The theme of the dialogue was Countering Religious Extremism at the Grassroots Level. It was held at the Seoul National University’s Graduate School of International Studies, and was cohosted by the Korean Council of Religions for Peace (KCRP) and the Hangang Network, both organizations based in Seoul. KCRP brings together representatives from seven different religious traditions throughout Korea, ranging from Buddhism and Confucianism to Protestantism and Catholicism. Together in one place, the roundtable discussion permitted an exploration of the problems that lead some persons, especially the young, to turn to extremist, self- and other-destructive beliefs and acts. The panel also discussed how peaceable—faithful— alternatives might be supported at local faith-based organizations. The dialogue was quite fruitful, and helped generate greater appreciation of the struggles within each faith tradition and how those assembled might learn from each other how to creatively respond to those struggles.

While extremely valuable, the point of these brief notes is not to report on the discussions and resulting suggestions. Rather than providing details from those particular dialogue discussions, let’s seek to lay out the different kinds or forms of interfaith dialogue to help set a viable context and reasonable hopes that are appropriate to each. We can thus aid in advancing various forms of dialogue within and between peoples of faith. In short, the term “interfaith dialogue” is ambiguous and too often misleading, since it is used to cover a wide variety of interactions and expectations. Let’s consider the following four forms to help us unpack the term.

Interfaith Dialogue form #1: Persons from various and diverse religious traditions get together to talk, listen, and learn about other religions and groups of people. This form of dialogue typically assumes simple ignorance on the part of participants, and such dialogue becomes an important means of seeking understanding of other groups and belief systems, and thereby also of one’s own faith. This form of dialogue is represented by discussions with groups like the KCRP, where participants were encouraged to share and explain their own beliefs by responding to questions from one another (for example, what does “salvation” or “heaven” or “hell” or “justice” mean for each different faith). Such dialogue ordinarily involves a single meeting of persons who may not formally meet again.

Interfaith Dialogue form #2: Like form #1 the point of meeting in dialogue is to share a greater understanding of and appreciation for and with one another. But there is an additional commitment to continuing dialogue opportunities in order to develop and maintain personal relationships between the participants. Such regular dialogue represents more than an experience of listening and learning about each other’s faith. Rather, it is a chance to grow and mature together as persons of faith, and so requires a consistent commitment over time.

Interfaith Dialogue form #3: Like form #2, such dialogue sessions occur on a regular schedule. But the meetings are not open ended, like forms #1 & #2. Rather, these sessions are focused on reading together and seeking understanding through the sacred texts of all participants. For example, one or two sessions would be devoted to reading and discussing a selected passage from the Qur’an, while subsequent sessions would be devoted to reading and discussing a passage from the Jewish, Christian, or Hindu scriptures. By studying the different sacred texts, all participants can gain a better understanding of how the texts are being realized in daily life. As the cycle of study and engagement repeats, relationships deepen in shared narratives of faith and life.

Interfaith Dialogue form #4: Unlike forms #1-3, this form of dialogue focuses on co-commitments to specific actions of social justice, such as helping one another establish and manage schools or other educational programs of nonsectarian academic excellence; addressing the need for food, clothing, and shelter in some communities; organizing political action on key issues like refugee resettlement or reforming immigration laws; working to establish hospitals and health clinics where access is otherwise limited or nonexistent; establishing and managing summer camps for youth, especially those youth at risk. Thus, while forms #1 & #2 can lead to action (though specific actions do not necessarily follow from those dialogue forms), this form results in dialogue that necessarily flows from people working together to meet common needs. There is a certain complementarity when participating in activities for the benefit and blessing of all, while also seeking nothing in return. In such settings, learning from and committing to one another is unavoidable here, as there is reciprocity in being and doing, joining together in restorative justice. As proclaimed in several traditions, such heartfelt hospitality forms a sacred ground for “welcoming angels unawares.” The resulting experience in interactive dialogue is thus serendipitous, yet more important because of it.

These four forms are not meant to represent an exhaustive list of interfaith dialogue patterns, nor does the list mean to suggest that one can engage exclusively in only one form. Rather, the variety of forms help to clarify just what reasonable commitments and hopes are appropriate to each form, and so help prevent misunderstanding, confusion, frustration, or failure when engaging together in dialogue.

Finally, it must be understood from the start that there is one key caveat: in no form of interfaith dialogue is seeking to convert people an appropriate motivation or desire. Dialogue can never be about turning another into a copy of oneself. True understanding, the knowledge that is from above, is grounded in respect for one another, and the recognition that one is incomplete apart from each other, standing side by side—all being welcome, facing (or as in many traditions, “as if seeing”) the One with whom we all have to do.

The conference was sponsored by the Fethullah Gülen Chair at Catholic University in Leuven (gulenchair.com) and Dialogue Platform in Brussels – one of countless think-tanks around the world established by Turkish Muslims inspired by Gülen. Speakers and participants came from 75 different countries. Most were Muslims, but there were a few secularists, Roman Catholics, and Protestants (like me).
Gunnar Staalset, Bishop Emeritus of Norway and Honorary President of Religions for Peace, was among the opening speakers. He stressed the common challenges of interpretation facing Christians and Muslims, and urged conference participants to forge a counter-narrative to “violent extremism.” As examples of elements in such a counter-narrative, Staalset highlighted the Turkish ideal of hoshgoru—usually translated as “tolerance,” and an important theme in the writings of Gülen, and the recent Marrakesh Declaration on the Rights of Religious Minorities in Muslim Majority Nations.
The morning’s keynoter, Professor Rik Coolsaet of Ghent University, contested Staalset’s emphasis on narrative, a bit. His point was that all “violent extremism” is local and contextual. We must acknowledge and address the material and economic drivers of violence in diverse contexts, he argued.    

This tension between theory and practice, theology and social structure, narrative and material reality stretched throughout the two-day event—and of course played out personally in whether or not I accepted my invitation to Molenbeek. A session on “working with Muslim women to counter violent extremism” focused on Moroccan and Egyptian cases, with Prof. Maryam Aid Ahmad of Ibn Tufayl University in Morocco and Prof. Hoda Mahmoud Darwish of Zagazik University in Egypt as presenters.

My own talk highlighted “engaged empathy” and peacebuilding within and across Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, notably in practices of teshuva, metanoia, and tawba—all usually translated as “repentance” (it was Lent, after all) and in the work of individuals such as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in the UK, Leymah Gbowee in Liberia, and Gülen.
Some of the remarkable diversity within Islam—always a bit surprising to Americans bombarded with monolithic stereotypes of the faith, was evident. The subtopic for the conference was “Mujahada (Jihad) and Muslims’ Responsibility,” and multiple presentations from Asian, Middle Eastern, African, and European scholars differentiated the greater jihad of struggle to obey God and against the ego from the “lesser” jihad of defensive warfare. There was unequivocal condemnation of terror attacks as contrary to Islam. But Professor Muhammad Ibrahim al-Saidi of Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia turned the subtopic on its head, so to speak, by offering a “presentation” that quoted largely without comment or context passages from Torah and the Gospels that overtly recommend bloodshed and even genocide. As Catholic scholar of Islam Scott Alexander put it on Facebook:

“I finally know how Muslims feel in the face of Islamophobic proof texting of their sacred texts. I finally know how it feels to have my own sacred scriptures ripped from their textual and interpretative context, frequently misquoted, … and glibly associated with the very real atrocities committed in the name of my faith.”
Professor al-Saidi did end with a passage nodding toward the peace witness in Christianity, but his point was unmistakable: the problem of religious violence is hardly unique to Muslims.
~
Inspired and encouraged by my fellow speakers, I went to Molenbeek. No jihadi jumped me. In fact, I had a lovely lunch at a Thai restaurant in the central plaza of the municipality with Manzoor, who is the first female Pakistani elected official in Brussels, and Erdem Koç—a former resident of Molenbeek who is now working for Dialogue Platform. We discussed Manzoor’s experiences with racism, and her vision to organize a “Neighbors Day” for the municipality. We then we visited the nearby “service restaurant,” which Americans would recognize as a soup kitchen.
As we walked to the mayor’s office, a group of schoolchildren walked past, holding hands and singing. I snapped a picture.
“Yes, that’s Molenbeek,” Manzoor affirmed.

Over coffee, Mayor Schepmans described a little of Molenbeek’s history and context for me. As a former Midwesterner, it sounded awfully familiar. As Turks, Senegalese, and Moroccans moved into the neighborhood for work, beginning in the 1970s, native Belgians moved out. Industries followed. Jobs dried up. Religion replaced ethnic origin as a source of identity. Mosques blossomed, but crime also grew.
I tried to suggest that similar dynamics, with similar easy associations divorced from actual causes and effects, once marked immigration in America. The church has been a refuge and way-station for Norwegian Lutherans and Italian Catholics, among many others, on the way to becoming Americans. Now mosques might be playing similar roles in Europe. But Schepmans worried that “there is no European identity.” She may be right. Time will tell. And as people search for identity as strangers in strange lands, narratives will no doubt matter. The stories we tell each other can reflect both our worst fears and projections, and the better angels of our nature, as Abraham Lincoln first put it.   

On my last night in Brussels, I shared dinner and caught up with Sevgi Akarcesme, former Editor-in-Chief of Today’s Zaman in Turkey, and now a “journalist-in-exile.” The week before, the government seized her newspaper with a blast of teargas and a phalanx of riot police. It was an effort to silence dissent. I was glad she was safe. But her fragile status as a peacebuilder on the “front lines” gave me pause. Overall, the conference was heartening: I renewed friendships, gained some new friends and insights, and had reinforced my conviction that the vast majority of people of faith – especially Muslims – around the globe want to draw from the deep wells of our spiritual traditions to foster peace. But as I walked past the Belgian militia with assault rifles in the airport; and as I read the stories about the rise of right-wing nationalists across Europe; and as I learned that Donald Trump had won more Republican primaries in the U.S., it became crystal clear to me: what happens in Molenbeek will matter in Milwaukee.
~
Five days after my departure from Brussels, I watched the news with horror as three bombs killed 35 and wounded hundreds in simultaneous terrorist attacks at the Brussels Airport and a metro station. I tweeted my new friends Shazia and Erdem (who works in security at the airport) and was relieved to hear that they were both unharmed.
But we all felt the collective moral injury. The challenge terrorism poses is the temptation to react to evil by mirroring the fear, ignorance, and hatred that stokes it. Our great traditions counsel patience for a reason. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s teacher, Howard Thurman famously said: “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Those of us gathered at our conference on “Countering Violent Extremism” share a commitment to the long and patient struggle on a nonviolent path toward greater justice and peace. We don’t draw the attention that a few criminals can attract. But faith is on our side. Hope is on our side. Numbers are on our side. So even as we continue to grieve for those lost to terrorism and warfare around the planet, we still witness springtime come with all of its fragrant and colorful glory across the northern hemisphere, including in Milwaukee and in Molenbeek. And I am reminded of the inspiring vision of Fethullah Gülen, of a spiritual and social “springtime [that] will rise on the foundations of love, compassion, mercy, dialogue, acceptance of others, mutual respect, justice and rights…. No matter what happens, the world will come to this path sooner or later. Nobody can prevent this” (Toward a Global Civilization of Love and Tolerance, p. 232).

Further terrorist attacks in certain countries, and the brutal emergence of ISIS right after the Syrian crisis, have led to the embers of anti-Islamic sentiments burning in the west.

Just last year, comedian Bill Maher identified ISIS with Islam, stating, “If vast numbers of Muslims across the world believe, and they do, that humans deserve to die for merely holding a different idea, or drawing a cartoon, or writing a book, or eloping with the wrong person, not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS.”

In addition to many irrational arguments they contain, these simplifications and equating Islam with terror do not help us actually fight terror, nor do they reflect the truth.

Mr. Fethullah Gulen, a leading Muslim scholar who has challenged extremism and radicalization for decades, said in one of his statements in 2004:

“Today, at best we can say that Islam is not known at all. Muslims should say, ‘In true Islam, terror does not exist.’ … No person can kill a human being. No one can touch an innocent person, even in times of war. No one can give a fatwa (a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a religious law specialist, concerning a specific issue) on this matter. No one can be a suicide bomber. No one can rush into crowds with bombs tied to his or her body. Regardless of the religion of these crowds, this is not religiously permissible. Even in the event of war — during which it is difficult to maintain balances — this is not permitted in Islam.”

The prominent scholar Jessica Stern suggested that religion is essentially irrelevant as a causal force, adding that jihadist actors are not actually religious during the course of their radicalization.

She argued that, “terrorists who claim to be motivated by religious ideology often turn out to be ignorant about Islam and do not have much formal religious education or proper religious instruction and had only a limited and incomplete understanding of Islam.”

In his article titled “No Direction Home?” Professor John Horgan noted that radicalization in general is the main reason for terrorist engagement.

Here is the summary of Professor Horgan’s findings:

“They feel angry, alienated, or disenfranchised. They believe that their current political involvement does not give them the power to effect real change. They identify with perceived victims of the social injustice they are fighting. They feel the need to take action rather than just talking about the problem. They believe that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral. They have friends or family sympathetic to the cause. They believe that joining a movement offers social and psychological rewards such as adventure or a heightened sense of identity.”

There is no doubt that the problem of radicalization is not limited to Muslim societies and should be analyzed through a broader aperture.

However, despite these voices disputing the link between Islam and terror, there are also other views suggesting that some terrorist acts, like the Paris attacks last year, have had some roots in Islamic law.

Dr. Ahmet Kurucan, 54, a renowned Islamic scholar who has published often on Islamic law, argued that the attacks in Paris were terrorism, but that he could see no evidence or justification in the Qur’an, the hadiths, or other Islamic sources for such terrorist attacks:

“I do not see any evidence or justification for these terrorist attacks in the Qur’an, the Sunnah, or other sources of Islamic law. There are three main sources of knowledge in Islamic law: the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and juristic discretion. There are some warnings, orders, bans, or directions in the Qur’an regarding unpleasant behaviors, including insults and defamation, but there is no specific punishment prescribed for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. On the contrary, the Qur’an asks Muslims to leave if they hear anything that insults verses of the Qur’an or Islamic precepts. In a sense, this is passive opposition. But there is no specific criminal punishment in such cases. For a Muslim, the greatest truth and fact is the faith of the oneness of Allah. If there is an assault against this faith, a Muslim is advised not to stay with the group of people who make these insults.”

Kurucan said the hadiths reach the same verdict.

“Even when Abdullah Ibn Saba insulted the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims in Medina, the Prophet did not respond. He rejected the offers of those Muslims who said they should retaliate with violence.”

Kurucan said that there is nothing in Islamic tradition that has been made in reference to the methodological rules of the Qur’an and the foundations of the Sunnah to justify terror attacks. But of course, there are many incidents and cases that contradict the teachings and provisions of the Qur’an and the Sunnah in the history of Islam, including the battles of Siffin and Jamal. Kurucan also cited the disaster in Karbala, bloody wars, disagreements, political turmoil, tricks, and riots. He said these incidents had no roots in Islam, but were disagreements amongst the Muslims.

“These are cases in which the murderers and the victims alike were Muslim. We may also go back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. People in Mecca and Medina used to kill each other before Islam. These were tribal disagreements. So, from a theoretical perspective and standpoint, it is possible to say that some fault lines — including sectarian, ethnic and tribal divisions may cause bloody conflicts.

“What was the purpose of the attacks in Paris? Was it to protect the honor of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad? Do we not see based on the reactions to the attacks that this did not happen? If such a response had not been made, the caricatures would have had very limited influence; because of these attacks, millions of people are now paying attention to the caricatures.”

However, last year The Atlantic magazine published an article claiming that ISIS is actually following a Prophetic methodology, labeling it ‘very Islamic’:

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

Another expert on Islamic theology, Professor Zeki Saritoprak, of John Carrol University, said, “ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham] is far from following ‘Prophetic methodology.’ ISIS preaches hatred and contempt for human life. Nowhere are these parts of anything that could be remotely described as the Prophetic methodology, and their killings and brutal treatment of other Muslims, Christian, Jews, and others show that their methods are truly illegitimate.”

Professor Saritoprak underlined that the Quran describes the Prophet as merciful to all human beings and asks Muslims to take the middle path, thus avoiding the temptations of extremism.

“ISIS’ methodology is extremist. In this regard, ISIS is nothing new. Throughout the history of Islam, there have been Muslims who follow the path of extremism,” said Saritoprak.

“An example from early Islam is the Kharijites. The Kharijites accused some companions of the Prophet, including Ali, the last of the rightly guided caliphs, of being a ‘kafir,’ or infidel. They specifically accused Ali because he made a peace agreement with Muawiyah, the governor of Damascus. In their argument, they referred to a verse in Quran, which says that those who do not rule according the rules sent down by God are truly disbelievers (5:44). According to extremist groups, all judges who do not rule in line with God’s message are disbelievers. This mentality is still alive today – not just in ISIS, but also other groups that profess versions of political Islam.”

Professor Saritoprak emphasized that ISIS uses eschatological themes extensively in their ideology, especially certain narratives found in the hadiths, or the collection of reports of sayings and teachings of the Prophet.

“First, let me say that nowhere in the Quran or hadith does it say that the duty of Muslims is to establish a caliphate, and in fact, the idea of an Islamic state did not exist prior to middle of the 19th century. I think that ISIS is so obsessed with a state because they have forgotten how to apply the rules to themselves, and so they have a desire to impose the rules on others. ISIS is thus a version of political Islam, which as a governing philosophy holds that Islam can be imposed on a population from the top down. This actually goes against Quranic principles, which focus on the individual as a universe in and of her or himself.

“One thing that followers of political Islam are generally not aware of is that time is an interpreter of the Quran. Some Quranic verses should be interpreted under the conditions of our time and not under the conditions of the Middle Ages. Therefore, I do not think that a caliphate or an Islamic state is necessary for Islam to flourish in the 21st century. It seems the future of Islam is in cooperation with the West and with Christianity. There is no imperative in the Quran to destroy the West or Christians. Quite the opposite; Islam should build upon Western civilization, not seek to destroy it. Those who see problems in the West should take solace in the words of Said Nursi, who said that eventually the negative aspects of the West will dissipate and there can be a coming together of Western and Islamic civilizations.

“Methodologically speaking, establishing an Islamic state may sound very attractive to many Muslims, but in reality it may not solve the problems of human beings. If you provide the best rules and put them in the hands of corrupt people, those rules will be used for corruption as well. I think that the attraction of an Islamic state blinds many Muslims to the reality of their situation and morality. It can be argued that helping one person to have faith in God is more rewarding than creating an Islamic state. Therefore, I think that any state that develops justice in society is compatible with the core teachings of Islam. Today there are many Western countries that follow Islamic values more closely than many states that claim to be Islamic.”

Another scholar, Richard Bulliet, a well-known historian and author of the insightful book, The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, said that calling the terrorists ‘jihadists’ is not appropriate.

“We often call the terrorists jihadists. I don’t really think that is the right word. In the Quran, there are certain offenses for which capital punishment is permitted; one of them is ‘fasad fi al-ard’ — that is ‘corruption in the earth.’ There are variations in how ‘corruption in the earth’ is defined. There are several different places in the Quran where it appears. It is a flexible term, but one of the common definitions is that ‘corruption in the earth’ includes deeds that act to destroy the Muslim community.

“Now, I think that people who kill in the name of Islam are not participating in jihad. Rather, they are participating in ‘fasad.’ I think they are seriously wounding their own faith community by leading people to believe that the Prophet Muhammad was a murderer and leading people to believe that Muslims categorically are murderers and terrorists. I think jihadist is too kind a word. I think these are ‘Mufasidun.’ These are people who are acting against Islam, while claiming to be acting in the name of Islam.

I am not going to repeat my previous condemnations about terrorism or violence in any form; they did not provide any benefit other than showing where we stand. But it is our responsibility to explain to the world that this is not Islam. Thus, for this issue we chose a very significant article on Abu Hanifa, one of the greatest scholars of Islamic history, whose teachings laid the foundations of the school of jurisprudence – named after him – with the largest following among Muslims. His outstanding contribution to Islamic legal scholarship was not only theoretical; he was the epitome of an independent scholar who did not accept any official positions for the fear of being abused and finding himself trapped by the wrong decisions and actions of political leaders. His definition of religion recognized the changing times and conditions, and local cultures and social dynamics, so that all people would still be considered a part of the community and their integrity would be maintained. His approach does not allow for easy excommunication or marginalization of those within a community. “Standing against Radicalism: the Example of Abu Hanifa” is a useful article that provides, through the portrait of a great jurist, that extremism can only be prevented by true scholarship.

Another piece we share with our readers that shows Islam’s true spirit is “The Grand Mosque of Paris.” It’s a review of an illustrated book of the same title which tells the story of heroic actions taken during World War Two. Fleeing from Nazis, European Jews were seeking a safe haven. Paris was one of those havens until it was invaded in 1940. After the invasion, one of the secret shelters where Jews hid themselves was The Grand Mosque, where Muslims provided them with food and housing, and in many cases helped them escape Paris by using Muslim identifications. True Islam teaches, as in this example, to help the persecuted, give a helping hand to the downtrodden, shoulder the burdens of others, and be at the side of the victimized and innocent.

Who then are these monsters who torture people, kill school children, and commit suicide attacks? What kind of jihad is this in which perpetrators claim to be Muslims and yet Muslims are the greatest victims of their violence by far?

One piece of good news is that submissions to our essay contest – about conversing with one’s 100 year old self – reached a record breaking figure with more than seven hundred articles, letters, and memoirs submitted. Each submission is contemplative, and at times filled with wisdom and joy, and at others heartbreaking. The writers were from 49 countries, and we thank everyone who devoted their time and participated in the contest. Winners will be announced by January 30.

In his The Death of Criticism, Terry Eagleton spoke of the rude shock a clerk in his office might experience if she stumbled upon the thought that her boss is actually paid, and paid very well for that matter, for just reading poetry and prose. If she realises this, and perhaps begins to make noise about it, the authorities might again realise that, indeed, they might be wasting money on a venture that has no purpose. If they were to realise this, it would mean the death of criticism.

Terry Eagleton chose this anecdote to show how people might view literary education as an exercise in futility because, as Edward Said demonstrated in his Orientalism, literature or the cultural realm, and its expertise, seem institutionally divorced from their real connection with power (see Said, 2003: 2-3). In fact, what Said wanted to say was that literary education should be taken very seriously, because it contained things needed to build a man or woman for social change. In other words, as earlier mentioned in the abstract, texts contain macro and micro types of information; if these are properly harnessed and transformed, they have the capacity to change our world.

We derive an extraordinary amount of information from texts – information about politics and history, sociology and psychology. A great deal of information is available in texts, but it also demands transformation into knowledge. It is at this stage that information transformed to knowledge becomes power. This power that the individual – that is, the scholar of literature – possesses is actually a cognitive state he has attained that makes it possible for him or her to become a better person or a bad person. This state must, however, be made concrete and practical through the application of the knowledge gained, which has actually made him or her powerful.

Thesis

The ability of the scholar or critic of literature to become a mediator in Conflict Resolution is only one aspect of his or her method of making his knowledge practical. He or she may decide to apply his or her knowledge, for it has become a source of power for him or her in fighting against oppression and injustice. He or she may decide to go into party politics and seek elected office as a way to improve the lives of others. Or, he or she may even begin to apply words to paper – that is, to become a writer. The fact of a writer being a person who is making his or her knowledge practical or functional lies in the fact that, first of all, he or she has a reason for wanting to write –what the Marxist critics would call authorial intention in writing: if the writer is not trying to reform a morbid psyche, he or she might intend to teach or raise issues about a condition that he or she thinks needs to change. They could even inspire a revolution. They might decide to report events as well as ensure that people become informed, because it is in being informed about something that makes change become inevitable.

Today, Nigerians are faced with the challenges of insecurity occasioned by religious extremism that borders on terrorism. This extremism is based on the misappropriation of scriptural injunctions. They are used – through a medley of religious, political, and ethnic reasons – to justify the actions of extremists.

The chaotic state of Nigeria’s present could be compared to the situation of Victorian England, where the progress made in science and technology brought man to the brink of apostasy. The fact that science could not verify the existence of God led many to trust solely in the proven capacity of the human mind. The German philologist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche boldly declared, in his fictional work Thus Spoke Zoroaster or Also Sprach Zarathustra, that “God was dead … that He died in his pity with humanity” (see Nietzsche as translated by Hollingdale,1975: 114). The Godlessness of the age, as well as the doubt cast upon the divine authority of the Church, led Mathew Arnold to propose in his Literature and Dogma (2002) the need for Literature to take the place of religion (see Arnold). This he thought was possible because in his Culture and Anarchy (2004), his social criticism and his own way of defining Humanism, literature is the carrier of culture. His humanism consists of getting rid of ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and prejudice; it is defined by a continuous quest for the ideal. Therefore, in his Literature and Dogma (2002), he argues that sacred texts should be read as literature because values and morals are derived from them, and as such, they contained things to make us better people. In other words, people should read sacred texts whether or not the existence of God is verifiable or not, because reading them will eventually make them men of culture, or people who have overcome their ignorance, prejudice, narrow-mindedness and continually pursue the ideal of perfection.

By implication, therefore, literature must rescue religious bigots. As George Gordon, the early Professor of English Literature said, “England is sick and … English Literature must save it. The Churches (as I understand) having failed, and social remedies being slow, English literature now has a triple function: still, I suppose to delight and instruct us, but also, and above all, to save our souls and heal the state.” Rephrased one may say: Nigeria is sick and literature must save it. Our religions have faltered, and social remedies have been slow; thus literature must now not only delight us, but also instruct us, heal the state, and save our souls.

Recently, the Federal Government of Nigeria had shown interest in getting to the root causes of religious extremism among Muslims in Nigeria. The Almajiri factor has been identified as one of the causes of religious extremism in Nigeria. Somehow, they have decided that the high rate of poverty and ignorance among some individuals or Almajiris in the North, whose condition was precipitated by certain perceptions and beliefs, caused the frustration that led to this cataclysmic turn of events in Nigeria. The federal government is thinking of rehabilitating these individuals through education. Now the question is: what type of education do these people need? What type of culture will the education teach them? Education liberates the mind – especially good education in the humanities. Vocational education will no doubt teach them practical skills, which could help them in creating employment for themselves; however, for their ignorance to be conquered, for their minds to be liberated, for them to become truly free and genuine human beings, who will harness the potentialities of their mental faculties, and who will make their knowledge functional and applicable, they need the type of education that will make them become men and women of culture. They should be exposed to the transformational effect of knowledge. Their education should be such that occurred in the Renaissance and Reformation in Europe (see Johnson, 2001:44), where literary humanism and a method of careful approach to textual issues evolved. Like a humanist, they should be encouraged to look at things objectively, to value the power of reason without necessarily rejecting the Godhead, to question the origins, authenticity, and credentials of texts – even sacred texts – to practice rational Islamism and see whether it is possible to evolve Islamic humanism, which has taken root in countries like Turkey, where the great Islamic scholar, Fethullah Gϋlen has emerged as a force for love and peace(see Gϋlen, 2010:31). They should be bombarded with literary texts of various shades, simplified if need be, so as to promote sympathy and camaraderie among them; literature should be made to train them in the habits of pluralistic thought and feeling, persuading them to acknowledge that more than their viewpoint exists…(see Eagleton, 2008:22).

Ile, Onyebuchi James is the Head of the Department of English Language and Literature, Nigerian Turkish Nile University.

References

• Arnold, Matthew. 2004. Culture and Anarchy. London: Neeland Media.
• ——. 2002. Literature and Dogma. London: Fredonia Books.
• Eagleton, Terry. 2008. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Gϋlen, M. Fethullah. 2010. Speech and Power of Expression: On Language, Esthetics, and Belief. (translated by Korkut Altay) New Jersey: Tughra Books.
• Johnson, Paul. 2001. The Renaissance. London: Phoenix Press.
• Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1975. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (translated by Hollingdale, R.J.) Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.
• Said, Edward. Orientalism. London: Penguin Books, 2003.

Hadiths are narrative accounts by Muhammad’s companions of situations involving God’s Messenger and rulings or statements that Muhammad made. Since Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be an excellent exemplar, hadiths have had a major impact on Islam’s worldview. There are six major collections of hadith. The most influential one is by al-Bukhari (who died about 240 years after Muhammad). Bukhari claims to have examined almost six hundred thousand hadith. He only accepted seventy-four hundred of them (1.2%) as being undeniably authentic. The other five collections also did not include the vast majority of hadiths they examined, but they do overlap considerably in the ones that they do consider authentic. I have selected five hadiths to gloss from my perspective as a Reform Rabbi. The first is from Sahih Muslim and the following four are from Bukhari.

Menstruation

Sahih Muslim: Thabit narrated it from Anas: Among the Jews, when a woman menstruated, they did not dine with her, nor did they live with them in their houses; so the Companions of the Apostle (may peace be upon him) asked the Apostle (may peace be upon him), and God, the Exalted revealed: “They also ask you about (the injunctions concerning) menstruation. Say: ‘It is a state of hurt (and ritual impurity), so keep away from them during menstruation’” to the end (Baqara 2:222). The Messenger of God (may peace be upon him) said: “Do everything except intercourse.” The Jews heard of that and said: “This man does not want to leave anything we do without opposing us in it.” (Book 003, Number 0592)

Gloss: Both Islam and Judaism have laws about ritual pollution deriving from a woman’s monthly period. Orthodox Judaism had greatly expanded the prohibitions against physical contact during a woman’s period. Muhammad opposes this expansion and limits the prohibition for Muslims. Reform Rabbis today are much closer to Islamic practice than they are to Orthodox Jewish practice.

Extremism

Bukhari; Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded.” (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38)

Gloss: Unlike Christianity, both Islam and Judaism teach the importance of sacred slaughter of meat, and the avoidance of certain animals for food. In Islam, the rules are simpler and fewer than in Orthodox Judaism. Reform Rabbis would regard the increasingly restrictive developments in the laws of kosher diet, especially for Passover, as a counterproductive, overburdening of the people. The expansion of restrictions on Shabbat activities is also seen by Reform Rabbis as a counterproductive, overburdening of the joy of Shabbat. Muhammad wisely differentiates between extremism and striving to be near perfect (no one is perfect) which involves a rejection of extremism. Just trying to do well will be rewarded. Religion should not be hard. Making religion easier does not mean making religion soft or impious. This is a very important hadith because all religions have believers that think more is better, and harder is still better.

Worshiping none other than God

Narrated ‘Aisha and Ibn’ Abbas: On his deathbed God’s Apostle put a sheet over his face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, “May God’s Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets.” He intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done. (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660)

Gloss: God’s apostle strongly opposed any diversion of reverence or worship to anyone other than God. Christians, and even Jews, had started worshiping at the graves of holy men, saints and prophets. Although they claimed to be only worshiping God, their feeling that prayer was better or more effective at such sites was cursed by Muhammad. In later centuries, some Muslims also began worshiping at the tombs of holy men and building places of worship near their graves. For Islam, none other than God can be attributed with divinity. Therefore, seeking divine assistance from the graves is shirk, associating partners with God, which is the gravest sin in Islam. However, some ignorant Muslims may unintentionally hypothesize divine qualities for certain deceased people. Although such Muslims are not too many, and they do not really intend to worship them, this is one of the developments that the Wahhabi movement strongly opposes.¹

Reform Rabbis would agree that such activity at grave sites should be condemned and could be seen as a curse. God’s apostle must also have realized that even the Muslim community would produce people whose piety would lead to such errors. No religious community is exempt from people who use piety and belief improperly. This hadith teaches us all to be humble when we view other religions and other sects within our own religion. The next hadith teaches this even more explicitly.

Learning from failings

Narrated Abu Said: The Prophet said: “You will follow the wrong ways of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of an animal, you too will go there.” We said, “O God’s Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?” He replied, “Whom else?” (Volume 4, Book 56, Number 662)

Gloss: Muhammad criticized the failings of many in the Jewish and Christian communities (as did the prophets of Israel), but he realized that people are human, and most do not seem to learn from the failings of others. He hoped that Muslims would retain their original purity, but he foresaw that decay and falsification were inevitable. God’s apostle would certainly attack female genital mutilation in Africa today as sharply as he attacked female infanticide in Arabia in his day.² It is a shame that many Muslim leaders in Africa today do not condemn it. Reform Rabbis, who have now been part of a modern democratic society for several generations are openly critical of those Orthodox practices and ideas that we think betray the spirit of Judaism in today’s world.

Superiority

Abu Huraira related: Two men, a Muslim and a Jew, abused each other. The Muslim said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people.” At that, the Jew said, “By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people.” The Muslim became furious at that and slapped the Jew in the face. The Jew went to God’s Apostle and informed him of what had happened between him and the Muslim. God’s Apostle said, “Don’t give me superiority over Moses, for people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first to gain consciousness, and behold! Moses will be there holding the side of God’s Throne. I will not know whether Moses has been among those people who have become unconscious and then has regained consciousness before me, or has been among those exempted by God from falling unconscious.” (Volume 8, Book 76, #524)

Gloss: God’s Messenger is so well known for his sense of justice that a Jew can appeal to him even in a conflict with a Muslim who has attacked a Jew. It is only natural for Jews to think that Moses is the best, and for Muslims to think that Muhammad is the best. Muhammad rebukes the Muslim, telling him not to claim that Muhammad is superior to Moses because even on the day of Resurrection, Muhammad himself will not know their relative merit, for although Muhammad will be the first to be revived, Moses will already be there holding the side of God’s throne. Muhammad teaches us that comparisons of religious superiority are wrong, for no human in this world, and perhaps even in the world to come, will know who the best is, and such comparisons do not help anything but polarize people by inciting partisan fervor. All Reform Rabbis would applaud this teaching although we know that during the Middle Ages all three religions claimed superiority.

Most Americans would be amazed to hear such liberal and flexible statements coming from a religion that they think is rigid and fanatical. But the politicized Islam that has captured so much attention in the world today is the outgrowth of two recent factors. One is an anti-western reaction and scapegoating due to the great dislocations and upheavals occurring as a result of globalization in all modernizing societies in the twentieth century. The second factor is the result of several previous centuries of socio-economic decline that took place in the Middle East. Jews and Christians have already had reforming movements. Muslims have not. But the Prophet predicted that Muslims also would become more rigid and orthodox just as the Jews and Christians had. As we have seen Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported God’s Messenger as saying: You will tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step, so much so that if they had entered into the hole of a lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Do you mean Jews and Christians? He said: Who else?”

Unlike Orthodox Rabbis, Reform Rabbis accept the doctrine of nullification, which teaches that one verse in scripture can nullify another, and that rulings can be changed due to changed circumstances. Muhammad provides an excellent example of this principle in the following account. The Prophet originally told women not to visit graveyards, but toward the end of his life, he said to them: “I had told you not to visit graves; now I am telling you to visit them.” The reason was that Arabian women used to wail at graves. The Prophet wanted this practice to be stopped. Therefore, he banned women from visiting graves to start with. After some time, when Muslim women were better aware of how Islam wants them to behave in different situations, he allowed them such visits. In fact, the Prophet encourages visiting graveyards because such a visit reminds the visitor of his or her own death and the fact that they would have to stand in front of God when their actions are reckoned to determine their reward or punishment. Scholars like Ibn Qudamah, of the Hanbali school of law, make it clear that since this is the purpose of visiting graveyards, both men and women need such visits.

Another important teaching of the Qur’an for people all over the world today is that God chose not to create human beings as one nation and bestowed upon them free will to believe or not to believe. As it is written in the Qur’an (Maedah 5:48) “For every one of you did We appoint a law and a way. If God had pleased He would have made you one people, but (He didn’t) that He might test you in what He gave you. Therefore compete with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; for all return to God, so He will let you know (after Judgment Day) that in which you differed.” This is a wonderful further development of the teaching of the Biblical prophet Micah (4:5) that in the end of days-the Messianic Age-”All people will walk, each in the name of their own God, and we shall walk in the name of the Lord our God forever.”

A Muslim is one who submits to the will of God and believes that God has sent many different prophets to the many peoples of the world. As a Reform Rabbi I believe that Muhammad was the Prophet sent to the Arab people. I believe that the Qur’an is as true for Muslims as the Torah is true for Jews. Indeed, I love the hadith also narrated by Abu Huraira that says, “The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. God’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in God, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever was revealed to you.’”³ Following Muhammad’s teaching I too neither believe nor disbelieve in the Qur’an. I do respect the Qur’an very much as a kindred revelation to a kindred people in a kindred language.⁴ “We have not sent you but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds” (Anbiya 21:107). The Prophet Muhammad’s mission, peace be upon him, is not restricted to Arabs only. Arabs today comprise not more than twenty percent of the entire Muslim population around the world. Belief in the Prophets and previous revelations are two of the six pillars of faith in Islam. Likewise, the Qur’an is the final revelation that was sent after the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. Its message is universal and does not cover one specific nation only. (Ed.)In fact, the people, the language and the theology are closer to my own people, language and theology than that of any other on earth. Of course, more than eighty percent of Muslims in the world today are not of Arab decent. But Arabic is their sacred language and the tradition that Arabs and Jews are cousins is widely accepted. This makes the present conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis especially tragic. It is very important to realize that the conflict is a political one and not a religious one. There can be no religious conflict between religions like Judaism and Islam because neither of them declares that their scriptures are the only ones from God. The strong support that the Qur’an gives to religious pluralism is a lesson that is sorely needed by the religious fundamentalists of all religions in the world today.

Notes

1. The tradition of building mosques next to graves, or the other way round is a common practice. However, Muslims do not have the intention of worshiping the deceased saints. Muslims worship and petition God, and God only. Besides, there are practical reasons, like performing funeral services more easily and praying for one’s deceased. (Ed.)
2. Female genital mutilation (or female circumcision) has nothing to do with any Islamic practice. It is a custom in some parts of Africa and the Middle East. In Islamic sources, there is no absolute prohibition, nor is there any kind of encouragement regarding this practice. This practice is also considered reprehensible since it carries a risk to the girl’s future ability to enjoy sexual relations with her husband. (Ed.)
3. This hadith refers to the fact that as a part of the Islamic creed, Muslims have to believe in all the Prophets and revelations sent to them. Muslims believe the previous scriptures have not remained in their original state. Since it is not certain how much these scriptures have been changed, the Prophet enjoins Muslims not to accept or deny completely the message of these scriptures. (Ed.)
4. “We have not sent you but as an unequalled mercy for all the worlds” (Anbiya 21:107). The Prophet Muhammad’s mission, peace be upon him, is not restricted to Arabs only. Arabs today comprise not more than twenty percent of the entire Muslim population around the world. Belief in the Prophets and previous revelations are two of the six pillars of faith in Islam. Likewise, the Qur’an is the final revelation that was sent after the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels. Its message is universal and does not cover one specific nation only. (Ed.)