...................................................................................
...................................................................................
The concept of the ‘Abrahamic religions’ is in some ways a relatively recent concept. Indeed it was really only during the nineteenth century that the subject began to appear within academia and the ‘religious studies’. The French Christian theologian Louis Massignon (1883–1962) referred to Abrahamic religion in his articles and books, where he was considering ways in which such a concept might be best explained and understood. Yet from an Islamic perspective the concept appears to have a much longer history and indeed there is some intimation of the very meaning of Abrahamic religions in the Islamic scriptural sources. There are a number of verses in the Quran referring to ‘people of the Book’ (ahl al-kitāb)1 with the common concept of revelation (kitab in Arabic); and the common trunk of three monotheistic religions. Muslims therefore believe that each monotheistic religion received its guidance directly through revelations from the same one God. The Islamic tradition also maintains that the three monotheistic traditions have the same ‘father’ Abraham; indeed there is a specific quote in the Quran pertaining to this affiliation:
It is the religion (millat: cult, religious community) of your father Abraham. It is He who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation). (22: 78)
From the Islamic perspective it is entirely understandable that the earliest-formed monotheistic religion, Judaism, would not acknowledge the two subsequent monotheistic religions (Christianity and Islam) as the truth because the receipt of God’s revelations through the three different historical periods is a sequential process. Similarly the final monotheistic religion can acknowledge the previous two monotheistic religions as they are recognized as being early parts in the sequence of God’s entire revelation, which becomes complete with Islam, according to Muslims.
This understanding from the most recent of the three monotheistic religions is critical in enabling the acknowledgement of a common trunk between all three religions, that is to say, there is one God who revealed guidance and reference for humankind in a chronological order, following Abraham, first to Jews through Moses, then to Christians through the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth, and finally to Muslims, through Muhammad. From an Islamic perspective, there were separate periods of revelation from the same one God, received and recorded as a book specific to each particular religion—Jews following the teachings in the Torah, Christians, the Bible and Muslims, the Quran.
In the Islamic tradition, the reference to Abraham as the ‘father’ of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is fundamental for it enables the three religions to be linked together in a logical sequence and for Muhammad to be acknowledged as the ‘Last Messenger’ of the overall umbrella of the ‘Abrahamic religions’. Thus, from an Islamic perspective, the concept of Abrahamic religions is not only an acceptable notion but also a necessary one so as to situate Islam within the context of a wider framework.
With such an intertwined history and complex relationship, these commonalities based on the oneness of God, the revelations, and Abraham as a central figure, are essential towards facilitating dialogue between the three monotheistic traditions, and are crucial to the success of helping to bring believers of all three traditions together to explore and consider ways to jointly address both classical theological questions and contemporary challenges.
Having acknowledged the importance of identifying commonalities, it is equally necessary to acquire a deep understanding and acceptance of the differences between the three monotheistic religions. Several of the chapters in this volume also refer to some such differences. There are, for example, differences surrounding the very figure of Abraham himself who is not understood in the same way within each of the monotheistic religions in terms of his role, affiliation, and the specific legacy which he left for each of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Thus whilst it is important to acknowledge a common trunk, it is equally critical to recognize that there are different interpretations and understandings between the traditions and also different expectations in terms of the relationship of the specific religion with Abraham. Yet by understanding the general essence of the three respective traditions the possibility exists to build a dialogue and develop an acceptable, clear relationship or framework between the three, from commonality to differences and from specific rituals to common objectives.
It is important to start by exposing the way Islam and Muslims should look, upstream, at this diversity of religion and its consequences. With this in mind, the ensuing discussion will consider the different steps towards understanding the aforementioned common trunk, then proceed to outline the differences that become evident by examining the respective religions more closely. The third part addresses the relationship between the three respective traditions and their scriptural sources whereby, from the Islamic tradition, the Abrahamic religions are principally based upon the understanding that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are ‘people of the book’, ahl al-kitāb. This part emphasizes the importance of the relationship to the scriptures—the history, discerning what is immutable and what is changeable, analysing the divine project and the role of the human agency. The fourth part will explore the sense of the community which other contributions to this volume have also raised, in terms of having a sense of belonging—how to reconcile singularity within the community, the universality of principles, the human family as ‘one family’, and the overall shared sacred history of the Abrahamic religions based on the diversity of various messengers. The fifth section will consider education and the transmission or dissemination of the three religions, and once again, following the way that this particular point has been raised elsewhere in this volume, explore both the transmission of knowledge of the religions and the transmission of faith, spirituality, and behaviour as a contemporary challenge. This in itself will act as an introduction to other contemporary issues that need to be addressed which are covered in the sixth section. That is to say, looking at the role of religion within secular societies and reflecting upon what the role of religion could be with respect to ‘having’ and ‘being’ and today’s consumerist society; and the question of environment and issues pertaining to applied ethics, from medicine, food, arts, media, economics, politics, and so on. These are all contemporary issues, common challenges that need to be addressed. Finally the issue of violence will be considered. This is both a historical and contemporary issue, and certainly relevant for inclusion within this volume. The conclusion will profess to the consequent necessity for continual dialogue so as to facilitate the understanding of one another’s references and viewpoints. Such dialogue must be efficient and realistic, one that has genuine impact on reality and it should not only be that of the specialists within academia but include the discourse of ordinary citizens, from scholars to practitioners on the ground, regular people who are striving to be faithful to their religious principles in their daily lives.
According to Muslims, the last Revelation teaches them to recognize all the books of the prophets who had gone before. They all have the same purpose, to remind human beings of the presence of the Creator and the finiteness of life on earth. The Islamic tradition’s concept of humankind emerged through this teaching: after forgiving Adam his sin, God told men:
A guidance will certainly come to you from me. Those who follow my guidance will have nothing to fear and will not grieve. (Q. 2: 38)
This guidance is the series of Revelations that came throughout human history, each one to confirm, complete, and correct the preceding ones. So individuals, innocent and free, have to make their choices (either to accept or to reject the Revelation). There will necessarily be diversity among people, and so these three seemingly similar verses contain teachings that augment and complete each other:
Had God so willed, He would have united them [human beings] in guidance, so do not be among the ignorant. (6: 35)
If your Lord had so willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Is it for you to compel people to be believers? (10: 99)
If God had willed, He would have made you one community but things are as they are to test you in what He has given you. So compete with each other in doing good. (5: 48)
The first verse instructs human beings that diversity is willed by the Transcendent, the second makes clear that, in the name of that will, compulsion in matters of religion is forbidden,2 and the Revelation teaches that the purpose of these differences is to test us in order for us to discover what we are going to do with what has been revealed to us. The last commandment is to use these differences to ‘compete in doing good’.
Diversity of religions, nations, and peoples is a test because it requires that we learn to manage difference, which is in itself essential:
If God did not enable some men to keep back others, the world would be corrupt. But God is the One who gives grace to the worlds. (2: 251)
If God did not enable some men to keep back others, hermitages, synagogues, chapels and mosques where the name of God is often called upon, would have been demolished. (22: 40)
These two verses give complementary information that is of prime importance. If there were no differences between people, if power were in the hands of one group alone (one nation, one race, or one religion), the earth would be corrupt because human beings need others to limit their impulsive desire for expansion and domination. The latter verse is more precise with regard to our present discussion, referring to places of worship and suggesting that if there is to be a diversity of religions, the purpose is to safeguard them all. The fact that the list of places begins with hermitages, synagogues, and chapels before referring to mosques shows recognition of all these places of worship and their inviolability and, of course, respect for those who pray there. Thus, just as diversity is the source of our test, the balance of power is a requirement for our destiny.
Difference might naturally lead to conflict. Therefore the responsibility of humankind is to make use of difference by establishing a relationship based on excelling one another in doing good. It is vital that the balance of power is based not on a tension born of rejection or mutual ignorance but fundamentally on knowledge:
O people, we have created you from a male and a female, we have divided you into nations and tribes so that you might know one another. (49: 13)
Knowing the other is a process that is unavoidable if fear of difference is to be overcome and mutual respect is to be attained. So human beings live a test that is necessary for their nature but that they can, and must, master by making the effort to know and recognize those who are not of their tribe, their country, their race, or their religion.3 Dialogue, particularly interreligious dialogue, is indispensable: Abrahamic monotheism is by essence a tradition, a cycle, and cannot be embodied in one single religion.
Common concerns and challenges in relation to specific theological and legal issues are evident among the three Abrahamic religions. The identification of commonalities as a first step is critical in terms of helping to identify common challenges. The most important common thread running through the Abrahamic religions is the reference to one God and the ‘oneness’ of God. The Jewish and Islamic traditions are closer in this respect than the Christian tradition, whose belief in the Trinity (God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) is problematic for the Jewish and Islamic traditions, yet the notion of the ‘oneness’ of God and the belief that one God revealed to humanity the message for salvation, through scriptural sources and revelations, is shared by all three of the Abrahamic religions, acknowledging Abraham as the central reference. Thus the second commonality is this relationship between one God and humanity, a relationship based upon revelations being given to humanity from God through time and the mutual acknowledgement that scriptural sources are essential in being able to understand God’s will, God’s message, and God’s expectation of humanity. Indeed, from the Islamic perspective, as mentioned previously in the Introduction, there are numerous verses in the Quran referring to the concept of Abrahamic religions, with references to ‘the religions of the Book’ and ‘the people of the Book’ and as a consequence, Muslims recognize Jews and Christians as being such people although Jews and Christians do not necessarily always share the same understanding. Muslims argue that this is because Jews and Christians are the receivers of the two earlier periods of God’s revelation and it is quite normal for earlier versions to have difficulty in accepting the legitimacy of latterly established religions, as mentioned already in this chapter. Having said that, Richard Bulliet mentions in his chapter on ‘Islamo-Christian Civilization’ in Part II of this volume the notion that at least one of the Christian Gospels (Barnabas 97: 10) includes an explicit ‘prediction’ directly from God about the coming of Muhammad. This is a disputed interpretation, obviously, and has been mentioned repeatedly by many Muslim scholars and commentators.
The third common feature is the acknowledgment by all three Abrahamic religions of a path which when followed can lead believers closer towards God, one that is based on rituals—prayers that are qualified; deeds that are considered lawful or unlawful, obligations, and prohibitions; and ethical values to be respected. Particular rituals are specific to each of the religions and contribute towards defining their differences within the commonality of the path towards God. Indeed the Islamic tradition, through numerous verses of the Quran, anticipates this understanding of differences between the religions, such as the verse mentioned earlier about diversity being God’s will. Added to this is the understanding that to every single religious community God gave methodology and praxis and this methodology is based on the fundamentals of that religion, with rituals, particular ways of praying, and forming one’s own individual relationship with God.
For every one (religion) we appoint a way (shirʿatan) and a methodology (minhājā). (5: 48)
From an Islamic perspective, it is acknowledged that whilst believers of the three religions follow a specific path according to their particular Abrahamic religion, the fact that there are such differences within this common feature of rituals is critical towards affirming their own belief in Islam and being faithful to their understanding of God’s complete revelation.
Not to reduce the Abrahamic religions to the commonality of a set of respective rituals, the last important common feature concerns values and ethical concerns such as the understanding of human behaviour beyond rituals, beyond any legal framework, and beyond even the Abrahamic religions per se. This is a common concept relating to controlling oneself; managing the limits of right and wrong; the dignity of human beings; what it truly means to be a human being; and the notion of family and society. These dimensions are of great significance to all three of the Abrahamic religions—directing human behaviour, distinguishing right behaviour from wrong behaviour, good from evil, just from the unjust. A common set of ethical values and concerns are connected to the central common concern of salvation.
So four key commonalities that, notwithstanding the diversity in the rituals, values, path, and scriptural sources, can be considered together within an overarching commonality of the essence of God’s revelation and thus give rise to this common trunk of the Abrahamic reference.4
Common challenges also exist between the Abrahamic traditions. One of the first, and more critical, challenges is the status of the scriptures and how exactly believers should read and apply them. Of course, in Judaism there is a long-standing tradition of reading the scriptural sources, the Torah (and of course the Talmud), and striving to understand what needs to be contextualized and what is immutable; whether the text is a human product or whether this comes directly from God; the meaning of revelation; how to read the scriptural sources within history and using different levels of a linguistic approach in terms of semantics, grammar, and even the morphology of the words. The same questions exist in the Christian tradition with there being extensive discourse about the text in terms of both the historical and scientific approaches. That is to say, for a long period of time the Christian text was originally perceived as also coming directly from God then it was accepted as being a product of humans, having been gradually transformed and diversified throughout history. Thus it is imperative that the text be considered within a historical context and any interpretation needs to take into account differing contexts and cultures. From an Islamic perspective, the majority position is that the religious book, the Quran, is the very word of God, having been received by the Last Messenger, Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years and dictated verbatim from memory by Muhammad to local scribes of his day (since he himself could not write). Notwithstanding that the Quran is the direct word of God, it remains critical for Muslims to acknowledge that there can be diversity and interpretation of its verses and thus the challenge for Muslims is to consider how to interpret the text in the light of the history. God’s word was revealed over a twenty-three-year period and the relationship between the text and context will naturally produce many interpretations. This is an important, necessary acknowledgement within the Islamic tradition which some currents or trends of Islam have difficulty accepting (for instance the literalists), that so as to be completely truthful to God’s will, it is critical to consider context and the interpretation by the reader of the text as much as to consider the direct meaning of text (in its specific context). Furthermore, beyond the challenge of interpretation within any given time (the historical context) is the question of cultures and how to identify any cultural projection connected to the texts. Once again this is a common challenge for all three of the Abrahamic religions, the need to identify within the texts any cultural and geographical influences and to highlight the cultural projections through the historical interpretations. Indeed is it even possible to differentiate between the principles and any cultural and geographical stimuli that might have influenced the original interpretation of these principles and their consequent implementation? A crucial question per se (see Ramadan 2009).
These poignant examples illustrate how the three Abrahamic religions share common challenges in terms of their scriptural sources whereby all follow a scriptural source and all face the challenges of diversity of scriptural interpretations and tensions existing between the text and the context (history, culture, geography, and even the sciences).
This leads on to the third common challenge in terms of the scriptural text, differentiating between what is immutable and what is changeable, and all three of the Abrahamic religions are considering this together. Immutable principles relate to the ‘oneness’ of God; the very essence of the theological framework; and the rituals, prohibitions, and obligations, and then there is the need to identify what is changeable—using the text relative to the context and in accordance to the ultimate goals intended by that particular part of the text. Such tensions between recognizing and accepting what is immutable and what is changeable and any consequent interpretation and action are present throughout many contemporary ethical issues, for example in bioethics, medicine, culture, gender, and social behaviour. These are questions which are once again common to all three traditions.
The last point concerning common challenges is the tension between how to define the divine project for human beings and the agency in setting the understanding, or how to translate this divine project within our human history. Again this is an essential point worthy of some reflection. Some dogmatic minds or literalists consider that the human agency contribution of the divine project should be reduced to almost nothing, such that humans have no real part to play and their function is simply to follow the literal meanings. Yet one could argue that this falls short of God’s intentions and what is really needed is to have an understanding of the divine project as it is understood when reading the scriptural sources, the Torah, Bible, or the Quran such that the role of the human agency is in itself of significance. For many believers, within all three of the traditions, there is no understanding of the divine project without human agency and this tension is at the heart of the respective understanding of faithfulness.
When it comes to the sense of the religious community, in the Islamic tradition there is the notion of belonging to the umma, the ‘religious community’ or, as I would say myself, the community of principles and spirituality. Sometimes this notion is understood within the confines of very narrow terms—a community of people sharing the same faith and values but very much a closed community based on a very strict belonging to Islam. Similar situations exist in the Jewish and Christian traditions. Yet what is it that specifically defines a Jew or a Christian? Is it with reference to a spiritual dimension, is it about belonging to a specific culture or race, what does ‘belonging’ mean, how is the belonging to a specific religious community defined? What exactly makes a Jew a Jew, a Christian a Christian, a Muslim a Muslim? Such questions are at the starting point of this sense of community, this sense of belonging.
Not only is it important to reflect upon particular criteria used to identify who belongs to a particular community, it is also about communities nurturing that sense of belonging. So there exists a definition of community, a sense of belonging that becomes more exclusive to some people, those who are accepted or recognized as being members of a religious community. This is something which is much more open and acknowledges the fact that a community of principles is wider and more inclusive than a community of believers which is defined only through their belonging to a specific religion.
Such questions and reflections exist in all three Abrahamic religions in relation to who are the people who are defining and building the respective community. The sense of belonging also includes how, as a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, one nurtures the fact that not only are you a Jew, Christian, or Muslim, but you also belong to a human or a religious community, and/or a community of principles. This introduces the third challenge faced by all three religions, that is to say how to move from the singularity of belonging to a religious community to the universality of the principles with humanity. Here there is tension everywhere and this is related ultimately to a potential understanding of salvation—which of us shall be saved (from the Islamic perspective this refers to the Day of Judgement) (Khalil 2013). Thus the singularity of belonging to a religious community versus the universality of the principles that are shared and promoted among all three of the Abrahamic religions is a challenge that needs to be faced when it comes to reconciling one’s religion with how to live in a pluralistic society, with a plurality of communities and how best to live together with others in respect and mutual understanding, not to reject ‘the other’ yet also not to go as far as syncretism and accepting that there are differences between us. An important observation when it comes to the notion of community—mutual respect in the light of the respective salvation theories.
The last point which goes beyond the tension between singularity and universality is looking at how to define the human family. Discourse from all the Abrahamic religions supports this notion of a ‘human family’ and that everyone belongs to it. This human family is also a family that was shaped through a sacred history, one based upon belief in God’s revelations to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, among others. Having said that, the human family has a synchronic tangible reality, being part of the human family which is shaped through the diachronic understanding that there is a sacred history. That is to say for Jews, the first Messengers and first period of Revelations is the truth; for Christians, that Jesus of Nazareth’s example is the truth; and for Muslims, the Last Messenger, the final period of revelations is the truth. Thus each tradition believes that theirs is the ultimate goal of the sacred history. Through history, communities are being shaped and through history one can achieve a specific understanding of truth beyond this belonging to a human family. Sharing universal values and being able to interact positively and engage with people of other traditions is especially important in the discussions of this volume, which is exploring the interface between the three Abrahamic religions.
In our contemporary world one of the big questions asked today throughout all three Abrahamic religions is how to transmit, how to educate new generations in the light of the scriptural sources, the revelations, and the messages of these revelations. The question of transmission (how to transmit not only the rules but also the spirit, not only the spirit but also the spiritual meaning of believing in God) is a very difficult discussion in contemporary societies where such great emphasis and value is placed on efficiency and having more than ethics and being. Accomplishment is often valued in terms of material benefit and profit, more than being human, understanding and having a sense of responsibility and solidarity. In a world where understanding our rights is being so much encouraged, all three Abrahamic religions cultivate a sense of responsibility and duty and this is where knowledge is so important.
How can more people attain religious knowledge and how can the religious teachings be best transmitted when there is so much religious illiteracy? This is a common concern, not only in the quest to know more about our respective religions but also to seek further knowledge of others, religious knowledge of the diversity among the religions and spiritualities. How can religious literacy best be attained and its transmission increased within our societies? This is an essential goal for there can be no living together, even between the three Abrahamic religions, without knowledge of both one’s own religion and mutual knowledge of each other’s. From the Islamic perspective, this is alluded to in one of the verses of the Quran, quoted earlier:
…We have created you from male and female and made you tribes and nations that you may know one another…
There is a second important point relating to education. Religious education is also about teaching the rules, prohibitions, and limits. Today a discourse has developed about spirituality and faith, and whilst the most important focus is certainly about being spiritual and having faith, the religious education has become focused on the rituals and rules, reducing the religion to practices and protective regulations (certainly from an Islamic perspective, but similar trends are apparent in Judaism and Christianity). It is as if today ‘religion’ is deemed to be based on rituals and ‘spirituality’ is becoming defined as only a kind of a feeling of experiencing faith towards God. In the three traditions, there is similar concern about religious education and, in a world where rules and limitations are not very much in fashion, how should religious education be administered, what should it include? Educating only about the protective rules, regulations, and rituals may not necessarily be the best way and instead it could be better to encourage within the education process a focus on open spirituality and a deeper understanding of the faith. These are common discussions both within religious communities but also, transversally, across the board.
Of course the last stage in relation to education is behaviour, how to translate this knowledge into a behaviour. Certainly all the Abrahamic religions refer to the spiritual dimension of believing in God, the place of rituals in educating the being, and lastly the role of behaviour so as to change our world for the better. Within our society this behaviour is the public side of a private belief. In our secular societies it is an important topic of discussion, how to educate in the best possible way when the private side of this spiritual experience is encompassed by the rituals, and the rules and behaviour are the conveyance of our spiritual experience within the public sphere. Thus the question of how best to educate new generations towards achieving this is critical. There are some who consider that the only way to meet this challenge is to create privately funded religious schools away from the public state school system. However some caution is necessary here because sometimes such schools can be so insular as they aim to protect their students so much from the surrounding society and its influences, that it is not always possible to reconcile the teachings and principles of the respected revelation with the reality of today’s world or to successfully nurture their students towards becoming adults who are able to live contentedly and contribute positively towards the pluralistic societies in which we live today.
Here again the concept of the Abrahamic religions is important and contributes to the understanding that, in our contemporary societies, there are issues and concerns that are experienced and shared by all three, and beyond with atheists and agnostics. Often believers, from within their respective religion, think that they are the only ones facing a particular contemporary challenge. Where there is interfaith dialogue, it concerns the principles of their particular religion and such dialogue does not often broach any admittance to particular contemporary challenges. Yet in fact this is an area where the three Abrahamic religions could assist one another.
One such challenge is exploring the role that religion can have within secular society, the contribution that religion could make. Within the context of secularity, it is certainly acceptable for believers of religion to agree to separating the state from religion and to acknowledge the fact that within the private sphere, religion is important, but it is also crucial to engage in discourse regarding what part religion should play within the public sphere, now and in the future. Should religious signs disappear? Some secularists are quite dogmatic as they are calling for the end of the visibility of religion.5 Yet such a proposition supports a very problematic understanding of secularism and all three Abrahamic religions need to proactively address this notion and enter into the debate. To accept secularity advocating a public sphere where it is possible for everyone to live together does not mean to accept any subsequent ending of the visibility of religion or for religious traditions to cease to have any positive and constructive role within our societies.
There is another—deeper—challenge which relates to how to cope with living in today’s consumerist society. As mentioned earlier, it seems that there is an increasing celebration of the trend of having, much more so than being. This is where all religious traditions are striving to promote practices which can liberate us from this dependency, addiction, and consumerism; freedom from our consumer society which serves to generate a sense of perpetual, meaningless dependence. The challenge for the Abrahamic religions is therefore how to educate, how to best support societies towards this improvement: how to promote the joy of finding contentment in being, intimate peace, to celebrate values and to find contentment in the essence of the respective faiths. Such a challenge is connected to the previous discussions of education.
One of the great challenges of our time is of course environment. All three Abrahamic traditions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, have a very deep understanding of an obligation in terms of the need to respect the environment. This is because our environment is viewed as the very creation of God and, with this in mind, believers accept a responsibility towards looking after it and with this acknowledgement comes the need to formulate how to fulfil such a duty (Gottlieb 2011). Yet unfortunately all too often the religious traditions are far from being involved in discussions relating specifically to the environment or, when there is involvement, the religious participants of the discourse rely on the scriptural sources to provide some very deep theoretical and spiritual meaning rather than advice and recommendations as to what could be put into practice. It is sometimes as if environment is considered a secondary issue in religious terms. Yet this is a critical challenge which would certainly benefit from increased input from all religious voices, and given the overall theme of this volume there is no doubt that the voices of the Abrahamic traditions can come together to encourage participation in practical terms and urge that ‘If you believe in God, if you respect God’s creation, then you need to respect the environment, treat and care for it with responsibility and wisdom’.
This leads on to another practical challenge about dealing with science, the contemporary sciences, and new technologies. Applied ethics exists within some religious traditions but what is really needed is for Protestant applied ethics, Catholic applied ethics, Jewish applied ethics, Islamic applied ethics, and beyond, to all come together and to contribute to the discourse in bioethics, in medicine, indeed in any human behaviour or activity where the concept of ethics is present. The contribution of the Abrahamic religions together is not to prevent science from progressing or to inhibit the adding of knowledge to knowledge, rather to enable humankind to be more aware of the cause, of ethics, and to generate ends that are dignified in terms of respecting and preserving human dignity and preserving rather than destroying nature or indeed human beings. The Abrahamic religions can contribute together towards encouraging humankind to respect the very essence of what it means to be a human being and to ask the important questions that are being generated by these new realms of sciences. The examples of the relatively recent progress in cloning techniques and the implications in relation to changing creation spring immediately to mind.
The last issue that is in fact affecting everyone worldwide, not only the Abrahamic religions, relates to violence. For in the name of these religions, in the name of what believers accept as the truth, innocent people are being killed. No one can deny that actions, atrocities even, have been committed throughout history in the name of the Abrahamic religions that are simply unacceptable in human rights terms and in relation to human dignity. Antony Black touches upon this in his chapter on ‘Political Thought’ in Part IV of this volume. So this is imperative to address: what is the relationship between the Abrahamic religions, dogmatism, and violence. Such issues need to be tackled from many different dimensions, not only from an Islamic perspective, where certainly it appears there is much focus today with regard to this topic. The situation is threefold—historical, contemporary, and evolutionary—a necessary discussion in terms of the concept of just war (Hashmi 2012), whether violence is always illegitimate or when it could be legitimate, and, if it is legitimate, how and when might there be something pertaining to legitimate resistance. What are the conditions and how can violence be defined? These are vital discussions to facilitate a new understanding for the future.
Dialogue is not enough. Even if it is rigorous, even if it is necessary to give time to knowing, trusting, and respecting each other, even if we should take on ourselves the widest possible responsibility to report back, it is only one stage or one aspect of the encounter among the various religious traditions. In western societies, it is urgent that we commit ourselves to joint action. In dialogue, we soon realize that we hold a great number of convictions and values in common, as we mentioned. We understand very quickly that we are facing the same difficulties and challenges. But we very rarely move outside these circles of reflection. Together we say ‘God’ awareness, spirituality, responsibility, ethics, solidarity, yet we live and experience each one on our own, the problems of education, transmission of spirituality, individualism, consumerism, and moral bankruptcy. In philosophical terms, we could say that we know one another in words but not in action. My own experience of twenty-five years of joint action in South America, Africa, and Asia has convinced me not only that this path is necessary but that it is the only way to eventually change minds and build mutual respect and trust.
In the West, there are many shared challenges. How can we pass on to our children the sense of the divine, for the monotheistic faiths, or of spiritual practice, for example? In a society that pushes people to own, how are we to form individuals whose awareness of being enlightens and guides their mastery of possession? Again, how are we to explain morality and boundaries, to pass on principles of life that do not confuse liberty with carelessness and that consider neither fashion nor quantity of possessions as the measure of goodness? All the Abrahamic and spiritual traditions are experiencing these difficulties, yet there are few examples of shared commitment to proposing alternatives. And there is so much to do—working together, as parents and as citizens, so that schools will provide more courses on the religions; suggesting ways of providing educational modules outside the school structures to teach the general population about the religions—their fundamental beliefs, particular topics, and social realities. Such modules need to be planned together in partnership rather than only inviting a partner from other religions to give a course as part of a programme that we have compiled for and by ourselves.
Acts of solidarity take place from within each religious family, but the examples of shared initiatives are rare. People sometimes invite others, but do not act in collaboration. One of the best testimonies that a religious Abrahamic tradition can give of itself lies in acts of solidarity between its adherents and others. To defend the dignity of the latter, to strive so that our societies do not produce indignity, to work together to support marginalized and neglected people, will certainly help us know one another better but it will, above all, make known the essential message that shines at the heart of the Abrahamic traditions: never neglect your brother in humanity and learn to love him, or at least to serve him.
More broadly, we have to act together so that the body of values that forms the basis of our ethics is not relegated to such a private and secluded sphere that it becomes inoperative and socially dead. Our philosophies of life must continue to inspire our civil commitment, with all due respect to the supporters of a postmodernism whose aim seems to be to deny any legitimacy to all reference to a universal ethic. There is a need to find together a civil role, inspired by common convictions, in which religions will work to demand that the rights of all be respected, that discriminations be outlawed, that dignity be protected, and that economic efficiency cease to be the measure of what is right. Differentiating between public and private space does not mean that women and men of faith, or women and men of conscience, have to shrink to the point of disappearance and fear to express themselves publicly in the name of what they believe. When a society has gone so far as to disqualify, in public debate, faith and what it inspires, the odds are that its system is founded only on materialism and ruled only by materialist logic—the self-centred accumulation of goods and profit.
The faithful of Abrahamic religions must dare to express their faith, its demands, and its ethics, to involve themselves as citizens in order to make known their human concerns, their care for justice and dignity, their ethical standards, their fears as consumers and media-consumers, their hopes as mothers and fathers—to commit themselves to do the best possible, together, to reform what might be. All religious traditions have a social message that invites the faithful to work together on a practical level. We are still far from this. In spite of thousands of dialogue circles and meetings, Abrahamic traditions still seem to know one another very little and to be very lacking in trust. Perhaps methods must be reconsidered and a mutual demand needs to be formulated: to behave in such a way that actions, as much as possible, mirror words, and then to act together.
Many commonalities, valued diversities, and countless challenges. With this in mind, further dialogue and proactivity are an absolute necessity and this in itself is an important challenge! Dialogue between the Abrahamic traditions among scholars who are familiar with one another’s work and far from ordinary people is not the way forward. From specialists to academia to ordinary people it is essential to push and to understand our commonalities, our relationships to the scriptures, our belonging to the communities and to our challenges when in the field of education and contemporary issues. This is where more involvement is critical, engagement of many more people, at all levels and crossing all borders, trans-culturally and trans-nationally. Acknowledgement that intra-community dialogue within the religious traditions is also important on the theological basis or even cultural (because the experiences of Christians living in South America may be different from the experiences of Christians living in Africa or in the West, likewise there will be differences between the Jewish and Muslim communities in different parts of the world). Thus trans-intra-community dialogue and inter-community dialogue have a role to take into account the diversity of trends within each of the Abrahamic religions and also between the Abrahamic religions altogether.
In terms of the aforementioned contemporary issues, not only is it necessary to acquire a very deep understanding of the Abrahamic religions, but also not to exclude other religions and to consider, in a similar approach to this discourse, commonalities and common challenges, and to be involved with Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, and so on. It is also to have the courage not to accept the notion that we are living in a world where ideology does not exist. The Abrahamic religions should come with an assertive, ethical courage to propose that some ways of behaviour are not acceptable; there should be regulations; there are rules that can be beneficial if followed correctly; and values that can be celebrated altogether. Such courage means also to face all the human activities, from education to science and technology, economy, and politics. This is where the Abrahamic religions can be an influential contribution rather than being quite timid and overly concerned for anything that could be said about God and religion, or being anxious not to be perceived as backward to such an extent that our voice cannot be heard amongst the contemporary clamour. It might be that conserving values and promoting universal shared values is the common proposal by the ‘Abrahamic religions’, a resolution, perhaps, towards addressing the common challenges of today and the future tomorrow.
1 Twenty-nine verses in the Quran refer to the notion of ahl al-kitāb such as 2: 105, 109.
2 The Quran confirms this in a clear general rule: ‘No compulsion in religion’ (2: 256).
3 Read and understood globally, these quranic references bring together all the dimensions of ‘difference’ among human beings: tribe, nation, race, religion.
4 These aspects are highlighted in Dirks 2004.
5 Jean Baubérot (2012) speaks about a specific type of ‘secular fundamentalism’.