Christians and Muslims: The Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and their Theological Foundation 3110167956, 9783110167955, 9783110810790

Table of contents :
Foreword
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Chronology of the Dialogue
III. Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law
IV. The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections
V. Results of the Dialogue Activities to Date
VI. Notes
VII. Bibliography
VIII. Abbreviations
Index of Persons
Index of Places

Citation preview

Jutta Sperber Christians and Muslims

Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann

Herausgegeben von O. Bayer • W Härle • H.-P. Müller

Band 107

W DE G_ Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • New York

2000

Jutta Sperber

Christians and Muslims The Dialogue Activities of the World Council of Churches and their Theological Foundation

w DE

G Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • New York 2000

® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufiiahme Sperber, Jutta: Christians and Muslims : the dialogue activities of the World Council of Churches and their Theological Foundation / Jutta Sperber. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 2000 (Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann ; Bd. 107) Zugl.: Neuendettelsau, Augustana-Hochsch., 1996 ISBN 3-11-016795-6 ISBN 978-3-11-016795-5

© Copyright 2000 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover design: Christopher Schneider Printing: Werner Hildebrand, Berlin Binding: Liideritz & Bauer-GmbH, Berlin

Foreword It is superfluous to emphasize the importance of inter-religious dialogue in today's world. Less superfluous is the affirmation that ChristianMuslim dialogue invites greater and more concentrated efforts, as it raises a number of thorny issues that have not yet been adequately addressed. For more than three decades, the World Council of Churches has initiated, facilitated or encouraged Christian-Muslim dialogue. In recent years, it has attempted to include on the dialogue agenda the divisive and conflictive issues. This could only take place after a series of friendly conversations aiming at building trust, enhancing mutual discoveries and dispelling misperceptions. In its efforts, it has tried to go beyond the organized forms of dialogue. Dialogue of ideas had to be drawn nearer to the dialogue of life. Global issues had to be approached in local context. Notwithstanding the many changes in attitudes and relations, Christian-Muslim dialogue continues to be an object of reservation, if not antagonism, in some Christian circles. Mutatis mutandis, it is met, with skepticism, or even suspicion, in some Muslim quarters. However, it is widely accepted that much has been achieved by way of concerted efforts in scholarship and dialogue. But current developments, political and otherwise, may be threatening to build up attitudes of distrust and hostility. This imposes a new urgency in our consideration of Christian-Muslim relations and of the priorities in dialogue and cooperation. Such response should build on what Christians and Muslims have learned, together, in the last decades. The experience of dialogue remains first and foremost, an open process where partners are willing to question their own self-understanding and recognize others on their own terms. Also, it reminds us constantly of the primacy of the encounter of commitments. As reflected in the Christian-Muslim activities of the World Council of Churches in last 25 years, such an experience is unfolded skillfully in the enquiry of Jutta Sperber. She has patiently looked in the material, published and archival, of 150 meetings, consultations and colloquia. We are offered a well-thought overview ordered both chronologically and thematically. This book strives to be exhaustive, while it sheds light on some of the most timely and ground-breaking discussions. This research work is not about Islam, Christian-Muslim dialogue or the World Council of Churches. It is about meetings and texts that need

VI

Foreword

to be assessed in their context in order to contribute meaningfully to a broader history of ideas in the realm of Christian-Muslim Relations. For years, this work will be indispensable for those who are interested in Christian-Muslim dialogue and the ecumenical movement. It offers invaluable tools, and stimuli, for further investigation. Tarek Mitri, Executive Secretary, World Council of Churches, Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue

Acknowledgements "Nobody reads acknowledgements" according to my doctoral supervisor, Prof. em. Dr. Herwig Wagner. But I hope that he and some others will read these because I want to say thank you to them. To tell all the good (and bad!) stories of what happened to me while writing this book, getting it translated into English and published, would require another book. So all I can do here will constitute only the tip of the iceberg. First and foremost, I wish to express my thanks to my supervisor or "doctoral father". N o father could have devoted more attention to my work and its outcome than he did. It was good to know he was there in the background, always ready to give advice and to help me in the struggle, especially for the English translation and the publication. Another "thank you" goes to Prof. em. Dr. Wanis Semaan, formerly at Neuendettelsau and now in Beirut, for forcing me out of my academic ivory tower at the end and at least getting me to try and say what could or should happen in the future. I must also say "thank you very much" to Dr. Tarek Mitri of the WCC's Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue. It was certainly not easy for somebody actually involved in Christian-Muslim dialogues to cope with "that German girl" who wanted to write a dissertation on those dialogues; he therefore had to deal with demands that are much more academic than the work of an international organisation like the WCC. Despite all his other work, he did a lot to provide me with the necessary information and recommendations. I feel deeply honoured by the fact that he contributed a foreword to my book. Among the people I met during my stay in Geneva I have to mention Prof. Jacques Waardenburg. Translating and publishing my dissertation has taken so much time that for him I have almost become a "mythological figure" in the meanwhile. Nevertheless, I owe much to his advice and his advocacy. It was good to know he was really interested in my work. All these acknowledgements would be worthless without the work of Margaret A. Pater who did the translation into English. I cannot thank her more than by saying that I sometimes thought her English version was better than my original German. Of course, on close examination it is still evident here and there that I started writing for a German public and only later discovered that the outcome of my research would, in fact, be of interest for a much broader, world wide readership. Changing the lan-

Vili

Acknowledgements

guage meant having to revise a lot of quotations - a difficult job that was only possible with help from colleagues and library staff in Neuendettelsau, Bayreuth, Münster, Munich, Geneva, Birmingham and Rome. I cannot mention all of them by name, but my special thanks go to Dr. WolfgangFriedrich Krämer in Neuendettelsau and to Prof. Dr. Adel-Theodor Khoury in Münster. Every book has both a technical and a financial side. Here my thanks go to the publishing house and its staff and collaborators and to quite a number of institutions that have helped to pay for the translation and publishing: World Council of Churches, Programme Unit I - Unity and Renewal, Ecumenical Theological Education; Vereinigte EvangelischLutherische Kirche Deutschlands; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Missionswissenschaft; Evangelisch-Lutherischer Zentralverband für Äußere Mission; Evangelisches Missionswerk in Deutschland; Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern. At the beginning it seemed almost impossible to find donors, especially to finance the translation,, but sometimes even the impossible comes true. Last but not least, my thoughts go to my family and friends. At times I had the impression they were more nervous about the outcome of my work than I was myself - especially my mother. It would not make sense to apologise for doing something voluntarily and out of personal conviction, but I am glad that, despite the fact that for years I have (almost) only found time when there was some kind of connection with ChristianMuslim dialogue, some old friends remain and quite a number of new ones have joined them. Let me conclude with a deeply felt alhamdulillah - thanks to God. Jutta Sperber

Table of Contents Foreword by Tarek Mitri, World Council of Churches Acknowledgements I

II

vii

Introduction

1

1. Personal Introductory Remarks 2. Research Situation 3. Aids for the Reader

1 2 4

Chronology of the Dialogue

7

1. Inter-Religious Dialogue in General 2. The Christian/Muslim Dialogue III Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law 1. Faith 2. Obedience 3. Law IV

v

7 25 51 51 56 60

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

73

1. Cross-Sections of the Christian/Muslim Dialogue

73

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J.

Organisation and Structure Theological Starting Points Specific Theological Issues Fragile Confidence Common Prayer? Preference to Practice Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue The Mission Dispute The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic law . . . . Mixed Marriage - the Highest Form of Dialogue . . .

73 80 91 100 109 118 135 162 175 210

Table of Contents

X

2. Cross-Sections of the Inter-Religious Dialogue A. Theology of Religions - the Open Question B. Inter-Religious Dialogue - the End of Mission? C. "Common humanity" - Starting Point and Goal of Dialogue D. Links between Inter-Religious Dialogue and Education E. Interconnections with the Vatican V

215 216 244 271 288 299

Results of the Dialogue Activities to Date

317

1. Christian/Muslim Dialogue 2. Inter-Religious Dialogue 3. Possible Steps for the Future

317 335 345

VI Notes

353

VII Bibliography

443

VIII Abbreviations

477

Index of Persons Index of Places

479 482

I. Introduction 1. Personal Introductory Remarks Why should a theologian want to write a dissertation on the Christian/ Muslim dialogue? I was confronted with this question in February 1993 when I was not only looking for material in the archives of the World Council of Churches but also asking to talk to those who were and are responsible for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. I was not aware at that time that the main emphasis in this dialogue had been laid so much on practical, above all legal and political problems, and that therefore the question was certainly justified. Although I in fact knew about theological dialogue between Christians and Muslims only on the level of theological and church history, and I had only experienced the practical or political level of this dialogue myself, I had not expected to find that my own experiences with the problems of Turkish workers in Germany or with the politics of the Near East could be generalised to such an extent. For Christian theology, so strong a concentration on practice and, in that context, particularly on politics is certainly unusual, and the emphasis on legal questions in religion, which can be perceived here, can even be objectionable, especially for Protestant theology. I personally found it relatively easy to work my way into the thinking of Islam which is strongly marked by religious law, and also to see it as definitely theological, because I had done a lot of work on Judaism during my student days and, in this context, on the Talmud in particular. Since this took place inter alia among Jewish fellow students in Jerusalem, I was all too familiar with the progression from holy scriptures to religious law, the practice of everyday life and finally to concrete political problems. The close encounter with the problems of the Near East in Jerusalem, but also in Nicosia, Cairo, Amman and Beirut in the second half of the eighties, led me to learn Arabic and finally provided the personal motivation for this dissertation. That it was not possible, as I had originally planned, to limit it to the Christian/Muslim dialogue, is a consequence of the demands of Christian theology referred to above. Although there was little room for it in the dialogue itself, Christians have at least been reflecting among themselves on the theological standing of followers of other faiths and on the theological meaning of dialogue with these people. A separate but shorter section of my work (IV 2) has been devoted to

2

Introduction

these considerations and was included after the experiences in Geneva which I have already mentioned.

2. Research Situation It is obvious to anyone who opens a newspaper or turns on a radio or television set that Islam and conversations between Christians and Muslims are important subjects. There has been the civil war in ex-Yugoslavia, and there are the difficult negotiations for peace in the Middle East, and Islamic regimes and fundamentalist groups which do not correspond to Western views of human rights when attempting to achieve their religiously motivated aims. And all of this is happening not on some distant continent but on our own doorstep - in France. This causes many Germans to raise the question what the Turkish workers in Germany believe, how they intend to live according to their faith, and whether this is reconcilable with our Western traditions. There is a demand for information about Islam, Muslims and coexistence and dialogue between Christians and Muslims. In addition to this situation today, there is the fact that the Christian/ Muslim dialogue of the World Council of Churches began concretely at the end of the sixties with the Six-Day War providing the final impetus. In the meantime, more than a quarter of a century has passed and, despite many difficulties, the Christian/Muslim dialogue has succeeded in gaining a firm foothold, both in the World Council of Churches and among the Muslims. Even the second Gulf War was not able to change this. The pioneer generation of the dialogue has advanced in years; there have been changes in the group of those responsible, as well as among the participants, although some names have remained unchanged. In general, this seems a good opportunity for looking back: what has happened in the past 25 or more years? Where did the emphases lie and what questions were dealt with? Were there any results and, if so, which? These questions do not only apply specifically to the Christian/Muslim dialogue but also to the dialogue with people of other living faiths and to relationships between Christians and others in general. As far as the Christian/Muslim dialogue of the WCC is concerned, it is too soon for us to be able to follow up some study already undertaken. The World Council of Churches itself has merely published two collections of the documents from this dialogue, namely after 10 years and after 20 years of dialogue. The first volume (Christians Meeting Muslims, W C C Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue) appeared in 1977 and comprises, on the one hand, the internal Christian reflection on the Christian/ Muslim dialogue (from Broumana 1966 to Chiang Mai 1977) and, on the other, in its second part, the memoranda and results of the actual dialogues

Research Situation

3

from Cartigny 1969 to Cartigny 1976. The second collection (Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches) was published in 1989 by Stuart E. Brown who was responsible at that time for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. It contains the results of the dialogues from Cartigny 1969 to New Windsor 1988 and divides the dialogue into three phases (beginnings, joint planning and régionalisation). I also have adopted this division for the chronology of the Christian/Muslim dialogue in my account. Referring to inter-religious dialogue in general, this study follows on from the dissertation by Gérard Vallée, Mouvement oecuménique et religions non-chrétiennes, Un débat oecuménique sur la rencontre interreligieuse, which was published in 1975 in Tournai and Montreal and describes how the World Council of Churches or its forerunner organisation came into this dialogue. Vallée concentrates his analysis particularly on the theology of religions, starting with the second World Mission Conference in Jerusalem in 1928, and the detailed section ends with the fourth Assembly of the WCC at Uppsala in 1968. The chronological background continued to January 1971 when the Central Committee of the WCC in Addis Ababa decided to set up its own sub-unit for dialogue with people of other living faiths and ideologies. The supplementary part of my account which deals with inter-religious dialogue starts with the first real multi-religious dialogue of Ajaltoun in 1970 and its evaluation in 1971 at Zurich. It does not generally concentrate on chronology as much as Vallée, but tries rather to enable the reader to obtain an overall impression of the lively and unsystematic fluctuations of the dialogue by providing chapters on specific issues. The subject for one separate chapter (IV 2.E) is relationships with the Vatican which were especially intensive in the field of inter-religious dialogue. But it was not possible to cover the dialogues organised by the Roman Catholic Church or by other institutions without going far beyond the scope of this study. The closing chapter offers a summary of the developments in both areas, outlining the progress or lack of progress again in condensed form without describing the events of the individual conferences as in the chapters on issues. It is an attempt to look back on the work of about 25 years and its results as a whole. The last section of that chapter is devoted to a personal evaluation of the present situation which also endeavours to look to the future. Suggestions, or the evident lack of such, are not intended as supercilious criticism but as an attempt to go beyond mere analysis, if not to action, then at least to a proposal for action. Although it is true that dialogue repeatedly needs breaks for reflection, reflection should not be an aim in itself but lead again to new, improved dialogue. Special mention must also be made of the difficulties about the sources. I had access to unpublished sources in the archives of the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey and, above all, the archives of the World Council of

4

Introduction

Churches in Geneva. The staff of the Office for Inter-religious Relations were kind enough to make the most recent material available to me in the form of copies, computer discs and by facsimile. Despite this assistance it was not always possible to discover the exact dates of conferences. During my stay in Geneva, I also had extensive access to published dialogue material which forms part of the so-called 'grey literature' and as such is otherwise hard to obtain. The bibliography and chronology also offer a review of multiple publications by various organs of the WCC, by Muslim partners and also by the Roman Catholic Church which is not available in this form anywhere else. To a limited extent account has also been taken of translations. These documentary efforts came up against their limits with regard to regional publications scattered around the world. But this should not diminish the value of the bibliographical review provided.

3. Aids for the Reader A presentation of the Christian/Muslim dialogues organised by the W C C has to take many details into account. In order not to tire or confuse the reader too much, historical events have been presented only in the form of a chronology indicating as precisely as possible the date, place, nature and organiser of conferences and the like, with very brief information about the content and, finally, the publications about the event where available or the collections, periodicals or archive boxes of the W C C in which the material can be found. This information is clearly separate from the bibliography used for the main part of the text and also less detailed: publishers have normally not been named and page references are only included in exceptional cases. Since it proved impossible to verify all of Vallee's references again, I have had, to a very limited extent, to assume their reliability for the early chronology of the dialogue. Material from the archives of the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey has been named as such; all other references relate to the archives of the World Council of Churches in Geneva. The abbreviations used are explained in the list of abbreviations at the end; the numbers relate to the various archive boxes. Unpublished, non-archive material is mentioned as such. In order to make the content section still less weighty, the specific information about Islam is contained in a separate chapter, immediately before the chapter on issues in the Christian/Muslim dialogue. It seemed appropriate to provide some guidance to help readers find their way through the discussion of certain specific questions. The individual expressions of Islamic law, in particular, to which reference is frequently made, are an extremely complicated matter which, strictly speaking, would require a traditional study of Islamic law and, irrespective of their

Aids for the Reader

5

central importance for Muslims, they are usually unfamiliar even to those who are otherwise quite well versed in the Islamic religion. For the transcription of Arabic terms the rules of the Encyclopaedia of Islam I (1960) have been followed. The only deviation from these rules is the adaptation of the article in order to enable readers who do not know Arabic to pronounce the terms correctly. The chapters on issues are self-contained so that their content and the details (footnote section) can be read independently and in a random order depending on one's interests. But, since the issues are inter-related, the price for this kind of presentation was that occasional repetition could not be avoided. The issue chapters (wherever an issue in the dialogue to date had been dealt with sufficiently to justify a separate chapter) are closely based on the WCC material. Anything more than the WCC material had to be omitted, as already mentioned, in order to make it possible to deal with the issue. Because of my proximity to the sources, I have adopted my own system for quotations to keep the number of footnotes per chapter to a manageable amount: the 'collective footnote'. Notes for a section have been collected and then grouped. Literal quotations are naturally listed first, the various works by one author have also been put together, and otherwise the sequence in which they are mentioned in the text is the basis for the order, while sometimes further aids to orientation have been included. Indirect speech, as the next step following literal quotation, indicates a greater nearness to the sources quoted than summaries in the indicative. Multiple publications of the same source can be identified in the bibliography by the lack of an empty line between the titles and a departure from alphabetical order. The spelling of names in the bibliography follows that in the first publication listed. Abbreviations of periodicals or series have been taken from the list of abbreviations compiled by Siegfried M. Schwertner in the Theologische Realenzyklopadie, 2nd edition, Berlin/New York 1994. The only other abbreviation used is the familiar "dtv" for the Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. A problem of the content is that the characteristic fluctuations of the dialogue without any marked objective progress could naturally also not be ignored in a thematic discussion. Here, the intermediate headings should provide some guidance, distinguishing between the individual phases or sub-areas and indicating what the main concern was or what really came out of a discussion. Finally, it must be mentioned that the use of the terms Orthodox church(es), Orthodoxy or Orthodox is not quite uniform. The reference is to the ancient churches of the East or to their theological characteristics, and here the distinction between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches de facto played no part in the dialogues. Where the reference is

6

Introduction

to uniformity in the attitude of the Orthodox churches, the singular has been used. When it is more a matter of internal differences and unclarities, use has been made of the plural.

II. Chronology of the Dialogue I. Inter-Religious Dialogue in General A. The Prehistory (up to 1966) 24.3. - 8.4.1928, Jerusalem World Mission Conference (International

Missionary

Council)

The main concern of this conference was the world-wide growth of secularism. This offered points of contact with other religions. The overall tendency (there were bitter disagreements) was to admit that other religions had spiritual values but not salvation, in order to be able to maintain the uniqueness of Christ. International Missionary Council (ed.), Report of the Jerusalem Meeting of the IMC, March 24th - April 8th 1928, London 1928 (8 volumes); in addition, the archive documents are accessible on microfiches for I.M.C. Box 261.001 - 261.010. 12-29.12.1938, Tambaram/Madras (India) World Mission Conference (International Missionary

Council)

The basic issue of spiritual values in other religions, on the one hand, and the uniqueness of Christ, on the other, still remained, but the context had changed, inwardly under the influence of the theology of Karl Barth and outwardly because of the totalitarian regimes on the eve of the Second World War. There was no way of bridging the differences at the conference. The dominant opinion was that of the Barth scholar, Hendrik Kraemer, who saw other religions as human creations and in contradiction to God's revelation. International Missionary Council (ed.), Tambaram-Madras Series, IMC Meeting at Tambaram, Madras, Dec. 12th to 29th 1938, Oxford/London 1938 (7 volumes) and The World Mission of the Church, Findings and Recommendations of the Meeting of the IMC, Tambaram, Madras, India, Dec.12-29 1938, New York/London 1939; by way of preparation there was the study by H[endrik] Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, London 1938.

8

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

21 - 25.7.1955, Davos (Switzerland) Consultation 'Christianity and the Non-Christian

Religions'

After the enforced break during the Second World War, this consultation took up the Tambaram discussion again. There was agreement to the point of that there is a general revelation, but that it indirectly contributes mostly to the worship of idols. The conference launched a WCC study on 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men' (1955). The Relation of Christianity to the Non-Christian Religions, BDSWCC 1,2 (1955), p. 22-25. 14- 24.5.1959, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) First Assembly of the East Asia Christian Conference The participants demanded a complete change of approach compared with Tambaram because the churches in Asia did not want to form a ghetto. Than, U Kyaw (ed.), Witness together, Being the Official Report of the Inaugural Assembly of the EACC, Held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaya, May 1 4 - 24 1959, Rangoon 1959; Christian Encounter with Men of Other Religions, BDSWCC 7,1 (1961), p.5. 11 - 15.3.1961, Nagpur (India) Meeting of Directors of Study Centres, WCC Division of Studies Stocktaking of the study 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men' (intended, inter alia, for the third Assembly of the WCC): solidarity for the sake of common human existence; otherwise what is needed is a new definition of the relation between the gospel and other religions and of the task of Christian witness. Intermediate report: The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Man, Religion and Society 8,4 (1961), p. 43-51, and Christian Encounter with Men of Other Faiths, BDSWCC 7,1 (1961), p. 5-10. 8.11.- 5.12.1961 New Delhi Third Assembly of the WCC

(India)

The initiatives of the churches in the 'Third World' and of the study centres concerning dialogue did not meet with the desired response. Visser't Hooft, W[illem] A[dolf] (ed.), The New Delhi Report, The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches 1961, London 1962. 8- 19.12.1963 Mexico City (Mexico) Meeting of the Commission on World Mission and

Evangelism

Dialogue with followers of other religions was described expressly as part of mission. For the study 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men'

The Way to the Sub-Unit on Dialogue (1967-1971)

9

there was hope that the study centres and actual dialogues would be able to go beyond the stalemate of Tambaram. Orchard, Ronald K[enneth] (ed.), Witness in Six Continents, Records of the Meeting of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches held in Mexico City December 8th to 19th 1963, London 1964; Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, Mexico City, s.l.s.a. B. The Way to the Sub-Unit on Dialogue

(1967-1971)

27.2. - 6.3.1967, Kandy (Sri Lanka) Consultation 'Christian Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths' Depending on their context, the participants again represented different attitudes to other religions. Agreement on a statement was reached with difficulty and, above all, on a study programme to continue the WCC study 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men'. Again it was stated that only more experience of dialogue would bring clarity to the old question of the position of other religions in God's plan for salvation. Addresses and documents published in: Study Encounter 3,2 (1967). 4- 9.8.1969, Canterbury (Great Britain) Department on Studies in Mission and Evangelism

Committee

In a preparatory paper, Stanley J. Samartha insisted that, at future consultations on the W C C study 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men', representatives of other religions should also be included for some of the time. Samartha, S[tanley] J., Word of God Studies, DFI Box VI. 10- 12.8.1969, WCC Executive

Canterbury (Great Committee

Britain)

The link with non-Christians was considered an important issue for the WCC. Therefore, in time for the meeting of the Central Committee in Addis Ababa in 1971, guidelines on the subject were to be drawn up and appropriate consideration given to the structural consequences for the WCC. Material: DFI Box VI and Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee of the WCC, Canterbury, 1969. 12 - 22.8.1969, Canterbury WCC Central Committee

(Great

Britain)

The Central Committee supported the DSME emphases in the studies (cf. Nagpur 1961) and authorised a consultation on "Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths" for March 1970 in Beirut.

10

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

Material: ER 21 (1969); Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Third Meeting, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Great Britain, August 12th -22nd 1969, Geneva 1969. 16- 25.3.1970, Ajaltoun (Lebanon) International Multi-Religious Dialogue This dialogue was the first of its kind to be organised by the WCC. It took place on the subject 'Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths' and was originally only supposed to investigate the possibility of such a dialogue. But finally the actual experience of dialogue proved more important. Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths, Papers Presented at a Consultation held at Ajaltoun, Lebanon, March 1970, 2nd ed., Geneva 1971. 20- 23.5.1970, Zurich (Switzerland) Reflection Conference on the Ajaltoun Dialogue

of

1970

This conference was attended only by members of Christian denominations. They tried to engage in a theological evaluation of the multireligious dialogue at Ajaltoun which created different degrees of difficulty depending on the denomination. At the end an 'aide-mémoire' was drawn up which served as the basis for dialogue guidelines in the future. Material: DFI Box V, papers and documents published in IRM 59 (1970), aide-mémoire as 'Christians in Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths' also in: Samartha S[tanley] J. (ed.), Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva 1971, and in Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977. 31.8. - 4.9.1970, WCC Executive

Arnoldshain Committee

(FRG)

A revised version of the Zurich document (in which formulations and proposals were generalised and rather weaker) should, it was decided, be submitted to the WCC Central Committee when it met in Addis Ababa in January 1971. Material: DFI Box V. 10-21.1.1971, WCC Central

Addis Ababa Committee

(Ethiopia)

The Central Committee devoted serious attention to the question of interreligious dialogue. Whereas the address by Stanley J. Samartha concentrated more on the historical development of this dialogue, the paper by Georges Khodr dealt with the basic theological issues and thus became the focus of the discussion. Finally, the Central Committee adopted an interim policy statement and guidelines for dialogue with people of other

11

Struggles in the Early Years ( 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 5 )

religions and ideologies and resolved to restructure the World Council of Churches so that, within its Programme Unit I 'Faith and Witness', a SubUnit on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies (DFI) was established. The World Council of Churches and Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, An Interim Policy Statement and Guidelines, in: Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of ChristianMuslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977, and in: Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva 1971, p. 47-54; other publications there and in ER 23 (1971). (Switzerland) 1 - 5.6.1971, Jongny ad hoc Working Group 'Dialogue with Men of Living Faiths and Ideologies' (as Part of the Department on Studies in Mission and Evangelism Working Committee) On the occasion of this meeting the responsibility for inter-religious dialogue was transferred to the DFI, further reflection took place and the first concrete plans for the dialogue were made. Material: DFI Box VI. C. Struggles in the Early Years

(1972-1975)

23 - 27.5.1972, Pendeli, Athens (Greece) Preparatory Conference for World Mission Conference

1972/73

The inter-Orthodox preparatory conference for the World Mission Conference at Bangkok showed that the theological attitude to other religions, even on the Orthodox side, was not so positively uniform as one might have assumed from Khodr's address at Addis Ababa in 1971. This gave an impression of the difficulties the inter-religious dialogue was going to have to face. Salvation in Orthodox Theology, IRM 61 (1972), p. 401-408. 29.12.197212.1.1973, Bangkok World Mission Conference

(Thailand)

In the context of mission, inter-religious dialogue proved acceptable, but more on the practical level than by clarifying issues in the field of a theology of religions. Material: DFI Box 16; Risk 9,3 (1979); IRM 246 (1973). 19 - 24.3.1973, Pendeli, Athens DFI Working Group

(Greece)

In Pendeli the goals and plans for the newly established sub-unit were further determined. They included the DFI's organising a section on

12

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

'Dialogue' at the next Assembly, and being responsible for the guests from other religions who were to be invited for the first time. In addition, it had the task not only of conducting but also expressly of defending interreligious dialogues. Minutes of the Meeting of the Working Group, Pendeli near Athens, March 1973, Geneva 1973. 18- 19.6.1973, Multi-Religious

Cartigny Planning

(Switzerland) Meeting

This meeting, attended not only by Christians but also by one representative of each world religion (this time including the Jews), prepared to continue the Ajaltoun dialogue of 1970 at Colombo in 1974. Material: DFI Box 15. 22 - 29.8.1973, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

Again there was a detailed discussion of the question of inter-religious dialogue, especially in regard to the next Assembly. However, no new considerations were raised. Publications on this in ER 25 (1973) and in OR.B 24. 27- 26.4.1974, Colombo (Sri Lanka) International Multi-Religious Dialogue Formally, this dialogue was a continuation of the Ajaltoun dialogue of 1970, although Jews also participated, as well as more participants from other religions in general. The content comprised diverse aspects of world community: 'Towards World Community - Resources and Responsibilities for Living together'. A memorandum was adopted with amazing unanimity, but it should be noted that the main concentration was very much on the practical level with many references to local dialogue, and that no definition of 'community' was provided. Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Towards World Community, The Colombo Papers, Geneva 1975. 7- 8.6.1974, Geneva Reflection Conference

(Switzerland) on the Colombo

1974

Dialogue

In addition to evaluating the Colombo dialogue, it was mainly a matter of determining concrete issues for future studies. Material: DFI Box 15. 22 - 18.8.1974, West Berlin WCC Central Committee The Central Committee had to move the forthcoming Assembly of the

Struggles in the Early Years (1972-1975)

13

W C C from Jakarta to Nairobi. The question of inter-religious dialogue, and especially the theology of religions (issue of truth) and the relationship to mission, was discussed on the basis of the most recent dialogues, and it became clear that this would also be an important subject at the Assembly. Material: DFI Box 14 and 16; publications in ER 26 (1974) and OR 23 (1974). 15 - 24.9.1974, New Delhi DFI Working Group

(India)

The Working Group mainly made plans for the contacts with followers of other religions during the WCC Assembly at Nairobi. It considered that they should also share in the preparations, so that this Assembly on the issue of 'community' would not in fact be given less significance than an inter-religious dialogue. Otherwise, it had no definite theological views to offer, and evaluated the dialogues less according to their memoranda and real experiences than on the basis of their effects on others. Whatever happened, it did not want to be forced into the defensive over the question of inter-religious dialogue. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Working Group, New Delhi, September 1974, Geneva 1974. 19.11.- 10.12.1975, Nairobi Fifth Assembly of the WCC

(Kenya)

For the first time in the history of the World Council of Churches, there were guests from other religions at an Assembly. Some participants felt this to be disturbing and an annoyance. It was not possible to discuss the questions that had been prepared beforehand and no final guidelines for dialogue were adopted. Insurmountable differences arose between those who suspected inter-religious dialogue of syncretism and saw it as opposed to the missionary command of the Church, and those who quoted their positive practical experiences of dialogue in Asia or Africa. It proved difficult even to write a report on the discussion that would be acceptable to all. Inter-religious dialogue was nevertheless to be continued in any case and a Core Group for the sub-unit was also appointed. Material: DFI Box 16 and 25; publications in ER 28 (1976), OR 25 (1976) and Section III: Seeking Community: the Common Search of People of Various Faiths, Cultures and Ideologies, in: Christians Meeting Muslims, W C C Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977, p. 43-58; Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Courage for Dialogue: an Interpretation of the Nairobi Debate, in: idem (ed.), Courage for Dialogue, Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships, Geneva 1981, p. 49-62.

14

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

D. Period of Consolidation 17 - 20.5.1976, Chambesy DFI Core Group

(1976-1983)

(Switzerland)

As far as the DFI was concerned, the issue of 'community', originally intended for the Assembly, was to be a main emphasis in its future work. An internal Christian conference on this subject was to evaluate the Nairobi Assembly and further spell out the dialogue guidelines. Where Are We after Nairobi? Where Do We Go from Nairobi? Report of Core Group Meeting, Chambesy, Switzerland, May 1 7 - 20 1976; Report of Core Group Meeting, Glion, Switzerland, January 24 - 28 1977, Geneva 1977. 10- 18.8.1976, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Committee approved the plans of the DFI to hold a large conference in 1977 on 'Dialogue in Community'. Reports and resolutions in ER 28 (1976). 24-28.1.1977, Glion DFI Core Group

(Switzerland)

The meeting was also attended by a representative of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians. The high expectations concerning the intraChristian conference planned for Chiang Mai became obvious: it was to solve all the old problems about dialogue. Where Are We after Nairobi? Where Do We Go from Nairobi? Report of Core Group Meeting Chambesy, Switzerland, May 1 7 - 20, 1976, Report of Core Group Meeting Glion, Switzerland, January 24 - 28, 1977, Geneva 1977. 18 - 27.4.1977, Chiang Mai (Thailand) Reflection Conference on Inter-Religious

Dialogue

The subject of this intra-Christian conference was 'Dialogue in Community', i.e. to clarify the basis on the Christian side. There were bible studies, fundamental theological addresses, group discussion and a joint declaration at the end. The old attitude predominated - that changes in the world situation made it necessary to work for inter-religious dialogue and world community, and hence the emphasis was again on practice and practical questions. Overall, the conference provided hardly any theological clarification, but nevertheless encouragement for the inter-religious dialogue. Risk 13,3 (1977); Samartha S[tanley] J. (ed.), Faith in the midst of Faiths, Reflections on Dialogue in Community, Geneva 1977; Dialogue in

Period of Consolidation (1976-1983)

15

Community, Statement and Reports of a Theological Consultation, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 1 8 - 2 7 April 1977, Geneva 1977. 28.7. - 6.8.1977, Geneva WCC Central Committee

(Switzerland)

At the Central Committee it was noted that the Chiang Mai declaration had resolved the misunderstandings about world community; the declaration was adopted and recommended to the member churches for study and response. On the basis of these comments the DFI was to draw up guidelines for dialogue for the next meeting of the Committee. Material: DFI Box 33; Minutes of the Central Committee, Geneva, Switzerland, July 28th - August 6th 1977. November 1977, Glion (Switzerland) WCC World Consultation The subject of this meeting with 61 participants from 38 countries was 'Ecumenical Sharing of Resources', especially of the churches and missionary societies in relation to the 'Third World'. New forms with greater mutuality were considered but mission and diaconal service were not fundamentally questioned. Statement published in: WCC.E 1,1 (1979), p. 6-10. May 1978, Port of Spain (Trinidad and Tobago) DFI Working Group New guidelines for inter-religious dialogue were approved, two thirds of which were taken from the Chiang Mai declaration. In addition, a plan for savings had to be drawn up because no more financial assistance was going to be provided by the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism from 1980. A dialogue on the new guidelines was still to take place and perhaps also one on the subject of religion, humankind and nature. Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Working Group, Trinidad, May 1978, Geneva 1978. 18- 22.9.1978, Helsinki (Finland) WCC Executive Committee The new dialogue guidelines were received and forwarded to the member churches, although it was evident that they had made no progress on the issue of a theology of religions beyond the stage reached a quarter of a century earlier. Material: DFI Box 43; ER 31 (1979).

16

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

1 - 11.1.1979, WCC Central

Kingston (Jamaica) Committee

With a few, mainly minor changes, the new dialogue guidelines were adopted by the Central Committee. Material: DFI Box 31 and 43; Samartha, Stanley J., Guidelines on Dialogue, ER 31 (1979), p. 155-162, and BSNC 4 1 / 4 2 (1979), p. 130138; the guidelines themselves were repeatedly re-published: Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, 1st. ed., Geneva 1979 (5th ed., Geneva 1993). 14- 18.5.1979, Glion DFI Core Group

(Switzerland)

The discussion on issues of development aid led to the proposal of an international consultation of developing countries in which the appropriate WCC bodies were also to take part. Material: DFI Box 43; WCC Exchange 1,1 (1979). 18-23.2.1980, Joint Working

Marseilles (France) Group Meeting

The cooperation between the sub-unit on dialogue with people of other living faiths and ideologies and the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians was considered insufficient and was to be expanded despite the difficulties. Plans were made for a joint conference on the basic theological issues and for an annual meeting for information and coordination. Material: Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, April 9 - 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 , Matrafiired/Hungary, Geneva 1980, p. 46-49. 12-25.5.1980, World Mission

Melbourne Conference

(Australia)

It was emphasised that dialogue was part of mission but not the end of it. However, in practical life among people of other faiths dialogue was simply indispensable. Material: ZMiss 6 (1980). 9- 16.4.1980, DFI Working

Matrafiired Group

(Hungary)

This meeting marked almost ten years of the existence of the DFI and the departure of its first director, Stanley J. Samartha. In his evaluation, the outgoing director underlined that the dialogue had progressed from the intellectual level to community and neighbourliness. He considered that the future tasks were to be seen in the shortcomings of the past, i.e. above all in the relation between dialogue, mission and unity, and in the ques-

Period of Consolidation (1976-1983)

17

tion of spirituality in a pluralist society. However, the concrete plans were determined more by the limited finances. Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, April 9 - 16, 1980, Matrafiired/Hungary, Geneva 1980. 27-29.1.1981, Geneva (Switzerland) Annual Meeting of DFI and Secretariat for

Non-Christians

At the first of these yearly meetings it was decided to cooperate in a theological study on mission and dialogue. Material: DFI Box 92. 1 - 8.7.1981, Salford (Great Multi-Religious Dialogue

Britain)

The dialogue was organised by the DFI in cooperation with the W C C subunit on education and the Centre for the Study of Religion and Education in the Inner City on the subject of 'Christian Participation in Education in a Multifaith Environment'. The participants came from various W C C member churches and from the various faith communities that are found in Great Britain. The programme consisted of addresses, discussion and contacts with different congregations, faith communities and multi-religious educational institutions on the spot. Since this was the first dialogue on this subject, there was no official statement by the participants. The publication on the meeting was only to serve as a contribution to reflection and discussion, but not to have the status of guidelines on Christian education and other religions. Christians and Education in a Multi-Faith World, Considerations on Christian Participation in Education in a Multi-Faith Environment, Geneva/Salford 1982. 28.12.1981 - 4.1.1982, DFI Working Group

Dhyana Pura

(Indonesia)

This was the last meeting of the DFI Working Group with that particular membership. It prepared the dialogue programme for the WCC Assembly in Vancouver. Otherwise it concentrated mainly on basis considerations: in addition to cooperation and witness, dialogue was seen as the third basis of the World Council of Churches. However, the influence of dialogue needed to be increased within the WCC and in the member churches. In the next phase, namely following the Assembly, the problem of theological reflection on dialogue, which had been on the agenda from the beginning, was to be taken up. Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, Dec. 28 - Jan. 4, 1981-82, Bali/Indonesia, Geneva 1982.

18

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

25.1. - 3.2.1983, Grand Baie (Mauritius) Multi-Religious Preparatory Dialogue for Vancouver

1983

The participants in this dialogue were mainly representatives of other religions who had been invited to the WCC Assembly in Vancouver as guests. They draw up a statement to the paticipants at the Assembly. Publications in ER 35 (1983), and "The Meaning of Life", A Multifaith Consultation, Mauritius, 25 January - 3 February 1983, Geneva s.a. 13 - 14.3.1983, Bossey (Switzerland) Annual Meeting of DFI and Secretariat for

Non-Christians

The cooperation planned concentrated on the relation between mission and dialogue. In addition, the DFI director, John B. Taylor, took advantage of the opportunity to appreciate the work of the sub-unit. Material: DFI Box 92; BSNC 52 (1983). 2 4 . 7 . - 10.8.1983, Vancouver Sixth Assembly of the WCC

(Canada)

The issue of dialogue was not so central as at the Assembly in 1975, but again there were similar major disagreements over the subject of mission and dialogue. It was thus confirmed that clarifying the theological questions concerning inter-religious dialogue was the most urgent task for the DFI. Following the Assembly, S. Wesley Ariarajah took over the leadership of the sub-unit. Material: ER 35 (1983); OR 33 (1984); OR.B 48. E. Endeavours

Related to a Theology of Religions

11 - IS.3.1985, Swanwick (Great DF Working Group

(1984-1991)

Britain)

In accordance with a decision of the Central Committee in July 1984, the Working Group abandoned responsibility for the dialogue with people of other ideologies because this fell within the competence of the WCC as a whole. However, there was also an interest in making dialogue a concern that affected all the areas of the WCC. For practical reasons, it was necessary to limit the activities to three projects: the study on the theological significance of people of other faiths, a conference on theological education and dialogue, and a study on mission and dialogue to be conducted jointly with the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism. A Catholic observer noted a theological rapprochement to attitudes of Vatican II which would have been unthinkable only twelve years earlier. Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Working Group, Swanwick/U.K., March 1985, Geneva 1985.

Endeavours Related to a Theology of Religions (1984-1991)

19-25.6.1985, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) Consultation of DF and Programme on Theological

19

Education

The subject of the consultation was 'Implications of Interfaith Dialogue for Theological Education today'. The consultation, which had initially been intended as a pilot project limited to Asia, merely revealed a total lack of relationships on the spot between theological education along Western lines and the local multi-religious situation. Material: DF Box 81; One World 112 (1986). 2-6 .9.1985, Les Avants (Switzerland) Workshop on Theology of Religions Study The workshop prepared the study guide 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine, Theological Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue', which was to appear at the beginning of 1986. It was to comprise subjects like creation, salvation, the understanding of Christ and ethics, and to be the basis for work in about 50 Christian or multi-religious groups for at least half a year. The results were to be fed into an international, ecumenical consultation in 1989, together with contributions from other groups, individuals and an international conference of systematic theologians and dialogue specialists. In February 1986, another similar preparatory workshop was held at Bossey (Switzerland). Material: DF Box 82; Study of Interfaith Theological Discoveries Getting under Way, EPS 85.09.74; The Challenge of Dialogue, Papers from the Meeting of the Dialogue Working Group, Casablanca/Morocco, June 1989, Geneva s.a.\ My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine, Theological Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue, Geneva 1986. 10- 12.4.1986, Rome (Italy) Annual Meeting of DF and Secretariat for

Non-Christians

Both bodies exchanged information about their plans and noted that, because of the burden of work, the cooperation planned had hardly begun. The participants of the meeting were received by Pope John Paul II in a private audience. The Pope took advantage of this occasion to underline his support for inter-religious dialogue. Material: DF Box 92, BSNC 62 (1986). (G.D.R.) 13 - 20.7.1986, Potsdam Meeting of Sub-Units of WCC Programme

Unit I

This meeting was particularly intended to reinforce the future cooperation between the sub-units of 'Faith and Witness'. The Working Group on Dialogue met with the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, with which it was already planning a joint conference on dialogue and mission anyway, and with the Working Group on 'Church and Society'.

20

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

A consultation on spirituality was being prepared with the sub-unit on Renewal and Congregational Life. But other areas of the WCC, such as the world consultation on Interchurch Aid, Refugee and World Service, had also increasingly been inviting guests from other religions. However, the main attention for the next few years was to be the study project on the theological significance of people of other faiths which was to enter its practical phase in September that year. Material: DF Box 82; Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, July 13 -20, 1986, Potsdam, German Democratic Republic, Geneva 1986. 16-24.1.1987, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The sub-unit on dialogue submitted an account of its activities to the Central Committee with the main emphasis on the study of the theological significance of people of other faiths. Material: DF Box 101; OR 36 (1987). 26-27.3.1987, Geneva (Switzerland) Annual Meeting of DF and Secretariat for

Non-Christians

In addition to the usual activities reports, the discussion dealt above all with the question of selecting partners for dialogue and the issue of dialogue and mission. Material: DF Box 92; BSNC 66 (1987). 22 - 28.11.1987, New Delhi Multi-Religious Dialogue

(India)

The subject of the dialogue conference was changed on the spot from 'Religious Identity in a Multi-Faith Society' to 'Religious Identities in a Multi-Religious World'. Although various regional situations were discussed in the course of the meeting, the main emphasis was on India. The conference became a group experience at the end of which it was possible to adopt guidelines and recommendations unanimously. Cracknell, Kenneth (ed.), Religious Identities in a Multi-Faith World, Report of a Multi-Faith Dialogue Organized by the Dialogue Sub-Unit of the World Council of Churches, New Delhi, November 1988 (sic!), s.l.s.a. 1 - 5.12.1987, Kyoto (Japan) Consultation of DF and Renewal and Congregational

Life

Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians with experience of the spirituality of other religions discussed the issue of 'Spirituality in Interfaith Dialogue'. The consultation was part of a project on new forms of spirituality and not specifically related to inter-religious dialogue. A very

Endeavours Related to a Theology of Religions (1984-1991)

21

short statement was published which predominantly described the spiritual development of the individual participants. Arai, Tosh/Ariarajah, S. Wesley (eds.), Spirituality in Interfaith Dialogue, Geneva 1989. 7- 11.11.1987, Multi-Religious

Dorset (Great Dialogue

Britain)

This dialogue on questions of creation and nature was convened by the DF and the Programme Unit on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (JPIC). It was organised by the International Consultancy on Religion, Education and Culture. A brief statement was adopted which was taken up by the larger JPIC conference on the Integrity of Creation at Granvollen/Norway (25.2. - 3.3.1988). Material: DF Box 101; Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Working Group, Baar, Switzerland, May 1988, Geneva 1988. 23- 26.1.1988, Tambaram/Madras 50th Anniversary of the Tambaram

(India) Mission

Conference

The festive sermon at the large anniversary celebration was preached by a former bishop of South India, Lesslie Newbigin. The historical addresses at the celebration mainly dealt with the contrary development since that time and most were particularly critical of Hendrik Kraemer's attitude to the theology of religions. Sermon and addresses published in: IRM 78 (sic!) (1988). 26- 30.1.1988, Mahabalipuram (India) Consultation of DF and Commission on World Mission and

Evangelism

In connection with the 50th anniversary of the World Mission Conference at Tambaram, these WCC sub-units jointly organised a consultation on mission and dialogue. The individual subjects and discussions caused controversy but nevertheless the questions related to the issue were defined jointly. Addresses and report published in: IRM 78 (sic!) (1988). 23 - 29.5.1988, Baar DF Working Group

(Switzerland)

The meeting of the Working Group had originally been planned for Khartoum, Sudan, but then had to be moved at short notice. The reviews of the work particularly emphasised that inter-religious dialogue had also been taken up by other areas within the WCC so that, for the first time, reflection from other religious traditions had appeared in a non-dialogue document of the WCC (JPIC 1988 in Granvollen/Norway). Otherwise, attention was concentrated on the issue of mission and dialogue, both in

22

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

retrospect and with a view to the next World Mission Conference and the next Assembly. The project on the theological significance of people of other faiths had come under pressure of time for lack of responses received and was to be speeded up. Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Working Group, Baar, Switzerland, May 1988, Geneva 1988. 5- 11.6.1988, Toronto (Canada) Multi-Religious Dialogue of 'Women This dialogue was not only the first of its kind but also completely different from the previous dialogues in its conduct, ways of communicating and results. This also meant that there were less documents and the attempt was not even made to formulate resolutions or statements. Material: DFI Box 89; One World 139 (1988). 2 2 . 5 . - 1.6.1989, San Antonio (USA) World Mission Conference Contrary to the expectations aroused ahead of the event, although this World Mission Conference took up concerns that had also been pursued in the inter-religious dialogue, the word 'dialogue' itself occurred only once in the message of the conference. Material: Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Working Group, Baar, Switzerland, May 1988, Geneva 1988; Wilson, Frederick A. (ed.), The San Antonio Report, Your Will Be Done: Mission in Christ's Way, Geneva 1990. 19- 28.6.1989, Casablanca DF Working Group

(Morocco)

The meeting in Morocco was the last meeting of the Working Group before the next Assembly and this provided the occasion for a general review. It was considered that inter-religious dialogue had been accepted in general and, since the Assembly in Vancouver, work had also been done on the unanswered question of a theology of religions. Apart from the provocative theological work by individuals such as Kenneth Cracknell and S. Wesley Ariarajah, this was a reference to the study 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine, Theological Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue'. It had proved too difficult for the congregations involved, but the decision was taken to hold an evaluation conference on the theology of religions, as well as a multi-religious dialogue to prepare for the Assembly. Because of the lack of staff in the sub-unit, any further involvement should be only indirect. The Challenge of Dialogue, Papers from the Meeting of the Dialogue Working Group, Casablanca/Morocco, June 1989, Geneva s.a.

Endeavours Related to a Theology of Religions (1984-1991)

23

16- 26.7.1989, Moscow (Soviet Union) WCC Central Committee A committee was given the task of drawing up proposals and plans for re-structuring the World Council of Churches. According to the plan for reducing the 16 sub-units to seven areas, the missiological/ theological parts of the dialogue work were to be assigned to a department on 'Faith and Witness'. In addition, a secretariat for inter-religious relationships was to be newly established and to form part of the general secretariat. But for the time being no staff changes were envisaged. Material: DF Box 103; ER 41 (1989) 9- 15.1.1990, Baar (Switzerland) Evaluation Conference on 'Theology of Religions' The outcome of the study on the theological significance of people of other faiths was extremely meagre, so the conference in Baar was intended more to be a brain-storming session on the subject. A declaration had been prepared and, despite controversy in the discussion, its positive theological attitude was supported. Material: DF Box 100; Current Dialogue 19 (1991). 12- 20.5.1990, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) Multi-Religious Preparatory Conference for Canberra 1991 The participants at this conference drew up a message to the participants in the Assembly; it dealt particularly with the theme of Section I of the Assembly (Giver of Life - Sustain Your Creation). Message in: OR.B 63. 12 - 18.8.1990, Hong Kong Multi-Religious Preparatory Dialogue for Canberra 1991 The participants in this dialogue were most of the 15 guests from other religions who had been invited to the WCC Assembly. The main emphases in the dialogue were on the worldwide community of all people and the practical questions connected with this. At the end, a message to the participants at the Assembly was drawn up which also reflected the theological approach of the Baar conference. Material: DF Box 104; Current Dialogue 20 (1991). 7- 20.2.1991, Canberra (Australia) Seventh Assembly of the WCC The theme of the Assembly was the Holy Spirit. Logically, the official statement on the inter-religious dialogue again followed the lines of the Baar conference, although there was some objection to this. A Muslim

24

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

guest presented greetings. The Assembly also provided the opportunity concretely to discuss the future activities of the sub-unit. It was considered urgent to hold another reflection conference in the style of Chiang Mai to examine all the theological issues in the realm of dialogue. Material: DF Box 105; ER 43 (1991); Kinnamon, Michael (ed.), World Council of Churches, Signs of the SPIRIT, Official Report Seventh Assembly, Geneva/Grand Rapids 1991; OR.B 68. F. New Structures (1991 20-27.9.1991, WCC Central

)

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Central Committee resolved to re-structure the World Council of Churches, although initially only for a three year trial period. Within the general secretariat an office for inter-religious relations was established, whereas all the theological questions of dialogue were assigned to Unit II on 'Mission, Education and Witness'. Material: OIR Box 113; Current Dialogue 21 (1991); Central Committee Approves New Programmatic Structure for the WCC, EPS 91.09.56. 2930.3.1992 OIR and Pontifical

Council for Inter-Religious

Dialogue

The annual meetings with the Secretariat for Non-Christians, which had been renamed in 1989, were continued. It was decided to do joint pastoral work on inter-religious worship and inter-religious marriage. The number of such marriages had grown and they constituted not least a legal problem as well. Material: OIR Box 113; WCC - RC Meeting Explores Inter-Religious Marriages, EPS 92.04.03. 9- 16.5.1992, Evian (France) Meeting of WCC Commissions and Advisory

Groups

The position of the previous dialogue working group had been taken by an advisory group which was to assist with and critically accompany the work of the new office. The term 'dialogue' was replaced generally by 'relationship'. But nothing changed in practice. The pastoral projects planned were confirmed and plans laid for a reflection conference on a theology of religions along the lines of Chiang Mai. The worries in the new situation related only to the finances: there might not be sufficient contributions received to fund the often unspectacular work on relations. Material: OIR Box 113.

The Beginnings (1960-1975)

25

20-28.1.1994, Johannesburg (South Africa) WCC Central Committee The transition phase following the re-structuring of the WCC could now be considered completed. Material: ER 46 (1994).

2. The Christian/Muslim Dialogue A. The Beginnings

(1960-1975)

22 - 26.7.1960, Jerusalem Consultation on 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men' This consultation in the framework of the study on the Word of God also took up the issue of Christian/Muslim dialogue. The final report underlined the responsibility of Christians for meeting Muslims in a constructive way. Material: WCC archives (cf. Vallée) 16- 23.6.1966, Broumana (Lebanon) Consultation on 'Christian-Muslim Encounter' Protestants, Orthodox and Roman Catholics met with the aim of promoting and expanding the Christian/Muslim dialogue. There was a concrete desire for a concrete dialogue; it was possible to agree how things should look from a practical point of view, but no agreement was reached on any theological questions. Addresses and statements published in: IRM 55 (1966). 27-28.1.1968, Birmingham/Selly Christian/Muslim Dialogue

Oak (Great Britain)

A group of ten Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic students of Islamic studies met with a group of Muslims in the Selly Oak Colleges. All the participants had already been active in the field of Christian/Muslim relations. The meeting took place under the auspices of the WCC and comprised two phases: firstly, the Christians discussed specifically Christian questions in the presence of the Muslims, and then they discussed questions of the Christian/Muslim dialogue with them. There was a high degree of agreement on and interest in a future dialogue on many issues. Material: DFI Box III 2- 6.3.1969, Cartigny (Switzerland) Christian/Muslim Dialogue The dialogue was planned by the secretariat on Faith and Order and concentrated on the possibilities and prospects for Christian/Muslim

26

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

dialogue in the context of both theological and secular starting points. The conference produced an official and an unofficial statement. The former dealt with the necessity, aims, context, nature and future tasks of Christian/Muslim dialogue and was published. The latter concentrated on the problem of Palestine and its significance for the Christian/Muslim dialogue which had been a major point of disagreement. This statement was intended only to be submitted to the WCC Executive Committee in order to make the problem clear to the latter, but it was nevertheless published in the Asian region. Material: DFI Box VI; Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on Ten Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977; Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989; EMZ 27 (1970); EK 2 (1969); Bulletin of Christian Institutes of Islamic Studies, Hyderabad 3 (1970) (according to A1 Montada Christian News Bulletin, Beirut (April 1969)). 4 - 9.8.1969, Canterbury (Great Britain) Department on Studies in Mission and Evangelism

Committee

Georges Khodr gave an address on Christian/Muslim dialogue in Lebanon and painted a positive picture of it. In addition, he praised the dialogue at Cartigny as the beginning of better relations between Christians and Muslims, and called for a 'trialogue' which would include the Jews as well. Plans were also made for a Christian/Jewish/Muslim section of the multi-religious dialogue in Ajaltoun. Material: DFI Box VI. 12 - 22.8.1969, WCC Central

Canterbury Committee

(Great

Britain)

The Central Committee made a statement on the political situation in the Near East. In doing so, it tried to do justice to both Israel and the Palestinians, but adopted expressions used by Arabs at Cartigny almost word for word. Material: DFI Box VI; ER 21 (1969); Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Third Meeting, University of Kent at Canterbury, Great Britain, August 1 2 t h - 22nd, 1969, Geneva 1969. 28.9.- 4.10.1969, Nicosia (Cyprus) Consultation on the Palestinian Refugee

Problem

The pro-Palestinian approach of the WCC was very well received by the participants at this consultation. Material: ER 22 (1970).

The Beginnings (1960-1975)

27

16- 25.3.1970, Ajaltoun (Lebanon) International Multi-Religious Dialogue In the context of this multi-religious dialogue, accounts were given of Christian/Muslim dialogues in Birmingham and Indonesia indicating that the former had been much more positive than the latter. Material: DFI Box III; Samartha, Stanley J. (ed.), Dialogue between Men of Living Faiths, Papers Presented at a Consultation held at Ajaltoun, Lebanon, March 1970, 2nd. ed., Geneva 1973. 20-23.5.1970, Zurich (Switzerland) Reflective Conference on the Ajaltoun Dialogue of 1970 It was considered whether to give preference in the immediate future to dialogues with only one religion, but the idea was not pursued. Material: DFI Box V; addresses and documents published in IRM 59 (1970); memorandum entitled 'Christians in Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths' also in: Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva 1971, and in: Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977. 10-21.1.1971, WCC Central

Addis Ababa Committee

(Ethiopia)

In the provisional guidelines for inter-religious dialogue adopted by the Central Committee, the emphasis was laid for the time being on bilateral dialogues. The World Council of Churches and Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, An Interim Policy Statement and Guidelines, in: Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, Geneva 1971, p. 47-54, and in: Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977. 1 - 5.6.1971, Jongny (Switzerland) Ad hoc Working Group Dialogue with Men of Living Faiths and Ideologies (as Part of the Department on Studies in Mission and Evangelism Working Committee) Plans were made for experts on Islam and on Arabian culture to join the newly established sub-unit on inter-religious dialogue the same year in order to win the trust of the Muslims. For the following year plans were laid for a Christian/Muslim dialogue. Material: DFI Box VI. 1 - 2.12.1971, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Planning Meeting The meeting under the heading 'Mutual Understanding between Islam and Christianity and How to Promote it', in preparation for the Chris-

28

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

tian/Muslim dialogue planned for 1 9 7 2 , had been proposed by a Muslim. It dealt with questions of the place, theme, finances and participants in the dialogue, and the Muslims showed great interest in sharing in the financing and selection of participants. Addresses were given and a memorandum drawn up at the end: the dialogue was to take place from 12 1 8 . 7 . 1 9 7 2 in Beirut, Alexandria, Istanbul or on Cyprus on the theme, 'The Quest for Human Understanding and Cooperation: Christian and Muslim Contributions'. The W C C was to be considered the sponsor of the conference but Muslims were to provide personal help with the organisation and the costs were to be shared, if possible. There were to be about 2 0 participants from each side, as far as possible people with dialogue experience who would simultaneously represent very different regions, attitudes and age groups. Material: DFI B o x X .

12- 18.7.1972, Broumana (Lebanon) International Christian/Muslim Dialogue 2 4 Christians and 2 2 Muslims met to discuss the agreed theme, 'The Quest for Human Understanding and Cooperation: Christian and Muslim Contributions', although both Africa and the Near East were underrepresented. The W C C General Secretary, Eugene Carson Blake, underlined the significance of the largest bilateral dialogue meeting of the World Council of Churches to date by his presence. Despite the number of participants, there were hardly any new partners in the dialogue compared with the earlier meetings. A whole series of addresses was given and, although there was much disagreement at the beginning, the joint worship was well attended. There was also heated discussion on the problem of Palestine, but this was not reflected in the memorandum which was clearly not meant to be representative nor to commit anyone. T h e memorandum mainly reflected the pilot function which the participants in the dialogue felt they had. The main tendency continued to be towards the practical dimension of Christian/Muslim dialogue. Material: DFI B o x X ; Samartha, S[tanley J.]/Taylor, J[ohn] B. (eds.), Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Papers Presented at the Broumana Consultation, 1 2 - 18 July 1 9 7 2 , Geneva 1 9 7 3 .

19-24.3.1973, Pendeli, Athens (Greece) DFI Working Group At the meeting of the working group, John B. Taylor was introduced as the new staff member of DFI who was to strengthen the area of Christian/Muslim dialogue from M a y onwards. In addition, the decision was taken to conduct another Christian/Muslim dialogue in Southeast Asia before the Assembly of the W C C that was planned for Jakarta.

The Beginnings (1960-1975)

29

Minutes of the Meeting of the Working Group, Pendeli near Athens, March 1973, Geneva 1973. 23 - 26.11.1973, Christian /Muslim

Singapore Planning Meeting

Christians and Muslims jointly planned a Christian /Muslim dialogue on the theme 'Muslims and Christians in Society: towards Good-Will, Consultation and Working together in Southeast Asia'. Half of the participants were to be Christians and half Muslims, and they were above all to have dialogue experience. The dialogue was to take place from 2 8 . 1 2 . 1 9 7 4 - 2.1.1975 in Singapore or Malaysia, but was finally held from 4 - 10.1.1975 in Hong Kong. Material: DFI Box 44; The Challenge of Dialogue, Papers from the Meeting of the Dialogue Working Group, Casablanca/Morocco, June 1989, Geneva s.a., p. 159. 17 - 26.4.1974, Colombo (Sri Lanka) International Multi-Religious Dialogue Thanks to the presence of Jewish participants, the dialogue on the theme 'Towards World Community - Resources and Responsibilities for Living Together' provided the first opportunity for an Abrahamic 'trialogue'. Samartha, S[tanley] J. (ed.), Towards World Community, The Colombo Papers, Geneva 1975. 28-30.5.1974, Nicosia (Cyprus) Founding Assembly of the Middle East Council of Churches Various ceremonial events took place to mark the founding of the MECC after many years of planning. The founding members comprised Orthodox, Oriental, Anglican and Protestant churches. Christian/Muslim dialogue was included among the activities envisaged. Mention in: ER 26 (1974). 17-21.7.1974, Legon (Ghana) Regional Christian /Muslim Dialogue DFI, the Department on Faith and Order, the Islam in Africa project of the African churches and the Department for Religious Knowledge of the University of Ghana organised a dialogue on the theme 'The Unity of God and the Community of Mankind: Cooperation between African Muslims and Christians in Work and Witness'. On the Christian side, and also in the common, mainly practical memorandum, special attention was paid to the African situation. Material: DFI Box 14; Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977; Brown, Stuart E.

30

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

(ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989; Study Encounter 11,1,74 (1975). 11 - 18.8.1974, WCC Central

West Berlin Committee

The Central Committee made a statement on the situation in the Near East and the status of Jerusalem without saying anything substantially new. In reaction to threats from fundamentalist Islamic circles, the site of the WCC Assembly was shifted from Jakarta to Nairobi. Material: ER 26 (1974); Schumann, Olaf, Herausforderung der Kirchen durch den Islam: Beispiel Indonesien, ÖR 30 (1981), pp. 55-70. 15- 24.9.1974, New Delhi DFI Working Group

(India)

The working group observed that Christian /Muslim dialogue in South East Asia was important precisely at this time when the Assembly could not be held there. Consideration was again given to a Jewish/Christian/ Muslim 'trialogue'. Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Working Group, New Delhi, September 1974, Geneva 1974. 31.10.1974, Geneva (Switzerland) Visit of a Saudi Arabian Delegation

to the World Council of

Churches

John B. Taylor gave an address on the theme 'The Concept of Man in the Revealed Religions and the Aspiration of Humanity for Peace'. The discussion with the guests from Saudi Arabia concerned mainly political questions such as human rights and the status of Jerusalem, and the attitude of the Saudi Arabian representatives showed little readiness to make concessions. Material: DFI Box 44. 4- 10.1.1975, Hong Kong Regional Christian /Muslim

Dialogue

The theme of this dialogue was 'Muslims and Christians in Society: towards Good-Will, Consultation and Working Together in Southeast Asia'. The addresses by the Muslims and the joint memorandum concentrated particularly on the situation in Southeast Asia. In the forefront of the very concrete proposals in the memorandum was the question how Christians and Muslims could build up states and societies together. Theology was very much in the background. Material: DFI Box 44; Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World

More Extensive Joint Planning ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 3 )

31

Council of Churches, Geneva 1 9 8 9 ; Christians Meeting Muslims, W C C Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1 9 7 7 ; Study Encounter 1 1 , 1 , 7 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) .

24-28.10.1975, Cartigny (Switzerland) Consultation on the Middle East The consultation on the theme 'Universal Responsibility in Regard to the Middle East' coincided with a period of general optimism about the region. It considered the future dialogues of the W C C should serve to reduce prejudices against Islam and to create understanding between Jews and Muslims. The idea was that Jewish/Christian and Christian/Muslim dialogue would sometime merge in a 'trialogue'. Material: DFI B o x 4 5 ; The Church and the Jewish People 4 ( 1 9 7 5 ) .

19.11.- 10.12.1975 Nairobi Fifth Assembly of the WCC

(Kenya)

The Muslim guest like all the other guests from other religions had described in advance his religion's view of the theme of the Assembly community and, in this particular case, especially world community. Otherwise, in the disagreement over dialogue and mission the only agreement reached was that each religion must be considered individually and the dialogue geared to this approach. There was a brief reference to the particular historical and theological relationships with Islam. Material: DFI B o x 2 5 .

B. More Extensive Joint Planning 17 - 20.5.1976, Chambesy DFI Core Group

(1976-1983)

(Switzerland)

The previous type of bilateral conferences - international participation and cooperation with regional councils of churches - was considered positive. The discussion dealt, on the one hand, with whether it was still necessary directly to promote Christian/Muslim dialogue by organising dialogues and, on the other, with three projects for Christian/Muslim dialogues in the coming three years, and whether more joint activities might not further strengthen the Christian/Muslim dialogue. Another issue was whether an evaluating body was needed for the Christian/ Muslim dialogue such as already existed for the Christian/Jewish dialogue. Finally, it was suggested that a Christian/Muslim dialogue planning meeting should be held in October 1 9 7 6 . Again, a tri-lateral dialogue was seen as an aim, although the preparations should not attract too much attention. Material: DFI B o x X and 2 6 ; Where Are W e after Nairobi? Where D o W e Go from Nairobi? Report of Core Group Meeting, Chambesy, Swit-

32

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

zerland, May 17-20, 1976; Report of Core Group Meeting, Glion, Switzerland, January 24-28, 1977, Geneva 1977. 26- 30.6.1976, Chambesy (Switzerland) Christian/Muslim Dialogue This dialogue was organised by the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, the International Review of Mission, the Islamic Foundation (Leicester) and the Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations (Birmingham/Selly Oak). The theme was Christian and Muslim mission (da'wa). It became a dialogue in which profound theological differences were expressed that could not be bridged pragmatically. Therefore the aggression and accusations were stronger than in earlier dialogues, particularly from the Muslims against the Christians. A joint final statement was adopted, asking for further conferences of the WCC together with the Vatican and with international Islamic organisations, with the aim of mutual understanding and cooperation and of determining procedures for mission more precisely. IRM 65 (1976); The Islamic Foundation/Quran House (eds.), Christian Mission and Islamic Da'wah, Proceedings of the Chambesy Dialogue Consultation, Leicester/Nairobi/Kano 1982. 10- 18.8.1976, Geneva (Switzerland) WCC Central Committee The Central Committee approved the recommendation from the DFI Core Group to hold a Christian/Muslim dialogue planning meeting in October 1976. Material: DFI Box X. 19-22.10.1976, Christian/Muslim

Cartigny (Switzerland) Planning Meeting

In a background paper for the meeting, John B. Taylor pointed to the successes of the Christian/Muslim dialogues to date: improved mutual relationships, dialogues also sponsored by other bodies, good links between the regional and international levels as a result of the choice of themes, participants and sites. At Cartigny itself, Christians and Muslims worked on the dialogue programme for the next few years, as expressed in a joint declaration. In addition to basic rules and aims, it dealt above all with the nature of and issues for future dialogues. The tendency was towards regional dialogues on practical questions, and only in this context on theological matters as well. For example, it was suggested that Christian/Muslim delegations should visit areas of political crisis to analyse specific situations and convey hope for reconciliation. Material: DFI Box X and 26; Study Encounter 12,4 (1976); Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dia-

More Extensive Joint Planning ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 3 )

33

logue, Geneva 1977; Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989. 24-28.1.1977, Glion DFI Core Group

(Switzerland)

The meeting noted the growing significance of Christian /Muslim dialogue and approved the planned regional and local projects on both fundamental and practical questions and problems. However, it considered that balanced account should be taken of Muslim organisations and critical individuals, as well as of socio-political and religious/theological issues. Nor should one ignore the poor Muslims in Asia and Africa or the followers of some other religion who may be present in the region. Further work was done on the programme for a small Christian/Muslim conference on 'Faith, Science, Technology and the Future of Humanity' for the autumn of that year. Where Are We after Nairobi? Where Do We Go from Nairobi? Report of Core Group Meeting, Chambesy, Switzerland, May 17-20, 1976; Report of Core Group Meeting, Glion, Switzerland, January 2 4 - 2 8 , 1 9 7 7 , Geneva 1977. 18- 27.4.1977, Chiang Mai (Thailand) Reflective Meeting on Inter-Religious Dialogue As far as the Christian/Muslim dialogue was concerned, concrete statements were made about common points and differences, the development of the relationship, the interests of the Muslims and the Christians' own approaches. The recommendations did not go beyond knowledge and (mutual) recognition. Dialogue in Community, Statements and Reports of a Theological Consultation, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 18-27 April 1977, Geneva 1977. 14- 18.11.1977, Beirut (Lebanon) Christian /Muslim Specialists' Dialogue The theme discussed by specialists from the realms of physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry, agricultural science, educational psychology and the history of religion was 'Faith, Science and Technology and the Future of Humanity', looking at the specific ethical/ecological, socio-political and theological aspects. But the discussion expanded to include fields such as education, the reason being given that natural science was a world view and not just a method. This was also reflected in the memorandum adopted, the practical emphasis of which was otherwise on the question of finding technologies appropriate to external necessities and to faith. Here, special hopes were pinned on the Koran with its traditions of social

34

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

justice, although past errors on both sides were admitted. It was hoped that the dialogue in this field could be continued. Material: DFI Box 46; Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989; Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Working Group, Trinidad, May 1978, Geneva 1978. May 1978, Port of Spain (Trinidad and DFI Working Group

Tobago)

John B. Taylor submitted a review of the Christian/Muslim activities of DFI and also of a whole series of dialogues at regional levels on the theme of 'Living in Dialogue'. He mentioned that there had been difficulties and problems in individual regions, but that Christian/Muslim dialogue as a whole was being taken increasingly seriously. Various projects for the future were considered but, because of the cessation of finance from the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, these were limited to the local and regional meetings on 'Christians and Muslims living together' and to an encounter between Christians from the Muslim world. A trilateral conference of Jews, Christians and Muslims was still considered necessary but not feasible for the time being. Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Working Group, Trinidad, May 1978, Geneva 1978. 18-22.9.1978, WCC Executive

Helsinki (Finland) Committee

In the discussion it was observed that the will of the Muslims to get involved in dialogue had become weaker, still more in the Middle East than in Europe. Material: DFI Box 43. 1 - 11.1.1979, WCC Central

Kingston (Jamaica) Committee

It was mentioned expressly that the new guidelines for dialogue, which were subsequently adopted by the Central Committee, had also taken account of the upsurge of Islam since 1975. Moreover, DFI reported that a second international Christian/Muslim dialogue was being prepared, namely on the both theological and socio-political theme 'Christians and Muslims living together'. Finally, the Central Committee envisaged joint activities with the Middle East Council of Churches in order to counteract the increasingly tense situation in the Middle East. Material: DFI Box 43; Samartha, Stanley J., Guidelines on Dialogue, ER 31 (1979), p. 155-162 and BSNC 4 1 / 4 2 (1979), p. 130-138.

More Extensive Joint Planning (1976-1983)

12 - 14.3.1979, Chambesy (Switzerland) Christian /Muslim Evaluation and Planning

35

Dialogue

In addition to representatives of the WCC, representatives of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians, of the Organisation of the Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference, of the World Muslim League, as well as Muslim scholars, religious leaders and leaders of cultural organisations attended. In a joint report, foundations were laid for Christian/Muslim relationships. For example, dialogue could improve Christian/Muslim relations only if it were not exploited as a means of proselytism. Concrete plans were made for a dialogue in September 1981 on the theme 'Christians and Muslims living and working together, The Ethics and Practices of Humanitarian and Development Programmes', including internal preparatory meetings (1979) and joint planning meetings (1979-81). A number of issues were also to be tackled in the interim: a continuation of 'Faith, Science and Technology and the Future of Humanity', a youth dialogue on Faith and Spirituality Today, and also the Islamic State, religious education and family values, Christian and Muslim Arabs, Jerusalem, human rights, development and aid programmes and a new banking system. Material: DFI Box X ; Current Dialogue 1 (1980/81); ER 31 (1979); Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989; Christian Presence and Witness in Relation to Muslim Neighbours, A Conference Mombasa, Kenya, 1979, 2nd ed., Geneva 1982. 14- 18.5.1979, Glion DFI Core Group

(Switzerland)

The results of the planning meeting at Chambesy were examined; the practical proposals were considered very good but the theological statements not new. The final report was received very positively as the basis for further work. However, it was emphasised that there could be no discussion about mission in principle, as the Muslims wished, but only about the forms of mission. Material: DFI Box 43. 4- 8.11.1979, Nicosia (Cyprus) Consultation on Service to Palestinian

Refugees

The consultation was organised by the WCC Commission on InterChurch Aid, Refugee and World Service and the Middle East Council of Churches in order to evaluate the past ten years' work and to plan further. Once again, all the church statements on the rights of the Palestinians were recalled and it was noted that too little had been achieved. There was a particularly positive reaction to churches which had recognised the PLO. But the prognosis for the future was mainly pessimistic,

36

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

a just solution seemed far away and, moreover, not all the exegetical questions concerning the state of Israel had yet been clarified. Material: ER 38 (1980). I - 7.12.1979, Mombasa (Kenya) Reflective Conference on Christian/Muslim

Encounters

Comparable to 1966 at Broumana, 13 years later a conference of Christians who were in touch with Muslims took place to reflect on these dialogues and encounters and possibly to draw up guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue. The countries of origin, confessions and theological standpoints of the participants comprised a wide spectrum. The theme of the consultation was 'Christian Presence and Witness in Relation to Muslim Neighbours'. The organisers, in addition to DFI, were the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, the Commission for Inter-Church Aid, Refugee and World Service and the Programme for Theological Education. No dialogue guidelines were adopted at the end, but there was a concluding statement with recommendations to the churches. One of the most important experiences of the conference participants was that dialogue begins where people live side by side. For this reason, the proposal was made to replace the narrow term 'dialogue' by the more comprehensive term 'relationships'. Agreement was also reached on some rules of conduct for mission and diaconal service, in order to counteract earlier misunderstandings. Apart from this, on the one side there was an expression of support for equal civil rights for everyone in Muslim states and, on the other hand, sympathy was expressed for the Muslims' wish to have an Islamic state. This was considered an important issue for the future. Christian Presence and Witness in Relation to Muslim Neighbours, A Conference Mombasa, Kenya, 1979, 2nd ed., Geneva 1982. II - 15.2 1980, Woerth (France) WCC Executive Committee The proposals from the Mombasa conference for guidelines on Christian/ Muslim dialogue, for a statement by the Executive Committee and for future activities were submitted to the Executive Committee. The latter were approved, but the plans for a Joint Christian-Muslim Commission (to deal with complaints from either side) were not taken further. Material: DFI Box 70. 18- 23.2.1980, Marseilles (France) Joint Working Group Meeting Stanley J. Samartha suggested that, in the future, the WCC and the Vatican should devote greater attention to national and regional possibili-

M o r e Extensive Joint Planning ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 3 )

37

ties in dialogues, because the situation varied very much from one country to another, especially with regard to Islam. Material: Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, April 9 - 16,1980, Matrafiired/Hungary, Geneva 1980, p. 46-49. 9- 16.4.1980, DFI Working

Matrafiired Group

(Hungary)

In his review as the outgoing DFI director, Stanley J. Samartha observed that it was practically impossible to draw a dividing line between theology and politics where Muslims and Jews are concerned. John B. Taylor underlined that minority problems, crises and refugee problems had made dialogue with Muslims more difficult but no less important. The Working Group approved all the documents from Mombasa and recommended their further transmission. For cooperation with the Vatican, a small meeting was suggested on the attitude to Muslims and the significance of Islam for Christians, as well as the dialogue planned for 1981 on 'Christians and Muslims Living together'. In addition, plans were made for the following dialogues: 22-30.6. - Youth dialogue at Bossey, two initiatives in the field of development, an inner-Christian dialogue on guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue, and a 'trialogue' on Jerusalem. Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, April 9-16, 1980, Matrafiired/Hungary, Geneva 1980. 12- 25.5.1980, World Mission

Melbourne Conference

(Australia)

In the framework of the World Mission Conference, John B. Taylor stated with reference to DFI that the main aim of the Christian/Muslim dialogue was to build up community, whereas theological dialogue was too difficult for the majority and therefore less important. He painted a positive picture of the experiences of Christians from Islamic countries (in line with Mombasa) and praised the exemplary approach of Islamic mission. Interview in: ZMiss 6 (1980). 22 - 28.6.1980, Bossey (Switzerland) Christian /Muslim Youth Dialogue Almost all of the 50 participants in the dialogue 'Living as Faithful People in a Changing Society' were between 20 and 35 years old. There were short addresses and discussions on various sub-themes and, finally, reports from the various groups. The emphasis was placed on the distinction between faith and religion in order to preserve the renewing force of religion. However, no confidence was expressed in a transforming force of the power structures within the church and umma. The young people also considered socio-political and economic problems important. The

38

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

proposals made by the participants were: renewal of personal faith, tolerance and an open, honest dialogue. The main obstacles for the latter, according to the young people, were ignorance, indifference and the large number of traditionalists. Group reports published in: Focus - Pastoral Notes 1,6 (1981) and in: Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of ChristianMuslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989. 14- 22.8.1980, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Central Committee revised the recommendations from the Mombasa conference and referred them to the churches with the other resolutions of the conference. The churches were to seek encounter and cooperation with Muslims and, to this end, firstly become familiar with the dialogues so far (e.g. collective volume: Christians Meeting Muslims, WCC Papers on 10 Years of Christian-Muslim Dialogue, Geneva 1977); but they should then also give more support to the study centres, plan dialogue conferences especially with young people and tackle the problems of mixed marriages. In addition, theological views and cultural experiences were to be collected for a second reflective conference and the themes suggested by Christian/Muslim study groups taken up. The Central Committee itself condemned the declaration of the whole of Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel. Material: ER 32 (1980); Christian Presence and Witness in Relation to Muslim Neighbours, A Conference, Mombasa, Kenya, 1979, 2nd. ed., Geneva 1982. 27-29.1.1981, Geneva (Switzerland) Annual Meeting of DFI Secretariat and Secretariat

for

Non-Christians

At this first annual meeting it was confirmed that Roman Catholic observers would attend the Christian/Muslim dialogue of DFI in 1981 in Karachi on social problems and also the preparatory conference for this in Geneva (4-5.2.1981). It was also resolved to undertake a study on the theological evaluation of Islam which was to be examined jointly in 1982. Material: DFI Box 92. 4- 6.2.1981, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian/Muslim Preparatory Dialogue

for Karachi

1981

The preparatory dialogue was identical with the first visit of the General Secretary of the World Muslim Congress to the WCC. The dialogue itself was to take place at the end of September in Karachi, before the end of the first year of the new Islamic century. People responsible for and active

M o r e Extensive Joint Planning ( 1 9 7 6 - 1 9 8 3 )

39

in humanitarian and development projects were to discuss their motivation and draw up joint pilot projects. Material: E R 33 ( 1 9 8 1 ) .

28.12.1981 - 4.1.1982, DFI Working Group

Dhyana Pura

(Indonesia)

J o h n B. Taylor again emphasised the contemporary relevance of Christian/Muslim dialogue and the necessity of seriously considering the major differences within the Muslim world. The following immediate tasks were listed: guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue and the theological evaluation of the position of Islam (initial joint plans with the Secretariat for Non-Christians were to be available in January 1 9 8 2 ) . The dialogue, which had been postponed at the request of the World Muslim Congress as co-sponsor, in the run up to which the World Muslim League, the Commission for Inter-Church Aid, Refugee and World Service, the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism, the Christian Medical Commission and the Programme on Churches' Participation in Development had also become involved, was to take place in March and not in Geneva but in Colombo. Material: Current Dialogue 2 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, Dec. 2 8 - J a n . 4, 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 , Bali, Indonesia, Geneva 1 9 8 2 .

30.3. - 1.4.1982, Colombo (Sri Lanka) International Christian/Muslim Dialogue The organisation of this dialogue was the - new - responsibility of the W C C and the World Muslim Congress, and the latter issued the official invitation to Colombo. The Secretariat for Non-Christians, the Organisation of the Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference and U N E S C O sent observers and greetings. Although the World Muslim Congress had expressed the hope that such meetings could be held every three years in future, people on the DFI side were also sceptical about co-sponsors. The World Council of Churches found itself in a new situation where it had less say on the planning and agenda and, above all, was not able to select the Muslim participants. This meant that finally the theme 'Christians and Muslims Living and Working Together: Ethics and Practices of Humanitarian and Development Programmes' was tackled by Christian practitioners, who wanted to solve the problems with joint activities, and Muslim theoreticians, who wanted to make their fundamental ethical and religious reservations about aid projects clear at last. The consequently difficult communication led to joint recommendations concerning refugees and minorities, and also to proposing a Joint Standing Committee in order to promote the dialogue and thus finally also mutual understanding. Material: DFI B o x 6 7 ; Minutes of the Working Group Meeting Dec.28 - J a n . 4 , 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 , Bali, Indonesia, Geneva 1 9 8 2 , p. 3 2 ; Current

40

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

Dialogue 3 (1982); BSNC 51 (1982); Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989; Abdullah, Muhammad Salim (ed.), Gemeinsam in die Zukunft, Christlich-islamischer Dialog von Colombo, Aktuelle Fragen 7, Altenberge 1982; Simatupang, Tahi Bonar, Das Zusammenleben und -arbeiten von Christen und Muslimen, in: Schumann, Olaf/Fischer, Heinz Joachim (eds.), Gelebte Theologie in Indonesien, Zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung der Christen, ThÖ 24, Göttingen 1992, p. 143-154. 3 - 5.4.1982, Colombo (Sri Lanka) Reflective Conference on the Colombo

1982

Dialogue

The Christian participants met following the dialogue conference to evaluate the results and drew up recommendations for the World Council of Churches. They supported the recommendations of the conference to a large extent and particularly recommended work on the question of Islamic law, the importance of which had again been very much stressed by the Muslims. Material: Current Dialogue 3 (1982); Brown, Stuart E. (ed.), Meeting in Faith, Twenty Years of Christian-Muslim Conversations Sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Geneva 1989. 19-28.7.1982, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Central Committee demanded the withdrawal of all occupation forces, but especially the Israelis, from Lebanon, so that the latter could again become the old example of Christian/Muslim rapprochement. The UN resolutions on Israel and Lebanon were to be followed, but Israel should also be given border guarantees. Material: ER 34 (1982). (Switzerland) 13 - 14.3.1983, Bossey Annual Meeting of DFI and Secretariat

for

Non-Christians

John B. Taylor called it the only major shortcoming in the work of DFI that no Jewish/Christian/Muslim dialogue had yet come about although efforts had been made for this since 1976. In addition, each bilateral dialogue should have its own guidelines. The dialogue in Colombo was also discussed, and the Secretariat for Non-Christians indicated that it might participate, at least as an observer, in a regular exchange on general humanitarian concerns with world-wide Muslim organisations. With regard to reflection, a conference on the status of Islam could take place in 1985 or 1986. Material: DFI Box 92; BSNC 52 (1983).

The Régionalisation of the Dialogues (1984-1992)

2 4 . 7 . - 10.8.1983, Vancouver Sixth Assembly of the WCC

41

(Canada)

In the debate on dialogue, DFI emphasised that each religion has its own attitude to Christianity. At the Assembly, John B. Taylor, who since 1973 had built up all the important contacts with individual Muslims and later also with Muslim organisations, retired from his post. Stuart E. Brown became his successor. Material: Current Dialogue 6 (1984). C. The Régionalisation 20-28.2.1984, WCC Executive

of the Dialogues

(1984-1992)

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Executive Committee repeated its statement on the conflict in Lebanon and promised the churches in the region support for humanitarian aid projects. Material: ER 26 (1984). 9- 18.7.1984, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The Central Committee authorised a series of five, small, regional Christian/Muslim dialogues, namely: 3 - 8.3.1986 in Benin (French-speaking Africa, 10 Christians and 10 Muslims, on the issues of religion and state, religion and education, religion and family), autumn 1986 in Southeast Asia, spring 1987 in the Near East, end of 1987 in Southern Asia and at the beginning of 1988 in English-speaking Africa. Material: Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, 1 1 - 1 5 March 1985, Swan wick, United Kingdom, Geneva 1985. 11 -IS.3.1985, Swanwick DF Working Group

(Great

Britain)

The Working Group welcomed the contacts with Muslim organisations that had been established to promote the project of a Joint Standing Committee, because the World Muslim Congress did not want to represent the Muslim side on its own. Some of the contacts had proved very positive but there were so far no final commitments. Otherwise, the regional dialogues and the study 'Ecumenical Considerations for Christian-Muslim Dialogue' had been planned for the future or had already started. Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, 1 1 - 1 5 March 1985, Swanwick, United Kingdom, Geneva 1985.

42

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

3 - 7.3.1986, Porto Novo (Benin) Regional Christian /Muslim Dialogue 30 persons from twelve French-speaking African countries met in West Africa for a dialogue on the theme 'Religion et responsabilité' (Religion and responsibility). One Christian and one Muslim address was given on each of the subjects 'religion and state', 'religion and teaching' and 'religion and family', followed by a round of discussion. There was clear evidence of the tensions between the Christian and Islamic conceptions of the state, and there was the specificity of the African situation with its hopes in the various fields. For example, mixed marriages are frequent but not always unproblematical. Religion et responsabilité, Rapport du colloque islamo-chrétien tenu à Porto Novo, RP du Bénin, 3 - 7 mars 1986, s.l.s.a. 13 - 20.7.1986, Potsdam (GDR) Meeting of Sub-Units of WCC Programme

Unit I

Re-planning took place for the regional dialogues: there were also to be dialogues in the Near East, East Africa (not until 1988) and - a new feature - North America, because there Islam and the Arabs were getting a bad press. The detailed examinations of the Christian/Muslim dialogue, which were continuing independently of those dialogues, were to be compiled early in 1987 by the staff person responsible, Stuart E. Brown, in a provisional draft of the guidelines, 'Ecumenical Considerations on Muslim-Christian Dialogue'. Moreover, the question of a Christian/Muslim liaison committee was still on the agenda; DF, the Secretariat for NonChristians, World Muslim Congress, World Muslim League and Islamic Call Society had all agreed on this in principle. Minutes of the Working Group Meeting, July 13-20 1986, Potsdam, German Democratic Republic, Geneva 1986. 6.10.1986, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee Stuart E. Brown met with the Geneva representatives of the World Muslim Congress and the World Muslim League for an exchange of information - in a sense an embryonic form of the long requested Joint Standing Committee. It was decided that such meetings should be held once or twice a year in future (next date: 25.3.87) in the hope that someone from the Secretariat for Non-Christians would also be present. Material: DF Box 101.

The Régionalisation of the Dialogues (1984-1992)

43

6- 11.12.1986, Dbyana Pura (Indonesia) Regional Christian/Muslim Dialogue The subject of the dialogue on Bali was 'Advancing Together into the Next Century'. Again, there were two addresses on each of the subthemes, religion and state, religion and family, religion and the economy and, in the context of the opening addresses, on the situation in Indonesia. Again, major differences were visible in the addresses and the discussion, whenever it was in any way a question of Islamic law. However, there was agreement on the analysis and evaluation of the socio-economic situation. Advancing together into the Next Century, Our Common Responsibility in Preparing Our Peoples for the Industrial Age, s.l.s.a. 16-24.1.1987, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The sub-unit on dialogue submitted a report on its activities to the Central Committee, in which mention was made of a planned meeting on Ecumenical Considerations on Christian-Muslim Relations to evaluate the two regional dialogues. Material: DF Box 101; OR 36 (1987). 25.3.1987, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee In the W C C headquarters, Stuart E. Brown met with representatives of the World Muslim Congress, World Muslim League, World Islamic Call Society and World Conference on Religion and Peace, as well as a representative of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, and gave a report on the dialogues held and planned. The Muslim representatives indicated the possibility of their organisations being available for planning and funding the dialogues. The next meeting was fixed for 7.10.1987 in the Geneva office of the World Muslim Congress. Material: DF Box 92. 27.9.- 1.10.1987, Kolymbari (Greece) Regional Christian /Muslim Dialogue Representatives from Western Europe and the Near East met for dialogue on the subject 'Religion and Society'. They limited themselves to two subthemes (religious pluralism and confidence and community) with two Christian and two Muslim speeches each, followed by discussion in English and French. A central issue in the discussion was Islamic law and the conception of state and society relating to it; here it was evident that much clarification is required.

44

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

Religion and Society, Report of the Christian-Muslim Colloquium held at Kolymbari, Crete, 27 September - 1 October 1987, s.l.s.a. 7.10.1987, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee This meeting of the Geneva representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations took place in the premises of the World Muslim Congress. Material: OIR (embargoed). 1 - 5.12.1987, Kyoto (Japan) Consultation of DF and Renewal and Congregational

Life

At this internal Christian consultation on 'Spirituality in Interfaith Dialogue' Islam played hardly any part. There were just a Dominican nun and an Orthodox monk who had had spiritual experience of Islam and reported on this. Arai, Tosh/Ariarajah, S. Wesley (eds.), Spirituality in Interfaith Dialogue, Geneva 1989. 23 - 26.1.1988, Tambaram /Madras (India) 50th Anniversary of the Tambaram Mission

Conference

In the addresses on the occasion of the anniversary celebrations of the World Mission Conference, strong criticism was expressed of the dominant figure of that time, Hendrik Kraemer. Apart from his basically negative attitude towards other religions, which one speaker compared with the attitude of Islam toward the spiritual realm of Christianity, his particular attitude towards Islam was also criticised. Addresses in: IRM 78 {sic!) (1988). 26-30.1.1988, DF/Commission

Mahabalipuram (India) on World Mission and Evangelism

Consultation

Hardly any reference was made to the Christian /Muslim dialogue. Just one participant fundamentally criticised bilateral dialogues, but was referring particularly to Christian/Jewish dialogues. If there were no Muslims present, he considered such dialogues illegitimate and unwise at that particular time. Addresses and report in: IRM 78 (sic!) (1988). 7- 12.3.1988, Istanbul (Turkey) WCC Executive Committee The Executive Committee again dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and called urgently for a solution. EPS 88.03.101.

The Régionalisation of the Dialogues (1984-1992)

45

17- 21.3.1988, New Windsor (USA) Regional Christian/Muslim Dialogue This dialogue on the theme 'The Challenge of Pluralism' comprised the region of the USA and Canada. On each of the sub-themes - religion and family, and the economy and education - there was both a Muslim and a Christian speaker and discussion followed. Although the participants were all more or less conservative, they did not want to condemn secularism from which they all benefitted. Again, there was agreement on the analysis and evaluation of the economic situation, but the necessity was recognised to think more precisely about alternatives in a future dialogue. On the more theological questions, however, the differences were greater. The Challenge of Pluralism, Report of the Christian-Muslim Colloquium held at New Windsor, Maryland, U.S.A., 17-21 March 1988, s.l.s.a. 13.4.1988, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee The meeting brought together representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations at the Geneva level. Material: OIR (embargoed). 23 - 29.5.1988, Baar DF Working Group

(Switzerland)

This meeting had been planned for Khartoum, Sudan, but had to be moved for political reasons. Stuart E. Brown reported on the meeting of the Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee which he wanted to expand further. He also submitted a report on the regional dialogues; of these the East Africa dialogue had not yet taken place, because of a lack of suitable Muslim participants. After that dialogue, one or two workshops should immediately be held on the 'Ecumenical Considerations on Muslim-Christian Dialogue'. Stuart E. Brown's appointment was extended until 30.6.1991 and he was encouraged to deepen the contacts with Muslim organisations in order perhaps to be able to form groups to assist in crisis situations. Approval was expressed for the East Africa dialogue in September and the West Africa dialogue in December 1991, but the group was no longer prepared to tie itself down to a date for completing the guidelines. Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Working Group, Baar, Switzerland, May 1988, Geneva 1988.

46

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

17.10.1988, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee The meeting brought together representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations at the Geneva level. Material: OIR (embargoed). 16.5.1989, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee The meeting brought together representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations at the Geneva level. Material: OIR (embargoed). (Tanzania) 12 - 17.6.1989, Usa River/Arusha Regional Christian/Muslim Dialogue The dialogue for English-speaking East Africa rounded off the series of regional Christian/Muslim dialogues. As a result of cancellations, 16 Christian participants met with only 9 Muslims. The theme was 'Religion and Life' with the sub-themes 'Religion and Education', 'Religion and State' and 'Religion and Family'. Again, there was a Christian and a Muslim address on each theme and discussion followed which even led to an official statement. This statement again underlined that mixed marriages were typical for Africa and emphasised the importance, among other things, of preparing for Christian/Muslim dialogue as part of education. Special attention was devoted to the issue of religion and state. A study was proposed to clarify terminology, and another on Islamic law, canon law and the nature of secular society. In a further statement the Nigerian participants proposed a national dialogue forum in order to improve Christian/Muslim relations. They had already done some preparatory work for this. Religion and Life, Report of a Christian-Muslim Colloquium held at Usa River, Tanzania, 12-17 June 1989, s.l.s.a. 19- 28.6.1989, Casablanca DF Working Group

(Morocco)

The meeting also included a farewell to Stuart E. Brown who had prepared the way for the conversations with world-wide Muslim organisations and African Muslims. It had been hoped to appoint a Lebanese, Tarek Mitri, as his successor, but for two years Ulrich Schoen had to fill the gap. In future, the emphasis in the Christian/Muslim dialogue was to be placed on the 'Ecumenical Considerations on Muslim-Christian Dialogue' and, in addition, on majority/minority issues and dialogues with students and young people. The reasons given were the priorities in previous meetings (almost 20 events) and the fact that more than half of

The Régionalisation of the Dialogues (1984-1992)

47

the Muslims are under 25 years old. It might also be possible to help finance a Jewish/Christian/Muslim women's dialogue on conflicts and possibilities for peace in the Middle East. The Challenge of Dialogue, Papers from the Meeting of the Dialogue Working Group, Casablanca/Morocco, June 1989, Geneva, s.a. 18.12.1989, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee The meeting comprised representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations at the Geneva level. Material: OIR (embargoed). 9- IS. 1.1990, Baar (Switzerland) Conference to evaluate 'Theology of

Religions'

In the evaluation of the results of the study on the theological significance of people of other faiths, Islam played only a coincidental part. Material: DF Box 100. 28.5.1990, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee This meeting of Geneva representatives of Christian and Muslim organisations was the last of its kind and took place on the premises of the Islamic cultural centre. Material: OIR (embargoed). May 1990 Christian/Muslim

Evaluation

Dialogue on

Guidelines

The 'Ecumenical Considerations on Christian-Muslim Dialogue (or: Christian-Muslim Relations)' were discussed by Christian experts together with Muslim advisers. Material: OIR Box 113 and other documents. 7-20.2.1991, Canberra (Australia) Seventh Assembly of the WCC Two Muslim guests were present at the Assembly, one of whom even presented greetings on behalf of all the guests from other religions, praising the growing trust resulting from the Christian/Muslim dialogue, but also pointing to the present dangers related to the second Gulf War. This war made Christian/Muslim relations a subject that was much discussed at the Assembly. Those actively involved in the dialogue, who met one afternoon to talk about the work of DF, also considered Palestine, the Christian/Muslim and the Jewish/Christian/Muslim dialogue to be priority issues. A 'trialogue', in their view, might really provide the

48

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

assistance needed by the American public to understand the Middle East. Finally, the WCC Assembly appealed to all parties to the Gulf conflict immediately to cease hostilities and to find a just solution in all the countries affected. Material: DF Box 105; ER 43 (1991); ÔR.B 68. 22- 24.4.1991, Valletta (Malta) Consultation on Refugees, Emigrés and

Migrants

The consultation was called by a Christian/Muslim planning group not mentioned so far and representatives of the WCC simply took part in it. Declaration published in: Current Dialogue 21 (1991). 19- 24.3.1992, WCC Executive

Santiago (Chile) Committee

The 'Ecumenical Considerations on Christian-Muslim Dialogue (or: Christian-Muslim Relations)' were submitted to the Executive Committee. Material: Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations, Ecumenical Considerations, Geneva, s.a.; OIR Box 113 and other documents. 9- 16.5.1992, Evian (France) Meeting of Commissions and Advisory

Groups of the WCC

The new advisory group of the OIR examined the guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue. It also made plans for Christian-Muslim dialogues although they were now called 'relational initiatives': a dialogue between Christians and Muslims from countries affected by Islamisation and, in the framework of a larger project, a dialogue on the roles of religion in conflicts. In relation to the hotbed of conflict in the Middle East and the start of peace negotiations there, a joint project was also planned comprising the WCC, the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican (in consultation with the Middle East Council of Churches), namely a dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims on the particularly delicate issue of Jerusalem, but to be held at a site outside of the region. Material: OIR Box 113. 21 - 28.8.1992, WCC Central

Geneva (Switzerland) Committee

The WCC Central Committee adopted the revised version of the guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue, pointing out that, strictly speaking, they were not guidelines at all but a good analysis of Islam and the Muslims, with seven themes for future dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations, Ecumenical Considerations, Geneva, s.a.

The New Themes (1992 -

D. The New Themes (1992 -

)

49

)

9- 13.12.1992, Geneva (Switzerland) Christian/Muslim Dialogue This dialogue on 'Religion, Law and Society' was to take up the most pressing theme: Islamic law. The consultation dealt with the relations between religion and the state from a typological and historical point of view, the internal differences within Islamic law and the relation between the latter and non-Muslims, human rights and the modern age. There was concrete reference to the Sudan and to Muslim minorities in Europe. Material: Mitri, Tarek (ed.), Religion, Law and Society, A ChristianMuslim Discussion, Geneva/Kampen 1995, and other documents. 2 - 6.5.1993, Glion (Switzerland) Jewish /Christian/Muslim Dialogue The OIR organised a 'trialogue' in cooperation with the General Secretariat of the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican (Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue) on the significance of Jerusalem with numerous participants from Jerusalem. After tense debate a joint declaration was produced, despite internal disagreement, which recognised the rights of three religions and two nations to the city and expressed commitment to work for peace and justice. Material: Ucko, Hans (ed.), The Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem for Jews, Christians and Muslims, A Report on a Colloquium, s.l. 1994; The Spiritual Significance of Jerusalem for Jews, Christians and Muslims: a Final Communique, ER 45 (1993), p. 256-257. 1 - 4.11.1993, Nyon (Switzerland) Christian/Muslim Dialogue This dialogue was a continuation of the 1992 dialogue on the themes: secularisation, plurality of legal systems, the role of religious institutions and leaders, and human rights. Some conference participants tried to find possibilities of following up on the last issue immediately. Material: Mitri, Tarek (ed.), Religion, Law and Society, A ChristianMuslim Discussion, Geneva/Kampen 1995; Christians, Muslims Discuss Religion, Law and Society, EPS 93.11.67, and other documents. 20- 28.1.1994, Johannesburg WCC Central Committee

(South

Africa)

The W C C General Secretary, Konrad Raiser, considered that the process set in motion by the Jewish/Christian/Muslim dialogue would grow in

50

Chronology of the Dialogue: Dialogue in General

importance. The Central Committee also condemned the abuse of religion in the conflict in Yugoslavia and called for an end to the fighting. Material: ER 46 (1994). 6- 10.11.1994, Berlin (Germany) Christian /Muslim Dialogue In continuity with the two previous dialogues, 30 Christians and Muslims (including religious leaders) from Africa, Asia, the Arab world, Europe and North America took up the issue of religion and human rights. On the basis of justice and equality the participants expressed support for common citizenship, freedom of religion, human dignity and women's rights. Areas and priorities for cooperation and further dialogue were also identified. Mitri, Tarek (ed.), Religion and Human Rights, A Christian-Muslim Discussion, Geneva 1996. 14- 16.10.1999, Christian/Muslim

Hartford (USA) Dialogue

32 Muslims and Christians from 15 countries, invited by the WCC, discussed the theme: 'Religious Freedom, Community Rights and Individual Rights: a Christian-Muslim Perspective'. The consultation was especially important as it was part of the continued Christian-Muslim discussion on 'Religion, Law and Society' as well as it took up the Theme of Christian and Muslim mission (da'wa) raised by the Chambesy consultation in 1976. Final report published in: Current Dialogue 34 (1999).

III. Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law A brief description of Islam will be given here before dealing with the individual subjects of the Christian /Muslim dialogue. This description makes no claim to encyclopaedic completeness. It has been restricted to the points that are important both from a Muslim point of view and for Christians who live in Muslim societies. The legal aspects of the coexistence of Christians and Muslims may be a marginal element of their religion for Muslims, but for Christians in a Muslim society they usually constitute the most important practical aspect. It is therefore necessary to have somewhat more precise knowledge both of the Muslims' understanding of themselves and of certain legal provisions within Islam, in order to be able to understand and situate detailed developments in the Christian/Muslim dialogue at all. This brief presentation will deal initially with the content of the Muslim faith and then with its effects on personal life and life in community. The terms 'obedience' and 'law' are certainly appropriate here. The word 'Islam' is derived from slm - to do something exclusively - and refers to the undivided surrender of one's whole life to the one God, Allah.1 The forms of this devotion, and therefore also religious life and spirituality, are relatively strictly determined by the revelation given to the Prophet Mohammed, and by his example. Islam does not only have ethics but clear teaching about the religious duties of the individual and a holy law for the community. 2 The place of theology in Christianity is occupied in Islam by legal science: "Das Recht (...) gilt als der Inbegriff des echt islamischen Geistes, die entscheidenste Ausprägung islamischen Denkens, als der Wesenskern des Islams überhaupt." 3 [Law (...) is understood as the embodiment of the genuine Islamic spirit, the most decisive expression of Islamic philosophy and thus the essential core of Islam as such.]

1. Faith Islam certainly sees itself as the religion of the faith, imän (faith) is derived from the root 'mn (cf. amana - to believe, to consider true, and amina to trust, to consider certain). The opposite of faith would be lies and the opposite of believing would be disputing the truth. The content of this belief is the revealed truths of the faith referred to in terms that can be derived from the verbs satni'a - to hear and awhä - to prompt or inspire.4

52

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

A traditional saying - hadlth - of the Prophet Mohammed recounts how the angel Gabriel questioned him about Islam: "He (the inquirer) said: He (the Holy Prophet) replied:

He (the inquirer) said:

Inform me about Iman (faith). That you affirm your faith in Allah, in His angels, in His Books, in His Apostles, in the Day of Judgment, and you affirm your faith in the Divine Decree to good and evil. You have told the truth." 5

tawhid - the absolute one-ness of God - is the first and most important point of their faith for the Muslims. It is the point to which everything else repeatedly refers, even games like the popular magic square. Muslims are proud to be the only true confessors of the one-ness of God. 6 In its reflections on the Christian/Muslim dialogue, the World Council of Churches was quite right to state: "Belief in God's One-ness results in Islam's rejection of any concept of plurality in God and in fierce opposition to honouring as divine anyone or anything other than God." 7 God alone is, as it were, one hundred per cent divine; no other being has any kind of share in this divinity. He is the absolute, unquestionable authority, omniscient and omnipotent. God has no weakness of any sort. He depends on nobody's help and does not need to be supplemented by anyone. This principle of one-ness is visible in the world God has created (which would otherwise be chaos) and, naturally, in the religion He has revealed.8 "Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any God allong with Him; else would each God have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others." (Surah 23, 91) 9 "And there is no God save Allah, the One, the Absolute." (Surah 38, 66b) The first sentence of the brief Islamic confession of faith also states, 'There is no divine being except God (Allah)'. Allah is believed to be a contraction of al-ilah - the God, the name for the supreme God in Arabia even in pre-Islamic times. 10 Anyone who pronounces this creed is a Muslim, and the basic stance of (Sunnite and Shiite) Islam can be said to be: "Das Bekenntnis zum Islam ist nicht das Ganze des Glaubens, aber es gereicht (...) zur Rechtfertigung - nicht der Sünder, sondern allein die Ungläubigen und die Ketzer sind verdammt" 11 . [To confess Islam is not the whole of the faith, but it is sufficient (...) for justification; it is not the sinner but only unbelievers and heretics who are damned.] God will not forgive the most

Faith

53

grievous of sins, shirk - association, shirk comprises calling upon other gods in addition to God, but also robbing Him of divine attributes and attributing them to others and, in reverse, attributing human weaknesses to God (cf. Surah 43, 16-18). "Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray." (Surah 4, 116) Fear of this mortal sin has led to the strictest prohibition of images among all the religions and even to a dispute about the characteristics of God mentioned in the Koran itself. (The radical monotheists were prepared to accept only the statement 'He is' about God). 12 However, finally all the divine characteristics in the Koran were allowed to stand (the most frequent is ar-Rahman - the merciful), including the anthropomorphisms. They were accepted on the conditions of la tashbih and bila kayfa, namely without comparing and without asking 'how?'. 13 mala'ika (angels), according to the Koran, are created beings that can also sin, as did iblts- the devil (cf. Surah 2, 30-36; 7, 11-27). But great respect is paid to the angel diibril (Gabriel) because, according to Surah 2, 97, he is seen as the mediator of the Koranic revelation to Mohammed.14 Finally, there are also the dlinn, beings somewhere between humans and angels, which were already known in the pre-Islamic tradition of Arabia. 15 nabiyy - prophet - is a title given to very many persons in the Koran. They include Old Testament figures such as ibrdhim (Abraham), yiisuf (Joseph) and sulayman (Solomon), New Testament ones like yahya (John), but also completely different names, rasul is the title of honour for the prophets who had a book revealed to them by God. These messengers comprise musa (Moses: Torah), cLawiid (David: the Psalms - zabiir), 'Isa (Jesus: the Gospel - indiil) and naturally Mohammed (Koran). He is the seal (khatam) of the prophets.16 All the earlier prophets were sent to individual nations and always with the same message by which they are identified: the one-ness of God and, as its consequence, the unity of humankind. Thus Muslims can recognise all these prophets and situate Mohammed in this series as their Prophet, the prophet of the Arabs. But, at the same time, Mohammed is of importance for the whole of humanity; in the course of time, Jews and Christians falsified the Scriptures that they received and thus made the sending of Mohammed and the revelation of the Koran necessary.17 "Lastly, God raised the Prophet Muhammed, blessings and peace be on him, in Arabia to complete the mission of the earlier prophets. (...) He presented anew the teachings of Islam in their pristine form and provided

54

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

humanity once again with the divine guidance which had been largely lost. (...) This guidance is enshrined in the Holy Qur'an." 18 "Consequently, Islam claims to be at one and the same time both universal and particular. Every child born into the world is by nature a 'Muslim', for Islam is held to be the primordial and natural religion. In the Qur'an, figures like Abraham, Jesus and his disciples, who lived before Muhammed, are called 'Muslims'." 19 Mohammed's prophetic role forms the second part of the confession of faith. The revelation of the Koran and the Koran itself bear practically no human features. What was gradually revealed to Mohammed in auditions is a faithful copy of the original heavenly document, even down to the smallest Arabic word. This is why the Koran also cannot really be translated, and certainly not for liturgical use. Nor would it have been possible for anyone to falsify something of this kind (cf. Surah 17, 88). That Mohammed, the illiterate (?), left behind a work of such linguistic and literary distinction is even considered a miracle proving him a prophet. 20 "Say (...): (...) So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His words and follow him that haply you may be led aright." (Surah 7, 158) According to the Islamic understanding, all revealed books are not a matter of God's nature or of any kind of salvation history, but of God's will for humankind. The key term that is used time and again is right guidance, al-hudan. Even the dispute about whether the Koran is created or uncreated became important because of its juridical and thus political consequences. 21 Finally, the Koran was and is taken literally and treated with great respect. It takes precedence on the shelf over all other books; ablutions must be performed before each recitation, etc. 22 One Muslim voice which is representative of the vast majority: "I know of no Muslim (...), whose writings are accepted in any Islamic country, who has not asserted that the Qur'an is the Word of God. (...) [A]ny consideration of the Prophet of Islam having learnt his view (...) from Jewish and Christian sources is the greatest blasphemy in the eyes of Muslims." 23 al-akhira - the last things - played a major part at the beginning of Mohammed's work in Mecca. The early Surahs from that period paint the overthrow of everything, and paradise and hell in the most glowing colours. 24 Even today, these ideas are still a source of strength, particularly for the more radical groups within Islam which, like the Shiites, often find it hard to hold their own against the dominant force of Islamic orthodoxy. 25

Faith

55

But it is part of the basic data for all Muslims that on the last day all the dead will be raised bodily, return to God and be judged by Him according to their sins and their conversion. So it is worthwhile leading a life in line with God's instructions now and, above all, later. "It is but one Shout, and behold them brought together before Us! This day no soul is wronged in aught; nor are ye requited aught save what ye used to do." (Surah 36, 52-53) djabr (compulsion) is the key Arabic term for the question of predestination over which there was a long-standing disagreement in Muslim history. On the one hand, human beings are considered responsible for their deeds; on the other hand, God is so unique that He determines everything, even the acceptance or rejection of the Koran. "The guiding of them is not thy duty (...), but Allah guideth whom He will." (Surah 2, 272a) So, on the one side, there were the mu'tazilites, who emphasised human responsibility and free will (as presupposed by commandments), and, on the other, the djabrites who claimed strict predestination and that human beings had practically no will. A third group finally established a balance and their view became that of orthodoxy: human beings receive the acts predetermined for them from the divine power. 26 Thus, the emphasis lies clearly on the divine side, but the whole attempt to solve the problem in a human way has been abandoned and everything is traced back to God's workings. 27 Professor al-DidjwI, Cairo: "Wir glauben an das erste Glied dieser Kette (an die uneingeschränkte Macht Gottes) und an das letzte (die Tätigkeit des Menschen), wir lassen aber außer Betracht das, was zwischen beiden ist." 28 [We believe in the first link in this chain (the unlimited power of God) and in the last (human activity), but we pay no attention to what lies between the two.] The Islamic faith just described is essential in order to live a life that is pleasing to God and to enable one to reach paradise one day. Although Islam, and its monotheism in particular, are considered to be in harmony with reason and natural phenomena, humankind still needs God's right guidance in the Koran. Right and wrong are, in fact, not neutral factors that can be grasped by reason; they are determined solely by God. So human beings can recognise them only by virtue of God's revelation and the faith which God gives them, and then act accordingly.29 "Islam (...) furnishes us with the means to determine good /25 and evil conduct. It does not base our knowledge of evil and virtue on mere intellect, (...) intuition or experience derived through the senses, which constantly undergo (...) modifications and thus fail to provide definite and

56

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

unchanging standards of morality. Instead, it provides us with an objective source, the Divine revelation, as embodied in the Book of God and the Sunnah (way of life) of the Prophet, blessings and peace be on him" 30 . Islamic faith without an Islamic life is inconceivable; Islam is faith translated into practical life, the implementation of the oneness of God. 31 "The chief characteristic of Islam is that it makes no distinction between the spiritual and the secular in life" 32 is how a Muslim author starts his book on the Islamic life. As the coming sections will show, no realm of life is excluded from the process. "Exactly because God is One, the response to Him needs to be 'undivided'."33 "Islam is totalitarian."34

2. Obedience Everything in the life of a Muslim should be governed by the Koran and the example of the Prophet. The five pillars, arkan, of Islam: confession of faith - shahada, prayer - salah, alms giving - zakah, fasting - sawm and pilgrimage - hadjdj. are considered to be the "minimum basic duties" 35 which every Muslim must fulfil.36 They are mentioned in the Koran and, indeed, Abraham is supposed to have made a covenant with God about them even before he was born. 37 "Establish worship and pay the poor-due and obey the messenger, that haply ye may find mercy." (Surah 24, 56) "Oh ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil)." (Surah 2, 183) "Perform the pilgrimage and the visit (to Mecca) for Allah." (Surah 2, 196a) "la ilaha ilia Allah; Muhammadun rasulu Allah"3* - 'There is no divine being except God; Mohammed is God's messenger'. Anyone who declares his/her intention to pronounce this Islamic confession of faith and who also does so is a Muslim. Such a declaration of intent is part of every religious duty.39 The confession of faith is undoubtedly the first duty and the key to all those that follow, including daily prayer of which it is a part. 40 salat al-fadir, salat az-%uhr, salat al-'asr, salat al-maghrib, salat al'isha' - five compulsory prayers a day are prescribed for Muslims: before sunrise, at midday, in the late afternoon, after sunset and before going to sleep (up to midnight).41

Obedience

57

There are other prescriptions which also relate to prayer. It must be carried out with ritual purity, hence the prior ablutions, the prayer mats and the prohibition from entering a mosque wearing shoes. There is the requirement to face Mecca (cf. Surah 2, 144-150), as well as the various positions such as standing, sitting, kneeling and prostrating oneself. These express one's surrender to God. The long rows in the mosque at Friday prayers - required of men whereas women can also simply pray at home increase the sense of equality before God and of belonging together. Praying in community is also considered better than praying alone. 42 The confession of faith comprises the call to prayer and the declaration, 'God is greatest'. The wording of the prayers is prescribed and they are all in Arabic: confession of faith, opening Surah of the Koran - fatiha, other Koranic texts, prayers and formulae for blessings. On Fridays at midday in the mosque there is also an address. 43 The duty to pray is a constant reminder that the whole of life belongs to God, is directed to God and should be subject to the will of God. Such prayer has a saving dimension. Tradition quotes the Prophet as having said: "Allah, the Exalted, has made five prayers obligatory. If anyone performs ablution for them well, offers them at their (right) time, and observes perfectly their bowing and submissiveness in them, it is the guarantee of Allah that He will pardon him" 44 . A Muslim woman has written about the compulsory prayers, "salat simultaneously nourishes the living Faith and cultivates the bonds of Community. It is a daily consecration of tawhtd (...); and of its consequences for the unity and integration of the life of the individual and the community." 45 Free, personal prayers - dua', on the other hand, are of lesser importance and can also only be added when the regulation community prayer has been completed. zakah is a specifically Muslim institution which can best be translated 'alms tax'. Above a fixed minimum, property and profits are subject to a regulation levy of at least 2.5%. In accordance with Surah 9, 60, this revenue is used exclusively for the welfare of poor Muslims or for the promotion of Islam in general. 46 The alms tax fulfils several purposes: poorer people are helped by the community of faith without having to feel they are mere recipients of alms. The well-to-do express their solidarity with the poorer and the overall sense of belonging to the community is strengthened. In addition, this tax is a reminder to the givers that possessions are only on loan from God, and teaches them not to devote their lives to acquiring transient possessions but to the one God. Incidentally, payment of the alms tax also

58

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

purifies one's possessions and thus guarantees their continuation and growth. 47 "Ye will not attain unto piety until ye spend of that which ye love." (Surah 3, 92a) laylat al-kadr - the Night of Power, and the fasting month of Ramadan as a whole, are major community events for the Muslim world. Since eating and drinking, smoking and marital sex are prohibited between sunrise and sunset (apart from some exceptional provisions), the rhythm of the whole day is slowed down and shifted, and the nights become a big, common celebration. Ramadan is the ninth month of the Muslim year and, as a lunar month, it can fall at any season. 48 Ramadan and especially the Night of Power in which the Koran was first sent down upon Mohammed (cf. Surah 97) are also supposed, however, to be a time of reflection to serve one's inward purification. Since special blessing is believed to rest on the compulsory prayers at this time, they are attended better than usual. The more devout Muslims endeavour to recite the whole of the Koran during the nights and spend the last ten days cloistered in the mosque for prayer and study.49 Mohammed himself said, "The month of Ramadan has approached you. It is a blessed month. Allah the Almighty and Glorified has prescribed fasting for you during this month. The gates of Heaven are opened and the gates of Hell are closed during this month and the rebellious satans are chained. In it there is night which is better than a thousand months."50 hadjdj. the pilgrimage to the Kaabah in Mecca, prescribed by the Muslim calendar for the twelfth month, is considered the climax of all religious experiences that a Muslim can have. The Kaabah is a pre-Islamic sanctuary which was built according to Islamic tradition by Abraham and his son Ishmael (cf. Surah 22, 26-29). Every Muslim, man or woman, should have made this pilgrimage once if there is some way of arranging it. Again, a special state of sanctification is prescribed: ritual ablutions, prayers, white pilgrim's robe, no sexual activities, disputes or hunting. The procedure is also fairly precisely determined: going round the Kaabah seven times, running between the hills safa and marwa, standing by the mountain 'arafat and symbolically stoning the devil. The pilgrimage begins on the 7th of the month and ends on the 10th, the day of the greatest Islamic festival 'id al-adha (festival of sacrifice), with a sacrificial offering.S1 The pilgrimage is full of symbolism: the state of sanctification points to inner and outer purification. The same rites and clothes unite people of different national and social origins. The strenuous activities indicate that faith means being active and even fighting (cf. stoning). Standing by

Obedience

59

the mountain 'arafat gives a premonition of the day when all people will stand equally before God, the judge. Whether it be circling round the Kaabah or sacrificing, everything is supposed to be a reminder of the one God from whom life comes and to whom it returns. The pilgrimage is a renewal of one's surrender to this one God; the pilgrim enters Mecca through the gate 'of the one who makes the promise' and uses the 'labbaika' call, which can be translated approximately as 'twice in your service'. 52 Through the eyes of a Muslim woman: "The hajj gives the individual a glimpse into Heights that he is not likely ever to experience in his worldly life. (...) [TJhe hajj is a summation of life itself. To convey such a moment (...) is like an attempt to articulate the essence of life. Few people are aware of this essence; fewer people know it; and fewer still have ever experienced it. The hajji, he whose pilgrimage has been accepted by God, returns to the world with the certainty of all three: the awareness, the knowledge and the experience." 53 The conception of personal piety in Islam is particularly connected with the Sufis, the pious ascetics whose name comes from their rough woollen robe. Their tradition of spirituality can be traced back, on the one side, to the Prophet Mohammed (and some of his companions), and, on the other hand, the parallels with mystical trends in other religions are undeniable. 54 Thus the Sufis, along with a number of other groups persecuted by the Sunnites (sunna - tradition), found a home among the Shiites (sht'a - party). The latter had split from the Sunnites for political reasons but had failed in their claims to the caliph's throne. After this defeat, their political expectations became a religious expectation of the last days. 55 The main stream of Sunnite Islam found Sufism suspect for a long time, because endeavouring to establish a personal relationship with God, speaking about love between God and human beings and not merely about commandments and obedience, was originally just as alien to Islam as the ascetic and mystical features of Sufism. 56 Only thanks to the great legal scholar, theologian and mystic Al-Ghazzali ( f l l l l ) did it become acceptable and respectable. Then followed a period when this movement had a major and lasting influence. Numerous Sufi orders and monasteries were founded. The founders of the four most significant orders (including the order of the dancing derwishes) were later normally venerated like saints. Even today, Sufism and Sufi orders have repeatedly given a new spiritual impetus to Islam and the Islamic communities and preserved them from outward ritual and rigidity. 57 The mystical, spiritual traditions of the Sufis, known as tarlka - way (also a term for the orders themselves), are passed on from the master to his scholars. The way has three levels, on the highest of which the human being completely disappears and God alone exists. The most important

60

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

means to this is a meditation exercise, dhikr, during which the confession of faith or the name of God is constantly repeated with the body in a particular position. (There is a dhikr of the tongue, the heart and, finally, of the innermost bottom of the soul.) It has been emphasised that God alone is holy, but the disappearance of the self on the highest level of the mystical way has also been experienced as ecstatic union with God and led to statements that sound heretical. However, this was also the ground from which devotional literature of the highest poetical quality sprang.58 An example of union mysticism by Ibn 'Arabi: "God has said; (...) 'I become his hearing by which he hears, and I become his sight by which he sees'."59

3. Law "Islam (or religion) and government are twin brothers; one cannot thrive without the other. Islam is the foundation and government the guardian. What has no foundation, collapses; what has no guardian, perishes."60 After the flight from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D. (al-hidira), religion replaced the tribal alliance. The Islamic community - umma - came into existence. The duties that are typical for a tribe were transferred to the religious community. Anyone who becomes a Muslim has citizenship and a claim to assistance in the Muslim world, even though practice usually does not keep up with the claim.61 The feeling that the whole Muslim world belongs together can still be sensed, as can the moral and religious ideal of governance under the first four 'rightly guided' caliphs. This makes it difficult both for dynasties and for democracies. Even the division into national states came late, was half-hearted and is still - at least theoretically - a matter for dispute.62 The fundamental equality of all human beings (cf. Surah 4,1; 25,54) is proudly proclaimed by Islam as a sort of social and socio-political basic confession of faith; it is a logical consequence of monotheism. This is true in the sense that Islam knows no racism. However, as the individual legal provisions will make clear, women and followers of other monotheistic religions have different, i.e. objectively less, rights. There is not room at all in Muslim society for polytheists or traitors who have abandoned the true faith. Indeed, the Muslims understand themselves as the best of all communities and make major efforts (diihad - endeavour) to enable others to share in their blessings. That is their religious duty and they are certainly successful, especially in the 'Third World'. 63 "Ye are the best community that hath ever been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And

Law

61

if the People of the Scripture had believed, it had been better for them." (Surah 3, 110 a,b,c) "Islam seeks to build a principled and ideological society very different from the racial, nationalistic and parochial societies existing in the world today." 64 "Islam and it alone is still capable of uniting so many millions the world over into a world power, across all racial, ethnic and cultural differences. It is for this reason they believe Islam is greatly feared in the West." 65 But the Islamic community also makes very far-reaching claims: "This principle of the unity of God totally negates the concept of the legal and political independence of human beings, individually or collectively."66 What this should look like has also been laid down: "[W]here Muslims are in a majority, it is only natural to expect the shart'a to be the only (...) code for that society for it is the only code persons subscribing to tawhtd can relate to and accept." 67 sharVa is an ideal legal system which contains everything from juridical, ethical and religious prescriptions to behavioural and hygienic rules and thus embraces the whole of life. As a typical ius divinum it can only be further developed but never changed by religious authorities. In theory, the state and politics have no legislative power, indeed they must be prepared to be taught about matters of politics and warfare, shart'a does not exist in the form of a book of laws but only in the tradition of a school. Its validity comprises provisions for Muslims and for countries with Muslim governments, so it is a mixture of personal and territorial law. Every Muslim must recognise shart'a as a whole as divine law and the only law applying to him/her, but it is not expected that he/she will really be able to follow all its prescriptions.68 shart'a refers back first and foremost to the Koran. Since the latter contains relatively few legal provisions, it was necessary also to have recourse to the example of Mohammed (sunna) as a secondary source (cf. Surah 3 , 1 3 2 ) . Because very soon everyone knew how to defend a decision with a reference to a traditional saying of the Prophet, the attempt was made to examine all the traditions according to strict criteria for credibility. The hadtth collections by Al-Bukhari and Muslim are considered reliable.69 As far as the human component of legal decision making is concerned (endeavour - iditihad), five different schools have evolved, four in Sunnite Islam (Hanafites, Malakites, Shafiites, Hanbalites - called after their founding figures) and the Shiite school, the Imamites. The latter is similar in practice to the Hanafites. All four Sunnite legal schools are of equal value, and there is even a tradition that legal disunity is an expression of divine favour. 70

62

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

The Hanafites were the official legal school of the Abbasidic caliphs and the Ottoman empire. They still set the tone in Turkey and also in the Balkans, India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they comprise a third of all Muslims taken together. In addition to kiyas - analogical conclusion (in line with precedence) and idima'- consensus (of all the lawyers at a particular time), which apply to almost all the legal schools, they, as the oldest school, still emphasise the ancient customary law to which Mohammed also frequently referred. But their liberal reputation was the result of their instituting juridical judgement - istihsan. The Malakites originally came from Medina, the city of the Prophet. For this reason they enjoy special authority and limit idlma' to the lawyers of Medina. They are considered conservative and bound by tradition, but nevertheless are familiar with the special institution of istislah - welfare (of the community) as a legal criterion. Today their influence is determinative along the Gulf, and in Northern, Western and Central Africa. The Shafiites were the dominant school before the Ottoman empire, precisely in the Arabian area, and they determined legal science as such. They limited themselves to the main principles of legal decision making. idpna' was to comprise all Muslims because the Prophet had declared his community as a whole infallible, but that proved to be impossible. Today, the Shafiites exercise their influence predominantly in the Near East, East Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Central Asia. The Hanbalites recognise, in addition to istishab (a kind of juridical self-evidence), only that which can be traced back to the Koran a n d / o r a traditional saying of the Prophet's. The juridical discussion is minimal. The followers of the Hanbalites were found above all among simple people, then they experienced a decline and the Wahhabite reform movement provided them with a new impetus. They are the smallest and strictest of all the legal schools, closely linked today with the as-Saud ruling dynasty (Saudi Arabia) and thus also binding on all pilgrims to Mecca for the duration of their pilgrimage. The Imamites have always had their stronghold in Shiite Iran. They believe in a continuation of divine revelation through the twelve Imams, which is inconceivable for Sunnite Islam. But since the last infallible Imam was carried off in 873, until he comes again iditihad takes place through reason - 'akl - in the consensus of the lawyers. This is the only legal school in which iditihad is still legitimate. In the Sunnite legal schools, it has been observed that independent legal decision making has stopped (closing of the doors of iditihad) every preceding decision was binding and thus, it was believed, finally there was nothing more to be decided. But all of this in no sense means that shaft'a is a closed, inflexible legal code. On the contrary, each new case must be handled on its own merit, and it is also theoretically possible that a case may prove to be an

Law

63

exception with no parallel and therefore require an independent judicial decision. Even divinely determined provisions have been recognised from the earliest times and then suspended by legal means or circumvented. Most of the mediaeval legal literature, e.g., dealt with matters of circumvention, namely legal tricks of specialists to achieve something that was not allowed by the direct approach. On the state level there are certainly similar phenomena. Although the rulers were not allowed to issue any laws, they could issue administrative decrees; they could appoint the judges and determine the competences of the courts. So, with generous interpretation and skilled implementation, it was possible to introduce many new elements and even the prohibited law books. Eclecticism also become increasingly acceptable, which meant that, from the opinions of the four recognised schools and finally even from minority opinions, the things were selected which corresponded to the solution desired. Major use was made in argumentation of the public good - maslaha, as, indeed, the Prophet himself had done in order temporarily to suspend Koranic prescriptions. For example, maslaha can mean that some behaviour is later considered criminal and punished. Finally, following the example of Omar, the second caliph, the argument of rüh at-tashrV, the spirit of the legislation, was used as being the original basis for a law. By referring back in this way to the source, it is sometimes possible to demonstrate that, in the meantime, completely different conditions prevail and therefore a provision is outdated. 71 Most of the Muslim states fit into this spectrum somewhere, shari'a has very rarely been officially abolished, as e.g. in Turkey. On the other hand, in almost all the Muslim states today there are also official law books - with the exception, e.g., of Saudi Arabia. In general, people are proud of their Islamic legislation and demands are even made for its recognition among international human rights, but in practice shari'a is not the legal reality in any country and it never has been since the four rightly guided caliphs. However, in recent years there have been increasing conservative tendencies to withdraw the relaxations. 72 T w o statements which express all the tensions: " Z u allen Zeiten ergab sich (...) ein häufig beklagtes Auseinanderklaffen von Theorie und Praxis, das geradezu typisch für das islamische Recht ist. Doch blieb trotz der 'Unwirklichkeit' des islamischen Rechts der theoretische Geltungsanspruch der sari'a stets gewahrt. Andererseits hat die Möglichkeit, sich mit der formalen Geltung des islamischen Rechts zu begnügen, aber auch das Festhalten am islamischen Recht begünstigt."7-1 [At all times there has been (...) a wide gap between theory and practice that was often regretted but is really characteristic of Islamic law. Nevertheless, despite the 'unreality' of Islamic law, the theoretical claim to the validity of shari'a has always been preserved. On the other hand, the

64

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

possibility of being satisfied with the formal validity of Islamic law has also favoured the clinging to Islamic law.] "Doch ist und bleibt der Maßstab für eine Änderung und Neuregelung der islamischen Gesetzte der Islam selbst. Nicht der rastlose Wandel der zügellosen Wünsche - selbst wenn diese kollektiv sind - und nicht die von außen an den Islam herangetragenen Kriterien, sondern nur die immanent islamischen Maxime, Werte, Zielsetzungen und Maßstäbe sind es, die unter streng fachmännisch und gewissenhaft überprüften neuen Verhältnissen einen Wandel herbeirufen können." 74 [And yet Islam itself is and remains the yardstick for changing or reworking the Islamic laws. It is not the ceaseless changes of unbridled desires - even if these be collective - nor the criteria applied to Islam from the outside, but only the eminently Islamic maxims, values, goals and criteria which can bring about a change when the new conditions are subjected to a strictly specialised and conscientious examination.] So Islam is far less monolithic than Christians often assume and Muslims like to claim. This is a result not only of the legal schools but also of geography, as a study by the World Council of Churches describes: "[T]he rich texture of popular piety results in a religious community which is far from homogeneous. History, political structures, minority/majority composition of religious communities, are all factors which need to be considered as part of any attempt to understand Islam in any given context." 75 A particularly clear example of this is Indonesia, the country with the most Muslims in the world. They are supposed to comprise 90 per cent of the population of Indonesia, but only 10 per cent of the population as an estimate - take their religious duties seriously in a way that is similar to the Wahhabitic reform movement. Since Islam was spread peacefully by traders for centuries on the islands of the Indonesian archipelago, and it entered into a unique symbiosis with elements of the Hindu/Buddhist advanced civilisation, especially in Java, the attempts at reform and conversion by strict traditionalists met with little sympathy among the majority. In West Sumatra it led finally to a real war between the shaft'a party and those who wanted to maintain the many traditional Indonesian practices. After a bloodbath involving their princely family, the latter even turned for help to the Netherlands colonial authority. The marks of this conflict can be traced beyond the independence of Indonesia after the second world war and down to the present. Although Indonesia's constitution refers expressly to one God, it is not officially Muslim; rather, it constitutes an extremely skilled compromise which each side can understand in its own way if it wishes. And indeed the island of Bali is Hindu, and within the state territory of Indonesia there are also many other, not

Law

65

officially recognised tribal religions and naturally Christians as well. Mixed marriages are certainly widespread. The constitutional solution was initially welcomed by all sides, but strict traditionalist Muslims are increasingly bringing it into disrepute as un-Islamic. Their aim is initially to 'islamise' the 'Muslim' masses of Java (and to this end, e.g., to build up social services following the Christian example), and then to use this democratic majority to make Indonesia into a Muslim state with the furthest reaching Muslim legislation. It must be expected that this will create all kinds of difficulties and the outcome cannot be predicted.76 "For Imaduddin, as a Muslim and a Sumatran, Indonesia was a place to be cleansed. His faith was so great that he could separate his country from its history, traditions, art: its particularity. His faith was too simple for Indonesia, certainly for Java, too simple even for the koum of Linus's village. And Indonesia - overpopulated, with so many people squeezed out, with only the army to hold the country together was too fragile for his kind of protest."77 The provisions of shaft'a, over which there is often so much disagreement, can be divided into three segments: commercial and property law, penal law, and family and inheritance law. The number of specifically Islamic regulations increases in that order. The deviations between the schools of law are less numerous over family and inheritance law, but they are also not very great in general. In what follows, the most important Islamic provisions for each area and their developments will be mentioned, without entering into what is observed in each country or how it has been amended. Commercial and property law is the legal field for which there are the least regulations in Islam. Reference is normally made here to zakah as a sort of social levy and as a stimulus for the economy (in order to balance out the loss of property...) or even as a means of redistributing wealth, although this is rather exaggerated. There is also a series of other levies apart from a kind of property tax for agricultural land and an inheritance tax, especially tribute from countries or ethnic groups subdued, including a special tax for Jews and Christians. Slavery is also allowed, e.g. as a result of wartime captivity. The Islamic attitude to land ownership is the exact opposite. Land cannot belong to a person on his/her own. The most that an individual can enjoy is the right to usufruct. This attitude is referred to repeatedly but never put into practice. On the contrary, there are individual regulations for leasing and sale, and private land is so well protected that even the state can requisition it only to build mosques and schools. The case of the prohibition of usury is similar. This prohibition originally covered all dealings for which no real, guaranteed service was provided, namely interest, betting, gambling, insurance policies and life annuities. In more recent times, however, usury was definitively restricted

66

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

to interest in excess of 7 per cent; everything else is permitted. Even so, there are Islamic banks which operate without interest. The dealings emphasised as particularly Islamic are those entailing participation in profits or losses, but what in fact is transacted is, above all, leasing for investments and double sales dealings for commercial goods with a fixed profit rate. Trade profits are, after all, permitted in Islam and traders even enjoy high prestige...78 Penal law is the realm in which the Muslim states have adopted a relatively large number of their own provisions. The reason for this is that traditionally there were only very few, precisely defined crimes for which the punishment was determined. Everything else is left to the discretion of the judge (or to the administrative measures of the state). Among the crimes for which the punishment was defined, there is apostasy from Islam; if it is clear that a return is out of the question, this religious crime is punishable with death. However, murder, manslaughter and bodily harm are dealt with strictly under private law. These are grounds for compensation, in the case of murder and bodily harm in strict accord with the lex talionis. The closest male relative of the person killed is entitled to kill the murderer in the presence of the judge or to inflict an equivalent injury on him. The principle of equality is very strict here: freemen and slaves, men and women and usually also Muslims and non-Muslims are not considered equal. In the case of manslaughter, cases of inequality, murder of direct descendants or when a man renounces his right, another punishment applies which consists mainly of the payment of blood money. Calumny because of sexual offences belongs in part to this category and is punished with 80 strokes and loss of the right to give witness. Sexual offences, namely extra-marital sexual relations, together with the consumption of alcoholic beverages, theft and highway robbery, are considered offences against divine law and the punishment for such crimes is draconian. Adultery, for example, is punished by stoning for married people, by 100 strokes for single people and 50 for slaves; consumption of wine entails 40 strokes for Muslims and amounts to 80 strokes if it includes disturbing public order. Theft is punished by imprisonment; if there is recidivity, firstly the right hand is amputated, then the left foot. Depending on the severity of the crime, highway robbery entails imprisonment, amputation of the right hand and left foot (for recidivity the other limbs as well), the death penalty and finally the variant of crucifixion as the strongest deterrent. However, these punishments are almost never carried out because, with the exception of highway robbery, there are no official investigations conducted and the period for prosecution is a maximum of one month. Moreover, no circumstantial evidence is accepted, only the statements of two and in the case of sexual offences, four eye witnesses (women only count as halves), or a confession that can be withdrawn at any time, and indeed should be, which is normally not

Law

67

possible. In addition, 'theft' is understood in a very restrictive way: it cannot take place between direct relatives, there can be no entitlement to the object and it may not be ownerless; it must also be of a certain minimum value and have been in custody (so no pick-pocketing) and, finally, the stolen property must in any case not be disapproved of like wine or musical instruments. Finally, active penitence releases one from these penalties. The mentally deranged, minors and pregnant women are exempt from all punishment79. All the other cases which have not been mentioned are not definitively covered by Islamic law. This applies even for the slightest deviation, e.g. only circumstantial evidence without the prescribed number of witnesses. This immediately reduces the penalty, although that is not precisely defined because it concerns the realm of state provisions. The only regulation is that, in analogy to the law of talion, it cannot be fended off by penitence. But in this realm the death penalty is also possible, especially for spies, murderers (where there is no question of retaliation), propagators of heresies and incorrigible habitual offenders (e.g. homosexuals). Finally, there is the fairly widespread modern development that deaths on the road are not classified as homicide.80 There is hardly any other realm of Islamic law that encounters such strong rejection among non-Muslims, who see bodily punishment as nothing less than a violation of the human right to freedom from bodily harm. Muslims, on the other hand, insist on these provisions because they belong to God-given law and in any case are practically never implemented, although they constitute a good deterrent. It would certainly be good to guarantee that they will not be applied to non-Muslims, nor in a non-Muslim country. Otherwise it is impossible to deny the statement by a Western specialist: "Die Einsicht, daß sich Eingriffe in die theoretischen Grundlagen des islamischen Strafrechts aus seinem Wesen heraus verbieten, mag unbefriedigend erscheinen. Doch es gilt zu berücksichtigen, daß das islamische Strafrecht eben für einen bestimmten Menschentyp sinnvoll ist, nämlich für den überzeugten Muslim. Anderen erscheint er als 'die in Betrieb genommene oder gehaltene Schreckenskammer eines Museums'."81 [The recognition that interventions in the theoretical foundations of Islamic penal law are prohibited by its nature may appear unsatisfactory. But it is important to remember that Islamic penal law is meaningful for a particular type of person, namely for a convinced Muslim. To others it looks like 'recourse to or the continued use of the chamber of horrors in a museum'.] Family and inheritance law are the traditional domains of Islamic law. The corresponding provisions are profoundly anchored in the Muslim consciousness, and no changes have been introduced on the state side for

68

Islam - Faith, Obedience and L a w

a long time. It was not until this century that women increasingly dared to object to these regulations. Indeed, although they have an official right to education and possess a legal competency, namely an entitlement to own and administer their own property, they are not really considered adults but subject to the supervision or protection of their closest male relative. The latter is supposed to protect the woman's rights, but there is hardly any way of taking him to task if he does not do so. Despite all the assurances about equality, women count less than men, e.g. as witnesses before the courts. It is then wonderfully logical not to allow them to work in the legal field at all, nor to occupy any other position which would entail authority over men. Also in the case of marriage - Islam does not provide for single women or men - this standing is very clear. When a marriage contract is being negotiated and concluded, a woman must usually be represented by a male relative. Marriage is supposed to be a voluntary undertaking, but for the woman's consent silence or quiet weeping is sufficient. The duties which marriage entails are certainly different for men and women. Only the woman is required to demonstrate absolute fidelity and, above all, subordination to the wishes of her husband, provided that these do not contradict the will of Allah. If she fulfils these conditions, she can expect her husband to support her. But if a woman objects, her husband also has the right to beat her if necessary. The nature of an Islamic marriage is that of a marriage by purchase - only that further sale or exchange is not possible, and the bride price does not go to the bride's father but to the bride herself. A man can marry up to four wives if he has sufficient financial means and treats the wives absolutely equally in every respect. There is absolutely no limit to the number of concubines. Because of the dominant position of the man in marriage and family, a Muslim may also marry a Jewish or Christian woman, and the children will be Muslims anyway, whereas a Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim. For a man, divorce is also very easy: if all the attempts at agreement and conciliation have failed, he only needs to pronounce the divorce formula three times in front of two witnesses. But, if a woman has not had her right to divorce guaranteed in the marriage contract, either unconditionally or, e.g., in the case of a second marriage, it will be difficult for her. She can try to obtain a legal divorce, either by paying a settlement to her husband or without it in particular cases defined by the various schools of law (which in any case comprise rejection and impotence). But then it must be impossible to demonstrate that she has shown any recalcitrance. The Shiites recognise the special form of a marriage for a limited period in which both partners have the same right to terminate the marriage. The basic principle in a Muslim marriage is separation of property, but in the case of a divorce the man has the duty to pay the

Law

69

w o m a n a settlement. H e can remarry immediately after a divorce, whereas the w o m a n must wait for at least three months in order to ascertain whether she may be pregnant. T h e duty t o provide for her continues during this waiting period and, where appropriate, during the pregnancy and nursing period. However, the duration of the maternal right to custody o f a child is not precisely fixed (and is limited for non-Muslims to abode in the neighbourhood of the father). For boys it can a m o u n t to a m a x i m u m of seven and for girls to a m a x i m u m of nine years. N o r is there any agreement on the marriage age for girls: at least six or at least nine years old. There is no legitimation of extra-marital children nor adoption. W h e r e a s there are precise regulations governing marital relations, there are no rules at all for the contacts between men and women who are not related to one another. This area is governed by an absolute separation of realms of life. In public this separation is visibly expressed by the almost total veiling of women, whereas a man must only be covered from the navel to the knees in order to be moral. 8 2 T h e traditional Sunnite inheritance law provides for women entitled to inherit to receive only half of the amount due to a man, because within the family they always receive a dowry and alimony but do not have to provide these. A w i d o w who was the only wife receives one eighth of the inheritance. If the wife was not a Muslim, the partners to the marriage c a n n o t legally inherit from one another. According to Shiite law, only the M u s l i m heirs of such a w o m a n have the legal right to inherit. T w o thirds of the inheritance are fundamentally subject to the law; the testator can dispose freely of the other third but may not allocate it to the legal heirs. T h i s has led in practice to a very large number of foundations in order for the family to benefit from the profits on this property again indirectly. T o date, there have basically been no changes in Muslim inheritance law. 8 3 As far as the specific position of w o m e n is concerned, many of their Islamic rights are not implemented in reality. They are obscured by still more rigid customs. Even the attempt to insist on the things that would be possible within the framework of shari'a normally encounters fierce resistance which claims to be particularly religious. J e h a n Sadat, the former 'first lady' of Egypt and, as she herself states, a good Muslim, describes situations in her autobiography such as the Egyptian fighter for w o m e n ' s rights, Kasim Amln, had already experienced at the beginning of this century. T o quote one passage: '"These are Jehan's laws, not Islam's laws', roared one of the /359 most vocal fundamentalist sheikhs, who railed against the reforms every week after the Friday prayers. 'These laws she wants will turn men into women and women into men! They will cause the breakdown of the Egyptian family structure and move hundreds to godlessness! These laws are against the Shari'a, the word of God as revealed in the Quran!'" 8 4

70

Islam - Faith, Obedience and Law

dhimma (hospitality) is a special form of law, a kind of principle of protection, which applies mainly to Jews and Christians who live permanently in a Muslim country. In addition, there is harbt, the status of a Jew or Christian from a non-Muslim country, and a guest with the right of abode for up to one year. The exact provisions of dhimma have evolved slowly with the consequence that, for non-Muslims - particularly Christians - the loss of their numerical majority and political disputes with Christian states have entailed a deterioration of their position in each case. Special preference has been given to insisting on characteristic clothing and removal from responsible posts in the administration. Fundamentally, one can state that dhimma mainly means social separation and political discrimination. Jews and Christians are not considered to have the same status as Muslims and are also not allowed to behave as if they had. The inequality in penal, family and inheritance law for mixed marriages has already been discussed. Blood money often amounts to only half or two thirds of the amount for a Muslim. Moreover, they are required to wear Muslim clothing, although this must indicate that the wearer is not a Muslim and it may also not be distinguished. Ownership of Muslim slaves, horses or weapons is also prohibited; only donkeys are allowed. Nor may their houses be higher than those of the Muslims. Sometimes the place of abode was also prescribed although ghettos were rare. But precisely the Arabian peninsula is mainly prohibited for Jews and Christians and the holy cities there are absolutely prohibited. Non-Muslims are not allowed to hold any positions of real authority, especially not to decide on Islamic concerns or to judge Muslims. Sometimes, administrative tasks in the executive were also closed to them, although they were normally preferred for these as the more dependent subjects who were also useful for un-Islamic activities. In addition, Jews and Christians have to pay a head tax, which can naturally be set against the zakah as far as compulsory payments are concerned. But the duties are graded as well: a Muslim pays 5 per cent, a dhimmt 10 per cent and a harbt as much as 2 0 per cent. The more religious realm is also not free from regulations. It has already been mentioned that a Muslim cannot convert to another religion except on the pain of death. Therefore any kind of mission is prohibited, as are the debasement of Islam, support for the enemies of Islam and, naturally, familiar relationships with a Muslim woman. Prohibitions also apply to selling wine, images, exhibiting crosses, processions, bells, building new or reconstructing churches. 85 Although there were hardly any pogroms against Jews or Christians, and both groups were allowed in principle to practice their religion and order their own affairs, this kind of tolerance was a humiliating experience. Since Jews and Christians are considered theologically as only having part of the truth, they are also in practice only allowed to enjoy

Law

71

a part of life. Wherever Christians have lived in remote areas of a Muslim empire, they have protested against this kind of protected status. The other indigenous Christians have become the first, decisive pioneers in the struggle for a secular rather than a Muslim state, even though no Muslim state has ever implemented all the prescribed regulations simultaneously. One observer has summarised it as follows: "Für beide Gruppen von Christen (...) ist die islamische 'Schutzherrschaft' der Vergangenheit als mögliche Gefahr der Zukunft stets präsent - der drohende Schatten der Geschichte."86 [For both groups of Christians (...) the Islamic dhimma system of the past is always there as a possible danger for the present - the menacing shadow of history.]

IV. The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections Apart f r o m to the overall development of the Christian/Muslim dialogue and of inter-religious dialogue in general, there are naturally specific themes that are of special interest for both areas and deserve to be discussed individually. The following chapter is devoted to such individual treatment.The presentation has been so arranged that each section is also comprehensible on its own and can therefore be used for reference.

1. Cross-Sections of the Christian/Muslim Dialogue The Christian/Muslim dialogue of the World Council of Churches covers a large number of interesting individual aspects. Firstly, in the course of the years organisational and structural changes have taken place affecting the participants, the nature and the preparation of the dialogues. Then it is interesting to know on what basis Christians and Muslims enter into a dialogue and h o w trust has gradually developed between them. Finally, there is a wide range of issues which were frequently the subject matter in and of dialogues: theological questions, spirituality, practical cooperation, political problems, mission, Islamic law and mixed marriages. Of course, none of these questions is totally unrelated to the others, but each constitutes an emphasis of its own and should be treated accordingly. A. Organisation

and

Structure

The Beginnings The first Christian/Muslim dialogues (Birmingham/Selly Oak 1968, Cartigny 1969) were not preceded by any major organisational or structural reflection. For Birmingham there was just a list of questions from the W C C , and for Cartigny the Secretariat on Faith and Order simply took the initiative. It fixed the date, place and themes and invited speakers and guests. Those w h o attended the meeting were all resident in Europe with a majority from Germany and Switzerland. 1 The reflection on this and future procedure only took place during and, above all, after the dialogue. In the final document, the participants demanded more such dialogues at

74

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

local and international level and a Christian/Muslim publication on such issues.2 The staff of the World Council of Churches working on these questions were aware that further dialogue initiatives would require more work and would thus probably entail the establishment of a department for this. The only question was where the subject and the department belonged. Since one study attributed a special historical and theological relationship with Christians both to the Muslims and to the Jews, it gave rise to ensuing the question whether such considerations had already been behind the invitation that came from the Faith and Order Department rather than the Department on World Mission and Evangelism.3 In any case, these beginnings of the Christian/Muslim dialogue were also very much affected by Middle East politics, especially the Six Day War. This gave the whole project its urgency: "The situation in the Middle East and the tension between Jews, Christians and Muslims there add a note of urgency for a more practical expression of the WCC's concern with the people in the area." 4 The solution of the Palestinian problem in the sense of the West's abandoning its pro-Israeli attitude became the criterion to judge the credibility of the Christian/Muslim dialogue and, indeed, of inter-religious dialogue in general. This attitude was not only adopted by Muslims but also by Arab Christians.5 Systematic Expansion

of the

Dialogue

These problems appeared less important when the dialogues dealt concretely with other questions, such as 'mission' in Chambésy in 1976, 'technology' in Beirut in 1977 or 'development' in Colombo in 1982. The increasing régionalisation of the dialogues did not lead to a general depoliticisation, but it made it clear that Islam and its concerns cannot be equated with the Middle East and the Arabs, just as Christianity is more than simply Western. The sites of the major regional dialogues provide impressive evidence of this: Legon 1974, Hong Kong 1975, Porto Novo 1986, Dhyana Pura 1986, Kolymbari 1987 (for Europe and the Middle East together), New Windsor 1988 and Usa River 1989. The dates also indicate that in the second half of the eighties the Christian/Muslim dialogue shifted completely into the regions and no more large international dialogues took place.6 That large, international, Christian/Muslim conferences under the auspices of the World Council of Churches (Broumana 1972, to some degree Colombo 1982) did not continue must be attributed inter alia to quite mundane reasons: lack of money. It was already obvious in 1978 that the World Council of Churches was facing general financial difficulties. Moreover, the dialogue work, which had become a separate sub-unit in 1971, was also to become financially independent of the 'Commission on World Mission and Evangelism' (CWME), a parallel sub-unit.7

Organisation and Structure

Determinative

75

Personages

However, within the sub-unit Christian/Muslim dialogue enjoyed a relatively privileged position as far as size and number of dialogues were concerned. Even in the founding year, plans were made to appoint specialists in Islam and Arab culture in order to win the confidence of the Muslims. As early as May 1973, a third member of staff, John B. Taylor, was added who had already participated in many of the World Council of Churches' dialogues. In fact it was he who built up the contacts to Muslims and Muslim organisations until he left the sub-unit in 1983. His successor (up to 1989), Stuart E. Brown, opened up the conversations with world-wide Muslim organisations and especially brought African Islam into the work. Ulrich Schoen undertook the directorship of the department provisionally until a Lebanese, Tarek Mitri, a man with Middle East experience of Islam, became the director in 1991, as had long been hoped. It is not possible for financial reasons to have more staff, but nevertheless the number of dialogues conducted and proposed remains comparatively high.8 Lack of

Representativity

On the level of content, however, the dialogues face a number of difficulties: to whom does what is expressed in them really apply? The following qualifying remark is typical for the beginnings (multi-religious dialogue of Ajaltoun 1970): "I am not speaking as a representative of (...)" 9 If it was not said by the speaker him/herself, there was always someone else who qualified his/her approach and refused to allow it to be generalised for a confession or religion. Anything binding was excluded from the very beginning. The same applied to later memoranda as well. On the other hand, this non-binding approach and the more private character of the dialogues was able to achieve more than, for example, dialogues commissioned by states.10 The Orthodox churches with their centuries old experience of Islam were also unable to contribute a clear, uniform line: they had seen their dialogue with Islam fail as well, and the old criteria for relationships no longer applied. Despite some interesting starting points, a new theology which could support values such as partnership, world community or mutual witness had still to be produced.11 Assistance from Joint

Planningf

The initiative of a Muslim led to Muslims sharing in the preparations for the Christian/Muslim dialogue at Broumana in 1972. The activity on the Muslim side was generally very considerable; there were even offers to share representatives and travel costs. The joint preparation of dialogues with partners from the other religions was even included in the general guidelines for dialogue in 1978. 1 2 But in the area of the Christian/Muslim

76

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

dialogue there were not only joint preparatory meetings but real preparatory conferences that were conducted jointly, as in 1976 in Cartigny and 1979 at Chambesy. There the questions were tackled of how the two communities should be prepared for the dialogues, what belongs to life in dialogue and which socio-political and theological subjects needed to be clarified. Work began to establish initial principles for Christian/Muslim dialogue and to draw up a quite concrete dialogue programme in phases up to 1981. The goal was a conference to be financed equally by Christian and Muslim organisations and which finally took place in 1982 in Colombo. Stuart E. Brown even described the period 1975-1983 as the phase of joint planning in the Christian/Muslim dialogue. 13 Nevertheless, we should not overestimate the basis for the dialogues. The group of participants remained almost always the same: usually academics or at least people with a good education and an ability to converse. The idea was put forward time and again that others should be approached, particularly traditionalists in order to be more representative. But it is difficult to bring in popular or radical groups. At the most, it will usually be non-theological specialists who participate because of specific issues, apart from the Christian/Muslim youth dialogue at Bossey in 1980 and the multi-religious women's dialogue in Toronto in 1988. On the one hand, women live out dialogue locally more than men, and, on the other hand, they rarely occupy positions of power, so they are not included in the invitation network and are therefore under-represented at the official dialogues. Even in the sub-unit, the question was raised whether its own dialogues were not rather elitist, quite apart from their representativity and therefore their binding character for a wider area. The Roman Catholic Church, whose representatives were practically always present at the dialogues and were also invited to a large extent to their preparation, was the only one to have no structural problems about representativity and bindingness. Among the Muslims, however, since the end of the caliphate there is no longer a body which could speak on behalf of all Muslims. Particularly when it is a question of the West or the international level, Muslim participants in dialogues again normally propose groups which are intellectual and open and thus also in the minority. The World Council of Churches, for its part, brings together within itself a large number of voices from very different churches which also often contradict one another and then need long processes for consultation with very little outcome. 14 Assistance from the Involvement of Organisationsf But, starting in 1970, an attempt was made not only to approach individuals but also to investigate world religious organisations in general to see if they were suitable for involvement in future dialogues. However, the 'how' question was finally left unanswered after it had once been clearly

Organisation and Structure

77

stated that organisations financed by the West were of no interest. For the Christian/Muslim dialogue this question became relevant at the joint planning conference at Cartigny in 1976. In order to tackle socio-political issues, such as the relationship between faith and politics and the question of social justice and development, it was considered necessary to establish contacts from one organisation to another at local, regional and international level. On the international level, the names of the following Muslim organisations were mentioned: Islamic Conference of Jeddah, the - also 'Saudi' - World Muslim League and the World Muslim Congress (Pakistan) which is dependent upon it. Representatives of the latter took part in the planning conferences in Cartigny and later in Chambesy. 15 For the director of the sub-unit on dialogue (Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies - DFI), this was the decisive turning point in the Christian/Muslim dialogue: powerful Muslim organisations were brought in; it was not longer just a matter for concerned individuals and this would change the whole character of the dialogue. But it was necessary to handle this situation cautiously, in particular in order to preserve the freedom to invite some voices critical of these organisations. 16 That this evaluation was correct was already demonstrated in 1982 at the dialogue in Colombo on aid and development programmes. The host was the World Muslim Congress which also selected the Muslim participants. Because of the subject, many Muslim and Christian organisations participated or were discussed. The World Council of Churches had less influence on the plans and the agenda - and all of a sudden found it no longer had any compliant partners in the debate. Each side wanted to approach the theme in a completely different way and it was difficult to communicate: "The consultation scarcely got beyond the discussion about preparation and presuppositions of the participants. In the long run, it served an invaluable purpose by demonstrating vividly how deep and substantial are the differences - in perception and reality - between many Christians and Muslims." 17 Assistance from a 'Joint Standing Committee' ? Relatively soon, in conjunction with the joint planning meeting in Cartigny in 1976, a call also came up for a standing committee on Christian/ Muslim dialogue. The precise conceptions were very different since they were only the views of individuals in each case. One of the Muslims, for example, had the idea of a team of experts that would meet once in three years in Geneva and make proposals for local and national bodies. Later on (dialogue in 1987 at Kolymbari for Europe and the Near East), a Christian came back to this idea and added a further area of activities for a mixed commission of this kind: discussion of the frequent misunder-

78

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

standings and claims. 18 The idea seemed to be more of a Christian concern, because the internal Christian consultation at M o m b a s a in 1979 had already officially made the proposal for a "joint Christian-Muslim commission to monitor and mediate mutual grievances" 19 , but this had not been adopted. Nevertheless, the idea was put forward time and again; the dialogue in 1982 in Colombo also proposed a Joint Standing Committee of the World Council of Churches, R o m a n Catholic Church, World Muslim Congress and other Muslim organisations, which would work out the necessary means for the dialogue, identify and remove obstacles, work for the right education, tackle the question of (social) justice, give human existence its transcendental dimension and keep up with developments in general. The overall aim was naturally better understanding and better cooperation. 2 0 Starting at Colombo, this idea of a Joint Standing Committee was continuously pursued; additional Muslim organisations were approached because the World Muslim Congress, a second level Muslim association and dependent on the World Muslim League since 1964, did not want to be the only partner. Finally, the subunit on dialogue, the Secretariat for non-Christians, World Muslim Congress, World Muslim League (the largest missionary association of the Muslims) and the World Islamic Call Society were prepared to establish such a committee. On October 6th 1986 a meeting to exchange information took place with the Geneva representatives of the World Muslim Congress and the World Muslim League. These meetings of the so-called Christian-Muslim Consultative Committee were then to take place once or twice a year, preferably also with a representative from the Secretariat for non-Christians. There were indeed half-yearly international meetings with the Secretariat for non-Christians, the World Muslim League, World Muslim Congress, World Islamic Call Society and the World Conference on Religion and Peace. However, these remained 'low key' meetings at the Geneva level despite all the hopes of the sub-unit director, Stuart E. Brown. On the contrary, these meetings came to an end again in M a y 1990. 2 1 With regard to the content (starting with the W C C Assembly in 1975 in Nairobi), those Christians and Muslims had prevailed w h o were in favour of linking theological and practical questions in the dialogues and did not want to be restricted to only one area. 22 Christian Conferences for

Reflection

In addition to all the Christian/Muslim dialogues there were also internal Christian conferences for reflection such as the very large scale one at M o m b a s a in 1979 and an internal follow up discussion of the frequently mentioned dialogue in Colombo in 1982. The last series of regional

Organisation and Structure

79

dialogues served to draw up the guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue which were finally adopted officially in 1992 and then published as 'Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations'. 23 Continuing

Problems

Overall, however, the Christian/Muslim dialogue of the World Council of Churches was not just constant progress and success. As was the case with the Colombo dialogue in 1982, various setbacks and expressions of criticism pointed to deeper seated, structural problems. At a dialogue on mission in 1976 at Chambesy, the Muslims constantly insisted that the Christians denounce their missionary activities in the past. The Roman Catholic Church, they claimed, had done so, whereas the World Council of Churches had only produced vague statements which had more to do with hope than with facts and obviously had little effect on local congregations. The Secretariat for non-Christians, on the other hand, criticised the World Council on another occasion (Chiang Mai documents, 1977) for shedding too positive a light on the negative historical outcome of encounters with Islam. In 1978 it became necessary for the first time to register that the Muslims' readiness to dialogue had declined or changed. It was more difficult in the Near East than in Europe. Tarek Mitri and Melia Khodr, both from Lebanon, were critical of the course of the dialogues so far on the basis of their experience (Working Group on Dialogue, Casablanca, 1989). The problem of the credibility of the dialogue, they claimed, had still not been solved - some accused the Christians of avoiding theology more and more and others the serious (religiopolitical) problems. Many people could not relate to the dialogue as it had been conducted thus far, particularly the mystical and the militant Muslims, as well as the silent Muslim majority which did not happen to have close contacts with the West or to live there. It was claimed that most Christians in Muslim societies did not set much store by theological dialogue because of their negative experiences, quite apart from the insoluble question of representativity. What was important was spiritual community in everyday life, in cultural, social and political encounters. But that precisely meant one should not approach the points of conflict romantically or in a false spirit of peace making. 24 'Trialogue' - including the Jews One last demand was made at the start of the dialogues and repeated time and again because Middle East politics were so important: a 'trialogue' of Jews, Christians and Muslims. Initially, the three Abrahamitic religions only met around the same table when other religious communities were present as well. Confronted with others in this way, they discovered what they had in common; otherwise the differences were so profound that the time seemed far from ripe for a three-party dialogue. In 1969 at Cartigny,

80

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

the agreement had been reached always to conduct the Christian /Muslim dialogue as if Jews were also present. In any case, it was not to become an obstacle to Christian/Jewish dialogue. At best, the two dialogues were to promote understanding between Jews and Muslims. Precisely the opposite was the case, especially in the initial stages. It took a quarter of a century before the first 'trialogue' was held (in 1993 on the question of Jerusalem), and even then it was almost incapable of making a common statement.25 But the Christian/Muslim dialogue programme in general can point to major progress: conversations were conducted and plans were made with Muslims from many different parts of the world, it was even possible to hold a 'trialogue', and contacts were being maintained to Muslim world organisations. In view of the difficulties in finding suitable partners for the dialogue on both sides, this should not be underestimated. B. Theological Basic

Starting Points Difficulties

From the very beginning - evident in the aide-mémoire of the conference in Zurich in 1970 which evaluated the first multi-religious dialogue, the dialogue had been identifying the differences between the individual religions and even the regions. For this reason, according to the aidemémoire, in the future each particular partner should be approached in a particular way and attempts should be made to have dialogue on local, regional and world levels, even though the real aim was always to serve the unity of humankind. A specific approach to one's partner, as became obvious in the reactions to the Zurich document, naturally also requires a particular view of that partner. There was then talk of the ultimate mystery which is expressed fragmentarily in each case and must be judged in the context of the particular religion. Naturally, it was believed, Christianity provided the criteria to do so. This points to a basic problem which the World Council of Churches, at least, was unable to solve in advance: the relationship between an inter-religious dialogue where the outcome is open, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, one's own Christian conviction which also comprises an image of the others. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church here says clearly and self-confidently that dialogue would be superfluous if everyone were equally right, and can refer to the theological decisions of the second Vatican Council for details, a theological statement by the World Council of Churches on Christian/ Muslim dialogue has repeatedly been demanded and prepared, but has got bogged down in tendencies, isolated statements and practical observations, as this chapter will demonstrate. One thing that happened at one of the meetings to prepare the guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue was significant. The accusation

Theological Starting Points

81

came from the Muslim side that, despite all the experience of dialogue gained, there was still a lack of clear definitions and statements about the goal of dialogue, mission and evangelisation and of a clear recognition of the equal identity and dignity of all the partners in the dialogue. The accusation from the Christian side was that the popular, over-simplified attitude using the slogans that integrism was bad and ecumenism good was a simplification and they were only variations on the same theme: the swallowing up or oppression of a religion. The real opposites were confessionalism or distintegration: "[T]he opposition of fundamentalism is superficiality." 1 The meeting of the W C C Central Committee in Addis Ababa in 1971 can serve as an example of such processes. Assent was given for sensitive dialogue but there was no kind of definition of the relation between Islam and Christianity, only general references to overcoming fanaticism and prejudices. The reactions were a prompt indication of the consequences: they demanded a clear distinction between Christian/Jewish and Christian/Muslim dialogue, but some maintained that by nature no dialogue with Islam was conceivable at all because it was fighting for the final destruction of Christianity, as perhaps Christianity was also doing the other way round. 2 Following the planning meeting at Cartigny in 1976, the DFI director, Stanley J. Samartha, again observed that it would be important finally to clarify the relationship between the Christian/Jewish/Muslim dialogue and the rest of inter-religious dialogue. But all that happened was the striking statement by a Christian participant in the dialogue (youth dialogue at Bossey in 1980), that each religion could abandon its claim to truth and superiority, serve a purpose common to all and, in the process, not only preserve its identity but even strengthen it. At the working meeting with the Secretariat for non-Christians in 1983, the DFI director, John B. Taylor, finally summarised by saying that the task of dialogue had been fulfilled to a very large extent, and even the task of its superior Unit within the WCC (witness) - but there was still considerable unclarity about the theological significance of this involvement in dialogue and up to this point specific guidelines existed only for the Christian/Jewish dialogue.3 Starting in 1986, a series of regional dialogues began which were intended to overcome this deficit and draw up a document 'Ecumenical Considerations in Muslim-Christian Dialogue', dealing with all the specific and important themes of this dialogue. The dialogues also included the one at Kolymbari in 1987 for Europe and the Middle East at which harsh mutual accusations were voiced. Jean-Claude Basset, a Swiss Protestant pastor with experience of the Middle East, also referred to the problems caused by the Muslim dialogue partners and their basic attitude. He pointed out that sometimes an Arabic document looked quite different in a French translation, quite apart from the constant Muslim declarations about religious liberty which

82

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

then only existed in a very modified form, i.e. in fact not at all. As Basset said: "I am no more content with the remarkable Quranic affirmation: la ikraha fi'd-din (Quran 2: 256; there is no constraint in religion) when in fact a Muslim woman may not marry a Christian, a Muslim may not change his religion and in the Arabian peninsula Christians may not practise their faith." 4 Similar criticism of standard Muslim declarations had already been voiced earlier on, e.g. by Archimandrite Georges Khodr from Lebanon at the dialogue in Cartigny in 1969. At that time he had called on the Muslims to take the writings of the New Testament really seriously. T o quote Khodr: "Il ne s'agit plus seulement d'affirmer globalement leur fidélité à l'Evangile, à la véritable interprétation de cet Evangile" 5 . [It is not just a matter of their generally affirming their faithfulness to the Gospel and to the true interpretation of this Gospel.] The Muslim Point of View The Muslims in the dialogues have repeatedly emphasised that not much needs to be improved on their side. Islam, they say, recognises all religions, in fact, and more precisely the prophets behind these religions whom God sent to all nations with the same message. Against this background it is easy to argue in favour of world community. The Muslims would also like to have the special legal and theological status which they, for their part, grant to the Christians in their thinking and their societies. Even such human rights as the equality of all people and freedom of religion and conscience were claimed by a Saudi Arabian minister to be an Islamic invention, almost one and a half thousand years before the UNO. For such self-confidence the presence of Christian missionaries is an affront, because in their eyes it implies that their religion is not superior but inferior, and that their moral principles, from which everybody should learn, are to be rejected. They claim that Islam is tolerant and in favour of peaceful coexistence (again since long before modern democracies), as demonstrated, e.g., by permitting mixed marriages with Christian women. It was mainly external circumstances which had caused Muslims to forget this fact until recently. When one really comes down to practicalities, however, Islam possesses the truth to which everyone else must return, including Jews and Christians. As stated by a Muslim at the dialogue in Hong Kong in 1 9 7 5 : "In any case, to a professed Muslim, such stories in the Qur'an constitute direct Revelations from Allah Himself and consequently their differences in details with the older scriptures are of no consequence to him." 6

Theological Starting Points

83

At the dialogue on mission in Chambesy in 1976, a Muslim took it for granted that he could demand biblical criticism of the Christians and equal recognition for Muslim 'Christology'. After all, Islamic mission, in contrast to Christian mission, was rationally convincing others about so obvious a truth that only fools and the ill-willed could close their minds to it. Islam was modern, had a positive view of the world and humanity (no original sin, no salvation, no irrationalities at all), it was the original religion and religion as such. Even the discipline of comparative religion was an Islamic invention. Finally, it all boils down to one thing: "Islam recognizes all religions as de jure, and then it invites the adherents of these religions to begin the task of criticism."7 The Christians were entitled to submit so little of their own stand or even of criticism of the Muslims in response, that a Christian familiar with Islam and Indonesia came to the bitter conclusion: "Hier wird der Dialog zur Farce." 8 (At this point dialogue becomes a farce.) At the dialogue in Kolymbari, which we have already mentioned, it was possible for a Muslim to speak with amazing frankness about using and undermining the Western secular state and even church schools for Muslim purposes, taking advantage in the process of the assistance of highly placed friends and sympathisers - and he expected understanding and even gratitude from the Christians for this. According to another Muslim at the conference, Muslims could only have recourse to weapons if they were attacked or if the freedom of a nation to decide for itself was limited. If Islam had appeared otherwise, this was because the Christians did not keep their distance from the state and because Christians had a dominant position in the modern world. For Islam, the domination and consequent oppression of other religions - naturally using other terms - is natural, necessary and positive; such dominance is criticised only with reference to the Christians. King Hassan of Morocco, a country which has had no indigenous Christians for centuries and in the most recent past hardly any Jews, praised his people: "Their attachment to the truth has given the Moroccan people a profound spirit for dialogue and a firm faith in human relations, founded on cohabitation and coexistence. They have as well a tolerance for all religions of the Sacred Books and give absolute freedom to all in the performance of their religions.'" Participation in Christian/Muslim dialogues fits into the picture of a tolerant Islam open for conversation - if their partners are really open, in the eyes of a Muslim this can only demonstrate the superiority of Islam. As this survey has shown in a rough temporal sequence, the dialogues were also unable to change anything in this principle laid down by the Koran. On the contrary, even the first invitation to dialogue (Cartigny

84

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

1969) was understood as a confirmation of the Muslims' own standpoint. One of the Muslim participants took it for granted that the discussion would be based on the assumption "that Islam is a divine religion and that M o h a m m e d is a messenger from God" 1 0 . The Lack of a WCC

Standpoint

Theological recognition of Islam by the Christians - that was naturally a misunderstanding. At a preparatory conference in Broumana in 1966, the Protestants, O r t h o d o x and Catholics agreed on their desire for Christian/ Muslim dialogue and on their search for a place for other religions in a historical/eschatological framework, but not on what that place should be. They could not even agree whether the Muslims in fact worshipped the same God as Christians or only an idol. At a similar meeting at the Selly O a k Colleges in Birmingham in 1968, the decision was taken - in the presence of Muslims - not to try to rank other religions in relation to Christianity and to approach religious traditions with respect for the sake of the followers of those religions. Although Islam was considered theologically pre-Christian, nevertheless God was present within it and Muslims were led to God by it. "In this we saw God's preparation of all 'religions' and cultures for fulfilment in an eschatological dimension" 11 . At the Cartigny dialogue in 1969, Archimandrite Georges Khodr dealt in detail with the O r t h o d o x approach to Holy Scripture and the way in which Origen, Irenaeus and the Alexandrinians had had no problems about considering people even before Christ to be inspired. His question to his fellow Christians was only whether this attitude could also be extended to the period after Christ, and thus whether Mohammed's prophesy might be authentic, as certain Roman Catholic theologians had already asked hesitantly. But finally it was felt to be a success that Christian/Muslim dialogues had proved possible and were certainly promising. In the final declaration there was agreement to understand others as they understood themselves or, in a catch phrase, "sympathetic understanding" 1 2 . Statements made by individuals were always more constructive. Christ i a n / M u s l i m dialogue was, for example, considered to be a family matter because it did not matter whether one followed in the footsteps of Jesus Christ or of Abraham. The Chiang Mai conference in 1977, which reflected on inter-religious dialogue, saw this as a possible new approach. A further possibility would be to understand Islam as a judgement on Christianity. In any case, Christians should no longer present M o h a m m e d and the Koran in a negative way, but rather acknowledge the Muslims' respect for Jesus and the Holy Family. For Muslim critics, these approaches were obviously not sufficient. There was a complaint that the concluding document from Chiang Mai was nothing but Christian, packed

Theological Starting Points

85

full with trinitarian and Christological formulations, and lacking any kind of explanation to facilitate the access of Muslims. The Chiang Mai documents also only produced general guidelines for dialogue, although there was an interesting basic supplementary proposal: "It should be recognised by partners in dialogue that any religion or ideology claiming universality, apart from having an understanding of itself, will also have its own interpretations of other religions and ideologies as part of its own self-understanding. Dialogue gives an opportunity for a mutual questioning of the understanding partners have about themselves and others." 13 The reaction to the general dialogue guidelines also confirmed precisely this attitude - why should one not make one's own religious identity absolute and pass judgement on the basis of the superiority of the Gospel? (Example: recognise M o h a m m e d as a prophet but, contrary to the historical sequence, only as a precursor of Christ.) It was also claimed that the conception of 'Christ in other religions' was certainly justified internally. The counterpart to Chiang Mai was the Mombasa conference in 1979 with its specific reflection on the Christian/Muslim dialogue. It was noted that not much progress had been made in theological reflection on Islam. In the course of the conference, one speaker then questioned the value of any theology of religions, arguing that in any case there were no objective criteria for this. A point that was mentioned repeatedly was the experience gained from the encounters that, in fact, God has not left himself without a witness anywhere. But again there was nothing more than declarations of intent concerning a theological evaluation of Muslims and thus also of the Christian/Muslim dialogue. Whenever a clear opinion had been expressed at one of the dialogues, it had come from the second Vatican Council, in other words from the Roman Catholic side. Because of their clarity and openness, such statements from the Catholic side were also always welcomed by the Muslims, and demanded of the World Council of Churches as well but to no avail. The Muslims accused the Protestants, on the other hand, of considering "the figuration of God in Jesus" 1 4 to be a given fact in every discussion. Common Features? Nothing can be more misleading, under certain circumstances, than what one considers - as a Christian or a Muslim - to be basic given common features. Of course, there are common historical roots in both religions, both religions emphasise self-criticism, and all of this also applies to Judaism. Very early on, however, (Cartigny 1969) it was recognised that, although these common features are undoubtedly present, each religion defines them differently, starting from the centre of its own thinking. Although Christians and Muslims believe in the God of Moses and

86

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Abraham, in the Creator, Revealer and Judge, nevertheless the overall picture on each side is very different: "Die Tatsache, daß Christus im Koran zu einem bloßen Propheten reduziert ist, bedeutet darum einen Unterschied, der nicht nur einen Teil, sondern das Ganze berührt. Wenn umgekehrt Christen der Überzeugung sind, daß Gott in Christus ein für allemal gesprochen hat, sind sie unausweichlich zu einem dem Islam fremden Verständnis des Propheten Mohammed genötigt." 15 [The fact that Christ is reduced in the Koran to a mere prophet constitutes a difference which affects not only a part but the whole. If, on the other hand, Christians are convinced that God has spoken once for all in Christ, they are compelled to have an understanding of the Prophet Mohammed which is unavoidably alien to Islam.] After a number of dialogues, John B. Taylor summed up the common features: common creatureliness before God, common responsibility before God's judgement, the human being as God's representative and servant, the struggle for a more just, better world and the struggle in both religions for the youth w h o will be won only if human egoism is surmounted by love and a spirit of sacrifice. Whenever it is a question of cooperation, worldwide tasks and a common example to others, one can recognise the same theology and ecology to a large extent (God as the proprietor of the earth) and the necessity of conversion, even though the one quotes the Bible and the other the Koran as evidence of this. Both religions started, e.g., in a situation of persecution, and they can affirm jointly that God's will is not being fulfilled when people have to flee. Both called for love of one's neighbour and acknowledged equal dignity for all people and the duty of the stronger to care for the weaker. On the other hand, an 'either/or' approach to the question of truth is common to both religions and therefore conflicts are pre-programmed: the claims of the one necessarily exclude those of the other. This attitude is also handed down automatically by both religions which have always had close links with teaching and schools. 16 Fundamental Differences In the course of the Christian/Muslim dialogue, naturally fundamental differences were also found between the two religions. Thus, for example, it became clear that Christians are inclined to resolve conflicts between the modern world and their religion's claim to the truth by the theological inclusion of securalism. Muslim theology, on the other hand, completely rejects secularism and tries to solve such problems on a practical, juridical level. Islam is indeed a religion of the law; it rejects historical criticism as an offence and does not make such clear distinctions between spiritual and temporal, religious and political. This means that Christians and

87

Theological Starting Points

Muslims speak on different levels and it is difficult for them to communicate, indeed, they even arouse mutual suspicion. This becomes repeatedly most evident over the question of the introduction of Islamic law. The Christians are against it and demand one single civil law with the same rights for all. The Muslims, on the other hand, consider that secularism might be a preliminary step to Christianisation, and ridicule the desire of the Christians as being a yearning for a uniform, totalitarian state of the Western type in contrast to a serviceable Islamic state which permits individual freedoms. The problem has arisen time and again: Islam has a concrete conception of the state, whereas Christianity is concerned first and foremost about other issues and sees the state as a separate entity, even though this does not exclude some degree of involvement. Marriage, too, is seen by Islam in a considerably more legal and patriarchal way than Christianity, cf. different marriage prohibitions for women, alimony regulations, and divorce as repudiation by the man or ransom for the woman. In certain regions, as was observed in the regional dialogues, such differences must be spelled out in even greater detail. 17 The decisive difference, which relativises all the common features and reinforces all the differences, however, is and remains the basic attitude of Islam: "Islam considers itself to be the definite universal religion that knew Judaism and Christianity perfectly well and superseded them: it therefore follows that it can learn nothing from Christianity." 18 The History of the 'Guidelines' for the Christian/Muslim

Dialogue

In addition to the dialogues organised directly by the dialogue department of the W C C , there was deliberate encouragement of local dialogues in order to have a broader effect. Here, it was only possible to contribute indirectly and provide assistance. 19 First and foremost among the assistance provided were the dialogue guidelines for the member churches of the World Council of Churches. It had been hoped that such guidelines for Christian/Muslim relations would be produced by the Mombasa conference in 1 9 7 9 . The participants from Great Britain had brought some guidelines with them, but these were more a precise analysis of the situation and the problems than a theological line to follow. More reflection was required. Although the conference did not draw up dialogue guidelines, it did at least make some recommendations to the churches. After revision, these were forwarded for study and action to the churches in August 1 9 8 0 by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. Basically, as is stated there, the dialogue with Muslims should be considered "integral to the theologies and the histories of our respective faiths." 2 0

88

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Christians were also to be open to the renewal movement in Islam and generally seek opportunities for encounter and cooperation with Muslims. As concrete preparation for conversations, a review of the dialogues so far was recommended, together with a reading of the corresponding Catholic guidelines for dialogue. Study centres were to receive more support and educational efforts made in general. Dialogue conferences were to be planned from the local to the international level and young people were also really to be invited. On the practical side, the churches were particularly to take up the problem of mixed marriages. Moreover, human rights were a special concern of the World Council of Churches, initially in the form of an exchange of information about whether or not they were being observed. Both Christians and Muslims were to make every effort, namely with consultations and cooperation, to resolve conflicts and create a more just society. In the theological field, further reflection was required, and concretely the various theological starting points and cultural experiences should be pooled and then fed into a further reflective conference. A series of issues was suggested for Christian/Muslim study groups (to which the Muslim side could add): the role of religious leadership, understanding of theism and agnosticism today, authority of scriptures, traditions and persons, common and different doctrines of God's omnipotence, creation and guidance, grace, eschatology, meaning of suffering, relation between Islamic law and human rights. Theological subjects were to be suggested for the next dialogue jointly organised by Christians and Muslims (but these were not taken up; in Colombo in 1 9 8 2 the issues were finally humanitarian and development programmes). The conference even attempted to produce a code of conduct for mutual witness, although this was expressly to be examined critically. Mission was to be based on long-suffering love which respected the dignity and spiritual wealth of the Muslims and did not write them off as unbelievers. Mutual witness was also considered to comprise being open for enrichment by the other. Diaconal service was not to be used as a means of pressure to make people change their allegiance. The best thing, naturally would be cooperation in aid projects. T h e overall summary by the participants at Mombasa was as follows: "At the end of the conference there was a feeling that we worked very hard and had done a reasonably good job but also that we had failed on one important point and that is a deep theological reflection on Islam, on its coming into being, its existence, its challenge to Christianity, its place in God's providence. (...) A long road of reflection and encounter, of dialogue and cooperation between Christians and Muslims is still ahead." 21 This path was followed slowly but steadily. Concrete efforts were devoted to the study 'Ecumenical considerations in (also: for) ChristianMuslim Dialogue'. The aim was to enable Christians from Muslim coun-

Theological Starting Points

89

tries and Muslims on the broadest possible regional basis to express themselves. Five regional dialogues were orgainsed covering the areas of Africa, Middle East, Europe, North America and Southeast Asia. The study was also to examine the theological significance of Islam, in addition to other specific and important issues in the dialogue. 22 The series of regional dialogues was completed in 1989; thus the issues for the next few years had been identified and many qualified people had been consulted. In May 1990, at a meeting of experts with Muslim consultants, the 'Ecumenical Considerations on Christian-Muslim Dialogue (or: Christian-Muslim Relations)' were discussed. A first version was finally produced early in 1991, distributed for comment and submitted to the W C C Executive Committee (Santiago, March 1992). The first part of this document dealt with dialogue in general and also with the Christian/Muslim dialogue so far. Islam as a post-Christian religion, it claimed, had always presented a special challenge, particularly the status of Mohammed as a prophet and of the Koran as revelation. Only the Christians in the East had a longer, practical experience of dialogue, and there it had basically been a matter of contrasting theological, political and economic positions. Islam was felt to be a threat and presented accordingly in a subjective way in the media as well as in Western Islamic science. The second part of the document constitutes a presentation of Islam/Muslims. It emphasises the political, theological, philosophical, juridical and geographical differences, but also the unifying features, especially the Koran as the unsurpassable Word of God. At the end of this description there is a list of common features and differences in Islam and Christianity. It indicates parallels in theology, prophecy, eschatology, in the responsibility of humankind as part of creation, the emphasis on community, in spirituality and the commitment to justice, peace and love of one's neighbour. There had always been differences over Christology (Jesus as the Son of God, his death on the cross and his resurrection) and the Trinity, against which the Koran contains a warning, although in another place (Surah 2,62) it recognises the faith of the Christians as effective for salvation. For most Christians, despite their struggle over the question of religious pluralism, nothing had changed in their attitude to Islam. Only a few had begun to recognise new insights and possibilities. The document did not go into this point in greater detail; instead, the last two sections covered contemporary questions and practical matters. Here, it was mainly a question of political, social and legal issues which needed to be clarified, but also of the problem that both religions were fundamentally missionary and should nevertheless also attempt to respect one another in their mission practice. So in general, as the title conveyed, it was more a matter of stocktaking than of guidelines which might provide a theological basis and direction for the future dialogue of the churches with Muslims. 23 The persons responsible were aware of this:

90

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

"It is not meant to be a WCC policy document but rather a text of orientation offering elements of a broad ecumenical perspective to Christians involved locally in interreligious work. It is also called to constitute a point of reference for the Office on Inter-Religious Relations and serve as a tool for interpretation for the benefit of our Muslim partners in dialogue, as well as detractors." 24 When the Central Committee in August 1992 finally adopted the 'Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations' in a revised version, it also pointed out expressly that these were not guidelines in the true sense. But they offered a good, recommendable analysis of Islam and the Muslims, in addition to seven points for the future. The final version of the document has been only minimally amended but is much more precise. Thus, all the general passages have been deleted from the introduction. Instead, there is a more exact treatment of Christian/Muslim relations with their two dimensions of practice and theology, and of how negative experiences have predominated over positive ones on both levels and contemporary crises could again endanger all previous efforts. The most striking sentence in the introduction states: "We believe that we can no longer speak as if Muslims are not listening; everything we say and do must be in the knowledge that they are partners, whether directly or indirectly."25 In the first chapter as well, the Christian/Muslim dialogue is seen in the forefront of dialogue in general. It was added that the Muslims, for their part, also had a negative picture of Christianity and considered that a permanent crusade was underway. Interestingly enough, the few amendments also included the increase in the number of Christians who had revised their opinions from 'few' to 'many'. Similarly, criticisms that had been raised against the dialogue were balanced, among other things, by setting them parallel to the exactly opposite Muslim reservations. Thus, the accusation of naive romanticism which ignores the dangers of Islamic fanaticism is set against the accusation of neo-imperialism and intellectual colonialism and they balance one another out - without attempting an objective evaluation. Although some practical points were removed in order to shorten it, the description of Islam is closer to the Muslims' own understanding of and witness to themselves. This is because the central points about the understanding of God and its consequences and about prophecy are presented in a more comprehensive way. Among the points of agreement unfortunately eschatology has been left out, but on the other hand the differences are presented much more clearly, e.g. the Trinity which Muslims consider to be tri-theism, and God's final revelation in Christ or in the Koran. Without painting too favourable a picture, it is now stated that, for the Muslims, the Christian position is always the worse. For

Specific Theological Issues

91

them to be Muslims is better, as all the major biblical characters were from Adam to Jesus. It is also extremely difficult for Muslims to see Christians as they see themselves and not as the Koran sees them (even though the latter's statements may have applied more to Arabian polytheists and pseudo-Christian sects). The formulation "many Muslims hold that Christians altered their scripture in order to justify Trinitarian doctrine and Jesus' divine Sonship" 26 is an underestimate only with reference to the quantity. The selection of contemporary issues has been increased and more clearly categorised, and it is stated directly that it is a selection. But among the more theological subjects mission is again the only one quoted. Nothing essentially different is mentioned; there is only an affirmation that Christians must stick to a right understanding of mission and, above all, to diaconal service which had been particularly attacked by Muslims. The claim has also been included that peace is the central element in Islam and Christianity, reinforced this time by the statement that prayers for God's peace comprise the core of Christian spirituality. The mutual exchange in dialogue (last sentence) is supplemented by mutual changes, but the enrichment of humankind, to which all of this is to lead, has been somewhat relativised instead. The following formulation is also new: "In the process each gains new insights about the God whom they worship and discovers fresh resources which help them become more humane, more sensitive to the needs of others and more obedient to God's will for all creation, thus fulfilling the purpose for which God has created humankind."27 Nevertheless, all of this does not comprise guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue nor a theological clarification of the Christian position in relation to Islam. That is still lacking on the WCC side. C. Specific Theological

Issues

When the World Council of Churches invites Muslims to a dialogue, there will be theological questions on the agenda - that is what one would assume. And this was the case, but nothing like as much as one would have believed. And yet there is certainly no shortage of theological issues for a dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Understanding

of Revelation

and

Scripture

In the very first official dialogue (Cartigny 1969), attention was also given to the issue of the Word of God and Holy Scripture. The Muslim speaker made it clear that, according to the unequivocal Islamic conviction, the Koran was revealed by God to the Prophet Mohammed word by word and not just its content, passed on by the latter verse by verse and Surah

92

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

by Surah and has been handed down faithfully to the present time. As God's true guidance, the Koran is comprehensible for anyone who understands the Arabic language of that period, and it should not be interpreted or 'used' to serve one's own ends. So everything is very simple and unproblematic. For the Christian co-speaker, Archimandrite Khodr, this constituted a fateful escape into simplistic answers and did not face up to the difficult issues over the question of revelation. He was naturally speaking against the background of Christian theology which has been dealing with the issue for nearly 2000 years on a high dogmatic, epistemological, scientific and also historical level and, depending on the confession, has arrived at such a wealth of answers that they could not all be covered by one address. But one factor that was fundamental for Khodr was that, in revelation, eternity and history, divine speaking and human language are always connected, indeed must be connected, even if the human contribution to this is reduced to nil. Therefore the resulting phenomena are almost inevitably comparable. He saw Christ as the author (not just the bearer) of the divine revelation, parallel to the original heavenly version of the Koran. He also identified other parallels between the omniscience of God in the Koran and the Word of God in Christ which can also never be completely understood by human beings. But he pointed out that the Eastern Oriental churches, in particular, had a much more complex understanding of revelation than the Koran. In their view, God's Spirit has been present in creation since it was created; creation was not able of its own strength to penetrate to God because of sin, but was, as it were, reactivated by revelation. So, humankind was not excluded from but fully involved in the process of revelation: it was no longer possible to distinguish what comes from God and what from humankind. Khodr saw a parallel between this kind of writing and the virgin birth: "L'écrivain sacré met ainsi le Christ au monde comme la Vierge." 1 [Thus, the holy author brings Christ into the world like the Virgin.] The dialogue conference at Broumana in 1972 dealt, inter alia, with revelation in connection with truth and obedience. Again the classical Muslim conception was discussed: in the Koran and (with some limitations) the sunna, God revealed his true guidance (not himself!); this was valid for all time and all places and all people in all fields of life should submit to it. With such an approach, it is possible only to reject secularism, even though at the same conference an Egyptian Muslim spoke in favour of total secularism as the solution for the religio-political problems, because it was only on this level that followers of religions with competing claims to absoluteness could relate to one another in a social context. But neither all Christians and still less all Muslims can agree on this level. With regard to the question of revelation, the agreement reached was that it could be different but not contradictory.2

Specific Theological Issues

93

In 1 9 7 7 in Beirut, among other things, it was again a question of the theological aspects of the relationship between faith, science, technology and the future. Again the question of revelation was raised with the related dimension of history, which naturally also relativised the scientific approaches but which the Muslims had not yet faced up to at all. The question in the discussion was whether history transmitted revelation or was also subject to the judgement of revelation. Some amazing statements were made, but can unfortunately not be more precisely identified, along the lines of neither the Bible nor the Koran being able to contain revelation, because the latter always came to persons and was only imperfectly understood by them. And this then raised the question whether absolute values could exist at all. 3 M a j o r differences between the Christian and Islamic understandings of revelation and scripture became evident. Kenneth Cragg tried to bridge the gap at the internal conference of Mombasa in 1 9 7 9 : every revelation expected a response. This could take a positive or negative form; therefore the answer affected the revealer and emphasised the importance of the receiver. So the differences between Islam and Christianity at this point concerned the image of the prophet; in Islam anything of one's own was excluded in order to safeguard the revelation, whereas in Christianity life and revelation were interwoven and life an expression of revelation, even to the point of 'The Word became flesh'. 4 The guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue, at least in their first edition, established that Islam as a post-Christian religion had always been a special challenge to Christianity, particularly the status of the Koran as revelation and of Mohammed as a prophet (which, on the other hand, is the unifying bond for the Muslims). The historical encounters (especially of the Eastern church) had resulted in theologically opposite positions. 5 If one looks at it honestly, a similar conclusion must be reached concerning the dialogue endeavours of the W C C in relation to the question of scripture and revelation.

Conception of God In connection with revelation and scripture, at Cartigny in 1 9 6 9 Christology and the Trinity were also touched on. Despite all the modern discussions and starting points concerning the question of scripture and tradition, according to Georges Khodr, there was still a common, traditional point of departure in Christianity, and the divinity of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity was certainly not disputed: " O n caresserait un rêve nuisible au dialogue en cherchant à donner une valeur historique au mouvement unitarien. On s'embarquerait aussi dans la fantaisie si on tentait de trouver en dehors des quatres évangiles un récit primitif qui aurait été le véritable évangile de Jésus-Christ." 6

94

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

[It would be harbouring a dream harmful to the dialogue if one tried to attribute historical value to the Unitarian movement. It would also be a sally of the imagination if one attempted to look beyond the four Gospels for an original account which supposedly constituted the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.] Muslims certainly recognised that the Trinity, the oneness of God, the crucifixion, etc. are controversial issues, but they traced the particular tensions back more to a particular proximity. Basically it was all one faith: "what has been differentiated in history, is in spirit one." 7 This statement at the multi-religious dialogue of Ajaltoun was accompanied by a spontaneous and very personal theological statement which clearly betrays the Shiite background of the speaker, Hasan Askari: "Why I need the Christian - (I am not speaking as a representative of Islam): true Christianity gives me an idea of God which I did not posses (sic!) not the Trinity, but we need God as a suffering God - the Islamic God (...) is justice, but it is not a suffering God. ((Moharram becomes a substitute symbol of Shi'ites to admit the idea of suffering - we will not admit this theologically - I need this concept to live as a human being))"8 This was really a unique statement and it did not encounter any corresponding echo either. The problem of the Trinity was also dealt with briefly at Broumana in 1972; there was openness for this on the Muslim side but also major reservations. The Trinity was considered too emphatic and in any case it divided up the power of God. Hasan Askari, who has already been quoted, had no difficulties about supporting the opinion that there were real believers in all religions and therefore one could be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously. However, the proximity of Christianity and Islam as monothesitic revealed religions became evident particularly at conferences where polytheists were also present (e.g. Hindus). 9 During the dialogue in Chambesy in June 1976, on the other hand, the Muslims were vehemently opposed to seeing God in any way brought into real contact with the human. It was clear to the Muslims in any case that the Christians had distorted their message, and the Christian speaker was even accused of not engaging in biblical criticism. His address had not dealt with the subject - Christology instead of mission (because Bishop Arne Rudvin had said that the gobal concern of mission was the lordship of the crucified and risen Christ as the Son of God). If this were the issue, then the Christology of Islam should be given equal treatment: "No discussion of the Christological question will be beneficial if one Christology is to be raised above the rest and made arbiter of all." 10 At the reflective conference of Chiang Mai in 1977, the theological interest in Jesus (and in revelation/inspiration) was honoured by the

Specific Theological Issues

95

Christian side. But the profound theological differences were also recognised and an attempt made to find a possible new starting point from the side of Christianity (Abraham, Islam as a judgement on Christianity), but without taking any final decisions. The accusation was promptly voiced on the Muslim side that the Chiang Mai documents were completely Christian and packed full of Christological and trinitarian formulae without any commentary. It was inevitable for such things to call forth Muslim self-defence (just as expressions about absolute monotheism caused reactions among Christians). 11 At the Beirut dialogue in 1977, the Muslims were more open as far as the role of Christ was concerned - naturally with the limitation that the emphasis should not lie on the Christian doctrinal formulations and that Christ and the cross should rather be understood symbolically. 12 Similarly to what had happened in connection with the understanding of revelation, in 1979 in Mombasa Kenneth Cragg also took up the offensive concept for Muslims of the suffering God. He said one could not consider idol worship a reality, as Islam indeed does, without at the same time believing in God's yearning and his suffering because of such idol worship. Therefore Christology and thus also Christianity expressed the logic of all monotheism. In Christ, God's relationship with humankind became visible in the sin of idol worship as well. The pre-existent Christ meant that God had always been as we had experienced him through the historical Christ. The exalted Christ was a chiffre for the fact that this love is final. The event is expressed in words, and thus conveyed to the human beings whom it concerns, by the Holy Spirit. Nothing of Bishop Kenneth Cragg's ideas got as far as the official statement. The Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches at its meeting in 1980 only wrote in the proposals for future guidelines on the Christian/Muslim dialogue: "an obedience in Abrahamic faith to be better servants of the God Whom we worship in the societies we share" 13 . That was an amazing statement because originally there had been no agreement about whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God (cf. Chapter B). It was certainly a rapprochement to the theological position of the Muslims for whom Abraham was naturally a Muslim. But here, one must always recall the limitations because such statements do not have to be accepted by all the churches and groups within the World Council of Churches. In Porto Novo at a regional Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1986, a speaker commented that the core of Islam was that there was no God besides God and that of Christianity that God is love. In 1987 at Kolymbari there was a further attempt, this time from an Orthodox and especially Catholic background, to justify the Christian recognition of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Juliette Haddad from Beirut quoted Pope John Paul II and what he had said on his visit to Casablanca in 1985, where

96

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

he spoke a lot about the mystery of God in reference to Jesus, about the community as a son and other specifically Christian experiences. The existing doctrinal differences were very skilfully absorbed into the mystery that God would still have to reveal to both religions. Juliette Haddad's own attempt to explain Jesus as the Son of God also sounded very spiritual: whether the new position of Muslim women in the modern world might not also finally produce a new, more spiritual relationship of parentship, so that the fatherhood of God would not only be connected with the idea that God must then have a wife. However, this was followed by the additional statement that there was absolutely no logical connection between social developments and religious insights. 14 The basic problem had already been made very clear in New Windsor in 1988 by an address dealing with how religions could understand one another. The speaker, who described herself as certainly not conservative, went into a lot of detail about the view that common human experience also leads to a common image of God, so that the differences were only cultural; thus it was possible to compare the standing of the Koran, for example, with the standing of Christ. But this view that basically everyone believes the same thing was undermined by mutually exclusive claims to truth and by the great danger of syncretism. Despite all that Christians held in common with Islam, one reached a point where religious experiences really were different and no theological discussion could or should try to cover this up: "At a certain point it may be necessary to retreat into the complacency of simply preferring the revelation of our own tradition." 1 5 The progress made on one particular question has then finally to be sacrificed in order to preserve one's own identity. In a greeting on behalf of the guests from other religions to the W C C Assembly in Canberra in 1991, the core of the Muslim conception of God shone through in unusually expressive language and reasoning: if each religion had its own gods, different from the God of monotheist religion, then one would be admitting polytheism and making an absurdity of one's own monotheism. The following formulation is significant: "that to believe that others have their own gods is un-Christian for it amounts to belief in the existence of more than one God." 1 6 Such clarity and directness was lacking on the Christian side. At the conference in Baar in 1990, for example, the opinion was once again put forward that it was necessary to develop vague comparative categories for religions so that interpretation would become possible. These should include the category of divine expression in a historical person which changed history at points of religious concern. Then it would be possible to compare the historical Christ with Mohammed. 1 7 The dialogue guidelines, initially in their first edition, made it clear yet again that Islam (e.g. in Surah 2,62) recognised the faith of Christians as effective for salvation, but still warned people against Christology and the

Specific Theological Issues

97

Trinity, because these destroyed the unity and transcendence of God. In the revised version, 'Issues in Christian-Muslim Relations', it was finally emphasised again that many Muslims believed the Christians had changed their scriptures in order to justify the Trinity and Jesus' divine sonship, because God does not conceive children (even if the Koran with its defensive statements was aimed perhaps more against Arabian polytheists and pseudo-Christian sects). Muslims often simply understood the Trinity as tri-theism. 18 This description of the problem expresses the typical difficulties of Islam as a post-Christian religion whose proximity to and 'knowledge' of Christianity tends more to complicate than to facilitate the theological dialogue, and means that the outcome is usually determined in advance from the Muslim point of view. It therefore appears only logical that rapprochement over the question of the image of God was not possible. Understanding of Salvation At the dialogue in Cartigny in 1969 the group discussions on the understanding of salvation were very matter of fact. The Muslim speaker established a link with history: history started with creation, and for human beings creation meant liberation from non-being and re-creation liberation from mortality. Since the Prophet Mohammed is to explain God's creation to humankind, he is simultaneously the one who leads us to freedom and eternity. The speaker considered it appropriate to apply 'in the image of God' from the Bible to him; he was the new, perfect human being. The important thing now for Islam was to transform present day reality in line with the truth grasped and to bring about this new human being and indeed the end of history. In the process, according to the speaker, there had, however, been an avoidance of substantial debate with the modern world and its foundations, and people had simply repeated the behaviour of Mohammed. Thus, compared with its brilliant beginnings, Islamic history had become a continuous move backwards, and finally Christianity could not expect much more from an encounter with Islam than the solution of the race problem and wisdom in relation to primitive peoples. This understanding of history is very far removed from Christian salvation history. It experiences God's saving action as revealing and guiding, as liberation for action and responsibility, whereas Christians see God's saving action more in his sharing in suffering and experience it as liberation from sin, guilt and punishment. The two views are opposed to one another but also complement each other - so it makes some sense to seek an approach that comprises both. 19 Conservative Christian circles, however, tended more to demand clear statements that the risen and exalted Christ was the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, and that he had to do with sin that cannot be worked off but only forgiven; that meant drawing a clear theological dividing line from

98

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Islam, which had problems because of its image of God with death on a cross and also with the concept of original sin, as expressed in the general reckonings with 'illogical' Christianity although these were not really related to the understanding of salvation. The issue of 'salvation' as such was not followed up after Cartigny. 20 How profound the contradictions were in practice was demonstrated at the conference in Chambesy in June 1976 which was supposed to be dealing with mission. Bishop Arne Rudvin from Karachi had given a key note speech on Christian mission in which he claimed that individually mission was a matter of saving human beings and globally of the lordship of the crucified and risen Christ as the Son of God which should be recognised by all people. Mission was the transmission of a message, the gospel, the content of which could not be the subject for a discussion or dialogue. His address was subject to vigorous criticism from the Muslim side which presented Christianity as blind belief in irrational arguments, an authoritarian religion using psychological methods for which the fall and original sin constituted, as it were, theological necessities. Islam, on the other hand, knew of no original sin and also no redemption by vicarious suffering on God's part; on the contrary, it had a positive attitude to humankind and the world. 21 This is a good example to show that contradictions in the understanding of God also hinder agreement in other areas. Creation At the dialogue in Beirut in 1977, the question of creation was discussed among other things. On the one hand, the discussion dealt with human responsibility for creation from the Christian point of view, with special emphasis on the rediscovery of the unity of creation in the history of theology. On the other hand, the theological and scientific view of creation was discussed, and here the Christian speaker attempted a synthesis of creation and evolution by presenting creation as a process, on the one side, and arguing, on the other, that there was no evidence against the uniqueness and guidance of this process, quite apart from the special case of human beings who are capable of reflection on and mastery of nature and, indeed, of destroying nature which gave them birth. The weaknesses in this argumentation (purposeful fortuitous process, experimental evidence for historical events) were not taken up at all, however, because for Islam the problem of creation and evolution as such does not exist. For the Muslims, the idea which had just recently become important to the Christians of human cooperation in God's tasks was much more problematical: human beings might exceed their position as God's representatives on earth and compete with God in his creative activity. One cannot really claim there was a theological debate on the issue of creation; the discussion turned very quickly to the question of the image of God. And that

Specific Theological Issues

99

is, after all, the decisive theological question in the Christian/Muslim dialogue, decisive and practically insoluble. 22 At the New Windsor dialogue in 1 9 8 8 , both the Christian and the Muslim speaker appealed for a just economic order with a strikingly similar theological basis in the relationship God - humankind - creation. But the Christian argued concretely from the provisions for the sabbath and jubilee years, including the mistrust of wealth, e.g. in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and from God's preference for the poor. The Muslim, on the other hand, referred concretely to the alms tax. 2 3 Here, again, there was no real theological debate about the question of creation; instead, the discussion again turned to practical issues.

Theology - to a Large Extent a Futile Subject for Dialogue In practice, no dialogue meeting was consistently theological and one cannot claim that there was ever any real progress on the difficult questions related to revelation, monotheism, the Trinity or Christology. As a religion after the time of Christ, Islam itself has incorporated 'defence mechanisms' against central statements of Christian doctrine. This makes a theological dialogue with Muslims particularly difficult and sometimes also frustrating. A real rapprochement is not to be expected. In such a situation it already means a lot if the one can see the other as he/she sees him/herself, can understand this to some extent and perhaps even benefit him/herself from the exchange on the spiritual level. Finally, as became clear in the theological discussions, what is at stake here is really the innermost core of each religion and, in the last resort, Islam should be able to remain Islam and Christianity Christianity. Whereas the Christians also tended to demand a theological dialogue 24 , the Muslims did not really want to talk about purely theological questions; they insisted more on the link with practical and especially political questions, which were obviously more important for them and did not immediately entail discussing one's own identity. On a number of occasions the opinion was also voiced that everyone believed in the same God and therefore more or less the same things, so one could move straight on to practical matters: "There are not many differences between Christians and Muslims when we go to the root of our respective religions. Whatever they are, they are not so serious that we have to quarrel about them. We are occupied with more urgent problems which confront the contemporary world" 25 . The R o m a n Catholic Church also had comparable experiences in its dialogues with the Muslims: "[W]e have noticed that the concerns of the representatives of Islam tend to stop at meetings and contacts, seeking to avoid theological questions as such." 2 6

100

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

D. Fragile

Confidence

"Die beiden Religionen können heute überhaupt nicht wirklich aufeinander hören. Die Dialog muß die Offenheit dafür wieder herbeiführen. Dieses gegenseitige Vertrauen ist vor allem notwendig"1. [The two religions are not really able to listen to one another today. Dialogue must create the openness for this again. There is a special need for such mutual confidence.] Difficult Situation at the Start That summary of the first official Christian/Muslim dialogue at Cartigny in 1969 reflects the whole problem of the enterprise: it is burdened by a history of encounters and experiences which have led to mutual reservations and mistrust on both sides. Since at the beginning the dialogue was a Christian initiative, initially the reservations of the Muslims were still clearly evident. However, it became clear that, on the Christian side as well, the initial situation was not always unproblematical. Nevertheless, it can already be considered positive if people are able to name their own reservations openly in dialogue. But the greatest reservations are to be found among those who want to have no part in dialogue. One example is the statement by a Lebanese professor at the multi-religious dialogue in Ajaltoun in 1970: "[M]y students s (sic!) say 'you are wasting your time taking part in dialogue instead of taking a gun and going South to protect our border'." 2 Regional

Factors

Even if a Christian assumed that both religions believed in the same God, an examination of empirical factors would lead him/her to the conclusion that this did not in any way affect the ordinary human relations between Muslims and Christians. Both linked religion with a particular civilisation, Islam still more closely than Christianity. The strict segregation of spheres of life obviously started during one's education and had so much influence that even friendships between Christians and Muslims were difficult - for example in West Africa. As far as the Philippines were concerned, despite all the concessions made by the state, the Muslims still felt that their religious concerns were being suppressed and that they also continued to be the most despised group within the national population. In the region of the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, according to a speaker at a regional dialogue, there had often been violent and even belligerent conflicts in the course of history between tribes which had converted to Islam, on the one side, and European Christians and tribes which had converted to Christianity, on the other. Economic, political and religious interests had often been intermingled in this, and the former had been important especially to the

Fragile Confidence

101

Europeans. For this reason, Islamic movements of many different kinds had usually supported the movements for independence in this region or had at least become lasting sources of political trouble (as in the Philippines). Even in the country with the largest number of Muslims in the world, Indonesia, the Muslims feared for their numerical superiority, and in Malaysia, where the dominant position of the Muslims is anchored in civil rights, they feel at a disadvantage because of the economic power of the non-Muslims in the country. This mistrust can hardly be the product of objective reasons in the present; the roots go down deeper into the history of the region: "It can thus be understood how and why the above series of wars, where the religious motive had played an important part, had left a legacy of hate, suspicion, mistrust and mutual disdain between two communities belonging to the same racial stock and having a common cultural matrix older than Islam and Christianity." 3 Massive Muslim

Accusations

That it is also not so natural for Christians to make approaches to followers of other religions became evident during the preparations for the Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Nairobi in 1975. All possible means were needed in order to make the presence for the first time of guests from other religions at such an internal event plausible. Although no addresses by these guests were planned, their mere presence might meet with the disapproval of some participants. Other occasions made the lack of trust and its consequences much more obvious. At the Chambesy dialogue in June 1 9 7 6 , the intention was to draw up a common code of conduct for mission and to agree on questions of religious liberty, further studies, dialogues and cooperation. None of this was possible because a mutual basis of trust was lacking. The Muslims confronted the Christians with mountains of accusations about their behaviour, and when the Christians pointed out that, in the Middle East, Muslims had also perpetrated a lot of injustice against Christians, the answer given was: "Unless there is real Christian repentance I don't think this conference will be of any avail. But apparently we are faced by forces that do not want to admit the moral wrongs and the mistakes." 4 Similarly direct confrontations took place again at the Colombo dialogue in 1 9 8 2 which had mainly been organised by the Muslims. Again there was a hail storm of Muslim accusations: Christians used programmes of development aid in order to promote proselytism, Westernisation and securalisation. Moreover, the Christians had constantly prevented the Muslims from establishing a state based on Islamic law and

102

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

had thus made them a minority - this had finally to be stopped. And the Christians had at last to express unanimous disapproval of the expulsion of the Palestinians, the occupation of Afghanistan and the persecution of Muslims in the Philippines. Thus it was demonstrated once again that it was still necessary to build up mutual confidence. The Muslim reservations were not always expressed so violently. The question was raised, for example, in reference to the general dialogue guidelines from Chiang Mai in 1 9 7 7 , whether dialogue was really an abandonment of polemics which could in fact appear quite tolerant, even though it finally considered only its own position to be right and did not recognise or value the religious life of the other. It was also considered unclear whether dialogue was a Christian or an inter-religious concept. For a Muslim, at least, the Chiang Mai document appeared to be completely Christian in character (Christology, Trinity) and in this form it automatically provoked defensive reactions. 5 Fear of Islamisation At the reflective conference in 1 9 7 9 at Mombasa the Christian reservations about Islam became clearer. The international political situation had changed: the oil crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran were causing old fears and a crusader mentality to reawaken in the West. At the same time, the situation for a number of churches in the Islamic world was more oppressive than it had ever been since the Armenian massacres. There were reports from the Philippines that men who had married Muslim girls had been castrated and this had led to a spiral of violence. In other countries, like e.g. the host country Kenya, the relationship between Muslims and Christians was good except when it was a matter of a mixed marriage. Indonesian Christians, it was reported, had protested against plans to include Islamic law and a Muslim president in the constitution because they felt that would be discrimination. (Their motive was thus not an egoistic yearning for power and discrimination against the Muslims, as had repeatedly been claimed, but the fear of a minority that it would be marginalised by legal means.) The ancient churches of the Middle East had had precisely such bad experiences. Finally, all that the conference could do was to observe that the issue of Islamic law was important but also extremely difficult, even just on the juridical and social level. It was clearly stated that Christians did not want to return to the status of 'protected people' under Muslim majorities, to limit themselves to their congregational life and leave the concerns of the world to others. For one of the participants at Mombasa, Olaf Schumann from Jakarta, that was still not enough. He believed that Christian restraint would be interpreted by the Muslims as an admission of guilt. One reaction had been, for example, that as a result of accusations 'Christian' medicine taken away from patients but they had not been given any 'Muslim'

Fragile Confidence

103

substitute for it. According to Schumann, there were two parties at Mombasa: the West which was not acutely affected by Islamic law, could be optimistic about the intellectual benefit of the dialogue and had no comprehension for, indeed made accusations against, the second group of those who were already experiencing shart'a or who feared its immediate introduction as state law and (like the enlightened Muslims) had to fear for their lives. This group was very perplexed and pessimistic.6 Problems

of East/West

Communication

In the course of further dialogues, further points of mistrust came to light. For example, that earlier on, when in countries like Lebanon all education was in the hands of missionaries, many Muslims had prevented their children from receiving a better education for religious reasons. Other points came up time and again, like the accusation against the Christians that they resisted the introduction of shart'a and thus made a constructive dialogue impossible. The Kolymbari dialogue for Europe and the Middle East in 1987 offers a wide selection of such reservations: one Muslim himself admitted that the legal and social concerns of the Muslims really challenged the whole Western conception of liberalism and human rights, but he still called upon his brothers in the faith to take advantage of their contacts and continue to exploit the Western secular state for their own purposes. The same man accused Christians in the Middle East of not really being secular but of exploiting their worldly position and their equally worldly contacts to brothers in the faith in order to defend their present position and their possibilities as a religious minority. Another speaker analysed the situation in England and came to the conclusion that some degree of social separation was necessary in order to maintain a particular style of life. But this very separation could, on the other hand, encourage mutual misunderstanding and mistrust. English society, and its most open members in particular, lacked the ability to grasp and define the full depth and otherness of religious pluralism. It was later pointed out that not every classification was necessarily discrimination, and some people subjectively felt an attack on their religion which objectively did not exist. The very open contribution by the Copt, Marie Assaad, did not fit into this category. She started from history when the Copts asked the Muslims for help in a religious dispute with the Byzantines and found themselves at the end as second class citizens in their own country. She then listed the de facto discriminatory provisions of this status of 'protected people', including the fact that many of those affected are not aware of their rights, and that no one can or will give binding answers about other legal regulations (Islamic penal law, prohibition for Christians to exercise certain professions?). This sort of thing, she said, nourishes suspicion, as do reports about attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on churches and priests in Lebanon and Iran. The Christians in Egypt

104

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

also theoretically had a proportional right to places at the universities and in the administration, but according to their subjective estimate they were never granted their fair share. It was not possible to clarify such important questions as religious liberty and the legal equality of non-Muslims - a quite decisive point in the mutual struggle for trust. Apparently the Muslims themselves do not have a uniform opinion on this point. At the conference it was agreed that Christians and Muslims in the Middle East have a different status which sets limits to their communication from the very beginning. It is superficial and at times of crisis there is not enough trust to maintain it. In 1987 at Kolymbari there were addresses specifically on the question of 'The Role of Believers in Promoting Mutual Trust and Community', but their outcome was rather depressing. The way in which Islamic penal law was being applied at the time was really problematical, and the situation as a whole was bleak. Although there were more Muslims in the West than ever before, Islam as a religion was understood less than ever before. All that people heard about were the political problems and the negative aspects, an injustice which had been perpetrated more or less ever since the time of the crusades. Both religions issued calls for (missionary) encounters, but this had not exactly created confidence. In order to build confidence one should not have plans for one another, however well-meaning. Over this point the Muslim speaker mistrusted Christian mission and also dialogue because he could not see a clear distinction f r o m mission. Moreover, the dialogue was too theological - it touched immediately on one's identity and made the establishment of trust impossible. A Christian speaker, w h o had first pointed to differences in the Arabic and French versions of a document, finally suggested the test of credibility was the relations between the majority and the minority, the implementation of the resolutions of Chambesy (right to mission; aid projects are not proselytism) and the reality of religious liberty. Even among the Muslims, w h o always presented themselves in a very positive light, he considered that many things were not in order. Some of the Muslim complaints about the Christians were really very close to an 'own goal': "The problem with Western media is that they put all the Muslims into one basket; e.g. on French TV during peak hour pictures have appeared showing a priest covered in blood, killed by a Muslim." 7 Constant

Anxieties

When looking back at the meeting of the working group on dialogue in 1989 at Casablanca, Tarek Mitri had to observe that the problem of the credibility of the dialogue had still not yet been solved. One person would accuse the Christians of avoiding theology and another of avoiding the

Fragile Confidence

105

serious political or religio-political problems. However, the majority of the Muslims like the majority of the Christians in Muslim societies (the latter because of many unpleasant experiences of this kind) did not want a theological dialogue at all; interest in this was only to be found among a minority of Muslims resident in the West, probably as a consequence of their different context. The suspicion that dialogue is a new form of mission/evangelisation is as old as it is durable. 8 Basically, the causes of the distrust on both sides are always more or less the same, indeed they are even similar to one another. The Muslims are afraid of being secretly evangelised by the Christians. Old fears dating from the times of the crusades and the colonial period surface again here. Behind every Western influence, and according to the Muslim understanding this includes all secular tendencies and usually also democracy in its Western form, they sense an attack on Islam. The Christians, for their part, feel threatened by Islamic law which does not make a proper distinction between state and religion and makes non-Muslims secondclass citizens. Here, too, old fears play their part: the memories of the belligerent expansion of Islam in the first century of the Islamic era, which e.g. almost completely destroyed the ancient churches in North Africa. In other ways, too, the history of Oriental Christianity is rich in experiences of religio-juridical discrimination and the permanent pressure to convert in order to improve one's own situation - usually without the resources to resist appropriately. Depending on who is in the majority, the one fear or the other predominates in different regions. Overall, as became evident, the distrust of the Muslims was expressed first, and then, after the religious upsurge and the economic and political strengthening of Islam, there was also more distrust among the Christians. The hope for greater mutual confidence in regions with a high proportion of mixed marriages proved to be deceptive. The relationship between Christianity and Islam is no better there than elsewhere, and mixed marriages have their own problems (cf. Chapter J). Mutual fears are also particularly marked because, precisely in cases of conflict, reconciliatory language is used for speaking to the world outside but a harsh approach is adopted inside. Thus each suspects the other of having a "hidden agenda" 9 and the mistrust is mutual. The published guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue were also understood expressly also as a point of reference for the Muslims, whether they are supporters or critics of the dialogue. They state honestly that, on both sides, in practice and in theology, negative experiences of the other party have obscured the positive ones and that each side has a negative image of the other. The superiority stance of Islam is well presented and the problem of naive romanticism, which ignores the dangers of Islamic fanaticism, is expressed, as is also the opposite reproach of a permanent crusade in the form of neo-imperialism and intellectual colonialism. There-

106

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

fore, despite the brevity, the mutual mistrust is not obscured or ignored. At the same time, an attempt is made to counteract it with binding statements. 10 Aims of the Dialogue The main aim is the gradual development of "mutual trust and confidence" 1 1 , as the otherwise difficult dialogue conference at Colombo in 1982 expressed it. On a regional level, mention had already been made of the practical building up of common states and societies, that is of a regional community (Hong Kong 1975). At the conference for internal reflection in 1979 at Mombasa, there was also reference to equal rights for all citizens as a conceptual aim, but this was rejected by others as illusory. In 1989 in Casablanca at the working group on dialogue Tarek Mitri, as a Lebanese, mentioned working for the goal of spiritual community in the everyday aspects of life together. 12 Ways to Trust One way towards trust is dialogue with one another, often limited, however, to a group of people who bring reason, tolerance and a love of peace with them, and who witness to their own religion without thinking they must be constantly fending off the others in the process. It was the Muslims who frequently demanded that the Christians make a clear distinction between dialogue, mission and evangelisation, in fact that they abandon missionary activities completely. This resulted among the Christians in rules for behaviour for mission and social service, a call for restraint in missionary activities and reflection on whether mission should not be defined anew. For their part, the Muslims were of the opinion that the Koranic conception of 'mission' could in any case not be improved and should at most be really implemented, and the Christians should not constantly, e.g. - and this was a very important point - prevent the introduction of Islamic law, indeed, for the sake of their credibility they ought even to encourage it. There was agreement that education for dialogue and mutual understanding should begin as early as possible. Upbringing, schools, education and further training had an important role here and should be supported. Written documents which provided objective information about the other religion and its own image of itself were of special significance and could help to reduce prejudice. Whether the conscious use of ambiguity could be helpful remained a moot point. Nevertheless, the dangers of misunderstanding seemed to be less great in the case of divisive factors compared with uniting ones. A very practical proposal was a comparative dictionary of terms in order to facilitate communication. On the Muslim side there were juridical considerations about how one could, on a Koranic basis, go beyond the model of three closed communities of which two only had a protected status. It was

Fragile Confidence

107

considered that the contract which Mohammed had made with the inhabitants of Medina (especially Jews) might perhaps suggest the basis for an equal relationship. In general, the Muslims believed that, in order to promote trust, it was better to concentrate initially on practical issues and set theology aside. Cooperation was often easier than dialogue. Both sides endeavoured in their own way to create the basis for a relationship of trust without abandoning the ground of their own faith. On the World Council of Churches' side, the dialogue activities as such with their organisational, staffing and financial substructure were evidence of this; from the very beginning (cf. Chapter A) they had repeatedly constituted an attempt also to deal with current crises. 13 A number of the conferences had produced long lists of proposals for behaviour which could improve trust between Christians and Muslims. At Hong Kong in 1975, for example, it was not only suggested that all social activities should fundamentally be discussed jointly and always benefit everyone, but also that, even in confessional schools, children of other religions should receive instruction in their own religion so that the susceptibility of children would not be exploited. But the agreement finally reached after the debates in Colombo in 1982 was more realistic: permanent contact, exchange of information, participation of both sides at all stages of the dialogue, and development of mechanisms for solutions when trust was undermined or broken. The summary of Kolymbari in 1987 was unrealistic, however, when it listed among the pillars supporting confidence: training of spiritual leaders, abolition of all forms of violence including television propaganda, positive action in the media instead, defence of the rights of Muslims in Europe and of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East, without forgetting the majorities were reversed in particular situations. 14 The guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue themselves do, in fact, constitute a milestone on the way to mutual confidence, simply because, as was already mentioned, they constitute a reliable point of reference for the Muslims, whether or not they agree with them. These guidelines point out, for example, that diaconal service for poor Muslims is always suspected of proselytism, but that they would nevertheless like it to continue as a witness which has an integrity of its own. 15 And not every proposal made by the Muslims, the realisation of which they think would create more trust in Christians, has the same effect the other way round. The most obvious example of this is the problem of introducing Islamic law as national law. The Situation today The very existence of Christian/Muslim dialogue in general is evidence that there is a certain degree of trust. It is possible to speak together and one can even imagine that perhaps one day one could pray together (cf.

108

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Broumana 1972). In any case, it is possible to complain about one's partner in the dialogue and the other's real or alleged destructive behaviour. The Muslims, in particular, as has been described, took full advantage of certain dialogues to this end. It is rare, on the other hand, to find praise of the efforts made by Christians. Indeed, it was extremely unusual that, at the dialogue in Tanzania in 1989, the Christian school system was even praised twice: for transmitting knowledge about Islam and for always having been better than Muslim schools. 16 Stuart E. Brown, the Islam expert in the sub-unit for dialogue, shortly after he took office, summarised the situation in 1984 by saying that, in a number of areas such as Western Europe (especially Great Britain), Southeast Asia and English- speaking Africa, an appropriately sensitive majority had won the confidence and cooperation of the minority. Other countries such as Norway, Greece, Pakistan and certain countries of North Africa were on the way there. Members of the majority in each case had provided the impetus for this and now the World Council of Churches should procede with special discretion and care. That situation was different from India, Sri Lanka, Singapore or many of the Communist countries, where both Christians and Muslims were in a minority and had therefore always maintained good contacts and, where they shared common interests, also cooperated. In some countries there was simply a lack of Muslims (here Stuart E. Brown referred to Japan, Iceland, South America), whereas in others there were no Christians for such activities, as in Mauritania, Somalia or on the Arabian peninsula. In still other countries, political pressures were an obstacle to such contacts, e.g. in China, South Africa, Ethiopia or Iran. 17 Finally, the greeting by the Muslim, Is-Haq Oloyede, from Nigeria to the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra, which took place in 1991 during the Gulf War, shows how fragile, slow growing and sensitive the plant of trust is. Is-Haq Oloyede described his own experiences of dialogue and how mistrust had slowly been overcome through personal encounters. There was tangible progress. In view of the Gulf War he feared for the trust built up with difficulty: "If the Gulf war were to degenerate into a Jihad/crusade, it would 'devastate our dialogue efforts (...)'(...).(...) That would 'constitute a great obstacle to the Spirit of Unity's efforts in reconciling his people (...)"' 18 . In such critical situations it is good to recall a sentence that had already been spoken in 1970 at the Ajaltoun conference: "For a Muslim, and I am speaking here not of my personal feelings only but of those of many whom I know, it gives us extra pleasure and confidence when our Western Christian brethren talk to us and about us in the spirit of truth." 19

Common Prayer?

109

In the end, not even the Gulf War was able to put a stop to the Christian/ Muslim dialogue. On the contrary, the peace negotiations which followed the war also helped the dialogue to make progress (cf. Chapter A). E. Common

Prayerf

Practical "Consent" despite Theological

Reservations

Within the wide range of spirituality, one question arose even before Christian/Muslim dialogues had started: common prayer or common worship. As early on as the internal Christian conference on Christian/ Muslim dialogue in 1966 at Broumana, the question of common prayer had been left open. The Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox participants had not been able to agree whether the Muslims really worshipped the same God as the Christians or only an idol. At the small dialogue with Muslims at Selly Oak in 1968, there was an awareness that this question was still strongly disputed among Christians and Muslims and that people were quick to make accusations of syncretism. Nevertheless, the question was a small point of emphasis and the participants risked going a long way towards it. The conceivable consequences of joint dialogue mentioned included: "shared prayers of intercession and petition, and even (...) carefully conceived acts of worship, emphasizing, for example, confession and adoration" 1 . Other dialogues also brought surprising rapprochement on this point. A dialogue in 1968 in Birmingham produced the stimulus for dialogue initiatives between Christian and Muslim students which culminated in invitations to the Islamic cultural centre and the mosque. John B. Taylor reported on this to the multi-religious dialogue conference of Ajaltoun in 1970 and emphasised that devotion to God was important for creating a readiness for mutual penitence and forgiveness, as well as an attitude of expectancy before God when doing something together and participating mutually in worship. In Birmingham, consideration had indeed been given to the question of whether there was enough prayer for and with one another, and joint services in the 'People to People Week' had evidently already become a tradition there. One of the days in Ajaltoun was devoted specifically to dialogue and spiritual practice. The Christian speaker, Kenneth Cragg, also dealt in his address in detail with the problem of inter-religious prayer and interreligious worship. For Bishop Kenneth Cragg himself, as a scholar and sensitive interpreter of the Islamic faith, spirituality was of special importance for the dialogue, because two souls which recognised the truth would also thus develop love for one another. Nevertheless, he also acknowledged that, according to the principle " L e x orandi lex credendi'"1, dogmatic sensitivities are also greatest in this realm, even though in his

110

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

view spirituality should be the touchstone for dogmatic formulation and not vice versa. But, in order for dialogue not to be meaninglesss for the majority and thus generally pointless, one should vicariously feel for the congregations - the feeling "of compromise or 'contrivedness' which attaches to acts of inter-religious prayer and worship" 3 . Cragg recommended patient, self-critical action, although he was unable to provide the basis or aim for this. To quote him: "There are situations in faith and the spirit where we can sometimes only see the way in, but not the way through, where we have a mandate of heart to initiate but not a clear perspective about the goal or the consequences. There can be a suspension of judgement without a suspension of action." 4 Questions about the final truth which remained unanswered, according to Kenneth Cragg, were easier to bear in common worship than in a theological dialogue - provided that one has found a common basis for the service. This was the reason for the fear frequently voiced that spirituality might make the dialogue superfluous and therefore spirituality must always remain within the framework of dialogue and its tasks. Nevertheless, of course, the language of piety could also be very offensive in a dialogue with Islam, e.g. the Our Father or the petition for the sanctification of the Name which runs counter to Islamic conceptions of the greatness of God. Kenneth Cragg's answer to all these difficulties was the conscious use of ambivalent words and gestures in order to reach new dimensions of truth and life, despite all the possible misunderstandings and dogmatic reservations. Kenneth Cragg was also able to see this as a necessary new interpretation within one's own faith even though not within one's own community of faith. Naturally, it also implied " a suspension of some at least of the normal demands and requirements of our orthodoxy" 5 . One help in this difficult undertaking might be the reference to humankind and the world which was found in each spirituality although with different interpretations. This would be a way of coming to a closer understanding of the wording of the prayers of the other side. The questions raised by secularism and common present day history were also seen by Kenneth Cragg as helpful: "It has to be possible to find forms of words and of worship in all such situations of mutual responsibility, to commend ourselves to wisdom higher than our own, to patience surer than ours, to zeal beyond our sustaining."6 Finally, Kenneth Cragg repeated time and again almost like a refrain that we should perhaps not ask ourselves whether and how we can pray together, but why and how we reject it or, indeed, believe we must reject it. Particularly over the question of ambivalent terms, however, Kenneth

Common Prayer?

Ill

Cragg encountered Muslim objections - the same words for different contents would not help anyone to progress but only lead to mutual distrust. Then the Muslim speaker on the subject also put forward the opinion that common religiosity meant recognition of otherness, but he was generally far removed from such concrete issues as common prayer. On the other hand, at Ajaltoun the same Muslim had the least difficulties about common prayer on the practical level and was quite unable to understand why it had not been planned by the organisers (there were only opportunities for each to attend the prayers and services of the others). Therefore the Muslim summary of Ajaltoun also emphasised that the profound clefts between the religions were surrounded (not outmanoeuvred) by the living experience of God in the encounter and especially in mutual participation in worship, or, more exactly, in the experience of being small before God. Thus one Muslim was able to say: "[W]hether a Muslim would say 'Amen' after a Christian prayer mentioning Sonship of Christ, was not the question; what we really became aware of was our common human situation before God and in God." 7 "It is one thing to differ in abstract, and another thing to become aware of this difference in a symbolic medium . In the case of the former it is difference without feeling God's presence; in the latter case, it is a feeling of difference with God's presence all in and around. Hence, I tend to feel that dialogue through concepts is different from dialogue through symbols. (...) We, in Beirut, have experienced a new opening, and wait upon God for his guidance and Grace." 8 Among the points that had been important to all the Ajaltoun conference participants, worship was included - in whatever form. It was important to demonstrate that true religion was more than a philosophical or theological construct. However, at the internal Christian evaluation conference in Zurich this was felt to be a rather difficult matter because the danger of syncretism was also particularly great at this point. Therefore, the final document from Zurich called for a more careful study of the question, and also made a strict distinction between participating in the worship of another religion and worship organised together; it ruled out the latter for the time being. 9 At the Christian/Muslim dialogue of Broumana in 1972, the conclusion was reached that revelation could be different but not contradictory. However, the question whether common prayer was thus possible, without explicitly establishing which these differences were, was set aside as too delicate. Finally, the participants in both camps had already had such major disagreement over this issue at the purely practical level, that the conference was in danger of breaking down over the spiritual question even before it had really begun. But then agreement was reached on the maximum solution of common devotions, and amazingly these were also

112

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

well attended, even by the original critics. In the memorandum (which was, however, neither binding nor representative), the possibility was left open for Christians and Muslims to expand their mutual understanding and trust to include prayer. After the event, a number of participants had been profoundly moved by the joint intercession or even went on to consider the joint use of parish and worship premises. 10 For the multi-religious dialogue in Colombo in 1974, the realm of meditation and prayer was then taken up more deliberately. Each morning there was to be meditation alone or in a group, as desired, using material from the various religions selected by the followers of those religions. The Christian part included New Testament texts and meditative reflection and prayers from the whole of church history down to the present, although - probably because of the person who made the selection - these were mainly Catholic with few Orthodox and no Protestant texts. The Islamic part consisted of Suras from the Koran, more instructive contributions and only one free prayer. The concrete proposals in the memorandum from Colombo included the demand for more precise reflection on the extent to which and the conditions under which others could join in prayer and worship in each case. 11 At the regional Christian/Muslim dialogue of Legon in 1974, the request was even made for Christians and Muslims to share their inner and outer resources instead of playing them off against one another, and that they should pray together for the welfare of all. At the Hong Kong dialogue of 1975, a speaker from Malaysia mentioned that it was customary there to visit and congratulate one another at religious festivals, and in this context Muslim students had also sometimes joined in singing Christmas carols. 12 The Low Point at Nairobi The Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Nairobi in 1975 placed the biggest damper on spirituality in the inter-religious dialogue in general. Common prayer with followers of other religions was prohibited anyway, because that would be practical syncretism, an experience somewhere between psychology and transcendence intended to replace the truth. The official expression "[s]haring in spirituality" 13 did not necessarily mean organising joint worship and was much too vague for the theologically conservative critics. Thus, no attention at all was paid to the concrete experience that had been gained so far. Christians and Muslims continued to be cautious over the question of spirituality; they recognised the difficulties but without completely abandoning the matter. At the planning conference of 1976 in Cartigny, appropriate participation in one another's festivals was supported, but otherwise the wording was vague: "Despite hesitations and difficulties, we should be open to learn from each other as we submit our own finite

Common Prayer?

113

faith to God's guidance" 1 4 . The participants at the Chambesy conference (June 1 9 7 6 ) adopted a similar stand. In order to avoid confusion and syncretism, they were prepared to refrain in the future from conducting joint worship activities. But at the same time it was stated: "We may however expect to invoke God's blessing on all we undertake together and to listen to our respective scripture." 15 In the following years common prayer or common worship were no longer a major issue in the Christian/Muslim dialogue and, in general, the reticence of Nairobi seemed still to be having its effect. There was no noteworthy change in this connection until the preparations for the next Assembly in Vancouver or, more precisely, at the multi-religious preparatory dialogue of Mauritius in 1 9 8 3 . Naturally, Muslims also took part in that dialogue and there were, indeed, surprising developments to report: "Mauritius marked a real turning point in dialogue. We found ways to share our worship (...). We created, in microcosm and for one week, the kind of world community we seek." 1 6 But this contributed nothing in practice to the question of prayer and worship in the Christian/Muslim dialogue. In the series of regional dialogues, the issue was touched on only once and even then only in the context of Christian/Muslim mixed marriages which are, in part, widespread in Africa because of the specific religious situation there. In such family communities it is then quite natural to celebrate the various religious festivals together. But these are basically marginal points. Despite the multi-religious day of prayer at Assisi, initiated by the Catholic Church, no progress has been made on the question of common prayer and worship with followers of other religions beyond ascertaining that this constitutes a pastoral concern and clear guidelines are needed for it. The publication on this subject which has appeared in the meantime (July 1 9 9 8 ) , to which the many years of work on various levels by the World Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church have contributed, goes more deeply, on the one hand, into the different aspects of interreligious prayer, but, on the other, it again does not constitute binding guidelines and on the Catholic side it is only minimally reflected at local level. 17 Muslim

Initiative

That the interesting beginnings in the realm of common prayer or joint worship between Christians and Muslims stopped so suddenly in 1 9 7 5 was, on the one hand, certainly a result of the internal problems of the World Council of Churches which had become most evident at the Assembly in Nairobi precisely with regard to this issue. On the other hand, it may also have had to do with the importance that Muslim

114

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

organisations with a more traditional approach had in the dialogue from this time onwards. Earlier on, the Muslim participants had had no difficulty about encouraging common prayer and joint worship. Even at the dialogue in Selly Oak in 1968, among the areas for dialogue in the future which were of interest to the Muslims, common prayer was regularly at the top of the list, followed by mutual participation in worship and assistance with the context for worship. At Cartigny in 1969, deepening and renewing one's own spirituality was also included in the list of aims for Christian/ Muslim dialogue at the suggestion of a Muslim. Mention must also be made of the spectacular statement by Hasan Askari that he, as a Shiite, needed Christianity and its conception of a suffering God for his life (Ajaltoun 1970). However, he made clear that this was his personal view and could not be generalised. More significance can be attributed, on the other hand, to the fact that he could not understand why no common prayer had been planned for Ajaltoun. But, as Hasan Askari again made clear this time as a speaker, for spirituality and prayer it is important that distance be maintained, the difference between one human being and another, and between God and human beings. The typical Muslim scepticism about a mysticism that aims at a great unity beyond all differences was, in any case, more evident in the view of Hasan Askari than in that of the Christian co-speaker, Kenneth Cragg. Mysticism and not spirituality spelt the death of the dialogue. Hasan Askari would never have been able to imagine abandoning faith or truth because of a human being or a human goal, but rather submitting both to God in humility and expecting 'right guidance' from Him. As long as this framework seems to be a reality, common prayer and worship are apparently no major problem for Muslims. At the dialogue in Broumana in 1972, Hasan Askari had no reservations about supporting the view that there were real believers in all religions and one could therefore be a Muslim and a Christian simultaneously. In order not to rely entirely on quotations from one witness, we can again refer to the Muslim students in Malaysia who join in the singing of Christmas carols. But finally it was Hasan Askari again who criticised the general dialogue guidelines from Chiang Mai in 1977, inter alia also from a spiritual point of view. He was not certain whether these guidelines really constituted an abandonment of polemics, understanding polemics as a dispute which basically did not see or value the religious life of the other and considered its own position in fact to be the only true one. But really each person should concentrate on his/her own witness and not on trying to fend off that of others. Then penitence, silence and meditation could be taken for granted. 18 He had expressed his own opinion on the question of common prayer five years earlier at Broumana in the following words:

Common Prayer?

115

"Even if we insist on praying separately, are our prayers in conflict? Perhaps not. If they are not in conflict, the unity they possess is not that of dogmas but that of faithful and committed persons. And they are praying together, though the form of this is not visible."19 Dwindling Spiritual

Experiences

The subject of spirituality in general reached a climax more at the beginning of the Christian/Muslim dialogue, and again it was mainly because of certain individuals. This has already been made clear to some extent in the discussion of common prayer or worship. But it went further than that. The Christian /Muslim dialogue which took place in Birmingham in 1969 was, above all, a common spiritual experience of the presence of God. For this reason it was also difficult to convey to those outside. At Cartigny in 1969, a Lebanese Muslim demanded spiritual neighbourliness and emphasised precisely that the specificity of each religion should be preserved. In 1970 at Ajaltoun, Georges Khodr made clear that the attitude of the Eastern Church in the realm of spirituality was fundamentally open. Since, according to its understanding, the Holy Spirit could not be entirely tied to the person of Christ but can also work beyond the historical church, non-Christians could naturally also share in the experience of Christ: "[W]e share in the living God and not just in ideas about God - I know Christians who make their spiritual reading in the Qoran - in a profound way these are Christians."20 The consequence for the inter-religious dialogue in general was that, according to the decision of the evaluation conference in Zurich, in order to remain relevant in the future it had to deal with two things: with the struggle for a peaceful and just society and, first and foremost, with the efforts for an authentic inner life and personal fulfilment. At the meeting of the WCC Central Committee in 1971 in Addis Ababa, at which the establishment of a sub-unit for dialogue was decided, Georges Khodr again set out the more open approach of the Orthodox Church with regard to the workings of the Holy Spirit. This, he said, resulted in an attitude of patience and profound peace among Christians, in a mysterious community with all people and a yearning for its eschatological fulfilment. In addition, and he here took up another ancient idea, it could be an enrichment for Christians to read the scriptures of other religions christologically as well as the Old Testament. One should, according to Khodr, penetrate through to the religious personalities and link up with their ideas, expecting to benefit in general from an encounter in dialogue, not only for one's knowledge but also spiritually. This required a humility free of any pride of culture, history or confession, which also recognised one's own guilt in the unbelief of others and finally became a give and take.21

116

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

In the realm of the monotheistic revealed religions it is certainly easier to find a common spiritual language; this became evident when there were also Hindus and Buddhists present at conferences. Within the framework of the Working Group on Dialogue at New Delhi in 1974, in the meantime, there had again been consideration of where to fit in the spiritual realm. A distinction was made between the conceptional, the sociopolitical and the experiential levels of inter-religious dialogue, and the realm of spirituality was assigned to the level of experience. Finally, at the Assembly in Nairobi in 1975, the Christians were called upon to reflect on their own heritage in the field of spirituality and in this way to prepare themselves to recognise spiritual traditions which deviated from it. An attempt was certainly made to bridge the gap between the two opposing positions which had come into conflict there, but it achieved no more than an appeal for mutual comprehension - "[p]astoral concern both for those who feel threatened by the hazards of sharing spirituality, and for those who claim enrichment of their Christian faith through experiences of such sharing" 22 - and for further conversations. Thereafter, in the Christian/Muslim dialogue with regard to spirituality, and also in the question of common prayer or worship, there was relatively little further development. At the Beirut dialogue in 1977, it was recognised that one must first be concerned about people's future and combat poverty and suffering, because only then could people also show an interest in spiritual values. But time and again the reminder was repeated that this level is an essential part of inter-religious dialogue: "Without the communal religious experience is it possible to live and share together in dialogue? (...) How can we avoid syncretism and at the same time share and live together as religious persons?" 23 The Christian/Muslim dialogue proved, however, to be particularly awkward in this respect; at the dialogue in Porto Novo in 1986, a Muslim speaker even demanded a return to the traditional, religio-spiritual society of Africa and its values. At the Potsdam conference of all the sub-units of the WCC Unit 'Faith and Witness' in 1986, however, it was stated that, after the debate on the basic principles of dialogue, the time had come seriously to tackle the relevant theological questions, among which spirituality was also listed. But up to this point, as the staff member responsible, Stuart Brown, admitted officially a little later, not much attention had been paid to the realm of spirituality in the Christian/Muslim dialogue. And at the next dialogue in Kolymbari (1987) the situation was still not very different. The only address which included spiritual elements was clearly Catholic in origin with references to the second Vatican Council and speeches by John Paul II. It made the attempt to elevate the theological problem of Jesus as the Son of God, which caused such difficulty in the dialogue, to the level of spiritual experience, in order thus

Common Prayer?

117

to make it less acute and finally combine it with a mystery which God still had to reveal to both partners.24 At the end of 1987 a conference took place in Kyoto on the subject of spirituality, although this was not a dialogue in the strict sense but rather an internal Christian meeting. Only two of the participants had worked on Islam, characteristically enough a Dominican nun and an Orthodox monk, and were able to report on their experiences with it. The Dominican nun said that she had learnt from Islam how important it is to devote oneself completely to God at certain times during the day. It had always impressed her that, in the Islamic world, even restaurants and bars had a room for prayer. She was equally impressed by the practical dimension of the Muslim faith. On one occasion, Muslim solicitors had defended one of her fellow nuns without charging and got her acquitted. She had been arrested for intervening on behalf of a young black man and the injustice of this arrest had moved the Muslims to act. The nun had particularly found points in common with the Sufis. The Orthodox monk, on the other hand, saw the most important thing about Islam in it's leading one back to the circular path around 'the one God' at the centre. In contrast to this Eastern approach, the approach of the West lacked a centre, was uni-dimensional, without direction and made one unhappy. He considered that Islam had kept the promise of unity better than Christianity. He also mentioned the inner link between monks and Sufis, indeed, in good Muslim tradition, the link between monasticism and Islam in general. In his enigmatic language full of play on words he put it as follows: "Islam, the 'poor relation' outside the church, joins the monk who is the 'poor relation' inside."25 The everyday life of the Christian/Muslim dialogue continued to look different from this. There was hardly any reference to spirituality. The Christians emphasised the spiritual dimension of the Christian understanding of marriage. The Muslims underlined that only an insider could correctly describe particular religious experiences and traditions. Both were of the opinion that religious education needed to return to its spiritual roots. At the meeting of the Working Group on Dialogue in 1989 at Casablanca, Tarek Mitri took the dialogue in its previous form to task (in the last few years it had objectively produced little more than declarations of intent in connection with spirituality). An effort should be made, according to Mitri, to create a spiritual community in the everyday aspects of life; spiritual meanings should be sought for daily suffering and struggles, not only similarities in prayers and meditation. This naturally applied particularly to the Middle East, because it is only there that the whole existence of the churches - as a minority - is influenced by Muslims. That situation was taken up straight away in Budapest in 1989 and seen in a positive light, as a possibility for a spiritual renewal of the churches there in analogy to the revival of Islam.26

118

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

The Orthodox churches repeatedly made suggestions, not only that one should pray for one's neighbours of other faiths, but also about Orthodox pneumatology which had, above all, made it possible to adapt to ancient national piety. But this kind of approach has sometimes led to strange results, such as the Indian Muslim who believed in Christ but did not get baptised because baptism was not essential for salvation, because converts were not socially recognised, and because he did not want to cut himself off from his own community and their cultural life. In Madras alone there were claimed to be as many such 'unbaptised Christians' as there are baptised Christians. Since, according to this conception, Christ no longer serves as the distinguishing criterion, the question naturally arises how one can in fact recognise a Spirit which operates in such a free way. One of the solutions suggested were the fruits of the Spirit and a certain inner life as signs of being rooted in God. Relating this to Islam, it would then mean: "The very word Islam points to that peace which is the fruit of total surrender to God." 27 Tarek Mitri pointed out in an article written shortly after the Gulf War that two tensions in the dialogue were essential if it was to contribute to peace: the tension between religious otherness and common humanity and the tension between a time for politics and a time for spirituality in dialogue. The Jewish/ Christian/Muslim 'trialogue' on the spiritual significance of Jerusalem (Glion 1993) was naturally therefore a particularly sensitive enterprise. In the 'guidelines' for Christian/Muslim dialogue the question of spirituality does not occur at all in the selection of especially important issues, and elsewhere it was also simply observed that prayer was central for both religions and they certainly had common values and ideals such as justice, love of one's neighbour and peace. Spirituality is and remains a difficult, lengthy subject, as had already been noted earlier on: "Spiritual dialogue is a long process - not the project of a few weeks or months."28 F. Preference to Practice Emphasis from the

Beginning

At the very beginning of the official Christian/Muslim dialogues of the World Council of Churches at Cartigny in 1969, it was clear that Muslims were very much interested in practical questions of social justice. The proposal for a joint information campaign in the field of development, for example, came from the Muslim side. But the Christians, too, recognised the challenges in the realm of social ethics (development, peace, education) and saw the need to demonstrate that religion does not divide and make people fatalistic but has a unifying, liberating effect that promotes responsibility. However, as they had to admit, this had not been proved

119

Preference to Practice

by the past; the way from coexistence to cooperation still lay ahead. The final statement of the conference listed points of common responsibility for human and social problems of the time among a number of tasks for the Christian /Muslim dialogue in the future: "nature and functions of the modern state, emancipation of women, relationships between rich and poor nations, etc." 1 The memorandum from Zurich in 1970, as the first WCC document on inter-religious dialogue, also included (in one of its few clear theological statements!) that inter-religious dialogue, with whomever and on whatever level, must serve the unity of humankind. In any case, it had been the dictates of the multi-religious international situation that had provided a major impulse in getting the dialogue going. At Addis Ababa in 1971, where the establishment of the sub-unit on dialogue was decided, the Central Committee confirmed that Christians should cooperate with non-Christians on questions such as justice, education and the future of humanity. Dialogue, it said, takes place, inter alia, as a result of joint action for humankind. This attitude was even acceptable in circles which were otherwise sceptical about inter-religious dialogue. The dialogue was initially to deal with political, social and ethical questions and then with questions of salvation. Christianity could fundamentally justify this, especially in the context of the international community with its problems of survival.2 In the run up to the first large Christian/Muslim dialogue at Broumana in 1972, it became clear that, for the Muslims, the practical and - more precisely - the political questions such as wars of religion or apartheid were the main priority. They saw justice as a value that clearly came before love. The Christians mainly noted the growing number of Christian/Muslim encounters in everyday life, the secular world and the question of a world community which it raised. Both wanted to be present for people in their own way and particularly to make justice and peace a reality. At Broumana itself there were supporters among both Christians and Muslims for a purely religious, theological dialogue as such and those who saw dialogue as a multi-dimensional problem which also comprises social, political, cultural and economic aspects. But the main emphasis in the responses to this question was clearly on the practical side, whether it was a matter of facing up to contemporary problems or, more basically, the shared use of premises, i.e. real dialogue "at the grass-roots level." 3 Regions as Appropriate

Fields of

Activity

However, this practical side can also create problems, as became clear, for example, at the multi-religious dialogue in Colombo in 1974. It was a question, inter alia, of the adoption of religious laws in a world community. The Muslim speaker on the question was prepared to allow a debate on Islamic law and even to sacrifice some aspects of it to a world

120

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

community. Nevertheless, the question remained whether such an attitude would find majority support among Muslims who traditionally considered Islamic law to be divine and therefore applicable to all people. It was even clear to another Muslim speaker that, when dealing with the concrete details of a more just international society and a common ethical system for this society, there would probably be no agreement among the religions. However, cooperation in the social realm was considered no problem. Both locally and regionally (Legon, Singapore) it became evident that this kind of 'world community' often already existed on a small scale, can be further deepened or is what Christians and Muslims are really concerned about on the spot, in contrast to theology. At the Legon dialogue in 1 9 7 4 it was expressed as follows: "Christians should be willing to share with their Muslim neighbours those facilities and opportunities for religious, educational, social and economic advancement which Christians happen to possess. A similar spirit may be expected from the Muslim side." 4 The socio-political level of the inter-religious dialogue, namely the level of joint action, was dealt with as equally important as the conceptual and experiential level. As in Broumana generally and in Legon for Africa, the Christian/Muslim dialogue for Southeast Asia in Hong Kong in 1 9 7 5 dealt from the very beginning with practical matters of cooperation as well. One of the Christian speakers, Peter G. Gowing, saw love, dialogue and cooperation as inseparably related, like a triangle with love at the apex. Surprisingly enough, in his paper he quoted extensively from a Muslim, Isma'il Ragi A. al-Faruqi, who is generally considered very missionary-minded. According to the statements which Peter G. Gowing cited, al-Faruqi had a positive attitude to dialogue, but, because of the frequent strains on the relationships between Christians and Muslims, would prefer it to be restricted to practical issues for the time being. Joint action was possible, in al-Faruqi's view, because Christianity had now developed a positive attitude to the world and abandoned its ideas about the fall and original sin. Therefore it was now possible to proceed together to recognise the will of God and to put it into practice. This sequence was particularly important for him as a Muslim, and the statements quoted here by Peter G. Gowing showed very well that Christians and Muslims can cooperate in practice but certainly do not do so on the same theological basis: "The act of faith neither justifies nor makes just. It is only an entrance ticket into the realm of ethical striving and doing. (...) [I]n respect to this mission or vocation all men start out in this world with a carte blanche on which nothing is entered except what each individual earns with his own doing or not doing." 5

Preference to Practice

121

The memorandum of the conference emphasised that, precisely in view of secularism, we had to serve both worlds, this and the next, and show others that the recognition of the unity of God makes the endeavour for human community possible. A mainly similar theology and ecology should lead to cooperation, although theology had in fact been very much in the background of the discussion, and the agreements, when examined in greater detail, were limited to the - loving - God as the motivation for action. Very much in the foreground, on the other hand, was the situation in Southeast Asia, its states and societies, whose problems offered a wide field of activity for Christians and Muslims. Both should be concerned about the implementation of ethical values in these societies, namely the responsible exercise of power, peace, human dignity and human rights, social justice, a humane society and a democratic, constitutional state. All of this overflowed into cultural values and national self-awareness; in addition, passing mention was made of cooperation on questions of family planning and environmental protection. Such activities were to be discussed with the other religion as a matter of principle, simply in order to avoid misunderstandings, even if the other religion were not actively participating, and they should benefit everyone equally. And, finally, the religions should jointly stand for transcendence in human society. 6 Agreement

on Diverse Bases

At the W C C Assembly in Nairobi in 1 9 7 5 , the guests had been asked to describe their view of a world community, a welcome opportunity for the Muslim guest to emphasise the Muslim conception of the unity of all nations (with divine prophets for each nation) and the tolerance of Islam. The more conservative proportion of the participants tended as a whole to the view that, fundamentally, only a sociological but not a theological dialogue was possible with followers of other religions. However, the concentration on practice was certainly not a monopoly of the Christians with a more conservative approach who had basic reservations about inter-religious dialogue, as the list of future tasks and one of the questions from the preparatory documents indeed demonstrate: "Are we justified in doing things separately rather than together, for others rather than with them?" 7 Dialogue about Practice, not Practice The relation between nature, humanity and God, between creation, science and technology, as well as responsibility for the continued existence of the earth - very practical questions, in fact - were given some degree of priority for the future by the planning conference at Cartigny in 1976. At the large inner-Christian conference on dialogue at Chiang Mai in 1 9 7 7 , there was agreement that it was necessary for dialogue to want to

122

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

solve a specific problem. It was also observed that the Muslims had some interest in political and social issues. But otherwise this conference must accept the criticism that it avoided concrete problems. One commentator from India referred to the practical situation there of competition for numbers of members as something which destroyed the basis for many projects and was an obstacle to a sense of community beyond one's own religion. 8 At the Christian/Muslim dialogue of Beirut in 1977, the discussion dealt concretely with questions of faith, science and technology in connection with the future of humankind. A commitment to the future of humanity in this world, it was claimed, meant a struggle against poverty and suffering. In the search for appropriate technologies, general reference was made to the Christian tradition but also to Mahatma Gandhi and especially to the Koran for exhortations to social community, justice and racial equality. At the reflective conference on the Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1979 at Mombasa, the confirmation from the Catholic side was also merely that the Muslims were certainly interested in cooperation but not in theological issues. Dialogue started, as was generally stated, where people lived together and assisted one another in their mutual concerns. 'Dialogue' was an unfortunate word for this, 'relationships' might be more appropriate. Cooperation in the field of diaconal service was recommended: " [I]t is at the point of service to humankind that Christians and Muslims can meet most meaningfully in a common obedience to God who is Merciful and Compassionate.'" Even at the World Mission Conference in Melbourne in 1980, dialogue was mainly understood as a means for establishing community or as an attempt to cooperate for the benefit of all. In the course of the development it also became clear that Islam expresses its social interests in different ways in different countries as well. At the Christian/Muslim youth dialogue in Bossey in 1980, once again the praises of the Koran and Islam were sung - as a source of understanding, sympathy and love which united human beings with one another before God, and as an advocate and alternative for the people in this world who had been deprived of their social rights, indeed, for all people. Significantly enough, however, the young people no longer attributed any force for change to the old power structures in the two religious communities but set their hopes on cooperation at local level.10 The Debate on Basic Principles at Colombo Something that came up time and again, even in the field of education, was the question of social justice. The Colombo dialogue of 1982 was supposed finally to deal quite concretely with the practice of building up

Preference to Practice

123

community. This was to enable each side better to understand the other's motives for humanitarian aid and inter-religious dialogue. For this purpose a wide variety of organisations had been invited from both sides, for example including the church representatives responsible for the International Year of the Disabled. The sub-themes to be treated were also very concrete: the ideals of each side concerning social justice and development, the sharing of social 'resources' at the local community level, cooperation in overcoming situations of conflict, selfless aid in natural emergencies and, finally, avoidance of competition or duplicating projects. Two levels were identified in this connection: the world-wide level for planning and the local level for implementation. However, since - while planning the conference jointly with the WCC - the official invitation had been issued by the World Muslim Congress, which also selected the Muslim participants, finally Christian practitioners, who wanted to plan joint activities and thus resolve the difficulties, found themselves sitting together with Muslim theoreticians, who expected at last to be able clearly to express their fundamental, ethical and religious reservations about aid projects of all kinds. Communication was correspondingly difficult. The same basic tendency was also evident in the individual realms. Whereas the Christian speaker defended the majority of the Christian aid programmes in the past and present, the Muslim speaker, at that time defence minister of Pakistan, continued calmly to draw up a list of demands: all aid programmes for purely humanitarian reasons without even the slightest indirect link with changing one's religion; aid from but not via religious but only via state organisations; church pressure for more development aid from the industrialised countries. At the end a ' J ° i n t Standing Committee' was proposed which was also, inter alia, to go into the question of (social) justice. It was considered that aid for refugees was a particular area for Christian/Muslim cooperation although 75 % of all refugees were Muslims. The aid agencies should not be misused for proselytism under any circumstances, and both sides should try to facilitate the return of refugees or their reception in another country. Situations in which both Christians and Muslims were in the minority were also considered appropriate for cooperation. In their subsequent internal meeting, the Christians reacted positively to many of the Muslims' practical demands: Christians should not exploit aid projects as means to an end and could even sometimes distribute aid through humanitarian organisations. They should, as the World Council of Churches suggested, generally adapt their approach from short-term emergency aid to long-term development aid and in the process cooperate more with other religious groupings. More attention should also be devoted to the issue of development aid and to promising projects; more church resources should be made available for this and the industrialised countries called upon to give more that the 0.7 % of their gross national

124

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

product requested by the U N O for development aid. Christian/Muslim cooperation in development projects should also be encouraged at all levels. Finally, it was suggested that more precise studies be made, especially of the large numbers of Muslim refugees, and there was further support for the resolution of Colombo on this point and on the question of social justice. 11 In the next few years it was evident that the Christian/Muslim dialogue tended mainly to tread water, not only theologically but also in the practical realm. This did not begin to change until the regional Christian/ Muslim dialogues started. The second of these dialogues, which took place in 1986 at Dhyana Pura, was of special interest for such practical matters. It dealt i.a. with questions of religion and economics. The Christian speaker underlined the one-sided profit oriented approach of the European economic system which had unfortunately also gained a foothold in Asia. It referred only superficially to freedom but in reality made people into robots, and destroyed all human relationships by reducing them to a cost/benefit ratio. This was all diametrically opposed to the N e w Testament which emphasised justice, love and sharing as principles for living. Christians should go back to these, he stated, even though it was clear that a commitment to the poor, for example, would entail conflicts with capitalist structures (which admitted sharing as a life principle at the most among relatives). The Islamic guidelines for economic affairs are still more concrete. The basic approach to this realm (and even to luxury goods), according to the Muslim speaker, was more positive than in other religions and there was plenty of scope for individual decisions. In general, Islam stood for consumption and not for saving, because it regulated property and not income. However, extravagance was prohibited. Only good, useful things could be produced (excluding alcohol) and during production nobody should be exploited or excessively endangered. Mohammed had prohibited the hoarding of goods, profiteering, monopolies and even middle men. In any case, there was agreement about the analysis of the problems: increasing poverty, unemployment, homelessness and criminality, increasing urbanisation and a collapse of urban transport systems, and, finally, totally unproductive expenditure on armaments, growing concentrations of power and abuse of power, and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Asia needed to liberate itself from its marked dependency and find its own strategies for solutions in the fields of development, technology and, naturally, education. Advertising, in particular, with its devastating consequences must somehow be brought under control; on this there was unanimity. Otherwise, it was interesting to observe that the Christians tended in part towards socialist types of solutions. But in general the link between outward living conditions and inner values was recognised. Where pov-

Preference to Practice

125

erty reigned, as in the slums, no healthy family life was possible; there it was difficult to convince people of morality and religious values. To do so, Christians and Muslims would first have to change things on the practical level.12 At the dialogue for Europe and the Middle East at Kolymbari in 1987, the Muslim side once again expressed the view that the dialogues were too theological, and it would be better to look for suitable social, political, economic or attitudinal questions to discuss. A Christian woman from Beirut described her experiences during the civil war in Lebanon. In the surrounding neighbourhood, even under those conditions, trust, the holy Beduin duty of hospitality, which protects the guest and gives him/her the best, had continued. Practical dialogue for her meant respect, not seeing another person through the prism of one's own world view but allowing him/her honestly to be different, and also accepting that he/she might be capable of change or development. In this dialogue it also became clear that it is simply not possible for the religious dimension to exist unrelated to the economic, political or cultural dimension. On the practical level, the Muslims at Kolymbari demanded the cessation of every form of violence, which for them included propaganda on television, and the launching of positive activities in the media instead.13 Emphasis on

Economics

In the meantime, on the inter-religious level there was also an opinion that one should not do separately what could also be done together. It was the task of individual conferences, such as the Christian/Muslim dialogue at New Windsor in 1988, to make this a reality. On this occasion it was again a matter of religion and economics. This time the Christian contribution adopted a much more radical approach. The speaker, Michael Cooke, saw economics as the key to the life of the community so it also constituted a status confessionis. He described the international economic system as a system of dependency in which one part tried to gain control of the whole and saw itself as omnipotent. That was idol worship. But Michael Cooke was also clearer and more precise on the positive side. He identified five Christian basic principles for the economic realm, first and foremost the right relationship to the issue. As an example of this he mentioned the debt crisis of the 'Third World'. Here it was important to recognise that the debts were not legally accumulated and therefore to be remitted at the most as a special grace, but rather the result of institutionalised usury and injustice. Often debts were incurred for weapons to fight against precisely the people who were later supposed to repay these debts. Moreover, the Christian treatment of debts had to be guided by the prescriptions for the sabbath and the jubilee year, which were to prevent property and human labour belonging to the creditor for an unlimited time. Secondly, and for this he quoted passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,

126

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

economic profit and wealth should be approached with caution, indeed, with mistrust. Thirdly, human labour takes precedence over and is of greater value than economic considerations, and, fourthly, God has already given preference to the poor; from all of this one could conclude that economic structures are simply not neutral but either liberating or oppressive. The final principle, for Michael Cooke, was the vision of a new heaven and a new earth for which we should already be striving now. He saw conversion starting when we confess the guilt we have brought upon ourselves by our participation in economic systems which cause more death than life. The practical steps which Michael Cooke suggested to begin with also expressed a radicality similar to the early church. One should, for example, look for feasible alternatives to the present economic system, test out new forms of economic relationships and rewards, abolish unjust wage differences, distribute acquired wealth, refuse political cooperation in obvious cases of injustice, and withdraw the justification for irresponsible institutions and value systems. The Muslim contribution concentrated mainly on the institution of the alms tax, but otherwise showed many parallels to Michael Cooke's address. In the background to both there was the danger of environmental destruction, the theological substructure of God/humankind/creation, recognition of the need for conversion to a just economic order, and the rejection of consumerism and waste. The analyses were often similar; only the names differed. The Muslims described the power of international corporations, which even subjected governments to their will, with the Koranic term taghut (idol). The discussion also concentrated more on clearly Muslim models such as mudaraba (sharing of profit and loss) and musharaka (partnership) than on the more ancient Christian approaches of Thomas Aquinas, Luther or Calvin. The necessity for more precise studies was acknowledged, and initial plans were even laid for additional dialogues to deal with concrete action in order to make these ideas more widely known. In addition, the following guidelines for action were drawn up: changes in the life style of the local communities in order to make the sense of moral urgency clearer, taking advantage of social influence for change and, finally, experiments to keep hope alive. But, in summary, the discussion on economic issues was often no more than the hopeless question what one could do against them when one was surrounded by them.14 Intermediate

Results

Economics was originally intended to be a decisive item in the guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. The participants from New Windsor met again in March 1989 in Toronto on their own initiative in order to discuss fasting, public morals, blasphemy and freedom of expression. In the meantime, the women's dialogue had pointed out that, so far, women

Preference to Practice

127

had been hardly represented in the official dialogues, although they had quite a lot to contribute to inter-religious dialogue. They approached it in a quite different way because their approach was based on practical cooperation. A similar attitude was sensed among the Lebanese; they were concerned to deepen everyday contacts and not merely about theology. They felt, finally, that precisely on the Muslim side there was a silent majority which had no grasp of dialogue or the religious level but was interested in political, cultural and social encounters. This was also confirmed at the W C C Assembly in Canberra in 1 9 9 1 , where one of the Muslim guests stated in his greeting that the socio-economic problems were the real core, and religious language only the way of expressing them. As far as the specific guidelines for dialogue were concerned, they admitted honestly that, apart from the short period of joint struggle for independence, Islam and the Orthodox Church had also traditionally adopted different economic positions. Nevertheless, major parallels were recognised in both religions in their commitment to justice, peace and love of one's neighbour. They faced the common challenge of finding a form of coexistence which granted all religions a fair degree of freedom, respect and opportunities for living so that they could make their contribution to a good community life. The revised version again touched on the two levels of relations, theology and practice, and did not fail to mention that on both levels negative experiences had tended to obscure positive ones. Everyday exchange between Christians and Muslims was seen as bringing about positive changes which would help to fulfil God's plan for humankind. The field for action was also broad: "There are enormous possibilities for collaboration between these communities to work together for social and racial justice, for the defense of human rights and people's rights, for safeguarding and promoting religious freedom, for resolving conflicts peacefully, for addressing the plight of refugees and displaced people." 15 Justice and Peace as Issues Practical questions were thus of major interest for both Christians and Muslims. Even those basically critical of an inter-religious dialogue were prepared, if at all, to deal with this level and not with theology. The desire to solve problems together, whether world-wide or regional, to stand up for one's own ethical approach and specific claims and, where possible, also gain acceptance for them, is naturally in the basic interest of each side and is easy to justify. In addition, there is greater agreement on such 'human' questions and it is easier to find points that unite people, especially, as happened several times, if one abandons the attempt to go in too much detail into the theological basis on each side, because this brings the differences to light again. In this connection, a number of issues enjoyed

128

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

increasing attention and should therefore be examined specifically. Top of the list, without doubt, were justice and peace which were mentioned time and again, sometimes separately and sometimes together, as concerns for both religions. The issue of peace was obvious from the very beginning in view of the international situation, and justice, especially social justice, was a favourite subject among the Muslims. It had again to become part of social experience; especially people who had been oppressed and exploited had to have their dignity restored, as was stated at the first official dialogue in Cartigny in 1969. The Christians accepted the Muslim criticism that they had devoted themselves for a long time only to 'holy things' at the expense of everyday life and had not been interested in a commitment to social justice. But now their special concern was for greater involvement of the church in the world. This was also made clear by the Zurich paper on the principles of dialogue (1970). There, justice and peace were listed alongside development and religious rapprochement as the urgent problems which had provided the impetus for inter-religious dialogue. In order to remain relevant, the dialogue was to continue to deal with the struggle for a peaceful society with justice and dignity for all. Conferences on issues of justice, peace and development were to be given priority in future, according to the W C C Executive Committee in 1970. And in 1971 at Addis Ababa, where the sub-unit on dialogue was founded, there was a clear desire for international cooperation for justice, peace, equality and freedom. 16 At the Broumana dialogue in 1972, among the inter-related international problems which called for cooperation between religions, the Muslims again referred to preserving human dignity and abolishing social injustice. To this end, Christian aid to countries of the 'Third World' was to benefit Christians and non-Christians equally. Joint commitment to justice was a kind of key for the Muslims; it also leads, for example, to common prayer. Justice is more important than anything else: "Love loses its significance if Justice is not established." 17 Commitment to peace and social justice were mentioned repeatedly, whether at the dialogue in Hong Kong in 1975, the joint planning conference at Chambesy in 1979 or the youth dialogue at Bossey in 1980; other examples have already been described above. At the Nairobi Assembly in 1975, the urgency of issues such as peace and poverty was again affirmed, and the joint planning conference of 1976 in Cartigny included social justice among the aims of the dialogue. Even at conferences which were really dealing with educational issues (like Salford in 1981), this question also made itself felt. 18 The Colombo conference in 1982 has already been discussed above in detail, and at the regional dialogues social justice was also raised repeatedly. The Muslim speakers underlined the egalitarian and social character of Islam and its sense of justice, as at

129

Preference to Practice

Porto Novo and Kolymbari, or they emphasised the struggle against social injustice as a task which united Christians and Muslims, as at Dhyana Pura. The dialogue guidelines also recognised commitment to justice, love for one's neighbour and peace, in particular, as common to both religions: "Significantly peace is at the heart of both Christianity and Islam.'" 9 The 'Integrity of Creation'

Theme

In contrast, the theme of the 'integrity of creation' did not encounter the same resonance in the Christian/Muslim dialogue. When the Muslims spoke in greater detail and more concretely about this issue, their primary concern was the form of the economic system and the Islamic requirements for this. The dialogue at Beirut in 1 9 7 7 , which dealt with the future of humankind, was the only one at which there was a Muslim address on the humanisation of technology; it was described as a hostile intervention into the international social economy and ecology, evident in environmental polution, the exploitation of irreplaceable raw materials and an economic war against the poor, indeed, against the whole world. The speaker saw a practical way out in slowing down development and looking for environmentally appropriate alternatives. It was possible to reduce the emission of toxic substances and to use energy more economically, which had not been necessary for the West until the oil crisis because oil had been so cheap. Environmental problems in general were mainly the fault of the West and of its economic structures which were geared to consumption, efficiency and profit. For example, technology was always considered more important than raw materials or ordinary human labour, and thus, despite development aid, the structures of under-development and exploitation were continually being reinforced. The Muslim speaker suggested concretely a total abandonment of the cost / benefit concept, a slowing down of technology and a limitation of its effects, and the creation of a kind of mini-technology which would be transferrable to other countries and where the non-industrialised world would naturally need help. The question of 'how' would have to be answered pragmatically because there was no doctrine for this; one should at least avoid transporting raw materials and semi-manufactures over large distances. O f course, this restructuring would entail much renunciation in the West - the address by Munir D. Attiyah was one long appeal to the Christian West for help. The discussion supported many of his views as far as developing new, appropriate technology was concerned, but also his analysis that what the oil crisis had meant for the West might be comparable to the wood crisis in the East. In the context of these international inter-relationships, it was believed, one would find the importance of Christian/Muslim coopera-

130

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

tion. It would be possible to produce study material jointly and to conduct joint pilot projects. There was also e.g. the question whether the raw materials' crisis was the crisis of the rich and the population crisis the crisis of the poor, and whether the term 'development' should not be defined more precisely. The dialogue participants themselves defined the goal of development work as a minimum of well-being so that people were then able to care about moral and spiritual values. But this interesting round of discussion was not followed up, and the guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue finally only mentioned that the responsibility of human beings for creation is something which Christians and Muslims have in common.20 The Situation in

Lebanon

Practical issues certainly vary in different regions.This was also reflected in the dialogues which repeatedly took up specific concerns, whether this had been planned in advance or not. At the beginning, especially, Lebanon was often quoted as the home country of many dialogue participants, and as the context of centuries of coexistence between Christians and Muslims comprising both positive and negative experiences. Hassan Saab, as a Lebanese, for example, at Cartigny in 1969 described his country as an example of coexistence and dialogue, although it could also be improved. A similarly positive picture was painted only a little later by Georges Khodr when giving an address on the historical and contemporary dialogue between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon. He said that, in the Islamic world, there was even a sociological/political community (umma) between Christians and Muslims. However, in the seventies Lebanon had become the arena for a civil war with much bloodshed, and thus a problem child as far as Christian/Muslim dialogue was concerned, but not only that. As has frequently been stated above, Lebanese people continued to participate in dialogue and were able to illustrate that dialogue and coexistence were definitely possible in their country, if not on a large scale, then at least in local neighbourhoods, which made the witness all the more impressive. On one occasion, it was pointed out critically that it was inappropriate to present the conflict in Lebanon as religious. Finally, in 1989 the WCC Central Committee appealed for the observance of the relevant UN resolution on the grounds that it was a specific matter of regaining the independence of or maintaining "the unique character of Lebanon, as a democratic and pluralistic model in the Middle East founded on Christian-Muslim co-existence"21 - perhaps a bit exaggerated, but nevertheless. The Situation in the Rest of the Middle East The dialogue at Kolymbari in 1987 had the Middle East as one regional emphasis. In this context, as already mentioned in another framework,

Preference to Practice

131

the special fate of Egypt was discussed, where the Muslims had been called upon for help in political and religious disputes with the Byzantines without any desire for what then ensued: the Muslims remained in the country as the new rulers and demoted the original Coptic inhabitants, who did not convert to Islam, to second-class citizens. Marie Assaad, as a Copt, pointed out that converts had always persecuted their former fellow believers most severely, and she described how gradually a dual feeling developed among the Copts: on the one hand, that as the original 'people of Egypt' (translation of the Muslim term 'Copts') they were superior to the Muslims, as their British colonial masters had always affirmed, but, on the other hand, that they were themselves guilty of their second-class status, in which they now theoretically have a proportional claim to university places and administrative posts but nevertheless feel that they have never been treated fairly. At the same conference there was a Muslim sheikh who accused all the Christians in the Middle East of not being secular but of exploiting their worldly position and even their secular contacts with fellow believers (who until recently had also been their colonial rulers) in order to defend their previous possibilities and standing as a religious minority. Between Christians and Muslims in the Middle East there were differences in status and not only cultural differences, it was noted, both because and although Arab Christians are at home there. The difference in status imposed limits on communication from the very beginning and made it superficial, so that in times of crisis, according to some participants' opinion, there was then not enough confidence for it to continue. This, they felt, was a point which needed to be changed.22 The Situation in Europe A further centre for the early Christian/Muslim dialogue was the English city of Birmingham in which very many Muslims live and where two dialogues were held in 1968 and 1969; these dealt i.a. with the close outward relationship with Muslims and provided the impetus for further dialogues and invitations to the Islamic cultural centre and the mosque. This was the background from which John B. Taylor came and he hence developed the idea of a new community marked by cooperation and therefore to be achieved on a practical basis, the absolute requirement being religious liberty. Apart from this, one should not wait until the conditions for starting are ideal, but nor should one argue the theological differences away; the way to the community desired did not go through theology. After some initial hesitation on the Christian side, the English church was the first to react to the specific British situation of Muslim immigrants with practical problems and appointed an advisory group on the question of Islam which, for its part, drew up guidelines for relationships

132

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

with Muslim congregations - with a predominantly practical emphasis and without much theological reflection. At the dialogue in Kolymbari, where the second geographical emphasis was on Europe, an Anglican clergyman reported on the specifically British situation. The general attitude and expectation was that religious convictions were a private affair (a view which the speaker did not share), that they should not be expressed publicly against the majority opinion and that everyone should behave like the Christian churches in the country. People's capacity to recognise differences related to religion was limited, and anyone who did not meet these expectations must be fundamentalist, extremist and fanatical. On certain practical issues Islam had benefitted from Judaism as a long established religious minority, e.g. in the case of ritual slaughtering. In the meantime, specific provisions had been made available for religious burials, but school education was still a big problem; there Christian and Muslim parents automatically tended to keep their distance and preferred to find a possibility of educating their children in their own circles, which was easy to explain. In order to preserve and cultivate a different culture and style of living, it was simply necessary to have some social separation. This was a point of disagreement. A sheikh demanded Muslim schools and the necessary educational setting for Europe, but claimed, on the other hand, that this would not lead to social isolation. His attitude really implied that the Muslims should take advantage of Western tolerance in order to obtain as many religious rights as possible for themselves, even those that ran counter to the basic values of Western societies. However, he admitted that there were no problems about Muslims' living their own family and social life, and even finding simple prayer rooms for their own use. However, he would obviously have preferred the churches to make premises available, as the Catholic Church had done with a chapel, whereas the Anglican Church had refused to sell a church to the Muslims. He was quite right in his opinion that Europeans should not just consider Muslims a problem, because it was in fact they who had invited them to Europe. Moreover, he naturally saw the presence of the Muslims as moral support in a European society with problems in this respect. In a larger group, the conclusion was reached that Muslims in Europe were not in their countries of origin and their differences from Christians were cultural and not a matter of status. Nevertheless, the Muslims faced the major problem of the European, or indeed the Western, media which always portrayed Muslims only as terrorists. More than ten years earlier, a Muslim had, however, said that the self-appointed Muslim officials in the Western world were hardly suitable partners for a Christian/Muslim dialogue. They were merely benefitting from the freedom of the West without facing up to the challenges of the West. In addition, they set up obstacles for the next generation when it tried to adapt to its surround-

Preference to Practice

133

ings. But, as the number of Muslims in the West increased, the number of joint projects of Christians and Muslims also grew.23 The Situation in Africa The first regional dialogue took place in 1974 in Africa, at Legon in Ghana. There it was observed that a community already existed in practice but that it could be further deepened, for example by an exchange of information between institutions on both sides about disseminating the idea of dialogue, procedural methods, joint centres, emergencies and emergency aid, etc. At the next African regional dialogue in 1986 at Porto Novo in Benin, it was particularly emphasised that Islam, Christianity and Western culture had been more or less forced on Africans without taking account of the African mentality. Africans live and think in a holistic way and cannot separate the spiritual from the social. Religion was the most important aspect of their lives, but it was nevertheless important for African states to be absolutely neutral towards religion in order to treat all the religions there equally. There should also be a return in education and society to the typically African solidarity which was lacking in the religions that had come in later. As in the case of the achievements of modern science and technology, the religions should also be adapted to the Africans, apart from their core (monothesim in Islam and love in Christianity), and not vice versa. As a positive example of an African state which had succeeded in creating a unifying 'civil religion' similar to the American model, Tanzania with its strong religious socialism was at least mentioned in a dialogue in 1989. But the example of South Africa, it was admitted, also showed that a civil religion could go astray. An attempt was again made to find solutions for the problems which Western culture had caused; there was a desire for censorship of the mass media in order to protect children from violence and pornography, but also a wish for positive leisure possibilities for families. Family in the broadest sense was generally a major subject. Mixed marriages, e.g., are the great dialogue opportunity in Africa, although the traditional social, economic and political setting is more open to the Muslim view of marriage. A lot of attention was given to the promotion of the family and of sexual morality but also to the possibilities for patients with sexual illnesses to remain within society - all more or less direct references to the problem of AIDS which is so obvious a threat to Africa.24 The Situation in Indonesia At the dialogue in Southeast Asia, Indonesia was the country that attracted special attention, naturally because the conference in 1986 took place in Dhyana Pura on Bali. The prominent Indonesian Christian, Tahi Bonar Simatupang, stated that for him dialogue must always also comprise an exchange of ideas and cooperation, and in Indonesia this dia-

134

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

logue was pancasila which had prevented a break up along religious lines such as existed on the Indian sub-continent. Reflection in the period following independence had led to five principles (already mentioned above): faith in God, humanitarianism, nationalism, democracy and social justice. Today the discussion mainly concerned what form pancasila should take in a developing industrialised society. Simatupang personally believed that the problems should always be approached in the spirit of the five principles. Then the state would be neither secular nor religious but have a moral /ethical/ spiritual foundation. It would build up a nation without discrimination, a stable democracy including the army and economic growth and aimed at social justice. His Muslim co-speaker was also of the opinion that there were possibilities for cooperation in transforming Indonesia from an agricultural to a technological, industrialised society. But he identified problems all over Indonesia which had been caused by Christians and under which the Muslims had to suffer. Perhaps cooperation on the practical issue mentioned would be able to prevent the typical social and ethical problems in advance.25 The Situation in Southeast Asia in General Overall there are parallels between Africa and Southeast Asia: in both contexts Christians and Muslims wish to discuss practical questions but not theological issues; both here and there the aim is to enable dialogue to trickle down to broader circles including the less educated. And both here and there Christianity is felt by both religions to be the more alien entity with a more pronounced Western character. Interest in practical questions meant, first and foremost, interest in building up states and societies, a regional community in Southeast Asia, naturally with dialogue and cooperation and guided by the concrete local requirements. In order for this to be possible, as already stated, theology must consciously be kept to a minimum (a loving God as the motivation). Significantly enough, it was a Muslim from the Southeast Asian region who levelled serious accusations against the so-called 'Islamic' states. The vast, silent majority only wanted a better economic situation with greater social justice and the possibility and freedom to develop their religious identity in this new, modern situation. But instead of developing new, better and more just economic conceptions, minorites were responding with superficial, propagandist measures of Islamisation, as had happened, for example, in Malaysia. These statements were flanked by the demand already mentioned that Asia break free from its marked dependence on the West, whether this be in development and technology or in education.26 Dialogue on the Intermediate

Level

Regional issues and, in particular, regional hotbeds of crisis will not be discussed in greater detail here, because juridical and political constella-

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

135

tions also play a part in them and that would go beyond the scope of this chapter. 'Practice' as understood and described here is, in a sense, somewhere in the middle between the family and the state level. However difficult it may be to draw the dividing lines, it is still a level which is very effective for dialogue. Even when political and social conflicts exist somewhere, there is usually a lower level on which dialogue and cooperation are still possible and even considered necessary, as was also demonstrated. On the other hand, dialogue and cooperation at this intermediate level have a broader effect on society than dialogue within the family, and are also not faced with the special difficulties which arise within a family. In addition, most people feel this is the realm in which they have some competence and ability to act, and where they consider inter-religious dialogue justified or even necessary, irrespective of the reservations they may have otherwise. It was very obvious that practical questions were given precedence over theological issues in all the dialogues, even if this has still not produced any concrete results.

G. Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue No other subject in the Christian/Muslim dialogue was as permanent and comprehensive as political issues of all kinds. This was caused less by the Christian participants, who tended to be more interested in theological subjects, and must be mainly attributed to the Muslims. For them, religion and politics were much more closely and naturally related than for the Christians. They wanted to see political involvement and political consequences and thus not infrequently put their Christian partners in the dialogue in an embarrassing position. For this reason, state and religion were often the subject in dialogues, whether or not this was what had been planned.

The problem of secularisation As early as 1969, following the dialogue at Cartigny, this question arose and received a divided answer: among the Muslims themselves there were advocates of an Islamic state, i.e. a state governed by Islamic laws and institutions, as well as supporters of a religiously neutral state; it depended on their view of the relationship between the community and personal liberty. At the major Christian/Muslim dialogue in Broumana in 1972, the issue of religion, nations and the world community was right at the top of the agenda, meaning in plain terms the problematical establishment of nation states. This had started very late and half-heartedly in the Muslim world with its image of one, religious/political community of all Muslims. Christianity is also familiar with a trans-national way of thinking, as became evident. The concrete claim to be a state policy is much more clear in the Koran and thus in Islam, even though in practice

136

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

national conceptions have never been surmounted in a lasting way and, above all, the universal community has remained restricted to the community of all Muslims, umma. Moreover, even the Indonesian Minister of Religion himself had more or less to admit that, for example, the practical claim to absoluteness in various religions was necessary, on the one hand, to a certain extent for the sake of their identity, but, on the other, often upset the frequently invoked peace for humankind. However, it remained very unclear where his intermediate way lay. For the Christian speaker, this problem could be solved by secularisation in a modern nation state, which had religious tolerance and thus religious plurality as well, and in this way limited claims to absoluteness to groups within the state or even within the individual religious communities. For that reason, as he had to admit, this solution is opposed most vigorously by some Muslims and also by some Christians. For the Muslims, in particular, the definition is classical that in the Koran and the sunna God has revealed his true guidance which applies to all people at all times, in all places and all realms of life. Consequently, there is really no room for secularism, even if there are some Muslim advocates of total secularism. One such exception, for example, is an Egyptian Muslim, Ali E. Hillal Dessouki, who spoke in favour of total secularism and therefore for nationalism as the basis for community organisation. But when problems arose they were normally solved in a practical/legal way and not by theological reflection as among the Christians. Finally, the question remained in suspense, and the memorandum of the conference only contained the recommendation of cooperating on local and national level for the sake of the state. As Ali E. Hillal Dessouki observed: "They have not come yet to a widely accepted answer as to the problems of Islam and modernity and the role of Islam in the modern national state." 1 At the dialogue in Hong Kong in 1975, the Muslim side discussed for the first time a traditionally conceived alternative to the dhimml model of 'protected persons' which creates a Muslim state comprising three separate communities (Muslim, Jewish and Christian). This system had prevailed after Mohammed's death but there was an older model which could be traced back to Mohammed's alliance with the inhabitants of Medina with whom Mohammed had taken refuge with his followers. A large proportion of the population of Medina at that time was Jewish and the alliance provided for the equal rights and cooperation of all citizens without creating the dhimml status. The speaker considered that this approach had become a reality to a large extent in the constitution of Malaysia. However, once again nothing about these reflections was included in the conference memorandum, which concentrated on how Christians and Muslims could build up states in Southeast Asia through dialogue and cooperation. 2

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

137

The feeling about these questions was also generally different. At the dialogue on the subject of mission at Chambesy in 1976, a Muslim from Indonesia emphasised that Indonesia's secular constitution had only come into existence under pressure from the former colonial power - the Netherlands, whereas now Christians referred to it to prevent the Muslim majority in Indonesia from living according to Islamic law. The desire of a Christian from Indonesia for a single citizenship with the same rights for all was ridiculed by the Muslim side as the wish for a uniform, dominant state along Western lines, in contrast to a serviceable Islamic state which respected individual freedoms. The Christians referred to the belligerent first hundred years of Islam which had profoundly influenced Christianity's attitude to Islam, and asked for the rejection of ¿¿ihad. This was turned down as un-Islamic; wars of aggression were prohibited anyway in Islam and defence was generally allowed. Compared with the intolerant West, the Islamic state represented a humanistic ideal such as no other system had as yet achieved. But otherwise the Muslims set great store by unlimited freedom not being possible, and considered that the situation in Indonesia especially was like in the early days of Islam when conversion from Islam amounted to deserting to the enemy one was fighting: "Faith is not just like an overcoat which one may put on and put off as one likes. It is also the foundation of the state. Change of loyalty in faith has implications for loyalty to the state. (...) It would be unfair to judge an ideological state on the criteria of a laissez faire state cast in the image of nineteenth century liberalism." 3 Tendencies to

Radicalisation

At the joint planning meeting in Cartigny later the same year, it was again emphasised that the relationship between faith and politics in Islam needed special clarification, in particular in places where Muslims were in the majority. Time and again, there were more or less concrete initiatives for meetings on this issue. However, mention must also be made of positive reactions from Muslims to Christian initiatives in the realm of the state and politics. In 1977, when it was more a question of science, a Muslim stated that the church had formed a counterbalance to newly developed scientific compulsions and limitations on political freedoms and this was not found in Islamic countries. But the overall tendency was different, as was also observed on the Catholic side: a radicalisation which equated Islam with Islamic law in cases of doubt and tried to reduce the Christians in Muslim dominated countries to a dhimml status of second-class citizens. This also became evident at the large reflective conference of Mombasa in 1979 where Christians of very varied backgrounds pooled their experiences, for example from countries like Bangladesh where Islam is included in the

138

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

constitution. Significantly enough, Indonesia was quoted in this setting as an example of the possibility of achieving a partnership relationship everywhere, with equal rights for Christians and Muslims and independently of numbers, if both sides made the effort. Reference was made here to the alliance of Medina quoted above. In connection with the revival of Islam, the predominant effort was to calm people down. It was admitted that religion and politics were closely interwoven in Islam and conservative circles in particular defended this, but that was not the whole story... Nevertheless, there had just been two attempts in Indonesia to introduce Islamic law instead of equal rights for all, and the Christians had resisted this discrimination from the very beginning, together with a constitutional provision stating that Muslims should work for the appointment of a Muslim president. But even the memorandum from Mombasa remained on this consoling line, on the one hand, rejecting secularism as a solution to the problem, but, on the other hand, demanding equal citizenship with the same rights for all, and it also proposed the relationship between human rights and Islamic law as a subject for the future. The last two points, at least, were acceptable even to the more critical. Islam, according to Olaf Schumann, had launched a political attack on diaconal service to persuade Christians in places where they were the minority to leave worldly affairs to others. Moreover, Muslims always wrote off human rights, and thus religious liberty as well, as being Western, and in the process they ignored the fact that these rights had been drawn up in an analogous situation of struggle against an absolute power, and it was not right to play with human life, whosesoever it might be. But he described the main aim of Mombasa - the coexistence of Christians and Muslims with equal rights - as "weithin eine Vision, deren Verwirklichung vor allem von den Minoritäten ersehnt, von den Majoritäten dagegen zumeist übergangen wird." 4 [mainly a vision, the realisation of which is particularly desired by the minorities but, on the other hand, usually ignored by the majorities.] The Egyptian constitution, for example, as was noted at the meeting of the Central Committee in 1980 in Geneva, deliberately does not contain any reference to the UN Human Rights Declaration. Such situations open the door for speculations about whether the Koran will soon be introduced as the only source of jurisprudence, including the consequence that Christians would then no longer be able to occupy positions giving them legal authority over Muslims, and that it would then not be so easy for them to take Muslims to court. The emphasis by Archimandrite Nikitin of Leningrad at the dialogue in Bossey in 1980, that separation of church and state was the main condition for religious liberty, also fits into this context. However, it was generally recognised that it is difficult in practice to keep state and religious concerns apart. It was the Muslims, in particular, who time and again raised the demand for a state under

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

139

Islamic law and who firmly rejected a solution like the pancasila of Indonesia. Thus the issue remained unresolved and urgent. Regional

Situations

At the regional dialogue of Porto Novo in 1986, religion and state even occurred as a specific theme. The Muslim speaker gave a description of an ideal Muslim state like in a textbook. The only link with present day reality was that such a state had never again existed after Medina, a state in which both ruler and subjects were exemplary Muslims above all and where, as far as non-Muslims were concerned, only Jews and Christians could become citizens, naturally providing that they submitted to the special legal requirements. The whole legal structure of the state both inwardly and outwardly was based on Islamic law, and politics was also strongly influenced by the account taken of Islamic interests. Egalitarian and social aspects were definitely clearly present in this model state, but according to an Islamic definition. One example of its foreign policy: "Quant aux États qui sont en guerre contre un pays ou un peuple musulman quelconque, ou une minorité islamique, ainsi que les États impérialistes qui cherchent à étendre injustement leur influence ou qui portent atteinte aux droits et au respect de l'homme ou qui sont hostiles à la mission universelle de l'Islam, de tels États seront traités sur la base de l'état de guerre. Leurs ressortissants, individus, groupes, organisations ou sociétés, auront le même traitement." 5 [As for States which are at war with any Muslim country or people whatsoever, or with a Muslim minority, as well as imperialist States which attempt unjustly to extend their influence, or which violate human rights or respect or are hostile to the universal mission of Islam, such States shall be treated on the basis of a state of war. Their nationals, individuals, groups, organisations or societies shall be treated in the same way.] The Christian speaker saw the issue in a quite different way, more from the point of view of Africa. The secular system which had remained as a foreign colonial inheritance (and therefore often did not work) did not take account of the fundamental significance which religion has for Africans, even in politics. On the other hand, secularisation was the only state basis on which (revealed) religions could meet because none had preference. To this end mutual acceptance, i.e. religious pluralism, was required. This acceptance was expressed in a constitutional, representative regime with freedom of opinion and religion, a separation of religion and state rooted in the constitution, and quite practically in the state's not laying down any provisions concerning family law and refraining completely from trying to exercise any religious influence on public life. All of this, the speaker said, also applied expressly to the Muslim states in Africa. The tension between Islam, which has a concrete conception of the

140

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

state, and Christianity, which is primarily concerned about other matters and therefore sees the state as a separate entity, even if this did not exclude some degree of involvement, - this tension was more than evident. In addition, there was the special African situation - and there was no solution to be found. There was a desire to bring religiosity back in as an African political entity, and to this end hopes were placed in God's support and guidance. The realm of schools, it was noted in another context, had been further and further removed from the religions and, at least in Benin itself, had never exercised a markedly one-sided influence.6 At the dialogue of Dhyana Pura in 1986, as was to be expected, the discussion also dealt with Indonesia. The Christian speaker was totally convinced by the pancasila model (belief in God, humanitarianism, nationalism, democracy and social justice); he considered the attempts to make Indonesia into an Islamic state to be attacks similar to colonialism. But basically, as became evident in the Christian address on religion and state, there is no generally valid Christian answer to this question; even the New Testament demonstrates both a positive (Rom. 13) and an absolutely negative (Rev. 13) attitude to the state. The predominant historical model in Southeast Asia was also the form of separation between church and state which had evolved in the West, and in which the state did not take its decisions according to Christian criteria. Naturally, there was a danger that the state might try to control the church and the Christians, but at the present time this was not much the case in the region. The speaker's ideal was that of a friendly relationship to the state, a relationship on various but not unrelated levels. The Muslim speaker on the issue was critical of the widespread opinion that Islam did not allow any separation of religion and state. In fact, the Koran did not lay down any provisions on this point, and even under the first four 'rightly guided' caliphs there had therefore been serious disagreements on the question. Moreover, the present-day 'Islamic' states were more than problematical and did not deserve this name; measures for Islamisation were in the hands only of a small minority and were superficial, missing the real religious and practical concerns of the majority, but useful for propaganda purposes. Overall, the Islamic conception of a state consisting of a large number of societies co-existing was considered worthy of attention.7 At the Kolymbari dialogue in 1987 the question of the state was also often raised and from many different angles. One sheikh spoke in favour of the ancient Near Eastern millet system which had, after all, guaranteed the Christians a secure and as good as equal position or, more precisely, fundamental human rights, their own law on personal status, religious liberty (even if the wife converted to Islam) and all offices apart from head of state. He was vehemently opposed to secularism, although he accused the Christians in the Middle East of not being secular and of exploiting

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

141

their contacts with other Christians to strengthen their present position (and against an Islamic state); on the other hand, he called on the Muslims in Europe to take advantage of the secular attitude of the West for their own benefit. The historical approach in the address by the Copt, Marie Assaad, showed clearly that, even if Christians were the original inhabitants, they could become second-class citizens in a Muslim country. On paper, according to the frequently quoted example, the Copts were entitled to a proportional share of administrative posts which, according to their subjective impression, they were never in fact granted. Other important juridical/political questions were simply never answered, such as whether according to Islamic law a Christian could be the boss of a Muslim or could administer justice when Muslims were involved in a court case. But Christians were also critical of their own governments. In England, according to one speaker, the basic attitude of the state was that religious matters are a private affair and should not be expressed against the prevailing opinion, but otherwise they were fanatical, extremist and fundamentalist. But he was unable to share this secularistic view. Again no solution was found, and one of the participants considered that one should not be misled about the long list of differences between Christianity and Islam: "The list could go on to include the incompatibility between the unification of society under Islamic shari'ah and the Christian distinction between political and spiritual." 8 It is significant that it was precisely the regional dialogue for North America (New Windsor 1988) which made the effort not to condemn secularisation wholesale. After all, the Muslims there also benefitted from freedom of religion and no one wanted the USA to be either a Christian or a Muslim state. At the next dialogue in Africa (Usa River 1989), religion and state were again dealt with as a separate issue. It was not considered enough for religion to be independent of the state; religion should also have an influence on the state. It was curious that the Muslim speaker repeatedly provided 'Christian' evidence to support his attitude. Thus, the secular states in the West were far from religiously neutral. He tried to explain the Islamic conception by using technical terms such as 'household of Islam', 'household of contract' and 'household of war'. The last, namely states which are openly hostile to Islam such as those under communist rule, must clearly be rejected. If Muslims could not depose such godless rulers or convince them (in this order), they would have to emigrate, if they could, of course. It was not so clear where the dividing line lay betweeen 'household of Islam' and 'household of contract'. There had never been a truly Islamic state since the first four 'rightly guided' caliphs; he even openly referred to Saudi Arabia and Iran as religious/

142

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

totalitarian states. Apart from this, it was not quite clear whether 'household of Islam' in fact depended on Muslims being the rulers (with religious liberty but not equal rights for others), or whether it was enough if everyone could live according to their own laws, which the speaker also described as the true observance of human rights. He also stated by analogy that it was undemocratic and un-Christian if no Muslim democracy prevailed when there was a Muslim majority. In all, the address expressed a conservative basic attitude and finally some degree of mistrust in regard to 'Christian' states. The Christian speaker on the subject came from Nigeria and was obviously speaking out of a situation where it was a direct concern. He quoted a well known Muslim scientist in order to make it clear that, in contrast to Christianity, Islam simply does not separate the worldly from the spiritual, and for this reason Muslims also want their political life to be shaped only by Islam. This was why Christians always suspected Muslims of working secretly for the introduction of an Islamic theocracy and therefore gave preference to a secular state, or even sometimes attempted to exercise Christian influence on state affairs - although they ought not to. The only experiences people had had of Islamic domination were of oppression and injustice. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that Muslims in an Islamic state are de facto more heavily taxed than Christians. But it became more and more evident that, for non-Muslims, a Muslim state meant second-class citizenship. The Muslims were, in any case, unable or did not want to provide a conception of an Islamic state in which Islamic law would really only apply to the Muslims. The general statement from the conference then said that religions should have every right to intervene in political affairs if these affected their faith and their values, as is indeed often the case.9 In the series of regional dialogues it became clear that the question of religion and the state is of special importance where a state is still looking for its own identity, like in Africa and Southeast Asia and, to a lesser extent, also in the Middle East where European influence has led directly or indirectly to breaking down the old Islamic state structures. In Europe, on the other hand, it is a much less relevant matter, despite the Muslim immigrants in recent times, and for the USA the problem really does not arise at all. State and Religion - an Intermediate Assessment All in all, as became clear, this constitutes one of the most important and problematical points for Christian/Muslim relations and the Christian/ Muslim dialogue. There seems to be no sign of a solution which could satisfy both sides and also enjoy majority support within each of the religions. Although the historically debatable Medina agreement was referred to twice in this connection, it does not appear to be what the

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

143

Muslims really want when they approach the organisation of the state according to their religious convictions - a problem which in any case does not arise in this form for Christians at all. The problem was recognised by the World Council of Churches; at the Assembly in Canberra it was even stated in the report of the Committee on Programme Policy that nationalism is particularly oppressive where a specific nationality is equated with a specific belief. The preliminary version of the guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue had said that the relation between religion (din), the world (dunya) and the state (dawla) was an interesting subject for dialogue, where, on the one hand, Christians did not always make a strict distinction between state and religious power and, on the other hand, Muslims made no distinction at all. This somewhat misleading formulation was spelled out more clearly in the final version by stating that many Muslims themselves certainly say that Islam is comprehensive and does not distinguish between religion and politics. But that it is able nevertheless to distinguish between political power and religious authority, just as Christianity does not have an established political model and yet is not geared only to the inner life of individuals. For example, it was stated clearly that Christians did not want to be second-class citizens in their own countries. This is a brief, conciliatory but clear description of what had become evident about the state and religion in the Christian/Muslim dialogues. 10

The Problem of Minorities in General Differing conceptions of the state become particularly acute when minorities of one religion or the other are affected. At Cartigny in 1969, a Lebanese priest, Youakim Moubarac, had already touched in this issue and mentioned the Christians in Sudan, for example, but also the new Muslim minorities developing in Christian countries. They needed still more assistance, not only from Christians but also in Christian/Muslim cooperation. In the course of the dialogue in Southeast Asia, the problems of the Muslim minority on the Philippines was also presented. Although for the sake of peace the central authorities had gone quite a long way towards meeting their religious demands, they continued to be the most despised group of the country's population, religiously misunderstood and with a sense of being oppressed. This was a situation in which interreligious dialogue could really help to overcome prejudices and fears and to build up community. On the other side, it is apparently difficult or even impossible for Muslims to accept that Christians are also victims of discrimination in Muslim states and sometimes more severely because of the system itself. This can and may not be, because, as was repeatedly stated, a Muslim state is the most humane form that has ever existed on this earth and shows exemplary tolerance to Jews and Christians. At a dialogue in Chambesy in June 1979, there had also been disagreement

144

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

about this and, whereas the Christians accepted the Muslim accusations and expressed an apology, the other side put it as follows: "The conference was grieved to hear that some Christians in some Muslim countries have felt themselves limited in the exercise of their religious freedom and have been denied their right to Church buildings."11 However, on the Christian side John B. Taylor's advice was to reflect in general on how the way in which a Christian majority treats a Muslim minority can also affect the way in which a Muslim majority may treat a Christian minority elsewhere (cf. as evidence Abdoul Karim Cisse quoted above, according to whose statements any individual from a country which combatted Muslims in any way should also be dealt with juridically under to martial law). As John B. Taylor had to admit at the internal meeting in Mombasa in 1979, some churches were being as severely persecuted as had never been the case since the genocide of the Armenians. In such places Christian witness had become martyrdom. On the other hand, according to one account of experiences, in England people might be approaching the new Muslim minority and its practical difficulties uncertainly and hesitantly but nevertheless with concern and in a friendly way. The contribution from the Indonesian point of view sounded optimistic: Indonesia was an example which could also convince sceptics in the Middle East that a partnership relation with equal rights did not depend on numbers, but could be a reality and legally established everywhere if both sides made the effort (and justifications exist, like the Medina contract). The common statement from Mombasa also said that numerical balances should not be emphasised in order not to promote division instead of a life of faith irrespective of size. Once again after Mombasa, John B. Taylor underlined that, even if Muslims imagined they were suffering discrimination from Christians, other Christians might have to pay the price. It was particularly surprising that he painted a positive picture of the attitude to the dialogue of Christians from Muslim countries. This leads one to recall a participant who had already remarked at Mombasa about the incomprehension and indeed accusations of Western Christians against those who were concretely faced with the problems of being a Christian minority in an Islamic context and were correspondingly perplexed and pessimistic. 12 In the reports of a number of later conferences formulations also occur which give one pause. At the youth dialogue at Bossey, a Lebanese Christian woman was still of the opinion that each religious community should first begin to accept others in its own internal life and its own traditions and to include them in building up a better world and humanity; otherwise minority problems would be unavoidable. However, in the published group report only minorities were called upon to be tolerant. An even harsher statement was made by Ahmad von Denffer at the Colombo dialogue in

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

145

1982, that every Muslim who did not live in a state based on Islamic law belonged to a minority. Consequently, the Christians in Indonesia and wherever else possible had made sure that the Muslims became a minority. Finally, it was agreed that minorities should have guarantees for the continued existence of their community and for full freedom of worship, and private religious law should also be taken into account. However, discussion was still needed about how the latter was to be implemented, and also about the possibilities of new multi-religious communities. It was certainly easier to encourage cooperation in situations where both Muslims and Christians were in the minority. The Christians added to this that the question of human rights still had to be discussed - in the tension between the individual, the minority and the majority. On the regional level things looked more positive; at Dhyana Pura in 1986 a Muslim observed that, since the fall of Marcos, the situation of the Muslim minority on the Philippines also seemed to have improved. Europe and the Middle East as Problem

Areas

Major disgreement took place only in the regional dialogue for Europe and the Middle East (Kolymbari 1987) which also covered the ancient 'mother countries' of Islam. The basic Muslim attitude to minority questions was rarely so evident as in the words of Sheikh Darsh. He more or less accused the Christians in the Middle East of being responsible themselves for their problems. They had risked their secure position in the old system, where their rights were as good as equal, when they exploited the colonial powers to guarantee themselves a better education and thus, in fact, a privileged position. The Christian minority continued to be the point of entry for foreign intervention, as evidenced by the resistance against the implementation of Islamic law. Christians were bigotted and belligerent and simply did not want to share their old advantages with the Muslim masses, although this would be only fair. For the Muslims, again in line with the ancient milla system, he demanded their own religious family law, and also Muslim schools with the requisite educational context for them - this all despite his awareness that the Muslim minority in the West, thanks to the tolerance of the secular authorities, had so far had no problems in their family and social life and had also always had rooms available for prayer. He was also aware that the interests of the Muslims were a challenge to the whole Western conception of liberalism and human rights, but nevertheless called on the Muslims - and even the Christians - to fight for these concerns by all means. In England, as others made clear, Islam had also benefitted from its proximity to Judaism as a long established minority, e.g. with regard to ritual slaughtering. The contribution already quoted from Egypt was an exemplary description of the development and situation of the Christians there: it described how the Christians had firstly been legally made into

146

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

second-class citizens and thus a 'minority', whereupon there was a wave of conversions which made them a numerical minority as well, and this minority still had the feeling today that it was not even granted its guaranteed proportional share in public life. The proportion of Copts in public life and their overall influence were extremely small, and they lived in the constant fear that Islamisation might make things still worse, e.g. Christians would no longer be appointed judges, or indeed to any leading positions at all. A contribution from Saudi Arabia (by Syed Z. Abedin from the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Jiddah), showed that a capacity for awareness of Christian minorities in one's own area does not develop until one begins to be concerned about the problems of Muslim minorities elsewhere. In the discussion as well, the two minorities were kept strictly separate by definition: Muslims in Europe are really a foreign phenomenon, whereas Christians are clearly at home in the Middle East. In Europe it was merely a different kind of culture which separated the minority from the majority, whereas in the Middle East it was more a matter of differences in status. There were problems in the West as well, as was repeatedly emphasised, but less on the purely legal level than because of a negative presentation in the media and the consequent influence on the general climate of opinion. Finally, it was stated that the rights of Muslims in Europe and those of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East had to be defended. But a question asked about this in Kolymbari still remains unanswered: "Do the Muslims accept a civil society in which all citizens are equal? Why may Muslims ask European societies to apply their philosophy of human rights on their behalf, while Middle Eastern Christians do not have the same rights?"' 3 However, the minorities question did not only concern the dialogue department but also the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches. At its meeting in Turkey in 1988, it reflected on the church there, one of the really ancient churches: it was suffering yet again from severe persecution, and now also in an absolute minority situation, and thus urgently needed help from Christians around the world. From the opposite point of view, it was again emphasised by the Muslim side a little later on that it was undemocratic not to have an Islamic theocracy where there was a Muslim majority. The issue of religious minorities and their rights became increasingly acute, especially in view of the many Christians who had to flee from the Middle East. Finally, that is the only region where the very existence of the churches is affected by living as a minority among Muslims. But there, too, the old forms of association are no longer valid and new forms with greater partnership are not yet in sight. The conference at Valetta in 1991 dealt mainly with refugee issues, but in the run up to it Christian/Muslim minority problems had again been in

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

147

evidence in a massive way: the increasingly acute situation in the West where Muslims now work and live on a permanent basis, the oil producing states where Christians are short term workers, and the Oriental Christians who, although they have been living in the country longer than the dominant Muslims, are nevertheless treated like foreigners. This conference constituted a major step beyond an exchange of information and opinion to concrete action, even if this was specifically in aid to refugees. 14 Remaining

Problems

In the preliminary version of the dialogue guidelines it was wisely stated that there were many variations of the majority/minority problem, because a minority was not always powerless (cf. the various terms used for minorities). Moreover, the typical minority situations were a worthwhile subject, whether in the West or in Muslim countries where it was a matter of Islamic law. In the final version, the problems of minorities were also given a prominent place, justified in the sense that the status of minority for such groups as indigenous inhabitants, foreign workers, new arrivals, etc., had a strong effect on their relations with the majority. It was stated expressly that there was no room for more details. 15 Dialogue and Open

Conflicts

Sometimes the tensions and problems between Christians and Muslims have, however, developed into open conflicts, into political conflicts which were also religious, or into religious conflicts which were also political - a question which is not easy to answer and sometimes itself becomes the point of dispute. T o give an example from the first major Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1 9 7 2 at Broumana: John B. Taylor: "[T]he real reasons for the friction may have been political, economic or tribal, but the fact that a religious frontier lay along the same line of friction meant that it was easy to interpret the differences between them as religious" 16 . Ali E. Hillal Dessouki (a Muslim but in favour of complete secularism): "[T]ensions between Christian and Muslim communities usually arise when political and social problems are approached from a religious perspective or solved in religious terms." 17 On the one hand, it was John B. Taylor who referred at a suitable moment to political conflicts with religious overtones being an abuse of religion and showing a false understanding of absoluteness among its followers which did not correspond to either Christianity or Islam. But it is also clear that nothing gets dialogue moving and keeps it moving, and even perhaps making progress, as much as precisely such conflicts. There

148

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

were ideas about Christian/Muslim delegations going to visit political crisis regions in order to analyse the situation there and convey hope of reconciliation. In certain conflict situations, however, it was also necessary to recognise that dialogue was very difficult or even completely impossible. The latter applied to countries like China, South Africa, Ethiopia and Iran. The refugee problem already came up in the debate at Colombo in 1 9 8 2 , again with the demand for a state with Islamic law as a solution to all the problems of the Muslims ( 7 5 % of all refugees worldwide), although the speaker admitted that the causes were often internal, between convinced and nominal Muslims, and not between Christians and Muslims. In the mid-eighties, the dialogue department noted an increasing number of attempts to exploit religion for militant purposes - the upsurge of Islam was a phenomenon that had been going on for some time, as was the accompanying greater persecution of Christians (cf. Mombasa 1979). However, the Muslims' reproach was often that the Christians with their dialogues were trying to avoid the serious (religio-)political problems. The World Council of Churches took up this accusation and not only observed that dialogue was a special challenge precisely in situations of political conflict; it also took a concrete stand, although this was not really so unusual. When the dialogue department was restructured into the Office for Inter-religious Relations, religious conflicts were specifically mentioned among its tasks - to maintain or re-establish communication, to support religious leaders and thus contribute indirectly to solutions. In 1 9 9 2 at Evian, a dialogue on religion and conflict situations was planned, among other things, with the aim, as far as possible, of making concrete proposals for promoting peace. Tarek Mitri, a Lebanese with the Gulf War still before his eyes in a sense, had emphasised expressly that every kind of activity (including inter-religious dialogue) would have to be long-term in order to have a short-term effect in such situations. The distinctions, for example, which became clear in such a dialogue, also among Islamic radicals, were then steam-rollered by the media in crisis situations. Nor should one, on the other hand, give uncritical credence to religious leaders who claimed that the various conflicts were not religious wars. In a case of conflict these people suddenly became extremely active and emphasised common features in an artificial and Utopian way that made them sound very different from the language used within their own community of faith. 18 Hotbeds of Conflict in Southeast Asia Examples of real conflict can be found almost everywhere in the world. In Southeast Asia in the Philippines there is a Muslim minority and in Indonesia and Malaysia a Christian minority, all of which have to struggle with more or less considerable difficulties. Many of the Muslims in the

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

149

Philippines, or more precisely in Mindanao, felt compelled for religious reasons to resist the central authorities, even though this may not be clear according to Islamic law. At Colombo in 1 9 8 2 , the Muslims demanded unanimous condemnation of the persecution of these Muslims, similar to the condemnation of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. With the fall of Marcos, as has already been mentioned, this situation also initially improved. 1 9 Reference has already been made to the problematical legal situation in Malaysia, aggravated by superficial measures of Islamisation. One point of permanent disagreement is Indonesia. Depending on whether the point of view is Christian or Muslim, the evaluation of the situation there can often be diametrically opposed. At the Ajaltoun dialogue a Muslim from Indonesia claimed that the situation had been good until 1 9 6 0 , but then the Christians, especially the Adventists, had increasingly violated the religious sensitivities of the Indonesians by their missionary activities and sometimes even given rise to open violence. Christian missionaries have not even hesitated to intervene in the affairs of the host country for their own advantage. Thus in West Irian, prior to the vote on the status of the territory, they had set members of the tribes against the Indonesian government. But no mention was made here of the fact that the Indonesian policy in the Western region of the island of New Guinea was very much disputed on an international level. Under pressure from the USA, in 1 9 6 9 the United Nations had allowed the occupation of West Irian by Indonesia, although the supposedly free decision of the Papuans in favour of this had been brought about by bribery and brutal force, and the U N O observer on the spot had expressed severe criticism of the events and conditions. The territory was, as it were, a political 'gift' in order to relate Indonesia more closely to the West. Indonesia exploits its new territory ruthlessly with the help of international companies and uses it with the generous assistance of the World Bank as a colonial settlement, especially for the Muslim population surplus from Java; in the process the basic necessities of life and the traditions of the original stone age population - and indeed the people themselves - have been systematically destroyed and are still being destroyed. It was particularly critical that the Indonesian authorities used Christian missionaries, because they were able to establish contact with the Papuans who did not trust the Indonesian officials. But the general trend of the report was that really the Christians were guilty of all the problems, especially by insisting on their mission, and were only good at setting themselves up as the victims. For example, they had built superfluous and expensive churches in Muslim centres and thus aroused the displeasure of the Muslims: "When an accident really occurred afterwards, the Christians tried to incite public opinion to blame the Muslims for being aggressive and intolerant." 2 0

150

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

The plan to hold the Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Jakarta in 1974 failed as well, because fundamentalist Islamic groups in the country accused the Indonesian churches of wanting to use the Assembly to start a major Christianisation campaign and, above all, threatened not to remain inactive while this was happening. Nor did they see Christians simply as Christians but as the political agents of foreign powers. The Indonesian situation was therefore comparable with the early days of Islam, when a conversion from Islam to another religion was equated with desertion to the enemy. Naturally, the Christians defended themselves against such accusations, but they then finally (at the Chambesy conference in June 1976) apologised for colonialism, neo-colonialism, etc. in response to criticisms such as the following: "I personally do not agree to discuss with anyone who argues that there is no neo-colonialism today in, for example, Indonesia. (...) If you don't see that Christians in places like Tanzania and Indonesia are being used by imperialist forces, then there is no point in our continuing our conversation." 21 The practical counter-measures of the Muslims went so far on occasion that (as has been mentioned) Muslim patients were rebuked and deprived of 'Christian' medicine, naturally without a 'Muslim' substitute; this was officially a measure against the mission which the Christians should long since have ended, but in fact it was a political, not a religious act. Tahi Bonar Simatupang, a Christian and leading figure in postcolonial Indonesia, considered the attempts to make Indonesia into an Islamic state an attack on equal rights and religious liberty comparable to colonialism. The differences from the radical Muslims still run deep. 22 Hotbeds of Conflict in Africa Political conflicts in Africa were also touched on in the dialogues, especially during the relatively frequent regional dialogues there. Very early on, the opinion was voiced that Christian/Muslim dialogue should not only counteract wars of religion but, precisely in the case of Islam, apartheid as well as an outgrowth of inequality. And, indeed, Islam had not only fought for equality in Africa but also for its own cause, conquering pagan territory and causing a number of conversions simply by means of this threat. In Africa too, Christian/Muslim dialogue did not only enjoy support locally. When a meeting of the Dialogue Working Group was to take place in 1988 at Khartoum in Sudan, the plans had to be changed at short notice because of a lack of government support, and the meeting was shifted to Switzerland. That is hardly surprising, because Sudan has been suffering from a civil war and, after many years of inhuman treatment which claims a justification in Islamic law (Sudan had already been on the problem list for the Christian/Muslim dialogue at Cartigny in 1969), Christian rebels in the South are attempting a rebellion.

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

151

Among the inhuman practices there are drastic punishments like cutting off hands for theft which, according to a speaker from Nigeria at a dialogue in 1989, is a point of considerable disagreement even within Islam, since it is linked with a state which offers all its citizens a good quality of life. Nevertheless, the Muslim head of state declared that Sudan constituted a new attempt at implementing Islamic law while respecting the rights of non-Muslims. Something similar had taken place in Nigeria itself. In a situation of stalemate between Christians and Muslims in 1988, the state had decided to include shari'a in the constitution - only for Muslims and with the reasoning that anything else was sheer injustice and a denial of fundamental human rights for these very Muslims. But in reality non-Muslims had already been brought before shari'a courts. Behind all the Christian/Muslim conflicts in Africa, according to the speaker, there were different conceptions of the relationship between religion and the state. The group of Nigerian participants at this conference drew up their own statement including the proposal to set up a national dialogue forum to improve Christian/Muslim relations. The group suggested cooperation with other persons and institutions, especially the W C C sub-unit on dialogue, and had already drawn up a list of names for the forum and established a working group for fund-raising and secretarial work. 23 Propaganda War in the West In Europe and particularly in America there were no open conflicts and the Muslims were very concerned to maintain a good public image. They claimed that the West always presented only the political problems related to Islam (a blood covered priest killed by a Muslim, etc.) and thus prevented any understanding. This kind of television propaganda, making it look as if the Christians were being thrown to the lions, was a form of violence and should be stopped. It was generally emphasised that Muslim mission did not entail any kind of compulsion, neither political and certainly not physical, as many non-Muslims believed. Muslims were only entitled to have recourse to military means when they had been attacked or when limitations were imposed on the freedom of a nation to decide for itself (for or against Islam). The Islamic conquests of the seventh century were ignored by this argumentation. And, in any case, if on some occasion Muslims had not behaved in such an open and tolerant way, finally in the Muslim view this was again the responsibility of Christianity because of its lack of distance from the state and the dominant position of Christians in modern times. 24 Unresolved

Problems

Precisely in the realm of conflict situations, the attempt at guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue showed weaknesses, according to the

152

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

people responsible in Geneva. Too little account had been taken of the role of religion in situations of conflict, admittedly difficult in the context of a balancing act between Muslims who considered dialogue a form of covert evangelisation and Christians who saw it as naive. The final 'guidelines', which were admittedly more reflections, emphasised right at the start that, even on the practical level of Christian/Muslim relationships, negative experiences had outweighed positive ones. Muslims also had a bad image of Christianity and believed there was a permanent crusade under way. The Muslim reservations about dialogue (neo-imperialism, intellectual colonialism) were set against the Christian reservations (naive romanticism which ignored the threat from Islamic fanaticism) without going into the ones or the others. National conflicts in which religion plays a part were in any case right at the top of the list of issues for future dialogues. 25 Dialogue and the War over Israel The conflicts in one particular region have always provided a lot of material for the Christian/Muslim dialogue - the Near and Middle East. The heartland of Islam lies within this tense region, as also do the oldest Christian churches and the re-established Jewish state. This produces a highly explosive, religio-political mixture with complicated inter-relationships that extend beyond this region. More or less open conflicts tend to be the rule rather than the exception. It is therefore hardly surprising that this question immediately occupied the Christian/Muslim dialogue as well. The occasion for the dialogue at Cartigny in 1969 was the Six-Days War, and a priest from Lebanon immediately made it unmistakably clear to the World Council of Churches that the question of the state of Israel was a matter of life and death, to which the Christian/Muslim dialogue had already been committed and about which the Christians of the region agreed with the Muslims - namely that Palestine had been promised equally to all the children of Abraham. He saw the argument of election as a mere pretext and the threat of genocide for the Jews in the Near East as the outcome of a Western guilt complex. He considered crusades, colonialism and Zionism to be so similar that he found it completely incomprehensible that worldwide Jewry could support Zionism. In any case, he stated clearly that there was no more important or urgent problem to be tackled by the Christian/Muslim dialogue than the state of Israel. Not even the Muslim, also a Lebanese, spoke as harshly as this. The latter painted a picture of a freely established Palestinian commonwealth in which Jews, Christians and Muslims could live together in peace, dignity, freedom, justice and equality. However, this would also require a 're-definition' of Israel. In its present form it was a betrayal of monotheism, an "arbitrary association of God's promises with one religion, one race, one nation, and one state.

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

153

(...) True Israel (...) is spiritual Israel which encompasses all monotheists, all the People of the Book, who have answered God's call." 2 6 The official statement from the conference contains next to nothing of this; the reference to the responsibility of both religions for the political problems in the Near East comes last among the questions which show the necessity of Christian/Muslim dialogue. But there was an unofficial declaration dealing with the problem of Palestine and its significance for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. It was published as an appendix to the official statement of the conference in Beirut and Hyderabad, but not in the corresponding W C C collection of documents or in the German version. T h a t is hardly surprising because, from the very beginning, it was only intended for submission to the W C C Executive Committee and not for publication. This declaration made clear that the question of Palestine constituted a top level problem for the Christian/Muslim dialogue which had mainly been created by Western Christendom but had to be solved in truth and justice for the sake of the Jews. It raised a number of questions: whether Western Christendom would not come into conflict with the universality of its faith if it supported national Zionism, whether it was not trying to solve its problem about anti-Semitism at the expense of others, whether the Christian West was aware at all that the Palestinian revolution wanted a democratic Palestine with religious liberty and equality for all, and, finally, what a more just development policy should look like because: " T h e efforts of Western nations to assure Israel of permanent technological superiority will be understood as a continuation of colonialist and imperialist policies by Arab countries." 2 7 These appeals were certainly heard; it was recognised that the political situation made it urgently necessary for the World Council of Churches to express its concern for the people in the Near East in a somewhat more practical way. N o r were the consequences for the Christian/Muslim dialogue ignored: "Stoff für den Dialog fehlt also nicht, der Hinweis auf die gegenwärtigen politischen Verhältnisse zeigt allerdings auch, wie zerbrechlich das Unternehmen bleibt. Es ist keine Selbstverständlichkeit, wenn dieses Gespräch dauern und wachsen kann." 2 8 [There is therefore no lack of material for the dialogue; however, the reference to contemporary political conditions also shows how fragile this undertaking remains. One cannot just take for granted that the dialogue will be able to continue and develop.] The W C C Central Committee at Canterbury in 1 9 6 9 resolved to propose a dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims on the guardianship of the holy places, the status and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. But as a result of political differences much time elapsed before it was possible at all to convene a 'trialogue'. The Central Committee expressed itself politically in favour of the Palestinians: they had suffered injustice and

154

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

they would be given every possible support. It almost literally quoted something an Arab had said in Cartigny and suggested "that the subject of biblical interpretation be studied in order to avoid the misuse of the Bible in support of partisan political views and to clarify the bearing of faith upon critical political questions" 29 . At a conference on the Palestinian refugee problem these comments were supported: they should be included in the guidelines for all the Christian churches and be presented time and again at every level. As far as the refugee problem was concerned, in the future the Palestinians themselves should participate and a regional conference of churches be established in order to deal with the problem more effectively. 30 During the multi-religious dialogue at Ajaltoun there were just a few anti-Israeli statements. What was far more significant was the importance attributed to the Palestinian problem by the Arab participants: the solving of this problem practically became the justification for the Christian/ Muslim dialogue. This was most evident in the Christian/Muslim round of discussion which was intended to draw up plans for the future and make a contribution - albeit not binding - to the memorandum. The conversation very quickly turned to the matter of how concretely the subject of liberation should be treated, because here the Arabs - both Muslim and Christian - wanted the Palestinian issue mentioned in the memorandum, in order to preserve their credibility in the eyes of their fellow countrymen. At the first attempt it was only possible to agree on formal points: the problem was as serious and difficult as the question of Vietnam, and this body in any case did not have the power to resolve it. Everything else was postponed because there was serious disagreement even between Christians of different backgrounds. To give a sample of the verbal statements: Hassan Saab, Muslim, Beirut: "Palestine problem a crisis for all of you especially of Western Christian friends - who we feel have brought on us this crisis with the Jewish people. In this Arab-Israeli problem religions have been misused and misinterpreted - the state of Israel is not a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy but of Nazi prophecy (Rosenberg)"31. Youakim Moubarac, Maronite, France: "[W]e would have no credibility (a) with youth /47 (b) with poor as regards Palestinian problem - we Arab Christians/Muslims are ready to solve this problem (...) - we cannot do so unless you solve your problem in the West. (...) I (...) ask for (...) a free message over your signature." 32 Kenneth Cragg, Anglican, Beirut/Cambridge: "[T]here is an inner dynamism towards evil in every solution we pro-

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

155

If there was anything more accurate it was the following statement: "[W]e could a) say nothing and be accused of indifference b) say something and be accused of having said nothing /SI c) say something miraculous which will solve this."34 The discussion in the afternoon was no less stormy. The group was almost completely divided over the question whether the reference to Palestine should be supplemented by a mention of the relevant passages from the Canterbury meeting. The objection was that the declaration was disputed even within the WCC. In addition, the debate dealt with the sensitivities of the Palestinians, on the one hand, and those of the Israelis, on the other. There was no desire to hurt one side to such an extent that dialogue became impossible, and they therefore finally refrained from the reference on the grounds that it was impossible in any case officially to represent a faith community, country or body. At the press conference to explain the memorandum it was, however, possible for anyone to refer personally to the Canterbury declaration. Further disagreements arose, in conclusion, about the following sentence from the memorandum: "The Consultation proceeded throughout in a sharp awareness of the place of contemporary history and of the bitter crisis in human relationships, nearest of all to us, that of this Middle East, because of our place of meeting."35 All other possible formulations were vigorously rejected by David E. Jenkins of the WCC as, note the wording, an "idolatrous view of the Holy Land." 36 Wisely enough, as people outside felt, the Israeli question had been postponed, only it had to be dealt with in the future and together with Jews, if nothing else because of the fighting in the Middle East: "[T]he Arab-Israeli wars (...) are nothing else but temporary explotions (sic!) of huge theological problems"37. The Muslims had a special interest in these questions. Hussain Mones from Kuwait took the initiative for a preliminary meeting before the Christian/Muslim dialogue at Broumana at which he was concerned, inter alia, about the future of Jerusalem or, more precisely, protecting the El Aqsa Mosque from arson. It was striking that a Muslim should presume Christian solidarity against Israel, especially with reference to the Arab region: "We have disputed Jerusalem so long that we are menaced to loose it for a third part which is positively unfriendly to both of us."38 And at Broumana itself every free moment during the discussion was devoted to the problem of Palestine; once again the discussions were more

156

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

tense than one might suppose from the final statement. One of the participants described the psychological background to the debate as follows: "The danger such people face and the humiliation they suffer predispose them to appropriate concrete and specific outcomes to their grievances, and on these outcomes they also, rightly or wrongly, stake the veracity of religious values. Penitence can come to mean the return of the other side to a position one judges / 6 to be acceptable instead of a willingness to be subjected to the scrutiny of one's own professed ideals. Self-criticism can be muted by an appeal to the alleged wrongs and injustices one has suffered"39. At least it again became unmistakably clear that the Christian/Muslim dialogue has to remain in contact with such contemporary crises like the Middle East question in order to continue to be convincing. The World Council of Churches then appealled to the churches to use their influence to get the Canterbury declaration put into practice, but all that became evident was how little such a church appeal can achieve in view of the rigidity of Middle East politics. In October 1973 the Yom Kippur war broke out. The W C C made another statement through its general secretary, calling for compliance with the UNO resolutions and for nonintervention by the superpowers, namely no threats, supplies of armaments nor military activities. On some occasions, it appeared in the Christian/Muslim dialogue as if the World Council of Churches was being very generous to the Muslim side over political issues, in a way which differed however, from the generosity of the conservative Muslims against the background of their image of the 'protected status' of Jews or Christians. The question of Jerusalem is an example of that. The World Council of Churches was uncertain how to find the right ways and means for 'sharing' it. The Saudi Arabian visitors to the WCC, first and foremost an adviser to King Faisal, were not bothered by such doubts. It obviously had to be possible for followers of all three religions to visit their holy places, but Palestine would belong to those who had always lived there. He firmly rejected the idea that every Jew was a citizen of Israel. 40 When the UNO granted the PLO observer status, it gave rise to general optimism that there would soon be negotiations between Israel and the PLO, and a peace agreement would be reached with land for each side. It also provided a new impetus for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. The churches should encourage this process, it was stated at a conference on the Middle East problems, especially by serving as interpreters for both parties and their fears, and by means of the dialogue offering them a source for building up confidence. The churches could use their relationships with both sides to win the understanding of each side for the other. One special concern in this context was to preserve Jerusalem and its holy

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

157

places for its inhabitants to their full extent and with self-determination. The basic mood had really changed; it was no longer so one-sided: "Both sides presently fear that their very existence is threatened. In some cases the fear is based on reality, in others it may be mainly psychological. Be that as it may, the fear itself is a reality and has become a major political factor." 41 The Middle East Kaleidoscope Nevertheless, at the beginning of 1976 the Executive Committee had take a stand on the civil war in Lebanon and made an appeal to all the member churches to do whatever they could to contribute to peace with justice there and in the whole region. Overall, the subject of Israel no longer seemed to be so urgent whereas heated debates were now taking place on Islamic law. For this, the Near and Middle East again provided a wealth of material. The Muslims here had been exercising their Islamic conception of the state for centuries, and Christians had suffered under it until European influence increased and finally - via colonial power - celebrated its victories, which had in turn embittered the Muslims. At the dialogue in Chambesy in June 1976, this was the reason behind the mutual accusations, and those of the Muslims were considerably more comprehensive and drastic although they were less up to date. However, the concern about Middle East politics continued, focusing now on the conflict in Lebanon. The Central Committee emphasised in another statement that the conflict was political and not religious in nature, and that the media should kindly take this into account. There was also a link between solving the Lebanon conflict and the Palestinian question. The aspect of the Lebanon conflict which constituted a hard blow for the Christian/ Muslim dialogue was, at least at first sight, the loss of a model of friendly, peaceful coexistence. Another, less spectacular example of peaceful coexistence between Christians and Muslims had broken down one year earlier than Lebanon, namely Cyprus. Here, too, the WCC called on the Turkish government to comply with the UN resolutions, to respect religious places and not to expel any more Greek Cypriots from the occupied north and replace them with Turks. Thus politics and the Near East and the Near East and politics remained one main point of emphasis. The appeal to have more dialogue with Muslims which the dialogue department addressed to the American churches also referred expressly to American interests in the Middle East. But it was no longer a surprise that the Muslims in the dialogue had still more interest in Middle East politics than the Christians. 42 One of the noteworthy phenomena of the Christian/Muslim dialogue was that it was possible to hold a dialogue conference in Beirut in the middle of the civil war (1977). Nevertheless, although the Middle East

158

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Council of Churches was also able to hold a conference of Lebanese Christians and Muslims that year, albeit in Geneva, Lebanon remained a problem. The will to get involved in dialogue declined, especially among the Muslims in the Near East. At the same time, the problems were spreading further afield and becoming more acute. The 'young' churches, as could be seen, were often more open to dialogue with Muslims than the old churches in the Near and Middle East which were already firmly in the grip of Islam. The problem of Palestinian refugees also reappeared on the agenda. Less had been achieved than expected; there was still some confusion about interpretations of the Scriptures in relation to the state of Israel; the Palestinians had no self-determination and no state of their own, and in the future one would probably have to expect to see more Palestinian refugees than there were Palestinians in Palestine. But at least in the meantime there was no more disagreement about the existence of a Palestinian identity. At the end, the consultation voiced a warning about a global conflict if no just solution could be found. The anti-Israeli attitude certainly still existed, particularly in conservative Muslim circles, and had been expressed politically, for example in the oil crisis. The hostage affair in Iran again raised the question of Islam's basic approach to human rights. Precisely the upsurge of Islam that was programmatically visible in Iran had made all the old tensions in the region acute again. In Lebanon, according to the summary of the youth dialogue in 1980 at Bossey, political leaders had successfully exploited religion in order to divide the country. 43 The Central Committee of the WCC had sometimes exposed itself to considerable criticism with its statements on Middle East issues. It had condemned the declaration of Jerusalem as a whole as the eternal capital of Israel, and emphasised the importance of the city to people of all three religions. This came up against criticism from the Jewish side, claiming that it was only for the Jews that Jerusalem was the centre of the world and the focus of their expectations for thousands of years. The International Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations described the W C C statement simply as one-sided and prejudiced. Naturally, the World Council of Churches also condemned the Israeli interventions in Lebanon: Israel's security could only be guaranteed by a just peace with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab countries. In a further declaration, at least, the WCC Central Committee not only called for the withdrawal of all occupation forces from Lebanon, especially those of Israel; it also demanded rights for Israel, for example border guarantees, and appealed for support for those in Israel who desired peace. From the Muslim side, on the other hand, there was only criticism of Israeli policies, for example from the beginning at the large conference of Colombo in 1982 in the opening speeches and messages of greeting. The Muslims demanded unanimous condemnation of the aggression against the Palestinians.

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

159

It must, however, again be emphasised that Lebanon was definitely not counted among the countries in which no Christian/Muslim dialogue was possible. The list comprised the whole Arabian peninsula, together with Mauritania and Somalia where there were quite simply no Christians. Nevertheless, the overall situation in the Near East remained more than difficult, as the Assembly of the Middle East Council of Churches put it on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of its founding: "[W]e struggle for unity and stability in Cyprus, national unity and peace in Lebanon, freedom for Jerusalem, the rights of the Palestinian people and an end to war between Iraq and Iran. (...) In our own bodies, we feel the suffering of our people awaiting the day when God will free our people from war, oppression and occupation." 44 The Kolymbari dialogue in 1987 dealt with Europe and the Near East, and thus also offered plenty of opportunities for the participants to express themselves on political issues. This happened from very different points of view; the most radical was undoubtedly the sheikh who has already been quoted several times. He saw the Muslim terrorist as a convenient Western stereotype, and considered the Christians in the Middle East responsible themselves for their difficult situation, right across the board. After all, why had they abandoned their secure and, in his view, almost equal position within the old Islamic system, obtained better education and thus a privileged position with the help of the Western colonial powers - which were naturally also their fellow believers made this clearly a despicable, non-secular act - so why did they continue to try and maintain these privileges by a bigoted fight using all possible means against the introduction of Islamic law? It all boiled down to showing that the Christians in the Near East were unjust, concerned about their own advantages and therefore rightly suspect for the newly established national states. The analysis of the Lebanese problem was rather more balanced. Lebanon, according to one speaker, had never been a democracy even as understood by its own citizens; on the contrary, it was based on the fact that there were political disagreements within the individual religious groups in the country which had secular leaders who came to agreements with one another in a secular manner. Over against this system, on the side of the citizens there was the natural desire for solidarity within their own faith communities and, above all, on the side of the leaders there was the wish for more power over their own people and thus for more power in general. This could only be achieved by means of (pseudo-)religiosity and always created a state within the state which endangered the whole, finally, par excellence, in the form of the civil war with its militia, expulsions, and regional and international intervention. The leaders were the last from whom peace could be expected because they profitted most

160

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

from the situation. Lebanon as a state still existed only because of international interests and the will of its ordinary citizens. But the latter were not able sufficiently to express their desire for peace and had first to recognise clearly themselves all that really separated them from one another. The speaker from Egypt referred, finally, to the situation we have already often quoted, where the Copts had called the Muslims to their aid because of religious disputes with the Byzantines, and as a consequence unexpectedly found themselves under new and generally worse rulers in their own country. The Copts enjoyed recognition at the most from the British who were able to understand their sense of superiority as the original inhabitants. But, even today, the Copts were objectively still far removed from possibilities of exercising political influence, and subjectively even from proportional representation. Moreover, as Islamisation progressed, cf. Iran and Lebanon, further deterioration was to be feared. Marie Assaad summarised that it was becoming increasingly clear to her to what extent oppressive politicians had used and were still using religion to 'divide and rule'. It was generally noted that in the Near East there was not even a clear conception of the state, let alone where the dividing line from religion lay; more exact studies were still needed on this. In addition, at times of crisis the communication in the region between Christians and Muslims, which was limited anyway by status, had always broken down because of a lack of trust. A Swiss participant with relevant experience pointed out emphatically that he could no longer accept the typical Muslim assurances about religious liberty, when what happened in practice was that Christians on the Arabian peninsula were not allowed to exercise their religion. All in all, in fact, at Kolymbari all the burning issues remained unsolved: "The future of Islam will affect all Christian communities in Europe and the Near East, and obviously all the Muslim countries. What is this future?"45 So everything continued on the old familiar track. The World Council of Churches had difficulties making its standpoint clear to Jewish representatives and vice versa. The ancient churches in the Near East remained in a difficult position, with the church in Turkey, for example, subject to severe persecution and in need of assistance. It was therefore a bright spot when the Working Group on Dialogue was able to meet in Casablanca in 1989 and the participants were warmly welcomed by King Hassan II. But it must also not be forgotten that the Salman Rushdie affair was seen on the Christian or, at least, the Roman Catholic side as a negative point in Christian/Muslim relations, and this was then a big surprise for the Muslims. The WCC Central Committee took a stand on the intifada in 1989, considering it a basically justified expression of the national inter-

Politics - a Permanent Problem in the Dialogue

161

ests of the Palestinian people. The heads of churches in Jerusalem were requested to facilitate contacts between Jews and Palestinians and to appeal to governments for humane treatment of the Palestinians and a cessation or removal of Jewish settlements. The seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra then gathered finally just at the time of the Gulf War, and this made Christian/Muslim relationships a subject much discussed at the meeting. A common appeal was made to cease hostilities immediately and work for a just solution to the conflict in all the countries. In this connection, there was an interesting article by Tarek Mitri about the questionable role of inter-religious dialogue as a way to peace. Tarek Mitri was very critical of assurances by religious leaders that particular conflicts were not wars of religion. Assurances of this kind, he believed, were useless because sudden and linked with a large amount of utopianism, but they often had very little to do with what was really being said behind closed doors. The fine distinctions typical of dialogue were steam-rollered by the media in crisis situations. In dialogue, there was in fact a time for politics and a time for spirituality, and one should not resolve this tension in a one-sided way if dialogue was to contribute to peace. In concrete terms, there had been more talk recently about Christian definitions of a just war than about dlihad. Although many Arabs had condemned the occupation of Kuwait, they were also critical of the war because they had recognised other problems. But, since the media had presented the war as unavoidable, often all that remained to them was the fanatical response that saw the real conflict between the humanistic, democratic values of the West and Islam. This was naturally a burden on the inter-religious dialogue and, in Mitri's view, nobody in the region really believed in a new international order. In order not to lose all the confidence built up during the dialogue, it was necessary for Christians who had also been against the war to make themselves heard. A practical example was needed to demonstrate that the Christians' arguments about peace and the Muslims' arguments about justice were simply two sides of one and the same coin. The great aim of inter-religious dialogue, according to Mitri, was world ethics for world peace - as a corrective to international power politics. 46 But, as the first version of the dialogue guidelines so rightly stated, apart from short spells of joint struggle for political independence, relations between the Christians in the East and the Muslims only revealed opposite positions in the political realm as well. In May 1992 the decision was taken for the nth time to conduct a 'trialogue' on the question of Jerusalem. But, as the final version of the guidelines shows, it was expected that there would be difficulties: "[C]urrent developments, political and otherwise, may be threatening to build up new attitudes of distrust and hostility." 47

162

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

After political breakthroughs in the Near East the chances might perhaps be better than before. At least it was possible to hold a Jewish/ Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1993 at Glion on the initiative of the WCC. After vigorous disagreements at the beginning, the rights of three religions and two nations to Jerusalem were recognised, and a commitment was undertaken to work for peace and justice in the city. 48 Precisely in that region it has been seen time and again that the real stimuli must come from politics. The effects of religious dialogue remain limited in comparison and can at the most provide support. Some of the things which Christian/Muslim dialogue conferences and the World Council of Churches in particular have called for seem now to be on the way to realisation, albeit slowly and fragmentarily. A confirmation of this kind is probably more than the persons concerned in the course of the years and decades believed they would ever experience after depressing wars and empty promises. Even though the Christian/Muslim dialogue cannot claim the merit for achieving the decisive breakthroughs itself (and it is indeed not the right body for that), nevertheless, despite many hard debates and disagreements, it has pointed out the direction in which peace and reconciliation are to be found. While solutions are beginning to appear for Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians, the most fundamental problem of the World Council of Churches remains: the extremely difficult situation of Christians churches under pressure from Muslim majorities and increasing Islamisation. H. The Mission Dispute Muslim Accusations from the Start Relatively soon it became clear that Christian mission among Muslims and far less the reverse phenomenon - was a reason for constant, bitter reproaches addressed by the Muslims to the Christians in the dialogue. It was important to the Muslims that conversion had nothing to do with human activity and was brought about solely by God who 'rightly guides' human beings. Then, as they declared at Selly Oak in 1968, even in the context of dialogue a conversion must be accepted. In any case, after the Cartigny dialogue in 1969 the subject of mission and proselytism appeared on the 'list of tasks' and has remained there. In the framework of the multi-religious dialogue of Ajaltoun in 1970, the first serious accusations were already being levelled against the Christians. Significantly enough, they came from an Indonesian Muslim, thus from a setting which is numerically Muslim but not necessarily culturally and, above all, not legally. There, it is also legally possible to convert from Islam to Christianity, and Christian mission is possible among Muslims, although, according to the Muslim understanding and to Islamic law, it is normally only possible to convert from another religion to Islam and

The Mission Dispute

163

not the other way round. Professor H.A. Mukti Ali from Indonesia placed a one-sided emphasis on the significance for the Muslims of Jesus as a prophet and of the Bible as a Book which contained the Word of God; he accused Christians of distorted, base and indeed obscene statements against Mohammed, the Koran and Islam in general. He stated that Christians hurt the religious feelings of others, but he provided very few practical examples of this. The Adventists, in particular, came to visit the houses of Muslims while the husbands were absent and tried to tempt wives and children to accept Christianity. Moreover, Christian missionaries also intervened in the affairs of the host country, by stirring up the tribal population of West Irian, according to his account, against the Indonesian government. A multi-religious dialogue ordered by the state had failed in 1967 because, he claimed, unlike the Muslims, the Christians were not prepared mutually to refrain from mission. H.A. Mukti Ali's address made much reference to competition, hostility and prejudice, culminating in the statement: "Christianization (...) is problematic and pathological in Indonesia."1 Another Muslim then gave the definition of Muslim mission, which had thus far only been in the background at Ajaltoun and is naturally based on Mohammed's example. It comprises two points of special interest: an appeal to Jews and Christians to believe in the things they have in common with Muslims, and the principle that faith means becoming a member of the Muslim community. The latter can be further subdivided into three levels: that of principles (belief in one God, in life after death, in prophecy, etc.), that of shari'a ('belief in the social, legal and ritual system) and that of 'belief' in the community and state. It was unclear, according to Hasan Askari, whether someone who only believed in the principles was thus already a Muslim. Some Indian Muslims seem to have a very generous attitude at this point. Mission was assessed in very different ways within Islam, he claimed, and it had never taken on an organisational form like in Christianity, for example.2 The same Hasan Askari, on another occasion, granted Christians the benefit of the doubt about dialogue being a new, more subtle means for mission. Some other people shared his opinion. At the major Christian/Muslim dialogue at Broumana in 1972, one basic principle of dialogue with one another which was emphasised was honest witness. Nevertheless, the Muslims continued to mistrust the concept of mission, whether by Muslims or Christians. At the first regional dialogue at Legon (1974), it became evident that it was possible theoretically to claim there was no competition between the two religions when there was genuine coexistence. But competition did exist in practice, for example in the construction of mosques and churches or over numbers of converts, and, in order to improve the picture, the situation of the young or the uneducated, the sick or mixed marriages, was then exploited.

164

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

One particular problem, as was mentioned in 1975 in H o n g Kong, was the region of Southeast Asia with its history of violent, often belligerent conflicts between tribes converted to Islam and tribes converted to Christianity combined with European Christians. Although, with the exception of the Philippines, the Muslims predominated everywhere, sometimes even with legal safeguards (e.g. in Malaysia the state can restrict mission among Muslims), the picture was dominated by fear of non-Muslims. In Malaysia there was fear of their economic power and in Indonesia of their numerical superiority. This last aspect was, however, really not based on fact when there were 8.8 percent Christians over against 87 percent Muslims; it stemmed from the approach of the Muslims and their feelings: "I will not be fair to you or myself if I do not express my firm belief that one of the major causes of tension at present is the presence of Christian missionaries in predominantly Muslim areas. It is a presence that affronts pious and learned since it suggests that their 114 religion is inferior and their moral principles reprehensible." 3 Talk about religious liberty did not necessarily mean much in this context, because even at the Nairobi Assembly in 1975 the Muslim guest emphasised the tolerance of Islam in religious matters. But originally this Assembly was to have been held in Jakarta. After threats from certain Muslim circles in Indonesia, claiming that this was to be the beginning of a major Christianisation campaign of the Indonesian churches, which had issued the invitation, and that they would not accept it without reacting, the World Council of Churches had decided to relocate it to Nairobi without any further debate on the matter. O n the Muslim side, such ways of acting were at the most dismissed as erroneous, or else kept quiet and denied. 4 Separate Dialogue on the Subject of Mission In June 1976 a dialogue took place at Chambesy on the subject of Christian and Muslim mission. It was not organised by the sub-unit on dialogue but by C W M E in cooperation with the International Review of Mission, the Centre for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations (Selly Oak/Birmingham) and, on the Muslim side, with the Islamic Foundation in Leicester. A lot of emotion was expressed at this meeting and it was not easy to reach agreements. The Muslim contributions to the discussion in fact all tended in the same basic direction: the strongest possible criticism of Christian mission. It started with violent attacks on the keynote address by Bishop Arne Rudvin (Pakistan): it had not dealt with the subject (Christology instead of mission), and it expressed only the private opinion of the speaker

The Mission Dispute

165

because it lacked any genuine understanding of a Semitic background and any biblical criticism. The Christian faith, according to this critic, was a blind faith in irrationalities. Against this background he then sang the praises of Muslim mission: it is rational conviction about so obvious a truth that only fools and the ill intentioned could close their minds to it. The image was given of a modern, tolerant Islam - contrasted with an authoritarian Christianity wrongly using psychological methods. Islam had a positive approach to the world and humankind, had no conception of original sin and no redemption by vicarious suffering on God's part, and claimed that it was capable itself of bringing about inter-religious understanding. The content of Islamic mission was the absolute oneness of God as the original belief to which all can return. This was then expressed as follows: "The man who is not homo religiosus, and hence homo Islamicus, is not man." 5 The general point of departure for the Muslims is that Jews and Christians have falsified their message. Other religions are recognised de jure by Islam and then invited to self-criticism. N o self-criticism is practiced of their own reasonableness and ways of arguing which, for example, raises the fall and original sin to the level of necessities for Christian theology. The Muslims also usually failed to mention that there was a military variant of dlihad, even though this had not played a particularly important part, for example in the spreading of Islam in West Africa. The Muslims preferred to underline that indigenisation was no problem for Islam which had excellent mechanisms for assimilating indigenous ways of behaviour. The other reproaches were voiced by participants from East Africa - and Indonesia. In East Africa, even in the past, as in the case of Livingstone, trade relations had been more important than religion. For their sake, the attention paid to the truth had been less than adequate and Christians had painted a negative picture of Islam instead of presenting the positive side of their own religion. Even today, according to this accusation, a Christian minority there was engaging in a neo-colonial form of slavery. The report by the former Indonesian minister of religion, Muhammad Rasjidi, was still more aggressive. His accusation was that the Christians tried to decimate the Muslim community with all kinds of tricks, and especially to prevent the majority from living according to Islamic law. With reference to the secular constitution imposed by the former colonial authorities, the Christians abused freedom of religion. Everything, whether it be church construction or development aid, education or medical assistance, sponsoring children or any other kind of personal involvement, was aimed only at toppling the Muslims, who then often became atheists or communists. The church had provided a cloak for both groups. Rasjidi said:

166

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

"The facts I have presented are distasteful. (...) I believe we are on the edge of a volcano. If things are allowed to continue I see nothing but catastrophe."6 Once again, the discussion showed that the opinion expressed was shared or even reinforced by the Muslims present. Christian education was categorised as the alienation of Muslim children. Overseas mission was generally subjected to criticism. The Muslims would certainly have welcomed a moratorium. The central point was the accusation that Christians worked against the introduction of Islamic law which was so important for Muslims, because Christians considered outward de-Islamisation as a step towards possible Christianisation, naturally ail at the expense of authentic witness. Any Christian counter-arguments were merely ridiculed. There was even an accusation that Christian missionaries supported Zionism. But the Muslim attitude to the question of religious liberty was the most significant. The social and, above all, political consequences made a conversion to Islam particularly grave, and in a country like Indonesia to convert from Islam to some other religion was equated with deserting to the enemy in wartime. The only occasion when there was no objection to personal conversion from Islam to another religion was if the conversion took place in a non-Muslim country or the person left the Muslim country at the time of conversion. The Christian demand for an abandonment of diihad was resoundingly rejected as un-Islamic, because wars of aggression were prohibited in any case. When the discussion turned to a code of conduct for mission, practically every issue was again a point to be disputed. The Muslims repeatedly required the Christians first to take a clear stand against their former activities before any effective cooperation could be considered. The Roman Catholic Church had done this, it was claimed, but not the World Council of Churches: "[T]he references in the WCC documents seem to be couched in a language which has little relevance to past and present realities, and rather concentrates on hopes for the future. Furthermore, my worry is that the feedback from these documents to the Christian constituencies is very limited. The third thing that worries me is that the political dimensions of missionary involvement (...) is (sic!) not sufficiently clear in these statements."7 The recommendation in the memorandum was finally that further conferences on the subject should be held by the World Council of Churches, the Vatican and international Islamic organisations. There it should be possible to determine more precisely what form Christian and Muslim mission could take. For the time being, it was simply suggested that church aid from abroad should also be distributed by state bodies, and the churches and agencies were urgently called upon "to suspend their misused diakonia activities in the world of Islam." 8

The Mission Dispute

167

A second conference of this kind only took place in 1 9 9 9 , although the issue as such has not been forgotten. The attitude of the Muslims had in any case been clearly expressed: "Muslims feel that Christian mission among Muslims overshadows dialogue everywhere.'" Suspicion of Proselytism At the Christian/Muslim planning conference in Cartigny in 1 9 7 6 it was emphasised that, when dealing with this subject in the future, attention should be paid to the historical and cultural context and to ideological conflicts connected with proselytism. But the Muslims in general continued to maintain that mission was the greatest obstacle to dialogue and not only in Indonesia. Dialogue as a possible means of proselytism was still a question and proselytism was strongly rejected, naturally also by the Christians. The Christians were prepared to limit organised mission among Muslims because it placed such a burden on Christian/Muslim relations. For even the slightest trace of good to be connected with Christian mission was the absolute exception. At the youth dialogue of 1 9 8 0 at Bossey, a Jordanian had said positively that, through education, Christian missions had brought Christians and Muslims in contact, had helped to expel the Turks and united the nation against Jewish immigration and the state of Israel. 10 The Colombo dialogue of 1 9 8 2 was mainly the responsibility of the World Muslim Congress which used this forum to make clear the fundamental Muslim reservations, both ethical and religious, against Christian aid projects of all kinds. Right at the beginning in the opening address criticism of Christian proselytism was voiced. The Muslims forced the Christians into the defensive and continued impassionately to draw up their catalogue of demands: all aid programmes only on humanitarian grounds without even an indirect link to conversion, and the aid to come from but not via religious but only via state organisations. Successful Christian development projects in North Africa had to face the accusation that they were only being used to promote proselytism, Westernisation and secularisation, and that in the future the exact opposite should be the case. Services of aid to refugees, it was agreed, should not be misused for proselytism. 11 Lasting

Problem

In the series of regional dialogues mission was an issue even more often, although in a very different way. The treatment ranged from the neutral observation that both the Islamic and the Christian message could be passed on by means of education, to the old, well known accusation that the religious problems of Indonesia could not be solved because the Christians did not accept that people with a religion must not be made the

168

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

target of proselytism. In general, the positive attitude to their own mission and the equally negative view of Christian mission was maintained. One sheikh underlined the high degree of religious liberty in Islam which also applied when a wife became a Muslima, and he emphasised that it was entirely an affair between God and the person concerned if someone took the decision as a result of Muslim witness. Another Muslim speaker confirmed this approach. Islamic 'mission' had nothing to do with conversion and also fulfilled its aim if a conversion never came about. However, it was clear to the speaker that both Muslim and Christian mission was nowadays the responsibility of full-time people and encouraged encounters with partners of a different faith, but that experience had shown these meetings did not produce trust, community and religious acceptance. Therefore, Syed Z. Abedin attached his hopes to a group of committed lay people who, in line with Surah 3, 104, would insist on everything good - in this particular case confidence and community - and call for it. Apart from the fact that, in the Islamic view, each nation had been sent its own prophet always with the same message, Muslim mission did not have any, however well intentioned plans for others; it was always primarily inward looking and did not exercise economic, political, social or even physical compulsion of any kind. Only if they were attacked, or in order to safeguard national freedom of choice, were Muslims entitled to take up arms. Emphasis was placed here on the predominantly peaceful advance of Islam; the conquests of the seventh century were swept under the carpet. If Islam had deviated from these noble attitudes, it was a consequence of Christianity's lack of distance in relation to the state and of the dominant position of Christians in the modern world. Christians in general, despite all their initiatives and experiences in the field of dialogue, lacked clear definitions and statements of aim with regard to dialogue, mission and evangelisation. Syed Z. Abedin was also able to provide quotations to prove this last point, and he demanded a clear distinction between dialogue and evangelisation and mission, as well as a clearer acknowledgement of the equal identity and dignity of all partners in the dialogue. One must finally find new ways of relating to one another, because otherwise there would perhaps soon be 'rice Muslims' instead of 'rice Christians'. After all, Islam was catching up on Christianity and it now had "more power, more resources and a clearer will to exert itself" 12 . Unclear Christian

Statements

"Whereas the Muslims were forthright and even aggressive over questions of mission in relation to their Christian partners in dialogue, the impression the Christians gave was of reaction more than action, as if, and this the Muslims also recognised in part and consided a mistake, they were

The Mission Dispute

169

unsure about their own concerns and therefore behaved accordingly in a hesitant manner. Unlike most of the Muslims, they immediately recognised the inner relationship between dialogue and witness, even though they considered mutual respect and openness towards God to be decisive, and lashed out against proselytism as self-deception or even demonic presumption. The Christians also wanted to solve the problem of proselytism, meaning mutual proselytism, and to this end a Lebanese priest at the Cartigny dialogue in 1 9 6 9 suggested the establishment of a "Directoire islamo-chretien" 1 3 to supervise the activities of all cultural and religious centres. Agreement was reached at Cartigny that witness should take place only in respect for others and their freedom. It thus remains to add what the Christians, in contrast, considered proselytism: "jeden Versuch, den anderen mit Mitteln zu überzeugen, die dem Wesen der Wahrheit nicht angemessen sind. Wenn Mission die Verletzung dieser grundlegenden Regeln bedeuten sollte, steht sie tatsächlich im Gegensatz zum Dialog; sie kann dann nicht entschlossen genug abgelehnt werden." 1 4 [any attempt to convince others with means which are not consonant with the essence of the truth. If mission means violating these basic rules, it really is opposed to dialogue; then it can never be too emphatically rejected.] On the other hand, as became clear indirectly in the Muslim accusations, Christians also refused to abandon mission, as had been seen in Indonesia, because that would be unbiblical. At the multi-religious dialogue in Ajaltoun in 1 9 7 0 , it was striking that the Orthodox and Protestants did not speak on this matter at all and the statement by a Catholic priest was ambivalent. He tried, on the one hand, somehow to Christianise the Islamic concept of the People of the Book (= Jews and Christians), i.e. to apply it to Jews and Muslims from a Christian point of view, which would imply that Christians could no longer consider Muslims to be unbelievers and had to grant them a special status in relation to divine revelation like the Jews. On the other hand, this same priest retreated over the question of mission to an internal Christian point of view and wanted all religions to be treated equally. The evaluation of the conference went in detail into the negative significance of mission for non-Christians aspects which can only become completely clear to Christians through dialogue and can thus open up Christian approaches to the present and the future. One practical step, at least, to liberate the dialogue with followers of other faiths from the sensitive context of mission, was taken by the Central Committee of the W C C in 1 9 7 1 at Addis Ababa when it established a separate, independent sub-unit on dialogue. 15 In 1 9 7 2 at the big dialogue of Broumana, a Christian from Gambia, Lamin O. Sanneh, drew still more far-reaching theological conclusions. Christians should abandon their claim to absoluteness and revise their understanding of Christ and of Christian mission - although he did not say how.

170

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

"Christian tradition and instinct have combined the uniqueness of Christ (John 6: 53-57) with the mandate and motivation for mission (Matt. 28: 18-20), and it is this feature of the New Testament experience of Christ, both as present and coming Lord, which has inspired the Church with loyality (sic!) and devotion. That loyality (sic!) and devotion have taken different forms at different times, and at present new situations are demanding a fresh understanding of the Church's raison d'être and its elaboration on the biblical witness to Christ." 16 At the first regional Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1974 at Legon, critical words were used by Christians for the first time against Muslim mission practice. An Africanologist from the University of Legon declared that, where he came from, there had also been conquests by Muslims and conversions to Islam because of this threat. After all these dialogues, the relation between dialogue, mission and witness was the theme for the W C C Central Committee meeting in 1974 in Berlin, but without any results. Nor did the 1975 Assembly in Nairobi come to any conclusion, because, on the one side, there were Christians who, against the background of dialogue, wanted to see dialogue as a counter-weight to or almost a recompense for mission, and, on the other, there were Christians who confirmeded the worst fears, as it were, of the Muslims and other partners in the dialogue by statements such as the following: "Any dialogue with people of other faiths can have only one purpose: to know them in order to evangelize them" 1 7 . Chambésy

- in Practice a

Disaster

The most significant, however, was the dialogue at Chambésy in June 1976 on precisely this subject. From a Christian perspective the situation appeared as follows: Bishop Arne Rudvin from Pakistan opened the dialogue with a key note address on Christian mission. Mission in his view was the basic characteristic of the New Testament and of church history. In addition to the missionary command, the Gospels are missionary writings and contain repeated calls to evangelise. It is a matter, in individualistic terms, of saving people and, in a global sense, of the lordship of the crucified and risen Christ as the Son of God. "Mission (...) is to bring all mankind to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, because he owns us all, and has a just claim on us all." 18 This is what (according to the Muslim understanding) was seen as replacing mission by Christology. But Bishop Arne Rudvin also discussed diaconal service which had so often been attacked. Whereas mission comprised the transmission of a message, the church had launched diaconal service independently of this, purely out of love for its neighbours. To make diaconal service into a means of mission was therefore an - unfor-

The Mission Dispute

171

tunately frequent - error, which had negative repercussions on mission, as if the message needed crutches and was not convincing of itself. Dialogue, on the other hand, was necessary for clarification so that the message could also be understood. Since the content of the gospel was given and not a matter for debate, dialogue could also not be a form of evangelisation or thus of mission. This address provoked very negative reactions among the Muslims without exception. On the other hand, the Christian participants in the dialogue protested in vain, following the Muslim address, against the way the Muslim side had raised the fall and original sin to the level of necessities in Christian theology, and claimed that this was definitely a naive way of using one's own ability to reason. Their arguments against an Islamic state and holy war also found no echo, indeed they met with derision. They were only accused still more strongly of treating Muslims badly and fundamentally encouraging all negative tendencies. The injustice done to the Christians in the Near East, and the first, belligerent century of Islam which is still generally traumatic for Christians, the point that a faith which de facto cannot tolerate any conversions in its area is really a prison - all of this was ignored with increasingly loud references to their own perfection and, above all, their own role as victims. The scanty outcome of the conference consisted mainly of admissions of guilt and concessions by the Christians and was rather unsatisfactory to both sides; there was certainly no question of solving the point at issue.19 Christian

Positions

At the reflective conference of Chiang Mai in 1977 the intention was to clarify the Christian basis. Once again, proselytism was rejected and it was stated that Christianisation should be understood more as witness. The point was also raised that the dialogue impetus came in part from some kind of Christian guilt complex, although its effects were not bad. However, in all it was not possible to clarify the relation between dialogue, mission and evangelisation; it merely comprised the mutual respect and ethical goals which were to form the centre of a new community. Nevertheless, there were also some participants who almost equated mission with dialogue, because, among other things, both had justice as their aim. The concluding statement of the conference deliberately avoided terms such as mission and evangelisation, not in order to dodge the issue but "to explore other ways of making plain the intentions of Christian witness and service, so as to avoid misunderstanding."20 Thus it was stated in connection with mission: "[W]e would humbly share with all our fellow human beings in a compelling pilgrimage. We are specifically disciples of Christ, but we refuse to limit Him to the dimensions of our human understanding."21

172

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Dialogue was a way of telling the truth in love and witnessing to Christ because one came as a fellow pilgrim and not as an aggressor. Precisely in the case of Christian/Muslim dialogue there was recognition of the historical burden also caused by Christian mission. The common challenge was to be acknowledged which for Christians took the form of missio dei. There were hopes for a tri-lateral dialogue also on the question of mission. But after Chiang Mai nothing changed in the attacks by Muslims on Christian mission. At this point it may perhaps be helpful to cast a side glance at the Catholic position which the Muslims always presented as comparatively positive or, indeed, exemplary. When the Secretariat for non-Christians was founded in the course of the second Vatican Council, which brought a partial recognition specifically of Islam, the relation to mission was far from clear. The role of the Secretariat was initially understood in this connection as that of assistance wherever direct proclamation of the faith was legally or practically impossible. Later, the opinion expressed was that mission, evangelisation, witness and dialogue stemmed from one and the same vocation of the church: they were, in typically Catholic terms, analogous concepts, similar and different at the same time. 22 In spite of pressure from the Muslims for the complete renunciation of missionary work among Muslims, the WCC did not give in. There was discussion on the forms of mission and diaconal service but not on the principle of mission. It had been hoped that the reflective conference at Mombasa in 1979, which brought together Christians who had contacts with Muslims in very diverse situations, would bring some fundamental clarity on these questions as well. The theme was 'Christian Presence and Witness in Relation to Muslim Neighbours'. For some churches in the Islamic world, as was noted right at the start, this witness was gradually becoming martyrdom. Apart from this, mission among Muslims was seen as having a special position. Precisely in the Islamic context it had proved wrong to believe that new churches would come into existence as a result of mission in the shorter or longer term. Therefore, according to a Catholic, Henri Teissier, Christians witness did not so much need to reflect on new tactics, but to adapt to people who wanted to remain nonChristians, a process which had started in the Catholic Church at Vatican II. Christians could not keep silent about Christ, even in their mere action. Christians could, however, rely on God's activity for both sides, respecting what God did for others and even expecting a word of God to come through them. Respect for personal religious liberty, according to Teissier, always also meant respect for the other community of faith. He defined mission as gathering. So the church was fulfilling its missionary task wherever it brought about unity. The gospel, finally, was a call to turn one's back on sin, and this was required of both Christians and Muslims, although the call and the response were repeatedly deter-

The Mission Dispute

173

mined by culture. 23 Some prominent Evangelicals also considered mission should be an expression of and witness to joy about God, without any hidden motives like tangible successes, and it should be visible in each person being able to name what he/she considered the most important subjects for dialogue. At the same time, we are always able to ask God for forgiveness, especially with regard to the form of Christian mission. Initial Attempts at a Code of Conduct for Mission and Diaconal

Service

After coming together with the aim, inter alia, of discussing how to improve service and mission among Muslims, the attempt was made in Mombasa to define some rules of behaviour to avoid mutual misunderstandings over mission and service in the future. Mission was to be based on patient love which respected the dignity and spiritual wealth of the Muslims and did not disqualify them as unbelievers. Service was not to be used on either side as a means of pressure to convert. The best thing in this realm was cooperation in any case. However, everything said about mutual witness was considered from the beginning to be only an experiment. Another conference of the same kind was to follow. There were some noteworthy formulations, nevertheless: "We understand Christian presence as a vocation for patient good-neighbourliness, rejoicing with those who rejoice, and grieving with those who grieve. (...) There is a real calling for some Christians to accept to live alongside Muslims, ready to learn." 24 After this conference Olaf Schumann felt the need to clarify some things which he believed had escaped the Western churches not directly confronted with Islam. Schumann saw the conference at Chambesy as a political attack on diaconal service with the covert aim of restricting Christians to congregational activities again. They were to leave worldly affairs to Muslim majorities. But at Mombasa the Christians had clearly rejected this status of dhimml ("protected people"). Schumann also pointed out the true nature of Islamic freedom of religion which had been evident at Chambesy: others have the right to exist in a (de facto) ghetto over which Islamic mission can exercise its influence at any time (i.e. there are no obstacles to conversion to Islam). At the World Mission Conference in Melbourne in 1980, an Indonesian describing the situation in his country considered that the church need not be afraid the Muslims were going to adopt legal measures against Christian mission. No one was thinking about giving up mission and only engaging in dialogue. But, for John B. Taylor, Muslim mission rightly understood was an example for Christian mission: self-limitation meaning abandoning the erroneous view that one person could convert another. Problems in the relation between dialogue and mission existed only when dialogue was seen as an instrument for mission. In Muslim

174

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

countries, mission meant above all the ability to remain there as Christians. 25 Later guidelines for Christian/Muslim dialogue, according to the demands of the participants at Mombasa, should also include a code of conduct for Christians, such as respect for Muslim mission in the form of witness and diaconal service; suffering or vulnerability as a mark of the authenticity of Christian witness, also readiness merely for Christian presence and solidarity, as well as obedience according to the Abrahamic faith. In any case, the relation between dialogue, mission and unity continued to be on the list of issues, together with restraint in mission, about which the DFI director, Samartha, emphasised in his parting speech that both Christians and Muslims saw it in this way. However, there was no sign of this on the Muslim side. 26 At the youth dialogue in Bossey, mission was a major subject - in the context of visions for the future. The Christians rejected proselytism, indeed there were express references to the Muslims' mistrust, and to the question whether perhaps Christian and Muslim mission should not both be understood in a new way. But there was also the view that truth was convincing and compelled one to mission, and Christian aid was simply a way of living the gospel. As long as the aim was the same on both sides, without which it would be hypocritical, mission could also be the aim of dialogue. 27 At the big dialogue conference of Colombo in 1 9 8 2 , the Christians found themselves almost in the defensive against the Muslims because of their obviously successful programmes of aid and development. At a follow up conference they adopted the following proposal to the W C C : not to keep their Christian faith quiet in connection with aid projects, but also not to exploit aid as a means to an end, indeed, even perhaps sometimes to have aid distributed by humanitarian organisations; to adapt generally from more short-term emergency aid to long-term development aid, and then to cooperate with other faith communities. While Muslims and other outsiders were objecting to aggressive Christian mission and efforts were being made to find new forms, at the Assembly in Vancouver in 1 9 8 3 there were again internal disagreements with representatives of the evangelicals. They felt the lack of an urge for evangelisation and mission. Although it was recognised that dialogue had somehow affected the understanding of mission, it was also not possible on this occasion to resolve the conflict. On the contrary, it had to be admitted that inter-religious dialogue was making only slow progress, among other things because Islam and other religions were also engaging in their own missionary activities. 28 Scanty

Results

The regional dialogues discussed more practical aspects. For example, that the opening of a school usually preceded the construction of a

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

175

mission church. However, that did not apply to the host country; the leaders in Benin had indeed been educated in Protestant schools but had not become Protestants. At the dialogue in Dhyana Pura, Simatupang emphasised that Christianity had been successful particularly in regions of Indonesia which it had never been possible to win over to Hinduism or Islam. A Christian from the Philippines stated bluntly that a law which prohibited Christians from evangelising Muslims would for many Christians be "a limitation of their freedom to exist, to grow, and to share their faith with others." 29 In the dialogue for Europe and the Middle East, there was then a protest against the highly praised Islamic freedom of religion which in fact meant that a Muslima could not marry a Christian, a Muslim was not allowed to adopt another religion and the Christian faith could not be practised on the Arabian peninsula. On the other side, there were students in North America who wanted to study other religions exclusively in order to be better missionaries to them.30 The provisional guidelines for dialogue rated the issue of mission as tense, which is hardly surprising considering the Muslims who still believe dialogue to be undercover evangelisation. Mutual respect was demanded, not the abandonment of mission. Mission and the almost more sensitive subject of diaconal service (always suspected of proselytism) were also mentioned in the final guidelines. Diaconal service was called "a / 1 4 form of witness that has its own integrity." 31 This Solomonic formulation is unable to obscure the fact that, even internally, it has not been possible to find precise definitions and boundaries for dialogue, mission, evangelisation and witness. No way has been found of convincing either Christian sceptics that the de facto dialogue practised does not undermine mission, or Muslim sceptics that Christian mission and diaconal service are not proselytism and are therefore compatible with dialogue. The maximum progress was to identify the reservations on both sides and, in particular, the Muslim vulnerability at this point. Only the most recent dialogue on 'Religious Freedom, Community Rights and Individual Rights' succeeded in giving sign of hope by dealing with these "theory issues" 32 . I. The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law Point of Departure There is no other subject in the Christian/Muslim dialogue where the roles have been so clearly distributed as over Islamic law, and especially the most far-reaching implementation possible of this law for all Muslims, was the main issue for the Muslims. In line with the upsurge of Islam all round the world, they stood for this concern with increasing vehemence. Equally promptly, this issue aroused doubts, fears and rejection among

176

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

the Christians, reinforced by negative experiences in the past and present and the suspicion that Islamic law was not compatible with universal human rights. The Christians made an effort in the dialogue to understand, but basically religious law remained an alien subject for them. The predominant importance of law for the Muslims, on the other hand, became evident very early on. At the first major Christian/Muslim dialogue (Broumana 1972), the majority of the Muslims supported the traditional view that God had revealed his 'right guidance' in the Koran and sunna and that this truth was valid for all times, in all places, for all people and in all realms of life. There was thus no room for secularism. The problems raised by modernism in the areas of legislation, the state and economics had to be solved with the help of Islamic juridical methods, in other words, in the traditional way. As the Muslims describe them, these methods are much less rigid than might be assumed: there are clear instructions in the Koran which have never been turned into legal provisions and no Muslim has ever objected. Moreover, Islamic jurisprudence has the common good and the welfare of the people as guiding principles. This made it all the more surprising that, at the multi-religious dialogue of Colombo in 1974, a Muslim speaker basically questioned Islamic law in reference to the prospects of a world community with a world-wide legal system: "Muslims then should naturally be ready to accept an open debate about the general acceptability and utility of the Islamic law" 1 . Emphasis on Constitutional

Law/Islamic

State

However, much time elapsed before there was a discussion of basic principles. When Islamic law was discussed, it was in the traditional sense, namely in which areas its jurisprudence needed to be adapted to new conditions. This was particularly the case with regard to economic, financial and international law. In the specific context of regional dialogues this sometimes became very concrete, as for example in 1975 in Hong Kong where inter alia Islamic constitutional law was discussed. There is the classical model of the dhimml system with three separate communities within the one state, namely Muslim, Jewish and Christian, where the latter two do not enjoy fully equal rights. However, according to one speaker, in Mohammed's contract with the inhabitants of Medina there was an older model with equal rights for all (cf. Chapter G). Amazingly enough, the speaker considered that this model was to a large extent a reality in Malaysia, where citizenship was linked with the Muslim faith and mission among Muslims was not automatically allowed. There was a serious disagreement on these issues at the dialogue in Chambesy in June 1976. The Muslims accused the Christians of still using all kinds of means and tricks to try to prevent the Muslim majority in Indonesia from living according to Islamic law. Christians were abusing freedom of religion. The Christians' counter-arguments were rejected,

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

177

indeed, simply set aside with the remark that, unlike the Koran, the Bible was merely a secular book and that was the source of the legal differences. Another Muslim suspected that behind these activities there was the wish for a uniform, dominant state of the Western type in contrast to a serviceable Islamic state which respects individual freedoms. The Muslim definition of religious liberty was also influenced by social and political considerations. Faith is considered the basis of the state, a consciously ideological definition; thus changing one's faith becomes a breach of loyalty. Such a person would immediately have to leave a Muslim country. The rejection of dj.ihad was also non-Islamic and, above all, unnecessary (wars of aggression are prohibited in any case...). This implied for the Muslims that Christians really considered outward de-Islamisation to be a step towards possible Christianisation. Therefore the Christians refused Muslim majorities in Indonesia and Tanzania an Islamic state, namely a state under Islamic law. But that is in fact the most important issue for traditional Muslims: "[W]hat I regard as more central (...) is the basic Christian attitude toward the Muslim's aspiration to live in a corporate Islamic society in accordance with his understanding of the divine guidance. I think Muslim-Christian relations will improve tremendously if the question could be answered positively."2 In any case, after this there was an awareness of the problems of shari'a and it was repeatedly mentioned during the planning. The question of an Islamic state and of the observance of human rights were particularly neuralgic points. But subjects such as a new banking system were also relevant. At the big dialogue in Colombo in 1982, the Muslims again expressly emphasised that the Christians had finally to understand that Muslims needed a state under Islamic law and that they must support them in this in future. Such a state based on shari'a was supposed to be the solution for all problems, whether it was a matter of Christian mission, development issues or the refugee problem. The pragmatic help that the Christians had proposed and practised did not seem fundamental enough to the Muslims. It was finally resolved to guarantee minorities respect for their private religious law. But the form that this was to take still had to be discussed. To this end, the establishment of a joint committee with sub-groups was suggested, but the implementation was very slow and then it was not given the significance that had originally been intended.3 Broadening

the

Issues

The question of Islamic law played a major part in the series of regional dialogues between 1986 and 1989. Depending on the region, very different aspects were discussed: human rights, constitutional law, penal law, economic law, private law or fundamental legal principles. Whatever particular area was being dealt with, the Muslims always defended the

178

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

provisions of sharl'a and demanded their implementation. Thus, a Muslim speaker at Porto Novo in 1986 drew a truly classical picture of an Islamic state: apart from Muslims, only Jews and Christians can become citizens, although on special terms. The ruler of such a state is naturally an exemplary Muslim. The whole legal system is based on sharl'a and Islamic interests also determine its politics. The declaration of a 'state of war' against a country and thus against its citizens, for example, is related to the attitude of this country to the Islamic laws. The field of marriage law was also mentioned but it was not possible to deal with it exhaustively. The breadth of the provisions is too extensive: certain traditions prohibit a Muslim man from marrying a Christian woman, others even declare it permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a Christian man - it is all a matter of interpretation or mis-interpretation of tradition, or of the fundamental question whether such prohibitions have to be taken literally or can be considered the product of a development. Moreover, even when it emphasises that it stands for monogamy, Islam naturally raises the problem of polygamy and it also has many legal limitations to 'protect' women. For all of these issues there was not enough time in the discussion and there was a lack of the right legal experts.4 In the dialogue of Dhyana Pura in 1986 the subject was again religion and the state. The Muslim speaker was critical of the widespread opinion that Islam did not allow separation between religion and the state, and he was also critical of the 'Islamic' states which already existed in practice or were still to be established. The Koran contained no provisions about the relation between religion and the state, and even under the first four, rightly guided caliphs there had been serious disagreements on this issue. During the discussion, however, many Muslims were in favour of the introduction of sharl'a as a 'constitution' where there was an absolute majority of Muslims, although they adopted a critical approach to certain provisions of penal law. Most of the Muslims were in favour of the introduction of Islamic personal law for Muslim minorities. This corresponded to the impression of the speaker, Ali Asghar Engineer: "Muslims in general feel that secularism means complete non-interference in the religio-cultural practices of Muslims, including their Islamic personal law."5 The Muslim contribution on the subject of religion and the economy, which set out the clear, practical guidelines of Islamic law for this realm, was very interesting: only good, useful things may be produced (excluding alcohol). During production nobody should be exploited or exposed to undue risk. In addition, Mohammed had prohibited the hoarding of goods, profiteering and intermediate trade, and - as was added in the discussion - monopolies and extravagance. Finally, according to Islamic law, taxes were payable not on income but on property.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

179

In comparison, the legal presentation concerning family law was relatively brief, simply because in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia in general the sensitive juridical problem of mixed marriages occurred rarely compared with Africa. Instead, this region had undergone a much stronger process of development and secularisation. In view of the wealth of legal requirements in the family sphere, this had naturally constituted a trauma for Muslims for which they had not been prepared. The status of women and their education have become more important but, above all, their economic position has improved as a result of working outside the home. For this reason, in the opinion of the woman speaker, a number of points of Islamic jurisprudence needed to be re-thought. The subordinate position of the woman within marriage and her classification as material property had become untenable. This contribution showed very well that it was often precisely Muslim women who had a less traditional relationship to Islamic law and who were insisting more on change and adaptation to the new conditions than the Muslim men. Muslim women are naturally at a disadvantage in their legal standing because of various 'protective provisions' (similar to those for Jews and Christians) and are therefore much more interested in changes. Whereas Muslim men, if they are critical at all, tend at most to question Islamic corporal punishment or Islamic regimes which smack of barbarism. 6 At the Kolymbari dialogue for Europe and the Middle East in 1987, Islamic law and its individual provisions were repeatedly referred to. Sheikh S.M. Darsh emphasised how decisive shari'a was for the life of every Muslim and how it offered equal rights for non-Muslims: fundamental human rights, private law, all official positions apart from head of state and, finally, religious liberty even in a case where the wife converted to Islam. He demanded an analogous Muslim family law for the Muslims in the West. The negative aspect of his address was that he did not mention a number of things which are problematical for Christians, e.g. that the religious liberty he had emphasised specifically ends when in divorce unless the husband also converts to Islam. A still more negative feature was that he clearly applied different criteria to the Christians in the Middle East and the Muslims in Europe. While rejecting any intervention in his own house, he unashamedly called for it in Europe, although he was aware that precisely that would undermine Europe's democratic, secular and liberal system. To quote him literally: "[T]he opposition to the application of the Shari'a is an evidence that the days of foreign intervention, at least indirectly through the Christian minorities, are not yet over." 7 "The Muslim community achieved a great deal in different aspects of their life, thanks to the tolerance of the post-war secular authorities. But the difficulties which they faced were nonetheless of a fundamental nature and

180

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

called into question the whole concept of liberalism and human rights which Western society considered to be its great achievement." 8 Nor were the discussions which followed able to solve the problems. A number of Muslims maintained that non-Muslims had an equal legal status while others claimed they did not. The same applied to the question of freedom of worship. It any case, the Islamic conceptions of the state, politics and society differed considerably from the Christian ones. Despite the assurances about sharl'a given by Sheikh S.M. Darsh, an old, profoundly juridical and profoundly political question remained unanswered: "Do the Muslims accept a civil society in which all citizens are equal?" 9 Among the speakers at Kolymbari there was also Sultana Saeed, a Muslim woman lawyer. In her opinion, on the one hand, there had to be an eternally valid form of behaviour for believers but, on the other, also specific answers to the particular challenges of the 20th century. She drew on her expertise to deal in great detail with Islamic penal law which was much disputed. She considered the main aim of sharl'a to be the endeavour to achieve justice in the light of revelation, combined with the protection of certain rights, namely the right of citizens to life, freedom from bodily harm and respect, the right of women to personal freedom, their own property, a home and privacy. It was part of the nature of Islamic law that it had no retroactive laws, that criminals should not be written off in order not to be driven to commit further crime, that the yearning for scandal was controlled, that there was no vicarious liability and, finally, that the Koran had introduced legal categories such as error and forgetfulness in relation to penal liability, as well as reparation, mediation, compensation and equal punishment. (The latter can, however, be questioned according to Western legal categories because for certain penal acts it depends on the status both of the perpetrator and of the victim.) In particular, no punishment should be prescribed if there is any doubt about the guilt. Moreover, each person had to have the right to improve and, to this end, also needed a context in which this improvement could be demonstrated. It was the task of Islam to create such a just order. For this reason, Sultana Saeed considered it very problematical that Muslim countries were in the process of encouraging severe punishment whereas the people there were still poor and illiterate. Her fellow speaker emphasised the peaceful character of Islam and that even in its mission it comprised absolutely no economic, social, political or even physical compulsion. Muslims were in any case entitled to have recourse to military means only if they were attacked or if the freedom of choice of a nation was being denied. Again one is struck by a certain shortsightedness which apparently did not recognise the inevitable, legal disadvantages for non-Muslims in an Islamic society and the

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

181

pressure to convert which this created. The discussion groups identified some additional aspects, especially that Islamic thinking in contrast to Christian thinking was fundamentally juridical, starting from the law and not from the heart. This does not mean that Islamic thought is shallow, but it implies that dialogue between representatives of these very different conceptual approaches is most difficult. It could, however, also be very fruitful according to one discussion group. The discussion in the second group dealt with the meaning of individual legal terms, e.g. idlma' as a process for legal determination and umma as the body for this. It became clear in the process that the Islamic world was not as closed as it normally appeared and that many questions of organisation and the implementation of Koranic provisions had not yet been clarified. Overall, the question that was evident again here is whether and to what extent it is possible to change shart'a, using its own original juridical means in such a way that its requirements and basic concepts become acceptable for the majority of people in the 20th century. In any case, this approach should be easier for the Muslims to follow than a fundamental questioning or abolition of Islamic law. At the same time it is an approach which is hard for Christians to understand because Christianity precisely does not recognise law as a religious possibility for solving problems.10 At the dialogue of New Windsor in 1988, on the other hand, very little reference was made to Islamic law. There was a discussion of Islamic economic models such as partnership (musharaka) and the sharing of profit and loss (mudaraba), and Riffat Hassan, a Muslima, referred to the difficult legal position of women. It was in any case almost impossible to define what was 'Islamic' because there were so many legal schools and traditions. Discrimination against girls and women was certainly current throughout Islam, even though the Koran had prohibited the killing of female infants. Muslim women were the largest and perhaps the most oppressed minority in the world, often too oppressed to be able to put it into words: "For the majority of Muslim women who have been kept for centuries in physical, mental, and emotional bondage and deprived of opportunities to see themselves as fully human, the task of defining what womanhood in Islam is, or even of analyzing their personal experiences as Muslim women, is quite overwhelming."11 The series of regional dialogues ended where it had begun, on the African continent (Usa River 1989), and - as expected - Islamic law, its introduction and implementation, was a hotly debated issue. Rarely had the Muslim will for power been so obvious as it was at this last dialogue. Not only that shart'a was to determine the methods and content of education, which would then naturally all be in agreement with the Koran

182

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

and particularly emphasise morality (Islamic clothing, Islamic family values); the goal of this education was not to be survival within a political system but the guidance and control of this system by sJzari'a, in other words, Islamic law as the basis of the state and of a perfect society. In practice it was often too early for such plans; other religions tend to resist them. But among Muslims attitudes of this kind are wide-spread, as was demonstrated by another speaker: religion should not only be independent of the state, it also had to exert an influence on it. He explained this in greater detail by referring to the juridical terms 'household of Islam', 'household of contract' and 'household of war'. The first two of these terms overlap, however: must Muslims be the recognised masters in the 'household of Islam' or is it sufficient for them to be able to live according to their laws with equal rights for all? Hostility against Muslims is usually defined especially as hostility to their laws. But supposedly all of this was no problem provided that human rights were properly respected. Not to have an Islamic theocracy when there was a Muslim majority was also undemocratic. Apart from this, the choice of means is less democratic in a state which is clearly hostile to Islam, Muslims should depose the godless rulers or convince them or emigrate, in this order! The most momentous outcome of the discussion on shart'a was that a conference was to be organised specifically on this subject. In a general statement, it was finally granted that religions basically had the right to intervene in political affairs if these affected their faith and their values and, thanks to Islamic law, this is naturally the case in all conceivable realms simply by definition. Otherwise there was the concern to ensure that marriages would be treated by the law as they had been contracted, and that the religious laws of one group would not curtail the civil rights of other groups. In addition, there was a desire for a joint study of Islamic law, canon law and the nature of secular society.12 Christian

Reservations

Islamic law was an important subject for the Christians as well. However, they were sceptical about appeals to make it the legal basis for states with a Muslim majority. The more urgent and aggressive such appeals became, the more clearly they also expressed their reservations. But these were not really taken seriously or discussed by the Muslim side. The first major disagreement over this point took place in June 1976 at Chambesy. The Christians objected to the Muslims' propagating the introduction of shart'a. But the Christians' arguments, for example about a dual legal system, destruction of the authority of the secular state or violation of human rights, vanished into the wind, indeed, the desire of an Indonesian Christian for a constitution comprising equal rights for all was understood as the desire for a uniform, powerful state. In contrast, for the Christians the Islamic legal structure appeared like a prison because

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

183

conversion was linked with leaving the country. The Christians also demanded a clear rejection of diihâd- remembering clearly the first hundred years of the Islamic wars of conquest which were traumatic for Christianity and its attitude to Islam. The weak counter-argument against these facts, as has already been mentioned, was that wars of aggression were prohibited anyway. Not only the W C C but also the Roman Catholic Church had difficulties with the legal nature of Islam which defined faith as submission to sharï'a. The churches which had already had direct experience of Islam, as they observed, were more difficult to convince about dialogue than those which were unfamiliar with the problems. Moreover, radical tendencies were growing world-wide which, when in doubt, simply defined Islam as shart'a and then applied it at all levels, thus making Christians into second-class citizens. Developments of this kind naturally had repercussions: "[C]es diverses évolutions ont réveillé, chez beaucoup de Chrétiens, et en de nombreux endroits, les peurs du passé et même les préjugés dont ils avaient cru s'être libérés."13 [These various developments reawakened among many Christians and in many places the past fears and even prejudices from which they thought they had been liberated.] Divided

Experiences

The reflective conference of the World Council of Churches in 1979 at Mombasa also dealt with the issue of sharVa, which was no surprise in view of such events as the Islamic revolution in Iran. Bangladesh had also had experience of Islam as part of the constitution. But what was almost more interesting was when the Christians described the situations to which Muslims had already spoken elsewhere, e.g. the question of Islamic law in Indonesia. The planned addition to the constitution, with the duty for Muslims to insist on this law and to work for the appointment of a Muslim president, was considered by the Indonesian Christians to constitute discrimination. For this reason they had repeatedly and up to this point successfully protested against it. The example of Indonesia was seen as a sign of hope, especially in view of the new wave of Islamisation. Indonesia meant that a partnership relation between Muslims and Christians with equal rights was possible, independently of numerical proportions. There was reference to the Medina contract as a Muslim legal justification and to encourage the sceptics from the Middle East, in spite of their negative experiences. However, the participants at Mombasa were not only thinking of themselves as Christians but also, for example, of the Muslim women and their social status - after all, Christians have various conceptions of freedom and rights which do not correlate at all with the traditional Muslim views of family relationships and duties. Nevertheless, it also had

184

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

to be admitted that Christian women could not vicariously define the problems for Muslim women. Overall, the aim was not to introduce secularism as the solution to all the problems but to achieve common citizenship with equal rights for all with tactful references to the mistakes of the Muslims in this connection. An attempt was also made in the final statement to counteract prejudices against the Islamic revival movement. There had always been endeavours of this kind and even the present movement could be traced back further than the Muslim influence in the Islamic world. However, in the future it would also be necessary to deal with the relation between Islamic law and human rights. The most significant quotation from Mombasa was probably the following: "We understand that many Muslims suffer under a sense of the incompleteness of the ummah (community) where they have not been able to organize themselves fully as a society under shari'ah. We see the issues this raises to be immensly difficult and important, not only at the juridical and social level"14. But, although compliance with human rights was of special concern to the World Council of Churches, the impression given by Mombasa remained divided: on the one side, the Christians who had already experienced shari'a or were immediately threatened by it and, on the other, the West which was not affected by the problem. The one group was dominated by pessimism and helplessness and the other reacted with incomprehension and reproaches. The Copts in Egypt belonged to the first group. Their prospects, if as they feared the Koran was adopted as the only source of Egyptian jurisprudence, were that they would be considered "not able to take up positions of responsibility; the construction or restoration of churches is not permitted, nor is the acquisition and possession of land. In court, a non-Muslim cannot file a complaint against Muslims." 15 The Mombasa conference proposed to the WCC Executive Committee that it should create an information service on compliance with human rights (which was received positively). In future guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue, the Mombasa conference also wanted to ensure that there would be sensitivity to violations of human and religious rights on both sides, together with the fundamental relation between shari'a and human rights. In addition, reference was made to a very imprecise "obedience in Abrahamic faith to be better servants of the God Whom we worship in the societies we share, working for equal responsibility, equal rights, equal freedoms, equal obligations within and among nations." 16 Problems

but no Recognisable

Progress

After the dialogue at Colombo in 1982, which had mainly been organised by the Muslims, Islamic law, human and religious rights were still more

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic L a w

185

relevant than before, because the traditional Muslims had again vehemently put forward their point of view. The question of human rights in particular, as became clear to the Christians, was involved in the tension between the individual, the minority and the majority. This did not diminish the reservations about shari'a: "Christians are not convinced, and point to recent experiences of Christians in countries with Muslim majorities as justification for their skepticism, that a state based on the Shari'a would guarantee religious minorities free religious expression and equal opportunities for education, employment, and housing and participation in public life." 1 7 It was precisely in the regional dialogues that the conflict between opposite views came to the fore and no examples of solutions could be found. At Porto N o v o the Christian speaker demanded the complete separation of the state from any kind of religion or religious law also for the Muslim states in Africa; instead, all religions were to enjoy total religious liberty within the territory of the state. The contrasts ran equally deep in other realms also. The address by Pastor Elie Miloungou on the subject of religion and the family comprised large sections which were simply lists of the reasons why Christian parents were unwilling to allow their daughters to marry Muslims (the other way round is impossible in any case according to Islamic law). The decisive thing, naturally, was the pressure on the wife to change her religious adhesion, and here the legal reasons played at least as great a part as the psychological ones. The standing of marriage and the status of women were lower in Islam than in Christianity. The worst position was that of the non-Muslim wife. In the discussion the Christians, for whom polygamy in Islam was naturally objectionable, had to swallow the accusation that they were in fact secret polygamists. There was no way of reconciling the different basic approaches. 18 In Southeast Asia the Christians also remained sceptical about Islamic law and an Islamic state. They feared for the rights of the non-Muslims (especially their right to share their faith with others, cf. the example of Malaysia already mentioned) and for the rights of women. With regard to the family the familiar reservations were voiced again: polygamy and a different divorce law, both of which were juridical symptoms of a completely different assessment of women and marriage. 19 Wherever the fundamental conception of the state was debated, which was almost automatically the case with Islamic law, the following result was typical: "Muslims and Christians agreed to disagree" 20 . In the series of contributions on the subject at the dialogue in Kolymbari, the address by a Copt, Marie B. Assaad, was particularly striking because it was very much based on experience and reported

186

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

honestly about second-class citizenship, but was nevertheless not as aggressive or reproachful as some of the accounts by Muslims who felt that Christians had an advantage over them. Among the contemporary problems, according to Marie B. Assaad, was the fact that some of the minority rights were not general knowledge at all, as for example their own inheritance law. Marie B. Assaad also dealt quite openly with the problematic points which the Muslim propaganda speeches in favour of sharl'a usually brushed under the carpet: Islamic physical punishment (amputation, etc.) and that a Christian wife cannot inherit from her dead Muslim husband if she remains a Christian. A number of important legal questions were not answered, according to Marie B. Assaad's experience. Is alcohol also prohibited for Christians? Is a Christian no longer allowed to be the boss of a Muslim? Is a Christian no longer allowed to practise as a judge as soon as Muslims are involved in a case? Naturally, all these things fed the fears about sharl'a becoming the state law. There were again difficulties in attempting to work out an alternative model. How secularised should it be? Freedom of religion and conscience were not always taken for granted even by the churches, and even today in countries such as France they are still not necessarily unproblematical. A Christian theologian remarked critically in this connection on what the much praised religious liberty of Islam really looks like: a Muslim woman may not marry a Christian man, a Muslim may not change his faith and Christians may not practise their religion on the Arabian peninsula. Although he also considered that believers could contribute a lot to the community, such as justice and human rights, finally it was simply evident that there were two different worlds - the world of Islam with its legal thinking and Christianity which emphatically did not and did not want to approach things on the basis of law. That, according to Jean-Claude Basset, was a major point on the list of profound differences between Islam and Christianity and it was better not to deceive oneself about it: "The list could go on to include the incompatibility between the unification of society under Islamic shari'ah and the Christian distinction between political and spiritual."21 At New Windsor in 1988 Islamic law was discussed only in connection with the family. The Catholic speaker was able to admit that an Islamic marriage lived according to sharl'a could be an expression of Islamic values in society, as, on the other hand, a Catholic marriage expressed Christian values. There were certainly fundamental differences in the conception of marriage between the Catholic sacramental understanding with the spiritual dimension of baptism and the Islamic understanding of marriage as a contract. By way of concrete differences, he mentioned the possibility for a Muslim man to marry a Jewess or a Christian woman, compared with the limitation on the Muslim woman who could only marry a Muslim man and

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

187

could even finally be married off against her will; in addition, the Muslim husband had the possibility of simply repudiating his wife, whereas she had to buy her divorce from him. Finally, there was also the duty of the Muslim husband to pay alimony for his wife. These were all points at which the Muslim side would not wish to change anything in modern times in order not to endanger marriages unnecessarily, in a sense by removing its outward, economic supports.22 A Christian contribution from Nigeria made at the last regional dialogue in Africa in 1989 was much harsher. The question of the relation between religion and the state, according to Jacob K. Olupona, was basic to all the Christian/Muslim conflicts in Africa. Here there were some fundamental structures: the Christians also often did not correspond to their ideal image of non-intervention in state affairs but it was oppression and injustice which then led Christians to demand canon law for themselves. Jacob K. Olupona quoted Ibrahim Suleiman, a well known Muslim scientist, in order to provide impressive evidence that Islam simply made no distinction between worldly and spiritual, and Muslims also wanted their social, economic and political life to be shaped by Islam alone and to be governed by Islamic laws. As a reaction to this, the Christians preferred a secular state to this Islamic legal system. And then they were accused of being in favour of dismantling the sacred life within the nation and deliberately preventing Muslims from living a life of fulfilment. On the other hand, there was always the suspicion on the Christian side that the Muslims had a secret aim of introducing Islamic law and an Islamic theocracy. Jacob K. Olupona was able to give examples of such tactics from Africa: in Nigeria in 1988, when the vote on the inclusion of shari'a in the constitution was equally divided between Christians and Muslims, the state had simply resolved to do so. The typically Muslim argument for this had once again been that it was totally unjust and a denial of basic human rights if Muslims were not allowed to live according to their values. Officially, shari'a in Nigeria only applied to Muslims, but in practice some non-Muslims had also already been brought before shari'a courts of law. The situation in Sudan was still worse. The Muslim head of state had dared to praise his country for being a new attempt to implement Islamic law while safeguarding the rights of the non-Muslims. But in reality in Sudan drastic punishments take place such as cutting off hands for theft, although these are very much debated even within Islam. As long as a state is unable to offer its citizens a good quality of life, it cannot be allowed, for example, to punish the stealing of food by cutting off hands. However, in fact, the Christians in the South of the country have been subjected for so long to inhuman treatment on the pretext of Islamic law that - understandably enough - they have rebelled against it and the conflict over shari'a has ended up as a civil war.

188

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

The discussion of this address was very fair; it was pointed out that, despite the special tax for non-Muslims, taxation for the Muslims - a reference presumably to the alms tax which is not actionable - is still higher. But the unanswered question of the Christians remained whether there can be sharl'a just for Muslims and without a Muslim state, and what remains for non-Muslims apart from second-class citizenship. There was a desire to respect the rights of both the minority and the majority but no one really knew exactly how this could be made possible.23 This then was the intermediate outcome of the Christian/Muslim dialogues, as far as they related to Islamic law: everything remained open. The major problem was obviously fundamental: two completely different approaches were in conflict. Depending on particular circumstances, in practice either the one approach or the other predominates and the side which is at a disadvantage voices its complaints about this. In so doing, the accusations from the Muslims are louder, namely that the Christians deny them their specific religious rights. On the other side, Christians have also experienced the loss of civil equality, religious rights and even of human rights. The question now is whether a way can be found to allow both religions their own basic approach and nevertheless safeguard the rights demanded by followers of the particular other religion. Since Christians generally stand for a secular approach in the realm of law, whereas for the vast majority of Muslims shari'a is an absolutely central religious issue which must not be challenged fundamentally by secularisation, the framework for a solution becomes all the more narrow. The Muslims would have to use their traditional legal means to achieve the same juridical equality for all citizens as has basically been achieved in traditionally Christian countries by secularisation. The big question is whether this is possible and, prior to that, whether the majority of the Muslims will be able recognise the necessity of such an endeavour at all. Since Islamic law and thus the secular realm as a whole belong fully and consciously to the realm of Islam the religion, this area is also affected by the approach inherent in Islam that it possesses the best and only unfalsified 'right guidance' from God, which really everyone else should follow and which one should not attempt to adapt to the non-Muslims and their more or less erroneous views. This attitude can also be sensed in the Muslim statements, and the world-wide tendency to re-Islamisation follows the line of no longer tolerating earlier adaptations and certainly not introducing new ones. Under Western influence more interest and comprehension can be felt. Thus the participants from New Windsor met a second time on a voluntary basis in order, among other things, to talk about subjects like public morality, free expression of opinion and blasphemy. The dialogue department considered the relations between religion and the state, family, economy, minorities, human rights, etc. decisive for

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

189

the forthcoming guidelines for the Christian/Muslim dialogue. The problem was, as competent speakers stated clearly at the meeting of the working group in Casablanca in 1989, to find a common basis at all for seeking a solution to the many problems pending. Whether this could be human rights was very questionable, because, like the relation between religion and the state or the rights of religious minorities, they were themselves a problem in Christian/Muslim relationships. Any false expectations at this point would be quite inappropriate. As Tarek Mitri said: "These issues/areas of joint efforts cannot be taken very seriously unless we are fully aware that irenism or romanticism is not a condition for credibility."24 At the Assembly in Canberra in 1991, it was also emphasised once again that more work had to be done on the subject of theology and law, to clarify the theological roots and explore the social and political possibilities. The meeting of the WCC Commissions and Advisory Groups in 1992 at Evian, following the restructuring of the WCC, confirmed the dialogue already planned on the subject of shari'a and also made plans for a meeting of Christians affected by Islamisation which was to be combined with visits. This issue was to be analysed and more attention was to be given to it in general.25 Presentation

in the Dialogue

Guidelines

The subject of Islamic law had already been dealt with very carefully in the draft version of the guidelines on Christian/Muslim dialogue. Reference had been made to the division into various schools of law, but also to the problematical situation of Christian minorities in Muslim countries because of shari'a. However, the problem there was less the penal legislation than the fact that, despite partial safeguards for the Christians' religious practice and private law, they were de facto inevitably relegated to the fringe of society and political life and made into second-class citizens. But it was considered possible to conduct a dialogue between supporters and opponents of shari'a, for example on the relation between the principles of Islamic law and its concrete provisions, on the interpretation of shari'a according to the needs or interests of the community, or on the historical character of Islamic law in general. After all, it was not true to say that Christians made a strict distinction between state and religious authority whereas Muslims were unable to see any difference at all. On the contrary, the relation between religion, the world and the state could be an interesting subject for dialogue, especially in reference to a specific society comprising Christians and Muslims. Ideally, this should be a society influenced by the values of both religions and which guaranteed religious liberty and equality for all, as well as respect for differences and particularities.

190

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

It was possible to a large extent to include this section in the final version, with the remark that, for many Muslims, the implementation of shari'a in a country with a Muslim majority was a criterion for the legitimacy of the government. It is generally clear that shari'a also plays a part almost everywhere, whether it be a matter of family law, the rights of women or of Muslims objecting to any civil law which might prevent them from living according to their tradition and bringing up their children as Muslims. It was also stated that a number of modern-minded Muslims and a number of Muslim women were against Islamic law, as were Christians affected by Islamic marriage, divorce and welfare legislation who experienced it as simply discriminating and themselves as second-class citizens, even where there was no added pressure. The statement that women, irrespective of all prejudices, were usually more strongly affected by shari'a was also one of the impressive expressions in the 'guidelines'. These give an appropriate place to the question of Islamic law in general, present the essential characteristics and reservations of each side and also attempt to show that a way out can be sought only on the Muslim juridical side. It was not necessarily the task of such a position paper to evaluate the prospects for such an undertaking when its aim was to encourage further dialogue (although without illusions). The rifts and difficulties are certainly set out clearly and there is no sense of false euphoria there or in the final version of the 'guidelines' as a whole. 26 Points of Openness on the Muslim

Side

After drawing up the 'guidelines' for the Christian/Muslim dialogue, two dialogues were devoted straight away to Islamic law, the second of these dialogues in Nyon in 1993 being a continuation of the first in 1992 in Geneva. The Muslims who participated particularly emphasised the difference between Islamic jurisprudence as it really was, the provisions of which have already been discussed in detail, and the goals (makasid) of shari'a. The latter formed the frame of reference and the criteria for evaluating concrete legal decisions. The goals of shari'a, according to Walid Saif, comprised social justice, equality and, indeed, everything which was considered to be in the interest of the individual or the community (al-masalih al-mursala), in other words their progress and happiness. The latter depended on circumstances, the context and situation; it was limited in time and space and thus variable. Special importance was attributed to this and it was also supported with the example of the founder of the Shafiite school of law who had taken different decisions about the same case in Iraq compared with Egypt. There was also the principle that necessities permitted what was otherwise prohibited. For example, it was possible to eat prohibited foods if this was vitally necessary. According to another principle, it was

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

191

more important not to harm anyone than to derive benefit from something for oneself. This applied even to religious acts. In any case, provisions of Islamic law could not be applied in isolation but only within the system as a whole: firstly, the rights of the citizens had to be fulfilled and then one could demand dues from them and the fulfilment of other duties and judge them accordingly. This principle had been implemented critically earlier on against attempts to re-introduce drastic corporal punishment and declare it the re-introduction of Islamic law. This critical approach was again emphatically affirmed by Walid Saif and underscored by the rule that, in cases of doubt, such prescribed punishments were excluded, whereby the doubt was not to be restricted only to the crime itself but must also include any possibly mitigating circumstances. In crisis situations, for example, the punishment for theft was less severe. The emphasis, already recognisable in Mohammed's procedure, was not placed on identifying and punishing as many crimes as possible but on the offenders regretting and changing their behaviour. In Walid Saif's opinion the problem of modernism in society and the state was complicated. Since a Muslim ruler, at least in principle, could not rule theocratically because his authority was linked with the observation of Islamic law, the kind of secularisation found in the West would never be necessary. Nor was it necessary in order to establish the equality of all citizens because, as a statement by the Prophet demonstrated, it already existed: all believers were able to practise their faith undisturbed. On the contrary, indeed, there were even doubts whether one could speak about equality in a secular, capitalist state at all in view of the class differences, the ethnic and religious conflicts, colonialism and the exploitation of raw materials at the expense of future generations. In recent times in general it had become evident that there was a lack of moral values. That was a point on which, on the one hand, the religions could cooperate and which, on the other hand, showed that there was no contradiction between Islamic law and modernism. This argumentation again showed the interest Muslims have to form a common front with other religions against secularisation. It also demonstrated the typical Islamic way of arguing about the equality of all citizens: since there was a statement in the Koran that there must be no compulsion in religion, the problem could be set aside as solved and reference made instead to the real problems of Western societies; at best this is an unfair comparison between the ideal state of their own religion and the real situation of the other. Moreover, there are still many reasons for doubting whether this oft quoted statement alone really reflects the Koran and Islamic law in its fullness. This may have been the real blind spot in the speaker's approach, whereas he saw that of others in reference to the variability of Islamic law:

192

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

"Shart'ah (...) should not be viewed as a static and rigid system of predefined and fixed laws and answers applicable to all conceivable cases in all times and places. Yet, many people - both proponents and opponents mistakenly construe Shart'ah and its system of fiqh constitute a completed body of knowledge which is assigned absolute truth value, rendering it an ahistorical entity engulfing time and space instead of interacting with them through human activity. A more realistic and rational view allocates a large part of the accumulated fiqh material to its historical and social context."27 Other contributions, as already mentioned, followed the same basic line. Tayyib Z. Al-Abdin from the International Islamic University in Islamabad (Pakistan) discussed the Islamic state as the rule of shart'a. Some of the divine provisions could only be implemented by a collective group or by a corresponding ruler; hence the necessity of selecting such a leader or of exercising pressure on the ruling class to act accordingly. In contrast to shart'a which could not be abolished, fikh referred to concrete jurisprudence of which the considerable freedom of play was again underlined. This was where iditihad came in as the human ability to judge on the broadest possible basis when a new situation arose, the legal situation was somehow unclear or a specific text did not agree with the general aims of shart'a, defined here as the preservation of religion, life, descendants, reason and possessions. Most of the modern Islamists were also concerned about these aims and not about literal details, so in this sense they were liberal. In theory, anyone with the necessary legal knowledge could deal with a problem, but in fact the various schools of law had evolved with their scholarly and pious representatives. They should not be confused with clergy, and this was why Tayyib Z. Al-Abdin did not see a theocracy as a danger and mentioned the elections in Iran as proof of this. Something similar was to be expected in Afghanistan and Sudan. As far the concrete expressions of state institutions and functions were concerned, the problem was that in a period of Muslim decline the door to iditihad had been closed in order not to worsen the excellent jurisprudence of the ancestors. This had created a space which the Ottoman sultans had already filled with regulations stemming from Western law (kaniin or more flatteringly nazam). There were some legal experts in Saudi Arabia who rejected these provisions even when they were in conformity with shart'a, but in its strong initial phase Islam had been very open and had adopted ideas and institutions from the Persians, Romans and Greeks. With regard to hudud crimes which entailed corporal punishment, Tayyib Z. Al-Abdin confirmed that iditihad had some liberty in the realm of the submission of evidence and he underlined that cases of this kind were rare anyway.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

193

He thus agreed at many points with Walid Saif, although there was a significant difference at least with reference to the wording in the addresses: the precise formulation of the real aims of sharfa. This should not be over-estimated, but it makes the true legal situation still more confusing and incalculable for the outsider. However, the speaker's last sentence was completely in harmony with various Muslim statements in defence of Islamic law: "Religiously minded people in any culture should be happy when people take religion seriously and seek to implement its values in all areas of life." 28 The second address by this speaker dealt with the role of religious institutions and teachers in contemporary Muslim society. The 'ulama' had no special official role and nor should they have one. Their authority was more indirect, based on the agreement between their actions, the Koran and sunna and the trust ordinary people placed in that. The realms in which they were active were leading prayers and conducting other religious rites, Islamic education for children and adults (from the mosque schools which were particularly important in the diaspora to the Islamic universities) and mission work (da'wa) - either in the form of teaching or also in more recent times, following the Christian example, as diaconal work. As a result of the Islamic revival new trends had appeared in these fields: the establishment of an Islamic society by means of violence (dlibad groups in Egypt and Algeria), by political methods (Jama'ti lslami in Pakistan and the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt) or through education (Sufi orders and Jama'at al-Tabliqh). However, the 'ulama' had not encouraged young people who wanted to use violence to be more moderate and use peaceful means, and had always simply adopted the same stand as the government. Recognition as legitimate parties and respect for civil liberties would reduce the inclination to violence, according to Tayyib Z. Al-Abdin's opinion, or make violent methods unnecessary. Other realms mentioned in which religious teachers were active comprised competence for religious foundations, for collecting and distributing the alms taxes (in Iran) and - where it existed - for sharfa jurisdiction. At least, after independence had been obtained in Muslim countries, the demand for this had never died down again. The fatwa', the expert legal opinion, which can be pronounced by a single scholar or by a body, also belongs to this context. Such bodies are sometimes also formed by governments (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) but often more confidence is placed in experts who have nothing to do with governments.29 There was another Muslim address (Mohammed Ben-Yunusa) on the question of human rights, which concentrated on the idea that secular approaches to this subject would fail and it was therefore necessary to

194

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

reflect on their foundations - something which Islam had no difficulty in doing. The previous definition of human rights was too one-sidedly Western, i.e. associated with oppression and exploitation. Their particular characteristic and also problem was the list of indications of quality of life because, according to the speaker, it was not just a matter of a right to life as such, but also of a right to the safeguarding of this life, a certain quality of life, a life in freedom, justice and equality, a life in which a person can choose with whom he/she wishes to associate, a life in which the honour of women was respected - and whatever further definitions might be given for all those terms. In addition, it should be determined in which situations (war) and for which groups of people (mentally ill) it may not be possible fully to grant such rights. The speaker referred particularly to Africa and there more specifically to Nigeria which had a record of the most cruel violations of human rights, whatever one might consider the causes to be. The example of Nigeria provided very good evidence of how official regulations could be a ridiculous façade and how behind such a façade state institutions in particular (police, army) had a share in the attacks. The secular sounding provisions in the constitution relating to religious liberty, according to the speaker, did not change anything in the usually bloody disputes between Christians and Muslims, and nor did the concrete governmental resolutions and legal verdicts where they were not discriminatory in any case. This address was by nature more of a - sad - stock-taking and less of a controversial discussion of the subject of human rights such as has often taken place between Christians and Muslims in other contexts. That was perhaps also the reason why this contribution was the only one not included in the published collection.30 Instead, the status of non-Muslims under Islamic law was again an issue. The basis for this, according to the Muslim speaker, Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani, minister of state in Sudan, was common humanity, and in a specific situation perhaps even family ties, because the division between Muslims and non-Muslims was, strictly speaking, an eschatological one before God and did not necessarily entail worldly distinctions. Otherwise, there was naturally the special relationship with the Peoples of the Book, Jews and Christians, who occupied a special place in the Koran and in the events in the days of the Prophet and the early caliphs, the positive aspects of which he discussed in detail. Historically, he referred to the Medina contract with equal rights for citizens, as they were now again being implemented in Sudan, and naturally the dhimml status which had resulted from the Islamic wars of conquest. Many people had in any case experienced the Muslims as liberators and converted voluntarily to Islam. With regard to the status of the others, there were many prejudices around, because these communities would never have survived without the religious safeguard for their status as protected people.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

195

The speaker emphasised that, at that time, Jews and Christians enjoyed practically all the rights which are defined today as human rights, and indeed more or less all the rights which the Muslims also enjoyed. They could have had themselves exempted from the head tax by performing military service themselves and, compared with the Muslims, they even had the advantage of not having to pay the alms tax (which was voluntary although this was not mentioned), and of being able to make a profit by producing and trading in things such as wine and pork. (The latter applied, however, only according to the Hanafite school.) The only posts closed to them for religious reasons were those of head of state and of the army, but the speaker immediately relativised even this by stating that, because of the particular qualifications required, only very few Muslims could be considered for these. The speaker made no mention of the long list of evidence of legal discrimination against the dhimml. nor even of the problems of the prohibition of mission to Muslims, of the territories accessible only for Muslims or the one-sided marriage prohibitions; he only boasted of the unlimited religious liberty, permission to build churches, etc. The tolerant side of Islam, which undoubtedly exists, was underlined in such a biased way that it made the presentation as a whole less convincing. This was particularly evident in the description of the situation in Sudan. It is easy to accuse others of wrongly considering shari'a to be inflexible and equally wrongly believing it was applied to non-Muslims; it is even possible to quote constitutional paragraphs as proof of the opposite provided that one ignores the fact that, in practice, all these things that should not be are actually taking place daily. On this point the address by Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani was a step backwards compared with several of the addresses already mentioned, which kept in mind that legal theory, especially the so-called aims of shari'a, and legal practice can differ considerably. The question remains whether this alone can explain all the problems. The key to the whole issue may perhaps lie in a quite different statement by the speaker, namely: "Obviously a friendly relationship with others is based on their attitude towards the existence of Islam and the freedom of its message, not on religion."31 The address by Mokhtar Ihsan Aziz again affirmed that the text of the Koran was of divine origin and had therefore been binding on all Muslims from the very beginning. Debate was possible only in the realm of interpretation, the search for juridical solutions in order to apply the goals of shari'a to new problems, in other words in the realm of iditihad and fikh. Facing up to new realities in this way again strengthened the importance of fikh in a country. Thus the important distinction between fundamental aims and concrete provisions within Islamic law was conjured up once

196

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

more, this time including interesting details: the distinction between the Household of Islam and the Household of War, to which reference is often made and which is very important for Islamic law, was a purely fikh provision. The dhimml agreement also belonged to this context, although there was a Koranic pointer to it in the payment of the head tax (djizya). This contract could only be concluded by the Imam or the central authority and also applied to all descendants. 'Protected people', according to the unanimous opinion of Muslim legal experts, had to participate in the expenses of the state and were subject to Islamic provisions on financial and social matters. However, there was also a fikh provision that they should be left to their own particular faith, which was then interpreted as meaning that they could order their family affairs according to that faith. According to the Hanafite view they were even allowed alcohol and pork. So clearly sharVa could also mean a plurality of legal provisions. In the opinion of Mokhtar Ihsan Aziz (unlike Ghazi Salahuddin Atabani) the concept of a protected person was not identical with that of a citizen. Mokhtar Ihsan Aziz basically underlined that a purely political policy which did not simultaneously intend to work for the goals of sharVa (which fundamentally affects the whole of life anyway) was inconceivable in an Islamic state. These goals were, above all, the preservation of religion, safeguarding of the Islamic community and the protection of opinion, honour and possessions. 32 Another address dealt with the process of drawing up laws in Islam. Here too, the very first paragraph emphasised that many believing Muslims wrongly considered Islamic law to be unalterable. Especially with regard to the provisions on the family and penal law there were major controversies between orthodox and modernist Muslims. Therefore it should be emphasised that the Islamic legal code, sharVa, had not existed in the present form in the early centuries of Islamic history, quite apart from Mohammed's time. The term sharVa conveyed something of its root, 'way', which again played a part in the Koran as a straight, clear path. The four sources of Islamic law were the Koran, sunna, analogical conclusion (kiyas) and consensus (idpna'). The speaker underlined that even among Mohammed's companions the understanding of the Koran had not been equally good, although their mother tongue had been Arabic and they were also familiar with the context in which the Koran had been revealed, but to varying degrees. Even though the Koran was divine, its juridical interpretation remained human and limited despite all efforts at objectivity. This was why the first Islamic legal experts had never considered sharVa to be a closed system and had frequently made use of their own ability to judge (idjtihad). In the first two centuries of Islam there had thus been more than 100 different schools of law of which only four had survived later, when the formation of one's own judgement had given way to imitation (taklid) and thus a closed legal system had come into existence.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

197

As far as the second source of jurisprudence was concerned, the words and actions of Mohammed (preserved in the hadith literature), even the prophet himself had not been pleased that, in addition to the Koran, anything about his person had been handed down, although he had undoubtedly been the best interpreter of the revelation in his words and actions. For this reason the hadith literature could not be described as an essential part of shari'a but rather at the most as complementary. And it should also be remembered that not only Mohammed himself but also the early caliphs had prevented rather than encouraged these collections. That was why the collections in use now had come into existence so late that there had to be doubts about their authenticity, at least as a whole. As an internal comparison of different traditions showed, the most that they offered was a contextual interpretation of the Koran which thus varied from case to case. Account had also to be taken of the consideration these interpretations had to show for the Arab world of that time. Thus, it had not been totally possible to implement the Koranic ideal of the equality of all people, and concessions had had to be made over slavery and, above all, the subordination of women, including polygamy: "[I]n view of the prevailing conditions and social context, sexual equality was not achievable, so the Qur'an had to add: 'and men are a degree above them'. Without men being given a slightly upper hand, the Islamic ideal of equality would not have been accepted in that society. Although the Quranic norm was equality of sexes, men forged many Hadith giving women far more inferior status. Thus the Sharl'ah which based its laws on these ahadith in respect of women will have to be rethought in the changed context." 33 At another point the speaker emphasised that the Koran itself contained a statement (Sura 3, 7) that there were verses in the Koran which were decisive (muhkamat) and others that were not. With regard to the principle of the equality of all people, the speaker clearly exalted it to a principle higher than other considerations, not only in shari'a but also in the Koran itself. The last source of Islamic law which was also discussed in detail by the speaker was the consensus of the lawyers (idima'). This, however, as often wrongly understood, was not an independent source of Islamic law. Since it always had to refer to the Koran and to Mohammed's tradition, it was only a third level but none the less important source of law. It was not able to change principles or values but it could adapt their application to a contemporary concrete situation, shari'a was the embodiment of justice, grace, well being and wisdom. Oppression, cruelty, unhappiness and absurdity of any kind can therefore not be called shari'a. Apart from the question of the body to reach such a consensus in modern times, there is a wide range of freedom which the speaker was able to demonstrate and also demanded, for example for the abolition of divorce

198

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

by means of repeating the formula of repudiation three times. The differences between the individual schools of law could also be traced back to adaptation to specific situations. Unfortunately, this open attitude had been completely lost. Islamic law had degenerated f r o m a means of putting Koranic goals, values and principles into practice into a mere aim in itself - to its o w n disadvantage. "Despite a plethora of examples that the great classical jurists of Islam had an open mind on shar't issues, our 'ulama' and jurists have a totally closed mind. They indulge only in taqlid (imitation) and any rethinking is considered /43 nothing less than sin and kufr. (...) It is unfortunate that no Muslim country has taken a lead in this matter. Those who have come to be known as fundamentalists want to apply Shart'ah mechanically and unthinkingly. They refuse to take modern conditions into account. It would be of great benefit to all those who treat Shart'ah as immutable to study the history of evolution of various schools of Shart'ah. Without the creative spirit of ijtihad, Shart'ah cannot play a useful role in modern times." 34 M o h a m m e d Ben-Yunusa, w h o had already spoken on h u m a n rights, also gave an address on secularism and religion. In this he underlined that secularism according to the modern definition was a Christian conception of the separation between the state and religion. He did not fail to emphasise its negative connotations such as endeavouring to find fulfilment in this world or, more strongly, the separation between ethics and religion which encouraged corruption, nepotism, partisan and tribal thinking on a broad front. He started his remarks on religion by observing that religion had always been misunderstood and abused. But this did not imply that one could turn one's back on religion as such. H e underlined the conflicting claims to absoluteness in all religions and offered a solution f r o m Islam: every true religion and the solution to the problem for all time could only come f r o m the one God - and Islam had after all not only been proclaimed by M o h a m m e d but by all the prophets. All true followers of A b r a h a m , Moses and Jesus had been called Muslims. Since God was one and unchangeable, and since h u m a n nature and h u m a n problems were the same irrespective of time and place, Islam was the true, universal religion. But Islam recognised that religion was not merely a spiritual and intellectual necessity but also a social and universal need. True religion, namely Islam, provided knowledge a b o u t God and the world, purified the soul, drove out doubt, educated people to master life positively, gave them peace and security and made their lives meaningful. There could not honestly be any other religion and it would also not be accepted by God (Sura 3, 85). However, the supposed neutrality of the state, as M o h a m m e d Ben-Yunusa explained with the example of M a r x ism, was in reality (as an ideology) usually still more religious t h a n the

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

199

religion it was combatting. As to whether a truly secular country could exist at all was most dubious against this background. Thus, although the speaker rejected secularism, he considered secularl y positively as the religious neutrality of a state which neither discriminated against nor favoured any religion. Theocracy or other comparably close links between the state and religion had never worked well, as had also been demonstrated by the most recent examples of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Nigeria, etc. The state should promote the social well being of its citizens and not stand in the way of their spiritual growth. It was certainly possible and legitimate for objections to be raised against state extremism, for example from the side of the churches. The speaker saw no contradiction between the positive, ethical content of secularism and Islam, but then immediately took some of this back with reference to the secular claims of Islam. T o ignore these secular aspects of Islam would finally imply rejecting the message of Islam as a whole. Secularism in its present Western definition and expression could be described as de-Islamisation. But historically, and here his argument came full circle, secularism was a panacea for a specifically European problem, philosophically a purely materialist protest against the social ills with which the church had not dealt sufficiently thoroughly because Christianity was primarily concerned with saving souls. In a similar way to his first address, Mohammed Ben-Yunusa was very critical of the West and its concepts: "The West has not been fortunate in its political and ideological in that it lacks unitive polity and philosophy. Christianity, the Western ideology, has from its inception and in its development to attempt or failed to incorporate into its dogma those material of life for which humans have shown more interest." 35

history leading refused aspects

Walid Saif also gave a second address on the subject of human rights and the resurgence of Islam. He claimed it was no mere coincidence that the human rights' discussion had arisen precisely at the time when, following the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union, the whole world was - as it were - obsessed with the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalists, extremists and militant, violent groups. Step by step Islam was being presented in the media as irreconcilable with Western human rights. Thus the victims of human rights' violations in the Arab world and in Muslim countries were being turned into a potential threat to humanity and world peace, if not actually into the perpetrators. The term 'human rights' had a negative undertone in the Arab world; it was associated with enforced Western alienation. Like colonialism, foreign intervention was masquerading in moral garb. Then Walid Saif dealt in greater detail with the groups concerned. Despite their common religious origins there were differences in their stand-

200

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

points and methods. When political motives also played a role for Islamic religious groups, this could not simply be dismissed as an abuse of religion because it was mainly a reaction to circumstances. These comprised, on the one hand, the search for a national identity and, secondly, the social and economic situation - the lower social classes were particularly strongly represented in these groups. As far as the issue of violence was concerned, one should also not forget the existing violence - also related to Western domination - which in turn gave rise to violence. But all the groups had the same aims: the realisation of sharl'a in public life, in economics, politics, culture, society and naturally in everyday life. The economy and society should develop independently of the West and its models, and the Islamic civilisation should regain its old glory which was just as necessary as Islamic law. The prerequisite for this was Arab unity. The means of achieving these aims varied according to the individual groups, however. They ranged from a peaceful and increasingly democratic process of change, via militant revolution which considered democracy to be only a ruse of the former rulers, to the model of military camps. Walid Saif considered it extremely harmful for the promotion of human rights to present Islam as the new enemy of world peace and thus make the already tense situation more acute and risk one's own credibility. Democracy and human rights should be presented without hints about their being a problem in the Arab and Muslim world, in order not to face people in the Arab and Muslim world with the choice between Islam as their identity and human rights. N o r should human rights be presented as a Western invention under Western patronage, in order to avoid making even the victims of human rights' violations oppose them. The human rights' discussion, in Walid Saif's view, should also not be exploited as a means to Americanise culture or to detract from the human rights which the states propagating them had repeatedly violated themselves. Many of the regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, which violated human rights and denied political rights to their citizens, had been brought to power and were supported by the United States of America. Moreover, human rights were also observed between states and hence in the realm of the exploitation and destruction of the environment. The fact that such human rights were often ignored reinforced the impression that the human rights' discussion was simply to divert attention from the activities of the major powers to those of the Arab and Muslim countries. However, this did not imply that Christians and Muslims could leave this question to others. Nor should one try to cover up the fact that the human rights' situation in the Arab and Muslim world was indeed anything but g o o d and there were fears that this situation would deterioriate further if the opposition were to come to power. Many people were claiming that the Islamic movement did not mean its acceptance of democracy and pluralism seriously and only wanted to exploit democracy

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

201

in order to get into power. The fears were also understandable that a state of this kind would undermine the status and rights of non-Muslim minorities. The easiest way for the Islamists was naturally to claim that Islam guaranteed equality and human rights for all citizens. But in reality there were still some unclarities here and various opinions were represented, especially with regard to the extent to which one could simply adopt old forms or needed to revise them. In this way he came full circle to the address on the aims and concrete expressions of Islamic law. Especially with regard to women and nonMuslims in an Islamic state, according to Walid Saif's opinion a number of things must be revised and clarified in order not to open the door wide for fears, manipulation and intervention. Even merely speaking about non-Muslims was counter-productive. Nor was it sufficient to compare a historical Islamic tolerance with Christian intolerance. Walid Saif also emphasised again that nothing in Islamic law, which related to the Koran and the documented tradition of the Prophet, contradicted complete equality of rights and duties for Christian and Muslim citizens, "except where a responsibility is deemed an act of religious worship, so that imposing it would amount to religious coercion which is itself a violation of a major human right, namely freedom of religion." 36 The dhimml concept, which was originally intended positively but now had negative connotations among those affected, could be abandoned as far as Islamic law was concerned. Moreover, violations of human rights had in fact usually affected both Christians and Muslims. In conclusion, Walid Saif again underlined that one should not create a front between Islamic and secular or believe that violence and human rights' violation existed only on the side of Islam. In fact, however, the human rights' issue required a conference in its own right to examine the Islamic declaration on human rights and thus the question of the universal validity and cultural relativity of human rights. Both could be misused. Walid Saif did not intend to provide a solution but he did indicate that democracy was probably very important in this connection.37 Simultaneously this address pointed to another important subject, namely Islamic human rights. It should build on what had been said about Islamic law, especially about its flexibility in distinguishing between aims and provisions for implementation - provided that enough supporters of this definition could again be found. It will certainly still take a long time (and demand major efforts at conviction) before the Islamic world finds its way. Turn-About among the Christians Naturally Christians were also present at the conferences on Islamic law. The striking aspect of their addresses was that they somehow fulfilled the demands of Walid Saif in advance. The criticism of Islamic law, particu-

202

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

larly concerning its ability to be combined with secular and democratic conceptions of society, was practically silent. That is surprising since even many Muslims admitted that the situation was not as simple as some of their fellow believers liked to present it. Instead, a large amount of selfcriticism was heard from the Christian side. The Western Europeans had a short-sighted view of history and the way in which they organised their society was anything but absolutely right, according, for example, to Jorgen S. Nielsen concerning experiences in Western Europe. With the radical changes in Eastern Europe and the presence of a new generation of Muslims in Western Europe the old tensions between nation, religion and state were being revived when most people had believed them dead and buried. As Jorgen S. Nielsen demonstrated in a historical survey, in the 19th and 20th century in Europe there was no longer a consensus about the relation between faith, the institutional church and the role of Christianity in the social and political life of the nation. People have made their own arrangements depending on their confession and situation, and even the shock of fascism has not changed much in these arrangements. They range from an official, but not always strictly maintained, separation of state and church (prime example - France), via concordats (especially in Catholic countries) and a legally guaranteed special status (Germany), to the state church (Denmark). However, there were also developmnts and specific differences. Monarchies, in particular, had preserved many of the old rituals. And the internal currents which had got the development moving and accompanied it were still in existence: the alienation of people from the church and the development of new movements on the fringe of the churches. Nevertheless, so far in Europe there were only two states in which the confessions had really mingled, namely Great Britain and the Netherlands. The Jewish communities in Europe had adapted their institutional and organisational structures to those of the churches over a longer period, according to Jergen S. Nielsen. Among the newly arrived Muslims this had been achieved best by the Sufi groups which had always lived at a certain remove from the state. But the majority of the Muslims from rural areas still clung to an ideal of congruence between religion and politics which had never really existed in that form historically. Then there was also the problem of their continuing links with the Muslim world, whether to their country of origin or to the Islamic world (umma) in general. On the European side, there was a tendency in any case to demand a break with the country of origin, and also to place question marks against Islamic ties when it was a matter of loyalty, precisely when there was a crisis like the Golf War - an attitude of which Jorgen S. Nielsen did not seem to approve. Otherwise, he observed that the incorporation and participation of Muslims was easier in legally less complicated situations than the German one, for example.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

203

"[Participation in a highly structured system which has been developed over centuries tends to be difficult for those who come in late with a different experience. The threshold of entry required by the host institutions is thus much higher than the newcomers can reasonably be expected to manage, even when their expectations are being prematurely built up." 38 This same speaker gave another short address, in which he underlined the ability of Islamic law to change which the Muslims had already emphasised, whether it be on the practical level (kaniin, previously siyasa or mazalim) or on the conceptual level by making the distinction between the aims and expressions of the law (still recognisable in the sub-division of legal science into roots and branches, usul al-fikh and furii'al-fikh). The professional legal expert theologians ('ulama') had, however, been very nervous about changes. But the closing of the door for personal reflection (idjtihad) in the Middle Ages had also never been generally recognised. However, the speed of developments had overtaken Islamic law. Moreover, the construction of "Western schools in these countries had decimated the number of people who had more than a rudimentary knowledge of Islamic law, and this had already resulted in several crass wrong decisions that had frequently been quoted. At the present time everything was still in flux, e.g. nobody spoke about slavery anymore. Other issues were being debated: how theologically narrow or juridically wide the definition of sharl'a should be since it was God given and thus unalterable; to what extent idltihad could be extended to embrace not only economics and public administration but also penal and family law, as well as the status of minorities, and perhaps even the principles of law, the theology behind it and even the understanding of the Koran, and finally how the relationship between this law and the state should be defined. In the past, jurisprudence was autonomous and was exercised by scholars according to the tradition of one of the schools of law. A fixed form of the law would amount to blasphemy, and yet this was practised in the meantime without hesitation by governments which called themselves Islamic. Might it be that, in future, democratic processes would also be included in this development, even if certain Islamic trends rejected the idea? All of these factors, according to j0rgen S. Nielsen, needed to be taken much more into account in order to obtain a more realistic and less frightening picture - on both sides: "On both sides, the demonization of the other tends to centre on SbarVah. In Western eyes, the Islamic state is one which implements barbaric punishments, persecutes non-Muslim minorities and suppresses 130 women. In Muslim eyes, the West is atheistic, promiscuous, corrupt and worst of all - anti-Islamic. Of course there are elements of truth in both charges, but being based on a selective recording of events and a limited

204

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

understanding of the complexities involved on both sides, they tempt participants in the encounter into confirming archaic prejudice."39 People on the Christian side also discussed the question of Islamic law and non-Muslims. Bert F. Breiner began by pointing out that sharl'a - on the basis of its etymological root 'way to the water' - should perhaps best be translated 'way to success in this life and the next'. In this way it was closer to the understanding of Torah than any Christian or Western view of the law, just as Islam in general shared with Judaism the concern for justice in society. Otherwise, the speaker made some points in favour of Islamic law. In the meantime, he was no longer certain whether a secular democracy could really protect religious rights better than a religious state. By way of example he referred to Malaysia which had prohibited non-Muslims by law from using the term 'Allah' in worship - inconceivable according to classical Islamic law. Moreover, Western law lacked a concept for the group needed for a pluralist society, and this was most evident in the legal construct of the corporation. Here, Islamic law had several principles to offer: firstly, that each individual was a member of a community but was free to choose this community him/herself. Secondly, that several legal systems could be implemented within one society and, thirdly, that each person was to be judged by the law of the group he/she had chosen. However, the speaker had to admit that, in the past, these principles had been severely curtailed, for example by it normally being prohibited to convert from Islam or to any other religion except Islam. Separate legal systems had been used in the past in different cultures, above all in order to restrict the rights of minorities. And the personal principle (in contrast to the Western regional principle) had not been applied very strictly under Islamic law, e.g. with regard to the hudttd punishments for theft or the Hanafite school of law. A renewal of Islamic law by means of iditihad was undoubtedly necessary. Unfortunately all attempts along these lines had so far not resulted in the development of these principles but in their being compromised. Moreover, although the problem was international, the contribution of non-Muslims, or even their participation in a discussion of such issues, was as good as excluded. It was inconceivable on the basis of the dhimmi status, and only a few groups would be prepared to enter into a contractual relationship with non-Muslims and to recognise them as ahl al-sulh. Nevertheless, it was anachronistic to speak about secondclass citizens, since the Middle Ages in any case had only been familiar with subjects and not with citizens in the modern sense. However, Bert F. Breiner also expressed his doubts about reference back to the principles of Islamic law without taking the fikb tradition into account: even in the principles, namely the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet, there were statements which placed non-Muslims on a much lower level, something which was partly mitigated in the fikh tradition.

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

205

If one tried completely to ignore the legal traditions, as did the new salaflya school, this created new limitations and, above all, conflicts with many who were not prepared to adopt this approach. This again raised the core problems of the whole discussion extremely clearly but without solving them, because it also seemed impossible to the speaker simply to go back to the past. Finally, he more or less retreated to saying that he was not really qualified to speak about this subject at all, especially not in a binding way: "While some Muslims might listen seriously to my attempts to understand the Qur'an and the Sunnah, I do not expect it." 40 The contribution by Heinz Klautke on the subject of religion and secularisation observed that this was an originally European phenomenon and in the course of its historical development the churches had lost worldly possessions and influence and, on the other hand, the state and society had had to do without legitimation by the churches. However, the speaker also underlined that the church had not had the position of power it had lost through secularisation from the very beginning of Christianity. The church was looking critically at the developments resulting from secularisation. Even religious liberty, one of the main achievements of secularisation, had been accepted only very late (in 1948 by the World Council of Churches, in 1965 by the second Vatican Council). Prior to this, toleration had been practised instead of respect against the background of one's own claim to truth. But the speaker also mentioned that Muslims in the diaspora welcomed secularisation as the basis for their existence there, whereas otherwise secularisation was rejected as irrelevant to the realm of Islam. They were not afraid of secularism in the form of science, industrialisation or technology but only of such nonIslamic values as pluralism and scepticism. The idea that one could separate the one from the other, in the opinion of the speaker, is an illusion and a failure to recognise the internal connections: "Liberation from religious influence could not be restricted only to parts of human thinking, acting and behaving. So the values and the moral code had to be elaborated anew." 41 Sheila McDonough spoke out in her address for separation between politics and religion. Although she compared the course of Christian history with that of Muslim history, she concentrated mainly on the lessons which Christianity had learned from the French revolution. Her authority for this was, above all, the French nobleman, de Tocqueville, who had visited the United States of America after the events in France and derived his conclusions from the comparison. De Tocqueville welcomed the American separation of state and religion, because it meant a major political change would not necessarily also entail changing one's

206

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

religion, as had been the case in France where there was such a close link between church and crown (cf. also the Tsarist empire and the October Revolution). Such changes were to be expected more frequently in the future when power no longer relied on the military but on the consent of the people, which also corresponded to the equality of all people. This separation, the speaker considered, had not ruled out the commitment of Christians to changes in society. Moreover, one could certainly not accuse a man with the breadth of experience of de Tocqueville of too positive an estimate of human beings and their abilities: "This French aristocrat was not naive about how human beings could torment and destroy each other. He saw hope in the new experiment of democracy, but he did not imagine it would be without /10 problems. He did hope, though, that the days of arbitrary tyranny supported by military power were finished and that the new structures of liberty, equality and fraternity would open new possibilities for people to be more effective in protesting injustice, and working to order the common structures of life in a more just manner." 42 Another contribution dealt with the UN Human Rights Conference in Vienna ( 1 4 - 25.6.1993) and especially with the objections which had come from Asia and Africa. The disagreements had related to five points: are human rights universal? What has priority - the rights of the individual or of the community? Should delevopment aid be made dependent on compliance with human rights? Are there double standards in human rights? Is there a human right to justice? As far as the first question was concerned, most of the Muslims agreed that human rights were a gift from the Creator and thus universal. Nevertheless, finally the following countries rejected the universality of human rights: Colombia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. There were statements from Sudan, for example, that the universality of human rights did not rule out cultural specificity. For Libya, however, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and its universality were too Western; Islam tended more to speak of human dignity. The accusation that human rights were too individualistic and had thus encouraged moral decline and destroyed the fabric of society came, among other things, from Malaysia. Civil and political rights could not be separated from economic, social and cultural rights. Confirmation of this came from Ethiopia and other African states: drinking water was more important for many people than freedom to express their opinion. The Vatican for its part was concerned about the right to self-determination. On the one hand, that could result in a new nationalism but, on the other, governments had to stop misusing their sovereignty by declaring human and civil rights to be their internal affair. Logically,

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

207

Malaysia was against linking development aid and compliance with human rights - that would harm human rights more than it helped. Support came from Mali, for example, (human rights in the midst of poverty were an empty shell) and from the League of Arab states, whereas minorities, for example, tended more to be of the opposite opinion. The accusations of double standards in human rights were directed especially at the permanent members of the U N Security Council. With their right to veto they had no difficulty in preventing sanctions against themselves and states which were their friends. This view was put forward by the Libyan and the Sudanese delegations. Turkey believed that governments had to protect foreigners from racist violence and to combat terrorism. The Europeans, however, provided shelter for terrorist organisations and racist movements on grounds of human rights but nevertheless condemned offences against human rights elsewhere. That was a new form of racism. The situation in ex-Yugoslavia was repeatedly cited as evidence. The right to fair treatment naturally widens the subject of human rights beyond all limits: exploitation, refugees, slavery, genocide, indeed even the violation of the sovereignty of a state, and this not only in the present but possibly also in the past. It was a matter of claims for damages and their invalidation by lapse of time: "That this specific issue came to dominate the final days of the conference and the passage of the resolution, over the abstention of most Western European nations, shows the very different perceptions of priorities and modalities of human rights in Asian and African countries from human rights theory as it has developed in the Western philosophical and social tradition." 4 3 Finally, at the dialogues there was also an address on Muslim minorities and Islamic law in Europe. The address by Gé Speelman began by underlining the non-uniform character of the Muslim community in Europe. Regional or, in the case of Turkey, political links as well had the effect of producing many different mosques. This was further accentuated by the fact that, apart from Muslim minorities like the Alevites, it was a quite new experience for a Muslim to be in the minority. Whereas for those who form a religious minority, for example in their Turkish homeland, it is a liberating experience, the Sunnite majority find it frightening. It is only the second generation which endeavours to acquire an understanding of Islam that is really religious and thus independent of local customs. However, this is far from easy because the imported religious teachers are no help here. On the other hand, the Europeans had been talking about a multicultural society with freedom for ethnic minorities for 2 0 years - provided that this freedom did not endanger the well being of the population as a

208

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

whole. But for the Europeans certain provisions of Islamic law (e.g. corporal punishment) were exactly what raised questions about the acceptability of the Muslims. Although sharl'a had been the rallying call of the Muslims in Europe who wanted to preserve their faith, many of them, such as the Turkish citizens, had certainly never lived under Islamic law in their own countries. And to their own confusion they had to discover in Europe that there was more than their own local expression of Islamic law. However, in practice, there were only a few Muslims in Great Britain who were concretely interested in building up an Islamic society in the European context, and even that without the all too well known corporal punishments. Otherwise the Muslims were concerned to be able to fulfil their religious duties, pass their religion on to their children and have their own family law. The problem of the religious socialisation of young Muslims was that their parents, removed from a context in which everything could be taken for granted, were unable to answer the 'why?' questions of their children. And, as already mentioned, the Imams lacked contact with the new context; there was a shortage of religious teachers born and reared in Europe. The Muslims' fulfilment of their religious duties became problematical where this also affected the general public, namely with ritual slaughtering, Muslim burials, Islamic festivals, building mosques, the call to prayer, the status of the second wife and of her children. In France, which was traditionally especially secular, even the wearing of head scarves in schools was prohibited, and this had anti-Islamic or even racist overtones, according to Ge Speelman. As far as the demand for Muslim family law was concerned, it did indeed raise some legal problems. Which of the schools of law was to be followed? Were the Muslims in a particular country able to agree on this? Should a separate Islamic court of law be established or can a non-Muslim judge administer Islamic law? Should the individual (certainly the decision in line with European thinking, according to Ge Speelman) or the community be able to decide which law was to determine decisions? However, the biggest problem was that, according to the Western view, Islamic family law offended against the human right to equality between man and woman which was more important than the human right to religious liberty. This inequality became concrete in divorce, polygamy and in the fact that Muslim women, unlike their male counterparts in the faith, were not allowed to marry non-Muslim partners. The subject of idjtihad came up again with regard to plans for the future. There were Muslim women who had contracted mixed marriages and also some who had had a divorce before European courts. So far the Muslim community had done very little to convince women that Islamic law was better for them. Overall, Ge Speelman considered the adaptation demanded of the minorities greater than the changes in attitude required of the Europeans:

The Dividing Point of the Dialogue: Islamic Law

209

"As to Shart'ah law, the majority will have to change its attitude to the public manifestations of Islam. This is in fact a marginal adjustment compared to the kinds of change that minorities are obliged to undergo, but it would make a substantial difference to Muslims if, for example, local authorities would not panic when Muslims ask for the broadcasting of the 'adhan, but would try to work out a plan (together with the mosque committee) for informing the neighbourhood, or if school authorities would not be squeamish about Muslim dress. For this to happen, it seems important that the majority let go of the myths of the monocultural origin of the nation-state."44 New Way for the Future? The tendency in the Christian contributions was clear and amazing: departure from the secularism which had previously been preferred, a large amount of sympathy for the Muslims' problems, and concern for a multi-cultural society with different legal arrangements for different groups. This, according to Bert F. Breiner in one of his addresses, could help to solve the problems which had left Western democracies helpless thus far, for example the conflicts in India, Sudan and in ex-Yugoslavia in particular. A religious view of the world was not so immanent and thus now closer to the natural sciences, had already had to become more selfcritical and had experience of educating people in the spiritual realm - at the moment, advantages compared with a secular world view.45 The emphasis had clearly shifted compared with previous conferences: there was absolutely no mention here of what Christians or Christian congregations are allowed to do in Muslim countries where such congregations are allowed at all. None of the Christian speakers came from such a country. On the other hand, the readiness to compromise over the matter of Islamic law remained limited to a Muslim minority (which was almost exclusively the voice heard at both conferences). This minority urgently demanded revisions of Islamic law and also saw a theoretical possibility for this, but also very clearly recognised the practical difficulties with a Muslim majority which had a different view.46 This new line in the Christian/Muslim dialogue promises success at conferences. But it is to be feared that a major portion of regrettable reality on both sides might then be neglected. It therefore remains to be seen with which participants on which subjects and in which form the dialogue on Islamic law will continue. To have made it clear that this dialogue must continue because there are decisive unsolved problems in this field which cause suffering on both sides, because there is ignorance, partial knowledge and prejudice about it on both sides and this poisons the atmosphere - to have made this extremely clear is the undeniable merit of these last two dialogues. The dialogue in Berlin almost a year later, which dealt with religion and human rights, was considered to be only a first step. In 1999 a very prom-

210

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

ising dialogue took place on 'Religious Freedom, Community Rights and Individual Rights'. But one thing is fairly clear: common efforts on these issues will have to continue, both in practice and in dialogue.47 J. Mixed Marriage - the Highest Form of The Attitude of the Christians to Mixed

Dialogue Marriage

"Les mariages entre musulman(e)s et chrétien(ne)s tous prêchant le monothéisme et ayant une même souche 'Abrahamique' constituent le dialogue, la rencontre par excellence pendant ou au cours desquels la règle du donner et du recevoir s'applique."1 [The marriages between Muslims and Christians, who all preach monotheism and have the same 'Abrahamic' root, constitute dialogue and encounter par excellence during or throughout which the rule of giving and receiving applies.] Undoubtedly, the communication between Christians and Muslims is nowhere more lasting and intensive than in a mixed marriage. Nowhere is it more difficult to maintain prejudices or is one more profoundly confronted with the religion of the other than in a mixed marriage. It is easy to imagine that such experiences clash with one's own faith and upbringing, even without any immediate compulsion to convert being exercised. This is also the reason why mixed marriages are not as welcome as one might imagine, not even where they are relatively wide spread. In addition to real fears about the position of a Christian woman in a marriage to a Muslim, which are based on her legal and traditional status, it is also often easiest to have a negative image of the other and to maintain it. This guarantees distance and avoids disagreements, challenges and thus risks to one's own conviction and religious community. Precisely in situations where mixed marriages are relatively frequent, contrary to expectation, there is a tendency to evade the religious level, to avoid real debates and, instead, to live and celebrate together as a large family in outward peace. Pastor Elie Miloungou, from whom the quotation above was taken which praises mixed marriage as the highest form of dialogue, also had to make observations of this kind. Mixed marriages could achieve more than is often really the case. Despite all their difficulties, mixed marriages are often a major source of inter-religious dialogue, including the dialogue between Christians and Muslims. The only question is how to tap this source. Joint counselling centres are one thing which is being discussed, for example.2 At a multi-religious conference in 1987 at New Delhi, the World Council of Churches put mixed marriages together with conversions between religions on the list of particularly sensitive subjects about which clarity needed to be obtained and on which appropriate action was required in the future. For the Christian/Muslim dialogue, religion and the family was one of the subjects included in the dialogue guidelines right from the beginning.

Mixed Marriage - the Highest Form of Dialogue

211

At the meeting of the advisory group after the restructuring of the WCC, the decision was taken to undertake a joint study with the Catholics including the subject of mixed marriages as suggested by the staff. The 'guidelines' for the Christian /Muslim dialogue also emphasised that mixed marriages needed real help from outside, and pointed out that the opportunities and problems of such marriages (N.B. religious upbringing of the children) were very closely related. But in practice there was more reference to the problems, especially to the provisions of Islamic family law which even cause many Muslim women to object to shari'a. When Islamic law is or becomes state law somewhere, women are often more strongly affected and, even without additional pressure to convert, within a mixed marriage Islamic marriage, divorce and custody laws are not experienced as protective but simply as discriminatory. In any case, information and counselling on these problems should be more easily accessible.3 The issue of mixed marriages became a real concern for the dialogue department of the World Council of Churches only very late, because it is by nature a very personal affair and not easy to tackle in an official dialogue. This makes it all the more praise worthy that the 'guidelines' for the Christian/ Muslim dialogue identified the importance of this area and defined what needed to be done clearly in the form of three major challenges: "(1) reaffirming the personal and familial values promoted by their respective religions, (2) developing a common consciousness of the promises and limitations of interfaith marriages, and (3) committing their communities, families and couples brought together in inter-religious marriages to cooperate with each other in addressing pastorally the social and legal complexities experienced in specific situations."4 'Exemplary

Behaviour'

among the

Muslims

The question which arises, however, is whether the Muslim partners in the dialogue see the need to act in the same way. Irrespective of whether their basic approach is more liberal or more conservative, they consider the Islamic marriage laws, which allow a Muslim to marry a Jewish or Christian woman, as proof of the exemplary tolerance of Islam, and something exemplary is naturally not a problem and does not need to be improved: "Indeed, in this respect a Jewish or Christian wife of a Muslim husband enjoys more safeguards and protection than does a Muslim woman married to a non-Muslim. Where, for example, in the religious law of Judaism or Christianity is a Jewish or Christian husband obligated to respect his Muslim wife's Holy Qur'an and Prophet? This is one of the great innovations of Islam, and it arises from religious principle: toleration is part of Islam which has no place for religious or ethnic bigotry."s General statements on the question of mixed marriages were rare and when they existed they usually referred to a concrete, i.e. regional situa-

212

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

tion. The Christians often criticised the Muslims' marriage law arrangements or the practical excesses to which these provisions had led. The most extreme example is probably that of the Philippines where Christian men were castrated because they had married Muslim girls although this was prohibited, and this then led to a whole spiral of violence. It is hardly surprising that the internal conference at Mombasa in 1979, where this frightening example was discussed, recommended that the churches give special attention to problematical mixed marriages. 6 Since Islamic personal law for Muslim minorities as well remained one of the main demands of the Muslims in the dialogues (cf. previous chapter), marriage law also continued to be a problem and issue in the dialogue, although the regional intensity varied. From the purely numerical aspect, Asia was not a focal point in this connection because mixed marriages are too rare there. At the dialogue for Southeast Asia in 1986 at Dhyana Pura, it was again a Christian, Martin Adhikary, who went in greater detail into the question of mixed marriages. Marriage with a Muslim raised the question of polygamy, a different divorce law and the upbringing of the children. In practice, it was often not possible to find someone to advise such a couple and for this reason some Muslim/ Christian couples preferred not to have children. Martin Adhikary observed quite rightly that even a dialogue conference finds it easier to leave the question to the persons concerned to deal with according to their own conscience and will. That was convenient but probably not always possible. In any case, Christians often adopted the attitude (in line with I Cor. 7) that people in mixed marriages were "people who have got 'unequally yoked'" 7 and were therefore to be pitied. Despite the show made of tolerance over issues of mixed marriage, the Muslim approach was not much different from that of the Christians. The ideal image of a stable marriage is that both partners should not only have the same religion but also the same cultural and social background. For these human reasons the tendency then is to support a mixed marriage when it has been contracted, but otherwise to warn people about its particular difficulties. It does not contradict the pride over Islamic tolerance that, even in a mixed marriage, the man naturally is responsible for the family with the consequence that, even if the mother is Jewish or Christian, the family is considered Muslim and the children are brought up as Muslims. Only such a family can enjoy the Muslim tolerance evoked above (by the same speaker). This basic approach to the responsibility of the man also explains why a Muslim man may marry a Jewish or Christian woman but a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man. Consequently, at Kolymbari in 1987, the Christian side promptly pointed out that tolerance and religious liberty in Islam did not go anything like as far as the Muslims had repeatedly claimed. It is also easy to emphasise that the husband must not be put under pressure to convert

Mixed Marriage - the Highest Form of Dialogue

213

if his wife becomes a Muslima (as stated by the oft quoted Sheikh S.M. Darsh at the Kolymbari dialogue), if one then fails to mention that the only alternative for the husband is divorce. How many complications Islamic law entails for a mixed marriage, especially for a Jewish or Christian wife who, for example, cannot inherit from her husband unless she converts to Islam, are always raised only by the Christian side. Muslims take it so much for granted that their law corresponds to divine guidance and is therefore unsurpassably good, that Muslim men, in particular, are totally unable to understand how anyone could object to such provisions or feel that they were limiting and discriminatory. 8 Helplessness on Both Sides At the dialogue in New Windsor in 1 9 8 8 , the Catholic speaker went into such detail about the differences between the Christian - especially Catholic - and the Muslim conceptions of marriage, pointing out that the latter was more patriarchal and more of a contract (cf. previous chapter for legal details), that he finally only demanded very general assistance for marriage and the family. He did not deal with Christian/Muslim mixed marriages any more, and simply stated that marriage according to Islamic law was a witness to the Muslim faith, just as a Catholic marriage was a witness to the Catholic faith. On the other hand, mixed marriages of whatever kind, which were increasing in number, were particularly susceptible to divorce according to the statistics. 9 This address can be seen as a further example that the basic attitude on both sides is to advise against a Christian/Muslim mixed marriage (which is easily understandable in view of the immanent problems), and that otherwise the issue of mixed marriages tends to come up against a helpless silence, which is of no help for those already affected and is evidence of an incapacity of both Christians and Muslims in the realm of pastoral care and dialogue. There is recognition of the problems, which can and should not be denied, but the help is not given that might perhaps be able to turn the problem into an opportunity which does not exist in this form anywhere else. The Special Situation in Africa Africa is rich in opportunities of this kind. It has a very high proportion of Christian/Muslim mixed marriages; they could almost be described as a characteristic of that continent, although at this point the Muslim north of Africa is seen as part of the Mediterranean region and not of Africa, as has also been the case in the regional dialogues of the W C C . The very first regional Christian/Muslim dialogue took place in 1974 in Africa at Legon, and even at that time the close personal interweaving of the two religions in the form of mixed marriages was considered characteristic of Africa. But the answer to the question whether this helped to create a special relationship was mainly negative. On the contrary, an appeal was made at the end

214

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

to both religious communities to leave religiously mixed marriages and families in peace and not expose them to further pressure in order to keep or win members - so it was obviously not a situation of co-existence but of competition between the two religions, nevertheless. The fact that there are so many mixed marriages is probably less because of Islam and Christianity than because of the African religiosity which has influenced both religions there more than they like to admit. The West, in the opinion of an African speaker at the dialogue in Chambesy in June 1976, assumed that there were basic conflicts and then brought them into the families. Whereas the point of departure for African society was that within one family, through the mutual relationships between the individuals, three different religions (Christianity, Islam and the tribal religion) could come together in harmony. Other people could learn from this attitude of the Africans. At the Christian/Muslim planning meeting at Cartigny in 1976, it also became clear again, when comparing experiences, that the common life of Christians and Muslims in one family was uncomplicated in West Africa. However, sometimes it was also true that the overall relationship was very good but that a mixed marriage happened to constitute an exception, e.g. because the relatives of the two sides intervened - an experience which applied to Kenya, the host country for the major conference to reflect on the Christian/Muslim dialogue in 1979. 1 0 Religion and the family were naturally also subjects of the two African dialogues in the regional dialogue series of the WCC, in 1986 at Porto Novo for French speaking Africa and in 1989 at Usa River for the English speaking area. Extensive quotations from the Christian address on the issue were already included at the beginning of this chapter; to summarise in reference to the specifically African context, one can state that, as a result of older African traditions, there are relatively many mixed marriages between Christians and Muslims in Africa. They are tolerated and people even celebrate the various religious festivals together, but otherwise this co-existence has so far remained rather superficial. The claims to religious absoluteness and mutual prejudices against the others as religious individuals have remained, indeed, they have become stronger in the course of the years. Elie Miloungou provided a long list of customs, some of which had been reported by Christians but most by the Muslims themselves, and which were more than forbidding for a Christian girl and her parents. The final effect was a complete, unalterable dependency of the Christian wife on her Muslim husband and his whims; the woman remained the man's property even after his death. The wife practically owned only the clothes she was wearing, had to share her husband under certain circumstances with other wives, was exposed to pressure to convert and to various annoyances such as not being allowed to cook the meal to break the fast. Abrahamic ecumenism in mixed marriages and mixed marriages as catalysts for this ecumenism in the wider society are

Mixed Marriage - the Highest Form of Dialogue

215

still Utopian dreams and will perhaps remain so, because of the socialisation each partner brings into the marriage and despite the great importance of the family for religion, particularly in Africa. The corresponding Muslim address concentrated more on the legal side of the problem with all that is allowed or prohibited and gave negative examples, above all, including even the annoyance mentioned about cooking. But the speaker personally rejected that as a misinterpretation of the tradition. The Islamic prohibitions related to marriage and the extent to which they were to be taken literally remained a point of dispute. On the other hand, it was claimed with sweeping generalisation in the discussion that Christianity had nothing against mixed marriages because the partner of the other faith was sanctified by the Christian. The attempt was made to remove the sting from the disputed subject of polygamy by referring to the hidden polygamy among Christians, but stumbling blocks remained such as diverse assessments of divorce and the status of women, the question of family planning and naturally the upbringing of the children, especially their religious education. The latter constitutes an almost insoluble problem. 1 1 Thus reality is far removed from wishful thinking; some opportunities do exist but so far they have hardly been exploited. The concluding dialogue for English speaking Africa also saw inter-religious marriages as the great opportunity for dialogue in Africa, and gave consideration to joint Christian/Muslim counselling centres for these marriages. Interestingly enough, the followers of African traditional religions were also expressly included among such marriages. That is really the basic source which feeds the many Christian/Muslim marriages in Africa. Apart from that, these mixed marriages are and will probably remain more of a problem than an opportunity, because they constitute an encounter between two very different ways of thinking, less on the theological level than on the level of laws and customs. But some kind of opportunity still exists and this will certainly be a task for the Christian/Muslim dialogue in the future, especially on the African continent: "Inter-marriage among Muslims, Christians and Traditionalists is one of the biggest resources for dialogue in Africa. There should be ways to tap this important resource." 12

2. Cross-Sections of the Inter-Religious Dialogue A presentation concentrating on the Christian/Muslim dialogue can nevertheless not completely ignore the developments in the inter-religious dialogue as a whole. Many questions and developments are finally too fundamental to be set aside because they do not only relate to dialogue with Muslims. This is particularly true of the important theological issues

216

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

in the realm of inter-religious dialogue. That was where the stage was set and the major inner-Christian debates took place. But there it was less a matter of actual dialogues than of reflection on them within the World Council of Churches and its member churches. In other interesting fields, the material available from the Christian/Muslim dialogue is far from sufficient for a whole chapter, but it should nevertheless not be omitted and is to be found on this 'pile'. To be more precise, it is mainly the question of dialogue and teaching, and to some extent cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church can also be included at this point. The section on inter-religious dialogue is less extensive than that on the Christian/Muslim dialogue in general and is not intended to be autonomous and comprehensive but only a necessary complement. A. Theology

of Religions - the Open

Disagreement

before the Dialogue

Question Started

The question of the theological status of other religions in general (the special relationships with Islam have already been discussed) goes back further than the sub-unit on dialogue, indeed, it is older than the World Council of Churches itself. One of the 'preceding organisations', the International Missionary Council, had earlier been constantly faced with other religions through mission and soon raised the question of how to deal with these religions. At the second World Mission Conference in 1928 in Jerusalem, the discovery was made that all religions formed a common front against the increasing rise of secularism. So the question about spiritual values in other religions was asked in an attitude of positive expectation. But only ten years later, at the third World Mission Conference in Tambaram in 1938, the mood had completely changed. The conference was marked by Hendrik Kraemer, who followed the tradition of Karl Barth and was very sceptical about considering parts of other religions as 'values', or even seeing these religions as such as praeparatio evangelica or logos spermatikos. That was contrary to the way the religions understood themselves. In addition, people applied the attribute 'divine' to what was 'noble' according to their criteria and thus acted unbiblically, cf. the example of the incarnation. The British and Americans, in particular, were not prepared to support this categorical denial. From their side there was strong criticism that Kraemer was not taking the incarnation seriously and his attitude was therefore more Muslim than Christian. The question of the continuity or discontinuity of the revelation in Christ could not be resolved; there was no way of bridging the differences: "As to whether the non-Christian religions as total systems of thought and life may be regarded as in some sense and to some degree manifesting God's revelation Christians are not agreed. This is a matter urgently demanding thought and united study."1

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

217

The second World War was not the only thing which prevented further debate on this issue; the discussion had reached a deadlock in any case. In the fifties it became more and more obvious that all that was possible was to repeat the dispute of Tambaram, but not to make progress in dealing with the questions raised at that time. The problems had not been solved but only postponed so they had now become more urgent than ever. In 1 9 5 5 the subject was taken up again officially. There was agreement at the conference in Davos that a general revelation existed, a preparatory working of the Holy Spirit, but this contributed indirectly to idol worship above all. Initial plans were also laid at Davos for a W C C study on the subject of 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men'. As the name shows, there was a desire to get away from a limitation to Christ and the religions and to have a consciously biblical study, since it had often been denied that Tambaram had had a biblical basis. The title also revealed a decisive step away from theoretical religious systems to people who really existed: "Le débat de Tambaram est ainsi sur le point de franchir un 'tournant anthropologique'." 2 [Thus the Tambaram debate is about to take an 'anthropological turn'.] An interim evaluation of this study was conducted in 1 9 6 1 , but it provided meagre results on the issue of the gospel and the religions: this relationship needed new theological reflection and formulation. It was not possible to come to a theological agreement in the inter-religious dialogue. The dividing line ran between Christians who lived in constant touch with other religions and those whose context was exclusively Christian. Dialogue as a New Conceptual

Framework

When the Christian/Muslim dialogues began in 1 9 6 8 , statements were also made on a general theology of religions. According to the outcome at Selly Oak, no attempt should be made to grade the religions, nor to look for a lowest common denominator. God had prepared all religions and cultures for eschatological fulfilment, and respect for the followers of another religion also had to include respect for their religious tradition. But this observation came from only a very small group. As was shown in the paper by Stanley J. Samartha, 'The World Council of Churches and Men of Other Faiths and Ideologies', the member churches of the W C C were still waiting for clear guidelines as the basis for a dialogue with followers of other faiths. Indeed, this had been one aim of the study which had started and for which a new name had unsuccessfully been sought in order to make the intention still more clear of going beyond the narrow focus of dialectical theology at this point. Significantly enough, the stimuli for this in fact came from the Orthodox

218

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Church and were associated with Georges Khodr in person. As far as he was concerned, there was no doubt that non-Christians could share the experience of Christ. The Eastern Church was not so Christocentric; it took it for granted that the Holy Spirit was also at work outside of the historical church. T o quote Khodr literally: "In the East we have a broader version of Christianity. If the Holy Spirit works outside the walls of historic Church then we share in the living God and not just in ideas about God" 3 . While this was the most striking statement on the subject at the first multi-religious dialogue (Ajaltoun 1 9 7 0 ) , a theology of religions became an important point a little later at the follow up conference for reflection in Zurich. The preparatory documents also included a catalogue of the attitudes of Christians to other religions in early church history, compiled by Anastasios Yannoulatos. Four attitudes were to be found in those days. Firstly, other religions are the work of the devil and there is nothing true in them. Secondly, other religions contain a yearning for God and some vague knowledge of Him. Thirdly, there are positive elements in all religions; up to a certain point they are even legitimate ways to God because He has never left Himself without a witness anywhere. Fourthly, other religions are a preparation for Christ who is unique. But Ajaltoun, as a practical experience of dialogue with followers of other religions, had also left its mark: "[T]here remains the fragmentary but pungent evidence that we are, in differing ways, in touch with aspects of that ultimate mystery which is infinitely beyond any of our concepts and reactions." 4 There were good reasons why Stanley J . Samartha came to the following assessment: "Ajaltoun (...) may mean a more drastic break with past positions and attitudes than probably some of the churches are theologically and emotionally prepared for." 5 But so far there had been no thorough theological examination of this experience. David E. Jenkins considered that it should be conducted according to the criteria of one's own religion; but how these criteria were to be obtained and how they related to an open dialogue remained unanswered, indeed, it was a question which arose for all the partners in a dialogue and not just for the Christians. The question of revelation also remained open: must it be restricted to the Bible or could one perhaps also recognise Mohammed as a divine prophet? David E. Jenkins did not really see any theological problem, however, because God and Christ were finally greater than our Christian picture of them. The question was problematic only on the personal level:

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

219

"Psychologically the matter will be very disturbing for the majority of Christians." 6 Zurich also did some work on documents. In a fundamental document, 'Dialogue with Men of Other Faiths', a positive attitude to other religions and their missionary activities is presented as basic even for mission, with the following justification: "It is in Christ that all things hold together (now - cf. Colossians) and it is in Christ that all things will be summed up (in the End - cf. Ephesians)." 7 There was also a quite official wish to establish a positive relation between the faith of Christians and the faith of other people. But then what was the relation between God's saving economy in Jesus Christ and his action in the world as a whole? Earlier answers could and had to be revised because they were still too much influenced by a historical and cultural predominance of Christians. But the Christians had many different opinions on this issue. The question of a theology of religions does indeed have many aspects. If, as in Zurich, the church was defined as the body of Christ and Christ had universal validity, then the same had to apply to the being and action of the church. In the multi-religious world of the present, this could no longer simply mean the church was the centre of history - but then what? N o answer was found in Zurich but a framework for an answer was identified: world-wide technological civilisation, specific cultural inheritance, God's demand and his offer in Christ. And there was also a readiness to think about the consequences for baptism. Overall Zurich was evidence of a period of change: the experiences of Ajaltoun and comparable situations had provided a stimulus for radical re-thinking because a theology of religions also affected the core of the Christians' understanding of themselves. The theological arguments still constituted very general references and theological answers were rare. An awareness of the many outward questions involved was characteristic. The real confrontation with the positions of the past had still to take place; a new theology of religions remained a task for the future. However, it was emphasised repeatedly that answers to this or that theological question could in future only come out of the dialogue. Such a decision has serious consequences. In the future an experience of dialogue will always precede the reflection on the basic theological questions about dialogue: "We cannot hope to be shown how we are to see men of other faiths in relation to our Christian faith, and how our Christian faith is to approach men of other faiths unless we are in human and personal contact with these men." 8

220

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

The concluding sentence from the Zurich 'aide-mémoire': "Dialogue between Christians and men of other commitments, in the sense of talking together, which is a sharing together concerned with finding a way forward to living together, is an inevitable, urgent and promising manner of discovering how to bring together God's offer of communion in Christ and our diverse ways of common human living."9 Addis Ababa and the Role of the

Orthodox

The meeting of the WCC Central Committee in Addis Ababa in 1971 was intended to provide guidelines for the inter-religious dialogue and thus more clarity on the questions as yet unanswered. As the general secretary, Eugene Carson Blake, stated in his report, it was a matter of identifying common features in different faiths. But it was the address by Metropolitan Georges Khodr which was probably best received; it dealt mainly with the church's exclusive claim to truth which was expressed in all theological disciplines but could not be combined with genuine spiritual life among non-Christians. On this basis Georges Khodr also discussed the question of a presence of Jesus outside the church. He based his argument particularly on the Acts of the Apostles and Revelation, both of which, on the one hand, admitted an openness for God among the Gentiles but, on the other, firmly rejected paganism. Both features were already present in the Old Testament and ran right through church history, although separate from one another. The logos spermatikos theology showed that the Early Church was open for the idea of Christ in the world, although at that time it was thinking more of Greek philosophy. Origen, however, also included Greek mythology and pagan religions. Later, the Church in both West and East adopted a predominantly negative attitude to other religions (de facto to Islam). In the course of belligerent conflicts, the church became the Christian umma, the Christian world the stronghold of peace, light and knowledge, and everything else the dark, warlike realm of unbelief. Finally salvation was understood as meaning a Christocentric history of salvation, a series of historical events related to Israel and Christ into which all people must be fitted. This was too narrow, according to Georges Khodr, and made the Holy Spirit totally subject to Christ. Apart from the relation between Creator and creation, God had been at work and salvation had existed outside of Israel as well. The central elements in his approach were the speech on the Areopagus and his understanding of the eschaton, when God will pour out the fulness of the Spirit (his proof text for this: Acts 2,17), and then all will recognise that it was Christ whom they had really been worshipping, seeking and whose school they had attended, since everything was brought together in him (Col. 1,17). In this the Holy Spirit is completely free: where he is, there is the church (Irenaeus), and not the other way round. Thus Christ is

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

221

hidden everywhere, even where a religion rejects the gospel. It is the function of the visible church to interpret God's mysterious signs. Georges Khodr was aware of the far-reaching consequences of his approach. This theology would lead Christians to a secret communion with all people and to yearn for its eschatological fulfilment. It could be enriching for Christians, in analogy to the Old Testament, to read the scriptures of other religions in a Christological way, to penetrate to their religious personalities, take their ideas further and expect some spiritual and not just intellectual benefit from this encounter. In his heatedly debated address Georges Khodr was able to speak about "Christ who sleeps in the night of the religions." 10 This was the first clear theological formulation of what may have been behind many of the pleas by supporters of dialogue, especially from the 'Third World'. It was therefore hardly surprising that this address became the focal point of the discussion because, as Georges Khodr himself said, these arguments were alien to the more recent theological tradition. This reference applied probably less to Catholicism than to Protestantism with its strong concentration on Christ and the history of salvation.The Eastern Church, on the other hand, has rejected the filioque and thus finds it easier to see the Holy Spirit at work independently of the Christ event. Its basic approach is also more mystic; it short, Georges Khodr's contribution was clearly from the Eastern Church. When Khodr spoke about the consequences of the period of the crusades for Christendom and how it understood itself, he saw this particularly clearly as a Lebanese. Often it was really Islam he meant when he referred in his address to other religions. It was also more understandable to talk about seeking Christ there than in other religions. Christ can be found, even if Islam rejects the gospel as Christians understand it. Despite certain weaknesses (interpretation of the outpouring of the Spirit, far-reaching equation of philosophy with religion), the contribution by Georges Khodr provided a masterly impetus for reflection. The extremely cautious document which was finally received (parts I and II) or adopted (part III) did not include any of Khodr's statements. A sensitive dialogue was affirmed but the theological basis for it was formulated only in very general terms. The basic issue of salvation in Christ and how it related to his working in the life and tradition of non-Christians remained a major question for the dialogue. Theologically, there had been no progress beyond the statements of the WCC Assembly of Uppsala in 1968 and that is also what was stated: "This was affirmed at Uppsala 1968 where it was stated: 'The meeting with men of other faiths or of no faith must lead to dialogue. A Christian's dialogue with another implies neither a denial of the uniqueness of Christ, nor any loss of his own commitment to Christ but rather that a genuinely Christian approach to others must be human, personal, relevant, and humble' (Uppsala 68 Report, Geneva, p. 29)." 11

222

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Naturally, one should not forget that in Addis Ababa the WCC was restructured into three loose programme units, and the newly established sub-unit on Dialogue with People of Other Faiths and Ideologies was assigned to the first, 'Faith and Witness.' Stanley J. Samartha became the director of this new sub-unit after previously being responsible for the Word of God study, among other things. The official tasks of the new sub-unit also included theological research in order to be able to support the member churches in the dialogue which was the main task. The official 'transfer of responsibilities' to the new sub-unit took place during the DSME Working Committee at Jongny in June 1971. The ad hoc working group of the new sub-unit met in the context of that committee and laid down, inter alia, that the conceptual framework for the new work had to be unconditionally trinitarian. However, a theological debate on the positions adopted at Zurich and Addis Ababa did not take place here; it was only placed at the top of the list of priorities. There was great reticence about espressing a judgment on followers of other religions: "It is not for us to judge the authenticity of their faith, commitment or obedience to the Holy spirit {sic!) outside the visible Church." 12 There were also several interesting reactions to the Addis Ababa document. Wilfred Cantwell Smith of Harvard University wished for more formulations containing 'God through/in Christ' in order not to parade too superficial a Christology in the sensitive context of inter-religious dialogue. There was a particularly critical statement from the Southwest German Working Group for World Mission and from the Institute for Missiology and Ecumenical Theology of the University of Tübingen directed especially against the universalism of salvation in the aide-mémoire from Zurich. This was why the working group of the two institutions took the documents more as a starting point for a statement of their own. The group recognised clearly that the question of salvation also raised the question of the Holy Spirit and that this question had not been clarified in any document. There was no desire to adopt the line of Georges Khodr because he rejected the filioque, whereas in the Reformation tradition the Holy Spirit was linked with the Word. The standing of Christ was equally unclear in the documents. If someone started looking for the hidden Christ in other religions, he/she could easily turn Christ into a mere "Chiffre für Liebe" 13 [code word for love]. This statement was generally very open in its reservations and criticism and, as evidenced by the significance attributed to the Scriptures, strongly marked by Protestantism. Serious Disagreements

- Developments

up to

Nairobi

The Commission on Faith and Order at Louvain in 1971 also dealt with the relationship between Christianity and other religions but was unable to clarify this theological prerequisite for dialogue. On the contrary, the

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

223

Section was profoundly divided over the question whether or not it was a condition for dialogue that Christians be convinced of the existence of authentic revelation in other religions. The tendency was evident, however, no longer to see the relation between Christianity and other religions in New Testament categories, such as conversion and break with the past, but in stages and transitions. And this again indicated a rapprochement to the Catholic view (Vatican II). But at a meeting of the Orthodox in preparation for the World Mission Conference in Bangkok ('Salvation today') it was clear that they too were unable to agree on the pneumatological approach to other religions quoted above. On the contrary, because the Church Fathers had not adopted a particular stand, opinions were even unusually divided. All that remained here, once again, was a call for greater clarity on the basis of practical encounter, and for more love "which can discern the love of God operating in hidden and unexpected ways among all mankind." 14 Even the World Mission Conference itself was "nicht von einer Art, in der im Problembereich des Heils der Nichtchristen sich die schwere Frage nach der Reichweite des Heils losen sollte." 15 [not of such nature that it could solve the difficult question of the extent of salvation in the problematic field of the salvation of nonChristians]. On a number of different occasions, including the preparation for the next WCC Assembly, it was repeatedly pointed out that practical experience of dialogue had to precede any theological decision: "Experience provides the agenda for theological reflection and practical planning"16. At the multi-religious dialogue in Hong Kong in 1975 it was emphasised that the claims of religions to absoluteness were an obstacle to world-wide community. In the internal discussion as well, the subject of claims to truth and the question of truth arose repeatedly and inevitably where inter-religious dialogue was concerned, but without being answered. The less prospects there were of finding decisive answers to the theological questions in the dialogue, indeed even of finding clear ways to answers, the more emphatic became the demand simply for theological reflection, or even quite concretely for a new edition of the Zurich conference: "The aim should not be so much to provide a theological apologia for dialogue as to provide theological impetus and encouragement for dialogue and to bring forth theological insights and challenges out of experience of dialogue."17 The Assembly in Nairobi was also to deal, inter alia, with theological frameworks and fundamental issues, with subjects like the universality of God's love and the particularity of Jesus Christ, the work of the Spirit in

224

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

creation and in the local church, God's work of redemption in the context of creation, redemption and eschatology and, finally, the Christian claims to absoluteness and truth and the missions of followers of other religions. H o w far could and should openness go for a congregation still to be Christian? Was it possible at all to go beyond the content of the Colombo dialogue (human dignity and transcendency as common features of the religions)? Would it not be better to place less emphasis on Christ in order not to produce undesired anonymous Christians? H o w should the gospel as a stumbling block really be understood? At the Assembly it was not possible to discuss these questions, let alone solve them. At Nairobi the statement was made in the presence of guests from other religions (a new feature at that assembly) that other religions were demonic. African and Asian Christians felt almost as much offended by this attitude as the guests. Behind the offensive words lay the conviction that Christ as saviour and truth is only to be found in the Church, in word and sacrament, and is present apart from these only as creator. This view could not be reconciled with a positive attitude to inter-religious dialogue which was not founded on theology but only on local experience. A way out was sought in such ideas as that it was now a question of the survival of humankind, and that the Christian faith, however much it may be a stumbling block, should not be misused in a way that might increase tensions, hatred and mistrust. This debate was typically not a dispute over the core questions like the relation between the Church and humankind, how God was present in the history of the whole of humanity, or how the various religions should be understood in the framework of divine history. Instead, there was a superficial dispute about inter-religious dialogue and how to justify it. But a closer look showed clearly that each tradition had at least the beginnings of an answer to the questions arising in the whole area of revelation and religions. Once again, the demand was made to reflect on these approaches as far as possible in the context of practical experience of dialogue (one issue, one religion). The recognition that the historical development had led to the necessity of inter-religious dialogue in most countries of the world was obscured by the unfortunate course of the debate, and even the critical analysis by Margull was not able to change this in retrospect. The controversy continued even in the follow up discussion to Nairobi. The Norwegians typically voiced the accusation that the uniqueness of biblical revelation was at risk if the difference between the gospel and the religions was evened out and the authority of Holy Scripture relativised. The concluding judgment on the statements from Nairobi was: "These are dogmas of so controversial nature that they are not likely to inspire confidence in the WCC dialogue programme." 18

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

225

Chiang Mai - Progress only in Church Policy Hopes were then placed in the large inner-Christian conference at Chiang M a i to clarify the significance of followers of other religions and thus also be able to draw up new guidelines for the dialogue. But again, the question was raised about how God was at work among non-Christians but that question was not really answered. There were certain individuals who, for example, condemned unthinking claims to absoluteness as Christian imperialistic universalism and sin, or who were convinced that, in addition to the Jewish law, other paths could lead in an equally imperfect way to God. The latter position was put forward by a Catholic participant, Yves Raguin, who considered it impossible with regard to time to restrict salvation only to positive knowledge and acceptance of Christ. Bruce J . Nicholls, on the other hand, had fundamental doubts about dialogue with those who were lost, referring to I Cor. 1,18. Finally, those who gave preference to the practice of dialogue prevailed once more, and the decisive question of the status of other religions continued to remain open: "We need a fresh theological framework that can hold together the universality of God's love for all humanity and the particularity of his revelation in Jesus Christ." 1 9 Looking at this after a certain lapse of time, Samartha linked these very different approaches to different understandings of the Scriptures, a point which can certainly not be denied: "If Christians are divided in the approach to their own Holy Scriptures, how can they approach the holy books 1186 of people of other faiths with a common mind?" 2 0 This was then also the line followed by the corresponding paragraphs of the final declaration of Chiang Mai: declarations of intent and tasks to be done. The significance of creation, the Spirit and the Scriptures was to be reflected on anew. Here it was not a matter of a lowest common denominator but of the deepest experiences of life. The theological questions about the relation between God's acts in general and the specific work of Christ remained: can one speak concretely about God working in non-Christians? H o w can biblical criteria and perspectives for all of this be found? N o sentence could have expressed the outcome more precisely than the following: "In the discussion there were more questions than answers." 21 It was recognised in the W C C that a lot of work remained to be done on the theological status of followers of other faiths, but the agreement reached despite different theological opinions was welcomed. The frame-

226

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

work and the general attitude to the problem had changed, it was claimed. The reactions from outside also conveyed that, although Chiang Mai had not solved any theological problems, it had still produced some general formulations with which everyone could identify. That was progress compared with Nairobi, although more in the realm of church policy than in theology. At the most, as was recognised particularly by people from countries without a Christian background, the point had again been reached where the debate had been before Nairobi. Criticism was also voiced specifically of the theology of religions. J.H. Hick of the University of Birmingham saw the basic problem as making salvation an 'all or nothing' matter. If one can accept an 'on the way to salvation', then people of other faiths do not constitute so great a problem. However, salvation in his view consisted of "fulfilling their human potentiality as children of God." 2 2 The question remains whether the scandal of the Christian faith can really be removed in this way. To quote another comment on this: "I see, that whatever name we use for our relation to people of other faiths and however much critical we are about our own guilts and failures, we can never get rid of the 'imperialism' of Jesus Christ himself, even in the most tolerant dialogue. Our partners in dialogue sense that rightly!" 23 However, according to another comment, the issue had shifted since 1967 away from truth to community. But for a Muslim commentator the Chiang Mai document appeared so Christian as to be objectionable, packed to the brim with Christological and trinitarian expressions and without any reference to any other religion although dialogue had been its concern. For this reason, he was not certain whether there had really been a departure from polemics, i.e. from the attitude which finally considered its own position to be the only true one. At a meeting of the Secretariat for Non-Christians, on the other hand, it was observed that, however close it might come to Chiang Mai, this document had questioned whether the church was the institution for salvation - while that was still essential to a Catholic identity. 24 The new dialogue guidelines of 1978 (Parts One and Two were taken almost literally from the Chiang Mai document; only Part Three is really new) were hardly theological; indeed, they had to accept the accusation that they had not gone beyond the stage of 1964 with regard to the fundamental problems. The reason, according to Won Yong Kang, was that many religions or their practical expressions had not been taken into account, any more than their politico-social context. Moreover, it was not so easy to remove the Christian feeling of superiority by talking. His solution was to concentrate on practical questions and problems. The alternative to this was, or rather would be, to conduct a theological dialogue, without being able to define its point of departure exactly, or more drastically:

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

111

"To say you must have clear theology of other religions beforeyou (sic!) have dialogue would mean you would never get to the dialogue."25 Even though the reaction to the new guidelines was otherwise very positive, the criticism of the 'theology of religions', which did not really yet exist, was sometimes very strong. One reader, for example, objected to not being allowed to see his own religious identity as absolute, nor to make judgments from a position of superiority, not with reference to himself, of course, but to the gospel. He also considered the conception of Christ in other religions justified, although not necessarily tactful in dialogue. This was competely in line with an important change which the WCC Central Committee had made in the guidelines, namely the introduction of the following two sentences: "It should be recognized by partners in dialogue that any religion or ideology claiming universality, apart from having an understanding of itself, will also have its own interpretations of other religions and ideologies as part of its own self-understanding. Dialogue gives an opportunity for a mutual questioning of the understanding partners have about themselves and others."26 The Christian/Muslim youth dialogue at Bossey in 1980 was an opportunity to express ideas which might otherwise perhaps have appeared too youthful and revolutionary. One of the participants considered, for example, that each religion could abandon its claim to truth and superiority, serve a common goal and in the process maintain its identity or even strengthen it. But to this end the Scriptures had to be seen in part as the product of cultural forces, and changes accepted at such points to adapt them to the times. But in general theological subjects or matters of faith and truth were strikingly absent. It is significant that, looking back, Chiang Mai was assessed as the most important conference in this respect. Anthropologising the Approach to the Question the Major Development

-

At the WCC Assembly in Vancouver in 1983, two short sentences in the report of the general secretary, Philip A. Potter, revived all the conflicts of the past: "Even as we reverence Christ, so must we reverence those with whom we have dialogue as an encounter of life with life. In a profound sense Christ is present besides the other putting his or her claim upon us." 27 S. Wesley Ariarajah, the DFI director, observed afterwards that the problem was no longer the dialogue as such, as in Nairobi, but concretely the theological status of non-Christians. This was really a very old question, as was also repeatedly pointed out critically. It had indeed been the starting point for the whole dialogue enterprise.

228

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

But here a reference must be allowed to an important change which this issue had undergone. Even in 1 9 5 5 in Davos there had no longer been talk about the standing of the other religions but rather of the standing of men of other faiths. (Here one should note both the aspect of plurality and that of belief in the wording used.) This expression became the rule following the reflective conference at Zurich, and thereafter, significantly enough, it was contravened only once at Nairobi, where there was reference to other religions being demonic. The participants become aware during dialogue that it is not religions as comprehensive systems which meet but people who live out their particular religions in very personal and often also very different ways. That is an experience which Christians in Africa and Asia know very well and which has led them to become the major supporters of inter-religious dialogue. It makes the question simultaneously more simple and more difficult. It is certainly simpler and easier to give a positive assessment if one is not looking at another religion as a complete system but at one person from that setting. Neither the Old Testament nor the New, despite their strict rejection of idol worship, have problems about recognising faith and the working of God in the life of individual 'Gentiles'; one has only to think of the Persian king, Cyrus, or the Syro-Phoenician woman. The issue also becomes more difficult, however, when it concerns people, because it becomes more diverse, more individual, and a generalised judgment is practically impossible; dialogue with the specific person becomes the prerequisite for answering the question. Therefore it was logical for an internal Christian five-year study programme of the W C C on this matter to start at local and regional level and to plan for a major international meeting only right at the end. 2 8

Initial Steps towards a Study on the Theological of Other Faiths

Significance of

People

In 1 9 8 5 at Swanwick the D F Working Group affirmed the concentration on the study of the theological significance of people of other faiths for the next period (Theological Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue). Marcello Zago, one of the participants at this meeting as well, observed a gradual rapprochement on the World Council of Churches' side to positions adopted by the second Vatican Council, a development which would still have been impossible in 1 9 7 2 / 7 3 at the World Mission Conference in Bangkok. In his opinion, the W C C would thus be able to gain positive access to human beings and culture, to counterbalance the emphasis on the Bible and witness. Nevertheless, Marcello Zago did not see any great hopes of a theological agreement within the World Council of Churches, simply because of the diversity of opinions and the loose structure. In the late Summer of 1 9 8 5 the first workshop was held to make preparations for this major study and it drew up a preliminary draft; a second workshop met in February 1 9 8 6 . In April the study guide

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

229

planned, 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine, Theological Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue', was finally ready. This study guide consisted of nine sub-themes (Life in a Multi-religious World, Creation, the Scriptures, Understanding of Christ, Experience of Salvation, Spirituality, Community, Hope, Vision), each of which was illustrated by a collection of documents, explanations and questions. The intention was for small study groups all around the world, including followers of other religions or not, depending on their wishes, to discuss these subjects and thus provide the W C C with a wide diversity of material for the study. 29 In September 1 9 8 6 the project was launched with about 50 official supervised groups and other people interested. In 1 9 8 9 , according to the plan, it was to conclude with a major conference, if possible with specialists in the theology of religions and as a theology of religions conference. For four years the main attention of the sub-unit was thus directed to the issue of a theology of religions; after the fundamental controversies over dialogue, the time had finally come, according to S. Wesley Ariarajah, for theological issues. The question of a theology of religions has shifted in the meantime from missiology to theology in general. But the question has lost nothing of its sensitivity. Quite the contrary, because it is connected with mission, creation and the fall, Christ and salvation, the Spirit and the Church, and the basic attitude to religious plurality. As has become and is still becoming clear, it affects the foundations of the Protestant churches more than those of the Orthodox churches (or of the Roman Catholic Church). Basic Approach

of the WCC to a Theology of Religions

An internal paper by Ariarajah, really on the subject of dialogue and mission, was very revealing about the state of affairs, because it also included a number of statements on a theology of religions. In the World Council of Churches, according to S. Wesley Ariarajah, there were no theological approaches to other religions which could serve as guiding principles for dialogue. The various member churches had quite different positions, as they also did on other issues. Documents such as the dialogue guidelines hoped to keep them together and in a discussion, and therefore used very broad formulations which were open to a wide variety of interpretations. Against this background, S. Wesley Ariarajah then offered twelve points of theological orientation which, in his view, determined the direction of the dialogue programme: 1. God is the creator and preserver of the whole world; so God's will for salvation comprises all people and is their final goal. 2. Salvation history cannot be reduced only to the history of religion or the history of an individual people.

230

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

3.

Religions are communities which have become aware of God's saving will and action in the world and which express this awareness in one way or another.

4.

As a result of different circumstances, the responses to this one mystery take different forms, but these differences do not determine the truth or falsehood of religious traditions.

5.

Religious life is never free of ambiguity because sin always exists everywhere, although with different definitions and names; on the basis of one's own particular faith, one decides what is totally unacceptable in other religions.

6.

Christians believe in the liberating presence of God in the world, or more precisely in the Christ event as the central point of this action. Theology is the struggle to define the connection between the Christ event and the liberation of the whole of humankind.

7.

But Christians are not the only ones who relate to God; on the contrary: "At the level of conviction, commitment and sincerity of purposes no truly religious person is more authentic than another."30

8.

Since God has never left himself without a witness anywhere, and religious life is, in this sense, an attempt to establish a relationship to the mystery behind existence, the other religions must have an appreciable place in God's Kingdom: "God's presence in Christ does not constitute absence everywhere else; nor can it mean that God will savingly deal with people only when they believe and accept the decisiveness of the Christ-event, or become part of the Christian community."31

9.

The logical consequence of that is: "[N]o religion can claim an 'exclusive' or 'only true' revelation of God. Nor can any religious community claim to have made the only true response to God's revelation or to have been chosen to be the only instrument pressed into the service of God's Kingdom. Religious plurality is not a problem to be fought and overcome. It has to be understood within the wider perspective of God's sovereign rule."32

10. Dialogue assumes that in addition to the Christian witness there is other witness in God's world. 11. For this reason followers of other religions can also cooperate in God's mission, namely the establishment of his sovereignty (understood inter alia as overcoming evil), without becoming Christians. In other words: "The Church (...) is not a saved community in an unsaved world but serving community in a world that God is saving."33

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

231

12. But how this is related to the significance of Christ, namely the key theological question, remains open and unsolved. On this Ariarajah flatly states, " W e do not know." 3 4 Georges Khodr, who had already made his mark with similar statements, described this basic attitude at the Christian/Muslim dialogue in Kolymbari (1987) in other terms: "A person who claims to be religious condemns himself to hell if he does not see, in love, the light of God on the face of one who is different." 35 Major Changes over the Years The multi-lateral dialogue at New Delhi in 1 9 8 7 indicated by its very theme how much the assessment of other religions and of their followers had changed: from the traditional confrontation with other religions in order to strengthen one's own identify to a real discussion with those religions. Practical experience of people of other faiths had certainly also contributed to this process. A group of Christians from different confessions (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant), who had exchanged experiences of the spirituality of other religions, made a positive statement about God working beyond the Christian realm: "[W]e affirm the work of the Spirit in ways that move beyond the Christian compound and across the frontiers of religion and takes us into creative involvement with people of other faiths in the struggles of the world." 3 6 The events to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the World Mission Conference at Tambaram made it clear how much groud had been covered from the predominant opinion of 1 9 3 8 to that of 1 9 8 8 . In the meantime people had become very critical of Kraemer and were adopting the line of the opposing voices of that time which had followed Chenchiah from Madras and had not even been granted a footnote in the official documents of those days. Without the new, typical uncertainty of the West about making binding statements, including binding theological statements, this would probably not have been possible. But all that Stanley J . Samartha was now able to accept was an internal exclusivism so as to maintain a pluralist offer for those outside - a questionable attitude. Otherwise the anniversary celebrations did not contribute anything very new: a renewed demand to take concrete experience of dialogue as the starting point for the theological enterprise, and a number of more or less familiar questions about what is implied by the truth, by the link between particular and universal, the uniqueness of Christ and other religions, God's saving acts in these religions, to what extent plurality is God's will, and how internal Christian plurality affects attitudes to other

232

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

faiths. The subjects and the discussion were controversial and the conservative approach of Bishop Lesslie Newbigin provoked particular criticism. He was very critical about the question whether religious plurality was in line with God's will and referred in this connection to the classical contrast between the Declaration of Barmen (Jesus alone) and the Declaration of Erlangen (Jesus and the people).37 This time the responses came most readily from the Orthodox side. Bishop Anastasios declared that, in the Orthodox view, God was a mystery and only God's glory was revealed. But the foundation of the Christian life and hope was that God's glory permeated the whole of creation. Moreover, according to the Orthodox understanding, there was the image of God (Spirit, free will, love) and a yearning for God, even though sin had become an entity which equally affected the whole of humanity. Then there was naturally also God's constant concern for all people in the world, recognisable, for example, in the various covenants made. The Old Testament certainly mentioned God-fearers outside of Israel, e.g. Melchizedek. God had final authority over the universe and would gather all the nations at the end, just as he also took the initiative for the salvation of all. In relation to other religions, as Bishop Anastasios was also aware, Christology is particularly difficult. He also saw the life of Christ as a revelation of the glory of God, but these events were unique and shed a new light on everything. The important aspects were the incarnation and the new Adam: Christ had broken through the snares of the devil who had even poisoned the religious awareness of Israel. Bishop Anastasios listed a number of proofs from the New Testament for God's workings on the fringe of and beyond the Christian Church (as his interpretation of the first verses of the Gospel of John). People in the West had concentrated on the historical Jesus, and belief in the uniqueness of God had often been expressed as exclusivism. The East, on the other hand, looked to the exalted Christ with his eschatological, world-wide dimension; the Church as the icon of the Kingdom of God acted for the whole world faith in the uniqueness of God had led to the development of the logos doctrine. Although this assumed that the image of God had not been completely destroyed, it certainly did not simply accept every philosophy. So the basic attitude to other religions should be respect but also discernment. The decisive point was Christ, the light, and not the various mirrors which only captured a few of its rays. Pneumatology was also mentioned again, although in much less definite tones than in the past at Addis Ababa: "In order to avoid slipping into vague ideas and acrobatic exercises in theories, Christian pneumatology needs to have a constant reference to christological and trinitarian dogmas."38

233

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

"In the great discussion about filioque, we did not say that the Spirit acted only through Christ, but we cannot say so clearly that the Holy Spirit is working outside of Christ. (...) The Holy Spirit remains always undefined; we avoid defining the Spirit." 39 Apart from the partial continuance of the image of God (and the concept of revelation), these statements are more acceptable to Protestants as well than the purely pneumatological approach of Georges Khodr. The expressions are considerably more 'biblical' but therefore do not constitute such a closed conception. On the contrary, the statements about pneumatology remain so much in suspense that the wording must almost be considered brilliant. It is also striking that in the biblical context reference is always made to individuals of other faiths, whereas the theological expressions revert at least in part to the religions as such which are supposed to have been overcome. Indeed, there is still talk about a 'theology of religions' although the intention has been to examine relationships with people of other faiths. But precisely that is much more difficult to do, especially on a more abstract level. Reflection on the Possibilities (Dialogue of New

Windsor)

At the Christian/Muslim dialogue of New Windsor in 1 9 8 8 Jane Smith, a Christian lecturer on Islam, spoke about her more practical experiences of this issue. On the one hand, there were the students who wanted to get to know other religions in order to be better missionaries and, on the other, those who wanted to enrich their knowledge by understanding what it meant to be human in relation to one another and to God. She described a young man with the following problem as typical of her students: '"I just can't believe', he said, 'that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others cannot come to God. But how do I say to my conservative church members that I really don't think that salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way?'" 4 0 Jane Smith then outlined three possible views of the understanding of Christianity and other faiths, where her sympathy lay least with the first and most with the last example. The first attitude was that with which such liberally minded contemporaries as the student quoted had difficulties: Christianity is right and the things in other religions which are not in harmony with it are wrong. As a representative of this view Jane Smith quoted Bishop Kenneth Cragg, already known from the Christian/Muslim dialogue, who stood for views which a Muslim could never share, e.g. equating Mohammed with the prophets of the Old Testament. Despite all her open and hidden criticism of such a position, Jane Smith nevertheless admitted that this was not just the attitude of a major proportion of

234

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Christians but also the classical attitude of followers of all religions throughout the whole of history towards other religions in so far as they had known them. And, despite all the common points shared with a religion such as Islam, it was still true that: "At a certain point it may seem necessary to retreat into the complacency of simply preferring the revelation of our own tradition." 41 The second position was that basically everyone believed the same thing, i.e. our common human experience also leads to a common view of God and the various revelations are only cultural masks obscuring this commonality. As a representative of this view she mentioned Wilfred Smith. There were indeed many things that were comparable, but the difficulty was to recognise the point at which religious experiences really differed. For people who were deliberately liberal it was frustrating, as Jane Smith admitted, to face the idea that different claims to truth might be mutually exclusive. But another danger was perhaps the greatest (and the reason why at another point Stanley J. Samartha had wanted to preserve the inner claims to absoluteness), namely the danger of a "deadening syncretism that destroys the vitality of individual revelations and puts the most cherished beliefs of our respective traditions into a kind of bland mixture of mutually palatable doctrines." 42 The last possibility that she saw was the final, post-modern stage in the sequence of developments in the relation between the religions: ignorance, knowledge that does not take the others seriously, knowledge and fear resulting in degrading the others, initial recognition that the others also have something to say because they too are human beings, search for common categories to overcome otherness, and, lastly, rediscovery of the importance of otherness as a means to better understanding and in order finally to make common spiritual progress. But this last possibility was still in the reflection process. 43 Concentration on a Theology of Religions As was to be expected, the theology of religions was given wide scope at the meeting of the Dialogue Working Group in 1988 at Baar. S. Wesley Ariarajah emphasised in the process that the discussion should not only deal with relationships between Christians and people of other faiths but also with God's relations with such people. Otherwise there was much interest in the World Mission Conference planned for San Antonio and the quotation in the preparatory documents from I Tim. 4, 9-10, where God was described as the saviour of all humankind and, above all, of believers. This was naturally a good starting point. The responses in the framework of the project 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine' had not yet come in; now some pressure had to be exerted so that an evaluation meeting could still be held in 1989 or 1990. The conference in 1990 was

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

235

to go further than the anniversary conference of Tambaram in 1988; it was to provide biblical Christian and, at the same time, practical answers to questions of salvation and of a theology of religions. The working group also examined the question of preparatory and working documents for the Assembly of the WCC in Canberra on the theme of the Holy Spirit. It was to deal with God's intention for all people and how his Spirit acts. The approach should be trinitarian without losing sight of the diverse understandings of universal salvation in Christ, which sounded like a reconciliation of opposites. The trinitarian (or Orthodox) approach should help to go beyond the deadlock of Nairobi and Vancouver which also had similarities with Tambaram in 1938. It was emphasised here several times that one should begin with creation which included everyone, in contrast to the fall which excluded many people from the start. The questions of exclusivity, salvation and condemnation could not be evaded and were a priori points of disagreement, whatever the bible studies might say. Moreover, it was difficult to use the argument of the Trinity when discussing with non-Christians. The interesting thing was the opinion that the participants in the forthcoming Assembly would be rather conservative, probably because of the problems encountered at Vancouver: " [S]taff was so cut off from the rest of the church - they believed they had a consensus which was not there." 44 At the next meeting of the working group it was at least possible to state that, thanks to the project 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine' and the anniversary conference at Tambaram, more effort had been devoted to theology, quite apart from that of individuals such as S. Wesley Ariarajah and Kenneth Cracknell. However, the responses from the study project were very limited because it had expected too much of many congregations. The sub-unit director, S. Wesley Ariarajah, attempted a general review of relations with other religions, starting with the World Mission Conference in Edinburgh in 1910, via the World Mission Conference at Tambaram in 1938 whose contempt for other religions had finally only been overcome when the sub-unit on dialogue was established in 1971. From then on and up to the Assembly in Nairobi, a large amount of basic work had been done in convincing people. Dialogue with followers of other religions had been accepted, via Chiang Mai, but there were still difficulties about the theology of religions behind it, as evidenced not least by the Vancouver Assembly in 1983. Therefore theology of religions had also been adopted as the main subject following that Assembly. And it had naturally been a controversial issue time and again at the World Mission Conferences; it had led S. Wesley Ariarajah to accuse Bishop Lesslie Newbigin (cf. anniversary celebrations at Tambaram) of un-ecumenical ultra-reactionism along the lines of Tambaram 1938, and to convey to him that the ecumenical movement did not have an unalterable

236

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

theology of religions. This accusation was not very convincing when one recalled that Ariarajah himself had written in a position paper that, because of its structure, the World Council of Churches could not have such a theology at all. And the report on the last World Mission Conference at San Antonio had also demonstrated clearly what dilemmas arose over a theology of religions: "We cannot point to any other way of salvation than Jesus Christ; at the same time we cannot set limits to the saving power of God. (...) We are well aware that these convictions (...) stand in tension with what we have affirmed about God being present in and at work in people of other faiths; we appreciate this tension, and do not attempt to resolve it." 45 At the meeting of the W C C Central Committee in July 1989, among other things, a stream-lining or re-structuring of the World Council of Churches was introduced which also entailed changes for dialogue and mission. The previous 16 sub-units were to be grouped in seven areas. In the process, the sub-unit on dialogue with people of other faiths became a secretariat under the General Secretariat, now responsible only for relations with people of living faiths and ideologies. Theology was excluded here and was to come under a newly established area on 'Faith and Witness', in a sense an extended Commission on World Mission and Evangelisation. That meant that the very realm which had attracted most attention towards the end - the work on a new approach to a theology of religions - was to be removed, together with other theological issues, from the direct influence of inter-religious dialogue with its stimuli. Instead, the question was again to be allocated to the field of mission out of which it had grown in 1971. The new Secretariat on Inter-religious Relations was to be a sort of foreign ministry for the World Council of Churches, although its theological cutting edge both inwardly and outwardly had been removed. Under such circumstances one might have expected a theological 'setback', particularly in the theology of religions. And the yield from the study 'My Neighbour's Faith - and Mine' had been extremely meagre in any case. The study had been intended as a stimulus to reflect on one's own Christian attitude to religious pluralism. But since one was not to be dogmatic or exclusive, not much remained: only the pragmatic view that this attitude might change any day (supported by experienced people from multi-religious contexts), rejection of so much neutrality, or a mere lack of orientation. Two views on this: "The study guide disqualifies the heavy theological tradition of making a distinction between natural and special revelation. The study guide does so without even giving the slightest argumentation. The very core of Christian soteriology is the belief that salvation is mediated only through the historical life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. This strongly diminishes the relevance of formal similarities (...). (Norway)" 46

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

237

"I really want to know how to hold values as central without being dogmatic. (USA)" 47 Baar - a Calculated Step

forwards

In January 1 9 9 0 the long awaited consultation on the theology of religions took place in Baar, according to the invitation as a 'brainstorming' based on brief descriptions of 'where the churches stand' on this question. An Asian participant, for example, described how theology of whatever religion had thus far always related to and remained limited to that religion and presupposed an involvement in it. The area in which each religion was to be found was, however, clearly determined both geographically and culturally. But multi-religious experiences of recent times had upset this unified approach, and the attempt to include newly discovered religions in one's own theology was always in danger of leading finally to relativism or syncretism. Nevertheless, it was also no longer possible to see one's own religion in a committed and subjective way and that of others merely phenomenologically and objectively. But, to look at all religions equally on an 'objective' level, as comparative religious science did, was not the intention of theology. The solution was to recognise that religions and their dogmas were never finished and had therefore to be interpreted and confessed anew time and again, namely whenever their followers developed a new identity in a new situation. That then constituted the true understanding of Christology and pneumatology with their real content of freedom, incarnation and the new Adam. 48 Kenneth Cracknell in his contribution took up these historical dimensions. His quotations from the inquiry conducted among missionaries for the first World Mission Conference in 1 9 1 0 in Edinburgh were particularly interesting. The question had been what attitude a Christian preacher should adopt to the religion of the people among whom he was working. The answers convey respect and esteem, a feeling that, in whatever form, God had not left himself without some kind of witness, and that Christianity now came not to destroy but to fulfil. After other questions, problems and emphases had been dealt with at Jerusalem and, above all, Tambaram, there was only now a gradual return to where people had already been once before in 1 9 1 0 , e.g. to the demand for specific studies for each individual religion. The study 'The Word of God and the Living Faiths of Men' had never succeeded in producing an official final report, particularly with reference to the theological standing and significance of other religions. It had also so far not been possible to define a clear theological line in the present dialogue. Anyone who attempted a theology of religions must simultaneously tackle all the key elements of Christian theology, so disagreements and fundamental reservations were really almost unavoidable. Even most recently in San Antonio there had been no more than initial steps and attempts. The fact that the subject of the Holy Spirit was planned for the

238

The Dialogue Activities in Thematic Cross-Sections

Assembly in Canberra was, however, seen as a sign of hope which had already provided a number of individual stimuli.49 After this beginning there was a discussion of the general phenomenon of religious pluralism. Bishop Pietro Rossano gave a survey of the possibilities ranging from 'no religion is true' to 'all religions are true' and indicated the phenomenological similarities which should as such result in respect for others. The question of truth then still remained as a challenge. It was typical that he, as a Catholic, first quoted the Pope in regard to the question of a theology of religions and then attempted to provide a biblical basis comprising creation, wisdom, the world-wide mission of Israel, Jesus and the Church. At the same time he admitted that the Church would never be able to solve this mystery and could only operate within this tension. Overall, the mood was very positive at this stage. 50 It changed suddenly the following day which was devoted to Christology. Robert Neville described the whole spectrum from low to high Christology. But Christian life, and especially cultic, worship life, was always Christocentric. Other religions were equally specific, especially with regard to worship. The important thing now was to raise the question of truth and to develop vague comparative categories which would be open to interpretation, for example the expression of God in a historical person which changed history into religious affairs. Nevertheless, Robert Neville recognised that the general and the specific had to be held together, but without smoothing over all differences in some Christian way, and without forgetting that other religions act in precisely the same way. Jacques Dupuis identified certain lines more clearly. Since Vatican II the Catholic Church had stood officially for a Christocentric approach with an inclusive Christology, but, as in the past, most missionaries of all confessions (not just evangelical Protestants) still represented an ecclesiocentric view with an exclusive Christology. On the other hand, the pluralistic approach was also no longer the domain of liberal Protestants alone. As a Catholic, Jacques Dupuis particularly tried to describe the state of affairs on the Catholic side: the central importance of Christ for salvation remained, but there were various channels of mediation for this, inside and outside of the church, and thus of explicit knowledge of Christ. Irrespective of some kind of theological compulsion, a dialogue of equals was not possible on this basis. But the pluralistic approach itself was also divided, from very radical to putting the Christian claim in brackets, in order the better to be able to come back to it later. But it was important that Jacques Dupuis underlined that Christian theology was theocentric by being Christocentric and vice versa (Christ was, as it were, the sacrament of God's encounter with humanity). The universal mediatorship of Jesus was only possible with a 'high' theology of the incarnation. This cross-reference had to be taken into account when discussing Christocentrism or theocentrism in a theology of religions. Concentration on

Theology of Religions - the Open Question

239

the coming Kingdom of God was also only one variant of theocentrism but could again not be separated from Christ. Even a pneumatological approach in no way changed the central position of Christ: "The influence of the Spirit manifests the operative presence of God's saving action in Jesus Christ." 51 After this address the problems were clear but the solutions were not. Like the second Vatican Council, the World Council of Churches had also shied away from concrete statements about religions as means to salvation. The fear in many member churches that Christ might thus be pushed out of the centre was the obstacle to "systematic theological substance to its l •.Kl ¡¡II! & CO ticnlfBii« Straf«; (3 • f>-t0?«5 .Brrlm Tel. >rt