Channel 4 commissioned ICM to poll Muslims in Britain on a range of issues from women’s rights to marriage equality.

But did the poll titled “What do British Muslims really think?” answer its own question? Polling British Muslims is a difficult and expensive task. It’s why YouGov avoided the Sun’s now infamous ‘1 in 5 Muslims’ poll.

ICM’s researchers picked 138 random Local Super Output Areas where Muslims make up at least 20 per cent of the population. This skewed the findings to areas with relative social deprivation. It also over-represented certain ethnic groups. Yet it still captured 51 per cent of the total Muslim population.

Of the 1,081 Muslims polled, 55 per cent were Pakistani. British Asians/Asians totaled 83 per cent of the polling data. Data from the last census revealed that British Asian/Asians totaled 67.6 per cent of Muslims in England and Wales.

The poll included just 11 Arabs and 16 white Muslims who account for 6.6 per cent and 7.8 per cent of Muslims in England and Wales.

Despite methodological issues it remains a serious poll.

As with previous surveys – Muslims identify with Britain at a higher rate than the national average. They also expressed greater attachment t0 their local areas. A vast majority believe that Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78 per cent said they would like to integrate into British life on certain topics.

Nearly a quarter supported the idea of sharia law operating in parts of Britain above British law. Yet what defines sharia law remains ambigious and open to interpretation. But as Dr Imam Mamadou Bocoum notes: ‘Shariah means a road that leads into Spring Water, which is nothing but to live in peace and harmony. Amongst the principles of the Shariah is to preserve and protect life, intellect, property, honour, lineage, and religion‘.

There was little support among the Muslims polled to establish a caliphate. Support for ISIS polled at just 3 per cent. Few blamed the police or government for girls travelling to Syria.

More than a third of Muslims polled would report individuals who they suspected of seeking to participate in terrorism abroad to police. A figure that stands above the control sample of 30 per cent. Nearly half would attempt to dissuade the individual.

On the subject of extremism, 47 per cent agreed that Muslims need to do more to tackle extremism. The data reveals that a vast majority of Muslims look to the government to tackle Islamophobia and fund special projects to help communities root out the causes of violent extremism.

Islamophobia is a concern in this context, even when 73 per cent thought that religious harassment was not a problem in their local area. Individuals may of course experience less discrimination within their own ethnic and faith communities. Or in a public setting disclose their experiences to strangers. Research also points to the fact that hate crimes increase in areas of deprivation.

The wider public had also expressed a wider concern for Islamophobia than the Muslims polled. Nor do we know what language the interviews were conducted in. So it’s possible that individuals may not understand a question that pertains to religious prejudice.

There was also an overwhelming desire to empower young Muslims and women in the decisions that affect them. And many felt that better leadership in Muslim communities would help address the causes of violent extremism. Just one in 10 sought information on current affairs from mullahs at mosques. And a fifth never attend their local mosques. But 72 per cent felt that their local mosque did represent their views.

The most popular choice for television news was BBC 1, and a vast majority got their news from social media accounts. Yet again, the BBC remained the most popular source for news online.

Discussions of attitudes towards homosexuality dictated a majority of media coverage. The poll found that 52 per cent dsaid they disagreed with homosexuality being legal in Britain, compared with 5 per cent among the public at large who disagreed.

For British-born Muslims, 27 per cent agreed that homosexuality should be legal. Almost a third said neither/nor and 38 per cent disagreed. But that figure requires a caveat since the total figure in the weighted and unweighted sample is below 500 people. Muslims born outside of Britain were more likely to disagree that homosexuality should be legal (a net disagreement of 68 per cent in a sample of 601 or 609 when factored against weighted and unweighted bases).

On the topic of gay marriage and allowing a homosexual person to teach, the data reveals slight differences between Muslims born in the UK and abroad. But the above caveat still applies.

Despite a proclivity towards antisemitic tropes, British Muslims were not hostile towards Jewish communities. ICM asked the control and Muslim samples to measure their feelings towards faith and non-faith groups on a thermometer. Oddly, views towards Sikhs were missing from the data. The control group survey were more likely to agree that antisemitism was a problem. Yet 44 per cent of the Muslim survey and 46 per cent of the control group did not consider antisemitism a problem in Britain today.

The control survey were far more likely to disagree (51 per cent) with the statement ‘Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust’. Yet 18 per cent did agree with the statement, compared to 34 per cent in the Muslim survey.

Confusion about deaths in the Holocaust in the Muslim survey may owe to ignorance, not antisemitism. As 55 per cent did not know the true figure. Just 14 people agreed that it was a myth perpetuated by Jewish people. The control group was not asked this question so it’s hard to make a direct comparison.

Muslims surveyed overwhemingly had also rejected the right of individuals to publish pictures of the prophet Muhammad. But 12 per cent stated that it would depend on the nature of the pictures. Responses in the control group were more in favour of publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. A fifth of non-Muslims who rejected this position were Christian.

Opinions in the control group sample were even more divided when it came to the question of publishing cartoons that mock the prophet Muhammad. Fourty four per cent said publications should not have this right  – and that included 32 per cent of non-religious people and 50 per cent of Christians. A measure of support from Christians may owe to a sense of Abrahamic solidarity or the UK’s own historic and abolished blasphemy laws.

Linda Woodhead, Professor of Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University, surveyed different faith groups in 2013. It found a variety of liberal and conservative views towards topics like abortion and homosexuality.

ICM also asked how often Muslims had mixed socially with non-Muslims in the past year. Again, what defines this social interaction remains open to interpretation. It was rare for Muslims to have had no social mixing outside of the home. Nor are social interactions defined by the boundaries of a person’s home. That applies to Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Yet the data does show that at least a fifth did host and visit non-Muslims friends at least once a week, and 17 per cent welcomed non-Muslims into their homes on a daily basis.

Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who will present the Channel 4 documentary What British Muslims Really Think tomorrow evening, made a problematic statement on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Phillips stated that: “What we also found is that there is a correspondence between this desire to live separately and sympathy for terrorism. People who want to live separately are about twice as likely to say that they have sympathy for terrorist acts.” Yet the data reveals that just 40 people expressed sympathy for terrorist acts. Nor was there any effort to extrapolate the meaning from a vague term, as sympathy does not always mean edorsement. Phillips is overstating the opinions of a tiny proportion in the data set.

That rhetoric can also suggest that religiosity and support for terrorism are somehow linked, a point that misunderstands the nature of radicalisation.

ICM asked some wide ranging, probing and sensationalistic questions; but to suggest it captures the breadth of Muslim opinion is not quite accurate.

The post What do Muslims in Britain actually think? appeared first on Religious Reader.

Pope Francis will visit the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in July, as part of World Youth Day.

This trip coincides with his five day trip to Poland, arriving on July 27 and departing July 31.

Pope John Paul II, himself Polish, became the first pope to visit the camp. Benedict XVI visited in 2006.

The US Holocaust Museum estimates that the SS had murdered at least 960,000 of the 1.1m Jews deported to the camp. Of the 23,000 Romani, the Nazis murdered 21,000. Other victims included 15,000 Poles, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war. And 10-15,000 members of other nationalities perished (including Czechs, Yugoslavs, Germans, Austrians and French).

On June 7, 1979, Pope John II made a five-hour visit to the camp. He prayed before a stone crucifix in memory of the Catholic priest Maksymilian Kolbe, prisoner number 16670, who the SS murdered in 1941.

Kolbe volunteered to die, so Franciszek Gajowniczek, a father of five might live. Gajowniczek, the Polish army sargeant had been chosen to die in an Auschwitz dungeon called the “hunger bunker,” after a prisoner had escaped.

Kolbe pleaded, ‘I want to take the place of this man. He has a wife and a family. I have no one. I am a Catholic priest.’ He and ten others were then marched away, stripped naked and starved.  To console the others, Kolbe consoled the condemned men with prayers and hymns. Kolbe and three others had survived for ten days. Then a doctor arrived and killed them with injections of carbolic acid. In 1982, the Catholic church canonised Kolbe. Gajowniczek had survived the war and died in 1995 aged 95.

John Paul also remembered the life of Edith Stein, a German-Jewish philosopher who converted to Catholicism. A Carmelite Sister Benedicta of the Cross, she died like many others in the gas chambers of the camp. The Catholic church beatified her in 1987, which confused and upset Jewish groups as Edith Stein died because she was Jewish, not a Catholic nun.

On Auschwitz, Pope John Paul II described it as, “A place built on hatred and on contempt for man in the name of a crazed ideology. A place built on cruelty.’ He came to ‘kneel on this Golgotha of the modern world, on these tombs, largely nameless like the great tomb of the Unknown Soldier”.

The 1979 visit came fourteen years after the Second Vatican Council of 1965 declared that Jewish communities were not responsible for the death of Christ.

A test of this Jewish-Catholic reconciliation took place in 1993. Carmelite nuns had lived in a convent converted from a building used by the Nazis to store Zkylon B gas. It had caused tensions between Jewish and Catholic communities since 1987. A deal between cardinals and leaders of Jewish organisations had agreed to move the convent away from the camp.

In 1989, Avraham Weiss, a New York City rabbi, had broken into the convent in protest at their failure to abide by the agreement. Pope John Paul II wrote to the convent, asking the nuns to re-locate helped diffuse tensions.

In a 2006 visit, Pope Benedict XVI echoed the words of his predocessor. In his address he said, “All these inscriptions speak of human grief, they give us a glimpse of the cynicism of that regime which treated men and women as material objects, and failed to see them as persons embodying the image of God”.

The German-born pope made it a personal mission to visit the camp during his papacy, having first visited in 1979 as Archbishop of Munich-Freising.

In a speech he said, “In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dread silence – a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?“

Benedict faced criticism for dealing with this historical trauma through a theological, not emotional lens. Perhaps this disassociation owed to his own role in World War II. He had served as an antiaircraft unit but deserted and found himself inside an American prisoner of war.

The BBC’s Adam Easton remarked that Benedict offered no apology for the role of ordinary Germans, nor did he make a direct reference to antisemitism.

Pope Francis will also attend a mass there to celebrate the 1050th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity to Poland.

The post Pope Francis to visit Auschwitz death camp in July appeared first on Religious Reader.

Sikh and Hindu villagers in a Malla village in Ludhiana, India helped renovate and re-open a historic mosque.

The mosque had closed in 1947 due to partial building collapse. But a communal rebuilding effort led to its inauguration on February 29.

Both faiths assisted with fundraising and construction. Muslims are a tiny minority in a village where 90 per cent of residents are Sikh and 9 per cent Hindu. In the past, Muslims had to travel out of the village to pray at a mosque.

The Majlis Ahrar Islam Hind Party of Ludhiana had contacted Maulana Habib Ur Rehman Sani Ludhianavi to assist.

Ludhianvi told the Time of India that “Even as the village has just one Muslim family, the response had been overwhelming”.

Villagers arranged a communal langar during the inauguration. Ludhianavi then published photos of the event on Facebook.

The villagers in Ludhiana highlight how communities work together. Iqbal Hussain, a local Muslim in the village, expressed his gratitude and the bonds of affection for other faiths in his village.

The post Hindu and Sikh villagers rebuild mosque shut since 1947 appeared first on Religious Reader.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops hopes that a national dialogue with Muslims can change perceptions of Islam in the United States.

In the past, efforts to foster Catholic-Muslim have succeeded at local levels. But in the face of rising Islamophobia, Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski, of Springfield in Massachusetts, who chairs the committee, said a wider conversation was needed.

“As the national conversation around Islam grows increasingly fraught, coarse and driven by fear and often willful misinformation, the Catholic Church must help to model real dialogue and good will,” he said in a statement.

This national dialogue will begin at the start of 2017. In the Midwest, Catholic-Muslim dialogue began in 1996 and meets once a year. The co-chairs represent both faiths. One document produced explored how Muslims and Catholics interpret revelation.

In the Mid-Atlanic, a representative from The Islamic Circle of North America co-chairs the yearly meetings that started in 1998. Out in California, a number of Islamic Societies join the yearly dialogue which began in 1999. They co-published Friends and Not Adversaries: A Catholic-Muslim Spiritual Journey in 2003.

A 2014 directive reaffirmed a commitment to Catholic-Muslim dialogue.

How Catholics view other faiths changed following the Second Vatican Council. In 1965, the then Pope Paul VI, delivered the Nostra Aetate, Latin for ‘In Our Time’. This revolutionary document shifted the ‘default position of hostility‘ to reconciliation. For Jewish communities, the Catholic Church moved away from collective blame for Christ’s death. In 2011, Pope Benedict X further exonerated the Jewish people in a theological intervention. Such a stance hoped to end centuries of Catholic-inspired antisemitism.

The Nostra Aetate document had warm words for Muslims and their devotion to God. It spoke of difference but mentioned that:

Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

The Pew Research Center found a slight decline in Catholics in the United States. The 2014 figure stood at 20.8 per cent (down from 23.9 per cent in 2007). Muslims in the United States represent almost one per cent of the general population.

This national dialogue will compliment, not replace existing examples of Catholic-Muslim dialogue. Archbishop Blase Cupich of the Diocese of Chicago will co-chair this national initative. There’s no announcement yet on who will act as the Muslim co-chair.

The post A new national Catholic-Muslim dialogue hopes to counter Islamophobia in the United States appeared first on Religious Reader.

Georgia with its devoutly Orthodox Christian set of communities, is proposing a ‘blasphemy bill’ that will make religious caricaturing and comedic lampooning of faith, punishable in law.

The bill, which has been approved at committee stage, has led to critics suggesting that it will cause a chilling effect on those critics of the official church line and more importantly, on dissent regarding religion. Some have suggested that even theatre, art and plays which explored faith could fall of the blasphemy bill.

The proposed bill attaches fines to those who target “insults to religious feelings” with a 100 lari fine ($120) attached to any comment deemed to fall foul of the law. This would double if there was a repeat of the incident and desecration of a religious icon would lead to a fine of 1000 laris. Given that the average salary in the country is about 800 laris, the new bill seems to hit those in the pocket willing to take a dissenting line to faith and belief.

This bill comes on the back of opposition to the opening of mosques and madrassas in the west of Georgia where groups have been active in lobbying against Muslim institutions.

The post Christian Georgia Proposes a ‘Blasphemy Law’ appeared first on Religious Reader.

On November 14, firefighters responded to a fire at the only mosque in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.  The fire at the Masjid Al-Salaam broke out at around 11pm. Heavy smoke damage inside the mosque could cost more than $80,000 to fix. Nor did the flames injure anyone inside.

Around 30 minutes earlier, 70 worshipers had welcomed and celebrated the birth of a young couple’s child.

Peterborough Police Service are treating the fire as a hate crime. At a press conference they confirmed that a mosque window was broken and an accelerant was placed inside and then set on fire.

It shocked communities of all faiths and none into action. Within hours, thousands had donated to an online crowdfund in support of the mosque. Within 48 hours of the arson, donations had reached $91,000. In total, the appeal raised $110,536. The Kawartha Muslim Religious Association (KMRA) asked to stop the fundraising appeal after meeting its repair goal. Any outstanding money will go to other charitable causes.

Canada’s Anglican community also helped raise funds. The clericus of the regional deanery in Peterborough donated $250 and asked other parishes to match the amount. That appeal should help raise thousands of dollars, according to Dean Gloria Master.

Friday prayers have taken place in the Mark Street United Church.

Mark Street United Church opening its doors to Masjid Al-Salaam mosque members: https://t.co/48WN2gjxE1 #ptbomosque pic.twitter.com/ZsseAzueIy

— CHEX Newswatch (@CHEXNewswatch) November 20, 2015

It then switched to the local Beth Israel Synagogue. In the evening, worshipers used the space for their annual evening potluck social. In respect of the kosher settings, it was their first vegetarian potluck event.

Next week, Friday prayers will take place inside the Anglican All Saints’ Church.

Communities in Toronto responded to rising prejudice with solidarity events with Muslim communities. In Newfoundland and Labrador, hundreds, irrespective of faith, attended a solidarity event at a local mosque.

A Facebook page setup in support of the mosque has attracted thousands of likes and vast amounts of public support.

The post How faith and non-faith communities helped repair a mosque damaged by arson appeared first on Religious Reader.

Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum is a holder of two Masters and a PhD from The Muslim College, and Heythrop College, University of London. He is a lecturer in Islamic Studies; a Board member of the Muslim Law Council UK and an interfaith consultant. He is currently a consultant at Faith Matters and Tell Mama.

Mamadou has authored a number of written works which have included: The Position of Jews and Christians in the Qur’an; Faith and Citizenship in Islam; The status of Women in Islam; Islamic Fundamentalism and the Qur’an. He can be reached at mbocoum@yahoo.com; Mamadou@tellmamauk.org.

As noted earlier, Jews and Christian are People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitab) and defined in the Qur’an as those to whom divine revelation was given prior to the advent of the Prophet Muhammad. The Qur’an by referring to Christians and Jews as Ahl al-Kitab, confirms that they also possess divine scriptures. The term Ahl al-Kitab, made 32 appearances in the Qur’an.

Mary, Jesus’ mother is distinguished in the Qur’an as the only woman for whom a chapter is named after, and the only woman’s name mentioned in the Qur’an. Her name made 34 appearances in the Qur’an. Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an more than 30 times. The word Injil, the Quranic term corresponding to the Gospel appears a dozen times.

There is a substantial number of Quranic verses that praise and confirm the divinity of Judaism and Christianity. The Qur’an states: “We sent Jesus son of Mary confirming the Torah that had come before him and gave him the Gospel in which there is guidance and light”. (Q.5:46). It further states: “And He sent down the Torah and the Injeel (Gospel); aforetime as guidance to mankind.”(Q.3:4).

Another Qur’anic verse reads: “… A party of the People of the Book stand for the right; they recite the revelation of God during the hours of night, and falling prostate before Him. They believe in God and the last Day; and enjoin the right conduct and forbid indecency” (Q.3:113).

It states further: “And there are certainly among the People of the Book those who believe in God and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before God. They do not sell the Verse of God for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord…” Q.3:199

A religious obligation for Muslims to believe in the divinity of both Judaism and Christianity

It is difficult to miss the deep recognition the Qur’an accords the People of the Book, in general terms, and Christianity in particular. Moreover, the Qur’an makes it a religious duty for Muslims to affirm their faith in both Judaism and Christianity.

This is to say that, for a Muslim, belief in the People of the Book and their scriptures forms part of their belief in the Qur’an: “O you who believe [Muslims]! Believe in God his messenger and his book which he has sent down to his messenger [Muhammad] and the scriptures which he sent down to those before. And whoever disbelieves in God his angels his books his messengers, and the last day, then indeed he has strayed far away.” (Q.4:136).

In another Quranic verse, God ordered Muhammad to declare the following: “Say [Muhammad] we believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us [the Qur’an] and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and in the Books given to Moses, Jesus and all the prophets from their lord, we make no distinction between one and another among them.” (Q.3:84).

The Qur’an, in fact, promises good Muslims, Christians, and Jews the same reward: “[Say] the (Muslims) believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabian – all those who believe in God and the last Day and do good – they will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (Q.2:62).

The Abrogation of the Scriptures of the People of the Book

For some Muslims however, these Qur’anic verses praising Jews and Christians, are abrogated by other verses and therefore do not carry any divine order. In other words, for this school of thought, since the Qur’an states that Muhammad is the last Prophet (Q.33:40); all the previous religions and their laws from Adam to Jesus are abrogated by Islam. It could also be argued that Maududi also represented this view.

There are a handful of Quranic verses that adherents use to support this claim:

 “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favor upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion.”(Q.5:4).

“The only true religion with God is Islam.” (Q.3:19).

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers.” (Q.3:86).

For adherents to this school of thought the matter is clear: not only is Islam the final religion but Jews and Christians have a religious obligation to convert to Islam, and a failure to do so leaves them behind.

It should also be noted that a good number of Muslims think that only God knows what will happen to the Christians and Jews who refuse to embrace Islam. A good number of Muslims, however, also believe that Jews and Christians are disbelievers (Kuffar). On many occasions, I have witnessed how some act on this belief in the most appalling of fashions, as I will elaborate on in the following chapters.

The post Scholar’s corner: what does the Qur’an actually say about Jews and Christians? appeared first on Religious Reader.

Dr. Imam Mamadou Bocoum is a holder of two Masters and a PhD from The Muslim College, and Heythrop College, University of London. He is a lecturer in Islamic Studies; a Board member of the Muslim Law Council UK and an interfaith consultant. He is currently a consultant at Faith Matters and Tell Mama.

Mamadou has authored a number of written works which have included: The Position of Jews and Christians in the Qur’an; Faith and Citizenship in Islam; The status of Women in Islam; Islamic Fundamentalism and the Qur’an. He can be reached at mbocoum@yahoo.com; Mamadou@tellmamauk.org.

Jews and Christians are referred to as Ahl al-Kitab (People of the Book), and are characterised in the Qur’an as those to whom divine revelations have been given prior to the advent of Islam. The Qur’anic reference Ahl al-Kitab indicates that they possess divine scriptures in much the same way Muslims do. The term Ahl al-Kitab made 32 appearances in the Qur’an.

Some Muslims, however, and a number of Muslim commentators mainly with a literalistic reading of the Qur’an, argue that Muslims should have nothing to do with the Ahl al-Kitab. The latter, some Muslims argue, should convert to Islam because their religions have been abrogated by Islam.

For these Muslims the matter is quite clear: not only is Islam the last religion revealed by Allah (God) but Christians and Jews have a religious obligation to convert to Islam. Adherents to this school of thought use a number of Quranic verses to support their argument: “The only true religion with God is Islam”; (Q. 3:19) “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers” (Q. 3:85); and “This day, I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favour upon you, and chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Q. 5:3).

My aim is to explore Fazlur Rahman’s and Abul Ala Maududi’s views on the People of the Book. In spite of Maududi’s interpretation of the whole Qur’an, I will focus solely on his views towards Christians.

On the other hand, Fazlur Rahman, who did not produce a full tafsir (exegesis), will be looked at in respect of his approach to Jews and Christians. Both were contemporaries and both from subcontinent. Given the problems faced by Christians in the country today, exploring how certain scholars’ view specific Quranic verses might help us understand their plight. Moreover, the fact that a substantial number of Muslims in the UK came from subcontinent adds greater relevance.

Born in 1903 in the state of Hyderabad in British India, Maulana Sayyid Abul-Ala Maududi (who later founded Jamaat-e-Islami of Pakistan), was described by Masudul Hasan as one of the most influential Muslim thinkers of the twentieth century. Hasan went on to claim that Maududi developed a new Islamic theology that could counter the Western intellectual challenge.[1] This claim holds an element of exaggeration but Maududi’s influence did extended beyond the subcontinent.[2] According to William Shepard, Maududi’s writings had a lasting influence on the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb (who is described as the father of modern Islamism).

Maududi once stated that: “The purpose and object of ijtihad is not to replace the Divine law by man-made law. Its real object is to understand the Supreme Law”.[3]Maududi resisted and confronted the political leaders of his time, for which he was arrested and imprisoned on several occasions. His tafsir (exegesis) remains popular in the subcontinent and beyond. In Britain it proves popular among Deobandis (a reformist ulama movement that emphasised individual responsibility and ‘sober’ Sufism. Islamist strands of this movement influenced the Taliban). [4]

Fazlur Rahman, for his part, was born in 1919 in the Hazarat district, now part of Pakistan. According to Ebrahim Moosa, Rahman’s father was linked to Deobandi Islam, and graduated from the Dar-al-Ulum of Deoband.[5]

Much of Fazlur Rahaman’s traditional Islamic studies were done under the tutelage of his father, who provided him with “a background in traditional Islamic knowledge”.[6]

Rahman went on to gain his Master’s degree in Arabic Language from University of Punjab in 1942. Seven years later and Rahman received the D. Phil. degree by the University of Oxford for his thesis on “Avicenna’s Psychology”. For eight years Rahman headed the Central Institute of Islamic Research, which was initiated by General Ayub Kahn. But accusations of heresy escalated and forced Rahman to choose “a self-imposed exile” in the United States until his death in 1988.[7]

Maududi on Biblical ‘corruptions’  

Maududi divides the Bible into two parts: the first part he argues, was authored by either Jews or Christians and therefore is not divine. The second part of the Bible consists of portions inspired by God. That section, Maududi argued, is in tune with the message of the Qur’an but ‘suffers’ from the “tampering of translators, scribes and exegetes, and the errors of oral transmitters”.[8]

Christians, Maududi goes on to add, exaggerated in the veneration of Jesus simply interpreted their own beliefs “in the light of philosophical doctrines and superstitions”.[9]According to Maududi: “The real error of the Christians lies in considering Jesus to be the son of God and a partner in His godhead, rather than His servant and Messenger”. Maududi saw this as the main obstacle preventing Christians from accepting Islam.

Removing this ‘misunderstanding’ would help Christians accept Islam, as Maududi wrote: “If this misunderstanding is removed it would become quite easy for them [Christians] to advance towards Islam”.[10]

Aside from these misunderstandings and errors, Maududi argued that Christians also employed logic and philosophy “to fabricate one false doctrine after another”.[11] Fabrications that allowed Christians to ‘invent’ “an altogether new religion”.[12]

One can safely say that Maududi did not consider Christianity to be a valid religion let alone divine. Why? Because he contested that early Christians distorted and fabricated the message of Jesus.

To demonstrate that Jesus is a prophet, Maududi quoted from the Gospel of Matthew: “You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve”. Maududi also argued that Jesus was sent to confirm rather than abolish the previous Prophets’ messages and again cited the Bible: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).

In an amusing irony, in spite of his reliance on Gospel verses, Maududi maintained that Christian scriptures are broadly untrustworthy and an unreliable source for providing adequate information about Jesus. To this he added: “It is unfortunate that the Gospels in their present form do not offer as clear a picture of the mission of Jesus as that presented in the Qur’an”.[13]

Maududi clearly undermines and discredits Christian sources as unreliable; and, considers the Qur’an the only authentic source regarding the life of Jesus Christ.

Quranic verses relating to Christians: Maududi’s exclusivist approach

A traditionalist but also a modern reformist or activist, Maududi considered the Qur’an to be the literal word of God revealed to Muhammad. In his tafsir, Maududi deals extensively with the core issues relating to Christianity, including the Trinity. In dealing with this issue, Maududi provides some references and even quoted from Christian scriptures. Maududi, however, overlooked the Qur’anic verses praising Christians or extolling values that Christians share with Muslims. To a certain extent, Maududi avoided acknowledging the privileges Christians enjoy in the Qur’an.

Take for instance the Quranic verse: “Yet all are not alike: among the People of the Book there are upright people who recite the messages of God in the watches of the night and prostrate themselves in worship.” (Q.5:113) Maududi avoided any comment in relation to this verse.

Did Maududi think that by addressing this verse he would create some sympathy towards Christians and Jews? Or even acknowledge these traditions?

Another example includes his denial of the reward that both Jews and Christians receive in the hereafter – he omitted any comment on the following verse: “They believe in God and in the Last Day and enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and hasten to excel each other in doing good. These are among the righteous. Whatever good they do shall not go unappreciated, and God fully knows those who are pious.” (Q.3:116).

Maududi remained silent on the following Quranic verse that speaks about the softness and kindness of Christians towards Muslims: “And you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians’. That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud” (Q. 5:82).

Not wanting to show any positive side of Christianity and Judaism led Maududi to provide a very unsettled interpretation of the Quranic verse (5:5) which allows Muslims to eat their food and marry Jews and Christians.

The Qur’an explicitly states that Muslims can eat the food of Christians and Jews and vice versa. Maududi, however, contends that some conditions must be observed.[14] He stipulates that the name of God must be mentioned, otherwise Muslims “should abstain from eating”.[15] Another condition is that Jews or Christians observe a cleanliness (based on the Shariah) during the slaughter of animals.

You can extrapolate Maududi’s reluctance to acknowledge anything positive about Jews and Christians from his interpretation of the following verse: “Surely, those who believe [Muslims], and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in God and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”. (Q. 2:62). (Q.5:69). Maududi informs his readers that: “The aim of this verse is merely to repudiate the illusion cherished by the Jews that, by virtue of their being Jews, they have a monopoly of salvation”. He failed to mention Christians let alone the Sabians in his analysis.[16]

It could be argued that Maududi felt no need to provide commentaries on the above verses because his main audience are Muslims. But Maududi’s effort to highlight both the Trinity and the birth of Jesus undermines that claim.

On all these matters, Maududi made an in-depth analysis and even quoted extensively from the Bible to cement his claims. But he exercised silence towards the Qur’anic verses that are friendly or praiseworthy towards Christians.

I went through his tafsir and discovered that Maududi overlooked almost all the Qur’anic verses sympathetic to Christians. Fazlur Rahman’s work sought to defuse Maududi’s exclusivist, unsympathetic, and poisonous narration.

Fazlur Rahman: Inclusiveness of the Qur’an

Rahman’s view of the Qur’an is very similar to those held by the Mutazilites (a group of early Islamic theologians who argued for the value of reason in theology and religion).[17] His theory of “double movement” took inspiration from the hermeneutical approach of Italian philosopher Emilio Betti.[18] In the theory of “double movement” Rahman argued that the Qur’an is mediated by its pre-existing historical and cultural circumstances.[19]

Rahman took an ethics-based approach to the Qur’an as he believed that “past Muslim thinkers did not make the Qur’an the primary source for ethics in Islam”.[20] He argued that early Muslim scholars lacked the intellectual means to say that “the Qur’an is entirely the word of God, and in an ordinary sense, also entirely the word of Muhammad”.[21] It was this claim that made him a target for accusations of heresy (in the subcontinent and beyond).[22]

Islam: Shaped by both Judaism and Christianity

Rahman provided an inclusive and positive approach to the People of the Book . In his work The Major Themes of the Qur’an, Rahman concluded with a brief but very coherent analysis of Jews and Christians and their status in the Qur’an. Perhaps with the zeal of wanting to demonstrate the Prophet’s recognition of Judaism and Christianity, he stated that Muhammad “recognised without a moment of hesitation that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other Old and New Testament religious personalities had been genuine prophets like himself”.[23]

Throughout the Qur’an one finds verses that praise and acknowledge the divinity of Judaism and Christianity. Islam not only acknowledges the previous revelations but is also shaped by them, as Rahman argued: “Islam partly took shape by adopting certain important ideas from Judaism and Christianity and criticising others. Indeed, Islam’s self-definition is partly the result of its attitude to these two religions and their communities”.[24]

In Fazlur Rahman’s mind, Judaism and Christianity influenced Islam. In spite of this influence, Islam did not grow “out of an Arab background,” a view championed by scholars such as Montgomery Watt and H.A.R Gibb (to name just a few).[25] Rahman, however, rather daringly went on to claim that some Jews and Christians helped Muhammad in his mission.[26]

To evidence this claim he argued: “It is also certain that there were some Jews and possibly Christians who had entertained Messianic expectation and who when the Prophet appeared, supported him, encouraged him in his mission, and believed in his Message”.[27]

But Rahman did not tell his readers whether these Jewish and Christian individuals who accepted Islam did indeed accept the message of Muhammad in full (and renounced their previous faith).

Whether these Jews and Christians felt a need to abandon their faith in order to accept the religion brought by Muhammad (conditional or not) remains a bold claim. Yet it remains remarkable that Rahman provided no sources for this claim.

Fazlur Rahman on the Quranic verses (Q.5:69); (Q.2:62)

“Surely, those who believe [Muslims], and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians- whosoever believed in God and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Q.5:69).

“Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve” (Q.2:62).

Al-Tabri argued that the above verses were abrogated by a verse that reads: “And whosever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”(Q.3:85).

Al-Tabri based his claim on the authority of Ibn Abbas. To cement this claim, Muslim exegeses often quote a Prophetic tradition that reads: “There is none from amongst the Jews and the Christians who hears about me then dies without believing in the Message with which I have been sent, but he will be from the dwellers of the Fire”.[28]

In response to the above claims, Fazlur Rahman argued that Muslim commentators avoided admitting the true meaning of the above Quranic verses. It remains possible that Rahman directed his comments towards Maududi who, as we mentioned earlier, argued that verses were revealed in response to Judaism but failed to say anything about Christians or Sabians.

Rahman argued that the true meaning of these verses is that anyone who believes in God, the ‘Last Day’ and does good deeds will be saved. He stated: “Those – from any section of humankind – who believes in God and the Last Day and do good deeds are saved”.[29]

Rahman’s line of argument went against the grain of Muslim exegesis. He rejected the argument that these verses speak of salvation only for the Jews and Christians who either accepted Islam or of those who lived before the advent of Islam.

Instead, he argued: “Muslims constitute only the first of the four groups of those who believe”.[30] In other words, Rahman suggested that Muslims in the above verses are ranked in the same status as the Jews, Christians and Sabians. What matters most is a belief in God, the hereafter and doing good deeds, Rahman argued.

Far from claiming or even implying that Judaism and Christianity are abrogated by Islam, Rahman, for his part, argued that these verses partly acknowledge and recognise other communities:

“The logic of this recognition of universal goodness, with belief in one God and the Last Day as its necessary underpinning, demands, of course that the Muslim community be recognized as a community among communities”.[31]

In Rahman’s eyes, the Qur’an places Muslim communities alongside Jewish and Christian communities. These communities should only compete when it comes to performing good deeds. Rahman went on to add the following: “The positive value of different religions and communities, then, is that they may compete with each other in goodness”.[32]

Rahman argued religions to be the source of the disunity amongst people: “Humankind had been unity, but this unity was split up because of advent of divine messages at the hands of the prophets”.[33]

Rahman considered this element to be me mysterious: “The fact that the prophets’ messages act as watersheds and divisive forces is rooted in some divine mystery”.[34] Religious difference, according to Rahman, is part of God’s plan, and a diversity of belief is something God wanted; for if God had willed it, all humankind would exist under a single state and religious banner. To this Rahman went on to quote the Quranic verse that reads: “If your Lord had so willed, He would have made mankind one community” (Qur’an11:118). Therefore, one cannot ignore the inclusiveness of Rahman’s approach to the Qur’an.

The exclusiveness of Maududi, and indeed many other Quranic commentators’, arguably paved the way for many ill-informed Muslims to hold rather hostile views towards Christians and Jews.

The murder of Christians in Pakistan is arguably one consequence of Maududi’s poisonous interpretation of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, however, Christians are not the only religious minority murdered by extremists in Pakistan.

Footnotes:

[1]MasudulHasan,SayyidAbulA‘alaMaududi (Lahore: Islamic Publication LTD, 1984), P. XI.

[2] William Shepard, ‘ The Diversity of Islamic Thought: Towards a Typology’ in : SuhaTaji-Farouki and Basheer M. Nafi , Islamic Thought in the Twentieth Century (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004), p. 75.

[3]Ibid., p. 77.

[4] “Deobandis.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Ed. John L. Esposito. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. 12-May-2015. <https://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e522>.

[5]FazlurRahman, Revival and Reform in Islam edited by EbrahimMoosa( Oneworld: Oxford, 2000), p. 1.

[6] Ibid.,

[7]Ibid., p.4.

[8]Sayyid Abdul A‘laMawdudi, Towards Understanding of the Qur’an Vol. 2 (Leicester: the Islamic Foundation, 1992), pp.178-179.

[9]Ibid., p. 181.

[10]Mawdudi, op. cit., p. 248.

[11]Ibid., 181.

[12]Ibid., p. 181.

[13]Maududi, op. cit., p. 255.

[14]Sayyid Abdul A‘laMawdudi, Towards Understanding of the Qur’an Vol. 2 (Leicester: the Islamic Foundation, 1992), pp.137-138.

[15]Ibid., p. 138.

[16]Mawdudi, op. cit., p.179.

[17] Elkaisy-Friemuth, Maha. “Mu`tazilites”. In Oxford Bibliographies in Islamic Studies. 12-May-2015. <https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195390155/obo-9780195390155-0138.xml>.

[18]Rahaman, ‘Revival’, op. cit., 19.

[19]Rahaman, ‘Revival’, op. cit., p. 10.

[20]Ibid., p. 8.

[21]Ibid., p. 15.

[22] Ibid.,

[23]Rahman, ‘Major’, op. cit., p. 163.

[24]Ibid., p. 162.

[25] W. Montgomery Watt and Richard Bell, Introduction to the Qur’an (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1970).

[26]FazlurRahman, Major Themes of the Qur’an (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamic, Inc, 1980), p. 153.

[27]Ibid., 153.

[28]Muhammad Huhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an(Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996), p. 31; also see p.137.

[29]Rahman, ‘Major’ op. cit., p. 166.

[30]Ibid.,

[31]Rahaman ‘Major’, op. cit., pp.166-167.

[32]Rahman, ‘Major’, op. cit., p. 167.

[33]Ibid., p. 164.

[34]Ibid.,

The post Scholar’s corner: how do Abul A’la Maududi and Fazlur Rahman position Jews and Christians in the Quran? appeared first on Religious Reader.

July 18 is a day for change. A change inspired by the legacy of Nelson Mandela.

Each year, the Nelson Mandela Foundation makes a simple request: that you dedicate 67 minutes of your time to humanity. Why 67 minutes? The number represents Mandela’s 67 years of public service. In 2009, the United Nations adopted a resolution to recognise Nelson Mandela Day.

Saturday July 18 would have been his 97th birthday.

Inspired by Mandela’s values, the day intends to promote positive self-improvement through community work.

That work can be as simple as spending 67 minutes making a new friend; irrespective of ethnicity or faith. Or spending those minutes donating unwanted items and clothing to a charity shop. What matters most is to do something that inspires positive change.

The Nelson Mandela Foundation encourages individuals to nominate ‘community changers’ with the #Time2Serve hashtag. Others can take part with the #MandelaDay hashtag.

To echo Mandela’s words in 2008: “There is still too much discord, hatred, division, conflict and violence in our world here at the beginning of the 21st century. A fundamental concern for others in our individual and community lives would go a long way in making the world the better place we so passionately dreamt of.… It is so easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build”.

The charity 46664 – which is the number Mr Mandela wore while he was in prison – helps increase awareness of HIV/Aids. With that in mind, the foundation encourages individuals (and their partners) to get tested for HIV/Aids.

The Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation issued a plea for religious tolerance, “We are members of one family‚ the human family‚ God’s family – all of us‚ black‚ white‚ red‚ yellow‚ gay‚ straight‚ Christian‚ Muslim‚ Hindu‚ Jew‚ Buddhist‚ Atheist‚ wealthy‚ poor‚ Mozambican‚ Pakistani‚ Tibetan‚ Egyptian‚ American‚ Congolese‚ Fijian‚ Chinese‚ South African… All.

Nelson Mandela International Day focuses our attention on each other‚ and our responsibilities to live Madiba’s legacy forever through the work we all do.”

“Imagine how much better the world would be were we all to recognise our common humanity‚ as Madiba did‚ and do something kind for someone else every day?”

Tomorrow is a chance to do a little good in your community and work towards something new.

The post #MandelaDay: a chance for interfaith dialogue and community change appeared first on Religious Reader.

Buddhist monks in Dhaka, Bangladesh are distributing food parcels to Muslims this Ramadan.

Outside the Dhammarajika Monastery, in the Basabo neighbourhood, monks distribute hundreds of iftar parcels.

Suddhananda Mahathero, the monastery’s head monk told the AFP:

“Buddhism taught us that serving humanity is the ultimate religion. We are feeding the poor Muslims who cannot afford to buy proper meals to break their fast”.

Some individuals travelled several kilometers on foot to cue for food. When the AFP observed, over 300 Muslims sought food parcels.

A measured police presence ensures peaceful transactions.

Muslims in Bangladesh colour the majority of the country’s religious makeup (86.6 per cent). The noted Buddhist minority mainly occupies the southern regions (near the border with Myanmar).

In 2012, in the southeast of Bangladesh, Muslims protested a blasphemous image on Facebook. Rumour spread that the individual responsible was Buddhist. In response, protesters burnt at least four Buddhist temples and 15 homes of Buddhists. As some sought to ease community tensions, Amnesty International condemned the violence.

The post Buddhist monks in Bangladesh feed hundreds of Muslims during Ramadan appeared first on Religious Reader.