Download a PDF Version

The late William Slone Coffin once stated, “the world is too dangerous for any-thing but the truth and too small for anything but love.”1 Indeed, our precarious global matrix of international connections demands cooperation across boundary lines, which means relying upon relationships fostered by trust, honest dialogue, and mutual understanding. In past years, however, Muslim outrage over Danish cartoons and the Pope’s speech at Regensburg proved just how difficult this is. In an age of radicalized forms of Islam, it is also dangerous to speak the truth. Public challenge to Islam risks being met in some quarters with violent retaliation rather than vigorous debate. And when it’s dangerous to speak the truth, the prospect for continued dialogue dims, undercutting broader efforts to build positive relations between Christians and Muslims. The result cements in place suspicion and mistrust between Western and Muslim populations, further nur-turing Islamic resurgence movements. So if truth telling and love are to remain viable options between Christians and Muslims, something must change.

Christians in Western regions, however, must be circumspect before indiscriminately blaming Muslims for intolerance, and this includes criticiz-ing moderate Muslim leaders for not taking a more dramatic stand against violence by fellow Muslims. The situa-tion requires a good amount of critical self-awareness to ensure that Manichean style polemics and unwarranted dou-ble standards are not advanced under the banner of Christianity. Hence, I offer some reflections on the character of interfaith relations focused upon the challenge of radicalized interpre-tations of Islam to dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Is it possible for Christians to engage Muslims con-structively within a context influenced so markedly by extremist and militant forms of Islam? I wager so. Moreover, I contend that it is imperative to wager so, such that we make it possible. Not only mutual understanding, but global security and peace is at stake. But what then are the parameters for such interfaith possibilities? I outline three basic points.

PUBLIC IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION

First, it is of paramount importance for Christians to encourage Western governments to take religions seriously. As theologian Hans Küng notes, “There can be no peace among nations unless there is peace among religions.”2 Why? Because religious traditions appeal to deep-seated beliefs and core values among peoples, and these motivate behaviors both for good and ill. Yet far too often precisely this point has been neglected in the making of foreign policy. Such neglect fits well with the common belief that religion is not a mat-ter of statecraft, but an individual affair confined to the private sphere. Indeed, it is often assumed that when religion becomes political it becomes oppres-sive and irreligious, subject to ulterior motives. These assumptions match all too easily with Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state, a wall needed to protect democratic governmental processes from being con-strained by potentially divisive matters of religion. They also match with the secularist supposition, virtually a truism in modern Western-style universities, that religion is the epiphenomenon or sideline creation of non-religious factors, a by-product of other more basic condi-tions and motivations.

The overall result trivializes reli-gion, suggesting that while religious traditions might be visible players on the surface of current events, the real show is going on somewhere else and must be addressed outside of religious matrices. Accordingly, the public import and influence of religion is minimized, its association with the state explained in terms of the ambitions of groups for social cohesion, cultural identity, or political power rather than an expres-sion of a vision of the collective good rooted in sacred scriptures and heri-tages. Equally trivializing are analyses of violent conflict that reduce religion’s role merely to expressions of social griev-ances, economic disparities, historical resentments, or the hunger for prestige and influence.3 Now I don’t want to deny the powerful influence of these fac-tors upon religious traditions, especially for the troubled history of Muslim-Christian relations. But I do wish to claim that it is a myopic mistake to not to address religious traditions as public players on the global scene, players that can have distinct motivations that have little to do with identity politics, lack of education, or economic disparity.

The modern presumptions I am criticizing seem to be at work in the U. S. government’s assertion that “equality,” “freedom,” and “democracy” are gifts from the West that will be auto­matically be embraced by Muslim popu­lations, once they get a real taste of it. This, however, is an effrontery to many Muslims, who on the basis of Islamic precepts can accept neither the separa­tion of church and state nor the privati­zation of religion that those in the West have come – for good or bad – to take for granted as part and parcel of secular democratic liberalism. Not that democ­racy is incompatible with Islam, but that its particular meaning, along with its accompanying notions of equality and freedom, will naturally differ when understood in Islamic contexts. Why? Because religious notions rooted in the Qur’an and Islamic jurisprudence drive the way people in Muslim communities think about these terms. Indeed, Islam has a long history of government by community consensus (ijma) according to rational interpretations of the Qur’an and Islamic traditions (ijtihad).4 Thus, not paying attention to religion here can cause more problems.

In point of fact, the failure of gov-ernments to engage Islam directly – in its many facets and forms – has contrib-uted to the creation of further extremism among some Muslims. Many feel that Islam is misunderstood, disrespected, and not taken seriously by the West. So our foreign policies must do more than simply acknowledge that Islam is a peace-ful religion at heart and that extremists have “hijacked” it. They must strive to take into account and accommodate to how Muslims interpret their various predicaments. Thomas Farr, who served as the State Department’s first Director of the Office of International Religious Freedom (1999-2003), recently put it this way: “To expect that U.S. policy can midwife durable Muslim democra-cies without systematic attention to the religious context is to indulge in wishful thinking.”5 The upshot: a better under-standing of Islam needs to inform foreign policy. Otherwise, Christian traditions in Europe and North America will find themselves at odds with Muslims, who will quite naturally and perhaps cor-rectly suspect alliances between Western global imperialism and Christianity.

BUILDING BRIDGESOF MUTUALITY

This is illustrated dramatically by a second point, which stresses the urgent need for ongoing interfaith dia-logue. We recall the remarks made by Pope Benedict the XVI in his September 12th, 2006, address at the University of Regensburg.6 In an address on faith and reason, he cited a fifteenth century Byzantine emperor who accused Islam of being a faith “spread by the sword” and some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad of being “evil and inhuman”. While the lecture only mentions Islam in passing, and is itself quite erudite, seeking to defend the rationality of religion against the dangers of relativ-ism, damage to Muslim-Christian rela-tions was nonetheless done. The Pope appeared to be levying a critique of Islam, making note of its propensity to violence in a way that conspicuously omitted any mention of Christianity’s own history of violence.

Subsequent to these remarks, violence erupted in some Muslim communities. Churches were burned, people were killed, and death threats against the Pope were made. For a brief time, ironically, it appeared that Muslim extremists had confirmed the Pope’s comments. The Pope made a meager apology, expressing regret that people were offended by his use of the quote. But many Muslims rightly criticized the apology for not going far enough. Then, however, moderate Muslims leaders stepped in and accepted the Pope’s invitation to meet at the Vatican on September 25th. The results were positive. On October 19th, thirty-eight Muslim scholars and chief muftis from numerous countries met in Amman, Jordan, and officially accepted the Pope’s apology, signing an open letter to be delivered to the Vatican in hope of open-ing further dialogue to counter preju-dice against Islam. Their hope was that the Church can help ameliorate Western suspicions of Islam, suspicions that I believe have been augmented by the fail-ures of European and North American civil leaders to take Islam seriously as a genuine player in Middle East politics. Subsequently, the Pope’s largely success-ful visit to Turkey did much help quell Muslim suspicion of the Vatican.

The whole debacle regarding the Pope’s comments illustrates the absolute necessity for interfaith dialogue in today’s ­­­precarious global context. Religion is a real player on the scene, motivating behaviors and influencing attitudes. So my second point is that government lead7 ers and religious leaders of the West must work together to build bridges of mutuality with Muslim leaders. In her recent book, Madeleine Albright notes that religious leaders can help to validate peace processes. How so? By persuading people of different faiths to work cooperatively to reinforce the core values necessary for people from various cultures and societies to live in harmony.

Given this, it is heartening that Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, unveiled a message last year commemorating the end of Ramadan that celebrated the potential for dialogue between Christians and Muslims. The document states: “The particular circumstances that we have recently experienced together demon-strate clearly that, however arduous the path of authentic dialogue may be at times, it is more necessary than ever.” After noting the need for such dialogue to address terrorism, injustice, poverty, and conflicts within and between coun-tries, the cardinal continues: “Without a doubt, the credibility of religions and also the credibility of our religious lead-ers and all believers is at stake.” Why? Because, “Our two religions give great importance to love, compassion and solidarity.”8 Love, to be credible, must be effective, realized in justice and peace. Interfaith dialogue is not just about talk-ing; it’s about doing – together, with and for the good of one another.

Just this year, at the end of Ramadan, one hundred and thirty-eight Muslim leaders continued the conversation by sending an open letter to Christian leaders throughout the world in hopes of promoting Muslim-Christian coop-eration and mutual understanding. The document is entitled, “A Common Word between Us and You,” and argues that without “peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world.”9 This profound gesture provides an incredible opportunity for Christians to respond constructively, working to build relationships of mutual love.

ENGAGEMENT AT EVERY LEVEL

But how can such mutual love work itself out amidst aggressive and mili­tant forms of Islam? With this question, I come to the third point. Because there is no easy answer, no glib panacea, I shall only outline several possibili­ties from a Christian perspective. First, dialogue here means listening to and understanding the grievances voiced by Muslims, grievances that extend back to the Crusades, have been hardened by early 20th century betrayal and decep­tion by Western colonial powers, and further exacerbated by late 20th century occupations and exploitations. We must learn from those who condemn us and accept our complicity in wrongs of the past, perhaps to the point of making public gestures toward reconciliation and restoration. Such gestures would indeed embody one of the fundamental axioms of Christian faith: the need for repentance before others and God.

Second, this does not mean, how-ever, simply accepting the violence that often ensues from grievances. Rather, it entails speaking hard truths that name violence for what it is – dehumaniz-ing, counterproductive, and religiously unjustifiable. To be sure, there are pas-sages in the Qur’an that encourage the use of the sword against infidels. But violence also features in the scriptures of Jewish and Christian traditions. So we must find ways to encourage all parties in dialogue to become self-critical. One way of doing this is to encourage reading sacred scriptures together, highlighting constructive over destructive passages. There are many passages in our scrip-tures that call for mercy, compassion, peace, and understanding over hatred, injustice, and violence. These can miti-gate more extremist interpretations. Yet more is needed to quell the tide of extremism in Muslim communities.

Third, Christians must actively seek out dialogue with Muslims, engaging local communities, learned scholars, and esteemed leaders in productive conversa-tions. Not only can this build bridges of understanding and mutuality, it can also help demonstrate good will to more radicalized Muslims. True, extremists are not interested in dialogue. It is also true, however, that dialogue among some can send a signal of respect for Islam among others. And more, dialogue can begin to address grievances, which may spill over and begin to loosen the hold of the radical and militant interpretations of Islam expressing those grievances. It may, perhaps, even lead to forgiveness and reconciliation.

Finally, for dialogue to remain vital and fruitful, it is crucial to remember that the line (that infamous “axis”) between good and evil does not run between peo-ple but through the middle of all human beings. At the heart of extremist forms of religion is not evil, but fear, which seeks to nullify perceived threats and influences in order to protect sacred value. In contrast to fear, the best in Christian and Muslim traditions insists on the potential of love and truth to open us up to one another. How so? By directing us to know and serve each other as neighbors. Christians (and Jews) are called to welcome the stranger in hospitality. Such hospitality is outpouring, not closed and self-serving. It does not traffic in fear, but in a sense of giftedness and abundance, of having been given something that we now can offer to one another. In Abrahamic faiths, this is the mercy and love of God, and ideally it yields compassion and respect for oth-ers. Plenty of verses could be marshaled from the Qur’an and Bible to support the point (e.g., Lev. 19:33-34; Mt. 25:40; Qur’an 2:177, 4:36, 49:13).

Christians and Muslims can learn much from each other in a spirit of hos-pitality. We are each called – from prin-ciples inside our traditions – to speak the truth in love. And more, we are called, as “A Common Word” expresses, to work for justice and peace. These activities are not unrelated to the love each tradition shares for God. Love of God and love of neighbor are joined inseparably. Living this out via Muslim-Christian dialogue fulfills the best of what both traditions have to offer humanity. While at one level this may sound nondescript or politically naïve, at the interconnected and global level – that we all now share – it is the surest hope we have for inter-faith mutuality and cooperation.

 

NOTES

1 William Sloan Coffin, quoted by Bill Moyers, “Remembering Bill Coffin,” from http://www.tompaine.com/arti-cles/2006/04/21/remembering_bill_coffin.php.

2 Hans Küng, Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic (New York: Crossroad, 1991), xv.

3 This point is made in Oliver McTernan’s Violence in God’s Name: Religion in an Age of Conflict (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2003), chapter 2.

4 See Abdulaziz Sachedina, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

5 Thomas Farr, Faith and International Affairs, 4/2 (Fall 2006), 33.

6 The speech can be accessed at, http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3650.

7 Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), see chapter 5.

8 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20061020_rama-dan2006_en.html.

9 “A Common Word between Us and You,” p. 2, released October 13, 2007. Accessed at http://www.acommonword.com/index.php.