Abstract
Kelly James Clark (ed.),
Abraham's Children: Liberty and Tolerance in an Age of Religious Conflict
, Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2012; 288 pp.: 9780300179378, £12.99/US$18.00 (pbk)
Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim to be ‘Abrahamic’ but how this is so remains problematic: some think of physical descent, whether through Isaac or Ishmael, others of a spiritual relationship and yet others of rediscovering the supposedly pristine faith of Abraham. It is a bold move, therefore, to tackle the subjects of freedom and tolerance in these religions, especially as they are often accused, by the New Atheists, for example, of being particularly prone to intolerance and violent conflict.
The editor tackles this charge not by denying that Muslims, Christians and Jews have been guilty of violence in the name of religion but, first, by comparing these evil aspects of religion with its manifold goods, personal, social and global. He mentions the eradication of infanticide, the cruelties of the Roman games and of slavery and also the founding of hospitals and hospices, of schools and universities, of orphanages and work with widows and orphans. The list is very long, even if many faith initiatives have subsequently been secularized. Secondly, he compares the suffering alleged to have been influenced by religious wars with that, indisputably, inflicted by secular ideologies whether of National Socialism, Stalinism, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot or even Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party which was consciously modelled on European fascism. The role of religion in conflict pales in comparison with atrocities committed in the name of these ideologies.
From the point of view of method, the editor allows each faith to makes its own case, or, rather, for the different contributors from each tradition to make their own case for the faith they profess. The Jewish contributors, naturally, focus on their relationships with Arabs, Muslim or Christian, particularly in Israel itself but also in the West Bank or Gaza. It is interesting that all of them are Israeli Jews. On the whole, their contribution is made within a framework of firm commitment to Jewish uniqueness and to the validity of Jews returning to ‘their land’ but also with an acute awareness of the need for justice for the Palestinians, without asking questions as to the identity of the original inhabitants of land and the acceptance of the de facto situation of both Arab and Jew being present in the land today. The Jewish right of ‘return’ is assumed and not justified and questions about who is a Jew are not really asked. The contributors write from the perspective of European and American Jewry but show they are aware that half the Israeli population is oriental or Ethiopian. There is, nevertheless, a strong desire to identify with the West rather than the Middle-East. If such attitudes continue to be dominant, we would have to ask how Israel will be accepted in the Middle-Eastern setting and not continue to be seen as a ‘foreign’ implant.
The Christian section opens with a short contribution by Jimmy Carter. He provides a politically correct description of the origins of the Abrahamic religions. Is he somewhat naive in believing that all religions share ‘common commitments' about society? Is not one of the reasons for conflict the different visions which the several faiths are generating? He tends to swallow liberal rhetoric that gender equality must necessarily mean complete interchangeability, thus surrendering the uniqueness of men and women. He also equates fundamentalism in each of the religions, neglecting the fact that radical Islamism is also a comprehensive political, economic and social ideology.
Fortunately, there are two heavier weight contributions from Nicholas Wolterstorff and Miroslav Volf. The former, relying on Calvin, holds that, because God's image survives in us, injuring our fellow humans is wounding God himself. The image of God finds its full expression in Jesus Christ and he is, therefore, the touchstone by which we can judge how the divine image is expressed in human creativity and in fundamental institutions such as the family, community or nation. Volf's point of departure is the injunction in 1 Peter 2.1 to ‘honour everyone’. Such honour is based on Christian teaching that all human beings are loved by God and that our love for them must include respect for the ends they have set for themselves, even if we do not agree with them.
It is God's love for them and the divine image in them which demands our respect, however, not the Kantian notion that human beings deserve respect because of their capacity for reason for setting ends for themselves. This would exclude the mentally ill or handicapped and also infants.
I am not completely convinced by Volf's attempts to distinguish sharply between ‘person’ and ‘deeds’. It is true that the divine image and God's love must be acknowledged for even the most depraved but, surely, depravity also has to do with what has happened to the person, the obscuring of the imago dei and the turning away from divine love? Again, while we must listen with the utmost care to every argument, I cannot see how we can respect them all equally. In fact, some need quickly to be repudiated and shown to be irrational, self-serving or simply false. It does not follow that such a stance would lead to other faiths being seen as simply mistaken. It is also possible to see them as incomplete, fragmentary, as leading to truth, as human attempts to perceive the spiritual, even as Christians seek to witness to them.
The Muslim contributors all argue that Islam does not endorse coercion in matters of faith. President Abdur Rahman Wahid of Indonesia tells us that the present narrowing of Islamic jurisprudence prevents ‘outside the box’ thinking and thus retards motivation and creativity. He distinguishes, like some scholars, between the Maqasid of Shari'a, its general aims, and the elaboration of fiqh or codification of law. While the former, as revelation, is immutable, the latter is man-made and can be revised, even radically so. The Prophet of Islam's Covenant of Medina is several times mentioned but it is not said why it did not last and why it was not adopted as a model for subsequent Islamic polity. There remains a lack of clarity as to whether Islam sanctions plurality of ethnic and linguistic communities or whether this includes religious plurality as well. There are highly selective accounts of the Dhimma which do not at all match the actual experience of non-Muslims living under its arrangements. The status of women also tends to be seen with rose-tinted spectacles and, when issues such as ‘honour’ killings cannot be denied, the usual approach is to say ‘but it is worse in the West’. The discussion on Penal law in Islam is disappointing and the view taken is that the end may justify the means. Jesus stands out in his emphasis on love and the Sufi tradition is referred to a great deal in spite of the fact that it is rejected by Orthodox Islam. The contributors do show the width of the Islamic tradition but, at the moment, the initiative is with those who deny this width not only with words but down the barrel of a gun. Virtually the whole world would want the Muslim contributors’ view to prevail and for this we must pray for the sake of freedom and safety for all.