In the fall of 2010, we saw a disturbing rise in religious intolerance in the U.S. From the much-politicized opposition to a proposed Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York City to a fundamentalist pastor's threat to burn Qurans, a wave of Islamophobia appeared to be sweeping the country.
How should Christians respond? There are some key questions that get to the heart of the issue, and our answers say a lot about ourselves, our own faith and the collective character of our country.
The first question is this: Does our judgment of our neighbors come from their religious labels or the content of their character? I do not advocate a religious pluralism that blurs the significant differences between religions, but I do believe that my religious tradition calls me to be a peacemaker and to love my neighbors, especially when I do not agree with them. When Muslim leaders step up to lead an initiative to reduce tensions and promote understanding, do we judge them by the actions of terrorists (whom those leaders have condemned) or by their integrity and character? This does not mean we have to agree with them on everything, but rather that we're called to love and respect them.
The second question asks: Do we believe in freedom for my religion or freedom of religion? The "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment were revolutionary statements. They represent ideals to which we aspire but have not always lived up to. Anti-Catholic sentiment, anti-Semitism, and other forms of religious bigotry have reared their ugly heads over and over in our history. But ultimately, many minority groups have flourished here because of our strong history of religious liberty. Whether we allow religious freedom for Americans of Islamic faith -- near Ground Zero or anywhere else -- will give evidence of our own character, the integrity of our faith and our real commitment to the ideals that have distinguished our nation.
Finally, we must ask a third question: In the face of global terrorism, who wins when the U.S. restricts religious freedom? Religious sensitivities, especially around Ground Zero, are understandable. Sept. 11 was a crime against humanity and, tragically, it was the first significant encounter many Americans had with radical Islam or Islam of any sort. But this is why the mission of the Manhattan community center is so important, as it plans to run programs that reduce tensions and build understanding. In order for our country to continue healing, more of us need to build trust with those who are different -- especially with the many Muslims who love this country. There are thousands of interfaith conversations, service projects and relationships that have been built since 9/11. These should be publicized and encouraged.
One good example is that of Heartsong Church in Cordova, Tenn., which -- in a rare departure from the cable networks' steady drumbeat of conflict -- was featured on CNN. In 2008, Heartsong's pastor, Steve Stone, learned that the Memphis Islamic Center had bought land adjacent to his church. Rather than protest the plans, he put up a large sign that said: "Heartsong Church Welcomes Memphis Islamic Center to the Neighborhood." The Muslim leaders were floored. They had dared to hope only that their arrival would be ignored. It had not occurred to them that they might be welcomed.
When the Islamic Center's new building was under construction, its members used Heartsong Church for Ramadan prayer services. Heartsong's community barbecues now serve halal meat. Pastor Stone said the two congregations are planning joint efforts to feed the homeless and tutor local children.
Stone also told me that he got a call from a group of Muslims in a small town in Kashmir. They said they had been watching CNN when the segment on Heartsong Church aired. Afterward, one of the community's leaders said to those who were gathered, "God just spoke to us through this man." Another said, "How can we kill these people?" A third man went straight to the local Christian church and proceeded to clean it, inside and out.
Stone says he is just trying to love his neighbors, as he says Jesus instructs him to do. For their part, the residents of that small town in Kashmir told him: "We are now trying to be good neighbors, too. Tell your congregation we do not hate them, we love them, and for the rest of our lives we are going to take care of that little church."
This conflict is really about the role that faith will play in America. It is about whether or not we will accept Muslim Americans as true Americans or as second-class citizens. It is about whether we will blame millions of American Muslims and 1 billion Muslims worldwide for the actions of a small number of Muslims who try to use their brand of faith to murder innocent people. It is a test of our character, and we dare not fail it.
This column is an excerpt from 'My Neighbor's Faith: Stories of Interreligious Encounter, Growth, and Transformation.'
Follow Jim Wallis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jimwallis
Brad Hirschfield: My Neighbor's Faith: The Rabbi And The Christian Cab Driver
So, one dude lights a book on fire and 70% of Americans happen to take issue with the idea of having a mosque (within a larger "community center", of course) in a building that was struck by the landing gear of one of the 9\11 planes and it's a "wave of Islamophobia"? FWIW, I do agree with the general direction of this article, but kicking it off with a CAIR-esque cry of victimhood wasn't the best way of setting the tone.
You said something about a "test of character."
Well Mr. Wallis, it is not any lack of character, but the very core of our character, that bids us refuse to allow Islam to deprive any sort of Americans, including Muslim Americans, of the rights and equality we want all Americans to fully enjoy in equal measure.
And it is not any lack of character, but the very core of our character, that bids us refuse to allow Islam to make any American women third-class citizens, merely because they are captive followers of an ideology that makes women subordinate to men.
And it is not any lack of character, but the very core of our character, that bids us refuse to allow Islam to take away our most precious possession - our freedom of speech - through any of the many means by which Islam attempts to do so, all over the world.
NEW ideas are needed to solve many old problems including the problem of hate; and to far too many people, any "new" idea--any idea not anchored in old "dogma"--is usually considered "nonsensical".
The "tribal" mentality that is a part of religion DIVIDES people into "us" or "them", consciously or not. This church and mosque will learn that when their children begin to think about converting from one "faith" to the other (as the zealots among them will inevitably insist is a requirement for "marriage").
Religion is NOT the answer to the problem of hate; freedom from the zealotry and tribalism of these ancient supersittions would be a good first step.
And in modern times, atheism certainly has the capacity for the same problem, dividing the world between us enlightened materialists vs those benighted ignorant tribal people.
Historically this has been universally true. Everywhere Islam becomes dominant it suppresses religious freedom. Even Michigan with its large Islamic population has forced family farmers to slaughter their own pigs.
IMO, there is cause for concern.
Actually, no. Can you give us some examples for "everywhere" ?
Christianity is becoming a second class citizen by its own self.
It's time they took responsibility for teaching ignorance, stagnation and opposing progress with all their might. You can't live in the 21st century with social values of 60 centuries ago. It simply doesn't work that way.
People like and want progress. If Islam accepts new knowledge, good for them ! Of course people will like it more than Christianity, that has a bad habit of whacking you over the head every time you come up with a new idea or - heaven-forbid ! - a scientific discovery.
Yes, there is cause for concern, but it doesn't come from Islam, but from Christianity itself.
In Iraq as US troops "liberated" the "Islamic" majority, they engaged in ethnic clensing and burned the homes and businesses and churches of the "Christian" minority--many fled not just their community where they had "peacefully" co-existed with "Muslims" for generations--many felt forced to leave the country for their safety because many that did not were killed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/progressive-christian-gro_n_859695.html
Well Mr. Wallis the problem you have chosen to ignore is that there has only ever been one "first-class" citizen under the Islamic ideology, and that was Muhammad. Muhammad granted full freedom of speech and religion only to himself alone. Islam makes all other people second-class citizens at best, compared to Muhammad - but that's only for men. Women are distinctly third-class, and non-Muslims are distinctly fourth-class.
So you want to warn non-Muslim Americans not to treat Muslims as second-class citizens. But in fact it is Islam itself that treats Muslims as second-class citizens (in the case of men) or third-class citizens (in the case of women), and would deprive them of the human rights we want all Americans to enjoy.
If we truly and sincerely want all Americans to be first-class citizens, we must oppose the Islamic ideology, which has never granted first-class citizenship to anyone at all - except Muhammad himself.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Apostasy_and_Human_Rights
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Concerns_with_Islam:_Apostasy
(Instead of clicking on it, you will need to copy and paste this url into your browser)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Women_in_Islam_-_From_Islam's_Sources
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Women
(Instead of clicking on it, you will need to copy and paste this url into your browser).
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Women_(Dr._Younis_Shaikh)
(Instead of clicking on it, you will need to copy and paste this url into your browser).
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Dhimmitude
(Instead of clicking on it, you will need to copy and paste this url into your browser).
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslims_Leaving_Islam
===============
There is not just one Islam in America, but two--American Islam and Islamism—and a distinction must be drawn.
American Muslims who prefer American values over Sharia values where they conflict believe in most of these American principles:
1. Separation of religion and state.
2. Freedom of speech—including the right to criticize, make fun of and show disrespect for Islam, the Koran and Mohammed.
3. Freedom of conscience—the complete freedom of Muslims to join, leave or ignore any religion.
4. Equal rights for women—including the right for a single woman to choose her husband and freedom from physical punishment by the husband, inheritance and divorce equity.
5. Equal rights for gays.
6. Equality of all before the law—including non Muslim religious groups.
7. Children’s rights—no marriage of underage children.
8. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment—hudud penalties.
They practice, in an ad hoc manner that needs to be formalized in reform doctrine, an American version of traditional Islam and are as culturally American as anyone.
Muslims who promote Sharia values over liberal democratic values—usually called Islamists--are not second class citizens, but something worse. They are unwelcome colonists for an incompatible culture that has competed with Christianity and the West for 1400 years.
Any religious group that wants to use the power of the state to enforce their religious dogma on unbelievers should be resisted to the max.
My dear Mr. Wallis, there is not a single person on earth who blames all the world's Muslims for the actions of Muslim terrorists. So why are you raising such an absurd notion?
The Islamic ideology itself does not grant the basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion even to its own followers, since it makes apostasy a crime:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Apostasy_and_Human_Rights
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Concerns_with_Islam:_Apostasy
(Instead of clicking on the link, you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.)
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Apostasy
(Instead of clicking on the link, you will need to copy and paste it into your browser.)
The Islamic ideology deprives even its own followers of the human rights which all Americans are supposed to enjoy. Instead of addressing this problem in your essay, you prefer to make nonsensical comments about blaming all the world's Muslims - which no one is doing. The primary victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.
As for non-Muslims, the Islamic ideology directly opposes and endangers our freedom of speech.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Freedom_of_Speech
Every major religion has a LOT of variety to it.
And the source you cite, as we've discussed in the past, was started by a guy who left Islam, and is purposely seeking to create a negative impression of Islam, by his own admission.
There are plenty of far more objective sources (any mainstream, non-biased source) for information on Islam and Muslims than Wikiislam.
Although I can see church people welcoming their neighbors and respecting their right to exist, it is possible to do so without the total lovefest which may well send a signal to the youngest among them that all the beliefs and traditions of the other "faith" are "acceptable"--including beliefs and traditions of which the church members are unaware.
There is this risk: Even if these particular Muslims are peaceful and freedom-loving, etc., a total loving embrace of this "version" of "Islam" risks having the youngest church members accept and embrace all Muslims and all of "Islam" as the same "Islam"--and certainly there are some Islamic zealots in this world that are much more deserving of being strangled than being hugged. Perhaps the more zealous Islamic leadership even hopes for this "bait & switch" to occur.
It is my hope that the opposite will occur--that each new generation of Muslims experiencing freedom of/from religion will reject tyranny of every ilk, including Islamic tyranny.
As I recall, another person commenting on one of our earlier exchanges indicated that you are Arab but not Muslim? Whether or not that is true, you seem to spend a great deal of time defending Islam and, whether you intend to do so or not, seemingly to defend the indefensible.
"WikiIslam's goal is to become the one-stop source of information critical of Islam. This information is based primarily on its own sources, the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars. It accepts the theory of evolution as a scientific fact and is notable for dealing extensively with false propaganda and Islamic pseudoscience.
"However, the site aims to remain neutral towards other religions, world views, and issues of a political nature, such as immigration, multiculturalism, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and also to stay away from extremist, sensationalist or emotional commentary by simply letting the facts speak for themselves.
"Contrary to what is sometimes claimed, the site exhorts editors to use non-polemic and scholarly secondary sources, and to attribute statements wherever possible. It makes copious use of authoritative primary and secondary pro-Islamic sources, such as the Compendium of Muslim Texts, The History of al-Tabari and fatwas from some of the most popular mainstream Islamic sites on the net."
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam#About
Wikiislam.net provides critical but well-founded and well-supported information on Islam. Many of its articles were written by ex-Muslims, and it also contains many testimonies by ex-Muslims.