Throughout time the ideology of power has infected the original
ethos of Muslim and Christian communities in a variety of ways.
But if one looks closely, we can see grains of truth scattered
throughout the different adaptations and formulations of Muslim
and Christian theology...
Sayyid Qutb, one of the intellectual founders of the Muslim
brotherhood correctly critiques the West’s consumerist materialism,
while at the same time creating his own idolatry of violence in
pursuit of a pure Islam.
While Qutb is often quick to critique the political structures in the
world, theologian Nevin Reda wants to argue that we are to
be wary of both the political and the religious structures. Reda
argues that the Quranic word arbab is often used in scripture to critique
false ideologies and has its closest meaning to ‘rabbis’ or religious
teachers. She suggests that Qutb’s interpretation of arbab as
political systems, such as democracies or dictatorships is also being
faithful to the text. It is faithful, however, not in that it is in
competition to the original etymology, but in that it can be used as
word encompassing all false ideologies. Qutb wants to emphasize
his interpretation of these verses so that people will focus on being
critical of the political structures, while opening the door for the
“religious authoritative elite.” Instead Reda emphasizes Sura 16:116
which states: “Do not say about what your tongues falsely describe:
This is allowed and this is prohibited, so as to ascribe false things to
God.” For Reda this is a warning against forcing any ideology as
divinely inspired onto others, whether that be from political or
religious authority.
William Cavanaugh argues through the theology of Saint
Augustine that the fundamental flaw within our Western
consumerist thought is that we have idolized our own individual
will over God’s authority, and are thus trapped in our own desires.
The “key to true freedom is not just following whatever desires we
happen to have, but cultivating the right desires. This means that
the internal movement of the will is not a sufficient condition for
freedom; we must consider the end toward which the will is
moved.”[1]What is needed then is a reintegration of our own
physical reality with the spiritual reality of God. It is in a sense
bringing back together the secular and the sacred, that Qutb so
desires. The historical caution though is that just as Qutb moved
from being a true ambassador of God to a violent tyrant, so too did
Augustine.
One of Augustine’s central rivals was a Christian sect called the
Donatists who were economically persecuted by Rome long before
Rome had become Christian under Constantine. With the
conversion of Constantine a good Roman could now be a good
Christian. What the Donatists had always hated about the Roman
Empire was now being used against them in the form of their own
religion. It is not surprising, then, that the Donatists would reject
Augustine’s theological authority no matter how theologically
“correct” he might have been. Augustine in partial response to the
Donatists further develops the doctrines of the church, the “validity
of the sacraments, and the Just War Theory” as a means to further
persecute the Donatists.[2]
The question that we are left with is how to distinguish human will
from God’s will, and whether we can in some relative sense bring
them together without creating another false ideology. For Reda,
the Quranic dictate that “there is no compulsion in religion” is a
central presupposition within the framework of God’s ultimate goal
for peace, healing, and creational wholeness.[3]Sharia law when
implemented faithfully could be used to bring this ultimate goal
into reality, but must only be used in a “non-binding scenario” in
which “persons wishing to exercise their freedom of choice have
the opportunity to do so.”[4]
The reality of course is that this type of freely determined
jurisprudence would never work within our larger centralized
systems. Our systems carry with them too much corruption and
competing wills for this to ever work effectively or efficiently.
However, it was this ethos of individual consensus within the
context of community that helped shape the early Christian and
Medinan communities.
When Muhammad and his followers travel to Medina they establish
a community of people committed to compassion for the weak of
society, and integrate social habits that formed new economic
structures of redistributed wealth and property.This move from
Mecca to Medina not only resonates with Jesus declaration in
Matthew 13:57 that “only in one's hometown and in his own house
is a prophet without honor" but also with the Old Testament call of
Jubilee and that of the early Christian community to “give to
anyone who has need.”
What I want to suggest, then, is that we work toward building unity
through locality. The great scandal of both the Christian and
Muslim story is that God entered into the creational world in a
particular historical time and context. In Christianity, it was the
incarnation of Christ in 1st century Palestine. In Islam, God reveals
himself through Quranic revelation in 7th century Arabia. It was
the intentional locality of these revelations which brought about
their respective universalistic influences. Cavanaugh describes this
as a “great work of art”which is “simultaneously universal in its
appeal” while being “unique and inexplicable” in its localized
context.[5]
Wendel Berry shows us the importance of locality in connection to
relationship, and how the demands of the nationstate deteriorate our
local relationships. For Berry we no longer trust “public servants
because we know that they don’t respect us. They don’t respect us,
as we understand, because they don’t know us; they don’t know our
stories.” This breeds an inherent lack of trust in which the public
servant “expects us to sue them if they make mistakes” and so we
allow the insurance companies to get richer “at great expense to
them and us.” In rural contexts, community doctors will “send their
patients to specialists in the city, not necessarily because they
believe that they are wrong in the diagnoses, but because they
know that they are not infallible and they must protect themselves
against lawsuits, at great expense to us.”[6]
In Toronto, I have seen both Muslim and Christian communities
move forward in this local relation-based mindset for the benefit of
both the marginalized and affluent in society. Sanctuary ministries
for example works under the understanding that drug rehab,
housing, or employment programs have little effect if people are
not able to enter into a meaningful and healthy community where
they will have a sense of belonging. While Sanctuary does offer
food, clothing, and basic health care, its relational quality is in the
equal valuing of both the middle class and marginalized in their
community. For Sanctuary: "If you're willing to share your life with
us, we'll share ours with you. We'll encourage you when you mess
up, help you find direction when you're not sure which way to go,
hold you when you're hurting, and help you discover, strengthen
and focus your gifts and abilities. We're here for the long haul."[7]
In the Islamic tradition, the Toronto based el-Tawhid Juma Circle
Mosque brings local refuge to Muslims and people of all faiths who
have been marginalized due to their sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, age, race, class, dis/ability, HIV status, or
language. While the Mosque is open to all faiths, they keep their
particularity in Islam where they practice the universal prayer of
Islam on Friday, along with maintaining the liturgical structure of
the Muslim sermon. A non-Muslim is welcome to preach at the
Juma Circle, but they encourage the sermon to be grounded in the
Quran even as it may incorporate elements of other faith traditions.
It is here where I have best seen people embrace the particularity of
their tradition, while accepting the universal implications of that
particularity. As a place of refuge, its greatest impact from my
perspective has been in its welcoming of immigrants of diverse
sexualities who would face potential persecution, or even murder in
their home countries.[8]
It is in these local examples where we see the ethos of the early
Christian and Muslim communities brought to bear on our current
society. It is in these communities’ willingness to speak truth to the
secular powers of isolated individualism along with the absolutism
of their own traditions, where the heart of Islam and Christianity is
once again validated. And it is in these localized relationship-based
communities that they remind themselves that they need never
become the powers they have chosen to oppose.
[1] (Cavanaugh 2008) 11-12
[2] (Gonzalez 2010) 176-179
[3] (Reda 2012) 237
[4] (Reda 2012) 238
[5] (Cavanaugh 2008) 77
[6] (Berry 2010) 144
[7] (Anonymous2012b)
[8] (Anonymous2012a)
No comments:
Post a Comment