Understanding and Tolerance

In the course of its history human society has been testimony to bitter as well as pleasant events. With the progress of society and history not only success and positive events have left behind a sweet aftertaste in the memory of man; bitter occurences left behind experiences that taught men a lesson and help them to avoid mistakes in the future. These bitter historical events are part of the development of human society and affect it. In fact, the valuable lessons that have come from those events lessen their high price; they can form a bridge to a successful and happy future. It means that the bitter events in the course of history are forced on human society at a sometimes high or  priceless cost.

1. 28The science of eloquence applies the term “truth” to those terms that are used in their literal meaning and that need not be illustrated. But symbols are terms that contain a different meaning and that require an explanation, like e.g. calling a courageous person a “lion”.

The totalitarian religious rule in the middle ages, the crusades, the Thirty Year War between christian creeds, two destructive World Wars, crimes committed against the jewish minority etc. are bitter and terrible events that have nonetheless simultaneously brought about certain experiences for men. The Age of Enlightenment, the dialogue of religions and religious tolerance, the declaration of human rights and a worldwide acceptance of the preservation and protection of the rights of religious minorities and especially the Jews, who were victims in a certain epoch, they result from the lessons taught by such bitter and disturbing historical events. There can be no doubt that human experience is not a limited process which ends at a certain moment, but a continuing and incessant movement that requires completion and revision. Therefore we should share the opinion of the great Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, according to whom coming to a better decision is an unlimited and permanent search. Accordingly we should always bear in mind events and experiences when we revise and complete our views and correct our judgements and decisions on different subjects. The incidents of the last weeks that started when the caricatures defaming the prophet of Islam were published should be critically analysed and evaluated from this point of view. Due to the restricted time in the frame of this address I shall make short mention of some matters in this context.

1. The feelings of all Muslims have been hurt, no matter to which level or stratum of society they belong, from the religious authorities and intellectuals to the multitude of regular Muslims. In such situations it is to be expected from the religious authorities and from the elite that they act in an elucidating way and guide and lead the emotions of the masses with rational and logical means. Feelings and emotions are not an extraordinary experience that is incomprehensible for those who do not share them. Hence the best method to utter feelings and emotions, especially on a public and social level, is to create first the conditions for solidarity and empathy of the others. Emotions are a personal experience and occurrence and are only understood by those  who share these feelings, like the emotions of a mother regarding her child; they are part of her and can only be comprehended by her. If these feelings are expressed by means of a  language of logic and rationality as a principle that is comprehensible for all human beings; they will provoke understanding and empathy with others. Violence and brutality are incompatible with the teaching and the tradition of the prophet of Islam and they prevent understanding. Understanding as a strategic principle must never be neglected but must be promoted at every possible opportunity to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding in society.

Unfortunately some Muslims chose methods to express their feelings at these incidents that have not contributed to solidarity and mutual understanding but that have intensified the atmosphere of misunderstanding. Hence muslim authorities and intellectuals are obliged to prevent such expressions by means of elucidation and explanation. The Qur’an and the prophet Muhammad have repeatedly and distinctly made it clear that one has to apply something substancially and essentially different in order to remove ugliness and bad deeds; i.e. we have to remove the roots of ugliness by many good deeds. Perhaps we can take revenge for an insult by an insult on our part.. But this can not solve and remove  the problem of bad manners and wrong conduct.

1. In my view the right of the caricaturists has been neglected more than anything else in this incident. All those who criticized and condemned their actions and those too, who considered their actions as justified in the frame of freedom of opinions – none of them has attempted to understand the caricaturists’ situation and to determine their true part in the situation. Finally they were blamed with the whole responsibility, in an attempt to solve the problem; unfortunately some of them lost their jobs. But it is a fact that their part was really much smaller than described so far and that consequently they had not deserved such harsh reactions. Islam distinguishes between action and wrongdoer. It is not always the case that someone who commits a bad deed is a bad person, too, since the criterion for his good or bad deed is not the same criterion as for a good or bad person as perpetrator. In fact the result and the effect caused by the deed  will decide on whether it is a good or a bad deed. However with regard to the perpetrator, the intention connected to his volition and consciousness is decisive. No doubt the insulting caricatures constitute a bad deed. But one can not be absolutely certain that the whole responsibility for this ugliness lies with the wrongdoers alone and judge them. It is enough to imagine ourselves in their position for a moment in order to revise our judgement once more. We can develop empathy for the others only in an understanding and natural atmosphere where exterior causes do not influence our knowledge and consciousness and can then make them responsible for the opinions and intentions that were the basis of their actions.

Many prejudices that are not compatible with truth and that exist among the masses of the Muslims and non-Muslims about each other have to be considered when  allowing for this argument; people can not be made completely responsible for these views themselves but different historical, social, and religious reasons must be painstakingly analysed and considered. With regard to views on Islam in the western world we have to bear in mind that different reasons have prevented the development of an atmosphere of understanding which would have been necessary for an assured and confident judgement on a broad level. From the very beginning the Qur’an and especially the prophet of Islam were presented by some christian personalities in the worst possible way as a personality whom one could never love but only be inimical to; this went so far that after some centuries the name of the prophet of Islam was used to denote the devil. The resentment against Islam was that strong and deep that it even influenced reformers and intellectuals of the period of enlightenment, hence at a time when neither Qur’an nor other primary sources of Islam had been translated into European languages, and naturally it can not be expected that other sources and interpretations of Islam were available. Unfortunately the wrongdoings of Muslims and of governments ruling in the name of Islam have contributed further to this atmosphere of misunderstanding. Naturally judgements made in such a situation can not fully conicide with truth and reality, when no reliable sources for a correct cognition of true Islam are available

In an atmosphere of misunderstanding and hostility on one hand, and when on the other hand there are Muslim rulers whose unacceptable and violent conduct is not influenced by the Qur’an and the prophet of Islam but rather by individual and ethnic customs.

To improve the atmosphere we have to change all three factors. I.e. those who propagate hostility with a religious justification must revise their conduct. The main sources for the cognition of Islam must be made available and the group of Muslims that represent an untrue and wrong picture of Islam in the form of extremism must revise their conduct; the majority of Muslims and their authorities have to recject and isolate them.

Finally a determined volition must come into being for a transformation of the hostile atmosphere to an atmosphere of mutual understanding, and the process of change for an attainment of the ideal situation has started. In the meantime some western intellectuals and philosophers have played a historically important role. The German poet and philosopher Lessing with his drama “Nathan der Weise” has perpetuated his name and the name of Germany in the process of social understanding, peaceful co-existence, and religious tolerance.

Fortunately now an atmosphere of mutual understanding and dialogue is existing and efficient and important steps in this direction are taken. But this new situation is very recent. Only forty years have passed since the Vatican’s second council has decreed the dialogue with Islam. In view of difficult centuries of misunderstandings this is a very short period. But it is gratifying that during this short time such great and hopeful steps have been taken and we have to take good care of the young tree and protect it. In the past hostility toward adherents of other religions has received a counterfeit legitimation by christian interpretations. Therefore the religious authorities and in particular christian theologians play an extremely important role in this new phase, concerning the extension and strengthening of the existing understanding and the overcoming of the past, just as they have had a particularly constructive and efficient function for the creation of the already existing mutual understanding, next to intellectuals and the elites.

The most important foundation for the extension and strengthening of mutual understanding is better knowledge of the language of dialogue, of solidarity, and of understanding for the others. This language is easy to recognize for everybody and especially for intellectuals and politicians for particular reasons. But the religious authorities are obliged to contribute to the extension and strengthening of this language from the point of view of the religions and religious belief, in order to improve its credibility among the religious masses. The regular language for the religious authorities is the language of theology. The special quality of theology’s language is its proof of religious truth and it is not completely free of dogmatism. This language is very useful for deep religious conversations and discussions. But the language of dialogue on the social level must comprehend the acceptance of pluralism and the tolerance for dissidents, to bring forth the sweet fruit of mutual understanding in society and tolerance.

Although more enlightening activity could have been expected from the esteemed christian authorities in this context we must never allow the exploitation of such incidents for an insinuation of a conflict between religions and civilizations. We have mentioned many times that religions have a common substance and that differences between them are meaningless. Those who want to split up human society are enemies of religions and of human beings. We must not permit in any case the development of an alternative to the language of dialogue and the damaging of the atmosphere of mutual understanding and tolerance. Events must never be abused in order to create hatred and violence but every chance must be taken to increase understanding and tolerance. Mutual understanding and tolerance are not a one-way-road but a road that must be taken from both sides. Therefore we can not expect that only one side will adapt to the other and adjust to it; the process of understanding and tolerance is based on mutual acceptance of the others. The past that was characterized by misunderstandings shall not have an impact on us. All of us should try to cleanse our intention of any kind of pessimism and to increase our knowledge and cognition, just like the sage Nathan, the hero in Lessing’s drama. If certain painful experiences stay on in our historical memory we should

leave history aside and and keep only the interest in and love for humanity in our memory that is manifested in friendship and understanding between Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all dissidents.

An Interview with Beatrice Schaechterle for “Arte”

Do you think your integration into German society has been successful and isn’t your lack of knowledge of the  German language an obstacle to it?

For me integration is a much more comprehensive term than what you mentioned. I can not deny that not being fully acquainted with the German language makes communication difficult but I try to overcome this obstacle as quickly as possible.

My definition of integration which I have acchieved since my arrival here is much more comprehensive than you imagine; a lack of knowledge of the language need not constitute an obstacle for integration in this society. Even some other problems that exist in this society, like e.g. negative ideas of Muslims, have not made my integration impossible. We have a proverb in the Persian language that says: Unity of hearts is better than unity of words. No matter how hard we try to make German the language of immigrants and to adapt their conduct to the conduct of the German citizens, no integration can take place as long as they do not understand each other and have no correct knowledge about each other.

Is such an integration possible notwithstanding the differences between the islamic and the  christian view of the world?

It is absolutely correct that there are differences between Islam and Christianity and between all religions but these differences have to be considered in the context of deep mutualities and uniform attitudes. It is impossible to deny differences in the life of men; pluralism is an acceptable principle of our time. In reality the acceptance of pluralism and diversity is necessary for mens’ world of ideas and knowledge. At the same time diversity and pluralism

is a reality. But especially in view of the essential unity of the abrahamitic religions this must never be conceived as hostility between human beings.

Here I would like to make the interesting point that the prophet of Islam has been the founder of a particular integration in islamic society. A well preserved historical document proves that

the prophet  – who exercised the rule and political power in Medina according to the wish of the Muslim majority – had sealed a contract between the different groups of society in Medina in which Muslims, Jews, Christians, and unbelievers participated, those unbelievers who did not believe in God at all and did not accept Him. The concept of integration presented by the prophet of Islam is not based on the rejection of the religious identity and individual and social rights of the minorities but rather emphasizes that Muslisms, Christians, Jews, and unbelievers possess the same social rights, have to respect the creed and the rights of the others and feel responsible for public welfare. According to this contract the adherents of the various religious minorities and the Muslims who constituted the majority were all meant to form one community, notwithstanding their differences. With regard to this contract the prophets of Islam has stated clearly and distinctly that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and unbelievers should form a unified society, i.e. a uniform and solidarious community.

During the last years extremist crimes have spread fear among Europeans. Have these religious-extremist tendencies increased in your opinion?

As I already mentioned integration and bringing together of people are based on mutual understanding,i.e. the Muslims must understand this society and this society should also come to know and understand the Muslims. There are obstacles to the realization of this aim on both sides. I have to make a clear statement on one obstacle existing on part of the Muslims, namely extremism, which exists with some Muslims and impedes an understanding between Muslims and this society. But I do not believe that this extremism has increased since it existed in the past, too. Possibly the international situation and the state of the world at

present have produced some changes that let extremism appear in a different shape. Thus extremist movements like al-Qaida today have historical roots reaching far back into the past. For a long time they have claimed that e.g. Shiites and many other Sunnis were unbelievers. This means that they first have a problem with us Muslims, before they have a problem with the others.

Which expectations do you have of us, what can we do?

Certainly what I am saying is nothing new; during the year that I have spent here I have often mentioned and emphasized it and if you look up my Friday-sermons on the internet you will find it confirmed. I repeat it again: extremist movements that spread violence and terror, like e.g. al-Qaida, have nothing to do with Islam; they just make use of the terms Muslim and Islam, and before the western world and its citizens become the aim of such extremist movements they are enemies of the Muslims in the first place and Muslims are their first victims.

Here I would like to mention only one point: My question is directed towards this society and in particular those occupying responsible positions at the mass media: Why do some mass media present these extremist movements as representatives of the Muslims and of Islam?

The mass media could have a corrective influence by allowing those Muslims to utter their views who advocate rationality and moderacy and reject any kind of violence, too, not only those groups that utter injustice in the name of Islam. And why is the opinion of this small minority projected on all Muslims?

You can correct this at least by allowing the same amount of time and space for those who believe in rationality and moderacy as for those whom you allow to propagate their injustice in the name of Islam. Would it conversely be right if we took as a basis for a wrong and unjust judgment on contemporary Christianity and Christians the bitter past and our idea of the middle ages with the actions of the Christians that have been described by some as injustice on the part of Christianity? I would like to express my conviction that the mass media are capable of fighting incorrect propaganda and  negative ideas on Islam by presenting the true content of Islam and  true Muslims.

What can we learn from the Muslims in the future and, viceversa, what can the Muslims learn from us?

I would like to correct this question as follows: Which elements in Islam and among the Muslims and which elements within this society and, more precisely, among Christians are able to increase this mutual understanding, unity, and integration? In my opinion principles like rationality, democracy, and pluralism are important and decisive elements which exist in this society and that can pave the way for understanding and integration. Likewise these important principles exist in Islam, too; i.e. moderacy and rationality are common matters of this society and the islamic mode of viewing.

Here I have to emphasize an important point, that is the unfortunately negative and wrong ideas of Muslims and islamic thinking prevailing in this society. Thus it is claimed that Muslims want to islamicize this society. This claim is mistaken but those extremists that you quote which we reject and do not accept as true Muslims have this aim. But it is also important that they do not accept us as Muslims and consider it their islamic responsibility to islamicize us Muslims. This is not a joke, it is a fact that from their point of view we are not Muslims. But rest assured that these people are a minority and do not at all constitute the majority of Muslims and that these extremists are our enemy to the same degree just as they are the non-Muslims’enemy.  Islam teaches Muslims to respect and esteem the values of other societies. To realize and embody integration both groups, i.e. the Muslims and this society, must make an effort. In view of the principal and essential mutualities among this society and Islam – I mentioned some of them – integration can decidedly be realized if these efforts are continued.

Could you make some concrete proposals how the coexistence of Christians and Muslims can work out?

I said that the Muslims must take some steps and this society as well. The first steps of the Muslim consist of dealing respectfully with the values that  exist in this society. In this society there are lofty human values. I would like to emphasize in particular that German society possesses a great capacity of rationalism and philosophy in its history and its civilization and those values are highly esteemed and valuble.

The protection of individual and social freedom, the importance of the individual and social rights of individuals, the existing constitutional state and the order in this society are the most important matters that Muslims should take as an example in their engagement for this society.

A second weighty subject is that Muslims should show due respect and esteem to the values and traditions of this society, values and traditions based on antecedents of civilization and  history. I consider the construction of a parallel society as disregard of the values and structures of this society and I have often emphasized this when speaking to Muslims. This is an ethical and social lesson rooted in the Qur’an.

But society has to take a step towards integration by paying respect to the islamic values and the values accepted by Muslims. As I have said before, Islam never allows a Muslim who immigrates into a society to disregard this society’s values and special traditions or to try and islamicize this society. But on the other hand the islamic values of the Muslims should not be disregarded. If these steps are taken integration will certainly materialize.

We do not believe that all dimensions of social life should be deduced from religious precepts, i.e. concerning many dimensions of social life religion does not advocate a particular view. Principally Islam’s attitude towards the realms of social life and existence is rational; Islam confirms and accepts social traditions and contracts that are based on rationality. There is sufficient capacity and ability for integration and mutual understanding in the islamic teachings. But Islam is especially sensitive about one part of man’s social life, and I think it is important for this society to respect this sensitivity in view of integration’s

realization. It is the topic of the family which has high priority in Islam. Unfortunately some secular laws contradict the islamic principle of family. In Islam social relations are principally based on the axis of family. If the Muslims get the impression that this society does not bear in mind their sensitivities many problems will result. The Muslims could feel forced to return to their personal isolation to seek protection and turn away from society. The formation of parallel societies and artificial societies is founded on this isolation and flight from society. An effort is necessary to abolish this tendency to flight from society.

We expect this society to respect and esteem this realm of the islamic teaching and the Muslims’ sensitivitiy so that they will increase their commitment and responsibility for society. Nowadays extremists try to propagate the formation of a parallel society as a justification for their wrong actions; if Muslims in this society are confronted with some difficulties the extremists propagate the formation of a parallel society as a protection of belief and religion. But we must not let these people deceive human beings, and cooperation of Muslims with this society will deprive them of this chance.

We have to create the preconditions for integration and the commitment of Muslims to this society in the attitudes of the Muslims, by rejecting the extremists and by interpreting the islamic teaching, i.e. the true Islam. We have to explain to the Muslims that this does not constitute a problem from the point of view of Islam since it is basically the teaching of Islam that encourages Muslims to participate in this society. On the other hand this society should demonstrate that it pays esteem and respect to the opinions of the Muslims.

Where is e.g. the problem if the esteemed judges are familiar with islamic laws when applying civil law with regard to the family? Why should we force Muslim women not to wear Hijab? We say: The muslim woman is free, she is not forced to wear a head-scarf, nor is she forced not to wear it. She is free and she can decide herself. This society, too, should concede her this freedom of choice. The secularism prevailing in German society provides for freedom for

everybody to practice their religious rituals.

I thank you and I hope this interview can contribute to the realization of the important aim of integration. I would like to mention another matter: Just the same way we talk on TV and in front of the camera we also talk in front of the Muslims; there is no difference in our words and our conduct. My sermons of the past year testify to this, they are published on the internet. We believe in it and consider it as our task to motivate Muslims to integrate in this society and to tell them that there is no obstacle to integration from the islamic point of view; on the contrary, these islamic teachings encourage integration. We shall continue to take an active interest in this process and we hope that the mass media and those responsible for them will support us.

Address at the Interreligious Forum Hamburg

In the name of God,

dear ladies and dear sirs,

the dialogue of religion is a blissful process with positive results that fortunately are unfolding quickly. Here I would like to remind you of the deceased pope whose memory I keep in honour, who was justly considered a pacemaker of interreligious dialogue. I believe however that this blissful process needs a faster and quicker development and that we have to search for opportunities to increase the speed and pave the way for results.

We can attain this important aim if we dispose of the necessary concept and the theses for a progress in mutual understanding up to the higher level of cooperation. Dialogue is useful and constructive but it contains diversity in its essence. The multitude of arguments and reasons in the present world on one hand and the similarity of situations of the religions on the other hand strengthen the communal front of unity of religions. By means of the constructive dialogue they are engaged in and thanks to their mutual understanding of solidarity among

of partners they pursue common aims. It goes without saying that such ideas can not be reduced to the level of political mutualities decreed by contracts. To reach this aim we should not imitate political concepts that are of a tactical nature and intended to secure the position of the respective majoritiy.

To attain our end and the idea of unity of religions we should develop a concept with the following qualities.

1. The concept should be based on truth and spirituality, i.e. it must be completely identical with the essence of religions and free of any kind of tactical and political intention.
2. The concept for the unity of religions should have the quality to emphasize the truth of religion and the spirituality inherent to religion and religious belief and should never belittle this for the sake of tolerance. Hence this concept can be distinguished from the statements of most theoreticians of cognition and new philosophers whose work leads to a disregard of the truth and justness of religions.

This concept shall strengthen solidarity and unity of religions but it must not cause a debilitation of the particular religious perception and of the religious belief of the adherents of each of these religions. Simultaneously the feelings and the responsibility for one’s own religious teachings and ceremonies must not provoke negative effects. Differently and more clearly put: The concept of unity of religions shall respect the essence  and the confessional identity of religions. The spirit of tolerance and patience and the spirit of friendship, sincerity, and friendliness among the adherents of all religions and furthermore among all believers in spirituality and in a sacred commandment shall be strengthened; this will not diminish the religious feeling, the belief, the responsibility and the religious knowledge of the adherents of these religions.

A common and serious reflection and dialogue between leaders, philosophers, and scholars of the different religions is necessary for the promotion of such a concept. Therefore I suggest to form a commission of experts whose members dispose of the necessary professional and scientific competence and religious acceptance to discuss

the theoretical foundations of such a concept and to design a practical concept which can be passed on to larger groups and to propose their views and suggestions to other experts.

It is a fact that the process of dialogue of religions is currently taking place mostly on the level of scholars and that it is less widespread among the masses and the common adherents of the religions. One of the great obstacles is that many adherents of these religions receive no information on the results of this dialogue. On the other hand they tend to watch this dialogue sceptically based on their religious belief and their perception. At the end of the day the result of dialogue and of cooperation among scholars should become manifest in the development of coexistence, in growing mutual understanding of the adherents of the religions, and in the reality of life. If we succeed in  assuring all adherents of the religions  of  the security to retain their creed and to practice their particular religious responsibility when they cooperate with brothers and sisters of other religions, then they will be able to accept worldwide and comprising responsibility and will be present at the united front of truth, spirituality, and peace.

I do not want to pursue this subject any further since my only intention was to offer some ideas for discussion to our sisters and brothers.

Preserving Islamic Identity

Lecture at a conference of ambassadors of the islamic countries in Berlin

In the name of God most merciful and compassionate,

I would like to welcome the honoured audience and dear guests.

I do not intend to give a lecture but I only want to express my personal feelings with regard to the necessity of such meetings.

At first I would like to declare how pleased I am about this conference and the initiative taken by the esteemed department of culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran to organize it:

a conference that is a symbol of unity and islamic understanding.

For decades Muslims have not only been guests in this society but a part of it and just as they benefitted from this society’s opportunities they have contributed considerably to different scientific, cultural, and economic realms. Fortunately the social and cultural structure of Germany which is based on pluralism and democracy’s main principles has made possible this cooperation and peaceful coexistence.

Islam’s humane and rational view of non-Muslims is another decisive element for the realization of a peaceful coexistence and a friendly relationship of Muslims with this society.

Holy Qur’an and the prophet of Islam are the greatest messengers of truth and symbols of the friendly and peaceful coexistence of Muslims with adherents of other religions.

Coexistence of Muslims with adherents of other religions is not a phenomenon that developed as a historical necessity in the course of time but a state that has been emphysized in the Muslims’ Holy Book and by the teachings of the honoured prophet of Islam; its cause is the view of Islam regarding the communal essence of the religions.

Holy Qur’an emphasizes the difference and the distinction of religions and that the nature and substance of the religions we call abrahamitic religions is one and the same. It summons the adherents of religions to unity and mutual understanding which is based on this one common being, i.e. the belief in God and pure monotheism (tawhid). Therefore the Muslims’ view of coexistence and cooperation is not a tactical one but a strategic view which is deeply rooted in their perception and their belief.

But one has to take care not to cause disregard of the Muslims’ cultural and religious personality through this coexistence. Nowadays the coexistence of  Muslims in non-islamic societies and in German society is confronted with two inner problems.

On one hand there are Muslims who have only deficient knowledge of the islamic and qur’anic teachings and are therefore trying to form parallel societies, thus provoking

society’s resistance. Here we have to do German society justice if they are worried that their historical cultural values and identity might be endangered.

Certainly no minority has the right to advocate a confrontation of cultures, traditions, and existing laws of the society it lives in. But at the same time we have to worry about the second danger, that the interpretation of this coexistence may lead to a loss of the religious and cultural personality of the Muslims.

Nowadays, in the epoch of globalization, the realization of the global world is on its way. The hidden levelling  power in the process of globalization has reached a dimensions that forces even political world leaders and the great powers to control this process based on national and regional interests and establish federations and associations; should the Muslims not be worried about the islamic and religious identity of their generations in view of this process ? Need not Christians and Jews be worried likewise and for good reasons?

Certainly the idea of islamic unity results from the tradition of the great prophet of Islam, from the lives of their leaders and great personalities; it has always been necessary and it is  and will always be necessary. But in this present situation it is particularly pressing and necessary.

While accepting the reality of globalization we Muslims must strive to react on this society in a friendly and reasonable way and to strenthen our cultural and religious personality, in particular concerning our children and the second generation. We have to renew and protect our identity according to these events, since the next muslim generations will otherwise have to confront a crisis of identity.

The most important and efficient function of the idea of the unity of the islamic community in this society we live in comprises two functions. Firstly the preservation of the islamic identity of the Muslims in a society where they constitute a minority; secondly the corroboration of the unity of the islamic community opposite this society. The lack of unity among the Muslims  is disturbing for people and for those holding responsible positions in this society since the general knowledge about Islam is deducted from the

the Muslims’ conduct. Differences and sometimes contradictions in the conduct of Muslims have a double impact, firstly people are insecure about their information on Islam and secondly they do not know which of the views and ways of conduct can be taken as a standard when they meet Muslims.

The stronger the atmosphere of understanding, communal thinking, and unity becomes which is created by the Muslims, in particular the intellectuals and philosophers of the community, the more acceptance they will experience from society and the more they can contribute to stabilize the islamic identity of the community of Muslims.

For this reason this conference is very satisfying for me personally and I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to those who organized this conference, especially to the honoured consul of the Islamic Republic, his excellency sir Khareqani and the honoured representant of the department for cultural matters, Dr. Rajabi, an outstanding cultural personality himself.

Factors Guaranteeing Security Within Society

Abstract of an address on 5^th August 2005

Muslims should never feel that they are separated from this society and mere onlookers on events. Every profit or damage which regards German or European society is a direct profit or damage for all Muslims living in this society. As a religious authority with the right to express formal legal opinions I want to declare – and not for the first time – as a religious precept and not as a socio-political statement, tactical or political method that every disturbance of the security of society is prohibited by religion and is a clear infringement of the qur’anic assertions. This religious commandment is valid for all Muslims without exception, no matter which religious current they belong to. It is not only prohibited for Muslims to disturb the security and order of this society but they are obliged by religion to commit themselves to the preservation of order and security and to strive for it and to bear in mind laws and regulations and seriously lay claim to them for

their own protection.

The fate of the German, European, and American societies is the fate of the individual Muslims who live in those societies; good qur’anic and islamic education does not allow us to remain indifferent to this fate.

The extremists try to exploit the name of religion in order to weaken the feeling of Muslims that they are European and American citizen and try to create a gap between them and European and American society. All of us are obliged to prevent them from attaining their end and succeeding in creating such an artificial sentiment that Muslims are separated from this society. Here I would like to tell those holding responsible positions in the governement of this society that security is this society’s legitimate right and those who are responsible in the government are entitled to take all preventive measures necessary for the preservation of security. But they should bear in mind that their actions should not lead to the creation of a gap between the Muslims and this society and to a feeling of alienation and distance on part of the Muslims, especially with the younger generation, since this would constitute an unintentional aid and support for the extremists.

Hence I want to state clearly and distinctly that every statement or every behaviour of Muslims or anybody else which is detrimental to the sensation of the Muslims of being citizens and which separates the fate of the Muslims from the entirety of society is a statement and behaviour which is directed against the security, benefit, and welfare of this society and that one has to keep one’s distance of it.

It has to be taken into account that security is not only a physical phenomenon; the creation of security has to comprehend the emotional and psychological elements, too.

The extremists try to exploit emotional and psychological factors before they embark on a major action against security. I.e. they try to win over individuals by gaining influence on their minds and souls and we must not give them a chance to do so. Every view that declares Muslims to be a disturbing element and second class citizens will indirectly support the extremists’ end and will sustain their diabolic means and their pretexts for

crimes, even if such intentions imply the preservation and creation of security.

Common Holidays – Common Values

On occasion of the great christian and islamic holidays that coincicide this year, i.e. the blessed feast of the sacrifice, Id-ul-Adha, and Christmas holiday, I would like to congratulate all christian and muslim sisters and brothers. This coincidence of holidays can be perceived as a symbol of the unity of religious substance of  the two great religions Christianity and Islam in particular and can increase the friendship between adherents of these two religions.

The feast of the sacrifice will be the subject of the address on the holiday. But the celebration of the birth of Jesus which is most important for the Christians is of vital importance for Muslims, too, and a major holiday. As described in some islamic traditions the prophet of Islam (s.a.s.) has declared Friday a holiday and explained to the Muslims that this day should be honoured and esteemed since Jesus (s.a.s.) was born on a Friday. Holy Qur’an speaks about Jesus and his mother Mary with outstanding esteem and respect. Certainly nobody can claim that the Holy Bible’s attitude towards Jesus and Maria is more respectful and more sacred. The Qur’an contains descriptions of the particular abilities and qualities of Jesus that can not be found anywhere else but in the Qur’an.

Days like Christmas are a good opportunity to corroborate the ties and mutualities between Muslims and christian society. The realization of integration as a collective value everybody believes in depends on the cooperations and the views of all strata and professions of society, especially on the way the majority deals with minorities. The Muslims as an important minority should make a serious commitment to their function and participation in society. There is a medley of many important matters and elements concerning this participation and the realization of the function of the Muslims in the process of integration; one aspect is a clear and distinct interpretation and enlightenment in connection with islamic values and teachings that possess an islamic identity.

I have said repeatedly that the widespread pattern of behaviour of Muslims that is called islamic conduct can certainly not be called an exact islamic conduct, based onehundred percent on islamic teachings and values. Hence it is important and decisive to distingiush and separate these matters. On another occasion we shall discuss the mechanisms of separation of the islamic teaching and existing customs of muslim peoples and nations, in order to present a clear and distinct view of the islamic values.

But before we deal with this topic it seems necessary to deal with common values first and interpret them.

If we talk about islamic values then these values do not always comprise certain peculiarities and special qualities that distinguish them from values existing and accepted in a non-muslim society. In reality many of those values are common values thanks to their rational and humane essence. Although Islam is not a religion that emphasizes only individual and religious actions but proposes certain recommendations and serious teachings for the realm of social relations, nonetheless the amount and entirety of these teachings is dominated by a key-word: this is the criterion of rationality, religious authority, collective rationality, and customs for the knowledge of many social values and their determination.To restructure and to ignore values of society that are based on collective rationality constitutes a negative value automatically or per se from the islamic point of view.  Hence one of the most important criteria for the evaluation and judgement of an individual’s positive personality is his social acceptance and his attitude to the collective rationality of values and and social rules. Holy Qur’an clearly describes customary law (‘urf) as a criterion and basis of the knowledge of positive conduct and everybody is summoned to take care to pay attention to this customary law and to accept it. Be indulgent toward the others, lay down the law and keep aloof from the ignorant, says Sura al-‘Araf, verse 199. In some special cases, like relations in the realm of the family, it is said that relations between marriage partners should take place according to existing customs (comp. Sura an-Nisa’, verse 19).

In islamic law it is an essential condition for the acceptance and claim to responsibility and religious positions, like e.g. the position of a  judge, imam, or someone qualified to propagate legal opinions, that the person in question applies justice and equity. Consequently the rejection and denial of existing customs and socially accepted values is considered a major and serious obstacle in the description of causes and circumstances that prevent the realization of justice. This leads so far that even the justice of a religious leader, notwithstanding his excellent position, can be seriously questioned and the legitimacy of his responsibility revised if he ignores simple matters like e.g. accepted social customs of dress.

Here you can see that religious law confirms and emphasizes attentive observance of the criteria of collective reason and customs; with regard to the realm of social relations Islam shows such an amount of flexibility and solidity that any kind of contradiction and conflict between the muslim individual and society is prevented. Time and place are of decisive importance for this flexibility and existing social islamic precepts, so that prinicipally some values can be accepted if they are defined according to the peculiarities of different societies. It goes without saying that these values never contradict an individual’s natural rights, like e.g. the principle of freedom of creed and religion. All collective values can principally find their place in a harmonious system and can be affirmed; naturally no part of this system can contradict another part and reject it. Neither can individual freedom reject the collective social values and laws nor can social values and laws ignore the principle of individual rights. Undoubtedly general ethical values can not be denied on the basis of social values.

Fatwa against Terror

On occasion of the acts of terror in London and Sharm el-Sheikh Ayatollah Ghaemmagami delivered the following formal legal opinion ( arabic: fatwa) on 27^th of July 2005

In the name of God most merciful and compassionate

Herewith I declare distinctly and unequivocally that according to islamic law (Sharia) any kind of terrorism and killing of innocent human beings is outlawed. These deeds are unquestionably criminal outrages. The perpetrators stand in front of God as sinners, independent of their origin or nationality. Holy Qur’an also clearly states: If these acts of terror are executed as suicide attacks they can not be called acts of martyrdom. On the contrary, the perpetrators have to expect God’s most severe punishment and will be dispelled to hell.

According to the islamic perception life and its preservation are the highest good. This is valid independent of belief and confession. A person who tries to endanger the lives of innocent human beings, in whatever form, directly or indirectly, by means of planning, preparation or providing means, and who perfidiously instigates such crimes by religious justifications, he acts undoubtedly against the Qur’an’s clear commandments and the instructions of the prophet of Islam (peace be upon Him).

From the religious point of view all Muslims are obliged to fully pull their weight for the maintenance of order and security in the society they live in. The participation of the Muslims in the maintenance of order and security and respect for the existing laws of the country they live in, also Europe and America, is an important religious obligation; its neglect equals a sin and religious offence.

Seyyed Abbas Ghaemmaghami

This unequivocal rejection of  terror and violence by the islamic scholar of jurisprudence has met a wide echo in the German and European media. Several newspapers and news programs on TV and the internet have welcomed this formal legal opinion and reproduced it completely or epitomized it: News Channel N24, die tageszeitung,  Hamburger Morgenpost, Hamburger Abendblatt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Presseportal, News aktuell, MVregio –  Nachrichten für Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Wirtschaftsmagazin,

Science Daily, United Press International, die Segeberger Zeitung, die online-Tageszeitung Optinews, and several others.

A Dialogue in Favor of Dialogue

Address at a meeting of the EKD with leading representatives of muslim organizations in Germany in Berlin on the 23^rd May 2006.

Dear president of the council,

dear ladies, dear sirs,

it is a great pleasure for me to be in the presence of a group of peole who all came here with the intention of holding a dialogue. I have mentioned repeatedly that there is no alternative to dialogue, not even under circumstances when mutual understanding appears difficult or even if hostility prevails. If dialogue shall take place it must take place, and if no dialogue shall take place dialogue must take place nonetheless! I do not intend to give a lecture but I would like to express my joy about this conference and that it has created a new chance for dialogue. Every new opportunity for dialogue is a victory of mutual understanding.

I would like to turn this event to advantage and mention a subject, hoping that the intellectuals present in this circle might answer this question. It seems that the most important topic of dialogue is dialogue itself, i.e. dialogue in favor of dialogue. Dialogue in favour of dialogue does not mean a professional view of dialogue, i.e. forgetting the intention of dialogue while discussing it; but dialogue constitutes a bridge that leads to mutual understanding. Dialogue in favor of dialogue does mean the knowledge about the basis of cognition, the methodology, the intention, the tradition, the final aim of dialogue and the language applied in it.

What is the aim of dialogue? Do we hold a dialogue in order to summon each other to what we believe in? Or do we hold a dialogue in order to develop more understanding of each other? Or do we hold a dialogue to gain more information about each other,acceptance and mutual understanding?

These questions should be discussed in the context of dialogue. Another subject that deserves our attention in dialogue in favor of dialogue is its language. The language that is used when holding a dialogue is decisive for its success and the attainment of its end, and this is of special importance for the dialogue of religions. A successful and sympathetic dialogue of religions shall fulfill these two fundamental conditions:

1. The result of the dialogue should take into consideration the religious concerns of the adherents of the religions and assure them that they can accept each other and attain complete mutual understanding, while preserving their own religious creed and fulfilling their religious responsibility.
2. The second condition is the particular language of the dialogue. Many of us are familiar with the language of theology, depending on their position and responsibility. The language of theology is the language of truth and of the proof of correctness but it is not the language of dialogue. We are trying to create a situation suitable for mutual understanding and acceptance. Can the language of theology produce a dialogue leading to mutual understanding and acceptance of each other?

These are some of the most important questions and I assume that we can find answers to them in a conference like this. Then we can nourish the hope that the dialogue of experts will show efficient and positive results with the common religious people and adherents of religions. A dialogue that remains behind closed doors is not a complete and successful dialogue. I hope that the communal reflection of religious experts and intellectuals will prepare a suitable and better situation and conditions for dialogue and the mutual understanding of the adherents of religions and for the rule of peace in human society. Finally I would like to express my thanks to those who have prepared this meeting, in particular the responsible persons of the EKD, who are the avantgarde of dialogue.

Against Strict Adherence to the Letter

The Head of the Shiites in Germany / By Christoph Eberhardt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Hamburg, 9^th April. The Hollywood-movie “Pulp Fiction” is a good example, says the Ayatollah. The violent gangstermovie shows a murderer who justifies his acts quoting the bible. He is a passionate killer until he realizes that the quotation in the bible has the opposite meaning, says Ayatollah Seyyed Abbas Hosseini Ghaemmaghami, Imam and director of the Islamic Center Hamburg (IZH) since the beginning of the year 2004. He smiles knowingly. The shiite scholar with the turban and the beard is not yet forty years old – very young for an Ayatollah. He speaks slowly and in a low voice, seems to ponder each word carefully before he precisely words his (always detailed) answers. His favourite subject is Islam’s peaceful nature – and how its sources are misunderstood and misinterpreted.

“This is a very interesting point”, he says – when asked about the ninth Sura of the Qur’an, sometimes called “Sura of the sword”, which critics often quote as a proof of Islam’s martial nature. Then he enumerates a long lists of traditions where the prophet Muhammad went ahead to give an example of peaceful conduct. The use of force was allowed only for self-defence. After the terror attacks in London in July 2005 Ghaemmaghami had outlawed terrorism and violence in an islamic formal  legal opinion (fatwa), as the first Imam residing in Germany.  “From the religious point of view all Muslims are obliged to fully pull their weight for the maintenance of order and security in the society they live in”, it says. This had not been a tactical declaration but a distinct positioning “from the middle of Islam”, says Ghammaghami. He is a “mujtahid”, a high-ranking mullah who is entitled to explain and interpret the religious sources on his own. Self-reliant interpretation (idjtihad) occupies a more prominent position with Shiites than with the Sunnites. Ghammaghami’s judgement is binding for his adherents, at least in theory.

The Ayatollah originates from a well known family of scholars which descends from a grandson of the prophet over 39 generations. He studied at the theological university in

Quom, a renowned university in Iran. He studied philosophy, too, including German philosophers like Kant and Gadamer, the disciple of Heidegger. Sometimes more than 2000 believers flock to his Friday-sermons in the magnificent prayer-hall of the Hamburg mosque, built close to the Alster in a prime location in 1961. In his sermons Ghaemmaghami criticizes “fundamentalists” and the “ideological exploitation” of Islam. According to him the fundamentalists put tradition and ideology on a higher level than reason and have thus become prisoners of their traditions, incapable of criticizing them.

Ghaemmaghami advocates a doctrine against adherence to the letter in the interpretation of Qur’an which is still prevailing in Islam’s traditional main stream. The outer form of the precepts that are deducted from the sources of islamic law – Qur’an, Sunna and Hadith – depends on the social conditions existing when the rules were decreed.

“It is the stubborn and unflexible minds for whom the forms have universal validity – it is their spirit that has universal validity”. This spirit is flexible enough to adapt to social conditions. According to Ghammaghami “idjtihad” means the special ability to distinguish between religious norms and their “spirit”. A “cleansing” of religious norms is necessary, he says; in the sense of an adaptation of Islam to European values and norms. He wants to propagate an Islam of European or German character.

To retreat into a parallel society does not agree with the teachings of the prophet Muhammad, Ghaemmaggami said in his address at the conference of European Imams that took place last weekend in Vienna. In the first year after the “hijra”, the emigration from Mecca to Medina, the prophet had made a contract between Muslims and non-Muslims and called this society a “unified community”. This social contract corroborates the “qur’anic principle of coexistence”, the prophet’s conduct clearly showed that religious minorities were not allowed to damage society, that there must not be any tensions or divisions. “And this is exactly what we call integration today.”

“We expect the Muslims to accept the traditions of German society and the inassailable quality of its norms”, says Ghaemmaghami. But he also says:”The Muslims must feel that their religious principles remain inviolable.”

How far should the majority of the society go to accommodate the Muslims and how far should the Muslims go to accommodate the majority in these matters? This should be discussed in a dialogue, he says – a dialogue the young Ayatollah would like to take part in, as he would like to participate in the islamic summit planned by chancellor Merkel in the chancellor’s office. He says he was not going to abolish the headscarf as a religious precept but he affirms: To force someone to wear it is unislamic since that disapproves of freedom of decision of the individual  and infringes on a person’s dignity.

Ghaemmaghami actively promotes public relations for his belief without criticizing beforehand that he is forced to do this due to the “general suspicion” of Muslims. He congratulates Pope Benedict XVI. in a press communique on the World’s Youth Day as the “catholic church’s greatest  initiative”, since the pope had encouraged young people to return to spirituality. He is a person who prefers to talk about the “deep mutualities” of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Someone who says he can not understand how someone who lives in Germany could not be interested in German society. He does it in Persian: Last year he said in an interview on TV that the lack of knowledge of the language was no obstacle to integration. According to him unity of hearts is more important than unity of words.

On the whole these are liberal views for a clergyman who was sent to the Elbe by the mullahs in Iran; and Ghaemmaghami advocates them in public. He has nothing to do with the Iranian government and it matters to him to separate political and religious matters. He represents – autonomous and independent – the religious spiritual leaders, his call to the IZH had been confirmed by the “highest spiritual authority” in Iran.

In its report of 2004 the Hamburg authority for the protection of the constitution had called the center “an important institution for propaganda” and a high ranking “center of communications” with the Islamic Republic of Iran  in Europe. The IZH supported adherents of the Hizbullah in Germany, the report continued. During the islamic revolution they had propagated Chomeini’s cause there. The director of the Hamburg authority for the protection of the constitution, Vahldieck, says close connections existed rather with the high ranks of the religious authorities than with the government. “The call to Hamburg is a sign that Ghaemmaghami occupies a certain position among the religious elites of Iran.” He says he sees a “positive development”. His institution had observed an improvement of the IZH’s activities in connection with the “al-Quds  – (Jerusalem) day”.

This day of commemoration was established by Chomeini apropos of the occupation of the holy sites in Jerusalem by Israel and is characterized every year by mass demonstration with the participation of the islamistic scene. “In the past the IZH had been one of the organizers. Last year the community has shown remarkable restraint.”, Vahldieck says. In addition to this Ghaemmaghami was actively establishing contacts with the Hamburg authorities. “This positive development will also be echoed in the report on the protection of the constitution of 2005, which will be published end of April”, Vahldieck says.

Udo Steinbach, an expert on Iran and director of the Deutsches Orient-Institut in Hamburg, gives praise to Ghaemaghami for the “fresh wind” he had brought with him. He was an advocate of dialogue – like the renowned  reformer and former Iranian president Chatami. Chatami had been one of Ghaemmaghami’s predecessors, he headed the IZH between 1978 and 1980. Last summer he came for a visit. Chatami,too, had studied in Quom and Ghaemagami’s statements are similar to those of the former president and reformer. There was no need for Islam to become secular:”It is democratic in its very essence”, Ghaemmaghami says and smiles knowingly.

“A  Priest Who is Not Interested in the Society he Lives in Can Not Be a Good Priest”

Excerpt of an interview with the “Stern”, No.8 / 2006

“How an Imam can come to Germany and then not be interested in this country I can not understand”, says the Iranian Seyyed Abbas Hosseini Ghaemmaghami. He is imam at the Imam-Ali-mosque in Hamburg and a genuine ayatollah. This is the highest rank of shiite cleergymen, comparable to a cardinal in the catholic church. Hosseini Ghaemmaghami is the only ayatollah in Germany and at the age of 37 the youngest in the world.

If the quarter around Frankfurt’s central train station is Germany’s last location, then the Imam-Ali-mosque is Germany’s prime location. “Schöne Aussicht” is the name of the street which is at Hamburg’s noble Aussenalster. Together with an academy and an impressive library they constitute the “Islamic Center Hamburg” IZH.

The mosque’s prayer hall contains a gigantic round handmade carpet where more than 2000 believers pray on high holidays. Every room, every corner of these large grounds show the visitor: money is not a worry for this community.

The IZH is not only a mosque but an outpost of the Iranian mullahs that has been under observance of the German authority for the protection of the constitution for many years. The leaders of the revoulution in Iran have sent an unusually liberal religious scholar to Germany. Apart from his clothes and the beard there is little to remind one of the Mullah-regime that had once decreed a fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Only ayatollahs are entitiled to deliver fatwas, religious judgements. After the terror attacks in London in July last year Hamburg’s ayatollah has made use of it and delivered a fatwa. Against religious terrorists. “The perpetrators have to expect God’s severe punishment and will be outlawed to hell.”

The connection of the Hamburg ayatollah with Germany is already decades old. At the time of the Shah-regime he was a student and received a scholarship from the German embassy. And later he studied philosophy together with islamic theology. “I nourish great love for the German philosophers”, he says. This imam would be happy to be an accepted part of German society. “A priest who is not interested in the society he lives in can not be a good priest.”

The ayatollah observes the consequences of the conflict about the caricatures with great concern. “At present some muslim groups propagate extremist views that claim that integration is an  unattainable end. Muslims are summoned to fight the society of the majority.”  Naturally the ayatollah, too, condems the “insults and defamations of the prophet Mohammad. But these events must not be used as a pretext to allow oneself to be carried away and commit unlawful and aggressive acts”. Notwithstanding the conflict Hosseini Ghaemmaghami considers the integration of Muslims and of Islam in European societies a necessity. “For both sides. But this is not about Islam as it it is lived in Iran. Islam is different in all countries. Everywhere it adapts to society. And this is what we have to in Germany, too. We need an Islam with a German character.”