A CBS poll claims to prove, within a reasonable margin of error, that people’s perception of Islam is going down the drain.
Margin or no margin, one does not need a poll to know that.
In almost all interfaith gatherings, the agenda inevitably coalesces on the question of Islam’s image. I think it saps the agenda somewhat. More can be done instead of simply waxing and waning that Muslims are hated as never before. God forbid that such gatherings should go the way of most OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) meetings.
Nonetheless, it is a fact that most people believe that one of the means to
reduce the potential for future terrorism is to build bridges between faiths.
While this is a commendable attitude, I have never believed in its realism, not
while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, is couched in the absolutist terms of religion. To put it bluntly, peace has little chance of succeeding if terms
like Jerusalem, third holiest city of Islam, and Jerusalem, eternal
capital of Israel are consistently placed on the negotiating table.
The Israeli position, especially, makes little sense in the tumultuous context of
the Tanakh (the Hebrew scriptures). They, of all people, should know the falsity of such claims.
For better or for worse, however, Israel has
influential friends in the United States.
No group has been more vociferous in supporting America’s myopic stance on the
Middle East than the Christian premillennialist camp. Malise Ruthven (Fundamentalism, the
Search for Meaning) calls them,
theological refugees in a world they no longer control. They have a baleful influence on American foreign policy, by tilting it towards the Jewish state which they aim eventually to obliterate, by converting ‘righteous’ Jews to Christ. They have damaged the education of American children in some places by adding ’scientific creationism’ to the curriculum…On a planetary level, they are selfish, greedy, and stupid, damaging the environment by the excessive use of energy and lobbying against environmental controls. What is the point of saving the planet, they argue, if Jesus is arriving tomorrow?
Interfaith gatherings, while great for fostering relations between the
intellectuals and elites of religions, have limited impact on the ground.
Sometimes, I suspect that these talks are promoted for their sheer futility, because let’s face it, the initiatives and positions adopted by
interfaith councils seldom, if ever, trickle down to the sermons delivered from
either Christian pulpits or Muslim minbars. No boats are rocked. It’s a useful distraction from real problems.
Of greater importance is the dialogue between different Muslim groups. Take this recently-concluded interview with Saudi Sheikh Ayedh al Garni, in which he supports calls for,
…an open dialogue between Sunni, Shiaa and Sufi Muslims.
He further adds,
"We should meet and refer our differences to the Quran and the Sunna."
Now, I am not going to comment on Sheikh Ayedh’s inference that Sunni Muslims
and Sufi Muslims are two different things. It’s obvious he means Salafist
Muslims when he mentions Sunni Muslims, even though the Sunni’ism of the
majority of Muslims is based on taqlid (adherence) to the
four
Madhhabs (Schools of Thought) and a qualified acceptance of the science of Tassawwuf (Sufism). This majority is in fact established by the
Jordan Initiative, which
places the Madhhabs at the apex of a list it calls "true Islam". Why
is this an issue? Salafists typically despise taqlid and condemn it every
opportunity they get.
Nor am I going to say that any dialogue that transpires should rightly lie between this Sunni majority and the Salafist minority, a conversation that has,
in reality,
taken place away from the masses.
I merely mentioned Sheikh Ayedh’s interview because I wanted to bring up the brilliant response of one blogger, Mr Ahmed Al-Omran of the prolific Saudi Jeans.
I’m all for dialogue, but I don’t really see the point of this one. Instead of looking for our differences- as if these differences are some kind of a problem, how about respecting each other and support freedom for everybody to practice their beliefs?
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
True say on that last quote. This is one of the most important points, if you ask me. “Refer to the Qur’an and Sunnah” also has an ideological underpinning, which could be taken to sound like it undermines the intellectual heritage and tradition that all these schools have.
I personally see Sunnism as a “sect” (firqa/nihla) just as I do for the Shia, ‘Ibadi and others. The fact that it is the majority does not take away this fact.
If we can respect differences and our collective, as well as individual heritage, then I think this can go a long way.