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

Where are your manners Mr. Lee C. Bollinger ?

Columbia University’s President Lee C. Bollinger today told President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, “You exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”, before turning over the lectern to him to deliver a speech.

Bollinger’s description of the Iranian President may well be correct. Different people and different countries have different views of political leaders. If US President George Bush were to go to Iran or Iraq, a speaker there may well have told him, “ You exhibit all the signs of an interfering and petty war monger”, and they may have been right too.

But were your remarks to Ahmadinejad in good taste, Mr. Bollinger ? Were they civil ?

Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University, and as a guest speaker at the university, your remarks to him were uncivil.

If you thought that the Iranian President was a petty and cruel dictator, you were entirely within your rights not to invite him to speak to your students, which is precisely what demonstrators outside had all along been demanding.

But once you had invited the man, don’t insult him. That reflects on you and the university, in fact on the US.

You also gave Ahmadinejad the opportunity to score points that a number of Muslims may be able to relate to - the President of a Muslim state was insulted at an American university.

Related Articles:

Iran President says no need for nuclear bomb
Why the US should stay in Iraq
Who rules in Iraq today ?