English – Page 5 – 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)

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.

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.

Throughout the early Islamic period, people from various Shurāt subgroups identified themselves in their poetry and to others as ‘the exchangers’ (al-shurāt), an appellation derived, along with related words, from Qur’an 2:207. The faces of different categories of exchangers-the ideal, the elegized, the summoned and the leader —depict various facets of the concept of exchange. The singular form, ‘exchanger’ (shārin), was claimed as an identity by people from across the spectrum of Shurāt groups, activist and quietist, from the earliest moments of the Shurāt experience until the late Umayyad period. Its basic meaning is two-fold: making a choice and taking decisive action. Whether activist or quietist, each person who called himself an exchanger (shārin) was distinguishing himself from the governing authority. It was his interpretation of exchange that determined how he expressed his opposition. The poems containing this term give us insight into the variety of meanings that exchange could signify. In addition to being used to define ideas about governing authority and leadership, it has often been associated with fighting the adversary in battle. The poems show that it can also mean to retreat, to be executed in captivity and even to admit defeat. The exchanger (shārin) is presented in the context of his life beyond the battlefield and beyond mere rhetoric. Thus, the poetry sheds valuable light on various social relations within Shurāt communities.

The Ibāḍī sect of Islam originated in Iraq during the first/seventh century, but missionaries soon travelled west to the Maghrib where many Berbers, who had already converted to Islam, became followers. The Ibāḍī missionary effort culminated with the establishment of an Ibāḍī Imamate by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Rustam in about AH 160/AD 776. Many Berber tribes in North Africa became affiliated with this state while establishing good relations with the Aghlabids, who then ruled modern-day Tunisia and Tripolitania. When the Aghlabids launched their conquest of Sicily in 212/827, members of Ibāḍī Berber tribes were among the Muslim forces. With the establishment of Muslim rule on the island, Ibāḍī tribes from North Africa began to settle there. Arabic and Ibadi historical sources suggest that their communities in Sicily became part of the Ibāḍī trade network that flourished between sub-Saharan Africa and the Mediterranean. The rise of Ibāḍī commercial interests on the island may have led Ibāḍīs there into conflict with the new Fāṭimid state that replaced Aghlabid rule. It seems possible that some of the struggles between the Muslims of Sicily and the Fāṭimid central government in Ifrīqiya were due to Fāṭimid attempts to control the Ibāḍī trade network and to undermine the economic power of the Ibāḍī tribes on the island, much as they had done in North Africa.

Ibāḍī Islam, practiced by the sultans who ruled Zanzibar from 1832-1964, is a moderate sect that emerged out of Khārijism. Like the Khārijīs, Ibāḍīs recognize as Muslims only those who belong to their own sect; unlike the Khārjīs, they do not support violence against non-members. Although they advocate ‘dissociation (barā’a) from non-Ibāḍīs, this is an attitude of withholding religious ‘friendship’ (walāya) and not one of hostility. Ibāḍism emerged during the heated political disputes of early Islam and was nurtured in the relative isolation of Oman’s mountainous interior and of remote areas of North Africa. The sultans of Zanzibar ruled over a highly diverse population, mainly Sunnī Muslims. Bū Sa’īdī rulers sponsored the development of Zanzibar as a centre of Islamic scholarship for both Ibāḍīs and Sunnīs. In practice, Ibāḍī-Sunnī relations were very friendly and Sunnī scholars were among the sultans’ closest confidants. During the reign of Sayyid Barghash (1870-88), some conversions of Ibāḍīs to Sunnī Islam provoked a severe reaction from the monarch; Ibāḍī scholars of the time also felt threatened by the attraction of Sunnī Islam. Nonetheless, Ibāḍī and Sunnī scholars had cordial and collegiate relations and crossed sectarian lines for the purposes of study and adjudication.

The historiography of Salafī reform in the Arab world has confined this movement within Sunnī circles and completely overlooked the role of Ibāḍī Salafism. Like their Sunnī counterparts, Ibāḍī reformers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries called for a return to the era of the salaf in order to reform religious practices and renew Islamic thought. More interestingly, Salafism paved the way for a reconciliatory position between Sunnīs and Ibāḍīs for the sake of Muslim unity. This paper sheds light on Ibāḍī Salafism and highlights aspects of this Ibāḍī -Sunnī rapprochement. It analyzes the writings of two modern Ibāḍī reformers, Qāsim al-Shammākhī and Ibrāhīm Aṭfiyyash. While both supported Sunnī reformers, each did so in a different way. Al-Shammākhī defended the Sunnī Salafī argument to abolish the madhāhib (schools of jurisprudence) and open the gates of ijtihād. This, he believed, would allow both sects to find a meeting point in the pre-madhāhib era and would reveal the truth of Ibāḍīsm to Sunnīs. Aṭfiyyash’s approach was to deny any relationship between Ibāḍīsm and Khārijism. He wanted to present Ibāḍīs as adherents to the ideals of the salaf rather than those of a splinter group. Their different approaches reflect increasing flexibility in Salafī Ibāḍīsm after World War I. In all cases, Sunnī Salafī reform appealed to Ibāḍīs and provided reformers from both sects with the opportunity to create an ideological and political alliance.‬

This paper discusses the role of Khārijī thought in modern Arab intellectual history and attempts to answer the question: What prompted Arab scholars to suddenly become interested in the Khārijīs? After a brief introduction, the paper begins by looking at the modern reinterpretation of Khārijī history in Ibāḍī scholarship and notes that modern Ibāḍī scholars seem convinced that a favourable image of the Khārijīs will help to reconcile Ibāḍism with Sunnism. The second part of the paper argues that modern Arab scholars, who have unearthed and analyzed the vast corpus of Khārijī poetry, have used the poetry as a rhetorical vehicle to rehabilitate the image of Khārijīs in the turath and to narrow the religio-political gap between Khārijīs and Sunnīs. The paper’s third part contends that ideologically-oriented Arab scholars have reinterpreted and, most importantly, made use of Khārijī history and thought in order to promote modern (Western) ideologies and beliefs long shunned in the Arab/Islamic world. In all cases, one may argue that the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism and its portrayal as neo- Khārijīsm by some has led Arab scholars to reconsider the role and image of the historical Khārijīs. Although only a handful of modern Arab scholars have discussed and analyzed Khārijī poetry, they have produced an important and essential genre of literature on the history and beliefs of the Khārijīs. This study is significant because it unravels a body of literature that is still little known in the West.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is analyzed With three interrelated goals: first, to improve understanding of the reasons for failed conflict resolution in the Middle East by contrasting it With successful peacemaking in South Africa; second, to critically probe analogies between the two disparate situations and scrutinize whether the frequently used apartheid label fits Israeli policies; third, to draw specific lessons from the South African experience for alternatives in the Middle East. Analogies With the South African case are increasingly applied to Israel/Palestine for two different purposes: to showcase South Africa as an inspiring model for a negotiated settlement and to label Israel a ‘colonial settler State’ that should be confronted With strategies similar to those applied against the apartheid regime (sanctions, boycott). Both assumptions are problematic because of the different historical and socio-political contexts. Peacemaking resulted in an inclusive democracy in South Africa, while territorial separation in two states is widely hailed as the solution in Israel/Palestine, Ihe death of Arafat and the realignments in Palestinian politics are not changing the basic structural interests and power relations in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.