Lent is hardly a time for deep reflection for a Muslim, being what it is, a Christian penitence in remembrance of the forty-day fast of Jesus, upon whom be peace. It is, however, Easter that has the greater significance for the Christian since that is when the happenings for the salvation of mankind through the sacrifice and resurrection of the son of God were enacted. As if this were not blasphemous enough to the Muslim, the Christian religious commemoration is intermingled with the pre-Christian pagan celebration to mark the coming of spring, to play with symbols of fertility and renewal of life such as an egg. As with most Western Christian traditions, it is the non-Christian elements that dominate the occasion. Hot-cross buns and Easter eggs symbolise Easter, even Lent, more than the fasting and self-denial the Christians would wish to remember the redemptional events of that period.
This Lent, however, I am forced to at least cast a casual eye at an Anglican Bishop's reciting of the Qur'an as part of his Lent service. The Right Reverend Alan Smithson, the bishop of Jarrow, chose to recite prayers from the Qur'an, to the bewilderment and dismay of some of his congregation. His justification was partly to emphasise the shared ancestry of Islam and Christianity and partly to use the potency of the words of the Qur'an that echoed Christian prayer. One should I suppose praise his courage and commend the recitation as promoting better understanding between the two faiths. But the exercise could also be viewed by some Christians as an unwarranted intrusion into Christianity's most solemn occasion, as yet another unacceptable face of inter-faith relations; and cause a renewed distrust for Islam, exactly the opposite of what the bishop intended. >From a Muslim's perspective, what is wrong with the Word of Allah being conveyed to those of another monotheist faith and that too by a religious peer? Do they, after all, not have as much right over the Final Message of Allah as anyone else? Hasn't the Qur'an been more responsible for drawing people to Islam than anything else? If just one of his listeners reverts to Islam, would that not alone be worth all the aggravation it may otherwise cause? The bishop may even be right in thinking that it would foster better Christian-Muslim understanding. And, after all, it makes a refreshing change to see the Qur'an being used for religious purposes by non-Muslims rather than the Spartan and bland analysis it is often subjected to by those of little faith.
Underlying the event, however, is the fact that the bishop, with all his good intentions, cannot accept the Qur'an as the Word of the God he believes in. He finds problems, he says in his article in the Sunday Financial Times (6.4.97), not in what the Qur'an affirms but in what it denies. For the Qur'an's emphatic denial of the "son of God" status of Jesus, upon whom be peace, and its wholesome opposition to the idea of the trinity cannot be acceptable to any Christian. On the other hand, the Qur'an's uncompromisingly clear stance on justice, good and evil and the calling to account can be ever so comforting to one of a Judeo-Christian background in the face of the undeterministic moralism of today. And what about the prayers in the Qur'an? The bishop is enamoured to the verses of the Qur'an which beseech, such as "Our Lord, do not burden us beyond what we have strength to bear" and finds resonance in its declaration "When man takes one step towards Allah, Allah takes a hundred towards him" with the parable of the prodigal son. These parts of the Qur'an, he feels, are treasures that ought to be shared. But what about the parts that are not so easily palatable? The bishop re-asserts the Christian dogma of a suffering God as seen in Christ even as he quotes the Qur'an's denial of the same. What reverence does one really give to the Word of Allah by its peace-meal acceptance? Is the Final Guidance an open bowl from which one takes what is agreeable and ignores what isn't?
I suppose one should only expect that kind of commitment from a Muslim who has submitted his or her will to that of Allah completely and without reservation. The Christian, of course, would not have much trouble accepting only parts of the Bible, or that some of the Bible may have suffered distortion through the vicissitudes of time and translation. Exactness is not the point anyway, only the feeling it inspires even through a verse only partly right. And besides that, there is something about the Christian emphasis of tolerance that allows the compromise of even what, to a Muslim, may be a most sacred element of the faith. But then, despite our reverence of the Qur'an, despite our sacred covenant with Allah, can we say really that we are not guilty of the same? Have we not often compromised the unity of Allah by adopting hundreds of idols that deviate us from His single-minded worship? Have we not often chosen to ignore the high ethical and moral standards by which we are supposed to conduct our affairs? I suppose failure to follow a command after its acceptance is more a weakness than a crime and far less serious than not accepting it at all. But then, there is also blatant non-acceptance. How easy it is to simply ignore the clear prohibition of interest when it comes to buying a house on mortgage? Or to ignore the injunctions of halal and haraam or that of hijab because one feels they are no longer relevant? An acquaintance feels his indulgence in interest and alcohol does not make him any less Muslim, because those injunctions were only made to wrest economic freedom from the Jews and Christians who held sway over the respective trades! Here we have a personal judgment on time-limiting the eternal Word of Allah. Are these attitudes any less irreverent, any less harmful than the bishop's? At least the bishop had a worthy agenda and he did not claim to be a Muslim either. What's our excuse? Perhaps a bit of Lent style self-examination is exactly what we all need all the year round.