a.” While there are woman-affirming resources within both Islam and Hinduism, these have not been used for the liberation of women from the misogynistic/androcentric and rigid patriarchalism of these two religious traditions. In this era of women’s freedom from age-old shackles, Hindu and Muslim women continue to be among the most oppressed “minorities” in the world. They need to dialogue with each other not only to understand their common bondage and servitude and to give each other emotional and psychological support, but also to strive together to evolve academic and sociopolitical ways and means or methods and strategies to change the religiocultural world in which they live and die unsung. In this context, my plea to Hindu and Muslim (as well as all other “disinherited” women of the world) is (with due apologies to Marx): “Women of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains!”

In conclusion, I want simply to say that, as a person belonging to what the Qur’an describes as “a nation in the middle,”13 I feel that I stand midway between my religious world which is Judaeo-Christian-Islamic (West) and my cultural world which is Hindu-Islamic (East). I have spent more than half my life in the West, which has molded my mind, but where my body and soul are still ill-at-ease. All too often I feel a deep longing to return to the soil of the ancient mystic land where I was born and to the people who speak my language and share my grass-roots values. To be divided-as I am-is to be in a state of perpetual exile. To be in exile is not a happy state, but it enables one to experience more than one kind of reality.14 It is tragic that the world in which we live today is full of exiles. However, these exiles have a glorious opportunity for dialogue and can do much to create, out of the deep sense of their own fragmented and lonely lives, the vision of a world which is integrated and whole, in which all human beings can find peace.

In Muslims in Dialogue: The Evolution of a Dialogue, L. Swidler, ed, The Edwin Mellen Press,

Lewiston, NY, pp. 262-276, 1992.

Available at http://global-dialogue.com/swidlerbooks/muslim.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 »]]> Islam and Hinduism have been present in the Indian sub-continent for over 1,000 years. During this time there has been a great deal of violence; even today it is not infrequent. There have also been periods of peace.

However, whether in war or in peace, Muslims and Hindus have not reacted in a way that indicates mutual understanding and appreciation of each other. In their day-to-day encounter, there is at most a superficial civility during peace; during confrontation they look upon each other as sub-humans. During the 1945-46 riots, I was present in Dacca (Bangladesh). As a Hindu child I was frightened and angered by the war cry of the Muslim rioters, “Allah 0 Akbar.” I did not know that it meant, “God is great!” Similarly, I imagine, the war cry of Hindu rioters, “Bande Mataram” (hail to the mother), did not suggest maternal mercy to Muslim children. The brutal, inhuman behavior of both peoples during confrontation is all too well known. Of course, there are a few rare cases of genuine friendship between individual Hindus and Muslims. There are even some cases of intermarriage. However, by and large, Muslims and Hindus have stereotyped understandings of each other. Muslims, in general, consider Hindus idolators and polytheists, and educated Muslims are contemptuous of the inequality of the Hindu caste system. Likewise, in general, the Hindu stereotype of Muslims is that they are meat-eating brutes who marry their sisters (cousins), and educated Hindus are contemptuous of Islamic intolerance and jihad.

This mutual contempt and isolation of Muslims and Hindus in India seems even more amazing in view of the fact that a large number of Muslims in the Indian sub-continent are of Hindu ancestry. Some recent anthropological studies even indicate the presence of remnants of Hindu attitudes among some Muslims of the sub-continent. For example, Adrian Mayer refers to the presence of caste among Muslim’s;1 some Muslims indicate a preference for a vegetarian diet, as it is considered more pure, while Hindus venerate Muslim “pirs” as saints. However, overall, there is an attitude of competitiveness and mutual intolerance between Muslims and Hindus. Is dialogue between them even a possibility?

In order to explore what Muslims and Hindus think about each other’s religion, I searched for writings of Muslims of the sub-continent on Hinduism and vice versa. So far, I have found no Muslim author writing exclusively on Hinduism. In Muslim writing, Hinduism is referred to in the context of showing its inferiority to Islam. Even a liberal Muslim such as Amir Ali in his The Spirit of Islam2 has nothing but derogatory remarks about Hinduism and Buddhism. Aziz Ahmed, in Studies in Islamic Culture in the Indian Environment,3 displays no insight into Hinduism when he admires Schimmel’s description of the contrast between Hinduism and Islam: “Hindu genius flowers in the concrete and the iconographic; the Muslim mind is on the whole atomistic, abstract, geometrical, and iconoclastic.”4 Likewise, I found no book by a Hindu author which was written exclusively on Islam. Rammohan Roy, Rabindranath Tagore, Gandhi-all were appreciative of Islamic monotheism. However, they wrote no works on Islam. A contemporary Hindu scholar such as Anil Chandra Banerjee refers to the Islamic Shari’a to demonstrate the intolerance of Islam, in his Two Nations: The Philosophy of Muslim Nationalism.5 It is quite evident that even the scholars among the Muslims and Hindus have not made any serious effort to understand each other’s tradition.

Causes for Apathy and Indifference

There are complex historic, anthropological, psychological, sociological, economic, and political reasons for Muslim-Hindu conflict and apathy, some of which are very obvious. The first Muslims who came to India came as conquerors, and the vanquished were the Hindus. There is competitiveness between Hinduism and Christianity, but the first Christians who came to India were missionaries, not political conquerors. That is one of the reasons for lesser hatred and animosity between Hindus and Christians in the sub-continent. Buddhist missionary activity started under the patronage of King Asoka, but it did not lead to empire-building. That is one of the reasons for lesser hostility toward Buddhists by people of other faiths. The historical situation of the encounter between Islam and Hinduism is an important reason for the hostility between the two.

The Arabic culture in which Islam originated and the Indian environment in which Hinduism is nurtured are quite different. Patterns of behavior, standards of civility, attire, food, language-all are different. Meetings of alien cultures naturally produce distrust and misunderstanding. Human beings’ ethnocentricity makes them distrust and ridicule the unfamiliar. Moreover, the Indian sub-continent, politically, was never one country. First, Muslim rulers, and later British, made it into one political unit. The nationalistic feeling of belonging to one political unit was a later development among the people of the sub-continent. When nationalistic feelings started to emerge, they were often colored with religious feelings, and controversy over one or two nations for the sub-continent became almost inevitable. Religion has often been used for political purposes in the subcontinent. Sometimes it was used for Hindu-Muslim cooperation against the British, as in the case of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1875, or against each other during pre-partition, mostly by the British, and even after partition, by various political parties. Methodical research into these factors which are causes of the conflict between Muslims and Hindus is vital to the promotion of understanding between them.

Religious Causes

The characteristics of Islam and Hinduism as religions also contribute to the isolationism of these two traditions. Their worldviews seem to be quite different. In Islam, unity of one God and uniformity in ways of belief and patterns of worship are fundamental. Islam advocates one God, one scripture, one seal of prophecy. In other words, singularity or unity is characteristic of Islam as a religious tradition. Hinduism is, instead, characterized by plurality. A Hindu can be a Hindu worshipping many gods or one God or no God. The focal point of Hinduism is not one God but to be worshipful, which is usually referred to by such a Hindu philosopher as Radhakrishnan as respect for truth-Sraddha. So, it is said there are 330,000,000 gods in Hinduism, and there may be as many ways of worshipping God. Hinduism, therefore, does not refer to one God, one scripture, or one prophet. Just as unity is characteristic of Islam as a religious tradition, plurality is characteristic of Hinduism as a religious tradition.

Islam and Hinduism are distinctive in other respects also. Islam advocates a kind of theocracy- religious law needs to be political law. The universal ideal needs to be concretized in society and in history. Human beings are vicegerents of God.6 The Hindu attitude is that the concrete is a stepping stone to the universal ideal but the universal can never be fully concretized in history. That is why, by and large, the Hindu ideal is ahistorical or a-political. Islam believes in a final day of judgment; Hindus believe in the cycle of creation and dissolution, the cycle of birth and death. Islam is a missionary religion. F. S. C. Northrup wrote, “For an orthodox Mohammedan, missionary zeal, military power, and political control go together.”7 For Hinduism, the ideal is spiritual freedom, which may not be related to political freedom. This is expressed even in the leadership of the movement for independence in India. Gandhi worked for political freedom more as a spiritual leader; therefore, he never accepted any governmental post. Sri Aurobindo changed from a fight for political freedom to a fight for spiritual freedom. The majority of Hindu monastic orders do not become directly involved in political movements.

Allen H. Merriam, in Gandhi vs Jinnah: The Debate over the Partition of India, presented a descriptive and nonvaluational contrast between Islam and Hinduism:

It may be helpful to view Hinduism as an essentially feminine doctrine and Islam as being far more masculine in character. The Hindu worships the cow as the symbol of motherhood and fertility; many Hindu deities are female, and Hindu art is full of voluptuous female figures…. Muslims, on the other hand, worship a very masculine Allah; only men are allowed inside a mosque, and in most Islamic societies women are veiled when in public. It would be quite unusual to have a woman prime minister in an Islamic nation.8

He also described very clearly the contrasting concepts of social organization of Hindus and Muslims. The dominant force of Hindu society is the caste system, which is based on the conviction that different humans have different potentialities, determined by one’s action in the previous incarnation. Castes and sub-castes produced a decentralized social structure which safeguarded against penetration of any outside force; thus, Hindu society could continue relatively unchanged during the years of Muslim rule. The rigid regulation of caste prohibited the intermixture of castes and of Hindus and non-Hindus, but, paradoxically, it bred an attitude whereby plurality is considered a social norm. Merriam noted that this acceptance of diversity prompted Hajime Nakamura to state, ‘Toleration is the most conspicuous characteristic of Indian culture.”9 Islam, on the contrary, considers all humans equal by birth. Merriam noted, “All people are called to unite and conform to one community of believers.”10 Islam’s emphasis on dogma and a democratic social order has meant the development of a strong sense of community-particularly in India, since it is a minority there.

It is evident that the theological and social assumptions of Muslims and Hindus are different. The differences of convictions generated contempt or, at best, indifference toward each other. Muslims and Hindus feel no need to learn about or from each other. Islam proclaims that it is the only true way-the straight path. The Quran and the tradition make some concessions to the “People of the Book,” of course. For example, they can gain protection by paying jizya (IX:29); and, after the battle of Badr, Muhammad formulated a treaty in which the Jews were included within the commonwealth of Medina.11 In the eleventh century, Mawardi prescribed that the Imam (caliph) had the duty “to wage holy war (jihad) against those who, after having been invited to accept Islam, persist in rejecting it, until they either become Muslims or enter the Pact (zimma) so that God’s truth may prevail over every religion.”12 The conditions of the pact suggest that subordination of the zimmis was tolerated, but at least their lives were spared. However, the Quran and tradition are vehemently opposed to idolatry. Muhammad’s war was against the idolatry in the Arabia of his time. He did not meet any Hindus or witness any image-worship of the Hindus, but the Muslims who came to India considered Hindus idolators because of the image-worship. Therefore, many of them did not want to grant the Hindus the status of zimmis. Only some rulers following the Hanafi School of Shari’a assigned zimmi status to the Hindus. Hindu image-worhip is one of the most important reasons for Muslim contempt of Hinduism. Image-worship, from the Islamic perspective, is a compromise with the transcendence of God-it is shirk. That is why Amir Ali could see nothing noble or sublime in the forms of Hindu worship:

The sacrifice could be performed only by the priest according to rigid and unalterable formulae; whilst he recited the mantras and went through rites in a mechanical spirit, without religious spirit or enthusiasm, the worshipper stood by, a passive spectator of the worship which was performed on his behalf. The smallest mistake undid the efficacy of the observances.13

Hinduism proclaims in many ways. From the Hindu perspective, not only can there not be just one way to truth, but also no way can be the perfect and faultless way to truth. Agehananda Bharati has often ridiculed Hindu tolerance. He has identified some modem Hindus as “essential unity” preachers who are no less competitive and polemical than are Christians and Muslims. In his article “Radhakrishnan and Other Vedanta,”14 he pointed out that Vedantists of the Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan type believe in the superiority of monism. In his chapter “Sohi Allah Wahi Ram? The Anthropology of the Hindu-Muslim Interface,” he wrote:

Urban “essential Unity” Hinduism which includes the sermon of the English speaking Swamis in India and abroad-states that all religions are equal, but implies that since Hinduism is “scientific” and tolerant, it incorporates what all other religions teach, and is hence at least a primus inter pares.15

From the perspective of Hinduism, any claim by any tradition to be exclusively true is arrogant, although the contrary Hindu claim seems equally arrogant to others. Hindus consider ultimate truth to be beyond words and letters; hence, the Muslim claim that the Qur’an is the literal word of God is, from the Hindu perspective, a compromise with the transcendence of truth. Since all Hindus-not only the “essential unity’ preachers-have been historically surrounded with plurality, they cannot comprehend or sympathize with any doctrine of “One Way.” They are contemptuous of such arrogance, or at least indifferent to it. If all ways are ways of truth, even though none is perfect, one can stick to one’s own, and there is no need to learn about or from each other.

Inclusivism often generates indifference, whereas exclusivism often generates intolerance and violence. Hindus are critical of the intolerance and violence of Islam. Hinduism as a tradition believes in the transformative quality of religion. Transformation, according to Hinduism, implies a change of personality from fear to courage, from anger to love, from violence to nonviolence. Although an individual or a group of Hindus may not be less violent than an individual or a group of Muslims -as the history of their encounter indicates -nevertheless, in Hinduism nonviolence is considered a cardinal virtue. Hence, Islamic jihad is looked upon with contempt by Hindus. Hindus, even the college educated, look upon Islam as an essentially militaristic tradition. One educated Hindu, although not an official “scholar,” described Muslim salat, in which the group prays by synchronic postures and movements, as military training in preparation for war.

It is evident that Muslims and Hindus neither understand one another nor make any serious attempt to do so. They do not try to go beyond the surface and penetrate that which may not be so apparent to the outside observer. Not only the average Muslim or Hindu but even theologians and philosophers indicate no interest in or understanding of each other. Islamic kalam developed primarily outside the sub-continent. Any immanentist tendency in Islam can be explained in terms of interaction with Hellenism Sufism might have been congenial to the Vedantic point of view, but it need not be explained in terms of its influence. It seems that Muslim theologians, being repelled by Hindu image-worship, made no attempt to find out what lay underneath. In the same way, the post-Islamic Bhakti movement in Hinduism was perhaps stimulated by Islamic monotheism and devotionalism, but it need not be explained in terms of that influence. The nineteenth- and twentieth-century Hindu elites who studied and appreciated the Qur’an found nothing in it which they considered to be genuinely new or not present in Hinduism. No Hindu thinker made any attempt to penetrate Islamic exclusivism or militarism to find out what lay underneath. Muslims and Hindus have confronted each other, but they have generally felt no real challenge from one another to appreciate or learn from or about each other.

Encounter with the West

Muslim and Hindu encounter with the West is a different matter. Both felt a challenge and threat from Western civilization. Both simultaneously admired and condemned Western civilization and values. Muslims and Hindus recognize the value of the advanced scientific knowledge in the West. Apologists of both traditions try to demonstrate that scientific knowledge is part of their heritage as well, and both refer to their respective contributions in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. Muslims and Hindus recognize and appreciate the value of democracy, individual dignity, and humanism. They do not think that these are recognized values of the West alone. Rather, in polemics, they try to show how these values have been jeopardized in the West. There is ambivalence about technology, industrialization, and material prosperity among Muslims and Hindus, but in general there is appreciation of the bountifulness, health, and hygiene of the West. Modernity, which is equivalent to “Westernity” to many people, has stimulated both Muslims and Hindus to question and reflect on their own traditions-although not about each other’s.

The Western attitude toward the sub-continent can be classified as either contemptuous and patronizing or romantic. Modernists of the West tend to highlight the superstition, backwardness, poverty, and dehumanization present in the sub-continent. Romanticists who are concerned about the negative effects of modernism-secularization, manipulation, dehumanization-display an attitude of appreciation for the spiritual and philosophical contributions of the sub-continent. Max Müller in the nineteenth century and Aldous Huxley in the twentieth may be cited as examples of the latter. Both Muslim and Hindu thinkers reacted to the negative criticism of the West with polemics and apologetics, although some self-criticism and social-reform movements were also generated. Muslim and Hindu thinkers reacted to the romantic attitude of the West with a feeling of self-congratulation and complacence. Both Muslim and Hindu writers like to quote the Western scholars who praise their traditions! Muslims and Hindus did not react jointly in their depreciation of some of the Western attitudes, nor did they appreciate each other as a result of their appreciation by the West.

What Can Be Done?

Hindus and Muslims have lived in physical closeness for years, and yet they do not dialogue with each other and show no inclination toward it. I have attempted to analyze some of the causes of this situation. The nature of the respective traditions as such is not conducive to any dialogue, yet the dehumanizing and inhuman relationship between Hindus and Muslims makes it quite evident that dialogue between us is a practical necessity. How can we dialogue? I can see a clue for it in our relationship and reaction toward the West.

In the last half of the twentieth century it is becoming increasingly fashionable to criticize Western values. Awareness of the dangers inherent in modernity is a necessity. There are many good works on this subject.16 However, when the anti-establishment becomes the establishment, there is the opposite danger.17 Uncritical condemnation of modernity may lead to uncritical acceptance of all types of superstition. It may lead to complacence, self-congratulation, and passivity. With our awareness of the dangers of modernity, let us not be blind to its stimulating and liberating effects. The history of any religious tradition would indicate how modernity revitalized it by eliminating some of the stagnation. In his lectures to the Western people, Vivekananda-who is considered instrumental in making Hinduism a missionary religion-seemed to be one of its greatest apologists, yet in his lectures to Hindus he seemed to be a vehement critic of their religion.18 After his tour of America and Europe, he indicated his appreciation and admiration of these people for their recognition of the dignity of the individual, hygiene, health, vitality, etc. Modernity generates self-reflection and can be an antidote to the dogmatic adherence to the beliefs of the forebears and mechanical repetition of what they did. Uncritical adherence to traditions can stagnate any religion, as is evident in our two religions of the sub-continent.

The question of human rights is asked and pursued in the Western context. What the rights of human beings as human are is often described in terms of Western categories. This runs the danger of ideological neocolonialism. Raimundo Panikkar is concerned about this de facto neocolonialism. He points out that at the present time there are three sociologically dominant cultures: technological civilization, the paneconomic systems, and what is popularly called the “Western way of life.” He notes that most of the African, Asian, and Latin American cultures, for economic survival, are taking the categories of these dominant cultures for granted, but the indiscriminate adoption of methods that are alien to the local cultures is not producing the desired effects.19 There is a need to investigate the meaning of human rights, of growth and progress, not simply from the perspective of the dominant cultures-but from the perspective of others as well.

Not only contemplation but also action is needed. Living cannot stop while, we are finding out the meaning of life. Indeed, the meaning of living may emerge from living itself, as such existentialists as Camus indicate. Herein lies the contribution of such activists in the field of interreligious and interideological dialogue as Leonard Swidler. Very much aware of the strong points of Western civilization, Swidler indicates “one of the strengths of modern Western civilization has been its stress on effective human action, both individual and corporate.” So, he thinks: “The world cannot be ‘saved’ simply by trying to ‘save’ the individual persons; the social structure within which the individual persons live must also be, ‘saved.’”20 The content of “saving” is not self-evident and would need ongoing contemplation, but the situation of the relationship between Muslims and Hindus definitely calls for action. One such activity is dialogue, but we are not so inclined. The enterprise of dialogue by Western activists such as Swidler is helpful in this respect, because through such enterprise Hindus and Muslims are getting involved in dialogue.

However, Muslims and Hindus are often suspicious of the Christian initiative in dialogue, which is feared as a covert way of converting. Whatever it is, Muslims and Hindus can appreciate the greater, if not total, understanding about their traditions, understanding by more people from the West. Hans Küng may be cited as an example. His attitude toward Hinduism in On Being a Christian21-and more recently as expressed in his response to Heinrich von Stietencron in his attempts to dialogue with different world religions22-is a clear indication of better understanding. In the first case he finds more superstition and degradation in the Hindu tradition; in the second, more appreciation of its mystical bent. This example itself illustrates the potential of dialogue for the development of mutual understanding. Thus, if we Hindus and Muslims begin to engage in dialogue, there is the possibility of better mutual understanding even if we start to do so reluctantly or half-heartedly by means of Western initiative.

The modern method of the critical approach to history and the different social and psychological sciences can also be helpful in generating an atmosphere of dialogue between Muslims and Hindus. A conventional way of writing Indian history by both Western and Indian historians is in terms of the religious traditions of its rulers. Romila Thapar, in Communalism and the Writing of Indian History,23 traces this tendency back to James Mill’s History of British India (early nineteenth century). She indicates that Mill developed the thesis of dividing Indian History into the three periods which he called Hindu Civilization, Muslim Civilization, and British Civilization-but not Christian. Such characterization of history can and did generate misunderstanding and even hostility among the different religions. For example, Turkish, Persian, and Arab conquerors of India were Muslim, and they themselves often identified their conquest as Islamic. However, the plunder and destruction of Hindu temples by Ghazni (eleventh century C.E.) need not necessarily be interpreted as the intolerance of Islam. Thapar points out that the Hindu King Harsha even appointed an officer, devot-patananayaka (uprooter of gods), to plunder the wealth of Hindu temples, but this is not seen as the intolerance of Hinduism.24

The fourteenth-century Muslim historian, Zia-ud-din-Barani, in his Fatawa-i-Jahandari, condemned the Delhi Sultans for not being zealots in their fight with the infidels and idolators:

If the desire for the overthrow of infidels and abasing of idolators and polytheists does not fill the hearts of the Muslim Kings; if, on the other hand, out of the thought that infidels and polytheists are payers of tribute and protected persons, they make the infidels eminent, distinguished, honoured and favoure… how then may the banners of Islam be raised?25

Barani showed his admiration of eleventh-century Ghazni by saying that if he could come back again he “would have brought under his sword all Brahmans of Hind cut off the heads of two hundred or three hundred thousand Hindu chiefs (and) … would not have returned his ‘Hindu-slaughtering sword’ to its scabbard until the whole of Hind had accepted Islam.”26 Barani definitely seems to have been an intolerant person, but his writings may well not prove intolerance in Islam. Indeed, his indignation about the Delhi Sultans also indicates that not all Muslim rulers were Hindu inquisitors. An analytical, critical approach to the presentation and interpretation of the events of history in India is very important to generate an atmosphere of dialogue. All-India Radio sponsored a 1968 seminar on “The Role of the Broadcaster in the Present Communal Situation,” in which Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia, and Bipin Chandra presented their critical analyses to suggest the dangers of stereotyped communal understandings of history. Thapar noted that antagonistic projection of a popular group, sect, or religion in history is very harmful, but even “more harmful is the kind of historical writing which is based on communal or near communal assumptions, but such assumptions in a generally uncritical framework are no longer questioned or challenged.”27 This type of self-critical scholarship and its sharing via the mass media needs to be encouraged.

In this context, I would like to refer to a misrepresenting stereotype, even in this conference which intends to generate mutual understanding and harmony between nations and between peoples. The constant conflict between Pakistan and India is referred to as between “Muslim Pakistan” and “Hindu India.” This is a historical, political, and ideological misunderstanding of India. India never was and even now is not only Hindu. India does not recognize nationality on the basis of religion.

It is evident that critical historical research where the insights of psychology, sociology, and anthropology are taken into consideration is helpful for dialogue between Muslims and Hindus. Good history cannot be a one-sided narration and analysis of selected events. For example, A. C. Banerjee (in Two Nations) gave extensive documentation to suggest that Islamic Shari’a is at the root of Islamic nationalism, but in this work he referred extensively only to the Shari’as which indicate an intolerance in Islam, but not one which shows its tolerance. Thus, one-sidedness may characterize even apparently good, well-documented scholarship. The tendency toward one-sidedness is present among many scholars. Moreover, in the understanding of another’s tradition it is necessary to understand it as much as possible as the other does. Adolph L. Wismar disputed T. W. Arnold’s28 view that missionary work is not an afterthought in Islam. Arnold thought that Muhammad himself, and the subsequent missionaries following his example, showed patience and forbearance in their attempt to convert the unbelievers. Arnold quoted from the Quran to prove his case. Wismar’s refutation is based on the assumption that the Quran is Muhammad’s word, not God’s, as the Muslims believe. He assigned many questionable motives to Muhammad and indicated that Islam is intolerant. Whatever evidence was to the contrary he considered nothing but trickery.

The sociological and psychological study of the phenomenon of religion can help Muslim-Hindu dialogue. James Fowler’s study, Stages of Faith,29 describes how faith is dynamic and relational. In Life Maps30 he points out the correlation between stages of faith-development and the capacity of the individual to take on the perspective of another and to widen the circle of those with whom one identifies oneself. Intensity of faith also leads to broadening of faith. This is clearly evident among both Muslim and Hindu mystics. Even in the field of clinical psychology, Muslim and Hindu psychiatrists have tried to apply their respective religious teachings to therapy. Elzibair Beshir Taha of the University of Khartoum, Sudan, in a paper prepared for discussion at the Parliament of Religion held at McAfee, New Jersey, November 15-21, 1985, noted that Qur’anic teachings could be utilized as a technique of cognitive behavior therapy for Muslim patients. At that conference, a Philadelphia psychiatrist mentioned his use of the Bhagavad Gita to help his patients. It is evident that Western ideology and training have stimulated many Muslim and Hindu scholars and thinkers. These people may start dialogues with each other, following the Western example, as many of them do feel the need for mutual understanding between Muslims and Hindus.

However, Muslims and Hindus need to be aware of the dangers of Western civilization as well, and a large number of Western-educated and -trained Muslims and Hindus are critics of Western civilization. They are acutely aware of secularization and its consequences which result from the so-called “scientific,” “critical” perspective of the West. Seyyed Hossein Nasr discussed this point in Islam and the Plight of Modern Man, pointing out succinctly how the Western scientific point of view reduces reality to only one layer, and the symbolic concept of nature is debased by calling it “totemistic!” or “animistic,” terms loaded with pejorative connotations. Nasr wrote that Muslims trained in modernity are “made to believe that the transformation from seeing the phenomena of nature as the portents or signs (ayat) of God to viewing these phenomena as brute facts is a major act of progress which, however, only prepares nature for that ferocious rape and plunder for which modem man is now beginning to pay so dearly.”31

Swami Yatiswarananda, a monk of the Rama-Krishna order, met Carl Jung in Switzerland. While he appreciated Jung’s understanding of human spiritual need, he was critical of Jung’s secular perspective. Jung suggested that the superconscious of the Hindu was included in the unconscious. The Swami felt that we need to reverse our secular perspective of thinking that the body is the outermost layer, and mind and spirit are within it.32

Western scientism often leads to secularization, and scholarship of religion ends in reductionistic tendencies. Many Western scholars of religion are also critical of this tendency, such as W. C. Smith. We Muslims and Hindus who are engaging in dialogue by means of Western stimulation need to be aware of this danger; however, critical scholarship can be very helpful in eliminating some of the barriers which now prevent Muslim-Hindu understanding.

Dialogue on the Theological Level

A secular approach to fostering unity between Muslims and Hindus is neither practical nor desirable. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, had a secular view of progress and advocated unity between Muslims and Hindus on the basis of modern Western civilization. Syed Abdul Latif, who belonged to the liberal Aligarh School of pre-independence India, clearly pointed out Nehru’s mistake. He noted that the peculiar philosophy of life is what provides vitality to the people and cannot and should not be overcome by the unity fostered by the steamroller of industrialization.33 M. N. Roy found the resolution of Hindu-Muslim conflict in Communism; only that mighty economic force would have the capacity of cementing the diverse sects and religious creeds of India: “This is the only agency of Hindu-Muslim unity.”34 This position forgets that Muslim and Hindu believers are rooted in the transforming and life-sustaining characteristics of their traditions and that not many would want to trade spirituality for modern amenities. Herein lies the true basis of Muslim-Hindu dialogue: Both have faith in more than a secular understanding of human nature, which is expressed in Qur’anic al-ftrah and Hindu sraddha. Both trust that it is the sacred-the spiritual-which enables the human to be truly human.

The recognized distinctiveness of the two traditions need not necessarily discourage dialogue. Raimundo Panikkar and W. C. Smith35 distinguish between faith and belief. They are of the opinion that contradictory beliefs may be rooted in common faith. Panikkar notes that even such contradictory statements of two persons as “I believe God exists” and “I belief God does not exist” can be rooted in faith in truth. In one instance the faith in truth expresses itself in the belief that “God exists,” whereas in the other it is expressed in the contrary belief that “God does not exist.”36 Muslims and Hindus believe in the eternity or perenniality of truth. This is one reason for the Islamic insistence that the Qur’an is the literal word of God and for Hindus’ description of their religion as Sanatana Dharma. This common trust in truth can enable Muslims and Hindus to undertake what John Dunne describes as “passing over” and “coming back.”37 We Muslims and Hindus need not define and understand our identity over against one another; that produces psychological and sociological barriers and often even spiritual atrophy.

Dialogue between Muslims and Hindus, which is a necessity, is not impossible. To begin, we Muslim and Hindu scholars may explore and investigate the parallels that exist between our two traditions, despite their differences and distinctiveness. The well-known Islamic scholar, S. H. Nasr, has written that “…the rich intellectual structures of Hinduism and Buddhism naturally present many resemblances to Islamic intellectuality, since all of them possess a traditional character.”38 This suggests that the parallels can be brought out effectively by a proper method of comparing common, historically initiated, congenial systems. Nasr suggests that Hindu darsanas can be compared with appropriate and corresponding Islamic schools with profitable results. Finding parallels and similarities, however, is not enough. The Middle Eastern situation indicates that two People belonging to two traditions which are doctrinally so close does not alone necessarily promote congeniality between them. All the reasons for conflict need to be explored. From the perspective of theology, the distinctiveness of traditions which causes confrontation needs to be recognized, together with the finding of parallels, and the possibility of accepting and appreciating the confronting ideal from within one’s own tradition needs to be explored.

One important theological reason for Islam’s antagonism toward Hinduism is its image-worship. Muslims may explore whether it would be possible to penetrate beneath Hindu image-worship so as not to consider it idolatry-without compromising the Islamic conviction of the transcendence of God. This is only a suggestion. How and in what way Muslims can recognize and appreciate Hinduism is a matter to be explored by them. My task is to suggest ways by which Hindus can accept and appreciate Islam.

Interreligious dialogue is also intrareligious dialogue. My suggestion that Hindus need to recognize and appreciate Islam leads to the usual Hindu response, “We do that; we recognize and appreciate all religions.” Anthropological studies, such as those done by Bharati, indicate different levels of tolerance toward Muslims and Islam among Hindus. He points out that there is some tolerance among grass-roots village Hindus and primarily among “pamphlet” urban Hindus, while there is hardly any tolerance among the Sanskritists.39 Even when there is tolerance toward Muslims, it is expressed neither socially in recognizing the Muslim as equal to the Hindu nor ideologically in accepting the exclusivism of Islam as equal to Hindu inclusivism. Socially or ideologically, Muslims and Islam are not considered to be on a par with Hindus and Hinduism. Hindus consider Muslims unclean. The fourteenth-century Arab traveler, Ibn Battuta, recalled the Hindu practice of breaking or giving away their utensils if they were used by a Muslim.40 This was not done only in Battuta’s time; even today many Hindus act similarly. An Afghan Muslim told about his childhood experience of interaction with Hindus. If he were to visit the store of a Brahmin-whom his own father had helped to establish the store-he knew that everything in the store would be washed after he left. This behavior is inhuman and dehumanizing-not tolerant. The Muslim animosity toward Hindus is not without provocation.

In the same way, the Hindu doctrinal tolerance of all religions is not enough, as it is often expressed as an intolerance of exclusivism. Hindu theologians need to explore how they can accept and tolerate exclusivism without compromising their conviction of the transcendence of truth. A clue can be found in the Hindu attitude toward Ista Debata. A Hindu who is totally dedicated and loyal to the Ista would not even recognize other manifestations of the same deity. This is Ista Nistha. The gopis of Vrndavan are examples. They were dedicated to cowhand Krsna of Vrndavan, so they would not even look at King Krsna of Dwaraka. Thus, it should be possible for a Hindu to appreciate the Qur’anic nistha of the Muslim.

A major stumbling block to the appreciation of Islam for non-Muslims is jihad. In our dialogue, a Hindu could ask the Muslim partner precisely what it means. Does it indicate that all non-Muslims should be killed, as Beruni suggested? Is there any room for the recognition of plurality in Islam? What is the ideal Islamic way to deal with the de facto plurality that exists in the world? Christianity, like Islam, has an exclusivistic tradition, yet it is very active theologically about the issue of plurality. Is anything similar possible in Islam?

In Conclusion

Muslim-Hindu dialogue is a possibility. The Western initiative for dialogue-its scientific, critical spirit-influences Muslims and Hindus to reflect critically about their own traditions. Through that route we Muslims and Hindus can start a dialogue with each other; it is a practical necessity for the Indian sub-continent. We can utilize the modern findings of the social sciences to generate that insight which would break the barriers that exist between us. We can cooperate in sharing our spiritual insights with the West in order to counteract the dangers of secularization, which leads to dehumanization. We can communicate in the depth of our spirituality-which has happened among the mystics of our two traditions. On the scholarly level we can seek parallels. On the theological level we can explore the ways by which we can accept and appreciate each other without compromising our own convictions. We can honestly ask questions about those factors about the other which we find difficult to understand or accept. Interreligious dialogue cannot solve all the problems, but it is a worthwhile effort.

source: http://www.interfaithdialog.org/reading-room/exploring-the-possibility-of-hindu-muslim-dialogue.html

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.