islam – Houghton STAR

An Egyptian court on Monday, February 1st 2015, sentenced 183 Muslim Brotherhood supporters to death. The court proceedings were held over the killing of 11 police officers in the violence that had engulfed Egypt after the 2013 dismissal of the former Islamist president, President Mohammed Morsi.

The attack took place after Egyptian military forces cracked down on Islamist supporters of Morsi in July 2013. Egyptian security forces descended onto two pro-Morsi camps in July and August 2013, killing hundreds.

At the end of July and beginning of August 2013, hundreds of demonstrators were killed by Egyptian security forces. The Human Rights Watch said that this mass killing of protesters “probably amounts to crimes against humanity,” thus creating an international outcry that was quickly quieted by the Egyptian government.

The United Nations has called the trials “unprecedented.” Amnesty International’s Deputy Middle East and North Africa Program Director, Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, said in a statement in response to Monday’s verdict. “The death sentences are yet another example of the bias of the Egyptian criminal justice system.”

Sahraoui further stated that “issuing mass death sentences whenever the case involves the killing of police officers now appears to be near-routine policy, regardless of facts and with no attempt to establish individual responsibility.”

The original trial saw 377 people sentenced to life in prison in absentia, while not present at the event being referred to. Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui said it would be wrong to impose the capital punishment “when there are serious doubts hanging over the fairness of the trial which disregarded international law.”

The Egyptian court did not put 183 individuals to death lightly. The Egyptian government has been attempting to fight against terrorism in Egypt. Muslim extremism has seen an increase in central Egypt in the past decade, and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has been fighting against these extremists.

Egypt’s current government, led by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has called for a ‘religious revolution’ and asked Muslim leaders to help in the fight against extremism. President el-Sisi has launched a war against terrorism, focusing particularly on the countries Sinai region, where an extremist group recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

In an act of counter extremism, Egyptian authorities cracked down in 2013 on former supporters of Morsi, a longtime member of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the Egyptian government had officially declared a terrorist organization in December 2013

In a speech on New Year’s Day, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse. “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s population, [which] is 7 billion people, so that they themselves may live?” President el-Sisi asked.

“We have to think hard about what we are facing,” President el-Sisi said. “It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing, and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible.”

We live in a religiously pluralistic society. We see it in manifested in our own faith tradition with tens of thousands of Christian denominations, and also outside in the realm of world religions, spanning Hinduism and Buddhism in the East, to Islam, Judaism, and beyond. Even in the evangelical Christian milieu of Houghton there is still a reasonably large spectrum of beliefs and experience. For Houghton, as a Christian institution, does this plurality merely represent our extensive mission field? Or does it perhaps provide us with the opportunity to understand our faith—as individuals and a community—more deeply?

Practically speaking, it is necessary that we come to terms with our religious differences, both across the spectrum of Christianity (which we experience on campus) and across the spectrum of religions we see as “others”. Though our respective traditions may be directly opposing one another, faith remains essentially a human trait, something solid to provide a basis for successful interfaith dialogue. But how are we to go about this dialogue?

Last fall in my Judaism class, I read an article by the rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, (known popularly as “The Rav”) which I found to provide solid guidelines for interfaith dialogue. He stipulates that a confrontation (dialogue) between two faith communities is only possible if it is accompanied by a “clear assurance that both parties will enjoy equal rights and full religious freedom.” Additionally, both parties must have an assurance that they will be upheld in high respect, and not dragged through the mud, so to speak, when difficult issues or severe disagreements arise. In other words, if we neglect to provide a safe environment for these discussions, it is inevitable that neither party will come away with anything constructive, rather both sides will probably emerge somewhat insulted or discouraged.

Granted for the majority of us on campus it will be far easier to approach different denominations rather than entirely different religions; engaging a Catholic is quite different than engaging a Hindu, whose vocabulary, beliefs, and traditions are completely foreign for most of us. That being said, it is vitally important that we as a Christian institution strive to engage these very “other” communities. If we continue to avoid interacting with these other faiths, we risk allowing “monsters to grow in the silence,” as Dr. Case said, one of our world religions professors. I would define these “monsters” as our tendency to demonize or vilify any religion that opposes Christianity. This mindset only serves to further the disparity between our respective faith traditions, burning bridges rather than building them.

Thus these conversations should not be taken as opportunities to merely target non-Christians for conversion (or even to convert those outside the perimeters of our preferred denomination). In other words, our mission should not be to proselytize, but to establish relationships. These dialogues and relationships would help to destroy our unwarranted prejudices and misconceptions about other faiths, and aid us in being effective in a world that preaches tolerance. Constructive interfaith dialogue should force both sides to be open minded without requiring either side to sacrifice their beliefs to the other, helping foster conversations and relationships as opposed to mission fields.

This being said, we do have a “missionary mandate” as a Christian institution and church, and when all is said and done, even in these honest dialogues there remains an element of persuasion on each side. While conversion should not be our only aim, it is legitimate, but perhaps it is best pursued in the context of these relationships we establish through dialogue. After all, is our goal merely to increase numbers for the church or is it to welcome new members into the body of Christ? It’s at least my experience that the most successful evangelism is done within the context of real relationships, and when it comes to people of other faiths, we cannot hope for true relationships unless we are willing to engage in open dialogue.

Houghton appears to be heading toward becoming a more welcoming campus when it comes to interfaith matters. Dean Michael Jordan has said that the administration is on-board with increasing the diversity of speakers both in and outside of chapel. He mentioned that the Franciscan friars will be back, along with a couple speakers representing the Catholic and Presbyterian churches in the coming spring semester. This is a step in the right direction, providing the campus an opportunity to learn from and engage faiths that may be foreign to our own. Jordan also said that he is open to, and hopes to welcome, speakers outside of the Christian tradition on campus for panel events and discussions in later semesters. Presented with these opportunities, we have the potential to become a community of believers who are open and willing to engage in dialogue with the religious diversity in our own community and outside it.