The questions on the creation of mankind and the inner workings of the universe have been the primary issues that have had a profound impact on both modern, secular philosophy and traditional religion. Our collective experiences in natural sciences and educational disciplines have taught us that certain models can be developed to help us comprehend the functioning of the universe.

One of the fundamental questions in this respect relates to how a great deal of orderliness and discipline is possible in the universe despite its immense scale. Exploring the potential of this orderliness encourages our curiosity to examine life at the most minuscule level, and some scientists aim to explain this perceived system within the universe via an idea called “the Computational Universe.” In this article we will discuss how this idea can be considered to support the perceptions of monotheistic belief. In scientific literature, the term “computational” refers to anything that possesses any relationship to complex calculations, as various disciplines such as physics, chemistry; the term is used even by the discipline of psychology.

Thanks to relatively recent developments and discoveries in science, we are able to better understand the events in our world and universe. To put it into perspective, humanity was deprived of certainty on the shape of the world up until several centuries ago. However, scientific developments, especially during the 19th and 20th centuries, formed the basis of the stunning technological developments that we live with today. Comparatively, it could be argued that what we know, comprehend, and understand about the universe that we live in is only a small fraction of what the universe actually contains. Continuous developments in science and technology help us understand more and more about the way the universe works. “Our science and applications to space technology have evolved by improving our abilities to measure, test, and analyze physical events and by developing their mathematical models” (Fontana 2005).

As humanity began to uncover some of the codes by which our universe is made to function, we have been using these rules to make our lives easier. This is common human behavior: we learn new things and try to use them to improve our lives. In fact, human technology has advanced so much that we now have machines that can move and function like a nano-universe. Basically, we are giving them a code, a sheet of rules to function in the way we desire. As a result, we are much less dependent on physical labor; for instance, we now can farm with high-tech machines instead of our hands.

New ideas are born with these emerging technologies and with more ease than they were back in the old days; thus we have had a progress at an exponential rate. Looking at all these historical aspects and experience , some scientists conclude that the universe we take part in might be a “mother computation” and all of these things that keep the universe well-oiled and functioning might be parts of codes and commands coming from this mother computation.

The argument does not end at whether we live in a computation or not though. From that point, people who believe that we live in a mother computation split sides, with some providing the explanation that we are real, and this is reality, but controlled by a mother computation. This group argues that everything that happens around us is part of reality, just like we are, but that they function via a code that was inserted into their cores in order for them to work the way their coder wants them to.

The other school of thought challenges the vast majority of conventional theological thought and logic. This argument agrees that we do live in a computation, however that this life is not reality. Events in the universe, including our lives are just a simulation, and we are test subjects.

“Several physicists, cosmologists and technologists are now happy to entertain the idea that we are all living inside a gigantic computer simulation… Our instincts rebel, of course. It all feels too real to be a simulation. The weight of the cup in my hand, the rich aroma of the coffee it contains, the sounds all around me – how can such richness of experience be faked?” (Ball 2016).

Though this idea of a computational universe appears to be new because of the fact that computers and digital simulations appeared only a few decades ago, its origins go back to antiquity. Some of history’s greatest minds, such as Plato and Descartes, have actually provided their views on this concept even without these technologies being present at the time. They questioned reality and dug deep into life and how we perceive everything around us, however their arguments were not widespread among their contemporaries because they had no proofs to support their controversial ideas that challenged everything that people believed.

So, is the universe a mother computer or a giant computer simulation?

It is widely accepted by almost all people that there are principles and rules by which the universe is governed and which we can observe on both the macro and micro levels. Events are considered supernatural or miraculous if they take place outside of these principles. Therefore, scientific findings may allow us to develop a deeper appreciation for the “computational” orderliness that can be found in our universe among the orbits of the planets down to the multitude of complex ecosystems that exist across our world in a variety of different biomes.

Religious traditions

From the perspective of monotheistic religions, it is believed that the Creator creates and pursues everything with an order in the universe, which allows the universe to keep working in a perfect balance. The universe’s orderliness, especially that which occurred during its creation, is stressed profoundly in the holy books. For example, it is stated in Genesis 1-2 that the creation of the entire universe occurred in “six days,” and this process was described day by day in the relevant verses. This implies a certain order in the development of events during the creation of the universe.

A certain orderliness is also clearly declared in the Qur’an: “He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth … has created each thing and determined it with [precise] determination” (2:25). Today, the scientific community explains this order and design in the universe with concepts such as the “Anthropic Principle.” According to this principle, the universe possesses such perfect features that it could not have arisen by chance without purpose. The situation can be understood more thoroughly if major examples of design existing in the universe are briefly examined. Doing so, we will find out several aspects of this principle that we encounter in our daily lives, which in turn will lead us to further understand God’s complex creation of the universe.

Based upon the evidence that some scientists have shown that a starter leads off, like a coder writes codes, in order for the universe to function correctly and in a perfect continuity, the faithful of religious traditions might reasonably suggest that this entire universe is just like a computer created by the Creator who continuously controls it by constantly creating new every moment for it to function as the codes are based on His commands. This rationale is the essence of and consistent with not only monotheistic religions but also in many ways with other belief systems.

Overall, the concept of a “mother computation” placed on duty in the functioning of our universe is not just a singular subject but instead a comprehensive set of ideas people have focused deeper. While, according to some, there is indication for the universe being a reality and being controlled by a “computer,” according to others, there might also be indication for how the universe could also just be a simulation. A team of physicists working at the University of Bonn claim that they have come up with a measurable way of showing that our universe is indeed “simulated” (Yirka 2012). The main focus of their paper is that in order to create a simulation of our universe, there has to be a three-dimensional framework to represent real world objects and processes. But the problem is, this paper is based on only what we know of reality today. This means that an exact copy of our universe would be impossible to create until the end of time, when we have all the knowledge that the universe presents us with – the entire idea splits right at this point.

Religion also becomes a separate argument along with these two different beliefs. Monotheistic religions believe in an Almighty God, who creates ex nihilo and put things in order in a perfectly “computed” order. God, in these traditions, are also believed to sustain all the existence by constant governance; as a matter of fact, everything is an outcome of the manifestation of God’s names and attributes – nothing comes out outside of His Divine realm and authority.

With there being many more religious traditions and philosophical approaches in this world, many different ideas can emerge as possible theories. In regard to the idea of the world being a computation, scientific theoreticians cannot definitively know for sure whether we live in a computational or fundamental reality, and do not speculate on who might be the one who programs this computer that way. Religious traditions, however, take one more step and claim if there is a computation, then there must be an agent who makes it possible and wills the world to be as it is rather than something else. Otherwise, claiming the universe to be a mother computer on its own would be no different than believing in nature to be the creator of everything, as opposed to nature itself being a created being.

While the computational model seems to support the arguments of believers in terms of explaining that there is an established order in the universe and that this order operates within certain laws and rules created and maintained by a creator in a perfect continuity, thinkers and philosophers may come up with different explanations in their own words and formulations to understand creation and life as we know it.

The mysteries of the universe offer us an expansive space to bring about the best of our rational and spiritual capacities, so our existence in this life becomes a meaningful one.

References

• Giorgio Fontana. “Why we live in the Computational Universe,” https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0511/0511157.pdf.
• Philip Ball. 5 September “We might live in a computer program, but it may not matter” http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160901-we-might-live-in-a-computer-program-but-it-may-not-matter.
• Bob Yirka. 2012. “Is it real? Physicists propose method to determine if the universe is a simulation,” Phys.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted from Kirkus Reviews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibn ‘Arabi was such a determined one. He is a strong milestone in the history of mysticism. His heritage goes beyond Muslim identity and encompasses a following from diverse traditions. In this issue, Brenda Pletcher explores Ibn ‘Arabi’s mystical legacy as a firm foundation for interreligious dialogue. For Pletcher, Ibn ‘Arabi’s philosophy of “diversity within unity,” as symbolized by his vision of a Universal Tree surrounded by four mystical birds, reveals dialogues “of life, of study, of prayer, and of spirituality, all of which, if followed in an atmosphere of mutuality, will have the potential to facilitate people toward the dialogue of action—an action bringing forth a vision of justice for all.”

Just as these great messengers enrich our spirits, so do fruits enrich our bodies.. We love their taste and smell, and are aware of their health benefits. However, a great majority of us do not consume fruits when we should – we are not even aware of when we should. “When To Eat Fruits” explains reasons why fruits should not be consumed right after a meal, and why we should eat them at least an hour before the main course, or two hours after. It is a very useful read on the right consumption of one of the most important components of our daily diet, which we wrongfully substitute with industrially processed juices.

Like eating well, recycling has become integral to our daily lives. We collect the food remains in our kitchen and the leaves in our backyard. We separate paper from plastic, all in the hopes of making our planet’s body healthier.. But were you aware that recycling has always been a part of our body’s survival mechanisms? Abdullah Acar says there are recycling centers in our cells which “have the duty to help with the digestion of cellular trash (i.e. damaged cellular organelles, misfolded proteins, toxic loads) so that energy can be generated and raw material obtained for the construction of new cellular units.” Named autophagy (i.e. self-eating), this recycling phenomenon “is primarily activated or enhanced via fasting or food deprivation.”

The Fountain is bringing scholars from different disciplines and traditions together in Istanbul on November 5-7 for a three-day workshop to have “Conversations on Life, Knowledge, and Belief.” The purpose is to pave the way for The Fountain to be a platform of thoughtful discussions on cross-cultural dialogue, scientific thought, faith, and philosophy. We will keep you posted about the event.

Many have described Louis Massignon’s voice as “prophetic” and his own intense religious faith and commitment as “mystical.” Some have called him an “Islamized Christian” due to his passionate desire “to know,” to understand Islam and the experience of his Muslim friends and colleagues from the inside out. His relationship with the Muslim world began in his early twenties when he was introduced to the 10th century Persian Sufi saint and mystic known as Husayn Ibn Mansur al-Hallaj. Hallaj was born into an Arabic speaking family in a small town in Iran in 858 CE and became a renowned teacher and outspoken lover of Allah with many followers. A threat to the religious establishment, he was subjected to a long imprisonment in Baghdad before being put to death in 922 CE. Massignon was intrigued by this story and began his research on the life and legend of al-Hallaj, initially for his University dissertation.

While on an archeological mission for the French government in Baghdad in 1908 and simultaneously researching his thesis on al-Hallaj, Massignon experienced an intense encounter with the Divine that he later described as “the Visitation of a Stranger” breaking into his life and throwing him to his knees in a moment of supplication that caused him to cry out in Arabic, “God, help my weakness.” He was 25 years old. At that time Massignon had been immersed in his study of Arabic, Arab culture, and Islam and his unusual conversion experience in the midst of the Muslim world brought him back to his Roman Catholic roots. He was sure that his religious conversion was due in part to the intercession of the 10th century Muslim saint, al-Hallaj along with the prayers of his Muslim friends.

It is to some aspects of Massignon’s extensive legacy as a pioneer of our current understanding of interreligious dialogue that I wish to focus this tribute to Louis Massignon on the 50th anniversary of his death.

The Badaliya

In Damietta, Egypt in 1934 Massignon and an Egyptian Melkite Christian woman, Mary Kahil founded a prayer movement that they called the “Badaliya,” or “substitution.” The prayer of offering one’s life for the sake of others was a profoundly mystical interpretation of Christianity for followers of Jesus Christ, the One who offered his life for the salvation of all of humanity. The Badaliya was established in the Middle East to encourage what Louis Massignon saw as the “vocation” of the Christians who have lived there since the time of Jesus to be witnesses of Christ’s love for all people. Massignon envisioned that those Christians who are living in the Middle East are called to “cross over” to their Muslim neighbors, to pray for them that God’s will be done in them, to befriend them, work with them and come to love them as Christ loves us, even to the point of offering ones lives for them if necessary. That is how much God loves us all so we must love one another in the same way. Many small groups around the world along with individuals, both religious and lay persons joined the monthly Badaliya gatherings in person or in spirit. Inspired by the hermit Priest, Charles de Foucauld who lived amidst the Muslim Tuareg people in the Algerian Sahara and others, including the Indian guru Mahatma Gandhi, they were dedicated to fasting and praying for non-violent resolution of conflicts throughout the world especially in the Middle East. The group in Paris dissolved when Massignon died in 1962 but Mary Kahil continued in Cairo until she died at the age of 90 in 1979.

On December 8th, 2002, following the attacks on the World Trade Center in NYC, the Pentagon in Washington DC and in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, a small group gathered in Boston, Massachusetts to re-create the Badaliya prayer in the spirit of Louis Massignon and Mary Kahil. They are dedicated to peace and reconciliation for all three Abrahamic faith traditions, especially in the Middle East, and to learning about Islam and the Muslim world by befriending the Muslim community in our own neighborhoods. Use of the internet has broadened our membership in spirit to more than 120 members worldwide. Reflecting on Massignon’s writings before, during and after the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 with his vision of peaceful coexistence and the sharing of life by all three Abrahamic faith traditions in the Holy Land has become a central concern for our prayer. Members of the Badaliya encouraged the community at St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts to establish a Partner Parish in Beit Sahour, Palestine with the help of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation in Bethesda, Maryland and Bethlehem, Palestine. Following in the spirit of Massignon’s own many spiritual pilgrimages to the Holy Land and his writings on Jerusalem and Nazareth our Holy Land pilgrimages have rewarded us all with new friendships across faith traditions, a new experience of our Christian faith tradition and first hand experience of the painful reality of life for our brothers and sisters, the “Living Stones” who guard our traditions in the Holy Land.

The inspiration of the Badaliya and its invitation to reflect deeply on the meaning of substitutionary prayer for believers today has led to the foundation of many communities dedicated to its vision of interfaith relations.

The Al-Khalil Community at the Monastery of Deir Mar Musa, Nebek, Syria

In 1984 a young Italian Jesuit Priest, Fr. Paolo Dall’Oglio, discovered an abandoned ancient 11th century Monastery that had originally been established in honor of a 6th century Ethiopian hermit named Saint Moses in the Syrian desert 80 kilometers North of Damascus. With the help of the Syrian government, the local church and volunteers from Syria and Europe the ancient frescoes have been restored and a contemplative community dedicated to interfaith relations has been established. The spirit of Louis Massignon’s Badaliya has been the foundation of the spirituality encouraged at Deir Mar Musa, from the daily rhythm of prayers in Arabic to welcoming the stranger and inviting the involvement of the local Muslim villagers who share in the daily life of the community. The title of one of Fr. Paolo’s books, Amoureux de l’Islam, Croyant en Jésus (Lover of Islam, Believer in Jesus) speaks for itself of the true witness to the spirit of Badaliya and the legacy of Louis Massignon alive in the world today.

Christian de Chergé and the Monks of Tibhirine

There is a list of many Christian souls who have been called to share life with their Muslim brothers and sisters and some, like the monks of Tibhirine whose story can be experienced in the recent film, “Of Gods and Men,” who have offered their lives. Christian de Chergé has been described as a Trappist monk whose Christian faith was enhanced and “converted” by his engagement with Islam. In a book dedicated to the spiritual writings of the Prior of the Monastery at Tibhirine (Ray, C. Christian de Chergé: une biographie spirituelle du prieur de Tibhinrine. Éditions Albin Michel, 2010). There is the true story of how Christian de Chergé came to understand the deepest meaning of Massignon’s substitutionary prayer, of Badaliya.

In 1959 while serving his obligatory service as an officer in the French military during the Algerian War for Independence from France, Christian was assigned to a rural Algerian community. There he became friends with an Algerian peasant and father of ten. Mohamad was a devout Muslim and the young Christian was profoundly moved by observing his friend’s response to the call to prayer five times a day. Despite their very different experiences of the colonial occupation in Algeria, they both recognized that they belonged to the same human family in the eyes of God. Mohamad’s loyalty to his friendship with Christian de Chergé caused him to step in to protect his friend when he was attacked by members of a local militia and to try to prevent further dispute. The next day Mohamad was found assassinated beside a well. It took many years for Christian de Chergé to process this experience but it became a foundational one for the rest of his spiritual life. Only in 1972, in front of his brothers in Tibhirine, was Christian finally able to tell the story of Mohamad’s sacrifice for him. “Through the blood of this friend, assassinated for having not wished to make a pact with hatred, I knew that my call to follow Christ must find a way to live itself out, sooner or later, in the same country where I had been given this proof of the greatest love” (p. 71).

From then on there was no doubt in Christian’s mind that Mohamad had mysteriously entered into the communion of saints that knows no religious boundaries. He wrote:

“I know at least one beloved brother, a committed Muslim, who gave his life out of love for another, concretely through the spilling of his blood. An unimpeachable testimony that I welcome as an extraordinary opportunity.” (p.71)

The Qur’an says: “The one who saves one single person is considered as if he had saved everyone.” (5:32)

Christan de Chergé was dedicated to the Muslim community among whom he lived and served for many years. At the moment of the abduction of seven of the monks from the Monastery in Algeria there was a group from a Muslim Sufi Order on their annual visit to an interfaith gathering to share life and pray with the brothers.

Christian de Chergé was a true follower of the spiritual legacies of both Charles de Foucauld and Louis Massignon and lived the call to Badaliya, substitutionary prayer, all the way to the ultimate sacrifice of his own life.

The Seven Sleepers: Muslim and Christian shared pilgrimage

In 1954 Louis Massignon discovered a chapel in the small hamlet of Vieux Marché, Brittany in France, dedicated to Seven Christian Saints called La Chapelle des Sept Dormants. When he realized that the ancient Breton story of the seven saints corresponded directly to the 18th Sura of this same story of resurrection in the Qur’an and to the site of the seven sleepers tomb in Ephesus, Turkey, he approached the local Bishop with the request to expand the already existing annual pilgrimage in Vieux Marché to include both Muslims and Christians and prayers from both traditions. This Annual pilgrimage continues to take place every summer in July near to the Feast of Mary Magdalene, the first to witness to the Resurrection of Our Lord, Jesus Christ and attracts pilgrims from all over the world.

It is clear from Louis Massignon’s letters to members of the Badaliya from 1947 to 1962 that delving ever deeper into the meaning of substitutionary prayer led Massignon himself to greater and greater involvement with the social justice issues of his time, to volunteering in the French prisons to educate Algerian freedom fighters during the Algerian war for Independence in the late 1950’s and into the 1960’s, to speaking publically and standing on the side of the disenfranchised, the refugees and displaced, especially the Palestinians during and after the establishment of the current State of Israel, while remaining faithful to his friendships with his Jewish and Israeli colleagues. The legacy of Louis Massignon continues to lead many seekers of the Divine toward greater love of others of all ethnic and faith traditions. His life and work point us always in the direction of the Holy in all traditions and his lifetime of research and revision of his four volume Opus Magnus, The Passion of al-Hallaj remains a shining example of this devout Christian’s dedication to the eternal message of a great Muslim lover of the Divine.

A member of the Board of Directors of L’Association des Amis de Louis Massignon in Paris, Dorothy C. Buck is a licensed mental health practitioner and Pastoral Counselor in Somerville, MA she continues to give lectures and publish articles and books on spirituality and interreligious dialogue.

In 1989, in his classic book The World’s Religions, the late Scots writer and teacher Ninian Smart gave us a landmark framework to help us compare and contrast the world’s great religious beliefs. Smart identified what he called the ‘seven dimensions’ of religion:

1. The practical and ritual dimension
2. The experiential and emotional dimension
3. The narrative or mythic dimension
4. The ethical and legal dimension
5. The social and institutional dimension
6. The material dimension

This framework has helped two generations of scholars and believers to identify what their beliefs have in common with other belief traditions and what the significant differences are.

In countries like Australia, where religious groups and institutions enjoy tax exemptions in relation to property and works of charity, courts have been asked to rule on what is or is not a ‘religion’. So, in Australia, the High Court determined in 1983 that to be considered as a ‘religion’ rather than a ‘philosophy’ a group must pass a twofold test:

– belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

– acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief.(154 CLR 120 at 132, 137)

(A strict application of the first principle would rule out Buddhism as a religion, yet results from successive Australian censuses show Buddhism to be the fastest-growing religion in Australia. It is hard to be consistent! )

Some scholars looking for another, and perhaps simpler, way of comparing and contrasting religious movements, institutions and traditions may find help in the pioneer work of the English sociologist Grace Davie.

In 1994, Davie launched the study of religion into a new dimension with her challenging book, Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging. The study was based on interviews with several thousand people outside shopping centres in various parts of Britain. She posed her conclusions in a series of questions. The first is:

Believing without Belonging

Why is it, for example, that the majority of British people – in common with many other Europeans – persist in believing (if only in an ordinary God), but see no need to participate with even minimal regularity in their religious institutions? Indeed most people in this country – whatever their denominational allegiance – express their religious sentiments by staying away from, rather than going to, their places of worship. On the other hand, relatively few British people have opted out of religion altogether: out-and-out atheists are rare. ( Davie, p2)

Five years after Davie’s significant book was published, another English sociologist, Robin Gill, added a third B, Behaving, although he did tend to equate ‘behaving’ with churchgoing, arguing that it is churchgoing which fosters and sustains a distinctive culture of beliefs and values (p. 64).

In the same year, Grace Davie published another of her many books; this one based on a study of religion in Europe. This led her to conclude that Europe is what she calls ‘the exceptional case’ – many Europeans, particularly in the Scandinavian countries of northern Europe, belong to the majority national church without any belief in their teachings, or even in the existence of a god. She is now preparing revised editions of both her books.

The three Bs have become almost a cliché – so, just two of many examples, the Anglican bishop Tom Frame uses the three Bs to frame part of his critique of the Anglican church in Australia and Richard Rice uses them to combat ‘the ideology of individualism’ and construct a theology of the church for Seventh Day Adventists in the United States.

Grace Davie herself has recently moved on from examining the state of Christianity in Britain and Europe to consider issues arising from Muslim migration to the West, and what she calls the shift from religious obligation to religious consumption.

Now some scholars are talking about a fourth Becoming. Most religious traditions teach that believing religious truth, and belonging to a religious community, should not only modify your behaviour, for the better, of course, but should change your nature, so that you become a new and better person. King’s College London has become a centre of transformation theology, Transformation is a well-established international journal of holistic mission studies and the United Methodist Church of the United States includes ‘becoming’ in the title of a new manual to help congregations incorporate new members.

In the great eastern religions, ‘becoming’ is a key part of their anthropology, with rebirth or reincarnation being the reward or the punishment in the next life for the quality of behaving in this life.

So we now have the ‘four Bs’ of religion, Believing, Belonging, Behaving and Becoming. At a time when the patterns of religious adherence in Australia are changing, due both to immigration and conversion, it is more important than ever for us to understand what other Australians believe. The Four Bs give us a new formal structure for discussing religious belief and practice intelligently, just as there are formal structures which help us make sense of physics or chemistry or biology or economics or sociology, or any of the natural or social sciences.

It may even result in a new and simpler way of comparing and contrasting established religions, on the basis of what the adherents of a particular religion believe and do, alongside Ninian Smart’s ‘seven dimensions’ of religion. So we can consider such issues as:

1. Which of the four Bs is most important to a particular religion?
2. What are the key beliefs of the major world religions represented in Australia?
3. How are the four Bs linked, in the Scriptures and the teachings of each faith?
4. Do all people of faith believe in the same God? If not, is there more than one God?
5. Is belonging about belonging to God or to the community of faith, or both?
6. How do these faith traditions expect their believers to behave – what is commanded, what is allowed and what is forbidden? and
7. How do believers become changed people, spiritually and even bodily? What is at the heart of the anthropology of each faith? What do they teach about the body and the soul, about resurrection and reincarnation?

In a sense it is all about the one big B, believing; what does a particular faith community believe about believing, about belonging, about behaving and about becoming? Over the past few months, I have recorded interviews with leaders and scholars of the five major religions represented in Australia and studied the books and pamphlets which they recommended. All of them claimed that their basic beliefs were based on their Scriptures, but the statements of faith which emerged suggested that some of them had put their Scriptures through a blender, as it were, to come up with statements which summarise the beliefs and practices and understandings which are common to most of the denominations or sects within each faith community.

JUDAISM

So the first article of the Jewish faith is the shema, the message given by Moses, or in the name of Moses:

The shema

Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. – Deuteronomy 6.4

Yet the Jewish Scriptures record the growth of an understanding of God from the anthropomorphism of the book of Genesis through transcendentalism and panentheism, henotheism and particularism to true monotheism, belief in the one God who is the one true God of all peoples, even of those who do not accept him.

The second article of faith relates to humankind, which is said to have been created in the image of God, and is bound to God in a covenant relationship. The Hebrew Scriptures speak of a number of signs of the covenant, including the gift of the Sabbath at the time of creation, the rainbow after the great flood, and, most important, the circumcision of all males on the eighth day after birth, as part of the Abrahamic covenant.

This covenant is stated in chapter 12 of the book of Genesis, restated in Chapter 15 and sealed in Chapter 17, when Abraham agrees that the sign of the covenant will appear on the bodies of all his male descendants through circumcision.

The covenant with Abraham

Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing …and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’

– Genesis 12.1-3

God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. – – Genesis 17.9-11

Many Jews call the ceremony of circumcision berit, which means ‘covenant’. The covenant was reaffirmed in the so-called Mosaic covenant at Mt Sinai, which the whole people of Israel are said to have confirmed, answering Moses as one, Everything that the Lord has spoken we will do. (Exodus 19.8)

The third article of faith is that the Torah is divinely-inspired. ‘Torah’ can mean the totality of the law of Moses, or all the law on a particular subject, or the first five books of the Scriptures, the Pentateuch, as distinct from the Prophets and the Writings.

Two other significant beliefs, which are seen differently by different Jewish communities, relate to the Messiah and to the land of Israel.

Belief in the Messiah developed after the Second Temple period, giving new meaning to the Messianic oracles in the writings of the prophets. The rabbis taught that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, and thus his coming would bring about the climax of human history and the direct rule of God on earth.

The land of Israel, Eretz Israel, was part of the Abrahamic covenant, but not all Jewish believers accept the modern state of Israel, because it was a secular foundation, not established by YHWH. Some Orthodox Jews say that the true Israel will be established only with the coming of the Messiah.

ISLAM

Most Australian Muslims will tell you that belief comes first, without the core beliefs there is no Islam. But the word Islam means submission, so some Muslims believe that behaving comes first, to be a Muslim one must submit absolutely and completely to the will of God. Many men and women were Muslims before the time of the Prophet. Two verses in the Qur’an are almost identical in proclaiming this:

Submission to God
Surely, those who believe,
whether they are Jews or Christians, or those of some other faith;
anyone who believes in GOD, and
believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life,
will receive their recompense from their Lord;
they have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. – Qur’an 2:62, 5:69

The core Islamic belief is belief in the one, unique, incomparable God, the God who has no son or partner; none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone. Al’lah is the true God, and every other deity is false. He has the most magnificent names and sublime perfect attributes. No one shares His divinity, nor His attributes. The shahada, the confession of faith, the so-called first pillar of Islam La ilaha illa’Llah, ‘there is no god but God’ begins with a negative, to deny the false notions of God in the polytheism of Muhammad’s time and in the beliefs of the Jews and Christians whom Muhammad had encountered.

All other key beliefs in Islam relate to this core belief

– the angels are heavenly beings who worship God alone, obey Him, and act only by His command

– the Revealed Books have been revealed by God to his messengers as proof of His existence and as a guide to their belief and behaviour . The latest and greatest of these books is the Quran, which God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad , and guaranteed to protect it from any corruption or distortion.

– the Prophets and Messengers of God, from Adam to Muhammad, and including Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus were all sent to reveal the same message, but God’s final message to humankind, the supreme reconfirmation of the eternal message, was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. God has made prophecy the central reality of history, the Qur’an says that God has sent a messenger to every people in every age (Q. 10.48) – one of the ahadith says a total of 124 000 prophets in all.

– the Day of Judgment, the Day of Reckoning, the Day of Resurrection, is the day when God will resurrect, reward and punish every one for their beliefs and deeds. Some scholars have counted more than 115 references in the Qur’an to the Day of Judgment, more than on any other topic in the Qur’an, except Al’lah, and that number does not include verses with graphic details of the after-life, of heaven and hell. Surah No 81, which is said to date from the early years of Islam, before Muhammad left Mecca for Medina,

The Day of Judgment
When the sun is folded up,
when the stars fall, losing their lustre;
when the mountains vanish (like a mirage);
When the she-camels, ten months with young, are left unattended;
when the wild beasts are herded together;
When the oceans boil over with a swell;
When the souls are sorted out (joined like with like);
When the female (infant) buried alive is questioned for what crime she was killed;
When the Scrolls are laid open;
when the world on high is unveiled;
when the Blazing Fire(of hell) is kindled to fierce heat,
and when the Garden (of Bliss) is brought near –
Then shall each soul know its Destiny. – Qur’an 81. 1.14

CHRISTIANITY

In the early centuries of Christianity, when its beliefs were being defined, the central issue in the debates was the nature of the person and work of Jesus which later grew into distinct areas of theology, Christology and soteriology: What is the relation between Jesus and God?

Christians maintain that God was clearly acting and speaking in and through Jesus; the writer of the Gospel according to John could quote Jesus as saying, the Father and I are One (John 10.30) yet Jesus is recorded, in the same gospel and elsewhere, as praying to God and speaking of God as a separate person. As well, God is shown as being present at key points in the life of Jesus, at his birth, and his baptism, and key moments during his mission, in ways traditionally associated with the spirit, or the breath, of God.

The outcome was a Christian redefinition of the inner nature of the Godhead, as a mystical union of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit – distinct, yet co-equal and co-eternal. Today, some Christians see these terms as anthropological and prefer to speak of the persons of the Trinity in terms of their roles or activities, as Creator, Redeemer and Spirit.

So the historic creeds have more to say about Jesus than of the other persons of the Trinity. The so-called Nicene Creed speaks of Jesus as the one who lived and died and rose again ‘for our salvation’, but does not say how and from what, So a spectrum of different accounts or theories has emerged – from the legalistic substitutionary theory, that Christ took the place of each and every person on the cross, to the moral or exemplary theory, that the death of Christ revealed the extent of the love of God which Christians are called to emulate. Generally, the theories coalesce around the idea that Jesus’ death dealt with the reality of sin in a way which humanity could not have done for itself.

For many Christians the death of Christ was the seal of a new covenant between believers and God, replacing the old covenant with the Jewish people. The unknown writer of the Letter to the Hebrews elaborates the doctrine at length in typological fashion, stressing that the new covenant secures the perfect forgiveness of sins for all believers.

The new covenant

For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God! – Hebrews 9.13-14

The creeds also include belief in the church, the return of Christ in glory, and the promise of the resurrection of the dead, or of the body. The Nicene Creed also speaks of the sacrament of baptism, but not of the eucharist, or of any other sacrament of the church. The debates on these came later.

From the first generation, many Christians have believed that the Holy Spirit would empower them with special gifts, as described in a letter of Paul to the church in Corinth:

The gifts of the Spirit

To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. – 1 Corinthians 12.7-10

These gifts were seen as theirs as disciples of Christ and sharers in his gifts. But few mainstream Christians would claim these gifts today. Many Christian traditions maintain a healing ministry but no longer claim, as Augustine did, that all diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to demons and that these can be driven out with prayer and fasting.

HINDUISM

The traditions of Indian religion which most people collectively call ‘Hinduism’ have evolved over many centuries, without a single founder or a single collection of scripture. They include many and varied beliefs, so that believing is not as significant as belonging or behaving or becoming.

Many Hinduisms have largely merged into one. Ninian Smart says, like the trunk of a single tree which rises from a tangle of the most divergent roots. Most of these traditions have become monotheistic, but in a variety of ways – for some believers the 330 million or so deities in the pantheon are manifestations or expressions of the one divinity, as in some passages of the Rig Veda. For others, one god, Shiva or Vishnu, is the supreme god, and other gods are lesser gods or demigods.

Other groups recognise a trinity: Brahma, the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer. Together they represent the forces which are evident in the natural world and in human beings at all times. To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods may be combined in the one form of Lord Dattatreya, who has the faces of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

In the pre-classical period, dominant beliefs were expressed in or developed from the four Vedas. The Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedas, was composed about 1500 BCE and redacted about 600 B.C. The Sama Veda, the Yajur Veda and the Atharva Veda came later. All contain hymns, incantations, and rituals by which man can relate to the gods. The chief gods of the Veda are Indra, the great warrior; Varuna, the lord of the heaven, and Agni, the god of fire.

Sometime around 500 BCE, new traditions developed, including belief in samsara, the cycle of rebirth, and karma, the impact of past actions on the present and the future. The earlier traditions were focused on the priestly class, the Brahmans; now they came to include all classes, so Brahman came to mean the holy power which informs and animates the whole of reality. Sometimes Brahman is identified with Atman, the inner essence of the human being

The new traditions are expressed in the 200 or so Upanishads, the texts which are said to complete the message of the Vedas. In the Upanishads, ritual action and self-control converge in the search for personal liberation from samsara through unity with the Holy One or at least close communion with the holy.

The Upanishads express the unity of all things in many ways, as in these verses from the Isha Upanishad:

The Divine unity
When a man sees all beings
within his very self,
and his self within all beings.
it will not seek to hide from him.
– Isha Upanishad 4.6

In classical Hinduism, which emerged in the second and third centuries BCE, the community of the local temple became more significant, with its fervent sharing in the life of the chosen manifestation of the divine, known as bhakti . Bhakti is the essence of the epic poem the Bhagavad-gita , which was composed around 300BCE to 200 BCE and became the major work of Hindu Scripture, largely supplanting the Vedas and the Upanishads.

In the Bhagavad-Gita the Lord KRSNA presents the mature Hindu understanding of the one God:

The nature of God
My nature is divided eight-fold …
my higher nature know:
It is the Life (soul), great-armed one,
by which this world is maintained. …
Of the whole world I am
the origin and the dissolution too.
– Bhagavad-gita, chapter

The diversity of Hindu beliefs is also seen in the growth of devotion to the Goddess, under various names, such as Durga, Kali and Parvati, each of whom represent different aspects of the goddess – Durga is the unapproachable; Kali the ferocious devourer of time; Parvati the beautiful, the benign, the wife of Siva, whose devoted service to her husband is the model of how man should serve his god.

BUDDHISM

Belief is not as important in Buddhism as in other faiths; Buddhist teachers say that Buddhism is not a religion but a a way of life; Buddhism is pragmatic … as it moves from its heartland it assimilates beliefs and practices from local cultures. So right believing is not as important as right becoming, securing a good rebirth, or escaping from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth by reaching Nirvana, or even as belonging, living as a member of the Buddhist community.

However, to be a Buddhist means believing that Buddha actually lived, and that his teachings are true wisdom; and that all things are impermanent and interdependent. The Buddha’s teachings are known collectively as dharma. They speak of

1. AThe Four Noble Truths
2. The Triple Jewels
3. The Four Reliances and
4. The Four States of Mind for Studying the Dharma

Buddhist teaching aims to enlighten us about ourselves, to respect ourselves and to affirm ourselves. It is humanistic, not theistic – Buddhist teaching speaks of devas or gods, as well as maras or evil spirits, which are evil influences which stand in the way of Buddhist practice and ultimate liberation. The devas inhabit the heavens above the human realm, but are still unenlightened, bound to samsara, the endless cycle of birth and death. Mainstream Buddhism has no concept of the creation of the world, or of a divine Creator. Like all things, the world is subject to the cycle of birth and death.

Religious teachings on belonging, behaving and becoming all stem from the basic beliefs and the Scriptures of each faith.

BELONGING

Judaism sees belonging in at least three ways – firstly, the people belong to God in a covenant relationship; but they also belong to each other on the grounds of race, the sense of a common ancestry, of belonging to a people with a common history, including centuries of communal suffering, and, thirdly, they belong in a local community in one of the varied streams of Judaism -Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Progressive, Reconstructionist, Hasidim or Liberal.

Islam, submission, is a community obligation as well as an individual one. Believers form the one community, although they may be from many nations and tribes. Just as God sent prophets and messengers as witnesses to the Jews and the Christians and then to the Muslims, so the Muslim nation must witness to other nations.

The Greek kuriakios, from which Christians derive the word ‘church’, means ‘belonging to the Lord’, so ‘belonging’ means belonging in the church – the local congregation, and/or a particular denomination or tradition, and/or the ‘one holy, catholic and apostolic church’, as the Nicene Creed puts it. For the early Christians, the church was a spiritual society, the ‘new Israel’, which replaced the Jews as the people of God; all Christians were one in Christ, regardless of race, background or gender; the church was the repository of Christian truth; and nourished its members to enable them to grow in faith and holiness.

In the Hindu traditions ‘belonging’ relates primarily to one’s place in Indian society – the words Hindu, India and the Indus are cognate words – essentially, Hindus are the people of the Indus valley. They belong to the community because they are born into it. Belonging is expressed through the family’s association with a particular temple, or with a particular religious teacher; by their dress, their participation in religious ceremonies and festivals, and by their moral codes and behavioural expectations.

One of the three jewels of Buddhism is the sangha, the Buddhist community. In Chinese Buddhism the sangha is a community of monks and/or nuns, who are the exemplars of the faith. In other traditions the sangha may include lay men and/or women. Whether the sangha is monastic or lay, or a combination of both, belonging means accepting the principles of harmony in truth and harmony of action. The six principles of the sangha: doctrinal harmony, moral harmony, economic harmony, spiritual harmony, verbal harmony and physical harmony.

BEHAVING

A large part of the Jewish Torah is taken up with instructions on how the people should behave towards one another, particularly towards the poorer members of the community, as in the holiness code in Leviticus chapter 19. Behaving is linked with belonging – You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy. (Lev. 19.1). The Torah records the commandments of the Covenant, including the 10 commandments, which are recorded twice, in slightly different forms, and the 613 mitzvot, the lesser commandments and ritual duties and good deeds which are scattered through the text.

For Muslims, ‘behaving’ means following the rules prescribed for the community. Belonging controls behaving. In turn, believing controls belonging. Right behaviour is modelled on the life of Muhammad and his Companions, in the sunnah, the early Muslim community, as recorded in the ahadith, the authentic traditions of Islam. The Qur’an regularly links believing and behaving, as in this passage about the outcome of the Day of Judgment: Surely for those who believe and do righteous deeds, their welcome is Gardens of the highest level of Paradise. Therein will they abide, without desiring any change therefrom. (Qur’an 18: 107-108)

Christians are expected to behave in accordance with their belief that Christ is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (John 14.6). Christians need to study and model their own lives on what Georgia Harkness calls the way of life exemplified and taught by Jesus, applied to the manifold problems and decisions of human existence. (Christian Ethics, 1957 – from web). But Christians are also required to behave in accordance with their belonging, to behave in accordance with the teachings of their church. The issue of conscience versus command has been controversial throughout Christian history.

Many Hindus call their faith sanatana dharma, everlasting dharma. They see Hinduism as a personal map of appropriate behaviour -behaviour which will eliminate mental impurities like greed and egoism and achieve good karma , behaviour which corresponds to the cosmic order in which natural law is grounded. The basic Vedic virtues include truthfulness, nonviolence, austerity, self-control, tranquillity, study and teaching, sincere worship, universal brotherhood and wisdom. These apply to all human beings, but particular behaviours may be required of the five castes and at each of the four stages of life.

The precepts or rules of Buddhism are largely negative, urging restraint from the desires which lead to suffering. So Buddhist teaching on behaving focuses on training to avoid and overcome these desires. A mind that is trained avoids actions that are likely to cause suffering or remorse. The Buddhist text, the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines lists ‘the six perfections of a Bodhisattva’ – the perfection of giving, the perfection of morality, the perfection of patience, the perfection of persistence, the perfection of concentration and the perfection of wisdom.

BECOMING

In traditional Judaism, ‘becoming’ is about becoming a better person in this life, not about the next life. The next life is best left in God’s hands. The reward of good behaving is a longer and better life, rather than the promise of an after-life But, by the Rabbinic period, the resurrection of the dead had become central tenet of Judaism, even if, for many traditional Jews, personal transformation in this life through repentance and commitment to the will of God remained the foundation of the Jewish faith.

In Islam, believing, belonging and behaving become a transformational experience. The self is made fit for paradise, the ultimate reward for those who believe. Three key passages in the Qur’an outline the successive stages. The nafs, the self, which is naturally prone to evil (Q. 12.53), becomes self-accusing (Q. 75.2); in this second stage the self becomes conscious of evil and resists it, asks Al’lah for pardon and reaches for salvation. In the third stage, the soul asks no more than to be at rest in Al’lah (Q. 89.27).

Christians believe that, in some way, their belief in Christ and in his mission as the bearer of salvation transform them into a new person, in mind and spirit, if not in body. The key Scripture is in the Gospel according to John, which quotes Jesus as telling a Jewish teacher that the people of God are not identified by their race, but by their commitment to God – ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being reborn of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3.5-6)

In the traditions of Indian religion, rebirth after death is a fundamental teaching, and the desire to achieve a good rebirth, based on good karma in this life, is the reason for following the prescribed rituals and patterns of behaviour. So behaving determines becoming. Rebirth may be in many forms, including those of animals, and in many heavens and hells. Rebirth as a human is rare, and marks release from samsara, the eternal cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

Two core teachings of Buddhism come together in its doctrine of rebirth – the reality of impermanence and the law of cause and effect. All human beings are caught up in samsara, transmigration, the continuous process of birth, death and rebirth. If they fail to practice the dharma in this life, on or after death they will be reborn in one of the six realms of existence – the realm of hell beings or the realm of hungry ghosts, or the realm of animals (the three unfortunate realms), or perhaps in the realm of human beings, the realm of the demigods or the realm of the gods.

CONCLUSION

The Four Bs does appear to provide a new framework for comparing and contrasting the main traditions of institutional religion, perhaps of all religious traditions. They appear to have major differences in two Bs, believing and becoming, but a good deal in common in belonging and behaving. The more I read and speak with teachers of the major faiths, the more the differences become significant. Yet the beliefs and behaviours of religious people generally are so different from dominant secular beliefs and values that people of faith might be seen as forming a sub-culture within globalising world culture. The Melbourne scholar Ken Gelder argues that

‘subcultures are social, with their own shared conventions, values and rituals, but they can also seem “immersed” or self-absorbed; a feature that distinguishes them from countercultures’.

– Ken Gelder Subcultures: cultural histories and social practice 2007 p2.

Simply by believing in the numinous in any form, and belonging to a religious group, and behaving in accordance with religious teaching and becoming a better person as a result may make what believers have in common much more significant than anything that separates them. Already there are signs that religious believers, whatever their faith allegiance, are willing to stand together, both against the excesses of a dominantly secular society and the excesses of religious fundamentalism.

Dr Douglas Golding is a post-doctoral research scholar of the sociology of religion living in Sydney, Australia. He has taken part in many inter-faith discussions and given papers at a number of international conferences – in Oxford, Tokyo, Stockholm, Manila, Auckland and Tehran as well as in Sydney. He is currently teaching adult education classes in religion and history at two universities and working on his book on the ‘Four Bs’.

‘Peaceful coexistence is the most important project of our era. But we cannot do it alone or in isolation; we must do it together.’

The world has become very small.

Mass communications, mass travel, and economic interdependence have created a contemporary world in which we as individuals and groups no longer can live in isolation from other groups as well as we could have in previous periods. Nations and groups of people who barely knew of each other now see each other’s lives and worlds in living color and in real time through television and the internet. Governments who counted on secrecy and submission just a few years ago now find themselves humbled, bewildered, and even overthrown through mass communications that broadcast their tyrannical deeds—and the bravery of those who resist them—to the entire world. Regions who thrived in their own prosperity in isolation from the poverty and stagnation of other regions now find their economies racked by volatility as globalism ties the purse strings of world commerce together into complicated knots.

The world has become small, and we are with each other—knowing of, affecting, and interacting with each other—more than we ever have in the history of the world. And we are not the same. Yes, we are all human beings. Yes, all of us are subject to the universal conditions of human existence like uncertainty, change, loss, and death. But how we deal with those conditions and what we make them mean depends in large part on our distinctive cultures, backgrounds, languages, and histories. Herein lie the differences in the human family. We do not think the same. We don’t pray to the same gods. We don’t choose the same cultural values. We don’t share specific histories. We interpret the world, and ourselves in it, in very different ways.

Given these differences, how can we all live together? Is peaceful coexistence possible globally, regionally, or even within one family? If so, what are the necessary components that create it? In other words, what are the preconditions—philosophically, socially, politically, culturally, or otherwise—for peaceful coexistence among different people? These are powerful and complex questions that require asking even more questions in order to answer.

First we must ask questions of history.

Have we as human beings ever lived together peacefully? Have people of very different faiths, for example, ever lived with each other for a sustained period of time without seeking to oppress or eradicate each other? Answering these questions requires a significant and thorough study of world history.

If we determine that sustained peaceful coexistence has been achieved in certain situations—for example, under the Ottomans in the fifteenth century, or in thirteenth-century Spain—we must further determine what factors allowed that coexistence to occur. What were the specific conditions—economic, political, social, cultural, etc.—that made that coexistence possible? These conditions and factors are myriad; to distinguish them so that they can be meaningful to us today requires intensive analysis from highly skilled and knowledgeable individuals.

Once distinguished, can the conditions that made peaceful coexistence possible elsewhere and in a different era be transported to the present time, into a current situation of conflict and violence? Can the conditions be recreated today, the present time, although taken from the past? This may seem simple, but it is not. People change from era to era. Notions of what is permissible, moral, and just change over time even within one culture, much more across cultures. What worked in a previous period, in terms of a conception of societal harmony and justice, cannot simply be picked up and moved into a new era with different notions of morality, truth, society, etc. Things must be translated first, and even before being translated, we must determine if the factors in question can be translated at all. Worldviews may have changed so much in the intervening centuries that they no longer work as viable concepts for today.

If certain conditions and factors that generate peaceful coexistence can be translated from the past into today’s world, they must then be implemented socially, culturally, politically, economically, and legally. In many instances, this will require a fundamental overhaul of current socio-political systems. Transformations of this nature are daunting simply because of their sheer magnitude. Moreover, such societal transformations contain within them the seeds for violence and injustice. They rarely happen without conflict. Implementation of new societal structures must happen in a way that minimizes or omits opportunities for breakdown, violence, and retribution from those who may feel left out or trampled upon by the changes. Otherwise, the implementation of a new system for peaceful coexistence ends up perpetuating yet more violent conflict.

These are the questions we must ask of history. But we cannot stop there. We must also ask questions of the religions.

What is the general stance of our religious traditions to those who do not share its beliefs and commitments? Does it demand eradication of all contrary belief systems and the people who propagate them? Or does it request accommodation of ‘the stranger,’ or those who believe and live differently? In short, do people of faith ground themselves into patterns of tolerance or intolerance as they root themselves in their faith traditions?

These are difficult questions to answer because the religions themselves, as historical entities that grow and change over time, sometimes seem to have multiple ways of being with regard to peaceful coexistence. Over the centuries, adherents of the largest two religions in the world—Christianity and Islam—have lived both peacefully and non-peacefully with each other, and with people of other religions they encountered. Certainly, the teachings of both religions encourage peaceful coexistence in their respective sacred texts and traditions. However, both these religions also have suffered violent expression in the hands of those who either ignore the teachings of coexistence, or twist the teachings to justify violence and terror.

Whatever our religious traditions were intended to be, the fact is that historically they have been used to perpetrate some of the worst imaginable violence ever created in the human family. And we have to face this hard fact with courage, and with resolve to enlist our religious traditions as major players in the project of peaceful coexistence.

The potential for religious conflict in society is the chief reason why societies that have achieved peaceful coexistence to any extent champion religious tolerance as a chief civic virtue, and they actually implement that virtue into society culturally and legally. Given the diverse and absolute claims of many religious and moral traditions, tolerance is really all we can ask of people. We cannot, in a truly pluralistic society, expect morally committed or devout persons to embrace or to celebrate practices that they, due to their faith or ethics, consider to be sinful, heretical, or abhorrent. We cannot expect them to acknowledge the legitimacy of gods, or modes of worship, or ways of life they consider to be false. To expect this in the realm of religion is to be fundamentally intolerant. We cannot advocate, in the name of tolerance, a society that tolerates everything but certain forms of traditional religious or moral conviction.

Tolerance, then, is the capacity to put up with or to accommodate ideas, beliefs, and behaviors that one finds deeply problematic, and is society’s most essential civic virtue, especially in societies as ethnically, religiously, and racially diverse as many countries are becoming in this period of globalization. Daily life in such societies simply will not move along if the citizenry cannot practice basic tolerance. Of course, simply gritting our teeth and grudgingly putting up with others we don’t like or with whom we disagree is the low-water mark of societal growth. Ideally, we would grow to a place of greater understanding and appreciation for those who are radically different from us, even if we still do not accept or agree with their beliefs or practices. Sometimes, however, basic tolerance, especially in matters of religion, is the best we can do.

These are the questions we must ask of our religions. But we cannot stop here, either. We must also ask questions of ourselves.

We must search ourselves and examine our hearts. Are we really committed to living together with people who are different from us? Do we really accept the fact that we as people will never all believe, think, pray, live, or act the same—and that we just have to deal with it? Or do we resent these ‘facts on the ground’ and spend our efforts trying to coerce others or force them into changing to be more like us? Or, having given up on making other people like us, do we isolate ourselves into enclaves of sameness and construct the daily arc of our lives so that we don’t have to encounter many people who are different from us?

Part of the reason why achieving peaceful coexistence is so challenging has to do with individuals. All the legal, cultural, and societal structures that support peaceful coexistence may be in place; however, they will fail to show results unless one thing is true—people genuinely must want to live in peace. This is not a given. While we may think, and commonly say, that all people really want is to live in peace, this is not true. Not everyone wants to live in peace. Often people put qualifiers to the prospects for peace in their lives and worlds. For example, they say, ‘I want peace in my region, but not if it means giving up any of our land.’ Or, ‘I want peace in the region, but we cannot allow attacks on our national honor.’ In other words, we say we want peace, but not if it means we have to give up something that we deem more important than peace. Many of us value other things more than peace.

Even in our personal lives, in our relationships with family and friends, we often keep grudges and enmities in place for years and years despite many opportunities to do away with them and create peace. Why? Because we would have to give up something that we value more than peace, in order to achieve peace in that situation—a feeling of being right, a sense of superiority, the perverse joy we take in condemning other people or groups, and other things. We have to let go of these types of things to create peace, yet we often prefer them to peace. So, the conflict and tension endure year after year, and all the while we are saying, to ourselves and to others, that we want peace. We are not being honest about the situation. We value other things more than peace.

Ultimately, achieving peaceful coexistence at the individual, interpersonal level has to do with a person’s capacity for difference. How comfortable are we with people who are different from us? Do we feel threatened by them? Do we feel nervous around them? Or, can we be relaxed and comfortable within ourselves even when surrounded by people who believe, look, and act differently than us? Today’s global world demands all of us to expand our inner capacities for difference, so that we are not easily threatened by people who are not exactly like us. All of us must stretch our comfort zones beyond their current boundaries.

These are the hard, searching questions we must ask ourselves.

Only when we give ourselves authentically to these questions with a view toward creating sustained, peaceful coexistence will we have a future worth living for. Moreover, all of us must do this work together—religious and secular, liberals and conservatives—all of us. Otherwise, the forces of globalization that have made our world smaller will bring with it new and more barbaric forms of hatred, oppression, and violence.

Achieving peaceful coexistence is, then, the most important project of our era. And we must give ourselves to it wholly, with our fullest capacities for knowledge and understanding, with our truest intentions for truth and justice, and with our bravest strengths in order to journey through the challenges and difficulties that the process entails. We most certainly can do it. But we cannot do it alone or in isolation; we must do it together.

As the only Muslim woman in the room, outside their prayer circle, I was there to observe their prayer session by the invitation of my friend C. As they sighed and tried to find words to console and inspire one another, I could feel their despair about creating a more peaceful and understanding world. They were truly concerned about America’s position in maintaining peace in the world, but after the events of the last decade, they ran out of hope.

When they don’t have hope, what could they pray for?

Pitched into this darkness, I heard myself say, ‘Well, actually, I am feeling hope.’ There was an uneasy creak of folding chairs and tired faces. Their looks said, ‘Please, not another voice of denial…’ but they were kind enough to listen to what I had to say. ‘I think America has the greatest potential for peace,’ I continued. Glimmers of candlelight played across the eyes in the room. Having heard a Muslim woman say this was new for them.

‘Well, I think so because…’ I paused for a moment to search for the right words, and continued, ‘… because it all began with French fries.’ Once I saw their puzzled faces and the half smiles playing on their lips, I knew I had caught their attention to tell them my story. When I saw, for the first time, people calmly dipping individual fries into cups of ketchup with bare fingers, I had just arrived in America to go to the graduate school. I couldn’t believe that they used no forks, no toothpicks—just eating greasy fries with their bare hands. How crude, I thought. But then another foreign student from Morocco shared with me that in her country, people ate with their hands, too, and that eating with one’s hands enhances the flavor of the food. I saw her, also for the first time in my life, enjoy chicken biryani with her fingers. It was my first glimpse of just how wide the world was. It was the fragrance of my own budding tolerance.

After I saw how eager they were to hear about it, I continued my story. I told them I had come to the United States ten years before, on a college scholarship from Turkey. I’ll be honest. Before coming to America, I had never spoken to a person who was not Muslim, much less shared a meal with them. But here, in America, where I met fellow graduate students from India, China, Africa and Europe, I experienced first-hand that we could all live and eat in our own unique ways, learning side by side, and live in peace. My tolerance grew.

Then I walked in to the Islamic Center of the city I lived in. I saw different Muslims, from around the world, in different clothing, of different races, speaking different languages, bowing down in reverent prayer side by side. All those differences seemed like jewels and beads on an elegant dress, enriching and beautifying the fabric in harmony. It was a vision, and witnessing it, I felt such a profound peace. I thought, though they, my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, dress or talk and eat differently, we all bow down in front of God the same way. We are all the same in the important stuff, and only different in the minor issues. What significance does it have if one eats with their hands, with a fork, or with a couple of chopsticks?

In later years, I was blown away when I witnessed how Christians worshipped at my friend B’s church. They sing, listen to the sermon, read passages from the Bible, which is considered a holy book in Islam and to be respected, and they get connected with the God. And when I noticed how the stories, values, and traditions we claim as ours were also shared by them, my first image of Americans collapsed completely. Before I came to this country, the only Americans I knew were from the movies and soap operas. Naturally, I thought all American women were blond, tall, and beautiful, and all the American men were tall, rich, and handsome. They didn’t have any financial problems, health problems, or any real-life problems; they had only relationship problems and cared about no one but themselves. This was the image in my head about Americans. How wrong I was! I was surprised and fascinated when I observed my friend B’s church worship, when I came together with other families from my son’s school for play dates, or when our neighbors invited us to their Thanksgiving dinner, and also when they came to ours for a Ramadan iftar. It came to me in a flash: Americans have similar family values, religious values, holiday traditions, and love and compassion for their neighbors, just as we do. They are not actors in a soap opera!

What is more, they welcome thousands of foreign students, scholars, refugees, and immigrants from many different countries around the globe each year. Every year Americans are exposed to many cultures, languages, and faith traditions, and hardly anyone is jumping down anybody’s throat for being different. Of course, there are occasional negative comments toward what is different, but even then, most people come together to neutralize that negativity with support and compassion. Different is viewed as richness, as variety, and as interesting. My own tolerance and appreciation of other cultures blossomed because of these experiences.

The United States can have a great ability to bring about peace, as I shared with the ladies that night, because American culture is already open, tolerant of religious freedom, and welcoming to people around the globe. These are the perfect ingredients for peace. America has the power to wage peace in other countries, not with war or fear, but with goodness, faith, acceptance, and aid, to build hospitals and schools, and create jobs and programs that acknowledge human rights and generate good will.

America has long been a mixed salad. Its unique blend of people from around the world, stirred together with mingling flavors, develops a taste for tolerance, for freedom, for the savory experience of diverse cultures living together. May our prayer in this post-9/11 world be this: that we move beyond the ineffectual and destructive politics of warfare and fear, and hold fast to the goodness and power of this nation’s moral tolerance, constitutional freedoms, and potential for peace. God has created us with this potential. More powerful than any military force, I hope my experiences of tolerance and good will in the United States offered a recipe for hope for my friends that night.

We encountered Judaism at the local synagogue, Hinduism at a Vishnu temple in a nearby city, and Islam at a mosque in the suburbs. We could also have studied Buddhism, Sikhism, and two other branches of Hinduism since there was a meditation society, a Gurdwara, and Shirdi and Jain temples in the city, as well as five additional mosques. Religious pluralism surrounded us, but we knew nothing about it because religious dialogue was not an ordinary activity.

Since taking students on such interfaith field visits was not common practice at the time, it stirred a mix of reactions. Many students approached the project with eager curiosity; they were rainbow optimists, following an arc of hope and expecting good at its end. Other students were reluctant, apprehensive, and afraid of the unknown; they armed themselves with intellectual rocks of protection for their worldview. Some parents even called my office to express their concern about the nature and purpose of such study for their children. Could curiosity weaken their child’s faith, the parents wondered. Even though religious pluralism has been a reality throughout human history, and is certainly an element of our societies today, for many people, then as now, it has remained a distant reality, remote from the routines of daily life. When the opportunity for an interreligious encounter is offered, it can evoke both curiosity and fear. As human beings we are equipped to wonder about and seek the new or unknown, but we are also endowed with a certain caution about, even fear, of what is different. Both of these reactions have characterized the debate about religious dialogue today, often to the irritation of one another, as students have encountered in classes. But both of these approaches have something important to share and should be heard.

Enthusiasts for religious dialogue bring a desire for mutual enrichment and learning, and a confidence that coming to know one another better will bring benefits for all. The rock-wielding cautious fear that interreligious dialogue is a dangerous and misguided endeavor brings a deep sense of what is treasured and unique in our own traditions that must not be lost or sacrificed to the inevitable encounter. In listening to the concerns and hopes raised by both voices, it can become clearer what interreligious dialogue is not and also what it is intended to be; caution and enthusiasm together can shape encounters among various believers that are fruitful and inspirational.

The mirror of dialogue A frequent concern raised about dialogue is that it will be a disguised effort at proselytizing for conversions to one faith or another. This is certainly not the intention of genuine interreligious dialogue, and this approach should not be brought to the table of dialogue. Faithful and committed believers of a religious tradition are asked to respect the faithful believers of other religious traditions who share a similar devotion and joy in their commitments.

The holy Qur’an states, ‘O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another.’ (49:13) The Roman Catholic Church also exhorts her members that ‘through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions…they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among them.’ (Nostra Aetate, 2)

Of course, believers engaged in dialogue will explain with great enthusiasm the faith that they hold dear, but the primary goal of interreligious dialogue is simply to listen to and come to know others. Far from converting believers away from their faith, interreligious experiences usually deepen original commitments. It has been suggested that ‘those who know only one, know none.’ In comprehending another faith, we come to a far deeper understanding and appreciation of our own belief. In our reflection in the Other, we come to see ourselves anew.

In my own experience over the years, leading dozens of classes on field visits to various houses of worship, I observe similar outcomes each time. Though the fear of parents that their children might be lured into a conversion by a persuasive speaker would seem to have even more ground today, since students often have very little religious knowledge when entering the classroom, the common response of students is not conversion to a new tradition but rather a renewed interest in the faith traditions of their own families. Even when students have been raised by their parents to make their own choice, as if a faith tradition were simply a matter of consumer preference in the marketplace, I have found that they want to ‘come home.’ If home does not provide much religious substance, to find spiritual roots students are more likely to turn to their grandparents than to convert simply because of exposure to a new tradition.

Not the baking method Sometimes the cautious question if interreligious dialogue is aiming to bring religions together in a way that creates a new and improved religion, a combination of the ‘best of all,’ so to speak. The technical term for this is syncretism, but it is also (derisively) known as the ‘baking method’—take a little of this and a little of that and a little more of something else and bake it into a new tasty religion for all to follow. This approach, too, is certainly not an element of genuine interreligious dialogue but rather is an attitude born in the individualism of consumer culture—finding something that suits my taste. True interreligious dialogue takes places among faithful and committed believers of established religious traditions who intend to remain that way. It is not a casual comparison of recipes, but a sincere effort to know one another as we are.

Again, in my own field visit experience with classes, it is precisely when faced with the devotion of a believing community at worship that students are inspired to look at their own tradition to see what they have missed. The prayer practice of Islam has led students to discover the Angelus and the Liturgy of the Hours in the Catholic tradition, or the practice of daily scripture devotion in other Christian traditions. This is not syncretism, but rather interfaith inspiration that strengthens.

But can we disagree? Two other objections I have heard raised about dialogue seem to be from opposite sides of the same coin. First, some fear that participants from other traditions will judge our beliefs or practices and condemn them unfairly because they are based in a different set of values or cultural apprehension. The second worry is that as we listen to others we may hear some things with which we profoundly disagree but, prevented from expressing this by the ‘etiquette’ of dialogue, be reduced to tacitly supporting relativism. I believe the question raised by both objections is essentially the same—where is Truth to be found and how do we act upon it? Can we truly listen to one another without discovering all the places we disagree? And what then do we do with that disagreement?

In response to these foundational questions, two points must be kept in mind. One is that each of us has the human obligation to sincerely seek for Truth, for the objective reality at the heart of the universe. This will necessarily entail that we must make judgments for ourselves in regard to various Truth claims. However, it is important to be clear that the basic purpose of interreligious dialogue is simply coming to know and understand those varied claims made by religious traditions; we are not expecting to reach agreement on them in regard to religious doctrine or practice.

The second point clarifies this further. In coming to know one another we may find real and significant differences in the lived moral consequences of our beliefs and practices. It is very important to remember that we do not grapple with these differences in interreligious dialogue. Rather, the proper sphere for that work is in political debate. In a multicultural democracy we engage one another in political discussion, convincing one another of the value and efficacy of our moral vision and why it should prevail in law. It is at the table of interreligious dialogue that we come to understand one another, but it is at the table of political discourse that we try to persuade one another, not for a religious conversion to our Truth claims, but for a moral consensus regarding lived values. The conversation at each table is better because of the work of the other.

Wisdom of the heart With these cautions and clarifications in mind, we are better able to hear the enthusiasts in explaining the benefits of dialogue. At center is the inspiration that dialogue can renew our own spirituality. I certainly see this result in the classroom. Most parents have encountered a stage in their adolescent children’s development when they listen to advice with greater openness if it comes from someone other than their parents. Interreligious experience is a similar inspiration, and not just to questioning teens, but to developed believers as well. Hearing others share their deepest convictions about the Divine can renew the vigor of our own quest for holiness. Often in dialogue our hearts meet before our heads agree and we find that it is in the wisdom of the heart that God’s presence is made known. Understanding one another and how very much our traditions hold in common can bring mutual enrichment on local and global levels as well. Citizens in society are better equipped to live in peace and work for justice when they have had interreligious encounters to share and learn about one another. Prejudice is exposed and broken. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, I received several email messages from former students who expressed their gratitude for the field visits they had made to mosques in earlier years. Having met Muslims as prayerful, welcoming human beings was helping them, at that difficult national moment, to share with others that Islam is not a religion of terrorism and all Muslims were not responsible for, nor rejoiced in, the events of that tragedy. They were able to be voices of peace in the midst of great national confusion.

Sustained encounters When it is possible for interreligious dialogue to become a sustained encounter among individuals or groups, over time it can begin to reshape those who participate in profound and beautiful ways. Though most of my students are only able to have one or two field experiences during their study, I am privileged to be on every trip, returning year after year and building friendships with the generous believers who host our visits. The encounters have gradually ceased to be between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ learning about their ways and teaching them our ways. Instead, as we have continued to listen and share, we find ourselves becoming a ‘we’ in our common humanity, a commonality that honors, and yet also transcends the differences of culture and faith, of geography and economics. I am deeply grateful to my dialogue partners for the depth and strength they have added to my own faith journey.

Religious pluralism is a reality; it surrounds us and permeates the culture. But interreligious dialogue is a choice. Burying our heads in the sand and throwing rocks when we come up for air will not change anyone’s heart, including our own. Instead we can choose to move toward a mind of greater perception, a heart of greater love, a world of greater peace, by accepting the invitation to know one another, carefully and respectfully crossing the arc of dialogue into mutual understanding.

Frances M. Leap is associate professor of religious studies at Seton Hill University in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.

In the winter of 2007, I met Dr. Ayse Coskun at a Turkish Women’s Coffee Night at the Raindrop Foundation in Houston, Texas. I had been attending the Coffee Nights for a few months and mentioned to Dr Coskun that, while I enjoyed the social events, I found myself wanting to go deeper. I did not want to take classes exactly; instead, I wanted to do interfaith dialogue in an informal rather than an academic setting. Almost immediately Dr. Coskun suggested that we meet for lunch. We lunched together several times: an American Christian and a Turkish Muslim at an Asian-fusion restaurant with statues of Buddha as decoration! I was charmed by Dr. Coskun’s openness, humor, and obvious intellect. Ayse made me feel comfortable, and she seemed to enjoy me as much as I did her. God’s blessing was with us as we laughed and planned.

Ayse and I decided to contact women from diverse faith traditions to see if they might like to share our interest in learning about one another’s religious perspectives. We agreed that our group should be small (8-12 women) and consist, at least at first, of only people from Abrahamic traditions (to simplify matters). We also decided that our “experiment” would have a time limit (8 months, meeting 2 hours each month) so that those we invited would not have to make an indefinite commitment. To my shame, Ayse had to do all the inviting, because I knew only Presbyterians! Ayse invited another Muslim woman (new to Houston, but familiar with interfaith dialogue). She also invited a young Roman Catholic woman and a Conservative Jewish chaplain, who in turn invited another Jewish woman. Rounding out the group was a member of the Unity Church of Christianity and two others who had explored a variety of other traditions. Later a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) seminary professor and another Roman Catholic joined us.

At our first meeting I experienced no awkwardness or hesitation. Each woman listened to the others with delight and respect. Our meeting did tend to be a bit chaotic, not because we were disorderly but because we were extremely curious. It was like wandering through a magical forest with a group of precocious children; everyone had unusual questions and surprising insights. (Fortunately Dr. Coskun would, after one of our diversions, gently but firmly coax us back to the topic at hand.)

Gradually we created an agenda, but even that was adjusted (or ignored) as situations drew us in different directions. For example, at first we began and closed our meetings with prayers offered by individuals who represented various traditions; we heard prayers in Hebrew, in Arabic, and from St. Francis and St. Augustine. In time however, while we still closed with prayer by an individual, we began to open our meetings with a unison prayer written by our Jewish chaplain (see sidebar), because it seemed to speak directly to what we were about.

Our agenda also began to include a time for sharing personal concerns, because we realized that we wanted to know one another as persons, not simply as “token” Jews, Presbyterians, etc. Therefore, when Dr. Coskun told us during a recent Personal Concerns Time (PCT) that she had to return to Turkey to help care for her ailing mother, we were able to respond immediately. We asked her to teach us a Turkish prayer for healing and promised to pray daily for her mother. It was during our PCT that the Jewish Chaplain told of bombing threats to her synagogue and a Catholic told of several instances of vandalism at her church. One of our group then volunteered to draft a letter as a basis for correspondence that might be sent to all places of worship that receive threats or damage. Often our Personal Concerns Time lasts only briefly; sometimes, as in the above cases, it leads to prayer and action.

The major portion of our meetings has consisted of sharing parts of our scriptures, giving overviews of our various faith traditions, or considering a specific issue from the point of view of our culture and faith. We have also laughed together, eaten together, and spent time exploring the kosher kitchens and touching the beautiful Torah scrolls at a synagogue. Most importantly, we have talked about topics that probably would not have been included in an academic setting. For example, the subject of our last meeting was “Mothers.” We first wrote down adjectives describing our own mothers and found that, despite our different cultures, many of our mothers could be described similarly: selfless, loving, forgiving, religious, and stoic amidst difficulty.

As we turned to what our various faith traditions had to say about mothers, most of us quoted from our scriptures. The Muslims pointed to the section of the Qur’an that dealt with justice, citing many passages about the high respect given to mothers in Islam, respect even above that given to fathers. Mothers (as well as fathers) are to be obeyed in all matters except when obedience would go against service to Allah or might bring harm to someone else. According to Muslim law, children are not to argue with or even say “oof” to a mother. Mothers (and sisters as well) are to be cared for financially by the eldest son. There are also rules governing the benevolent treatment of widows, orphans and stepmothers.

The Roman Catholics pointed to the importance of the Virgin Mary. Mary is considered to be not only the mother of Jesus but also the Queen of Heaven and, given Jesus’ instructions from the cross, the mother of all Christians: “Woman, behold your son; . . . Son, behold your mother” (John 19). While Catholics do not worship Mary, women, in particular, pray to her because Mary experienced the problems and pain of being a girl, a young mother, and a grieving mother, all the while being faithful to what God required of her.

Jewish contributions to the discussion included the law to “Honor your father and mother.” Depending upon how one interprets that law, it can be considered more strict or less strict than the Muslim “Obey your father and mother.” Jews stress the importance of “honoring” parents, even if the parents are abusive and cannot be “loved.” Many stories in Hebrew scripture extol good mothers (Moses’ mother who risked her life that her son might live (Exodus 2), and the mother in I Kings 3, who chose to give her child to another rather than have him cut in two. Many of the Jewish laws regarding the Sabbath apply only to men, because women are the keepers of the family and must be free to do unexpected chores if needed. Unfortunately, in recent years, Jewish comedians have made their mothers the object of jokes; damaging stereotypes have arisen from this practice.

While the Protestants hold Jesus’ mother in high esteem, they do not have the same special feelings about Mary as do Catholics. In general, the Protestants had less to add about mothers, except the household code in Ephesians 5, which is St. Paul’s list of reciprocal responsibilities for family members. The Protestants pointed out, however, that portions of the household code (“Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord”) have been emphasized while other portions (“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”) have been less emphasized, with the result that women (even wives and mothers) have often been devalued in Christian culture.

The above discussion was particularly pertinent to us women, but given that we added intimate stories about our own mothers and laughed (with a degree of sadness and shame) at the jokes about Jewish mothers, the session would probably have informed/entertained men as well. Our conversation went so long that we had to delete the Business portion of our meeting. And we all agreed that the talk of “Mothers” needed to be expanded to include religious perspectives on women in general. We are also eager to tackle topics such as “Weddings and Funerals,” “Art, Music, and Poetry,” and “Angels and Jinns.”

Early in our time together we decided to call ourselves WIN (Women’s Interfaith Network). As well as describing what we hope to be, the acronym is appropriate because we feel like we are “winners” already, having enjoyed one another these past months. We will probably never completely understand one another’s faith or customs, but we have come to appreciate and trust one another. Perhaps appreciation and trust is even more important than understanding because, while the latter connotes mainly an intellectual connection, the former implies that one sees the reflection of God in the other. For myself, I now even see the others differently in a physical sense: the younger women seem more beautiful, even radiant; and the older women seem both softer and stronger. All have become persons I admire, and I thank God for the blessing of their good and energetic presences in the world.

Before the end of our committed time, several have expressed an interest in continuing and expanding the group. In fact, even before our experiment was half over, several wanted to add friends-an indication of how valuable and enriching we think WIN has been. We have begun work on Mission and Vision Statements and are brain-storming about how best to proceed. As WIN members have offered their ideas, I have begun to see how our special relationship might benefit the community around us. I have also begun to understand in a tangible way that, while I often pray for peace in the larger world, God’s will towards that goal includes small efforts of people like those in WIN, joining to live out peace on a local level.

Truly, both as a group and as individual women, WIN has been God’s special blessing to me.

“Borei Ha’ Olam, Creator of the stars, sun and moon,

“We are mindful of Your world and our responsibilities to it. Bless all who gather here today that we might become leaders of change and visionaries of human rights and freedom. Sustain us with courage and endurance that we may sustain one another. Renew our hopes and heal our wounds.

“Compassionate and merciful God, may the joy and celebration of this occasion remain as a source of inspiration and dedication to pursue higher ideals for many years to come. We seek Your guidance so that we might have the courage to advance the cause of internalizing oneness and thereby spread God’s shelter of peace and dignity for all humankind.

“Let us find unity in the commonality of our searching and in the sameness of our quest for peace and equality for all. Amen.”

A prayer written by Jewish Chaplain Bobbie Osadchey and prayed in unison at the open of each WIN meeting.

There are a great many similarities between the three monotheistic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The central goal of the religious journey in these Abrahamic traditions is to acknowledge the Creator and to love Him by obeying His wise and compassionate guidance. A common area where almost all the doctrines of the three traditions are overlapping is unquestionably “morals.” Decency, chastity, modesty, righteousness, and purity are virtues that believers are encouraged and required to struggle to achieve.

When people look at Muslim women who wear a headscarf, usually they only notice the headscarf as being different than Western-style clothing. Many believers who wear a headscarf prefer to use the term “modest dress” since it captures the essence of the practice better. Modest dress is prescribed to both men and women in the Qur’an. The general guidelines include covering certain parts of the body, wearing loose and non-transparent clothing to conceal the silhouette, and to dress in such a way as not to draw attention to one’s self. Modest clothing and covering the body is enjoined for men as well as for women; men are advised to cover at least between the knees and the navel, whereas for women the only parts that can be revealed are the face, hands, and feet. This difference is solely due to the physical nature and attractiveness of the female body, and should not be misinterpreted as gender inequality. Still, most men prefer to cover themselves from head to toe especially during prayer as a sign of respect in the presence of God Almighty.

Nevertheless, some people have a hard time grasping why the hair is so important. First, the hair is only one of the many parts that need to be covered. Second, if hair was not so attractive, women would not spend hours in front of the mirror or spend hundreds of dollars to make their hair pretty! However, the concept of covering in Islam is not restricted to only the headscarf, which would be undermining the meaning and effect of this practice. The underlying principle is to keep your beauty to yourself, your spouse, and those of the same sex, so that you will not be viewed as an “object.” The ultimate goal is to be modest before God and other human beings. Western feminists contend that one of the greatest problems of our age is the reduction of women to mere objects that are valued only for their physical beauty. I must add, though, that in Islam, physical beauty and marital relations are not viewed as a sin or something to be ashamed of. They are a gift of God and we are to enjoy them within the limits prescribed by God.

In the Qur’an, God has commanded believing men and believing women to act in certain ways to avoid indecent interaction with the opposite sex, which has great repercussions for individuals and society in this world and the Hereafter. Islam is a religion of prevention and protection, rather than a religion of punishment. All aspects of Islamic law aim to prevent sin in order to avoid punishment that would otherwise be necessary to ensure perfect justice. (It is also important to point out that in Islam, sin is regarded as a transgression against one’s self or a state of being away from God and acting contrary to our own nature) In other words, God knows His creatures and their weaknesses best and lays down guidelines to keep them from sinning because of His love and mercy for His creatures. Modest dress also has the same logic and nature. God has commanded it in the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad implemented it in his life and taught it to his followers for sound and compelling reasons.

The practice of wearing modest dress existed in various cultures and religions prior to the advent of Islam. Hence Islam did not invent the covering of one’s hair or modest dress in general. Veiling (I use the term here to refer to wearing a headscarf and not to covering the face as the term “veil” may also connote) was a common practice in the Byzantine Empire during the Hellenistic era and also among the Sassanids of Persia. The veil was a sign of respectability and high status and was used to distinguish noblewomen from slaves and unchaste women who were not allowed to cover their heads. Subsequently, the practice was established in the Judaic and Christian systems ¹ and the Arabic peninsula at large (even prior to the advent of Islam).

Judaic doctrines and traditions have emphasized the covering of hair and modest dress throughout history. Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since it is considered nudity. ² Jewish women in Europe wore the headscarf until the end of the nineteenth century when the pressures of a secular society triumphed over religion. Today, many Jewish women cover their hair in synagogues, yet only certain sects such as Hasidic Jews continue the practice in everyday life by wearing a wig.

The place of veiling in Christianity is as prevalent as in Judaism. The most obvious sign is the modest dress nuns have been wearing for centuries. Veiling was part of the Christian tradition, not exclusively for nuns: “And Rebekah lifted up her eyes and when she saw Isaac… she took her veil and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). The Catholic Church had a canon up until the 1950s requiring women to cover their hair inside a church. Certain Christian denominations such as the Amish and the Mennonites still retain a head covering for women.

Likewise, there is a strong connection between clothing, modesty, and morality in Islam. Thus, the concept of modesty extends beyond mere clothing and encompasses austere manners. This ideal code of conduct and modest dress are required from both men and women. There is strong emphasis on the protection of people’s dignity in the Qur’an. (For instance, assaulting someone with words or slander is a grave transgression.) One of the most compelling reasons for modest dress in the Qur’an is modesty and to protect women from molestation. It is not a sign of male superiority or of high status, as was the case in ancient societies.

And tell the believing women that they (also) should restrain their gaze (from looking at the men whom it is lawful for them to marry, and from others’ private parts), and guard their private parts, and that they should not display their charms except that which is revealed of itself; and let them draw their veils over their bosoms, and (tell them) not to display their charms to any save their husbands, or their fathers (and grandfathers and both paternal and maternal uncles), or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands (both their own and stepsons and grandsons), or their brothers (and foster- and step-brothers), or the sons of their brothers, or the sons of their sisters, or the Muslim women and the women of good conduct with whom they associate, or those their right hands possess, or the male attendants in their service free of sexual desire, or children that are as yet unaware of femininity. Nor should they stamp their feet (i.e. act in such a manner as) to draw attention to their charms (and arouse passion of men). And O believers, turn to God all together in repentance that you may attain true prosperity. (Nur 24:31)

Reasons for wearing modest dress

First and foremost, it is essential to know that “There is no compulsion in religion” (Baqara 2: 256). Faith is a personal matter between a believer and her Creator. Likewise, choosing to put one’s faith into practice is a natural outcome of the believer’s spiritual journey. I decided to start wearing the headscarf after about two years of soul searching.

Despite being raised in a Muslim family and a predominantly Muslim society, I was taken by the numerous positivist philosophies sweeping away the young generations. I did have a vague belief in God that I never really thought about or confirmed in my heart and my mind. Hence, I did not really know what I believed in and why, which made it all the easier to drift away on the currents of disbelief. I cannot thank God enough though for bringing certain seemingly difficult incidents into my life that forced me to question who I was and where I was going.

As a matter of fact, every person is endowed with the inner urge to find meaning in his or her existence. If and when we choose not to shut off these existential questions and try to find satisfying answers, our personal quest for our Creator begins. We are all given numerous faculties, such as our mind, heart, senses, and so forth, that are meant to be used in this quest. By observing the universe and our own continuous creation, we can witness that there is no deity but God, and that He is the Creator of causes and effects simultaneously. This confirmation compels us to heed the message of God (the scriptures) and to read it with an open mind and heart to verify its truth. Once we confirm that the Qur’an is indeed our Creator’s message sent to us personally to inform us of the purpose of our creation, then our worldview is transformed. In a way, the Qur’an is like a manual. It is “our” manual, teaching us how best to use our faculties and our lives. God is telling us why and how He creates us (what our reality is) and what sort of attitude and conduct is in harmony with our creation (our nature, fitrah). If we follow His recommendations, which are glad tidings (bushra), we will be at peace with ourselves and the universe. He also warns us that when we do not follow the instructions in the manual, we may harm ourselves. In other words, we will be unhappy and live in a “hellish” state of mind and heart in this life and the Hereafter. It is ultimately our choice (since we are given free will) to heed and follow this manual or not. Every believer can experience and attest to the truth of the message in their life (or not).

Analyzing the messages in the Qur’an from this paradigm, we may find endless wisdom and mercy in its recommendations. The following is a summary of the many wisdoms and the mercy I see in the prescription of modest dress for all believers who may choose to adopt it in their lives, and this is why I decided to start practicing it:

A. Individual level: Inner peace and harmony

Adhering to the guidelines of Islamic modest dress brings inner peace to the individual for several reasons. Modesty and striving to mold one’s self in Islamic manners helps to discipline our ego which is the main source of personal ills. When I use the term “Islamic.” I am particularly referring to the literal meaning of the word Islam, “submission.” So, a Muslim is someone who tries to submit her free will to the Truth, that is, the truth that we (and everything else around us) are being sustained and created continuously by God, and do not exist independently. Our ego, which is only one of the many faculties we have, is given to us as a tool. By striving to discipline its excessive desires, and channeling them in a positive direction, we transform ourselves for the better. ³ Submitting to the wisdom and compassion of God and obeying His recommendations about how we should dress is only one of many aspects of trust in God. Adhering to modest dress always reminds us that God is Ever-Seeing and that we are constantly in the presence of God. This is the utmost source of inner peace.

As a side note I would like to also add that many women mention that wearing modest dress frees them from the pressures of society to conform to a particular physical type or to fashion. Knowing that they are not being judged as feminine “objects” helps to enhance their self-esteem. When we dress and act modestly, others value us as human beings based on character and intelligence.

B. Family life: Solidarity and peace

The family is considered a vital unit in Islam. A peaceful marriage is essential for many reasons, one of which is the adequate upbringing of children. The break up of families leads to crisis for family members as well as society as a whole. That is why divorce is described as the most disliked of the permissible practices. The practice of modest dress and piety by both husbands and wives may help to maintain the solidarity of the family. Being extremely careful about the way one acts, talks, and dresses around the other sex may serve as a barrier preventing many indecencies from occurring. As I mentioned above, Islam is a religion of prevention (vs. punishment). Therefore, all the ways to temptation are blocked in case we destroy our lives in this world and the Hereafter. Statistics leave no doubt that these incidents are very common in both Western and Eastern societies in this century due to the decay of the role and importance of religion in the face of the rise of materialism.

Thus, the Qur’an and the Prophetic traditions on the matter of modest dress and manners aim to reduce these indecencies and preserve peaceful marriages. Even though many examples of men and women who claim to be pious, yet engage in unlawful acts with the opposite sex, may be cited, the ideal of Islam still proves to be true. God knows that human beings are imperfect creatures and the guidelines are there to set the perfect standards one should struggle to achieve.

C. Social level: Perseverance of society

Islam does not only seek to guide the individual out of the context of her surroundings. The realities of everyday life require human beings to interact with others unceasingly, hence social matters are also addressed in the Qur’an. The modesty of an individual’s dress and manners automatically affect society at large. Indeed, the problems of sexual harassment of women and sexual assault are widespread in our societies. Trying to catch and punish the perpetrators of these offences after the harm is done does not solve the problem. Individuals should reform themselves, learn good morals and values. Only in such a way can the entire society be reformed. When and if women practice ranges of nudity, the society at large is affected negatively. For instance, harmony among married couples and the piety of individuals may deteriorate. This does not mean that only women must watch the way they act and dress, but as the Qur’anic verse 24:30 states, men are obligated to lower their gaze and adopt modest dress and manners as well.

Tell the believing men that they should restrain their gaze (from looking at the women whom it is lawful for them to marry, and from others’ private parts), and guard their private parts and chastity. This is what is purer for them. God is fully aware of all that they do. (Nur 24:30)

Men are first warned to control themselves, and then the required dress for men and women complements the decency of society. Also, to reduce the debate only to the matter of clothing is indeed wrong and misrepresentative of Islam. God is concerned with our inner selves primarily. Thus, modest dress serves its purpose only when it is appropriately complemented by the right morals and manners, and a whole Islamic way of life.

Eren Tatari is a PhD student in the Political Science Department, Indiana University, Bloomington. Her research interests include Muslims in Western politics, gender studies, and the political representation of minorities.

Notes

1. Esposito, John. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Modern Islamic World, OUP, 1995, pp. 108–111.
2. Muhammad, Sherif. “Women and their Legal Rights in Monotheistic Religions.” The Fountain, Issue 41, Jan-Mar 2003, pp. 30–44.
3. For instance, the ego falsely claims or wants to be independent. It does not like to recognize authority or feel gratitude. Hence, the challenge is to use the other faculties God has given us (such as our intellect and heart) to discipline our ego and submit our free will to God’s will. In Islam, human beings are not deemed intrinsically evil. We have the potential to be higher than angels or lower than animals. We have been given many faculties as tools to find and stay on the Straight Path.

References

• Unal, Ali. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2006.