TOWARDS BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS
Nigerian Journal of Islam vol. 2, no. 1 July 1971 - January 1972
It is truly a sign (âya) of God's kindness worth meditating on that, in spite of the continuance of long-standing ill will and mistrust between Muslim and Christian communities in some quarters, elsewhere an older tradition of respect and a will for brotherhood, which is more akin to the original message of each religion, has come to the fore, and is occasionally even attracting public notice.
This thrust towards brotherhood is certainly occasioned by the bonds of close communication, trade, and circulation of people in today's world. But I respectfully disagree with Professor W. Montgomery Watt, who maintains that the drawing together of the world in these ways will inevitably form a single world mentality and result in concord among peoples. (1) On the contrary, the material network of the world of today can just as easily lend itself to reinforce national, racial, or religious differences, to say nothing of international political and economic power schemes. No, in my view, the unmistakable breezes of brotherhood have no earthly guarantee of success, and can easily be snuffed out by one crisis or another or by the concerted determination of those who control public opinion. Both the origin and the success of any friendship between Muslims and Christians can only come from God (al-'alî- al-`azîm wa-bi-hi t-tawfîq).
Secular basis of friendship
The Muslim communities of Nigeria have had long experience of communication and cooperation with Christians, dating from before the colonial era. But has this contact been with Christians as Christians? In spite of the general Muslim tendency to equate Europeans with Christians, the Muslims of Nigeria, after some initial hesitation, quickly learned to distinguish in practice between secular education, science and other patrimonies of the whole human race, and the "Christians" who introduced them to Nigeria. By and large, their experience with these Nasarâ, or Europeans, seems to have left a good taste. Both among these and Nigerian Christians, they have found many trusted friends. A few of these friends actually joined the Muslim community. A few, on the other hand, represented Christian groups whose aim was to win converts, but were sometimes accepted and appreciated because of their personal kindness and services (with nearly no converts from Muslims to satisfy them). Yet the vast majority of Muslims' friends from outside their faith were, everyone will admit, people of very vague religious conviction, if they had any, or people whose personal belief in Christ had little apparent effect on their contact with Muslims.
This secular basis of friendship is bound to grow and spread, simply because of the growing communication between peoples and the difficulty of bringing any revealed norms and faith in God to bear on human relationships. With such an absence of religious motives, it never did make sense to speak of a "Christian" colonization of Africa, (2) and it is becoming less and less meaningful nowadays to speak of "Christian" or "Muslim" countries, although in this respect, countries with an Islamic tradition are generally less secularized than those with a Christian tradition.
Secularization, or keeping any religion from dominating and forming the norms of society, has been described so far only in terms of fact. Whether it is good or bad is another question. A certain kind of secularity, equivalent to impartiality, is unquestionably good. Thus there is no reason to become excited over whether the head of state belongs to a minority or a majority religion in the country, any more than if he should come from a minority or a majority ethnic background, provided he does not use his political power to advance the cause of his religion or ethnic group at the expense or exclusion of other component communities of the nation.
Place for a religious basis of friendship
Many would like to see a secular humanism, or focusing on man and his recognizable needs rather than on God and his revealed precepts, as the common denominator between Muslims and others in all spheres of life. This may sometimes be necessary, since when the best things are corrupted they are the worst. Thus, when religion is infected by callousness towards others and their beliefs or by a hypocritical and feigned concern for others, it is better to put it aside while dealing with those of other faiths and settle for a secular relationship. But to enjoy the friendship of a Muslim or a Christian to the fullest, one must appreciate what is best and dearest to him, and this is his religious faith, if he is a convinced believer.
A friendship in which the parties have no interest in each other's beliefs not only must be shallow; it also risks, in the absence of any religious conviction, being a sheer and treacherous opportunism, or using the other for one's own advantage. This is not to call into question the many true and honest friendships between Muslims and Christians that have had no outward religiosity about them. It is only to point to something deeper, where the Islam or Christianity of the persons becomes a factor drawing the persons together rather than an unfortunate obstacle which must be politely overlooked, if the other person is accepted at all.
Thus, in an ideal type of relationship between Muslims and Christians, one's faith is neither put to one side and ignored, nor put to the fore in an aggressive triumphant way. Rather, it is plainly and loyally acknowledged, while at the same time one tries to recognize a common experience and content of faith, without glossing over real differences by contrived explanations or syncretism.
Need for serious scholarship
To truly appreciate the other and to avoid the type of simplistic statements which stir the benign condescending smile of the polite and the ire of the impatient, everyone concerned should have an educated acquaintance with the faith of the other, while at least some learned representatives (`ulamâ') of each community should have a specialized knowledge of the faith and history of the other community as well as its present-day understanding of itself.
Obstacle of hostilities
Examples can be multiplied of Christians and Muslims persecuting or conspiring or discriminating against one another, both in past history and at present. These are often made reasons for a defensive reserve and suspicion of the other community. Regarding any such levying of blame, our first interest should be objective information regarding the facts. A presentation which is one-sided, laying the blame exclusively on the other side, is immediately suspected of unfairness. (3)
Another point is that we cannot extend collective responsibility to hold all members of the other religion responsible for everything any of their members did in past history, or in other parts of the world, or even close at hand. In 1966 many churches in the North of Nigeria were pillaged by mobs who happened to be Muslim. At the same time and afterwards some other Muslims, moved by a different understanding of Islam, quietly did what they could to minimize and alleviate the damage caused. Is the whole Muslim community to be held thenceforward to blame for these incidents? No; rather, the approach of Christians should be to build for the future, and not live in the past.
Sometimes a Muslim or a Christian learns that some of his co-religionists are carrying on activities against those of the other religion, and he does not approve. The person is sometimes in a position to do something about it, but more often he cannot control, and only suffers embarrassment from what his co-religionists do. Realistically, we cannot expect a united front from the other side. Some will show fairness and cordiality; others will not. There will be bad eggs until the end of the world. Since this is so, we cannot expect to be loved by all of the other faith, or let some unfortunate incidents embitter us and close us to the much real goodness God has distributed among all communities of his creation.
Conclusion
It would be well for Christian and Muslim communities alike to encourage one another in the matters they believe in common, since they are often lonely voices in this world. Yet this rapprochement should not be a panic reaction of insecurity in face of the rest of the world, finding expression in all sorts of self-defensive literature. A siege mentality is not better before the rest of the world than it is between believing communities. Certitude and confidence in God's decree (qadar) to give faith and his blessings to whom he wills should inspire Muslims and Christians to work hard without fear, first to improve their own communities from withing, and secondly to open doors to others by what they say and by the louder voice of what they do.
1. W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic revelation in the modern world (Edinburgh, 1969), an otherwise very valuable work.
2. Colonial masters often cooperated with missionaries in order to gain advantages such as an educated cadre to run the colonial machinery, but religious motives were absent, or only used by the colonialists as a pretext to gain popular support at home for an intervention which would give them political and economic power; missionaries were strictly kept in check if they came in conflict with these aims.
3. As for the obviously tendentious article by Mahmud Muftic, "Psychological crusades of the modern time," Nigerian Journal of Islam, 1:2 (1971), pp. 23-28, 1 cannot begin to comment, but will only invoke the dialectical rule of thumb: "Seldom concede; never deny; always distinguish."