Reisu-l-ulema's speech at University of Oslo

The Faculty of Theology's 200 Years Jubilee

as a part of the celebration of the 200th anniversary 

of the University of Oslo

Tuesday, 20 September, 2011

Religion - source of conflict, means for reconciliation

Key Note Lecture

By

Raisu-l-ulama Mustafa Cerić, Ph.D.

Grand Mufti of Bosnia

            Thank you for inviting me to the 200 years of jubilee of the University of Oslo and the Faculty of Theology as well as for giving me the honor to speak on this noble occasion of Norway. Two hundred years of educational history of a nation deserves a high respect and admiration. This respectful legacy of the University of Oslo is a common memory of a European identity of rationality, productive work and national pride.

            Please accept my sincere congratulations to all of you in Norway with my wish for more and more jubilees in the future in peace and prosperity.   

            It is exactly this occasion of the Oslo 200 years of jubilee of the high learning institution that gives me the opportunity to share with you a significant Bosnian contribution to the history of educational development in Europe. It is the Gazi Husrev-bey Madrasa of Sarajevo which had been founded in the year of 1537 after Mīlād. As it is obvious, this school is one of the oldest European institutions of learning, with an extraordinary experience of 474 years. In his Waqfiyyah (Waqfname - The Book of Endowment), the founder Gazi Husrev-bey had outlined his vision of the Madrasa in the following words which serve as lasting inspiration for generations of Bosnian scholars and academics:

In the madrasa (Gazi Huerev-bay), which the wāqif (endower) wants to build, establish, erect and devote to those who shall obtain knowledge and improve morality from among the students and common people, and to those who shall be occupied with rational and traditional knowledge, there shall be the one of them, who shall be knowledgeable, virtuous, excellent and competent, who shall uncover the veils of truths by verbal and written words, who shall combine particular and universal as well as comprehend rational and traditional knowledge. He shall teach al-tafsīr (Qur'abic exegesis), al-hadīs (Islamic tradition), al-ahkām (basics of Sharī‛ah law), al-usūl (the theory of law), al-bayān (Arabic stylistics), al-kalām (Islamic speculative theology) as well as all other things that the custom (or time) and the place require (ma yaqtadīhi al-urfu wa al-maqāmu).

            It is our intention to take this idea as a foundation for a future  Gazi Husrev-bey University in Sarajevo that can help Europe in its endeavor to make a solid ground for the Muslim-European integration. The Gazi Husrev-bey University of Sarajevo should have the same vigor of determination to meet the challenges of our times as the founder of the Gazi Husrev-bey Madrasa had said: This Madrasa shall be great and its curriculum shall be similar to the madrasas of the viziers and princes. Indeed - This Gazi Husrev-bey University of Sarajevo shall be great and its curriculum shall be similar to the universities of Europe "where East meets West".

            Of course, the legacy of the 200 years of the University of Oslo should be the matter of the attention of the future Gazi Husrev-bay University as well as the point of our common memory for a common European identity, which is based on the fact that unlike a plant and an animal, man has no automatic code of survival in this world. In order to survive man must acquire knowledge, he must go through the process of learning, he must go through the process of thinking, he must activate his faculty of reason. This is why we have it in our Islamic tradition that:  -  The first thing created by God was the 'aql (reason), as well as that:  - The reason is God's  Scale on Earth, as the great Muslim philosopher and mystic Imam Muhammad al-Ghazālī had said.

            Yes, you are right to ask: but where is this 'aql (reason) and where is this God's reason scale in religion? Is religion compatible with reason? Is there a meeting place for religion and reason? Does man need religion if for him the basic means of survival is reason? Is religion a source of conflict or means for reconciliation?

            I do not pretend to give you satisfactory answers to the above posed questions that we often hear these days, but I will try to provoke your thought about the meaning of "faith", "religion" and "morality" as three similar, but in some aspects quite different concepts that should be properly understood. 

            So let me say that "faith" is God's gift of personal belief; "religion" is a theology as "the study of God and his relation to the world especially by analysis of the origin and teachings of an organized religious community"[1], and "morality" is man's inner understanding of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, true and false.

            We have it in our Islamic tradition that before he became Man (Insān), Adam had been clay in the no life no death state until God had breathed in it (the clay) His own spirit (rūh)[2], the result of which has been the living organism in the shape of Man/Adam with his ability to walk, to think and to talk. This spirit of God has been shared ever since by each and every human being on earth and thus we are all equal in the initial position of our faculty to trust in God, that is to say to have "faith" as a substantial entity of our human nature. Thus we all have faith as God's injected spirit in our human nature as a condition for us to be alive. The moment this God's spirit is taken from us we cease to be living organism, we become dead. Of course, the spirit that has kept us alive goes where it came from - to God, to Whom in the end we all belong.

            Now, religion is made out of this substantial entity of human nature, as a copy paste of "faith", by the way of a human interpretation of human destiny and human need for survival in this world and salvation in the hereafter. Thus, the religion as such is not necessarily the original "faith" of God's spirit. It is often just an attempt of man to articulate his thought about God and to attract  other men to his guidance, say, to his influence over the cosmogonical, cosmological and eschatological concerns of man. Hence the religion is a theology as a human concept of God, of society, of morality and of man's ultimate destiny.

The old religious identity was dismissed as 'irrational', and the new and 'normal' identity was understood to be either derived from liberal individualism or class. The legacy of Marxism left memories of class identity with the notion of economic determinism that was supposed to erase the identity of individual freedom, in particular, the freedom of religion.  On the other hand, the legacy of liberal individualism failed to comprehend the power of identity politics assuming that the defeat of Fascism and Nazism was a final blow to extreme nationalism. Since the eighteenth century, Europe has been faced with the dilemma of the political power that it based on reason or identity.  This is, of course, a false dilemma, because it has been proven that these two do not necessarily exclude each other. In essence - as George Schöpflin has said[3] - recourse to reason provides clarity in understanding action, consistency, accountability, predictability, the ability to question motives and place them in a frame of reference. Identity, as against this, offers individuals the security of community and solidarity, of shared patterns of meanings, a bounded world in which to live and in which one can find others like oneself. Power operates in both these spheres. The exclusion of either reason or identity creates unease.

Religion is one of the factors that make up personal and group identities. The question is how the religious identity can be saved from misuse to legitimate other issues and, instead, to motivate people to strive for peace, justice and tolerance in everyday life situations. Today, we do not live in a separate world of our own.  We see that within a relatively short period of history, the telephone, radio, television, motion pictures, and, more recently, computers, e-mail, and the worldwide web are drastically altering our perceptions of time, space, and each other.

However, these tools of modern technology that are connecting people closer to each other in the physical sense do not bring fruit in making them closer in the sense of their decent human relationship. From Northern Ireland to the Middle East we see that centuries of bloody ethnic and religious conflicts continue to be far from peaceful solution. The genocidal and tragic events in Srebrenica of 1995, in New York and Washington of 2001, in Madrid of 2004, in London of 2005, and in Oslo of 2011 are the culmination of human madness.

            Indeed, the real issue here is morality. Either this morality that is of God's spirit, of the original "faith", of the human consciousness, that we Muslims call al-taqwā, and of the man's rational ability to regognize true or false, right or wrong, and good or evil;  or, that morality that is based on pure human feeling, taste, urge, wish or whim. I shall quote here Ayn Rand of what she said in The Objectivist Ethics[4]:

            "A being who does not know automatically what is true or false, cannot know automatically what is right or wrong, what is good for him or evil. He is not exempt from the laws of reality, he is a specific organism of a specific nature that requires specific actions to sustain his life. He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it. He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see... Man is free to choose not to be conscious, but not free to escape the penalty of unconsciousness: destruction. Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer  - and that is the way he has acted through most of his history".

            Yes, it is man called Sun Tzu who had written more than a thousand year ago The Art of War, which is just an illustration of what it has been on man's mind "through most of his history". Of course, man could have chosen to write The Art of Peace, but he had not; man could have advocated for The Just Peace instead of The Just War, but he had not; and  man could have opted for The Holy Peace instead of The Holy War, but he had not. So, man is faced today as he has been throughout the whole history to chose, as John Galt says in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957): "Man has been called a rational being, but rational is matter of choice - and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man - by choice; he has to be hold his life as a value - by choice; he has to learn to sustain it - by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues - by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality" [5].

            Indeed, the art of peace, instead of the art of war, the just peace instead of the just war, and the holy peace instead of the holy war by choice is a blueprint for the Noh Ark of our survival, for our salvation and for the continuation of our civilization.  

            Paradoxes of our civilization such as: the higher degrees in education, the less degree of ethics; the more knowledge, the less wisdom; the more experts, the less solutions; the more wealth, the less moral values; the more houses, the less families; the faster communication, the less decent human relation; the more books about pollution, the less care about natural environment; the more conferences about peace, the more wars around the world; the more call for reason, the less rational behavior - are clear indications that we must change our way of life, we have to discover a new morality, a new drive for a new start that will lead us to the basics of humanity, to a human fundamentalism or a fundamental humanism. 

            What we need today is a spiritual revolution that is different from the scientific, intellectual, political or industrial revolutions. It is the revolution of spirit that should embrace all of the positive results of the previous revolutions in the sense of the return to the light of God (nūr) - a source of His light with which He enlightens human hearts and minds, which is light upon light, which expels darkness one over the other, which chases away darkness from human mind, which removes hatred from human heart, and which cleanses the human soul from Satan's evil.

            It is interesting to hear this saying of the Prophet Muhammad, a.s.: "Verily, God created the creatures in darkness, and then He poured them some of His light". It is this light, i.e. God's light, that has enlightened the human spirit and mind to lead humanity from slavery to freedom; from might to right; from mythology to science; from hatred to love; from terror to security; from fear to hope; from war to peace; from corruption to ethics; from poverty to wellbeing; from falsehood to truth; from selfishness to compassion; from arrogance to humility; from harshness to gentleness; from greed to modesty; from discrimination to equality; from pornography to chastity; from pedophilia to morality; from drug-addiction to self-esteem; from godlessness to Godliness; from suicide to the purpose of life, and from jahiliyya (ignorance) to spiritual enlightenment.

            On paper we have it all - freedom, right and science, but deep in our soul we sense that we are losing these values as some people would like to take us back to the dark age of slavery, might and mythology or jahiliyyah.

            Of course, science cannot replace the need of the soul to hear beyond what the ear can hear and to see beyond what the eye can see, through enlightened intellect. But also, human intellect which produces knowledge cannot renounce scientific achievements that have made man's life on earth easier.

            The call for a return to faith must not mean a return to the world of mythology in which the light of intellect and the power of reason are dimmed. A spiritual revolution does not imply erasing human sagacity and rationality. The spiritual revolution demands a return to wisdom, tolerance and dialogue, notions that have become lost in the flood of arrogance, egoism, extremism, holocaust, genocide, terrorism and violence in the streets and in homes. We have reached a point when the very mention of the word "wisdom" usually makes one think of elderly people who are wise because they have grown old and can no longer be ruthless.

            Yes, ruthlessness has become what "wisdom" used to be for those who think that "wisdom" of life is to be found in narcotics; the "wisdom" of modern age in alcohol; the "wisdom" of freedom of choice in the lack of shame; the "wisdom" of wit in theft, and the "wisdom" of courage in violence. Of course, when one subjects his worldview to acquiring knowledge and information without morality and ethics; without wisdom and meaning; without decency and honor, without tolerance and the culture of dialogue, then we face violence, intolerance and discrimination in society.

            The pollution of the human soul with lies and immorality is no less harmful than the pollution of nature with poisonous gases and garbage. Moreover, it is not possible to cleanse nature as long as human soul remains polluted with wickedness and irresponsibility towards life on earth.

            Man must learn tolerance and a culture of dialogue because there is no other way that can contribute to his success in this world and his salvation in the Hereafter. It is because of the lack of human compassion for all forms of life on earth and because of the absence of true tolerance and a culture of dialogue among people and nations that the 20th century will be remembered as the century of dark ideas of racism, fascism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - the ideas that have induced people to commit the most heinous crimes in history of mankind.

            Death camps, Gulags and the atomic bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed millions of people, more than in any other century. However, the 20th century is not only notorious for the numbers of those killed, but also because of the conviction that out of those killings a new, better world would be born. In the 20th century industries of killing organized by states against its own citizens, were launched with the conviction that those who survived would live in a better world than was ever existed. In the 20th century man tried to replace the Divine Spirit with a satanic evil spirit, daring to utter the words: "God is dead", becoming conceited in thinking that he can live as if there were no God. But, today those of us who have survived the "dark moments" of the 20th century can bear witness that God is al-Hayy, the Ever-Living.

            No doubt, Christianity meeting with Islam in Europe was one of the most interesting and most intense competitive actions in the history of the Continent. It does not matter whether this competition was an affirmative action or an action of opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.

            What matters here is the fact that Christianity and Islam could not ignore each other anymore, but had to count on each other in the sense of self-examination and self-actualization. It was not the sword of Ibni Sina, Avicenna (980-1037), that made Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) take him as his master in theology and philosophy, but it was the force of Ibni Sina's Islamic spirit that challenged Thomas Aquinas to examine and actualize the spirit of Christianity. On the other hand, it was the opposing drives, external and internal demands that let Dante Alighieri (1265/1321) wish for Ibn Rushd, Averroës (1126-1198), to go to hell because of his promotion of Aristotelian philosophy.

            The difference between these two approaches is in the fact that  Aquinas knew how to value Avicenna's philosophy, not to judge it, while Alighieri jumped to the judgment of averroism, displaying thus his poetic emotions rather than his sound perception. And it is only if perception changes that emotions change, because logic does not change emotions. In addition to that, the judgment approach is based on reflecting past reality and has no energy for designing new realities. 

            Therefore,  we may discover the truth but we need to design value.  This is exactly what Thomas Aquinas has shown us by reflecting on the philosophy of Avicenna - he designed new philosophical value out of Avicenna's which is as Aristotelian as it were and as Islamic as it meant to be.  It is in the spirit of designing rather than judging that I read this verse of Qur'an:

To you, Muhammad, the Book has been sent in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and protecting it in safety: so judge between them by what God has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that has come to you. To each among you a Law has been prescribed and an Open Way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single People, but He wanted to test you in what He has given you: so compete as in a race in all values. The goal of you all is to God; It is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute. (Qur'an: 5:51).

There are two important points that should be taken from this Qur'anic teaching:

First, it teaches us to adopt inclusive not exclusive approach to the worlds of faith. This is, especially, important for Europe because Europe's future will be one of many faiths. It is, therefore, necessary to overcome the history of intolerance of the other's Scripture, i.e., of the religion of others.

Second, the Qur'an guides us to the conclusion that no one has the monopoly on Truth. The Road to Truth is open to all, and the Way to it is the competition in good virtues and in the design of new values of human decency, righteousness and knowledge.

                [1] Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, art "theology".

                [2] [For,] lo, thy Sustainer said unto the angels: "Behold, I am about to create a human being out of clay; and when I have formed him fully and breathed into him of my spirit, fall down before him in prostration! (Qur'an, 38:71-72).

[3] George Schöpflin, The New Politics of Europe: Nations, Identity, Power, C. Hurst & Co., London, 2000, p. 10.

                [4] Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Sejfishness, Signet, 1964, pp. 23-24.

                [5] Ibid, pp. 24-25.