Muslims in general and Muslim leaders particularly have often been severely criticized for not more energetically condemning the violent acts of Muslim extremists.
Violent extremists are on one edge of the Muslim community. They are counter-balanced by a growing movement of Muslim peacemakers.
Equally as notable as Islamic militancy but less noted are Muslims’ 1) widespread condemnation of terrorism and other violent acts; 2) promotion of interfaith dialogue; 3) education of Muslim youth and reeducation of extremist Muslims; and 4) promotion of peaceful conflict resolution.
The report concludes:
It is common knowledge that some Muslims espouse extremist interpretations of Islam, and some of these extremists engage in religiously motivated violence. But what is much less widely recognized is the extent of peacebuilding within the worldwide Muslim community. A large majority of Muslims denounce religiously motivated violence and are disgusted by the abuse of their religion. Evidence of this can be seen in Muslim leaders’ widespread condemnation of terrorism and religiously motivated violence around the world after 9/11, as well as after recent events in India. In addition, this report has described the efforts of many Muslim organizations and leaders to promote more frequent and effective dialogue with Christians and Jews to enhance mutual understanding and create practical steps to improve relations. Efforts are also under way in many places to vigorously educate Muslim youth about the core Islamic teachings of tolerance, peace, and pluralism. In addition, governments and institutions in Muslim countries are working to reeducate Muslim extremists about the falsity of the doctrines they advocate and to find alternative nonviolent methods to express their discontent.
Finally, there are growing indications of Muslim individuals and organizations promoting peaceful conflict resolution.
While the number of Muslim peacebuilding organizations is rising, many are small and struggling financially. International donors could make an important contribution to world peace by aiding these organizations and strengthening their programs. Several American Muslim organizations have recognized the important roles they can play in reinforcing pluralism within Islam worldwide, and they should be encouraged and supported. Muslim leaders who promote nonviolence, pluralism, and tolerance should be recognized and their efforts publicized. Key Muslim organizations around the world are mobilizing to counter extremism within Islam, and they should be applauded.
The report is well worth a read, and provides a viewpoint we don’t get in the mainstream media, because it doesn’t sell papers.
A group of about 100 people from many faiths gathered last night at St Andrew’s on the Terrace in Wellington New Zealand for an Interfaith Prayer Vigil and Candle Lighting for Peace in the Middle East.
It was a very moving ceremony and demonstrated the ability for many people from different faiths, ethnicities and political viewpoints to come together and pray for a common purpose.
Following on from the previous post on Abrahamic alternatives to war the participants at the forum agreed to the following action programme:
1. As Believers in the one God, we all believe that to continue our conflicts is violation of God’s moral code and its imperative of justice. Violent actions as humans do not promote the cause of God and have negative repercussions for all.
2. We all believe that the concepts of “holy war” or crusades are neither compatible with the will of God nor with the true spirit of our religions.
3. We all believe that Just Peacemaking is the best option to resolve human conflicts and actively work toward the elimination of the conditions that lead to violence. We define violence as the illegitimate use of force.
4. We all believe that we have the responsibility within our respective communities to correct scriptural misinterpretations used to justify violence, through education of our own religious communities about the true message of our faiths, and also through engagement in intrafaith dialogue.
5. We all believe that we need to look both inward to our traditions as we do this work, and look outward to share results and receive feedback.
6. We all believe that psychological issues, social issues, and historical narratives must be taken into account as critical components of the process of conflict transformation.
7. We all believe that there is no religious justification for “terrorism” that targets innocents/noncombatants.
8. We recognize that we have continuing tensions, unresolved issues, and tasks, such
as:
a) to take account, soon, of the extraordinary crisis and risk to human survival
in current global affairs. We cannot wait, however, to solve all the “issues” before we act;
b) to understand in what sense each tradition must promote its own claims for “truth” without engaging in triumphalism. Can an “invitational” religion not imply some form of superiority over others?
c) to determine if our diverse historical experiences remain merely side by side, or must we work to write a common account of our histories? Are histories reconcilable? Can we internalize the “other’s” history?
9. We propose to explore a world day of celebration of shared human dignity.
10. We all agree that we should explore the necessary procedures and steps to implement this document.
11. We all agree to mine our own religious traditions to further develop the Just Peacemaking practices.
–
The basic tennets of Just Peacemaking, as cited in the document are:
1. Support nonviolent direct action.
2. Take independent initiatives to reduce threat.
3. Use cooperative conflict resolution.
4. Acknowledge responsibility for conflict and injustice and seek repentance and forgiveness.
5. Advance democracy, human rights, and religious liberty.
6. Foster just and sustainable economic development.
7. Work with emerging cooperative forces.
8. Strengthen the United Nations and international efforts for cooperation and human rights.
9. Reduce offensive weapons and weapons trade.
10. Encourage grassroots peacemaking groups and voluntary associations.
–
Sure, I hear you thinking, this is all mum-and-apple-pie stuff. But it’s very real and very achievable, but only if we each take personal responsibility for making it happen. This goes way beyond “have you hugged a Jew / Christian / Muslim today” to asking yourself, “what can I do myself, with my family, within my own community, in my own country, and in the world to make peace a viable alternative to war?“
Jewish, Muslim, and Christian sacred texts all contain sections that support violence and justify warfare as a means to achieve certain goals. In particular historical circumstances, these texts have served as the basis to legitimate violent campaigns, oftentimes against other faith communities.
Many of the passages from sacred texts in all three religious traditions that are misused in contemporary situations to support violence and war are taken out of context, interpreted in historically inaccurate ways, or can be better translated. Finally, all of these passages need to be understood within (and constrained by) the primary spiritual aims of the individual faith.
There are also a great many teachings and ethical imperatives within Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures that promote peace and present the means to achieve it. These include mandates to strive for political, social, and economic justice; tolerant intercommunal coexistence; and nonviolent conflict resolution.
The three religious delegations that participated in the conference leading to this report presented slightly different and yet overlapping methods for peacemaking articulated by their sacred scriptures. The considerable overlap led the scholars to affirm the existence of a coherent “Abrahamic Just Peacemaking” paradigm, which began to take focus through their rigorous interfaith debate.
Further work is needed to articulate fully this Abrahamic Just Peacemaking paradigm. The conference scholars committed themselves to continued development of this model in pursuit of a rigorous and effective faith-based program to promote alternatives to war.
About the Report
Eight Muslim scholar-leaders, six Jewish scholar-leaders, and eight Christian scholar-leaders met from June 13 to 15, 2007, in Stony Point, N.Y., at a conference sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace and the Churches’ Center for Theology and Public Policy. Conference participants specified practices within each of the three faith traditions that could lay the groundwork for nonviolent alternatives to resolving conflict and addressing injustice, while also identifying roadblocks in the sacred texts of their traditions to creating such processes. The scholars ’ teachings found that these ancient religious teachings on peace and justice are often consistent with modern conflict-resolution theory. This report examines passages that support violence in each tradition’s scripture, presents definitions of “just peacemaking” in each tradition, summarizes places of convergence that might create the foundation for a program offering an Abrahamic alternative to war and presents a joint statement and series of commitments reached at the end of the conference.
The World Council of Churches has announced an international ecumenical debate on “The Promised Land”, from 10-14 September in Bern, Switzerland. Sixty-five Christian theologians “will discuss the concept of the ‘Promised Land’ and related theological issues with a view to help more churches become advocates for a just peace.”
“One of the main goals we hope to achieve is to deepen church understanding of biblical promises concerning the land and its peoples. This will require a holistic approach to the biblical message, promoting common understanding of how theological issues may be related to the conflict,” says Michel Nseir, programme executive for the WCC special focus on Middle East. “Different approaches to biblical and theological issues should not prevent common action for a just peace.”
That’s all very interesting from my perspective, however without Muslim and Jewish involvement the prospect of real progress being made is slim. As my favourite local refugee organisation says, “nothing about us without us!”
The WCC’s “Public Witness: Addressing power, affirming peace” project has laudable goals and some great programmes such as the Decade to Overcome Violence. However, the rubber meets the road at the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, and it seems like a very one-sided road to this Jewish reader. By effectively taking sides and not acknowledging different perspectives, the Council has turned itself into a political tool rather than an instrument of peacemaking dialogue. To my mind, that’s moving backwards, not forwards, as such exclusion can only lead to more violence on both sides.
For a slightly different but aligned (and more scholarly) perspective, see Frank Crüsemann’s article recently published in Jewish-Christian Relations, 60 Years: The Church and the State of Israel.
“Muslim leader Maher Hathout asked rhetorically before a packed sanctuary, ‘if we are so good, why are we so bad?’ … The keys to being good, he said, include justice, compassion and the ability to forgive, adding that doing right or wrong often gets impetus from one’s tendencies toward inclusion or exclusion respectively.”
“Confronting troubling principles in our faith’s teachings is often painful…”
“It is crucial to understand sacred texts in all three traditions through the lens of critical inquiry and contemporary thought…”
Well worth a read, and we’ll be keeping a lookout for the “Abrahamic Peace Initiative” referred to in the article.