Archive for May, 2009
Salmond’s Interfaith lecture
Earlier this year, First Minister Alex Salmond delivered the keynote speech at the 20th anniversary event of the Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association, an organisation with whom I frequently have the pleasure to work. Here is the text of the speech, which set out to “admire the full diversity of faiths and cultures – the threads in the tartan that are being woven together to create a powerful, positive image of the modern Scotland.”
Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association Lecture (Alex Salmond)
You can also view pictures of the event here.
Vatican praises Islamic finance
This is news from March 2009 – Today’s Zaman reports:
As world markets suffer under the weight of the ongoing global financial crisis, the Vatican has put forward a new suggestion, arguing that the principles of Islamic finance may represent a possible cure for ailing markets.
The Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, recently published an article titled “Islamic finance proposals and ideas for the West in crisis,” prepared by Italian economists Loretta Napoleoni and Claudia Segre, in which it was suggested that the basic rules of Islamic finance could relieve suffering markets and particularly international financial systems. Noting that Islam prohibits “riba,” Arabic for the usurious loaning of money, the article argued that “sukuk bonds,” securities that comply with Islamic law, may be an alternative to interest. The article stressed that sukuk bonds are always real investments and never speculative.
The article said that in this atmosphere of crisis banks should take Muslims as an example and that the Islamic finance system may pave the way for the establishment of new rules in the Western world. The Vatican has suggested that the current capitalist system has failed. Pope Benedict XVI recently harshly criticized the capitalist system and the greediness of bank owners in the West. In the meantime, the Vatican itself has been badly affected by the crisis. It had recorded an 18 billion euro budget surplus in 2007, but this number had declined to 6 billion euros by the end of 2008 and is expected to fall further in 2009.
And according to Bloomberg.com:
Divine Intervention for a Jew
I recently read a book by the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, on Islamic Ethics in which he narrated the following story from the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), in the chapter discussing the virtue of justice. I felt it worthy of mention because I first heard this story from a Muslim speaker in the UK whom some people are now trying to portray as an “anti-Semitic bigot” – indeed, I have heard him speak numerous times and it seems that in every speech, he takes the opportunity to draw his listeners’ attention to this story…
It happened in the Prophetic Era that a man named Ta’mah ibn Abreeq stole a shield from one of his neighbours called Qatadah ibn Nu’man, then stashed it at the home of a Jewish man called Zayd ibn as-Sameen.
Qatadah asked Ta’mah about the shield, and he denied any knowledge of it; so Qatadah started to search for it until he found it with the aforementioned Jew. When asked about it, he blamed Ta’mah.
Hence the case was taken before the Prophet (peace be upon him), who summoned Ta’mah and asked him, “Did you steal this shield and place it with Zayd ibn as-Sameen?” He denied it, so the Prophet asked Zayd: “Do you have any witnesses to support your claim that Ta’mah planted it on you?” He said that he did not. Meanwhile, the relatives of Ta’mah came and argued on his behalf.
In the midst of this confusion, the Qur’anic revelation came to clarify the truth from falsehood, and to establish justice in the face of impending injustice.
{ Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which Allah has shown you. And do not be for the deceitful an advocate.
And seek forgiveness of Allah . Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.
And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, Allah loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. } [An-Nisa 4:105-7]Then the Qur’an turns to rebuke those who are ashamed before people but not ashamed before God:
{ They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from Allah , and He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And ever is Allah , of what they do, encompassing. } [4:108]
Then it further rebuked those who advocate on behalf of others using falsehood and deception:
{ Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with Allah for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? } [4:109]
Then Almighty God opened the door of repentance for these treacherous folk, made clear that the harmful effects of their actions would only come back to their perpetrators, and issued a warning of a terrible ending to whoever commits what God has prohibited and attempts to blame others:
{ And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of Allah will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
And whoever commits a sin only earns it against himself. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
But whoever earns an offence or a sin and then blames it on an innocent [person] has taken upon himself a slander and manifest sin. } [4:110-12]Then these verses are sealed with mention of the great favour of God upon his Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):
{ And if it was not for the favour of Allah upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And Allah has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favour of Allah upon you been great. } [4:113]
Certainly whoever ponders deeply on these noble verses will see that they guide mankind to justice which is swayed neither by desires, nor by tribal loyalty. It does not depend on love or hate, and is applied even if the person in the wrong is among those professing Islam, and the party in the right is non-Muslim.
Do you see a form of justice coming close to this in its nobility, purity and upright methodology?
Protecting Synagogues and Mosques
Effective dialogue is based not on words alone, but should be manifested in actions which further mutual understanding and cooperation. One such action between faith communities is to show solidarity in the face of hostility, such as when a place of worship is attacked.
That was the reaction of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation in March 2009, when news reached them of vandalism against Edinburgh’s synagogue, apparently by two young Muslims who may have considered it some sort of ‘revenge’ on behalf of victims of Israel’s recent brutality against the people of Gaza.
Muslim leaders offer to guard synagogue (The Scotsman)
I am proud to say that by expressing solidarity in the way they did, SIF managed to shift the way newspapers would have otherwise covered the crime, as it could have been portrayed as a sign of overt tensions between Muslims and Jews in Scotland, which is of course far from the truth.
They also underlined the key fact of the distinction between Judaism and Zionism. Not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. And even if particular Jews can be defined as Zionists, not all Zionism is the same, and it certainly doesn’t justify any sort of violence against them.
They proved with actions what they also stated with clarity. I helped to draft the guidance notes which were distributed to Edinburgh’s imams, several of whom made a point of condemning the crime in their sermons or announcements, and clarifying Islam’s stance on the issue.
While the private response from the synagogue was positive, unfortunately a rather negative comment appeared in the Jewish Telegraph from the spokesman of the Community Security Trust, which “provides physical security, training and advice for the protection of British Jews”.
Sunni-Shi’i Rapprochement
Among the scholars, intellectuals and leaders within the worldwide Muslim Ummah (community), one of the most prominent figures who emphasise the need for dialogue in all its forms is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. This attitude can be seen even in his books on aspects of Islamic jurisprudence, such as his research on music, in which not only does he disagree with the prevailing view on its prohibition, but exemplifies the way to disagree with respect and in the spirit of truth-seeking.
Here I want to share a very useful summary by Dr Qaradawi – a Sunni scholar – of the need for intra-faith dialogue between Sunnis and Shi’ah, as the two main branches within the Ummah today and historically. Many points from this (translated) research can be generalised and adapted for the purpose of the Charter of Religious Dialogue which this diablog is working to build.
Principles for the Rapprochement of Muslim Schools of Thought
The main sections, which you may access directly on their own pages, are:
Personally, I have not done a great deal of reading in this field, nor engaged in much dialogue with people of the Shi’ah. I do think there are a number of interesting questions that arise from this issue, giving us cause to think more broadly than the specifics of Sunni-Shi’i dialogue.
Points of divergence
What makes a Shi’i a Shi’i? (Or someone may ask the opposite question for a Sunni.) The origin of the question is a political matter, namely the dispute over the succession of leadership after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace), who was the leader of the Muslims in every sense. Over the centuries, the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ah has not remained in the political sphere, so it is interesting to consider how the various doctrinal, jurisprudential and geographical/sociological differences we see today came to be. I see this as retracing our steps to see where we went wrong (whoever it was who was at fault).
Labels
If the term Sunni means someone who is upon the example and tradition of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the word Shi’ah has its origins in expressing loyalty to ‘Ali, who was the fourth of the universally acknowledged righteous caliphs (may God be pleased with them), why would anyone wish to have one of these labels while making a point of rejecting the other? It seems plausible that some Sunnis would claim, “We are the true Party of ‘Ali,” and that some Shi’is would claim “We are the true people of Sunnah.” This question leads us to reflect on the nature of labels and why and how they are used.
That’s all I’ll note; please do see Sheikh Qaradawi’s paper and let me know your thoughts.
Bismillah (in the name of God)
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful…
Welcome to a new blog which has existed in my mind for quite some time. My intention here is to explore and expound the principles of meaningful, effective dialogue on the subject of religion. Please see the About page for more details of the spirit of this diablog.
Since I have started in the name of God, it seems fitting to share a thought-provoking article by Dr Umar Farooq Abd-Allah:
“One God, Many Names” (PDF download)
It is a fairly brief exposition of the use of the name “Allah” to refer to the One God, and corrects a number of misconceptions that exist surrounding this.One of them is the hesitance some Muslims have to use other names in reference to Allah, such as the standard English term God (with a capital ‘g’).
More significantly, I have found many Christians (usually more among those with a keenness for evangelism) who believe that the names “God” and “Allah” have two different referents, so one of them is the true “God of the Bible” (Who of course is referred to by other terms in the Bible’s original language) and the other is a “false god” – or even, according to one particularly wild theory, the “moon god”. We often find the media manipulating this perception in the minds of the public by translating a whole speech by some fanatic or other but not translating the term used for God, Allah. We always read of extremist Muslims who “kill in the name of Allah” – this phraseology obviously being chosen to imply a particular fanaticism among those who use this term to refer to the same God, in Whose name(s) other people do kill.
It is a very crucial point that Jews, Christians and Muslims (and of course we can extend this list) worship the same God, even if their doctrines differ sharply in numerous ways. My Christian friend believes that God is a trinity, made up of Father, Son and Spirit. I point out that the only one of these Who is God is the One he is describing as “Father”, while the others are not equal persons. But more importantly, I emphasise that we may have different beliefs and descriptions of God, but that does not mean we are referring to two different entities. Both of us are saying that we worship the One Who created all things, and neither of us would admit that there is any more than One Who can be truly described as such. So our monotheism (however different its expression) leads us to the conclusion that there is One God upon Whose description we need to work to agree, in the pursuit of true belief and worship.
