In Kuwait I hear frequent mention of Allah. I see the name of Allah inscribed on houses and mosques. Allah is mentioned in the many daily salutations. The name of God is overwhelmingly present in the market place and the home. For a Westerner coming from a secularised society where God is mentioned with embarrassed undertones - I find Islamic society wonderfully liberating.
A frequent question that arises surrounds the use of the term Allah. There was case recently where Malaysian Muslims prevented Christians from using the name Allah in their written Christian books. Muslims objected that Christians were taking a name which was exclusively for the use of Islamic believers.
Allah is an Arabic word which literally means "The God". Linguuists see a similarity to the Syriac term "elah" used in the ancient liturgies which in turn has a family resemblance to the Hebrew form for God in which we see used in the Bible in its plural form as "elohim". Although some scholars claim that Allah is the name for some pre-Islamic moon Goddess, other evidence shows that Allah was widely understood in pagan pre-Ismaic Arabia as the chief God who was creator of all and was supreme over every God. The shout Allahu akbar (literally God is greater) relates the supremacy of Allah in relation to other gods.
Christians have used the term Allah as the word for God ever since the Bible was translated into Arabic. For Christian Arabs there is no question of Allah is referring anything but to the God who created the heavens and the earth, and the God who sent the prophets to bring his message to the peoples of the earth.
The real question is - "Do we share the same understanding of Allah's character and work?" Our answer to this will reveal many similarities as well as difference. We both believe Allah is the creator, He is good, He is powerful, He is the Judge, He is Compassionate and Merciful, He is Lord and so on.
The differences begin to emerge when we look at issues of transcendance and imminence. Orthodox islam stresses the unknowability and "otherness" of God while Christianity talks of Allah in shockingly personal terms - for example Jesus taught his disciples to address Allah as "abba" an intimate term which literally translates as "daddy!"
Misunderstanding also arises when we talk about the Tawhid or the unity of God. The doctrine of Trinity can mislead Muslims into believing that Allah has been divided up into three persons. this would then make Christianity a polytheistic faith. Clearly Christianity is not. Along wih Judaism and Islam it declares its monotheism in the words of the Creed "We believe in one God . . ."
That Allah is one in his unity is a conviction shared by us all. The question of how that unity is manifest in the world is when we begin to enter into the realms of Trinitatrian doctrine. For Muslims, God chooses to interact with His creation through the medium of the oral word - given through prophets or angels (messengers). These are then written into text form. That, however would be the extent to which we can know God. His thoughts and messages given to us is through spoken and written word. This however does not violate the unity of God. For Christians, the Word becomes flesh takes this principle further. As the spoken and written word does not violate the essential unity of God, neither does God coming in human form. Perhaps there is a hint of this in the Qur'anic description of Jesus as a "Spirit from God".
What do you think?
Monday, 25 February 2008
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
A Church in Qatar?
The debate in Qatar over new church buildings has made me appreciate once again the religious freedom we do have here in Kuwait. Although other Gulf countries do allow church buildings, Kuwait led the way with a constitution that enshrined freedom for other faith groups right from day one. Saudi Arabia by contrast has a constitution which expressly forbids the expression of any form of religion except for Islam (and then only certain forms of Islam).
All the Gulf states play host to a large expatriate community who represent different faiths. Following the time honoured tradition of hospitality which is a much vaunted feature of Arabian society, Christians and other groups have been welcomed and accommodated in most of the Gulf countries. The success of the Gulf economies is very much a tribute to the combined team efforts of both local and expatriate workers working together in harmony.
What happens when there is no freedom of religion?
For the Christian, nothing much. They will continue to work hard and seek to be good neighbours and be a blessing to their hosts. While the word “church”” for most people denotes a building used for Christian worship, the Bible refers to “church” as a people. Literally translated the Greek word for church ‘ex-clesia’ means ‘to call out’. We should therefore not be tied down to a special building in order to pray.
Having said that, Christianity, like all religions, is a communal faith, and in the absence of a special building, Christians will gather together wherever they can. Sometimes they meet in schools or villas or even in restaurants. But there is absolutely no need to erect a huge building and plant a big cross on the top. They do appreciate it though when it is possible to have a building set aside just to meet as a group.
What seem to lie behind the protest in Qatar, is the fear that a church will become a centre for proselytizing Muslims. Proselytizing is defined as an activity where one engages in trying to persuade through propaganda, manipulation or coercion one person to adopt a religion. Although Christianity is a missionary faith, proselytizing as defined above finds no place in the teaching of scripture.
Should Qatar, allow the building of a church? That is entirely up to her. As Christians we are taught explicitly in scripture to obey the law of the land. One thing is certain, whatever happens Christians will continue to worship together, be it discretely in a villa or in a purpose built worship centre.
The debate in Qatar over new church buildings has made me appreciate once again the religious freedom we do have here in Kuwait. Although other Gulf countries do allow church buildings, Kuwait led the way with a constitution that enshrined freedom for other faith groups right from day one. Saudi Arabia by contrast has a constitution which expressly forbids the expression of any form of religion except for Islam (and then only certain forms of Islam).
All the Gulf states play host to a large expatriate community who represent different faiths. Following the time honoured tradition of hospitality which is a much vaunted feature of Arabian society, Christians and other groups have been welcomed and accommodated in most of the Gulf countries. The success of the Gulf economies is very much a tribute to the combined team efforts of both local and expatriate workers working together in harmony.
What happens when there is no freedom of religion?
For the Christian, nothing much. They will continue to work hard and seek to be good neighbours and be a blessing to their hosts. While the word “church”” for most people denotes a building used for Christian worship, the Bible refers to “church” as a people. Literally translated the Greek word for church ‘ex-clesia’ means ‘to call out’. We should therefore not be tied down to a special building in order to pray.
Having said that, Christianity, like all religions, is a communal faith, and in the absence of a special building, Christians will gather together wherever they can. Sometimes they meet in schools or villas or even in restaurants. But there is absolutely no need to erect a huge building and plant a big cross on the top. They do appreciate it though when it is possible to have a building set aside just to meet as a group.
What seem to lie behind the protest in Qatar, is the fear that a church will become a centre for proselytizing Muslims. Proselytizing is defined as an activity where one engages in trying to persuade through propaganda, manipulation or coercion one person to adopt a religion. Although Christianity is a missionary faith, proselytizing as defined above finds no place in the teaching of scripture.
Should Qatar, allow the building of a church? That is entirely up to her. As Christians we are taught explicitly in scripture to obey the law of the land. One thing is certain, whatever happens Christians will continue to worship together, be it discretely in a villa or in a purpose built worship centre.
Monday, 18 February 2008
Is the veil Muslim or Christian in origin?
Sign of rebellion against Ataturk
Halit Refig, one of Turkey’s leading intellectuals, is a filmmaker/ screenwriter whose films include “Four Women in the Harem” and “Island of the Dogs.” He is also on the board of NPQ-Turkey. — EditorBy Halit Refig
ISTANBUL: The headscarf controversy is taking the place of PKK terrorism and Kurdish separatism as the most contentious issue in Turkish political life. Civil disobedience is replacing bloody terrorism, which seems to have lost its initiative since the aerial bombings of PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) camps in northern Iraq. The new militants against the state order are not armed men, but girls with covered heads who refuse to obey the rules of university education because of their religious faith. But the target is the same: Turkish central state power established under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. These rebellious girls do not cover their heads with the traditional Turkish headscarf. For this reason, it is given the distinctive name “turban.” It is a kind of uniform. Turkey didn’t have such a turban problem until the 1980s. Indeed, there was no headscarf problem in Turkey until the Khomeini revolution in Iran, when black-covered women crowded public squares of Tehran. Some bright minds in Turkey decided to apply the same tactics, using women and female students against the state under the pretext of democracy and individual rights. In 1982, for the first time, Istanbul University authorities declared that female students covering their heads and wearing the so-called turban would not be accepted in classes. Since then, the headscarf-turban has been a continuing issue of controversy.
A milestone case was the 1999 elections. A turbaned candidate named Merve Kavakci, who was living in the U.S., won parliamentary elections. But a majority of parliamentarians refused to allow her to stay in the parliament if she insisted on wearing a turban. Kavakci went back to America, where she is still trying to behave like a Moslem Joan of Arc. Because of her, many people in Turkey believe that the turban is somehow an American conspiracy aimed at undermining Turkish power. The problem is much more complicated and deeper than it appears. Until the ‘80s, Turkey was an agricultural country with most of its population living in rural areas. Steady industrialization, however, stimulated migration from rural areas to urban centers. Now Turkey is an industrial country with 70 percent of its population living in cities — even though many were born in the countryside. Democracy has given these people the chance of being the dominant social group. Wearing the turban is one way of expressing their new power. It has became a kind of solidarity uniform of young countryside people, defying established “urban” rules instead of adapting to the metropolitan way of life.
Although defenders of the turban claim that it is an expression of Islamic faith, non-political Islamic scholars and theologians insist there is not such strict rule of head covering in Islam. In fact, it is part of Christian theology. Here are some references from Saint Paul’s First Letter to Corinthians in the Holy Bible: * “But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of woman is the man; in turn the head of Christ is God.” (11:3) * “For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” (11:6) * “For a man ought not to have his head covered; as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory.” (11:7).* “For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man.” (11:8) * “And, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of man.” (11:9) * “That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of angels.” (11:10) There is no such stricture to a woman covering her head in Islam’s holy book, the Holy Quran. The Quran says that believing women should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms. (24:30, 31). Unlike Christianity, there is no Church in Islam, no clergy class, no nuns. To be a Muslim, it is enough to accept that there is only one God and that Mohammed (PBUH) is His Messenger. The rest is between the believer and God. There is no authority that will decide who is a good Muslim and who is not. Since God has given intelligence to human beings, Muslims are responsible directly to God, with no one in between. That is, in general, the Turkish way of being Muslim. So covering a woman’s head with nun-like headscarves is not going back to Islamic fundamentals, but rootless imitation of Christian nuns!
Nobody should have anything to say about the way one chooses to live his or her private life. It is the same for a woman’s choice of what she wears. But when that choice becomes a political act against laws and rules, it also becomes a betrayal of the essence of Islam. In that case, it is not a matter of Islamic faith but a cover for the political aims of destroying the state structure in Turkey. The present-day political power of the AKP (Justice and Development Party) is based on the new urban social group. Putting turbans on their women’s heads is a strategy of establishing political dominance. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul are the chief representatives, with their covered wives, of the rebellion against Ataturk’s state authority republic. This is the result of democracy. What is next? It is not easy to guess. The armed forces have always been central to maintaining the order of the Kemalist state. Until now, they haven’t shown any noticeable reaction. But how far can they be pushed? Can we say a final goodbye to Ataturk and his nation/state, or will there be an inescapable breaking point at which time they come out of the barracks?
Halit Refig, one of Turkey’s leading intellectuals, is a filmmaker/ screenwriter whose films include “Four Women in the Harem” and “Island of the Dogs.” He is also on the board of NPQ-Turkey. — EditorBy Halit Refig
ISTANBUL: The headscarf controversy is taking the place of PKK terrorism and Kurdish separatism as the most contentious issue in Turkish political life. Civil disobedience is replacing bloody terrorism, which seems to have lost its initiative since the aerial bombings of PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) camps in northern Iraq. The new militants against the state order are not armed men, but girls with covered heads who refuse to obey the rules of university education because of their religious faith. But the target is the same: Turkish central state power established under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. These rebellious girls do not cover their heads with the traditional Turkish headscarf. For this reason, it is given the distinctive name “turban.” It is a kind of uniform. Turkey didn’t have such a turban problem until the 1980s. Indeed, there was no headscarf problem in Turkey until the Khomeini revolution in Iran, when black-covered women crowded public squares of Tehran. Some bright minds in Turkey decided to apply the same tactics, using women and female students against the state under the pretext of democracy and individual rights. In 1982, for the first time, Istanbul University authorities declared that female students covering their heads and wearing the so-called turban would not be accepted in classes. Since then, the headscarf-turban has been a continuing issue of controversy.
A milestone case was the 1999 elections. A turbaned candidate named Merve Kavakci, who was living in the U.S., won parliamentary elections. But a majority of parliamentarians refused to allow her to stay in the parliament if she insisted on wearing a turban. Kavakci went back to America, where she is still trying to behave like a Moslem Joan of Arc. Because of her, many people in Turkey believe that the turban is somehow an American conspiracy aimed at undermining Turkish power. The problem is much more complicated and deeper than it appears. Until the ‘80s, Turkey was an agricultural country with most of its population living in rural areas. Steady industrialization, however, stimulated migration from rural areas to urban centers. Now Turkey is an industrial country with 70 percent of its population living in cities — even though many were born in the countryside. Democracy has given these people the chance of being the dominant social group. Wearing the turban is one way of expressing their new power. It has became a kind of solidarity uniform of young countryside people, defying established “urban” rules instead of adapting to the metropolitan way of life.
Although defenders of the turban claim that it is an expression of Islamic faith, non-political Islamic scholars and theologians insist there is not such strict rule of head covering in Islam. In fact, it is part of Christian theology. Here are some references from Saint Paul’s First Letter to Corinthians in the Holy Bible: * “But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of woman is the man; in turn the head of Christ is God.” (11:3) * “For if a woman does not cover herself, let her also be shorn; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.” (11:6) * “For a man ought not to have his head covered; as he is God’s image and glory; but the woman is man’s glory.” (11:7).* “For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man.” (11:8) * “And, what is more, man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of man.” (11:9) * “That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of angels.” (11:10) There is no such stricture to a woman covering her head in Islam’s holy book, the Holy Quran. The Quran says that believing women should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms. (24:30, 31). Unlike Christianity, there is no Church in Islam, no clergy class, no nuns. To be a Muslim, it is enough to accept that there is only one God and that Mohammed (PBUH) is His Messenger. The rest is between the believer and God. There is no authority that will decide who is a good Muslim and who is not. Since God has given intelligence to human beings, Muslims are responsible directly to God, with no one in between. That is, in general, the Turkish way of being Muslim. So covering a woman’s head with nun-like headscarves is not going back to Islamic fundamentals, but rootless imitation of Christian nuns!
Nobody should have anything to say about the way one chooses to live his or her private life. It is the same for a woman’s choice of what she wears. But when that choice becomes a political act against laws and rules, it also becomes a betrayal of the essence of Islam. In that case, it is not a matter of Islamic faith but a cover for the political aims of destroying the state structure in Turkey. The present-day political power of the AKP (Justice and Development Party) is based on the new urban social group. Putting turbans on their women’s heads is a strategy of establishing political dominance. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul are the chief representatives, with their covered wives, of the rebellion against Ataturk’s state authority republic. This is the result of democracy. What is next? It is not easy to guess. The armed forces have always been central to maintaining the order of the Kemalist state. Until now, they haven’t shown any noticeable reaction. But how far can they be pushed? Can we say a final goodbye to Ataturk and his nation/state, or will there be an inescapable breaking point at which time they come out of the barracks?
Saturday, 16 February 2008
Should Churches be allowed in Islamic Gulf States?
Qatar's first church sparks bitter debate
DOHA, Feb 16, 2008 (AFP) - A bitter debate has broken out in the tiny, oil-rich Gulf state of Qatar over construction of the Muslim country's first Christian church, set to open next month in time for Easter.
Critics have branded the concept as 'repulsive' while supporters said building places of worship for other religions is a right guaranteed by Islam.
One former minister insisted there should have been a public referendum.
'The cross should not be raised in the sky of Qatar, nor should bells toll in Doha,' wrote columnist Lahdan bin Issa al-Muhanadi in the Doha daily Al-Arab -- adding an apology in case the concept upset any readers in this country of 900,000, of whom only 200,000 are native Qataris.
But the former dean of the sharia (Islamic law) school at Qatar University, Abdul Hamid al-Ansari, disagreed, saying having 'places of worship for various religions is a fundamental human right guaranteed by Islam.'
Ansari has written several newspaper articles welcoming the Roman Catholic church in Doha, which is called St. Mary's and will be inaugurated on March 15 by Vatican envoy Cardinal Ivan Dias.
Four other Christian denominations are also planning to build churches in Qatar, whose ruling family and most of its small native population adhere to a strict rigorous doctrine of Islam known as Wahhabism.
Once St. Mary's opens, neighbour Saudi Arabia, which also practises Wahhabism, will be the only Arab nation in the Gulf that bans churches.
Gas-wealthy Qatar has opened up since current ruler and staunch US ally Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani seized control and ousted his father in a 1995 palace coup.
Qatar's leaders have even hosted Jewish rabbis and Christian clerics alongside Muslim religious scholars at annual inter-faith forums.
But Ansari sees the old influence in the current opposition. He attributes it to 'a fanatic culture resulting from religious teaching (stipulating) hatred for the other and from social norms that denied non-Muslims their rights on the basis of old political and security considerations that have become obsolete.'
St. Mary's parish priest, Father Tomasito Veneracion, a Filipino, stressed in comments to the daily Al-Raya that the church would be 'merely a place for collective prayer.' It would not have crosses outside the building or serve as a platform for proselytising.
It would finally provide a place of worship for those who up to now were forced to practise religious rituals at home, he added. And it would be open in time for the solemn Easter holyday, which this year falls on March 23.
For other Christians, construction of an Anglican church will begin in May, according to Qatar's Anglican priest Canon William Schwarz. Building has already begun on a Greek Orthodox church and another for Copts.
The Vatican website estimates about 100,000 Qatar residents are Christian. Most are Indians, Filipinos, Lebanese and Western nationals who, despite praying in private, have celebrated Christmas publicly for about a decade.
The debate meanwhile has spilled into the letters pages of Doha's dailies.
Engineer Rashed al-Subaie, in a letter to Al-Watan, agreed Christians should be allowed to practise their faith but should do so 'in line with public morals without being given licences to set up places of worship.'
Christians should 'worship their God in their homes,' not publicly, he wrote.
Lawyer and former justice minister Najib al-Nuaimi also objected to building churches in Qatar on 'legal and social' grounds.
'Qatar is a Muslim -- not secular -- state, as per its constitution. There should have been a referendum on the building of these churches in order to ensure they are socially accepted,' he told AFP.
But Ansari hit back at those citing Islamic texts to justify their rejection, notably Muhanadi who has quoted the Prophet Mohammed saying 'no two religions will come together in the Arabian peninsula.'
'This does not mean that churches should be banned in Qatar because (Islamic) religious scholars believe it applies to Hijaz -- specifically Mecca and Medina,' Islam's two holiest cities in Saudi Arabia, Ansari said.
'Let's all welcome the presence of churches in Qatar... as a demonstration of Islamic tolerance and human brotherhood,' he said.
DOHA, Feb 16, 2008 (AFP) - A bitter debate has broken out in the tiny, oil-rich Gulf state of Qatar over construction of the Muslim country's first Christian church, set to open next month in time for Easter.
Critics have branded the concept as 'repulsive' while supporters said building places of worship for other religions is a right guaranteed by Islam.
One former minister insisted there should have been a public referendum.
'The cross should not be raised in the sky of Qatar, nor should bells toll in Doha,' wrote columnist Lahdan bin Issa al-Muhanadi in the Doha daily Al-Arab -- adding an apology in case the concept upset any readers in this country of 900,000, of whom only 200,000 are native Qataris.
But the former dean of the sharia (Islamic law) school at Qatar University, Abdul Hamid al-Ansari, disagreed, saying having 'places of worship for various religions is a fundamental human right guaranteed by Islam.'
Ansari has written several newspaper articles welcoming the Roman Catholic church in Doha, which is called St. Mary's and will be inaugurated on March 15 by Vatican envoy Cardinal Ivan Dias.
Four other Christian denominations are also planning to build churches in Qatar, whose ruling family and most of its small native population adhere to a strict rigorous doctrine of Islam known as Wahhabism.
Once St. Mary's opens, neighbour Saudi Arabia, which also practises Wahhabism, will be the only Arab nation in the Gulf that bans churches.
Gas-wealthy Qatar has opened up since current ruler and staunch US ally Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani seized control and ousted his father in a 1995 palace coup.
Qatar's leaders have even hosted Jewish rabbis and Christian clerics alongside Muslim religious scholars at annual inter-faith forums.
But Ansari sees the old influence in the current opposition. He attributes it to 'a fanatic culture resulting from religious teaching (stipulating) hatred for the other and from social norms that denied non-Muslims their rights on the basis of old political and security considerations that have become obsolete.'
St. Mary's parish priest, Father Tomasito Veneracion, a Filipino, stressed in comments to the daily Al-Raya that the church would be 'merely a place for collective prayer.' It would not have crosses outside the building or serve as a platform for proselytising.
It would finally provide a place of worship for those who up to now were forced to practise religious rituals at home, he added. And it would be open in time for the solemn Easter holyday, which this year falls on March 23.
For other Christians, construction of an Anglican church will begin in May, according to Qatar's Anglican priest Canon William Schwarz. Building has already begun on a Greek Orthodox church and another for Copts.
The Vatican website estimates about 100,000 Qatar residents are Christian. Most are Indians, Filipinos, Lebanese and Western nationals who, despite praying in private, have celebrated Christmas publicly for about a decade.
The debate meanwhile has spilled into the letters pages of Doha's dailies.
Engineer Rashed al-Subaie, in a letter to Al-Watan, agreed Christians should be allowed to practise their faith but should do so 'in line with public morals without being given licences to set up places of worship.'
Christians should 'worship their God in their homes,' not publicly, he wrote.
Lawyer and former justice minister Najib al-Nuaimi also objected to building churches in Qatar on 'legal and social' grounds.
'Qatar is a Muslim -- not secular -- state, as per its constitution. There should have been a referendum on the building of these churches in order to ensure they are socially accepted,' he told AFP.
But Ansari hit back at those citing Islamic texts to justify their rejection, notably Muhanadi who has quoted the Prophet Mohammed saying 'no two religions will come together in the Arabian peninsula.'
'This does not mean that churches should be banned in Qatar because (Islamic) religious scholars believe it applies to Hijaz -- specifically Mecca and Medina,' Islam's two holiest cities in Saudi Arabia, Ansari said.
'Let's all welcome the presence of churches in Qatar... as a demonstration of Islamic tolerance and human brotherhood,' he said.
A Muslim response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent comments
Canterbury … How nice of you
By Ali Ahmad Al-BaghliFormer Oil Minister
THE Archbishop of Canterbury and head of Church of England, Rowan Williams, is as revered by members of his church as is the Vatican Pope by followers of the Catholic church. This brave bishop says, “no one can escape some of the Islamic teachings and people should be more open-minded towards Islam because a productive compromise can be reached if other religions deal with Islam with an open mind.” The bishop said this on BBC when he was talking about Islam and its links with the British law. His statement on Islamic teachings created a big uproar and the English newspapers and government are still talking about it. This is a normal reaction in an open-minded, democratic and free society like the British society. What we care about here is the peace campaign which the bishop undertook by asking for inclusion of a number of Islamic teachings in the British law, especially since the number of Muslims in the British society is increasing steadily.
Our religious leaders and their so-called followers, whose number is also increasing with each passing day, lack the kind of peaceful approach adopted by the bishop. Some religious men are praying to God day and night against people of other religions. They also prevent us from wishing them on their festivals. Our religious men are also against granting citizenship to people of other religions and some of them have even prevented us from doing good things like exchanging red roses or chocolates on Valentine’s Day. We hope these religious men go back to living in tents and riding camels in deserts instead of bothering about people of other religions. Yes, we need tens of such bishops to live among us. We need men like Abdullrahman Al-Kawakibi, Mohammad Abduh, Jamal Al-Deen Al-Afghani and Mahmoud Al-Aqqad to light the world for us.
albaghlilaw@hotmail.com
By Ali Ahmad Al-BaghliFormer Oil Minister
THE Archbishop of Canterbury and head of Church of England, Rowan Williams, is as revered by members of his church as is the Vatican Pope by followers of the Catholic church. This brave bishop says, “no one can escape some of the Islamic teachings and people should be more open-minded towards Islam because a productive compromise can be reached if other religions deal with Islam with an open mind.” The bishop said this on BBC when he was talking about Islam and its links with the British law. His statement on Islamic teachings created a big uproar and the English newspapers and government are still talking about it. This is a normal reaction in an open-minded, democratic and free society like the British society. What we care about here is the peace campaign which the bishop undertook by asking for inclusion of a number of Islamic teachings in the British law, especially since the number of Muslims in the British society is increasing steadily.
Our religious leaders and their so-called followers, whose number is also increasing with each passing day, lack the kind of peaceful approach adopted by the bishop. Some religious men are praying to God day and night against people of other religions. They also prevent us from wishing them on their festivals. Our religious men are also against granting citizenship to people of other religions and some of them have even prevented us from doing good things like exchanging red roses or chocolates on Valentine’s Day. We hope these religious men go back to living in tents and riding camels in deserts instead of bothering about people of other religions. Yes, we need tens of such bishops to live among us. We need men like Abdullrahman Al-Kawakibi, Mohammad Abduh, Jamal Al-Deen Al-Afghani and Mahmoud Al-Aqqad to light the world for us.
albaghlilaw@hotmail.com
Thursday, 14 February 2008
Now is the Time
With the Danish cartoon row erupting, Islamophobic reactions erupting in the media in the UK to the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about shari'a law and ongoing confrontation between Christian and Muslim communities, there is a great need for members of both these latter communities to reach out and build a bridge.
Here in Kuwait we are blessed to be living in a community which celebrates constitutional religious freedom. The police take seriously any perceived crimes of religious intolerance. Yet there is still a gap between Christians and Muslims. There are too few initiatives to build bridges.
There is of course the sterling work of AWARE and the Perceptions Centre which seeks to interpret and explain Islam and Islamic culture to Westerners. There is also a Gulf Council for promoting tolerance between the different religious communities.
St Paul's Anglican Church in Kuwait is keen to explore our part is helping to bridge the gap.
The intention of this forum is to invite both Muslim and Christian readers to interact with one another on line in order to facilitate questions of the day which concern us both.
The purpose of this site is not for proselytization (for this is illegal in Kuwait), but is rather a means of Muslims meeting Christians and vice versa for honest dialogue. There are some strict guidelines and these are
1) That the dialogue is respectful. We do not welcome insults or disparaging remarks about one another's faith. We can of course choose to disagree and this is essential for honest dialogue.
2) That we can explore issues by posting questions and inviting reposnses to those questions.
As this is the first posting , we will keep it short.
Blessings
Here in Kuwait we are blessed to be living in a community which celebrates constitutional religious freedom. The police take seriously any perceived crimes of religious intolerance. Yet there is still a gap between Christians and Muslims. There are too few initiatives to build bridges.
There is of course the sterling work of AWARE and the Perceptions Centre which seeks to interpret and explain Islam and Islamic culture to Westerners. There is also a Gulf Council for promoting tolerance between the different religious communities.
St Paul's Anglican Church in Kuwait is keen to explore our part is helping to bridge the gap.
The intention of this forum is to invite both Muslim and Christian readers to interact with one another on line in order to facilitate questions of the day which concern us both.
The purpose of this site is not for proselytization (for this is illegal in Kuwait), but is rather a means of Muslims meeting Christians and vice versa for honest dialogue. There are some strict guidelines and these are
1) That the dialogue is respectful. We do not welcome insults or disparaging remarks about one another's faith. We can of course choose to disagree and this is essential for honest dialogue.
2) That we can explore issues by posting questions and inviting reposnses to those questions.
As this is the first posting , we will keep it short.
Blessings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
