It takes more than theology to bring Muslims, Christians together

A group of Muslim scholars and religious leaders have made an overture to Christian leaders including Pope Benedict XVI, by pointing out similarities between Islam and Christianity, particularly the belief in one God, and the injunction to love one’s neighbor.

However on these two points of similarity alone, it is unlikely that Christians and Muslims will be kissing each other on the streets. The similarities are also only apparent. While Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity as one God, Muslims believe in one God.

The injunction to love one’s neighbor is there, implicitly or explicitly, in most religions, and that did not prevent the Crusades. It did not prevent Catholics and Protestants from killing each other in Northern Ireland. It hasn’t prevented Muslims and Hindus from killing each other in India. It did not prevent 9/11.

The upshot is that it takes more than a theological dissertation to bring communities together. You have to able to wipe out history, a lot of which is traumatic to both communities. You have to able to wipe out old hatreds and suspicions. Here too, the Christian injunction on forgiveness, will not change bitter feelings and memories on the ground.

There is also the issue that these Muslim leaders do not represent all of Islam. Unlike Christian churches who have heads, like the Pope, Islam is far more amorphous in its leadership structure. Like Christianity it has a lot of sects and divisions, the most distinct and known being that between the Sunnis and the Shias.

The hand of peace from the Muslims to Christian leaders is therefore welcome, even if the theological argument begs the question.

A more compelling argument for peace, I think, is pointed out at the very outset in the letter from the Muslim leaders to Christian leaders: “Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.”

Can religious leaders on either side deliver that peace, when extremists on both sides, including notably Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden are not signatories to this letter ?

To be sure the hand of peace from Muslim scholars, and not their dissertation on theological similarities holds out promise. If moderates take the lead in sufficient numbers surely the extremists in the community will have to re-evaluate their strategies.

To be effective however, the moderates, will have to recognize that the popularity of Islamic extremism, does not have its roots in religious differences alone, but in injustice, poverty, hurt, and the perceived feeling that this is the outcome of a conspiracy between Christians and Jews. Try telling the Palestinians that they should love their Israeli neighbors who occupy their land ! Try telling them that America is Christian and that Islam enjoins them to be tolerant of Christianity !

That feeling among Muslims of persecution surfaces in the letter too when it says “As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes”.

A rapprochement between Muslims and Christians can only come by a combination of political, social, and cultural moves, and not by attempting to find out similarities between the two religions. That is not a precondition. Hindus and Christians don’t usually kill each other in India in a religious frenzy. Although Hinduism is polytheistic while Christianity is not, the two communities generally respect each other’s right to worship different gods.

The text of the letter is available on a web site which calls itself the Official Website of A Common Word.

American secularism stripped ?

I always suspected that when heave came to shove, Americans would go searching for their Christian roots and give secularism the go-by. The heave and shove seems to have come from the growing influence of Islam and other religions in the country, and yes, perhaps the audacity of a person with a Muslim name to aim for the country’s Presidency.

Truly, the US had an Indian priest, Rajan Zed, read a prayer to the Senate, to protests from some Christians in the galleries Yet the Hindu prayer in the Senate boiled down to more of good form rather than real secularism.

Else what is one to make of US Presidential candidate and Senator John McCain telling beliefnet in an interview that, “I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'”

It is easy to dismiss McCain as a rare bigot. I am however worried he is one of many Americans who hold this view. His mistake was he shot himself on the foot by being frank.

McCain may in fact be reflecting the view of a large number of Americans who believe that the US constitution and political tradition is based on Christianity and Christian values. No place here for jihad, I guess, but certainly place I guess for strong Christian traditions like the Crusades and the Inquisition. You know what, it are these double standards, and arrogance about Christian tradition that riles other religious communities !

Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation, and 55 percent believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization focused on education and information about First Amendment issues in the US.

Rick Green of WallBuilders, an advocacy group that believes the US was built on Christian principles, told USA Today that the poll doesn't mean a majority favors a "theocracy" but that the Constitution reflects Christian values, including religious freedom. "I would call it a Christian document, just like the Declaration of Independence," he told USA Today.

One redeeming result of the survey was that the right to practice one’s own religion was deemed “essential” or “important” by nearly all Americans (97%). This figure speaks for American tolerance, but not for real secularism, I think. What the people surveyed, and McCain seem to be saying is “this is a Christian country, but of course we are tolerant of other faiths”.

It is not dissimilar from the UK, where the country claims to be secular, but the monarch takes the oath to protect the Anglican faith. Of course the UK too tolerates other religions within its constitution, inspired as it is by Anglican principles.

As non-Christian religions with their cultural baggage threaten the American’s Christian way, not only by violence but in most cases by peaceful co-existence and assimilation, the country’s secular foundations may be giving way. From secularists, Americans may be moving to tolerance. Bigotry, albeit subtle, may not be far way.

Related Articles:

When atheists and secularists want to play God
Ram Setu: the importance of religious symbols

Ram Setu: the importance of religious symbols

It is a “chain of limestone shoals” between India and Sri Lanka, variously called Adam’s Bridge, Ram Bridge, and Ram Setu. To the Hindus it is the bridge built by Lord Ram’s supporters in the Ramayana.

It is currently agitating Indians to extreme lengths, that some are questioning whether the epic Ramayana was actually a record of historic events. Even TV channels in India are plunging into what should have been, if at all, a debate by religious scholars and historians.

The immediate cause of this crisis is that the Indian government has has approved a multi-million dollar Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project that aims to create a ship channel across the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka.

The debate about the historical accuracy of the Ramayana and Ram Setu, I think misses the point. Any religion has its sacred spots that come from a set of beliefs. These spots provide the points of reference to that religion, and are a part of the iconography of a religion. For centuries the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which stands on the spot where Christian believe Jesus was born in a manger, has been a source of inspiration and piety for millions of Christians worldwide.

So why not the Ram Setu ?

The separation of state from religion requires that religion should not interfere with the way a country is run, but does not require you to deny religion. For many communities, including communities in India, their religion describes their worldview, prescribes certain behavior, and proscribes others. So religion is about building communities, about promoting social stability through a set of rules of conduct.

The dangers come when a religion assumes a certain exclusivity that is believed to be derived from God, and gets intolerant of other religions. Every religion has gone through these phases in India and abroad. The Spanish Inquisition from 1478 was born out of this intolerance, and so is a lot of Islamic fundamentalism.

The demand that Ram Setu be protected is not a reflection of intolerance. It is a demand from a religious community that the government preserve a place that it considers sacred. That parties like the Bhartiya Janata Party (known to have some intolerant people in their ranks), have espoused this cause, does not make the demand per se intolerant.

To be sure, there are development objectives to be met. The channel will cut down shipping time, as many ships will no longer have to go around Sri Lanka, to traverse between the east and west of India. Sure, there may be room for compromise, but whatever scope was there may have already been snuffed by intemperate comments about the Ramayana.

A white Jihadi !!

The arrest in Germany of two white terror suspects this week has demolished stereotypes of jihadi terrorists.

Until now the Jihadi was perceived as a person of West Asian or South Asian extract, fanatically religious, and unable to separate politics from religion.

Now it is that boy next door ! As if the number of west Asian and south Asian immigrants were not a large enough threat, it is the boy next door turning against Western civilization.

What makes a youngster, in the prime of life, strap bombs to his body, head to a crowded place, and blow himself and others around ? Until now this was an almost academic question about some people across the borders, or in some ghetto. Now it could be a question about a youth at home or in the neighborhood.

Rather than ask these questions, Germany is not unexpectedly slipping into knee jerk reflexes like exploring the option of monitoring the activities of German converts to Islam. See this report in Spiegel

It is becoming more clearer that unlike in conventional warfare, the “war against terror” will not be won by a large defense arsenal. Those were to an extent useful against organized terrorist militias in the Middle East like the Taliban, but they are increasingly less so when the new face of terrorism is increasingly an ordinary civilian in your neighborhood – most often a migrant, but sometimes that blond boy across the road..

Our weapons may be superior to that of the terrorist, but pray tell me where do you find him first ? He may be in our neighborhood, in our community. He may even be at the same place of work. And he will show his or her hand at a time suitable, typically when our guard is down.

We could get ham fisted, and back our government to search, intimidate, and harass communities which are suspected to breed terrorists . In the past our governments dropped some bombs hoping to kill terrorists, but also killed a lot of civilians in the bargain, as the Americans did recently in Afghanistan, hoping to kill some of the Taliban in a village. But you can’t do that on native soil.

If we harass and kill a lot of people in trying to catch a terrorist, we are doing a part of his work for him by alienating large parts of the community. If our laws become more draconian, we are again doing his work for him. Most terrorists have always believed that democracy is a sham that conceals an iron, dictatorial hand.

The American decision to house prisoners, suspected to be terrorists, in Guantánamo Bay, without access to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, did not cover America with glory. The fig-leaf of a pretext that Guantánamo was not American territory, and therefore the prisoners were not under the jurisdiction of US law, once again showed that we can expediently abandon democratic principles. Now Germany seems to be veering towards a surveillance policy that could seriously curb personal freedom.

It helps to have an army or police in the background to protect people, repeat to protect people if there is an attack. But soldiers and police armed to the teeth cannot be your diplomats, the carriers of your message of reconciliation.

Politicians and concerned people have to start communicating with suspects and those on the fence, break down the barriers, get around their fears and anxiety. The old ploy of identifying a “bogey-man” and attacking him may bring votes, but will not save lives.

Let us not try to change their way of life, their culture, because that is exactly what they suspect is our hidden agenda. When some of us talk, as does President George Bush, of exporting democracy to countries known to have large terror groups, we may in fact be insulting their way of life. It comes across as patronizing as some colonialists of yore who wanted to bring the colonized in Asia and Africa our of their “backward” living and beliefs into a more European and Christian way of life.

The NGOs should move in with aid, rather than prescriptions. The American people, the Indian people, the Russians, the British people, and all others who have been affected by the threat of terrorism should reach out to these people, talk to them about helping them, talk to them about restoring their dignity, their lives. This is not a job for governments, or the military, but for civil society.

The terrorist is in our midst. That brings up the opportunity for civil society to win them over on mutual terms. It is also a time to look within – what about US and European politics and culture, for example, are driving its young to other religions and culture ?

At the same time civil society cannot harbor the illusions that this will be an easy process. There will always be the more determined terrorists, planning a bomb attack, even while you are talking peace with them. While communicating with terrorists as people, civil society has to also communicate with one another, to keep a discreet eye on unusual activity, unusual objects lying around in our neighborhoods, unusual people.