‘Never Wholly Other’: The Qur’an and Religious Pluralism in America

Another good piece by Jerusha Lamptey.

A new thought about never wholly other is expressed in the following article. I am going to think about it. By the way, my confidence in Quranic pluralism led me to organize a unique Qur’an conference with 10 non-Muslim clergy. Its at http://www.QuraanConference.com

Mike Ghouse
 
‘Never Wholly Other’: The Qur’an and Religious Pluralism in America
Courtesy:  Islamicommentary

by JERUSHA T. LAMPTEY for ISLAMiCommentary on July 9, 2014:

Jerusha Lamptey

In the United States, interreligious collaboration has grown substantially in the last decade. While not triggered by September 11th, the horrific tragedy and trauma of that day certainly increased awareness of the need for interreligious collaboration. This has led to many interfaith dialogues aimed at learning about diverse traditions. It has also led to many interreligious efforts that focus on social justice and community welfare, including disaster relief, youth projects, food banks, and community health programs. The tide of interreligious engagement shows no sides of ebbing; it is not a passing fad. In fact, by all accounts, it is the new norm of mainstream religious communities, including American Muslims.
This practical, on-the-ground embrace of religious pluralism, however, is not automatically indicative of a theological embrace of religious pluralism. In fact, there frequently exists a vast disconnect between theological understandings of religious others and practical action. Some Muslims, for example, are fully committed to interreligious engagement and devote their lives to such work, yet still harbor exclusive theological commitments to the finality and superiority of the religion of Islam. Though from an Islamic standpoint, this does not mean that other religions are completely devoid of divine guidance or value, it nevertheless does imply that the ideal relationship with God is achieved only within the specific tradition of Islam.
Eventually — as is evident in contemporary Islamic scholarship and public discussions — questions about the relationship between practice and theology do arise. Is there any theological justification for practical interreligious engagement? Is it theologically acceptable to befriend and support people outside of one’s own tradition? Is it necessary to value the religious other in order to value interreligious engagement? Does an exclusive theological view negatively impact interreligious engagement, or worse even perpetuate conflict and violence? These questions may be prompted by particular interreligious experiences, but they cannot be answered in relation to those experiences alone. For Muslims, these questions direct them back to the central and most authoritative source for religious knowledge in the Islamic tradition: the Qurʾān.
The Qurʾān, however, does not offer a single or unambiguous perspective on religious pluralism and interreligious engagement. The Qur’anic treatment of these topics is in fact inherently complex. It explicitly and extensively discusses the topic, sometimes referencing specific religious groups, such as the al-naṣārā, yahūd, and ahl ul-kitāb (commonly translated as the Nazarenes/Christians, the Jews and the People of Scripture). But it also uses more general terminology, such as believers, hypocrites, disbelievers, and submitters with reference to members of various religious communities.
The Qurʾān also does not consistently depict religious pluralism as acceptable or unacceptable. At times, it is positively evaluated and at others it is blatantly scorned. For example:

• “Those who believe, the Jews, the Nazarenes (Christians), and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their reward with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (2:62)
• “… We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, God would have made you one community, but God wanted to test you through that which God has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and God will make clear to you the matters you differed about.” (5:48, excerpt)
• “The hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell, and you will find no one to help them.” (4:145)

At the same time, there are repeated Qurʾānic affirmations of continuity and commonality (or sameness) among religious communities, revelations and prophets, including Islam:

• “We have sent other messengers before you—some We have mentioned to you and some We have not—and no messenger could bring about a sign except with God’s permission… “ (40:78)
• “We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it …” (5:48)

These various elements of the Qur’anic discussion of religious pluralism have prompted much debate in the scholarly community. Writing in and for the United States context, a number of contemporary Islamic scholars (including Asghar Ali Engineer, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Mahmut Aydin, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Reza Shah-Kazemi, and Muhammad Legenhausen) have begun to grapple with the Qurʾān’s depiction of the religious other and to offer provocative commentaries on the existence, value, and function of religious pluralism.
While these scholars use diverse methods of interpretation and arrive at diverse conclusions, two prominent trends of thought are worth noting:

• There are some scholars that prioritize the message of religious commonality (sameness), downplaying—even ignoring—Qurʾānic discussions of the differences between religious communities and religious people.
• And, there are other scholars that aim to simultaneously account for both religious sameness and otherness, but are able to do so only through interpretations that depict religious communities as isolated or hierarchically ranked.

The first trend, for example, is evident in the writings of Asghar Ali Engineer, who aims to explore Islam’s attitude to religious pluralism from a theological perspective in order to answer pressing questions about pluralistic civil society. In doing so, he employs a selection of Qur’anic verses that validates religious pluralism, judgment based on actions, and religious freedom. He ultimately argues that the Qur’an is primarily concerned with “good deeds” not “dogmas”, with ethical action not specific tenets of belief.
The second trend is evident in the writings of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Muhammad Legenhausen. Both scholars engage religious commonalities and religious differences, while Nasr adopts an isolationist model and Legenhausen appeals to hierarchical evaluation. Nasr uses the analogy of suns and their solar systems in order to argue that different religious traditions are all true, all united in a larger whole, but simultaneously all distinct. This analogy is effective in validating the integrity of “particular religious universes” but it does not account for interaction among religious communities. Legenhausen affirms the truth and salvific potential found in other religious communities, but argues that Islam has more truth. For him, other religions and revelations are not “incorrect” nor devoid of guidance, but appealing to the ideas of succession, superiority, and perfection, he argues that Islam is the only “divinely ordained” religion in contemporary times.
These perspectives, among others, offer many unique and valuable insights, and they are all attempts to grapple with the inherent complexity of the Qur’anic discussion of religious pluralism. However, it is worth noting that that they are all based on a similar conception of religious difference. They all conceive of difference as something that divides humanity through the erection of clear and static boundaries. In other words, religious communities are seen as completely different, never changing, and separated by clear, identifiable boundaries.
In the first trend, such boundaries are seen as impediments to the ultimate goal of tolerant interreligious interaction; i.e. boundaries and difference create conflict. Therefore difference is avoided, while sameness is emphasized. In the second trend, religious boundaries are affirmed, and religious difference is discussed. But, religions are then depicted as bounded wholes that either do not—or ideally would not—interact at all, or that are related only through some sort of evaluative hierarchy, such as supersession or partial/complete revelation.
Separation and hierarchical evaluation uphold boundaries and address religious difference, and, while commonalities and continuity are acknowledged to some degree, they are not permitted to blur or problematize the idea of clear-cut boundaries between religious communities.
Critiquing this particular view of religious difference (which is not only prevalent within Islamic scholarship but also within many other traditions), other scholars have proposed the need to look for different models of religious difference that could be used to interpret the Qur’an.
One new proposal, Muslima theology of religious pluralism, uses insights drawn from feminist theology to rethink the meaning and value of religious difference. Feminist theologians have long been concerned with the fact that biological difference (meaning, sexual difference) has been the basis of evaluation between men and women. Their concern has two aspects. First, they are troubled by the oppositional characterization of women and the ‘feminine’ as negative, and men and the ‘masculine’ as positive or valuable. Second, they are equally concerned with appeals to a single ‘universal humanity’ that fail to substantially engage sexual difference. Universal humanity avoids oppositional divisions, but it also neglects the importance of real differences. Also, the defining features of ‘universal humanity’ have frequently been critiqued as being male features presented in a generalized fashion as if applicable to all human beings.
Feminist theologians from different religious traditions, such as Rosemary Radford Ruether and Asma Barlas, have thus sought a way to both acknowledge commonalities and be attentive to differences without ascribing a particular or fixed evaluation to those differences. One of the ways these two scholars do so is through seeing difference, not as something that creates a boundary, but rather as something that creates the opportunity and need for a theological relationship.
Muslima theology of religious pluralism seeks to apply feminist theological concerns, as well as this insight on relationality, to the Qur’anic discourse on religious pluralism, and thereby engage the Qur’an’s complexity without giving priority to religious commonalities, or resorting to interpretations based on isolation or hierarchical evaluation of religious communities. Muslima theology does start with an acknowledgement of various commonalities among religious traditions and perspectives, but it does not end there. After all, everything is not the same. There are real differences that really matter to members of different traditions. Therefore, through a close reading of the Qur’anic text, Muslima theology critically explores what the Qur’an says about these communal differences, re-envisioning them as necessary and intentional — albeit sometimes challenging — opportunities to develop a better understanding of God, one’s self, and of humanity in general. In doing so, Muslima theology of religious pluralism opens up new theological possibilities, including the provocative possibility that a correct relationship with God is not dictated by the boundaries of religious communities. Such possibilities can offer vital sustenance and grounding to practical interreligious interaction.

Jerusha T. Lamptey is Assistant Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Her research focuses on theologies of religious pluralism, comparative theology, and feminist theology. Dr. Lamptey earned a Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies with a focus on Religious Pluralism at Georgetown University in 2011. She also received an M.A. in Islamic Sciences at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in 2004, and an M.A. in Theological and Religious Studies at Georgetown University in 2009. Before joining the Union faculty in July of 2012, she was Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University.
The above piece is based on her recently released book Never Wholly Other: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism (New York: Oxford, 2014).
– See more at: http://islamicommentary.org/2014/07/never-wholly-other-the-quran-and-religious-pluralism-in-america-jerusha-lamptey/#comment-38477

Jerusha Lamptey

In the United States, interreligious collaboration has grown substantially in the last decade. While not triggered by September 11th, the horrific tragedy and trauma of that day certainly increased awareness of the need for interreligious collaboration. This has led to many interfaith dialogues aimed at learning about diverse traditions. It has also led to many interreligious efforts that focus on social justice and community welfare, including disaster relief, youth projects, food banks, and community health programs. The tide of interreligious engagement shows no sides of ebbing; it is not a passing fad. In fact, by all accounts, it is the new norm of mainstream religious communities, including American Muslims.

This practical, on-the-ground embrace of religious pluralism, however, is not automatically indicative of a theological embrace of religious pluralism. In fact, there frequently exists a vast disconnect between theological understandings of religious others and practical action. Some Muslims, for example, are fully committed to interreligious engagement and devote their lives to such work, yet still harbor exclusive theological commitments to the finality and superiority of the religion of Islam. Though from an Islamic standpoint, this does not mean that other religions are completely devoid of divine guidance or value, it nevertheless does imply that the ideal relationship with God is achieved only within the specific tradition of Islam.

Eventually — as is evident in contemporary Islamic scholarship and public discussions — questions about the relationship between practice and theology do arise. Is there any theological justification for practical interreligious engagement? Is it theologically acceptable to befriend and support people outside of one’s own tradition? Is it necessary to value the religious other in order to value interreligious engagement? Does an exclusive theological view negatively impact interreligious engagement, or worse even perpetuate conflict and violence? These questions may be prompted by particular interreligious experiences, but they cannot be answered in relation to those experiences alone. For Muslims, these questions direct them back to the central and most authoritative source for religious knowledge in the Islamic tradition: the Qur?a-n.

The Qur?a-n, however, does not offer a single or unambiguous perspective on religious pluralism and interreligious engagement. The Qur’anic treatment of these topics is in fact inherently complex. It explicitly and extensively discusses the topic, sometimes referencing specific religious groups, such as the al-nas.a-ra-, yahu-d, and ahl ul-kita-b (commonly translated as the Nazarenes/Christians, the Jews and the People of Scripture). But it also uses more general terminology, such as believers, hypocrites, disbelievers, and submitters with reference to members of various religious communities.

The Qur?a-n also does not consistently depict religious pluralism as acceptable or unacceptable. At times, it is positively evaluated and at others it is blatantly scorned. For example:

    “Those who believe, the Jews, the Nazarenes (Christians), and the Sabians—all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good—will have their reward with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.” (2:62)
    “… We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, God would have made you one community, but God wanted to test you through that which God has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and God will make clear to you the matters you differed about.” (5:48, excerpt)
    “The hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell, and you will find no one to help them.” (4:145)

At the same time, there are repeated Qur?a-nic affirmations of continuity and commonality (or sameness) among religious communities, revelations and prophets, including Islam:

    “We have sent other messengers before you—some We have mentioned to you and some We have not—and no messenger could bring about a sign except with God’s permission… “ (40:78)
    “We sent to you [Muhammad] the Scripture with the truth, confirming the Scriptures that came before it …” (5:48)

These various elements of the Qur’anic discussion of religious pluralism have prompted much debate in the scholarly community. Writing in and for the United States context, a number of contemporary Islamic scholars (including Asghar Ali Engineer, Abdulaziz Sachedina, Mahmut Aydin, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Reza Shah-Kazemi, and Muhammad Legenhausen) have begun to grapple with the Qur?a-n’s depiction of the religious other and to offer provocative commentaries on the existence, value, and function of religious pluralism.

While these scholars use diverse methods of interpretation and arrive at diverse conclusions, two prominent trends of thought are worth noting:

    There are some scholars that prioritize the message of religious commonality (sameness), downplaying—even ignoring—Qur?a-nic discussions of the differences between religious communities and religious people.
    And, there are other scholars that aim to simultaneously account for both religious sameness and otherness, but are able to do so only through interpretations that depict religious communities as isolated or hierarchically ranked.

The first trend, for example, is evident in the writings of Asghar Ali Engineer, who aims to explore Islam’s attitude to religious pluralism from a theological perspective in order to answer pressing questions about pluralistic civil society. In doing so, he employs a selection of Qur’anic verses that validates religious pluralism, judgment based on actions, and religious freedom. He ultimately argues that the Qur’an is primarily concerned with “good deeds” not “dogmas”, with ethical action not specific tenets of belief.

The second trend is evident in the writings of Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Muhammad Legenhausen. Both scholars engage religious commonalities and religious differences, while Nasr adopts an isolationist model and Legenhausen appeals to hierarchical evaluation. Nasr uses the analogy of suns and their solar systems in order to argue that different religious traditions are all true, all united in a larger whole, but simultaneously all distinct. This analogy is effective in validating the integrity of “particular religious universes” but it does not account for interaction among religious communities. Legenhausen affirms the truth and salvific potential found in other religious communities, but argues that Islam has more truth. For him, other religions and revelations are not “incorrect” nor devoid of guidance, but appealing to the ideas of succession, superiority, and perfection, he argues that Islam is the only “divinely ordained” religion in contemporary times.

These perspectives, among others, offer many unique and valuable insights, and they are all attempts to grapple with the inherent complexity of the Qur’anic discussion of religious pluralism. However, it is worth noting that that they are all based on a similar conception of religious difference. They all conceive of difference as something that divides humanity through the erection of clear and static boundaries. In other words, religious communities are seen as completely different, never changing, and separated by clear, identifiable boundaries.

In the first trend, such boundaries are seen as impediments to the ultimate goal of tolerant interreligious interaction; i.e. boundaries and difference create conflict. Therefore difference is avoided, while sameness is emphasized. In the second trend, religious boundaries are affirmed, and religious difference is discussed. But, religions are then depicted as bounded wholes that either do not—or ideally would not—interact at all, or that are related only through some sort of evaluative hierarchy, such as supersession or partial/complete revelation.

Separation and hierarchical evaluation uphold boundaries and address religious difference, and, while commonalities and continuity are acknowledged to some degree, they are not permitted to blur or problematize the idea of clear-cut boundaries between religious communities.

Critiquing this particular view of religious difference (which is not only prevalent within Islamic scholarship but also within many other traditions), other scholars have proposed the need to look for different models of religious difference that could be used to interpret the Qur’an.

9780199362783One new proposal, Muslima theology of religious pluralism, uses insights drawn from feminist theology to rethink the meaning and value of religious difference. Feminist theologians have long been concerned with the fact that biological difference (meaning, sexual difference) has been the basis of evaluation between men and women. Their concern has two aspects. First, they are troubled by the oppositional characterization of women and the ‘feminine’ as negative, and men and the ‘masculine’ as positive or valuable. Second, they are equally concerned with appeals to a single ‘universal humanity’ that fail to substantially engage sexual difference. Universal humanity avoids oppositional divisions, but it also neglects the importance of real differences. Also, the defining features of ‘universal humanity’ have frequently been critiqued as being male features presented in a generalized fashion as if applicable to all human beings.

Feminist theologians from different religious traditions, such as Rosemary Radford Ruether and Asma Barlas, have thus sought a way to both acknowledge commonalities and be attentive to differences without ascribing a particular or fixed evaluation to those differences. One of the ways these two scholars do so is through seeing difference, not as something that creates a boundary, but rather as something that creates the opportunity and need for a theological relationship.

Muslima theology of religious pluralism seeks to apply feminist theological concerns, as well as this insight on relationality, to the Qur’anic discourse on religious pluralism, and thereby engage the Qur’an’s complexity without giving priority to religious commonalities, or resorting to interpretations based on isolation or hierarchical evaluation of religious communities. Muslima theology does start with an acknowledgement of various commonalities among religious traditions and perspectives, but it does not end there. After all, everything is not the same. There are real differences that really matter to members of different traditions. Therefore, through a close reading of the Qur’anic text, Muslima theology critically explores what the Qur’an says about these communal differences, re-envisioning them as necessary and intentional — albeit sometimes challenging — opportunities to develop a better understanding of God, one’s self, and of humanity in general. In doing so, Muslima theology of religious pluralism opens up new theological possibilities, including the provocative possibility that a correct relationship with God is not dictated by the boundaries of religious communities. Such possibilities can offer vital sustenance and grounding to practical interreligious interaction.

Jerusha T. Lamptey is Assistant Professor of Islam and Ministry at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Her research focuses on theologies of religious pluralism, comparative theology, and feminist theology. Dr. Lamptey earned a Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies with a focus on Religious Pluralism at Georgetown University in 2011. She also received an M.A. in Islamic Sciences at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences in 2004, and an M.A. in Theological and Religious Studies at Georgetown University in 2009. Before joining the Union faculty in July of 2012, she was Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University.

The above piece is based on her recently released book Never Wholly Other: A Muslima Theology of Religious Pluralism (New York: Oxford, 2014).