Today I am going to look into the topic of Orthodox and Muslim cooperation, suggest one possible approach to this issue and give a practical example were this could be done immediately and with great benefit for all the parties involved. I consider this post today as the eighth installment of my “Russia and Islam” series and I suggest that those who have not read it take a look at it before proceeding (click here for parts one, two, three, four, five, six and seven). For reasons obvious to anybody who has read these series, I will limit my scope to the topic of cooperation between Orthodox Christians and non-Wahabi Muslims. As an Orthodox Christian myself I do not believe that any cooperation is possible between the Orthodox Church and the Papacy or the Reformed/Protestant denominations, nor do I believe that there is anything to discuss with Wahabis. So when I will speak of ‘Christian’ below this will strictly refer to Orthodox Christians and ‘Muslim’ will refer to any Muslim except Wahabis.
The fundamentally misguided yet typical approach:
Having had many opportunities to exchange views with Muslim from different countries and having also heard Christian and Muslim religious figures engaged in various debates, dialogs and discussions, I can describe the typical scenario by which such dialogs are conducted.
Typically, both sides try to establish a list of all the issues Islam and Christianity agree upon. These include that God is love, that the Mother of Jesus was a virgin, that the anti-Christ will come before the end of time, that Moses was a great prophet, that angels are the messengers of God any many other things. Added to this list of topics of agreement are usually statements about how Christians and Muslims have lived in peace side by side and how this should continue today. This is a well meaning and polite way to engage in a dialog, but this is also a fundamentally misguided one for the simple reason that it overlooks absolutely fundamental theological and historical problems. Let’s take these one by one.
Irreconcilable theological differences between Christianity and Islam
The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called “Credo” or “Symbol of Faith” (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest ‘i‘ of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms – the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.
The fact is that Muslim would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made
This part clearly and unambiguously affirms that Jesus-Christ was not only the Son of God but actually God Himself. This is expressed by the English formulation “of one essence with the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί in Greek with the key term homousios meaning “consubstantial”). This is *THE* core belief of Christianity: that Jesus was the theanthropos, the God-Man or God incarnate. This belief is categorically unacceptable to Islam which says that Christ was a prophet and by essence a ‘normal’ human being.
For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called “Shahada” or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God”. One can often also hear this phrased as “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet”.
Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that “Allah” is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don’t – this is really irrelevant here), it’s the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the “Symbol of Faith”). Saint John of Damascus even called him a ‘false prophet’. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the “Shahada” without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the “Symbol of Faith” without giving up his Islam.
So why bother?
Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studying and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.
The next divisive issue is the historical record.
Christians and Muslims – friends or foes? What does history show?
Another well-meaning and fundamentally mistaken approach often seen in dialogs between Christians and Muslims is the attempt to present the history of relations between these two faiths as a long uninterrupted love-fest. This is factually wrong and naive to the extreme.
First, both Muslims and Christians are human beings, imperfect and sinful human beings (both religions agree on that). Second, and just to make things worse, both Islam and Christianity have, at times, been official state religions, meaning that states acted in the name of their religion. As a result, there have been plenty of moments in history where Christians and Muslims fought each other. Yes, it is true that Muslims and Christians often did live in peace side by side, but unless one is a total bigot and ignoramus, it is simply impossible to ignore the fact that Christians and Muslims also waged war, persecuted and mistreated each other, sometimes viciously.
So what?
What needs to be established not whether Christians and Muslims did wrong each other in the past, but whether they can live in peace. And the answer to that is a resounding “yes!”. I know, some naysayer will immediately object that both Christianity and Islam have an mixed record of interpretation of whether converting the other to your religion is a religious duty or not. The point here is not whether some Christians or Muslims do (or did) believe that they have to convert each other at all cost, but whether there are those who do not believe so. As long as this is a possibility compatible with one’s faith this is sufficient.
I think that history, and plenty of statements from religious figures on both sides, prove that this is possible – and that there is a preponderance of evidence to show that – that both Christians and Muslims can accept that the decision to be a Muslim or a Christian should be freely taken inside each person’s heart without compulsion or even interference. The fact that it is possible to interpret Christianity and Islam differently is irrelevant as long as it is also possible to accept such a basic stance on religious choices.
Yes, I know that in Islam apostasy is a capital crime, but I also know that over the centuries Muslims have also chosen to not enforce this. It is not for me as an Orthodox Christian to dictate what Muslim leaders decide, but it is also clear to me that there are enough wise and pragmatic Muslim leaders out there to fully comprehend the consequences of a decision on their part to enforce the death penalty on somebody choosing to abandon Islam.
So where do we go from here?
It is very simply to get Christians and Muslims to feel hostility towards each other. First, make a few theological statements which are unacceptable to the other party, call the other a heretic or unbeliever, then mention a few bloody and contentious episodes in history and soon you will have a very nasty situation on your hands. This is as easy as it is sterile as nothing at all can come from that.
Thankfully, it is just as easy to accept that there are irreconcilable differences between the core beliefs of both religions and that each person should have the means to freely make a choice between these two faiths according to his conscience. As for history, it is a no-brainer to accept that both parties have, at times, done wrong to each other and that we are not responsible for what happened in the past, but only for what we make of our present and future.
Still, having dealt with our differences, we still should ask ourselves whether we have something in common, a common interest, or common values, which we might want to jointly defend. And we most definitely do: our ethics.
The common ground – ethics:
Any religion has two primarily components: what it believes in, what it proclaims, and then the rules of life, the “how to” of daily existence which it mandates. In Christian terms there is the doxa (what you proclaim or glorify) and the praxis (how you live your spiritual life on a daily basis). These are the basic rules common to most religions: not to kill, not to steal, to live a life of modesty, to protect the weak, etc. When comparing Islam and Christianity one can find both differences and similarities between their praxis and ethics. The differences in praxis are not that important because they mostly affect the private lives of the faithful: Muslims will fast during the month of Ramadan, Christians during the four major fasts of the year and on Wednesdays and Fridays. So let them, who cares? They really do not bother each other and, in fact, they are typically respectful of each other’s traditions. On ethics, however, the two religions mostly agree both on a social/corporate and individual level and, with one notable exception which I will discuss below, Christianity and Islam have very similar ideas of what is right and wrong and what society should stand for or pro-actively reject. Rather than making a long list of what Islam and Christianity agree on, I will simply introduce a new actor for comparison’s sake: the “post-Christian secular West”.
What does the post-Christian and secular West stand for today?
First and foremost, the post-Christian and secular West stands for the freedom of each person to chose his/her own system of belief, code of behavior, system of morals, lifestyles, etc. In other words, the post-Christian and secular West categorically rejects the notion that something called “The Truth” exists. From that it is logically inevitable to conclude that there really is no “right” or “wrong” at all. In fact, a core belief of the post-Christian and secular West is that “your freedom stops were mine begins” (originally expressed as “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins“). Ergo – as long as others are not affected by it, you can do whatever you want. Each person has his/her ‘truth’ and what you consider right another person might consider wrong and vice-versa.
Second, and as a direct consequence of the first point, the post-Christian and secular West places the well-being of the individual above the well-being of the community. This is perfectly expressed by the famous “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” phrase of the US Declaration of Independence which states that these are the inalienable right of each individual. The contrast with both Christianity and Islam could not have been greater since these religions consider that the real life is the Eternal Life, that the human being is called to be in obedience to God and that true happiness is spiritual and not earthly. In fact, while the West considers life as the highest value, Christianity and Islam welcome death and consider that dying in the name of God is a most desirable act of witness of God (martis in Greek has exactly the same meaning as shahid in Arabic: witness).
Finally, and as a direct consequence of the two points above, the only common value to all people in the post-Christian and secular West is, of course, money. Money is, literally, the only “common currency” of a society without any supreme values in which each person is free to define right and wrong as he/she wishes. This results in an inevitable monetization of everything, including the life of a human being.
This is really a very minimal system of values, but it is plenty enough to make it the “anti-religion” par excellence. In comparison to that, the differences between Orthodoxy and Islam suddenly appear tiny, almost irrelevant. Today, this is best exemplified in Russia where both Orthodox Christianity and Islam are under a direct multi-level attack by the determined efforts of the post-Christian and secular West which spares no effort to subvert and destroy the vales of these religions and replace them by Western “values” promoted in multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns, including music, movies, books, fashion, TV, talk shows, stores, politicians, famous personalities, etc.
The recent and famous cases of Pussy-Riot and the supposed “right” of Russian homosexual to organize “pride” parades in Moscow are the perfect examples of the kind of agenda the post-Christian and secular West is pushing nowadays. And although this is not reported in the Western corporate media, I can attest to the fact that Muslim leaders in Russia all perfectly understand that they are also under attack and that this is not just an “Orthodox problem”.
So what could they do about it?
A prefect opportunity – the Russian Constitution
Russian politicians are not blind to what is going on and with the exception of a few pathologically naive or dishonest “liberals”, they all understand that what is happening now is a clash of civilizations between the post-Christian and secular West and post-Soviet Russia. The fact that this clash if civilizations is not only ideological, but also political and even military (as the examples of the Euromaidan in the Ukraine and the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe shows) only makes these matters more urgent.
It just so happened that the Russian Constitution is celebrating its 20th anniversary and that possible changes to that Constitution are being discussed in many part of Russian society. On of the most bizarre features of the current Russian Constitution is that it forbids the state from having any ideology. Article 13.2 of the current Constitution states that “No ideology may be established as state or obligatory one“. The roots of this rather strange paragraph can be traced to a mix of the general rejection of the old Soviet official Marxist-Leninist Communist ideology and a transparent attempt of the foreign “advisers” to the Eltsin regime in 1993 to make darn sure that nothing “Russian” would find its place in the new Russian Constitution.
Some Russian Orthodox politicians have suggested that this paragraph 13.2 should be expunged and that some formulation would have to be found to express the notion that Orthodoxy played a key historical role in the culture and system of values of modern Russia, that Orthodox values are the basis of the modern ideology of Russia. So far, no exact formulation has been suggested and there is even a debate whether such a phrase should be included in the Constitution itself or in its preamble.
Needless to say, even raising such a notion has resulted in an outraged reaction by the small but very vocal minority of pro-Western “liberal” politicians. More importantly, a lot of Russian Orthodox Christians also have deep reservations about the wisdom of such an amendment because it might alienate all the non-Orthodox people in Russia, which include not only Muslims or Buddhists, but a probably majority of agnostics. Muslim leaders have also expressed concern that this would officially place Islam in a 2nd-category religion status (even though that is exactly the status of Christian dhimmis under Sharia law) and given Orthodoxy a senior, leading role.
I strongly believe that this is the perfect example when Christians and Muslims can easily find a common ground and unite forces: why not simply recognize the special role of Orthodoxy and Islam in the historical formulation of the Russian culture, society and system of values?
First, this happens to be historically correct. Not only were there a lot of Muslims among the Mongols who occupied Russia, in particular in the late period of occupation, but the expansion of the Russian state included many areas with a majority Muslim population who became citizens of the Russian Empire. Muslims have fought in defense of the Russian state and nation in many wars from the times of Saint Alexander Nevsky, to WWII to the 08.08.08 war against Georgia. Last but most definitely not least, Akhmad Kadyrov and his son Ramzan Kadyrov have played an absolutely crucial role in kicking the Wahabis out of Chechnya and thereby they not only saved the Chechen nation from what would have been an absolutely devastating Russian assault, but they also probably saved Russia from a very dangerous and bloody war in the Caucasus. The same can be said of the Dagestani men who for several days single-handedly fought the invading “Islamic International Brigade” of Shamil Basaev and Khattab from Chechnia in 1999 until the main Federal forces got involved. Modern Russia is, beyond any possible doubt, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state whose well-being and prosperity depends in great part from the kind of Islam Russian Muslims will chose: the Islam of Ramzan Kadyrov or the “Islam” of Doku Umarov (the shaitan who fancies himself the “President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Emir of the Caucasus Emirate”).
Second, by acknowledging the role of both Orthodox Christianity and Islam the proponents of this constitutional amendment would gain the support of what is by far the largest segment of the religions population: there are Buddhists, Papists, Protestants, Jews and other religious denominations in Russia, but they are tiny compared to the big two. Personally, I would also include Buddhists in this list of “culture forming” religious whose values are shaping Russian society if only because (unlike the other small(er) religions) they are truly indigenous to Russia whereas the other denominations are “foreign imports” which, of course, have the right to exist in Russia, but which have had exactly zero influence on the formation of the Russian national identity or system of values.
As for the nominally religious and mostly agnostic people, the mere fact that two (or three) religions are recognized in a special role should assuage their concerns about any one system of values or ideology becoming official at the expense of everybody else. After all, most people in Russia would agree that the ethics of Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. The only major societal and moral issue in which Orthodox Christianity and Islam really disagree on is the issue of capital punishment. But that is irrelevant since Russia has pledged a total moratorium on executions anyway (of all things, to join – what else? – the Council of Europe); besides a majority of Russians still remain in favor of the death penalty to the point that it might even be re-introduced in the future.
Conclusion
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, cooperation between Orthodox Christianity and Islam is actually very easy to achieve. Both sides have to accept the fact of irreconcilable theological disagreements, both sides have to accept that they did wrong each other in the past, and both sides have to affirm the right of each person to freely chose his/her religion, including the right to switch from one to another. So far that should be a no-brainer.
Next, Christian and Muslims need to define a set of civilizational issues that they fully agree on. Also a no-brainer.
Finally, both sides should systematically defend their cultural, social and civilizational values together, side by side. In fact, as long as their cultural, social and civilizational values are not in conflict with each other, Orthodox Christians and Muslims should defend the values of the other side on principle, as being *Russian* formative/foundational values. For example, Russian Orthodox Christians should defend the right of Muslim girls to wear a scarf in school and elsewhere. Not only because that is beautiful or because before Peter I all Russian woman always war the exact same scarfs not only in church, but all day long – but because the so-called “Islamic veil” is in no way a threat to Christianity: just look at an icon of the Mother of God.
Recently, an Orthodox church was burned down at night in Tatarstan by some Wahabi thugs. The local Muslim community got together and donated all the money needed for a full reconstruction. Likewise, in Chechnia, Ramzan Kadyrov has personally overseen the reconstruction of many Russian churches destroyed in combat or by the Wahabis and the local government has now allocated money for the construction of an Orthodox cathedral in the center of Grozny. In the meantime, the city authorities of Stavropol have ordered the destruction of two “illegal” mosques. That is in a city which has only one mosque – currently used as a museum, it’s tiny anyway – and a Muslim population of anywhere 60’000 and 500’000 people (depends on who you ask and how you measure). The city authorities did promise to build a full Islamic Center (with mosque, school, hotel, etc.) which is great, but nothing has been done so far. Granted, the situation in Stavropol is particularly bad and it is complicated by many other factors such as the existence of nominally “Muslim” gangs of thugs and the hostility of the local popularization to what they perceive as the “Islamization” of their city and region. This is the exact type of case where the Federal authorities need to energetically intervene, as Putin has often done in such cases, and deal with this problem in what is referred to as “manual regime” (in contrast to the bureaucratic autopilot). Overall, so far, the record of Orthodox-Muslim cooperation is checkered.
If Orthodox Christians and Muslims could get together and jointly push for a change in the Russian Constitution this would not only get the job done, but it would herald a new era for Russia because it would send a strong signal to the local level in Russia (such as Stavropol) and abroad (Iran, Syria, Lebanon) that Russia has taken the fundamental decision to work with any Muslim party willing to do so on the basis of a few clearly defined, mutually accepted and simple principles.
A special words to any naysayers
I personally find all of the above really basic and self-evident. But having met the naysayers from both sides, I know that some of you will not be convinced. You “know” that Christians are imperialists never to be trusted or the Muslims are out to establish a “world Caliphate” on our dead bodies. Okay. Now let me ask you the question Americans kids like to challenge each other with: “and what are you gonna do about it?!“. Expel all Muslims out of Russia and cut-off the Caucasus? Kill all of kufars and organize an Islamic Caliphate in Russia? Fight the righteous struggle against everybody and all fronts at the same time all on your own? Convince everybody to convert?
I don’t think so.
In fact, by doing any of that all your are going to do is to do exactly what the Western political elites really want you to do! You do that any nobody will be more happy than the Tamir Pardo, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton. Politics is the art of the possible and to aim at the impossible is simply one form of political suicide. Those who desperately want to pit Christians against Muslims will never achieve anything but delivering yet another blow against the very religion they claim to defend. In my experience, these people have a very poor and superficial religious education and typically no historical education at all. They mistake their hatred for the “other” for a God-pleasing religious zeal, and they act not so much out of love for their own religion, as out of hate for the religion of the other. These are the folks who simply cannot see, in the beautiful words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that
All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain. The resources we have set aside for ourselves are too impoverished for the task. We must first recognize the horror perpetrated not by some outside force, not by class or national enemies, but within each of us individually, and within every society. This is especially true of a free and highly developed society, for here in particular we have surely brought everything upon ourselves, of our own free will. We ourselves, in our daily unthinking selfishness, are pulling tight that noose…
God-fearing and pious Muslims and Christians alike must realize and accept that humility and sincere repentance for our own sins is what God calls us to do and that seeking an external enemy to fear and hate is not profitable for our souls. Our diversity of beliefs has no other cause than our own sinfulness, which itself is a direct consequence of our common humanity, a humanity which we all share regardless of our beliefs. Having found and espoused the True faith does not necessarily make us better people at all, it only makes us more fortunate and privileged ones, and that privilege places a special burden upon us to show forgiveness and compassion towards our erring fellow human being. Finally, if our goal is really to convert the other one, the best way to do that is by our individual example of true piety, purity and love and not by “winning” a political struggle.
The Saker
From one muslim to you, Saker- well written and accepted. I join with you on this idea. May The Creator accept our good intentions and efforts.
Peace
Zainab
Great post Saker. This “unthinking selfishness”, in Solzhenitsyn’s words, catches so well the essence of the sheeple we have become in our free and highly developed society, but also highly impoverished spiritually.
When you say that basically Orthodoxy and Islam share the same ethical values, this is genuinely true. It contrasts dramatically with the doublespeak “values” that are being relentlessly advertised by Western leaders.
I am afraid that a Muslim-Orthodox bias introduced into paragraph 13.2 of the Russian constitution might not be well perceived by all the other minorities. Another way to achieve a consensus and keeping the neutrality of paragraph 13.2, could be considered by looking at the example given lately by Croatia: Hold a referendum and introduce one or several new constitutional articles as safeguards from ‘the plot against civilization’.
Croatians vote to ban same-sex marriage
alizard
Such an outcome would throw the imperialists into a tizzy … I think the vast majority of Muslims would celebrate – But I have to say, I ‘m not sure, do you understand implications of this? A Russian recognition of Islamic in this context, while maybe political, would be a civilizational move – . Because it would rightfully, tie Russia to the “Islamic world” – not just as it is now, but real terms of the future of Russia. I think actually, you do understand, based on your earlier posts… Is this really possible, given where Russia is today, or would this be something way in a possible future?
… the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say ‘We are Christians’; that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud. (Qur’an 5:82)
The Qur’an describes the kind of Christians who would love the “believers” (Momin, a higher spiritual level than Muslims) … If I understand you correctly, you are not looking for a theological justification necessarily for such a proposal… I think, for Muslims, there is a Quranic basis … (there is also a basis for such with other religious groups as well… and there are basis why such a proposal would not fly – i.e. not with arrogant zionists, and/or arrogant ‘christians’ etc. )
Thank you for this deep analysis!
You gave me much food for thought!
Since you first recent answer in the comments about the secular west, my view about the greatest risk to secularism has become the peril of development of secular pseudo religions and pseudo cults: It seems that man has a ‘religion lobe’ in his brain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6664802
Secular people seem to have the risk of substituting ideology for God: communism, fascism and currently neo liberalism.
Pseudo cults like the ‘objectivism’ from Ayn Rand and postmodernism seem to drive pseudo religions (as well as deliberately corrupting forces, like global zionism.)
Postmodernism came to a sudden death through the brilliant action of one man:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/seebach.html
(Although these things take time to ‘trickle down’ to all layers of society).
Ideologies can of course be used in a rational way as well; it is the believers making it a pseudo religion. Pseudo religions kill on a global scale: hundreds of millions! Wahabists, jewish settlers and evangelicals might be seen as a hybrid cults between fundamentalism and post modernism, since they have rejected moderate traditions from many hundreds to thousands of years.
Fortunately there are plenty decent agnostics and atheists.
So there must be hope for us! But what keeps a secular person decent?
Keep giving us food for thought please!
“and both sides have to affirm the right of each person to freely chose his/her religion”
In Islam, a law of Allah cannot be changed by humans.
Even though it may sound noble and logical at the time.
If the punishment for apostasy is death, then no alim, Shia or Sunni, can change this.
But the rules become very tricky when it comes to implementation. Any offence that involves capital punishment is very hard to implement and the conditions set, hard to fulfill. Also in Russia, where carrying out such a punishment would go against local government, whose rules Muslims are ordered to obey as long as they do not encroach on their faith(much like the issue of head scarves), makes it even more complicated.
There are cases in which a law can be suspended, not revoked. For instance, there was a ruling on cow slaughter by Ayatollah Khoi. Religious Hindus in India were asking Muslims not to slaughter Cows. The Shias referred the matter to Khoi. He more or less said that “what Allah has made halal I cannot make haram, but if you fear that by slaughtering cows it will lead to violence and a loss of life it is better to avoid it.”
In this link you can see both Shias and Sunnis avoiding cow slaughter
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=359265
What I’m trying to point out is that maybe for the greater good, this condition of yours can be met. But the law of Islam will not change. I tried looking up what Sistani had to say, but could not find anything. It is a delicate subject and because a ruling can be misused their office will not, I guess, open source it.
I was reading about the ruling of Sistani on killing those committing sodomy. And how it was removed from his site. I don’t know for sure, but I feel the reason it was removed was because it was being misused in Iraq. The fatwa still stands.
When Khumaini gave the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was based on this principle. That Rushdie had become an apostate. I read in a few places that Rushdie pointed out that he was still a Muslim, thus trying to show that the ruling would not apply to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#Religious_and_political_beliefs
Mindfriedo
I mostly agree with your portrayal and criticism of superficial interreligious dialogue (I smiled more than once reading it). And I also agree to ethics as a common ground for cooperation between religions, in this case between Christianity and Islam.
And I definitely think that such a cooperation is very needed in the face of the onslaught of the “Reichsreligion of the total market” (Carl Amery), the “earthly religion of modernity”.
You wrote: “…the only common value to all people in the post-Christian and secular West is, of course, money. Money is, literally, the only “common currency” of a society without any supreme values in which each person is free to define right and wrong as he/she wishes. This results in an inevitable monetization of everything, including the life of a human being.
Here in the worlds of a contemporary muslim: „I have often wondered why the Israelites in the time of Nabi Musa (Peace be upon him) were so dumb as to worship a golden calf created with their own hands. Looking at our own lives today and at the amount of time, love and energy that we devote to our stone idol (the house), to our metal idol (the car), or to our paper gods (the share certificates), it is no longer so strange that the Israelites, whom Musa led out of the darkness of oppression to the light of liberation, should fall for gimmicks. The difference is, of course, that Samiri, the initiator of the calf-idol idea, acted naively and in isolation. The idols of capitalism and consumerism today are created by a whole class of people whose lives rotate around little other than exploitation for profit.“ (Farid Esack: On Being a Muslim. Finding a religious path in the world today. Oxford (Oneworld) 1999, S. 104)
What I am not so sure about is, what steps should be taken? Would it really be helpful to change the Russian constitution? I do not know enough about Russia to assess that.
But I do know that there is a discussion among Muslims on the relations between religion, state, politics and society. Here two differing (and in a way contradicting) Muslim voices and – God help me – I agree with both of them:
„I understand the desire of the Islamists to re-establish a truly Islamic order in their House. I believe that they are on the wrong track and, in pursuing it blindly, have overstepped the mark set by the Quran and by the example of the Prophet. Even if they remained within the bounds established by the Faith, they would still be the victims of a typically western illusion; the illusion that to change the “system” is to change human nature and that virtue can be imposed by edict. History, particularly the history of puritan regimes, proves them wrong. Where, now, is the “new Soviet man”? The future of the Muslims does not lie in that direction. So much, at least, can be said with some assurance. Public achievements do not long endure. They are carried away by the tide, like sandcastles built too close to the water’s edge. Even the most excellent political order, once it has been established, has already begun to decay. But the achievement of individual excellence belongs to a different order. It reverberates in the community and provides an example which is loved and imitated by others.” (Charles Le Gai (Hassan Abdul Hakeem) Eaton: Remembering God. Reflections on Islam. Chicago (Kazi Publications) 2000, S. 134)
„The accusation that those being moved by their religious convictions to engagement in the liberation struggle were ‘using religion for political ends’ came from several quarters. For the conservative clergy, going along with the system of apartheid wasn’t viewed as politics; opposing it was. Many of them, in fact, had histories of collaboration with the apartheid regime – a regime that epitomised the abuse of religion for political objectives. Even without active collaboration with the regime one could still argue that a conscious silence in the face of the injustice was itself a political act. (…) The choice is not between revelation and revolution, nor is the question whether we should get involved in politics or not, for all of us are already involved. The question is not whether religion can be used for political purposes, either. The question is which religion – that of the feudal lord or of the villager – and for whose objectives: for a narrow class or capital’s interest or for God’s family – ‘the people’ and their only home – the earth.“ (Farid Esack: On Being a Muslim. Finding a religious path in the world today. Oxford (Oneworld) 1999, S. 90 and S. 93)
The experiences of Muslims with organized religion taking political steps is a mixed one at best, to put it mildly. As far as I can see, that’s the same with Christianity, Judaism and so on.
Therefore: Cooperation: Fine.
Defending cultural, social and civilizational values together: Fine.
Doing this by changing the Russian constitution: Really?
What I am not so sure about is, what steps should be taken? Would it really be helpful to change the Russian constitution? I do not know enough about Russia to assess that.
But I do know that there is a discussion among Muslims on the relations between religion, state, politics and society. Here two differing (and in a way contradicting) Muslim voices and – God help me – I agree with both of them:
„I understand the desire of the Islamists to re-establish a truly Islamic order in their House. I believe that they are on the wrong track and, in pursuing it blindly, have overstepped the mark set by the Quran and by the example of the Prophet. Even if they remained within the bounds established by the Faith, they would still be the victims of a typically western illusion; the illusion that to change the “system” is to change human nature and that virtue can be imposed by edict. History, particularly the history of puritan regimes, proves them wrong. Where, now, is the “new Soviet man”? The future of the Muslims does not lie in that direction. So much, at least, can be said with some assurance. Public achievements do not long endure. They are carried away by the tide, like sandcastles built too close to the water’s edge. Even the most excellent political order, once it has been established, has already begun to decay. But the achievement of individual excellence belongs to a different order. It reverberates in the community and provides an example which is loved and imitated by others.” (Charles Le Gai (Hassan Abdul Hakeem) Eaton: Remembering God. Reflections on Islam. Chicago (Kazi Publications) 2000, S. 134)
„The accusation that those being moved by their religious convictions to engagement in the liberation struggle were ‘using religion for political ends’ came from several quarters. For the conservative clergy, going along with the system of apartheid wasn’t viewed as politics; opposing it was. Many of them, in fact, had histories of collaboration with the apartheid regime – a regime that epitomised the abuse of religion for political objectives. Even without active collaboration with the regime one could still argue that a conscious silence in the face of the injustice was itself a political act. (…) The choice is not between revelation and revolution, nor is the question whether we should get involved in politics or not, for all of us are already involved. The question is not whether religion can be used for political purposes, either. The question is which religion – that of the feudal lord or of the villager – and for whose objectives: for a narrow class or capital’s interest or for God’s family – ‘the people’ and their only home – the earth.“ (Farid Esack: On Being a Muslim. Finding a religious path in the world today. Oxford (Oneworld) 1999, S. 90 and S. 93)
The experiences of Muslims with organized religion taking political steps is a mixed one at best, to put it mildly. As far as I can see, that’s the same with Christianity, Judaism and so on.
Therefore: Cooperation: Fine.
Defending cultural, social and civilizational values together: Fine.
Doing this by changing the Russian constitution: Really?
excellent post. I wonder though why you dismiss RC and the protestants
@EVERYBODY:
Thank you all for your interesting comments. I just wanted to let you know that I am carefully following these comments and that I consider that the topic is important and complex enough to deserve a rather detailed answer. So what I will do is make a separate post addressing all the comments make here.
In the meantime, please keep your comments/questions/criticisms coming, I will answer them in a couple of days.
Kind regards and many thanks,
The Saker
Thanks for the invitation to keep the comments coming. Hopefully you will not regret it. I am known as someone “who can’t hold her ink”. So be it:
When I wrote “superficial interreligious dialogue” I implied that there could also exist a profound interreligious dialogue, although opinions might differ on what constitutes it.
Just curious: What do you think about:
James S. Cutsinger: Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East
Judging by the essays in this book I would say that the dialogue at this conference on Hesychasm and Sufism in October 2001 was an outstanding example of the latter. But may-be I am biased because I loved the translation of the Philokalia by Kallistos Ware so much that I like everything with his name in it.
Description:„The purpose of this book, the first major publication of its kind, is to promote precisely this more inward kind of ecumenical perspective. These essays point to a spiritual heart in which the deeper meaning of Christian and Muslim beliefs and practices come alive, and where spiritual pilgrims may discover, beyond the level of seemingly contradictory forms, an inner commonality with those who follow other paths.“
see Islam and Religious Pluralism by Muhammad Legenhausen includes a critique of liberal pluralism, and presents an Islamic view of pluralism… that is more from the traditional i.e. vast majority of Muslim (non-wahabbi) pov. (also includes a critique of perennial philosophy of some Sufis)
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol14-n3/islam-and-religious-pluralism-dr-muhammad-legenhausen
Also see Islam and Religious Pluralism by Allama Mutahhari – one of the great Islamic thinkers and revolutionary from the period of the Islamic Revolution in Iran:
http://www.al-islam.org/islam-and-religious-pluralism-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari
@Orthodoxy and Islam…
What one can certainly agree upon, is that the whole problem is a particularly tricky one. I have the feeling that asserting a special role for Islam in the formulation of the Russian culture, society, system of values can lead only to the relativization of religion. The more that I am not convinced that its role was that important in shaping the character of Russia.
The thing that most people take offense to is The Truth. They put forward their particular truths and expect that everybody respect them no mater how distant are from The Truth. Christianity is The Way, The Truth and The Life.
Russia was born with her baptism (as I contend, as a visionary “creation” of Patriarch Photius) as a bulwark of Orthodoxy against the enemies of Christ. As Dostoevsky put it: “Does not Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy alone, contain the truth, and the salvation of the Russian People, and in ages yet to come, the salvation of the whole of humanity? Has not Orthodoxy alone preserved the divine image of Christ in all its purity? And perhaps the principle preordained mission of the Russian People, within the destiny of humanity as a whole, is simply to preserve within it this divine image of Christ in all its purity, and when the time comes, to reveal this image to the world that has lost its way!”
Russia was the continuator of Byzance, her Tsar the defender of Orthodoxy and the protector of all Orthodox. Against that role all hell broke loose and we had the Revolution. Now the time to recover that role has come for Russia.
It won’t go to convert the Muslims or the Buddhists. But it cannot “hide the light under the bushel” either.
How do you bring “reconciliation” hiding the Truth? Certainly not by telling Moslems that they hold the same truth as the Christians and our differences are just “misrepresentations”.
The hard part is that Moslems are in place and one cannot displace them. Therefore a modus vivendi must be found. Naturally it is important to stress the “things that can unite us”:a set of basic ethical demands. But one must discourage the expression of these parts of Islam that would bring harm to others and to the majority of Russians in the first place. I do not think there is any way around that. Inviting people to shed their false impressions and join in the Truth is an act of Love.
Cheers,
wizOz
Concerning Islam and Religious Pluralism and Muhammad Legenhausen
There is reform and there is reform.
There is a reform that returns to traditional values and there is reform that turns away from traditional values. The most radical and stern and fundamentalist are not necessarily the former and the rather moderate, soft-spoken and thoughtful are not necessarily the latter. It always depends on the details.
Internal Iranian politics is awfully complicated. Internal religious trends and movements are even more complicated. There are not many non-Iranians who understand both. I study it since more than 20 years and still most of the time I think that I don’t really understand it.
Wikipedia has an “extremely superficial and even simplistic (but nevertheless useful) mini-overview”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_fundamentalist_Islam_in_Iran
I assure you, the interplay of different currents and tendencies in the political and the religious reality of Iran are infinitely more complex if only because there are much more different factions than mentioned in this survey.
Back to Legenhausen: He is close to Mesbah-Yazdi. Mesbah-Yazdi is a principlist. Although Mesbah-Yazdi, Mohammad Beheshti and Morteza Mottahari were all students of Allameh Tabatabaei (who by the way hold study sessions with Henry Corbin and Seyyed Hossein Nasr), they definitely differed on many subjects, including questions regarding what we might call “interreligious dialogue” for lack of a better term.
And yet Legenhausen is only criticising what he calls “*reductive* religious pluralism“ and “some *degenerate* sufi tariqa”. I am well aware that some Sunni regard Seyyed Hossein Nasr or Reza Shah-Kazemi as rather degenerate or outright apostates, but so what?
Concerning Islam and Religious Pluralism and Muhammad Legenhausen 2
The crucial question is: superficial or profound dialogue. Mentioning John Hicks in this connection feels a bit like a straw man-argument. Mr. Hick was obviously out of his depth when trying to tackle the related subjects and the interfaith groups inspired by his philosophy are examples of the kind of superficial dialogue that was so amusingly characterized by Vineyardsaker. Hopefully Hick now sees things from a higher observation point. But matters should not be judged by his writings or his thoughts.
Concerning religious pluralism Legenhausen gets around the difficult bend when writing: “Instead of positing ignorance about what we believe, we are to admit our ignorance of how God may guide the sincere, and what beliefs are the result of a sincere quest for the truth.” (That was already said by Abdoldjavad Falaturi, and a bit more elegantly put by him, imho). If Legenhausen would look up what other scholars of the Dja’fari school of law already have said on this subject and would occupy himself more with them than with Hicks or the modern western conceptions of inclusivism versus exclusivism… ah well, enough said. There are still treasures to be found.
@old auntie
“Ah well, enough said…”
Please continue, every time you post I find ten other topics to read about…and still so many treasures to be found. :-)
Mindfriedo
OK. For the first time in over 20 years I asked myself what it is that makes the political and religious reality of Iran so perplexing for non-Iranian observers.
Just a hypothesis: Lots of parties, no partisanship of any kind. Neither partisanship of a) family or b) ethnical background. And c) similarity of names can be very deceptive.
Examples on a)
Ali Khamenei (“vali-e faghih-e iran“ and „rahbar-e enghelab“) and Hadi Khamenei are brothers. Hadi, the younger of the two, is a reformist. Ali, the older one, hmmm, less so :-)
The three Shabestari brothers are covering between them the whole political and religious spectrum.
Examples on b)
Well known Azeri are: Ali Khamenei, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, all three Shabestari brothers, Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili.
Well-known Azeri were: Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei, Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, Mehdi Bazargan, Sadegh Khalkhali, Ali Akbar Feyz Meshkini.
I cannot imagine more different personalities and their political or religious affiliations are poles apart. Yet all are part of and loyal to the same Islamic republic of Iran. One could run through every other ethnicity in Iran (including the Persians) and get the same results.
By the way: That’s why Western hopes on fomenting an Azeri secession or using the green movement as starting point for West-oriented regime change were really totally stupid. Thank God.
Examples on c)
The “Combatant Clergy Association” (jāme’e-ye Rowhāniyyat-e Mobārez) is not to be confused with the “Association of Combatant Clerics” (majma’-e rowhāniyūn-e mobārez). Same with the “Freedom movement of Iran” (Ebrahim Yazdi) and the “Freedom Party of Iran” (Majid Mohtashami).
Even if one feels reminded of the „People’s Front of Judea“ versus the „Judean People’s Front“, this feeling would be misleading.
There are literally dozens and dozens of such organisations, associations, parties, alliances, groups, unions, fronts, coalitions, societies, you name it. Not to forget the mini-circles for the city and village councils.
Even Wikipedia has problems, to gather them on a single page. Just take note of the differences in the lists on these two pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran
But there is not a single political party in the Western sense.
Oh, and don’t ever confuse the “Green Party of Iran” (Hezb-e-sabz Hayeh Iran) with the “Iranian Green Movement”. ;-) The two couldn’t be further apart.
Just to round it of, these two are Worlds apart: “Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization” (Sazaman Mojahedin Inqilab Islami) and “People’s Mojahedin of Iran” (Mojahedin-e-Khalq).
Not mentioned in the two Wikipedia lists mentioned above are for example:
Conservatives: Ansar-e-Hezbollah, Modern Thinkers Party of Islamic Iran, Society of Devotees of the Islamic Revolution
Reformists: The Green Path of Hope, Islamic Association of Women, Office for Strengthening Unity, Iranian Workers’ Solidarity Network (not to be confused with the Iran Solidarity Party)
Moderates: Alliance of National-Religious Forces of Iran (=Nationalist-Religious Coalition of Iran)
@old Auntie
Found these two after reading your comments. Started reading one, but hardly get time.
http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol4-n1/introduction-irfan-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari
http://www.al-islam.org/light-within-me-mutahhari-tabatabai-khomeini
Amazed at how intelligent, educated, and persevering are the Shia clergy.
mindfriedo
Please excuse the belated reaction. I had missed your posting.
Ah, yes, Irfan! 12er Shia is famous for studying and teaching Irfan. But, to be fair, there are also some Sunni who are living examples of gnosis. For example Rusmir Mahmutcehajic. You can download his English essay „With the Other“ here:
http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=With_the_Other_by_Rusmir_Mahmutcehajic.pdf
My theory: It is gnosis where Orthodox Christianity (as in Theoria resulting from Hesychasm) and Traditional Islam (as in Irfan) can meet.
http://zaidpub.com/
Agreed, 100% May Allah’s prosper you Saker.
I will show you the ZioNazis religious freeks arguments, and their oposing of Islam, thrue their insane perspective of whats “real”.
The reason for this is the highlight their “arguments” for the hatecapagne against Islam, witch is the exact same teachings you find in the Torah and in the words and deeds of Yeshua.
Period.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2015/02/26/kultur/meninger/kronikk/debatt/islam/37916571/
This rant is the wurst sh…. I have read, the only one preaching the exact same mantra about islam, is ABB, our own rightwinged terrorist and “freinds of israel”.
To fight the Islam.
Norwegian News is so far out into islamaphobia and hate propaganda agansit both Russia and Islam its infact stunning, and whats even wurse, its writen as we are Saudi-ameristanistas, a totall braindead people and nowhere is they alowing anyone to counter their sick propaganda at all, totall controll, as North Korea.
Even the eCONomic news sites have closed down their comentary feilds, whounder why, hehe.
This article is in Norce, so use translit, but this is once again a display of srewedness regading whats de facto true, about Why muslims are generally hated and why dont this “freak” whom is a Pastor/Priest, say a word about the reason for all this wars, not a single word about UssA.
Its like the cutt of the cause and refuses even them selfs to admitt the effects of this cause.
How do one debate freaks like this scum, I know why, its the western MSM, rotten to the core.
And to show the level of ugnorance, even among the Muslims them selfs, about the massive missconeptions and flatout lies about Islam, even done by them selfs.
I have shown it before, and this is writen and also verifyed to be genuine by Muhammad him self.
1400 years ago, about Christianity and others.
http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/08/16/did-you-know-muhammad-wrote-a-letter-guaranteeing-the-protection-of-christians/
Now even you know.
The real reason for the robberbarons to conquer the islamic world is doe to banking, and in islam, usury as its practise this days in the west is forbidden, and regade as a sin of serious graveness.
Thats why they will not stopp untill They are stopped.
You see, the UssA is attacing you lands, and now the UssA wants a war in europa.
And They blame YOU.
wake up
peace
Dear Saker,
I turn to your writings much often than I objectively have the time to spare. Your blog is a part of my mental hygiene and I would value it certainly even if you had not disclosed yourself as an Orthodox Christian or reveled yourself to be an atheist or adherent to a different religion. But the fact that you chose to share that you are an Orthodox Christian influenced my perception. My reason is not disconnected with my heart and the fact that (I thought) we drink from the same cup had a meaning for me. For instance, I always felt uneasy when someone from those who refuse the Council of Chalcedon represents him or herself simply as Orthodox Christian to me, while knowing that I identify as such but accept all seven ecumenical councils. No one has the right to decide for the other what is the “real deal” and obviously Orthodox Christian is not a brand name to be protected as such or a property of an organization, but if we think that there is a good chance we are not in unity as are joined name would suggest, we should be careful not to mislead one another. I thought of you as belonging to ROC (MP), since you disclosed you are Russian and Orthodox. This series implies otherwise (but would you agree that that was a honest mistake?). You say legitimacy of MP is non existent, what about the holy sacraments in ROC, people baptized in the meantime in Russia are not actually so? Is this a harsh inside critic (and there is a lot of reason for that) or are you really not in communion with so called Eastern Orthodox Churches? What Church do you think than stands in Orthodoxy? Me being from Serbian Orthodox Church, what am I to you, a schismatic? I trust we understand each other, that no name calling is involved, just clarification of state of affairs. I would be deeply grateful for your answer.
Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt analysis.
I would caution that placing the well-being of the community over the well-being of the individual is the very definition of fascism. For instance, Israel requires armed service and indoctrination of 100% of its teenagers; until recently has been under explicit military censorship of the press; and has two sets of laws and two sets of court systems in place, including laws that allow bulldozing of houses; seizure of property; and imprisonment without trial. All very legal, and all for the good of the community over that of the individual. As the state always has more hard power than any group of individuals (cf. Waco), once you start down that road, it is almost impossible to come back.
America tries to balance the well-being of the individual versus that of the community. Sometimes it gets it wrong, but by and large the balance is pretty good. If you don’t like what you’re watching, you can always change the channel.
“and both sides have to affirm the right of each person to freely chose his/her religion, including the right to switch from one to another. So far that should be a no-brainer.”
A TOTALLY HERETICAL proposition that is ABSOLUTELY CONDEMNED by the christian faith.
Enough to conclude that the author is in no way able to discuss those theological matters.
Trying to bargain basic and unquestionable doctrine truths to achieve some political gain is pure apostasy.
This said, the rest is equally deeply dangerous for the christian believers.
Islam is, from the very begining, an attack on Christianity and Christ Church, ruining the greatest part of eastern and north africain christian nations. It denies our Lord His divine nature, undermining the Church.
Christian governments have to only deal with historical national leaderships, such as Egypt or Persia, but in no case with them as “muslims”. No Christian is allowed to debate about faith with infidels except to convert them to Christ, and this under the strict control of the clergy.
I do agree with you Saker! I would like to add some things form a muslim point of view :
1. Even in the Quran, The “ahl al kitab” (literally those who got the book – christians and jews) are considered very well, muslims can marry christians for exemple, but can’t marry non believers. And the Quran even attested that christians are the closest to muslims, those who live modestly and consider love very important in their lives
2. In surate roum in the Quran, God (swt) informed us that rom (christians) have been defeated and will win again soon. This was considered as a good news for muslims. For the compagnons of the prophet Mohamed (saws), muslims were always in the christian side against non believers
3. Christian king of habacha (ethiopian king I think), protected muslims when they were persecuted by quoraich, and said we were very close each to the other
4. concerning dimmi status, i don’t really agree with you. As far as I know from my islamic studies, dhimmi status was a kind of justice for muslims first, and a privilege to ahl al kitab. Let me explain. In the first islamic state, established by prophet Mohammed asws, and as ordered by the Quran, the military engagement was an obligation for every muslim. No one could stay at home without participating to the jihad. It was a religious obligation that could’t be applied to non muslims, to christians and jews for exemple. So, as a statement of justice, those who didn’t have to participate to military campagns and were protected by muslim army had to participate to the effort, so they participated with money with the dhimma. I said it was also a privilege because dhimmi people benefit from a military derogation. So many poeple (specially hypocrites) whould love to have this derogation, but it was only for non muslims.
I agree that in the history, a lot of mistakes were made by the 2 sides … but when we go to the original texts, for the muslims, what you propose is so natural for us. We can’t disagree with you … especially when we see the phenomenal attacks of the empire against us (muslims) and you (orthodoxes).
I hope someday, we’ll join our forces and fight toghether against our same enemy, otherwise, i think we’ll be toghether the big loosers
Ps : Sorry for my very bad english …
Saker it is a pity that you equate the ecumenical councils rulings as authentication whilst we believe that the Quran is the revelation that is untouched memorized directly from the last prophet. This last testament of God is ‘corrupt scholar/priest/rabbi” proof because it is memorized! How many parts of the bible have been clarified, taken out or included by these councils?
http://ebooks.rahnuma.org/religion/Quran/Gary.Miller_The%20Amaizing%20Quraan.pdf
Very deep toughts. As a Muslim I definitely agree with you. God bless you and give you the strenght to continue your remarkable work