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.

The year is 1933 and Hitler’s rise to power is imminent. Days earlier and the Nazis had exploited the burning of the Reichstag, home of the German parliament, for votes.

Armed security forces patrolled public buildings. On the streets,  Sturmabteilung (SA) ‘brown shirts’ had their violence legitimised by decree. Political violence and intimidation, however, did not grant Hitler his parliamentary majority. The March 5 elections gave the Nazi Party 43.9 per cent of the vote and 288 parliament seats out 647.

On March 10, 1933, Dr Michael Siegel visited a Munich police station on behalf a client. Dr Siegel was one of roughly 4,000 Jewish lawyers in Germany. They held senior positions in the court system, bar association and justice ministry. In 1933, racist laws pushed saw many lose their jobs. The indignity of this discrimination was was compounded by further arrests and violence.

Dr Siegel had entered a Munich police station on behalf of Max Uhlfelder, the Jewish owner of a large city-centre store. Nazi Party members had taken positions of office in Munich a day earlier. Heinrich Himmler, the SS commander, now commanded the Police Authority. The Swastika flew atop public buildings. Nazi paramilitaries had smashed Mr Uhlhelder’s shop windows and deported him to Dachau concentration camp.

Instead of listening to Dr Siegel’s complaint, the police assaulted him. SA ‘brown shirts’ had perforated Dr Siegel’s eardrum. The force of their punches had broken several teeth. They had cut his trousers from the knee down.

Dr Siegel was then made to walk the streets of Munich bloody and barefooted. Surrounded by ranks of SA paramilitaries, Dr Siegel wore a sign that read: “I will never again complain to the police”.

Some debate the actual wording of the sign. Dr Siegel had told his children that it read: “Ich bin Jude aber ich will mich nie mehr bei der Polizei Beschweren”(I am a Jew but I will never again complain to the Police).

Heinrich Sanden, the photojournalist who immortalised this humiliation, disagreed. Dr Siegel soon became an international symbol of the antisemitic persecution in Germany. He did not learn of the photo until the 1970s.

Despite the growing climate of antisemitic violence and discrimination, Dr Siegel and his family remained in Munich. He had passport revoked in 1934 and reinstated in 1935. Local farmers warned Dr Spiegel about the impending Kristallnacht on November 9, 1938. He fled to Luxembourg and returned some weeks later, only to lose his legal license. Few Germans protested this flagrant discrimination.

At the start of 1939, the Siegel family left their home and found other accommodation. Their new ground floor served as an emergency synagogue,  the Nazis had razed the city’s main synagogue. Dr Siegel’s 18-year-old son Peter and 14-year-old daughter Beate soon emigrated to England.

Dr Siegel and his wife Mathilde sought asylum in Peru but were rejected. In a remarkable stroke of luck, a student teaching Dr Siegel Spanish was a nephew of the Peruvian Minister of the Interior.

The arduous road to Peru began in 1940. They travelled through Lithuania, Siberia, Russia and Japan before arriving in Peru. Dr Siegel took up work in a Lima bookstore. In the post-war years, he worked to establish an embassy for the Federal Republic of Germany in Peru’s capital, Lima. He soon became the Rabbi of the German-Jewish community in Lima. By 1953, Dr Siegel could again practise law in Germany, despite the geographical difference.

Dr Siegel helped German Jewish refugees in Peru and other parts of Latin America.

In 1971, at the age of 89, he received the Grand Cross of Merit of the German Republic ‘in recognition of his exceptional services to the state and people’. He accepted the award on behalf of all German Jews in Lima.

In spite of his growing age, Dr Siegel never stopped pursuing restitution cases. He died in 1979 at the age of 96.

Dr Siegel never forgot the ordeal he faced in Munich. In  a 1987 article, The Association of Jewish Refugees retold the story of Dr Siegel’s life and journey to Peru.

The authors, H.P. Sinclair and M.B. Green, wrote that Dr Michael Siegel had one thought in his mind: ‘I shall survive you all’. And he did. But according to Sinclair and Green, he bore no grudge against the German people. For he had known “too many decent ones for that“.

The post Dr Michael Siegel: the Jewish lawyer who survived Nazi violence and humiliation on March 10, 1933 appeared first on Religious Reader.

A Maryland county will allow Muslim and Hindu students a day off from school to celebrate Diwali and Eid al-Adha.

The Howard County Board of Education faced a tough decision: to foster inclusion by removing all religious holidays from the academic calender; Or add extra days to include non-Abrahamic celebrations.

A unanimous decision in favour of the latter will result in school closings or professional development days for staff in the 2016/17 academic year. The board also voted to allow staff to take a professional development day off for Lunar News Years Eve, after requests from the local Chinese and Korean communities. As it falls on a Saturday, students remain unaffected.

Schools in the county have shut during Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.  But a recent motion threatened to end this  tradition. It proved controversial enough to attract more than 300 people to a public hearing in December.

State and federal laws prevent schools from closing on religious holidays (unless mandated otherwise). Adjusting academic calendars requires a secular reason. Baltimore County had recorded a large levels of absenteeism during these Jewish holidays.

Art Abramson, Executive Director of Baltimore’s Jewish Council, welcomed changes to academic calendars on the condition that students would avoid punishment if they took a day off for religious holidays. He had also noted how schools with large Jewish communities faced an added economic burden to open during holidays like Rosh Hashanah. So it required a discretionary approach for individual schools to open or close on such days. A point missing in Breitbart’s reporting.

This was the case when Anne Arundel County voted to keep schools open during Rosh Hashanah in the next academic year. A move that has not happened since 2003. Students could still celebrate the holiday with a day of absence, but staff could not take a day off.

Within this framework,  Howard County rejected this similar motion in favour of diversity.

The school system in the area does not count the religious affiliation of students, but it does for race. Howard County has 74 public schools that serve 51,366 students. Enrollment from black and Asian communities stands at 56 per cent. And the schools in Howard County have a greater diversity of students when compared to other parts of Missouri.

State-mandated holidays do fall on Christian holidays, like Christmas and Easter. Any decision to increase days off rests on the shoulders of local schools.

Last July, the Baltimore County Policy Review Committee recommended that schools not close during Eid. It did, however, stress that students and staff could take time off to celebrate Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. In nearby Montgomery County, the school board voted to allow students and staff to take a day off for Eid al-Adha.

A private firm surveys communities to gauge the impact cultural and religious holidays have on absenteeism levels. This information could help bring greater diversity to the academic calender in 2017/18.

The 2017-2018 Academic Calendar Committee has already begun to meet. And it includes representatives from the Jewish Federation of Howard County, the Howard County Muslim Council, the Hindu community, and the Chinese American Parent Association.

Students will begin the 2016/17 academic year on August 29. It ends on June 13, 2017.

The post Asian, Muslim and Hindu holidays added to school calendars in Howard County, Maryland appeared first on Religious Reader.

When Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of The Prophet Mohammed early in 2015 there was a violent and deadly backlash. The magazine’s office were invaded and several employees were murdered in cold blood. A few years ago a Danish magazine published other cartoons and there was a vociferous Muslim outcry. These and other events have prompted many commentators, comedians and controllers of various media to speak in defence of the ‘freedom of speech’. Why should they restrain themselves when discussing Islam? A new phrase ‘self-censorship’ has been coined and applies explicitly to matters with a Muslim and Islamic links. The implication is that commentators are being asked by the state or the establishment voluntarily to impose restrictions on what they say.

Let me say from the outset that I am not a Muslim but I have a personal interest in the history of religious practices and from that an interest in interfaith issues. Until late in life I had no idea what about Islam. Like many older people, my religious education did not introduce Islam as a religion, but from history I learned that Moors were ‘alien invaders’ spreading across North Africa until they were halted in Spain by Christians. My knowledge of the Crusades paints a picture of an ‘alien culture’. And Muslims are antithetical to Christianity in a now largely secular Western world.

As I learn more about Islam, I learn that its underpinning principles are sound, but that some Muslims just do not get it. These views can and should be challenged. This challenge will only prove successful if the challenger is informed.

Most Western commentators and opinion formers are ill-informed. I do not consider myself to be anywhere near the best informed but I know when I need to ask questions and undertake research.

For many of us, Muslims are people who have strange codes, have peculiar eating fads and a strange addiction to hygiene. Most of all they have a cruel method of slaughtering animals to eat. We have no idea that the ‘strange’ dress codes have evolved from a Middle Eastern culture that informs many Western dress codes – even if only in vestigial form. We fail to emphasise with the fact that in the Middle East, in particular, eating pig meat would have been a public health disaster and that hygiene is associated with the preparation of meat. Western professionals, who should know better, deny that correct halal slaughter is a humane process.

Most of us just do not understand Islam and fear it. We mistrust Muslims (hardly surprising when a violent rogue minority blow up planes over Egypt).

In the first week of November (2015) the BBC commissioned or permitted Roger Scruton to challenge the concept of “self-censorship” and the implied threat to the freedom of speech. Not only did he have two “Points of View” he was given a further run in an ensuing “Feedback”.

One comment leapt out immediately. It seems victims have a duty not to take offence. A second hit me after a goodnight’s rest and related to the antisemitism before World War II.

I am sorry but no one of us has the right to tell someone else that they are wrong to be offended. How do we know? We don’t. My nephew’s partner is christened “Katherine” and hates the short form “Kate”. Many shortened names are used endearingly. A colleague at work announced that she wants to be addressed as “Steph” because “Stephanie” is what mother calls her when she’s been naughty. We endearingly use other nicknames but do we know that the named party is happy with theirs. If they are not and say so repeated use constitutes bullying.

We must never presume that the targets of our “freedom of expression” will not and should not take offence. We need to negotiate. I call one young lady at work “Eric” (after Eric Morecombe). This was arrived at after negotiation. The details are work specific and personal. I am not sure that they would want others to copy me.

I doubt for one moment that Roger Scruton hates Muslims in general. No doubt he associates with some and may have worked closely with others with no ill-will.

Before the outbreak of World War II, antisemitism proved endemic. It was ‘normalised’. Those of use born during and after the WWII can only look back to the pre-war years through the prism of a modern attitude to Jews and Judaism. These are those post-Holocaust years and when we look back we cannot conceive Nazi Germany’s genocide. The post-Holocaust images simply haunt us – but this is after the event.

Just look at the Catholic Church’s complicated relationship with antisemitism and the death of Christ. Not until 1965 did the church acknowledge that Jews could not historically nor in the modern sense be collectively blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Former Pope Benedict took this a step further in 2011.

Before WWII, antisemitism did not receive the scrutiny it would today. It was normalised and even parts of the Royal Family were not immune from it. This is important. Roger Scruton suggests that antisemitism occurred because “freedom of expression” was suppressed. He argues that non-Jews whose spoke in their defence were silenced but hold that thought: Jews were in a minority and a nominally Christian Western world was mostly antisemitic. Non-Jews speaking for Jews proved a minority.

Fast forward to 2015 and our understanding of Islam remains poor. Few non-Muslim community leaders know how to challenge the foundations underpinning anti-Muslim sentiment. Those people who do, people like me perhaps, are in a minority. Like Muslims themselves they have poor access to the media, which are no better informed than many community leaders.

Before the war I wonder if many reasonable people, especially those in leadership, ever thought to question why a minority group, Jews, should be ridiculed because they did not eat pig meat. Did they know why pig meat was offensive? Probably not. In 2015 and defiling a mosque with a pig’s head will be logged as specific hate crime. This was not some years ago. I recall the BBC broadcasting a comedy programme in which the victim of an analogous hate crime was mocked because he reacted to it. Yes, the victim overreacted and the reaction may not have been Islamic but “freedom of speech” currently permits such ridicule and Roger Scruton’s defence of this stance must surely be questioned by the “institutions” that seek to preserve the right to offend.

Bruce Brown (@theoldbrewer) writes in a personal capacity. You can find more of his musings here.

The post How do you balance between free speech and criticism of religion? appeared first on Religious Reader.

The Union for Reform Judaism in North America has adopted a resolution for transgender rights. This move continues a long tradition of supporting minority rights. In 1977, both the Union and the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed resolutions affirming “the rights of homosexuals”.

As Trans Media Watch note: “[Trans] is an umbrella term, describing people who experience the need to present themselves as and/or who identify as other than the gender they were assigned at birth“.

The resolution also supports the rights of individuals who define their gender outside of societal expectations and norms.

According to the Office for Justice Progams (OJP), one in two transgender individuals are sexually abused or assaulted in their lifetimes. A high number of trans individuals are survivors of sexual abuse. Many live with these traumas and the fear of repeat victimisation. People of colour in LGBTQ communities also face disproportionate levels of violence.

In 2014, The New York City Anti-Violence Project (NCAVP) recorded 12 transgender murders. All victims were people of colour. These communities experience higher rates of homelessness, poverty, and job discrimination. This increases their risk of violence.

The NCAVP also found that “LGBTQ and HIV-affected people of color, LGBTQ youth and young adults, transgender people, transgender women, transgender people of color, and low income survivors experience more severe and deadly forms of violence while simultaneously having less access to anti-violence services and support”.

Nuances exist between communities. For example, gay men experienced more physical violence as women faced more sexual violence.

A recent NCAVP report found that undocumented transgender survivors were 3.83 times more likely to face discrimination from partners.

In 2015, the murders of 15 trans individuals became a historic and unwelcome high in the United States.

Catherine Bell, from the grassroots LGBT Jewish group Keshet, told the Tablet Magazine that: “the trans resolution is a really important step forward, and it will help to set a standard that I hope other communities will see as an open and welcome step to come and join.”

Keshet works with the Reform Movement to educate Jewish communities on these issues.

The resolution also affirms the individual right to be referred to by their name, gender, and pronoun of preference in Reform congregations, schools and other affiliated organisations.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, have adopted inclusive transgender policies, but none as far reaching as the Union of Reform Judaism. And the resolution calls on governments in the U.S. and Canada to review its laws to ensure full equality.

Reform Judaism boasts 1.5 million adherents in almost 900 congregations across the United States and Canada. It remains the most liberal wing. Orthodox Judaism is the most conservative wing, and the Masorti sit somewhere in the between.

Reform Judaism’s push for equality comes from the biblical tradition of b’tselem Elohim—in the Divine image. The resolution quoted Genesis 1:27, “And God created humans in God’s image, in the image of God, God created them.”

The post Union for Reform Judaism adopts historic transgender rights policy 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.

Rosh Hashanah is the Jewish New Year and commemorates the creation of the Earth. During this two day celebration, the traditional greeting “L’shanah tovah”… “for a good New Year” rings loud among members of Jewish communities.

Ancient Hebrews relied upon the Torah, which celebrated it on the “seventh month” or Nisan. Passover also begins in Nisan. Today, Rosh Hashanah falls between September and October (or Tishrei).

Jews believe that God weighs a person’s good and bad deeds over the previous year, and decides what the year ahead will bring. God records this information in the Book of Life. God seals this book on the festival of Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Jonathan Romain, noted that the Book of Life created a  ‘theological catastrophe’ that created false assumptions and blame upon God for human deeds. Romain pointed to Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) 3.19 to remind Jews of their free will and agency in decisions that impact the year ahead.

Rabbi Naftali Brawer reflected that this time of year creates of a paradox of comfort and fear under God’s scrutiny. He wrote “It is frightening, because under God’s scrutiny there is no place to hide. Indeed, this is the major theme of the Days of Awe. Yet it is also comforting to know that we matter to God and that our lives and actions are of consequence“.

Hence why another traditional Rosh Hashanah greeting is Gmar Chatima Tova or “Be inscribed and sealed for a good year” .

Others know this holiday as Yom Teruah – or the day of the shofar blast. A synagogue ritual involves the blowing of the shofar, or a ram’s horn trumpet, a hundred notes form a special rhythm. Some fashion these horns from antelopes or ibex; but not cattle due to its association with the idolatrous Golden Calf.

From a historical perspective, the horn reminds Jews about the binding of Isaac or a tool of intimidation in battle. Other examples of it use included the coronation of kings.

Food plays an important part in Rosh Hashanah. The tradition of apples and honey dates back to the 14th century. Some Sephardi Jews avoid honey during this holiday period and substitute it for sugar. Different Jewish communities across the globe add their own nuances to dishes.

With an emphasis on sweetness, a sweet carrot stew called a tzimmes is often served.  Challah (Hallah) bread, baked in a round loaf, symbolises both the circle of life and year remains a customary home treat. Pomegranates, with their 613 seeds, serve as the traditional reminder of each commandment a Jews must keep.

The post What is the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah? appeared first on Religious Reader.

A dozen skeletons found in a rubbish dump were Jewish victims of Portugal’s Inquisition, according to researchers.

The excavation team uncovered the remains in Evora, east of Lisbon, at the former Jail Cleaning Yard of the Inquisition Court. The dump functioned between 1568 and 1634. Inquisition manuscripts confirmed that 87 prisoners died when the jail was in use.

The three male and nine female victims died with no funeral rights or burial goods. Researchers noted that “the sediment surrounding the skeletons is indistinguishable from the household waste layer where they were placed, suggesting that the bodies were deposited directly in the dump”. In death, the humiliation compounded those accused of being Jewish or heretics.

Pope Gregory IX created the Inquisition in 1233, after a period of consolidation in Europe,  to ensure heretics did not undermine papal authority. For example, they branded the Cathers and Waldensians heretics for their metaphysical Christian beliefs.

Suspicion followed Jewish converts; some believed they continued to practice Judaism in secret. A converso faced fines, imprisonment or burning at the stake if found guilty of practising their old faith.

Under the Inquisition, the accused had no right to face or question their accuser; it validated the testimonies of criminals and the excommunicated. It sought ought so-called heretics, nothing about the movement proved passive.

In 1391, following a series of riots in Spain, 20,000 faced the prospect of embracing Catholicism under pain of death. Though some sought to continue pracitising their Jewish faith in secret. Later generations still attended Bar Mitzvahs and attended circumcisions.

By the 15th century, converting to Catholicism in Spain carried the promise of social mobility. By 1492, Spain forced its Jewish communities into exile, some went to the Ottoman Empire, others moved to Portugal. But the arrival of the Inquisiton provided fresh challenges.

Seeking Iberian unification with Spain, King Manuel I  decreed expulsion for the Jews and Muslims (Moors) who did not convert to Christianity within ten months. That rhetoric did not reflect his intentions to pursue an integrationist policy until his death in 1521.

His successor, King João III, founded an institutionalised Inquisition in 1536, after gaining the blessing of Pope Paul IV. A few years later and the Pope reformed the Roman Inquisition in 1542.

In 1998, scholars held a conference at the Vatican on the Inquisition. The fruits of that discussion turned into a 800 page report published in 2004. Its editor, Professor Agostino Borromeo, argued that of the 125,000 cases tried by the Spanish Inquisition, only 1 per cent resulted in the death penalty.

In Germany, they argue, more male and female “witches” died at the hands of separate civilian trials in the early 15th century. Of a population of 16 million, 25,000 died. In Lichtenstein, 10 per cent of the 3,000 faced death for witchcraft.

In spite of Borromeo’s claims, in 2000, Pope John Paul II made a sweeping apology (in all but name) for the sins committed in the Crusades, Inquisition, and Holocaust.

Historian António José Saraiva noted that at least 40,000 Portuguese were charged. Of that number, at least 1,200 died. Portugal’s Jewish communities totalled 400,000 during the Inquisition. In constrast, the modern figure stands at just 600. Spain and Portugal enacted the right of return for Sephardic communities in 2013.

Researchers added that it was impossible to know conclusively if the skeletons were Jews.

The post Skeletons of Jewish victims of Inquisition discovered in Portugal appeared first on Religious Reader.

Rabbi Capers Funnye Jr. is set to be the first “black chief rabbi” of the 21st century.

The International Israelite Board of Rabbis, a US-based umbrella body for black Jewry, announced that Funnye will serve as the “titular head of a worldwide community of Black Jews“. That movement includes the denomination of Black Jews founded by Rabbi W.A. Matthew in Harlem in 1919.

Other affiliated black Jewish groups include the Lemba of South Africa, the Abayudaya of Uganda, and communities in Nigeria.

A key part of Funnye’s work as Chief Rabbi is to build relationships with Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Funnye has met with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to lobby for greater acceptance of black Jews.

Funnye converted to Judaism as an adult. But in some circles, there is a shock that a rabbi is black. It is an image he is keen to change.

“We have African-American Jews, African Jews, Filipino Jews, Mexican Jews, white Jews and biracial Jews. It is really what the Jewish people, in fact, have always looked like. … We have to promote that Jews have always been a global people,” said Funnye in a Chicago Tribune interview.

His rabbinical career began in 1985; in 2009, Funnye spoke at a white, mainstream New York synagogue. For years, he has attempted to argue the case that Black Jews belong in mainstream Judaism, a plea that for many years, fell on deaf ears.

So what brought Funnye to Judaism? During his studies at Harvard in the 1970s, Black nationalism, Afrocentrism and cultural separatism were hot topics. He rejected Christianity due to a sense that slave masters imposed the religion.

Instead, the awakening came from the idea that Africans were the true descendants of Biblical Hebrews, and Jesus was black.

It is a scepticism that’s followed Funnye since 1997 when he became the first and only black rabbi to join the Chicago Board of Rabbis. Rabbi Funnye belongs to the Ethiopian Hebrew movement is one of a select few black Jewish movements under the Israelite umbrella. But they remain outside the mainstream Jewish community due to their lack of traditional Jewish conversion.

For Rabbi Funnye, dialogue is crucial. His new position is due to start in the autumn.

The post Rabbi Funnye: the ‘first black chief rabbi’ appeared first on Religious Reader.