I first got a sense of the meaning of interfaith dialogue as a 26-year-old student on a Fulbright fellowship in Rome. I was a newly ordained rabbi representing the Reform Jewish movement in a meeting with Pope John XXIII to discuss hunger issues. With the impetuousness of youth, I asked the pontiff about the Church’s role in the destruction of European Jewry. I’d been a refugee at age 6, but lucky — we’d fled Italy just before the war. The pontiff’s response was that he planned to do something about it.

That meeting, some 50 years ago, was one of the transformative experiences of my life because Pope John XXIII impressed me as a truly saintly individual who was dedicated to doing great things. Even though I am a Jew, I’ve returned to the Vatican, seat of Roman Catholicism, many times because I’ve experienced firsthand there the power of interfaith dialogue in the hands of great leaders. Under Pope John Paul II, the “Prague Accord,” which asked for forgiveness of past acts of anti-Judaism, was adopted; diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel were established; we saw the first pope to enter the synagogue in Rome, as well as that profound sight of John Paul, in his frail years, putting a prayer of reconciliation in the Western Wall. On this day of his beatification, it is only appropriate that we celebrate this leader who made a revolutionary impact in Catholic-Jewish relations within our lifetime, and that we of all faiths continue to learn from him. I had the privilege of meeting with Pope John Paul II on numerous occasions and I remember a vibrant, intense, egoless personality who was concerned with Justice and Mercy and Truth, and how to bring those ideals to life in the modern world. Perhaps the first impression one had in meeting him was his gravitas — a presence that immediately made you feel that something important is at stake. At the same time, his profound humanity and love shown through at every meeting, and you felt he was interested in you and what you were doing and the topic at hand. Always he looked to how the faiths could come together. In one meeting in Denver, he expressed strong concern that religions work together to offer an objective and universal ethic that could help deal with the pressing problems we face: war, poverty, inequality, the lack of education in so many parts of the world. In another meeting at the Vatican, he was much more theoretical and theological, relating to work our interfaith center had done in educating the interreligious community on the new catechism, and how best to conduct theological dialogue between Christians and Jews. He firmly believed that we who have received — all people of faith — are incumbent to do something about the ills of the world. After establishing the indissoluble connection for Christians of Judaism with Christianity, the pope officially asked Christians to strive to acquire a better knowledge of the basic components of Judaism’s religious tradition. The pope emphasized that it was essential for Christians to understand how Jews define themselves. “They [Christians] must strive to learn by what essential traits the Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience.” The pope also clearly understood that the attempt to understand must also be mutual, if real dialogue is to take place. So when the pope first met with members of the Jewish community, he said, “You are here, I believe, to help us in our reflection on Judaism and I’m sure that we find in you and in the communities you represent, a real and deep disposition to understand Christianity and the Catholic church in it’s proper identity today, so that we may work from both sides toward our common aim of overcoming every kind of prejudice and discrimination.” This very important statement says it’s not enough for Christians to understand Jews and view them the way they view themselves, it’s equally necessary for Jews to understand Christians and the way we view ourselves. I believe this essential element, so clearly articulated by the late pope, remains lacking in Christian-Jewish dialogue. Pope John Paul understood that the destruction of European Jewry prompted many Christians to discover the true spiritual patrimony that we share. The experience of having survived millennia, from the Jewish point of view, is of extreme theological significance and has much to do with dialogue. Our relationship with God and with oppression is linked at our very core. Jewish thinking, religious structures, self-understanding — all that serves our spiritual self-preservation — evolved in part to control, circumvent or contend with a hostile environment. Judaism became what it needed to be in order to survive. Therefore, the devastating destruction of 6 million Jews made it necessary first, to acknowledge the role that Christian teachings may have had in regard to that horror. The “We Remember” document, The European Bishops’ statements, the Papal visit to Israel and the “Fundamental Accord” have significantly dealt with that. I think this was a necessary early step, though here I have to say many Christians still have no sense of the Jewish experience with respect to the precariousness and vulnerability of being a Jew — this feeling that Jewish identity hangs in the balance and each generation doesn’t know whether it will be the last, something John Paul understood well. In turn, for many Jews the challenge of dialogue, of reconciliation, the challenge of love, is terrifying because it can appear to threaten everything that helped keep Jews, Jews. We as Jews are challenged to dismantle emotional and political defenses that have bolstered us, preserved us and to a great extent, have become us. Dialogue and reconciliation challenge us to breathe new life into a stale, dusty habit, born of oppression; to open the ghetto which still exists in the world, if not in our minds and hearts. In all these years there have been no official statements coming from the Jewish side to clarify Jewish attitudes with respect to Christianity. What has occurred thus far is significant on both sides, but I think remains preliminary to deriving the full benefits and essence of dialogue. What one was left with after meeting with Pope John Paul was his complete dedication to the next step in dialogue wherein one must be true to one’s own faith without being false to the faith of the other — and how serious and difficult this task is. I believe that is the fundamental question and the fundamental issue of dialogue and should influence every single discussion on every level. “How can I be true to my own faith without being false to yours?” It’s not enough for me to say, “Here’s what Judaism believes, now you tell me what Christianity believes.” It’s important for me to say, “I can have a sense of myself without diminishing you in any way. I can affirm my beliefs without restricting, denigrating or distorting yours.” When we attempt to discuss the deepest convictions by which individuals define their very essence and beliefs, upon which one’s whole existence is at stake, it requires a special sensitivity and understanding which simply does not apply in other areas of discussion. This is not dialogue between science and religion nor is it the same as the discussion between religion and secularism. Interreligious dialogue has a place of its own. There is an intrinsic humility that must show itself in the presence of discussions dealing with the Divine. I believe Pope John Paul would agree that our interrelationships have yet to be fully explored in an authentic and honest manner in order to discover the truth that each can offer the other. He understood it was of the utmost importance for us to recognize that we have much to learn from one another, and accomplish together. Ultimately, what is at stake in all interreligious dialogue is the trusteeship that human beings have in the created order.There are many stories that contemporary Imams rarely tell their congregations. The story of Mukhayriq, a Rabbi from Medina is one such story. I have heard the stories about the battle of Uhud, one of prophet Muhammad’s major battles with his Meccan enemies, from Imams and Muslim preachers hundreds of times, but not once have I heard the story of Rabbi Mukhayriq who died fighting in that battle against the enemies of Islam.
So, I will tell the story of Rabbi Mukhayriq – the first Jewish martyr of Islam. It is quite apropos as the season of spiritual holidays is here.
Mukhayriq was a wealthy and learned leader of the tribe ofTha’labah. He fought with Prophet Muhammed in the battle of Uhud on March 19, 625 AD and was martyred in it. That day was a Saturday. Rabbi Mukhayriq addressed his people and asked them to go with him to help Muhammed. His tribe’s men declined saying that it was the day of Sabbath. Mukhayriq chastised them for not understanding the deeper meaning of Sabath and announced to his people that if he died in the battle his entire wealth should go to Muhammed.
Mukhayriq died in battle against the Meccans. And when Muhammed, who was seriously injured in that battle, was informed about the death of Mukhayriq, Muhammed said, “He was the best of Jews.”
Muhammed inherited seven gardens and other forms of wealth from Mukhayriq. Muhammed used this wealth to establish the firstwaqf – a charitable endowment – of Islam. It was from this endowment that the Prophet of Islam helped many poor people in Medina.
When Muhammed migrated form Mecca to Medina in 622 he signed a treaty with the various tribes that lived in and around Medina. Many of these tribes had embraced Islam, some were pagan and others were Jewish. All of them signed the treaty with Muhammed that is referred to by historians as theConstitution of Medina. The first Islamic state, a multi-tribal and multi-religious state, established by Muhammed in Medina was based on this social contract.
According to Article 2 of the Constitution, all tribes who were signatory to the treaty constituted one nation (ummah). Mukhayriq’s people too were signatories to this treaty and were obliged to fight with Muhammed in accordance to Article 37 of the Constitution, which says:
The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
In a way Rabbi Mukhayriq, who was also a well-respected scholar of Jews in Medina, was merely being a good citizen and was fulfilling a social contract. But his story is fantastic, especially for our times when we are struggling to build bridges between various religious communities. Mukhayriq’s loyalty, his bravery, his sacrifice and his generosity are inspirational.
Perhaps it is about people like Mukhayriq that the Quran says:
And there are, certainly, among Jews and Christians, those who believe in God, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the Signs of God for a miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord (3:199).
Mukhayriq’s story is a story of an individual’s ability to transcend communal divides and to fight for a more inclusive idea of community. He was a true citizen of the state of Medina and he gave his life in its defense. He was a Jew and he was an Islamic hero and his story must never be forgotten and must be told and retold. When Muslims forget to remember his, and other stories that epitomize interfaith relations they diminish the legacy of Islam and betray the cause of peace.
If Muslim Imams told his story in their congregations in America and elsewhere, I am confident that it will contribute to manifestations of increased tolerance by Muslims towards others. There are many such wonderful examples of brotherhood, tolerance, sacrifice and good citizenship in Islamic traditions that undergird the backbone of Islamic ethics. I wish we told them more often.
Muqtedar Khan is Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
There are a number of Latin phrases that have survived millennia, because they contain immortal pearls of wisdom. In a world that is increasingly using Twitter and short SMS text messages to communicate, these Latin phrases may experience a renaissance, because they are often concise and profound. One of my favorite Latin phrases is “barba non facit philosophum”, which roughly translates to “a beard does not make a philosopher”. It means that it takes much more than a beard to become a philosopher and thus highlights how important it is to distinguish between the outward appearance of a person and their actual knowledge, intellect or other abilities.This tweetable phrase is not just applicable to philosophers and beards, but can be broadly applied to people of all ages, backgrounds, professions, cultures and gender. It reminds us of how we often overemphasize the outward appearance and this adage rings just as true today as it did when it was first used. It also lends itself to be adapted to contemporary issues.

The adaptation that I like to use is “barba non facit muslimum”, which is supposed to mean “a beard does not make a Muslim”, even though I realize that “muslimum” is not a Latin word. Many Muslim scholars feel that the Islamic tradition encourages Muslim men to have beards. While the Quran itself does not directly link piety with having a beard, over time, many Muslim communities have developed a vague expectation that pious or devout Muslim men ought to have beards.

I have also on occasion heard comments about Muslim politicians or public figures who are involved in corruption or fraudulent activities that they behaved dishonestly, “in spite of having a long beard”. Even though these comments are said jokingly, they do underscore the implicit link between the character of a person and their outward appearance. When asked specifically about the importance of a beard relative to other aspects of the Muslim faith, most Muslims will likely answer that the compassion and charitable behavior of the individual are far more important than whether or not he has a beard. However, such “inward” characteristics are difficult to ascertain during passing encounters, while the presence or absence of a beard is much easier to determine.

The “barba non facit muslimum” phrase can also be interpreted in an expanded manner, and refer to the outward appearance of Muslims in general. The wearing of a head-scarf (hijab) by Muslim women is encouraged by a number of Muslim scholars. As with the beards of Muslim men, members of the Muslim community sometimes consciously or subconsciously perceive the presence of a head-scarf as a sign of piety of the individual. On the flip-side, there may be an implicit assumption that the absence of a hijab may indicate less piety.

Most religions including Islam discourage humans from judging each other’s piety. Piety is a diffuse and not definable concept and if there is any judgment to be passed, it is generally thought to fall in God’s domain. However, we humans seem to indulge in passing judgments on each other. The outward appearance is much easier to evaluate than “inward” characteristics such as compassion or humility, which lie at the core of most faiths. Therefore, the combination of our desire to judge each other with our intellectual laziness may have resulted in an over-emphasis of the outward appearance.

The over-emphasis of the outward appearance in matters of faith comes at a certain cost, because it diverts time and resources from more pressing issues. One such example is the question of universal healthcare in the USA. Caring for the sick and elderly is a central tenet not only of Islam, but also of most faiths and humanist belief systems. As a strong supporter of universal healthcare and as a Muslim, I would have wished a much stronger involvement of American Muslims in the discussion about universal healthcare proposed by the Obama administration. I participated in two events organized by Muslim organizations in the Chicago area to discuss the issue of universal healthcare. Unfortunately, the interest in this topic was rather limited and the turnout quite low. On the other hand, lectures or discussions about “modest Islamic dress” are often packed with members of the community.

Another example is the recent ban of face veils (niqab) in France. This enforcement of the ban by the French government has resulted in a barrage of op-eds, articles, talks and blogs by Muslims in America. Some see the ban in France as an infringement of civil rights, while others argue that the ban will help the integration of Muslims in France. All in all, it is surprising that this ban that affects perhaps only 2000 women in France has evoked such passionate responses here in the USA, while the activism for issues such as healthcare and education, which affect millions of Americans, has been comparatively muted.

Choosing an outward appearance that is compatible with one’s faith is a personal decision. However, we have to constantly re-evaluate our priorities and make sure that the time, efforts and resources devoted to the outward appearance should be in some measure of proportion to its actual importance within the faith.

Jalees Rehman is a German Muslim scientist currently on faculty at the University Chicago as an Assistant Professor of Medicine working both as a stem cell biologist as well as a cardiologist. In addition to his work in the biomedical sciences, he has also studied the boundaries between religion and science and is currently trying to understand the clash between modernity and postmodernity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s