Beyond just a Dialogue

On their recent visit to London Fr William Skudlarek and Fr Maximilian Musindai were invited to talk at the Hawza Ilmiya on their experience of interfaith activities. A couple of days later Islam today’s chief editor caught up with them for an interview. The following are highlights of the discussion that took place.

Q: Fr William, could you explain the purpose of your visit? When we met in Qum-Iran last May during the 4th monastic interreligious dialogue it was decided not to leave too much of a gap between the meetings. We had been meeting back and forth between Qum and Italy for a while. The first meeting was in Rome and the third one in Assisi. In further discussions, it was suggested, that although it was very impressive, interesting and important for us to go to Iran, it was also difficult to obtain visas. I was told I was the first American arriving in Iran without a visa. Besides this, the fundamental question of whether or not it was possible for our dialogue to be of benefit to others was raised too. We then agreed that the whole question of the relationship between Christianity and Islam in Africa is very important since recently it has been marked by dreadful incidents of violence. Then much to my surprise, Dr Shomali said, that there is a large presence of Muslim Shi’as in Kenya, which is also the country of Fr Maximillian. So almost immediately we decided to have our next gathering in Kenya. My initial suggestion was that we could not repeat the same academic model where the participants present papers and afterwards we publish them. So our visit to London is partly to plan and organise the trip to Kenya. Q: As a representative of the Catholic Church, what internal discussions have you had with regard to your engagement with members of the Islamic faith? Has there been a shift in the importance given to these encounters by the Catholic Church? It is obvious that the increased presence or visibility of Islam in the West and by that I mean Western Europe and the United States has provoked a kind of attention to Islam that was not there as long as Islam was simply something seen from afar. Some Americans associate Islam only with the Middle East, forgetting that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country and there is a huge presence of Muslims also in India. But that recognition of the need to understand, to get to know Muslims specifically, and Islam as the principle, is evident, and also the recognition that if we don’t come to understand and know one another better, there is always an increased possibility of hostile relationships between two groups of people. This has led, at least for us in monastic interreligious dialogue, to an awareness that it is not only a matter of getting to know the religious traditions that are different to ours but that we share a common interest in drawing closer to God and letting God draw us closer to Him, because right at the heart of the Christian monastic tradition is the sense of the search for God: How we benefit from the way that another religion tradition understands, what it means to search for God or to be drawn to God or focus one’s whole being on God. Q: One of the major problems identified with interfaith dialogues at ‘high levels’ is that it remains at those levels, it does not trickle down to the rest of the society. What strategy do you think should be taken to involve ordinary people? One of the things I suggested for this meeting in Nairobi is that rather than speaking at the intellectual/theoretical level we share simple stories with one another. Stories of good and also bad relationships between Christian and Muslims and then we look at these stories almost as case studies. We ask ourselves what we have learned about the things that help us to come together and those that lead to hostility. This was discussed with Dr Shomali who suggested a theme for the next encounter in Kenya as ‘The unity of God and the unity in God’. Concomitant with this we will also want to explore the meaning of ‘mission’. What does it mean to be in a relationship with people of another religious tradition without immediately thinking that the only reason we can have a relationship with them is to get them to accept that mine is the right path? This raised big questions, what does it mean to be a true and faithful Muslim or Christian? Q: Would your meeting in Nairobi be in a more public setting? We are planning two public events; one to take place in a Muslim (Shi‘a) setting and the other a Christian one. But most of the discussions will be in small groups of perhaps ten Muslims and 10 monastics, where we can talk more in depth about these issues. Q: How much is the leader of the Catholic Church; Pope Francis involved in the interreligious dialogues? Very much. I should say that his keyword for interreligious activity is ‘fraternity’. By that he means, to respect one another, and he is very concerned about working together for the good of humanity. He feels very strong and supportive of this. He would not be, very much, for sharing spiritual experiences, though. Q: I was asked once what the purpose of these interfaith discussions is? What good comes out of it? Who benefits from it? How would you answer this? I refer to a German philosopher, who says “one who knows one language knows no language”. Or Shakespeare, who remarked: “I hate a man of one book”. Yes it is true we need to know our own religious identity, our own religious roots, but unless I can understand how they differ from another, I don’t really understand my own. So why should I get involved? I would say so that I can be a better Christian or a better Muslim. Q: Fr. Maximilian, we understand you are conducting important research in the field of Islamic Studies for your PhD. Could you please explain how it all started? A couple of years ago, the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi and in Dar es Salam caused a lot of frictions among Muslims and Christians in my country, Kenya. A few years later in 2001 came 9/11 in the US, this was a catastrophe and the society became deeply divided into two, Muslims and non-Muslims – the latter includes Christians and those with no religion. A question arose in my mind: Are these acts, perpetrated in the name of Islam in the world today, a representation of the true character of the Islamic religion? This prompted me towards researching more about Islam. At the time I had not undertaken theological studies. Later, by the grace of God, I was sent to Rome to start my theological studies. I finished in 2009 when the congregation of my religious community decided to answer my request to deepen my knowledge of Islam. I realised that to understand Islam I would need to start from the basics, learn the Arabic language. That was when I began my Islamic studies. I was sent to Egypt for one year to learn Arabic and then back to Rome to The Pontifical Institute for Arabic and Islamic Studies to finish my Master’s Degree, after which I went back to Egypt to start my Doctorate, and that is what I have been doing up to now. Q: What have you discovered so far about Islam? What windows have opened up in your understanding of Islam and Muslims? I have gradually discovered that ignorance or little knowledge of others is a dangerous thing. I grew up accepting that this is the reality but without making any effort to delve deeper and find out the truthfulness or falsity of this idea. I have gradually discovered that there is a lot to Islam that we, outsiders, have come to know. A reading of the work of contemporary Muslim scholars, who have come out – especially after September 11th, shows that there is a great willingness to go back into the Qur’an and find in it the teaching materials that help them to interact with members of other religions. This is because, some traditional scholars, even contemporary ones, tend to be exclusivist and divisive. What these new scholars are doing is to understand what it is that divides and makes some Muslims think in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’. These scholars basically want to bring out the beauty of Islam and share it with the world so that we can coexist. The Qur’an says that Ibrahim, Joseph, Jacob were all Muslims and all prophets that lived before Muhammad were Muslims, so let us go back the original meaning and understanding of Islam. Q: During your encounter with scholars of other major branches of Islam what are the marked differences that you have noticed, and would your approach be the same in terms of interaction? Absolutely not, the exchange has to be different. When I talk to a Muslim Shi‘a I know that I am talking to a religious person who accepts that in the matters of salvation, and in Divine understanding, we need both faith and reason. For this reason, there is a huge difference between Shi‘as and Sunnis. I do not completely believe that there is no Ijtihad (independent scholarly reasoning) among the Sunnis, but it is more difficult to discuss it in public. Among the Shi‘a it is different, we can sit and reason out, challenge our faith, challenge even our sacred scriptures, ask what is the meaning of different concepts? And what was the condition in which it came about? Shi‘a scholars will do this in public without any fear. I think this kind of analysis can bring us closer. With Shi‘a Muslims, we also share the concepts of pilgrimage to spiritual sites. As you know in some Sunni sects pilgrimages to shrines, are forbidden and considered a bida‘, (innovation). Shi‘a Muslims believe in the sacredness of the holy places where special men of God are buried. They have the concept of intercession and seek God’s favour through the help of role models such as Imam Husayn, Imam Hassan. Then another concept that we share with the Shi‘a Muslims is the element of openness and authority. There is a welldefined hierarchy of knowledge and authority, similar to Catholicism, but it is not the same in the Sunni world. Q: Fr William, Chronologically Islam is more than 500 years younger than Christianity. We can say that Christianity had to face certain historical challenges and developments. Do you think Islam has to go through the same challenges that Christianity faced? How do you see the direction that Christianity has taken? Islam, today, is more or less where Christianity was in 1300[CE]. I always wondered if there is a certain historical process in religious tradition, we have certainly seen it in Christianity, perhaps there is a need to engage our traditions, our sacred texts, with the mind. There is a sense that Catholicism was all about devotion with little engagement of the mind. I read once an appropriate sentence which said: “Jesus came to take our sins not our minds”. But you have to put a brake on it too because there is a risk one becomes just a rationalist. Deep within our Catholic Christian and Benedictine tradition, is faith, seeking and understanding. Faith is there, but faith not just in the sense of a blind acceptance, faith in the sense of trust and then understanding of why I trust. Why do I hand my life over to God? Why is this rational thing to do? Q: Christianity appears to have retreated in face of the challenge of secularism, and Christian societies had to adapt their practices and spirituality. How would you assess the condition of Christian societies today? Well, just today we were walking down the street, going to big huge St Augustine Church, built in 1898, splendid, imposing, and now crumbling. Yesterday I went to the hotel lobby, and I asked: ‘Do you have a list of churches in the area’, a young lady looked at me as if… ‘why… churches?’ It was striking to me. She probably thought, ‘what a crazy question to ask’. Fr. Maximilian: We should remember that Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, and if we look backwards to where the Christians were 600 years ago. You know what has happened until Pope John Paul II, during the Jubilee celebration, came out and said that the church confesses the sins it has committed against the Muslims. That was of very historical importance. The world we see now is the outcome of the mistakes we made as a religion. The times are changing, the language is changing and inner religion is changing. Christianity has come through a particular culture, as has Buddhism and Islam, we have to bear that in mind. When I see a Muslim putting on hijab, for example, it is not for me to criticise, as I should first know how it has come about. I have to know the culture behind that hijab. Muslims have to do the same if a non-Muslim does something. They have to go and find out how their action has come about, what culture is behind it, before criticising. There is also a need to change our theological language. Christians, Muslims or members of other religions, if we continue to use hard language, the language of division, we shall remain with the same challenges. Language that says this person is Kafir and non-believer or saying that we are the only one who, through Jesus Christ, has been saved. We have to go back and re-examine our theological language. Father William: Even some of the most basic parts of Christian theological language we have to consider, words with which we refer to God, such as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. That is a huge change. We have to be able to say that so much of our language at the very core of Christian faith and theology comes out under a very particular worldview, Greek philosophy. But it is still very delicate. My knowledge of Islam is very little. But sometimes when I read through the pages of the noble Qur’an when in so many cases it says, God has no partners and this comes up again and again, I am wondering is this a kind of statement about the Christian way of talking about God that said God is three? The contemporary Trinitarian theology may say numbers has nothing to do with the trinity. But again the way we talk about it gives that impression and understandably. I think the Holy Qur’an, the revelation of Prophet Muhammad is reacting and criticising that very crass way. Fr Maximilian: Sura Ikhlas is the response to this. Amir De Martino: We have no exact understanding of those Christians with whom the Prophet Muhammad interacted with and what their exact belief system was, but it seems the response must have come to that. They would have been Christians of Arabia, Southern Yemen and the region. However, from a historical perspective, we understand, the Prophet clearly directed that the Christians in the monastery should not be touched, because he certainly recognised their belief system. Q: What are the challenges ahead? How would you see Christianity in 100 years? Fr. William: It would certainly be different. Again the pace of change is so rapid with so many different forces at work but this is not the first time a very secular spirit has arisen. Take the French Revolution, think of Russia, when they said, ‘finally we got ourselves rid of God’, ‘now is time for workers’, ‘for common good’, and then all changed. Certainly out of the French Revolution came a life of Catholicism, it just blossomed, many new religious orders, great intellectual activities came about, but if you look at 1789 -1793, religion was over, religion was removed from our society in the name of Laicite. Q: Fr Maximilian, how do you see the journey of humanity, what is it moving towards? I believe things are changing but what kind of changes? Human beings have a tendency to go beyond the limited boundaries of their religious groupings, people are embracing a global way of saying things and going beyond themselves, that is why a Christian can sit with a Muslim and share something that would not have happened a few years ago. The tendency to reach the other is increasing. We are moving towards one religion, a global religion. We’ll converge. Fr William: I try always to be an optimist, but I think something also needs to collapse. I don’t know how the economy is going to continue, but this house of cards has to collapse. I think different kinds of things are coming. Ecologically, we face a huge crisis and I think we don’t really recognise that but suddenly as the ocean level increases…, again, I might be talking from a Christian perspective, but before there is going to be resurrection there has to be death. Something has to collapse. Then again who knows? Amir De Martino: It seems that dialogue and religious exchanges are of the utmost importance for the future generations. I have this image of the first community of Muslims that took refuge in Abyssinia where no one else would help them. They were the guests of the Negus, a Christian king who gave them refuge until it was safe for them to join the Prophet Muhammad(s) in Madina. They resided for several years in Abyssinia were they lived in harmony with the host nation. They are both Benedictine monks and have been involved in rounds IV, V, VI and VII of the Catholic Shia dialogue Fr William is the General Secretary of Monastic Interreligious Dialogue.

Fr Maximilian is currently doing a PhD in Arabic and Islamic Studies.

Peace from the Islamic Perspective

Islam encourages spreading peace, and made it one the greatest virtues. The noble prophet described it as the best moral of people in this life and in the other life when he said “Shouldn’t I tell you about the best morals of the people in this life and the other life… spreading peace in the world”. Imam Mohamed Ibn Ali Ibn Alhussein (Albaqer) (A.S.) narrated that Salaman (R.A.) said “spread Allah’s peace, but Allah’s peace does not go to the unjust”. “What is meant by this is that the benefit wouldn’t reach the unjust because of the fact that they are unjust; the reason behind that is what was mentioned, that helping the unjust is another form of injustice that man should renounce”.

In the explanation of the Quran by Mohamed Rashid Reda in Almanar, he mentions the following about peace: “Islam is a general religion, and among its objectives is spreading its values and virtues among people, even if gradually, and to attract them towards each other so that all humans become brothers. One of the Islamic values that was common in the time of the prophet is spreading peace except for to combatants; whoever peace is announced upon is safe, and anyone who would harm him is considered a traitor and breaking the promise”.
He continues: “Spreading peace was mentioned as one of the qualities of the believers in the hadiths, and given as a reason of love among them. This is mentioned in the hadith: ‘the best kind of Islam is: giving food, and delivering peace to those who you know and you don’t’ and also in the sahih hadiths ‘Spread peace between you, you will love one another’, ‘spread peace and you will be in peace’ and ‘three things, whoever has them is having the whole belief, justice with yourself, giving peace to the world, and giving despite your need’. This is one of the values of the global peace”.
All of these great hadiths refer to the greatness and value of peace and those who spread it, knowing that those who are unjust and don’t keep promises and treaties won’t get peace because they have opposed its basis and requirements. Facing them is considered an action of spreading peace, as those who face them are trying to return rights to their owners - which means returning things to their proper place - and only with that will justice be established. Protecting rights and deterring abusers, as a way of being merciful and caring to them, establishes justice.
In addition to the concept of Muslims choosing peace and respecting treaties, many verses are mentioned in the Quran that encourage and state the necessity of facing the unjust and injustice to order to protect rights, establish justice, and restore peace. We will mention some of these verses, with explanations from the book Al-mizan fe Tafseer Alquran, in order to understand its noble contents that aim to spread peace between people:
In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful
“Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong.” Quran [60-9]
The Almighty says: “Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection).” Those who are meant by “who fight you” etc. are the unbelievers in Mecca and “support in driving” is helping and standing with those doing it. When He says “It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong”, “them” refers exclusively to the unbelievers in Mecca and those who support them, it does not mean all nonbelievers in general.
In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful
“(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right― (for no cause) except that they say ‘Our Lord is Allah’. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might” Quran [22-40].
This describes those who were oppressed and expelled from their homes. The nonbelievers expelled them from their houses in Mecca, without having the right to do that, and did not even let them get any supplies. They hurt them and continued to increase the torture until they impelled them to leave Mecca, leave their homes and money, and migrate to another land. Some went to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) , others to Medina after the migration of the prophet, peace be upon him. Thus, they expelled them by making them impelled to leave. Fighting should be the last option of defense, and should only be used in the case of the failure of every other means of defense, just as amputation should be the last resort in the treatment of infection. This is because fighting causes the death of some people in order for others to live. Bearing hardships is part of living in human society, not only for humans but for any partially conscious or independent creature.
In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful
“Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace. When ye should be Uppermost: for Allah is with you and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds” Quran [47-35].
The meaning of the verse is that it is not the way of Allah or his prophet to forget about your deeds or retract God’s forgiveness, so don’t get weak during the fight or invite the unbelievers to a truce; you are the winners and God will help you to gain victory over them. You will not lose the rewards of your good deeds; He will give them to you fully.
In this verse Allah promises the believers victory; they will prevail if they obey Allah and his prophet. He says
“So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers” Quran [3:139].
These verses point to the obligation of fighting injustice, tyranny, and the unjust only as a last resort, after having advised them of all peaceful ways. This fighting is a way of spreading peace by stopping injustice and establishing justice through returning taken rights. A man should not only condemn injustice silently and verbally, as accepting injustice is a form of injustice in itself. It is a duty to not make peace with the unjust when they insist on their aggression and injustice, as this is considered as surrender, humiliation, and the loss of legitimate rights. It is these kinds of unjust actions that encourage the unjust and give them the legitimacy to continue with their corrupted actions that aren’t in line with the definitions of justice and peace.
This explains the invalidity of making peace with the unjust while they are insisting on their actions, as the oppressed might be forced to hold a compliant truce with the oppressors and tyrants, as mentioned in the definitions. This kind of truce and peace with oppressors is basically void, as what was built on something invalid is invalid in itself. In addition, the verses establish basic human rights such as freedom to believe and worship, protecting property and the prohibition of violating it , the prohibition of violating others and their rights, and the right and necessity of self defense in the face of oppression or assault, in order to establish justice and, as a result, peace among all.
Sources of Extremism and Terrorism (Intellectual and Physical Terrorism)
Terrorism arises when a person or institution deals with different opinions by ignoring and deleting them, both intellectually and in action. Tyrannical thinking is only an expression of the culture of deleting the “other” who has a different opinion or path. This kind of tyrannical thinking works by oppressing other opinions in word and action, and punishing other opinions through exercising social, cultural, economical, and political exclusion, until the different opinions surrender to the oppressing one. This kind of tyranny is practiced by connecting it with ideologies and nationalities, criminalizing other opinions, and to creating an environment where it is possible to exclude others. This kind of tyranny is usually used to monopolize power and resources and to use them for their own interests, under the name of nation or ideology. But history and the divine law confirm that tyranny and injustice cannot maintain power or resources neither do compliance treaties; these only lead to their confirmed demise because of the repulsion of the people when conditions, which are always variable and never constant, change. The best evidence of this is the Arab Spring that occurred in so many Islamic countries - people demanded dignity, freedom, and the right of self-determination free from internal or external control.
The seriousness of opinion tyranny is when it is done in the name of religion, which means that the tyrant is going against divine law, says that he owns the absolute perfect divine truth and others don’t, and thinks that he rules in the name of God and whoever disagrees with him is disagreeing with God and will therefore be judged by God’s law and punished by being exiled, tortured or killed.
Opinion tyranny is considered intellectual terrorism because it prevents people who have different ideas, opinions, and worldviews from expressing them in public or practicing them. They are usually prevented by taking away their personal rights such as individual and public freedom in all its forms and their right to form their own present and future. They become subjected to different types of pressure to repress their thoughts and expression.
Intellectual terrorism transforms into physical terrorism when it assassinates and creates violence for individuals or genocide against societies. Physical terrorism is only a result of intellectual terrorism, which is considered an introduction to physical terrorism. Our societies are, in general, diseased with this kind of intellectual extremity that monopolizes the absolute truth and pushes in the direction of public control on societies by the tyrant ruling class and international powers that control people’s decisions to serve their own goals and interests. This is the new world system that we were preached to about; however the uprisings of the Arab Spring started to change the present and the future by regaining their dignity, freedom and rights. This uprising, insha’Allah (by the grace of God), will sweep away the origins of extremity and intellectual terrorism, as well physical terrorism, on the way to achieving humanity through spreading just peace for all societies. This era could perfectly be called the Era of the People.
Spreading the Culture of Peace and Facing Terrorism
One of the most important elements in spreading the culture of peace and facing terrorism is working on maintaining human rights, especially the rights of those with whom we disagree, even before those with whom we agree. Disagreement in opinions is actually the prosperity of a people and an entrance to integrity. It is important to work on sharing what’s on people’s minds in order to ensure the positive benefit from differences in points of view, to face an idea with an idea, to listen to what is being said, and following whichever is deemed better after reasonable discussion between specialists and decision makers. It is important to be careful not to turn differences into disagreements through tyranny in opinion and decision-making. The sharing of minds only happens between those who are different; there is no point in the sharing of minds that are identical as there is nothing there to use for integrity. Even foods and drinks are diverse. One does not integrate with oneself, but with others through common human values that reinforce societies, even those that are different in their thoughts and ideas.
It is normal that a human integrates with other humans based on a positive outlook about cooperation in humanity, and it is even more noble if they have in common the same divine belief. This requires basic rules of interaction that establish positive integrity and protect from negativity. These basic rules are based on the following:
A.  The Theory of Absolute Truth
It is constant in every way, all the time, and never changes; this is only for what is always constant and exclusively in the absolute right, which is Allah the Almighty.
Absolute truth is defined as whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places. What is true for one person is true for all people. Truth is true whether we believe it or not. Truth is discovered or it is revealed, it is not invented by a culture or by religious men.

B.  The Theory of Relative Truth:
it is defined as truth that is true at only one time and in one place. It is true to some people and not to others. It is true now but it may not have been true in the past and may not be again in the future. It is always subject to change. It is also subject to the perspective of people.
A man can act believing that he has the absolute truth, and herein lies  the danger and the ignition of extremism and intellectual terrorism (which leads to physical terrorism). When a man thinks that whoever disagrees with his thoughts is disagreeing with the truth, and that they are wrong, must be faced, and a limit put on them, this is the cradle of human and international conflict. Then things turn from sanity and subjectivity to personalizing the subjects, and diversity in opinion and thought to disagreement that calls on conflict in all its forms. What makes this even more dangerous is if one is making the disagreement in the name of religion, and thus he thinks that whoever disagrees with his opinion is against the truth, and who is against the truth is against God and his prophet, and as a result is out of the religion and must be killed. This is the start of takfiri thinking, that is against humanity and religion, and that snatches mercy from man’s heart and wisdom from his mind.

C.  Fuzzy Logic:
this idiomatic expression appeared academically in 1965 in the research of Dr. Tariq Lotfy, the founder of this theory. Fuzzy logic refers to the study of the ways and the basis of the human mind. It is defined as a multi-variable system that allows one to define values that are between the classic definitions of either yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, etc. In this way it is possible to simulate the human way of thinking when programming computers.(20)

D.  Other Issues
First: The free flow of ideas and developing them to sustain innovation and renovation.
Second: Working upon the basis of what is in common, while refining the differences. This happens by respecting others’ opinions on the ground of the common fate of humanity, and not adopting the way of deleting the other.
Different opinions are actually a grace, not an indignation, and are evidence of the intellectual diversity of the society and are what allow it, when put in institutional frameworks, to advance and prosper. We shouldn’t be scared of other opinions; we should receive them and discuss them with the aim of integrating with them. Differences are the well of innovation and creativity, and as such we should include them in institutional frameworks as a guarantee of the continuous advancement of society.  Doing this will guarantee the dignity of all humans, as the leader of believers, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (A.S.) said, “People are of two kinds, your brother in religion or your peer in humanity”.
Allah the Almighty talked of using the policy of peace and softness and avoiding violence and harshness. He talked of the policy of forgiveness, and using systems like Shura (consultation) as a way of free, persuasive, wise, peaceful, and cooperative conversation and decision-making:  “And by the Mercy of Allah, you dealt with them gently. And had you been severe and harsh hearted, they would have broken away from about you” Quran [3:159]
The starting point to this is tolerance, accepting the other, and that what is scientifically defined as the theory of relative truth, as we mentioned. In other words, a man doesn’t own the absolute truth to judge the others by, especially to judge whether they are or are not unbelievers or human. A man should integrate by accepting the other, communicating and dialoguing with him, as this other might have a part of truth and this will help towards integrity and intellectual and spiritual richness. One should avoid a narrow point of view and pre-judging people before interacting with them.
Based on the above, and because countries prioritize and speak in the language of interests rather than the language of values in international relationships, and because of the performance of these countries in organizations that haven’t achieved the desired state of peace between humans, we think that it is vital to focus on civil society organizations that prioritize values rather than interests, to activate public diplomacy between them, to reinforce relationships and integration between people, and through a cultural-social process to face intellectual extremism and tyranny, and as a result face the basis and premise of terrorism.
Based on this we suggest working with civil society organizations on the practical goal of creating a unified framework that will allow them to adopt professional, specified programs with the aim of spreading peace and facing terrorism individually, socially and internationally. These are outlined along the following axes:
A.  Strategic Axis (public strategic thinking forums): coordinates between institutions of public strategic thinking, suggests common initiatives, and unifies terms and definitions in order to maximize the effectiveness of all initiatives.
B.  Cultural and Social Axes (cultural organizations working in cultural dialogue and social interaction): works on initiatives and projects specialized in cultural and social approaches between people, and on sustaining communication through cultural and social events.
C.  Human Rights and Legal Axes (public human rights and legal organizations): works on the observation and the follow-up of violations and exchanging information, with the aim of jointly and simultaneously facing all national and international forums.
D.  Political Axis (political pressure groups and lobbies): works on communication and coordination between all the political pressure groups towards a joint and simultaneous facing for all national and international decision makers.
E.  Media Axis (public media organizations): works on media initiatives, exchanging information, and coordination between the media campaigns of different media, in order to face the violators of human rights and of public peace at the regional and national level, and international peace at the international level.
F.  Human Aid Axis (humanitarian relief services organizations): offers initiatives of common cooperation between relief organizations, organizing and coordinating activities according to their available capacities, and working on observing injustice and violation as a start to facing the violators.
G.  Environmental Axis (organizations that defend the environment):  works on coordinating between environmental organizations about all crimes and violations against the environment that harm human health and affect society and future generations.
After this, coordination will be held between similar civil society organizations interested in participating, from all around the world, to suggest initiatives and projects and adopt their own agenda into an integrated strategy that unifies their efforts and energies and focuses them against the tyrannical agencies that promote terrorism and violate peace.
Recommendations
Based on what was presented in this paper analyzing the culture of peace and facing terrorism, we conclude with the following recommendations:
First: develop public relationships between active civil society organizations around the world, with no exceptions, and activate public diplomacy objectively and systematically to guarantee a constant presence on different forums in order to create and sustain a fair, comprehensive, and sustainable peace on the basis of rightness and fairness.
Second: Agreement between the civil society organizations that are active in peace, on a systematic work with multiple initiatives built on a system of priorities. This systematic organized work should use energies according to ability and potential and be based on objective conditions of each party to achieve peace.
Third: enhance practical communication between knowledgeable people in the nations through building intellectual and operational networks between all civil society organizations in order to enhance coordination, concentrate efforts and energies, and maximize the effectiveness of their work.
Fourth: transform all intellectual events into working programs that can be followed up and developed. These programs should be managed by a special follow-up and management authority that forms from the related civil society organizations and works on making work plans, coordinating events, and specialized initiatives in these axes:
A.  Strategic Axis (public strategic thinking forums)
B.  Cultural and Social Axes (cultural organizations working in cultural dialogue and social interaction)
C.  Human Rights and Legal Axes (public human rights and legal organizations)
D.  Political Axis (political pressure groups and lobbies)
E.  Media Axis (public media organizations)
F.  Human Aid Axis (humanitarian relief services organizations)
G.  Environmental Axis (organizations that defend the environment)

Alarming appointees: Trump and his Islamophobic ideologues

By Yuram Abdullah Weiler

“This is a holy war. This is essentially the Constitution versus the Quran on every level.”

Trump national security appointee Monica Crowley

President-elect Donald Trump seems intent on surrounding himself with a cabal of ill-advised advisers, nefarious neurotics, disturbing demagogues and Islamophobic ideologues, which does not portend well for the Islamic Ummah.  Based on the rhetoric spewing forth from some of these rabid reactionaries, Trump may not only be blocking immigration from Muslim-majority countries, but also may be planning nationwide surveillance of all American Muslims.

Trump’s national security squad

One need look no further than Trump’s national security appointees to get a feel for the Islamophobic infrastructure being constructed to safeguard the American homeland.  At the head of Trump’s national security apparatus is retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who has already presented his credentials as an Islamophobe in good standing.  According to Flynn, Islam “is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised.”   

Flynn also accused Democrats in the U.S. state of Florida of voting “to impose Islamic shariah law at the state and local level,” which, of course, is utter nonsense.  Moreover, he intimated that U.S. president Barrack Obama may be a Muslim, which undoubtedly meshed well with Trump’s “birther” views, although the president-elect has reportedly retracted them.

Another addition to the Trump national security team is retired U.S. army lieutenant general Joseph Keith Kellogg, who will be chief of staff and executive secretary of the National Security Council. A soldier who rose up through the ranks, Kellogg fought in the war against Vietnam and ended his career in 2003 as director of command, control and communications for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon.

Soon after retiring from the army, Kellogg served as chief operations officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad from November 2003 to March 2004 and, as such, played a key role in the ruinous U.S. occupation of Iraq, which contributed to the rise of Daesh.  After that, he became an executive vice president for CACI International, a firm that supplied intelligence interrogators to the U.S. military and was accused by 250 Iraqis of involvement in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

More recently, Kellogg has been the vice president of strategic initiatives for Cubic Corporation, a defense contractor involved in combat training, communications, intelligence and surveillance.  Before that he was with secretive Cubic subsidiary Abraxas, which developed a highly controversial surveillance tool called “Trapwire,” which reportedly could analyze images to identify terrorists planning an attack.  Given Trump’s inclination towards spying on American Muslims, Kellogg, with his well-honed surveillance skills, is a natural.

Trump’s most recent appointee to the post of senior director of strategic communications for the National Security Council is Monica Elisabeth Crowley, who holds a Ph.D. in international relations from Columbia University and is also a former Fox News personality. Both Crowley and Kellogg will report to Trump’s national security adviser, Flynn.

A member of the elitist Council on Foreign Relations, Crowley got her start in foreign affairs when former U.S. president Richard Nixon offered her a job as a research assistant in 1990.  After Nixon’s demise, Crowley, encouraged by former New York Times columnist William Safire, converted her personal notes into two books on the former president.  While her disclosures have been viewed by some as a breach of confidentiality, she now stands to hold a sensitive security post in the Trump administration. 

U.S. in “holy war” against Islam

While Crowley may be quite knowledgeable on Nixon, she has repeatedly displayed her lack of erudition on Islam, Iran and the Middle East.  Her ignorance can be gleaned from her statement that the only democracy in the region “is the one built by the United States in Iraq.”  With Islam, she has conflated and confused the Islamic concepts of jihad with hijra, the latter being the emigration of the Prophet Muhammad (S) from Mecca to Medina in 622 CE, and the former being the concept of striving in the way of Allah.

While usually translated in the west as “holy war,” jihad in Islam is struggle, either in one’s self-betterment or in defense against enemies.  In any case, Crowley is convinced that the U.S. is locked in a “holy war” with Islam, as she declared in a 2014 interview on Fox News. “This is a holy war,” she cried, continuing her rant, “This is a holy war. Whether we want to see it that way or not, whether it’s politically correct to say it or not, this is the truth.”

In a November 2015 op-ed published in the Washington Times, Crowley expressed her views of the refugee crisis, which has been caused by the U.S.-backed wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan.  Crowley insisted that the massive influx of refugees was really an “act of violent jihad...that has been underway in Europe for decades but has ramped up dramatically over the past year.”

Referring to the crisis as an “Islamic tsunami,” which she claims to have witnessed firsthand, Crowley authoritatively stated that some of the refugees “may be fleeing war and persecution, but most are not.”  Her solution for weeding out “genuine” refugees from the “jihadis” is to follow “Australia’s example of processing all refugees offshore. Those who qualify as actual refugees are then brought onshore to be further processed.”

For Crowley, hijra is a form of jihad involving conquest by migration.  According to her, “The objective is to overwhelm non-Muslim territories with Muslim populations until they achieve domination through sheer numbers.”  She fears “The Islamic Trojan Horse” has arrived in America, and she condemns Obama for pledging to accept “200,000 ‘refugees’.”  Yet according to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. pledged to accept only 85,000 of which only 10,000 were from Syria.

Ramping up Iranophobia

On Iran, Crowley parrots the talking points of the Likudniks. She insists the JCPOA “legitimizes as a threshold nuclear power the world’s most fearsome state sponsor of terror,” which, of course, according to her is Iran.  Furthermore, Crowley charged that president Obama “has now given a green light to Iran’s march toward nuclear weapons.”  Continuing, she pontificated, “That’s why it’s now up to us to fight this potential death sentence for the West and Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.” 

Crowley also inappropriately accused the Islamic Republic of being “one of the most efficient traffickers of deadly weapons.”  This ignominious title, however, rightfully belongs to the United States, which controls half of the world’s arms market.  Her future boss Flynn also sees the hand of Iran behind every incident.  Following the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Flynn obsessively hunted for evidence of Iran’s involvement.

Clearly, Crowley’s distorted perspective of Iran not only complements those of Flynn, but also those of other Trump appointees.  For example, anticipated nominee for deputy secretary of state, John Bolton, has openly called for regime change in Iran, which he feels is the “only long-term solution” to the imagined threats posed by the Islamic Republic, and has even advocated bombing to stop “Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons.”

What next for Muslims in America?

John Robbins, an American Muslim and executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is very concerned about the implications of Trump’s Islamophobic entourage. The president-elect’s actions “inherently label Muslims as second-class citizens in our own country, and send a clear message that equality is only for some.”  Omer Aziz, a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School and recently with the U.N. Special Envoy to Syria, wrote, “Our life for at least the next four years will be one of opposition.” 

All of us in Washington can find this appalling and scary,” confided columnist Matt Bai on Trump’s ascendancy.  If this is true for Beltway insiders, how much more alarming are Trump’s Islamophobic appointees for Muslims in the United States, as well as in Iran and worldwide? 

The Apostle’s (pbuh) message and his method

By Zafar Bangash

The Qur’an is not a biography of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), but Allah (swt) describes His beloved Messenger (pbuh) in the most beautiful terms in the noble Book. He is the “best of exemplars”(33:21), with “the most lofty character” (68:04), and a “mercy to all the worlds” (21:107). He is the one who has “brought glad tidings inviting people to Allah” (33:45) “to bring them out of darkness and into light” (65:11).

His Sunnah (life-example) and Sirah (life-history) are guides for humanity till eternity because he embodied in his blessed life the teachings of the Qur’an. Allah (swt) commands those who have made a faith-commitment to Him to “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger”(4:59). In fact, Allah reminds His servants that if they truly love Allah (swt), they should express it through their love and obedience to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), ayah 3:31.

Even before receiving the first revelation confirming his mission as the last and final Messenger of Allah (pbuh), he led a pure and clean life earning the titles of al-Sadiq (the truthful one) and al-Amin (the trustworthy one) from the tribal, idol-worshipping, and quarrelsome society of Makkah. He was soft-spoken, kind, and compassionate. Even his enemies testified to his veracity and trustworthiness.

At the beginning of the seventh year of the Hijrah, the noble Messenger (pbuh) sent letters to a number of rulers inviting them to Islam. The Roman emperor, Heraclius, was visiting Jerusalem at the time. When he received the Prophet’s (pbuh) letter, Heraclius inquired whether there was anyone from Arabia present in Palestine. Abu Sufyan happened to be there with a trade caravan. He was called before the emperor who inquired about the character of the noble Messenger (pbuh). Despite being his staunch enemy and steeped in strong clan ‘asabiyah(prejudice), Abu Sufyan was forced to admit that the noble Messenger (pbuh) had the most upright character and had never told a lie.

He was soft-spoken, kind, and compassionate. Even his enemies testified to his veracity and trustworthiness.

Muslims with even limited knowledge of Islam and the Sirah are aware of these lofty qualities of the noble Messenger (pbuh). These are repeated in Jumu‘ah khutbahsas well as in sermons on other occasions. The month of Rabi‘ al-Awwal is special in that the birthday of the noble Messenger (pbuh) is celebrated with great joy and fervour and lectures are delivered highlighting his noble character. By approximating their behaviour as closely as possible to that of the noble Messenger (pbuh), Muslims hope to achieve nearness to Allah (swt) and earn His pleasure.

His Sunnah (life-example) and Sirah (life-history) are guides for humanity till eternity because he embodied in his blessed life the teachings of the Qur’an.

There is also agreement among Muslims that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (pbuh) Sunnah and Sirah are guides for us in life. The Qur’an is the eternal source of guidance revealed to the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) who demonstrated a practical example of its teachings in his own life. Thus the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Sirah form an integral part of a Muslim’s quest to understand his purpose as he copes with the vicissitudes of life.

It is imperative to review the prophetic Sunnah and Sirah carefully in light of the teachings of the Qur’an to determine how the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) transformed the jahili society of Arabia in a short period of 23 years into the Islamic State and turned its savage people into the most upright human beings on earth.

In order to understand the nature of this struggle and the challenges he faced, we must first consider the nature of society in Makkah where the noble Messenger (pbuh) was born and proclaimed his message. Arabia was a tribal society that indulged in numerous unjust practices. Makkah was the bastion of idol worship with the Ka‘bah, the first House of Allah (swt) built on earth, polluted by hundreds of idols. Clan loyalty and inter-clan rivalries were other prominent features of life. Slavery and the oppression of women were also common.

People depended on trade for survival. The Makkans’ trade caravans traveled north in summer to Syria and south in winter to Yemen. This is referred to in Surah Quraysh (106:2) of the noble Qur’an. Idol worship underpinned the Makkans’ commercial interests because trade caravans were attracted to the city both for worship as well as trade fares.

It was in these circumstances that the noble Messenger (pbuh) received the first revelations from on high and Allah (swt) ordered him to proclaim the Oneness of the Lord and Sustainer of all the worlds. Viewed superficially, it may appear to be a simple statement but in the idol-ridden society of Arabia, it carried profound implications. The declaration of the shahadah — La ilaha illa-Allah, Muhammadun Rasulullah (There is no deity/authority but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) — was seen by the mushrikpower wielders of Makkah as a direct challenge not only to their belief system but also to their economic well-being.

People may tolerate an alternate belief system but they become extremely hostile if their economic well-being is challenged. This was also the reaction of the Makkan elite. They were not prepared to allow the message of Islam to be propagated freely lest it free people, especially the slaves, from the entrenched system. That would sound the death knell of the exploitative system in Makkah.

Extreme persecution of those that became Muslims ensued. This was led by such clan leaders as Walid ibn al-Mughirah (Makhzoom clan and considered the unofficial leader of Makkah until his death in the Battle of Badr), ‘Utbah ibn Rabi‘ah (‘Abd Shams clan), Abu Sufyan ibn Harb (Umayyah clan), Umayyah ibn Khalaf (Jumah clan), ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘eet (Abd Shams clan) and Abu al-Hakam ibn Hisham, better known as Abu Jahl (Makhzoom clan).

People may tolerate an alternate belief system but they become extremely hostile if their economic well-being is challenged.

Such unremitting hostility forced the small Muslim community to seek refuge first in Abyssinia and later their wholesale migration to Madinah known at the time as Yathrib. The Makkan mushrikswere not content with persecuting the Muslims; they also plotted to kill the noble Messenger (pbuh). It was in these circumstances that he had to literally flee Makkah, the city of his birth.

The migration to Madinah provided a secure base that the noble Messenger (pbuh) had been seeking for a long time. While relieved of direct persecution and oppression, the Makkan mushriksdid not leave the noble Messenger (pbuh) and his companions in peace. They pursued him there as well and a number of battles ensued. Ultimately truth triumphed over falsehood and Islam was established in the whole of the Arabian Peninsula.

Throughout history societies have experienced dramatic upheavals but no change except the one brought by the noble Messenger of Allah (pbuh) has been so comprehensive; it encompassed the entire spectrum of human existence. Historically, most changes have resulted in one class of people replacing another; the French and communist revolutions were of this kind. Similarly, the balance of political and economic power merely shifted from one class to another with the injustices that led to change in the first place, remaining largely in place. People’s social and moral values were also seldom affected.

The noble Messenger (pbuh) transformed both the individual as well as society but he neither promised wealth nor power to attract people. He also did not instigate class warfare despite great disparities in wealth in society at the time. Nor did he launch a movement to merely rectify people’s morals even though the Arabian society was steeped in immorality and corruption.

From hopelessly divided warring tribes, he organized the people into an Islamic state that not only defeated the two superpowers of the time (Byzantium and Persia) but also went on to dominate the world for more than 1,000 years. What methods and processes did the Prophet (pbuh) employ to bring about such profound change at the individual as well as collective (societal) levels? The prophetic Sirah (life-history) addresses these questions but it must not be viewed merely as a series of unrelated events. It is part of the divine scheme to transform humanity by bringing it into conformity with Allah’s (swt) laws.

The Qur’an says that the Prophet’s (pbuh) role was and is to bring humanity out of darkness and into light (65:11). “Darkness” must be understood in its proper context: it is any state that is not in conformity with Allah’s (swt) prescribed laws for humanity. Light, on the other hand, means a state in which one is mentally, physically, emotionally, and intellectually attuned to Allah’s (swt) commands and consciously striving to adhere to them at all times.

Allah (swt) has also promised in the Qur’an that He will make Islam dominant in the world (9:33). This was realized during the lifetime of the noble Messenger (pbuh) but did not end with his earthly mission; this promise is available to all those who follow the prophetic Sunnah and Sirah.

The prophetic method is applicable at all times and in all situations. This is Allah’s (swt) infinite mercy because Muslims can always hope to emerge from whatever depth of darkness they have fallen into provided they follow the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (pbuh) Sunnah and Sirah.

The Arabian society of the Prophet’s (pbuh) time was quite small, comprising a few thousand people in Makkah and a similar number in Madinah. The Arabian Peninsula as a whole had several hundred thousand inhabitants but today, the world’s population has surpassed six billion and Muslims account for about one-fourth of this total. Would Muslims be able to transform their societies in 23 years as the Prophet (pbuh) did in Arabia, starting with a handful of followers?

Is there a time limit in which change must be achieved? These differences — the Prophet’s (pbuh) direct absence and the much larger scale today — however, should not overwhelm us. The Prophet’s (pbuh) physical presence has not been made a condition by Allah (swt) to achieve success in this world; following the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Sirah have been.

The Prophet (pbuh) had to convince the mushriks at a time when the Qur’an was gradually being revealed; today there are nearly two billion Muslims in the world, in possession of the entire Qur’an, as well as the Sirah and Sunnah of the noble Prophet (pbuh). True, the Muslims are disconnected from Islam and the Sirah but this is precisely the challenge we face today. We have to make the Sirah applicable in our lives by understanding it the way it ought to be understood and followed. There are other impediments as well: the power of kufr has not only become globalized but in the words of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, it has also penetrated the House of Islam (“Political Thought and behaviour of Muslims under colonialism,” published in In Pursuit of the Power of Islam: Major writings of Kalim Siddiqui: 1996, pp. 257–87). Yet the Sirah as a model is the divine prescription for humanity and is applicable in every situation regardless of different historical time periods.

Today Muslims are afflicted by many of the same problems that the noble Messenger (pbuh) faced in Arabia even though idol worship may have been replaced by other idols such as nationalism, money, and class interests. Exploitation is as rampant and widespread in the world, including the Muslim world, today as it was in the jahili society of Arabia. It is, therefore, imperative for Muslims to recognize and understand the nature of zulm and darkness that surrounds them as they embark on the process of transforming their societies by bringing them out of darkness into light.

Never in history has any ruling class voluntarily relinquished power or accepted the inherent injustices of its system. Whenever its inequities are exposed, the system has reacted violently to suppress such attempts. The struggle to transform a society based on man-made laws into the Islamic state will not be without human or material costs. It demands great sacrifices because those who have a vested interest in the established order will use all means at their disposal to crush any challenge but the Sirah also shows that through sustained effort, change can be achieved.

This year as Muslims celebrate the birthday of the noble Messenger (pbuh) in the month of Rabi al-Awwal, they would do well to pay attention to the larger aspects of his life’s struggle. Merely recitingnaats and nasheeds in his honour and eating enormous amounts of food would not bring about the desired change in our lives, much less that of the world at large.

 

Zafar Bangash

Joy to the world, the Word has come

By Abu Dharr

This month marks the birthday celebrations of the last two great Prophets of Allah. What is common between them is that they both stood for social justice, something most of their followers seem to have forgotten because they seem to have become engrossed in rituals.

During this month (Rabi‘ al-Awwal in the Islamic lunar calendar and December in the Gregorian solar calendar) the two final Prophets of Allah (a) were born. The Muslims doubt that December 25 is the day on which ‘Isa (Jesus – a) was born as the ayat in the Qur’an tell us that when Maryam (Mary) gave birth to Jesus (a), she was divinely told to seek the fruit of the palm tree (dates) as nourishment in her afterbirth period (19:23–25); palm trees do not produce dates at the end of December in that region (Muslim East, aka Middle East, and Palestine).

As for Musa (Moses – a), there is no concrete and valid information of the day he was born. But in this month occurs the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, a festival marking the rededication to Judaism of the Temple in Jerusalem in 165bce and celebrated by the kindling of eight candles. Be that as it may, this month carries an air of festivity for the adherents of the monotheistic “religions.”

The three prophets who are remembered during this month have a feature that is no longer recognized by many of their followers. That feature or character is their lifelong struggle against public figures who amassed either wealth or power or a combination of both. Anyone who knows their scriptural history will immediately recognize and admit to the fact that Musa (a) had to confront the Egyptian pharaonic establishment. ‘Isa (a) had to oppose the Roman Empire. And Muhammad (pbuh) had to defy the power structure of the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula. Musa (a) was, by Allah’s grace, able to free himself and his followers from the tyranny of Egypt and move to what was intended to be the land of freedom and justice. That land was called the “Promised Land” and it was delivered to the followers of Musa (a) to dwell there and lead a life of divine justice — not polluted by discrimination or tarnished by prejudice or the hatred of the “other.” Alas, the divine instructions were disregarded and people of the “Jewish” faith had to endure a diaspora that still continues to this very day — even in the military garrison and armed quarters erroneously defined as a “Jewish State.”

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) concluded prophetic history by succeeding in establishing a state and authority that was defined by divine justice as outlined in the eternal Qur’an. With all the vicissitudes of the past 14 centuries since that original state was founded by the noble Messenger (pbuh) the Muslims of the world today (with the exception of Islamic Iran) are living in their own diaspora.

Prophet ‘Isa (a) was “victimized” by the Roman power structure with “controversial” input from the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish judicial, ecclesiastical, and administrative council in ancient Jerusalem before 70ce, having 71 members from the nobility and presided over by the high priest.) His passing-on remains an issue of contention among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Some (or most, we are not of the Jewish faith to be sure of this assertion) Jews claim that they were involved in the death of ‘Isa (a). Christians (with very few exceptions) believe that ‘Isa (a) was crucified and died for the sins of man. Muslims affirm that ‘Isa (a) was neither killed nor crucified (4:157). Those who were involved in a conspiracy against him were led to believe that they killed or crucified him. At this point, the Muslims revere ‘Isa (a) more than those who have taken mainstream possession of him. The final day of ‘Isa (a) on earth may have been his last miracle: those who are of the physical world thought and still think, that he was crucified or killed. And those who are of the metaphysical world know he was neither crucified nor killed.

This brings us to where we are today. These three Prophets (a) looked death in the eye as they were justice centered, justice oriented, and justice seeking. The justice they stood for came from on high. And that justice led them to a position of opposition. They were, in a sense, objectors and protesters to the status quo. The empires and kingdoms they were born in would label them with derogatory words such as insurgents, insurrectionists, or “revolutionaries” (when the word revolutionary comes with a pejorative connotation).

And here we have in this month the followers of these three cherished Prophets (a) celebrating their names and lives minus the respected and valued anti-establishment character of them. Complicating the matter is the gap of rituals that separate Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The rituals themselves have become instruments of discrimination. Added to this pot of prejudice are the ill-feelings and the generated hostilities that come from a fanaticism that has eclipsed the original message of these esteemed Prophets (a), which is social justice. It looks like the Egypt of the Pharaoh, and the Roman Empire, as well as the mushriks of Arabia have made a comeback, redefined what Judaism, Christianity, and Islam mean, and convinced Jews, Christians, and Muslims that they can fulfill their religious duties by synagogue services, church ceremonies, and masjid manners!

At a time like this, when babies are sheltered in makeshift tents in and around the common “Holy Land,” when tears are running down the cheeks of mothers who don’t know how to protect their loved ones, when men disappear at roadblocks and checkpoints, some of them led away to prisons with life sentences, and when millions of people become homeless and stateless, how do the “Jewish,” “Christian,” and “Muslim” perpetrators feel about their relationship with God?

On the other hand, how does a person of the “Jewish” faith feel when he shoots a Palestinian in cold blood and watches his blood flow in front of him? How does a pilot from the “Jewish” faith feel when he drops bombs on civilian neighborhoods and destroys localities and extinguishes the lives of struggling fathers and mothers who had just spent their day fretting and sweating to feed their family? Are these “Jews” akin to Musa (a) and his followers or to the Pharaoh and his army?

How does a “Christian” feel when he commandeers a drone and then pushes the button to kill innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or any other place in the Muslim world? How does a “Christian” rationalize the invasion, occupation, and virtual colonization of other people’s lands and countries? How does a “Christian” think when he belongs to an establishment that brandishes nuclear bombs and weapons that can annihilate human life on planet earth? What are the internal thoughts of a “Christian” who trains and finances “Muslim terrorists” involved in killing indiscriminately, chewing on the organs of other human beings, and raping arbitrarily and in a wholesale manner?

How does a “Muslim” feel when he brainwashes Muslims in madrasahs and masjids, universities and study circles to go out into the countries adjacent to the holy lands and blow up “other” Muslims wherever they congregate? How does a “Muslim” feel when he is part of a coalition that targets innocent people in their hospitals and clinics, in their wedding ceremonies and their funeral processions?

All of these “Jews,” “Christians,” and “Muslims” with all the money and weapons they have cannot be the followers of Musa, ‘Isa, and Muhammad (a). They all have inherited the rituals of their families and cultures thata in appearance give them the veneer of being “Jewish,” “Christian,” or “Muslim” but in fact their actions exclude them from the essential character of Musa, ‘Isa, and Muhammad (a) — the character of fairness and justice.

If the Jews are unable to define their present-day Egypt, and the Christians are unable to define their present-day Byzantium, and the Muslims are unable to define their present-day Makkah then we will continue to have meaningless observances of Jewish holidays, Christian holidays, and Islamic holidays.

When it comes to the central theme of justice, “Jews,” “Christians,” and “Muslims” who are running Israel, America, and Arabia are one class of people — regardless of their “religious cover.” Likewise, when it comes to social justice the oppressed in Israel, America, and Arabia are one class of people regardless of their “religious affiliation.” You wouldn’t know this, though, if your understanding of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam is devoid of its revealed social justice content.

It may not accord with your wishful thinking — nor with the wishful thinking of the followers of earlier revelation — [that] he who does injustice shall be requited for it, and shall find none to protect him from God, and none to support him… (4:123).