A Friar's preliminary thoughts

Islam and Christianity are two religions both claiming truth in knowledge of the Revelation of God and the universality of that truth. And so, one might ask who is right? Moreover, if given the chance, a Muslim would have the entire world converted to Islam. Likewise, a Christian would have the entire world be Christian (at least one's own perception of Christianity). I think it is this tension that lies at the core of the difficulties with dialogue. In the end, on what grounds can these two religions talk with each other?

To get to an answer to this question, one must ask, "What is the purpose of dialogue?" Is it to come to share the same faith? To reveal truth in one's particular faith and error in the other? Little, if any, progress could ever be made if it were with these principles that a dialogue was started. If we try to simply engage in a rational, notional debate about the validity of our own traditions, we surely could never accomplish much of anything.

True dialogue lies with the encounter with each other. To "encounter" is to come to know one another through shared experience. To learn about each other and from each other through friendship and respect. This further means that we must unashamedly engage in this encounter fully as we are. There is to be no apology for the beliefs we hold, nor are we to discount or ignore the things that truly not shared. Many wish to circumvent the true distinctions between the two faiths as to avoid conflict, however acknowledging and being honest about the things that truly divide the two faiths is the only way where TRUE mutual understanding can occur. Moreover, "encounter" provides an experience of another which corrects or clarifies those preconceived/misunderstood notions one may have about the other.

In these first few days of the workshop, we have had the opportunity to "encounter" Islam, many individual Muslims, as well as a Muslim society as a whole. As I do, I find more often than not many similarities between our two religions and our experiences of having a life of faith. The stress Islam puts on daily prayer and the incorporation of one's faith into their daily life only highlights for me the incredibly rich and beautiful tradition of this same concept found in Christianity. Moreover, Islam's understanding of God, his transcendence, and supremacy likewise reminds me of Christianity's similar (if not the same) awe of, devotion to, and understanding of the Divine. After such encounters, I go home wanting to be a better Christian, a better Dominican. It enlivens/refreshes/renews the faith graced to me by God. Having had discussions with those Muslims who have been "encountering" the Dominican community here in Cairo, they too recount similar experiences of an enliving of their own fidelity and faith and a call to be better Muslims.

Truth is universal, and I guess the Spirit blows where It wills. As a faithful Catholic, I cannot and will not deny the Truth that has been revealed to us, but yet at the same time must acknowledge Islam's pursuit for the same Truth. I cannot claim to understand God's reasoning for the existance of our two faiths in the world, however, in these past few days, I seem to understand better the wisdom in the Vatican II document on relations with Non-Christians, Nostrae Aetate:

1. In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth.(1) One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men,(2) until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.(3)

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

...

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language...The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

...

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

(see the full text:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html)

---- Br. Luke C. Barder, OP

Cairo - Day Four

There are about 110 pyramids currently known in Egypt, many in a state of great disrepair and almost unrecognizable. Some were built as burial places for kings and others for queens. A pyramid also may have represented a stairway for the king to ascend to the heavens. Another possibility is that it was symbolic of the primeval mound on which the sun god/creator was born.
The largest pyramid ever built was the Great Pyramid at Giza southwest of modern Cairo. Built for king Khufu, this pyramid was completed around 2550 BC. It is estimated that the pyramid contains approximately 2,300,000 blocks of stone with an average weight of 2.5 tons each and some up to 15 tons. Its sides measure 230 meters in length. The structure would have towered about 146.6 meters high, but it is now a little shorter owing to the outer casing having been removed to build many of Cairo's buildings during the Middle Ages.
The Giza Plateau also is home to two other large pyramids for the subsequent kings, Chephren and Menkaura. As with the Great Pyramid, both of these pyramids have valley temples and mortuary temples connected by causeways. However, next to Chephren's valley temple is the famous 73-metre long Sphinx and its associated temple. Despite controversy over its age, most Egyptologists believe that the Sphinx was carved from a rocky outcrop at the same time as Chephren's pyramid.

Cairo - Day Three

The City of the Dead (Qarafa, Arafa) is a forty km long cemetery east of Cairo. To the people of Cairo and other Egyptians, it is simply el'arafa which means "the cemetery". It is a bustling grid of tombs and mausoleums where people live and work amongst their dead ancestors. Many residents live here to be near their loved ones, or because they were forced from more crowded areas in Cairo. Many also came from their villages simply looking for work, stayed there and eventually migrated.

Cairo - Day Two

The Fatimid Caliphate or al-Fātimiyyūn (Arabic الفاطميون) was an Arab Shi'a dynasty that ruled over varying areas of the Maghreb, Egypt, Sicily, Malta and the Levant from 5 January 909 to 1171. It was the fourth and final Arab caliphate. The caliphate was ruled by the Fatimids, who established the Egyptian city of Cairo as their capital. The term Fatimite is sometimes used to refer to the citizens of this caliphate. The ruling elite of the state belonged to the Ismaili branch of Shi'ism. The leaders of the dynasty were also Shia Ismaili Imams, hence, they had a religious significance to Ismaili Muslims. They are also part of the chain of holders of the office of Caliph, as recognized by most Muslims, the only period in which the Shia Imamate and the Caliphate were united to any degree, excepting the Caliphate of Ali himself.

With exceptions, the Fatimids were reputed to exercise a degree of religious tolerance towards non-Ismaili sects of Islam as well as towards Jews, Maltese Christians and Coptic Christians. (source: Wikepedia)

Some Thoughts on Inter-faith Dialogue by Asghar Ali Engineer

(Asghar Ali Engineer is a follower of Islam from India he has been fighting for communal harmony. We touched on some of the points of dialogue the other day so I thought it will be good to read another way of looking at dialogue.. ...Br Prakash OP)

Inter-faith dialogue is becoming commonplace these days and many organisations are organising it in view of inter-religious tensions in many countries in the world. USA had not known it earlier or very few organisations were involved but post 9/11 Islam came under attack and tensions between Christians and Muslims increased and so many organisations came into being organising dialogues.
In India too the decade of eighties saw eruption of communal violence and several major riots took place from Moradabad in beginning of eighties to Bhagalpur to Mumbai until beginning of nineties. Thus Indians also realised the importance of inter-faith dialogue and number of them took place. I must say Indians did not have this tradition and it is Christians who took main initiative and invited Muslims and Hindus to talk to each other.
However, most of the dialogues tend to be at a very superficial level. We often refer to what is best in our tradition completely ignoring what is worst in it and causes thereof. Thus all sides praise their own religious tradition and disperse and the problem continues. One wonders then why conflict takes place at all. Thus like other rituals we also perform one more ritual and feel duty has been done.
First of all inter-faith dialogue has to be much deeper encounter between Faiths which must bring out not only good and undesirable elements but also problem areas and conflict which occurs due to these problem areas and how to resolve these problem areas. Inter-faith dialogue should be followed by an attempt to conflict transformation, to make it more useful.
Conflict transformation also needs deeper engagement with the causes of conflict and find ways to resolve it. Inter-faith dialogue per se may be useful but it can become much more so if there is deeper engagement and sincere attempt to understand causes of conflict and resolve it through mutual cooperation.
Inter-religious dialogue needs some strict discipline also. It requires true religious attitude and what is meant by it is accepting truth of all religions. Any sense of superiority about ones own religion, howsoever subtle, defeats very purpose. Sense of superiority has ways to assert itself through our ego, individual as well as collective. One must realize that no religion can ever be based on falsehood though their faith traditions may differ for number of reasons.
Maulana Azad, a great Muslim theologian and commentator of the Qur’an also realised this and maintained, quoting scriptures of all great religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Christianity that core of religion, what he calls Deen is same but what differs is customs, traditions and legal practices what he describes as shari’ah. These differences, he maintains, are not due to different core teachings but due to origin and manifestations of these religions in different cultures. Thus differences in cultures play greater role than different teachings.
We often miss this point and find in these differences causes of conflict. Also, we are so much lost in rituals that we completely miss spirituality of each faith tradition. A great seer like Ramakrishna realized the commonality of spirituality by practicing all three religions i.e. Hinduism, Christianity and Islam and found no significant difference in their spirituality. Both these great religious thinkers understood the problem at much deeper level and after serious engagement with theologies of these religions.
One should also understand that religion and religious communities are two different entities. Religion remains in theological domain whereas religious communities exist in secular space with secular interests, and conflicts are not religious theologies but secular interests of these communities. Often clash of communal interests are projected as clash of religions or religious theologies.
A good example of this is Huntington’s much discussed book Clash of Civilizations. In fact there is absolutely no clash between civilizations, it is clash between USA and the Arab nations during the Bush regime which was projected by Huntington as clash of civilizations. In India, it is political interests of a section of Hindus and Muslims or Christians which clash and it is often projected as clash between Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.
Also, religion is often misused by vested interests and misuse of religion becomes part of the problem. What is often discussed is politicised religion than religion by itself. There are number of examples of this in history as well as in contemporary world. Crusades are best examples of this. It was no clash between Christianity and Islam but fight for supremacy over Palestine.
Similarly the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid issue was in no sense a religious issue. It was purely an attempt to politicise a controversy related to a religious place and the right place to resolve this controversy was court of law. The issue was artificially created by the Sangh Parivar in 1948 by installing idols of Ram and Sita with a political project in mind. To fulfil the aim with which these idols were installed inside the mosque at dead of the night, the controversy was raked in late eighties.
As religion is often politicised in contemporary world so it was politicised in history too. And all that became part of religion and now we are unable to separate chafe from grain and what is more unfortunate is that we fight on these issues even in contemporary world. I would like to illustrate with some examples. One such example is the concept of jihad. Some extremist elements among Muslims are grossly misusing it for their own political project.
What is described as jihad by these extremist elements is in no sense a Qur’anic discourse. Jihad meant, as far as the Qur’anic discourse is concerned, nothing more than strenuous efforts to spread good and contain evil. It is in fact intellectual efforts and involves no fight with weapons, though some maintain that it could be the last resort if at all evil takes violent form. The Prophet of Islam himself described jihad as speaking truth in the face of a tyrant ruler and get justice to the oppressed.
However, jihad came to be grossly misused by many Muslim rulers in history for territorial expansion and every fight with non-Muslim rulers on territorial issues came to be construed as jihad. It is important to note that the Prophet (PBUH) himself was forced to fight some battles but he never described them as ‘jihad’. They were described as ghazw which was the prevalent term in pre-Islamic Arabic also for inter-tribal raids and battles. Of course there were no major wars in pre-Islamic Arabia and violence was limited to inter-tribal fights for which the term ghzw was used.
Had jihad been a war or battle Prophet (PBUH) would have freely used it as who could then be entitled to use that word jihad than the Prophet himself. But yet the rulers who grabbed power after the period of khilafat (30 years of rule by the prominent companions of the Prophet) called their mutual fights as jihad or any fight with non-Muslim ruler as ‘jihad’. And its constant misuse throughout history made it part of Islamic discourse.
Thus today those who are non-state actors fighting Muslim rulers and killing Muslims and non-Muslims from civil society describe it as jihad and those who have no deeper understanding of religious tradition accept it as jihad, many Muslims no exception. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who tries to engage with Islamic history at deeper levels that killing innocent people for political purposes cannot be construed jihad in any sense of the word.
Jihad as such implies only efforts, not weapons and even if it does supposedly imply weapons it cannot be permissible to kill innocent members of civil society. Right from 9/11 until today those who style themselves as jihadis have killed only innocent people. Be it in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq they are killing only Muslims as there are hardly non-Muslims in these countries.
Jihad was never so grossly corrupted as by Al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghan-Pakistan area. To describe these killers as ‘jihadis’ is great insult to the term jihad and I say there can be no greater insult to this noble concept which implies peaceful intellectual efforts for greater good in our conflict torn world. Politicised jihad of today has become a curse for the peaceful world.
It is in this sense that a deeper encounter with our own and other’s religious traditions is necessary and it is in this sense I maintain that superficial dialogues will not help in which we just mention what is best in our tradition completely ignoring what is worse and how it happen to come about. And such deeper encounter should not be restricted to few dialogue circles only.
More and more people should be involved through mass media. Today media has become a part of problem rather than solution. Media hardly takes interest in inter-faith debate. It spreads prejudices about the other rather than enlightening its readers or viewers. Media has not only been commercialized but has also been politicized. There is great need to involve media persons in such deeper encounters so that for media persons religion does not become blind spot. Inter-faith dialogue has to embrace whole society (csss@mtnl.net.in).

Cairo - Day One

"This severe architecture comes to life in the sun, with its shadow and shades of colour. I had at last found what i came to consider to be the very essence of Islamic architecture in the middle of the mosque of Ibn Tulun" (I.M. Pei)

Ibn Tulun, the oldest mosque and the largest mosque in Cairo (in terms of its site).

The central courtyard of the mosque of Ahmad Ibn Tulun in Cairo (876-879). The distinctive high domed sabil(absolutions fountain) was added in the central courtyard in the late 13th century by the Mamluk Sultan Lajin. (thanks to Philip Jodidio for the text)