Recent Issues – Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (BRIIFS)

Visit the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies Website

🟡

Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies (BRIIFS)

One of the fundamental concepts in the Quran that underpins the perception of human beings and their value is the concept of human dignity. This notion reflects the unique status granted by Allah SWT to humans, distinguishing them from all other creatures. In contemporary discourse, the discussion on human dignity has become one of the most important foundations for modern human thought and its legal, educational, and social systems. This necessitates that Muslim scholars strive to explore the meanings and various objectives of dignity, ensuring it serves as a foundation in forming a contemporary human discourse aimed at elevating human value and advancing our human societies, which today face systematic dehumanization and rapid threats to all meanings of dignity on Earth. In the Quran, the concept of human dignity surpasses the individual’s right to intrinsic value and to be treated in a manner that respects their rights ethically, extending to a broader scope that begins with affirming the unique status of human beings in their spiritual and intellectual formation, which is connected to the knowledge of the Creator and His wise will in making humans His vicegerents on earth. Humans are entrusted with the earth, to feel and give thanks for Allah SWT’s blessings in it, to cultivate and preserve it, and to give everyone their due rights, from the smallest to the greatest.‬

First paragraph: When I hear the saying “light at the end of the tunnel” I like to ask, “where’s the tunnel?” The Golden Rule according to Pittacus in 650 BC was “do not to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.” This simple, direct and imaginative thought, is well known through history. We hear from the Mahabharat, “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause you pain if done to you,” 300 BCE. And from Jesus of Nazareth in 30 BC, or the 13th of the Christian era, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”. And the same idea/teaching continues through Islam, through Judaism, and through the Nine Faith Groups with whom I had the privilege of serving during my work as moderator for the World Conference on Religions and Peace.‬

Ever more people around the world yearn for dignity, and this even though dignity is difficult to conceptualise. This article begins with critical questions, such as, ‘What if dignity is a useless concept?’, ‘What if different concepts of dignity are incompatible with each other?’ The article then presents the author’s defence of the notion of dignity and summarises how she embeds it in a larger historical context. The significance of the concept of dignity is being confirmed, not least, by His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan, a leader in the cause of peace and inter-faith understanding. He has for several decades been ahead of his time in advocating for dignity. The article ends with a call for renewed attention to global systemic change so humanity may face a future in dignity.‬

Peter Madros deceased in 2019, before the publication of this article.

This contribution will explore the extent to which Abrahamic dialogue is dependent upon unity rather than diversity and will make reference to scriptural readings as well as interpretations about Moses. The setting of our conference is appropriate as it takes place near Mount Nebo, from where Moses is said to have seen the Promised Land and to have died nearby. Jews, Christians and Muslims share some of the same Scriptures and/or stories but read them in different ways. The Church Fathers, for example, were astonished at what they considered to be Jewish ‘blindness’: their failure to comprehend the truth proclaimed in their own sacred texts. This developed into what became known as the Adversus Iudeaoes literature. Likewise, Jewish writers were perturbed by Christian interpretations not rooted in the original Hebrew or that completely abandoned the simple meaning of the words in favour of other – especially messianic – significance. Muslims for their part would see their Scriptures, the Qur’an, as perfecting and fulfilling the other two. The main argument of my essay is that apologetics and polemic may be features of scriptural hermeneutics, there is however a more positive story to tell. It is a combination of the search for common scriptural ground (‘unity’) as well as the need to take difference seriously, including polemic (‘diversity’) that provides a sound basis for interfaith dialogue today.

“In the Hebrew Bible and in its ancient Greek and Aramaic versions, the figure of Moses is presented in a multitude of perspectives. Our focus is on the supernatural visions that, according to biblical texts, he experienced. In the Book of Exodus a series of extraordinary visions is granted by God to Moses (Ex 3:1-6; 19:16-25; 24:9-11; 24:15-17; 33:9-11; 33:17-23; 34: 27-33). These visionary experiences have the function of consecrating him as the guide of the people, as the liberator from Egyptian slavery, and as the mediator / transmitter of the law established by God. In Judaism of Roman-Hellenistic period, inside and outside the Land of Israel, different Jewish groups give various representations of the figure of Moses oriented to express different cultural functions of him and also various ways of relation between the Jews and the surrounding peoples. As an example of a transformation of the image of Moses through times we take into account the episode of the “transfiguration” narrated in the Gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew (Mk 9:2-9; Lk 90:28-36; Matt 17:1- 9) and also reported in other texts of Jesus’ followers of the first two centuries.1 In this episode, the figure of Moses plays a prominent role and his visionary experiences take on particular meanings.”

The figure of Moses is very complex in the Islamic tradition, both in terms of the interpretation of the Qur’anic passages concerning him, as well as what is mentioned in the Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ (Tales of the Prophets), that is the vast literature which deals with the stories of the prophets prior to Muhammad.1 The present contribution offers a study of the figure of Moses on the basis of a structural analysis of the sacred text of Islam. It is based on two assumptions: that Moses is, without fear of contradiction, the most cited prophetic figure in the Qur’an; the fact that the Qur’an is increasingly shown to be, under the lens of linguistic and historical exegesis, to be a text that is anything but disorderly and chaotic (as it was judged by Francesco Gabrieli among the many, calling it an “unbearable jag”), but rather a wisely composed and ordered text.

First § : In his SOUVENIRS PERSONNELS, published posthumously in 1967,1 Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), founder of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem, comments the publication in 1906 of the answers given by the Pontifical Biblical Commission to four doubts about the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch: “On June 27, the Holy Father gave approval to the decision of the Commission on Pentateuch, by which it considered that it was opening the door a certain distance to literary criticism, either on the theory of Moses’ secretaries, as they have been called, or by the admission of additions, notes and explanation. In order to appreciate the full significance of these concessions, we must remember that scholarly champions of the authenticity of the Pentateuch had been accustomed up to then to base their arguments on the antiquity of its linguistic forms.”2 A vision too optimistic, which immediately highlights the emptiness of the linguistic “proof.” As we shall see, the archaism of language had a precise apologetic purpose: to minimize the scope of certain embarrassing texts, assuming a “primitive” meaning for certain terms. But the French scholar insinuated another principle for the hermeneutics of the Vatican text: the silence on some matters. In addition to the timid opening of some doors, the document omitted to mention the “dangers” to which Catholic theology would have been exposed if it had relativized the whole belonging of the first five books of the Bible to the work of Moses. But Lagrange’s contemporaries knew well that any openings in this sense would gravely affect an apologetics based on the role of an eyewitness recognized to the ancient legislator.

Mose – מֹשֶׁה (Mosheh), Μωυσῆς or Μωσῆς (Mōysēs or Mōsēs), موسى (Mūsā) – belongs without doubt to those figures of religious history, who have experienced an incomparably broad reception far beyond the original religious-historical and traditional context and who have remained in historically effective memory to this day. From the very beginning, however, he has been portrayed as a shimmering figure. Therefore, years ago already, Robert Martin-Achard rightly called the Moses of the Hebrew Bible a figure polysémique, as can be learned from the numerous attributes and honorary titles bestowed upon him.

A Lecture at the Royal Geographic Society, London, 12th January 2016