|
Calling for a New Dialogue between
Islam and Christianity
His Royal Highness, Excellencies
and Holinesses, Ladies and Gentlemen!
As a Muslim I am rather perplexed
to enter into a formal dialogue
with Christians. For a Muslim-Christian
dialogue entails that the representatives
of Muhammad and Jesus find themselves
on the opposing sides of the table.
As a Muslim who believes both in
Jesus and Muhammad, one and at the
same time, and who belongs to both
the camps, it is not possible for
me to speak for Muhammad alone and
yet remain a Muslim. Today, when
I stand here presumably to represent
the Muslim side, I want to make
it clear that representing the Muslim
side does not mean that I have forsaken
Jesus or withdrawn my claim on him
who is integral to my faith.
In the Quranic worldview, the term
Ummah Muslima or the Muslim nation
encompasses all the prophets and
their rightly guided followers,
the nations of Abraham, of Jacob
and Moses and of Jesus and Muhammad.
It is altogether a different story
that today we Muslims appear to
have patented the word Muslim which
simply means submission per se.
In the hey day of Islam when prophet
Mohammed lived amongst us, we never
considered the Jews and the Christians
as the religious other. Instead,
we took them as our natural allies,
as people of the book while the
non-believing Meccans despite their
kinship to the Prophet and his followers
were dubbed as kuffar, the religious
other. In Surah Haj verse 40 one
is astonished to find that monasteries,
churches and synagogues, are placed
at par with the mosques, and are
mentioned in the same breath, wherein
together, we are told, ‘God’s name
is commemorated in abundance’:
صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ
يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا اسْمُ اللَّهِ كَثِيرًا
This sense of religious pluralism
that pervaded early Islam helped
flourish a full-fledged religious
life of other believing nations
under Islam. History records the
prophet’s treaty with the Christians
of Najran which guaranteed the protection
of their religious life and preservation
of their religious institutions.
And when Muaz was sent to Yemen
as a governor, the prophet instructed
him not to disrupt the religious
life of the Jews. In early Islam,
socializing with the people of the
book was a norm as the Quran openly
declared their food lawful for Muslims
and Muslim food lawful for them.
Muslims were even allowed to enter
into marital relations with the
Jewish and Christian girls. The
Christians under early Islam were,
so to speak, a loving and affectionate
nation enjoying the general goodwill
of the Muslim people, as documented
in the Quran:
وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَقْرَبَهُمْ مَّوَدَّةً
لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ الَّذِينَ قَالُوَاْ
إِنَّا نَصَارَى
and you will find the nearest in
love to the believers those who
say: "We are Christians."
Had there been no crusades, no colonialism
and no war on terror, I’m sure,
the world would have been a much
better place today and the two ideologically
allied nations would not have needed
any dialogue to mend their strained
relations. But the unfortunate incidents
have cast their legacy, firstly,
impacting historiography on both
sides, secondly, severely damaging
the psychological self, and finally
giving birth to new terminologies
like Islamophobia and Islamic terrorism.
We therefore are left with no option
but to call for an effective dialogue
to get out of the present impasse.
In 1965 when Vatican II declared
that salvation outside the Church
was possible and a pontifical council
was entrusted to engage other believing
nations in a dialogue, Muslims did
little realize then the importance
of this revolutionary step. The
reason may be, for many centuries
Muslims too had virtually closed
the door of salvation on other believing
nations. Their ulema had told them
that all such verses that called
for forging alliance with the people
of the book or gave glad tidings
to the God-fearing submitters among
the Jews and the Christians and
the Sabaeans – were abrogated and
hence not applicable to them anymore.
From Vatican II Nostra Aetate
proclamation to the post-9/11 anti-war
demonstrations, the Christian-Muslim
understanding has come a long way.
The anti-war rallies in Europe and
America demonstrated to Muslims,
probably for the first time in history,
that even among secularized Christians
they can find allies against oppression
and injustice. Without any theological
hairsplitting or finding a common
religious ground these demonstrations
achieved what otherwise probably
would not have been possible.
This is not to downplay the importance
of theological engagement but simply
to assert that theological engagements
should not be taken as the crux
of Christian-Muslim dialogue. It
can only be one of the possible
levels on which dialogue has to
take place though it immediately
comes to our mind. In recent years,
among the many theological formulations
on the horizon, probably by far
the most sophisticated and consistent
initiative on the Muslim side has
been the common-word initiative
by an Amman based Foundation. Assuming
that everything in Islam and Christianity
hangs around the two basic precepts;
the love of God and love of neighbor,
this document is a passionate search
to find common religious grounds.
But despite substantial endorsement
by Muslim ulema and policymakers
and a good press this document received
in the West, so far it has been
a non-starter. To me, it appears
more an exercise in diplomacy than
any frank dialogue. It not only
casts Islam in a Christian dye by
employing Christian terminologies
it also avoids difficult questions
that have been bone of contention
between the two communities. Should
we allow building new Churches in
Muslim lands? Or, what it means
to have freedom to change one’s
religious affiliations? Such questions
are natural corollary to any theological
engagement.
Since Hans Kung publicized the idea
from the platform of Parliament
of World’s Religions that there
can be no peace without peace among
religions, other possible and equally
important levels of dialogues have
been pushed to the background. We
should not lose sight of the fact
that today, unlike the Medieval
Ages, Christianity is no fixed set
of dogmas and no Nicene Creed bind
the adherents of Christianity together.
In a post-Christian environment
where the Church fathers command
little influence, no elitist theological
engagement can be effective. I’m
afraid theological and fiqhi hairsplitting
on both sides would keep them entangled
for many years to come. I therefore
plead that the dialogue must move
on simultaneously to the other forums.
Or, alternatively, high-level theological
dialogues may incorporate public
intellectuals, social scientists,
natural scientists and industry
leaders on both sides. This will
not only save us from unnecessary
entanglements but also increase
the efficacy of any such engagements
manifold.
Honesty and frankness apart, the
proponents of a new Muslim-Christian
dialogue must be clear about the
methodological issues involved.
For us, Islam as a message is not
negotiable – though open to further
interpretation, but Islam as a history
is always open to any evaluation
and criticism. I do not know if
the Christian scholars would be
willing to have the same attitude
to the Vatican councils or the councils
that once canonized the Nicene Creed.
To me, Jesus like Muhammad is not
negotiable. But what comes after
them, the human element in the making
of Islam and Christianity should
be open to critical evaluation.
A new dialogue will pose a major
intellectual challenge to the proponents
of both religions. Before finding
a common word between the two they
need to find a common word or a
founding document on which each
community broadly agrees. Probably,
Quran on the one side and Jesus
words as recorded in the four primary
books of the Bible can serve as
a possible alternative.
Taking the dialogue to this level
needs building of unshakable trust
on both sides. Often seen out of
context, some verses in the Quran
such as the Jizya verse or
latattakhezul yahood wan nasara
etc have appeared to some Christians
as ‘troubling’. There is no need
to be apologetic about them or hide
them in the closet. We must accept
each other as we are, with all our
intellectual and religious moorings.
There is nothing in the Quran that
makes religious conversion punishable
by death or that prohibits building
of Christian churches in Muslim
countries. These are basically administrative
issues that have to take into account
public sensitivity and security
issues attached to them. The juridical
rulings of the past fuqaha
are always open to debate. But as
I said, this kind of debate requires
a general atmosphere of trust and
goodwill. Today, when Christianity
has yet to shed its colonial image,
when the war on terror is perceived
by many as a modern-day crusade,
as a war against Islam and as a
Christian attempt to grab energy
resources in the Muslim Middle-East,
when predominantly Christian bullets
are continuously taking innocent
lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere,
when publishing the cartoons demonizing
the prophet Muhammad has become
a litmus test to free-speech, even
well-intentioned debates on such
sensitive issues and by well-meaning
individuals can only create further
suspicion and distrust.
Let us first build trust. We must
start sowing the trust and good-will
now and move on to address other
immediate concerns on which depends
our common survival and survival
of the world at large. Globalization’s
leap in the wrong direction has
resulted in the mad burning
of extra-oil creating alarming energy
crises, speculative prices of fossil
fuels, ecological imbalance, the
ever-widening divide between the
poor and the rich and eventually
turning our only planet into a mere
theater of mega-corporations. A
free space where the individual
can live an alternative living,
beyond the tax-net, and where he
is not coerced to pay for mad defense
spending and development, has vanished.
The capitalist control of the media
and now, to a great extent, of the
university system are indicative
of the fact that things are rotten
to the core. The world needs a major
shake-up. Democracy is ailing and
there are all indications that the
capitalist system, despite its worldwide
popularity, is crumbling. It is
for the believing nations to bury
their differences in the greater
interest of humanity and come out
with a viable alternative.
Confronted as we are with a gigantic
crisis today, no single nation on
her own, can turn the tide. It is
incumbent on all the inhabitants
of the planet, no matter which religious
tradition he or she comes from,
to contribute his maximum share
to the great rescue mission of humanity.
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ تَعَالَوْاْ
إِلَى كَلَمَةٍ سَوَاء بَيْنَنَا
وَبَيْنَكُمْ
O people of the book come to what
is common between us and you. When
we Muslims say
أَلاَّ نَعْبُدَ إِلاَّ اللّهَ
Don’t obey other than the One God,
the political implication should
not be missed; i.e., obey God and
don’t obey Mr. Bush. I wonder if
any Christian brother or sister
would still like to dissent?
(Transcript of the
Speech delivered at Crans Montana
Forum in Monaco, June 26-29, 2008)
Rashid Shaz
01 July 2008
New Delhi
|
