Are We In A Religious War After All?

A Sermon by the Rev. James R. Bridges

 

Reading:  In Transylvania one of the first experiments in religious toleration took place because of Unitarian Francis David.  David, who lived from 1510 to 1579, is generally considered to be the founder of Transylvanian Unitarianism. He was an eloquent defender of minority religious rights, David's arguments in a debate in favor of religious toleration for Unitarians resulted in an Act of Religious Toleration and Freedom of Conscience, issued by Transylvania's King John Sigismund in 1568.   The so-called "Edict of Torda" stated,

. . .in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well, if not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching, for faith is the gift of God, this comes from hearing, which hearing is by the word of God.

 

Are We In A Religious War After All?

Since September 11^th, 2001, our government has made very clear that we are in a war against terrorism.  President Bush has emphasized that we are not engaged in a religious war and that we are not waging war against Islam.  Again, he has stated on numerous occasions we are waging war against terrorism and that we will root it out wherever it may be.  Our goal is solely to make the world a safer place in which to live.  This war is not against Islam, which he has referenced as a religion of peace.  I believe that he truly has been sincere in his expressions.  Further, he and many of the world’s non-Muslim clergy have reached out to Muslim congregations in America.  We have stood together as one, much as was done at the Newburgh landing in the candlelight vigil after 9/11.  And yet, since that day, I have been bothered by some concerns.  Worried, might be a better word.  And my worries are not politically correct.

First and foremost, I do not believe the protestations and proclamations of our not being involved in a religious war.  My perceptions are apparently quite different from that of many others.  As others rushed to stand beside Muslims, I have felt the need to hold back somewhat.  I needed to know more, to question, to examine and to explore.  I wanted to hear what Muslims, both laity and clergy, had to say.  I wanted to understand Muslims’ points of view not only in America, but also those living in the lands of the Middle East and of Asia.

What I have read and what I have seen have not been fully reassuring.  Numerous non-Muslim speakers and writers have described Islam as a religion of peace.  They point to its illustrious history, when it and not European Christianity was the keeper of knowledge and culture.  They point to times when it was highly tolerant of diversity within its cities, when it was at the apex of civilization, when its cities were cosmopolitan meeting places.  At that time, its literature consisted of metaphoric interpretations of the Koran, highly intellectual and insightful. 

The only problem that I can see with this view is that it is fully historical.  It describes Islam as it was lived over a thousand years ago, during what we call the Dark Ages in European history.  When I look at Islam today, one sees a mixed picture, a very different picture.  Few Muslim countries are democratic; most are totalitarian.  Now this may be because of what Western Europe created when the Ottoman Empire collapsed.  One could also say that this lack of democratic forms of government reflects the society in which it lives, differentiating the religion from the society.  These are valid distinctions.

Differentiating religion from society is a defense, but there is a problem in that defense.  In 1993, while in seminary at Drew, I read several articles on Islam, written by Muslim intellectuals, not poorly educated fundamentalists.  I was struck by what was a very central tenet of Islam, and that is of the demand to create a theocratic state, a demand which is traced back to Muhammad and the Koran itself.  The religion calls upon its followers to create Islamic states, or actually, one Islamic nation without borders, with an Islamic code of law, etc.  The leader of such a state is to be a religious leader, not a politician.  Two of the states which have followed this model most recently have been Iran and Afghanistan.  Both states have sponsored terrorism.  Both have been extremely fundamentalist in orientation.  Both have had complicated relations with the United States of America.  Interestingly, both trace their theological rationale for their form of government to the fact that Muhammad himself was a prophet ruler.

When I read these articles in 1993, I immediately recognized the conflict with our American and Unitarian Universalist value of maintaining the separation between church and state.  This clash is a major sticking point for me.  I hold this separation very dear.  Further, I see it as very closely related to several of our own UU principles – including our affirmations of the inherent worth and dignity of the individual and a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. 

As the Koran is presently understood in a number of Islamic states, it is clearly against the law to practice a religion other than Islam openly or publicly.  This interpretation has meant that if a Christian wants to worship in Saudi Arabia, he or she must do so secretly.  Violation of this law can result in arrest and imprisonment.  We in America would view this as the state interfering with religion – but given that Islam does not separate state from religion – is it more accurate to state that the religion does not tolerate other practices of faith?

Remember what happened to the Christian aide workers who were arrested for talking about Christianity to some Afghan peasants.  They were arrested and imprisoned.  They were treated well, but they nonetheless were viewed as criminals.  Even worse, if a Muslim should convert from Islam to another religion, the punishment often is death for apostasy.  In the Hadith, the written record of Muhammad’s sayings and deeds, we find the instruction “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.”  Vol. 9:57.  Obviously, there is no religious freedom in these states.  This lack clashes with our deeply held, Constitutional view of religious freedom

I personally find this view of state enforced religion diametrically opposed to our liberal religious principles.  Remember the historic Unitarian values which Earl Morse Wilbur articulated so well – our history of fostering freedom, tolerance, and reason.  These are our religious pillars, if you will, not only as Americans, but especially as Unitarian Universalists.   Contemporary Muslim practices seem to run counter to these values.  I do not see how we can deny this state of affairs.  Our religious faith is diametrically opposed to some core, contemporary Muslim practices.

Islam, as it has been practiced in America and elsewhere, has been rather reclusive of its own choosing.  Its followers apparently have been counseled and taught to avoid as much as possible interacting with non-believers, called infidels.  This avoidance behavior also was seemingly in keeping with the Koran’s teachings.  For example, in Surah 5:54 we read:  “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is one of them . . .”   In foreign lands I have read of examples of Muslims being ostracized because of their friendship with non-Muslims.  While this ostracism is less so here in America, these teachings are nonetheless present within the religious instruction.

I know that in Stroudsburg, where I serve another congregation part time, in an attempt to visit the local Islamic center shortly after 9/11, I was surprised to see a quotation speaking derogatorily about infidels posted on the doorway to their building.  Whether this statement was put up before or after 9/11, I do not know, but it certainly left me with a strange feeling.  It clearly was not a welcoming of non-Muslims into their lives.  Yet, when members of the Stroudsburg congregation visited the Islamic center, I understand they were greeted warmly and friendly, and similarly, representatives from the Islamic center were pleased to attend a meeting with us.  There may be a tension here within Islam – especially after 9/11, of trying to be more open to diversity, and to be open to the larger community, more inclusive of non-Muslims.

In Newburgh, near where I live, the Imam apparently welcomed the invitation to participate in an inter-faith candlelight vigil, but because of his work schedule, he has been unable to attend daytime meetings of the local clergy association..  Personally, I would feel much better if he were to attend these meetings, demonstrating involvement in the overall community and a tolerance towards those of differing faiths.  Maybe I am just overly sensitive – but I believe it is not Islam that has been wronged by America, but rather, America which has been wronged by a group of ostensible Muslims.

For those of you who have followed the news in the NY Times, some of the recent documents discovered in Afghanistan suggest that Al Qaida was basically involved in training a Muslim army – not one made up of all terrorists, but rather, a military army of about 20,000 soldiers, trained to work independently in small groups of soldiers.  Of more interest to me was the finding that the nationalities of the soldiers were interchangeable and not that important.  They were being trained to be part of a trans-national army.  Prior to receiving this training, most if not all had received intense religious studies of Islam.  Many of these recruits had apparently already memorized the Koran before beginning their military training.  It may very well be that this was to be a Muslim army without borders or nationality.  Or course, in such affairs, one must also be wary of propaganda and the possibility of planted stories by out government.  Whether this story is one of those or not, I cannot tell.

The writings and speeches of Osama Bin Laden have included a good deal of Islamic theology and verses of the Koran.  While a number of Muslim scholars have noted that Bin Laden does not use good theology – his theology nevertheless does seem to play itself well with the Islamic masses in many countries.  Of course, if one looks at the now defeated Taliban, they were nothing if not religious fanatics.  They supported and supplied Bin Laden’s training camps.

I submit that while we may not be waging a religious war against Islam, a not so terribly small part of contemporary Islam may be waging a war against Western culture, modernity and our values.  This war most clearly is a religious war, based upon a fundamentalist, exceedingly narrow interpretation of Islam.  Andrew Sullivan, writing in the NY Times Magazine, has stated: 

it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity. This war even has far gentler echoes in America's own religious conflicts -- between newer, more virulent strands of Christian fundamentalism and mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism. These conflicts have ancient roots, but they seem to be gaining new force as modernity spreads and deepens. They are our new wars of religion -- and their victims are in all likelihood going to mount with each passing year.

The conflict in Kashmir, between Muslims and Hindus, cannot be overlooked.    Continued fighting exists over the ancient practice of tearing down the sanctuary of an opposing religion and then building a different sanctuary on its site.  Muslims during the Middle Ages and before had done that to Christian sites in the Holy Land, and they apparently have done similar things to Hindu sites in Asia.  Now the Hindus are doing it to the Muslims, burning down an historic mosque and wanting to build a Hindu temple on the site.  In both cases, bloodshed is the outcome.  These clashes, from my perspective, must be viewed as a religious war, for what else are they?

Writers have noted that during the Golden Age of Islam, many of the interpretations of the Koran and the practices of Muslims then would not be tolerated today in light of the radical fundamentalist views now prevalent.  Indeed, not too long ago there was an article, again in the NY Times, which looked at the Koran critically – similar to some of the Biblical studies which have been conducted into our Bible’s origins.  Most Koran scholars were not willing to have their names associated with their work and chose to use pseudonyms – for fear of being assassinated via some fatwa, much as Solomon Rushdie continues to fear assassination, and just as Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated.  This is a virulent disease of Islamic fundamentalism – which cannot tolerate diverse opinions or differences of belief.  While this disease occasionally erupts here in America under Christianity, as for example, in the occasional killings of abortion providers, for the most part, it has been contained.  Within Islam, unfortunately, it is seemingly prevalent and likely to explode anywhere.

Most upsetting to me, personally, is the texts in the Koran which justify such practices. 

And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush."  

And this:

Believers! Wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbors, and let them find you rigorous." 

Yes, there are other offsetting passages of peace, gentleness, and mercy within the Koran, but these are not the ones quoted by the fundamentalist spokesmen.  

I do not mean to denigrate Islam to the benefit of the other world religions, and especially not for Christianity.  Christianity was highly violent and aggressive during the Middle Ages during the time of the Crusades, as well as during the religious wars of the 16^th and 17^th centuries.  Fundamentalist Hinduism also has been quite aggressive and intolerant of non-believers.  I merely highlight that this war against terrorism surely has religious components to it – and in some aspects, this war may be primarily religious in nature.  Yes, one can view it as ideological – but it is more than that.  I believe it is religious.  Such a war must be fought not only with guns, but also with ideas.

So how then do we, as a nation and as Unitarian Universalists, respond?  I believe there are several ways in which we can respond immediately, as well as a few longer term responses.  To begin with, I believe dialogue with fundamentalists, be they Christians or Muslims or Hindus, is critical.  Their attempts to become or remain reclusive should be resisted by us.  They must be invited to engage in respectful conversation, one in which they are truly listened to, but one in which they also hear our dedication to tolerance, acceptance of diversity, and religious plurality, each of which may be held up as ideals. 

This conversation can be done on a local level with neighbors, on a community wide level with other residents, and on a national and international level via talk shows, the internet, and other mediums of communications.  Our values, especially those of separating church from state, must be communicated strongly and fervently.  Further, it must be role modeled to them by us.  We must set the example.

Secondly, I truly do believe in the value of a solid education.  Much of the Islamic fundamentalist doctrine so prevalent has emanated from schools funded by Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Muslim nations.  These schools provide little education other than fundamentalist instruction in Islam and the Koran.  Their interpretations and training are conservative, intolerant, and fundamentalist.  When a youth leaves the school, they know nothing but Islam, prime candidates for solicitation to terrorism.  Youth need a far broader education, one in which science, literature, and history are stressed, so that productive lives may be led.  We need to fund such educational programs internationally, teaching the Middle Eastern youth skills other than how to shoot a machine gun and memorize the Koran.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that as we begin educating youth, we also need to quit arming the Middle East.  Much of the weaponry which Israel uses in the Palestinian conflicts is American made.  Then too, much of the weaponry in Saudi Arabia also comes from America.  For too many decades we have become the arm merchants of the world.  This policy must stop!  Let us supply education – not weaponry.

Thirdly, I believe our country has been negligent in promoting democracy in Middle Eastern countries.  Presently, the only democracy in the Middle East is Israel – and we have not really encouraged much change there.  We need to work for greater freedom for all in totalitarian regimes.  Comments and letters to your congressmen may help this stance along in the future.

Islam must be helped to return to its glorious past, while yet augmented by modernity, a past in which diversity was tolerated, when it was a home for intellectual pursuits, and when those who differed were not threaten with assassination.  To do less will result not only in irreparable harm to Islam, but also to us. 

Yes, I believe we are in a religious war.  But, as such, it is not one that can be won by bombs and bullets alone.  No, this war must be won by compassion, education, and plurality.  We must engage in dialogue.  We must exemplify our values.  The humanity of all must be recognized.