Last of the Tibhirine monks dies

 Vatican News have reported the death of the last of the two monks who escaped from the monastery at Tibhirine when Islamist extremists seized seven of his fellow monks in 1996. Their report is here.

The story of the monks of Tibhirine is very ably told in John W Kiser's book "The Monks of Tibhirine: Faith, Love, and Terror in Algeria", and in the film "Of Gods and Men", which draws significantly on John Kiser's book. My observations on the film can be found by inserting the search "Of Gods and Men" in to the search box of this blog.

After the events in Algeria, the two monks who remained from the community settled in Morocco.

In their new home, they both used to say they considered themselves as a “small remnant” of Tibhirine: “Our presence in the monastery – Frère Jean-Pierre said – is a sign of faithfulness to the Gospel, to the Church and to the Algerian people”. 

He also said he often asked himself why he was allowed to survive the massacre and that in time he realized that God had assigned him the mission to witness the events of Tibhirine and “to make known the experience of communion with our Muslim brothers, which we continue now here in the monastery of Midelt”.

Another significant witness to the experience of dialogue with the Muslim community of Tibhirine, and with Islam in general, is to be found in Christian Salenson's study of the thought of Christian de Cherge, the prior of the Tibhirine community who was among those who died as a result of the events of 1996: "Christian de Cherge: A Theology of Hope". 

Pope Francis in Iraq: honouring our father Abraham

 As part of his apostolic visit to Iraq, Pope Francis yesterday visited the ancient city of Ur, believed to be the birthplace of Abraham. He participated in an inter-religious meeting with leaders and members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic communities, along with representatives of other small religious communities present in Iraq. The Catholic Herald's report of the encounter can be read here, and the second part of their commentary on Pope Francis' earlier meeting with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani places it in the context of a more specific Shiah-Christian dialogue in Iraq itself. After listening to testimonies from the different communities, Pope Francis addressed the meeting: the text of his address is at the Vatican website. It was a visit, and an event, that could only have uniquely taken place during a visit to Iraq, what a marketing executive might label a "unique selling point".

In the context of this meeting of Christian, Jewish and Islamic communities Abraham is described by Pope Francis as a common father in faith to all three religions, and to other believers and people of good will:

Today we, Jews, Christians and Muslims, together with our brothers and sisters of other religions, honour our father Abraham by doing as he did: we look up to heaven and we journey on earth.

In his "Prayer of the Children of Abraham", Pope Francis asks:

As children of Abraham, Jews, Christians and Muslims, together with other believers and all persons of good will, we thank you for having given us Abraham, a distinguished son of this noble and beloved country, to be our common father in faith.

This is entirely in keeping with the nature of this particular address being given to this very particular gathering. A Catholic theological treatise in a different context might distinguish between a providential nature of the fatherhood of Abraham for Islam and a revelatory nature of that fatherhood for Judaism and Christianity, but that is not to detract from the appropriateness of Pope Francis' words in Ur.

Whilst the figure of Abraham is a universal figure for religious faith - one strand in Pope Francis' address is a reminder that we need to look to the stars, to God, as we journey on earth, that we cannot live without that reference to God - he is also a figure for human fraternity. In so far as he represents a common fatherhood in religious faith, he can also represent a common origin to human society for many people and therefore to the kind of fraternity in which Christian and Moslem communities have worked together in restoring both churches and mosques in parts of Iraq.

His was a journey outwards, one that involved sacrifices. Abraham had to leave his land, home and family. Yet by giving up his own family, he became the father of a family of peoples. Something similar also happens to us: on our own journey, we are called to leave behind those ties and attachments that, by keeping us enclosed in our own groups, prevent us from welcoming God’s boundless love and from seeing others as our brothers and sisters.

 Pope Francis' resounding words condemning the use of religion to justify violence make an appropriate end to this post, framed as they appear to me to particularly speak, though not exclusively, to those whose violence claims justification in Islamic religious belief:

From this place, where faith was born, from the land of our father Abraham, let us affirm that God is merciful and that the greatest blasphemy is to profane his name by hating our brothers and sisters. Hostility, extremism and violence are not born of a religious heart: they are betrayals of religion. We believers cannot be silent when terrorism abuses religion; indeed, we are called unambiguously to dispel all misunderstandings.

International Day of Human Fraternity

Today, the 4th February 2021, marks the first celebration of the International Day of Human Fraternity, following a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in December 2020.

It is interesting on this day to re-read the document on human fraternity adopted by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, on the 4th February 2019, a document which can be seen as a forerunner of the UN resolution. That resolution was introduced by the representative of the United Arab Emirates; and it was during Pope Francis' visit to the UAE that the document on human fraternity was promulgated.

It is important, I think, to read the Pope and Grand Imam's document in its entirety, and not to focus on the one sentence in the whole that provoked criticism. Indeed, a reading of the whole puts that one sentence into a clear context.

Three paragraphs are offered below, chosen in a somewhat random way; but do read the whole.

This Declaration, setting out from a profound consideration of our contemporary reality, valuing its successes and in solidarity with its suffering, disasters and calamities, believes firmly that among the most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles....

It is clear in this context how the family as the fundamental nucleus of society and humanity is essential in bringing children into the world, raising them, educating them, and providing them with solid moral formation and domestic security. To attack the institution of the family, to regard it with contempt or to doubt its important role, is one of the most threatening evils of our era....

The first and most important aim of religions is to believe in God, to honour Him and to invite all men and women to believe that this universe depends on a God who governs it. He is the Creator who has formed us with His divine wisdom and has granted us the gift of life to protect it. It is a gift that no one has the right to take away, threaten or manipulate to suit oneself. Indeed, everyone must safeguard this gift of life from its beginning up to its natural end. We therefore condemn all those practices that are a threat to life such as genocide, acts of terrorism, forced displacement, human organ trafficking, abortion and euthanasia. We likewise condemn the policies that promote these practices....

Syria: intervention would be a disaster

The media coverage of the response to the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week has been developing in a rather familiar way. The promised publication  of intelligence data that will prove the responsibility of the Assad regime .... the close contact between a British Prime Minister and an American President .... resolutions at the United Nations Security Council, with every indication that the UK/US axis will go ahead with military action whatever the outcome of the votes on those resolutions ..... indeed, the very same sense that the decision to launch a military intervention has already in essence been taken.

Pope Francis renews call for peace in Syria

ASIA/SYRIA - Nobel Prize Laureate Maguire: "A military action will destabilize the Middle East, we need a political solution"

Christians in the Middle East unanimously oppose potential raid on Syria

SYRIA: Patriarch says give peace a chance

Chaldean Patriarch Sako: Intervention against Syria would be "a disaster"

Pope to receive Jordan's King Abdullah

And some quality reporting of the position of the Holy See, courtesy of La Croix: Le Saint-Siège profondément opposé à une intervention militaire en Syrie

If the US and UK do launch missile attacks on the military forces of the Assad regime, the consequences are going to be carried primarily by the people of Syria itself, and of the neighbouring countries. What do those peoples wish for? As the reports above suggest, their desire is not for an escalation in warfare but for a real effort at peace and reconciliation.

"Inter-textuality" and Word of Life

By the term "inter-textuality" I am referring to the heading of a section in a study of the thought and life of Christian de Cherge, the prior of the Cistercian community at Tibhirine. The book is entitled Christian de Cherge - a theology of hope and the author is Christian Salenson. The book is a study of Christian de Cherge's thought and life as an example of Muslim-Catholic dialogue.

The section headed "inter-textuality" discusses the way in which Christian read the Koran as well as reading the Bible, and the way in which he used texts from both of them. There is no sense in which Christian considered the Koran as a supernaturally inspired text; instead there is a recognition of a form of "original connection" of the Koranic text to God within a general providential disposition of other religions towards the truth about God. There is a similarity in the way of reading both texts that reflects the idea of lectio divina familiar to Christian from his monastic background. There is no sense that the Koranic text is used to provide a commentary on the Biblical text or vice-versa.  Instead passages from the Koran can be placed and read alongside passages from the Bible in such a way that they shed light on each other. The study cites a particular example in which Christian de Cherge placed the account of Jesus as the Bread of Life from St John's Gospel alongside an echoing surat from the Koran. "Inter-textuality" is the word used to refer to this kind of reading alongside each other of the two books. I posted more fully on it here: Can a Christian pray with the Koran?.

The Word of Life refers to a particular practice with regard to the Bible that is promoted by the Focolare. Each month a sentence or two from the Bible was chosen by Chiara Lubich, who wrote a short reflection on that passage. One of the inspirations of the Focolare is that of taking a "word" from the Bible and trying to live that "word" out in daily living. When a Word of Life group meets they do so to share their experiences of trying to live out that month's "word" in their daily living; the meeting is not a "Bible study" in a conventional sense. Since Chiara Lubich's death, Word of Life texts previous written by her have been used. The current month's text can be found here (if I have understood the site correctly, this page will update each month with the new text).

One of the testimonies shared during the meeting of the President and Co-President of Focolare with the communities from the UK on Saturday last brought these two ideas together. It described a small group meeting in Wales (I can't remember where in Wales) with the name "From Scripture to Life". Participants in the group are Baptist, Roman Catholic, Muslim, othodox Jew and liberal Jew. For their meetings, texts are chosen from the Koran, the New Testament and the Jewish scriptures. The texts are chosen for their proximity, in a clear parallel to Christian de Cherge's "inter-textuality" in reading both the Koran and the Bible, the example being cited of their different expressions of the "golden rule". These texts then inform the shared experiences of living of the group.

From the point of view of principles of inter-religious dialogue, the question posed by this group is how far it can move from being a sharing of life experiences (no question that this is acceptable) to being a shared prayer or a prayer in common. This raises the question of multi-religious prayer vis-a-vis inter-religious prayer, discussed in my post Assisi 3 and the question of multireligious prayer.

"Laicite": a debate about religion and state

Some controversy has occurred in France over a debate that is taking place today about the idea of "laicite", that is, about the relationship between the organisations of the state and the religions. In some ways, the debate takes the 1905 law that decrees a separation of Church and state from its original context of reference to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state to the modern context where other religions, and in particular Islam, are significantly represented in French society. The point of controversy arises because this debate is being sponsored by one of France's political parties, rather than by a politically neutral forum, and that it will also involve a number of proposals. The proposals will make up a "code of secularity (laicite) and of religious liberty".

La Croix carries a report today: L’UMP veut donner une vision positive de la laïcité. Yesterday, they outlined the questions that are raised by this debate. While I have not had time to read this report fully - Le grand chantier de la laïcité - I think the range of the questions is interesting. They are: extending the obligation of neutrality of functionaries of the state (eg teachers) in the context of a debate about private providers whose services are state funded; clarifying the funding of different religions by the state (eg the funding of cultural and social centres run by mosques); taking account of religious demands (eg areas of cemeteries for use be Jews or Muslims, questions of halal meals); making more precise the right of religious expression in the public sphere (eg questions of the burqua, of prayers in public and of religious processions); clarifying the place of religions in schools (eg the display of religious symbols, allowed in private schools but not in public - the distinction between private and public being rather different than that existing in the UK); improving the representations of religions in relations/dialogue with local and national government.

The debate does, I believe, have international implications. Pope Benedict XVI speaks of an "appropriate secularity", and the questions being raised in this debate in France explore the practical implementation of such an "appropriate secularity". Recent events in the Arab world also indicate evidence that, within the Islamic world, there is also a trend of thought that would be supportive of the same sort of idea. Whether the resulting "code of secularity and of religious liberty" will genuinely reflect a concensus of opinion in French society is yet to be seen, but it will also need to be cognisant of Christian and Islamic ideas of "appropriate secularity". It might well provide precedents that could be transferred to the situation in the United Kingdom, something that would have a certain historic irony. A number of religious orders, particularly teaching orders, moved their houses from France to Britain in the years after France adopted its 1905 law on separation of Church and state. That a thorough analysis of "appropriate secularity" might make the same journey across the Channel is an interesting thought!

UPDATE: Having had an opportunity to look in more detail, it is not at all obvious that the idea of secularity being promoted by the UMP is the same as the "appropriate secularity" of Pope Benedict XVI. More to follow!

Shahbaz Bhatti: martyr for the truth about man

This BBC report gives news of the reaction in Pakistan following the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, a Catholic, and, before his murder, the minister responsible for minority communities in Pakistan. The country is to observe three days of mourning. Mr Bhatti's killing follows shortly after that of Salman Taseer who, like Mr Bhatti, spoke out in opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
The response of the Holy See is reported here by ZENIT.

The Vatican statement concluded with a call to respect religious freedom: "Our prayers for the victim, our condemnation for this unspeakable act of violence, our closeness to Pakistani Christians who suffer hatred, are accompanied by an appeal that everyone may become aware of the urgent importance of defending both religious freedom and Christians who are subject to violence and persecution."

Aid to the Church in Need UK have condemned the attack, and called for greater respect for human rights and religious freedom.

Expressing outrage at the murder, Mr Kyrke-Smith asked: “How can the British government be planning to increase aid to the Pakistan government when religious freedom is not upheld and those who are against the infamous blasphemy laws are not protected and just gunned down?”

It is difficult to underestimate the political significance of Shahbaz Bhatti's murder, and not only in the context of Pakistan. This killing has implications for any situation where a violent interpretation of Islam has a presence, or a potential presence.

At a more theological level, I believe Mr Bhatti can be viewed as a martyr, as one who laid down his life in testimony to the truth about that highest freedom of mankind, his freedom in relation to religious faith. He is a martyr for the truth about the human preson in the same way as were Jerzy Popieluszko and Oscar Romero, but in a different type of context.

Further comment on the murder of Mr Bhatti can be found here (H/T to Fr Ray):

.... the distortion of religious values about which Pope Benedict alerted the world in his Regensberg address has arrived at its logical conclusion with these murders in Pakistan. How many more such murders will take place until honest Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere and the world community at large take a stand against this evil and barbarous perversion of religion.

UPDATE: William Oddie writes about Mr Bhatti's killing on the Catholic Herald website: Shahbaz Bhatti was a hero of the Catholic faith, a martyr by whose courage we should be inspired. He links to this report by Orla Guerin on the BBC news site: Pakistan murder: Shahbaz Bhatti's 'goodbye' call. Orla Guerin's report describes the political, and indeed moral, implications of Mr Bhatti's killing.

Can a Christian pray with the Koran?

The title is a bit provocative, suggesting as it does that a Christian might use the Koran for prayer in a kind of substitution for the Bible. That isn't what this post is really about.

Fr Christian de Cherge was the prior of the Cistercian monastery at Tibhirine, in Algeria, and was one of the seven monks of that monastery who were killed in 1996. The story of the events at the monastery is the subject of the film Des hommes et des Dieux. I am currently reading - extremely slowly - a study of Fr de Cherge's theology and experience of Moslem-Catholic dialogue. A chapter of this book is dedicated to "The reading of the Koran". For Christian de Cherge, the reading and study of the Koran formed part of his particular vocation in the Church; it arises from his specific charism rather than because he felt that it was something every Catholic should do. However, his understanding of what this involved is very carefully articulated, and very nuanced.

Christian de Cherge frequently wrote that he underook lectio divina with the Koran. When this is put into the context of the monastic life of a Cistercian community, it is important to realise that this was not a replacement of meditation on the Biblical texts by meditation on texts of the Koran. It should perhaps be more accurately seen as something undertaken alongside the more conventional Christian lectio divina. Fr de Cherge characterised the Koran as

..that which the other has received for their own ("en propre", in the original French) to support in them the taste for God...

Christian's articulation of the place that the non-Christian religions have in the design of God, and in relation to Christian faith, is quite careful. In his thought, and in his lived experience, he is not able to discern what is that design, but he looks forward to its being revealed to him when he enters heaven. So when he writes of the Koran as being "received" by Moslems he does not assert that the Koran is a supernatural gift to them but is instead recognising that in the mysterious disposition of God it is something that they possess for their good.

Christian is also clear that the Koran is a book that belongs to Moslems as their own proper possession and that, though a Christian might read, study and meditate upon it, they should not appropriate it. This has an aspect of respect towards the properly Moslem text; but it also says clearly that the Koran, as the sacred writings of the Moslem religion, should not be put on the same footing as the Bible, the sacred writings of the Christian religion. The two scriptures should not be confounded with each other, something that can be said from both the Christian side and from the Moslem side. In a very nuanced phrase, Christian could consider the Koran as having "an original link to the Totally-Other", though he is not able to fully describe the nature of that link. But he never wishes to give to the Koran and the Bible any sense of equivalence.

This has an implication for the way in which Christian de Cherge uses the text of the Koran and the text of the Bible. He reads them "side-by-side", and does not compare and contrast them to give one text a value over and above the other. Where he uses a text from the Koran that has a parallel to a text from the Bible, Christian in effect comments on both of the two texts, using the Koranic text to provide a comment on the Biblical text and vice-versa; he lets the two texts co-respond to each other. In this way he is neither offering a Christian interpretation of the Koran nor a Koranic interpretation of the Bible. The French title of a section of this chapter captures this in the word "L'intertextualite" - inter-textuality.

Christian writes that he experienced at times a sense of hearing the Word as he meditated upon the Koran, a charismatic sense of the presence of God in the words that he was reading. Again, to make sure that we understand this essentially charismatic gift - Christian is in no way asserting that the Koran is a supernatural revelation, only that it has enabled him, in the context of his unique vocation in the Church, to experience the Word of God - we have to place it in the context of Christian's understanding of the place of the Moslem religion within the design of God referred to above. Christian can write that the Moslem and the Christian have in common an experience of the Word of God; but, for the Christian, that Word is incarnate in the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, whereas, for the Moslem, that Word is the written word of the Koran. For both, the Word is One and Unique.

What would Christian de Cherge's answer be to the question posed in the title of this post? If the question means using the Koran as a source of texts for use in Christian prayer, and in particular in the Liturgy, I think he would answer "No". This would represent the appropriation of the Koranic text by the Christian believer and, from the Christian point of view, an inappropriate substitution of that which is properly Christian (the Bible) by that which really belongs to Moslems. If the question means that Christians should gain an experience of the Koran as part of their engagement in Moslem-Christian inter-religious dialogue, then the answer might be "Yes".

Christmas in Egypt

Highlights from the BBC coverage here.

At churches across the country, Muslims heeded calls to join Christian friends and neighbours for Mass - to act as shields against potential attacks by Islamist militants, and to show solidarity.

"I came because I condemn what's happening," said Jailan Batanouni, a Muslim at St Mary's church in the Zamalek district of Cairo.  "I want to share Christmas with my Christian friends to tell them not be afraid. If anything should happen we live together and we die together."....

... the large congregations seen on Thursday suggest that Christians did not stay away from church.

"We won't stop coming because they blew up another church. That's just what they want," stressed Jan Mehany. "I think this has just brought us closer to Jesus. Even people who don't normally come to church came here today."

Sami Abdul Messi, who lives close to St Mark's, said: "Whatever happens I must go to church.

"If they try to shoot me or blow me up I will still go because this is my religion. It is the birthday of our saviour, Jesus Christ."

Salman Taseer

For background to events affecting Christians in Pakistan, see Aid to the Church in Need's page about Pakistan. You can follow the links at the right hand side of this page to explore ACN's coverage. Of particular significance to this post is the link to Pakistan's Blasphemy Laws.

A couple of year's ago, at an ACN event in London, I recall the Bishop of Faisalabad talking about the response to an attach that had taken place on Christians and on their homes and property. He talked about the solidarity and practical support given to the victims of the attacks by members of the local Muslim population, through organisations like businesses and business federations. It is important to recognise that moderate Muslims do not wish to see the extremist violence, the "mob rule", that all too often turns itself onto Christians in Pakistan, in the name of Islam.

One of the worst incidents of violence against Christians took place in the Punjab in August 2009. A Mass celebrated to mark the first anniversary of that atrocity is reported by ACN here, and Bishop Coutts' remarks give some indication of the background to the anit-Christian violence in Pakistan.

This background illustrates the significance of the assassination of the Governor of Punjab, and of the reaction to his funeral. BBC coverage is here and here. Salman Taseer died because he spoke up for the truth about the dignity of the human person, and especially the right of people to follow a religious faith in accord with their own conscience, even when that places them in a minority in their country.

While we pray particularly for those communities in Pakistan that are the specific target of violence, we should also pray for all the citizens of Pakistan at this time of great uncertainty about the future of their country. Everyone is the victim of violence and fear in their society, even though they might not themselves be the direct targets of violence.

I went back to work on Monday for a rest ....

... after a rather busy weekend.

On the Saturday, Zero and I were at Aid to the Church in Need's event "Hope without Fear" at Westminster Cathedral. I will leave Auntie Joanna to describe the day. ACN's own report of the day is here. In addition to what these reports describe, the update by John Pontifex on the situation in Pakistan was also very moving. There were perhaps two common themes to the situation in Sudan and in Pakistan that were apparent during the day. The first is the situation of Christianity within the environment of an extremist  and violent interpretation of Islam. The second is the way in which Catholic prelates find themselves, in the exercise of their essentially pastoral and evangelical mission, taking a position within the political arena. So, for example, the Catholic Church in Sudan is strictly neutral with regard to the outcome of the forthcoming referendum about the future of southern Sudan. But the Church is very involved in teaching about the underlying principles that should determine how people vote in the referendum - Bishop Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala of Tombura-Yambio, Sudan articulated this with the strap-line "Choose life". By this strap-line he intended that a vote should be cast in favour of what will promote justice, reduce violence, reduce fear and promote respect for the dignity of peoples.

On Sunday, I went to see "Of Gods and Men". This has had two screenings in London as part of the 2010 London Film Festival. My previous posts on this film can be found here and here, so I will not repeat what I say there. Booking was open to the general public after the "priority booking" period on 27th September. Both screenings were sold out by 28th September. WindowstotheSoul has a commentary on this film after she saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival. My viewing of the film on Sunday bears out all that she has to say, so I am going to assume that you go and read her commentary first. I would add to it the following thoughts.

The earliest scenes reminded me of the film Into Great Silence, which portrayed the life of the monks at La Grande Chartreuse. The intention of these scenes is to present to the audience the every day life of the monks, from dawn to dusk, and it does this in a manner that struck me as being by way of images and, in a certain sense, "without words" (not quite literally without words, but with only the occasional exchange of dialogue).  It also shows the insertion of the monks in the life of their neighbours, something that WindowstotheSoul comments on.

The film is very powerful, and has some intensely moving moments. I think that my knowledge of the story of the monks before seeing the film made it only more powerful, because I was able to recognise the significance of some of the exchanges more readily as a result. In the question and answer session with the writer/producer after the screening (I was only able to stay for the first 20 minutes or so of this), he described how, in some respects, the producer and director wanted to achieve an absolute authenticity to the original events whilst at other times they were trying to convey the sense or spirit of the events. (This reminds me somewhat of Jessica Hausner's Lourdes, which I saw this time last year, also at the London Film Festival.)  So, the actors were chosen and made up to physically resemble as closely as possible the monks they were playing. They learnt to sing and pray the office, so when the film portrays the monks together in prayer the sound we here is the singing of the actors themselves and not an overdub. The chapel at the monastery was reconstructed on location exactly as it was in the original monastery. The dialogue between Christian de Cherge, the prior, and the guerilla leader when he comes to the monastery - a key moment in the film and in the historical events - is portrayed exactly as it is reported to have happened. Comparing the portrayal of the event in the film and in John Kiser's book, the film understates, I think, the assertiveness of the prior in this situation - according to the book, Christian was quite genuinely angry that weapons had been brought into the monastery and so ordered them out. Another remark that describes the monastery as the branches on which the birds of the surrounding community perch and shelter - a key expression of the way in which the monks were viewed by the nearby villagers - is also included in one of the dialogues in the film. The way in which the monks grew together in their fear and as a result of their collective decision (based in each monk's own individual conviction that they could not leave) to stay in the monastery despite the danger is portrayed in an invented scene, however. This shows the monks at dinner with Swan Lake playing on the tape recorder, the camera moving from one monk to another, showing their tense smiles and their tears expressing the mixed emotion of fear and communion. More than once, a monk is shown lifting a small glass of wine to their lips, hesitating and then putting it down again, a quite amazing image of the way in which they are coming to terms with possible martyrdom.

The film ends with the quotation of part of Christian de Cherge's testament, contained in a letter sent much earlier to a family member and only to be opened in the event of his death. The appeal for interreligious dialogue that it makes has only become more relevant in the years since the monks died. The producer described how, in France, where the film has the added sensitivity of referring to the French role in the recent history of Algeria, many screenings have been arranged in local communities as an encouragement to dialogue within those communities. What interests me, though, and something I would have liked to ask the producer had I had the chance, is that the dialogue portrayed in the film is one of one religion (Christianity/Catholicism) with another religion (Islam, and in part a violent corruption of Islam). It is not a dialogue between secularism and Islam - so do secularised developed societies need to rediscover their religious roots as a basis for entering into the dialogue shown in this film?

A final thought. The producer recognised that the film has different levels: human, political, religious. He himself has no religious belief, but nevertheless the story of the monks has captured his attention, and he has worked on a film that portrays religious life very accurately and positively. It is encouraging that a producer and director should engage with a strongly religious theme with such enthusiasm and integrity as has been the case here.

Is this really Islamic?

I have just finished reading John W Kiser's book The Monks of Tibhirine: Faith, Love, and Terror in Algeria. [Do explore this site, especially the Q and A with the author.] As well as giving an account of the life of the monks and of the Catholic community in Algeria at an exceptionally difficult time, the book also gives an account of the historical and political context. This reaches back to the war fought between the French and Algerian insurgents between 1954 and 1962, and the conflict between the Algerian army/government and a later generation of Islamist insurgents that took the lives of the monks at Tibhirine. Both conflicts were marked by brutality on all sides.

The killing of the monks is perhaps iconic of a conflict that, just going on the snippets included in John Kiser's book, was utterly barbaric in the acts of violence undertaken by all parties. After the kidnapping and killing of the monks at Tibhirine - the precise circumstances still do not appear to be clearly known - thousands of ordinary Muslim citizens wrote letters of condolence to the Catholic bishop of Algiers, Bishop Teissier. Key themes of these letters were to express the shame that the writers, as Muslims, felt that the killings had occurred under the guise of Islam; that killings like this were not true to Islam; that they were offended by the way in which these killings had besmirched their reputation as a hospitable and welcoming people.

In the same spirit as the letters of these Muslim citizens of Algeria in the face of barbarity, I ask: is it really true to Islam for a judge, acting in the name of the legal system of a modern state, to ask members of the medical profession to deliberately cut a man's spinal cord as part of a legal punishment?

News that matters

The headline item on much of the BBC news coverage today has been the impending parting of ways between British Petroleum and its (as I write still) present chief executive.

But might there be a couple of news items that are more important?

The situation of Christians in Pakistan - Aid to the Church in Need's most recent news report is here - is something of worldwide significance. Pakistan offers a measure of what might happen elsewhere in terms of the relationship between Christian and Muslim communities.

And, if this situation goes wrong, the outcomes could be nuclear. Whilst these events are taking place at the other side of the world to us in Europe, what is at stake should not be underestimated.

Islam and Christianity

As a comment to my earlier post on Islam and Christianity, I received a link to the following blog (though one might think of it more as a website than a blog, since there is no indication of regular posting): http://www.theradiantlight.blogspot.com/. The blog/site is explicitly apologetic in intent, trying to convince its visitors of the truth of Islam and answer misinformation about Islam.

Towards the bottom of the page, among the links, is one to an article about the Koran and modern science. I think I am fair in saying that what this article attempts is a reading of passages from the Koran in such a way that they are seen as literal expressions of modern scientific understanding. The Koran was written down in some 1400 years ago, before many of these modern discoveries. Ergo, the Koran must be of divine origin. A remark on page 8 suggests that the Koran is a book of "signs" rather than a book of science, but the interpretations in the later chapters are fairly literal.

I haven't read the whole booklet, but a quick read of the physics related sections suggests that the texts from the Koran are interpreted as fairly literal expressions of the science. At best, I think some of the presentations indicate a compatibility of the Koran and science but not any kind of effective prediction of that science; other among the presentations, though, seem quite stretched. One of my pupils recently lent me an Islamic catechetical text, a section of which presented arguments similar to those in this article. This attempt at understanding the text of the Koran as offering a literal understanding of scientific ideas stands in a sharp contrast to contemporary Christian approaches to interpretation of the Biblical texts, where the only parallel can be found among fundamentalist Christian communities.

A writer such as Stanley Jaki suggests that it is only from within a Christian matrix, particularly with regard to a Christian doctrine of creation, that it was possible for science to emerge as a self-sustaining enterprise. Outside of this matrix, as a matter of history, the attempts at developing science were not able to issue in science becoming an independent, and self-sustaining enterprise. This is reflected in the history of Christian interpretation of the Biblical texts, where, as science emerged in a self-sustaining way, the Biblical texts came no longer to be seen as sources of literal scientific knowledge. The result today is that it really would be rare to find a Christian scholar trying to read into selected Biblical texts literal understandings of modern science. The text offered by this blog/site suggests that at least one section of Islamic thought, rather than trying to develop a due autonomy of science from the authority of the religious text, is trying to develop a mutual dependence of science and the Koran. We could expect this to have a constraining and limiting effect on the development of science.

Commenting on the Koran's presentation of God's will, Stanley Jaki suggests that this might at times be a willfulness rather than a will. A similar thought was expressed in a conversation I had at the weekend: "Islam does not have any idea of analogy" (analogy here being intended in its philosophical sense). The creation of a world governed by its own unity, rationality and purpose - willed by God, in the sense in which a Christian would mean that - does not allow for a capricious exercise of a divine will that Jaki suggests is present in some places in the Koran and Islamic thought. It is such a unity and rational purpose that provides a philosophical underpinning to the idea of scientific study of the physical world; without it, science cannot become a self-sustaining enterprise.

This discussion raises two questions about Islam as compared to Christianity. The first is about the possibilities of human reason in the two religions. Both in terms of scientific endeavour and in terms of philosophical and theological study - reason can approach God through analogy - Christianity seems to offer the greater scope for the play of reason. The Islamic position seems to limit the scope and possibilities of reason. The second question is about the nature of God, and in particular about his accessibility to human knowledge and communion. Again, Christianity seems to offer this accessibility to and communion with God - par excellence through the Incarnation of the Word, but not just through that; and Islam seems to reduce that possibility. Does this make for a difference in the way in which different trends in Islam act in the world?

Malaysia update

Two interesting updates on the situation in Malaysia, where Christian Churches (both Catholic and Protestant) have been attacked in the light of a controversy over the use of the word "Allah" by Christians to translate the word God in the Malay language.

ZENIT and Fides are reporting (here and here respectively) responses from the Muslim community in Malaysia that reflect the solidarity that I referred to in my earlier post as occurring in India and Pakistan. The clearest expression of this, from the ZENIT report:

In fact, Fides reported, moderate Muslim groups have organized watches in churches to prevent a repeat of the violence.

The first paragraph of Fides report suggests a political motivation for the situation that has arisen:

The dispute over the name "Allah" contains political undertones, not theological ones. It is the attempt by the ruling party, the UMNO (United Malays National Organization), to regain the support they have progressively lost, as was evident in the last elections in 2008. This is what emerges from the interventions, discussions, and debates underway among Malaysian Christians and among the churches of various denominations present in Malaysia. As Fides learns from local sources, this idea is also shared by the opposition parties, many of whom are Muslims who condemn "the attempt to polarize Malaysian society on religious grounds."

Christianity and Islam

The situation in Malaysia is reported here at Unam Sanctam. This post, and the earlier ones on Unam Sanctam to which this post links, indicate two points.

The first is that the understanding of God that Muslims have, and for who their name is Allah, is not the same as the understanding of God that is held by Christians. One might argue that, from the point of view of the one-ness of God and setting aside the doctrine of the Trinity (on the grounds that it can only be known through Christian revelation and not through reason), Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, I would suggest that, even without an explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, the sense of a God who draws near to us (through the becoming flesh of the Second Person of the Trinity) that is central to Christian faith has its comparison to a God in the faith of Muslims who is quite distant. Experentially, I would suggest that the Christian can feel a warmth from/for the God they worship, whereas the Muslim might feel a coldness from/coldness to God. This reflects back from what Christians believe about the nature of God as Triune and whose Second Person becomes flesh into their understanding of God seen as One. In art, for example, the Christian feels able to represent God and the good things of creation, whereas the Muslim does not feel able to represent either; Christian churches are decorated with images of saints and of the events of the Bible, whereas a mosque is decorated with symmetric designs.

Unam Sanctam writes, in part of his post There is only One God and Jesus is His Son:

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Muslims are called those who "professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind." The key word here is 'professing to hold' for the Church takes them at their word that they hold the faith of Abraham and acknowledges that with Christians, they adore the one merciful God. The document speaks of Muslims but does not mention Muhammad or Islam. Islam sees itself as a correction and explicit denial of the Christian claims of the Divinity of Jesus. They deny the fact that Jesus was crucified, died and rose again. Muslims reject that God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. They know of no God except the he who IS NOT the Father of the crucified and risen Jesus. Christians on the other hand, know of no other God except He who IS the Father of the crucified and risen Jesus. Can we then truly say that the Allah of Islam is the same God and Father of Jesus Christ whom Christians worship?

We need to distinguish between the God of Muslims or the God of the Hindus or the God of whoever and the god of Islam, Hinduism etc. God is the God of all people and all creation and all things. But the deities of the various religions are not that God.

The second point indicated is the occurrence of violence against Christians when a Muslim population, or at least sections of it, perceive a grievance against the Christian community, whether or not that grievance is well founded. This is similar - and with a trigger of a similar nature, viz perception of disrespect for the Koran or persecution under a blasphemy law that protects the name of Allah - to events in Pakistan and India.

There are certainly those in the Muslim community who recognise that such occurrence of violence cannot be morally justified. When the Archbishop of Faisalabad spoke at an Aid to the Church in Need event in London last October, he recounted how Muslim business leaders and others had rallied to provide material aid to Christian communities affected by violence.

But for those Muslims who do commit the violence, is there a connection between that violence and their understanding of the nature of God?