Principles For Interreligious Dialogue
Principles For Interreligious Dialogue
Principles For Interreligious Dialogue
FOR INTERRELIGIOUS
DIALOGUE
VIEWPOINT OF THE CHURCH
Thus, more than what Plato says, Interreligious dialogue is a way that
God the Father through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit has shown his
people for a bright future. The Church believes that there is only one
divine plan of for all people. So Interreligious dialogue is a strong
element of the Church of the future and the future of the Church.2
The Church of the future has no basis of discrimination whosoever as
it is stated:
We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a
brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God. Man's
relation to God the Father and his relation to people his brothers are so
linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not love does not know
God" (1 John 4, 8). No foundation therefore remains for any theory or
practice that leads to discrimination between man and the man or people
and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are
concerned. The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any
discrimination against people or harassment of them because of their
race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the
footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this Sacred Synod ardently
implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good fellowship among the
nations" (1 Peter 2, 12,14,15), and, if possible to live for their part in peace
with all people, so that they many truly be sons of the Father who is in
heaven.3
The Church, particularly the Church of and after Vatican II, sees the
need of Interreligious dialogue and has incorporated it in its
evangelizing mission. Jacques Dupuis says:
What is to be shown now in that interfaith dialogue belongs to the
Churchs evangelism mission? This has not been perceived in
mission theology, even in recent decades. In fact, it is a recent gain
of post-Vatican II years, the background of which must be briefly
recalledthis goes to show that viewing dialogue as an integral
element of evangelization marks a significant qualitative change in
postconsuliar mission theology. It forms part of the development in
2
Cf. Peter Lobo, Brief historical background to interfaith dialogue in Sound the Conc. Conference on
interfaith dialogue (Bangkok-Thailand, 2002), p. 29
3
Nostra Aetate, no.5
10
Cf. Francis Cardinal Arinze, Meeting other believers (Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa, 1997), pp.910.
What it is
Interreligious dialogue is
*First and foremost an attitude that someone acquires or the
kinds of options open to him in developing his own point of view
of other religions. An attitude could be defined the manner of
his acting or his thinking; ones disposition, opinion or mental
set. Some believe that all other religions are false except
theirs. Some others assert that each religion is the appropriate
expression of its own culture. Still others think that all religions
are the same. So people may have different attitudes towards
other religions. Here are the most well known: rationalism,
Romanticism, relativism, exclusivism, dialectic, reconception,
tolerance, dialogue, Catholicism and presence. The attitude of
African Christians towards other religions these last decades is
of special concern because the future of Africa that should be
shaped in a way that promotes harmony for the avoidance of
religious conflicts partly depends on this.
*An encounter of people of different religions and faiths in an
atmosphere of freedom and openness for each partner to listen
and understand himself and the other. One person speaks and
another listens and responds and vice versa. Dialogue is no
more than this respectful communication of two different
subjects. Now we need a forum whereby African Christians will
speak and African non-Christians will listen and respond;
African non-Christians will speak and African Christians will
listen and respond.
*A sharing -conversation- of the truth found in different religions
and faiths. Thought the truth must be said, we need to know
how, when and to whom to articulate it.
*A working and walking together in search of what is good and
right with the desire of living together and in communion.
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 8 of 37
ITS NECESSITY
Interreligious dialogue is necessary for peace. Plato says: He
seems to me to have thought the world foolish in not understanding
that all are always at war with one another; and if in war there ought
to be common meals and certain persons regularly appointed under
others to protect an army, they should be continued in peace.12 This
means that it peace we need not war. Commonly people say that if
you want peace, you must prepare for war. I say, if you want peace,
you must prepare for peace. When we say that Interreligious
dialogue is necessary we mean that without it we cannot reach to the
end or with it, we can reach to the end with fewer difficulties. The end
can be understood as peace or justice or harmony or coexistence or
cooperation. Interreligious dialogue is not mans made activity but
Gods. The human person is dialogical individual whose whole life is
marked by dialogue with God, with his fellow humans and with the
world/creation. The very life of God is dialogical. So it becomes
necessary that we live the life of God because that is the vocation of
men and women. Both the inner nature of God and the outer
relationships of God with humans are profoundly dialogical.13 It goes
well with the pedagogy of God; so it must be mans pedagogy.
Again, dialogue is necessary because the Church is born of the
dialogue between God and humans through Christ and in the Holy
Spirit. Since God does not leave any person or any culture without
some experience of his will, we collaborate with what God has
already sown in each individual.
It is therefore necessary that men and women of this world dialogue
for their well-being and redemption. No human hates harmony,
peace, justice (commutative, associative and social). These come
through Gods grace and humans work.
12
13
OBSTACLES
As said above, Interreligious dialogue is possible but difficult perhaps
because of some hindrances. May be that is why Jean-Mary Gaudel
said that the highest form of dialogue will always be the cross, not as
a dogma, but as a mystery which we cannot avoid.14 Dialogue with
other Religions goes with some obstacles. Many scholars have listed
such as: paucity of deep knowledge of ones religion, deficiency in of
the knowledge of other religions, fear of the unknown, suspicion, lack
of self-critical assessment, superiority and inferiority complexes,
disparity between those taking part in dialogue, inequality in
theological development. To these I add neglect of natural law,
confusion between faith and reason, lack of theological and
metaphysical language that can be used to explain certain truths.
Nowadays, the presence of independent preachers constitutes an
obstacle.
We ought to point out the issue about memory or history or achieves
because many of us go back to what has happened in the past
without a vision of the future. The past will not be useful if it does not
help us to improve the present and the future times. Again, when
someone does not elevate the status of other religions to the level of
world religions could be an obstacle.15 We are not saying that all
religions are the same.
If we cannot avoid these obstacles in order to meet, we can at least
understand them and create avenues whereby we can focus on what
unites and suspend what divides.
Perhaps we need also a
background, which can help us to meet though we are different. Just
knowing who we are, that we are all human beings, that we are all
citizens of this world, that we are Capax Dei could be a solid
background. Knowing that we are all Africans as dialogue in Africa is
concerned is a good beginning.
14
Cf. Jean-Marie Gaudel, Encounters and clashes: Islam and Christianity in history vol.1 (Rome)
Cf. Bishop Fernando R. capalla, Philippine contextual theology and Interreligious dialogue in a
consultation meeting on contextualized theology. Sources and perspectives (University of Santo Tomas,
Manila, December 3-5, 2003).
15
seeing what Christians and Muslims have done together, the way
they have lived and how they have looked at each other, one gets
ample food for reflection and thought. There is a need to see how
Christians and Muslims have lived particularly in Arabia, in the land
conquered by Muslims and in the West between seventh and
thirteenth centuries. In fact many historians have written books and
papers and presented to the contemporary world the fruit of their
research. However, their credibility lies on the sources from which
the information is taken. Professor Kenny usually refers to a.t-Tabar,
.
al-Azraq, Ibn-Ishq,
.
Ibn Sa`d as main sources of the history of
Muslims within and outside the Umma. There is hope to believe that
such sources are true or closer to the truth.
A discussion about Christian-Muslim relations goes beyond the
question who was right and who was wrong. My concern is to look
clearly at how Christians and Muslims have interacted, so that, based
on history, we may correct and improve the relations between
Christians and Muslims. The history of those interactions may bring
more light to the Christian-Muslim debates. Robert Caspar says:
This history of Muslim-Christian relationship is the history of the Church
that faces the challenges of Islam. Because of that the Church has got a
chance to throw new light on its mystery. New theological formulations of
Christian doctrine, new aspects of its mission and methods of
evangelization, as well as the birth of new spiritualities are the best fruits
of this Muslim-Christian relationship that has not always been clear and
smooth, but has been full of ambiguities, moments of tension and
difficulties.16
So we may ask ourselves two questions: first, what was the attitude
of Muhammad and
Muslims towards Christians living within Arabia and the conquered
lands and vice-versa; second what was the attitude of Christians
towards Muslims in the Byzantine Empire and the West?
1. CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM RELATIONS DURING THE LIFETIME OF
MUHAMMAD
1.1 Muhammad at Makka
16Robert Caspar, History of Christian-Muslim relationship in "Encounter" no 122-123, February-march,
(Rome: Pontificio Instituto di Studi Arabi e d'Islamistica Piazza, 1986), p.2.
17 Joseph Kenny, Muhammad and the rise of Islam. A critical presentation of the background and
major Muslim sources, 1992, p.12.
18 Richard Bell, The origin of Islam in its Christian environment. (Edinburgh: Frank Cass and Co Ltd,
1968), p.147.
19 Robert Caspar, op. cit., p. 3.
With this trust, Muhammad did not hesitate to send some of his
followers to a Christian country to find safety. Christians are those
who follow the true prophet, Jesus Christ (Q.2,87). Ibn-Ishq,
.
quoted
by Professor Kenny, reports:
When the Messenger of God saw the sufferings inflicted on his
companions and his inability to protect them, although he himself was
exempt because of his position with God and with his uncle Ab-Tlib,
.
he
told them, "If you went to Ethiopia you would find a friendly country whose
king does not allow any to be mistreated. Stay there until God gives you
relief from the present situation." At those words, his Muslim companions
left for Ethiopia, fleeing to God with their religion since otherwise they
might be exposed to deny it.20
With the same trust, the Abyssinian Negus accepted the Muslims as
their brothers after they had confessed their belief. The passage
from sra 19 that they recited was sufficient to gain his trust. The
reciprocal trust between them led them to be friends and equal
believers.
In this context, one thing must be noted: the ignorance of both sides;
neither side understood the other's correct doctrine. In this context,
at the beginning of the Muslim era, the Christians saw in Islam a sort
of newly structured and revitalized Christianity. At least a relation of
friendship reigned during the Mekkan period between Muhammad
.
and Christians within and outside Arabia.
1.2 Muhammad at Madina
The coming of Muhammad to Madina did not modify his attitude
towards Christians at the beginning. He continued to be close to the
Christians. In Madina, the Jews also called the people of the book,
became hostile to Muhammad and his message. According to them,
Muhammad who claimed to be a prophet, was not in line with the
prophet of Israel. For this reason, they did not see how he could be
accepted as a prophet; they rejected him. Considering this fact,
Muhammad and his followers became closer to Christians who still
accepted him somehow. This does not mean that Christians
submitted to him.
Towards his death, Muhammad was no longer friendly to Christians,
for two main reasons: Initially Muhammads power began to increase
20 Joseph Kenny, op. cit., p. 32.
24Andr Ferr, "Muhammad a-t-il exclu de l'Arabie les Juifs et les Chrtiens?" in Islamochristiana 16.
(Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e Islamisticisti, 1990), pp. 43-65.
25 H.A.R.Gibb and J.H. Kramers (ed), Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, (New York: Cornell University
Press, 1961).
26 Richard Bell, op. cit., p. 171.
Even if the Umayyad rulers did not allow increasing the number of
churches, they did not destroy the churches which were built, in order
to show their tolerance to the people of the book. At that time, some
parts of the Byzantine Empire, Northern Africa and south-western
Europe were conquered and Christians were tolerated as dhimms,
although some were persecuted.
In Islamic society, dhimms
constituted the third class after the Muslim ruling class and the clients
(neo-Muslims converted by force).27
Under the Umayyad rulers, Christians enjoyed, against the payment
of land and capitation taxes, a wide measure of toleration. In a
matter of criminal judicial procedure, they were under their spiritual
leaders.
2.2 The `Abbsids' treatment of Christians
Unlike the Umayyad rulers, the `Abbasid leaders were more religious
because of their determination to establish a kingdom of justice, piety
and happiness among Muslims. Unfortunately, the joy of some is
misfortune of others; this determination brought adversity to
Christians, Bell wrote:
It was when Islam as a religion came to be taken seriously, as it was by
the `Abbasids, at least in their public policy, and when perhaps the influx
of converted Christians had carried into it some of their own heretic-baiting
spirit, that the Christian population within Moslem territory began to feel
the weight of persecution and humiliation as such.28
27 Cf. Philip Hitti, History of the arabs. From the earliest time to the present. (Edinburgh: Macmillan St
Martin's Press, 1970), pp. 231-233.
28 Richard Bell, op. cit., p. 181.
29 Ibid, p. 181
There are many facts that testify that despite the rough attitude of
some Islamic rulers, Christian minorities were not equal to Muslims
but surely interacted with Muslims. In commercial activity, for
example, there was no prohibition, especially in 9th century. Marston
Speight explains:
Commercial activity was another feature of international relations in North
Africa, which could not help but have influenced upon Muslim attitudes
toward protected Christian minorities. There was no prohibition against
trading with unbelievers.
No matter what military or political
circumstances prevailed, international trade continued with the Christian
world.30
It seems that Speight talks only about North Africa; however the
same attitude was seen in the East and in Spain. Muslim rulers
protected the life of the Christians unless they intended to fight a
Muslim, committed fornication with a Muslim woman, attempted to
marry one or to turn one from his religion or killed a Muslim.
30 Marston speight, The place of the Christians in ninth century North Africa, according to Muslim
sources in Islamochristiana 4, (Rome: Pontificio istituto di Studi Arabi, 1978), p. 48 .
31 Jean-Marie Gaudel, Encounters and clashes. islam and Christianity in history, vol. 1 Survey, (Rome:
Pontificio istituto di Stadi Arabi e Islamici, 1984), p. 55.
2.RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:
A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE
By Muhammad TaIbi
Muhammad TaIbi was born in Tunis in 1921. A historian, he was formerly
dean of the Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences of the University of
Tunis. This article originally appeared in Islamochristiana, 11 (1985), 99113.
To make a long story short, let us say that power and religion
conserved more or less their old relations or resumed them. They
needed each other so much. The intolerance of the dominant social
group asserted itself everywhere in the world with internal and
external wars, and many forms of more or less tough discrimination.
Of course the Islamic world, though relatively tolerant, was no
exception. As everywhere in the world, human rights were violated in
this area, and it still happens that here and there they are more or
less ignored. But that does not mean, as we shall soon see, that
Islam as such authorizes violation of these fundamental rights.
Now, to avoid looking only on the dark side of things, we have to add
that our common past was not entirely so ugly and so somber. We
can also quote some brilliant periods of tolerance, respect,
understanding and dialogue. Nevertheless it was necessary to wait till
the 19th century to see the right to free-thinking clearly claimed.
Political liberalism and philosophical studies were then in vogue, and
in fact what was claimed was not the right to think freely, but the right
not to believe. So the concept of religious liberty unhappily became
the synonym of secularism, agnosticism and atheism. Consequently,
a stubborn fight was carried on against it as such. To deal with the
subject honestly and calmly, we have to free ourselves of this false
notion.
It must be admitted too that religious liberty is today, as a matter of
fact, definitely and for good rooted in our social life. Since the
Declaration of human rights in 1948, this concept is hence forth an
essential part of international law.
On the other hand we already live in a pluralistic world, and our world
is going to be more and more pluralistic in the near future. I wrote
elsewhere that each man has the right to be different, and at the
same time our planet is already too narrow for our ambitions and our
dreams. In this new world which is in speedy gestation under our
eyes there is no longer room for exclusiveness. We have to accept
one another as we are. Diversity is the law of our time. Today,
because of mass media, which are becoming increasingly
sophisticated and pervasive, everyone is truly the neighbor of
everyone else.
To the best of my knowledge, among all the other revealed texts, only
the Quran stresses religious liberty in such an accurate and
unambiguous way. The reason is that faith, to be true and reliable
faith, needs absolutely to be a free and voluntary act. In this
connection it is worthwhile to underline that the verse quoted was
revealed to reprove and condemn the attitude of some Jews and
Christians, newly converted to Islam in Medina, who were willing to
convert their children with them to their new faith. So it is clearly
stressed that faith is an individual concern and commitment and that
even parents must refrain from interfering with it. The very nature of
faith, as it is stressed in the basic text of Islam in clear and
indisputable words, is to be a voluntary act born out of conviction and
freedom.
In fact even God refrains from overpowering man to the point of
subduing him against his will. This too is clearly expressed in the
Quran. Faith then is a free gift, a gift of God. Man can accept or
refuse it. He has the very faculty to open his heart and his reason to
Gods gift. Guidance (hudan) has been given him. He is warmly
invited to listen to Gods call. God warns him in clear and
unambiguous terms. As it is underlined in the quoted verse stressing
mans freedom: Truth stands out clear from error. It is up to man
to make his choice. Mans condition and that is the price of mans
dignity and sacredness is not without something tragic in it. Man
can be misled. He is able to make the wrong choice and to stray from
the right path.
In a word, he has the capacity to resist Gods call, and this capacity is
the criterion of his true freedom. Even the Messenger, whose mission
is properly to convey Gods call and message, is helpless in such a
situation. He is clearly and firmly warned to respect mans freedom
and Gods mystery. If it had been thy Lords will, all who are on the
earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt though then compel
mankind, against their will, to believe? (Q 10:99). A. Yusuf Ali, in his
translation of the Quran, comments on that verse in this way:
Men of faith must not be impatient or angry if they have to contend
against unfaith, and most important of all, they must guard against
the temptation of forcing faith, i.e. imposing it on others by physical
compulsion, or any other forms of compulsion, such as social
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 27 of 37
in the sight of God is he who is the most righteous of you. And God is
All-Knowing, All-Aware (Q 49:13). A. Yusuf Ali comments on the
verse in this way: This is addressed to all mankind, and not only to
the Muslim brotherhood, though it is understood that in a perfect
world the two would be synonymous. As it is, mankind is descended
from one pair of parents. Their tribes, races and nations are
convenient labels by which we may know certain differing
characteristics. Before God they are all one, and he gets most honour
who is most righteous.
C. Reconciliation to God and to people
In other words, man is not created to be alone and to live as an
individual impervious to others. He is created for community,
relationship and dialogue. His fulfilment is in his reconciliation at once
to God and to people. We have to find the way, in each case, to bring
about this double reconciliation without betraying God and without
damaging the inner life of the other person. To do so we have to
listen to Gods advice: Do not argue with the People of the Book
unless it is in the most courteous manner, except for those of them
who do wrong. And say: We believe in the revelation which has
come down to us and in that which came down to you. Our God is
one, and to Him we submit (Q 29:46). Let us note that the Arabic
word used in the verse, and rendered in the translation by the verb to
submit is muslimn Muslims. So, to be a true Muslim is to live in
a courteous dialogue with all peoples of other faiths and ideologies
and ultimately to submit to God. We must show concern for our
neighbors. We have duties towards them, and we are not isles of
loneliness. The attitude of respectful courtesy, recommended by the
Quran must be of course enlarged to all mankind, believers and
unbelievers, except for those who do wrong, that is to say, for those
who are unjust and violent and who resort deliberately to the
argument of the fist, physically or in words. In such a case it is much
better to avoid a so-called dialogue in order to avoid something
worse.
In short, from the Muslim point of view that is mine, our duty is just to
bear witness in the most courteous way, the one most respectful of
the inner liberty of our neighbor and of his sacredness. At the same
time, we must also be ready to listen to him in truthfulness. We have
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 29 of 37
unjust, and as such they are deprived of Gods guidance, with all the
consequences that follow for their salvation:
How shall God guide those who reject faith after they accepted it, and
bore witness that the Apostle was true, and that clear signs had come
to them? But God guides not a people unjust (Q 3:86; see also vv.
87-91).
On the other hand, the Quran denounces the attitude of the People
of the Book, who exerted pressure on the newly converted to Islam
to induce them to retract. There is no doubt that the polemics
between the dawning Islam and the old religions were sharp. In this
atmosphere the Quran urges the persons who embraced Islam to
remain firmly in their new faith till death, to close their ranks, to refuse
to listen to those who strive to render them apostates, and to keep
out of their trap. They are also reminded of their former state of
disunion when they were on the brink of the Pit of Fire, and they are
exhorted to be a people inviting to all that is good in order to ensure
their final salvation. Let us quote:
Say: O People of the book: Why obstruct ye those who believe from
the path of God, seeking to make it crooked, while ye were
yourselves witnesses thereof? But God is not unmindful of all that ye
do.
O ye who believe! If you obey a faction of those who have been given
the Book, they will turn you back into disbelievers after you have
believed.
And how would you disbelieve, while you have rehearsed the signs of
God, and His Messenger is among you? And he who holds fast to
God is indeed guided to the right path.
O ye who believe! Fear God as He should be feared, and die not
except in a state of Islam.
And hold fast, all together, by the rope of God, and be not divided,
and remember Gods favour on you: for ye were enemies, and He
joined your hearts in love, so that by His grace, ye became brethren;
and ye were on the brink of the Pit of Fire, and He save you from it.
Thus doeth God make His signs clear to you, that ye may be guided.
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 34 of 37
Let there arise out of you a community inviting to all that is good,
enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. They are the
ones to attain felicity. (Q 3:99-104)
Thus, unceasingly and by all means, the Quran strives to raise the
new Muslims spirit, in order to prevent them from falling into
apostasy. the argumentation is only moral. The Quran goes on: It is
from selfish envy that quite a number of the People of the Book
wish they could turn you back to infidelity (Q 2:109; see too 3:149);
you have not to fear them, God is your Protector, and He is the best
of helpers; soon shall He cast terror into the hearts of the
unbelievers (Q 3:150-151); your real friends are God, His
Messenger, and the believers.. It is the party of God that must
certainly triumph... Therefore take not for friends those who take your
religion for a mockery or sport.. (Q 5:58-60). And finally, those who,
in spite of all that, allow themselves to be tempted by apostasy, they
are forewarned: if they desert the cause, the cause anyhow will not
fail. Others will bring it to a head.
O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith,
soon will God produce a people whom He will love as they will love
Him, lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, striving
in the way of God, and never afraid of the reproaches of a fault finder.
That is the grace of God, which He will bestow on whom He pleased.
And God is Bountiful, All-Knowing (Q 5:57; see too 47:38)
*The Quran warns
The young Muslim community is thus given plenty of reasons to
remain in their new religion. The members of this community are also
warned that for their salvation they should not depart from their faith.
They are urged to follow the true spirit of Islam, and this spirit is
defined in two ways: first they will love God and God will love them;
secondly they will be humble amongst their brethren, but they will not
fear the wrongdoers and they will not compound with them. If by fear,
weakness or time-serving, they depart from this line of conduct and
fall in to apostasy, the loss will be their own and the punishment will
be hard in the hereafter. And if any of you turn back from their faith,
and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life. And in the
hereafter they will be companions of the Fire, and will abide therein
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 35 of 37
(Q 2:217), except for those who repent thereafter and amend, for
God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful Q 3:89). But there is no hope for
those who persist in their apostasy (Q 3:90-91). These obstinate
apostates will taste the penalty for rejecting faith (Q 3:106; see too
3:140). Such men are entirely in the hands of evil (Q 47:25). They
secretly plot with the enemies (Q 47:26-7), and they obstruct the way
to God (Q 47:32,34). As a result God will not forgive them (Q
47:34).
*The Quran advises
How to deal with such obstinate and ill-disposed apostates? How to
treat those who try to draw them into their camp or to manipulate
them? Let us emphasize once more that there is no mention in the
Quran of any kind of penalty, whether death or any other. To use the
Arabic technical word, we say that there is no specified hadd in this
matter.
On the contrary, Muslims are advised to forgive and overlook till God
accomplishes His purpose, for God hath power over all things (Q
2:109). In other words, no punishment on earth. The case is not
answerable to the Law. The debate is between God and the
apostates conscience and it is not our role to interfere in it.
Muslims are only authorized to take up arms in one case, the case of
self-defence, when they are attacked, and their faith seriously
jeopardized. In such a case fighting (al-qitl) is prescribed (kutiba)
for them, even if they dislike it (kurhun la-kum) (Q 2:216), and it is so
even during the sacred month of pilgrimage (Q 2:217; 2:194). To
summarize, Muslims are urged not to yield when their conscience is
at stake and to take up arms against those who will not cease
fighting you until they turn you back from your faith, if they can (Q
2:217).
4. Conclusion
It is thus evident that the problem of religious liberty, with all its
ramifications, is not new within Islam. The Quran deals at length with
it. At the heart of this problem we meet the ticklish subject of
Created by DEAN-FASSFrederic Ntedika Mvumbi, OP
Page 36 of 37
apostasy. We have seen, with regard to this very subject that the
Quran argues, warns, advises, but never resorts to the argument of
the sword. The reason why is that argument is meaningless in
matters of faith. In our pluralistic world our modern theologians must
take that into account.
We never emphasize enough that religious liberty is not an act of
charity, or a tolerant concession towards misguided persons. It is a
fundamental right for everybody. To claim it for myself implies ipso
facto that I am disposed to claim it for my neighbor too.
But religious liberty is not necessarily the equivalent of atheism. My
right, and my duty also, is to bear witness to my own faith by fair
means, and to convey Gods call. And ultimately it is up to each man
to respond to this call or not, freely and in full consciousness.
From a Muslim point of view, and on the basis of the Qurans basic
teachings, whose letter and spirit we have tried to bring out, religious
liberty is fundamentally and ultimately an act of respect for Gods
sovereignty and for the mystery of His plan for man, man who has
been given the terrible privilege to build, on his own entire
responsibility, his destiny on earth and for the hereafter. Finally to
respect mans freedom is to respect Gods plan.
To be a true Muslim is to submit to this plan. It is, in the literal sense
of the word, to put oneself voluntarily and freely, with confidence and
love, in the hands of God.