globalresearch--2019-05-01--Tolerance and Spirituality Debunking the Islamophobic View of an Intolerant Islam

Tolerance and Spirituality: Debunking the Islamophobic View of an “Intolerant Islam”

This incisive article by Professor Henry Espiritu was first published by Global Research in November 2017  “And thou wilt find the nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud.” (Al-Qur-an, Surah Maidah: 82)  The current expansion in mass media and communications reveal more evidently that our world contains variety of cultures, races, religions, and ideologies. Despite globalization and its attendant efforts towards homogeneity, ours is still a pluralist world. As such, tolerance is a foundational notion and a very relevant conceptual and practical prerequisite in establishing a pluralistic society. In pluralism’s point of view, people living in a society with varied religious, cultural, and ideological commitments should enjoy equal rights and should not sacrifice their beliefs at the mercy of the hegemonic ideology of a particular State or of the dominant religion of the majority community.  In our highly globalized world, tolerance and amity are all the more needed for the survival, cohesion, and progress of its citizens.  The contemporary mass media portray Islamic societies to be intolerant of other’s religious and ideological persuasions. The purpose of this paper is not to examine whether the contemporary media is right or wrong in perceiving Islamic societies as intolerant. My aim in this essay is to show that authentic Islam—as contained in the pristine revelation of the Qur-an—promotes tolerance, harmony, and goodwill of all peoples despite their differences.  In this paper, I want to reflect straight from the original source of Islamic tenets (i.e., the Qur-an) the tolerant attitude of Islam vis-à-vis religious, cultural, and ideological diversities found in human societies. Likewise, I will endeavor to show various thematic perspectives found in selected passages of the Qur-an that encourage tolerance and societal concord. Side by side with my exposition of authentic Islam’s framework of tolerance, I will likewise provide several historical instantiations of this “spirituality of tolerance” in the lives of selected Muslim savants and revered Islamic personalities of various epochs in their encounter with Christians.  I sincerely hope that by showing the tolerant and pluralistic pronouncements of the Qur-an, and the historical instantiations of tolerance manifested in the exemplary lives of these prominent Muslims as they relate with Christians, I will be able to encourage Muslims to fully practice and live-out the Islamic mandates of amity and inter-religious understanding in their daily lives. Moreover, I further hope that in this essay, I will be able to inform non-Muslims that genuine Islam—as contained in the Qur-anic revelation, in the model conduct of the Prophet, and in the exemplary lives of pious Muslim personages—is a very tolerant religion that acknowledges and respects the divergent beliefs and ideological views of others.  The Dynamics of Tolerance: Philosophical, Metaphysical, and Mystical Presuppositions  Firstly, let me briefly explicate my own conceptual framework and philosophical presuppositions in understanding tolerance. Tolerance presupposes plurality and diversity of identities. Pluralism further presupposes alterity or otherness, since diversity entails variety of identities and plurality of existing values. The opposite of pluralism is hegemony where one particular value is imposed and where there is an enforced totalization of expressions of life to make human values comply to a uniformed worldview and a set praxis. Now, tolerance can only exist in a pluralistic framework since pluralism celebrates in the difference of the “other”. Tolerance is a very important ethical value in the face of the alterity of the “other”. Tolerance therefore presupposes an “other” since without an “other”, there is nothing to tolerate at all. In hegemony, however, the “other” is swallowed and annihilated by the sheer imposition of uniformity and forcible totalization. Thus with the absence of the “other” in a hegemony, tolerance will also be non-existent—this is why all totalitarian and hegemonic societies are most intolerant of differences and dissenting views.  Secondly, I consider tolerance as spirituality. A person who can tolerate the “other” is able to see the unitive Source Who permits and wills these various differences and diversities as found in the world. This unitive Bond that permeates all diverse phenomena of creation and transcends multiplicities—the mystics termed, “the One God”. In the words of the Holy Qur-an:  Therefore—for the Qur-an—God is both the Ultimate Source of these diversities and the Essential End of all varied cosmic entities. Spirituality or mysticism acknowledges God as the unifying Connectivity that deeply binds the whole of creation to Himself despite their apparent differences and multiplicities. Muslim and Christian mystics are well able to tolerate religious differences because in their inner beings, these mystics see the vision of the One, and this unitive vision enabled them to go beyond creedal and dogmatic differences. It is by this divine grace of an all-inclusive vision of the One that enables saints and mystics to tolerate the “otherness” of the other (See Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam. London: Mandala Books, 1964; pp. 13-18.).  Tolerance in dealing with others, particularly the religious “other” is spirituality because by tolerating differences, one acknowledges the divine Wisdom of God who wills that these differences be made manifest. By reflecting on this ineffable theological tension regarding the plurality or diversity of God’s creation and the essential oneness of creation in the Being of God, mystics of all religious traditions appreciate the mystery and spirituality of tolerance; an unfathomable and sympathetic understanding that is holistically related to a consciousness of divine unity manifesting in and through diversity. Tolerance permits us to experience the sympathetic feeling of divine inter-connectedness among diverse creatures in the divine immanence of the Creator who permits these differences.  My own prayerful reflections evidently reveal to me that authentic Islam, i.e., the Islam as expressed in the pristine pages of the Qur-an and in the exemplary conduct set forth by Prophet Muhammad—in contrast with the rigid and hegemonic “Islam” as interpreted by “extremist” exegeses or “fundamentalist” hermeneutics—clearly advocates pluralism and encourages tolerance in its relationship with the religious “other”. In the next subsections, we will examine how the Qur-anic understanding of pluralism is intimately connected to the spirituality of tolerance. We will also see how the Qur-anic discourse of tolerance is practically exemplified in the lives of selected Muslim saints in their encounter and dialogue with Christians.  The Qur-anic View of Pluralism and Its Relevance to an Islamic Understanding of Tolerance  The Qur-an is fully conscious of the pluralistic nature of human societies. Many Qur-anic passages describe the diverse expressions of life as found in human communities. Pluralism is therefore a fact, which the Qur-an accepts as the basic reality of our human existence. The Qur-an says:  “For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds. To Allah will all return, so He will inform you of that wherein you differed.” (Surah Maida:48; The Holy Qur-an: Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation)  The above passage is a very decisive proclamation supporting tolerance. The verse fully points out the pluralistic condition of humankind. The passage admits to the existence of societal and religious diversity characterizing human communities when it declares; “for everyone of you, We appointed a law and a way”. Notice that this verse says that our pluralistic situation is willed and permitted by God so as to test human communities so that each community will vie with each other in doing good deeds. It further says:  “And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”.  Surah Maida:48 is likewise a very relevant verse in understanding the nature of the Islamic understanding of tolerance. If God willed that this world contains socio-cultural and religious diversities (when He could have made the world a “single people”), and if God himself has a divine reason for allowing these diversities (so that each society will “vie with one another in virtuous deeds”); then humankind should strive to accept, tolerate, and appreciate the fact of our pluralistic world.  Good Will, Courtesy, and Mutual Respect: The Basic Ethical Pillars of Qur-anic Tolerance  Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori (circa 1879-1951), was an eminent Pakistani scholar of Qur-anic and Hadith exegesis. He authored exhaustive and authoritative books of Qur-anicexegesis, collectively known in Urdu as Bayan-e Qur-an (Qur-anic Lectures) and a comprehensive commentary of the Prophetic Traditions, entitled The Manual of Hadith. Maulana Muhammad Ali Lahori strove to present Islam as a rational, tolerant, and forward-looking religion during the era of the British rule of then undivided India.  In this period of the British Raj, various Christian missionary groups representing different denominations compete for the conversion of Indians to Christianity. Seeing the zeal of these missionaries, Maulana Muhammad Ali began to reflect on the state of the Muslims in India. He re-evaluated the Indian appropriation of Islamic tenets and found out that the Muslims in India were enveloped with customs which were thought to be Islamic, but in reality, were products of obscurantism, and therefore devoid of Islamic significance.  Maulana Muhammad Ali likewise engaged the Christian missionaries in friendly dialogues to clarify common misconceptions of Islam. His scholarly book, The Religion of Islam, which was the result of these dialogic exchanges, show a very rational explication of Islam; at the same time fully cognizant of the Christian missionaries’ objections against Islam by responding to these objections using the Qur-an and Sunnah as bases of clarification. In all his writings, one can admire the profound respect that Maulana Muhammad Ali accorded to his interlocutors, both Christians and Muslims.  I will quote from his Urdu commentary of the Holy Qur-an on the necessity of courtesy (adab), good will (ahsan), and respect or honor (izzat) in dialoguing with others. Commenting on the Qur-anicayah (verse): “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” (Surah Nahl:125), Maulana Muhammad Ali had this to say:  Maulana Muhammad Ali, in his encounters with Christian missionaries, was able to articulate and apply the ethical principles of dialogue and tolerance, which were already laid down by the Holy Qur-an (namely in Surah Nahl:125 and in Surah Ankabut:46). Maulana Muhammad Ali understood tolerance as something inherent in our being persons of good will; and that this divine awareness of good intention leads us to respect the viewpoint of the other person even if we do not subscribe to his creedal tenets. The verse in Surah Nahl:125 encourages Muslims to dialogue with the religious “other” in the spirit of sincere courtesy, profound sensitivity, and deep respect for each other’s differences, by granting a concordant presumption that the other’s intention in striving to convert another person is due to good will (i.e., for the “other’s” spiritual salvation).  Maulana Muhammad Ali asserts that Surah Maida:48 is an explicit endorsement of pluralism and its attendant duty of tolerating the various diversities of humankind. I quote from Maulana Muhammad Ali’s exhaustive Qur-anic commentary to this particular passage:  As commented by Maulana Muhammad Ali, Surah Maida:48 explicitly declares that Almighty God sent his messengers to diverse groups of people and gave these communities their respective commandments in keeping with the different circumstances of each community. The laws prescribed by God to the different communities ensure the holistic development of their respective people. The verse continues, “And if Allah had pleased, He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie with one another in virtuous deeds”. This verse clearly pointed out that if God so willed it, He can create a single community out of varied groups of people. Nevertheless, God planned that humankind be varied in its communitarian expressions.  God’s endowment of a pluralistic world is His grace to humanity. Our differences provide venues for existential celebration of life and of living: variety and diversity being the potent antidote to our humdrum existence. Each community has its own unique way of life, its own customs and traditions, its own laws. Nevertheless, no matter how diverse these ways of life are, it should be understood in the light of the Almighty’s life-affirming purpose in allowing such diversities, i.e., human flourishing. It is therefore clear from Surah Maidah:48 that although God can produce a uniformed world of totalities by imposing a single law for all communities, yet He prefers to create pluralistic communities so that humankind will learn the values of tolerance, amity, harmony, and fraternity.  Another aim of God in creating varied communities is to test human beings in the conduct of virtuous deeds. He tests the various societies if they can live amicably and cordially with each other despite their differences. The divergence in each society’s ways of life should not be a cause of disharmony and differences; instead, societal divergences should prod each community to vie with one another in the performance of virtuous conduct (Cf., Reza Shah Kazemi, The Metaphysics of Interreligious Dialogue. London: Institute of Isma’ili Studies, 2001; pp.5-7.).  The Qur-an insists that the best way of putting an end to religious, cultural, and ideological conflicts is to tolerate differences with openness and good faith. Each religious community should do righteous deeds according to their tenets; leaving to God the judgment as to which community is the best. The final section of the passage states:  The verse is very precise in stating that it should be left to God (and to God alone) in deciding the truth of the matters that peoples dispute. It is not for humans to pontificate which view is true and which is wrong. Vain and fruitless arguments as to which religious, ethical, and ideological point of view is right or wrong will only lead to communal fracas and infringement of societal concord. Likewise, the verse firmly admonishes human beings to contend with one another in good deeds by utilizing their own respective laws as bases of their righteous conduct.  God as the Ultimate Source of Divine Revelation: A Central Tenet in the Qur-anic Understanding of Tolerance  The prologue of Surah Maida:48 states, “And We have revealed to thee the Book [i.e., the Qur-an] with the truth verifying that which is before it [i.e., the previous scriptures]…and a guardian over it”. This verse is a strong proclamation in favor of tolerance and pluralism. The Qur-an is referred to as “guardian” of the truths revealed by earlier scriptures. Likewise, one of the roles of the Qur-an is “a verifier” of previous scriptures. According to Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani, a Fatimid theologian and philosopher of the tenth century AD, this verse implies that the scriptures of various religions may be different, but the Ultimate Source of all revealed scriptures is the One and Only God. Thus, scriptures of different faiths are based on Divine revelation.  The tolerant nature of Islam as a religion can be seen in this verse in that, the Qur-an takes it upon itself to be the confirmer, verifier, and guardian of truths revealed in earlier scriptures (Paul Walker, Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani: Intellectual Missionary. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1996; pp. 26-32, 58.).  Before elaborating further on Ustaz Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani’s view of the Qur-an as the guardian and verifier of previous divinely revealed books and the implications of this Qur-anic guardianship to an Islamic framework of tolerance, a brief historical background of Ustaz Sijistani’s life is in order. Ustaz Abu Ya’qub Sijistani—although himself an Isma’ili Shi’a—maintained amicable relations with the orthodox Sunni majority during the period of the Fatimid Caliphate (i.e., 10th-11th century A.D.). To the dismay of the rabid Shi’as, Ustaz Sijistani forbade his disciples to curse the first three Caliphs of Islam (Khulafa-ar-Rashidin); warning them, that Prophet Muhammad lavished praise on these three Caliphs, and therefore, it is never right and against Islamic prudence to curse whom the Prophet had abundantly praised.  His endeavor to establish Sunni-Shi’a rapprochement was also matched by his spiritual and intellectual relationship with the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Arab Orthodox Christians of Iraq, the Byzantine Christians of Anatolia, and the Jews. He studied the Torah in Hebrew and the New Testament in the Syro-Aramaic text. He often consulted Jewish rabbis and Orthodox Christian hermits and enquired from them regarding their interpretation of some obscure passages of the Bible. His encounters with Christianity and Judaism were indeed intellectually stimulating since Ustaz Sijistani wrote six (6) religio-philosophical treatises reflecting on his relations with Christianity and Judaism, not to mention the orthodox Sunni Islam. Sijistani’s main books, The Wellspring of Wisdom (Yanbu-al-Hikmat) and Proofs of Prophecy (Ithbat-un-Nubuwwat) were written to show that God is the ultimate Source of Revelation and that this divine Revelation is progressive, i.e., it is sent according to the measure of the spiritual preparedness of humankind to receive divine guidance. Ustaz Sijistani was therefore a perfect example of an “ecumenical Muslim”—if I may be permitted to coin such a term.  Let us now explicate on Sijistani’s understanding of progressive revelation and its implication to an Islamic perspective of tolerance. As per Ustaz Sijistani, the inclusive nature of the Islamic faith can be clearly observed in the Qur-an’s numerous narrations regarding the ministries of Jewish, Christians, and other pre-Islamic prophets. The Qur-an’s inclusion of the prophets of other religions preceding Islam is meant to illustrate the pluralistic and tolerant dimension of the Qur-anic Revelation. The list of prophets as found in the Qur-an was never meant to be exhaustive; it was meant to illustrate the extent of the universal chain of prophethood. Thus, we can safely assume that other religious communities that were not mentioned in the Qur-an are likewise included in the all-inclusive Qur-anic guardianship (Walker, Ibid, pp. 45-58, 110-112.).  Furthermore, Sijistani opined that the Qur-an fully acknowledges the different expressions of worship undertaken by different religions, while at the same time firmly holding to the Islamic expressions of worship (i.e., the five-times-a-day liturgical prayers, prescribed pilgrimage, Ramadhan fasting, etc.). In Surah Baqara:148 it is stated: “And everyone has a goal to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good works”. Abu Ya’qub al-Sijistani, interpreted the phrase, “everyone has a goal to which he turns” to signify the diverse spiritual communities and their different approaches of worship (Ibid, pp. 49-51.). Ustaz Sijistani, also pointed out that Surah Baqara:148 is very much related to the phrase in Surah Maida:48, viz; “For everyone of you We appointed a law and a way”.  The Qur-an on the Oneness of Humankind and Diverse Expressions of Human Cultures  The Qur-an, in many numerous passages explicitly proclaims the oneness of humankind. Humanity was “created from a single being” (Surah Nisah:1). All humans came from a single ancestry and living in the same homeland, earth (Surah Hujurat:13). Furthermore, Surah Baqara:213 says that the whole of humankind is essentially one in origin—from God, humankind’s Creator. God sent various messengers with their respective scriptures to guide the peoples of the world to righteous living. These prophets were sent to different places of the world and their revelations were suited to the varying milieus, mentalities, contextualities, situations, and circumstances of the peoples and societies in which they were being sent. However, instead of respecting other societies’ contextualities, people began to be divided and incessantly fight against each other. Surah Baqara:213 further states that God in giving His revelation to different communities did not intend that they fight each other; but that each communities respect each other’s differences.  The Qur-an balances its affirmation of the ontological oneness of humankind by equally highlighting on the divergent racial, linguistic, ideological, religious, and national identities of each society. God wills these identities; as the Qur-an plainly states, “And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors. Surely, there are signs in these for the learned” (Surah Rum:2). This passage acknowledges cultural differences as “signs” of God and must be duly appreciated as these “signs” serve as venues for each society’s expression of identity. Cultural differences are essential for establishing a community’s identity and these divergences should prompt peoples to celebrate each other’s cultural and national identities (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali’s commentary of Surah Baqara:213, Hujurat:13 and Maida:48; op.cit.). Therefore, the Qur-an undoubtedly recognizes cultural, religious, and societal diversities as being willed by Divine Providence; even as it equally affirms the essential unity and oneness of humankind.  Tolerance and the Diverse Liturgical Expressions of Worship Found in Other Faiths  As of this juncture, it is noteworthy to quote some Qur-anic passages that illustrate the practical dimensions of Islamic tolerance with respect to the different worship expressions of other faith-traditions. The Qur-an says:  The great master of Islamic mysticism, Hazrat Shaykh-al-Akbar Muhaiyuddin Ibn Arabi (circa 1164-1240 AD), in his Sufi treatise, Bezels of Wisdom (Fusus al-Hikam) provided a very universal and inclusive interpretation of the above passage, showing the tolerant nature of Islamic Sufism that Ibn Arabi espoused. Before discussing Ibn Arabi’s explanation of the above-mentioned passage, I feel that it is beneficial for our understanding to describe briefly his historical contextuality. Ibn Arabi’s tolerant and pluralistic approach to Islamic spirituality can best be gleaned in his oft-quoted pronouncement:  Now let us come to Ibn Arabi’s inclusivist exegesis of Surah Baqara:177 and how this exegesis conduces to an Islamic spirituality of tolerance. Commenting on the above-mentioned verse, Ibn Arabi says:  Ibn Arabi admits that although in Islam, there exists a specific direction and prescribed liturgical postures by which a Muslim faces when praying, yet for him, the Qur-an equally acknowledges with respect the various directions and gestures of prayer adopted by other religions in their worship. More importantly, for Ibn Arabi, Surah Baqara:177 encourages religious pluralism and tolerance by going beyond (i.e., transcending) the ritual demands of different ceremonial expressions of worship and focusing instead on the importance of humane character, viz, compassion towards others and persevering faith in the midst of trials and difficulties (See, Henry Bayman, The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001; pp. 166, 206.). Ibn Arabi explained that the divine purpose of the various prescribed acts of worship is for the spiritual education of humankind, aside from the avowed aim of glorifying God. For him, more than the outward manifestations of piety, the crucial intention of the Qur-an is for the Islamic Ummah(community) to produce proper human beings who are sensitive to the needs of others. The Qur-an endeavors to create compassionate and “humane” persons who act with benevolence and equanimity to everybody with no regard whatsoever to racial, cultural, religious, or ideological differences (Ibid, pp. 97-98, 103.).  Instantiations of Tolerance from the Life of the Prophet of Islam and His Companions  The Qur-an clearly reveals that, “all the children of Adam are equally honored” by God (See, Surah Bani-Israil:70). The Qur-an also takes an all-inclusive humanistic view in its understanding of justice and equality among all peoples. When it comes to judging actions that either benefit or harm humanity, the Qur-an does not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. As pointed out in Surah Nisah:123-124,  The Qur-an further affirms; “so he who does an atom’s weight of good will see it. And he who does an atom’s weight of evil will see it” (Surah Zilzal:7-8.). According to the Qur-an, God does not consider a person’s dogmatic or creedal commitment when rendering judgment of an action. Everyone will be given their just recompense based on one’s deeds and not because of one’s religious adherence.  Furthermore, the Qur-an exhorts Muslims to respect places of worship of other faith-traditions and to ensure that these will be protected and safe from acts of vandalism and destruction. Surah al-Hajj:40 says; “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much remembered would have been pulled down” (Maulana Muhammad Ali Translation.).  The abovementioned verse is very explicit in enjoining Muslims to sacrifice even their very own lives to defend the sanctity of churches and synagogues, and not just mosques. Interestingly, this particular passage avers that whether in church, synagogue or mosque, God’s name is “commemorated in abundant measure” in all these places of worship (Cf., Muhammad Hamidullah, Islam: An Introduction. Lahore: Kitab Islami Wakf, 1979; pp.34-35. See also Kazemi, op.cit., p.12.). Here, we can find that the Qur-an did not make any distinction between shrines of worship—it acknowledges the sacredness of places of worship where God’s name is celebrated with reverence; no matter what faith-tradition these shrines belong.  The Qur-an solemnly affirms, “there is no compulsion in religion” (Surah Baqara:256). The Qur-an is very keen in preserving freedom of conscience and freedom of belief—two crucial elements which are at the heart of tolerance. In this connection, a narration of two episodes in the life of the Prophet Muhammad is very pertinent in order to show that Islam fully respects the freedom of peoples to practice their own faith. When the people of Medina accepted the Prophet as their lawmaker and chief governmental executive, the Prophet himself immediately asked his scribes to write a declaration assuring the freedom of Jews and Christian residents of Medina and Najran to practice their faith. Likewise, when Christian monks and priests from Abyssinia came to Medina to see the Prophet, they inquired where they can hold their Eucharistic service (since they were still in Medina on a Sunday), the Prophet Muhammad gladly offered half of the space of his masjid (i.e., the first masjid built by the Prophet’s own hands) to the Christian priests for their liturgy. The priests tearfully thanked the Prophet for his hospitality, munificence, and cordial act of tolerance by offering and allowing them to hold their Divine Liturgy in his masjid (See, Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam. Columbus, Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Islam Lahore, 1990; pp.281-291. For numerous instances showing the Prophet Muhammad’s tolerance and concordant treatment to non-Muslims particularly Christians and Jews, see also, Mumtaz Ahmad Faruqui, Anecdotes from the Life of Prophet Muhammad. Columbus Ohio: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Ishaat Islam Lahore, 1997; pp.18-19, 35-37, 40-43.).  In keeping with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, the second Caliph of Islam, Hazrat Umar al-Farooq, assured the delegation of Coptic and Orthodox Christians that their churches, convents, and monasteries were to be protected and to be held inviolable by the Islamic State. The same Caliph Umar climbed by foot to Mount Sinai, Egypt to sign a treaty guaranteeing the safety of the monks and nuns of St. Catherine’s monastery. During this visit, the Caliph gave five thousand dirhams for the repair of the monks’ convent and chapel. The trustworthy Arab historian, At-Tabari narrated that the call for the noon prayer once overtook Caliph Umar while he was having consultations with the Orthodox Christian patriarch of Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The kind patriarch offered Caliph Umar to pray inside the church premises. The Caliph gently declined the patriarch’s offer saying that he was afraid that future Muslims might claim the church for themselves on account of the fact that the second Caliph of Islam prayed his noon prayer inside it. Caliph Umar then went out of the church and prayed at a vacant yard nearby (Cf., Hafsah Dawud Zikri, The Exemplary Precedents of our Righteous Sunni Ancestors. Pakpattan, Pakistan: Daawat-e Irshad, 1963; pp.68-85.). These historical instances and many others show the extent of amity, tolerance, and concordance that the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad afford to Christians. The continued existence of Arab, Coptic, Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish Christian communities in the Middle East and the marked presence of churches and convents in these Islamic realms give witness to the tolerant attitude of authentic Islam to the religious “other”.  Epilogue: Acceptance of “the Other” as Foundational Basis of an Islamic Spirituality of Tolerance  The Qur-an is very explicit in its pronouncement that non-Muslims should be given the right to worship based on the prescriptions of their own scriptures. As already mentioned in this paper, non-Muslims were given their civil, political, and religious rights during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. After the Prophet’s demise, the Holy Companions and the immediate Caliphs of the Prophet made numerous provisions so that the rights of Jews and Christians will be acknowledged and respected. Tolerance towards non-Muslims were also implemented by various Islamic monarchs like the pious Umayyad Caliph, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz; the Abbasid Caliph, Harun-al-Rashid; the just Sultan of Palestine, Saladdin Ayyubi; the Mughal Sultan Akbar; the Ottoman emperors, Fatih Mehmet and Kanooni Suleyman; and the emirs of the Moorish courts of Cordova and Grenada. These Islamic monarchs not only tolerated non-Muslims, much more, they employed Jews, Christians, and even Hindus in their administration, supported their respective places of worship, clergies, and educational institutions. These non-Muslims were accepted with dignity and treated with respect and at par with the Muslim citizens.  Authentic Islam based on the Qur-an and as practiced by the Prophet and his companions are not against the promotion of a pluralist egalitarian society that guarantees tolerance and respect to all religious communities within the society. The Qur-an recognizes religious diversity not only as a basic reality of human existence but also as a venue for humanity’s spiritual development (Cf., Surah Maida:48.). It is indeed very regrettable that in our contemporary times, most of the so-called Muslim nations are perceived as lagging behind in fulfilling the spirit of tolerance as plainly expressed in the Qur-an and the Tradition (Sunnah) of the Prophet. It is equally lamentable that political and religious extremism failed to see the pluralistic, concordant, and tolerant dimension of Islam as found in the Qur-anictexts and in the conduct of the Prophet.  As amply shown in history, it cannot be denied that there were many instances of bloody conflicts between Christians and Muslims and that atrocities and violence can be equally attributed to both sides. The era of the Crusades during the Middle Ages and the more recent phenomenon of Western colonization of Muslim lands painted a different picture of Christianity in the perceptions of Muslims—a grim and greedy “Christianity” which is far from the peace-loving Christianity of Christ and of the Gospels. Similarly, basing their perceptions on the Western media’s skewed descriptions of Muslims and the intolerance of some Islamic movements, Christians perceived a rigid and inflexible Islam—an “Islam” very different from the tolerant and inclusive Islam of the Holy Qur-an. It is high-time now for both Muslims and Christians to move past these historical contingencies—contingencies that were political, economic, and pragmatic in nature; which had little or even nothing to do with the essential spiritual and religious contents of both faiths as expressed in their respective Scriptures (Jean Rene Milot, Muslims and Christians: Enemies or Brothers? New York: Alba House, 1997; pp. 31.). Indeed, it is high time now for both Muslims and Christians to go back to their respective Scriptures and be nourished by the precepts of tolerance, understanding, and amity enjoined by both the Bible and the Qur-an. In so doing, both the largest and the second largest religions of the world will be able to contribute actively towards achieving world peace.  It is likewise imperative for academicians engaged in Muslim-Christian dialogue and researchers of Islamic political philosophy to work out theoretic and praxis in pursuance to the Qur-anic vision of tolerance and amity, by taking into consideration present realities of our pluralistic world. There is no contradiction in accepting the truth of ones’ own religious and ideological perspective and in tolerating or respecting the beliefs of others. Similarly, the Qur-anic belief in the ontological oneness of humanity does not contradict the pragmatic reality that humankind’s expressions of culture, spirituality, and political ideology are varied and diverse. Authentic Islam as found in the Qur-an respects the freedom of conscience of every individual; which includes the right to practice one’s own religious, cultural, ethnic, and ideological commitments. By paying careful and prayerful reflection to what the Qur-an says regarding tolerance, coupled with the faithful adherence to the Qur-anic values of amity and harmony amidst differences, Muslims and non-Muslims will be able to live a tranquil, serene, and secure life—a life of dignity and justice by accepting with openness and good faith each other’s differences. May this hope become a Reality for all Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Insha-Allah (God willing)!  Bayman, Henry. The Station of No Station: Open Secrets of the Sufis. Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 2001.  Maliki, Shahabuddin. Light from the Sayings of Shaykh Ibn Arabi. Decca, Bangladesh: Markaz Towheedi, 1977.  Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-VI of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City. He was former Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014. He was also the former Coordinator of Gender and Development (GAD) Office at UP Cebu. His research interests include Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence, Islamic feminist discourses, Islam in interfaith dialogue initiatives, Islamic environmentalism, Classical Sunni Islamic pedagogy, the writings of Imam Al-Ghazali on pluralism and tolerance, Turkish Sufism, Muslim-Christian dialogue, Middle Eastern affairs, Peace Studies and Public Theology.


russiainsider--2019-03-17--Christian Morals and Values Shaping the Future of the Russian World

While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm  This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2015  This article originally appeared at The Carnegie Council  Nicolai N. Petro is professor of politics at the University of Rhode Island. This paper was presented at the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) seminar on Russia in Koenigswinter, Germany, February 15-18, 2015. CIOR is one of the "independent" advisory bodies to the Military Committee of NATO.  For many analysts the term Russky mir, or Russian World, epitomizes an expansionist and messianic Russian foreign policy, the perverse intersection of the interests of the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church.  Little noted is that the term actually means something quite different for each party. For the state it is a tool for expanding Russia's cultural and political influence, while for the Russian Orthodox Church it is a spiritual concept, a reminder that through the baptism of Rus, God consecrated these people to the task of building a Holy Rus.  The close symphonic relationship between the Orthodox Church and state in Russia thus provides Russian foreign policy with a definable moral framework, one that, given its popularity, is likely to continue to shape the country's policies well into the future.  Foreign policy is about interests and values. But while Russia's interests are widely debated, her values are often overlooked, or treated simplistically as the antithesis of Western values.  But, as Professor Andrei Tsygankov points out in his book Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin, Russia's relations with the West go through cycles that reflect its notion of honor. By honor he means the basic moral principles that are popularly cited within a culture as the reason for its existence, and that inform its purpose when interacting with other nations.  Over the past two centuries, in pursuit of its honor, Russia has cooperated with its European neighbors, when they have acknowledged it as part of the West; responded defensively, when they have excluded Russia; and assertively, when they have been overtly hostile to Russia's sense of honor.  Sometimes a nation's sense of its honor overlaps with present-day interests; but it cannot be reduced to the national interest alone, because political leaders must respond to existential ideals and aspirations that are culturally embedded. A nation's sense of honor, therefore, serves as a baseline for what might be called the long-term national interest.  According to Tsygankov, in Russia's case the long-term national interest revolves around three constants: First, sovereignty or "spiritual freedom;" second, a strong and socially protective state that is capable of defending that sovereignty; and third, cultural loyalty to those who share Russia's sense of honor, wherever they may be. All three of these involve, to a greater or lesser extent, the defense of Orthodox Christianity, of the Russian Orthodox Church, and of Orthodox Christians around the world.  Russian President Vladimir Putin succinctly encapsulated Russia's sense of honor during his state visit to Mount Athos in 2005, when he referred to Russia as a pravoslavnaya derzhava, or simply, an Orthodox power.  Putin on the Moral Crisis of the West  Little noted at the time, in retrospect, the phrase seems to presage the turn toward Russian foreign policy assertiveness that Western analysts first noticed in his February 2007 remarks at the Munich Security Conference.  Since then, Putin has often returned to the dangers posed by American unilateralism, and even challenged the cherished notion of American exceptionalism. But, until his speech at the 2013 Valdai Club meeting, he did not explicitly say what values Russia stood for, what its sense of honor demanded. It was at this meeting that Putin first laid out his vision of Russia's mission as an Orthodox power in the 21st century.  Putin began his speech by noting that the world has become a place where decency is in increasingly short supply. Countries must therefore do everything in their power to preserve their own identities and values, for "without spiritual, cultural and national self-definition . . . . one cannot succeed globally."  Without a doubt, he said, the most important component of a country's success is the intellectual, spiritual, and moral quality of its people. Economic growth and geopolitical influence depend increasingly on whether a country's citizens feel they are one people sharing a common history, common values, and common traditions. All of these, said Putin, contribute to a nation's self-image, to its national ideal. Russia needs to cultivate the best examples from the past and filter them through its rich diversity of cultural, spiritual, and political perspectives. Diversity of perspectives is crucial for Russia because it was born a multinational and multiconfessional state, and remains so today.  Indeed, pluriculturalism is potentially one of Russia's main contributions to global development. "We have amassed a unique experience of interacting with, mutually enriching, and mutually respecting diverse cultures," he told his audience. "Polyculturalism and polyethnicity are in our consciousness, our spirit, our historical DNA."  Polyculturalism is also one of the driving factors behind the Eurasian Union, a project initiated by the president of Kazakstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, that Putin has wholeheartedly embraced.  Designed to move Eurasia from the periphery of global development to its center, it can only be successful, Putin says, if each nation retains its historical identity and develops it alongside the identity of the Eurasian region as a whole. Creating a culture of unity in diversity within this region, says Putin, would contribute greatly to both pluralism and stability in world affairs.  But, in a jab at the West, Putin notes that some aspects of pluriculturalism are no longer well received in the West. The values of traditional Christianity that once formed the very basis of Western civilization have come under fire there, and in their place Western leaders are promoting a unipolar and monolithic worldview. This, he says, is "a rejection . . . of the natural diversity of the world granted by God. . . . Without the values of Christianity and other world religions, without the norms of morality and ethics formed over the course of thousands of years, people inevitably lose their human dignity."  The abandonment of traditional Christian values has led to a moral crisis in the West. Russia, Putin says, intends to counter this trend by defending Christian moral principles both at home and abroad.  Putin's call for greater respect for traditional cultural and religious identities was either missed or ignored in the West. One reason, I suspect, is that it was couched in a language that Western elites no longer use.  For most of the 20th century, Western social science has insisted that modernization would render traditional cultural and religious values irrelevant. The modern alternative, which pioneer political scientists Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba labelled "civic culture," gravitates toward cultural homogeneity and secularism. These qualities lead to political stability and economic progress. The pattern is exemplified by Anglo-American societies which, they conclude, form the optimal model for a modern society.  Half a century later, with the rise of China and the collapse of the Soviet Union, it no longer seems so obvious that secularism and homogeneity are the only paths to national success. Scholars increasingly speak of multiple paths to modernity, and even a resurgence of religion.  Another reason why Putin's message was overlooked is that he is calling upon the West to re-connect with its Byzantine heritage, a heritage that it has often dismissed as non-Western. In Putin's mind, reincorporating Eastern Christianity into Western civilization reveals Russia as a vital part of Western civilization, and requires that Russia be part of any discussion of Western values.  Putin's speech in 2013 was an assertive and optimistic statement of Russian values, and the cultural and spiritual reasons why he felt that Russian influence in the world was bound to grow. By 2014, however, the world had changed. A major reason is the conflict within Ukraine, which many in the West define as a conflict over world order stemming from a profound values gap between Russia and the West.  Russia, by contrast, sees itself as defending not only vital strategic interests in Ukraine, but also its core values of honor, such as spiritual freedom, cultural loyalty, and pluralism. It may seem strange to many in the West, but Russia's attitude on the Ukrainian crisis is inflexible precisely because it sees itself as occupying the moral high ground in this dispute.  A key reason why Western moral criticisms of Russian actions have so little traction among Russians is that the Russia Orthodox Church has regained its traditional pre-eminence as the institution that defines the nation's moral vision and sense of honor. Looking beyond Russia's borders, that vision has come to be known as the Russky mir or Russian World.  Russian World or the Communities of Historical Rus?  It is important to distinguish how this term is used by the Russian state from how it is used by the Russian Orthodox Church.  The use of this term as a "community of Orthodox Christians living in unity of faith, traditions and customs," goes back to at least the beginning of the 19th century, but it was re-purposed as a political concept in the early 1990s by Pyotr Shedrovitsky, an influential political consultant interested in the role that cultural symbols could play in politics. He believed that creating a network of mutually reinforcing social structures in the former Soviet states among people who continue to think and speak in Russian—the "Russky mir"—could be politically advantageous to Russia. Its practical foreign policy appeal stemmed from the fact that, by claiming to speak on behalf of nearly 300 million Russian speakers, a weakened Russia would instantly become a key regional player, as well as an influential political force within the countries of the former Soviet Union.  This notion resonated within the Yeltsin administration which, in the mid-1990s was already searching for a "Russian Idea" around which to consolidate the nation and promote a new democratic consensus. Members of the Institute of Philosophy at the Russian Academy of Sciences were tasked to research this concept, but although it influenced sections of Russia's first foreign policy doctrine in 1996, it ultimately ran out of steam. As those involved in this project later explained to me, there were simply too many disparate "Russian Ideas" to choose from, and no consensus within the presidential administration or the Institute of Philosophy on which version to support.  More than a decade would pass before the term was used by the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill. This occurred in 2009 at the Third Assembly of the Russian World, when Patriarch Kirill spoke of how the Russky mir, or Holy Rus as he also called it, should respond to the challenges of globalization.  The Church, he said, emphasizes the importance of spiritual bonds over the divisions of national borders. It therefore uses the term russky not as a geographical, or ethnic concept, but as a spiritual identity that refers to the cradle civilization of the Eastern Slavs—Kievan Rus.  This common identity was forged when Kievan Rus adopted Christianity from Constantinople in 988. At that moment the Eastern Slavs were consecrated into a single civilization and given the task of constructing Holy Rus. That mission persisted through the Muscovite and Imperial eras. It survived the persecutions of the Soviet era, and continues today in democratic Russia. The core of this community today resides in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus (at other times, Kirill has added Moldova and Kazakhstan), but can refer to anyone who shares the Orthodox faith, a reliance on Russian language, a common historical memory, and a common view of social development.  In June 2007, President Putin established the Russky mir Fund, tasked with support of the Russian language and cultural inheritance throughout the world. Much of this effort was clearly aimed at preserving the use of the Russian language in the former Soviet Union, and with it the popularization of Russia's image. But while there is clearly a great deal of overlap between the religious and political uses of this term, let me highlight several important differences.  As used by the state, Russky mir is typically a political or a cultural concept. In both senses it is used by groups working for the Russian government to strengthen the country's domestic stability, restore Russia's status as a world power, and increase her influence in neighboring states. From the state's perspective, the Russian Orthodox Church can be a useful tool for these purposes.  As used by the Church, Russky mir is a religious concept. It is essential for reversing the secularization of society throughout the former Soviet Union, a task Patriarch Kirill has termed the "second Christianization" of Rus. The Russian Orthodox Church sees the Russian government, or for that matter, any government within its canonical territory, as tools for this purpose.  Reaction to the patriarch's use of the phrase Russky mir, which was familiar mainly in its Yeltsin-era political context, was mixed, both inside and outside of Russia. It aroused considerable controversy in Ukraine, where the Greek-Catholic church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kievan Patriarchate dismissed it outright. On the other hand, the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, which serves approximately half of all Christians in Ukraine, has been cautiously receptive.  In light of this controversy, Kirill returned to the topic in 2010, to clarify his views of what the Russky mir meant specifically for Ukraine. He reiterated that the baptism of Kievan Rus was an instance of Divine Providence. The Russian Orthodox Church has defended the religious and cultural bonds established by this miraculous event for more than a thousand years, and will always continue to do so.  Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are all equal successors to the inheritance of Kievan Rus, therefore all three should be coordinating centers in the development of the Russian World. To this end, Patriarch Kirill introduced the idea of "synodal capitals"—historical centers of Russian Orthodoxy which would regularly host meetings of the Holy Synod, the Church's chief decision-making body. One of these capitals is Kiev. It is interesting to note that archpriest Evgeny (Maksimenko), a cleric of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, has called upon the patriarch to take the next logical step and move the seat of the Patriarchate of Rus from Moscow back to Kiev.  Christianity, says the patriarch, does not seeks to destroy that which is unique in each nation, but rather to motivate local cultures toward greater appreciation of Christianity's transcendent meaning. Long ago, the ideal Orthodox society was the Byzantine Empire. Today, in the context of national sovereignty, however, Orthodoxy proposes itself as a spiritual complement to national sovereignty, and a harmonizing resource in a globalizing world. Kirill has said that this same principle can be found in the European Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States. But while the Church respects state sovereignty, it takes no position on its merits. Nation-states are neither good nor bad, but merely the current framework within which God intends the Church to accomplish the restoration of Holy Rus. It is therefore the Church's duty to make each nation, at least in part, "a carrier of Orthodox civilization."  Over the course of the past decade, the purely pragmatic, secular version of the Russky mir has slowly yielded to the growing influence of the Church in Russia's political life. Among the many examples, let me highlight just one—President Putin's address in Kiev on the occasion of the 1025th baptism of Rus in 2013. This was also Putin's most recent visit to Ukraine.  His remarks at the time reflected every one of the motifs of the Russky mir in its religious context, including: the decisive spiritual and cultural significance of the baptism of Rus; the uniqueness of Orthodox values in the modern world; deference to Kiev's historical significance (before the revolution, he says, it was known as "the second cultural and intellectual capital after St. Petersburg," even ahead of Moscow[!]); and public recognition of Ukraine's right to make any political choice it wishes which, however, "in no way erases our common historical past."  Having drawn a distinction between the objectives of the Russian state and the Russian Orthodox Church in promoting the Russky mir, it is important to stress that these two institutions are not in conflict, at least not in the near future. The classical formulation for Church-State relations in Eastern Orthodox Christianity was and remains symphonia, or harmony between Church and State, not the Protestant Western ideal of separation. The establishment of broadly harmonious and mutually supportive relations between Church and State in Russia, for the first time in more than a century, therefore has significant implications for Russian politics.  The first is that Vladimir Putin's high popularity ratings are neither transient nor personal. They reflect the popularity of his social and political agenda, which are popular precisely because they have the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church. A few years ago, then president Medvedev referred to the Church as "the largest and most authoritative social institution in contemporary Russia," an assessment reinforced by more recent surveys showing that Patriarch Kirill is more often identified as the "spiritual leader [and] moral mentor" of the entire Russian nation, than he is as the head of a single religious confession.  The success of the Putin Plan, the Putin Model, or Putinism, is thus simple to explain. This Russian government understands that it derives enormous social capital from its public embrace of the Russian Orthodox Church. So long as Russia remains a broadly representative (not to be confused with liberal) democracy, there is little reason to expect this to change.  Some analysts, however, suggest that this embrace may lead to conflict between the state and other confessions. The potential for such conflict is widely recognized, especially by religious leaders, and led to the creation in 1998 of the Interreligious Council of Russia. Its purpose is two-fold: First, to defuse conflicts among the various religious communities. Second, to present a united religious agenda to politicians. It has been quite successful on both fronts, and its activities now cover not just Russia, but the entire CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States). If my assessment of the importance of the religious underpinnings for the current regime's popularity is correct, then it follows that attempts to undermine the unity of the Russky mir will be widely viewed as an attack on core values, not just in Russia but throughout the Russian World. Economic, political, cultural, and other sanctions will intensify this effect and sharply undermine intellectual and emotional sympathies for the West within this community. While this may not be permanent, I suspect that few in the current generation of Russian leaders retain much hope for the possibility of building a lasting partnership with the West.  Moreover, the Russian Orthodox Church will continue to shape Russia's foreign policy agenda in several ways.  First, it will use the influence of the state to advocate for the concerns of Orthodox Christians throughout the world, even if they are not Russian citizens. This is in keeping with the transnational character of the Russian Orthodox Church.  Second, it will promote Christian moral and social values in international fora, either by itself or in conjunction with other religions. Indeed, close ties on these issues have been forged with the Roman Catholic Church, and with Islamic clerics in Egypt and Iran. Where it does not have direct access to these, it will turn to the Russian media, and to popular international outlets like RT and Sputnik to promote this agenda.  Third, wherever Russian state and civic organizations promote Russian culture and language abroad, the Church will also seek to tack on its religious agenda. While the state promotes the national interests of the Russian Federation, the Russian Orthodox Church will promote the larger cultural identity it sees itself as having inherited from Kievan Rus.  For example, the Church sees the conflict in Ukraine as a civil war within the Russian World. From this perspective, it cannot be resolved by splitting up this community, thereby isolating Ukraine from Russia and destroying the unity of the Russky mir, or by permitting the forcible Ukrainianization of the predominantly Orthodox and Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, which would result in the destruction of the Russky mir within Ukraine. The only permanent solution is for the Ukrainian government to admit the pluricultural nature of Ukrainian society and, in effect, recognize Ukraine as part of the Russky mir. From the Church's perspective, this is the only way to achieve reconciliation among the Ukrainian people and harmony within the Russky mir.  Oddly enough, many moderate Ukrainian nationalists also ascribe to the notion that some sort of symbiotic cultural connection exists between Russia and Ukraine. The typical pro-Maidan Ukrainian intellectual believes that Putin is out to undermine Ukrainian democracy first and foremost because he fears it spreading to Russia. But they predict the inevitable resumption of fraternal ties with Russia, after the freedom-loving, pro-European values of the Maidan succeed in overturning Putin's authoritarian regime in Russia. It is hard not to see the similarity between their aspirations for close ties with Russia and those of Patriarch Kirill, only under a completely different set of cultural assumptions.  In conclusion, what impact will the rise of the Russky mir have on Russia's relations with other nations? I anticipate three responses.  In countries where the concept of Holy Rus has no historical context, there will be a tendency to fall back on the Cold War context they are most familiar with, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did when she warned of efforts to "re-Sovietize the region." "It's going to be called customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that," she said, "but let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it."  Among Russia's immediate neighbors, the response will be mixed. While there are still many who view the Soviet era with nostalgia, and regard the breakup of the USSR as more harmful than beneficial (by 2:1 margins in Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, and Russia), it is not at all clear that the Orthodox Church's conservative social vision has a similarly broad appeal. In Ukraine the term Russky mir has become a rallying cry for both sides during this civil war, and is now so hopelessly politicized that its religious and spiritual content have all but disappeared. The unhappy result, as Nicholas E. Denysenko puts it, is "a religious narrative becoming altered against the will of its authors."  Even further from Russia, the popularity of the Russky mir will likely depend on whether Russia emerges as a global defender of traditional Christian and conservative values. The values gap that some in the West cite as justification for punishing and containing Russia does exist, but it is not the whole picture. The same values gap exists within the West itself. Only recently Russia has realized that, while its conservative agenda distances itself from some Europeans, it brings it closer to others. The list of Putinversteher probably now contains more politicians and opinion leaders on the right end of the European political spectrum, than it does on the left.  In the United States, Evangelical Christian social activists, and even a few noted political commentators, have begun to take note of these shared values. Two years ago, former Nixon aide and Republican presidential candidate, Patrick Buchanan, told fellow political conservatives that there is much in Putin's rhetoric that makes him "one of us."  "While much of American and Western media dismiss him as an authoritarian and reactionary, a throwback, Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm. As the decisive struggle in the second half of the 20th century was vertical, East vs. West, the 21st century struggle may be horizontal, with conservatives and traditionalists in every country arrayed against the militant secularism of a multicultural and transnational elite."  The role of the Russian Orthodox Church in this struggle is crucial, because it calls for the creation of a common framework of Christian European values, in effect a new, pan-European civil religion. The Russian state, meanwhile, is only too happy to support these calls because it is only within the context of a common cultural and religious identity ("shared values") that Russia can become a full-fledged political part of the West. Intentionally or not, therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church and its Russky mir have emerged as the missing spiritual and intellectual component of Russia's soft power.  Someday it may even become like U.S. human rights policy, an awkward, but nevertheless defining aspect of national identity, that the government will apply selectively, but never be able to get rid of entirely.


sottnet--2019-03-21--Ethnicity politics land religion and deadly clashes in Jos Nigeria

Ethnicity, politics, land, religion and deadly clashes in Jos, Nigeria

While these interreligious engagements are relevant for promoting peaceful coexistence, they have often bypassed the root causes of the conflicts.  As can be seen, these conflicts are resource-based and mainly between ethnic groups. However, pundits and religious bodies have given them a religious interpretation even when the undercurrents have nothing to do with religion.  Over the last two decades, Nigeria has experienced at least 2,500 violent events in the form of riots, protests, terrorist attacks, and other expressions of collective brutality. In addition to the insurgency led by the Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad [People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad], also known as Boko Haram, in the north east, the country's ethnically diverse landscape is marked by frequent indigene-settler conflicts and farmer-herder clashes in the central belt, separatist agitations in the south east and militancy in the Niger Delta. Over 40, 000 people have been killed. 1 While most parts of the country have witnessed one form of violence or the other, incidents of large-scale violence are disproportionately concentrated in the central region also known as the "Middle Belt".The media often describe these conflicts as "religious crises" and reconciliatory measures have focused on engaging Christian and Muslim leaders to broker peace.As episodes of riots in the city of Jos suggest, collective violence in the region is a culmination of several factors. In the towns and cities, violent riots stem from contestations between indigenes and settlers over rights, distributable resources and political power whereas struggles between farmers and pastoralists over land are at the heart of mass killings in the rural areas.In addition to building links across religious divides, an effective peacebuilding strategy should address the long-running contestations over indigeneity, resource-based competition, power tussles and struggles related to land ownership and use.The conflict that takes place in the area of Jos demonstrates how struggles over indigenous rights, distributable resources and political power precipitate violence. Conflict over indigeneity is common in Nigeria. Apart from being a citizen, every citizen is supposed to register as a certified member of a specific patrilocal community. Indigeneousness certificates are issued by local government authorities to differentiate between the natives and settlers or migrants. Although the practice originated from colonial rule, it has assumed more importance in the postcolonial period. Now a criterion for accessing certain socio-economic rights and privileges, the indigeneousness certificate let individuals gain access to scholarships, school admissions, employment quotas and tenured positions as heads of government ministries. Individuals and groups resident in a state other than their states of indigeneousness are considered settlers, thereby lacking such rights and privileges and are often being subjected to other informal forms of discrimination. 2 The local government council is responsible for deciding who qualifies for an indigeneous certificate and who does not. The two groups compete fiercely to gain control of this decision-making institution. Periods of council elections and local appointments are particularly volatile and have resulted in mass violence in 1994, 2001 and 2008. To demonstrate the role of indigeneousness, resource-based competition and political tussles, it is important to zoom in on these incidents.The first large-scale violence to occur in modern-day Jos was in 2001, following the appointment of a Hausa man as coordinator of a poverty alleviation programme in Jos North.About 1,000 people were killed in the pandemonium. Another round of violence almost engulfed the city in May 2002, but calm was restored within a few days and it did not spread to other parts of the city. It started with skirmishes between rival party loyalists at an electoral registration centre and ended in mobs rampaging around Angwan Rukuba, Eto Baba, Nasarawa Gwong and Dogon Dutse areas. In the end, about 50 people were killed and up to 100 vehicles burnt. Yet, this was minimal compared to what happened in 2001 or what was to come in 2008. That horrendous violence was directly linked to the local government area elections held on 27 November 2008. Once again, armed mobs killed, maimed and vandalised.As demonstrated through the case of Jos, the Middle Belt has long presented the most precarious security setting in Nigeria. The region's penchant for intergroup fighting may partly be traced to the paternalistic manner in which the British colonial administration managed ethnic diversity. For administrative purposes, the colonial administration let the various small groups of native peoples from the region be subsumed under the political dominance of the Hausa-Fulani. The colonialists, in their indirect rule, stayed impervious to their subjects' cultural differences and territorial integrity. Struggles by the natives to 'liberate' themselves from an overbearing Hausa-Fulani oligarchy started in the 1930s, but became more determined after independence in 1960. The very label 'Middle Belt', adopted by native politicians of the region, represents the struggle to differentiate the area geographically and, more consequently, culturally and politically from the Hausa-Fulani dominated north. 3 Yet, reconciliatory efforts have neither acknowledged nor addressed this historical antecedent. 4 These attacks happen mainly in rural areas and are not to be conflated with the native-settler conflicts in urban settings. Population growth and desertification have increased the strain on land in northern Nigeria and pushed Fulani pastoralists southwards. The north-south movements of cattle used to be seasonal but nowadays they are forced to stay longer in the Middle Belt due to the scarcity of grazing land in the north. This has pitched them against the predominantly agrarian local populations. Moreover, demographic changes as well as land grabbing have encroached into and reduced the volume of officially designated grazing routes. 5 The scale and frequency of the killings have sparked national outrage.For example, high expectations for peaceful coexistence accompanied the inauguration in September 1999 of the Nigerian Inter-Religious Council (NIREC), a voluntary association made up of 50 members - 25 Christians and 25 Muslims. The association was established by the Nigerian government and members were selected from the leaderships of the country's major religious bodies. Though the intention behind it is plausible, the association has yet to present practical solutions to the pockets of conflicts in different parts of the country.For example, reacting to a recent incident in which two Catholic priests and seventeen parishioners were murdered by assailants that have come to be known as "armed herdsmen" in the media, Catholic Bishops' Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) called for the resignation of President Muhammed Buhari blaming his administration's inability to protect the lives of Nigerians.The growing discontent toward Buhari's security antecedents resonates particularly with members of the opposition People's Democratic Party (PDP) but is also gaining popularity among Nigerian Christians.Religious identity transcends tribal and linguistic differences and helps to unify smaller groups into larger and more formidable political forces. For example, the Berom, Afizere and Anaguta of Jos are ethnolinguistically distinct groups and do in fact have their squabbles, but these differences are subsumed within a broader group narrative when they mobilize under an overarching Christian identity against a Muslim Hausa rival. Similarly, the Hausa in Jos represents a social category that includes also the Fulani, Nupe, Beriberi, Kanuri and other groups who have adopted the Hausa language and practice Islam as religion. On both sides, religious animosity serves the parochial interests of politicians. Extremists have also taken advantage of the religious rhetoric to push their cause. For example,Tackling conflicts and mass killings in Nigeria requires a sophisticated approach that disaggregates underlying causes from popular narratives of mobilization.Addressing this issue would resolve some of the resource-based contestations and political tussles that have translated into mass violence in the Middle Belt. In relation to mass killings in the villages, urgent military action is required. There is need for a taskforce that can tighten security at Nigeria's porous borders.Besides these measures, however, addressing the underlying struggles over land would require revisiting the idea of open grazing and extensive transhumance routes. The population of Nigeria was slightly over fifty million when these routes were gazetted in 1965. Today, the population stands at over 180 million. This demographic shift alone renders this practice infeasible. An alternative may be to create grazing reserves and promote intensive husbandry but even this too is not foolproof and does need to be thought through critically before being implemented.


tass--2019-03-24--West failed to learn lessons of Yugoslavia tragedy Russias NATO mission says

West failed to learn lessons of Yugoslavia tragedy, Russia’s NATO mission says

BRUSSELS, March 24. /TASS/. Western states did not learn the lessons of the Yugoslavia tragedy 20 years ago when the country was targeted by NATO bombings, Russia’s permanent mission to NATO told reporters on Sunday.  "March 24 is certainly a tragic date in Europe’s modern history. This day exactly 20 years ago a temptation prevailed to solve challenging and very sensitive inter-ethnic and inter-religious problems in Yugoslavia not by meticulous diplomatic efforts, but by simple and quick methods of ‘military surgery’ bypassing international law and without the permission of the United Nations’ Security Council," the permanent mission said.  "Then as a result of bombings and missile attacks critical civilian infrastructure facilities were destroyed and civilians became ‘collateral damage’ for NATO. An attack on the Chinese embassy cannot be explained either," it said.  Russia’s NATO mission emphasized that today "conflict potential in the region remains along with the problem with international recognition of Kosovo." "Unfortunately, the steps in Iraq and Libya showed that the lessons of those dramatic events in the Balkans were not taken into account either," it stated.  March 24, 2019 marks 20 years since NATO started its military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The bombings started without the permission of the UN Security Council. Top NATO officials said the primary cause of Operation Allied Force was to prevent the alleged genocide of the Albanian population in Kosovo. According to the NATO website, during the operation, which lasted 78 days, the alliance’s warplanes made 38,000 sorties, more than 10,000 of them for conducting bombing raids.  According to Western data published by Human Rights Watch, the bombings killed nearly 500 civilians and some 1,000 military. Serbian data said some 2,000 civilians died in the bombings and several hundred people went missing, while the death toll among the military is estimated at 1,000. Serbia’s military and industrial infrastructure was almost fully destroyed, and more than 1,500 settlements, 60 bridges, 30% schools and 100 monuments were ruined. Material damage amounted to between $30bln and $100bln, and some facilities have not been reconstructed by now.


bbc--2019-04-13--The couples on the run for love in India

Most Indian families still prefer marriages arranged within their religion and caste. Marriages outside these rigid boundaries have often led to violent consequences, including "honour" killings. But some young Indians are still willing to defy their families and communities for love, reports the BBC's Divya Arya.  Ravindra Parmar knew that pursuing a relationship with an upper-caste woman would be dangerous.  He is a Dalit (formerly known as "untouchable"), a caste that sits at the lowest rung of India's social ladder. The woman he fell in love with, Shilpaba Upendrasinh Vala, is a Rajput - a Hindu warrior caste near the apex of the system.  The yawning gap between his position and hers is something rarely bridged in Indian society.  "We are not even allowed to walk past their area and I had dared to marry into their family," he says.  "Those who marry inter-caste are seen as aliens. The perception is that they are terrorists who revolt in society."  Ravindra and Shilpaba were born and brought up in two villages separated by more than 100km (62 miles) in the western state of Gujarat.  They met on Facebook and would spend hours taking digs at each other.  But all that friendly banter had a deep impact on Shilpaba.  "I was like any other village girl limited to home and college, but he broadened my horizon, made me realise that my life has more meaning," she says.  Social media has opened a space that did not exist a few decades ago. Rigid caste and religious divides meant that the possibility of meeting, interacting and striking friendships in public places was neither possible nor encouraged.  The caste system is hereditary, and the practice of marrying within the caste ensures that the hierarchy is perpetuated. Caste divisions have deep roots in history and Dalit men who have married women from upper castes have been killed.  Marriages across caste or religion in India are uncommon. According to the India Human Development Survey, only about 5% of Indian marriages are inter-caste.  The onus of upholding tradition, culture and "purity" falls on the woman and if she marries outside traditional boundaries, she is seen as besmirching the honour of the community and her family.  The anger and backlash can lead to violent attacks and killings.  Shilpaba had to flee from her village to marry Ravindra. But the threat of violence has continued to hang over them: they have moved between houses and cities a dozen times in the past three years. Ravindra is a trained engineer but had to leave his job and has had to do daily-wage labour wherever they have lived to make ends meet.  Shilpaba says the stress became unbearable. They started blaming each other for their situation and she even contemplated taking her own life.  "Ravindra convinced me out of it, as that was no solution," she says. "Now we are both studying law with a vision to take up human rights cases and make our parents proud through our work.  "Maybe then they will see that we didn't take this decision to just have fun and they will accept us."  The latest data available from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows that 77 murder cases in 2016 were reported with "honour killing" as the motive.  Such violence is highly under-reported and these numbers do not accurately reflect social attitudes that may be growing more conservative.  A 2016 survey, Social Attitudes Research for India (Sari), conducted across Delhi, Mumbai, and the states of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan found the majority of respondents opposed to inter-caste and inter-religious marriages.  In fact they were in favour of a law banning such marriages.  "It is quite shocking that despite rising levels of literacy and education, prejudicial beliefs do not reduce. In fact, they are worryingly high," says Professor Amit Thorat of Jawaharlal Nehru University, who worked on the Sari survey.  "Religious and traditional values around hierarchies, around the notion of purity and pollution seem to be more sacrosanct and valuable than human rights, the right to live or the right to marry by choice."  Bibi Ayisha and Aditya Verma were 17 years old when they fell in love. They too found each other on Facebook. That they were born into different religions - she is Muslim, he is Hindu - did not matter to them. But their families fiercely opposed the relationship.  Aditya was born and grew up in Delhi. After finishing school, he enrolled in a college in the southern Indian city of Bangalore only because Ayisha lived there. But that sign of his dedication couldn't win her parents over: he was still a Hindu.  Madly in love, and after waiting for two years, Ayisha ran away with Aditya. They moved to Delhi but, like Ravindra and Shilpaba, they still did not feel safe.  "We were so scared that for five months we stayed in a room. Neither of us was working at that time. I thought if I stepped out, I would be killed, because I was Muslim and he was Hindu," says Ayisha.  In February 2018, 23-year old Ankit Saxena was murdered in broad daylight in the capital Delhi for having a relationship with a Muslim woman.  The woman's parents and two others were arrested and the trial is ongoing.  Ayisha says that after that incident, the fear of a possible honour killing started feeling very real.  "Even if we went out briefly, I was constantly looking around and if I saw anyone with a beard, I thought that they were members of my family coming to kill me."  Her fears have been set against the backdrop of an India where religious polarisation is increasing. A Hindu nationalist government has been in power since 2014 and is accused of normalising anti-Muslim sentiment.  "I think the present environment is such that rather than bringing people and religions together, it is trying to fan the fires of division," says Prof Thorat.  He is quick to point to the violent partition of India to underscore that such beliefs have existed for more than half a century, but believes that efforts to bridge divides are lacking.  Ayisha's parents like Aditya but are not ready to accept him into their family unless he converts to Islam. Aditya's parents are equally unwilling for the marriage unless Ayisha adopts Hinduism.  Both of them are opposed to adopting the other's religion - and losing their own.  "When we fell in love, I knew she was a Muslim and she knew I was Hindu. We don't want that any of us should lose our identity," Aditya says.  India passed a law in 1872 that enables legal registration of a marriage between a man and woman of different religions or caste without any conversion.  Aditya found out about the Special Marriage Act through Asif Iqbal and Ranu Kulshreshtha, a couple who married inter-faith back in 2000.  Soon after their marriage - in the aftermath of the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 - they witnessed targeting of couples like themselves and a lack of any support mechanisms.  They set up an organisation called Dhanak, which spreads legal awareness and provides counselling as well as safe houses to couples who want to marry inter-faith or inter-caste.  But awareness about the Special Marriage Act is very low. It also has a rule that requires a notice about the intended marriage to be displayed at a public place for a month, giving opportunity to anyone to place an objection.  "This provision is often misused by fanatic Hindu groups like Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, and Muslim organisations like Nizam-e-Mustafa, who would approach the families and pressure them to stop their daughters as daughters are easy targets," explains Asif Iqbal.  According to him, the local police also do not encourage such marriages and instead play an active role in stopping them, especially in smaller towns.  Rekha Sharma, chairperson of the government's advisory body, the National Commission for Women, agrees.  "The government needs to do more in sensitising the police and legal officers about this, as the law helps in stopping conversion yet still enabling inter-faith marriage," she says.  But she adds that lasting change cannot come only by enforcing laws, but by changing social mindsets.  Acceptance is key for the survival of such couples as they deal with severe social and economic isolation.  The Dhanak network has helped Ayisha feel safe. She has now met many couples like her and Aditya, and it gives her immense hope.  "If you trust your partner and love them very much, then nothing else should matter. You should not waste time worrying about family and society. They will come around eventually," she says.  After their marriage, Ravindra and Shilpaba decided to change their surname to Bharatiya, which means Indian.  They decided to drop their original surname since it revealed their respective castes.  Ravindra is an idealist - he believes that more inter-caste marriages will lead to a future in India where caste divisions will cease to be an issue.


bbc--2019-04-22--St Anthonys - Church of miracles

St Anthony's - 'Church of miracles'

St Anthony's Church, the site of one of the deadliest Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka, is renowned as a place of worship open to all faiths, but the attacks have shut its doors for now.  For the first time in its 175-year history, people are being turned away.  The road to the shrine in Colombo's Kochchikade district is a familiar one to many, who - regardless of their religion - would regularly come here to seek blessings.  Despite being a predominantly Roman Catholic church, its patron has acquired a reputation for being a "miracle worker". No request, no matter how large, small or strangely specific, is left unanswered by St Anthony, people say.  On Monday, however, a day after the bomb blast ripped through its entrance, things are very different. The attack here was one of eight across the country which killed 310 people and injured many more.  Police are fanned out near the turn-off to the church, marked by its distinctive large statue of St Anthony, mounted on a pedestal. The perimeter of the church itself has been cordoned off with yellow tape and is being guarded by armed security officers.  Despite this, a sizeable crowd is still gathered outside, veering as close to the perimeter as they dare, most just staring at the large white building. From a distance it looks untouched, but look harder and hints of the carnage that took place inside become more visible.  Near its entrance, half hidden by a wall, you can see bits of rubble and shards of glass. The clock on its left tower is frozen at 8.45 - the time the blast took place.  There were so many casualties here because such a large crowd had gathered. Even on a normal day, the church is filled with worshippers. For Easter Mass, the chief priest thought well over 1,000 people were in the congregation.  Scores are thought to have been killed at St Anthony's - it's not clear yet how many lost their lives.  Among those gathered outside the church is Prabath Buddhika. Although Mr Buddhika is Buddhist by religion, like many others, he is a strong believer in the power of St Anthony.  "My house is right here," he said, adding that he'd been attending the church since he was a child and gone along with his family many times.  Like many others, Mr Buddhika ran to the church after hearing the explosions. The carnage he saw there could not be described, he says, but people fearlessly came forward from around the area in order to help.  Among them was Peter Michael Fernando, a Catholic who lives close to the church. He was asleep when the blast occurred, he says, waking up after his "bed shook" with the force of the explosion. He ran towards the church after seeing plumes of smoke rising into the sky.  "There were bodies and parts of bodies everywhere. I saw there were two people who were still alive so I helped them to an ambulance. I was weeping."  Mr Fernando says what stayed with him was the number of children he saw among the dead and injured. "They were screaming, they were bleeding. We tried to help as many as we could. I carried a little girl into one of the vans - she had lost a leg," he said, breaking down again.  A little distance away stands Anuja Subasinghe, a nurse. She has been staring at the church for a long time.  "This church is for those who carry unbearable sadness - it gives them solace," she says with tears in her eyes. "Who would do something like this? Why would they do this?"  She couldn't come for Sunday's Easter Mass because she had to report for duty, but on Monday morning she felt she needed to be there for the church.  "My husband died 12 years ago and the only thing that got me through that terrible tragedy was this church," she says. "I didn't need any other man. St Anthony was enough for me."  Like Mr Buddhika, Ms Subasinghe was born a Buddhist, but converted to Christianity after discovering the church.  So what is it about this church and St Anthony in particular that has captured the imagination of so many people?  According to Father Leo Perera, a parish priest who serves nearby, part of it is to do with the fact St Anthony's Church has always been associated with miracles.  In fact, its very origin has been attributed to one.  According to local legend and the written history of the archdiocesan archives, St Anthony's Church was built by a priest from Cochin in southern India, named Father Antonio. He secretly practised Catholicism during the Dutch rule of Colombo in the 18th Century, although it had been named a proscribed religion.  He was able to build the church, the legend says, after performing a miracle. The locals had come to him in panic after seeing the sea rising and asked him to pray for it to recede. He did, and the sea not only receded, but a sand bank suddenly emerged from the waters. So he planted a cross there and built a small mud church, in which he remained until his death.  The other reason, Father Leo says, is the fact that many people have testified that the church has answered prayers and restored faith.  "Everyone who goes there comes away with the happy feeling that their prayers have been heard," he said, adding that on special celebratory feast days, the church was always full of grateful people who had come to give offerings as thanks for having their prayers heard.  But what next, I ask him? Will the attacks erode people's faith in the power of this church?  "Absolutely not," he says with emotion.  "You cannot keep people away from here just because of something like this. They will keep coming back because this is the time they want the presence of God in their life. There is no way this will affect the power of this church and the faith of its believers."  This sentiment is echoed by Mr Buddhika.  "This is no ordinary church. Whoever did this didn't know what they were messing with - they cannot simply get away with something like this.  "They will pay for this over generations."  And this is because St Anthony's is so much more than just a place of worship. It is a symbol of Sri Lanka's plurality and tolerance. A reminder that in a country, still bruised by the memories of a brutal civil war and inter-religious violence, its diverse communities have traditionally lived together peacefully and embraced each other's beliefs and differences.  That perhaps explains why so many of them still came together to stand in front of the church, to express sadness and horror at what took place within.  In its darkest hour, the church continues to be a symbol of hope - with many Sri Lankans choosing to stand together despite the hatred that has unfolded among them.


bbc--2019-12-18--Reinhard Bonnke: The man who changed the face of Christianity in Africa

German-born evangelist Reinhard Bonnke, who attracted massive crowds in Africa during decades of preaching, is being mourned by millions of Christians across the continent following his death aged 79. Kenyan writer Jesse Masai looks back at his influence.  With comparisons ranging from British "Prince of Preachers" Charles Spurgeon to American televangelist Billy Graham, Bonnke's status as the father of modern-day crusade preaching and healing in Africa is not in dispute.  Across the continent, huge week-long church rallies are now commonplace, characterised by mass mobilisation, big tents, colourful podiums, sophisticated public address systems, local language translators and, in some instances, evangelists who mimic Bonnke's oratory and stage antics, including how he firmly gripped microphones.  At the end of some of his sermons, he would ask who in the crowds was hearing God's call to take the microphone from his hands.  His message of redemptive hope became important, particularly in African nations affected by drought, civil strife and other tragedies. • Founded Christ For All Nations (CFAN) mission organisation in 1974 • CFAN claims Bonnke oversaw more than 79 million conversions to Christianity  Some, like 83 year-old Kenyan pentecostal preacher Wilson Mamboleo - who helped organise Bonnke's forays into East Africa - consider Africa's best-known names on the African Christian scene such as Nigeria's TB Joshua and Kenya's Teresia Wairimu, a direct consequence of Bonnke's early influence.  Bonnke joined Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta during the dedication of Wairimu's Faith Evangelistic Ministry Family Church in Nairobi, the country's capital, in August 2016.  "His pioneering, militant approach of open-air crusades was informed by our context. Like the Biblical St Paul, he was aware that he was confronting strong evil forces," says Mr Mamboleo.  His Christ For All Nations (CFAN) organisation, known for its work throughout Africa, claims Bonnke oversaw more than 79 million conversions to Christianity.  You may also be interested in: • Why Africa is the future for the Catholic Church • Why some African governments are clamping down on churches • Meeting the pastor who says he can walk on air  At huge rallies - including one in Nigeria's main city, Lagos, in 2000 that was said to have drawn 1.6 million people - Bonnke claimed to heal people using the powers of God.  He also told followers he had witnessed people rising from the dead, although such "miracles" were dismissed by his critics.  Stephen Mutua, who between 1986 and 2009 served as an international director under him, remembers riots in mainly Muslim Kano in northern Nigeria in 1990.  The Muslim population had been angered that Bonnke had secured permission to hold a crusade.  "In the ensuing chaos, I found myself in an armoured car for the first time in my life, before the Nigerian military airlifted us to Lagos," Dr Mutua recalls.  "Bonnke, who understood Nigeria's religious dynamics, condoled with the nation in a personal message to the federal government and vowed to return."  Officially at least eight people were killed but unconfirmed reports said hundreds lost their lives.  "After the incident we had our visa applications denied and we didn't return to Nigeria for 10 years."  Dr Mutua, who now heads the African Evangelists Network in Nairobi, said things changed when President Olusegun Obasanjo came into power in 1999.  He notes that Nigeria, the most populous state in Africa, would thereafter regularly welcome Bonnke, more than any other African nation.  Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim northerner, paid tribute to the evangelist, saying his death was a "great loss to Nigeria, Africa and [the] entire world".  Dr Mutua avers that while Bonnke may have inspired other teachers, pastors, apostles and prophets in Africa and beyond, the evangelist's work remains unfinished.  And while the Associated Press news agency reported in 2014 that Bonnke was living in a $3m (£2.3m) apartment near Palm Beach, Florida, Dr Mutua argues the evangelist was committed to transparency.  "We need to continue in his commitment to scripture and a life of personal integrity for lasting impact," he says.  Dr Mutua's rosy view of Bonnke is shared by Dr Emily Onyango, a lecturer in Kenya's St Paul's University's department of Theology and Development studies, who believes Bonnke's focus on evangelism has inspired millions of Christians in Africa to have a personal relationship with Christ.  "Although he addressed crusades which had thousands of people, his approach had an individual touch and most people felt that he was personally addressing their needs," she says.  However, Prof Esther Mombo from the university's Center for Christian-Muslim Relations in Eastleigh (CCMRE), says that Bonnke's impact on Africa is complex and may take researchers some time to properly evaluate.  Established in 2010, the CCMRE has been at the heart of several attempts to build inter-religious relationships between Muslims and Christians in the African context.  Prof Mombo argues that Bonnke's preaching did not always foster peaceful co-existence, but rather rivalry and hatred.  "The people who suffered through such utterances were the ordinary people. There are also those who were exploited," she says.  "His healing ministries appeared to be strange, and to an extent a circus. Yet I am sure that through his ministry, some people met Christ and grew in faith."  Bonnke held a farewell gospel campaign in 2017 in Nigeria, after which he stepped down as the organisation's leader because of poor health.  His influence, however, can still be felt in many streets in Africa where self-styled preachers, microphone tightly gripped in one hand, brandishing a Bible in the other, urge passers-by to embrace the Christian message.