Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)
by Aniza Damis

What is the secret to multi-religious harmony? And can it be found in Islam? Aniza Damis speaks to John Esposito, professor of International Relations and Islamic Studies and director of Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal center for Muslim-Christian understanding at Georgetown University.

Q: Is it necessary to know the Other?

A: There is a significant number of Muslims, as there are a significant number of people in America and Europe, who feel no need to know the other. They’re either to busy with their lives, or they simply dismiss the other. Religiously, it’s sort of like, if I know I’m right, and I believe you’re wrong, why should I waste my time?

But, with globalisation and communications, often the common man, maybe through a satellite dish, is able to see parts of the world. More and more, as people begin to have the ability to vote, they’re faced with international issues that affect them. Economic globalisation, issues of international politics - these are issues.

For example, if you’re the average Malaysian, like the average American, you can wake up everyday, you have your family, your job - if that’s all you do, then you’re stupid. Because, you have a vested interest in this.

If you don’t take an interest in who you’re electing, and what kind of policies they’re going to engage in, they’re going to screw up your economy or they’ll screw up your international relations internationally, and it’ll come back to bite you.

If the economy goes bad or if you have political problems and there are sanctions, it winds up affecting people’s jobs, their livelihood. Or, members of your family will end up going to war to fight.

Look at Iraq - it’s not just Americans and Brits who are there - it’s lots of different countries. Or, if you’re in Jordan and you just want to say, “I don’t care, it just doesn’t matter.” But if something goes on in Iraq, you’ve got all these refugees.

It’s a reality. If you’re in Malaysia and the average person who doesn’t care, you might have to worry about people coming over the borders from Indonesia and southern Thailand.

I think it’s naïve to think being ignorant won’t affect you.

Q: So, who’s going to be good for US-Muslim world relations - Obama or McCain?

A: There’s not even a question. Obama.

Obama is a person who, as president, would bring an international experience and sensitivity that can only come from somebody who in his own life and in his own living, has been international. His family is international. He had a Kenyan father and an Indonesian step-father, a sister who’s maybe a Muslim married to a Chinese. So, he has that international sense of the world.

Secondly, Obama is a vision person. America needs a vision person. We’ve gone through some very difficult times, the Bush administration has been a disaster for America, in terms of our image overseas, a failed foreign policy, and it is the result of a failed foreign policy.

What Americans need is to feel good about America, to have somebody who’s got vision, who doesn’t represent the old politics.

McCain has none of that. McCain is somebody who, as somebody said, “It’s tragic what happened to him as a prisoner; he was an incredible man in terms of what he went through in terms of his endurance, but that doesn’t make you an expert on warfare. Just because you went in, you were captured, and you were held for six and a half years and you were tortured - that’s terrible; but that’s no reason for somebody to become head of the nation.”

In World War II, we had a very famous hero named Audie Murphy, who became a movie star after that. Nobody thought that Audie Murphy should be elected president of the United States, even though he was a great war hero. Those skills don’t necessarily translate.

Secondly, McCain, in his statements, shows that he still has the warrior’s mentality. Even though he didn’t mean it exactly, the way in which he responds to things, as he did, “We’ll stay in Iraq 100 years.”

If Obama had said anything like that, the press would be all over it, McCain’s people would be all over it. They’d say, “He said it, he’s gotta stand up for it.” And McCain’s made many of that kind of comment with regards to Iran. We’ve got to realize in the world today, is that the military should be a last option. Not a first option.

Diplomacy should be a first option; economic development should be a first option.

So, I think that McCain does represent the old politics. He does represent a good deal of the Bush policy - he’s now trying to move away from it. McCain has shown an absolutely flawed judgement internationally. Remember, this is a man who criticized the militant Christian right for years; but then, in this election, tried to get them close to him. And he aligned himself with two ministers and initially refused to back away. And these two ministers have been anti-Islam; not anti-Muslim extremists, but anti-Islam itself. Now, that kind of person is not the kind of person that the world needs.

Q: Even so, Obama has had to constantly correct the accusation that he’s Muslim or that he’s secretly Muslim. If he were to become president, wouldn’t he try to avoid being seen as being sympathetic to Islam?

A: I think that Obama, when it comes to relations with the Muslim world in general, would certainly be better than McCain. He’s already indicated that. Obama has talked about the fact that, yes, he can be tough, but that his first approach with Iran would be diplomacy. He would use the military approach only when it’s necessary.

That’s really the reverse of McCain’s logic.

But, having said that, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, don’t expect any huge change. Because of American domestic politics, no American president has been willing to take the risk of being completely even-handed on that policy.

While one can understand why Obama and his advisers have been sensitive to the Muslim issue, it would be unconscionable for Obama, between now and election time, not to be saying something about Muslims. And not simply denying.

About a week or two ago, he said, “I would think this would be insulting to Muslims; simply blindly accusing Muslims is not just, it’s not fair.”

But there is a vulnerability. Last week, the Obama campaign announced that they had a volunteer who would do relations with the Muslim community. That volunteer has just resigned (on Thursday), because of attacks on the internet against him. He said he didn’t want to become an issue in Obama’s campaign.

Now, that really shows the sensitivity. So, certain people are sending the message - it’s a very anti-Muslim attitude. It is an issue.

But I think if Obama became president, the sensitivity would be there, but I would expect him to be responsive.

Q: Is it possible to have a neither secular nor theocratic state in a modern, multi-cultural society? For instance, in a majority Muslim country that is multi-cultural and multi-religious, is it possible to have Islam as the predominant religion, which defines morality and law?

A: In many societies, the reality is going to be that religious values can certainly play a role. For example, the electorate or the parliament, when it comes to issues deal with family or human sexuality can develop a way of managing that, which allows for the equality of citizens in terms of their right, but which also reflects their religious values.

If you look at Malaysia today, during Ramadan, Muslims are expected to observe the fast, and Chinese who are not (Muslims) are not expected (to fast). You could incorporate that even legally in a state.

Look at the United States. While there can be conflict over this, the US which is supposedly separation of Church and State, you can never separate religion from politics. So, in the US, when it comes to issues of prayer in the schools, or a variety of issues, for a section of Americans, these are important issues. They will then vote in a certain way. They will then want to see Supreme Court Justices that reflect that.

You can never stop that.

I think that one can work out ways to handle the situation. It can be done.

Q: Is democracy as we know it compatible with Islam?

A: Just as with Islam, there are many of democracy, and many applications. Often, when people talk of democracy, they only have one democracy in mind. If we say Western democracy, are we talking about America’s notion of democracy - separation of Church and State - or are we talking about parts of Europe? In some parts of Europe, they have a state religion, and the state pays the salaries of religious leaders and institutions. None of that can go on in the United States.

So, there are different forms of democracy.

I think there is a compatibility that can occur between democracy and a religiously-oriented state. A state can have space for belief and non-belief. Turkey’s an example.

Q: Some Muslims believe democracy is incompatible with Islam, because democracy is with whatever the majority says, whereas Islam doesn’t change its fundamentals.

A: Sometimes people simplify what democracy is. They try to simply reduce it to “whatever the people will". That’s not the case.

For example, in the US, we have the Bill of Rights that limits how our laws can be drawn up. You can’t draw up certain laws that abridge certain limits - that violate our notion of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. Society can negotiate what these limits will be.

What people have to realize is, there is a flexibility when it comes to democracy, but there is also a flexibility when it comes to Islam. There are certain voices who say “This is not what Islam teaches.” But there are some things that are very clear and universal in Islam. A lot of other things are highly contended. You have diverse law schools and opinions. There is also an opinion that when you make and apply law, it has to be for the general welfare of society.

What you have to move away from is the old idea of second-class citizenship. However enlightened it was in the past, the notion of Dhimmi (the non-Muslim community within a Muslim society) has to be reinterpreted or re-understood.

God said in the Qur’an, “I could have created you as one nation; (but) I didn’t.” Therefore, what that means is, yes, we have our differences; it doesn’t mean we have to agree, but we have to learn to respect each other’s right to be different, as well as we see our similarities. And that means also equality of citizenship. And unless we do that, society is never going to be as strong as it could be.

What you’ve seen in many countries is, when under pressure, the fractures appear. Turkey and Malaysia are the countries everybody’s looking to for their examples on development and countries that know and can deal with the West. They are examples of countries that can be more pluralistic. But unless that civic literacy continues to develop, you’ll see the kinds of issues occurring.

Q: Is it possible, now, in a pluralistic society, to have the Islamic State with the concept of Dhimmi?

A: No. It’s an anachronism; antithetical to the notion of what a modern state should be. The modern state is based on equality of citizenship. And you have a diverse group of Muslim scholars in many parts of the world who are beginning to say that as well.

You can say the country has a majority Muslim culture; and it’s conceivable that you can say there are certain limits with regard to the laws of the country. But anything that abridges equality of citizenship and the equal rights of citizens in terms of free speech, the practice of their religion, education, employment, etc, goes against the very nature of the modern state.

Q: What happens if Islam becomes politicized, and changes according to demographics?

A: It’s one thing if any religion informs politics. In the US, we have the separation of Church and State. But we don’t have separation of religion and politics. If you look at the American politics, religion is in our debates. In a society where you have religious folk, when they go to vote, if they are religious on certain issues, it’s going to be informed by their religious background. If it’s a key issue that they see going against their faith - “I can’t vote for that.” But, they may accept the fact that somebody else has a right to differ in vote.

When religion gets politicized, then it becomes a problem. So, there’s a difference between religion informing, and people who play the religion card. Whether it’s the government, or whether it’s opposition who use religion, it gets very problematic.

So, when voters decide, they have to look at what people say, and also what the implications of the policies are. Just because somebody says “This is Islam” doesn’t mean it is. Just because somebody says “Vote for me, because I’m a good Muslim", doesn’t mean that you should.

On any issue that deals with human dignity, social justice, welfare of human beings, the right to life, people can be a believer or non-believer, and be taking a just position. It’s not as if there’s a peculiarly religious position. Many Christians and many Muslims can agree on a variety of issues. That is, a significant number of Muslims and a significant number of Catholics can be conservative on social issues. So they can agree among themselves, and actually often disagree with some of the more liberal or progressive types of their own religion. And, you can even have somebody who’s not a believer, who would agree on some of these issues.

I think when it gets dangerous is when some of these people, in order to buttress their position, act as if they have this peculiar hold on the truth on an issue. But what they’re really saying is, “This is my opinion.”

One of the problems we have, both in Islam and Christianity, for example, is people will say, “God is transcendent; you can’t know God.” We can somehow encounter His Will if we look at scripture. Then the next interesting they do is they begin to talk to God. You suddenly get a religious leader who begins to act as if he has the absolute fix in his interpretation.

There is always the concept of difference in the law schools, but they tend to forget that. And that’s when mixing politics and religion gets dangerous. Somebody is saying, “My interpretation is the right interpretation". So, it’s not only that “You non-believers are kuffar (infidel, non-Muslim)” - but “Other Muslims in my society who disagree with me are kuffar".

Q: Do Muslims understand themselves enough to know what is right? And how are they supposed to know?

A: One of the obligations of a religion and of a society, religious leaders, schools and universities in Muslim countries, and even of governments, is to ensure that, along with people’s secular education, they have a good, sound, religious education.

Part of that religious education is not only that you learn about your faith, but that you learn about other faiths.

One of the problems that you have is that historically, for example in Muslim countries where there are other faiths, as well as non-Muslim countries, because religion is seen as so sensitive, for conservative reasons, people learn only their own religion.

And governments don’t want to look at faiths because they feel somebody is going to lose their faith.

One has to move beyond that.

When I first began studying Islam 35 years ago, people said to me, “Why would you do that? You’re not a Muslim.”

The reality of it is, America has become a far more religiously pluralistic society. And therefore, to be informed and to function, a person has to know his faith.

When you grow up, you rely a lot on your parents when you grow up. And you keep a lot of that. But you also become your own person. And often it means that you move beyond that. You keep a lot of what they taught you, and other things, you add.

It’s the same thing with religion. You can’t just rely on what your local mullah taught you, and always be relying on that.

As you grow up, and you get a better education, you can’t become sophisticated in one area and know nothing - to still be a child - in terms of religious understanding and tradition.

People have to become more literate in their own religious tradition.

Q: Some Muslims take Arabia as their compass, and this may be incompatible with their own culture.

A: If you’re talking about Wahhabi Islam, that’s merely one interpretation of Islam, and historically, it’s always been a minority interpretation. People have to realize that. You have the Saudi interpretation, the Brelevi interpretation, Obandi interpretation - all kinds of interpretations of Islam historically.

The problem of our times has been that there are those who tend to see Wahabbi Islam as if it’s the final and truest interpretation of Islam. I think it’s a problem. I’ve seen it in societies, even when I used to come here years ago. What you begin to see is this Arabisation culture. Suddenly, people who in the past might or shake hands, suddenly wouldn’t do that anymore. That (not shaking hands) is an Arab custom - it doesn’t mean it’s a Southeast Asian custom.

For instance, Saudis and Pakistanis have certain approaches to marriage. You have a complete separation of the sexes at weddings; whereas here, I go to weddings where men and women mingled together at the wedding.

But, all of a sudden you have somebody saying “No, this (separation) is true Islam.”

If you’re concerned about whether or not people make informed decisions, they have to be informed.

We do this in every other area in life. You want to educate people to make informed decisions in their lives economically, politically, so you’ve got to teach them about it. You have to do the same thing with religion. You have to become more religiously literate. If they are simply going to rely on something that somebody told them when they were a child; more still, their local religious leader - regardless of whether the local religious leader is well trained.

Look at it this way: religious leaders are like lawyers, doctors, lecturers - they come in all shapes and sizes. Some of them are very sharp, some of them are very dull.

When we go and pick a doctor, initially you go to any doctor. But if this person isn’t helping you, you don’t just keep saying “Well, it must be me.” You try a second person; rather than feel, “If I question him, I’m questioning my religion.” No. You’re questioning him; not necessarily questioning your religion.

Q: In a world where culture has an influence on how you interpret things, is there a one true anything?

A: No. All religions express themselves from diverse cultures, in different ways. What unites Muslims is the basic principles of Islam. That is, belief in God, the Qur’an, the Prophet, the five pillars (duties in Islam).

But beyond that, whether it’s in dress, certain religious customs, customary practice with regard to marriages - while there’d be an underlying unity, there’ll be diversity. People from different cultures dress differently. In wedding ceremonies, there will be the heart of Islamic requirements; but then, they’ll bring to bear with it different cultural influences. And that’s always the case. Otherwise, all Muslims would be speaking Arabic, would all have Arab culture, and would be Arabised, not just Islamised. But that’s not the case. If you go back to the early days of Islam, Islam went to Iran, and it took on a layer of Persian culture into it. In the African world, Islam was very intricate. And certainly the same thing with Southeast Asia.

That’s the beauty of religion; you’ve got a unity and a diversity.

The problem is when somebody says, “There’s only one unity, and it’s mine. Now we’re going to wipe out all the diversity.” Then you have a problem.

Q: Are there more extremist Muslims than there are moderates?

A: There are far more moderates than extremists. In our study (the Gallup poll, which is published in his book), we concluded that 93 per cent of the 1 billion Muslims in the world are mainstream. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have issues, among themselves and with the West; but it’s clear that the moderates are the majority.

The problem is, whether the voices are the religious extremists or the neo-cons or the secular extremists, theirs is the voices that get heard. Because they say the most combative, confrontational kind of things. And so, they get heard.

If you say, “Death to America!” or “We’re going to bomb you,” or you threaten not only sanctions, but also military intervention, then that’s the headline the next day.

Mainstream voices don’t get heard. The classic example is in the West. Ever since 9/11, people say, “How is it (moderate) Muslims have never spoken out?", when in fact there were all kinds of statements made - major statements - and they rarely get covered in the Western press. You have to look for them on the Internet. Why? Because they’re not confrontational.

Q: How can moderate Muslims win back the ground from the extremists?

A: There are a lot of ways. And there are efforts to do this by Muslim religious leaders, as well as intellectuals, to marginalize the extremists, to argue against what they stand for and what they do, on the basis of Islam. That is, to argue, that what the extremists are saying is un-Islamic.

But even there, there’s a problem. The best way is if you get people who have credentials as prominent religious leaders, or even as activists who are mainstream to do the denouncing, because they not only have the intellectual credentials, but they have the life credentials.

That’s what the extremists are most sensitive to. The extremist will react to (Egyptian Muslim scholar) Yusuf al-Qaradawi, even though some in the West see Qaradawi as a little extreme.

They’ll also react to a mainstream movement like the Muslim Brotherhood if they (the brotherhood) disagree with them, because they feel more threatened because the movement has more cache.

If a secular member of the society or a government leader was denouncing the extremists, it won’t matter as much.

So, religious education becomes important; it plays a critical role when you’re raising the next generation, and having continued religious leaders and Muslim intellectuals speak out about the issues that exist within the community, not deny differences.

You can’t just say, “Most of us aren’t (extremists), so we’ll just ignore the extremists.” I think most Muslims have learned if you do that, as the Saudis learnt, they’ll come back to bite you.

Q: One of the problems with the Muslim discourse is that Muslims don’t like to seen as fractious.

A: Nobody in a faith likes to show their dirty laundry, particularly if you feel that your faith is somehow looked down upon, been exploited in the past, been a victim, or that, relative to the Western world you’re not as powerful.

So, the whole idea will be to simply emphasise unity; to basically say, “Yes, we know there are problems, but we shouldn’t say that - we’ll only feed the (Western/non-Muslim) criticism.”

The danger is, you go into denial, and you also make those who are suspicious feel their suspicions are confirmed. Your not speaking out either means you’re in denial, or that you sympathise (with extremists).

Before 9/11, I knew reporters who would go around to mosques, and they would say, “I’m going to the mosques, and I’m discovering that people are really very mainstream and very sane, but I can’t get anyone on camera to denounce atrocities committed in the name of Islam.” And they’ll say, “My story’s not going to have any credibility, because people who are suspicious are saying, ’All we’re getting is all the good news, but how come none of them are admitting that they have problems?’”

Years ago, when I went to Singapore, there was a Muslims group that was doing a video on family violence within the Muslim community. Other Muslims didn’t want to see that. They wanted to deny it.

But, they should at least admit that, yes, there are families that are violent and exploit, and sometimes it’s done in the name of religious or culture.

That level of denial is a problem. It’s not only a problem in terms of the image with the non-Muslim community, it’s a problem within the community, because it takes you longer to address the issues.

Q: Does the low self-esteem of some Muslims come from a guilt that they’re not willing to die for their religion as the extremists are; or that, until they set up the Islamic State, they don’t feel Muslim enough?

A: I don’t think religion is about dying for what you believe in. Those occasions may arise, and you may well die for what you believe in, but that should not be a primary driver.

I think the rhetoric and the discourse has at times got a bit jumbled. As one of my colleagues points out, in the old days, people would say, “The Qur’an says” or “Or the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said". Now, it’s “Islam says". It’s like, as soon as I say, “Islam says,” you can’t question me.

It’s almost like when I was growing up a Catholic: at certain points I would say something, but someone would say, “That’s a good idea, but the Pope has said the opposite, so sit down.” But that’s not the way it works; the Pope’s not God.

There’s been a bit too much of that kind of emphasis. It seems to me that the primary notion is to be a Muslim is to follow God’s will, both as an individual, and as a member of a community.

So, it is a legitimate concern for a Muslim to say, “To what extent is my society and my community a place where I can practise my religion, and realize my religion?”

It is legitimate for a Muslim to say in a Muslim-majority country, “When we’re setting up a constitution, or limits, I want to see my religious values there,” and to have a healthy debate within society, and to have that work through. That, to me, is the notion of Khilafah (a caliphate), as it’s found in the Qur’an. All Muslims have this vocation or this role. That’s legitimate.

But the idea that there’s any single model, or that one person has a lock on what that single model is - who is that person?

Even when you look at major religious leaders, they differ. For example, there are very famous Muslim muftis who support the idea of a political Islamic movement. And some who say no.

That’s within the nature of Islam. A particular individual or movement has a right to say what they’re saying. But then this has to be put on a table, for others to consider and support or not support.

As I see the structure of Islam in terms of authority, they don’t have a right to say, “This is the only way.” It doesn’t exist in Islam.

Even fatwa do not have a binding nature to them; they are advisory.

Q: At the moment, we have a debate over who has the rights over the word “Allah". Is “Allah” a Muslim possession?

A: No. “Allah” is certainly the most sacred name for Muslims. But “Allah” is an Arabic word to begin with. And it is Arabic for God.

Q: Isn’t that “illah"? Is there a difference between “illah” and “Allah"?

A: It’s “illah", but when you conflate it with “al” for the The God, you wind up with “Allah” - it gets elided.

But “Allah” is also used by Arab Christians. For an Arab, it would be the way you would express the word God. So, yes, certainly Muslims would feel that this is their most sacred word, but one would have to recognize that the reality is what is sacred - that is, God.

The term is an Arabic term. So, if one were writing in Arabic and referring to God in Christianity, one would use “Allah". If you were referring to Jesus, that would be different; then, you might say “Isa".

For Catholics, historically, when Latin was our religious language, Deus was used for God. But “Deus” is the Latin word for God. It’s not like it’s God’s baptismal name.

I know this issue’s become a debate among Muslims, and I think that that’s for Muslims to debate. I see this as a very legalistic approach. I can understand why Muslims would be upset if they felt that non-Muslims would be using “Allah” in a negative or a pejorative way. But if one is referring to a religious reality of God, then one would have to say, if you’re an Arabic speaker - whether you’re Muslim or not - that’s the word you’re going to use.

Q: There is a concern that the use of the term “Allah” by other religions would cause confusion in the country.

A: Muslims aren’t children. This is an incredibly denigrating and patriarchal approach.

One would tend to think, if Christians are using the term “Allah", they’re certainly not doing it in a Muslim sense.

I was in a Turkish Catholic church on Easter Sunday, and there in the church, you had “Allah” used, because they were writing in Turkish, and they were talking about God in Turkish. And this, even though, the particular priest who said mass that day was from Africa, and he was the most Catholic-centric and probably the most deep-down anti-Muslim person you’d ever want to meet. But, realistically, he was using “Allah” because that’s how the Turkish Catholics expressed themselves.

To me, there are so many problems in the world that it’s this kind of legalism that distracts.

If your religion is strong, you should just leave it to God to decide. God makes these judgements.

There are things that are sacred to us that we should hold our ground on.

But when you’re talking about the fact that you have a term that is an Arabic word for the Divine, and not to realize that people who are Arabs who are not Muslim who use it, and if that term is used in the Malay language, then there are others who might use it, too.

What’s it going to symbolize? What it’s going to symbolize is, ultimately, we all worship the same god, even though we may understand God differently at certain points.

We may agree that God is the Creator. We may have differences on the quality of God, but we’re worshipping roughly the same god.

When it’s done in reverse, for example Muslims living as a minorities, when somebody does it to them in reverse, they immediately scream discrimination. When a Christian fundamendalist says to a Muslim “You’ve got an evil religion; your God isn’t my God,” the first thing Muslims want to say is, “We recognize your scriptures, we worship the same God, we recognize Jesus.” But, how would they feel if Christians said, “Don’t use the word ’Jesus’, don’t use the term “God"; use “Allah", because Allah’s not my god.”

You would think, in the 21st Century, that we would be beyond that. The fact that we’re not, is a sign of the fact that we’re regressing. When people get combative over religion, that’s when it gets dangerous.

Q: Which helps non-Muslims understand Islam more - Muslim speakers or non-Muslims like you?

A: We all play our role, but it’s very important to have Muslim voices. Muslim voices are imperative, because Muslims speak for Muslims and for their faith.

On the other hand, I think that I play a role in that I’m a scholar on Islam, and I have a certain cache. They can’t simply say, “Well, what do you expect; he’s not a Muslim, “ because I speak as a scholar.

There are many things that I and a Muslim scholar would agree on, but at a venue, they should not just be hearing from a non-Muslim, they should be hearing from a Muslim.

Do I think they should only be hearing from a Muslim? No.

Whether you’re Muslim or not, it’s about whether or not you’ve got the expertise.

As I once explained to a young Hizb-ul Tahrir man, the Qur’an is a text. We can establish whether or not something is in the Qur’an, and we can talk about whether or not that is a legitimate interpretation. That is based on expertise, it’s based on skill. “You may pray more than I, be holier than I, but when it comes to understanding the Qur’an, just because you’re a Muslim doesn’t mean that you have the training.”

So, when you’re challenging a scholar, you’ve got to have solid reasons.

Society needs to have religious literacy. Not only must you have literacy in Islam, but you must also go on to develop literacy in other religions. Especially in a country in which you’ve got other religions.

Q: And that can’t be taught from just one perspective?

A: That’s right.

When you’re teaching a religion, you teach it as a historian of religion. The first level is you teach it from inside. My challenge is to be able to understand the faith, and explain it in a way in which a significant number of believers in that faith will say, “Yes, you’re right; that’s what I believe.”

I can then move to another level, and say, “My perspective of it is as follows...” But when I teach my students, what I say to them is, “First try to read and listen to Muslims, and see how they see their faith.” Once you’ve done that, you’re okay. But if, in reading it, you do it through your Christian lens or through your atheist lens, obviously, you’re never going to get it.

If you’re an atheist, the first thing you’re going to say is, “They believe in what? God revealed himself to what?”

And you see it if you talk to believers. When I was first studying, I had Hindu professors who were scientists, and I had my Muslim professor, and they were friends, socially.

But when one group would talk to me and the other group wasn’t there, they’d say, “John, how can Ram, who’s a brilliant scientist, be a Hindu and believe in all those gods and goddesses?”

That was the perception. They didn’t try to get inside the religion, just looked at it on how it looked from the outside.

The Muslims went off, then I was talking to the Hindus. “John, how can Muslims believe in this one god?” They just couldn’t believe it.

My Muslim friends have this issue with Christianity. They want to go out and do dakwah. I used to be asked to advise Muslims in the ’States and Bahrain. The Muslims who were doing dakwah used to have a special session, and they wanted to know how to approach Christians.

I asked them, “What do you do?” and they described it to me.

I told them, “Your approach to dakwah is what I call the (does slapping motion) approach. You slap them across the face and tell them, ’your religion is ridiculous. Let me tell you what the truth is.’”

I said, “As soon as you do that, you push them into a corner. It’s like somebody coming up to you and saying, ’Let me tell you about your religion. In the Qur’an, you have this verse - Slay the unbelievers - and that’s what Islam is about. Let’s talk about your god. Your god is a sword-wielding god. Now that I’ve got your attention, let me tell you about Jesus, the Prince of Peace.’”

Do you really think anyone’s going to want to listen to you (if you take this approach)? But you see that going on.

I always say to my Muslim friends, “If you’re a Muslim and you believe that you’ve got to understand Christianity from a Muslim point of view, then your attitude’s going to be ’All I need to know is the Qur’an. And then I vet that through the Qur’an. You tell me what a Christian believes, but I don’t need to know all these other stuff, ’cause it doesn’t jive with the Qur’an.’”

I said, “If you want to know what Chiristianity’s about, it is what Christians believe, whether you agree or not.” So, the first thing you have to do is, not only know what they believe, but also understand what that means. Try to get your head around what does that mean.”

I do that with Christians, too. I say, “Try to get inside. Don’t just let somebody show you a text; you have to get how people practice their faith.”

I was speaking to a large group of Muslim youths about the importance of spirituality. One young man said to me, “How do we become more spiritual?” So I looked at him, raised my hands, and started shouting, “Pray! Pray!” I looked at him like it was the most obvious thing.

Too often, we start talking of our religion simply in terms of laws. Is this halal or haram. Are you Muslim or Catholic. So then, religion becomes “Islam says this” and Islam becomes a book of laws, and whether I follow it.

We forget that the whole purpose of prayer is not simply whether or not I pray five times a day; it’s whether or not this was a real encounter with God. Whether or not there’s a spirituality, not whether it was formal and legal.

What’s interesting is that, for many people now, the debate’s over how long your sleeve is, how you hold your hands when you pray, is it different from one another, will God accept that prayer or not, instead of worrying about what’s your relationship to God.

If we get into an excessively legalistic approach, that’s when I think it deadens a religion, and it also becomes a block when people come together to talk to each other.

They’re more concerned with talking about where the other person’s wrong, as opposed to “What do we share in common? How do we differ? How can we work around that and work on things that are in our mutual interest?”

That’s what it’s about.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed