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/

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.

“I do not see color, or culture, or any sort of difference about anyone because that leads to discrimination; everyone is the same anyways.”

My ears picked up on this conversation right before a crowded organic chemistry lecture. Why students in the organic chemistry section ended up discussing deep ethics, embedded within the complexities of social diversity, is beyond me. Yet, this sentence lingered in my mind, and for longer than I would have anticipated. I wanted to stop the professor from speaking about aldehydes, and turn everyone’s attention to the sentence I’d heard. I had not seen the person who voiced this opinion; it was a faceless opinion. Yet the urge to address this mentality festered in my whole self, until I was able to let it cook for a while before writing about it.

Do not get me wrong. I am a supporter of equality, and an activist when it comes to human’s rights. If there is injustice or discrimination anywhere on this Earth, it eats away at my core until I let people know about it and can take action-based steps. However, equality does not equate to the sameness of all people. Ideally, it would be great if the human race believed in one set of morals, with one culture, and everyone was the same; or if no one saw the differences between each culture, race, religion, gender, etc.

Except, hold on a second: this would actually be agonizingly boring! This is the human race, and with it comes the complexities of identity and diversity.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, diversity has two definitions. One is “the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.” The second is “the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization.” Both definitions let us reach the conclusion that people are different. Depending on your location in the world, everything changes, from architecture to communities to family ideals. Every single meticulous detail that comes with living as a human being depends on the community that surrounds you, the culture you are brought up with; your heritage, your gender, and many other things. So based on these two definitions, you might be asking: why am I so hung up on a statement made by a stranger in a public university in the ripe hours of the morning?

Well, to put it simply, diversity is important. Having the ability to see the differences between cultures, races, genders, religions, etc., provides a new perspective to one’s perception of humanity’s complexities. In addition to a broadened perspective, the ability to understand differences also results in the ability to sympathize with people that are inside and outside of your local community. (Also, diversity means different cultures which results in variations of different and wonderfully tasty foods from many origins – Yum!)

All of the positive correlations that come with diversity rely on one important aspect that needs to be implemented in daily life (both private and public) to produce a functioning society. That is acceptance. We must embrace our identities while also accepting difference. Without the acceptance of diversity, its positive results diminish, and we are left with prejudice, which can lead to discrimination and injustice, especially when the wrong people are given the right amount of power.

I could provide a scientific rant to support my claim. Science has already shown that diversity is the best option for survival. However, not everyone is a scientist, and not everyone wants to learn about science. That is why all it takes to realize the importance of diversity is a daydreaming session. Let us start this daydreaming session; stop anything else you might be doing and read closely.

Imagine yourself, with all of your flaws, and everything you believe in, with all of the information stored in your brain. Now imagine every single individual on this earth, all 7.125 billion people, replaced by you. Everyone is you, and you are everyone; therefore, everyone is the same, and you are blatantly blind to any sort of difference, because it does not exist. Nobody objects to anybody because everyone agrees on the same things. Everyone is equal and the same. Yes, you are right! You have just pictured a nightmare, or a perfectly bland horror film.

As an ode to the stranger in my organic chemistry lecture, I encourage each person reading this essay to put on your high-definition color goggles and view the world with all of its ethnicities, cultures, genders, religions, and other differences. Through chaotic diversity, keep your heart open to acceptance. Agree to disagree with people and smile at the fact that their brain is sewn in a different pattern than your own. As a result of this widened perspective of a colorful world, you will see more similarities than differences.

After all, Rumi always put it best: “Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountain, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery, unique and not to be judged.”

References

• “A Quote by Rumi.” Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 June 2016.
• “Simple Definition of Diversity.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 08 June 2016.

Scientific psychology corroborates these truths and lays bare the inescapable responsibility to know and manage the self (C.G. Jung, 1957). Knowing and accepting realities about ourselves positively offers a platform for personal growth and development, and further permits cathartic motivations for transcending flaws. While religions approach the path to transcendence differently (e.g. based on organic time and place), each testifies to human dignity that is capable of finding safe passage through the contradictions of life without compromising the safety of others.

Religious and secular histories reveal tragic outcomes for humanity when these responsibilities are ignored. The current neoliberal, capitalist ideology, which was systemized by economic theorist Milton Friedman, externalizes, or factors out, human and environmental damage, for these interfere with the profit principle. His open defiance of social responsibility not only shows a separation between the rational mind and rational heart, but clears the way for nullification of the universal human rights principle and bows to nefarious economic warfare waged between groups.

Within earlier historical memory, power’s unwillingness to analyze the subjective and blame the objective played-out on the global stage with catastrophic consequences. Between 1914 and 1945, the world was at war with itself. Yet, national leaders and their people denied their own failed-policies, and chose to violently project responsibility onto others (Fromm’s, 1973). Analyses of Europe’s part in the atrocities of WWII illuminate a reoccurring historical fact: non-defensive wars are often complicated and motivated by un-dealt with personal projections of a nation’s leaders and its peoples. At the heart of humanity’s violent history lie legions of self-denials and self-failures, too colossal to list. Perhaps more ironic than the irresponsible projections themselves is the denial of responsibility, as expressed in the question: where was God?

With the beginning of the West’s wars in the Middle East, in 2003, human rights experts recognized that the topic of human rights was off the table, a frightening but conscious decision that reconfirms the warnings of sages and prophets: human history is a history of choice.

A catharsis for the events of 1914 – 1945 was the establishment of the Bretton Accords, which established international institutions aiming to prevent future crimes against humanity. The sets of principles laid out in the accords sought to mandate individual rights of vital protections, by humanizing finances, employment, and governance. Rights of human security were embedded within a constellation of personal, social, economic, and political rights. The United Nations, which signed the 1948 Convention on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed to this universal principle, and applied it clearly to the subjugated children and women of the global patriarchy by creating the special conventions: Rights of the Child and The Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

While many nation-states embrace moral responsibility to ratify conventions for universal human rights, many UN representatives continue to face non-ratification resistance at home. While the new, global power-brokers of trade and finance systemically and tactically block universal human rights, the global under-privileged are taking their arguments to the streets. Taking responsibility to occupy their own policies is a response validated by scholar Noam Chomsky (Occupy, 2012, p.89) and reflects the Jeffersonian idea of democratic action. Taking possession of rights far exceeds passive verbalization.

A watershed of responsible self-action is being witnessed around the globe: workers are organizing to buy-back their closed factories; students organize to undermine dictatorships and corrupt governments; sexually exploited children are naming criminal-priests; women are fighting the slave-trade; independent journalists air photos of government backed genocides and externally organized coups; neighbors take video of real-time police brutality; independent filmmakers document corporate damages; veterans bow to their own shame and expose military atrocities; whistle-blowers expose mass government fraud; and high-ranking bank officials make tragic, but telling testimonies against system-exploitation by committing suicide. While these examples reflect an existing depth of global darkness, self-responsible action affirms our awareness of our right to live change and change living.

Considering our ever changing universe and the human capacity to re-imagine new life, it is possible to more clearly understand the discreteness of the great religions which direct responsibility to each individual. By means of self-awareness, self-responsibility and self-regulation, we each hold the best possibilities for peaceful co-existence and the preservation of human rights.

June Dayle Jelm, PhD in International Relations, is a Professional Mediator specializing in Domestic Violence in Salt Lake City, Utah.

I grew up with a bias towards my own culture and judged cultures and religions that were different from my own based upon this perspective. Since no one challenged my Catholic beliefs, I left home for college somewhat sheltered and mostly uninformed about other religions and cultures. While at college, I made new and diverse friends and I would bring these friends home with me. My father said to me when I left for college, whoever I bring home is always welcome at our table. My mother has eight years of formal education in a one room rural school house and has lived her entire life in the same community where she was born and raised Catholic. Several years ago, my mother spoke with profound eloquence and simple affection about my classmates and friends that she cooked for and fed around her kitchen table. She said she grew up prejudiced because she never met anyone who was Jewish or Muslim. But after providing a place for these guests at her table, she grew to respect and love them as much as her eight children did. She is grateful for having reached out to people of diverse backgrounds and religions. She taught us that it is around a table that friends are made and prejudices disappear.

My recent trip to Turkey refreshed these good memories around my mother’s kitchen table. It was an educational and cultural exchange program to meet with university professors and community leaders in Turkey to promote international and interfaith dialogue. The program was organized by a non-profit organization in St. Louis, MO named the Niagara Foundation, and I had the honor to be selected to join. My experiences in Turkey of sharing meals in the homes of university professors and their families opened my eyes to our common bond even though an ocean and religion separates us. It was around their family tables that I again was reminded what my mother taught us: that much of the prejudice that exists among different cultures and religions is because we do not invite others into our homes and cook a meal for them. Warm food and kind conversation have the capacity to create bonds that can erase prejudices.

I was expecting family homes in Turkey to be quite different from mine, but instead, amidst the slight differences in cuisine and not wearing shoes, I knew I was at home. The bountiful bean salads, stuffed peppers, seasoned couscous, lemon chicken, lamb, lentil soup, cucumber salad, baklava, and more all adorned my hosts’ tables. How I wanted my mother to experience this! So, upon my return home, I invited Muslim friends to her home for a meal around her table. It was a simple but significant meal that bridged two cultures and two religions as one.

Having this opportunity to interact intimately with Turkish families reminds me of the story of the prophet Abraham, the father of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim followers. He welcomed three strangers into his home. And because of his hospitality, he was blessed a hundredfold with a son, Isaac, who was promised to him and Sarah in their old age by the visitors who were angels disguised as men (Genesis 18: 1-15). As Abraham and Sarah’s son Isaac is a symbol of God’s generosity, so too the Muslim families are a symbol to me of the blessings that hospitality brings to peoples’ lives.

Traveling through Turkey, my appreciation for the people grew. From the sprawling city of Istanbul to the rural cities touching the Black Sea, I could see the similarities in lifestyle, just like in the U.S. The rural countryside appeared similar to my rural home, and as our bus traveled through the rolling hills dotted with wheat fields and small towns, it reminded me of home. Stopping at a gas station and communicating with local rural people who do not speak English, it was comforting how well we could understand each other without speaking the same language. A smile, a handshake, and a meal go a long way.

While in Istanbul, I enjoyed seeing the ripe watermelons and other fruits and vegetables being loaded into wooden carts and carried into the market. The urban markets in the U.S. are similar to the markets in Turkey, not in scale but in essence. Both possess an energy that tantalizes the senses, where a local harvest awaits to be tasted and savored at home. It’s as if time stands still among vendors and shoppers, bartering and engaging in rituals that have persevered and evolved over the centuries for generations. Whether in Turkey or the U.S., shopping in an open air market unites humanity in a common ritual that is at the heart of every culture: how we produce, purchase, and prepare our food.

The occasional neighborhood mosque blends in with Turkish urban life, and upon entering a mosque courtyard, I found luscious green space with colorful flowers bordering red tomatoes and green peppers, a quiet respite from gray urban life. Catholic churches often provide the same reprieve for busy urban residents and tired tourists who grow weary of the harshness of industrial life and the demands that city life places on them. Churches, synagogues, and mosques provide sacred places to pause and be refreshed, knowing that God is present in the most obscure and discreet corners of life. Perhaps this is one essential role that religion procured through the centuries: to provide shelter from the utilitarian survival rituals being play out around us. Whether church steeples, synagogue towers, or mosque minarets, all remind us to pause and remember that when our day’s work is complete, there is more to be aware of and more to count than the coins in our pocket.

During our time in Turkey, we visited several universities, which was a highlight for me. As a university professor and social worker, I was eager to meet professors and students to discuss their curriculum and scholarship. Our interactions were informative and engaging. While on campus, I was invited to attend the Friday (Jumu’ah) prayer services, the name of which is derived from the Arabic word that means “gathering.” Muslims believe to gather in one place as one soul is a pillar of their faith. I was deeply moved by the prayer, and felt united with the people in the room. It was an honor for me to be shown by a faculty member the ritual washing of the hands, forearms, head, and feet with a threefold movement of the hand. This Middle Eastern ritual is retained in the Catholic liturgy with the priest washing his hands prior to the Eucharistic prayer. The rinsing out the mouth, blowing out of the nose, and scrubbing out the ears reminded me of the Catholic ritual of cleansing the mind, mouth, and heart with a threefold movement of the thumb before the Gospel is read on the Sabbath. The sermon (Khutbah) was impossible for me to follow, but my host was gracious in whispering to me a translation. During the Catholic prayer service, we too stand and kneel throughout our prayer, being reminded that God is great (Allahu akbar). Although I did not understand the words spoken, my soul was refreshed and nourished by the ritual prayers.

When I was a young man living in a homogeneous culture, I did not seek to understand and appreciate what other cultures believed and practiced, nor did I challenge the beliefs of my ancestors. Today I embrace the faith of my ancestors from a different advantage point, having traveled and tasted other religions and cultures. This new vision is both a gift and a responsibility, which calls me to recognize the sacredness of the faith that has been handed down to me. Returning to the U.S., I brought with me the Abrahamic thread that unites all Muslims, Jews, and Christians in our quest to know and serve God. Each day I wrap my waist and my heart with this thread so that I might seek the intersections, both within and across each faith community. This is my responsibility, which I am learning from the Vatican II teachings of the Catholic community and the Hizmet (Gulen) movement in Turkey.

Riding in a boat on the sea that bisects Istanbul, I envisioned the Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans who sailed these same seas. This city is at the crossroads of human civilization, where war and peace have shaped people’s lives for centuries. I imagined Romans conquering this city and the Crusades trampling through it; I imagined the Ottomans achieving domination ach le an indelible cultural and religious mark on the fabric of this region and creating the culture we know today as Turkish.

The Niagara Foundation is bridging the vast expanses that separate the two continents, the two religions, the two cultures. I am confident that this effort will have immense consequences. In the memorialized words of Robert F. Kennedy, who in June, 1966, delivered the Day of Affirmation Speech at the University of Cape Town to the National Union of South African Students: “Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, these ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

And so I, too, have newfound responsibilities since I have toured Turkey through the generosity of the Niagara Foundation. I pray for the courage to stand up for the ideals embodied in my Catholic faith, and to stand against injustices by embracing Niagara’s mission “to serve societal peace, love, and friendship wisely and compassionately in support of human dignity and the common good by striving to bring forth the common values of humanity; values such as understanding, tolerance, respect, and compassion.”

Gary Behrman is Adjunct Professor at Washington University in St. Louis

Interfaith dialogue has been a very controversial issue and there have been a lot of discussions about it: its necessity, rationale, and success (Kurucan 2006). These questions have made it obvious that people are not aware of the real meaning of interfaith dialogue.

Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca (1969) explain dialogue as follows: “… (it) is not supposed to be a debate … but rather a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (196, 37). Related to this description, Gulen (2000) describes interfaith dialogue as “… seek(ing) to realize religion’s basic oneness and unity, and the universality of belief. Religion embraces all beliefs and races in brotherhood, and exalts love, respect, tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, human rights, peace, brotherhood, and freedom via its Prophets” (The Fountain, September 2000). These descriptions bring out another question: how useful and beneficial can interfaith dialogue be in solving problems?

Interfaith dialogue does not aim to change the ideas of people about their religions or faiths, but seeks to find common ground between religions, to focus on communities, and through an emphasis on harmony and peace, find solutions to many of our common problems. In fact, one of the reasons for interfaith dialogue is to “provide an atmosphere of freedom” (Kurucan 2006, 17).

Another major proponent of dialogue was Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University. When he visited the Vatican in 1977 in a delegation, Nasr highlighted five areas that Christianity and Islam can work together to make the world better. These five areas are “dangers of modern technocracy and ecological ruin, energy crises, youth problems and decadence of morality and faith” (Kot 2009). In addition, Rev. Allman states, “The ability to discuss our religious and cultural differences is more than an ‘extra-curricular activity’; it is a skill which is vital for participants in democracy, especially a democratic society such as ours, which is filled with people whose differences are deep and complex” (The Network, 1999).

These statements show the importance of interfaith dialogue for the improvement of humanity and the goodwill of societies. Pinto (2003) highlights the role of interfaith dialogue in today’s society as “…an inevitable fact of our being-with-other-faiths.”

In connection to this, Swidler et al. (2007) state that, “In the past, during the age of divergence, we could live in isolation from each other; we could ignore each other. Now, in the age of convergence, we are forced to live in one world. We increasingly live in a global village” (Stress added, p.1).

Today most of the common reasons for dispute between religions, or between people of different religions, are that they do not understand one another’s beliefs or ideas (Baum 2011). Interfaith dialogue meetings, panels, conferences help these misconceptions and unfamiliarity disappear. And the result of such dialogues can be tremendous. As Smock states, “… when two or more faiths come together to explore or promote the possibility of peace, the effects can be especially potent” (viii).

The benefits of interfaith dialogue are obvious but still it is not an easy work. Once again, Smock (2002) highlights that “interfaith dialogue is a difficult, often painful endeavor” (viii). There are some prerequisites for interfaith dialogue to be successful. Swidler (2003) categorizes them as:

“1) an openness to learn from the other. 2) knowledge of one’s own tradition. 3) a similarly disposed and knowledgeable dialogue partner from the other tradition” (p. 12).

The importance of each prerequisite will be explained in detailed below.

Ingredients for a successful interfaith dialogue meeting

1) The most important component of interfaith dialogue is to remember the real meaning of dialogue. It is a two-way discussion that requires respect and understanding. This component may seem very simple to understand but it is very easy to forget. Swidler (2007) states that, “If this basic goal is kept fixed in view and acted on with imagination, creative and fruitful dialogue – and a growing transformation of each participant’s life and that of their communities – will follow” (p. 19). So for better results out of interfaith dialogue, the real meaning of dialogue should not be forgotten. Be sure to explain dialogue as “… a discussion in which the interlocutors search honestly and without bias for the best solution to a controversial problem” (Perelman and Olbrechts- Tyteca, 1969, 37).

2) In these meetings, participants must be aware of the fact that all of the participants are from different religious and cultural backgrounds, so interfaith dialogue is based on understanding and respecting all participants. In interfaith dialogue, none of the participants should try to discredit or question the belief system of the other participants.

3) Smock (2002) writes that stating the purpose of the meeting very clearly and choosing the right participants goes a long way towards determining the success of a dialogue. The purpose of the meeting should be decided by the participants before the meetings, very clearly and in detail.

4) While describing how to start dialogue, Bohme et al. (1991) state that suspension is an important part of dialogue. Listening to the other participants is a compulsory part of the process. During these meetings, all of the participants should be free of their biases and be open to understanding and recognizing new perspectives. Interfaith dialogue meetings are great ways to learn about different religions and different thoughts.

5) It should not be forgotten that in these meetings, we come together as people, not as belief systems, but these meetings provide an incredible opportunity to learn about, discuss, and understand other religions. “… the dialogue among the world’s religions and traditions should lead to a better mutual knowledge and understanding, and an exchange of the mutual values as an enrichment of one’s own faith and of the faith of the others” (Cosijns & Braybrooke, 2008, 55-56). However, a problem or mistake made in the meetings should not be used to generalize about a whole belief system. Kurucan (2006) states that by interfaith dialogue, “We refer to dialogue between the people of different religions” (17). So people in these meetings should not be seen as categories, sole representatives of their religions, but they should be seen as individual people, with their strengths and flaws – just like all of us.

6) Interfaith dialogue aims to find solutions to the problems of the world and other people by focusing on the similarities between belief systems. It does not focus on the differences and controversial issues.

7) Smock (2002) states that one-time interfaith dialogue meetings cannot be very useful, so there should be some follow-up sessions to enforce the benefits of the meetings.

8) In addition, it would be a good idea to learn about the religious practices of the other participants, see the differences between your own understandings, and be very careful about these differences during the dialogue process. Crowley (2006) states that setting the stasis – the parts that the participants may have different ideas about – is an important part of civil discussion. In interfaith dialogue, being aware of the stasis is important, so as not to offend the other participants.

9) No exclusives and no syncretism. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) state that in interfaith dialogues, no religion should be excluded. This would be a huge handicap for the success of interfaith dialogue. Abu-Nimer et al. (2007) also highlights that trying to synchronize all religions into one can be just as dangerous as exclusiveness. As stated above, it is very crucial to accept all religions and religious people in their own belief system.

10) Dialogue can only happen between equals. If a religious group sees one group as inferior or even superior to another, no dialogue can happen. There cannot be sharing and understanding between the groups, which is the main aim of any interfaith dialogue.

Interfaith dialogue is an important concept in the globalized world. People from different religions live side by side in the globalized village and there are tons of problems that human beings face today. These interfaith groups are very crucial for a world in which “every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That’s one child every five seconds” (www.bread.org). The role of the interfaith dialogue in solving these problems cannot be underestimated. Smock (2002) states that “while religion can and does contribute to violent conflicts, it can be a powerful factor struggling for peace and reconciliation (viii).

References

• Abu-Nimer, M. & Khoury, A. & Welty, E. 2007. Unity in diversity: Interfaith dialogue in the Middle East. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Bohm, D. & Factor, D. & Garrett, P. 1991. Dialogue: A Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html
• Cosijns L.F. & Braybrooke , M. 2008. Dialogue among the faith communities. Lanham, MA: Hamilton Books.
• Crowley, S. 2006. Toward a civil discourse: Rhetoric and Fundamentalism. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press
• Gulen, M.F. 2000. “Necessity of interfaith dialog.” The Fountain Magazine. Issue 31.
• Kot, Z. 2009. “Muslim-Christian relations: The traditionalist interfaith dialogue” (Unpublished master thesis) George Washington University, Washington, DC.
• Kurucan, A. 2006. Nicin Diyalog: Diyalogun temelleri. Uskudar, Istanbul: Isik Yayinlari
• Perelman C.H. & Olbrechts- Tyteca, L. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Pinto, H. 2003. Faucault, Christianity and interfaith dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge Publications
• Smock, D. R. 2002. Interfaith Dialogue and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
• Swidler, L. & Duran, K. & Firestone, R. 2007. Trialogue: Jews, Christians and Muslims in Dialogue. New London, CT: Twenty-Third Publications.

Since all monotheistic scriptures come from the one and only God, we should view other scriptures as potentially enriching our understanding of our own scripture. But in the middle ages, almost all readers thought of revelation as a zero sum sport like tennis rather than a multiple win co-operative sport like mountain climbing.

In a zero sum game, any value or true spiritual insight I grant to another scripture somehow diminishes my own. This was the result of the influence of Greek philosophy’s emphasis on the logic of the excluded middle. Something is either true or it is false. There is no other option. If two propositions contradicted one another, one or both of them must be false. If my religion is true, yours must be false.

In modern terms, light could not be both a particle and a wave at the same time. Yet we now know that light is indeed both a particle and a wave at the same time.

This situation did not improve much in modern times. In the last two centuries, university academics have written many studies of comparative religion which they claim are objective and not distorted by their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, academics who treat other religions academically usually do not believe that other scriptures are actually Divinely inspired. Indeed, many academics do not believe that even their own scriptures are Divinely inspired.

They use the same kinds of explanation to understand a revealed religion that they would use to explain secular history and literature. I follow a different model, one I learned from Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Mishnah (an early third century compilation of the oral Torah), states, “Adam was created as an individual to teach you that anyone who destroys a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as if he destroyed the whole world” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5).

And the Qur’an states, “one who kills a human being, unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land, would be as if he slew the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (Qur’an 5:32). Academics explain the similarity of the two statements by assuming that since the Jewish statement is several centuries earlier than the Qur’an, Muhammad must have heard it from a Rabbi or other educated Jew in Medina.

But I believe Muhammad is a prophet of God who confirms the Torah of Prophet Moses. Muhammad has no need to learn this statement from another human being. Academics might reply that the statement is not found in the written Torah; it appears in the oral Torah, written by the Rabbis in the Mishnah more than 1000 years after Moses.

But the Rabbis maintain that the Mishnah is part of the oral Torah that was passed down from Moses through many generations, just as the Prophet Muhammad’s sayings have been passed down through the generations. Indeed, the Qur’an itself introduces this statement as follows, “It is because of this that We ordained for the Children of Israel ‘one who kills a human being …'” (Qur’an 5:32).

No prophet of God needs to be informed by another human what should be written in Holy Scripture. God is the source of all Divine inspiration. There are several verses in the Qur’an that mention things from the oral Torah. My perspective is that prophets and Holy Scriptures cannot in reality oppose one another because they all come from one source. Prophets are all brothers; they have the same father (God) and different mothers (motherlands, mother tongues, nations, cultures, and historical eras).

All of these produce different rituals and legal systems, but their theology can differ only in small and unessential details. As the sage of Konya, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi says, “Ritual prayer might differ in every religion, but belief never changes” (Fihi Mafih 49). Religions differ because the circumstances of each nation receiving them differ. Where the Scriptures differ, they cast additional light on each other. My belief is based on an important Hadith of Prophet Muhammad: a disciple of Muhammad named Abu Huraira relates, “The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle said (to the Muslims). “Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, ‘We believe in Allah, and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'”

Following Muhammad’s teaching, I too neither believe nor disbelieve the Qur’an. If I believed in the Qur’an, I would be a member of the Muslim ummah (community). But I cannot disbelieve in the Qur’an because I believe that Muhammad was a prophet and I respect the Qur’an as a revelation to a kindred people, in a kindred language. 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.

How does this perspective affect my understanding of their Qur’an and my Torah? I practice “hosgoru.” Unlike those in the past who played the zero sum game, I do not seek some verse in the Qur’an I can dispute or object to. Indeed, this is what the Qur’an itself teaches. “For every community We have appointed a whole system of worship which they are to observe. So do not let them draw you into disputes concerning this matter” (22:67).

One of the major differences between the Qur’an and the Torah is the Torah’s attention to details (names of people and places) and the Qur’an’s emphases on universals. The Torah has long lists of geographical locations and of genealogies that many people today, especially non-Jews, find boring.

The Qur’an rarely identifies locations, and often omits the names of the people it does mention, for example the prophet who appointed Talut to become the first king of Israel (2:246). Indeed, Muslim commentators disagree about many of these details. Some say the prophet who appointed Talut king of Israel was Samuel and others think it was Joshua or Simeon.

These disagreements occur because many commentators do not use the Bible to fill in the details for the generalities of the Qur’an. Sometimes the Qur’an refers to nameless Messengers sent to a nameless town and no additional details can be added because there is no parallel in the Torah (36:13-29). In this case, even the punishment is only a vague “single blast and all became corpses” (26:29).

This lack of detail points to the Qur’an’s universal and ongoing Divine call for all human societies to repent and reform themselves.

On the other hand, many Rabbis get caught up in the details of the Torah and even expand them into super details. Thus, the rules relating to dietary observance of Passover and prohibited work on Shabbat have multiplied endlessly.

We need to learn from the Sunnah of the prophet as narrated by 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” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38).

Another important lesson from the Prophet’s Sunnah, as narrated by his wife Aisha, says, “Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the two as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 147).

This is the path that I and most Reform Rabbis have taken in the last two centuries. If Orthodox Jews in the time of Muhammad had followed the prophet’s teaching, Reform Judaism (the largest of several different religious groups of Jews in North America) would have begun 14 centuries ago, instead of only two centuries ago.

The Qur’an was also far ahead of its time in many other ways. One of the most important ways is the Qur’an’s oft repeated statement that believers (Muslims) should believe in all the messengers of God. This message of religious pluralism and toleration is sorely needed in the 21st century.

The Qur’an states: “They say that none will enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian. That is their wishfulness. Say ‘Produce your proof if you are truthful'” (2:111).

At the time of Muhammad, both Orthodox Rabbis and Catholic Priests did claim that only their own believers would enter Paradise. The Qur’an instructs Muslims that this claim is not based on the Jewish or the Christian scriptures but only on the desires of those people who make these claims. In truth, nowhere in the Torah of Moses, the Zabur of David, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible is this claim that only Jews will enter Paradise asserted.

The great Sage Hillel, who lived in the first century prior to the birth of Jesus, taught that, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise” (Tosefta Sanhedrin). Jesus also taught, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places; if not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you” (John 12:2).

But generations after the death of Jesus, claims were made in his name, that only those who believed Jesus was the son of God, who died on the cross to save all humans from going to Hellfire, would be able to enter Paradise. In reaction to these polemical Christian claims, some Talmudic Rabbis began to counter-claim that only Jews would enter Paradise.

Yet even then the Rabbis did not think that eternal punishment was the fate of all those excluded from Paradise. Gehenna-Hellfire was conceived of as a temporary abode generally believed to last a maximum of 12 months.

The great sage, Rabbi Akiba, stated, “The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna lasts 12 months” (Mishnah Eduyyot 2:10). This is repeated in the Talmud (Shabbat 33b), and elsewhere it is stated that sinners, both Jewish and non-Jewish, are punished in Gehenna-Hellfire for (up to) 12 months (Rosh HaShanah 17a).

Thus the Qur’an accurately states, “They say, ‘the Fire will not touch us except for a fixed number of days” (2:80). The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say to both Jews and Christians, “If the abode of the Hereafter with God is reserved for you alone, excluding other people, then long for death … but they will never long for it” (2:94-5).

So, the answer to those who claim that, “none will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a Christian,” is “No! Rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

Thus, the Qur’an affirms that those Rabbis who strayed from the words of Hillel, “The righteous of all nations have a place in Paradise,” were wrong. Those followers of Jesus who abandoned his teaching, “In my Father’s house are many dwelling places,” and instituted the doctrine that Saint Augustine espoused, “No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation,” are also wrong.

Tragically, during many centuries of Medieval debate between the three religions, everyone thought that religion was a zero sum game (one winner or one truth vs. many winners or many truths, i.e. soccer or tennis vs. hiking or mountain climbing).

Thus, some Muslim commentators also began to take the same exclusionary view condemned by Prophet Muhammad by adding specific details of theological belief to the statements in the Qur’an that stress a simple and firm belief in the one and only God: “No! rather, whoever submits his whole being to God as one devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing him, his reward is with his Lord, and all such will have no fear, nor will they grieve” (2:112).

And even more explicitly, “Those who believe (Muslims), those who advocate Judaism, Christians, Sabeans, whoever truly believes in God and the Last Day, and does good righteous deeds, surely their reward is with their Lord, they will not fear, nor will they grieve” (2:62).

Thank God, in 21st century America the majority of most religious groups now believe the teachings of the Qur’an cited above (2:112 and 2:62).

A survey of over 35,000 Americans in 2008 found that most Americans agree with the statement: many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including 82% of Jews, 79% of Catholics, 57% of evangelical Protestants and 56% of Muslims (from the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2008, Pew Research Center).

Thus, in the 21st century United States most Christians, Jews, and Muslims have rejected the zero sum mind set and believe in the Qur’an’s teachings, “If God had so willed He could surely have made you a single community, but (He didn’t) in order to test you by what he has given you. Strive then, in competing in good works” (5:48). For ultimately, “On the Day of Resurrection God will judge between you about what you differed” (22:69).

Only those who reject God by disbelief or by unrepentant evil activities will be the losers when Judgment Day comes. But many, perhaps most, theologians will learn that they might not be as smart as they thought they were.

In conclusion, it is very important to understand that “religious pluralism is the will of God” is very different from religious, moral, or cultural relativism. Relativism teaches that all values and standards are subjective, and therefore there is no higher spiritual authority available for setting ethical standards or making moral judgments.

Thus, issues of justice, truth or human rights are, like beauty, just in the eye of the beholder. Most people, especially those who believe that One God created all of us, refuse to believe that ethics and human rights are simply a matter of taste. Religious pluralism as the will of God is the opposite of cultural or philosophical relativism.

The fundamental idea supporting religious pluralism is that religious people need to embrace humility in many areas of religion. All religions have always taught a traditional anti self-centered type of humility. Religious pluralism also opposes a religious, philosophical, and self righteous intellectual egoism that promotes a tendency to turn our legitimate love for our own prophet and Divine revelation into universal truths that we fully understand and know how to apply.

Religious pluralism teaches that finite humans, even the most intelligent and pious of them, cannot fully understand everything the way the infinite One does.

This is true, for every human being, even for God’s messengers themselves. When Prophet Moses, “who God spoke with face to face, as a person speaks with a friend” (Exodus 33:11) asks to see God face to face, he is told, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see My face and live” (33:20).

Similarly, in the Qur’an, Prophet Jesus admits to God, “You know everything that is within myself, whereas I do not know what is within Yourself” (7:116). When Prophet Jesus was asked, in private, by his disciples, “What will be the sign for your coming (back) and the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Jesus warns his disciples about all kinds of upheavals and false Messiahs that will come. Then Jesus concludes by saying, “But about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, not even the son: only the Father” (24:36).

A similar statement was made by Prophet Muhammad when he was asked, “Tell me about the Hour.” He said: “The one questioned about it knows no better than the questioner” (Muslim book 1 Hadith 1&4).

God taught the general principle of epistemological humility through his Prophet who taught his followers, “I am no novelty among the messengers. I do not know what will be done to me, or to you” (Qur’an 46:9).

Only on Judgment Day will the answer to the theological differences that divide us now be resolved. “To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open path. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (He desires) to test you in what He has given you: so (compete) strive in all virtues as in a race. The goal of you all is Allah. He will (on Judgment Day) show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute” (5:48).

Today we seem to accept that “reality is a construct” made up of meaning and values, a moment in the life of human consciousness, both at the individual and social level. The dynamic character of what we call “reality” has implications on our understanding of culture, science and man.

Culture is now understood as the set of symbols and values that constitute the virtual horizon that validates the reasonableness of human actions. By the same token, the principles of science are as valid as the arrival of other principles that revolutionize the preceding ones. Science no longer seeks necessary laws but rather the best available explanations about the universe that is today understood as open, dynamic and evolving.

Man is seen as a unity in tension, holder of a polymorphic consciousness that shapes his understanding according to a set of unconscious and preconscious processes that determine his intentions and decisions. He is known to also possess a consciousness with an unrestricted desire to know and a criterion allowing him to examine himself as he examines reality around him, simultaneously. This unrestricted desire to know leads him to an unrestricted objective: being.

This new way of viewing our own universe has two important implications: the acceptance of diversity and the forward looking mentality of man in almost every aspect of life. The forward looking character of man is associated with dramatic breakthroughs in science and the challenge of important paradigms of humanity, including the fact that this is the first time in history where human inventions and life styles can even extinguish all life on the planet.

In relation to diversity, post-modernity tends to be more colorful, heterogeneous, ecological and multi-religious than modernity. And in relation to looking into the future, the construction of things like a global civilization seem to form part of the feasible horizon to man.

Throughout human history, two things have characterized what is new: a process of simultaneous unity and conflict with what already exists, and the fact that the new state of being is not necessarily better than its predecessor. Post modernity is united with modernity in the sense that it requires the preservation of the critical spirit of the Enlightenment. However, the two eras are separated in the criticism of what can be called the “superstitions of modernity”, namely that future solutions lie only in the application of ever growing doses of science and technology, and in the repression of religious instinct and of religion in general.

There is no guarantee that this new era we are calling post-modernity will be better than the previous one. The future that opens before us can be one of a “clash of civilizations” or a time where future generations will acknowledge as an era of global splendor. The fact of the matter is that we have already left the modern “comfort zone” a long time ago. We are on a trip into the unknown and depending on how well we are equipped for this journey, we stand a better or worse chance of arriving at a safe harbor.

As with any journey, regardless of how well or how little of it we know, it is important to understand what the destination might be. We have already said that the destination of post-modernity is in the quest for meaning and being. And the reason is simple: modernism was based on progress as a paradigm and the supremacy of man over himself and nature. That is, human intelligence promised to liberate us from political oppression, provide a higher standard of living, and attain “perfection” in every field of life through the application of human mastery over knowledge, science, and technology.

Modernity appeared as a reaction to the backward looking world of the Renaissance. Post modernity in contrast, is a quest for meaning. This quest is not a return to the past and starts with achievements of human consciousness that are worth preserving, like the fight for justice, freedom and equality, and against intellectual and religious obscurantism. This quest is making a special impact on re-signifying paradigms and conquests of modernity. All over the world, thousands of people are modifying their understanding about democracy, technological progress, high standard of living and reason.

This important process of soul-searching in our times is taking place amidst spiritually-mindful people all over the world. For them, the times we live in are not the “end of history.” On the contrary, self complacency with the so-called achievements of modernity in science and communication underscores the importance of social justice, care for the planet and transcendence as pillars of a new world, since this cannot be the end of history so long as there are wars, hunger and injustice.

As the chances for economic and political systems to be radically transformed are high today, spiritually-mindful people will play a very large role in this transformation. The main reason for this is that truly spiritually-mindful people have little to no expectation in the so-called “comfort zones” because they always live to balance between what they know and the expectation of a world that has been promised to them by God. Whatever the culture he or she may have been born into, the seeker of the Truth is sensitive to the emerging probabilities where the human condition can be improved and they opt for them.

In this unconditional commitment for dynamic love lies the freedom of the spiritually-mindful person. This love is not only limited to the act of knowing but also to the act of choosing. He or she knows that unless action is undertaken, the elements that constitute a new world will never come to be. In the ethic to permanently destabilize his or her own self with already acquired ideas about the world, religion and culture, in thought and action, is implied the contribution of spiritually-mindful people to the world that is opening before us today.

A caveat however is that believers do not seem to be united across religions and cultures. Despite progress in communication, increased religious dialogue and an openness to alterity, there is little concerted interfaith action. Yet, this will only change in time if spiritually-mindful people can adequately identify and correct the many biases existing in every belief structure that in the name of God, have kept separation and strife amongst religions.

Human consciousness today is in need of an active and meaningful recognition of religious diversity. For some religions like Islam, such recognition has been established since its foundation, but has not been always followed in some regions and times in history. The same applies for Eastern philosophies and religions that have focused particularly on the discovery of God inside the heart of man. However regarding Christianity, which has only after 1965 recognized that salvation is possible outside of the Church, there is still a lot of progress to be made.

In the new world that is opening before us, it is probable that religions will not live side by side to each other in a juxtaposed manner as they do today. Instead, growing numbers of people will be able to make a clear distinction between the diverse manifestations of the names of God, and the way in which they have been interpreted and communicated. They will be more aware about the things that unite religions than the ones that separate them.

This will ultimately enrich all of them. There is a lot to be learned in the religious sense from the Arab Spring in the Middle East or from the many types of theologies that have evolved out of Vatican II all over the word or from the many teachings of Eastern beliefs. It is time for spiritually-inclined people all over the world to raise their heads and watch what their brothers from other religions are doing, inspired by the spirit of love and mercy. These people should speak to one another as this can only contribute to make the quality of their faith grow stronger.

All religions have prophets and saints that stand as a common heritage of humanity. Today, there are many people in every religion whose devotion, love of God and mankind, and heroism should be known and praised by all. They have a series of qualities important to the present quest into post modernity: they teach us that it is necessary to leave the “comfort zone” advertised by many worldly powers, they set the example in terms of the authenticity of their actions and they inspire us to transform ourselves from the inside as a precondition to make changes on the outside possible and meaningful.

In synthesis, a new world is emerging in a dialectics of many powerful forces: economic, political, military, scientific and social. A new force is required in the process: a divine spiritual guidance. This force that is depended on by millions of spiritually-mindful people is crucial, for they are in a privileged position to stand their ground on the basis of the authenticity of the process. They have not only evolved interested patterns of knowing and deciding, but by the nature of their belief, they seek a disinterested desire to know which is aimed at an unrestrictive objective, which is the finality of mankind as it unfolds into the universe of being.

Juan Fernando Lucio, a former adviser to presidential candidate Sergio Fajardo in Colombia, has advised on peace and reconciliation issues and done extensive research on the foundations of interfaith dialogue. He is currently an independent consultant and does research on the topic of liberation in contemporary religious thought.

Especially after the 1950s, divergent thinking has been studied a lot by psychologists. Innovations, discoveries and novelties have been associated with divergent thinking which intrigued the scholars in the fields of management, military and advertisement, as well as psychology and education. However, we lack studies that link the concept of divergent thinking to religious texts. One basic contribution of employing divergent thinking to religious texts would be to broaden the understanding of the texts and to seek alternative perspectives. Such endeavor seems consistent with the consideration that religion (hence, religious texts) is an everlasting source of wisdom and inspiration, and if so, why is it confined to the early interpretations? Why not become seekers of original interpreters of religious texts and discover the unveiled aspects of it? This article will discuss the perspective from psychology and religious texts to find an answer for these questions in the case of Islam.

Among the several views on divergent thinking, a brief psychological framework that can be applied to religious texts would be helpful. This framework was conceptualized by Donald Campbell (1960). According to this, in order for original ideas to appear, the initial task would be thinking in various ways. This phase is called “blind variation.” Think of the question “List possible uses of a brick.” Possible answers to such prompts would be “build a wall,” “break into pieces,” “step on it to reach something” or “use as a pillow.” Among those responses, the first one (“build a wall”) would be a conventional response while the second, third and fourth responses are non-conventional or original ideas. However, the fourth one “use as a pillow” does not seem to be an appropriate or useful response even though it is original. Therefore, appropriateness and originality may not go hand in hand and such original but non-useful and inappropriate ideas should be filtered out. This phase is called “selective retention” which makes the process of divergent thinking more valid and a functional way of idea generation. When we apply this two-stage method of idea generation to the field of theology, verse(s) of the spiritual texts could be regarded as prompts to ponder systematically.

Two basic approaches to religions should be recalled here. One school of thought, known as orthodoxy, refers to adherence to traditional and established views on the texts. Because of the persistence on the traditional views, orthodoxy was regarded in relation to dogmatism and accused of lacking originality (Shedd, 1893). Heterodoxy implies a departure from the established and traditional views of orthodoxy. Apparently, this article does not favor a strict orthodoxy as it does not add new perspectives to our understanding of the religions. On the other hand, the extent of departure which is not at odds with the general framework of a given religion is of interest. Given the two aspects of divergent thinking (blind variation and selective retention) discussed above, generation of original ideas and novel inspirations from the religious texts can be theoretically achieved without deviating from the given frameworks of the religions.

Divergent thinking for religious texts

If one thinks of religious texts of the monotheistic religions, Biblical Judaism goes back to 4th century BCE; Christianity has a history of more than two millennium. Islam, being the recent religion, has a history of 15 centuries. The texts are obviously old and for an academic field of study, there is an enormous amount of knowledge accumulated throughout the centuries by many scholars. On the other hand, those deeply rooted traditions have created their own ways of understanding which contributed to the convergence and contraction of the interpretations. Even though converging perspectives might yield more accurate interpretations, it is still possible that many subtle or alternative aspects of religious texts have probably been ignored or not yet discovered.

As time goes by, the discrepancy between the interpretation of human beings and the original texts have increased with excessive amounts of the interpretations masking the divine message of the original texts. Interpretations converged and shrank even more since new generations were simply taught what the early generations have understood instead of being encouraged to generate new meanings. The natural transmission of religious knowledge survived for centuries. Yet, it is possible to put forward that convergent thinking has been overwhelmingly weighted in the field of theology as in other fields for the purpose of finding the single best interpretation of religious texts. We owe current level of knowledge to those scholars with a divergent mind who intervened in the process of religious thinking and teaching, and enlarged the horizons of religious thought.

As a matter of fact, older interpretations of religious texts may not always be compatible with the problems and needs of contemporary life. Since the life conditions and the intellectual climate (or zeitgeist) have dramatically changed and today’s intellectuals are educated in a different mindset which separate religious thought and scientific/philosophical issues into two distinct categories, arguments of theologians have become less convincing than they used to be. Critically, this insufficiency has been attributed to the religion itself such as “opiate of the masses” rather than the religious scholars who are unable to reproduce the religious thinking in contemporary ages without removing it from its fundamentals or simply attempting to reform it. For a theologian who believes in the idea that the role and mission of religion never ends and the religion is able to guide human beings eternally, being satisfied with the traditional views and taken-for-granted interpretations should not suffice. Indeed, the attempt to inquire new ways of interpretations of the scriptures does not necessarily negate the previous interpretations because they had validity under certain conditions in the past, and can explain today to a considerable degree. In other words, employment of divergent thinking in understanding the texts should aim to enrich and widen perspectives of the individuals rather than replacing the current views and reforming the religions.

The contribution of divergent thinking to religions can be seen in the works of scholars who came up with divergent interpretations to the texts. Richness in their interpretations without imposing necessarily one unique truth provides the readers with room for elaborating on the texts and interpretations. This attitude helps people to diverge their thinking and even go beyond what they literally see in the texts.

Some examples

There are many examples of divergent interpretation in the works of Said Nursi who is a prominent twentieth century Muslim scholar. One of the foremost features of Nursi is his approach to questions, verses of Qur’an and hadiths (collection of writings that document the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) in multiple ways. For example, Nursi has shown several ways to interpret one hadith about cosmology:

People asked the Prophet what the earth rests upon. He replied that the earth rests upon a fish and another time upon an ox. This hadith has been discredited given the cosmology knowledge of human beings when it is taken literally. However, alternative explanations of the hadith show how some allegoric statements in the religious texts can be understood. His first interpretation was about the angels created by God who are responsible for every creation in the universe called as “commissioned angels.”

Two angels were created for the earth. Their names were “thawr” (meaning ox) and ‘hut’ (meaning fish). With that in mind, this verse means that the earth would not survive if these angels did not take care of it.

Another interpretation was related to the way people make their living. Especially in the past, people were making their living through farming and hunting. Ox represents the farming and fish represents hunting. The third interpretation is based on the different answers given at different times. According to this interpretation, the earth was on particular cosmological position or horoscope. Nursi also argued that this kind of response is legitimate because people at that time would not understand the complexity of the cosmology and the Prophet told them the truth in a way they would understand.

Another such example that Nursi interprets by going beyond its literal meaning is the verse about Moses (peace be upon him):

Again (remember) when Moses (on an occasion when his people were without water in the desert) beseeched water for his people, so We told him: “Strike the rock with your staff!” (As soon as he struck) there gushed forth from it twelve springs. Each tribe knew their drinking place. Eat and drink of that which God has provided, and do not go about acting wickedly on earth, causing disorder and corruption. (Qur’an 2:60)

According to Nursi, this verse prophesized the discovery of sounding underground to get water. This explanation is legitimate given the context that the solution is suggested “miraculously” after the people asked help from Moses for their need for water.

Nursi, as a divergent thinker, viewed the miracles in the Qur’an in a different way than others. In classical view, the extraordinary events that take place in Qur’an were indicative of the strength that God has granted some special people in history. Nursi did not restrict those verses within this view. According to him, those verses conveyed a more critical message for us as well as their message in their own contexts. The extraordinary events that happened in the past also indicate the ultimate level human beings can arrive at by working hard on sciences. This message of the miracles is the possibility that other people who work hard on understanding the rules of the nature designed by God could also achieve what have been wondrously achieved before. Therefore, those miracles that the Qur’an mentioned are not some stories that should solely bewilder, but call human beings to go beyond their limited knowledge and discover the further facts. If every technology that we take for granted was some sort of a miracle in the past, why not chase the new “miracles” by thinking outside of the box? As a result, the miracles in the Qur’an are more than the stories of unexplainable events. Such subtle messages however, are read only by divergent minds that transcend the cursory meanings.

There are many examples which scientific advances uncovered alternative interpretations of texts. The Fountain readers are very lucky to brainstorm novel interpretations. One example of divergent explanations about the verses of Holy Qur’an is the description of creation of iron. In one issue several years back Nuh Gedik (2006) brought an interesting comment on the 25th verse of Sura Hadid: “…And We sent down Iron, in which is great might, as well as many benefits for mankind….” Scholars used to interpret “sending down” the iron as one of the God-sent blessings coming from above, His supreme treasure consisting of everything. “Sending down” is taken as metaphorical, reflecting the relationship (status) between human beings and God, rather than its literal meaning. Even though this interpretation might be correct, Gedik argued that being “physically sent down from the sky miraculously points out to a very important scientific fact that was discovered only very recently” (Gedik, 2006).

According to Gedik, supernova explosions that create very high energy and heat can allow a heavy element like iron to form. According to this scenario, formation of iron can be attributed to supernova explosions that occur in Space and “sent down” on earth rather than the scenario that presumes iron resides under the soil as a consequence of some chemical reactions. While these two scenarios do not necessarily conflict, the former and more recent one gives birth to another interpretation.

The same verse inspired other divergent minds too. Salih S. Duran (2009) explained another mechanism that results in the “sending down” of iron. According to this argument, desert sands in varied magnitude travels on the air and are hanged on the atmosphere where the miraculous chemical reactions that reduce Fe+3 to Fe+2 are fulfilled with the help of water vapor and sun. Eventually, resultant iron materials are descended to earth with the rains. Those two novel explanations are neither the best nor the ultimate perspectives, but are worth considering while reading the Qur’an.

Limitations

More examples can be found, but a critical question still remains to be answered: Can we come up with any interpretation for the verses? Are there limitations to interpret the verses? The answer for these questions lies in the perspective that is provided in the beginning of this article where I discussed the processes of blind variation and selective retention. Religions (specifically Islam in the scope of this article) have basic belief systems and the understanding of the verses and hadiths have to be understood in accordance with this basic structure. For this reason, some original interpretations may not be the valid interpretations. In fact, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, warned “Whoever explains the Qur’an according to his [wrong] personal opinion shall take his place in Hell.” Some experts who focused on the outward meanings of the Qur’an have argued that this hadith prohibits personal interpretations at all, and understanding and interpreting Qur’an should merely rely on early interpretations like those of Ibn Abbas and other exegetes. Quasam (1982) outlined Al-Gazali’s theory regarding the recitation and interpretation of the Qur’an where he objected to the interpretation of this hadith as evidence negating the attempts to make new interpretations. He argued that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also said that “Surely the Qur’an has an outward aspect, inward aspect, a limit and a prelude.” If there is an inward aspect, how can we achieve to learn it? Assuming that early interpretations have covered all possible meanings contradicts with the presence of inward aspect. If the outward meaning is clear and enough, and there is no need to seek anything new in it, why did Ali, the fourth caliph, say “If I so will I can certainly load seventy camels with the exegesis of the Opening Sura (chapter) of the Book” while this chapter is very short? Then the question is, how can we reconcile those hadiths which seem to conflict with each other?

Al-Gazali argued that this hadith actually prohibits the interpretations which aim to adduce arguments that favor interpreters’ own purposes or passions whether it is a valid purpose or not. With such incentive, the interpretation is simply corrupt rather than a personal effort to understand the Qur’an. A second reason is to prohibit those who try to interpret the Qur’an without any fundamental knowledge of the Qur’an and Arabic language which are necessary for the outward aspects. Therefore, this hadith should be seen as a warning for the appropriateness of the interpretations. Now, the nature of divergent thinking as suggested by Campbell (1960) should be recalled. Even though developing several meanings of the religious texts corresponding to blind variation is critical, it should be tested within the overall framework of the religions which is the criterion for the stage of selective retention.

To conclude, divergent thinking is one of the promising abilities of human intellect that many fields like education, psychology, management and military have utilized. However, the need for divergent thinkers is increased in the era which people cannot appreciate the intellectual depth in religious texts. Different and legitimate interpretations of religious texts will reform people’s minds regarding the potential in the old texts for our civilization and intellectual life. Contributions of Islamic scholars like Said Nursi should encourage other divergent minds for new inspirations and state-of-art perspectives.

Zekeriya Ozsoy is doctoral student studying educational psychology. For correspondence with the author: ozsoyzekeriya@gmail.com.

References

• Quasem, A. M. 1982. The recitation and interpretation of the Qurān. Al-Ghazālī’s theory. London: Kegan Paul International
• Duran, S. S. 2009. Iron: A boon that comes with desert sands. [Turkish-Col kumuyla gelen nimet: Demir]. Sizinti, 369, 454-457.
• Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist. 5, 444-454.
• Gedik, N. 2006. Supernova Explosions and a Miracle of the Qur’an. Fountain, 54,
• Shedd, W.G.T. 1893. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. New York: Scribner’s Sons.
• At-Tirmidhi, Sunan, Tafsir, 1.

It is indeed a tremendous challenge to come to terms with the perplexity of religion and politics in our time. As acts of terrorism are wreaking havoc in many parts of the world, people turn to religion both to find the cause and the healing. Questions abound. Can religion be a source for tolerance and reconciliation in the 21st century, or is it a breeding ground for hatred and violence? Is religion being hijacked from inside by misguided believers and by cynic political extremists? Grand theories of conspiracy against specific religions or political systems instill anxiety among ordinary people.

As the 9/11 tragedy in the USA is indelibly inscribed as a watershed in world history, so will 22.7.2011 for ever be remembered as a massacre that changed Norway. The first was a heinous act of people who misrepresented Islam to punish and humiliate a world power seen to be responsible for the suffering of millions of Muslims around the world. The other was directed against the State itself and the political leadership of Norway, by a person who used Christian imagery to express his hatred of Muslims. The perpetrator sees Norway’s multiculturalism and open society as submission to a dangerous and foreign religion. He saw himself as true crusader for a Christian Europe. I believe it is fair to say that none of the perpetrators of these tragic events genuinely represent the religion they profess. Their unspeakable acts of violence against fellow human beings constitute a crime not only against humanity, but against God under whatever name.

These watershed events are reminders that to unravel the perverse mindset of extremists one has to go beyond personal faith and beliefs and look to other constitutive factors of psychological, social, cultural and political nature. Such factors do not provide an excuse for the horrendous acts of terror, but they indicate the complexity that needs to be addressed in curing this cancer in the body of humanity. But also collective and individual perceptions of oppression, marginalization and disrespect, feed a legitimate sense of loss and betrayal that offers a breeding ground for fanaticism and revenge. No single historic religion is without a history of inbred violence, be it Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or others.

While the reaction in the USA and some European countries after 9/11 was crusader language and large-scale cancellation of fundamental civil and political rights, the reaction in Norway, eloquently and consistently expressed by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, and hailed by the vast majority of the population, has been to call for an even more inclusive democracy, and more respect of human dignity and human rights for all. The message was clear; the way forward is not revenge, nor curtailing of fundamental freedoms, but increased openness to a more multicultural and multi-religious society. Religious leaders and communities have reacted in unison against the exploitation of their faith and spirituality using hatred and fear. They join the call for tolerance and mutual respect. In all honesty, it has to be added that some pockets of conservative Christians have expressed sympathy for the opinions of the terrorist, although not for his criminal acts. The same goes for some politicians on the far right of the political spectrum.

It is my humble opinion that the reaction of official Norway sets a standard for others to follow in countries where far-right ideologies and fundamentalist religious movements and individuals threaten to destabilize society. A model of reconciled diversity is the only way to the future in our globalized world. This is the message of our youth, those who lost their lives and those who barely escaped. They are the victors. Terrorists will always be the losers. This is the spirit of Norway. The political battle to sustain this legacy will show the strength of our nation.

Dr. Gunnar Stalsett, Bishop emeritus of Oslo
Former Vice Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize committee
Moderator of the European Council of Religious Leaders, Religions for Peace