kchetinkaya@hotmail.com

September 4, 2010

Similar to the example of a King or Queen who chooses certain days in a year to show his/her generosity and love toward his/her folk, God uses the holy times as a reasons to spread his mercy and blessings, much more than the common days and times, to his servants, Children [...]]]> by Kenan Cetinkaya

kchetinkaya@hotmail.com

September 4, 2010

Similar to the example of a King or Queen who chooses certain days in a year to show his/her generosity and love toward his/her folk, God uses the holy times as a reasons to spread his mercy and blessings, much more than the common days and times, to his servants, Children of Adam. I believe that Holy months such as Ramadan and nights such as the night of the Qadir, has such a implication in Islamic faith. If we analyze the Holy Scriptures, mainly Quran and Bible, we can come cross the conclusion that all mankind is from a single person named Adam (pbuh). After him many people came and passed away and children Adam divided into very complex groups and nationalities. This division somehow made them forgets that they eventually came from the single father. I believe that the Holy nights remind us that we are all from the single parents and they were from the earth. Even though we as keeping specific

qualities different from each other, at last, can come together around the same table as the children of the same father in order to share celebration of the fasting.  Ramadan in this aspect, by keeping the self away from any kind of eating, drinking and sexual relationship, teaches Muslims that they must be humble in their action and be away from any kinds of arrogance. When a person abstains himself from these daily attitudes, he become weaker physically which help him to control the carnal desires. It is always easier to take in control the weaker person than strong and full person. Regarding to keeping the self and the society in control, Ramadan teaches Muslims that;

- They are not the real owner of their life and the possessions. God is the one who gives mankind whatever they have including their life. That is why Muslims generally pays their alms-giving (Zakat) in the Ramadan by acknowledging the reality that they all come from the real owner of the universe.
- Because Muslims feel weaker in strength they understand that in reality people are so weak. In every second they have everlasting demands and request from God. Because they exactly feel what the poor and the sick people feel, during their fasting they are commanded to pay fitr sadaqa (small amount of food given for the poor)
- By obeying God’s rules during the day and taking control the carnal self, they confess the reality that real owner of the universe asks from people to love God and serve him accordingly. In Islamic terms serving for humanity is serving for God also. That is why instead of staying away from the community and keeping themselves in seclusion, Muslims are encouraged to integrate into the community and strength their relationship with the others, which reaches to its peak during the Ramadan. Therefore, in Muslim societies it is not weird to see families host families, neighbors and relatives in Ramadan much more than other days. In the public squares of the towns Ramadan tents are set in order to entertain and teach Muslims about the wisdoms of Ramadan and being good citizen for their community and good servant for God. At the end of Ramadan this kinds of activities reaches their peak with the celebrations of Ramadan as the community.

Ankara has set a record for the most people breaking their fast together at one time — 10 platforms and nearly 100 civil society organizations banded together in an attempt to break the record with a 50,000-person iftar, and attendance far exceeded expectations.

Nearly 75,000 Ankarites showed up for the iftar (fast-breaking [...]]]> by MEVLÜT KARABULUT
04 September 2010

Ankara has set a record for the most people breaking their fast together at one time — 10 platforms and nearly 100 civil society organizations banded together in an attempt to break the record with a 50,000-person iftar, and attendance far exceeded expectations.

Nearly 75,000 Ankarites showed up for the iftar (fast-breaking dinner), which was held at the Atatürk Cultural Center (AKM) with a setup that included table space and chairs for 50,000 people. On the menu was lentil soup, rice pilaf, stir-fried meat, ayran, dates, olives, honey, butter and other traditional iftar appetizers, salad and baklava for dessert.

Three separate catering companies prepared food for the event, cooking eight tons of meat, five tons of rice and two tons of garbanzo beans, in addition to 60,000 servings of pide bread, 60,000 units of ayran and 120,000 bottles of water.

The chairs of course were not enough, and so plates of food were distributed to people who then went and sat in nearby bleachers and on the grass to eat. People had been shuttled to the AKM by municipal buses from neighboring districts, while some minibuses and public buses were set aside to serve the iftar area for free. Some attendees were unable to get any food at all; those who participated in the iftar were given tickets free of charge to the Lunapark amusement park.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and other ministers also participated in the event.

The iftar had an undeniable political edge to it as well — the food packaging had writing printed on it supporting “yes” votes in the upcoming constitutional amendment referendum slated for Sept. 12.

Large projection screens were set up at different locations throughout the AKM, on which images from the iftar were displayed live. Some attendees wore campaign gear supporting “yes” votes in the referendum, such as a group wearing “Drivers and Chauffeurs Also Vote Yes.”

A large round table was reserved for the prime minister, other ministers and bureaucrats and members of the organizing platforms. Speaking at the iftar, Ankara Mayor Melih Gökçek also addressed the topic of the referendum in his comments. “We are undergoing an important and difficult test for the future of Turkey and our children and for democracy,” he said. Gökçek also criticized political parties that are running campaigns in favor of “no” votes in the referendum.

source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-220917-record-breaking-iftar-serves-over-50000-in-capital.html

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 [...]]]> 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

This year Ramadan coincides with the first day of school for many families. Realizing that many of our Muslim brothers and sisters do choose the public school system for their kids’ education, this is a resource to help make the best out of Ramadan in public school. This blessed month is [...]]]> by Hena Zuberi
August 31st, 2010

This year Ramadan coincides with the first day of school for many families. Realizing that many of our Muslim brothers and sisters do choose the public school system for their kids’ education, this is a resource to help make the best out of Ramadan in public school. This blessed month is such a vital part of being Muslim that enjoying it and sharing it with others, instead of hiding it, goes a long way in maintaining Muslim children’s Islamic identity while attending public school. After the will of Allah, it begins with parental involvement in the lives of their children. You owe it to them.

Elementary School

Send in a letter or email to the school principal and the classroom teacher introducing your family and informing them about Ramadan. This sample letter to your child’s principal includes an offer to come into class and do a presentation on Ramadan. You can correlate it to the phases of the moon in science especially for first and third graders as it is a part of the curriculum. One year, we did the phases of the moon craft and asked the kids to watch out for the waxing and waning of the moon throughout the month.

To preempt any misunderstanding, meet with the teacher and/or principal and show her your material. For example, the Adam’s World Ramadan DVD is a great resource, so I asked the classroom teacher to preview it beacuse she is more familiar with the school disctrict’s rules; she chose to show the second stanza onwards of the nasheed “We scanned the sky” by Dawud Wharnsby Ali – it was such a hit!! The kids kept asking her to replay it over and over again.

There are several great books on the subject that are perfect for sharing during story-time.

My First Ramadan by Karen Katz – this little book is perfect for preschoolers – 2nd graders and makes a great gift for the class library. You can mix in a nasheed. It was amazing watching my daughter’s preschool class holding hands in a circle singing along to the chorus of ‘These are the days of Eid.”

Hamza’s First Fast by Asna Chaudhry – I read this book to my daughter’s third grade class, which led to a great discussion where kids of all different faiths talked about how their parents fast too. “Oooh, my mom fasts too, on Lent! Mine fasts to lose weight! We do it too on Yom Kippur” The kids gushed after I finished my presentation. My daughter loved being the center of attention and the discussion was alive for days…

for the full article see: http://muslimmatters.org/2010/08/31/back-to-school-ramadan-in-public-school/

Washington – A US Muslim group on Monday launched a campaign to raise social awareness in response to what they see as a ‘rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment’ in the country. The campaign My Faith, My Voice set up a website with messages that call for dialogue, with a view to later taking the [...]]]> Aug 31, 2010

Washington – A US Muslim group on Monday launched a campaign to raise social awareness in response to what they see as a ‘rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment’ in the country.
The campaign My Faith, My Voice set up a website with messages that call for dialogue, with a view to later taking the leap to adverts on the country’s major television networks, organizers said.
‘In recent weeks, a lot of people have been telling you what to think about Muslims. They say you should fear me, suspect me, hate me,’ says the one-minute video posted on www.myfaithmyvoice.com.
‘But the truth is I don’t want to impose my faith on you. I don’t want to take over this country. And I don’t support terrorism of any form. Islam teaches me to respect all people, improve society and stand up for justice for all.’
‘I’m here and have been here for generations, wanting the same thing you do: the chance to pursue life, liberty, peace and happiness. I am an American, I’m a Muslim. This is my faith, this is my voice.’
The video features Muslim men and women of several races and professions, dressed in a variety of ways and speaking English, Spanish and even sign language.
‘As American Muslims we are concerned about this rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment that we are hearing from the airwaves,’ Hassan Ahmad, a lawyer and one of the coordinators of the citizen initiative, told a press conference in Washington.
According to Ahmad, the website allows citizens to post videos at their own initiative. It seeks to promote ‘a fruitful dialogue’ to help US Muslims build bridges toward Americans of different faiths and to promote understanding.
The initiative My Faith, My Voice joins other, similar efforts launched by the Muslim community recently in the United States.
Last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) unveiled a manual to help US Muslims put forward their religion in a positive way, and to help them deal with possible incidents in mosques.
A private initiative to build a Muslim centre including a room for worship, a few blocks from Ground Zero – the site in downtown New York where the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers were destroyed in the al-Qaeda strikes of September 11, 2001 – has renewed debate about Islam in US society.
The Ground Zero issue has become a lightning rod for politicians from around the country while sparking concerns about intolerance.
Last week, one New York taxi driver who hails from Bangladesh was attacked with a knife by a drunken customer, after the attacker found out the Bangladeshi driver was Muslim.
The debate got even more complicated when US President Barack Obama indirectly supported the mosque initiative by saying that all faiths have a right to express themselves in the United States, before saying the next day that he didn’t necessarily consider it wise to build the Muslim centre so near Ground Zero.
Most recently, Obama told broadcaster NBC on Sunday: ‘If you can build a church on that site, if you can build a synagogue on that site or a Hindu Temple on that site, then we can’t treat people of the Islamic faith differently, who are Americans, who are American citizens.’

source: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1581138.php/US-Muslims-launch-campaign-to-combat-intolerance

EDMOND — Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Carl Albert wrote in his autobiography about why his father, Ernest Homer Albert, had only two years of formal education.

Homer Albert grew up in Krebs, a small town outside of McAlester in Pittsburg County, and the only grammer school in operation [...]]]> WILLIAM F. O’BRIEN
The Edmond Sun

EDMOND — Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Carl Albert wrote in his autobiography about why his father, Ernest Homer Albert, had only two years of formal education.

Homer Albert grew up in Krebs, a small town outside of McAlester in Pittsburg County, and the only grammer school in operation there in his youth was operated by members of the Roman Catholic faith. When Homer Albert was in his second year at that school he brought home a book that had a Catholic catechism in it, and his Protestant parents immediately removed him from that school to ensure that he would not be indoctrinated into the Catholic faith.

When a Roman Catholic New York governor was running for president in 1928 his arrival in Oklahoma resulted in the Oklahoma branch of the Klu Klux Klan igniting a large cross to protest his presence in the state.

Such incidents occurred throughout much of U.S. history and the American people are very aware of the divisions among followers of the Christian faith as a result. But Americans are seemingly unaware of the differences that exist among the many followers of Islam.

The recent controversy regarding the proposal to build a Muslim center several blocks from what has become known as “Ground Zero” in Manhattan where the World Trade Center formerly stood may be indicative of that lack of knowledge.

The leader of the group that is seeking to build that structure is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is a follower of the tolerant Sufi Muslim tradition that condemns violence and seeks understanding with those of other faiths. He has reached out to Christians and Jews in the New York City area, and has authored a book titled, “What is Right With Islam is What is Right With America.”

Rauf’s moderation has earned him and his followers the enmity of radical Muslims, but that has not deterred him from continuing to preach his message of understanding and acceptance of those with different beliefs.

The center’s supporters, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have correctly pointed out that its construction will convey to the world that the United States of America is a tolerant nation that welcomes people of all faiths. It would also be seen as a victory for moderate Muslims who are willing to work with people of good will regardless of their religious affiliation.

Oklahoma’s Muslims are currently involved in outreach to their individual communities in the state. The Oklahoma Chapter of the Interfaith Dialogue Institute was founded by Muslims who sought greater understanding with other faiths, and hosts dinners and luncheons to encourage such understanding.

To commemorate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Muslims in the state are currently conducting food drives and volunteering at food banks and in other activities to assist the less fortunate. Those events are taking place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Ardmore, Edmond, Lawton and several other communities.

The Turkish Raindrop House on Classen Boulevard in Oklahoma City will host an event on Sept. 3 that will highlight the role that fasting has played in Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

In a display of public leadership, several days after the attacks on the World Trade Center, Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating visited an Oklahoma City mosque to show his support for the state’s Muslims. That community has continued to grow since that time, and Muslims have prospered throughout Oklahoma as physicians, professors and small business owners.

Their success and acceptance is indicative of how Oklahomans have grown to accept religious diversity in the state.

source: http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/x618368426/Religious-diversity-grows-in-state

ROME, FEB. 25, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The directors of an educational institute are stating that they have found a positive coexistence between Catholic education and Muslims who come to their schools.

Anthony Bardoux, director of St. Dominic’s Institute of Rome, and Sister Marie Joannes, the former director [...]]]> Interview With Director of St. Dominic’s Institute of Rome
2010-02-25
By Gisèle Plantec

ROME, FEB. 25, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The directors of an educational institute are stating that they have found a positive coexistence between Catholic education and Muslims who come to their schools.

Anthony Bardoux, director of St. Dominic’s Institute of Rome, and Sister Marie Joannes, the former director who held that position for 40 years, affirmed this in an interview with ZENIT.

They spoke about the challenges and goals of working in Catholic education, underlining its unique aspects and needs in modern day.

ZENIT: Can you explain the specificities of the Dominican educational project?

Bardoux: In the first place, it is a Catholic educational project, inspired, therefore, in the Gospel.

The Dominican charisms are the source of inspiration for our institution. The Holy Father has highlighted the notion of truth.

Truth, liberty and responsibility are the key words of our action on the spot.

We emphasize the development of the person in his totality, caring for the individual in a global way, including his affectivity, his intelligence and his heart.

ZENIT: Concretely, what differentiates you from a public school?

Bardoux: The first distinction is our capacity to show Christian values and to guarantee that the persons who come to work here are in agreement with those indicated values, which give us a norm of conduct, a framework.

The other distinction is Christian anthropology. We develop an approach to the child based on Christian anthropology.

The Social Doctrine of the Church is, of course, a source of inspiration for the institution’s educational project, but there is also a Dominican charism that we live in a particular way here, that of fraternity, of being able to live together.

We want this to be for all persons who work here a place of personal growth; this example is offered to pupils to follow.

We want them to be able to observe persons who are able to live together, who treat one another every day with warmth.

Hence, we are especially committed to helping persons who supervise the pupils to “be able to be.” And we show this commitment.

I believe this is a very strong distinction compared with what one sees in a public center, where there is no framework that governs human relations.

And, of course, our framework is the Gospel, and we show it.

Sister Marie Joannes: Yes, I think the most important point is that this be shown. This does not mean that in public education there aren’t persons who live it as well, but here we live it as a team.

I believe the Dominican note is […] Dominic’s passion for God and for man.

We must see man with an evangelical vision, a look that will lead our young people to the development of their personality to be the men of tomorrow, who will be men of the Gospel.

ZENIT: How do you live this, given the important presence of Muslims in the school?

Bardoux: There is a very strong seeking of spirituality by Muslim families, a strong commitment to the religious character, and very great respect.

Previously, I did social work with Muslims who came from the suburbs. They were very difficult young people, but they had immense respect for Catholic young people who prayed.

There is no Muslim social doctrine and I believe that, also because of this, Muslims are committed to that of Catholics.

They are quite close to the values defended by Catholic teaching. That’s true, at least, for the vast majority of Muslims, those who are moderate.

Sister Marie Joannes: In some cases, this coexistence is also stimulating.

Muslims have a sense of the sacred, a sense of God and religion, and explicit respect.

And these people pose questions to our young people who say they are Catholics but who are not always very convinced. They influence one another by mutually posing to one another real questions.

ZENIT: Do difficulties arise sometimes?

Bardoux: Indeed, there is fear of proselytism on the part of Muslim families.

We often organize celebrations and the Muslims are, of course, reticent.

However, when we explain to them that sometimes it is important “to be family,” they understand us.

At other times, on the other hand, one must be delicate, respect their religion and not call them to conversion.

There are celebrations to which we don’t invite Muslims (such as the Ash Wednesday Mass), because it is also important that the Catholics be able to recollect themselves without outside “observers.”

In general, this goes well. All is based on dialogue. For the society of tomorrow, the fact of living this type of experience in an educational institution is very positive.

This teaches tolerance, it shows them that there are no more differences than these and that we can live together around the same values.

In reality, when we speak of Catholics and Muslims, we are speaking here more of culture.

God still does not form part of the daily life of many children. And this is true both for Catholics as well as Muslims.

ZENIT: How does the institute foster collaboration between religious and laity?

Sister Marie Joannes: Religious-lay collaboration has never been a problem for us.

Bardoux: There are almost no religious at the head of school centers in France. There would be a real risk if sufficient attention was not paid to the profile of the head of the center who is contracted. At present Catholic education forms the directors of its centers.

And the religious institutions that have their own charism guarantee a continual formation. It is what is called “tutelage.”

The presence of the laity enables one to avoid the religious event being exclusively an affair of the congregation. It enables the existence of two worlds.

The committed layman will try to guarantee that all the laity join the educational project.

I have a letter of commitment with the exigency of committing myself to live the character proper to Catholic education and to develop this spirit in the teams. This is very strong.

I think it is important that we have a common culture between the laity and the consecrated. We must have a shared culture.

Sister Marie Joannes: Reciprocally, it is indispensable for the religious world. The fact of collaborating with a lay director who contributes a whole competency but who at the same time is able to fulfill his letter of commitment is very satisfying.

This enables one to avoid seclusion in the two worlds.

ZENIT: Do you have a sort of “charter” of the Dominican educational project?

Bardoux: We have attempted to develop ideas of education and to put them in writing. This will constitute a base that will inspire the whole of our pedagogical projects.

Here are some examples [of our goals]: to live our profession with a spirit of service and not as power, to accept without conditions and without a possessive character, to break false hierarchies, to uphold advice that rejects seclusion and labeling, to accept individual and atypical itineraries, to impose punishments that do not humiliate or wound, to develop the study of the present time, philosophical research, and to value experience and its revision.

The person, as a developing being, does not formulate the definitive judgment, does not reduce the person to his past, to his behavior, to his results. He develops opinions that stem from what already is a success.

The person, as a fragile being, avoids intransigence and insensitivity, destroys isolation. He considers mistakes, error and failure as an experience, a step.

The relations between persons are placed at the center of the school project.

[We aim to] promote the sense of the common good, take variety into account, develop the whole emotional and sexual aspect, given that the integral dimension of the person also includes reflecting on these topics.

ZENIT: Do you sometimes see fruits of your commitment in Catholic education?

Bardoux: Sometimes there are requests for Baptism — especially among the littlest ones, but independently of that, it is clear that the children have gone through a place of education.

They don’t come out only with knowledge but also with a series of principles, with values, even though they don’t always identify them immediately as Christian values. It is often later, in difficult moments, when they remember.

source: http://www.zenit.org/article-28466?l=english

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting [...]]]> DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God’s saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham’s sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch’s call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people’s exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: “theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ’s Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and “serve him shoulder to shoulder” (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church’s preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

5. We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man’s relation to God the Father and his relation to men his brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: “He who does not love does not know God” (1 John 4:8).

No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned.

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

NOTES

1. Cf. Acts 17:26

2. Cf. Wis. 8:1; Acts 14:17; Rom. 2:6-7; 1 Tim. 2:4

3. Cf. Apoc. 21:23f.

4. Cf 2 Cor. 5:18-19

5. Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.)

6. Cf. Gal. 3:7

7. Cf. Rom. 11:17-24

8. Cf. Eph. 2:14-16

9. Cf. Lk. 19:44

10. Cf. Rom. 11:28

11. Cf. Rom. 11:28-29; cf. dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium (Light of nations) AAS, 57 (1965) pag. 20

12. Cf. Is. 66:23; Ps. 65:4; Rom. 11:11-32

13. Cf. John. 19:6

14. Cf. Rom. 12:18

15. Cf. Matt. 5:45

source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Sacred Scriptures and Interfaith Dialogue

Abstract

M. Fethullah Gülen encourages Muslims to be tolerant and accepting of people in other religions and to enter in to interfaith dialogue with them. He succeeds in doing this because the Qur’an sets the ground for this interfaith stance. Christians and Jews are often not aware [...]]]> by Terry Mathis
Thursday, 22 November 2007

Sacred Scriptures and Interfaith Dialogue

Abstract

M. Fethullah Gülen encourages Muslims to be tolerant and accepting of people in other religions and to enter in to interfaith dialogue with them. He succeeds in doing this because the Qur’an sets the ground for this interfaith stance. Christians and Jews are often not aware that their Scriptures also promote interfaith dialogue. The paper shows that Jewish and Christian Scriptures, somewhat in keeping with the Qur’an, allow for interfaith relationships that are respectful and peaceful. To this end, the paper briefly examines some of the Old Testament and New Testament passages that promote interfaith dialogue. In the OT, the story of the Prophet Jonah is first examined to set the stage for an interfaith understanding of the story of Abraham and Melchizedek, the life of Ruth, her great grandson, King David, and finally, the Jewish restoration after the dispersion in Babylon and Persia. In addition to these OT themes, which Christians take as their own, the paper gathers similar interfaith themes in the NT. Christ is seen to encourage interfaith dialogue, as does James, the early Church leader. The paper finds that the Apostle Paul (the author of most of the NT) develops the implications of an interfaith theology in his letter to the Romans. The paper will conclude with some consideration of why the adherents of Christian and Jewish traditions seldom take their Scriptures to advocate interfaith dialogue and how the work of Mr. Gülen suggests a way forward to create more such understanding and dialogue.

The Sacred Scriptures of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity each allow for interfaith dialogue. We will consider some of the ways in which the Scriptures of these religions provide for such dialogue, and the work of M. Fethullah Gülen will illuminate the issues. He has for many years promoted interfaith dialogue between Muslims and adherents of other religions. We will find that he has provided keen practical insight that may encourage others outside of Islam to engage in interfaith dialogue.

Mr. Gülen’s use of various passages of the Qur’an will inform the Muslim position. Jewish and Christian positions will be informed by my own use of the respective texts, and in any of these cases, I am aware that my use of the various texts may be offensive to some readers. Although I hope not to be offensive, various approaches or uses of Sacred Scripture are often personal, and different from mine. While it is my intention to revere the way in which other people use Scripture, there are at least two groups who may nevertheless find my approach inappropriate and even disrespectful to their own standard use of the texts. Conservative Christians will tend to reject my assumption that revelation occurs outside of the Bible. The other group is secular. This group will find my use of texts naive in light of their materialist worldview.

Mr. Gülen addresses both of these groups. One of the hallmarks of the thought of Fethullah Gülen is his vision for a relationship of tolerance and dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths, but he also sees the influence of materialism as a threat to the possibility of interfaith dialogue.[269] In a pivotal essay entitled “The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue,” Mr. Gülen laments that the influence of religion in contemporary social life is often shunted by the western materialist world view. Materialism keeps people from reconciling the material and spiritual realms, which reconciliation is crucial. We must first be at peace with God if we are to have personal integrity and thus experience peace and justice in the world. From a viable relationship with God come reconciliation between the material and the spiritual, and thus the realization of the desired contemporary social life in which society can flourish. [270] In contrast, to the detriment of society, when experience of God is called into question by the assumptions of secular scientific materialism, the social conditions that flow from living in the presence of the divine are interrupted. People become less able to engage in dialogue of any kind, including interfaith or intercultural dialogue. In response to the influence of the secular scientific world view of the West, an optimist, Mr. Gülen all the more calls for Muslim dialogue with others. Intrinsic to the nature of true religion is positive influence. The faith of the Muslim in dialogue with Christians and Jews and others will provide a corrective influence to a destructive materialistic world view.

The role of the sacred text is central to Muslim faith. Mr. Gülen’s views thus naturally have there origin in the Qur’an, which refers to the various persons of faith in the different world religions as “People of the Book.” Jews and Christians, when persons of faith, are People of the Book. Muslims have some advantage over other People of the Book with respect to interfaith dialogue because Islam is open to dialogue. As an example of this openness, along with the Prophet Mohammed, Mr. Gülen, as a Muslim, says of himself and other Muslims, ” I accept all Prophets and Books sent to different peoples throughout history, and regard belief in them as an essential principle of being Muslim. A Muslim is a true follower of Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and all other Prophets.”[271] The advantage the Muslim has for engaging in interfaith dialogue, Mr. Gülen continues, is thus that they ” acknowledge the oneness and basic unity of religion, which is a symphony of God’s blessing and mercy, embracing all races and beliefs, a road bringing everyone together in brotherhood.”[272] Like Christians, moreover, Muslims believe that Jesus will return when the end of the world is near, though perhaps not physically, but as the underlying conditions of a Godly society. Near the end of world history, from society will emerge values such as peace, love, forgiveness, and mercy. As these values are also central in the Hebrew Prophets, there will be cause for cooperation between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.[273] Muslims have already engaged in this activity with Jews, who were welcomed into the Ottoman Empire when expelled from Spain.

Despite these various factors that predispose Islam to interfaith dialogue, Islam is not well understood and this misunderstanding contributes to difficulties.

Christendom’s historical portrayal of Islam has weakened Muslim’s courage with respect to interfaith dialog. For centuries, Christians were told that Islam was a crude and distorted version of Judaism and Christianity, and so the Prophet was considered an imposter, a common or ingenious trickster, the Antichrist, or even an idol worshipped by Muslims. Even recent books have presented him as someone with strange ideas who believed he had to succeed at any cost, and who resorted to any means to achieve success. [274]

In the extreme, misunderstanding of Islam has often erupted into violence. When wrongly understood as a political system, rather than a religion, Islam is sometimes seen as an ideology promoting social instability and conflict that must be eliminated. So misunderstood, Islam has been under siege, more Muslims killed in the last century than throughout history. Accordingly, when non-Muslims call for dialogue, Muslims may meet this call with suspicion.

Again the optimist, Mr. Gülen insists that Muslims engage in dialogue for the reasons that religious leaders such as Massignon, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II have recognized. Muslim faith in God is not a political ideology aimed at self interest, but a life changing spiritual experience that results in compassionate and cooperative representatives of universal peace.[275 ] The fountainhead of this virtuous disposition of true Muslims is the teaching of the Prophet Mohammad, who through the revelation of the Qur’an lays essential ground work for interfaith dialogue.

In referring to people of faith outside of Islam as the “People of the Book,” the Qur’an issues one of the greatest calls to interfaith dialogue that can be found.

“O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we take not, from among ourselves lords and patrons other than God.” If then they turn back, say you: “Bear witness that we are Muslims (surrendered to God’s Will).” (3:64)

If this call to dialogue is rejected, Muslims are to continue on their path and allow the other person to continue on their path as well. But those who respond to the call find their path opens to salvation that is available for all who respond to this call. A person experiences salvation, roughly, in the event God graciously allows this person to enjoy both this life and the next.[276] The dialogue following this openness that leads to salvation should avoid argumentative unproductive debate and rather revolve around caring relationships. The Qur’an states;

God 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 God loves those who are just. (60:8)

Further describing the degree to which God may provide a measure of salvation through revelatory interaction with non-Muslims, the Qur’an states of itself:

This is the Book; wherein there is no doubt; a guidance to the pious ones. (2:2)

The pious ones later described as those

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; and who believe in what is sent to you and what was sent before you, and (in their hearts) have the reassurance of the Hereafter. (2:3-4)

The Qur’an here proclaims the beneficial providence of God at work in the lives of some non-Muslims. We thus find that Mr. Gülen’s vision for interfaith dialogue has influenced many people, in part, because of the way in which his views naturally have there origin in the Qur’an. The admonition toward dialogue that Mr. Gülen promotes flows naturally from the Qur’an, and the authority of the Holy Book provides him with authority. He directs Muslims to engage with others because the Prophet Mohammad first conveyed this message in what was revealed to him.

We will find that this divine message of encouragement toward universal tolerance and acceptance of others (the call to interfaith dialogue), is less explicit in other religions, but we will limit our discussion to a Christian and Jewish understanding of interfaith dialogue as found in the Bible. We begin with the Old Testament, which is not only a fundamental source of Jewish outlook on interfaith dialogue, but also foundational for many Christians. As will also be the case later on when we look at the New Testament, it is beyond the scope of this paper to utilize contemporary critical studies of the OT, which studies are extremely valuable when on occasion they can be used in such a way that they do not rule out the implications of the Sacred texts this paper attempts to gather.

A most interesting interfaith OT story is that of the Prophet Jonah. Some time in the eighth century BCE, God told Jonah that he must carry a message of God’s forgiveness to the people of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, an enemy of Israel. Nineveh seems to have been representative of Assyria. Jonah’s task was to instruct the Assyrians to repent from their destructive ways or God would destroy them. God’s forgiveness was thus conditional, and there was surely a chance they might not meet these conditions.

Jonah was understandably reluctant to obey God. Assyrian warfare was vicious. After victory in battles with Israel, Assyrians sometimes deported Jewish prisoners to languish and die in exile in Assyrian territories. To these hated adversaries Jonah was asked to bring a message of salvation.

His initial response was to flee from the task. He boarded a ship headed for Tarshish (probably southwest Spain) traveling in the opposite direction of Nineveh. But God caused a storm that threatened the ship. At Jonah’s own request, the mariners threw him overboard. The sea immediately calmed and God then ” appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah.” (1:17) After three days and nights in the stomach of the fish, the fish vomited Jonah onto dry land, and God asked Jonah a second time to go to Nineveh. This time Jonah obeyed. After hearing God’s message the Assyrians repented. They asked God to help them turn from their wicked ways (3:8), and then God relented from the calamity that would have been brought upon Assyria. God’s mercy toward Assyrians made Jonah so angry he wanted to die, and “he prayed to the Lord and said, ‘Please Lord, was this not what I said [would happen] when I was still in my own country? Therefore, in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I know that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness’ ” (4:2).

God then tries to show Jonah that saving the Assyrians was the right thing to do. God causes a plant to grow up to shade Jonah, and then the plant dies, illustrating that as the plant is worthwhile to Jonah, God finds the Assyrians worth saving. The interfaith contrast is such that despite Jonah’s Judaism, including his special knowledge of God as a Prophet of God, he also needs to repent. He needs to be saved from his destructive ways as much as the Assyrians do.

The story of Jonah suggest that non-Jewish religion is not the immediate issue for God, or at least that the Assyrian view of God was not the issue, but rather the problem was the destructive violent way in which the Assyrians were living. The Assyrians were not asked to become Jews to experience God’s favor. They were asked to look to God to change there way of living life. They did so and were saved.

Something like interfaith dialogue occurs on a practical scale, orchestrated by God. The Assyrians are confronted by a weak (perhaps despised) person about God’s concerns. Jonah and the readers of his text are in turn confronted by God about their attitude toward the Assyrians, their powerful enemy. The Assyrians are not required to become Jews, and the Jews are asked to accept and even care for the enemy, the Assyrian non-Jew or anti-Jew. There is a kind of dialogue between two different religious groups, and the result is a more peaceful co-existence, or at least the potential for a more comfortable co-existence between Jews and Assyrians.

These interfaith implications of the Book of Jonah were not new to the Jews. Abraham, the great patriarch of various religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity, is the main character of most of the book of Genesis and a central figure in the Qur’an and the New Testament. Abraham, through his wives Hagar and Sarah, was called to make great nations. He is an iconic example of God’s covenant purpose for humankind. But well after God’s covenant relationship with Abraham had been established (Gen 13:14-18), he meets with a mysterious character, ” Melchizedek king of Salem priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). Melchizedek blessed Abraham who paid tithes to Melchizedek. Abraham on his covenant pilgrimage is helped and strengthened on his way by someone outside of God’s newly formed covenant with Abraham. Both figures benefit from each other and respect the divine connection each has, even though different kinds of relationships with God are evident. Abraham believed God and was accordingly called to be the father of many nations; Melchizedek was the king of Salem and a priest. Both individuals were God’s people and though different, one could bless the other, and the other paid worshipful respect with a tithe in response.

Another non-Jewish minister to Jews is Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses. While Jethro was not a Hebrew, as a Midianite and perhaps a descendent of Ishmael (Gen 37:28), Jethro helped design an effective structure for Moses’ governance of the Hebrew people, and though not a Hebrew, led Aaron (often thought to be the father of the Jewish priesthood) and the other elders in worship before God (Ex 18:12-24).

Another interfaith life changing interaction comes from the life of Ruth in the Book of Ruth. This brief OT history tells of Elimelech and his wife Naomi who sojourned in the land of Moab while there was a famine in their home town of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth was one of two Moabite women who met and married Naomi’s two sons while they were in Moab. Elimelech and Naomi’s two sons died, and Ruth followed Naomi back to Judah when the famine had passed. This Moabite woman aggressively secures food for herself and Ruth and succeeds in acquiring Naomi’s relative, Boaz, as her husband and the women’s redeemer. Ruth has a son, Obed, the father of Jesse, the Father of David. Naomi, as a surrogate mother, has the joy of helping raise Obed.

While Naomi adheres to Jewish tradition, she does not appear to require Ruth to do the same. Also, when Naomi’s other daughter-in-law, Orpah, had started on the journey back to Judah with Naomi, Orpah decides to return to Moab. Naomi says to Ruth at this juncture, ” your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods, return after your sister-in-law.” (1:15) Ruth, as we have noted, decides to stay with Naomi, but Naomi is not possessive of Orpah and Ruth, concerned to keep them with her so that they might become Jews. Naomi is comfortable with the non-Jewish Moabite religion of her daughter-in-laws. While Ruth eventually embraces Naomi’s religion there is no requirement that she do so.

Some years later, this comfort level seems to also exist in her great grand child, David. Before he was king, when hiding from King Saul who wanted to kill him, David often goes to Moab. After David and his band of follows leave their hiding place in the cave of Adullam, ” David went from there to Mizpah of Moab; and he said to the king of Moab, “Please let my Father and Mother come and stay with you until I know what God will do with me.” (1 Sam 22:3)

David, the author of many of the Psalms, a person of unique spiritual insight, does not presume to inform the Moabite king about the nature of God, but assumes that the king can track with his frustrating experience of exile brought on by the attempts of king Saul to murder David.

Even as the king of Moab helped David and his family and seemed open to David’s sense of providence, some time later, one of the kings of Persia, Cyrus, seems to have had a similar outlook of acceptance for people in other religions, though this was not true of his predecessors.

To secure the lands they conquered, the Persian kings deported populations in mass resettlements to places where control of these people would be easier. When Persia conquered Babylon, some of the Jews already in captivity in Babylon were moved to Persia. When Cyrus eventually became king of Persia, many Jews were not only allowed to return to their homeland, Cyrus sometimes financed their trip and gave them back their religious artifacts and places of worship. Cyrus, unlike many of his predecessors, seems to have believed that God wanted the restoration of the religions of conquered people. Cyrus thus helped with the restoration of the Hebrew religion. In recognition, the Prophet Isaiah says of this restoration that it was the work of God. “It is I who say of Cyrus, he is My shepherd. And he will perform all My desire. And he declares of Jerusalem, she will be built, and of the temple, your foundation will be laid.” (Is 44:28)

The Hebrew Prophet Isaiah thus extols the pleasure of God for Cyrus’ interfaith activity. As one of many of Cyrus’ restoration projects, many Jews did return to Jerusalem from captivity in Persia and the Temple was rebuilt, and Isaiah says that God enabled Cyrus to carry on this restoration, which clearly reflects some kind of ancient interfaith initiative on a massive scale.

These OT examples supporting interfaith activity should be as significant for Christians as for Jews. For many Christians, the meaning of the relationship of the Old Testament and New Testament is literally a relationship between Old Covenant and New Covenant. Christians often think that the books of the New Testament depict a New Covenant or agreement with God that is at least a more complete account of God’s grace and mercy than the Old Covenant found in the OT. If so, the previous OT examples of interfaith activity in the OT should provide a bias toward an understanding of interfaith material in the NT, or even more than mere bias. Some people find the grace and goodness of God in the OT just as profound and wonderful as that which is found in the Qur’an and the NT. A further complication is that, unlike the Qur’an, not everyone agrees about what should be included in the NT and the OT. Many Christians, such as Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, include deuterocanonical and apocrypha books into the cannon of Scripture. In any event, the scope of this paper must be limited by the assumption that the OT is usually taken to be foundational for the NT, and with this assumption in hand, we turn now to focus on NT Scripture.

Were we to ask Christians the question, “What should be the relationship between Christianity and other religions?” the answer appears differently at different times in the history of Christianity. Something similar also occurs in Islam and Judaism, although we shall only consider Christianity in this regard.

The Christian movement in the first century was often taken by Jews to be heretical perversion of Judaism. The man eventually known as the Apostle Paul, for example, first known as a conservative Jew named Saul, tried to destroy the early Christian movement. In his zeal to preserve Judaism, Saul sometimes authorized the killing of innocent people, as we learn from the story of Stephen in Acts chapter eight. The people of the early Christian movement, on the other hand, often took themselves to be open to other religions, God being the Father of all viable religion. The early movement often worshiped in Synagogues with Jews, though they were first called Christians through their involvement with gentiles outside the Jewish tradition in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Centuries later, after Christianity had become institutionalized, the tables were turned. As an institution, Christianity has often taken a hostile stance toward any other religion that might question or even merely differ from the standards of orthodoxy that happen to be in place at a given time, these standards generally reflecting the history of philosophy.

The early church, due to the able influence of Augustine, incorporated Plato. Latter Thomistic tradition created a larger paradigm in which Neo-Platonism was integrated with Aristotle, in no small part because the crusades brought Moslem theology with its link to Aristotle back to Europe. The likes of Galileo, Descartes, Locke and Hume later set the stage for a secular materialist world view. Kant and the philosophical theology of thinkers Kant influenced, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher and John Hick, lead us into the modern era and the current post modern developments. Given these philosophical theological trends that shape the outlook of any given historical Christian institution or movement, Christians have generally exhibited a brittle defensive reaction to religions that have not held a corresponding acceptance of these trends.

Utilizing a focus similar to that of Mr. Gülen, who looks to the Qur’an, we will for the moment leave aside the history of Christianity, and in what follows we will briefly consider the position of the early Christian movement as found in the New Testament. We will again do this in a non-critical way, that is, we will not utilize extra-biblical textual criticism, which is nearly always a part of the study of the gospels. We begin with the gospels.

The story of the Christ Child in the Gospel of Matthew (2:1-12) often leaves people puzzled about the identity of the wise men from the East who came to Jerusalem looking for the king of the Jews. Were they priests, philosophers, or perhaps astrologers? They followed a star to the baby Jesus, and when they found him they fell down and worshipped him and presented him with precious gifts. Though they are not Jews, they are sensitive to God and seem to have had revelation from God that was so significant that they left their homes in the East, traveled a considerable distance, engaged in an act of worship, and gave costly gifts. Since these wise men were not identified as Jews, their activities would not have been possible unless God’s favor and revelation extends outside the religious context of the Jews of the first century.

Another NT account will help shape our thinking. There was an incident in the life of Christ that we find in both Mark and Luke. One of the disciples saw someone casting out demons in Christ’s name, though this person was not a part of the band of disciples, so the disciples tried to stop him and came to Christ for help. Christ responds, “Do not hinder him, For he who is not against us is for us.” (Mk 9:39-40, Lk 9:49) Is Christ simply telling them to be tolerant? Or is Christ assuming that God is at work in the lives of people who are not involved in Christ’s ministry? It seems that there are people who are appropriately religious though outside the group of disciples, and Christ is at least asking his followers to have an attitude toward others that could easily lead to interfaith dialogue.

Much more to the point in a different passage, consider the words of Christ as the “Good Shepherd” in the Gospel of John, chapter ten. We find a metaphor. There are sheep and there is a shepherd. The disciples are obviously the sheep, and Jesus represents himself as the “good Shepherd,” who will protect and care for the sheep even to the point of laying down his life for them. He says,

I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and my own know me, even as the Father knows me and I know my Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd. (Jn 10:14-16)

Who are the “other sheep” who are not apparently among the immediate band of Christ’s disciples? These “other sheep” shall hear his voice, shall become one flock, and shall have one shepherd. The assumptions that often prevent Christians from seeing Muslims and Jews, respectively, as such flocks with their own shepherds have largely been the cultural and philosophical trends mentioned above. But aside from these trends, why not understand that the various world religions are the flocks in question, Islam being one in particular, with the shepherd of Islam being Mohammad and the faithful imams following the Prophet

In keeping with Christ’s indication that the other sheep would hear his voice and would have one shepherd, might we suppose that the Prophet Mohammad somehow mysteriously, from Christ’s perspective, stands in the place of Christ?

Many Christians would be troubled by the suggestion that we might see Christ in Mohammad, but that this may be possible is suggested by the way in which the Apostle Paul sometimes viewed Christ. In writing his first letter to the Corinthians, many of them gentiles, he interestingly refers to the Jews wandering in the wilderness, immigrating from Egypt to Canaan, as the fathers of the Corinthians, saying, more importantly for the point here, that when they drank from the rock at Horeb, that rock was Christ. (I Cor. 10:4) The OT story tells us that the Israelites were thirsty and complained bitterly to Moses, who then struck a rock with his staff, and water came out of the rock. (Ex 17:6) The source of this satisfying refreshment, says Paul, was Christ. The rock was Christ. But if that rock was Christ, similarly, Mohammad might be seen by some as a form of Christ.

Christians might recoil that Christ and Mohammad are entirely different. The problem for many Christians is that they elevate the status of Christ to deity and hold everyone else to the status of mere humans, who are accordingly not thought to have the capacity for divine activity of Christ except through the use of spiritual gifts, a kind of supernatural ability to do God’s work (Rom. 12; Eph. 4; 1 Cor. 12-14) and through prayer. To the contrary, a statement suggesting the possibility of greater human capacity is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians. Paul says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of his body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.” (Col. 1:24) Paul seems to be saying that Christ’s suffering is not sufficient for the needs of the church, so that Paul must also contribute his sufferings. If so, why not assume that Mohammad’s contributions also have measure in God’s economy as did Paul’s and Christ’s contributions.

Another NT example that suggests a commonality between Christianity and other religions comes from James, often thought to be the brother of Christ. As a good Jew and a leader of the early Christian movement, in his NT epistle James encourages relationship with God in a way that is typical of many other religions. He says that if we cleanse ourselves and draw near to God, God will draw near to us (4:8-10). In writing this, James does not create a religion superior to other religions, but rather, after identifying himself as “a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,” (1:1) he does not then tie true religion to Christ, but says that ” pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father [is] to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”(1:27) In this early Christian account of religion, James appears to intend to define religion across the boundaries of the various world religions. As the leader of the early Christian movement, he is known for reconciling different groups within the early church (Acts 15:13). Similarly, in keeping with his calling as the shepherd of the early church, his account of religion, selects the core elements that many religions have in common that have to do with a quality of life that seeks the well-being of others. Keeping oneself from the destructive processes of the world, the truly religious person has the resources to care for those who are in need, some who are even weak and helpless, such as widows and orphans. James’ enduring account of religion seems to be altogether compatible with Islam and Judaism, and given the likelihood that James has given us the religion of Christ, it is significant that the religions of Mohammad and Moses are compatible with James’ account.

Might we even say that, to some degree in light of the Epistle of James, the religion of Mohammad is the religion of Christ, and thus, that from an interfaith perspective, Mohammad reflects the spirit of Christ, even as Muslims may feel that Christ reflects the spirit of Mohammad. James has allowed for this kind of reciprocal exchange.

Many Christians can easily see Abraham and Moses and David as God’s people. So can some Muslims, who also revere Christ. But Christians and Jews do not readily reciprocate with Muslims. Christians and Jews can often not see Mohammad as a prophet. But this short sightedness is out of keeping with the Apostle Paul’s account of a prophet.

A prophet, says Paul, is one who speaks to people ” for edification and exhortation and consolation.” (1 Cor.14:3, 25) In Paul’s view, the prophet engenders qualities of life that help people overcome grief and anger with success. The prophet is supposed to give insight that leads to Godliness. Although Paul is addressing a Christian audience, there is reason to think he saw a larger context that would, on his own account of the prophetic, include Mohammad as a prophet.

Consider Paul’s Epistle to the Romans for its interfaith implications. This letter is a bit more general and comprehensive than most of his correspondence and it develops an inter-religious understanding of God’s dealings with humankind. Although known as a Jew, Paul identifies himself as the apostle to the gentiles in the first chapter, thus qualifying himself to deal with non-Jewish religion through his appointment by God to do so (Rm 1:5). In chapters two through four there is a basic contrast between Jews and people of non-Jewish religion (gentiles), and it is here that Paul implies that God’s hope for all people is that they be in a personal relationship with God, despite whether they are Jews or gentiles. God’s relationship with a person preferably develops in response to a person’s faith. Though Paul did not have Muslims specifically in mind, had he lived later in history, he no doubt would have seen practicing Muslims as people of faith, people who may transcend the category of Jew or gentile (Rm 3:28-30). Then turning to the transforming effect of faith, more or less, in chapters five through eight Paul explores why transformation may or may not occur. An outgrowth of the earlier discussion, chapters nine through eleven wrestle with questions about the relationship between an all-powerful God and responsible free agents. The remainder of the letter, chapters twelve through sixteen, deal mainly with the way in which faith affects a community of people of faith. Paul considers the relationship between the well-being of an individual and the well-being of the group in which this person may live, a group that includes vast differences (Rm 15:7-13), and he concludes with personal notes and greetings to individuals mainly in Rome. While the terminology of the letter addresses and presupposes a Hellenistic world, a mix of Jewish, Greek, and Roman culture and philosophy, its monotheistic overtone is nevertheless compatible with that of the Qur’an.

This letter to people living in Rome was meant to convey what Paul had hoped to say in person (Rm 1:9-15). Given that he was unable to visit Rome (as least prior to the writing of this letter), Paul felt compelled to write to these people to give them his account of God’s way of dealing with people. Presumable this letter contains Paul’s basic message to all the groups he encountered and attempted to influence, and if so, its significance is heightened.

Touching on some of the points that are obviously related to interfaith dialogue, we find in Romans chapter two that gentiles, who do not have the benefit of the Jewish law, can nevertheless find favor with God, even if they are not circumcised Rm (2:14-16). The practice of circumcision is used to illustrate that faith in God runs deeper than the act of circumcision (Rm 2:28-29). A gentile, who has faith in God, though not circumcised, may thus experience God’s favor. Paul argues, for example, that Abraham experienced God’s favor prior to circumcision, and then when later circumcised, this circumcision is merely a sign of the faith that he had while uncircumcised. So it is faith in the grace and mercy of God that ultimately makes the person acceptable to God, and as Abraham exemplifies this life of faith, Abraham is an archetype or spiritual father of all who have faith. The kind of religion in which the faith is expressed is not at issue for Paul (Rm 4:9-16). If faith in such instances is like Islamic submission, we again find parallels between Islam and the early Christian movement.

But perhaps most significant for the discussion of interfaith implications in Paul’s letter to Rome is found in what has become chapter four (the original manuscript had no chapters or verse numbers). Here Paul uses two individuals to illustrate salvation by faith. Paul obviously has the work of God in Christ in view. He has just explained the role of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection in God’s plan for salvation in chapter three. Who should he use as examples of people who found favor with God through Christ? Did Paul develop an illustration through the life of Peter, the well known disciple and early church leader, or James, who was possibly the brother of Christ, or John, the disciple Christ seemed to love more than the others (Jn 13:23)? We find that the two people Paul used to illustrate a relationship with God were Abraham and David. Despite the various examples available, Paul hails these two non-Christian individuals as examples of Christian faith (Rm 3:21-4:25). For our purpose we should emphasize that neither of these persons knew Christ personally, nor did they know the culture and theology that are usually required for orthodox Christianity. More succinctly, while Paul had developed the role of Christ in God’s salvation in chapter three, to illustrate this, that is, to exemplify the person of faith who has been saved through Christ, Paul did not use Christians, but rather two well known Jews, David and Abraham. Abraham is importantly seen as having faith before he was circumcised, because this precondition of faith further shows that it is by faith (or submission to God), and not merely by following a religious tradition, that God’s eternal favor is received. Knowledge of Christ is not necessary. The obvious intent of Paul’s argument is to show that God deals with people from all religions (gentiles as well as Jews) under the same conditions. [277] Accordingly, we must surmise that all people who are in fact God’s children are faithful and submissive to God as were Abraham and David. By implication, as Paul intended, we should suppose that such people can be found in a Mosque, a Synagogue, a Temple, a Monastery, or in ordinary everyday circumstances located in Asia, Berlin, South Africa, Antarctica, or Detroit. Christians may come to see that Mohammad is like Christ, and some Christians may see that Mohammad was a Prophet through whom God’s word was revealed as the Qur’an.

One controversial NT passage should be mentioned because it is used to argue that Christianity is exclusively God’s only one true religion. In the Gospel of John Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one come to the Father, but through me.” (Jn 14:6) This passage is used to argue that only explicit knowledge of Christ can result in salvation. For example, contemporary conservative Christians usually maintain that for a person to experience salvation, this person must realize (must somehow explicitly know) that Jesus provides substitutionary atonement for their sins, although the language describing atonement may vary. It is often held that the person must pray a prayer to bring Christ into this person’s life. But consider a different interpretation of this text.

Another standard alternative interpretation of this verse (though seldom known or accepted by conservative Christians) is that “through Christ” means to live in a way that is the same as the way

Christ lived.[278] A closer examination of the larger context of the Gospel of John does suggest (perhaps in addition to mysterious metaphysical conditions somehow only realized through Christ) that the meaning of this text in John has to do with living the kind of life that Christ lived. The background of the verse includes the disciple’s realization that Christ will soon die. They are disappointed, fearful and concerned. They had believed that he would overthrow Roman rule and restore world control to the Jews. As they understand his insistence that he must die, and his reassurance that despite his death, they will one day be with him again in heaven, Thomas (doubting Thomas) confesses, in essence, that he does not know how to get to heaven. Christ responds, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one come to the Father, but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” (Jn 14:6-7) The issue for Thomas is whether or not he knows the Father, who is God. Implied in Christ’s response to Thomas, if Thomas really knew Jesus, he also knew God. So while salvation, as some Christians understand salvation, is only through Christ, this passage in John does not actually require a person to endorse a certain kind of twentieth century theology. We have found this to be the case in the examples of salvation used by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. David and Abraham did not know Jesus, even though Paul indicates that they were saved through Christ.

What is entailed in knowing another person is beyond the scope of this paper, but the simple message may be that to know a person like Jesus is to know God. Perhaps David came to know God through his grandmother Ruth, if she was still alive when David was a boy. Ruth may have provided mothering for David even as Naomi was a surrogate mother for Obed. In knowing his Moabite grandmother, David would have come to know God. Likewise, people who knew David knew God, people who knew Abraham knew God, and people who knew Moses knew God. So why should Christians and Jews and others not take the matter a step further and say that people who knew Mohammad knew God, and that people continue to get to know Mohammad through the Qur’an. And thus through the Qur’an, people continue to grow in their knowledge and relationship with God.

In conclusion, the broad strokes used to pull together the various religious traditions represented herein indicate that the Sacred Scriptures of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity each encourage intercultural tolerance and acceptance. While the Qur’an gives implicit instruction for Muslims to interact with the followers of other religions peacefully under most conditions (Mr Gülen embodying this instruction), the Scriptures of other religions are not so explicitly instructive, though we have found that Jewish and Christian Scriptures can be read to support and advocate interfaith dialogue. The stories of the lives of Jonah, Ruth, Abraham, and David are telling. Similarly, Christian Scripture on the whole includes an understanding of deity that embraces all of humankind, and as Christianity depends upon the OT, we see this embrace of humanity occurring through the religion indigenous to the region in which a person lives. Whether a person is an Assyrian, Moabite, Roman, or Jew, in each case the implications if not the directives (somewhat tacitly) toward interfaith dialogue are for the larger purpose of promoting peace and well-being among all peoples of the world.

This interfaith outlook in Scripture is often not apparent when, as the insight of Mr Gülen would have it, religion is used for self proclaimed personal ends apart from God, especially political ends. [279 ]When religion is used to inflict torment and suffering and to gain political control, the Scriptures in this case are not being used in accord with their purpose as divine revelation. The influence of materialism may provide impetus for such abuse of Scripture in that unbelief and skepticism in the lives of religious leaders may distort their use of Scripture, so that they perhaps foster indifference or scorn for people outside their own cultural norms.

Cutting through the effects of materialism in the life of faith, Mr Gülen finds that the powerful effect of a loving relationship with a person of faith provides a cure. He therefore encourages Muslims to reach out in friendship to non-Muslims so as to counter the effects of the secular world. The cure for the ill is love. He finds that religion

commands love, compassion, tolerance, and forgiving . Love is the most essential element in every being, a most radiant light, a great power that can resist and overcome every force. It elevates every soul that absorbs it, and prepares it for the journey to eternity. Those who make contact with eternity through love work to implant in all other souls what they receive from eternity. They dedicate their lives to this sacred duty, and endure any hardship for its sake. Just as they say “love” with their last breaths, they also breath “love” while being raised on the day of Judgment.[280]

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus, like Mr Gülen, similarly encouraged people to love one another despite their differences and problems. An instance of this is found in John’s account of the Last Supper.[281] Prior to the meal, Jesus got up from the table and took a towel and a basin of water and washed his disciple’s feet (13:1-30). According to John, this feet washing was an act of love (13:1), which was in part to show the disciples (and all disciples to follow) how they should lovingly treat one another (13:14). Jesus enacted a metaphor to depict a deep caring relationship that would sooth and overcome the affects of brokenness and pathology in the lives of people of faith (it seems that even saints have dirty feet from time to time).[282]

A bit later, when the meal begins, Jesus again reaches out in love to Judas, by seating Judas at the place of honor at the head of the table where they could talk to each other. When they were finally seated, Jesus confronted Judas (13:26), but rather than entering into dialogue with Jesus about his dissatisfaction with Jesus’ views, such as, we can imagine, the theology of the story of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37), or their various excursions into non-Jewish Samaritan territory to help non Jewish people (Mt 15:21-28), or caring for tax collectors (Lk 19:1-10) and women of the night (Lk 7:36-39), Judas mounted a passive aggressive attack and managed in short order to kill Jesus.

It appears that Jesus was committed to something like intercultural dialogue which Judas rejected. Judas may have been some sort of Jewish exclusivist who could not tolerate the openness to people that Jesus expected. Jesus was apparently aware of Judas’ rejection and hence gave Judas the place of honor at the table (an act of love no less than feet washing) no doubt so that Judas and Jesus could iron things out.

While few Christians emulate Jesus by loving their enemies, it appears that Mr Gülen is willing to place himself in this risky position. He has taken the place of Christ, not as a Christian, but as a Muslim, offering peaceful dialogue to Christians and Jews and people of all religions. Mr Gülen’s insistence that love is the essential element that will solve the problems related to interfaith dialogue places him squarely in the non-violent peaceful tradition of the Jew named Jesus that Christians claim to follow. Christians and Jews and people of the various world religions would do well to emulate Mr. Gülen.

[269] Modern secular materialism includes metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that impact the use of language to talk about God, and these various linguistic restrictions may tend to cause the different world religions to become competitive. The way the materialist notion of “truth” and “certainty” are construed, it is difficult if not impossible to talk meaningfully about God, and more important for interfaith dialogue, given this notion of truth, the secular model often requires that only one religion be representative of the truth. The materialist account of language often does not allow the possibility of the truth of conflicting statements from different religions. Accordingly, a conceptual framework for dealing with religion has grown up in the universities of the West to cope with the metaphysical assumptions of materialism and its account of the use of language. At one extreme there is thought to be exclusivism, while at the other extreme is pluralism, inclusivism perhaps in the middle. Most religions are thought to include a core of exclusivist stance, most fundamentalists maintaining that their religion is the only true religion, and thus they are generally completely under the influence of modern epistemological assumptions of Western culture, although they are typically without awareness of this influence. Inclusivists, perhaps the least affected by modern secular assumptions, often suppose that God can somehow accommodate the various different religions. Although inclusivists may suppose that God can accommodate most religions, one’s own religion is usually thought to be the best. Pluralism is generally the dominant position in most religion departments in Western universities. Pluralism tends to mesh with the assumptions of materialism thus elevating the factual capacity of scientific language while still allowing religion to have significant meaning but of a different value than that of science. In pluralism, typically, the various different religions are all equally interesting and valuable (we should promote world peace) but religious language is often thought not to be factually reflective of material reality. Some recent thinkers are attempting to create different models for understanding religion in the West. See, for example, Knitter, P (2002) Theologies of Theologies (New York, Orbis Books). Knitter’s attempt to create new labels for the issues seems to weight in favor of pluralist assumptions, and he seems to conflate a number of the issues. For a critique of secular assumptions with respect to theology see Diamond, M “The Challenge of Contemporary Empiricism” in Diamond, M (1975) The Logic of God / Theology and Verification (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Company). We shall not be concerned with these issues except to note that Mr. Gülen is attempting to cut through the detrimental effects of materialism.

[270] Gülen, F (2006) Essays – Perspectives – Opinions (New Jersey, The Light, Inc.), 34

[271] Ibid.

[272] Ibid., 34-35

[273] Ibid.

[274] Ibid., 37-38

[275] Ibid.

[276] For the purpose of this paper, I shall assume that this brief understanding of salvation will suffice for each of the religions represented here. Buddhism and other religions are obviously of a different elk.

[277] For a scholarly commentary that supports my reading of Romans see Ziegler, J (1989) Paul’s Letter to Rome (London, JLM Press).

[278] For an exhaustive account of the various views of atonement, especially the one I have sketched here see Moberly, R. C. (1904) Atonement and Personality (London, John Murray).

[279] Gülen, Essays, 37.

[280] Ibid., 48-49

[281] Many scholars do not think this passage is an account of the Last Supper because the first verse (13:1) specifies it was before the Passover Feast, and moreover, John’s account is different than the other gospel accounts. However, these scholars seem to fail to see the entire context. The text says ” before the Passover Feast, Jesus knew that his time had come ” referring back to Jesus’ awareness, when the Greeks wanted to talk to him sometime earlier (12:20), that the time of his death had come (12:23). The passage seems simply to be saying that this occasion in John’s gospel is the Passover Feast, but before the feast began, Jesus already knew he was about to die.

[282] The meaning of Jesus’ metaphor is somewhat obvious when he says of Judas, after having washed Judas’ feet, ” not all of you are clean…,” (Jn 13:10) for Judas must have been clean. Judas was the disciple who was perhaps the most respectful of Jewish tradition. He would have bathed before the Passover meal, yet wearing sandals, his feet would have become soiled by walking through the city streets to the place of the Passover meal. When under normal circumstances the servant at the door would have washed his feet, he would have become clean all over again (in accord with ritual requirements). Only in this instance, Jesus took the place of the servant and in an act of love, washed Judas’ feet, but then strangely said that Judas was not clean. (Jn 13:10-11) John reiterates that this condition of Judas (not being clean) is an indication of the betrayal that is about to take place (Jn 13:10).

source: http://en.fgulen.com/conference-papers/peaceful-coexistence/2486-sacred-scriptures-and-interfaith-dialogue

Women’s liberation is a much discussed subject, can you compare the attitudes of materialist Western civilization and Qur’anic civilization towards women and demonstrate where true freedom for women lies? It may clear from the descriptions in the first and second sections above that the aim of materialist Western civilization is not to fulfil the [...]]]> by Meryem Weld

Women’s liberation is a much discussed subject, can you compare the attitudes of materialist Western civilization and Qur’anic civilization towards women and demonstrate where true freedom for women lies?
It may clear from the descriptions in the first and second sections above that the aim of materialist Western civilization is not to fulfil the needs of human nature, but rather to exploit that nature in whatever ways it can in order to perpetuate itself despite its rotten foundations. The position of women in the West is truly grievous. Their true nature and role in the family and home are being systematically destroyed. They are the main sacrificial victims to the voracious idol of the consumer society.
The system demands that their bodies are exploited for advertising purposes. And besides exciting the greed and lust of others, they themselves are under constant presssure to spend and acquire ever more in the way of possessions and luxuries for the home. The inducement of fashion is utilized to astonishing degrees in the West, so that women are encouraged not only to buy more and more in the way of clothes and to follow fashions in make-up and the like, but also to change all the furnishings in their homes, down to even their bathrooms, every year or two. Of course, all this means that they have to abandon their homes and families and go out to work.
These developments are portrayed as progress and liberation for women, as the gaining of equal opportunities with men in the field of work and the professions. The false concept of equality is taken as the aim. Totally contrary to human nature, women are encouraged to seek equality with men in every field, from work to the home. But in fact this unachievable aim is cynically put forward to deceive unfortunate women and to cloak the ugly reality of the situation.
While feminists in the West have reacted strongly against the exploitation of women in maintaining the capitalist system, in fact, they support many of these developments since they encourage the ‘liberation’ of women from the ’slavery’ of their role in the home and family. ‘Sex roles’ being an artificial device engineered to perpetuate that ’slavery’. However, they themselves are calling women not to freedom but to even greater slavery. For what they are calling them to is the rejection of their own natures for the sake of some ill-defined ‘rights’ that consist of absolute freedom to follow their own whims and what they imagine to be their own interests unrestricted by the rights of others. How can women stripping themselves of their womanhood be seen as freedom? They are making a very bad bargain, their compassionate natures and exalted position in the scheme of things in return for total enslavement to their own individual whims and desires.
How different is the attitude of Qur’anic civilization towards women! The mercy that is Islam recognizes the manner in which they have been created and ensures through Islamic dress and other requirements that they are able to carry out their duties with their children and in the home protected and in perfect dignity.
Islamic dress and the ‘position of women’ generally in Islam are much misunderstood in the West, but as the many thousands of women brought up in Western society testify, Islamic dress is in complete accord with their natures and gives them the protection and ease of mind that that nature requires. And they find that indeed ‘the woman’s place is in the home,’ that it is not a prison-sentence but on the contrary is a most gratifying duty and service of the greatest responsibility since it entails the bringing-up of thesucceeding generation. Islamic dress is a safeguard for this vitally important role, indicating to its importance and protecting women from any kind of indignity and exploitation.
The contradictory position of feminists is very apparent here, for they vigorously oppose the exploitation of the female body for advertising and other purposes while at the same time seeking ‘freedom’ or to get rid of any sort of restriction on women’s dress and behaviour. However, what becomes apparent to the many ‘new’ Muslim women is that to expose their bodies at all to men outside their families is to both exploit themselves and to be exploited. To act as a means of exciting the lust, desire, and greed of strangers is to be exploited and for women to take pleasure in thus doing is to exploit and to degrade themselves. It is not freedom but once again to enslave themselves to their own individual desires and the desires of others.
What is freedom for women, then? Freedom for women lies in recognizing their true nature, in recognizing what teaches them what that nature is and then _ protects and safeguards it. God

Almighty’s final revealed religion of Islam does this in the most perfect form. And what does that mean? It in fact means abandoning their own desires and recognizing that they are not beings with ‘rights’, but creatures with duties, like all the beings in the universe, and that happiness and freedom are only to be found in the performance of those duties.
And if they are creatures with duties, then that happiness and freedom will increase in proportion to their learning to know the Giver of those important and pleasurable duties, the Single All-Wise and Compassionate Creator. For the more they learn about the Giver of the duties, the more they will learn what the duties truly consist of. The more they can abandon their own wishes and desires the more they may draw closer to conforming to the will and wisdom of the One Who plans and runs the whole universe, which are so apparent from its order, balance and harmony. This is where true freedom lies. In belief and in submission to a Single All-Wise and Compassionate God Who thus orders and administers the whole universe as a unified whole and employs all the creatures in it according to His absolute wisdom. Freedom lies in Islam, therefore, which is that belief and which protects and safeguards those who recognize and adhere to it.

At the same time it is essential to point out here that this duty of women should not restrict the development of their intellectual and other abilities. Rather, the one should complement the other. If women are truly to carry out their duties in bringing up their children, they have to continuously study and develop their belief. In other words, as human beings their primary duty is to develop their belief in God, as women their duties are in the home. These complementary duties are essential to each other, one should never be an obstacle to or prevent the other.

source: http://www.risaleinur.us/read/?art=2988&t=Women+in+the+West+and+in+Qur’anic+civilization

The composition and history of Western civili zation is exceedingly complex and it is not an easy task to outline the importance of Christianity within it without over-simplifying and obscuring the question altogether. Christianity is itself a complex and multiform phenomenon that has undergone many transformations and divisions through the ages and the [...]]]> by Meryem Weld

The composition and history of Western civili zation is exceedingly complex and it is not an easy task to outline the importance of Christianity within it without over-simplifying and obscuring the question altogether. Christianity is itself a complex and multiform phenomenon that has undergone many transformations and divisions through the ages and the term should be defined carefully in whatever context it is being used. Having said that, we shall offer one or two points in the hope that it may point towards a way that true Christianity may take in order to draw closer to Islam.
From the very earliest days, sects and groups of the most diverse nature flourished in the Christian movement, each holding opposing views on the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief. The ‘orthodox’ views prevailed on the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century A.D. and from that event the course of future Christianity was set. Although they would later be developed into a complicated theology, the basic ideas on the nature of God as a trinity and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (Upon whom be peace) were accepted as fundamental and necessary beliefs. Also the nature of authority was established at that time and took the form of the Emperor as the head of the Church supported by a hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons on the one hand, with the laity or ordinary believers on the other.
Subsequent centuries saw many developments and splits within what had then become accepted to be Christianity. In 1054 A.D. the Eastern Orthodox Churches rejected the claims of the papacy and broke away from the Western Catholic Church, but despite this their beliefs and the internal structures of their Churches remained broadly similar to the Roman Church. It was not until the Reformation that split the Western Church in the 16th century that not only was the authority of the papacy and the domination of the Church and its hierarchy challenged, but also there were serious attempts to return to the Bible and purify the Christian faith itself. Nevertheless, with a very few exceptions, the majority of the Protestant sects and Churches that emerged, with the exception of denying papal supremacy, cannot really be seen to have developed into anything radically different to the Catholic Church.
We may therefore make the two following points. Firstly, the institution of the Church came to be the representative of Christianity, although it had taken as its basis beliefs contrary to the pure monotheism taught by Jesus (UWP) and had superimposed these on the already existing Roman social and political system. And secondly, the internal structure of the Church, with its hier archy on the one hand, and ordinary Christians on the other was a rigid and oppressive institution that did not allow for the free exercise of reason and the development of knowledge. We may say, therefore, that a truly Christian civilization never developed, but that the Western civilization that did develop and that is known as Christian civili zation is in fact a development of classical Graeco-Roman civilization.
Nevertheless, as we.said to start with, it is an exceedingly complex question and while Western civilization is and always had as its base philoso phy rather than Revelation, it has also been one might say, leavened, tempered, or even softened by true Christianity, that is, those of Christ’s teachings that have been preserved in the New
Testament and the authentic parts of the Old Tes tament. The influence of this true Christianity on Western civilization has been stronger in some periods of history than in others. That it has been present is undeniable but to isolate and describe pure manifestations of it is difficult. Perhaps it can be said that at an individual level people have received and continue to receive genuine inspira tion and guidance through Jesus (UWP)’s teach ings and that this has been reflected in the society and civilization at large.
By the Early Middle Ages the Church had gained a stranglehold over all forms of cultural life. As mentioned above, the hierarchical struture itself of the church and power that the hierarchy enjoyed in relation to the laity prevented the growth of a spirit of enquiry. Education was lim ited to the clergy, so that the body of ordinary Christians merely followed them blindly in their ignorance. And among the clergy, the absolute power enjoyed by the papacy disallowed any advance in knowledge. Any new thought that threw into question the accepted dogmas of the Church, as all advances in knowledge could not fail to do, was branded as heresy and suppressed. These reasons, among others, therefore, meant that the society and civilization could only pro gress in so far as they could shake off this oppre-sive domination of the Church. As the strangle hold of the Church slackened, there was a great upsurge in scientific discovery and in progress inall fields of knowledge. However, it must be stated that it shared the same foundations as the Church and civilization that had preceeded it. In fact, what could it be other than the continuation of the Renaissance, that reaffirmation of the clas sical Graeco-Roman inspiration of Western civili zation?
In the Thirtieth Word, Bediuzzaman Said Nursi explains human history in terms of two cur rents or lines of thought, the line of prophethood and religion and that of philosophy and science, and he relates these to the human ego and describes the results they have yielded. The line of prophethood, which represents Divine revela tion, corresponds to man’s heart, and the line of philosophy, to his intellect or reason. The aim is for these two lines to be united, that is, for the line of philosophy to be obedient to and of service to the line of prophethood and religion. Whenever this has occurred, mankind has experienced true harmony and happiness, but when they have become separated, goodness and light have been drawn to the latter, and evil and misguidance to the former.
Thus, when man does not accept Divine revela tion he will rely on his own reason and will take his desires and impulses as his criteria. Since he imagines that he owns himself, he will be com pelled to imagine that everything else owns itself. This is the basis of the materialist philosophy which developed in the West. Instead of all causes, from the vastest galaxies to the minutest particles, being attributed directly their Creator, power is given to each of them. Each cause is imagined to have an actual effect, it is given the power to create. Such a man will attribute power and creativity to a false concept like Nature, or the laws of Nature, or the forces of Nature. Since he does not accept the key, the plan, the guide to understanding the universe that has been sent by its True Owner, he will not know how to approach it. Relying only on his own intellect and criteria he will run into immediate difficulties and contradictions. He will project these conflicts and contradictions that he experiences within himself as a result of acting contrary to the manner in which he has ben created on to the world outside himself. He will interpret what he sees in that world as struggle and competition and he will come up with such irrational claims as ‘life is a conflict,’ ‘might is right,’ ‘the survival of the fit test,’ ‘in power there is right,’ and so on. It is not difficult to see how accurately this describes Western thought.
Furthermore, such a man will see only the apparent face of the universe, he will not under stand its meaning. It will remain meaningless and purposeless for him. And this ownership and power that he claims will not bring him any real happiness, on the contrary, his endless desires will make him a slave to every cause he seeks to sat isfy them with. Since he denies his Creator and True Object of Worship, he will worship idols and false gods to the number of causes to which he gives power. He will fall from being the aim and fruit of creation to being abased and abject, groveling to every cause that will bring him per­sonal benefits,’ seeking to satisfy his greed and pride.
Thus, if we set aside for a moment the ele ments of true Christianity in Western civilization and their effects, we can see the results of the negative and rotten foundations of the line of science and philosophy. To quote Bediuzzaman, “Its aim and purpose are benefit and self-interest, after which everyone jostles and pushes without restraint. Its principle in life is conflict, which manifests itself in contention and discord. The tie between different groups is racialism and negative nationalism, which thrives on devouring others and which manifests itself in ghastly clashes. Its alluring service is encouraging the passions of the soul, satisfying its desires, and facilitating the attainment of its wishes.”
Since it does not spring from truth and reality and since its aim is not truth and reality, Western civilization has to resort to subterfuge and lies in order to perpetuate itself. Conflict, aggression, self-interest, discord, racialism and lust are indeed repugnant to man’s nature, therefore it both cloaks these ugly facts and deliberately perverts and dulls man’s nature. In order to maintain some sort of equilibrium among all those anarchic for ces, it pitilessly exploits the young and plays off group against group in the society. It excites aggression, animality and racialism through films, pornography, pop music, television and the media, and then seeks to control the release of those forces through seemingly innocent football and sport, pop concerts and festivals, political demonstrations, and minor though sustained con flict between different racial and social groups.
The major requirement in the perpetuation of this system is to stop people thinking, to deaden their perception, to smother their innate urge to find the truth. The whole edifice of Western art and culture is directed towards this aim. In partic ular it addresses the educated classes, satisfying their senses, flattering their conceit, and deceiving them into thinking that they are concerned with reality. The economic system, which is based on waste and consumption, aims to produce, at least for some sections of the society, a false, material paradise in which unfortunate Western man may drown in unthinking comfort and pleasure.
But what a hell they create, Man is not an ani mal. While his body wallows in glamour and affluence, his spirit, conscience, mind, and heart suffer the torments of hell.
The line of prophethood and religion, on the other hand, has as its base Divine revelation. A man who accepts this acknowledges that of him self he is nothing, he is a slave of God, his duty is to use his intellect and other faculties in learning to know God so that he may learn how to please Him with service and worship. He will learn from the revealed books not only what he is himself and his duty, but also the true nature of the uni verse and its duty. He will not get bogged down in its mere functioning, its apparent face of cau sality, beautiful, intricate and absorbing though it is; rather, his eyes will be directed through that wonderful functioning to the meaning behind it. He will see that each being from the minutest par­ticles to the vastest galaxies is performing endless duties in perfect submission and obedience, that beings are rushing to the assistance of the other beings in accordance with a law of co-operation that prevails over the cosmos, that singly and alto gether these beings are proclaiming the glory, beauty, and perfections of their single Compas sionate and Merciful Creator.
The firm and positive foundations of the line of prophethood result in a civilization the bases of which are as follows. Again to quote Bediuzza-man: “Its point of support is truth instead of force, which is manifest as justice and equity. Instead of benefit and self-interest its aims are vir tue and God’s pleasure, which are manifest as love and friendly competition. In place of racial ism and nationalism its means of unity are the bonds of religion, country, and class, which are manifest as sincere brotherhood and concord, and co-operation in only defending against outside aggression. The principle in life is that of mutual assistance and co-operation instead of conflict, which is manifest as unity and mutual support. In place of lust is guidance, which is manifest as progress for humanity and being perfected spiritu ally.”
Before concluding this section we shall analyse in more detail these principles quoted from Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and see how they actu ally manifest themselves both on the level of the individual and of society, concentrating firstly on Western civilization and society.
We saw above that if man does not acknow ledge the Creator and True Owner of the universe, he will claim ownership himself and be forced to attribute ownership or power to causes, that is, beings, outside himself; for example, to the sun, or the so-called forces and laws of Nature, such as gravity or nuclear forces. Therefore, since such a person does not believe that every single aspect of all the activity apparent in the universe is directly controlled, planned and created by One Ail-Powerful, Knowing, Wise, Compassionate, Merciful, and Just Creator, he will not only attrib ute its wonderful functioning to a manifestly absurd concept like chance or coincidence, but he will also see himself as justified in dominating and exploiting for his own benefits as much of the universe over which he can extend his power.
Power or force, therefore, becomes a fundamental principle of materialist philosophy, and man’s benefits the primary purpose or aim.
What does this mean in practice? We saw that Western civilization came to be fundamentally materialist. While it is undeniable that the Churches exert some influence over individuals and society, true Christianity, or pure monothe ism, failed to influence Western philosophy. Its aim, therefore, since it is not God’s pleasure and worship and service of Him through adhering to His law and commands, is man’s pleasure and man’s benefits. The ultimate purpose of the uni verse, in so far as it can be seen to have one, is to serve man’s interests. Man’s attitude towards the universe, then, becomes aggresssive and exploita tive; the universe, and all beings, are there for his use and benefit to whatever degree he can increase his power and thus his domination over them. This manifests itself plainly on all levels: political, national, international, societal. What is the real aim of much modern science and technol ogy? What is ‘Stars Wars’ and the race for space? And while ecologists and governments wring their hands over its effects ecologically and economi cally, let them consider the real causes.
This attitude necessarily expresses itself at the personal level as it does at the universal, for it is the manifestation of a basic belief. Although it is abhorrent to man’s true nature, and also although it may not immediately appear to be thus, a person who is not acting purely for God’s sake will seek to serve his own interests and follow his own benefits on the personal level, too, at the expense of others, whether they be his children, parents, spouse, friends or whatever. The results of this are plain for all to see in the West. Ever-increasing numbers of broken homes, divorce, and neglect of children, especially with regard to then-training and real education if not materially, just for a start.
Furthermore, the contradictions and conflicts that arise from adhering to such a view of the world result in a psychological imbalance that in turn all too often gives rise to both real mental ill ness and to the inhuman and distressing behaviour and crime that has become only too familiar to us in the news media. The reasons for the prisons and mental hospitals being crammed with increas ing numbers of inmates should be sought here and not in such matters as unemployment and social conditions, which, though real problems, can in no way be seen to be a fundamental cause.
Although the majority of people may not be driven to such extremes, their state is basically the same. Man is not designed to bear the burden of unbelief. He is impotent and at the same time sub ject to endless desires and needs. He therefore is in need of an All-Powerful, Wise, and Compas sionate Sustainer Who is able to answer all those desires and needs, that in fact reach to eternity. If he denies that Sustainer, he takes on himself not only all his own needs and problems, which he cannot secure, but also, since he is connected to the rest of the universe, he will be weighed down by all the problems and injustices in the world, which he is certainly powerless to solve. And then there is death, that inescapable reality that stands implacably at the end of the passage of life. What real hope or joy can death leave to someone who subscribes to materialist philosophy?
These great burdens of unbelief lead to a men tality of escapism. Western civilization compels people to entirely wrap themselves up in veils of oblivion in order to escape from the pain and despair that it inflicts on them. It is quite clear once one starts to notice it. Fiction, science-fiction, sport, music, television, video, films, ‘cul ture’; they are all universally used as’ means of escaping. Many people openly admit that they indulge in such pastimes and hobbies in order to escape from the realities of life. Walk down any street or even comb the universities or seek out the intellectuals and see how many will be pre pared to sit down and have a serious discussion of the meaning of life and death. They will avoid it at all costs. For if they do not recognize that Sin gle All-Compassionate Sustainer, the reality is just too painful and terrifying.
This escapism is strenunously encouraged in the West as the major means of perpetuating the system, but the true nature of Western civilization is now becoming inescapably clear. For four and a half centuries the West was engaged in a vigor ous expansion, and the aggressive forces men tioned above were directed outside itself and towards that expansion. But with its contraction an equilibrium cannot be maintained. The West ern materialist system necessitates the excitement and release of those aggressive forces, but in the restricted sphere they turn inwards, as it were, resulting in conflict and violence that can no longer be controlled. This conflict and violence, too, has become familiar to us in the form of foot ball hooliganism, racial violence, political Vio lence, violent crime. In many areas, it is no longer safe even to walk in the streets; there is an atmo sphere of anarchy, aggressiveness, and fear.
The society and civilization that revealed relig ion gives rise to presents a completely different picture. The need for force and aggression does not arise since all power and ownership is attrib uted directly to the True Owner of the universe. A believer recognizes that while being the aim and fruit of creation to whom the universe is in trust, the requirement of his exalted position is to use all the faculties and abilities he has been given in the service of that Ail-Powerful and Generous Owner. By conforming to the law and commands that He has revealed, he too will manifest the jus tice, balancé and equilibrium that is so apparent in the universe. Since he-recognizes God, the All-Wise and Compassionate Possessor of Absolute Power and Absolute Knowledge, and knows himself to be powerless and utterly needy, he understands that all benefits, bounty and good are given directly by God, so, while striving his utmost to receive God’s bounty and pleasure, he will gratefully receive what is given and will shrink from exploiting in any manner his fellow creatures. For to act in self-interest and to seek benefits for oneself is to caim ownership of one self and to attempt to extend that ownership over other creatures; it necessarily entails aggression in some form against them, as well as being a viola tion of the balance and order in the universe.
Since society is formed of individuals, a truly Islamic society and civilization can only come into being as a result of people understanding, believing and acting on these principles. Only when the True Owner of the universe is recog nized with all His functioning Names and attrib utes can believers act with true justice and mani fest love and sincere brotherhood and co operation in society. Only then can they rise above petty self-interest and that most damaging modern sickness, nationalism, which, together with racialism, is again the false claiming of own ership and constitutes an aggresssion against fel low creatures, let alone the damage that it does to the Muslim community. In fact, as the principle of jihad shows us, in no circumstances can there be aggression, only defence against outside aggression.
Furthermore, since a truly Islamic society reflects how each believer sees the universe and since the believer sees the universe not in terms of conflict, ‘the survival of the fittest,’ and such like, but as a vast system of mutual assistance and co-operation, he extends this principle to every aspect of his personal and social life. He attempts to conform to the wisdom, balance and order in the universe, to the Law and commands sent by its True Owner, to the practices of His Most Noble Prophet (Upon whom be blessings and peace), whom He sent as a mercy to all the worlds.
As we stated at the beginning, our aim in ana lysing Western civilization is not merely to deni grate it, but rather in discovering its foundations and true face to be able to learn something of the relationship of Christianity to that civilization, and thus to find ways in which true Christianity might draw closer to the complete religion of Islam, the religion of God Almighty’s final revealed book, the Qur’an, and His final prophet, the Prophet Muhammad (Upon whom be bless ings and peace), in the hope that together we. might fight our common enemies of atheism and irreligion. We therefore draw the following con clusions.
Firstly, that the churches as institutions do not represent true Christianity. Nevertheless, contem porary movements within them suggest a tendency towards it. For example, in the Catholic Church, the movement of ‘aggiornamento’

(bringing up to date) that was instigated by Pope John XXm in the late 1950’s and was then largely ratified by Vatican Countil II. It tackled some of the problems mentioned above and there was a devolvement of power and responsibility away from the clergy to the laity. The stress was on the greater involvement of ordinary Christians. As a result of this movement, a freer and more intellectually active theology began to emerge. And thoughout Christianity there is an uncoordinated questioning and seeking for a truer form of the religion that takes different forms in differ ent places. This general atmosphere of question ing and searching leads us to hope that sincere Christians will be able to draw closer to Islam.
This brings us to our second conclusion, that the easiest method of finding one’s way through the maze of Western civilization, Christianity, and their histories and relationship and arrive at the truth is through the analysis outlined above.
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi presented us with a model of how we should look at history, our- selves, and the universe. That was in terms of Divine revelation and religion on the one hand, and reason, science and philosophy on the other.
The latter must be subservient and of service to the former, and not vice versa, which is what happened in the Christian world. This analysis shows clearly the basis and nature of Western civilization and also points to the path that should be , taken by those Christians who wish to extricate
themselves from the bog of materialism and enter the complete and wholesome world of God Almighty’s revealed religion.

source: http://www.risaleinur.us/read/?art=2986&t=Western+civilization,+Christianity,+and+Islam

by Farhod Alimuhamedov 23 November 2007

Abstract

This paper is about the conditions of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-class relations in Gülen schools and looks into their operation in non-Turkish and non-Muslim settings. It aims to examine the relations among young people coming from different groups. The initial and main steps of the [...]]]> Peaceful Muslim–Non-Muslim Co-existence in a Secular Context

by Farhod Alimuhamedov
23 November 2007

Abstract

This paper is about the conditions of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-class relations in Gülen schools and looks into their operation in non-Turkish and non-Muslim settings. It aims to examine the relations among young people coming from different groups. The initial and main steps of the integration processes among different ethnic and religious entities are well observed at school – we hupothesize that it is much easier to transfer knowledge and values to young people with the same or closely similar identities. The field of research is in Russia because Russian society offers an interesting context for the observation of inter-ethnic and interreligious relations. There we observe the strong ethnic identity arising after the collapse of the Soviet Union with concomitant rise in social rivalry among different groups. The students at Gülen schools are initially selected on academic merit, and the results then obtained by the schools make their reputation. That reputation increases the attractiveness of the schools and the best young people from different ethinic groups try to get places in them. However, the major focus of my research is to check the level of social integration rather than of academic success and to observe how Muslim-based schools can transmit values in non-Muslim context. The example of these schools could be useful for ethnically changing societies like the French one. French society should be reassured by the ‘republican school’ model, and should question the academic and social effectiveness of its methods and approaches rather than the ethnic or religious belifs of the young French students who attend such schools.

1. Introduction

The reason of my interest in Gülen schools lies on my educational background. I studied at the Uzbek Turkish school in Tashkent which was opened in 1992 just after the first anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (1st September 1991). I spent 4 years at that school instead of 3 (we have to study at preparatory class first) in order to get the secondary level permitting to apply to the university. Nevertheless, I do not regret much about it, even if at that time one extra year seemed to be very important.

During these 4 years I had not learnt anything about Fethullah Gülen. Even after graduating the school I never questioned about him. The first information about Gülen I found was in Russian analytical paper named “Compass” in 1999 (in the same year all schools were closed in Uzbekistan) which described him as the leader of the “Nurcular” movement, Islamic oriented powerful stream with a strong financial and political support coming mainly from private funds in Turkey. Although that 10-page-article could not change my opinion about my 4-year-experience at school, it created a sort of suspicion towards the schools because that paper was and remained the only information about Fethullah Gülen and “his” schools for a long time.

2. Gülen and “His Schools”

I was informed lately that Gülen possesses no school by his own. He is not a businessman and he did not inherit enough to open hundreds of schools. The difference is clear between Gülen and other famous philanthropist like Soros, Ford or Gates who finance directly schools and education programmes by their own. He was a preacher in Edirne (Turkey) where he received the degree and later in Izmir city from 1966 to 1981 years. The functions of imam being not limited to preaching, but especially educating and writing (he has written about 60 books) he describes himself as an educator[1]. Modern education was not included at his early stages of activities, since at that time he played an important role in educating religion of Islam in Turkey. Therefore the name “Hocaefendi”, which comes for the role of religious title is often used to replace his name. The sector of contemporary (modern) education is one of the domains of his group activities behind the others. That field was actively taken into consideration after 1980[2] by the opening of private schools and became by the time the most discussed and publicly known sphere of activities. The schools which are associated with his name follow his line and vision of modern education which is based on both “mind and heart[3]». He thinks that modern education is job oriented and lacks the spirituality whereas madrasas[4] (Qur’ranic schools of Ottoman Empire) did not follow modern evaluation. However, he finds that Turkish secularism eliminates the religion from the public sphere and encourages the development of violent religious movements. Therefore he proposes the schools both compatible with and critical of modernity and Muslim traditions. Gülen does not see modernity and Islam as opposing entities, but in contrary suggest the participation of Islam in modern Secular State. Even if his points of view are taken from Turkish experience, he tries not to establish one model to all schools over the world.

There are some 250 Gülen schools in Turkey and even more abroad. They are located in different countries, but mainly in developing ones. In the countries closer to Turkey they are densely implanted. For example, they exist in different forms in the majority of the post communist countries bordering and closely located to Turkey. In some countries like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan there are even universities which are linked to the Gülen movement. The schools, however, cover a large geographical area starting from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Northern America and even in Europe.

Gülen’s role is not so much a planning one, but rather visionary one, since in new regions locally operating groups are better acquainted with needs and realities on the ground[5]. Therefore the forms of the schools are multiple. There are schools recognized as “lyceums” or “gymnasium” which are attached to the local schools. They share the building and interfere for the elder pupil. There are also Language and Computer centres that are in developing countries where the need for the subject is vital, but also in developed countries where difficulties to open the schools (mainly Europe) exist. Beside Gülen “has” several International Schools which is open to local pupil and for the children of diplomatic corpus residing at that country. However the main form is so called “Turkish” schools which undergo through intergovernmental agreements.

These schools obtained certain recognition in many countries. Famous political leaders, even presidents have claimed about them in public. For example, recently Afghan president Karzai demanded Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Gul in their meeting to multiply the numbers of Afghan Turkish schools[6]. The director of Crimean-Turkish School in Ukraine Mehmet Sevketoglu has received a medallion for his work by country president Youshenko. The students of Turkish school Horizon Japan International School) were received by Prime Minister Koizumi Junishiro, whereas the mother of Georgian president Saakashvili, Dr. Giuli Alasania Saakashvili works at one of the Turkish schools.[7]

3. The Missions of “Missionary Schools”

The success of Gülen schools is achieved almost everywhere they open. However, the question rises about the main aim of these schools from Turkish side, as well as from hosting country side. Several schools have been closed in Russia, and all schools in Uzbekistan. It is difficult to make parallel between these accidents, but in both cases the problems come from political and not from educational drive. In order to avoid all suspicion the schools keep a very strong control over the look of their students. The common characteristics of students are being well-bred, well-dressed and not having an ostentatious look. Traditional clothes are banned; students are obliged to have the uniform. The uniform is composed of jacket, trousers for young men and skirt for girls. In spite of “modern” image, the presence of these schools abroad was discussed in Turkey for several times as they were considered to be the drive for pro Islamic, missionary education. Gülen stated the purposes of these schools as follows: “Our schools are missionary like other missionary schools of Europeans and Americans. Our purpose is to carry out missionary activities to prepare the suitable conditions for creating Turkish lobby and to train bureaucrats”.[8]

In fact, making parallel between missionary schools and Gülen schools is somehow interesting. The presence of Christian missionary schools in Muslim countries is a fact, why it would be difficult to accept the vice versa? From other hand, it remains very difficult to understand the notion of “islamization” of Muslim societies. Central Asian societies have been Muslim societies for the centuries; even Turkey itself is composed of more than 90% of the population of Muslims. How it is possible “islamize” already Muslims? There is, undoubtedly rising ethnic and religious identity formation which is replacing more and more left/right or communist/capitalist identities. Therefore there is a need for schools giving religious education after the “revival” of the religion in post communist countries. There is a need for sharing the history of Turkic nations those were in the same geopolitical area before being annexed by Russia. Schools are by their composition and acts may be considered as the promoters of the modern and needed education. They offer in fact, what lacks to that society in academic and moral terms. Michel says that given the lack of integration between scientific knowledge and spiritual values, Gülen and his companions introduced a new style of education which reconciles the two.

I think, by his comparison Gülen does not want to oppose his schools to missionary schools. On contrary, he takes them partly for example which has a role to play in contemporary political and social conflicting situation among the religions. Islam is considered as an “enemy” for some especially after that theory was officially promoted by Huntington. Therefore he favours inter religious dialogue in order to avoid the clash, whether than discussing sticky points among the religions. Gülen advocates acceptance and dialogue with the non-Muslim community. To advocate this notion of tolerance, Gülen met important Christian and Jewish religious leaders including the Pope, Chief Rabbi of Israel and the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church to promote inter-religious dialogue. If his role was to “islamize” or “re-islamize” he would better limit to Muslim societies, if his role was the revival of Panturkism he would better fix only on Central Asian countries. Therefore he favours opening the schools in non Muslim countries like Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Brazil, Mexico, etc. which establishes another image of Muslims as educators and not as the “bombers” in a very crucial period called “post September 11th”. That lets non Muslims and non Turks get known abroad by the best image as he told above.

If there are similarities in the methods of education between Gülen schools and missionary schools, in the purpose they remain different. In fact, there is a “cliché” of missionary schools applied to Gülen schools. In methodology Gülen schools accent on family-like study which strengthen ties among the students. The schools are prevailing general level, in spite of individual which make an almost equal level of all the students. They have a strong discipline, strict control and very good information over each pupil. The parents are permanently enrolled in education processes and pupil stay at the dormitory during the week. By the functioning they may resemble to Christian “missionary” schools acting nowadays.

The purpose of “missionary” Gülen School is far from converting to Islam. In fact, it is impossible to convert somebody to Islam (we see the use of the terms to other context again) as according to Islam everybody is a Muslim by the birth. The parents make Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists from them, that means if somebody decides to be Muslim, he would have “come back” to Islam. From that, we can say that, being different from Christianity where the “conversion” is the purpose, in missionary schools, it would be incorrect from religious point of view to suppose Gülen schools “convert” pupil to Islam. Briefly, we can’t use terms “islamization” or “conversion” as the purpose of these schools.Another divergence is based on the notion of Land. The missionary schools come from so called “Christian Land” to another “non Christian Land” that is located in between “10/40″ window (which points on territorial aspect). In contrary, Gülen points on society and schools act within the society and not on territorial basis. They knowledge should serve for the people and for the necessity of the nation, therefore one can find several schools in one small territory, and no school in large territories in spite of religious or ethnic proximity. The purpose of the missionary schools is to use the pupil in Christian drive once they obtain important leadership career, whereas Gülen School believes that the pupil would work for the sake of his/her society and be the good person whilst having an important role in the government. Gülen considers that the majority should obtain the knowledge and thinks that danger comes when only minority possess it. Therefore “his” schools do not have a “target group” and open to everybody, whereas Christian missionary schools are active among the vulnerable groups like orphans, minorities, etc.

The purpose, aim is more important than the method, because it effects to a long term result, whereas, the method effects to a short term result. Hereby, I would like to look through the activities of Gülen schools in Russian Federation.

4. Case study: Schools in contemporary Russia

The secondary education remains one of the high priorities of Russian education system. The country achieved almost 100 per cent of alphabetisation even before 1990s. Therefore, basic and general level of education was high in the country.

At the beginning of the 1990s many specialists spoke about the decline in educational sphere in almost all countries of former Soviet Union. It was linked to the decline of the salaries of all employees depending from the state budget. In fact, it would be true talking about the “transformation of the education” in general, with new priorities and new approaches. New education sector would shape a new face of the Russian society. In terms of society, Russia was no more cosmopolitan, but extremely nationalistic in its internal policy at the first stages of its independence. In terms of economy, country accepted market economy to state regulation which affected to all budget sectors. In terms of politics, the leaders established power based on multi class society, rather than on workers or agricultures as it was in Soviet time. The division into the classes was very quick after a long single class society. In sum, the country transformed its system from egalitarian to market oriented education even in primary levels and increasing in higher steps. Initially, authorities could not provide necessary basis to accomplish such education therefore they were open to accept foreign specialist who proposed their study systems.

Gülen schools entered Russia as to other ex communist countries from a very beginning of the independence as an actor partly linked to Turkey and less to Turkish education system. In fact, they were aware of that, Turkish education system did not achieve much success until the recent years. The country is still placed among the highest among OECD countries having attained only primary education level (64,2%). The part of those who continue in tertiary and advanced research programmes is lower than in Russian Federation (9,1% to 20,8%). Only in this year (2007) the best Turkish universities entered among 500 leading universities list. In terms of yearly expenditure for each student in secondary level both Russian Federation and Turkey have the same expenses. Briefly, Turkey itself cannot represent a better model of secondary or higher level education and lesser “export” it to other countries. Therefore, schools had to prove much in Russia.

In fact, Gülen’s schools represent elitist schools even in Turkey. The students are selected under the selective basis. They compose the best students and increase eventually better reputation of the school. As mentioned above, the schools have a relatively short experience even in Turkey. The possibility of acting abroad represents a double challenge for them. The results would have affected not only to Turkeys representation abroad, but also strengthening role of the schools inside the Turkey. Their ambassadorial role functioned with the best, young specialists who went to exercise teacher’s functions abroad, with a small experience in pedagogy, in general.

Russia has given a green light to promote “lyceums” or “gymnasiums” or other types of schools that distinguished by better level from other “ordinary” schools. The interest for learning foreign languages, especially English and Computer Sciences became important points of attractiveness. The country aimed to have not only national, but more and more internationally oriented youth accepting the importance of English which have a lesser use in Soviet political zone.

The change from equal level to stratified level of secondary education is very important in the Russian system where the entrance to higher education is done through the examinations. The competition on the secondary education based in two areas. If the first is national and partly international Olympiads, the second and most important is university entrance results.

Gülen schools have a different methodology in teaching at secondary level. They should adapt to each national education system which varies from one another even at post communist countries. In general, they try to keep the control over the teaching of natural sciences in English and leave social sciences teaching to local teachers. School programme is based on obligatory study (between 35-38 academic hours) and working hours (about 10-12 hours) controlled by educators in the evening time.

5. Academic results

These schools have spoken of them very quickly in Russia. Of course, their importance was not as strong as in Central Asia where they possessed unequal reputation based on domination in all sorts of competitions. However, with the small number of establishment, the schools achieved academic success in different fields, even though the education programme was not the same with the general secondary programme. For example, in 2007, Ms Katya Bikova, pupil of International Moscow Lyceum 56, obtained the second place in Russian national Ecology Olympiad. M Vasili Raska who studies at the same school obtained the first place with his project on the bio indicators. In sum, 8 pupil from that school participated successfully in 29th Lomonosov Olympiad organized by Moscow State University. The list of success is long and it is permanent each year. For example, only Tatar Turkish Girls School obtained 52 winning places within 10 years, which makes that each year they obtain more than 5 winning places in Olympiads.

University entrance statistics of Schools are also high. More than 90% of pupil enter the university from the first tentative, the data that is extremely high in comparison to national level.

6. Human Relationship

The force of the schools resides not only in academic, but especially humanistic aspects. In fact, it is still difficult for Russian families to release the education of their children to foreigners. Especially, when this foreigners come from developing country which was considered for the centuries as an enemy. The image of Turkey as the centre of education remains unwilling because for the Russians it represented during Soviet Union Islam and Pan Turkism vis-à-vis the conquered Central Asia.

Surprisingly, the relations between teachers and students remain in the very good basis. Although, the age scale which is admitted to schools remains the most difficult (12-17), and the fact that the difference of age is considered to be low between educators and students (5-15) the authority of the teacher is very strong. The respect of the teacher is gained very quickly, in spite of cultural, religious differences. The assimilation with the local people, studying the local languages and traditions let the young teachers get rapidly the respect and trust of the parents and authorities. Even though the fact the cadres are very young (between 20 and 30) and composed of majority from the male (in Russia school teachers are composed of mainly women).

M Kuznetsov[9] says that the teachers are selected ones in Turkey. He notes that the relations between teachers and parents are in excellent stage which is the result of active relationships of teachers with parents. Things go even much farer by the example of the marriages of teachers with local women. For example, M Mustafa Boder (teacher of Turkish at Tuva Turkish College) married the daughter of president of Tuva M Serigo-ool Oorjak – Anyeta[10].

Teacher selection for Gülen schools is not based only in academic criteria. Yet, before being teacher, young people try to understand the teachings of Gülen and the aim of educating. Gülen writes that “those who want to reform the world should reform themselves before “[11] Therefore, teachers are firstly well educated and thereafter competent ones. That puts into the first plan the character of the school staff which is neglected actually in contemporary education system, based only on competences[12]. The school offer not only academic success, but also transfer good moral education. The schools give a parallel education and apprehension which is not offered by any other school in the region[13]. Ali Bayramoglu notes that, schools do not rely on religious (Islam) teaching, but to make moral education for the youth.[14]

In his article “Changing values: Russian youth in transition”, Mikhail F.Chernys, speaks about the rapid changing of post-soviet Russian youth. He indicates that so called rise of consumption needs among the younger people. They start to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, etc. much younger than previous generation[15]. He notes that, a sharp change within the several years create a great antagonism between two generations living together. Many parents in Russia noted that the choice of sending their children to Turkish schools was linked to the moral education. Some parents openly say that they prefer these school for their English and non smoking education. Hulusi Turgut[16] notes that, many pupils stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes after commencing studying.

Another aspect of the schools lay under the resolving multi ethnic or multicultural problems within the society. Gülen schools are attractive by having several ethic groups. Kuznetsov noted that Moscow school has pupil from 12 different origins. In Tatarstan Muslim and non Muslim pupil continue studying together. In spite of rising ethnic view all over the Russia, the schools keep attracting diverse ethnic groups. The schools have almost the same prestige in the big cities or in the smaller ones and even in the central cities like Moscow or Saint Petersburg though the ethnic portrait is completely different. These cities are the centres of competing educational institutions; therefore it remains very difficult to get known. It is notably that ethnic Russians from these cities choose Gülen schools in spite of the large choice of different international schools.

7. Conclusion: The Movement in Europe

Gülen schools exist also in developed countries like Japan, England, USA, etc. The role of these schools is determinant in putting into practice a new system of teaching as they make prior the teacher’s education.

Gülen movement in Europe has other priorities actually. They concerned with moral education and academic support to local citizens of Turkish origin. Turkish Diaspora is one of the biggest in Europe, therefore they have much activities to do. I suppose that the movement is aiming to multiply the number of schools in Europe because there is an increasing need for them.

The need is coming from the gap left by the society in the formation of the individuals. The role of human upbringing has much changed and therefore the institutions which play role in it have different power actually. The society is getting lesser role in human upbringing. Its role is reduced by non recognition as an institution like school, university or kindergarten. Therefore its share is partly taken by primary and secondary schools which make an important role in human development in European context. Parents leave all the responsibility to school which should play today the double role. If the task of the modern school is centred on knowledge transmission, the educating aspects are becoming more and more important. The schools are facing this problem in many European countries and this is clearly seen especially in immigrant families who are coming from the different context where society is still have a word to say in human upbringing.

For example, the French education system is very known by being republican, egalitarian. The state controls majority of primary, secondary schools and higher education institutions. The “égalité” is written in French constitution which is guaranteed in France by the equal conditions of education. But French sociologist Bourdieu has already shown that “egalitarian machine” was not working well throughout the years. The sector of education is the main factor of social stratification in the country. Recent studies show that primary and especially secondary education results very much from one part of the city to another. The so called “creation of ghetto schools” within the “ghetto districts” resulted in a very low degree of the pupil studying there. The school is reflecting social problems which are based on class, ethnic and religious tensions.

Actually, many critics come towards the school and education institutions in general as they are giving no chance to change the social status. Besides, the school is becoming the area of the conflict based on religious or ethic means. These conflicts show the different perceptions of the role of the school by diverse groups and the incapacity of the “republican school” to satisfy the needs of the new generation.

In actual French education system, there is an increasing need for education oriented schools. Parents leaving their children to the sake of society do not easily perceive its absence. Children have “individually” organized study programmes which are based under the stronger parental academic control. When it comes to immigrants or parents with low degree studies who can’t transmit necessary knowledge and control, it becomes clear that children are going towards fiasco. Therefore, parents are surprised to see their kids having not being necessarily educated, nor academically fit in spite of studying for several years at school.

It is no more surprising when we find some Muslim parents sending their children to Catholic schools in the search of the better education and qualification. The purpose is to avoid the risks and giving their children good moral education. However, Catholic schools are also known well for their academic success that means parents prefer them not for being religious but effective. One can go to Christian University of Paris to search for Christianity, but he/she find that the majority of the students are there not for Christianity, but the quality of higher education. Parents trust these schools, whereas the trust to “republican school” is diminishing especially in certain districts.

Today’s France is a multicultural, multi ethnic and multi religious society. Although major political drive tries to keep ancient identity vision, they are aware of the need of reforms in very transforming society. The best reforms go through the education, as it is better and easier to educate the younger than the older one. France and Russia resemble much in their vision of society, central governance and actually more and more multi ethnic society. The experience of Gülen schools in Russia may be tempting for French educators in search of rapid reforms in nowadays.

[1] Thomas Michel, S.J. «Islamic Modernities: Fethullah Gülen and Contemporary Islam», p.1

[2] Agai, B «Discursive and Organizational Strategies of Gülen Movement» p.3

[3] Thomas Michel, S.J. «Islamic Modernities: Fethullah Gülen and Contemporary Islam», p.6

[4] In fact, the word «madrasa» which is the same as «medersa», «madrasah», «medrese» literally means “a place where learning/teaching is done”. However, by the time this word lost its original meaning and stands for ancient schools which existed before establishing republican regime in Turkey. Therefore, people refer directly to Qur’anic school once they use the word «madrasa».

[5] Hermansen.M, «Understanding of Community within the Gülen Movement», p.9

[6] Zaman, 28-02-2007

[7] Zaman, 22-09-2006

[8] Cennet Engin Demir, Ayse Balci, Fusun Akkok «The rôle of Turkish schools in the educational system and social transformations of Central Asian countries: the case of Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan», Central Asian Survey (2000), 19 (1), p.151

[9] Hurriyet 19.01.1998

[10] Zaman (08/01/2007)

[11] Fethullah Gülen «The Necessity of Interfaith dialogue : A Muslim Approach», p.30

[12] Nelson, C «Fethullah Gülen, A Vision of Transcendent Education», p. 4

[13] Ali Unal «Fethullah Gülen : Bir Portre Denemesi», p. 272

[14] ibid

[15] Values and Post-Soviet Youth. The Problems of Transition, p. 166

[16] Sabah, 22.01.1998

source: http://en.fgulen.com/conference-papers/peaceful-coexistence/2521-peaceful-muslimnon-muslim-co-existence-in-a-secular-context

The word “Islam” literally stems from the root “s-l-m” and the words “silm” and “salamah” which mean peace, and which indicate the “submission” or ’surrender” of oneself to God Almighty, being obedient to His commands, embarking on a safe and secure path that leads to salvation, promising a sense of trust to everyone [...]]]> by Fethullah Gulen

The word “Islam” literally stems from the root “s-l-m” and the words “silm” and “salamah” which mean peace, and which indicate the “submission” or ’surrender” of oneself to God Almighty, being obedient to His commands, embarking on a safe and secure path that leads to salvation, promising a sense of trust to everyone and everything, while also denoting the fact that the person surrendering will not inflict any harm on others, be it physical or verbal.

The basis of Islam is “iman” and “iz’an”, that is, faith, and conscious obedience. The fruits of Islam are “ihsan” (blessings) and “ihklas” (sincerity), that is acting or living as if seeing God, and doing everything only for the sake of God Almighty. The concept of Islam can be briefly summarized as the unconditional and doubtless belief of the “Tawhid”, the Unity of God, and His divine Existence, and the submission of the self to Him. Also included in this, are the performance of every act and the responsibility of acting as if one sees Him, and is observed by Him, and doing everything only for His sake. A person who acts according to these or to similar descriptions is called a “Muslim” (not an Islamist). Such a person is accepted as a candidate to eternal prosperity.

Based on the messages of God Almighty, and the teachings and practices of His prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, Islam is a Divine religion. A person who believes and practices Islam is called a “Mu’min” and a “Muslim” (one who has faith, and who has submitted). Scholars have described Islam as “the sum of all divine laws that urge people to do good deeds with their freewill and consciousness.” Hence, if such a dynamic system can be practiced in life, then its fruits will become obvious in this world and in the hereafter. On the contrary, when this system is expelled from life, then it is not easy to find anything positive to say about religion.

From the perspective of language, there is a fine distinction between “iman” and “Islam”, that is, faith and submission. However, it is a strongly believed that Islam without faith (iman), and faith (iman) without Islam (submission and/or actions) are incomprehensible. Faith is the interior, and Islam is the physical expression of this faith that constitutes the exterior. Their union makes the Divine Religion, which establishes all aspects of faith and practice in this life (iman and Islam). A person who practices and who accordingly represents this religion can only be called a Muslim. From this perspective, those who consider religion to be no more than a system of beliefs, and those who only practice it culturally without understanding the deeper meanings, are mistaken. It is obvious that both groups have been and will be left bereft of the fruits of this religion, fruits promised by the Lord, in this and in the next world.

Surprisingly, however, to consider the practice of Islam as being part of the faith would be another mistake. Although those who believe that the practice of the faith is compulsory, but still fail to fulfill their duties are sinners, they are still Mu’min (one who has faith). Such thought does not conflict with the Sunni understanding of Islam, because not worrying about committing sins is very different from saying “To punish or not to punish is God’s decision”. According to the Qur’an, faith is an essential part of the religion, lying in its very core, while Islam is the only way to make faith a part of human nature. Practice without faith is hypocrisy, faith without practice is sin (transgression). As hypocrisy is no more than hidden blasphemy, it will not be forgiven, but it is possible for sins to be forgiven through repentance. In this respect, even if someone does not practice Islam, we should have a good opinion of them and not see those people as non-believers, unless they undermine or express that they do not care about Islam. Yet, it is not possible to think in the same way for those who are faithless, and oppress and despise other believers for being Muslims. An additional point that needs to be addressed here is the importance of being steadfast in one’s religion, carrying out all the aspects of faith and its practice, this is what God seeks in believers.

To be a truthful Muslim, one should avoid all kinds of hypocrisy and acts of blasphemy; one should surrender to God with utmost sincerity, and practice Islam with a consciousness of being in His presence and being watched by Him. It is disrespectful to think of religion only as a matter of conscience and mysticism. Those who seemingly accept Islam – God is always aware of the truth of the situation – yet proclaim that the practice of religion is a form of extremism, are deceiving themselves with empty illusions and they are posing as devout Muslims. Subjective and immoral interpretations of Islam turn it into a man-made religion, not a divine religion. In fact, Islam was sent down to save people from their own selves, the self that follows only human desires, and to enlighten people with the knowledge of God. In other words, Islam is collection of divine rules and revelations that raises human beings above the level of the animals, and which prepares them for the journey to the comforting climate of the heart and the spirit. The spirit of this system is Iman (faith), its body is Islam (submission), its perception Ihsan (consciousness of His presence), and the name of this unique order is Din, Islam (submission).

Islam addresses those who are intellectually capable, urging them to do what is good for both this and the next life through their own freewill, promising eternal contentment to those who heed this call. The position of believers is not one of being oppressed by responsibilities and obligations. All blessings, prosperity and enduring joy are bound together with the free will of humanity by God’s Knowledge, Will and Choce. In the same way religion and the responsibilities entailed are a favor and a tribute given to human will by the Divine Will. From this aspect, Islam is totally different than other religious systems; the manners of Islam are divine, and the expression of this is servitude. Those to whom Islam is being addressed are intellectually capable, and they possess freewill, as already stated; they try to practice the religion of God, and also try to be representatives of it. It is also possible to think of religion as a gift from God to those who are capable; those who are mentally incapable and who are not free in their actions cannot be held responsible for religious obligations, and they are not privileged as others are as they cannot be encouraged to do good.

As this religion has been sent by the All-Knowing God, He Who best knows His creation, it always shows the way to the truth, to good deeds, and it encourages hearts with promises of paradise. On the other hand, it also urges people to be cautious and warns them of terrible consequences if they go astray. In this context, the commandments of the religion are everlasting, constant, and relevant to the date, because these edicts are eternal. Despite the fact that all systems are subject to becoming irrelevant and out-of-time, the commandments of Islam are always new, and attractive. Yet, there are some biased people who do not perceive this truth. This is not surprising, as all man-made decrees are subjective, and they all differ from country to country, and fall out of step with time, due to continuous amendment that is made on an ad hoc basis; such systems provide only a temporary relief to the problems of humanity, due to the limited perception of humanity of itself.

On the contrary, Islam has been revealed with messages that deal with all kinds of matters and that provide satisfaction for the eternal and never-ending needs of humanity. It has never asked or suggested anything that goes against human nature, and has never neglected any of our needs or desires. For those who are mindful and righteous, there are no issues that have been neglected, no doubts or desires that go unanswered, and there are no conflicts between the commandments of the religion and their practical meaning, nor are there any gaps or issues that have not been taken in hand. On the whole, Islam, with its eternal messages and glad tidings about how to please and see the Lord in the hereafter, has been uniquely and divinely planned to suit human nature, its capabilities, goals, and tendencies.

Living an Islamic life, one benefits from the lawful bounties of this world, spending all one’s years full of the joy of walking the corridors that lead to paradise and the eternal blessings of He Who Bestows. In addition to all of this, if a person can live his/her life totally concentrating on pleasing God, which is the essence of religion, then this person can be considered as being of the rank of the angels. The decrees made by humanity are limited, and are usually race and ethnicity oriented; these can never be an answer to the limitless and never-ending needs and desires of humanity. God is the Creator and the All-Knowing, and this religion is His decree given to mankind for this world. All other man-made systems are of limited vision and are short-sighted in their awareness, and their spirituality is always hazy.

Islam, the true religion, is a unique order that never misleads and a divine source that opens new earthly and heavenly prospects for human beings. This divine system is called “religion” from the perspective of belief, “shariah” from the perspective of actions, and “community” from the perspective of social functions. Primarily, all actions and activities occur according to the belief system, and social life is shaped according to this behavior, these actions and activities. For this reason, believers, who have solid faith and who make their faith a part of their character, continuously practicing it, are sources of truth, justice and fairness; such a person is trustworthy, a representative of high morality, a seeker of knowledge and wisdom, and is loyal to the sacred call of religion. Such a faithful believer would also actively participate in working toward the perfection of human society.

Faithful Muslims, who are conscious of their religion, whose practices are in line with the divine commandments, whose hearts are always connected to their Lord, and whose actions reflect this relation with the Divine, will never be deceived, nor will such people be in a position of servitude to any other human being. Such Muslims are always aware of their relationship with this exalted community, and thus are self-confident; they reflect this assurance, and are distinctive in their behavior. They love, show sympathy, and deep respect for all the created things because of the Creator. They prevent themselves from performing base and simplistic actions that are not compatible with the honor of being human; they are above the others in their faith, wisdom, and actions. While doing all of the above, believers are never proud or arrogant, they never push or force others to accept their philosophy or way of life. Aware of the fact that Islam never causes repugnance, they accept everyone as they are, and instead of trying to push their ideas on others, they are adorned with true faith, trying to represent their religion flawlessly, and being one of those who are admired by those around. Yet, they are not seeking the admiration of others; they do everything for the sake of their Exalted God, thinking only of His approval in their everyday speech, behavior, and thought; such people are never “ostentatious”, considering this as little better than a virus infecting and killing the heart and spirituality.

As a matter of fact, Islam did not come to oppress the minds or the will of humanity, but rather it was sent to prevent such oppression and tyranny on the part of human beings, hence urging people to use their minds and their intellects alongside their freewill to make new choices. This was exactly how things were at the time when Islam was being fully practiced; its majestic spiritual charm never needed any mind games or tricks, nor was hidden or explicit cruelty accepted. Deeds were the language that Islam used to reach the heart, words were used to explain the details. Words were used as a tool to address the conscience, words that encourage good and prohibit evil were the means; physical enforcement was not used. Islam does not approve of enforced faith (this is against the nature of the religion), nor does it accept any practice or deed which is not oriented around the pleasing of God. According to Islam, enforced faith is hypocrisy, and such deeds are no more than showing off. The Qur’an strictly forbids oppression in faith, as can clearly be seen in this verse “There is no compulsion in religion. True guidance is distinct from error (Al-Bakara 256).” Islam exists to prevent all kinds of hypocrisy and disbelief, and to hinder those who want to show-off. All of these facts in no way contradict the persistent behavior of a believer in the expression and establishment of the Truth.

As long as there is an opportunity, Islam will address the minds and souls of humanity, saving them from hypocrisy and leading them to the truth by the perfect example of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), lighting the true faith and belief in their hearts, and equipping them with an awareness of God’s presence everywhere and eternally. This kind of behavior is nothing more than the result of the acceptance of the message of Muhammad (pbuh).

The message proclaimed by the last prophet (the Messenger) Muhammad (pbuh) is the final and complete divine message, and it is the most reliable, trustworthy path leading to God Almighty. If this religion cannot express itself very clearly nowadays, the fault lies in that it is not only being perceived incorrectly, but it is also not being depicted in the best possible manner by those who follow Islam. Nevertheless, we do not think that this situation will stay forever as it is. When the time is right, Islam will re-express itself in every stage of life and it will entrance mankind with its joyful colors and patterns once again.

When this community of Islam notices that once again they are renowned and their name has been given to them by God (according to a verse in the Qur’an, “God is the one who gave the name Muslim to you and to those before you”) they will be impressed, saying “How Exalted, how Beneficial our Lord is” and turn their faces towards Him; they will submit to His wisdom.

Islam is an invitation that expresses the religions that came before it. As materialist and naturalist philosophies have became too energetic, the containment of this divine message has also meant that all other religions are defeated by those dangerous and terrifying ideologies. Islam is the protector of the true faith. Since every other prophet in the past proclaimed the same messages, Islam is a point of support, and acts as evidence for the other heavenly religions. Thus, to revive Islam means revitalizing the other heavenly religions, correcting those points that are erroneous, maybe even partially revising some points that are in need of repair and providing new ideas for the believers of other religions. I personally believe that all of the above are possible and the fact that all heavenly religions come from the same source is a great advantage in this direction.

The Fountain, January-March 2004, Issue 45

source: http://en.mfethullahgulen.info/recent-articles/1718-a-brief-overview-of-islam.html

Erkan Toguslu

22 November 2007

Reflections on European Multiculturalism, Islam and Peaceful Coexistence: Tariq Ramadan and Fethullah Gülen

Abstract

The Islamic scholars Fethullah Gülen and Tariq Ramadan are two major personalities whose ideas and views are admired and valued by the Muslim community, especially its younger generations, in Europe. These two thinkers are calling for a better understanding [...]]]> by

Erkan Toguslu

22 November 2007

Reflections on European Multiculturalism, Islam and Peaceful Coexistence: Tariq Ramadan and Fethullah Gülen

Abstract

The Islamic scholars Fethullah Gülen and Tariq Ramadan are two major personalities whose ideas and views are admired and valued by the Muslim community, especially its younger generations, in Europe. These two thinkers are calling for a better understanding of civilizational and religious pluralism, a moderate way of practising Islam, and the coexistence of different ethnic and religious affiliations. Their ideas promote universal human rights, tolerance and forgiveness among European peoples in contexts marked by mistrust, intolerance and fear. The assassination of Theo van Gogh, the Pope’s lecture in Regensburg, the ‘cartoons affairs’, revealed the heightening of tensions and how much European multicultural societies are in need peaceful voices to reduce the misunderstandings that create fearful communities on the brink of open hostilities. Both these scholars affirm the role of democracy, and speak out against terrorism, racism, Islamophobia and prejudice, and in favour of cultural pluralism. This paper analyses the circulation of their ideas among the younger generation, their education and dialogue initiatives, and the cassettes of lectures that have opened up a space where ideas about human civic responsibility, democracy, citizenship, pluralism, dialogue and tolerance can take root.

1. Introduction

In recent years questions take on particular importance between Muslims and western societies that these issues not only lead Muslims to reformulate things but also the interaction between Islam and Europe in spaces, discursive parallel arenas as describes Frazer, [399] and The nature of Muslim’s presence in Europe is changing and we cannot identify Europeans Muslim temporary guest worker. Göle notes that the interpenetration and interaction make close West and East, Islam and Europe and give the new challenges. [400] As a result of this new phenomena, Islam cannot only still link to Arabs, Turks, Pakistanis, it becomes as a European phenomena. Muslims are now permanent part of Western civilization, however the history of relations between Europe and Islam is dated till 7th century, begun with conquest of Spain by Omayyad’s and from east the Turkish pressure, but this presence is obviously limited and did not touch the whole Europe. The phenomena of growing Muslim presence in Europe is a new phenomena, is looked with new visibility like as Muslim headscarf, Muslim schools, market, the everyday life practices. In major European capital cities, the Muslim population’s presence and visibility is clearly seen. The demographical aspect, the increase of later, the existence of different ethnics Muslims among European societies are dealing with coexistence, plurality, integration, terrorism, democracy, the ability of habits and manners in public life and nowadays Islam and Muslim actors through their visibility and demands shape European mind and history. They take part the symbolic role in definition of European identity by creating new debates and challenges that Europe faces today as the relation between state and religion, the place of sacred in the common public sphere, the collective European identity. The Muslim factor is not only considered a geographical and demographical terms, the new dimension in a multicultural Europe offer a range of opportunities containing new challenges for new Europe. Europe’s engagement with enlightenment is not achieved; this communal project is continued as a response inherited with intellectual, practical of Islamic-Muslim occurrence. Nevertheless, the new issues relating the place of religion, especially Islam in Europe, the western societies seem to pursue a closer Union. The debate issue Turkish membership candidate mention us this question; the political and religious tolerance, European identity, the relation between sacred and profane.

Multiple face of Islam, even ethnic diversity, cleavages due sociopolitical and generational differences, is at the core of the institution of Islam en Europe. Europe’s Muslims is divided in several groups and don’t form a monolithic group.[401] New young Muslim generation choose to identify themselves with their country in which they live and raise, prefer to speak in French, English or Dutch. The emergence of Islamic identities with national local loyalty is reinforced and enhanced by schooling, working.

Bayat remarks the shift from the discourse of politicization of Islam to personal pietism, ethics after 11 September terrorists attacks.[402] In this new period of accentuation on pietism and on ethic, the new Islamic faces in challenging with ancient discourses. Gülen’s and Ramadan’s views, their typology and portrait as new pioneer of Islam in secular context remain us the shifting of pioneers of Islamic thinkers and thinking. The emergence of new personalities is quiet different in terms of the evaluation of the West, nationalization, ijtihad, coexistence between non Muslims while the first generation like Mawdudi, Al-Banna emphasizes on anti imperialism and against westernization, the second group of Islamic intellectuals speak about the coexistence between East and West, the pluralism, the democracy and human rights.

2. Making of Muslim Youth and the New Islamic Intellectuals: Speaking for Western Muslims

After a traditional Islamic education in eastern medreses and mosque school, he continued his formation at secular school. This was fallowed the official preacher in Religious affairs. Gülen makes speak about him since the nineties when he was appeared in public secular sphere during the interfaith dinner organized by the journalist and writer foundation affiliated Gülen movement.[403 ]These dinners contribute gathering people from various religious, political and ideological identities. Since 1998, he lives a voluntary exile in the United States after laics pressure. His close relations with political leaders, his charisma, and his sermons eloquent make him surfer on the media. As a matter of fact, his sphere of activity should have increased over the past years. He shows a capacity to adopt his discourses and speeches in variable secular context, having a talent to fascinate his supporters, spreading among the young university students and businessman. Fascinating people by his tears during his sermons, his ability to contact and circulate his message reveals new Islamic intellectual character shaped Islamic discourse and emotional aspect that form his spiritual dimension. Raised in conservative pious family, received religious education and secular teaching, acquiring these two spheres, offer him the possibility to speak about different themes. After secular project and forced laicization and modernization by the new rulers of Turkish Republic which deligitimate and decline the ulama’s powers replaced by the new bureaucrates elites whose formation is culturally and socially differentiate. On this point, Özdalga notes:

“(Gülen) adopts a solid, conventional Hanafi/Sunni understanding of the religious traditions. So it does not seem to be the content of the religious interpretation as such, but the very existence of a new relatively strong group, filled with religious fervor and claiming a place in the public arena that annoys the establishment in Turkey radical margins who see this as a threat to their ideology.”[404]

His profile is closer to the alim-arif typology. Gaborieau indicates “oulema-soufi” type that is seen in the same character.[405] A heuristic glance at Gülen’s works and speeches enable us to define him as arif-alim who gather two poles which are called zahiri (exoteric) and batini (esoteric). Gülen plays the double role and figure: arif and alim, spiritual and rational, the sacred and the profane. This two figures intermingle in an extricable way as noting Watt that many soufis were retired from this world, at the same time a great astonishing number of Sufis were lawyer, Muslim scholars, scientist like Al-Qusahyri, on of the great personage soufi at his time, was a shafite lawyer. [406]

Gülen’s sermons are marked by a strong emotion, sacred tears which accompany pain and psychic state that encourages the cry of people who are present in his sermon. Through this emotional aspect relating with esoteric style of interpretation of Qur’an, in various subjects, Gülen refers a spiritual knowledge (marifa), is pointed out. He emphasizes this sufistic way of interpretation, while Ramadan’s discourse is outlined by an academic critical position and scholar’s approach, Gülen develops a language shaped sufistic idioms, narrations.

Ramadan was born in Geneva, a Swiss Muslim. His grandfather Hasan al-Banna was the founder of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his father was also is a figure in that community and exiled to Switzerland. He studied philosophy, French literature, social scinces and Islamic studies. He is an advisor in many governments and teaching in many universities as a visiting professeur. His works emphasize on Islamic studies, theology and European Muslims and he endeavors the reinterpretation of Islam on many issues.

Ramadan’s use of fluent English and French is very influent on young Muslims. Ramadan wants to penetrate in European public sphere via political critics, his Islamic talent and capacity. He uses a political language which is not contradictory to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This critical and reactionary language and discourse is different from the Gülen’s discourse which is not protest. While Gülen’s discourse outlines the moral values to the fulfillment of Muslim’s morality through the formation of ethical principles and he opposes to violence, thus the main aim is to develop the inner life of all Muslims, in Ramadan’s writings we see the critical approach which is result of his scholar background.

The controversial multifaced discourse of Gülen and Ramadan is hard to analyze and classify, so people call them ‘double faced’, ‘making takiyya’, ‘having a hidden agenda’, ‘hypocrite’.[407] One claims that they threaten the universal democratic values, human rights by hiding their real identity and strategy concerning islamization of people. To followers, they are man of dialogue and Islamic reformer who want to reformulate Islamic issues dealing with new questions in secular world. Both of them refused that they are called islamist. Their reflects about putting a distance vis-à-vis islamists and political Islam are lacking in their approach.

The Europe and Occident is major theme seens in his writings. He believed that the crusades, European colonialism had influenced Muslim community and Westernization have a deep impact on Muslim societies.

This appearance of a new charismatic leader testifies in modern society where secular orientation is dominant in cultural, political and scientific fields. They push their faith oriented views in hosted societies and Muslim’s daily life. Among the secular elites and intellectuals, the modern Islamic figures are raised and a new style of Muslim intellectual emerged. These new could be identified authentically Islamic and ” a continuation of the radical tajdid tradition in Islam. In practice, they built on the accomplishments of the early Islamic modernists and the new-style Muslim associations. but at the same time, went far beyond the traditionalism of the remaining conservative ulama establishment.”[408]

Thus Fethullah Gülen and Ramadan assume this role of old traditional ulema left by the secular politics and they represent an orthodox modern Islam. In turkey, at the end of Ottoman Empire, this new Islamic corps appears and starts from Tanzimad period marked by young ottomans who are identified as bureaucrats-ulemas. [409]
3. Ijtihad and Islamic Renaissance

Ijtihad is an important element of renewal in Islamic history and tradition through which the ulema play a crucial role to determine the needs in modern time. [410] They speak about Islamic renaissance in Muslim world that the Muslim generation need to develop consisting the rediscovery of human values and morals, knowledge, fine arts, religious thought in a new manner. Gülen says:

“We are in search of an awakening of reason, as well as of heart, spirit and mind. Yet, if it possible to assume a harvest fruits of efforts and works resulting from this.”[411]

Thus, Islamic renaissance in modern world give intellectual rebirth. Beside his positive approach to the reformulation and a new way to understand Islamic interpretation, he outlines some of the hindrances and the reasons why ijtihad have been forgotten and was lost: “political oppression, inner struggles, the misuse of the institution of ijtihad, an extreme trust in the present legal system, the denial of reform, the blindness caused by the dominant monotonous present system of the time.” He says also that the door of ijtihad has never been closed. After saying some reasons why the door of ijtihad was considered closed, Gülen expects a great revival of religion and religiosity in Islamic world.

The similar motivation is claimed and formulated in Ramadan’s writings. He described an open mind and tolerant Islam promotes enlightenment of Muslim world. Referring the European Muslim is understood as a way of Modern Islam. He notes a reflexive approach to interpret and reconstruct Islamic knowledge. “a new, positive and constructive posture which relies on a fine comprehension of Islam’s priorities, a clear vision of what is absolute definitively fixed and what is subject to change and adopting “[412]

We took the example of ijtihad and the question of dar al-harb and dar al-islam that are reformulated by Gülen and Ramadan to understand how they apply Islamic knowledge on modern not only theological, also social and cultural issues. In western societies, this traditional binary formulation does not respond Muslims demands.

On this issue, Gülen uses term of dar al-hizmet which is an “intention to serve Islam by presenting good example, then one or she has to obey the lex loci, to respect others’ rights and to be just, and has to disregard discussions of dar al-harb and dar al-Islam.”[413]
Before giving his reflection on ijtihad on this issue, Ramadan identifies the essential elements of Muslim personality and identity.[414] His treatment and analyze on Muslim personality serve us why he supports a renewal on this binary opposite conception. The first element is faith and spirituality which is manifested in several cases by practice that is the second element. Practices perform Muslim’s faith like praying, fasting. Thirdly, the protection of human being based on respect and toleration that provide the recognition of humankind. Freedom is also indicated as an important element. The fifth element is based on participation on social affairs which means, for Ramadan, to act in favor of his society and environment. The analysis of this five elements of muslim blooming identity goes alongside with rights and responsibility. The European arena appears a land and a space within which Muslims can profess their faith; participate in social affairs, in which Muslim take care the social and political responsibility. Ramadan emphasizes on Fiqh and Islamic tradition to find a way to preserve the Muslim’s spirituality and identity.

He does not refer to the notion of dar (abode) and this old binary geographical representation. In Ramadan’s formulation, Western societies have a crucial role and a specific space which leads Muslims to express their faith and Islamic message. Muslims enforce to create in this new space “to avoid reactive and overcautious attitudes and to develop a feeling of self-confidence, based on a deep sense of responsibility.”[415]

The treatise of complexity of sciences in contemporary context remains main hindrance, Ramadan argues that ijtihad is the most important instrument to reinterpretation et reconstruction of Islam. [416 ]Ramadan urges the necessity of ijtihad in specific situation, giving example Muslim Europeans, dealing with the participation of women in public life, the distinguish of geographical boundaries as dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, foods, mosques, cemeteries, hospitals, schools, headscarf which have occupied detailed points of European Muslim’s life.

The debate on definition Muslim land and non-muslim land based an old conception and thought which, in Ramadan’s views, is not sufficient to draw out the dilemma of binary vision of world. Applying this binary model is a methodological mistake that increase the complexity of problem.[417 ] Thus, Ramadan discusses old conceptions in new context examining their ability and utility in new political, economical and social issues.

Identified three observations, the westernization as a model and closed lies between Muslim and European countries, Muslim generation who live in western societies and the time of diversity and complexity which prevent a simplistic vision, force to find the required way and solution to act with accordance Muslim’s belief and with environment. The internalization of matter pushes to Muslim leaders and scholars to debate not only Islamic issues, but to intend coexistence among variable thoughts.

Contrary some ulama who accept that the old distinguish of dar al-islam and dar al-harb is still relevant and exist, like Hizb at-Tahrir movement or Tabligh movement in Europe who defend applying of this classification following literally, Gülen and Ramadan are in favor of reformulation, at least they are calling redebate on this concepts.

After discussed the traditional appellations, Ramadan suggest the concept of shada (testimony) which seems him more applicable in a global period, which permits Muslims to participate and involve in their society.

“This shahada is not only a matter of speech. A Muslim is the one who believes and acts consequently and consistently. “Those who attain to Faith and do good works”, as we read in the Qur’an, stresses the fact that the shahada has an inevitable impact on the actions of the Muslim whatever society he/she lives in. To observe the shahada signifies being involved in the society in all fields where need requires it: unemployment, marginalization, delinquency, etc. This also means being engaged in those processes which could lead to a positive reform of both the institutions and the legal, economic, social and political system in order to bring about more justice and a real popular participation at grassroots level.”[418]

In this sense, referring to term shada, Ramadan is overlapping the ancient forms of binary opposition to demonstrate a further overture for Muslims.

Analyzing and classifying on conditions and qualities required to become a mujtahid and to make an ijtihad, Ramadan’s position is rather opaque then Gülen’s, nevertheless Gülen does not claim that the gate of ijtihad is have been closed.

4. European Islam and Citizenship

Muslims who have grown up in Western Europe, themselves think about the implication of their faith and daily practice which continue to form theirs lives and it is evident that Muslims face with issues, thus they research new approach for their questions to exit increasingly deeply about their dilemma: between European and Muslim.[419] It is not only an identity and

So called faith based movement, Gülen movement seeks to escape the minority status and isolation of Muslim in Western societies. In last years, Gülen’s followers who inspired his ideas, establish non denominational educational and dialogue activities all around world. Creating private schools, foundations and organizing intercultural activities are serving to make connection between Muslims and non Muslim. Gülen encourages hi followers and sympathizers to achieve the exemplarity of god Muslim, being devote and ascetic in their daily life. The essential element of integration used by the movement is education. Although these schools do not give religious courses, the essential orientation is based on the teaching of ethics[420]. Gülen stresses on education inspired an “ethical vision rooted in Islam but not limited in its expression to sympathizers of the umma (community).”[421] The Gülen’s inspired schools’ education style aims to respond the question of how to generate an ethical human with common values. Teaching is considered a holy duty[422] to achieve the finality to demonstrate the right way of ethical dimension of life with daily conduct as many scholars indicate the methods applied in schools. [423] Many scholars, like Balci and Michel, note that the coexistence of pupils comes from different religious, ethnic origins.[424] The choice of secular education rather than religious Qur’anic school mainly is adopted in Gülen’s inspired schools to find common spaces with host society which provide an enormous impact to diminish Muslim’s profiles in western context. Ramadan says that his first aim is reconciliation between two sides, firstly Muslims can profess their faith and loyal to the secular principles and he wants to show the comptability of Islam and Muslim ethics in secular western societies.[425] Thus, Muslims become an actor in public space where people bring common to debate and formulate a common good. Muslim identity operates in publicly through their demands with construction of spaces, visibility.

5. Civility That Matters

Muslim actors participate in western social imaginary giving new debates. The presence of Islam is shaping secular modern life and practices through the visibility of body, discourse. Penetrating in public sphere, they create inconvenient asymmetric relations[426] and they are seeking to perform their manners and habits in Europeanization process. Muslims in Western Europe is confronted; firstly; they immersed deeply in a secularized societies. Paralell of the loose of structuring capacity of the religion, Islam take his part in this secularized situation and paradoxically religious feelings are recombined and manifested in terms of enthusiasm, emotion.[427] Secondly, the visibility of Muslim community in public sphere create the challenge which faced Muslims of western societies, or in Europe, the dominant religious and cultural figure is Christianity, even with his plurality in different forms.

In this sense, Gülen movement certainly contribute Muslim’s assertion with their own distinctiveness, it is not an assimilations and symmetric project of modernization. Inspired by the Sufistic terminology, the followers elaborate a language to strengthen their good conduct. One is an ascetic body, consciously or unconsciously, that affects one’s acts such as eating, drinking, going to bed and getting up, talking and keeping silent, remaining in solitude or with people. Fashioned and displayed, the ascetic adab rules govern everyday life of the believers. The pleasure in this world is considered ephemeral and the followers do not pursue the hedonism because they believe that they are sent to this world to enhance his devotion and seek God’s contentment. He has the idea that he will not stay for a long time here in this world for the reason that the essential duty is in the terrestrial world, therefore, it is necessary to move away from cheerfulness, joy, and temporary happiness to live the eternal life. The hedonism kills the idealism of the sympathizers. Against the hedonism, the sympathizers follow the value of altruism which Gülen regards as the criteria of life according to the ideal man which requires the effort of follower as developing the detachment from the pleasure and seductive needs, except that the intellectual and aesthetic dimension is allowed and accepted.428 Ramadan remarks profession of faith in secular modern world that makes matter.

“The public space has become non-religious, if not sometimes anti-religious, and growing numbers of Believers find it difficult to face this situation. the power of attraction of the public sphere, with its “sacred values” founded on individualism, money and entertainment is so powerful and efficient that it seems illusory to imagine that any kind of resistance might be possible.”[429]

Gülen’s and Ramadan views as a third way, via dialog, affect the problem between sacred and religious that is considered a secularization on Muslims practices and faith.

6. A Possible Peaceful Coexistence

The picture of Islam presented via events, the political situation, and manipulation raise the prejudices and meta-discourse about Islam, binary against western societies and Muslims.[430] To involve and prevent from this manipulation, Muslim should admit in loyal field to protect theirs rights and have a consistent dialogue with their neighbours, so Muslims can to modify the negative image of Islam. Gülen’s inspired dialogue and educational activities serve the recognition of Muslims in host society. [431]

Gülen encourages interfaith dialogue among different representants of religions. In his early publication of The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue, he demonstrates his interest and commitment to interfaith dialogue. In Turkey and via dialogue foundations, he establishes a major force in dialogue. His writings and encouragement, concern set out the principles for his followers to participate in dialogue and social action. He is e mentor, nevertheless lacking a scholar approach to the study of comparative religions, his argument produce a practical aspect to a response for the difficulties of his engagement, provides the critics of nationalist and conservators. [432]

In terms of human responsibility which is seen to transcending theological and civilizational differences and a realization of studying on common good, his endeavour remarks the notion of civility logic.[433] He presumes that the people whatever his faith, race and nation, have much in common and forgot the ancient misunderstanding and conflicts. He invites to debate and find solution against poverty, environment questions, and undeniable human rights. This civic logic contains to involve in society, diminish the borders with others.

Ramadan also urges that it is becoming urgent that Muslims rediscover the power of unity not only between Muslims and it is not sufficient but he remarks the urgent of engagement in dialogue and collaboration with others. But at least, he emphasizes the intra community dialogue.[434]

endnotes: [399] Nancy Fraser,. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, Craig Calhoun, (ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992, pp. 109-142.

[400] Nilüfer Göle, Interpénétrations. L’Islam et l’Europe, Paris, Galaade Editions, 2005

[401] Leïla BABES, L’islam positif. La religion des jeunes musulmans de France, Editions de l’Atelier, Paris, 1997.

[402] Asef Bayat, “Piety, Privilege and Egyptian Youths”, ISIM Newsletter 10, July 2002.

[403] For more information see www.gyv.org.tr

[404] Özdalga, “Redeemer or Outsider? The Gülen Community in the Civilizing Process”, in Islam in Contemporary Turkey: The Contributions of Fethullah Gülen, The Muslim World, V. 95, N. 3, 2005, p. 441

[405] Marc Gaborieau et Malika Zeghal, «Autorités religieuses en islam», Archives de sciences sociales des religions, 125 (2004) Autorité religieuses en islam, p. 7 and Ahmet Turan Alkan, “Entellektüel ile Arifin Kesisme Noktasi”, in Ufuk Turu, op.cit, p. 202-203

[406] W. Montgomery Watt, Muslim Intellectual, A study of al-Ghazali, Edinburg, Edinburg University Press, 1971, p. 128 www.muslimphilosophy.com/gz/articles/watt-p1.htm

[407] Lionel Favrot, Tariq Ramadan dévoilé, Lyon, Lyon Mag, 2004. Caroline Fourest, Frère Tariq : discours stratégie et méthode de Tariq Ramadan, Paris, Grasset, 2004. For Gülen see Faik Bulut, Kim Bu Fethullah Gülen : Dünü, Bugünü, Hedefi (Who is Fethullah Gülen? His Past, Today and Target), Istanbul, Ozan Yayincilik, 1998 and Hikmet Çetinkaya, Fethullah Gülen’in Kirk Yillik Serüveni (The 40 years adventure of Fethullah Gülen), Istanbul, Günizi Yayincilik, 2004.

[408] John L. Esposito and John O. Voll, Makers of contemporary Islam, New York, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 20

[409] Muhammad Qasim Zaman, The Ulama in Contemporary Islam: custodians of change, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2002

[410] John O. Voll, “Renewal and Reform in Islamic History: Taijdid and Islah”, in Voices of Resurgent Islam, John L. Esposito (edt), New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 32-47, 1983

[411] Gülen, in Muslim World, op. cit., p. 458

[412] Tariq Ramadan, To Be a European Muslim, Leicester, The Islamic Foundation, 1999, p. 101

[413] Ihsan Yilmaz, “Ijtihad and Tajdid by Conduct”, in Turkish Islam and Secular State, The Gülen Movement, M Hakan Yavuz, John L. Esposito (edts), New York, Syracuse University Press, 2003

[414] Ramadan, ibid, pp. 132-134

[415] Ramadan, p. 150

[416] Ramadan, p. 89

[417] Ramadan p. 127

[418] Ramadan, p. 147

[419] Robert J. Pauly, Islam in Europe: Integration or Marginalization? Burlington, VT Ashgate Publishing, 2004.

[420] Bekim Agai, «The Gülen Movement’s Islamic Ethic of Education», in Esposito and Yavuz, op.cit, p. 49

[421] Thomas Michel, “Fethullah Gülen as Educator”, in Esposito and Yavuz (edts), p. 82

[422] Agai, op. cit, p. 58 423 Özdalga, Elisabeth, “Worldly ascetism in islamic casting Fethullah Gülen’s inspired piety and activisms”, in.Critique:Journal for critical studies of the Middle East, n. 17, septembre 2000 and Balci, op.cit, p. 221

[424] Michel, op.cit.

[425] The Christian Science Monitor, 31 October 2006

[426] Göle, op. cit.

[427] Danièle HERVIEU-LEGER, Le pèlerin et le converti. La religion en mouvement, Flammarion, coll. ” Essais “, Paris, 1999 and also Peter L. Berger, The Desecularization of the World, Resurgent Religion in World Politics, Washington, Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1999

[428]Fethullah Gülen, Ikindi Yagmurlari, Istanbul, Gazeteciler ve Yazarlar Vakfi yayinlari, 2006, p. 187

[429] Ramadan, To Be , op. cit, p. 216

[430] Van P.S. Koningsveld and W. Shadid, “The Negative Image of Islam and Muslims in the West: Causes and Solution” in Shadid, W & P.S. van Koningsveld, P.S (eds).Religious Freedom and the Neutrality of the State: The Position of Islam in the European Union. Leuven, 2002, pp. 174-196.

[431] Anne-Sophie Lamine notes that in dialogue activities the main issues debated and the final target is mutual recognition of altérite which play a central role in definition of modern subject. Anne Sophie Lamine, La coexistence des Dieux, Pluralité religieuse et laïcité, Paris, Puf, 2004

[432] Anne-Sophie Lamine, op. cit

[433] Ibid

[434] Ramadan, To Be…, p. 220

source: http://en.fgulen.com/conference-papers/peaceful-coexistence/2503-reflections-on-european-multiculturalism-islam-and-peaceful-coexistence-tariq-ramadan-and-fethullah-gulen.html

At this time when we experience occasions of much sorrow and some contentment, we sense the promise in the advent of Ramadan, the month of mercy and forgiveness. In the climate of this month of light, we feel both spring and autumn at the same time in our inner worlds, seasons of lovely [...]]]> by Fethullah Gulen

At this time when we experience occasions of much sorrow and some contentment, we sense the promise in the advent of Ramadan, the month of mercy and forgiveness. In the climate of this month of light, we feel both spring and autumn at the same time in our inner worlds, seasons of lovely expectations and longing.

With their profound, spiritual breezes, every sound and breath of air in Ramadan announces in a most exalted and exhilarating style all the pleasures we would like to taste in life and the hopes of good we deeply cherish.

Coming like successive rays of light, the smiling days of Ramadan envelop us with the expectations, hopes and joys they carry from the worlds beyond, and preset to us samples from Paradise.

When Ramadan begins, our inner life, its thoughts and feelings, is renewed and strengthened. Breezes of mercy, coming in different wavelengths, unite with our hopes and expectations, and penetrate our hearts. In the enchanting days and illumined nights of Ramadan, we feel as if all the obstacles blocking our way to God are removed and the hills on that way are leveled. Like rain pouring on the earth, Ramadan comes with streams of meanings and emotions that water dried and thirsty hearts, making the inner worlds of people propitious for new meanings and conceptions. By means of the light of the days, hours and minutes of this blessed month, hearts attain such spiritual depth and become so purified that they never desire to leave its climate of peace.

As Ramadan approaches, we live the delight of anticipation and preparation for it. The food and drink that come into our kitchens in the days before it comes, put us in mind of it with a thrill of expectation. And then it comes at last, laden with mercy and forgiveness. As soon as it honours us, each of us finds himself in a spiral of light rising toward the Unknown, Existent One in a new spiritual mood in the night-time and in another, different spiritual mood in daytime. We open our eyes to each of its days with a different solemnity and self-possession, and reach every evening in an enchanting, delightful serenity.

The pleasant nights of Ramadan receive warmest welcome from all souls. Eyes look more deeply in them and people feel deeper love for each other. Everyone desires to do good to everyone and passions and ill-feeling are subjugated to a certain extent. In Ramadan everyone feels so much more attached to God and is so careful in his relations with others that it is impossible not to see this.

Believing souls taste the contentment of belief more deeply and experience the blessing of the good morals. Prescribed by Islam and the spiritual ease of doing good to others. Moreover, they try to expand, to share, this contentment, blessing and ease with others. Since these souls at rest are convinced that one day will come when this life will end in an eternal happiness and whatever they suffer and sacrifice here for God’s sake will be returned with very great reward, they struggle against their animal appetites in a mood of doing an act of worship. The meals they take at sunset to break the fast give them the pleasure of worship and are followed by early night prayer with the addition of the supererogatory service of worship particular to Ramadan. The meals they take before dawn to start fasting are united with supererogatory night prayer (tahajjud) and become a dimension of their nearness to God. Streets are filled with the people going to and returning from mosques, in which declarations of ‘God is the Greatest’ resound as in the Masjid al-Haram in Makka. You would think that the streets are each a mosque and each mosque is Ka’ba. The people shaped by Ramadan in this way, thought mortal in nature, gain a sort of eternity and each of their acts done in the consciousness of deliberate worship becomes a ceremony pertaining to the Hereafter.

Nights are experienced more deeply and in consideration of the afterlife, and days are spent as portions of time dominated by resolution and strong will-power. Those fasting for God’s sake feel a thrill of joy, and spend every and each day in the excitement of a new re-union. They reach every morning in an indescribable feeling as if they were called to a new testing. You can discern on their faces a sign of humility mixed with solemnity, a feeling of nothingness before God together with serenity and seriousness and melancholy combined with a feeling of security. Their every act reflects spiritual peace and exhilaration coming from adherence to God’s will and confidence in Him, and sincerity and kindness acquired by being cleansed in the cascades of the Qur’an. As if created from light and consisting in only their shadows, they are very careful to give no one any harm or trouble. Respect and courtesy are so much a part of their nature that, even after a day of thirst and hunger and resisting their carnal desires, they remain gentle and pure-hearted. They display a mood shaped by fear and reverence, discipline and contentment, solemnity and politeness. They are respectful and reverent toward the Almighty and well-mannered and sincere toward one another.

Their faces and eyes reflect different degrees and dimensions of depth of spiritual realms and are radiant with the lights of the unseen world. Though each individual may have been shaped by a different climate and different ideas, – all of them, including the intelligent and pure-hearted, those used to a disciplined, careful life and those a bit untidy and careless, the nervous and the calm, those very sensitive to problems of the age and those a little unfeeling, the rich and the poor, the happy and sorrowful, the healthy and the ill, the white and black – share almost the same feelings in Ramadan. They reach the night and morning together, listen to the call to prayers and perform the prayers together, take the meals before dawn and break their fasts together. They feel together one of the two instances of rejoicing promised for those who fast. [The Prophet said: There are two instances of rejoicing for one who fasts: one when he will receive the reward of fasting in the Hereafter.]

All Muslims, whatever their nationality or country of origin or temperament or social status or physical state, come together and breathe the same ‘air’ in the climate of Ramadan. In it, their souls are shaped in a way particular to that climate, and they share a sort of deeply-felt happiness which can be experienced only by spirit beings. Ramadan has a fascinating effect on Muslims that leaves its positive imprints on even the souls of the poorest and most oppressed people.

Ramadan envelops us with many beauties: the pleasure in the supererogatory prayers performed after the prescribed night service; consciousness of the blessings of Ramadan; the light that pours on us both from the heaven and from the lights that decorate the mosques; the nearness of the Creative Power and Its message of compassion and forgiveness whispered in our hearts. As if planned and commanded in order to kindle such feelings and thoughts in us, each element of the public rites in Ramadan causes the ’strings’ of our heats to resonate: the calls made from minarets and the blessings called on the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, and the pronouncements of Divine Unity, Grandeur and Glory which resound in our ears, all prepare our souls for worship. They awake us to spiritual and celestial truths and enable even the crudest soul to perform its duties of worship in the way those duties are meant to be performed.

The voices rising from minarets meet with the voices of the inhabitants of the heavens and resound throughout the heavens and the earth. They penetrate our souls and take us through a climate of purest meanings and poetry, a realm of sweet imagination. In this pleasant atmosphere, we feel as if it is Ramadan which pours from the heavens, which is discerned o the faces of people and scents the air and is written in the lights of the mosques. Enchanted by this calm and peaceful atmosphere, we achieve a sort of infinitude and feel as if comprehending the whole of existence. Ramadan captivates particularly those open to eternity to such an extent that they experience nothing else than it.

I remember well that during my childhood when there was as yet no electricity in cities, people walked to mosques with kerosene lamps in the darkness of night. We imagined that Ramadan was walking around in the alleys in the lights of those lamps. Under the influence o poetry, meaning and deep spirituality which Ramadan poured into our souls, we desired that it should never come to an end. Nevertheless, despite our heartfelt desire, it flew away and the festive day followed it with all its pomp.

source: http://en.mfethullahgulen.info/recent-articles/1201-being-shaped-by-ramadan.html

16 August 2010, Monday

A historic mass at the Sümela Monastery in the Black Sea coastal province of Trabzon — a first in republican history — was marked by peace on Sunday contrary to widespread concerns that the religious service would be the target of an act of provocation by Turkish ultranationalists.

Three-thousand Orthodox [...]]]> by FAHRI ÖZTOPRAK

16 August 2010, Monday

A historic mass at the Sümela Monastery in the Black Sea coastal province of Trabzon — a first in republican history — was marked by peace on Sunday contrary to widespread concerns that the religious service would be the target of an act of provocation by Turkish ultranationalists.

Three-thousand Orthodox Christians gathered for the mass at the ancient monastery early in the day, which came after the government allowed a church service to be held there once a year in a gradual loosening of restrictions on religious expression. The mass was officiated by İstanbul-based Fener Greek Patriarch Bartholomew. Pilgrims from Greece, Russia, Georgia and other countries traveled to the monastery, which currently serves as a museum.

The event saw strong reactions by parts of the Turkish media and politicians from ultranationalist parties throughout last week. The reactions led the police force to step up security measures in Trabzon. Security check points helped police to maintain control in the province. No incident occurred there, though. The mass lasted two hours, and was broadcast live by a Greek television station. More than 50 foreign journalists also reported on the event.

Around 500 pilgrims were admitted to the monastery during the mass, and the remaining participants watched the event from large screens set up outside Sümela. After the completion of the mass, Bartholomew offered his thanks to the Ministry of Culture for its efforts to open the monastery for an annual service. He said the opening of the doors of the monastery for the mass was an act of courtesy on the part of the Turkish government.

“We owe this day of worship to our government, which was kind enough to give us permission. We are most thankful as this day [the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos] is sacred not only for believers in the Black Sea region but also for the entire Orthodox and Christian world. We are blessed to celebrate this day here at Sümela,” the patriarch stated.

Bartholomew also expressed the will of the Christian population in Turkey to coexist with Muslim Turks. “The culture of coexistence is a legacy bequeathed to us. Let us make this legacy live and pass it over to younger generations so that no one suffers from problems linked to coexistence. I hope peace and happiness will dominate the Middle East and the Caucasus,” he noted, and wished the Muslim world a happy Ramadan. “I hope all Muslims will observe this day with peace, patience and worship.”

The monastery was abandoned after the foundation of the Turkish Republic and the subsequent population exchange between Turks and Greeks. It has since become a major tourist destination along Turkey’s Black Sea coast.
The government recently accepted Bartholomew’s request to hold this year’s celebration of the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos on Aug. 15 at Sümela Monastery, in line with its stated policy of addressing the issues of religious minorities. Security and lack of access to houses of worship are among the leading problems mentioned by religious minority communities in Turkey and the government has been working to extend the right to pray at sacred sites.

The green light for a mass at the monastery was met with strong protests from local websites and newspapers in Trabzon. A Facebook page by opponents of the event featured articles against the mass and called for action to stop the event. Two individuals were interrogated by police in connection with the protests last week.

For the last few years, Trabzon has been associated with controversial issues, including the killing of an Italian priest. Trabzon’s name has frequently been uttered in connection with the killing of Italian priest Father Andrea Santoro as well as the ongoing trial concerning the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. The 16-year-old boy who killed Santoro in the Santa Maria Church on Feb. 5, 2006, was initially given a life sentence which was then commuted to 20 years in prison due to the perpetrator’s legal status as a minor.
As for the case concerning Dink, he was shot dead outside the offices of the Agos newspaper in İstanbul on Jan. 19, 2007. The lawyers for Dink’s family had applied to the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 and again in 2009, arguing that the Turkish state had not taken precautions to prevent Dink’s murder. They first appealed to the İstanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding seven policemen, including former Trabzon police intelligence chief Engin Dinç and former counterterrorism team head Yahya Öztürk, claiming that the officers had obstructed justice.

Trabzon Governor Recep Kızılcık said Turkey hoped to express its respect for all religions and faiths with the historic mass. “All faiths are precious and sacred to us. With this perspective, the Turkish state allowed the Orthodox world to hold a mass at the Sümela Monastery. What fell on us was to ensure the security and peace of all visitors from inside and outside Turkey,” he noted.

Yesterday’s mass was the fruit of the government’s democratization package, which seeks to broaden individual rights and freedoms in Turkey. The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) decided to include demands voiced by minority groups in its democratization package. Only last year, authorities prevented Greeks and Russians from praying at Sümela, long ago stripped of its official religious status.

source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-219145-peace-marks-historic-mass-at-sumela-monastery.html

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 [...]]]> 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

About a year after the Sept. 11 attacks in the US, the British Home Office published a study on the “fundamental tenets of British citizenship.” The report defined them as “[to] respect human rights and freedoms, uphold democratic values, observe laws faithfully and fulfill our duties and obligations.”

Another report, this time focusing on [...]]]> by Ibrahim Kalin

About a year after the Sept. 11 attacks in the US, the British Home Office published a study on the “fundamental tenets of British citizenship.” The report defined them as “[to] respect human rights and freedoms, uphold democratic values, observe laws faithfully and fulfill our duties and obligations.”

Another report, this time focusing on the “common elements of nationhood,” proposed the following principles: “[A] more visible support for anti-discrimination measures, support for women’s rights, a universal acceptance of the English language … and respect for both religious differences and secular views.” A similar attempt was made in Germany, where “German-ness” was defined along the same lines of liberal democratic values. When looking at this list of civic values, one sees national language as the main difference between being British and German.
This may seem too naïve a definition of national identity in 21st century Europe. What separates a German from a Frenchman or a Turk is more than just language. There is shared history, memory, joy and suffering, blood relations, common ancestry, the home country and so on. But where does this list take us? If we press it too hard in the direction of history and/or ethnicity, we end up with some version of ethnic nationalism, a nationalism that will be exclusive and discriminatory.

How about religion? Religion too plays a significant role in identity formation. We cannot discard Christianity as a fundamental tenet of Western civilization. Even though many secular Europeans would not identify themselves with any particular religious faith or denomination, the historical identity of Europe is shaped by the Greco-Roman tradition, on the one hand, and Christianity on the other. One may also raise the question of Judaism. Is it part of Western identity? For centuries, Jews were not accepted as part of Europe. They have always been present in the history of Europe, but they have hardly been welcomed into the religious and ethnic family of Europe.

But what happens when we push the religious basis of identity too far in a secular age where one’s national identity is defined not by religion or ethnicity but by upholding the basic principles of human rights, equal citizenship and constitutional democracy? Most modern democracies define their code of national citizenship outside and beyond any particular religious and/or ethnic community. Universal human rights and civil liberties do not define individuals and communities on the basis of their religious and ethnic identity.

How do these principles apply to religious minorities and Muslim communities in Europe? A major conference in the German city of Wuppertal near Dusseldorf last weekend was convened to seek answers to this question. The conference was organized by the Islamic Community Milli Görüş (ICMG), a pan-European Turkish-Islamic organization based in Germany. The history of this particular community goes back to the 1970s, when immigrant Turkish communities began to organize themselves as civil society organizations and create intra-Turkish networks in Germany and other European countries with sizeable Turkish communities. Like a dozen other Turkish communities in Europe, the ICMG’s history is also the history of Turks from guest workers to established and organized communities.

After 30-some years of struggle to survive as a community, Turkish Muslims in Germany have changed the old meanings of integration. Most Turks in Germany share the German public space like any other minority group. But the third and now fourth generation of Turks do not see themselves as foreigners, immigrants and certainly not “guest workers.” They are as German as any immigrant generation can be. They speak German better than Turkish. They know German history and culture better than that of their parents. Furthermore, they now live out European values just like any other European. The problem is that even this level of integration is not enough for some cultural purists in Europe.

Some complain that Turks have not integrated, but the reverse is true: As far as language and cultural competence are concerned, the third and fourth generation Turks are increasingly losing their native language and becoming more confident in German language and culture. The reason why their parents support Turkish religious and cultural centers is because they want to ensure that their children grow up as bilingual and multicultural citizens of Europe. Groups like the ICMG reflect this reality.

Is this not what multiculturalism promises?

source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/columnists-209435-muslim-identities-and-europe.html

The position [...]]]> Underlining the Obama administration’s respect for Islam’s diversity, Farah Pandith, the US State Department’s special representative to Muslim communities, refuses to use the expression “Muslim world,” stating that the United States is not endorsing a particular type of Islam in its efforts in building long-term dialogue and partnership with Muslim communities around the world.

The position occupied by Pandith, a Kashmiri-born Muslim, was created following US President Barack Obama’s Muslim outreach speech delivered in Cairo around one year ago and she is the first person to serve in this role. Her office is responsible for executing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s vision for engagement with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level and she reports directly to the secretary of state.

“I don’t use the word ‘Muslim world.’ The president changed the lexicon when he spoke in Cairo and he talked about Muslim communities around the world and I think that is very important.

This president has changed the tone and the way in which he is talking with Muslims. He is not talking to them, he is talking with them. He is respecting the diversity of Islam and so we don’t look at Muslims as a monolithic; we understand the texture and we’re trying our best to work on developing more mechanisms to actually reach young and future generations,” Pandith said in an exclusive interview with Today’s Zaman.

“We are trying to get into the space of working on initiatives that make sense, not one-size-fits-all,” she said.

Diversity, dialogue and partnership, mutual respect and mutual interest, fostering understanding and diligence were the words which were used several times by Pandith during the interview, reflecting her full embrace of this new lexicon without any slip of the tongue.

Pandith was in Ankara and İstanbul earlier this week as part of a long regional tour after visiting Iraq, Egypt and Morocco. Since she took office, she has visited 23 countries, including India, Indonesia, Mali and Norway. Her contacts in countries she visited are part of the State Department’s efforts to engage extensively with civil society, including influential people, whether they are religious leaders, scholars, academics, teachers or businesspeople.

“I’m very interested in the young generation. It is very important that we think about those people under the age of 30. When you think about the fact that a country like Turkey has more than 60 percent of its population under the age of 30 and you also think about the fact that many communities that are Muslim around the world have very high percentages of those people, how do we develop long-term partnerships? We have to develop them over the long-term, which means as they get older. We do not want to only get to know someone at the end of their career. We want to begin to know them as they are beginning as young leaders, as they think about how to be active in their societies and find ways for broad dialogue and partnership,” Pandith said.

“Some things are happening to these people of the young generation. And we are really focusing on understanding what that is. I mean, this is the Facebook generation; it is the generation that doesn’t need to meet each other in person, but they are meeting each other online and they are having conversations. They are also asking really important questions that our generations did not ask about issues such as identity; such as, ‘How do you be modern and Muslim?’ and ‘What is the difference between culture and religion?’” she explained.

“I think that it is really very important that we are able to hear what these questions are to understand what is going on and I also know, certainly even my conversations here in Turkey, these are people who want to be heard. Who is listening to the young people as they define their future and as they think about the tools that they need to do more. Or how important it was that they had a chance to be young entrepreneurs and how wonderful it is that your country will be hosting the entrepreneurship summit? I’m actually really interested in social entrepreneurship,” Pandith elaborated, while referring to the 2011 Summit on Entrepreneurship to be hosted by Turkey.

While here, Pandith saw a presentation by the US Embassy’s two Youth Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program (YIEP) winning teams. The purpose of the embassy-funded YIEP is to promote entrepreneurship, technology and innovation among high school students across Turkey and to connect Turkish student participants with their American counterparts.

Along with US Ambassador to Turkey James Jeffrey, she also met with Ali Bardakoğlu, the head of the Directorate of Religious Affairs, and the main theme of the conversation she and Jeffrey had with Bardakoğlu was the importance of young people and the importance of really understanding what is happening with today’s young generation.

interview with Farah Pandith

By EMINE KART
source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-214163-us-exploring-diversity-of-islam-by-reaching-out-to-youth.html

The lifestyle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the best example for each and every human being. He is the best example of a religious leader. He is the finest example of a state leader. He is the example to follow for those who enter the garden of divine love. [...]]]> by Osman Nuri Topbas

The lifestyle of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is the best example for each and every human being. He is the best example of a religious leader. He is the finest example of a state leader. He is the example to follow for those who enter the garden of divine love. He is the highest example of gratitude and humility for those who are showered with the gifts of God. He is the greatest example of patience and submission, in the most challenging times and places. He is the best example of generosity and of disinterest in collecting bounty. He is the finest example of mercy towards the weak, the lonely and the enslaved, and he is exemplary in pardoning the guilty.

If you are wealthy, contemplate the humility and generosity of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who gained the hearts of the leaders who controlled all of Arabia.

If you’re weak, adopt the example of the prophet during the period he spent in Mecca under the rule of the oppressive and usurping polytheists.

If you’re a triumphant conqueror, take your example from the life of the courageous prophet who defeated his enemies in Badr and Hunayn.

If you lose a battle, may Allah protect you; remember the example of the prophet who walked with dignity, courage and reliance on Allah among martyred and wounded companions after the battle of Uhud.
If you are a teacher, contemplate the example of the prophet who taught God’s orders by conveying his soft and sensitive enlightenment to the people of Suffa in the school of his Mosque.

If you are a student, bring to mind all example of the prophet who sat on his knees before the Archangel, the Trustworthy Gabriel.

If you are preacher or a sincere spiritual guide for people, listen to the voice of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who spread wisdom to his companions.

If you aim to defend the truth, to convey it to others and lift it up, yet have to helper in this matter, then look at the life of the prophet, who proclaimed the truth in Mecca against the oppressors while inviting them to it. If you have defeated your, enemies, broken their resistance and triumphed over them, if you have destroyed the superstitions and declared the truth, then bring to your mind the example of the prophet pm the day he conquered Mecca. He entered this holy city as a triumphant commander, yet with great humility, sitting on his camel as if he were in the state of sajdah; that is prostration before God, as an expression of gratitude to Allah. If you’re a farmer take your example from the prophet, who, after conquering the lands of Bani Nadr, Khaybar and Fadak, chose skilled people to develop and manage those lands in the most productive way.

If you are lonely, with no relatives, bring to mind the example of the orphan of Abdullah and Aminah, their most beloved and only innocent son.

If you are an adolescent, pay attention to the life of the prophet who, as a young man and candidate for prophethood, served in Mecca as a shepherd, tending the sheep of his uncle Abu Talib.

If you are a businessman and travel for trade, think about the experiences of the most honored person, Muhammad while leading the caravan from Mecca to Busra in Syria.

If you are a judge or a referee, bring to mind his justice and foresight when he solved the conflict among the tribes of Mecca over who should have the prestige of putting back the Black Stone, as they were on the verge of killing each other.

Again, turn your eyes to history and consider the example of the prophet as he, in his masjid in Medina, treated equally the poor in distress and the wealthy, and as he judged between them with utmost fairness.
If you are a husband, look carefully at the pure life style, the compassion and the deep feelings of the prophet as an exemplary husband. If you are parent; earn about the example of the father of Fatimah al-Zahra, and study the manner of the grandfather of Hasan and Husayn.

Regardless of your qualities and the state in which you find yourself, day or night, you will find him as the most perfect role model, teacher and guide.

He is so perfect to teacher that by following his example you can correct all your mistakes, eliminate chaos from your life and bring order to your life. Through his light and guidance, you can overcome the difficulties of life and attain real happiness.

As a matter of fact, his life is a bouquet composed of the most rare and elegant flowers and roses with the finest of fragrances.

source: Muhammad The Prophet of Mercy: Scenes from His Life, by Osman Nuri Topbas, Istanbul 2009, Erkam Publishing. pages, 49-52

First of all I would like to say that I am very happy to be invited to this meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to state that, as everybody here knows, today the world is faced with many problems such as international terror, human rights violations, hunger, prostitution, pornography and similar [...]]]> by Cemal Ussak

First of all I would like to say that I am very happy to be invited to this meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to state that, as everybody here knows, today the world is faced with many problems such as international terror, human rights violations, hunger, prostitution, pornography and similar problems. We must accept that these threats are aimed at everyone without discrimination, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist.

Of course none of this has been brought about or produced by religious people or religious ministers (priests, rabbis or imams). However, we must agree that it will take great concerted effort by all religious people to deal with these people. I believe that everyone here would concur that inter-religious and inter-faith dialogue and cooperation are needed for this purpose.

A verse in the Holy Quran reads as follows: “If God had wished it, He would have made you all one nation”. This means that God chose pluralism and multi-culturalism at least until we, who must establish His Will on earth, establish cooperation and harmony through our own desire and will.

In 1985 during his Visit to Morocco, the leading figure of the Christian world, and of Catholics in particular, Pope John Paul II, said:

“Generally speaking, we Christians and Muslims have misunderstood each other, and in the past weakened each other with polemics and wars, which sapped all our strength. Today God Almighty calls on us to give up those old attitudes. With mutual respect, we should therefore advise each other to perform good acts on God’s way”.

During his Visit to Bangladesh in 1986, he repeated his words in stronger form: “An end should now be put to mutual distrust and fear arising from misunderstandings and differences”.

The point I want to draw your attention to is the fact that the Pope’s call to dialogue and reconciliation of others did not receive a sufficient response, and were not developed to the degree necessary, to prevent the savagery.

With your permission, I want to pass from here to past dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Fifty years ago, a similar barbarity was experienced in Europe and close on twenty million people lost their lives. The destruction was terrible throughout the continent; distress, suffering, disappointment, and despair were rife. Most importantly, anarchy was born in people’s spirits. Around that time, a voice was heard in Turkey, which was affected by the War despite not actually entering it. This was the voice of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, one of the most eminent contemporary Islamic scholars. He said:

“It is recorded in authentic traditions of the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) that at the end of time the truly pious among the Christians will unite with the People of the Qur’an to fight their common enemy, religion. And at this time, too, the people of religion and truth need to unite sincerely not only with their own brothers and fellow believers, but also with the truly pious and spiritual ones among the Christians, temporarily refraining from the discussion and debate of points of difference in order to combat their joint enemy — aggressive atheism”.(1)

In a letter he wrote some time later to his students, he appeared to accept this unity as existent, for he described his anxiety that “the current from the North” (communism) might attempt to destroy it.(2)

Now I would like to quote from Professor Thomas Michel’s book, (who is at present employed in the Vatican), which corroborates this:

“Christian history itself even is full of wars, the settling of accounts, and examples of greed, intolerance, and exploitation. It was Christians who created the Inquisition and organized the massacres of the Crusades. The genocide which claimed the lives of millions of Jews, gypsies, and others was the product of Christian Europe. These are facts and a serious indictment of Christian society. The only way they can be explained is as the result of denial by Christians of Jesus’ teachings or refusal to comply with them”.(3)

Doubtless, Islam is ‘the religion of the sword’, but this has been reflected by its wars being fought more in accordance with principles of defence. Be this as it may, Bediuzzaman stated that now “freedom of conscience, which is opposed to force and compulsion in religion, and to religious struggle and armed jihad for religion, [has been accepted as] a fundamental rule and political principle by governments” and “secular republics” have begun to be set up.(4)

In his final years, Said Nursi exerted himself personally to bring about reconciliation and friendship with Christians. In 1950, he sent a collection of his works to Pope Pius XII in Rome and received in reply, on 22 February 1951, a personal letter of thanks. One observer notes that it was only a little over ten years later that, at the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church proclaimed its respect and esteem for Muslims and asserted that Islam was a genuine path of salvation. In the same way, a few years later in 1953, Said Nursi visited the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in Istanbul to seek cooperation between Muslims and Christians in the face of aggressive atheism.

The reply of the Christian world to the Muslim thinker Bediuzzaman’s call to “dialogue and co-operation with Christians” came around twenty year’s later. Moves to draw closer to Muslims began under Pope John XXIII; however, they were realized only in the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, which was convened in 1962 and continued till 1965. The paragraph concerning Muslims is this:

“The Church has respect for Muslims, who worship the One God, the Creator of the Heavens and Earth, Who is Powerful over all things, sent signs to men, and is and ever shall be. The Council advises that Christians and Muslims forget the centuries long misunderstandings and enmities between them, and sincerely endeavour to understand one another, together establish social justice, peace, and liberty, and preserve them and moral and spiritual values for all mankind”.(5)

This decision was accepted on 28 October 1965 with 1763 votes in favour and 242 votes against. Such a decision was truly revolutionary in the history of Christianity. Both Muslims and Jews are on the way leading to God. For Christianity, this then forms the basis of dialogue.

It will be apt to quote here a passage from a speech of General de Gaulle, one of the most famous statesmen Europe has produced:

“See, there are countries developing on the other side of the Mediterranean. They too have a civilization, a culture, a humanism, and human relations such as have started to be lost in our industrialized society. One day it may please us to borrow these human relations…. If we want to found an industrial society which considers man to be not its means but its end, we shall have to open up our cultures to one another to a large extent”.(6)

Twenty-five years after General de Gaulle made these points, Prince Charles made some noteworthy comments. He said both at the opening of the Oxford Islamic Centre in 1995, and in his speech at Wilton Park in Sussex last December that there should be greater contact with Islamic civilization, and stated even that through such relations Western civilization could be saved from complete decline.

It is my opinion that with their many contributions to Muslim-Christian dialogue through their analyses of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, such as Michel Lelong, who for many years directed the Secretariat for Muslim Relations in the Vatican.

Michel Lelong states that according to a verse of the Qur’an (5:48), “If God had so willed”, He would have made us all a single people or community. But He created us as different communities in order to test us. There is therefore great wisdom in this.

In his very useful books, Lelong bases his discussion of dialogue on Abraham (UWP) and invites members of the two religions to meet at that point. He frequently stresses that the majority of Christians are unaware that Muslims accept Jesus and Moses (upon whom be peace) and that they believe in the Gospels and Torah.

According to the Tunisian professor, Muhammad Yalawi, if one takes note of the international situation, “three Jonah’s are needed today”, for the development of dialogue and co-operation. These will be for the Jews, Christians, and Muslims respectively.

The Tunisian professor says that the Muslim Jonah would address his co-religionists like this: “You fought for independence in the age of imperialism, and you were right. You are right too to reject the materialism which threatens the West and the economic pressures of the big powers. But while exercising your lawful rights like remaining true to the religion of your forefathers and preserving your identity, beliefs, and spirit, you should study the principles and commands of the Qur’an; you must not fall into the situation of only looking inwards and should give up outdated feelings of aggression. Do not forget that throughout history Islam has remained open to other cultures and other religions. It cannot be doubted that today Western civilization has many sides that are disquieting and unacceptable, but at the same time you should not forget that that same civilization has a vast spiritual legacy and has made scientific conquests that may be thought of as wondrous. It might offer the way of freedom. The Qur’an tells us that we came from God and it is only to Him that we shall return. It rejects every kind of idol and idol-worship and in consequence, fanatic sectarianism. It calls on humanity to be honourable, just, philanthropic and compassionate”.

A Jonah is needed for the Jews of today, too. He addresses them in this way: “For centuries you suffered. You were abased and persecuted and repressed. Today everyone knows what you underwent in medieval Christendom and the Nazi camps. But today do you hear and understand the groans of the Palestinians? The prophets of the Old and New Testaments frequently told you that it was not enough for you to want to be united, to pray in the temple and to say that you were “God’s chosen people”; they continually reminded to you that the main thing to be done was to be just, respectful of rights, and not to cause distress to strangers. But what have Israel’s rulers done this last few years? Those who claim to be faithful to the tenets of the Jewish religion should recognize the rights of the Palestinians”.

As for the Christian Jonah, he addressed the churches like this: “You have spent great efforts these last years to solve the new questions raised by your contemporaries. With reinterpretations, and breathing new life into religious rites, theology, and unification of the churches, and increased interest in social matters and the Third World, the Christian churches have managed to maintain their power and vitality. But have the Catholics and Protestants of Europe given adequate thought to the questions raised by international relations of the present? Subsequent to the decolonization they were compelled to bring about politically, have they in truth found a new perspective and new world order which will ensure the establishment of a more just balance between North and South? Have they been able to take up an objective position in matters connected with East and West? And finally, are they able to consider seriously other religions and cultures, and particularly Islam, which is still inadequately known in the West?”.(7)

The visits Pope John Paul II made to Turkey in 1979, Kenya in 1980, Pakistan in 1981, the Philippines in 1981, Indonesia in 1981, Morocco in 1985, and Bangladesh in 1986, and the contacts he made and speeches covering many subjects he gave during these visits, further broadened the basis of dialogue. Many meetings were held in Great Britain, France, and particularly in Germay, to further dialogue. Nevertheless, the results and fruits of this work were very limited and did not go beyond being local. Doubtless, it is not easy to remove the remnants of the centuries in one sweep. Only, if we are going to take the decisions of the Second Vatican Council as the basis, the last thirty years is also not a short time.

With your permission, I want now to speak to you of another leading proponent of dialogue. The esteemed person I shall mention appeared with the slogan “Love and Dialogue”. And he did not restrict his efforts to merely saying this, he applied it practically. This person is M. Fethullah Gülen. He is a very important follower of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi and his ideas, who was the first person in Turkey and the Islamic world to mention dialogue and co-operation with Christians, and he has put those ideas into practice.

In the nearly three hundred schools that M. Fethullah Gülen has opened in an area so broad it stretches from Siberia to Kenya and from the United States to Thailand, Muslims, Christians and Jews study together in peace and happiness. In fact, in countries like Maldavia, Yaqutistan, and Mongolia, the great majority of the pupils are not Muslim, Christian, or Jewish. It is my guess that you will find these endeavours of a Muslim leader to be very noteworthy.

When in 1996 M. Fethullah Gülen met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, Bartolomeos, there were reactions from radicals and fanatics, but the majority of people, who support moderation, congratulated him. He later met also with David Aseo, the leader of the Jewish community, and the Vatican’s Ankara Envoy, Pier Luigi, demonstrating his determination to further dialogue.

History has been a stage for very bloody religious wars. We must admit that these were mostly the exploitation of religious people and places of worship for political and economic interests. However, it is time to realize what Jesus said at the Last Supper. As you know, after he washed the feet of all the disciples with him, he said, “I washed your feet even though I am your Master. So from now on, wash each others’ feet”.(8)

Of course these words command humility, tolerance and helping one another. So come and, as Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Jews, let’s wash each others’ feet and take some serious steps towards world peace.

I congratulate and give my respects to organisers of this meeting on behalf of the honorary chairman of our Foundation, Fethullah Gulen which is proud to take an active role in inter-faith dialogue efforts, and on behalf of myself and foundation workers.

Notes
This paper has been presented by Mr. Cemal Ussak, Secretary General for Intercultural Dialogue Platform and Vice Chairman of the Journalists and Writers Foundation at the seminar “Call to a New Vision of Others and Ourselves Through Interreligious Dialogue: Focused on Islam” in Rome, Italy.
1. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Risale-i Nur Külliyati (two vol. ed.), i., 663.
2. Ibid., ii, 1744.
3. Thomas Michel, Hristiyan Tanri Bilimine Giris, Istanbul 1992, 6.
4. Bediuzzaman, ibid., i, 985.
5. ‘Recognize the Spiritual Bonds’, 3 (Nostra Aetate, 3); Michel Lelong, E¤er Allah ‹steseydi, Istanbul 1992, Yeni Asya Yay›nlar›, 18.
6. Le Monde, 20 July 1972 (Paul Palta); E¤er Allah ‹steseydi, 15.
7. Ibid., 44.
8. Gospel According to St. John, 13:14-15 (King James Version).

source: http://www.fgulen.org/about-fethullah-gulen/dialogue-and-tolerance-activities/1845-turkish-experience-of-muslim-christian-dialogue-past-and-present.html

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

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we [...]]]> by Dalai Lama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [...]]]> 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

Like many other European countries, Spain is grappling with the issue of its diverse immigrant communities. However, unlike most of its neighbours, Spain has a rich diverse heritage that it can draw lessons from. “There are currently 192 nationalities living in Spain. However, there is a general feeling among ordinary Spanish [citizens] that they [...]]]> by Hariati Azizan

Like many other European countries, Spain is grappling with the issue of its diverse immigrant communities. However, unlike most of its neighbours, Spain has a rich diverse heritage that it can draw lessons from.
“There are currently 192 nationalities living in Spain. However, there is a general feeling among ordinary Spanish [citizens] that they should be welcoming to anyone who wants to live here,” shares Dr. Justo Lacunza Balda, an ordained priest with the Society of Missionaries of Africa.
What helps most, adds Balda, is his compatriots’ understanding that to live together in peace side-by-side, they have to accept the richness of their diversity and pluralism as well as cooperate with each other.
“Of course, this is largely due to our mixed historical heritage,” he points out.
Probably the biggest historical example of religious pluralism in the world, Spain was under Muslim rule from the 8th to 15th century and saw people from all three monotheistic religions – Muslims, Christians and Jews – living peacefully side-by-side for centuries. Although Christians and Jews were subject to some restrictions, for the most part the co-existence of the three groups created a rich, cultural heritage in the Iberian Peninsula.
Traces of Islamic influence can still be seen in many facets of Spanish life today, making it easier for Spain to cope with its modern-day diversity, says Balda.
Still, the situation became slightly complicated a few years ago. “The 2004 terrorist bombing in the central railway station of Madrid which killed some 192 people and injured hundreds of others created a new mistrust between the Spanish Catholics and Muslims,” Balda admits.
The Spanish government, however, spared no effort to create public awareness on how to embrace the country’s diversity. This was achieved through interfaith dialogues, which were conducted with the cooperation of the country’s different religious groups.
Hence, it seems almost pre-ordained that Madrid was selected as the logical host for the Sixth Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) Interfaith Dialogue, “Consolidating religious freedom and mutual understanding through interfaith and intercultural dialogue”, which took place from 7 to 9 April.
Attended by some 120 delegates from 27 of the nearly 50 countries that make up the ASEM, the event aimed to promote relations and mutual respect between cultures and creeds from Europe and Asia and dealt with three main issues: religious freedom and human rights; respect and mutual understanding; and dialogue between cultures and religions as a bridge between societies.
The ASEM, which began in 1996, is a high-level forum between the governments of both regions. Balda, who was one of the keynote speakers this year, feels that Malaysia’s situation is reminiscent of Spain’s Islamic Age.
“It is impossible to think of Malaysia without thinking of the three major groups [Malays, Chinese and Indians] – culturally, linguistically and ethnically they are different but together they are terrific. [The people of] Malaysia can find common ground by seeking unity and not uniformity. […] Spain can learn a lot from Malaysia about how to find avenues for solutions to the problems that our religious differences create. What Malaysia can re-learn from Spain is the desire to emphasise how, even though we (the different religious communities) may be different, we are complementary,” he says.
Italy is another country that is discovering the importance of interfaith dialogue.
Italy’s representative, Foreign Affairs Ministry official Fabio Schina, stated at the conference that the Italian government is realising the importance of interfaith dialogue in fostering better relations between diverse communities, not only domestically but also in the international arena.
“Our demography has changed slightly due to the growth of immigration from different parts of the world. Although the majority of our population is still Catholic, we are seeing a rise in the number of people of other faiths, such as Islam and Buddhism.”
To promote better interfaith understanding, the Italian government is seeking the help of non-governmental organisations that “are already working in the field, so we choose to learn from them and collaborate with them on how to foster better interfaith understanding, as well to address the needs of each community and society at large.”
And then there is Singapore’s example.
In 2006, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis), a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, wanted to be proactive in fostering better interfaith relations and decided to play a more active role in promoting greater understanding of Islam in the multicultural republic by consolidating and centralising its interfaith and community engagement programmes under one roof.
This centre is aptly called the Harmony Centre and is housed within the premises of the An-Nahdhah Mosque.
Ustaz Mohamed Ali Atan, the centre’s head and Chairperson of the mosque, explains that the most important aspect of the Harmony Centre is its clear objectives, to gain the confidence of non-Muslims. But, he adds, “This is not a platform for converting non-Muslims or for teaching religious classes to Muslims. We want to share what Islam is all about with non-Muslims and not only promote better understanding of Islam but also promote interfaith dialogue and engagement at all levels.”
As Schina says, “It is a long process but a process that we need to start and go through. Talking about the issues will lead to awareness and that will lead to better relations.”

source: http://www.humiliationstudies.org/news/

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 [...]]]> 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

All Americans see on their televisions are visions of turban-clad men screaming “Allahu [...]]]> Muslim terrorist, Arab jihadist, Islamic militia. In recent years, these words have almost become synonymous with each other in the daily news. With the onslaught of news coverage of the Middle East, all the news about Islam and Muslims seems to be bad.

All Americans see on their televisions are visions of turban-clad men screaming “Allahu Akbar” and women covered in black veils from head to toe.

But what is this religion and who are these people? Does this religion really condone these awful things we see?

To answer these questions, we must first start with the simplest way of defining things: definitions.

Islam means “to submit to the will of God” in Arabic, with its counterpart Muslim meaning “one who submits to the will of God.” Therefore, Islam is the religion and Muslims are its followers.

Now that we have that cleared up, let’s move on to a definition that is a little more controversial: jihad. The word, as used in the Quran, refers to a struggle or the act of striving toward the will of Allah (God), not exactly the modern “holy war” definition. In this way, jihad includes the fight against one’s self and the fight against Satan.

So here comes the disclaimer.

Islam in no way calls for terrorism, the killing of innocent people or, as I have heard before, the annihilation of infidels. Most of the terrorist groups we see on the news are formed through hardship, ongoing war and ignorance of the religion. Muslims seek only to have peace and harmony through a constant submission to Allah. This includes five key principles or pillars: a monotheistic belief in God which includes a declaration of faith or shahadah; prayer, which is done five times a day at set times; charity; fasting in the holy month of Ramadan; and a hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, if funds and health allow it, once in a Muslim’s lifetime.

Although these principles define a Muslim’s life, most of the questions I am asked about Islam never contain these points. Most of the inquisitors ask about topics anywhere from race to “that scarf thingy.” So in the rest of this article, I will try to answer some of the more common questions posed to me as a Muslim.

First of all, let’s talk about the scarf. Whether it is seen as holy or infamous, these are the facts: The headscarf, or hijab, is worn by Muslim women who are past the age of puberty in the presence of marriageable men.

This is done as a form of modesty to protect a woman’s beauty from unclean thoughts. The most widely accepted form of hijab is the covering of the body from the ankles to wrist, with the scarf used to cover all of the head except for the face. Covering any more of the face is usually viewed as a personal preference. (However, these views change from place to place.)

The scarf should always be worn during prayer and out of respect for entering a mosque but not at home or around other women. So please, stop asking women with scarves on their heads if they have to “wear that in the shower.”

(Although the scarf is a staple in most Muslim women’s closets, some reject it as a relic of the past and many wait to put the scarf on until they have reached a certain time in their life, a decision which takes a lot of thought and prayer.)

Another common question I receive, especially in the Bible belt, is, “So you don’t believe Jesus is the son of God?” The answer is, well, no.

In Islam, Jesus is viewed as a great prophet much like Moses, Abraham, and Mohammed, all of whom are held so highly in Islam that Muslims are advised to say, “Peace be upon them,” after their names. It is Islamic belief that every set of peoples was sent a prophet that relayed God’s message to them.

We believe that Moses was sent the Torah and Jesus the Gospel but unfortunately, over the years, man corrupted these messages, this corruption including the making of Jesus’ divinity. Mohammad, a merchant living in Mecca during the Middle Ages, was revealed God’s message in the form of the Quran. Mohammad was also given the revelation that he would be the last prophet to all of God’s creation and the promise that the Quran would not be corrupted.

by Jessica King
see the whole article:
from: http://www.cw.ua.edu/2010/04/14/islam-about-peace-not-hatred/

Intolerance is on the increase in the world today, causing death, genocide, violence, religious persecution as well as confrontations on different levels. Some times it is racial and ethnic, some times it is religious and ideological, other times it is political and social. In every situation it is evil and painful. How [...]]]> by Muzammil H. Siddiqi

Intolerance is on the increase in the world today, causing death, genocide, violence, religious persecution as well as confrontations on different levels. Some times it is racial and ethnic, some times it is religious and ideological, other times it is political and social. In every situation it is evil and painful. How can we solve the problem of intolerance? How can we assert our own beliefs and positions without being intolerant to others? How can we bring tolerance into the world today?

I would like to discuss some of these issues from an Islamic point of view.

What is tolerance? Literally the word “tolerance” means “to bear.” As a concept it means “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of the world’s cultures, forms of expression and ways of being human.” In Arabic it is called “Tasamuh”. There are also other words that give similar meanings, such as “Hilm” (forbearance) or “‘`Afu” (pardon, forgiveness) or “Safh” (overlooking, disregarding). In the Persian and Urdu languages, we use the word “rawadari” which comes from “rawa” meaning “acceptable or bearable” and “dashtan” meaning “to hold”. Thus it means to hold something acceptable or bearable.

Tolerance is a basic principle of Islam. It is a religious moral duty. It does not mean “concession, condescension or indulgence.” It does not mean lack of principles, or lack of seriousness about one’s principles.

Sometimes it is said, “people are tolerant of things that they do not care about.” But this is not the case in Islam. Tolerance according to Islam does not mean that we believe that all religions are the same. It does not mean that we do not believe in the supremacy of Islam over other faiths and ideologies. It does not mean that we do not convey the message of Islam to others and do not wish them to become Muslims.

The UNESCO principles on tolerance say:

“Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one’s convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.”

Tolerance comes from our recognition of:

1. the dignity of the human beings,

2. the basic equality of all human beings,

3. universal human rights, and

4. fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief.

The Qur’an speaks about the basic dignity of all human beings. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, spoke about the equality of all human beings, regardless of their race, color, language or ethnic background. Shari`ah recognizes the rights of all people to life, property, family, honor and conscience.

Islam emphasizes the establishment of equality and justice, both of these values cannot be established without some degree of tolerance. Islam recognized from the very beginning the principle of freedom of belief or freedom of religion. It said very clearly that it is not allowed to have any coercion in the matters of faith and belief. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion.” (Al-Baqarah: 256)

If in the matters of religion, coercion is not permissible, then by implication one can say that in other matters of cultures and other worldly practices it is also not acceptable. In Surat Ash-Shura Allah says to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, “If then they turn away, We have not sent you as a guard over them. Your duty is but to convey (the Message)…” (Ash-Shura: 48) In another place Allah says, “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. Your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.” (An-Nahl:125)

Further, Allah says to the Believers, “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, know then that it is Our Messenger’s duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner.” (Al-Ma’idah: 92)

One can also cite Allah’s words: “Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if you turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message).”(An-Nur:54)

All these verses give note that Muslims do not coerce people; they must present the message to them in the most cogent and clear way, invite them to the truth and do their best in presenting and conveying the message of God to humanity, but it is up to people to accept or not to accept. Allah says, “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whosoever wants let him believe and whosoever wants let him deny.” (An-Nahl: 29)

The question then comes: If Allah gave choice to believe or not to believe, then why did He punish the people of Prophet Nuh, the `Ad, the Thamud, the people of Prophet Lut, the people of Prophet Shu`aib and Pharaoh and his followers? The answer is in the Qur’an itself. Those people were not punished simply because of their disbelief. They were punished because they had become oppressors. They committed aggression against the righteous, and stopped others to come to the way of Allah. There were many in the world who denied Allah, but Allah did not punish every one. Ibn Taymiyah, the outstanding Muslim scholar, said, “The states may live long inspite of their people’s unbelief (kufr), but they cannot live long when their people become oppressors.”

Another question is raised about Jihad. Some people say, “Is it not the duty of Muslims to make Jihad?” But the purpose of Jihad is not to convert people to Islam. Allah says, “No compulsion in religion.”(Al-Baqarah: 256). The real purpose of Jihad is to remove injustice and aggression. Muslims are allowed to keep good relations with non-Muslims. Allah says, “Allah does not forbid you that you show kindness and deal justly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out from your homes…” (Al-Mumtahinah: 8)

Islam teaches that fighting is only against those who fight. Allah says, “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.” (Al-Baqarah:190)

Islam may tolerate anything, but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, and violation of the rights of other human beings. Allah says, “And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourside one who will protect; and raise for us from Yourside one who will help!’”(An-Nisa’: 75)

Islam teaches tolerance on all levels: individual, groups and states. It should be a political and legal requirement. Tolerance is the mechanism that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), and the rule of law. The Qur’an says very clearly: “To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow, let them not then dispute with you on the matter, but do invite (them) to your Lord: for you are assuredly on the Right Way. If they do wrangle with you, say, ‘God knows best what it is you are doing.’ ‘God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which you differ.’” (Al-Hajj: 76-69)

There are many levels of tolerance:

A. Between family members, between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings etc.

B. Tolerance between the members of the community: tolerance in views and opinions, tolerance between the Madhahib (Islamic Juristic Schools).

C. Tolerance between Muslims and the people of other faiths (interfaith relations, dialogue and cooperation).

Muslims have been generally very tolerant people. We must emphasize this virtue among us and in the world today. Tolerance is needed among our communities: We must foster tolerance through deliberate policies and efforts. Our centers should be multi-ethnic. We should teach our children respect of each other. We should not generalize about other races and cultures. We should have more exchange visits and meetings with each other. Even marriages should be encouraged among Muslims of different ethnic groups.

With non-Muslims we should have dialogue and good relations, but we cannot accept things that are contrary to our religion. We should inform them what is acceptable to us and what is not. With more information, I am sure the respect will develop and more cooperation will develop.

source: http://muslimvillage.com/story.php?id=811

Phobia means fear, the fear of the other. Any phobia has a psychological basis, which is a combination of historical memories, blended with myths and legends, complicated by social separateness, generated by the consciousness of economic and political rivalry, not to speak of persistent religious hostility and indifference. In the case of Europe, [...]]]> by Syed Shahabuddin

Phobia means fear, the fear of the other. Any phobia has a psychological basis, which is a combination of historical memories, blended with myths and legends, complicated by social separateness, generated by the consciousness of economic and political rivalry, not to speak of persistent religious hostility and indifference. In the case of Europe, it can be truly said that it has not yet gotten over its memories of the Muslim conquest which took Islam to the heartland of France, on one side, and to the gates of Vienna, on the other. It has been truly said that had the Muslim won the Battle of Poitiers or taken Vienna, Europe would have been Islamized and a majority of its people today would be Muslim.

Aspects of Islamophobia

Economic supremacy

The economic aspect is obvious from the fact that after having stopped and eventually forced the Muslims out of Spain, Europe tried and succeeded in finding an alternative route for trade with the Indies in order to bypass the Muslim world which separated it from its major sources of supply and markets. This economic competition has taken a new form in the 20th century with Europe’s realization of its dependence on Arab oil to run its industrial machine. Even the increasing use of nuclear power depends to a large extent on the Uranium ore deposits in Muslim West Africa. There is also an economic interest in recycling petro-dollars which Europe was forced to shell out but which has eventually provided additional market for surplus manufactures by the West including massive sale of arms and luxury goods. Apart from selling its goods to Arabs and the Muslim countries along with a whole spectrum of projects including, some totally misconceived and egoistic which would consume their current surplus in payment for design, technology, manpower and constabulary and thus prevent their translating into self-sustaining economic power.

Crusades

Centuries ago, the West tried to wage the Crusades to win the Holy Places and they failed. So it planted Israel over the last 100 years or so in the heart of the Islamic world when the Ottoman Empire becomes the sick man of Europe. Israel constitutes a permanent threat to the security of the Arab and the Muslim world, stimulating sale of arms by the West. With rising migration particularly from the Maghreb and Turkey, a continuous trickle of conversion to Islam without any perceptible reverse flow frightens Europe about its prospects in the ongoing battle between Christianity and Islam.

Europe no doubt is way ahead of the Muslim world in the field of science and technology which was dominated by the Muslim world for nearly 500 years. It is another expression of Islamophobia that by and large, with some exceptions Europe has totally forgotten the role of Muslims in the transfer of science and technology from China and India and in the restoration of the heritage of Greece and Rome, which cumulatively resulted in the scientific and technological leap by the West.

A deepening shadow on the relations between Europe and Islam manifests itself not only in state policies and government strategies but in the persistent bias in administration and public space. Not surprisingly, its mass media gives a negative twist to any development in the Muslim world and projects Muslims as later-day barbarians.

Let me add that phobia is not particular to the psychology of the majority but extends to minority groups who also entertain bias, distrust, hatred and hostility against the majority and sometimes even against each other, coming from different regions speaking different languages and living in their own cultural worlds.

Phobia operates not only at the collective plane but also among individuals. Individuals who are sometimes afraid of darkness or closed space or of some little insects or some passing shadows but they are socially unimportant. What affects relations of nations and peoples are the collective phobias like the Islamophobia which now dominates Europe to the extent that it readily confers a crown to anyone who vilifies Islam in print or in the electronic media or through films or cartoons, and projects writers like Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who bear Muslim names. Indeed, in the West if you vilify your own religion you are regarded as liberal and secular.

What is important from our point of view is that the contemporary world is committed to a democratic way of life. Unfortunately, in a plural society which is multi-ethnic, democracy invariably takes the form of majoritarianism. Majoritarian phobias against the minority indeed have the potential to disturb social peace, erode rational thinking, and end up in conflicts of cultures and civilizations, even in physical hostilities. Such violent phobias can cause social breakdown because of economic deprivation, social marginalization and constitutional pressure on the minorities.

Phobias of a minority can be self-destructive but cannot affect overall social peace except in situations of active conflict.

Muslim invasions

Islamophobia also emanates in Europe, as in India, by the recollection of Muslim invasions and the fear of re-conquest!

It misinterprets the idea of the Caliphate and even of conversion to Islam. Such historical memories are always misinterpreted and exaggerated and passed on not only through books and literature but by word of mouth. Islamophobia also results from the fear of falling into dependence on the Muslim world for some essential supplies as oil is for Europe. It also aggravates a feeling of religious inferiority when it imagines the trickle turning into stream of conversion to Islam. On the other side of the coin, Western Islamophobes believe in their technological superiority and scientific advance and their own persistent propaganda that Islam is not compatible with democracy and that the Muslims peoples still live in the 7th century! This encourages constant vilification, a culture of mockery and taunt, abuse and castigation of the Holy Prophet and the Holy Quran and misrepresentation/ misinterpretation of Islamic history.

The current wave of Islamophobia in Europe must be seen in a global perspective. Sometimes, it takes the form of a free-for-all and sometimes of reciprocity, everyone is attacking the other and everyone lives in fear of attack. Naturally this fear mentally dominates the minorities who live in physical or cultural ghettos in non-Muslim majority countries.

In Muslim majority states, there are, apart from non-Muslims, groups which belong to minority sects, and who have their own culture. But there is a difference. In no Muslim states, is there any organized attempt to convert the other sects or the non-Muslims to Islam or to attack them physically. As a matter of fact at the height of the Palestinian crisis the Jews lived peacefully in the Arab world. If one goes back to history one finds that when the Jews were expelled from Spain along with the Muslims they took refuge in Muslim countries.

Today, nearly 40% of the world Muslim population lives in Muslims-minority states. The most important are India, Russia, China, Europe and USA. Islamophobia affects them directly. They have to be constantly on their guard to monitor and correct misinformation, misperceptions and misunderstandings. When they wish to live according to Islamic norms they are treated as unworthy of their host culture. They are expected to adopt its norms & get assimilated. The incidence of divorce and polygamy are exaggerated beyond limits and they are accused of avoiding secular education for their children.

Islamic terrorism

A new development of what has been called Islamic terrorism places them on defensive. The Muslim youth are particularly harassed & even detained & prosecuted in order to erode the civil rights of the Muslim community and to push them into ghettos when they live in a state of siege. The Muslim minorities, thus, bear the brunt of Islamophobia and are denied justice and equality and the benefits of modern education, even in states which believe in justice & equality.

What is the remedy? Constitutional mandates cannot penetrate horror psychology and erase bias and prejudice. Laws, judicial orders, even policy statements cannot reach out and protect the members of the community who face marginalization, deprivation and humiliation on a day-to-day basis. But there are other minorities in the world like the Jews who are well organized to monitor even a hint of criticism and counteract it through rebuttal, correction and protest. One wishes that Muslims had an organization like the Anti-Defamation League in the USA, which has ensured that not a word may be spoken against the Jews and acceptance of Zionism has become part of the liberal agenda.

How Muslim minorities can take on Islamophobia

History cannot be written. But the Muslims whether they are in a majority or a minority must accept that there is no right of conquest, no right of invasion, no right of terrorization or separatism or secessionism, the vices of which they are accused at every turn. Muslim minorities have every right to maintain their religious identity. But they have to be loyal to the state they live in, join the national mainstream and participate in national causes and movements. They cannot make themselves invisible or keep a low profile for fear that they lose their sense of identity. At the same time, they have to refrain from exhibition of orthodoxy or expression of fanaticism which provides the majority an excuse. A recent referendum in Switzerland was won by those who opposed construction of minarets in mosques. They should realize that a minaret or a dome is not an essential part of the Islamic architecture of a Masjid. Similarly, the Burqa is not universal or mandatory in Islam. They cannot gain in a face-to-face confrontation. They have to learn to be less contentious and reduce the level of cultural display. But sometimes a line needs to be drawn.

Apart from what the community may do, in terms of political initiatives, as citizen & permanent resident and human being, to respond to the western media and monitoring its bias, Muslim states along with the support of other members of the world community must promote a global standard of mutual acceptance and tolerance in terms of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Minorities, 1992, the International Covenants and the UN Convention against Religious Intolerance and Discrimination and the recent UN Declaration against Discrimination based on Faith. None shall eliminate but persistence may reduce the level of Islamophobia to a manageable extent over a period of time. These are the tools in the hands of religious minorities, national or global, which can change the tone of modernization but both sides have to avoid conceptual bottlenecks when it comes to defining the limits of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Slowly it shall strike at the roots of the basic accusation which promote Islamophobia in Muslim-minority states, that Islam does not accept democracy, that Muslims reject national culture and are not loyal to the state they live in or the Constitution which provides their basic rights and that they are as a collectivity conspiring to take over the world and re-establish the Caliphate!

The world is changing and the pace of change is very fast. The cultural and even physical demarcation between peoples and states are getting dissolved in what is considered to be the climate of the age, Democracy and Secularism. Muslims in different parts of the world have to move with the time, accept that Islam lays down principles for living Islamically but does not identify Islamic culture or Islamic economy or Islamic political system. Islam can live comfortably with multiple political and economic structures and the Muslims should be prepared to accept any system & any culture which recognises their religion, guaranteed them identity and freedom and protects them from cultural absorption and assimilation.

(Syed Shahabuddin, ex-diplomat and MP, is president, All India Muslim Majlise Mushawarat)

source: http://www.twocircles.net/2010mar01/islamophobia_how_muslim_minorities_can_combat_it.html

When the confusion in the Temple ceased by the departure of Jesus, the high priest ascended on high, and having beckoned for silence with his hands he said:, ‘Brethren, what do we? See you not that he has deceived the whole world with his diabolical art? Now, how did he vanish, if he [...]]]> Chapter 210

When the confusion in the Temple ceased by the departure of Jesus, the high priest ascended on high, and having beckoned for silence with his hands he said:, ‘Brethren, what do we? See you not that he has deceived the whole world with his diabolical art? Now, how did he vanish, if he be not a magician? Assuredly, if he were an holy one and a prophet, he would not blaspheme against God and against Moses [his] servant, and against the Messiah, who is the hope of Israel. And what shall I say? He has blasphemed all our priesthood, wherefore truly I say to you, if he be not removed from the world Israel will be polluted, and our God will give us to the nations. Behold now, how by reason of him this holy Temple has been polluted.’

And in such wise did the high priest speak at many forsook Jesus, wherefore the secret persecution was converted into an open one, insomuch that the high priest went in person to Herod, and to the Roman governor, accusing Jesus that he desired to make himself king of Israel, and of this they had false witnesses.

Thereupon was held a general council against Jesus, forasmuch as the decree of the Romans made them afraid. For so it was that twice the Roman Senate had sent a decree concerning Jesus: in one decree it was forbidden, on pain of death, that any one should call Jesus of Nazareth;, the prophet of the Jews, either God or Son of God; in the other it forbade, under capital sentence, that any one should contend concerning Jesus of Nazareth, prophet of the Jews. Wherefore, for this cause, there was a great division among them. Some desired that they should write again to Rome against Jesus; others said that they should leave Jesus alone, regardless of what he said, as of a fool; others adduced the great miracles that he wrought.

The high priest therefore spoke that under pain of anathema none should speak a word in defence of Jesus; and he spoke to Herod, and to the governor, saying ‘In any case we have an ill venture in our hands, for if we slay this sinner we have acted contrary to the decree of Caesar, and, if we suffer him to live and he make himself king, how will the matter go?’ Then Herod arose and threatened the governor, saying: ‘Beware lest through your favouring of that man this country be rebellious: for I will accuse you before Caesar ;as a rebel.’

Then the governor feared the Senate and made friends with Herod (for before this they had hated one another to death), and they joined together for the death of Jesus, and said to the high priest: ‘Whenever you shall know where the malefactor is, send to us, for we will give you soldiers.’ This was done to fulfil the prophecy of David who had foretold of Jesus, prophet of Israel, saying: The princes and kings of the earth are united against the holy one of Israel, because he announces the salvation of the world. Thereupon, on that day, there was a general search for Jesus throughout Jerusalem.

Chapter 211

Jesus, being in the house of Nicodemus ;beyond the brook Cedron, comforted his disciples, saying: ‘The hour is near that I must depart from the world; console yourselves and be not sad, seeing that where I go I shall not feel any tribulation. ‘Now, shall you be my friends if you be sad at my welfare? No, assuredly, but rather enemies. When the world shall rejoice, be you sad, because the rejoicing of the world is turned into weeping; but your sadness shall be turned into joy and your joy shall no one take from you: for the rejoicing that the heart feels in God its creator not the whole world can take away. See that you forget not the words which God has spoken to you by my mouth. Be you my witnesses against every one that shall corrupt the witness that I have witnessed with my gospel; against the world, and against the lovers of the world.

Chapter 212

Then lifting up his hands to the Lord, he prayed, saying: ‘Lord our God, God of Abraham;, God of Ishmael ;and Isaac;, God of our fathers, have mercy upon them that you have given me, and save them from the world. I say not, take them from the world, because it is necessary that they shall bear witness against them that shall corrupt my gospel;. But I pray you to keep them from evil, that on the day of your judgment they may come with me to bear witness against the world and against the House of Israel that has corrupted your testament.

Lord God, mighty and jealous, that take vengeance upon idolatry against the sons of idolatrous fathers even to the fourth generation, do you curse eternally every one that shall corrupt my gospel that you gave me, when they write that I am your son. For I, clay and dust, am servant of your servants, and never have I thought myself to be your good servant; for I cannot give you aught in return for that which you have given me, for all things are yours.

Lord God, the merciful, that shows mercy to a thousand generations upon them that fear you, have mercy upon them which believe my words that you have given me. For even as you are true God, so your word which I have spoken is true; for it is yours, seeing I have ever spoken as one that reads, who cannot read save that which is written in the book that he reads: even so have I spoken that which you have given me.

‘Lord God the Saviour, save them whom you have given me, in order that Satan may not be able to do aught against them, and save not only them, but every one that shall believe in them. Lord, bountiful and rich in mercy, grant to your servant to be in the congregation of your Messenger; on the Day of Judgment: and not me only, but every one whom you have given me, with all them that shall believe on me through their preaching. And this do, Lord, for your own sake, that Satan boast not himself against you, Lord.

‘Lord God, who by your providence provides all things necessary for your people Israel, be mindful of all the tribes of the earth, which you have promised to bless by your Messenger, for whom you did create the world. Have mercy on the world and send speedily your Messenger, that Satan your enemy may lose his empire.’ And having said this, Jesus said three times: ‘So be it, Lord, great and merciful!’ And they answered, weeping: ‘So be it,” all save Judas, for he believed nothing.

Chapter 213

The day having come for eating the lamb, Nicodemus ;sent the lamb secretly to the garden for Jesus and his disciples, announcing all that had been decreed by Herod ;with the governor and the high priest. Whereupon Jesus rejoiced in spirit, saying: ‘Blessed be your holy name, O Lord, because you have not separated me from the number of your servants that have been persecuted by the world and slain. I thank you, my God, because I have fulfilled your work.’ And turning to Judas, he said to him: ‘Friend, wherefore do you tarry? My time is near, wherefore go and do that which you must do.”

The disciples thought that Jesus was sending Judas ;to buy something for the day of the Passover;: but Jesus knew that Judas was betraying him, wherefore, desiring to depart from the world, he so spoke. Judas answered: ‘Lord, suffer me to eat, and I will go.’ ‘Let us eat,’ said Jesus, ‘for I have greatly desired to eat this lamb before I am parted from you.’

And having arisen, he took a towel and girded his loins, and having put water in a basin, he set himself to wash his disciples’ feet. Beginning from Judas;, Jesus came to Peter. Said Peter;: ‘Lord, would you wash my feet?’ Jesus answered: ‘That which I do you know not now, but you shall know hereafter.’ Peter answered: ‘You shall never wash my feet. Then Jesus rose up, and said: ‘Neither shall you come in my company on the day of judgment.’ Peter answered: ‘Wash not only my feet, Lord, but my hands and my head.’

When the disciples were washed and were seated at table to eat, Jesus said: ‘I have washed you, yet are you not all clean, for as much as all the water of the sea will not wash him that believes me not.’ This said Jesus, because he knew who was betraying him. The disciples were sad at these words, when Jesus said again: ‘Truly I say to you, that one of you shall betray me, insomuch that I shall be sold like a sheep; but woe to him, for he shall fulfil all that our father David said of such an one, that “he shall fall into the pit which he had prepared for others.” ‘

Whereupon the disciples looked one upon another, saying with sorrow: ‘Who shall be the traitor?’ Judas then said: ‘Shall it be I, O Master?’ Jesus answered: ‘You have told me who it shall be that shall betray me.’ And the eleven apostles heard it not. When the lamb was eaten, the devil came upon the back of Judas;, and he went forth from the house, Jesus saying to him again: ‘Do quickly that which you must do.’

Chapter 214

Having gone forth from the house, Jesus retired into the garden to pray, according as his custom was to pray, bowing his knees an hundred times and prostrating himself upon his face. Judas, accordingly, knowing the place where Jesus was with his disciples, went to the high priest, and said: “If you will give me what was promised, this night will I give into your hand Jesus whom you seek; for he is alone with eleven companions.” The high priest answered: “How much do you seek?” Judas said, “Thirty pieces of gold.”

Then straightway the high priest counted to him the money, and sent a Pharisee to the governor to fetch soldiers, and to Herod, and they gave a legion of them, because they feared the people; wherefore they took their arms, and with torches and lanterns upon staves went out of Jerusalem.

Chapter 215

When the soldiers with Judas drew near to the place where Jesus was, Jesus heard the approach of many people, wherefore in fear he withdrew into the house. And the eleven were sleeping. Then God, seeing the danger of his servant, commanded Gabriel;, Michael;, Rafael;, and Uriel;, his ministers, to take Jesus out of the world. The holy angels came and took Jesus out by the window that looks toward the South;. They bare him and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore.

Chapter 216

Judas entered impetuously before all into the chamber whence Jesus had been taken up. And the disciples were sleeping. Whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and in face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he, having awakened us, was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: ‘You, Lord, are our master; have you now forgotten us?’

And he, smiling, said: ‘Now are you foolish, that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!’ And as he was saying this the soldiery entered, and laid their hands upon Judas, because he was in every way like to Jesus. We having heard Judas’ saying, and seeing the multitude of soldiers, fled as beside ourselves. And John, who was wrapped in a linen cloth, awoke and fled, and when a soldier seized him by the linen cloth he left the linen cloth and fled naked. For God heard the prayer of Jesus, and saved the eleven from evil.

Chapter 217

The soldiers took Judas ;and bound him, not without derision. For he truthfully denied that he was Jesus; and the soldiers, mocking him, said: ‘Sir, fear not, for we are come to make you king of Israel, and we have bound you because we know that you do refuse the kingdom.’ Judas answered: ‘Now have you lost your senses! You are come to take Jesus of Nazareth;, with arms and lanterns as [against] a robber; and you have bound me that have guided you, to make me king!’

Then the soldiers lost their patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas, and they led him with fury into Jerusalem. John ;and Peter ;followed the soldiers afar off; and they affirmed to him who writes that they saw all the examination that was made of Judas by the high priest, and by the council of the Pharisees, who were assembled to put Jesus to death. Whereupon Judas spoke many words of madness, insomuch that every one was filled with laughter, believing that he was really Jesus, and that for fear of death he was feigning madness. Whereupon the scribes bound his eyes with a bandage, and mocking him said: ‘Jesus, prophet of the Nazarenes ;(for so they called them who believed in Jesus), ‘tell us, who was it that smote you?’ And they buffeted him and spat in his face.

When it was morning there assembled the great council of scribes and elders of the people; and the high priest with the Pharisees sought false witness against Judas, believing him to be Jesus: and they found not that which they sought. And why say I that the chief priests believed Judas to be Jesus? No all the disciples, with him who writes, believed it; and more, the poor Virgin mother of Jesus, with his kinsfolk and friends, believed it, insomuch that the sorrow of every one was incredible.

As God lives, he who writes forgot all that Jesus had said: how that he should be taken up from the world, and that he should suffer in a third person, and that he should not die until near the end of the world. Wherefore he went with the mother of Jesus and with John to the cross. The high priest caused Judas ;to be brought before him bound, and asked him of his disciples and his doctrine. Whereupon Judas, as though beside himself, answered nothing to the point. The high priest then adjured him by the living God of Israel that he would tell him the truth.

Judas answered: ‘I have told you that I am Judas Iscariot, who promised to give into your hands Jesus the Nazarene; and you, by what are I know not, are beside yourselves, for you will have it by every means that I am Jesus.’ The high priest answered: ‘O perverse seducer, you have deceived all Israel, beginning from Galilee; even to Jerusalem here, with your doctrine and false miracles: and now think you to flee the merited punishment that befits you by feigning to be mad?

As God lives,’ you shall not escape it!’ And having said this he commanded his servants to smite him with buffetings and kicks, so that his understanding might come back into his head. The derision which he then suffered at the hands of the high priest’s servants is past belief. For they zealously devised new inventions to give pleasure to the council. So they attired him as a juggler, and so treated him with hands and feet that it would have moved the very Canaanites to compassion if they had beheld that sight. But the chief priests and Pharisees and elders of the people had their hearts so exasperated against Jesus that, believing Judas to be really Jesus, they took delight in seeing him so treated.

Afterwards they led him bound to the governor, who secretly loved Jesus. Whereupon he, thinking that Judas was Jesus, made him enter into his chamber, and spoke to him, asking him for what cause the chief priests and the people had given him into his hands. Judas answered: ‘If I tell you the truth, you will not believe me; for perhaps you are deceived as the (chief) priests and the Pharisees are deceived.’

The governor answered (thinking that he wished to speak concerning the Law): ‘Now know you not that I am not a Jew? but the (chief) priests and the elders of your people have given you into my hand; wherefore tell us the truth, wherefore I may do what is just. For I have power to set you free and to put you to death.’ Judas answered: ‘Sir, believe me, if you put me to death, you shall do a great wrong, for you shall slay an innocent person; seeing that I am Judas ;Iscariot, and not Jesus, who is a magician, and by his are has so transformed me.’

When he heard this the governor marvelled greatly, so that he sought to set him at liberty. The governor therefore went out, and smiling said: ‘In the one case, at least, this man is not worthy of death, but rather of compassion.’ ‘This man says,’ said the governor, ‘that he is not Jesus, but a certain Judas who guided the soldiery to take Jesus, and he says that Jesus the Galilean has by his are magic so transformed him. Wherefore, if this be true, it were a great wrong to kill him, seeing that he were innocent. But if he is Jesus and denies that he is, assuredly he has lost his understanding, and it were impious to slay a madman.’

Then the chief priests and elders of the people, with the scribes and Pharisees, cried out with shouts, saying: ‘He is Jesus of Nazareth;, for we know him; for if he were not the malefactor we would not have given him into your hands. Nor is he mad; but rather malignant, for with this device he seeks to escape from our hands, and the sedition that he would stir up if he should escape would be worse than the former.’ Pilate (of such was the governor’s name), in order to rid himself of such a case, said: ‘He is a Galilean, and Herod is king of Galilee: wherefore it pertains not to me to judge such a case, so take you him to Herod.’ Accordingly they led Judas to Herod, who of a long time had desired that Jesus should go to his house. But Jesus had never been willing to go to his house, because Herod was a Gentile, and adored the false and lying gods, living after the manner of the unclean Gentiles. Now when Judas had been led thither, Herod asked him of many things, to which Judas gave answers not to the purpose, denying that he was Jesus. Then Herod mocked him, with all his court, and caused him to be clad in white as the fools are clad;, and sent him back to Pilate, saying to him, ‘Do not fail in justice to the people of Israel!’ * And this Herod wrote, because the chief priests and scribes and the Pharisees had given him a good quantity of money. The governor having heard that this was so from a servant of Herod, in order that he also might gain some money, feigned that he desired to set Judas at liberty.

Whereupon he caused him to be scourged by his slaves, who were paid by the scribes to slay him under the scourges. But God, who had decreed the issue, reserved Judas for the cross, in order that he might suffer that horrible death to which he had sold another. He did not suffer Judas to die under the scourges, notwithstanding that the soldiers scourged him so grievously that his body rained blood. Thereupon, in mockery they clad him in an old purple garment;, saying: ‘It is fitting to our new king to clothe him and crown him’: so they gathered thorns and made a crown, like those of gold and precious stones which kings wear on their heads. And this crown of thorns they placed upon Judas’ head, putting in his hand a reed for sceptre;, and they made him sit in a high place.

And the soldiers came before him, bowing down in mockery, saluting him as King of the Jews. And they held out their hands to receive gifts, such as new kings are accustomed to give; and receiving nothing they smote Judas, saying: ‘Now, how are you crowned, foolish king, if you will not pay your soldiers and servants?’ *The chief priests with the scribes and Pharisees, seeing that Judas died not by the scourges, and fearing lest Pilate should set him at liberty, made a gift of money to the governor, who having received it gave Judas to the scribes and Pharisees as guilty to death. Whereupon they condemned two robbers with him to the death of the cross.

So they led him to Mount Calvary, where they used to hang malefactors, and there they crucified him naked;, for the greater ignominy. *Judas truly did nothing else but cry out: ‘God, why have you forsaken me, seeing the malefactor has escaped and I die unjustly?’ *Truly I say that the voice, the face, and the person of Judas were so like to Jesus, that his disciples and believers entirely believed that he was Jesus; wherefore some departed from the doctrine of Jesus, believing that Jesus had been a false prophet, and that by art magic he had done the miracles which he did: for Jesus had said that he should not die till near the end of the world; for that at that time he should be taken away from the world.

But they that stood firm in the doctrine of Jesus were so encompassed with sorrow, seeing him die who was entirely like to Jesus, that they remembered not what Jesus had said. And so in company with the mother of Jesus they went to Mount Calvary, and were not only present at the death of Judas, weeping continually, but by means of Nicodemus and Joseph of Abarimathia; they obtained from the governor the body of Judas to bury it. Whereupon, they took him down from the cross with such weeping as assuredly no one would believe, and buried him in the new sepulchre of Joseph; having wrapped him up in an hundred pounds of precious ointments.

Chapter 218

Then returned each man to his house. He who writes, with John and James his brother, went with the mother of Jesus; to Nazareth;.

Those disciples who did not fear God went by night [and] stole the body of Judas and hid it, spreading a report that Jesus was risen again; whence great confusion arose. The high priest then commanded, under pain of anathema;, that no one should talk of Jesus of Nazareth;. And so there arose a great persecution, and many were stoned and many beaten, and many banished from the land, because they could not hold their peace on such a matter.

The news reached Nazareth how that Jesus, their fellow citizen, having died on the cross was risen again. Whereupon, he that writes; prayed the mother of Jesus; that she would be pleased to leave off weeping, because her son was risen again. Hearing this, the Virgin Mary, weeping, said: ‘Let us go to Jerusalem to find my son. I shall die content when I have seen him.’

Chapter 219

The Virgin returned to Jerusalem with him who writes, and James and John, on that day on which the decree of the high priest went forth. Whereupon, the Virgin, who feared God, albeit she knew the decree of the high priest to be unjust, commanded those who dwelt with her to forget her son. Then how each one was affected! God who discerns the heart of men knows that between grief at the death of Judas whom we believed to be Jesus our master, and the desire to see him risen again, we, with the mother of Jesus, were consumed.

So the angels that were guardians of Mary ascended to the third heaven;, where Jesus was in the company of angels, and recounted all to him. Wherefore Jesus prayed God that he would give him power to see his mother and his disciples. Then the merciful God commanded his four favourite angels, who are Michael, Gabriel, Rafael;, and Uriel, to bear Jesus into his mother’s house, and there keep watch over him for three days continually, suffering him only to be seen by them that believed in his doctrine.

Jesus came, surrounded with splendour, to the room where abode Mary the Virgin with her two sisters, and Martha and Mary Magdalen, and Lazarus, and him who writes, and John and James and Peter. Whereupon, through fear they fell as dead. And Jesus lifted up his mother and the others from the ground, saying: ‘Fear not, for I am Jesus; and weep not, for I am alive and not dead.’ They remained every one for a long time beside himself at the presence of Jesus, for they altogether believed that Jesus was dead. Then the Virgin, weeping, said: ‘Tell me, my son, wherefore God, having given you power to raise the dead. suffered you to die, to the shame of your kinsfolk and friends, and to the shame of your doctrine? For every one that loves you has been as dead.’

Chapter 220

Jesus replied, embracing his mother: ‘Believe me, mother, for truly I say to you that I have not been dead at all; for God has reserved me till near the end of the world.’ And having said this he prayed the four angels that they would manifest themselves, and give testimony how the matter had passed.

Thereupon the angels manifested themselves like four shining suns, insomuch that through fear every one again fell down as dead. Then Jesus gave four linen cloths to the angels that they might cover themselves, in order that they might be seen and heard to speak by his mother and her companions. And having lifted up each one, he comforted them, saying: ‘These are the ministers of God: Gabriel, who announces God’s secrets; Michael, who fights against God’s enemies; Rafael, who receives the souls of them that die; and Uriel, who will call every one to the judgment of God at the last day. Then the four angels narrated to the Virgin how God had sent for Jesus, and had transformed Judas, that he might suffer the punishment to which he had sold another.

Then said he who writes: ‘O Master, is it lawful for me to question you now, as it was lawful for me when you dwelt with us?’ Jesus answered: ‘Ask what you please, Barnabas, and I will answer you.’ Then said he who writes: ‘O Master, seeing that God is merciful, wherefore has he so tormented us, making us to believe that you were dead? and your mother has so wept for you that she has been near to death; and you, who are an holy one of God, on you has God suffered to fall the calumny that you were slain amongst robbers ;on the Mount Calvary?’

Jesus answered: ‘Believe me, Barnabas, that every sin, however small it be, God punishes with great punishment, seeing that God is offended at sin. Wherefore, since my mother and my faithful disciples that were with me loved me a little with earthly love, the righteous God has willed to punish this love with the present grief, in order that it may not be punished in the flames of hell. And though I have been innocent in the world, since men have called me “God,” and “Son of God,” God, in order that I be not mocked of the demons on the day of judgment, has willed that I be mocked of men in this world by the death of Judas;, making all men to believe that I died upon the cross. And this mocking shall continue until the advent of Muhammad;, the Messenger ;of God, who, when he shall come, shall reveal this deception to those who believe in God’s Law. Having thus spoken, Jesus said: ‘You are just, O Lord our God, because to you only belongs honour and glory without end.’

Chapter 221

Jesus turned himself to him who writes, and said: “Barnabas, see that by all means you write my gospel concerning all that has happened through my dwelling in the world. And write in a similar manner that which has befallen Judas, in order that the faithful may be undeceived, and every one may believe the truth.” Then answered he who writes: “I will do so, if God wills, O Master; but I do not know what happened to Judas, for I did not see it.”

Jesus answered: “Here are John and Peter who saw everything, and they will tell you all that has passed.” And then Jesus commanded us to call his faithful disciples [so] that they might see him. So James and John called together the seven disciples with Nicodemus and Joseph, and many others of the seventy-two, and they ate with Jesus.

The third day Jesus said: “Go to the Mount of Olives with my mother, for there I will ascend again to heaven, and you will see who shall bear me up.” So they all went there except twenty-five of the seventy-two disciples, who for fear had fled to Damascus. And as they all stood in prayer, at midday Jesus came with a great multitude of angels who were praising God: and the splendour of his face made them greatly afraid and they fell with their faces to the ground. But Jesus lifted them up, comforting them, and saying: “Do not be afraid, I am your master.”

And he reproved many who believed that he had died and risen again, saying: “Do you hold me and God for liars? I said to you that God has granted to me to live almost to the end of the world. Truly I say to you, I did not die; it was Judas the traitor. Beware, for Satan will make every effort to deceive you. Be my witnesses in Israel, and throughout the world, of all things that you have heard and seen.”

And having said this, he prayed God for the salvation of the faithful, and the conversion of sinners and [then], his prayer ended, he embraced his mother, saying: “Peace be to you, my mother. Rest in God who created you and me.” And having said this, he turned to his disciples, saying: “May God’s grace and mercy be with you.” Then before their eyes the four angels carried him up into heaven.

Chapter 222

After Jesus had departed, the disciples scattered through the different parts of Israel and of the world, and the truth, hated of Satan, was persecuted, as it always is, by falsehood. For certain evil men, pretending to be disciples, preached that Jesus died and rose not again. Others preached that he really died, but rose again. Others preached, and yet preach, that Jesus is the Son of God, among whom is Paul deceived. But we – as much as I have written – we preach to those that fear God, that they may be saved in the last day of God’s Judgment. Amen.

END OF THE GOSPEL

One day, Jesus being in Solomon’s porch, a scribe, one of them that made discourse to the people, drew near to him and said to him: “O master, I have many times made discourse to this people; in my mind there is a passage of scripture which I am not. able to understand.” Jesus [...]]]> Chapter 180

One day, Jesus being in Solomon’s porch, a scribe, one of them that made discourse to the people, drew near to him and said to him: “O master, I have many times made discourse to this people; in my mind there is a passage of scripture which I am not. able to understand.” Jesus answered: “And what is it?” The scribe said: “That which God said to Abraham your father, I will be your great reward. Now how could man merit [such reward]?”

Then Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said: “Assuredly you are not far from the kingdom of God! Listen to me, for I will tell you the meaning of such teaching. God being infinite, and man finite, man cannot merit God and is this [the reason for] your doubt, brother?” The scribe answered, weeping: “Lord, you know my heart. Speak, therefore, for my soul desires to hear your voice.” Then Jesus said: “As God lives, man cannot merit [even] a little breath which he receives every moment.”

The scribe was beside himself, hearing this, and the disciples marvelled as well, because they remembered that which Jesus said, that whatever they gave for love of God, they should receive a hundredfold [in return]. Then he said: “If someone should lend you a hundred pieces of gold, and you should spend those pieces, could you say to that man: ‘I give you a decayed vine-leaf; therefore give me your house, for I merit it’?” The scribe answered: “No, Lord, for he should first pay that which he owed, and then, if he wished for anything, he should give him good things, but what good is a corrupted leaf ?”

Chapter 181

Jesus answered: “You have spoken well, O brother; so tell me, Who created man out of nothing? Surely it was God, who also gave [man] the whole world for his benefit. But man by sinning has spent it all, for because of sin the world is turned against man, and man in his misery has nothing to give to God but works corrupted by sin. For, sinning every day, he makes his own work corrupt, as Isaiah the prophet says: Our righteousnesses are as a menstruous cloth.

How, then, shall man have merit, seeing he is unable to give satisfaction? Is it, perhaps, that man does not sin? It is certain that our God says by his prophet David: Seven times a day falls the righteous. How then falls the unrighteous? And if our righteousnesses are corrupt, how abominable are our unrighteousnesses! As God lives, there is nothing that a man should shun more than this saying: ‘I merit.’ Brother, let a man know the works of his hands, and he will straightway see his merit. Every good thing that comes out of a man, truly, man does not do it, but God works it in him; for his being is of God who created him. That which man does is to contradict God his creator and to commit sin, [and so] he merits not reward, but torment.

Chapter 182

‘Not only has God created man, as I say, but he created him perfect. He has given him the whole world; after the departure from paradise he has given him two angels to guard him, he has sent him the prophets, he has granted him the Law, he has granted him the faith, every moment he delivers him from Satan, he is fain to give him paradise; no more, God wills to give himself to man. Consider, then, the debt, if it is great! [a debt] to cancel which you would need to have created man of yourselves out of nothing, to have created as many prophets as God has sent, with a world and a paradise, no, more, with a God great and good as is our God, and to give it ne all to God. So would the debt be cancelled and there would remain to you only the obligation to give thanks to God. But since you are not able to create a single fly, and seeing there is but one God who is lord of all things, how shall you be able to cancel your debt? Assuredly, if a man should lend you an hundred pieces of gold, you would be obliged to restore an hundred pieces of gold.

Accordingly, the sense of this, O brother, is that God, being lord of paradise and of everything, can say that which pleases him, and give whatsoever pleases him. Wherefore, when he said to Abraham: “I will be your great reward,” Abraham ;could not say: “God is my reward,” but “God is my gift and my debt.” So when you discourse to the people, O brother, you ought thus to explain this passage: that God will give to man such and such things if man works well. When God shall speak to you, O man, and shall say: “O my servant, you have wrought well for love of me; what reward seek you from me, your God?” answer you: “Lord, seeing I am the work of your hands, it is not fitting that there should be in me sin, which Satan ;loves. Therefore, Lord, for your own glory, have mercy upon’ the works of your hands.

And if God say: “I have pardoned you, and now I would fain reward you”; answer you: “Lord, I merit punishment for what I have done, and for what you have done you merit to be glorified. Punish, Lord, in me what I have done, and save that which you have wrought.” And if God say: “What punishment seems to you fitting for your sin?” do you answer; “As much, O Lord, as all the reprobate shall suffer.” And if God say: “Wherefore seek you so great punish. men, O my faithful servant?” answer you: “Because every one of them, if they had received from you as much as I have received, would have served you more faithfully than I [have done].” And if God say: “When will you receive this punishment, and for how long a time?” answer you: “Now, and without end.” As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, such a man would be more pleasing to God than all his holy angels. For God loves true humility, and hates pride.’

Then the scribe gave thanks to Jesus, and said to him, ‘Lord, let us go to the house of your servant, for your servant will give meat to you and to your disciples.’ Jesus answered: ‘I will come thither when you will promise to call me “Brother” and not “Lord,”; and shall say you are my brother, and not my servant.’ The man promised, and Jesus went to his house.

Chapter 183

While they sat at meat the scribe said: ‘O master, you said that God loves true humility. Tell us therefore what is humility, and how it can be true and false.’ [Jesus replied: ] “Truly I say to you that he who becomes not as a little child shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Every one was amazed at hearing this, and they said one to another: ‘Now how shall he become a little child who is thirty or forty years old? Surely, this is a hard saying.’

Jesus answered: ‘As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, my words are true. I said to you that [a man] has need to become as a little child: for this is true humility. For if you ask a little child: “Who has made your garments?” he will answer: “My father.” If you ask him whose is the house where he lives, he will say: “My father’s.” If you shall say: “Who gives you to eat?” he will reply: “My father.” If you shall say: “Who has taught you to walk and to speak?” he will answer; “My father.” But if you shall say: “Who has broken your forehead, for that you have your forehead so bound up?” he will answer: “I fell down, and so did I break my head.”

If you shall say: “Now why did you fall down?” he will answer: “See you not that I am little, so that I have not the strength to walk and run like a grown man? so my father must needs take me by the hand if I would walk firmly. But in order that I might learn to walk well, my father left me for a little space, and I, wishing to run, fell down.” If you shall say: “And what said your father?” he will answer: “Now why did you not walk quite slowly? See that in future you leave not my side.”

Chapter 184

Tell me, is this true?’ said Jesus. The disciples and the scribe answered: ‘It is most true.’ Then Jesus said: ‘He who in truth of heart recognizes God as the author of all good, and himself as the author of sin, shall be truly humble. But whoever shall speak with the tongue as the child speaks, and shall contradict [the same] in act, assuredly he has false humility and true pride. For pride is then at its height when it makes use of humble things, that it be not reprehended and spurned of men.

True humility is a lowliness of the soul whereby man knows himself in truth; but false humility is a mist from hell which so darkens the understanding of the soul that what a man ought to ascribe to himself, he ascribes to God, and what he ought to ascribe to God, he ascribes to himself. Thus, the man of false humility will say that he is a grievous sinner, but when one tells him that he is a sinner he will wax wroth against him, and will persecute him. The man of false humility will say that God has given him all that he has, but that he on his part has not slumbered, but done good works. And these Pharisees of this present time, brethren, tell me how they walk.’

The scribe answered, weeping: “O master, the Pharisees of the present time have the garments and the name of Pharisees, but in their heart and their works they are Canaanites. And would to God they usurped not such a name, for then would they not deceive the simple! O ancient time, how cruelly have you dealt with us, that have taken away from us the true Pharisees and left us the false!’

Chapter 185

Jesus answered: ‘Brother, it is not time that has done this, but rather the wicked world. For in every time it is possible to serve God in truth, but by companying with the world, that is with the evil manners in each time, men become bad. Now know you not that Gehazi, servant of Elisha the prophet, lying, and shaming his master, took the money and the raiment of Naaman the Syrian? And yet Elisha had a great number of Pharisees to whom God made him to prophesy.

Truly I say to you that men are so inclined to evil working, and so much does the world excite them thereto, and work Satan entice them to evil, that the Pharisees of the present day avoid every good work and every holy example: and the example of Gehazi is sufficient for them to be reprobated of God. ‘The scribe answered: “It is most true”; whereupon Jesus said: “I would that you would narrate to me the example of Haggai and Hosea, both prophets of God, in order that we may behold the true Pharisee.” The scribe answered: “O master, what shall I say? Surely many believe it not, although it is written by Daniel the prophet; but in obedience to you I will narrate the truth.

Haggai was fifteen years old when, having sold his patrimony and given it to the poor, he went forth from Anathoth to serve Obadiah the prophet. Now the aged Obadiah, who knew the humility of Haggai, used him as a book wherewith to teach his disciples. Wherefore he oftentimes presented him raiment and delicate food, but Haggai ever sent back the messenger, saying: “Go, return to the house, for you have made a mistake. Shall Obadiah send me such things? Surely not: for he knows that I am good for nothing, and only commit sins.

And Obadiah, when he had anything bad, used to give it to the one next to Haggai, in order that he might see it. Thereupon Haggai. when he saw it, would say to himself: “Now, behold, Obadiah has certainly forgotten you, for this thing is suited to me alone, because I am worse than all. And there is nothing so vile but that, receiving it from Obadiah, by whose hands God grants it to me, it were a treasure.”

Chapter 186

When Obadiah desired to teach any one how to pray, he would call Haggai and say: “Recite here your prayer so that every one may hear your words.” Then Haggai would say: “Lord God of Israel, with mercy look upon your servant, who calls upon you, for that you have created him. Righteous Lord God, remember your righteousness and punish the sins of your servant, in order that I may not pollute your work. Lord my God, I cannot ask you for the delights that you grant to your faithful servants, because I do nought but sins. Wherefore, Lord, when you would give an infirmity to one of your servants, remember me your servant, for your own glory.” And when Haggai did so,’ said the scribe, ‘God so loved him that to every one who in his time stood by him God gave, [the gift of] prophecy. And nothing did Haggai ask in prayer that God withheld.’

Chapter 187

The good scribe wept as he said this, as the sailor weeps when he sees his ship broken up. And he said: “Hosea, when he went to serve God, was prince over the tribe of Naphtali, and aged fourteen years. And so, having sold his patrimony and given it to the poor, he went to be disciple of Haggai. Hosea was so inflamed with charity that concerning all that was asked of him he would say: ‘This has God given me for you, O brother; accept it, therefore!’ For which cause he was soon left with two garments only namely, a tunic of sackcloth and a mantle of skins. He sold, I say, his patrimony and gave it to the poor, because otherwise no one would be suffered to be called a Pharisee.

Hosea had the Book of Moses, which he read with greatest earnestness. Now one day Haggai said to him: “Hosea, who has taken away from you all that you had?” He answered: “The Book of Moses.” It happened that a disciple of a neighbouring prophet wanted to go to Jerusalem, but did not have a mantle. Wherefore, having heard of the charity of Hosea, he went to find him, and said to him: ‘Brother, I would want to go to Jerusalem to perform a sacrifice to our God, but I have not a mantle, wherefore I know not what to do.’

When he heard this, Hosea said: ‘Pardon me, brother, for I have committed a great sin against you: because God has given me a mantle in order that I might give it to you, and I had forgotten. Now therefore accept it, and pray to God for me.’ The man, believing this, accepted Hosea’s mantle and departed. And when Hosea went to the house of Haggai, Haggai said: ‘Who has taken away your mantle?’ Hosea replied: ‘The Book of Moses.’ Haggai was much pleased at hearing this, because he perceived the goodness of Hosea.

It happened that a poor man was stripped by robbers and left naked. Whereupon Hosea, seeing him, stripped off his own tunic and gave it to him that was naked; himself being left with a little piece of goat-skin over the privy parts. Wherefore, as he came not to see Haggai, the good Haggai thought that Hosea was sick. So he went with two disciples to find him: and they found him wrapped in palm-leaves. Then said Haggai: ‘Tell me now, why have you not been to visit me?’ Hosea answered: “The Book of Moses has taken away my tunic, and I feared to come thither without a tunic.” Whereupon Haggai gave him another tunic.

It happened that a young man, seeing Hosea read the Book of Moses, wept, and said: ‘I also would learn to read if I had a book.’ Hearing which, Hosea gave him the book, saying: ‘Brother, this book is yours; for God gave it me in order that I should give it to one who, weeping, should desire a book.’ The man believed him, and accepted the book.

Chapter 188

There was a disciple of Haggai near to Hosea; and he, wishing to see if his own book was well written, went to visit Hosea, and said to him: “Brother, take your book and let us see if it is even as mine. ” Hosea answered: “It has been taken away from me.” ” Who has taken it from you?” said the disciple. Hosea answered: “The Book of Moses,” Hearing which, the other went to Haggai ;and said to him: “Hosea has gone mad, for he says that the Book of Moses has taken away from him the Book of Moses.” Haggai answered: “Would to God, O brother, that I were mad in like manner, and that all mad folk were like to Hosea!”

Now the Syrian robbers, having raided the land of Judea, seized the son of a poor widow, who dwelt hard by Mount Carmel, where the prophets and Pharisees abode. It chanced, accordingly, that Hosea having gone to cut wood met the woman, who was weeping. Thereupon he straightway began to weep; for whenever he saw any one laugh he laughed, and whenever he saw any one weep he wept. Hosea then asked the woman touching the reason of her weeping, and she told him all.

Then said Hosea: ‘Come, sister, for God wills to give you your son.” And they went both of them to Hebron;, where Hosea ;sold himself, and gave the money to the widow;, who, not knowing how he had gotten that money, accepted it, and redeemed her son. He who had bought Hosea took him to Jerusalem, where he had an abode, not knowing Hosea. Haggai;, seeing that Hosea was not to be found, remained afflicted thereat. Whereupon the angel of God told him how he had been taken as a slave to Jerusalem. The good Haggai, when he heard this, wept for the absence of Hosea as a mother weeps for the absence of her son. And having called two disciples he went to Jerusalem. And by the will of God, in the entrance of the city he met Hosea, who was laden with bread to carry it to the labourers in his master’s vineyard.

Having recognized him, Haggai said: “Son, how is it that you have forsaken your old father, who seeks you mourning?” Hosea answered: “Father, I have been sold.” Then said Haggai in wrath: “Who is that bad fellow who has sold you?” Hosea answered: “God forgive you, O my father; for he who has sold me is so good that if he were not in the world no one would become holy.” ‘Who, then, is he?” said Haggai;. ‘Hosea answered: “O my father, it was the Book of Moses;.”Then the good Haggai remained as it were beside himself, and said: “Would to God, my son, that the Book of Moses; would sell me also with all my children, even as it has sold you!”

And Haggai went with Hosea to the house of his master, who when he saw Haggai said: “Blessed be our God, who has sent his prophet to my house”; and he ran to kiss his hand. Then said Haggai: “Brother, kiss the hand of your slave whom you have bought, for he is better than I.” And he narrated to him all that had passed; whereupon the master gave Hosea his freedom. ‘And that is all that you desired, O Master,’ [said the scribe].

Chapter 189

Then Jesus said: “This is true, because I am assured of it by God. Therefore, that every one may know that this is the truth, in the name of God let the sun stand still, and not move for twelve hours!” And so it came to pass, to the great terror of all Jerusalem and Judea.

And Jesus said to the scribe: “O brother, what seek you to learn from me, seeing you have such knowledge? As God lives, this is sufficient for man’s salvation, inasmuch as the humility of Haggai, with the charity of Hosea, fulfils all the Law and all the prophets. Tell me, brother, when you came to question me in the Temple, did you think, perhaps. that God had sent me to destroy the Law and the prophets? It is certain that God will not do this, seeing he is unchangeable, and therefore that which God ordained as man’s way of salvation, this has he caused all the prophets to say.

As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, if the Book of Moses with the book of our father David had not been corrupted by the human traditions of false Pharisees and doctors, God would not have given his word to me. And why speak I of the Book of Moses and the book of David? Every prophecy have they corrupted, in so much that today a thing is not sought because God has commanded it, but men look whether the doctors say it, and the Pharisees observe it, as though God were in error, and men could not err.

Woe, therefore, to his faithless generation, for upon them shall come the blood of every prophet and righteous man, with the blood of Zechariah son of Berachiah, whom they slew between the Temple and the altar! What prophet have they not persecuted? What righteous man have they suffered to die a natural death? Scarcely one! And they seek now to slay me. They boast themselves to be children of Abraham, and to possess the beautiful Temple. As God lives, they are children of Satan, and therefore they do his will: therefore the Temple, with the holy city, shall go to ruin, in so much that there shall not remain of the Temple one stone upon another.’

Chapter 190

‘Tell me, brother, you that are a doctor learned in the Law in whom was the promise of the Messiah made to our father Abraham? In Isaac or in Ishmael.” The scribe answered: ‘O master, I fear to tell you this, because of the penalty of death.’ Then Jesus said: ‘Brother, I am grieved that I came to eat bread in your house, since you love this present life more than God your creator; and for this cause you fear to lose your life, but fear not to lose the faith and the life eternal,

which is lost when the tongue speaks contrary to that which the heart knows of the Law of God. Then the good scribe wept, and said: “O master, if I had known how to bear fruit, I should have preached many things which I have left unsaid lest sedition should be roused among the people.”

Jesus answered: “You should respect neither the people, nor all the world, nor all the holy ones, nor all the angels, when it should cause offence to God. Wherefore let the whole [world] perish rather than offend God your creator, and preserve it not with sin. For sin destroys and preserves not, and God is mighty to create as many worlds as there are sands in the sea, and more.”

Chapter 191

The scribe then said: “Pardon me, O master, for I have sinned.” Jesus said: “God pardon you. for against him have you sinned.”

Whereupon said the scribe: I have seen an old book; written by the hand of Moses and Joshua ;(he who made the sun stand still; as you have done), servants and prophets of God, which book is the true Book of Moses. Therein is written that Ishmael is the father of Messiah, and Isaac the father of the messenger of the Messiah. And thus says the book, that Moses said: “Lord God of Israel, mighty and merciful, manifest to your servant the splendour of your glory.”

Whereupon God showed him his Messenger in the arms of Ishmael, and Ishmael in the arms of Abraham. Near to Ishmael stood Isaac, in whose arms was a child, who with his finger pointed to the Messenger of God, saying: “This is he for whom God has created all things.” Whereupon Moses cried out with joy: “O Ishmael, you have in your arms all the world, and paradise! Be mindful of me, God’s servant, that I may find grace in God’s sight by means of your son, for whom God has made all.”

Chapter 192

In that Book it is not found that God eats the flesh of cattle or sheep; in that Book it is not found that God has locked up his mercy in Israel alone, but rather that God has mercy on every man that seeks God his creator in truth. All of this book I was not able to read, because the high priest, in whose library I was, forbade me, saying that an Ishmaelite had written it.’

Then Jesus said: “See that you never again keep back the truth, because in the faith of the Messiah God shall give salvation to men, and without it shall none be saved.” And there did Jesus end his discourse. Whereupon, as they sat at meat, lo! Mary, who wept at the feet of Jesus, entered into the house of Nicodemus (for that was the name of the scribe), and weeping placed herself at the feet of Jesus, saying: ‘Lord, your servant, who through you has found mercy with God, has a sister, and a brother who now lies sick in peril of death.’

Jesus answered: ‘Where is your house? Tell me, for I will come to pray God for his health.’ Mary answered: ‘Bethany is [the home] of my brother and my sister, for my own house is Magdala: my brother, therefore, is in Bethany;.’ Jesus said to the woman: ‘Go you straightway to your brother’s house, and there await me, for I will come to heal him. And fear you not, for he shall not die.’ The woman departed, and having gone to Bethany found that her brother had died that day, wherefore they laid him in the sepulchre of their fathers.

Chapter 193

Jesus abode two days in the house of Nicodemus, and the third day he departed for Bethany; and when he was near to the town he sent two of his disciples before him, to announce to Mary his coming. She ran out of the town, and when she had found Jesus. said, weeping: ‘Lord, you said that my brother would not die; and now he has been buried four days. Would to God you had come before I called you, for then he had not died!’

Jesus answered: ‘Thy brother is not dead, but sleeps, therefore I come to awake him.’ Mary answered, weeping: ‘Lord, from such a sleep he shall be awakened on the day of judgment by the angel of God sounding his trumpet.’ Jesus answered: ‘Mary, believe me that he shall rise before [that day], because God has given me power over his sleep; and truly I say to you he is not dead, for he alone is dead who dies without finding mercy with God.’ Mary returned quickly to announce to her sister Martha the coming of Jesus.

Now there were assembled at the death of Lazarus ;a great number of Jews from Jerusalem, and many scribes and Pharisees. Martha;, having heard from her sister Mary of the coming of Jesus, arose in haste and ran outside, whereupon the multitude of Jews, scribes, and Pharisees followed her to comfort her, because they supposed she was going to the sepulchre to weep over her brother. When therefore she arrived at the place where Jesus had spoken to Mary, Martha weeping said: ‘Lord, would to God you had been here, for then my brother had not died!’ Mary then came up weeping; whereupon Jesus shed tears, and sighing said: ‘Where have you laid him?’ They answered: ‘Come and see.’

The Pharisees said among themselves: ‘Now this man, who raised the son of the widow ;at Nain;, why did he suffer this man to die, having said that he should not die?’ Jesus having come to the sepulchre, where every one was weeping, said: ‘Weep not, for Lazarus sleeps, and I am come to awake him.’ The Pharisees said among themselves: ‘Would to God that you did so sleep!’ Then Jesus said: ‘My hour is not yet come; but when it shall come I shall sleep in like manner, and shall be speedily awakened.’ Then Jesus said again: ‘Take away the stone from the sepulchre.’ Said Martha: ‘Lord, he stinks, for he has been dead four days.’Jesus said: ‘Why then am I come hither, Martha? Believe you not in me that I shall awaken him?’ Martha answered: ‘I know that you are the holy one of God, who has sent you into this world.’

Then Jesus lifted up his hands to heaven, and said: ‘ God of our fathers, God of Abraham;, God of Ishmael ;and Lord of Isaac;, have mercy upon the affliction of these women, and give glory to your holy name.’ And when every one had answered ‘Amen,’ Jesus said with a loud voice: ‘Lazarus, come forth!’ Whereupon he that was dead arose; and Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Loose him.’ For he was bound in the grave-clothes with the napkin over his face, even as our fathers were accustomed to bury [their dead].

A great multitude of the Jews and some of the Pharisees believed in Jesus, because the miracle was great. Those that remained in their unbelief departed and went to Jerusalem and announced to the chief of the priests the resurrection of Lazarus;, and how that many were become Nazarenes;; for so they called them who were brought to penitence through the word of God which Jesus preached.

Chapter 194

The scribes and Pharisees took counsel with the high priest to slay Lazarus; for many renounced their traditions and believed in the word of Jesus, because the miracle of Lazarus was a great one, seeing that Lazarus had conversation with men, and ate and drank. But because he was powerful, having a following in Jerusalem, and possessing with his sister Magdala and Bethany, they knew not what to do.

Jesus entered into Bethany, into the house of Lazarus, and Martha, with Mary, ministered to him. *Mary, sitting one day at the feet of Jesus, was listening to his words, whereupon Martha said to Jesus: ‘Lord, see you not that my sister takes no care for you, and provides not that which you must eat and your disciples?’ Jesus answered: ‘Martha, Martha, do you take thought for that which you should do; for Mary has chosen a part which shall not be taken away from her for ever.

Jesus, sitting at table with a great multitude that believed in him, spoke, saying: ‘Brethren, I have but little time to remain with you, for the time is at hand that I must depart from the world. Wherefore I bring to your mind the words of God spoken to Ezekiel ;the prophet, saying: “As I, your God, live eternally, the soul that sins, it shall die, but if the sinner shall repent he shall not die but live.” Wherefore the present death is not death, but rather the end of a long death: even as the body when separated from the sense in a swoon, though it have the soul within it, has no other advantage over the dead and buried save this, that the buried [body] awaits God to raise it again, but the unconscious waits for the sense to return. Behold, then, the present life that it is death, through having no perception of God.

Chapter 195

‘They that shall believe in me shall not die eternally, for through my word they shall perceive God within them, and therefore shall work out their salvation. What is death but an act which nature does by commandment of God? As it would be if one held a bird tied, and held the cord in his hand; when the head wills the bird to fly away, what does it? Assuredly it commands naturally the hand to open; and so straightway the bird flies away. “Our soul,” as says the prophet David,

“is as a sparrow freed from the snare of the fowler,” when man abides under the protection of God. And our life is like a cord whereby nature holds the soul bound to the body and the sense of man. When therefore God wills, and commands nature to open, the life is broken and the soul escapes in the hands of the angels whom God has ordained to receive souls.

Let not, then, friends weep when their friend is dead; for our God has so willed. But let him weep without ceasing when he sins, for [so] the soul dies, seeing it separates itself from God, the true Life. If the body is horrible without its union with the soul, much more frightful is the soul without union with God, who with his grace and mercy beautifies and quickens it.’ And having said this Jesus gave thanks to God; whereupon Lazarus said: ‘Lord, this house belongs to God my creator, with all that he has given into my keeping, for the service of the poor. Wherefore, since you are poor, and have a great number of disciples, come you to dwell here when you please, and as much as you please, for the servant of God will minister to you as much as shall be needful, for love of God.’

Chapter 196

Jesus rejoiced when he heard this, and said: ‘See now how good a thing it is to die! Lazarus has died once only, and has learned such doctrine as is not known to the wise men in the world that have grown old among books! Would to God that every man might die once only and return to the world, like Lazarus;, in order that men might learn to live.’ John answered: ‘O master, is it permitted to me to speak a word?’

‘Speak a thousand,’ answered Jesus, ‘for just as a man is bound to dispense his goods in the service of God, so also is he bound to dispense doctrine: and so much the more is he bound [so to do) inasmuch as the world has power to raise up a soul to penitence, whereas goods cannot bring back life to the dead. Wherefore he is a murderer who has power to help a poor man and when he helps him not the poor man dies of hunger; but a more grievous murderer is he who could by the word of God convert the sinner to penitence, and converts him not, but stands, as says God, "like a dumb dog." Against such says God: "The soul of the sinner that shall perish because you have hidden my word, I will require it at your hands, O unfaithful servant."

In what condition, then, are now the scribes and Pharisees who have the key and will not enter, no hinder them who would fain enter, into eternal life? 'You ask me, O John;, permission to speak one word, having listened to an hundred thousand words of mine. Truly I say to you, I am bound to listen to you ten times for every one that you have listened to me. And he who will not listen to another, every time that he shall speak he shall sin; seeing that we ought to do to others that which we desire for ourselves, and not do to others that which we do not desire to receive.' Then said John: 'O master, why has not God granted this to men, that they should die once and return as Lazarus has done, in order that they might learn to know themselves and their creator?'

Chapter 197

Jesus answered: 'Tell me, John; there was an householder who gave a perfect axe ;to one of his servants in order that he might cut down the wood which obstructed the view of his house. But the labourer forgot the axe, and said: "If the master would give me an old axe I should easily cut down the wood." Tell me, John, what said the master? Assuredly he was wroth, and took the old axe and struck him on the head, saying: Fool and knave! I gave you an axe wherewith you might cut down the wood without toil, and seek you this axe, wherewith one must work with great toil, and all that is cut is wasted and good for nought? I desire you to cut down the wood in such wise that your work shall be good." Is this true?'

John answered: 'It is most true.' [Then Jesus said: ] ‘As I live eternally,’ said God, ‘I have given a good axe to every man, which is the sight of the burial of one dead. Whoso wield well this axe remove the wood of sin from their heart without pain; wherefore they receive my grace and mercy; giving them merit of eternal life for their good works. But he who forgets that he is mortal, though time after time he see others die, and says. “If I should see the other life, I would do good works,” my fury shall be upon him, and I will so smite him with death that he shall never more receive any good.’ ‘O John;,’ said Jesus, ‘how great is the advantage of him who from the fall of others learns to stand on his feet!’

Chapter 198

Then said Lazarus: ‘Master, truly I say to you, I cannot conceive the penalty of which he is worthy who time after time sees the dead borne to the tomb and fears not God our creator. Such an one for the things of this world, which he ought entirely to forsake, offends his creator who has given him all.’

Then Jesus said to his disciples: ‘You call me Master, and you do well, seeing that God teaches you by my mouth. But how will you call Lazarus? Truly he is here master of all the masters that teach doctrine in this world. I indeed have taught you how you ought to live well, but Lazarus will teach you how to die well. As God lives, he has received the gift of prophecy; listen therefore to his words, which are truth. And so much the more ought you to listen to him, as good living is vain if one die badly.’

Said Lazarus: ‘O master, I thank you that you make the truth to be prized; therefore will God give the great merit.’ Then said he who writes this: ‘O master how speaks Lazarus the truth in saying to you “You shall have merit,” whereas you said to Nicodemus that man merits nought but punishment? Shall you accordingly be punished of God?’ Jesus answered: ‘May it please God that I receive punish. men of God in this World, because I have not served him so faithfully as I was bound to do.

But God has so loved me, by his mercy, that every punishment is withdrawn from me, in so much that I shall only be tormented in another person. For punishment was fitting for me, for that men have called me God; but since I have confessed, not only that I am not God, as is the truth, but have confessed also that I am not the Messiah, therefore God has taken away the punishment from me, and will cause a wicked one to suffer it in my name, so that the shame alone shall be mine. wherefore I say to you, my Barnabas, that when a man speaks of what God shall give to his neighbour let him say that his neighbour merits it: but let him look to it that, when he speaks of

what God shall give to himself , he say: God will give me.” And let him look to it that he say not, I have merit, because God is pleased to grant his mercy to his servants when they confess that they merit hell for their sins.

Chapter 199

God is so rich in mercy that the water of a thousand seas, if so many were to be found, could not quench a spark of the flames of hell, yet a single tear of one who mourns at having offended God quenches the whole of hell, by the great mercy wherewith God succours him. God, therefore, to confound Satan and to display his own bounty, wills to call merit in the presence of his mercy every good work of his faithful servant, and wills him so to speak of his neighbour. But of himself a man must beware of saying: “I have merit”; for he would be condemned.’

Chapter 200

Jesus then turned to Lazarus, and said: ‘Brother, I must needs for a short time abide in the world, wherefore when I shall be near to your house I will not ever go elsewhere, because you will minister to me, not for love of me, but for love of God.’ It was near to the Passover of the Jews, [so] Jesus said to his disciples: “Let us go to Jerusalem to eat the paschal lamb.” And he sent Peter and John to the city, saying: “You shall find an ass near the gate of the city with a colt: loose her and bring her here; for I must ride [on her] into Jerusalem. And if any one ask you saying, “Why [do] you loose her?” say to them: “The Master has need [of her],” and they will permit you to bring her.”

The disciples went, and found all that Jesus had told them, and accordingly they brought the ass and the colt. The disciples [then] placed their mantles upon the colt, and Jesus rode [on her]. And it came to pass that, when the men of Jerusalem heard that Jesus of Nazareth was coming, the men went forth with their children eager to see Jesus, bearing in their hands branches of palm and olive, singing: ‘Blessed be he that comes to us in the name of God; hosanna son of David!’

Jesus having come into the city, the men spread out their garments under the feet of the ass, singing: “Blessed be he that comes to us in the name of the Lord God; hosanna, son of David!” The Pharisees rebuked Jesus, saying: ‘See you not what these say? Cause them to hold their peace!’ Then Jesus said: ‘As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, if men should hold their peace, the stones would cry out against the unbelief of malignant sinners.’ And when Jesus had said this all the stones of Jerusalem cried out with a great noise: ‘Blessed be he who comes to us in the name of the Lord God!’ Nevertheless the Pharisees remained still in their unbelief, and, having assembled themselves together, took counsel to catch him in his talk.

Chapter 201

Jesus having entered into the Temple, the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery. They said among themselves: ‘If he save her, it is contrary to the Law of Moses, and so we have him as guilty, and if he condemn her it is contrary to his own doctrine, for he preaches mercy.’ Wherefore they came to Jesus and said: ‘Master, we have found this woman in adultery. Moses commanded that [such] should be stoned: what then say you?’

Thereupon Jesus stooped down and with his finger made a mirror on the ground wherein every one saw his own iniquities. They still pressed for the answer, Jesus lifted up himself As and, pointing to the mirror with his finger, said: ‘He that is without sin among you, let him be first to stone her.’ And again he stooped down, shaping the mirror. The men, seeing this, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, for they were ashamed to see their abominations.

Jesus having lifted up himself, and seeing no one but the woman, said: ‘Woman, where are they that condemned you?’ The woman answered, weeping: ‘Lord, they are departed; and if you will pardon me as God lives, I will sin no more.’ Then Jesus said: ‘Blessed be God! Go your way in peace and sin no more, for God has not sent me to condemn you.’

Then, the scribes and Pharisees being assembled, Jesus said to them: ‘Tell me: if one of you had an hundred sheep, and should lose one of them, would you not go to seek it, leaving the ninety and nine? And when you found it, would you not lay it upon your shoulders and, having called together your neighbours, say to them: “Rejoice with me, for I have found the sheep which I had lost”? Assuredly you would do so. Now tell me, shall our God love less man, for whom he has made the world? As God lives, even so there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents; because sinners make known God’s mercy.’

Chapter 202

‘Tell me, by whom is the physician more loved: by them that have never had any sickness, or by them whom the physician has healed of grievous sickness?’ Said the Pharisees to him: ‘And how shall he that is whole love the physician? assuredly he will love him only for that he is not sick; and not having knowledge of sickness he will love the physician but little.’

Then with vehemence of spirit Jesus spoke, saying: ‘As God lives, your own tongues condemn your pride, inasmuch as our God is loved more by the sinner that repents, knowing the great mercy of God upon him, than by the righteous. For the righteous has not knowledge of the mercy of God. Wherefore there is more rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents than over ninety and nine righteous persons. Where are the righteous in our time? As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, great is the number of the righteous unrighteous; their condition being like to that of Satan.’

The scribes and Pharisees answered: ‘We are sinners, wherefore God will have mercy on us.’ And this they said tempting him; for the scribes and Pharisees count it the greatest insult to be called sinners. Then Jesus said: ‘I fear that you be righteous unrighteous. For if you have sinned and deny your sin, calling yourselves righteous, you are unrighteous; and if in your heart you hold yourselves righteous, and with your tongue you say that you are sinners, then are you doubly righteous unrighteous.’

Accordingly the scribes and Pharisees hearing this were confounded and departed, leaving Jesus with his disciples in peace, and they went into the house of Simon the leper, whose leprosy he [had] cleansed. The citizens had gathered together the sick to the house of Simon and prayed Jesus for the healing of the sick. Then Jesus, knowing that his hour was near, said: ‘Call the sick, as many as there be, because God is mighty and merciful to heal them.’ They answered: ‘We know not that there be any other sick folk here in Jerusalem.’

Jesus weeping answered: ‘O Jerusalem, O Israel, I weep over you, for you know not your visitation; because I would fain have gathered you to the love of God your creator, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and you would not! Wherefore God says thus to you

Chapter 203

O city, hard-hearted and perverse of mind, I have sent to you my servant, to the end that he may convert you to your heart, and you may repent; but you, O city of confusion, have forgotten all that I did upon Egypt and upon Pharaoh for love of you, O Israel. Many times weep you that my servant may heal your body of sickness; and you seek to slay my servant because he seeks to heal your soul of sin.

Shall you, then, alone remain unpunished by me? Shall you, then, live eternally? And shall your pride deliver you from my hands? Assuredly not. For I will bring princes with they shall surround you with might, an army against you, and in such wise will I give you over into their hands that your pride shall fall down into hell.

I will not pardon the old men or the widows, I will not pardon the children, but I will give you all to famine, the sword, and derision and the Temple, whereon I have looked with mercy, I will make desolate with the city, insomuch that you shall be for a fable, a derision, and a proverb among the nations. So is my wrath abiding upon you, and my indignation sleeps not.”

Chapter 204

Having said this, Jesus said again: ‘Know you not that there be other sick folk? As God lives, they be fewer in Jerusalem that have their soul sound than they that be sick in body. And in order that you may know the truth, I say to you, O sick folk, in the name of God, let your sickness depart from you! And when he had said this, immediately they were healed.

The men wept when they heard of the wrath of God upon Jerusalem, and prayed for mercy; when Jesus said: “‘If Jerusalem shall weep for her sins and do penance, walking in my ways, said God, “I will not remember her iniquities any more, and I will not do to her any of the evil which I have said. But Jerusalem weeps for her ruin and not for her dishonouring of me, wherewith she has blasphemed my name among the nations. Therefore is my fury kindled much more. As I live eternally, if Job, Abraham, Samuel, David, and Daniel my servants, with Moses, should pray for this people, my wrath upon Jerusalem will not be appeased.”‘ And having said this, Jesus retired into the house, while every one remained in fear.

Chapter 205

While Jesus was supping with his disciples in the house of Simon the leper, behold Mary the sister of Lazarus entered into the house, and having broken a vessel, poured ointment over the head and garment of Jesus. Seeing this, Judas the traitor was fain to hinder Mary from doing such a work, saying: “Go and sell the ointment and bring the money that I may give it to the poor.’ Jesus said: ‘Why hinder you her? Let her be, for the poor you shall have always with you, but me you shall not have always.’

Judas answered: ‘O master, this ointment might be sold for three hundred pieces of money now see how many poor folk would be helped.’ Jesus answered: ‘O Judas, I know your heart: have patience, therefore, and I will give you all.’ Every one ate with fear, and the disciples were sorrowful, because they knew that Jesus must soon depart from them. But Judas was indignant, because he knew that he was losing thirty pieces of money for the ointment not sold, seeing he stole the tenth part of all that was given to Jesus.

He went to find the high priest, who assembled in a council of priests, scribes, and Pharisees; to whom Judas spoke, saying: ‘What will you give me, and I will betray into your hands Jesus, who would fain make himself king of Israel?’ *They answered: ‘Now how will you give him into our hand?’ Judas said: ‘When I shall know that he goes outside the city to pray I will tell you, and will conduct you to the place where he shall be found; for to seize him in the city will be impossible without a sedition.’ The high priest answered: ‘If you will give him into our hand we will give the thirty pieces of gold and you shall see how well I will treat you.’

Chapter 206

When day was come, Jesus went up to the Temple with a great multitude of people. Whereupon the high priest drew near, saying: ‘Tell me, O Jesus, have you forgotten all that you did confess, that you are not God, nor son of God, nor even the Messiah?’ Jesus answered: ‘No, surely, I have not forgotten; for this is my confession which I shall bear before the judgment seat of God on the day of judgment. For all that is written in the Book of Moses is most true, inasmuch as God our creator is [God] alone, and I am God’s servant and desire to serve God’s Messenger whom you call Messiah.’

Said the high priest: ‘Then what boots it to come to the Temple with so great a multitude of people? Seek you, perhaps, to make yourself king of Israel? Beware lest some danger befall you!’ Jesus answered: ‘If I sought my own glory and desired my portion in this world, I had not fled when the people of Nain would fain have made me king. Believe me, truly, that I seek not anything in this world.’ Then said the high priest: ‘We want to know a thing concerning the Messiah.’ And then the priests, scribes, and Pharisees made a circle round about Jesus.

Jesus answered: ‘What is that thing which you seek to know about the Messiah? Perhaps it is the lie? Assuredly I will not tell you the lie. For if I had said the lie I had been adored by you, and by the scribes [and] Pharisees with all Israel: but because I tell you the truth you hate me and seek to kill me.’ Said the high priest: ‘Now we know that you have the devil at your back; for you are a Samaritan;, and have not respect to the priest of God.’

Chapter 207

Jesus answered: ‘As God lives, I have not the devil at my back, but I seek to cast out the devil. Wherefore, for this cause the devil stirs up the world against me, because I am not of this world, but I seek that God may be glorified, who has sent me into the world. Hearken therefore to me, and I will tell you who has the devil at his back. As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, he who works after the will of the devil, he has the devil at his back, who has put on him the bridle of his will and rules him at his pleasure, making him to run into every iniquity.

Even as a garment changes its name when it changes its owner, although it is all the same cloth: so also men, albeit they are all of one material, are different by reason of the works of him who works in the man. ‘If I (as I know) have sinned, wherefore do you not rebuke me as a brother, instead of hating me as an enemy? Truly the members of a body succour one another when they are united with the head, and they that are cut off from the head give it no succour. For the hands of one body do not feel the pain of another body’s feet, but that of the body in which they are united. As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, he who fears and loves God his Creator has the feeling of mercy over them [over] whom God his head has mercy: and seeing that God wills not the death of the sinner, but waits for each one to repent, if you were of that body wherein I am incorporate, as God lives, you would help me to work according to my head.

Chapter 208

If I work iniquity, reprove me, and God will love you, because you shall be doing his will, but if none can reprove me of sin it is a sign that you are not sons of Abraham as you call yourselves, nor are you incorporate with that head wherein Abraham was incorporate. As God lives, so greatly did Abraham love God, that he not only brake in pieces the false idols and forsook his father and mother, but was willing to slay his own son in obedience to God.

The high priest answered: “This I ask of you, and I do not seek to slay you, wherefore tell us: Who was this son of Abraham?” Jesus answered: “The zeal of your honour, O God, inflames me, and I cannot hold my peace. Truly I say, the son of Abraham was Ishmael, from whom must be descended the Messiah promised to Abraham, that in him should all the tribes of the earth be blessed.” Then was the high priest wroth, hearing this, and cried out: “Let us stone this impious fellow, for he is an Ishmaelite, and has spoken blasphemy against Moses and against the Law of God.”

Whereupon every scribe and Pharisee, with the elders of the people, took up stones to stone Jesus, who vanished from their eyes and went out of the Temple. And then, through the great desire that they had to slay Jesus, blinded with fury and hatred, they struck one another in such wise that there died a thousand men; and they polluted the holy Temple. The disciples and believers, who saw Jesus go out of the Temple (for from them he was not hidden), followed him to the house of Simon.

Thereupon Nicodemus came thither and counselled Jesus to go out of Jerusalem beyond the brook Cedron, saying: ‘Lord, I have a garden with a house beyond the brook Cedron, I pray you, therefore, go thither with some of your disciples, to tarry there until this hatred of our priests be past; for I will minister to you what is necessary. And the multitude of disciples leave you here in the house of Simon and in my house, for God will provide for all.’ And this Jesus did, desiring only to have with him the twelve first called apostles.

Chapter 209

At this time, while the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, was standing in prayer, the angel Gabriel visited her and narrated to her the persecution of her son, saying: “Fear not, Mary, for God will protect him from the world.” Mary, weeping, departed from Nazareth, and came to Jerusalem to the house of Mary Salome, her sister, seeking her son.

But since he had secretly retired beyond the brook Cedron she was not able to see him any more in this world; except after the deed of shame, for [then] the angel Gabriel, with the angels Michael, Rafael, and Uriel, by [the] command of God, brought him to her.

‘The elder answered: “O brother, say not so, for you despise knowledge, which our God wills to be prized.” The younger replied: “Now, how shall I speak now so as not to fall into sin: for your word is true, and mine also. I say, then, that they who know the commandments of [...]]]> Chapter 150

‘The elder answered: “O brother, say not so, for you despise knowledge, which our God wills to be prized.” The younger replied: “Now, how shall I speak now so as not to fall into sin: for your word is true, and mine also. I say, then, that they who know the commandments of God written in the Law ought to observe those [first] if they would afterwards learn more. And all that a man learns, let it be observe it, and not [merely] to know it.” Said the elder: “O brother, tell me, with whom have you spoken, that you know you have not learned all that I said?”

‘The younger answered: “O brother, I speak with myself. Every day I place myself before the judgment of God, to give account of myself. And ever do I feel within myself one that excuses my faults.” ‘Said the elder: “O brother, what faults have you, who are perfect ? The younger answered: “O brother, say not so, for that I stand between two great faults: the one is that I do not know myself to be the greatest of sinners, the other that I do not desire to do penance for it more than other men.” ‘The elder answered: “Now, how shouldst you know yourself to be the greatest of sinners, if you are the most perfect [of men]?”

‘The younger replied: “The first word that my master said to me when I took the habit of a Pharisee was this: that I ought to consider the goodness of others and my own iniquity for if I should do so I should perceive myself to be the greatest of sinners. ‘Said the elder: “O brother, whose goodness or whose faults consider you on these mountains, seeing there are no men here?” The younger answered: “I ought to consider the obedience of the sun and the planets, for they serve their Creator better than I. But them I condemn, either because they give not light as I desire, or because their heat is too great, or there is too much or too little rain upon the ground.”

‘Whereupon, hearing this, the elder said: “Brother, where have you learned this doctrine, for I am now ninety years old, for seventy-five years whereof I have been a Pharisee?” The younger answered: “O brother, you say this in humility, for you are a holy one of God. Yet I answer you that God our creator looks not on time, but looks on the heart: wherefore David, being fifteen years; old, younger than six other his brethren, was chosen king of Israel, and became a prophet of God our Lord.”

Chapter 151

‘This man was a true Pharisee,’ said Jesus to his disciples; and may it please God that we be able on the day of judgment to have him for our friend.’

Jesus then embarked on a ship, and the disciples were sorry that they had forgotten to bring bread. Jesus rebuked them, saying: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees of our day, for a little leaven mars a mass of meal.” Then said the disciples one to another: ‘Now what leaven have we, if we have not even any bread?’ * Then Jesus said: ‘O men of little faith, have you then forgotten what God wrought in Nain, where there was no sign of corn? And how many ate and were satisfied with five loaves and two fishes? The leaven of the Pharisee is want of faith in God, and thought of self, which has corrupted not only the Pharisees of this day, but has corrupted Israel.

For the simple folk, not knowing how to read, do that which they see the Pharisees do, because they hold them for holy ones.

Know you what is the true Pharisee? He is the oil of human nature. For even as oil rests at the top of every liquor, so the goodness of the true Pharisee rests at the top of all human goodness. He is a living book, which God gives to the world; for everything that he says and does is according to the Law of God. Wherefore, who does as he does observes the Law of God. The true Pharisee is salt that suffers not human flesh to be putrefied by sin; for every one who sees him is brought to repentance. He is a light that lightens the pilgrims’ way, for every one that considers his poverty with his penitence perceives that in this world we ought not to shut up our heart. But he that makes the oil rancid, corrupts the book, putrefies the salt, extinguishes the light – this man is a false Pharisee. If, therefore, you would not perish, beware that you do not as does the Pharisee today.?

Chapter 152

Jesus having come to Jerusalem, and having entered one sabbath day into the Temple, the soldiers drew near to tempt him and take him, and they said: “Master, is it lawful to wage war?” Jesus answered: “Our faith tells us that our life is a continual warfare upon the earth.” Said the soldiers: “So would you convert us to your faith, and wish that we should forsake the multitude of gods (for Rome alone has twenty-eight thousand gods that are seen) and should follow your God who is one only and for that he cannot be seen, it is not known where he is, and perhaps he is but vanity.”

Jesus answered: “If I had created you, as our God has created you, I would seek to convert you.” They answered: “Now how has your God created us, seeing it is not known where he is? Show us your God, and we will become Jews.” Then Jesus said: “If you had eyes to see him I would show him to you, but since you are blind, I cannot show you him.” The soldiers answered: “Surely, the honour which this people pays you must have taken away your understanding. For every one of us has two eyes in his head, and you say we are blind.”

Jesus answered: “The carnal eyes can only see things gross and external: you therefore will only be able to see your gods of wood and silver and gold that cannot do anything. But we of Judah have spiritual eyesight which are the fear and the faith of our God, wherefore we can see our God in every place.” The soldiers answered: “Beware how you speak, for if you pour contempt on our gods we will give you into the hand of Herod, who will take vengeance for our gods, who are omnipotent.”

Jesus answered: “If they are omnipotent as you say, pardon me, for I will worship them.” The soldiers rejoiced at hearing this, and began to extol their idols. Then Jesus said: “[In this matter] we need not words but deeds; cause therefore that your gods create one fly, and I will worship them.” The soldiers were dismayed at hearing this, and knew not what to say, wherefore Jesus said: “Assuredly, seeing they make not a single fly afresh, I will not for them forsake that God who has created everything with a single word; whose name alone affrights armies.” The soldiers answered: “Now let us see this; for we are fain to take you,” and they were fain to stretch forth their hands against Jesus.

Then Jesus said: “Adonai Sabaoth!” Whereupon straightway the soldiers were rolled out of the Temple as one rolls casks of wood when they are washed to refill them with wine; insomuch that now their head and now their feet struck the ground, and that without any one touching them. And they were so affrighted and fled in such wise that they were never more seen in Judea.

Chapter 153

The priests and Pharisees murmured among themselves and said: “He has the wisdom of Baal and Ashtaroth, and so in the power of Satan has he done this.” Jesus opened his mouth and said: “Our God commanded that we should not steal our neighbour’s goods. But this single precept has been so violated and abused that it has filled the world with sin, and such [ sin] as shall never be remitted as other sins are remitted: seeing that for every other sin, if a man bewail it and commit it no more, and fast with prayer and almsgiving, our God, mighty and merciful, forgives. But this sin is of such a kind that it shall never be remitted,, except that which is wrongly taken be restored.

Then said a scribe: ‘O master, how has robbery filled all the world with sin? Assuredly now, by the grace of God, there are but few robbers, and they cannot show themselves but they are immediately hanged by the soldiery.’ Jesus answered: ‘Whoso knows not the goods, they (sic) cannot know the robbers;. No, I say to you truly that many rob who know not what they do, and therefore their sin is greater than that of the others, for the disease that is not known is not healed.’ Then the Pharisees drew near to Jesus and said: ‘O master, since you alone in Israel know the truth, teach you us.’

Jesus answered: ‘I say not that I alone in Israel know the truth, for this word “alone” appertains to God alone and not to others. For he is the truth, who alone knows the truth. Wherefore, I should say so I should be a greater robber, for I should be stealing the honour of God. And in saying that I alone knew God I should be falling into greater ignorance than all. You, therefore, committed a grievous sin in saying that I alone know the truth. And I tell you that, if you said this to tempt me, your sin is greater still.’

Then Jesus, seeing that all held their peace, said again: ‘Though I be not alone in Israel knowing the truth, I alone will speak; wherefore hearken to me, since you have asked me. All things created belong to the Creator, in such wise that nothing can lay claim to anything. Thus soul, sense, flesh, time, goods, and honour, all are God’s possessions, so that if a man receive them not as God wills he becomes a robber. And in like manner, if he spend them contrary to that which God wills, he is likewise a robber. I say, therefore, to you that, as God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, when you take time, saying: “Tomorrow I will do thus, I will say such a thing, I will go to such a place,” and not saying: “If God will,” you are robbers: And you are greater robbers when you spend the better part of your time in pleasing yourselves and not in pleasing God, and spend the worse part in God’s service: then are you robbers indeed. Whoever commits sin, be he of what fashion he will, is a robber; for he steals time and the soul and his own life, which ought to serve God, and gives it to Satan, the enemy of God.’

Chapter 154

‘The man, therefore, who has honour, and life, and goods – when his possessions are stolen, the robber shall be hanged; when his life is taken, the murderer shall be beheaded. And this is just, for God has so commanded. But when a neighbour’s honour is taken away, why is not the robber crucified? Are goods, forsooth, better than honour? Has God, perhaps, commanded that he who takes goods shall be punished and he that takes life with goods shall be punished, but he that takes away honour shall go free? Surely not; for by reason of their murmuring our fathers entered not into the land of promise, but only their children. And for this sin the serpents slew about seventy thousand of our people.

As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, he that steals honour is worthy of greater punishment than he that robs a man of goods and of life. And he that hearkens to the murmurer is likewise guilty, for the one receives Satan on his tongue and the other in his ears.” The Pharisees were consumed [with rage] at hearing this, because they were not able to condemn his speech. Then there drew near to Jesus a doctor, and said to him: ‘Good master, tell me, wherefore God did not grant corn and fruit to our fathers? Knowing that they must needs fall, surely he should have allowed them corn, or not have suffered men to see it.’

Jesus answered: ‘Man, you call me good, but you err, for God alone is good. And much more do you err in asking why God has not done according to your brain. Yet I will answer you all. I tell you, then, that God our creator in his working conforms not himself to us, wherefore it is not lawful for the creature to seek his own way and convenience, but rather the honour of God his creator, in order that the creature may depend on the Creator and not the Creator on the creature. As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, if God had granted everything to man, man would not have known himself to be God’s servant; and so he would have accounted himself lord of paradise. Wherefore the Creator, who is blessed for evermore, forbade him the food, in order that man might remain subject to him.

And truly I say to you, that whoever has the light of his eyes clear sees everything clear, and draws light even out of darkness itself; but the blind does not so. Wherefore I say that, if man had not sinned, neither I nor you would have known the mercy of God and his righteousness. And if God had made man incapable of sin he would have been equal to God in that matter; wherefore the blessed God created man good and righteous, but free to do that which he pleases in regard to his own life and salvation or damnation.’ The doctor was astounded when he heard this, and departed in confusion.

Chapter 155

Then the high-priest called two old priests secretly and sent them to Jesus, who was gone out of the Temple, and was sitting in Solomon’s porch, waiting to pray the midday prayer. And near him he had his disciples with a great multitude of people. The priests drew near to Jesus and said: ‘Master, wherefore did man eat corn and fruit? Did God will that he should eat it, or no?’ And this they said tempting him; for if he said: ‘God willed it,’ they would answer: ‘Why did he forbid it?’ and if he said: ‘God willed it not,’ they would say: ‘Then man has more power than God, since he works contrary to the will of God.’

Jesus answered: ‘Your question is like a road over a mountain, which has a precipice on the right hand and on the left: but I will walk in the middle.’ When they heard this the priests were confounded, perceiving that he knew their heart. Then Jesus said: ‘Every man, for that he has need, works everything for his own use. But God, who has no need of anything, wrought according to his good pleasure. Wherefore in creating man he created him free in order that he might know that God had no need of him; Verbi gratia, as does a King, who to display his riches, and in order that his slaves may love him more, gives freedom to his slaves.

God, then, created man free in order that he might love his Creator much the more and might know his bounty. For although God is omnipotent, not having need of man, having created him by his omnipotence, he left him free by his bounty, in such wise that he could resist evil and do good. For although God had power to hinder sin, he would not contradict his own bounty (for God has no contradiction) in order that, his omnipotence and bounty having wrought in man, he should not contradict sin in man, I say, in order that in man might work the mercy of God and his righteousness. And in token that I speak the truth, I tell you that the high-priest has sent you to tempt me, and this is the fruit of his priesthood.’ The old men departed and recounted all to the high-priest, who said: ‘This fellow has the devil at his back, who recounts everything to him; for he aspires to the kingship over Israel; but God will see to that.’

Chapter 156

When he had made the midday prayer, Jesus, as he went out of the Temple, found one blind from his mother’s womb. His disciples asked him saying: “Master, who sinned in this man, his father or his mother, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered: “Neither his father nor his mother sinned in him, but God created him so, for a testimony of the Gospel. And having called the blind man up to him he spat on the ground and made clay and placed it upon the eyes of the blind man and said to him: ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash you!’

The blind man went, and having washed received light; whereupon, as he returned home, many who met him said: ‘If this man were blind I should say for certain that it was he who was wont to sit at the beautiful gate of the Temple;.’ Others said: ‘It is he, but how has he received light?’ And they accosted him saying: ‘Are you the blind man that was wont to sit at the beautiful gate of the Temple;?’ He answered: ‘I am he and wherefore?’ They said: ‘Now how did you receive your sight?’

He answered:, ‘A man made clay, spitting on the ground, and this clay he placed upon my eyes and said to me: “Go and wash you in the pool of Siloam;.” I went and washed, and now I see: blessed be the God of Israel!’ When the man born blind was come again to the beautiful gate of the Temple, all Jerusalem was filled with the matter. Wherefore he was brought to the chief of the priests, who was conferring with the priests and the Pharisees against Jesus. The high priest asked him, saying: ‘Man, wast you born blind?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘Now give glory of God,’ said the high-priest, ‘and tell us what prophet has appeared to you in a dream and given you light. Was it our father Abraham;, or Moses ;the servant of God, or some other prophet? For others could not do such a thing.

The man born blind replied: ‘Neither Abraham nor Moses, nor any prophet have I seen in a dream and been healed by him, but as I sat at the gate of the Temple a man made me come near to him and, having made clay of earth with his spittle, put some of that clay upon my eyes and sent me to the pool of Siloam to wash; whereupon I went, and washed me, and returned with the light of my eyes.’ The high-priest asked him the name of that man. The man born blind answered: ‘He told me not his name, but a man who saw him called me and said: “Go and wash you as that man has said, for he is Jesus the Nazarene;, a prophet and an holy one of the God of Israel.”‘ Then said the high-priest: ‘Did he heal you perhaps today, that is, the Sabbath;?’ The blind man answered: ‘Today he healed me.’ Said the high-priest: ‘Behold now, how that this fellow is a sinner, seeing he keeps not the Sabbath!’

Chapter 157

The blind man answered: ‘Whether he is a sinner I know not; but this I know, that whereas I was blind, he has enlightened me.’ The Pharisees did not believe this; so they said to the high priest: ‘Send for his father and mother, for they will tell us the truth.’ They sent, therefore, for the father and mother of the blind man, and when they were come the high-priest questioned them saying: ‘Is this man your son?’ They answered: ‘He is truly our son.’ Then said the high-priest: ‘He says that he was born blind, and now he sees; how has this thing befallen?’

The father and mother of the man born blind replied: ‘Truly he was born blind, but how he may have received the light, we know not; he is of age, ask him and he will tell you the truth.’ Thereupon they were dismissed, and the high-priest said again to the man born blind: ‘Give glory to God, and speak the truth.’ (Now the father and mother of the blind man were afraid to speak, because a decree had gone forth from the Roman senate that no man might contend for Jesus, the prophet of the Jews, under pain of death: this decree had the governor obtained wherefore they said: ‘He is of age, ask him.’)

The high-priest, then, said to the man born blind: ‘Give glory to God and speak the truth, for we know this man, whom you say to have healed you, that he is a sinner.’ The man born blind answered: ‘Whether he be a sinner, I know not; but this I know, that I saw not and he has enlightened me. Surely, from the beginning of the world to this hour, there has never yet been enlightened one who was born blind; and God would not hearken to sinners.’ Said the Pharisees: ‘Now what did he when he enlightened you?’ Then the man born blind marvelled at their unbelief, and said: ‘I have told you, and wherefore ask you me again? Would you also become his disciples?’

The high-priest then reviled him saying: ‘You were altogether born in sin, and would you teach us? Begone, and become you disciple of such a man! for we are disciples of Moses;, and we know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we know not whence he is.’ And they cast him out of the synagogue ;and Temple;, forbidding him to make prayer with the clean among Israel.

Chapter 158

The man born blind went to find Jesus, who comforted him saying: ‘At no time have you been so blessed as you are now, for you are blest of our God who spoke through David, our father and his prophet, against the friends of the world, saying: “They curse and I bless”; and by Micah the prophet he said: “I curse your blessing.” For earth is not so contrary to air, water to fire, light to darkness, cold to heat, or love to hate, as is the will that God has contrary to the will of the world.’

The disciples accordingly asked him, saying: ‘Lord, great are your words; tell us, therefore, the meaning, for as yet we understand not.” Jesus answered: “When you shall know the world, you shall see that I have spoken the truth, and so shall you know the truth in every prophet. Know you, then, that there be three kinds of worlds comprehended in a single name;: the one stands for the heavens and the earth, with water, air and fire, and all the things that are inferior to man. Now this world in all things follows the will of God, for, as says David;, prophet of God: “God has given them a precept which they transgress not.”

The second stands for all men, even as the “house of such an one” stands not for the walls, but for the family. Now this world, again, loves God; because by nature they long after God, forasmuch as according to nature every one longs after God, even though they err in seeking God. And know you wherefore all long after God? Because they long every one after an infinite good without any evil, and this is God alone. Therefore the merciful God has sent his prophets to this world for its salvation.

‘The third world is men’s fallen condition of sinning, which has transformed itself into a law contrary to God, the creator of the world. This makes man become like to the demons, God’s enemies. And this world our God hates so sore that if the prophets had loved this world what think you? – assuredly God would have taken from them their prophecy. And what shall I say As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, when the Messenger of God shall come to the world, if he should conceive love towards this evil world, assuredly God would take away from him all that he gave him when he created him, and would make him reprobate: so greatly is God contrary to this world.”

Chapter 159

The disciples answered: “O master, exceeding great are your words, therefore have mercy upon us, for we understand them not.” Jesus said: “Think you perhaps that God has created his Messenger to be a rival, who should be fain to make himself equal with God? Assuredly not, but rather as his good slave, who should not will that which his Lord wills not. You are not able to understand this because you know not what a thing is sin. Wherefore hearken to my words. Truly, truly, I say to you, sin cannot arise in man save as a contradiction of God, seeing that only is sin which God wills not: insomuch that all that God wills is most alien from sin.

Accordingly, if our high-priests and priests, with the Pharisees, persecuted me because the people of Israel has called me God, they would be doing a thing pleasing to God, and God would reward them; but because they persecute me for a contrary reason, since they will not have me say the truth, how they have contaminated the Book of Moses; and that of David;, prophets and friends of God, by their traditions, and therefore hate me and desire my death therefore God has them in abomination. Tell me, Moses slew men and Ahab slew men, is this in each case murder? Assuredly not; for Moses slew the men to destroy idolatry and to preserve the worship of the true God, but Ahab slew the men to destroy the worship of the true God and to preserve idolatry. Wherefore to Moses the slaying of men was converted into sacrifice, while to Ahab it was converted into sacrilege: insomuch that one and the same work produced these two contrary effects.

“As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, if Satan had spoken to the angels in order to see how they loved God, he would not have been rejected of God, but because he sought to turn them away from God, therefore is he reprobate.” Then answered he who writes : “How, then, is to be understood that which was said in Micaiah the prophet, concerning the lie which God ordained to be spoken by the mouth of false prophets, as is written in the book of the kings of Israel?” Jesus answered: “O Barnabas, recite briefly all that befell, that we may see the truth clearly.”

Chapter 160

Then said he who writes: “Daniel the prophet, describing the history of the kings of Israel and their tyrants, writes thus: “The king of Israel joined himself with the king of Judah to fight against the sons of Belial (that is, reprobates) who were the Ammonites. Now Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and Ahab, king of Israel, being seated both on a throne in Samaria, there stood before them four hundred false prophets, who said to the king of Israel: “Go up against the Ammonites, for God will give them into your hands, and you shall scatter Ammon.”

Then said Jehoshaphat: “Is there here any prophet of the God of our fathers?” Ahab answered: “There is one only, and he is evil, for he always predicts evil concerning me; and him I hold in prison.” And this he said, to wit, “there is only one,” because as many as were found had been slain by decree of Ahab;, so that the prophets, even as you have said, O Master, were fled to the mountain tops where men dwelt not. Then said Jehoshaphat: “Send for him here, and let us see what he says.” Ahab therefore commanded that Micaiah be sent for hither, who came with fetters on his feet, and his face bewildered like a man that lives between life and death. Ahab asked him, saying: “Speak, Micaiah;, in the name of God. Shall we go up against the Ammonites? Will God give their cities into our hands?”

Micaiah answered: “Go up, go up, for prosperously shall you go up, and still more prosperously come down!” Then the false prophets praised Micaiah as a true prophet of God, and broke off the fetters from his feet. Jehoshaphat, who feared our God, and had never bowed his knees before the idols, asked Micaiah, saying: “For the love of the God of our fathers, speak the truth, as you have seen the issue of this war.” Micaiah ;answered: “O Jehoshaphat, I fear your face where. fore I tell you that I have seen the people of Israel as sheep without a shepherd.” Then Ahab, smiling, said to Jehoshaphat;: “I told you that this fellow predicts only evil, but you did not believe it..

Then said they both: “Now how know you this, O Micaiah?”

“Micaiah answered: “Methought there assembled a council of the angels in the presence of God, and I heard God say thus: “Who will deceive Ahab that he may go up against Ammon and be slain?” Whereupon one said one thing and another said another. Then came an angel and said: “Lord, I will fight against Ahab, and will go to his false prophets and will put the lie into their mouth, and so shall he go up and be slain.” And hearing this, God said: “Now go and do so, for you shall prevail”. Then were the false prophets enraged, and their chief smote Micaiah’s cheek, saying: “O reprobate of God, when did the angel of truth depart from us and come to you? Tell us, when came to us the angel that brought the lie?”

‘Micaiah answered: “You shall know when you shall flee from house to house for fear of being slain, having deceived your king.” Then Ahab was wroth, and said: “Seize Micaiah, and the fetters which he had upon his feet place on his neck, and keep him on barley bread and water until my return, for now I know not what death I would inflict on him”., They went up, then, and according to the word of Micaiah the matter befell. For the king of the Ammonites ;said to his servants: “See that you fight not against the king of Judah, nor against the princes of Israel, but slay the king of Israel, Ahab, my enemy.”‘ Then Jesus said: “Stop there, Barnabas; for it is enough for our purpose.”

Chapter 161

“Have you heard all?” said Jesus. The disciples answered: “Yes, Lord.” Whereupon Jesus said: “Lying is indeed a sin, but murder is a greater, because the lie is a sin that appertains to him that speaks, but the murder, while it appertains to him that commits it, is such that it destroys also the dearest thing that God has here upon earth, that is, man. And lying can be remedied by saying the contrary of that which has been said; whereas murder has no remedy, seeing it is not possible to give life again to the dead. Tell me, then, did Moses the servant of God sin in slaying all whom he slew?”

The disciples answered: “God forbid; God forbid that Moses should have sinned in obeying God who commanded him!” Then Jesus said: “And I say, God forbid that that angel should have sinned who deceived Ahab’s false prophets with the lie; for even as God receives the slaughter of men as sacrifice, so received he the lie for praise. Truly, truly, I say to you, that even as the child errs which causes its shoes to be made by the measure of a giant, even so errs he who would subject God to the law, as he himself as man is subject to the law. When, therefore, you shall believe that only to be sin which God wills not, you will find the truth, even as I have told you. Wherefore, because God is not composite nor changeable, so also is he unable to will and not will a single thing; for so would he have contradiction in himself, and consequently pain, and would not be infinitely blessed.”

Philip answered: ‘But how is that saying of the prophet Amos to be understood, that “there is not evil in the city that God has not done?” Jesus answered: ‘Now here see, Philip, how great is the danger of resting in the letter, as do the Pharisees, who have invented for themselves the “predestination of God in the elect,” in such wise that they come to say in fact that God is unrighteous, a deceiver and a liar and a hater of judgment (which shall fall upon them).

Wherefore I say that here Amos the prophet of God speaks of the evil which the world calls evil: for if he had used the language of the righteous he would not have been understood by the world. For all tribulations are good, either for that they purge the evil that we have done, or are good because they restrain us from doing evil, or are good because they make man to know the condition of this life, in order that we may love and long for life eternal. Accordingly, had the prophet Amos said: “There is no good in the city but what God has wrought it,” he had given occasion for despair to the afflicted, as they beheld themselves in tribulation and sinners living in prosperity. And, what is worse, many, believing Satan to have such sovereignty over man, would have feared Satan and done him service, so as not to suffer tribulation. Amos therefore did as does the Roman interpreter, who considers not his words [as one] speaking in the presence of the high-priest, but consider the will and the business of the Jew that knows not to speak the Hebrew tongue.

Chapter 162

If Amos had said: “There is no good in the city but what God has done it,” as God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, he would have made a grievous error, for the world holdsnothing good save the iniquities and sins that are done in the way of vanity. Whereupon men would have wrought much more iniquitously, believing that there is not any sin or wickedness which God has not done, at hearing whereof the earth trembles.” And when Jesus had said this, straightway there arose a great earthquake, in so much that every o