Politicians and anti-Muslim activists frequently take to audiences and websites to criticize the term jihad as a form of Islamic supremacism, oppression, and violence. Muslim extremists, on the other hand, argue that jihad refers to a “holy war” against non-Muslims. Viewing the term jihad through these frameworks alone, however, would be playing into the hands of extremists who forego the other elements encompassed by the term jihad.

In the Islamic tradition, jihad has several different components, including personal struggles, such as the fight against an addiction; social struggles, such as the struggle to become tolerant of others; and occasionally a military struggle, if and when necessary, but only in self-defense. When asked, “What is the major jihad?” Muhammad replied: “The jihad of the self (or the struggle against the personal self).” Contrary to the rhetoric and misinformation about jihad in anti-Islam networks, Muhammad did not say that the violent struggle was the most important form of jihad.

The hysteria in the United States and abroad over jihad has brought me to consider the term through a Christian perspective. In this article, I hope to explore how forms of jihad are presented in Islam and Christianity. This exercise can help to find common characteristics of jihad so that Muslims and Christians can build bridges of mutual understanding and tolerance.

Although the term jihad is not literally used in Christian scripture, the idea of struggling is at the very heart of Christianity. There are a number of instances in the New Testament which provide guidance for Christians who are struggling with different problems or dilemmas in their lives.

One major aspect of the Christian jihad is the practice of non-violence. When the Roman soldiers arrested Jesus and brought him to Pontius Pilate, the man who contributed to Jesus’s crucifixion, Christ said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my [disciples] would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place” (John 18: 35-36). Violence is antithetical to Jesus’s teachings. He did not require his followers to take up arms to show commitment to his teachings. Indeed, it was quite the opposite. In Matthew (26:53), Jesus told his followers that “… for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Jesus, as you can see, encouraged his disciples to struggle against the desire to use force when frustrated or antagonized. 

Similarly, Islamic scripture also encourages Muslims to struggle against the use of violence. The Qur’an (5:32), for example, notes that “…. If anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole humanity.” In another Qur’anic passage (2:190), Muslims are told to “Fight in the case of God those who start fighting you, but do not transgress limits (or start the attack); for God loveth not transgressors.” It is clear that these two passages echo the Christian jihad of struggling in the name of non-violence.

Another element of the Christian jihad is to show love to those around you. Jesus wants Christians to “love your neighbor” and even beyond that, “love your enemies,” a point which arises in Luke (6:27). In Matthew (5:9), it is written that peacemakers are blessed, “for they will be called sons of God.” The New Testament demands that Christians struggle in the fight for peace, even if it means embracing your sworn enemies and those who wish to harm you.

The Qur’an also requires that Muslims search for ways of making peace instead of war. Muslims, for example, are required to speak well of others even if they are not believers of Islam. In the Qur’an (17:53-54), it is written that Muslims must “speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share [your] beliefs).” There is also no way a Muslim can force others to believe in Islam, as the Qur’an (2:256) mentions that “there is no compulsion in religion.” The jihad in these contexts is one in which Muslims have to work on treating non-Muslims with respect and dignity.

The Christian jihad also requires that Christians do not retaliate “evil for evil.” Romans (12:17) demands that Christians “live at peace with everyone.” People who call themselves Christians, yet call for the demise of Islam and anything related to Muslims, should heed the demand of this verse and search for ways to build bridges for peace instead of fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry. In a similar way, Muslims who call for violent jihad should remember that the Qur’an (4:9) asks Muslims to leave others alone if they leave Muslims alone: “refrain from fighting… and offer [them] peace, then God gives you no way to go against them.”

The Christian jihad can be explored further in the wisdom left by Jesus’ disciples. Peter, for example, is considered “the rock” of Jesus’ church because he spoke about the struggle to maintain the Christian faith at all costs. In 2 Peter (3:14), he stated “… make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with [Jesus].” In this verse, Peter is highlighting one of the ultimate aims of Christianity — avoid wrongdoing and sin. A true Christian, such as Peter, cared more for fixing his own transgressions rather than attacking others for their sins. He encouraged Christians to struggle with overcoming their personal dilemmas first before bickering and complaining over the errors of others. In essence, he believed progress is rooted in individuals’s ability to change their attitude and behavior in struggling to adhere to the teachings of Jesus.

In addition to Peter, Paul of Tarsus also embraced the Christian jihad. Paul made “every effort to do what leads to peace” (Romans 14:19). In Timothy (6:12), he encouraged Christians to “fight the good fight of the faith,” which can be interpreted as spreading peace and love in the spirit of Jesus. In addition, in 2 Timothy (4:7), Paul stated, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.” There is an underlying non-violent tone in these statements. Never did Paul ask Christians to take up the sword or use violence as a means of showing faith in Jesus.

Moreover, in 2 Peter (1:5-7), Peter stated that a Christian must “make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance; godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.” Peter’s emphasis on doing good and searching for knowledge mirrors the Qur’an’s frequent emphasis on ilm, which means “knowledge” in Arabic. Indeed, few religions in the world place so much emphasis on knowledge as Islam. “Knowledge” is mentioned more than 700 times in the Qur’an.

In the Qur’an (58:11), God raises in rank “… those who have been given knowledge.” Muhammad also emphasized knowledge in a Hadith in which he said that “seeking knowledge is a must for every Muslim, male or female, from cradle to grave in any part of the world.” Muhammad also stated in another Hadith that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.” Christians and Muslims, therefore, share a similar jihad in terms of their obligation to seek out knowledge and apply that knowledge in good faith for the betterment of humanity. 

Jesus, like Muhammad, taught his disciples and future believers that struggling is a fundamental element of the Christian faith. He told his disciples to “strive to enter in at the narrow gate…,” which mirrors the popular Muslim notion of staying on the “straight path” or practicing Islam to the best of one’s ability. Ultimately, Christians and Muslims are guided by their scripture to persevere in the face of their struggles. They are encouraged to struggle in this life, to maintain belief in God, in exchange for a higher reward when this life inevitably ends.

In essence, Christians and Muslims share a similar jihad. This jihad is one of non-violence, the love of humanity, the perfection of the soul, and the search for knowledge.

In recent years, attitudes and legislation have made life more difficult for oppressed peoples, including refugees, around the world. Many people believe their countries should accept fewer refugees. People believe that refugees are nothing but a burden to their countries, and that they will take away jobs and reduce the standards of living (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016). Tougher laws against refugees and asylum seekers have been passed in countries like Austria; these laws restrict access to protection for refugees. The law also restricts the rights of the asylum seekers, allowing authorities to turn away migrants at the border (Hume, 2016). Increased security concerns such as the belief that refugees will increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks and increase the crime rate in a country have been used to turn away these oppressed groups (Wike, Stokes, and Simmons, 2016).

Cases of increased racial discrimination towards members of other religions and races, as well as towards immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, have increased where they are deprived of access to the most fundamental of human rights and protection. In such instances, minorities are left exposed to and unprotected from xenophobic attacks and discrimination. In such climates, media often plays a role in building a hostile environment of mistrust and misinformation.

Since the days of the famous economist Max Weber, religion has been viewed as both a cause and outcome of economic development, with the adoption of religious principles being a contributor to economic progress (Michalopoulos, Naghavi & Prarolo, 2014). For instance, the adoption of Muslim economic principles has a long term effect on the economic development of Muslim lands; the adoption of Christian principles, mainly Protestantism, had a significant effect on the economic prosperity of many individuals in the West; and a change in the Judaic religious doctrine in the second century improved Jewish human capital by increasing literacy (Michalopoulos et al., 2014).

 Different religions have different values and perspectives on how the issues of economic inequality, racial discrimination, and intolerance should be addressed. An understanding of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish values will lead to a deeper knowledge of the three Abrahamic faiths and an understanding of how to improve the common good.

The three religions agree that caring for others is essential and obedience to one’s faith will reduce negative attitudes towards vulnerable groups. People practicing the three Abrahamic religions can work together and condemn the individuals targeting minorities and newcomers, reducing the effects of intolerance and racism while also combatting economic inequality.

Islam

In Islam, economic inequality is considered as human condition only in the proportion of skill, initiative, and effort. Islam also teaches against extreme economic inequality, and it emphasizes that all resources are a gift from God, with Qur’an 2:29 stating that “It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth…” People are entrusted with these gifts for a short time (Qur’an 57:7) (Christopher & Hayat, 2012).

The Islamic economic system is based on three divine principles which establish a “falahi” or an Islamic welfare economic system. The first principle is that man is not the absolute owner of resources because they are God’s and man is just a trustee. Second, economic activities should not be guided by self-interest only. And third, the religious aspect of earning and spending are as important as Islam’s other worship obligations and practices (Haq, 2013).

Haq (2013) identifies the systems of Ushr and Zakat, elements of the Islamic economic system which has significant implications on the distribution of income and wealth. Ushr is an obligatory payment from agricultural output, while Zakat is paid for accumulated wealth; Haq (2013) identifies the latter as a major instrument of restricting the excessive accumulation of wealth, as Zakat helps the poor and vulnerable members of society. The wealthy and the elite are warned that they will be hold accountable for disregarding vulnerable groups (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 486).

Muslims are expected to value the poor, and they should spend from their wealth to help the poor: “God said, ‘O son of Adam! Spend, and I shall spend on you’” (Sahih-Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 64, Number 264). Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, reformed the value of taking care of the poor and treating everybody with respect as a way of addressing economic inequality.

Islam also teaches that there should be respect for people of other religions. Prophet Muhammad said, “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” Islam teaches that caring for others is not optional but a religious duty.

Islam is against any form of discrimination towards any one, and it teaches that differences in color, tribe, race, or tradition should not be taken as an excuse for unfair treatment. The Qur’an is against any form of racial discrimination, and it states, “O Mankind, we created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into tribes and nations so that you may know each other (not that you despise each other). Verily, the most honored of you in the sight of God is he who is most righteous of you” (Al-Quran 49:13). Islam advocates for equality among all people as members of one human race.

The Qur’an teaches that all people were created by God, and it states in Surah 30:22 that, “of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your tongues and colors.” Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also taught that all people are to be treated equally; in his last sermon, he stated that, “All mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, an Arab is not better than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab; a white person is not better than a black person, nor is a black person better than a white person except by piety and good actions. Learn that every Muslim is the brother of every other Muslim and that Muslims form one brotherhood.” Muslims are encouraged to stand up and challenge racism and intolerance whenever they see the laws of God being broken.

Christianity

Christianity teaches that all wealth comes from God, and He is in complete ownership and control of all things. Deuteronomy 10:14 (New International Version) states, “Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.” Christianity holds the view that all the riches and wealth that man possess are a gift from God: “Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil-this is a gift of God” (Ecclesiastes 5:19, New International version). Christianity acknowledges the fact that some people will be more economically able compared to others, but this should not make such individuals reject the most vulnerable members of society.

Christianity also teaches that people should care for the oppressed and the poor. Deuteronomy 15:7-8 (New International Version) states that, “If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.”

The apostle Paul teaches the Corinthians that there should be a fair balance so that a person does not have too much or too little. Christianity emphasizes that the immigrant and refugee crisis experienced so far could be solved by reducing economic inequality in the world.

 “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At present your plenty will supply what they need so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little’” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15, New International version). 

Christianity calls for its followers to show “agape” love, where individuals care for those in need. Agape love would reduce the negative attitudes towards members of other religions and races, and people would not practice discrimination or attack vulnerable groups.

The gap between the rich and the poor is increasing drastically in the world we live in. Jesus Christ discouraged the accumulation of wealth, and He gave the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 19:16-31, New International Version) to warn people against accumulating wealth without caring for those in need. Jesus also gave the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37, New International Version) who helped a stranger. Christianity extols individuals to care and welcome the vulnerable people in society.

Therefore, Christianity instills the values of love for one another and having compassion for another person. If individuals followed such values, practices like racism, intolerance, and violence against other people would end.

Judaism

According to Sauer & Sauer (2016), Judaism puts forward two axioms of the Jewish economic theory which have a significant effect on the matter of economic inequality. The first axiom is that God is the creator of the world (Genesis 1:1, New International Version) and man was created in God’s image. Man was then given the world and complete dominion over it, and he should help perfect it through the utilization of resources, work, and innovation (Sauer & Sauer 2016). The second axiom is that man is required and obligated to care for the needy, and the Torah has moral principles which should guide how a man treats others. The Torah, in Leviticus 25:10 (New International Version), states, “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof,” and this means that foreigners, newcomers, and minorities were to be set free (Sacks, 2015).

The Torah imposed certain infringements on personal property which were designed to ensure that the gap between the economic classes was reduced, avoiding instances of extreme wealth or poverty (Sicker, 2001). There was the law of the sabbatical year, which required that the land should rest and lay fallow in the seventh year, letting the poor people eat (Exodus 23:10-11, New International Version). The law also required that all debts in the seventh year should be forgiven, and every creditor should release that which the neighbor owes. Such laws had a significant effect on reducing the economic inequalities between people.

Judaism removes the system of human and economic freedom from the hands of human legislators. The Torah states that, “Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves” (Leviticus 25:42, New International Version), and this means that personal liberty is not opened up for any political negotiations. Contemporary political and media discourses have made it difficult to integrate oppressed people, but Judaism promotes the values that will see such violence and intolerance reduced.

Judaism takes a positive approach towards all people and teaches that everyone is equal in the eyes of the Creator, and, therefore, all individuals should be treated well. Strangers, refugees, and foreigners are supposed to be treated fairly, as recorded in Leviticus 19:33-34 (New International Version) which states that, “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

The three Abrahamic religions promote values that seek to address the issue of economic inequality and the effects of it, such as discrimination and rejection of vulnerable groups. The core values of the three Abrahamic religions are equality among all member of human family, because God is the creator of all; care for those in need; and the need to show love to vulnerable groups. Therefore, religion has a significant role to play at reducing economic inequality in society, and it is crucial that people take their religious values with more seriousness.

References

• Al-Quran 2:29, 57:7, 49:13,30:22
• Christopher, C. & Hayat, A. (2012). Equitable Distribution of Wealth: The Economic System of Islam. Inside Islam. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://insideislam.wisc.edu/2012/05/equitable-distribution-of-wealth-the-economic-system-of-islam/
• Deuteronomy (10:14, 15:7-8), Ecclesiastes 5:19, Leviticus (19:33-34, 25:10, 25:42), Genesis 1:1, Luke (10:25-37, Luke 19:16-31), 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (New International Version).
• Di Matteo, L. (2014). All Equal in the Sight of God: Economic Inequality and Religion in the Early Twentieth Century. Lakehead University.
• Haq, G. (2013). Distribution of wealth and Income in Islam. South East Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 2(2).
• Hume, T. (2016). “Austria passes tough new asylum laws.” CNN. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/28/europe/austria-tough-migrant-laws/
• Michalopoulos, S., Naghavi, A., & Prarolo, G. (2014). Islam, Inequality, and Pre-Industrial Comparative Development. Harvard Business School.
• Sacks, J. (2015). Judaism Was First in Fight Against Income Inequality. Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 14 September 2016, from http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/05/07/judaism-was-first-in-fight-against-income-inequality/#
• Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 2 Book 24 Number 486, Volume 7 Book 54 Number 264).
• Sauer, C. & Sauer, R. (2016). Jewish Theology and Economic Theory. Journal Of Markets And Morality, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-17-number-1/jewish-theology-and-economic-theory
• Sicker, M. (2001). The Political Culture of Judaism (p. 99). Praeger Publishers.
• Wike, R., Stokes, B., & Simmons, K. (2016). Europeans Fear Wave of Refugees Will Mean More Terrorism, Fewer Jobs. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved 18 September 2016, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/

The September 11^th terrorist attack was traumatic for many people. At that point in my life, I had been studying Islam for thirty-six years: first as a student, then as a professor of Islamic history and archaeology at the university level. My professional colleagues and I felt that we had been quite successful at communicating the richness and beauty of Islamic faith and culture. Once it became clear that Muslim extremists perpetrated the horrendous acts, it occurred to us that whatever success we had achieved in presenting Islam in a positive light would soon begin to unravel.

In one respect, at least for a while, the opposite happened. People rushed to bookstores to buy books on Islam. Television networks broadcast documentaries about Islam, and various educational, civic, and religious groups sought “experts” to explain this religion of which they knew little more than the name.[1] But that didn’t last. Under the guise of “justice,” some cried out for revenge.

For me, it seemed clear that what was needed were channels of communication, dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. Being a committed Christian and knowing that Jesus is extremely important to Muslims, I thought, wouldn’t it be wonderful if the focus for that dialogue were Jesus? A few encounters that I had in the weeks and months that followed convinced me that such a focus was indeed possible.

The first was with a young woman from Pakistan. She was one of the students in my “Introduction to Islam” class. One of the questions on the final exam was to discuss Jesus’s role in Islam. She prefaced her entire exam by identifying herself as a “highly religious Muslim in nearly every regard… (who) uphold(s) the Quranic verses and hadith strictly.” In her answer to the Jesus question, she wrote:

“I find His (Jesus’) contribution to Muslim beliefs to be underestimated [emphasis mine]… He was one of the most respected and beloved messengers of God and He is the One who will descend on the Day of Resurrection to lead the Muslims in the world against evil…. I find it incredible that it is Jesus, not Muhammad, whom the Muslims will follow during the last days of the world. This reinforces my views of Islam as such an adaptive faith.”

After the course, to my amazement, she came to my office and thanked me for reminding Muslims how important Jesus is to them.

The second encounter is a bit more complicated. It was with the son of one of my colleagues. At the time of our conversation, he was enrolled in a PhD program in Islamic studies at Harvard University; he is also a United Church of Christ minister. This is what he said: “My study of Islam has helped me understand the mystery of the Trinity.”

I was startled. How could that be? I thought to myself.

He went on to explain: “The Muslim mystic Ibn al-`Arabi writes that God wants to be known and thus manifests Himself in a variety of ways. The first manifestation can be called God or Allah in Arabic, the name which includes all other names. Ibn al-`Arabi then parses the ninety-nine names of God in interesting ways. Many of the names form pairs. One can speak of God the giver of life, but also of God the bringer of death; God the all-just, and God the all-merciful; God the perfect master, and God the perfect servant.”[2]

“So, how does this relate to the Christian concept of Trinity?” I asked.

He continued: “In Christianity, we might think of the Father as the Perfect Master, and the Son as the Perfect Servant.”

One of my Moroccan friends asked which Arabic name for God translated as perfect servant. I answered “Al-Wali,” which can be translated as friend, not an ordinary friend, but rather a very special friend, a patron or helper. It was difficult for my friend to think of God as lowering himself to the status of a servant. But this is exactly the point. Jesus, by becoming the perfect servant, elevates servanthood to something noble.

Service (hizmet in Turkish), in this sense, is the cornerstone of the Hizmet Movement inspired by the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen, who now resides in the Golden Generation Retreat Center near Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.

My final encounter occurred when I met with the director of the Journalists and Writers Foundation in Istanbul.[3] The director talked about hizmet and the importance of cross-cultural dialogue. Our group was there on an interfaith dialogue mission. I mentioned to him that he was really preaching to the choir. I asked, “How do you promote this philosophy among people less inclined toward universal dialogue?”

He answered without batting an eyelash, “Through example and with humility, just like when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet.”

Convinced that Jesus could be the focus of dialogue between Christians and Muslims, I proceeded to write a book, Jesus, One Man, Two Faiths: A Dialogue between Christians and Muslims.[4] The first chapter develops the metaphor that piecing together a composite image of Jesus is like working a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from two different boxes.

The book moves more or less chronologically through the life of Jesus beginning with the birth narratives in both Christian and Muslim traditions. The story of Jesus’ birth is remarkably similar in both traditions. There are differences, of course, but, for the most part, those differences complement rather than contradict each other.

The narrative moves on to the public ministry of Jesus. It is the story of Jesus the miracle worker, Jesus the perfect servant. Does Jesus perform the same miracles in both traditions? For the most part, he does. How is it and why is it that Jesus performs miracles in the first place? Again, there are some differences in the answers to these questions, but the similarities are striking. In both traditions, Jesus is seen as the perfect servant and, in both, the perfect servant becomes a suffering servant.

This is where the story separates in the two traditions. In Christianity, the perfect servant is sacrificed, crucified to atone for the sins of humanity. Most Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was not crucified. Someone else was crucified in his stead. This is potentially one of the most serious conflicts in interpretation between Christianity and Islam. But a closer look is warranted. The chapter “The Suffering Servant” provides a wide range of interpretations in both Christianity and Islam.

I had a long talk about the crucifixion with Brother Nahidian, imam of the mosque in Manassas, Virginia. In the end, he said to me, “We can debate the issue of whether or not Jesus was crucified all day long. But that would perhaps miss the more important point, Jesus’ ultimate triumph over death and God raising him up to heaven.”

It is the narrative about the resurrection and the second coming where the stories come together again. It was my student from Pakistan who put me on to new insights. Let me repeat what she wrote: “He [Jesus] is the One who will descend on the Day of Resurrection to lead the Muslims in the world against evil.”

Jesus’s return in the Gospel of Matthew 24:27-31, on the one hand, sounds as if it could be metaphorical. But it also sounds like there will be some kind of real, physical event. And it will be universal, “from the East…visible to the West” and involving “all the nations of the earth.” It will follow a period of turmoil or, as the scripture says, “after the distress of those days.” Jesus will be triumphant; he will “send his angels with a loud trumpet call.” And he will somehow play the role of judge: “he will gather his elect from the four winds.”

Some Muslims minimize Jesus’s role in this event. His role is to announce when the event will take place. But some Muslims, like my student from Pakistan, see Jesus’s role as much greater. Quran 4:159, at the very least, confirms Jesus’s presence on the day of judgment (yaum al-qiyama), as he serves as witness for or against those whom God judges. The hadiths of al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim give Jesus another role. He will come as the just ruler; he will break the cross and abolish the jizyah, the tax theoretically paid by non-Muslims.

Jesus will break the cross. At first sight, this sounds particularly and specifically anti-Christian. Does it confirm the Muslim denial that Jesus was crucified? Does it nullify the importance that the cross holds for Christians as a symbol of Christ’s sacrifice? Or, can Christians, as well as Muslims, find meaning in Jesus breaking the cross? In this latter case, could the breaking of the cross mean something like Jesus’s ultimate triumph over the evil in the world that sought to kill him, his ultimate triumph over death itself, or the ultimate triumph over death of all righteous people who, in both the Christian and Muslim traditions, will in the end be resurrected from the dead?

Always in the background is the issue of the Trinity, the Christian mystery of three persons in one God. When Christians think about God the Father and Jesus as his only begotten Son, what exactly does “Father” mean in this context? When Muslims say that God does not beget nor is begotten, what does the word “beget” mean to them? What role does the Holy Spirit – or “the Spirit of God,” as the Quran phrases it – play in both traditions? Potentially, these questions are the most divisive between Christianity and Islam. Picking up certain pieces of the puzzle that are laid out in the preceding chapters in the book, the chapter “I Believe in One God” offers answers.

How Christians and Muslims relate to God is the subject of the final chapter. How personal is the relationship? How do they pray? Could they conceivably pray together? I was asked by a university student in Morocco, if I thought that the interfaith dialogue that I described in the book could succeed [his word]. This is what I said to him: “If honest dialogue between Christians and Muslims even begins to address these issues, then it is successful. And that has already happened in my research for the book. If Christians and Muslims actually prayed together, then it would be a smashing success.” And that has happened too.

Quoted from Kirkus Reviews:

Messier [author of Jesus, One Man, Two Faiths] meticulously investigates the points of intersection between the Christian and Islamic traditions. He chooses Jesus, a prominent figure in both faiths, to demonstrate that profound spiritual affinities outweigh scriptural variations between the two… Although the author certainly acknowledges disagreement between the two religions’ teachings, he continually uncovers points of harmony. In fact, he contends that even the differences are ultimately more complementary than contradictory… Although a scholarly work, the book clearly desires to replace endless debate with fruitful conversation: “Praying together would carry with it a willingness to dialogue, to dialogue with self, to dialogue with the other, and possibly to dialogue with the Spirit of God.” Messier’s writing will be impressively accessible to the layperson and tries to illuminate a theologically defensible path to détente between two rival faiths.[5]

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-One-Faiths-Expanded-Second/dp/1937937070/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Ron+Messier&qid=1551100391&s=gateway&sr=8-1

[1] For examples of a surge in interest in Islam, see: Liam O’Brien, “The French are buying a lot of books about Islam these days.” https://www.mhpbooks.com/the-french-are-buying-a-lot-of-books-about-islam-these-days/; Sara E. Quay, Amy M. Damico, September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide, ABC-CLIO, Sep 14, 2010 – Social Science – 319 pages; Clemence Brunet, Embracing Islam in the Age of Terror: Post 9/11 Representations of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Personal Stories of American Converts, A Thesis Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee of Lehigh University in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts, 2013.

[2] Ibn Arabi, Unveiling the Secret of the Most Beautiful Names, Translated by Friends    of Kazi Publications; Kazi Publications, Chicago, IL, USA, 2018.

[3] To visit the Website of the Journalists and Writers Foundation, see http://jwf.org/

[4] Ron Messier, Jesus, One Man, Two Faiths: A Dialogue between Christians and Muslims, New Expanded Edition, Twin Oaks Press, Murfreesboro, TN, USA, 2016.

[5] For the full review, see https://www.kirkusreviews.com/search/?sf=r&q=Jesus+One+Man+Two+Faiths

It’s no secret – or at least it shouldn’t be – that climate change is one of the most important issues of our time. Very recently, a report came out saying that the planet could be facing serious consequences of climate change by 2040 – a mere 22 years from now (“Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040,” New York Times, Oct. 7, 2018). At a time when many political leaders seem unable to offer meaningful solutions, hamstrung by partisanship or economics, many people have turned to faith leaders for solutions. In 2015, for instance, Pope Francis issued Laudato Si’, a Catholic encyclical devoted entirely to ecological ethics and theology.

Two scholars explore Francis’ encyclical in Nature and Environment in Contemporary Religious Contexts edited by Muhammad Shafiq and Thomas Donlin-Smith. And though Francis might be the most quoted religious figure in the collection, Shafiq and Donlin-Smith have gathered 17 peer-reviewed essays submitted to a conference on nature and the environment in religions, hosted by the Hickey Center for Interfaith Studies and Dialogue at Nazareth College. Taken together, they offer an inspiring and hopeful look at how religions and faith leaders are approaching humanity’s biggest challenge.

Although Francis has been one of the loudest and most prominent religious voices urging a new ecological theology, I want to look at some of the lesser known voices who are advocating for interdisciplinary and interfaith solutions to climate change. For example, Hussam S. Timani writes compellingly about how secularism and modernity – and the so-called advances of contemporary science – have actually led to the on-going ecological disaster. As he lays out in his paper “Modernity, Secularism, and the Exclusion of Nature: Why Religion Matters,” he believes that answers might be found in the ecological consciousness commanded by religion, and looks specifically at Christianity and Islam.

Timani is not just concerned with the environment, though. He believes that Western modernity has estranged man from nature – and from meaning. It is this lack that has led humanity to so voraciously consume the planet’s resources, searching for a higher purpose that has been lost as more and more people have moved away from faith.

He sees potential solutions in both Islam and Christianity. Of Islam he writes, “Being a servant of God, man must preserve and protect what God has entrusted him with and restrain from exercising dominion and power over nature” (p. 41). And, like many scholars of a more compassionate, thoughtful Christianity, Timani finds hope in the words of Richard Niebuhr, who “spoke of ‘loyalty to the community of life’” (p. 49).

Timani also engages with critics of religion – namely, Todd Jared LaVasseur’s critique that all major religions are anthropocentric, or the belief that humans are the most important creature. While true, Timani believes that religions call for a conscientious anthropocentrism, as opposed to the reckless consumption of resources espoused by Western materialism.

In his essay, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer as an Ecological Theologian,” Jamison Stallman also places the blame for our current ecological crisis on Western materialism. He examines climate change and a possible way forward through the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the early 20^th century Lutheran theologian, and the writings of environmental ethicist Larry Rasmussen.

In Sanctorum Communio (literally “a congregation of saints” and also the title of Bonhoeffer’s doctoral dissertation), Bonhoeffer asserts that, in Stallman’s words, “I become an individual when I recognize that there is a self-conscious You” (p. 90). It is only through a person’s relation to other humans that they can have any identity at all. Community is necessary for there to be an individual.

Of course, as we all know, any time two self-conscious “I”s come into contact, there will be an ethical tension. But this, Bonhoeffer asserts, is how person-hood and community are constantly being shaped and re-defined: by managing such ethical barriers.

Larry Rasmussen’s view of humans as “biosocial” is similar to Bonhoeffer’s insistence on community. But he extends the idea further, beyond just a community of Christ, to include the entire ecosystem. Western materialism, Rasmussen believes, has detached humanity from its ecological “niches” – that is, the systems and communities within which humans live (this is referred to as “niche theory”). Western materialism has moved humanity to a place above these systems, not of them. It is only by conceiving of ourselves as of the ecosystem – and in relationship with it – can we begin to repair the damage we’ve done. We cannot exist but in relation to other creatures and systems. 

Though most of the scholars are writing from the perspectives of the three Abrahamic faiths, three authors (one from each section of the book) explore other faiths and their relationships to the environment.

In section one – titled “Our Human Contexts within Nature” – Tatjana Myoko V. Prittwitz writes about “A Vast Net of Interconnected Diamonds: Buddhist Views of Nature.” Prittwitz begins with a fascinating (and humbling) thought experiment, asking the reader to think about everything in their life – their clothes and food, the chair they sit on and the car they drive, the roads and planes that make transit possible – and to consider how these objects and systems were made and how many people played in role in making them. “…our existence is dependent upon billions upon billions of people, actions, and things. What we call a separate self is in fact a vast net of … interconnection” (p. 68). Despite approaching the issue from a Buddhist perspective, Prittwitz concludes something similar, albeit slightly different, to the Muslim perspective of Timani and the Christian perspective of Stallman: “Out of the realization of interdependence comes the imperative of global responsibility …” (p. 70). Prittwitz alludes to this same universality in Native American spirituality, shamanistic rituals, and Tibetan animism, suggesting that most religions, no matter how seemingly disparate, are motivated and inspired by interconnectedness.

Appropriately for section two – “Imperatives from Sacred Texts and Tradition” – Nawaraj Chaulagain provides a close reading of the Sanskrit text Devi Mahatmya (literally “The Glorification of the Goddess”). Chaulagain writes that “The cosmic order is sustained through a continuously dynamic process of creation, preservation, and destruction for re-creating…” (p. 185). Considering the current crisis, this “dynamic process” can only be seen as hopeful!

Similar to Bonhoeffer’s grappling with original sin in Sanctorum Communio, the Devi Mahatmya contends with “the eternal battle … between the good and the evil …” And from an ecological perspective, it is grappling with “the perpetual conflict between those who are part of … the ecosystem and natural order … versus those who are against it…” (p. 186). Lastly, the Hindu festival of Navaratri pays homage to the natural world (rivers and mountains are particularly sacred in Hinduism). Chaulagain calls this “ecological worship”: “The Navaratri calls for the preservation of the earth” and involves the planting of barley seeds and the use of water from sacred rivers (194-95).

Throughout the essays, two dominant approaches to humanity and the environment tend to take shape (albeit with exceptions). Whereas Islam, Judaism, and Christianity tend to situate man as “stewards” of the world, Hinduism and Buddhism often view humanity as being “interconnected” with the world.

Leocadie Lushombo explores one of the exceptions: Central African Christianity, which tends towards interconnectedness. In her piece “Mitigating Deforestation in the Congo Basin and Climate Change: The Ethic of Environmental Responsibility Based on African Spirituality,” Lushombo ties micro environmental damage to macro climate catastrophe. She cites studies showing that deforestation in the Congo Basin “causes a decrease of precipitation of about 5%-15% in the Great Lakes region [in the US]…” (p. 275). Deforestation of the Amazon and Central Africa are causing droughts in the breadbasket of America. Meanwhile, it is leading to deluges in the Arabian peninsula. Such deforestation can be directly tied to the ills of colonialism and globalization. It’s also exacerbated by an influx of refugees – and as climate change worsens, it will lead to even more refugees.

Resistance to the dominant ideologies of Western exploitation and capitalism can be found in African spirituality, including African Christianity. Lushombo quotes Magesa, who wrote “What the African religious world view emphasizes, therefore, are relationships …” (p. 281). In traditional African practices, she finds hints of the “humanity as caretaker” worldview mostly associated with the Abrahamic faiths. She writes, “In order to maintain harmony with nature, it is a moral obligation to function as God’s stewards … and not as rulers” (p. 286). Lushombo sees solutions to over-logging and resource exploitation in the ideologies of both interconnectedness and stewardship.

The other essays in the book support this conclusion. Whether a faith views humanity as a steward of nature or interconnected with nature, is immaterial. All faiths believe that taking care with the natural world is critical to humanity’s future – in this world and the next. As our species grapples with climate change triggered by capitalism run amok, all people of faith – regardless of ideology – must come together to begin healing our planet through a new theology of ecology. This essay collection, with its focus on peacebuilding and interreligious dialogue, would be a good starting point.

The Hebrew Bible makes general demands that we should treat our parents with respect and reverence. “Honor” is a word used frequently in the Bible to describe how we are to show respect to God. Respect of parents is a primary and sacred obligation. If we fail to respect our parents, we have disobeyed God Almighty. In some deep and mysterious way, the family is bound up with faith in God: the two are interdependent.

From the very moment of conception, the child, as it grows and develops, is a care and responsibility for its parents. It is not possible to estimate the depth of attachment and compassion parents feel for their children and to calculate the troubles and hardships they go through as parents. For this reason, respecting them is a debt of human gratitude as well as a religious obligation.

Those who can judge the value of their parents rightly and regard them as a means to obtain the mercy of God are the most prosperous in both worlds. Those who, by contrast, regard their parents’ existence as a burden to themselves or who become wearied of them are the unfortunate ones.

The more respectful you are to your parents, the greater the respect and awe you feel before your Creator. Yet, it is a curious thing today that not only those who are disrespectful to God but also those who claim that they love God do not defend themselves from disobedience to their parents. As Martin Luther said, “we must respect and love God, so that we will neither look down on our parents or superiors, nor irritate them, but will honor them, serve them, obey them, love them, and value them.”¹

Under the Old Testament law the son, who was rebellious against his parents was stoned for this rebellion (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). It is important to stress the fact that God is opposed to rebellion and disobedience toward one’s parents. God also promises a long life to the individual who is obedient to his father and mother (Exodus 20:12). No doubt this is because the kind of life which is a life of obedience will involve self-discipline and restraint that would enable one to have a long life and good health. This not only refers to the chronological extension of time, but indicates the rich blessing which comes to a society that keeps God’s ways.

The importance of this commandment, however, extends beyond social welfare to the very welfare of society itself, because the family is the basic unit of society. Just as a body’s health is dependent on the health of its cells, so the vigor of a nation, the body politic, is directly related to the health of the families that make it up. Families form the foundation of a society. Where there is reciprocal respect of rights and obligations within a family, the society is healthy and strong. It is vain to look for compassion and respect in a society once these have been lost from the relationships within the family.²

The fifth commandment also shows that the way we treat our parents is how our children learn to treat us. Obviously, we too will become old. If we do not honor our parents, in accordance with the meaning of, “the punishment is similar to the act that required it,” our children will not be dutiful towards us. If we love our life in the hereafter, this is an important treasury for us: let us be dutiful towards them and gain their pleasure. While if it is this world that we love, let us try to please them, so that through them our life will be easy and our sustenance plentiful. If we want the mercy of the Most Merciful One, we should be merciful towards those in our house whom He has entrusted to us.

Likewise in Christianity, in Islam, parents’ rights are the most venerable rights after those of God. The Qur’an has many verses urging Muslims to treat their parents with utmost kindness, to be grateful for the care they have given them, to obey them, and to care for them when they grow old. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, once said: “Paradise lies under the feet of the mother. The contentment of the father is the door to paradise.” There are many days set aside in societies to honor and appreciate parents; Father’s Day, Mother’s Day… In Islam, however, respecting, honoring and appreciating parents is not just for a single day of the year, but rather for each and every day.

O Ishmael! Honor Your Father Abraham

There are different types of parents but regardless of how they treat their kids, they are still a parent. Parents make mistakes too, but that does not decrease their value as parents. When we are still under parental guidance, then we will have to follow what they want us to do, even if it is against our heart. When we are on our own feet, then we are free, but we still have the responsibility to respect them. We have to look at the situation, rather than concentrating on our own satisfaction. We have to be kind to them because most of the things they do are all for us.

A child should show respect for his parents by preferring their preferences. For instance, even though some sources say that when Ishmael reached the age of puberty, his tribe made him marry a woman from among them, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt. We do not know whether Ishmael liked her or not. He probably might have preferred to keep silent in order to please his mother. What we know is that he respected his mother’s wishes.

We can give another example. Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please his father, and his mother, Rebekah complained about these women. In order to please his parents, Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael.

As mentioned above, Hagar got a wife for Ishmael from the land of Egypt (Genesis 21:21). His wife’s name is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, but in the book of Jasher, a Hebrew midrash.³ Ishmael’s first wife, Ribah, was rude to Abraham when he came to visit Ishmael. She did not even ask him who he was. But all the while, she was beating her children in the tent, and she was cursing them, and she also cursed her husband, Ishmael, and spoke evil of him, and Abraham heard the words she spoke to her children, and it was an evil thing in his eyes. Abraham left a message, “When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).”⁴ Ishmael understood his father’s words, complied with his father’s wish, and divorced his wife. Ishmael did not even come to Abraham and ask what happened because he thought that as a prophet, his father would know better than he, and all Abraham had done was for his son.

Proper respect for parents includes their being addressed and greeted properly. The modern idea of calling fathers and mothers by their first names certainly is promoting a familiarity that will not lead to respect, obedience, or honor. Abraham stayed away from Ishmael and his family for a period as long as God wished, and called on them afterwards. He saw Ishmael under a tree, sharpening his arrows. When he saw Abraham, he immediately rose up to welcome him and they greeted each other. Abraham said, “O Ishmael! God has given me an order.” Ishmael said, “Do what your Lord has ordered you to do.” Abraham asked, “Will you help me?” Ishmael said, “I will help you.” Abraham said, “God has ordered me to build a house here,” pointing to a hillock higher than the land surrounding it. Then they raised the foundations of the Ka’ba.

Respect for parents should remain in force even in relation to parents who may have lost faith. If a faithful person has unfaithful parents, he should treat them respectfully in his dealings and advice, while remaining aloof from their polytheistic lives. He should neither be harsh nor vulgar. Islam instructs Muslims to pray to God for the forgiveness of their parent’s sins, if any, and present their good deeds for the benefit of their parents’ souls. In Islamic and Jewish tradition, Abraham’s treatment of his father, Terah, is a certain testimony to this.

As the Book of Joshua reports, the father of Abraham, Terah, worshipped other gods (Josh. 24:2). Terah was a well-known idolater; he not only worshipped idols but sculpted and sold them as well. Abraham was engaged in debate with his father to convey the truth to him; “O my father! Why do you worship that which does not hear, see, nor can it profit you anything? Do not worship idols and therefore follow me. I will guide you to the straight path. Otherwise, I fear that a punishment from God may afflict you so that you will become a friend of Satan. Nevertheless, I will seek forgiveness for you from God.”

The New Testament is very plain concerning obedience to parents. “Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord” (Colossians 3:20); “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). Obedience is the foundation for all character. Parents do not have to convince children of the logic behind their orders because parents are experts on their children, and possess a great deal of information that even teachers do not have, so a child must maintain the parent’s dignity and respect at all times, even when disagreeing. Obedience to parents should always be immediate, instant, without question or argument. What the father says do, the son does. He does it well, he does it immediately, and he does it without argument.

Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac (or Ishmael). This indeed was a clear test. Therefore Abraham carefully prepared to carry out the order of God. In the Quran, Abraham has a dream, mentions the dream to his son, and asks Ishmael his opinion: “‘O my son! I have seen in my dream that I should offer you in sacrifice so think about that and tell me your view.’ He unhesitatingly said: ‘O my dear father! Do as you are commanded, by the will of God, you will find me of the patient ones,’ and Abraham laid him down on the side of his forehead.” ⁵ As you have seen, Isaac (or Ishmael) does not resist his father, obeys his wishes, and lies down like a ram. In addition, in the Bible, the sole dialogue between the two (Abraham and his son) repeats the words father and my son (twice each), expressing their emotional bond.

The parents continue to have rights over their children after death. People are expected to visit their parents’ graves, to maintain contact with their friends, and to conduct themselves well so as to show that their parents have provided them with a good education. One can honor his parents after their death through the following methods: Praying for them, giving charity on their behalf, instituting a perpetual charity on their behalf, such as a library, hospital, or orphanage.

Coming back to Ishmael and Isaac, destiny had separated the two brothers from each other. After years, Isaac and Ishmael were rejoined at their father’s burial (Gen 25:9). They showed proper filial piety, despite earlier disagreements, in joining together to bury their father.⁶ The burial is supervised by both sons. While Isaac placed the headstone, Ishmael placed the footstone of the grave. Although Ishmael had long ago been dismissed, he was not utterly alienated from his father because he performed the office of a son in celebrating the obsequies of his deceased parent. Ishmael, rather than the other sons, did this, as being nearer.⁷ As a child, Ishmael had a last duty due to his father, and he carried out this duty, attending Abraham’s funeral and burying him.

The obligation to honor one’s parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one’s actions towards one’s parents. In the Hebrew Bible, our relationship with God is continually compared with a parent-child relationship. God tells us in the Ten Commandments to obey and have respect for parents. This does not mean that we only obey our parents when we agree with them or fully understand why they are telling us to do something. We must obey them at all times. We must also honor and have respect for parents. God does not want us to put our parents above Him, but he does desire for us to treat them as He desires for us to treat Him.

Notes

1 Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Large and Small Catechism, Translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dan, (Sioux Falls, SD: Nuvision Publications, 2007), 67.

2 Niyi Taiwo, Respect: Gaining It and Sustaining It. (Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation, 2007), 25.

3 J. H. Parry, The Book of Jasher, (New York: Cosimo, Inc, 2005), 68.

4 Muhammad Muhsin Khan, The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari with the Arabic Text, (Al Saadawi Publications, 1996), Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583.

5 Ali Unal trans, The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, (New Jersey: The Light, 2006), Saffat 37:102.

6 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50: Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, (Dallas: Word Books, 1994), 165.

7 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries on Genesis. trans. John King, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963), 2:38.

References

• Calvin, John. Calvin’s Commentaries on Genesis. trans. John King. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1963.
• Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari with the Arabic Text, Al Saadawi Publications, 1996.
• Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Large and Small Catechism. Translated by F. Bente and W.H.T. Dan. Sioux Falls, SD: Nuvision Publications, 2007.
• Parry, J. H. The Book of Jasher. New York: Cosimo, Inc, 2005.
• Taiwo, Niyi. Respect: Gaining It and Sustaining It. Philadelphia, PA: Xlibris Corporation, 2007.
• Unal, Ali, trans. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. New Jersey: The Light, 2006.
• Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16-50: Word Biblical Commentary. ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1994.

The human condition is one with many challenges and blessings, concurrent and successive. To believers, both hardship and abundance are a matter of perspective, at least in most occasions; everything we face is a test on the path to our perfection. Poverty and wealth are two of these tests – while the former comes in the guise of hardship and deficiency, the latter is cloaked in material abundance and outward comfort.

Wealth does not guarantee peace in one’s heart, in this life or in the hereafter, for it usually comes with a heavy bill – compromising one’s time and health, responsibilities to family and the larger community, a self-struggle between fully claiming the wealth or attributing it to God’s grace, and the question of how to best use this abundance.

Poverty, on the other hand, is not an easier challenge, as one is required to keep his or her patience in the face of hunger and lack of sufficient means for a life of self-sustainable dignity. Despite these difficulties, however, poverty comes with much less to be accountable for.

The story goes that one day, the famous Sultan Harun Rashid asked Bahl al-Dana, a Sufi mystic of his time, what would happen on the Day of Judgment. Bahl told him to order his servants to set a metal sheet with fire under it. After it became really hot, Bahl jumped on it barefoot and said, “I ate cheese and bread, wore a robe and underwear,” and then immediately jumped off.

“Now, it’s your turn,” he told the Sultan, who then had already realized that wealth in this world was quite a responsibility to answer for in the hereafter.

This conference aims to explore what the three Abrahamic religions have to teach us with regard to this human condition from a wide spectrum of themes, including philanthropy, globalization, gender, business, ethics, and mysticism. The Fountain is proud to be a contributor to this event, which we wholeheartedly believe reflects the worldview we strive to emphasize in our pages: a meaningful understanding of this life drawing on faith and reason.

We are grateful to Peace Islands Institute for making The Fountain a part of this event. We wish you an enjoyable stay in Istanbul and a successful conference.

Hakan Yeşilova
Editor
The Fountain

The Fountain organized a three-day conference in Istanbul featuring scholars and academics from diverse disciplines to convene and discuss some philosophical themes The Fountain covers. Aspiring to be a platform for peaceful exchange of ideas, invigorating discussions on the big questions of life, and to generate more of those questions, The Fountain invited 12 international speakers and a dozen intellectuals from within Turkey to participate in this conference. The Fountain, now distributed and read worldwide, has its origins in Turkey which started as an offshoot of global initiatives by renowned Turkish scholar Fethullah Gülen and the Hizmet Movement that grew out of his inspiring ideas.

The themes that were covered in this conference were as follows:

• Fethullah Gülen and The Fountain Worldview
• Cross-cultural Dialogue, Media, Pluralism, Spirituality
• Scientific Thought, Faith, and Philosophy

With his new book, Insights from the Risale-i Nur, Thomas Michel sets out to answer some of these questions. Michel states his goal very early in the book: as a Jesuit priest, he wants to know where, if at all, he can find “points of convergence” between Christianity and Islam within Bediüzzaman Said Nursi’s (d. 1960) seminal “Risale-i Nur.”

It turns out there aren’t just a few points, but many. And throughout Michel’s book – which is a collection of essays, speeches, and presentations the priest has delivered over the last two decades – he lays the groundwork for a healthy, constructive dialogue between not just Christians and Muslims, but peoples of all faith.

Nursi wrote the “Risale-i Nur” in the wake of two world wars. He’d watched as the secular advances of Western civilization had led to the near total destruction of Europe – not once, but twice. The collateral damage had deeply affected his home, Turkey, and its neighbors. And he endured the ill effects of Turkey’s own modernization efforts, as he was repeatedly persecuted and imprisoned for his faith.

Under such circumstances, it would have been understandable if his book had been rife with anger. Instead, as Michel astutely shows throughout his own thoughtful book, Nursi’s commentary is remarkably hopeful. He sought these “points of convergence” while also stressing what he believed as the truth of his own faith. Michel adeptly uses Nursi’s words to draw out the common ground between different faiths, and looks at how these similarities can be applied in our equally fraught contemporary age.

Both Christianity and Islam pinpoint the destruction wrought by war and poverty as having germinated not from faith, but from rampant materialism run to its natural conclusion. In a quote that Michel returns to, time and again, Nursi writes:

Europe is two. One follows the sciences which serve justice and right
And the industries beneficial for the life of society it has received from
True Christianity; this first Europe I am not addressing. I am rather
Addressing the second, corrupt Europe which, through the darkness of
The philosophy of naturalism, supposing the evils of civilization to be
Its virtues, has driven mankind to vice and misguidance.

Michel routinely connects Nursi’s, and Islam’s, distress about materialism and greed with Christianity and Judaism’s distress about the same things. The book’s second essay charts the overlaps between Nursi and Pope John Paul II in their approaches to forgiveness. Both men believed that materialism, and the selfishness it fosters, are antithetical to healthy, fulfilled communities. People of faith, no matter their belief systems, believe that a truly rich life involves more than the simple acquisition of transient materials. This common desire – for communities based on mutual love and respect instead of self-interest – is a major point of convergence. As Nursi writes, “Our enemy, that which is destroying us, is Lord Ignorance, his son [Master] Poverty Efendi, and grandson, [Mr] Enmity Bey.”

Michel shows that, although Nursi believed adamantly in the truth of his faith, he also believed that true followers of the other “revealed religions” were friends and allies of Islam. Writing after the Second World War, Nursi stated that innocents who had died “were martyrs of a sort, whatever religion they belonged to.” In the aftermath of an invasion that mostly destroyed the city of Van, Nursi “…wept without distinction for both the Christian and Muslim victims, who had been his ‘friends and acquaintances.’” In these acts of kindness, Michel finds common ground with Nursi – both of their faiths value the dignity of every human life.

In a world in which the pursuit of wealth and immediate satisfaction guides so many human interactions, this value is not always present. All too often, people from different walks of life are viewed as obstacles to a person attaining the material satisfaction they’ve come to believe is rightfully theirs.

Michel sums up this perspective succinctly in one of the most important essays in the book, “Dialogue among Believers.” He writes, “Instead of fostering fellowship and mutual aid among nations, social values are too often oriented toward providing the populace with amusements, distractions, and opportunities for instant gratification.”

Such striving for material rewards – the pursuit of which lies at the heart of capitalism, which often functions as a “secular” religion – has resulted in the debasement and poverty of a large portion of the world’s population. This dehumanization and desacralizing of human life is at the root of most religious concerns about contemporary culture. Instead of working towards a “higher good” – community, peace, or God – people are focused on self-actualization through consumption. But as Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew, chapter 4, verse 4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” The Qur’an echoes this when it says, in chapter 63, verse 9, “Let not your properties … divert you from the remembrance of God.” It’s not difficult to interpret these quotes to mean that humanity should not simply honor and respect God, but should also honor and respect God’s creations through reverence and peace. Material possessions alone cannot fill a person’s spirit; this is a belief almost all religions share.

Both Nursi and Michel feel that the absence of religion – and not the differences between faiths – has led to the wars and poverties of the last century. This is a belief that many, many people of faith share. The essays in the book continually return to these themes of common interest. By having a dialogue with Nursi’s text, and by viewing that text in its best possible context, Michel establishes a space for further dialogue between people of all faiths to occur. Both men express their adamant belief that faith – be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or something else – has an important, vital role to play in establishing a broad, lasting peace. Michel, like Nursi before him, remains hopeful about the future role faith will play in a more peaceful, tolerant world. This book serves as a dialogue between two religions, and it builds a foundation for future dialogues. It is a foundation built of respect, devoted faith, and a deep commitment to the dignity of every life. These are not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish values – they are universal values.

The year 1492 marked the destruction of an unprecedented form of coexistence between the Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Al-Andalus, a state that had thrived since the eleventh century. Was the purported reality of La Convivencia a mere construct of mythology, recreated by the Spanish historian Ramon Pidal and his student America Castro, or one exacerbated by populism? This in microcosm forms the basis of the article which is divided in three parts. Firstly, the historical context will be sketched in order to determine how the spirit of Convivencia crystallised. Secondly, the essay will draw upon political, religious, and socio-economic determinants to best understand the reality of La Convivencia. Thirdly, by way of historiography, the essay will attempt to reconcile the notion that La Convivencia was a retrospective utopian fallacy with the equally persuasive assertion that there really existed such an unprecedented social fabric in medieval Spain. Drawing upon proximate and remote factors, it will be argued that to blindly subscribe to utopian historical interpretation only exacerbates this theoretical misguidance and continues flawed historical documentation. This essay also seeks to provide an alternative. Perhaps by looking at the very tenets of Islam itself, one can channel the confused conclusions of the Convivencia into a cohesive understanding, for within the Qur’an lie the very seeds of democratic pluralism. As an overarching analysis, the essay will draw upon aspects of La Convivencia that should inform the peace process in the Middle East. For when Muhammad XII Abu ‘Abd Allah left the gates of Granada in 1492 marking the “last sigh of the moor,” the death knell of the ever celebrated Convivencia reverberated throughout the medieval world.

Historical landscape

If indeed, the postulations of Convivencia by historian Ramon were based on a genuine reality, how the spirit actually precipitated would form a useful basis. According to some historical accounts, Arab armies first arrived in the peninsula in AD 711. Although records of the conquest are tenuous, it is known that the Arabs had gained control over North Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic (Chejne 1974). Having observed the socio-economic degradation of the Visogoth rule and the proximity of a fertile country, the Arabs made their advance from the Southern tip and met Roderick the ruler of Spain at the Barbate River (Chejne 1974). Having defeated his armies, the Arabs advanced North and Muslim rule was accepted voluntarily by many Spaniards (Esperanza 2008, 25). Al-Andalus was ruled by the Umayyad caliphs in Damascus until 750 when the Abbasid dynasty came to power in the East. Abd al-Rahman ibn Mu’awiyah, an Umayyad prince escaped, and fled to Spain where he established an independent Umayyad state in 756 (Gampel 1992). Andalusian rulers who were sovereign politically continued to regard the Abbasid caliphs as the ultimate religious authority for almost 200 years until the eighth ruler of the dynasty, Abd al-Rahman III al-Nasir, claimed the caliphate title for himself and his progeny in 929.1 It is at this point that historian Ramon Menendez Ridal and his student America Castro form the historical rhetoric resembling something of a pax Islamica, the golden age of Islamic civilisation which embodied the spirit of Convivencia. Rosa Menocal describes how this planted the seeds for an unprecedented level of scientific, philosophical, and metaphysical discovery, rendering medieval Spain the ornament of the world (Hillenbrand 1992, 10). It will be stated here that prima facie the spirit of Convivencia was no mere myth. What led to the success of the coexistence was a convenient political cocktail mixed with proximate social factors and the religious dynamics of Islamic presence.

Political determinants

Arguably, political factors were most influential in facilitating the Convivencia process. There were two key political figures present in the upper echelons of Islamic rule in Al-Andalus in the tenth century which directly impacted upon the birth of the amicable coexistence. The rule of Abd al-Rahman III from 912 to 961 came the closest to achieving the full realisation of this coexistence and in 929, he officially declared himself Caliph and “Prince of All Believers”(Allen 2008). He conducted his policy of reconciliation of the Berbers, Arabs, Jews and Christians of the Iberio-Hispanic population. He also worked directly with the Mozarabs, a controversial term generally used to refer to Christians who lived under the Muslim rule, and placed them in positions of power. Furthermore, the Jews and Christians could practice religion without harassment or persecution. The maliki fiqh or law was an effective legal instrument which regulated the practice of all three religions (Lewis 1984). Abd al-Rahman III also rotated posts within the bureaucracy and placed even former Jewish and Christian slaves in positions of power. The Muslim rulers in Spain relied on the Jews for diplomacy and public administration who were inaugurated into posts of commerce and played important roles in cities such as Toledo and Cordoba. As a direct result of this, a thriving mercantile class grew during the Islamic rule in Al-Andalus. Intrinsic to the success of Convivencia during his reign was the political figure Hasdai Ibn Shapmut, the Jewish Vizier of the Abd al-Rahman III. Their collaboration led to a convenient political marriage of ideas (Lewis 1984). Both he and Abd al-Rahman III had a common goal of removing their Jewish and Muslim communities respectively from their Eastern centre and advancing intellectual and religious independence. Consequently, this led them to create an educational structure that encouraged the importance of Greek Philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle which was translated into many languages. This political manoeuvring had social manifestations—the Jews shared the same Romance and Arab vernacular as the Christians and Muslims. This further inaugurated the social unification among the three faith-communities of the peninsula” (Hillenbrand 1992, 11).

Aristotelian philosophy

The nuances of Aristotelian philosophy should perhaps be examined closely. Aristotelian thought directly challenged the sole use of religion to justify the denouement of certain political theory. Although both political figures were not secular, both Abd al-Rahman III and Hasdai promoted the prominence of such philosophy insofar as it pertained to political policy. Whilst the political collaboration of Abd al-Rahman and his vizier in the tenth century facilitated Convivencia, the philosophy of twelfth century was arguably the crux of the flourishing of the Convivencia. The presence of Islamic interpretations of Aristotle by Averroes and Maimonides achieved the archetypal Aristotelian scholarship (Constable 1997, 99). They urged the need to develop a state based upon the interpretation of Plato’s Republic (Constable 1997, 99). Such strong cohesion in philosophical debate led the Jews, Christians and Muslims to believe that there was a place for the three Abrahamic (Ahl Al-Kitab) faiths to coexist. It would be intellectually barren however, to state that the flourishing of Convivencia can be solely attributed to internal factors. The presence of more remote factors played into the hands of those in power. Just before the Ummayad Caliphate was established in Al-Andalus, the Visogothic rulers had conducted extensive anti-Semitic policies. These policies were particularly rampant within the state and church in the first two decades of Visogothic rule. Highly possible within the formulation of what constituted the spirit of Convivencia could be the fact that the Jews saw the Muslims as their liberators from Visogothic rule. David Lewis certainly holds this view (Allen 2008). This begs the question, was Convivencia a mere construct of retrospective utopianism or a reality exaggerated by populism and recreated through historical account?

The need to recreate history

The raison d’etre behind the recreation of history vis-a-vis the moors was a direct result of the lack of scholarship in this particular period in Spanish historical account. Thomas F. Glick in his book Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages argues that until the 1970s, historians were grappling with how to express an account of the rise of nationalism of a nation-state without alluding to socio-psychological dimensions (Glick 1992, 123). For long after the Muslim political reign came to an end, he claims that “the image of the moor remained as the quintessential stranger, an object to be feared” (Glick 1992, 123). He claims that the forgotten chapter in Spanish history was incinerated in the flames of the Spanish inquisition. Thus, transposed into the historiographical field are subconscious fears which have transferred into a bias that underlies historical interpretation. Unless a historian is purged of this bias, the historian cannot play a valid role as an interpreter of Spain’s history (Glick 1992, 123).

Convivencia: a fallacy?

The primary part of this essay has dealt with the underpinnings of Islamic reign and the machinery upon which La Convivencia functioned. So far the proposition has been that Convivencia was in fact a reality. However it will be argued here that perhaps to some extent it has been exaggerated. Much retrospective idealism was created through the historical accounts, the populism created by the Museum of Three Cultures in Cordoba and the mythos created by Washington Irving in the Tales of the Alhambra. Many contemporary historians purport that this retrospective utopianism of the Convivencia precariously masks the very presence of institutional fundamentalism in medieval Spain—both in its Jewish and Muslim manifestations in the nature of forced conversions, exile, lower standards of citizenship, higher taxation, and violence (Hillenbrand 1992, 7; Rothstein 2003, 9).

Thus, three prongs of analysis come to the fore. Firstly, whilst there might have been a great deal of tolerance, it is important to examine the social fabric and the differentiation of toleration within the classes (Hughes 2005). For the spread of Convivencia’s spirit was not a monolithic one working at equilibrium amongst classes. Cruz claims that whilst the aristocracy benefitted from policies of Convivencia, many of the lower echelons of Jewish and Christian society remained segregated or in conflict with their Abrahamic counterparts. Amongst the Christians, it was the nobility, scholars and upper ranks of clergy who enjoyed the fruits of Convivencia (Hughes 2005). Amongst the Jews, it was the rich merchant class who had little interaction with the lower echelons of society (Hughes 2005). Furthermore, cultural coexistence was more tangible amongst the Jews and Muslims than with Mozarabs. The case in point here is that aspects of divergence in culture were masked by simultaneous developments in philosophy and metaphysics. Such development in thought veiled the unearthed intricacies of conflict and carefully transposed the spirit of Convivencia onto the forefront of historical scholarship. Secondly, by way of resolving whether the theory of Convivencia translated into praxis, it is useful to analyse the intricacies of Abd al-Rahman III’s policies more microscopically. If indeed he did intend on conducting the policy of Convivencia, he did so with a very different goal in mind. His policies were mainly aimed at the homogenisation of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims into one culture. Furthermore as one analyzes the work of Pidal and Castro, it becomes obvious that they propose a similar thesis—the Spanish racial fabric would not have been what it is today without La Convivencia. This therefore seems more like one of convergence rather than coexistence.

Fallacy continued: the exoticism of architecture

A third and a more remote layer, compounding this mythos of Convivencia is the presence of ever-undulating, overwhelming architecture in Andalusia. Rothstein states that this idealism led to a form of architectural mysticism through the creation of monumental buildings such as the Alhambra and the Great Mosque of Cordoba. Rothstein claims that such overwhelming architecture declares mystery which allowed this historical idealism to achieve its physical manifestation. He claims that the “position or status of the individual is the focus, [not the individual itself]” (Rothstein 2003, 9). This is quite different from the humane ideal so often attached to Convivencia. The outcome is not a version of tolerance as she claims that the viewer is absorbed into a world that overwhelms, inspiring awe with intricacies in architecture of monumental proportions that seem beyond comprehension. This perpetuates the retrospective utopianism in its more tangible manifestation.

The thesis here however, is that whilst these interpretations temper the level of utopianism attached to the Convivencia, it was undeniable that this level of coexistence was unprecedented and arguably has not been replicated yet. What then was the lynchpin of Convivencia’s success?

Principles, civilisation, and influence of Islam: future directions

For indeed Al-Andalus was the enlightened society that combined the triune people of the holy book (Ahl Al-Kitab), their beliefs, humanism, and artistry, it would serve as an extraordinary model for any Muslim country, especially for the peace process in the Middle east. Whilst the underpinnings of truth and mythos of Convivencia have led to mixed conclusions, the assertion here is that the spirit of Convivencia has been undermined by Eurocentric historiography. The fallacy in studying the Convivencia from this perspective is that it disregards Islamic determinants from the formulation. Often the impact of the Islamic civilization and its influence are measured against the yardstick of European historiography. Perhaps imbued within this bias of reviving the rhetoric is the Huntington thesis philosophy. This thesis seeks to offer an alternative by looking at the very principles of Islam. For if most historians attribute the success of Convivencia to the Aristolean division of religion and state, why did Abd al-Rahman III go about Al-Andalus making Islamic proclamations and orations? It is unlikely that the Islamic leaders in medieval Spain really conducted a policy of disestablishment and privatization of Islam (Sachedina 2001, 24). Sachedina’s study of the Islamic roots of democratic pluralism provides a useful stepping stone. One reason why the three faiths could have coexisted so amicably could be attributed to the Qur’an’s very definition of belief itself. The Qur’an states that “Those who believe (i. e. professing to be Muslims), or those who declare Judaism, or the Christians or the Sabaeans (or those of some other faith) whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day and does good, righteous deeds, surely their reward is with their Lord, and they will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:62).” The apex of the Qur’an’s inclusive spirit can be extrapolated beyond the realm of the three religions of Abraham. It is particularly informative in terms of the universal application of the religious pluralism and community identity in Islam. An oft-quoted passage reads: “Humankind were (in the beginning) one community (following one way of life without disputing over provision and other similar things. Later on, differences arose and) God sent Prophets as bearers of glad tidings (of prosperity in return for faith and righteousness) and warners (against the consequences of straying and transgression), and He sent down with them the Book with the truth (containing nothing false in it) so that it might judge between the people concerning that on which they were differing” (2:213). The presence of post-911 terrorism had tainted the essence of Islam, often making it synonymous with fundamentalism. This is largely due to the obscurantist and exclusivist schools of thought which have monopolized juridical interpretations. The peace process of the Middle East must learn the inclusive spirit of the Qur’an.

Overarchingly, La Convivencia was indeed a reality however much obscured by both utopian and realist schools of thoughts it may be. As a final analysis, perhaps the reason why Convivencia blossomed at the Golden age of Islam lies in the very crux of the faith’s capacity to engage in a pluralistic world of communities (ummah) with secular concerns such as the universal good and forgiveness (Sachedina 2001, 24). Far from being antithetical to modern Western values of liberal democracy, Islam can assist this very liberal project of public international order. Blindly prescriptions to mere Eurocentric rhetoric would only exacerbate this theoretical misguidance and continue flawed historical documentation.

Note

1. As a historian I note that there are many conflicting and unclear records of the conquest. I have attempted to reconcile several academic views and historical interpretations.

References

Allen, Marilyn Penn. 2008. Cultural Flourishing in Tenth Century Muslim Spain among Muslims, Jews, and Christians. Unpublished master’s thesis submitted to Georgetown University, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Bresheeth H. and N. Yuval-Davis (eds). 1991. The Gulf War and the New World Order, UK: Zed Books Ltd.

Chejne, Anwar G. 1974. Muslim Spain: Its History and Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Constable, Olivia. 1997. Medival Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim and Jewish Sources, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cruz, Miguel. 1991. “The Roots of Coexistence” The Unesco Courier, 12, December.

Esperanza, Alfonso. 2008. Islamic Culture through Jewish Eyes: Al-Andalus from the Tenth to Twelfth Century, New York: Routledge.

Gampel, Benjamin R. 1992. “Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Medieval Iberia: Convivencia Through the Eyes of Sephardic Jews” in Vivian B. Mann, Thomas F. Glick, and Jerrilynn D. Dodds (editors) Convivencia: Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Medieval Spain, New York: George Braziller Incorporated.

Glick, Thomas F. 2005. Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages, Boston: BRILL Publications.

Hillenbrand, Robert. 1992. “The Ornament of the World, Medieval Cordoba as a Culture Centre” in Salma Jayyusi, The Legacy of Muslim Spain, Leiden: E. J. Brill Publications.

Lewis, Bernard. 1984. The Jews of Islam, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rothstein, Edward. 2003. Was the Islam of Old Spain Truly Tolerant? New York Times, New York, NY, September 27.

Sachedina, Abdulaziz, 2001. Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, New York: Oxford University Press.

Online Video Resources

Hughes, Bettany. 2005. When the Moors Ruled in Spain. Wildfire Television.

Gardner, Robert H. 2007. Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain. 2007. PBS.

If on occasion we are able to block out the horror of September 11, those who travel by air are brought back to the reality of it whenever we go through the intensive and intrusive airport security screening now required at every airport in this country, and for that matter throughout the world.

Immediately following 9/11, questions and uninformed, insufficient answers were too often offered in hate-filled newspaper articles and on radio and television stations. Too often, the conversations were by their very nature laced with Islamophobia. The content too often demonstrated our collective ignorance as a people and nation about Islam, the Holy Qur’an, imams, mosques, and what really was the definition of Jihad?

As a counterweight, and spurred primarily by religious leaders in the three Abrahamic faiths, interfaith dialogues and summits began to appear first in America and then throughout the world. As a result, Islam, which had pretty much been a foreign word in America’s religious vocabulary, was now on the lips of everyone.

But in truth, ignorance about Islam continues to drive our reactive behavior toward one of the three great Abrahamic faiths. It is hard to believe, but in a recent poll conducted by the Pew Foundation, 40 percent of Americans still believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, because of his name. There continue to be concerns expressed in this country by American Muslims about their place in American culture and society. Where do they belong, and can they ever really belong, without being under a microscope all the time? My friend Eboo Patel, founder of the Inter Faith Youth Core in Chicago, has said, “I am more afraid now than I was after 9/11.”

And yet, within this capsule of ignorance and fear of the “other,” I believe that as a nation there is another reason why we as Americans have had such a hard time dealing with the horrors of September 11. As a nation, we have never had the opportunity to grieve over the horrible loss of life, the indelible visual experience of all that was attached to that fateful September morning ten years ago.

Ten years ago as a nation we were embraced quite frankly by almost every nation in the global community, offering help, prayers, and whatever support was needed at this time of national crisis. And yet, our immediate response as a nation was to seek retribution and frontier justice. Wanted “dead or alive” was a regrettable pronouncement offered by some. And the taunt to those who were religious terrorists was “bring ’em on.” As the nation gathered in prayer at Washington National cathedral, President Bush unfortunately misspoke and used the word “crusade” in his speech to the nation-a word that was frightening, and historically painful and confrontational to millions in the Muslim world.

Because of the reflexive need to immediately “strike back” at the perpetrators and planners of the 9/11 attacks, we never really had the opportunity to grieve as a nation. When we do not grieve over a great loss, we tend to have overly emotional, often unhelpful knee-jerk responses. Anger and aggression can be the first response to significant loss in one’s family, or in the larger human family. And without time to grieve, think and process, responses can be illogical and result in bad decisions.

For much of the last decade, we have not found the time to grieve over the horrors of September 11, 2001. Yet the hard work of interfaith conversation and interaction emanating from religious scholars, denominational leaders, and theologians of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have led the way to places where people of faith have had wonderful opportunities. Through the discipline of prayer, the blessings of shared compassion, and the core teachings of their religious traditions, they have had a significant impact on moving not only America, but many other nations, from retribution to reconciliation, from theological illiteracy to literacy, from xenophobia to respect, tolerance, and acceptance of the “other.”

9/11 scarred the psyche of America, but also the public image of Islam. And yet the Jesus of Christianity reminds his followers that at the very center of their belief system is the word reconciliation—embraced by unconditional love and the quest for a peace that passes all understanding.

And it is no accident that Islam has as its radius the word salam (peace). The teachings of both Jesus and Muhammad have much in common regarding care for the “other.” Peace and divine love is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam. And it is that quest that now leads us to continue the healing process that must move forward between the brothers and sisters of Abraham. For it is the promise of the one God that true holiness can be found within the unity of our diversity.

It is now time, ten years later, to embrace the moment and make whole that which has been broken by the ignorance, fear, and illiteracy that too often define our understandings of religion. Much of that work has been undertaken in Washington D.C. through the creative efforts of the Rumi Forum, Washington National Cathedral’s Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation, Georgetown University, and the Brookings Institution through the U.S. Islamic World Forum.

Many efforts have begun in other parts of the world to engage in work that promises to positively impact the present opportunity—to seek the path of wholeness and reconciliation rather than division and violence. This is a journey begun by both Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad that now defines a new decade, a decade not solely focused on the 9/11 tragedy, but one that must become part of the global community. It is a journey made sacred by all those who lost their lives in New York City, Pennsylvania, and Washington and by the efforts of interfaith leaders throughout the world.

It is a new time, a new decade, where life promises to overcome the sting of death, where hate is trumped by the power of God’s love, and where people of faith have the courage to speak out against those who use religion for their own selfish desires for control and power, rather than as a means through which all can experience the reconciling love of God.

As a country, and as people of faith, we cannot make this journey alone. We will need partners and colleagues of other faith traditions that believe that this is the moment when we stand together, shoulder to shoulder, and proclaim that no one has the right to take another person’s life in the name of God.