The interfaith incertitude
The issue of interfaith has become one of controversy recently, particularly in a South African context. One of the factors exacerbating the situation is the use of the word “interfaith” itself with its different meanings. Perhaps a clarification of how different people are using this word can help us come to a better understanding of where everyone stands بإذن الله.
Linguistically, interfaith simply means “relating to or involving different religions or members of different religions”. Thus, it can be any interaction whether that is a dinner, a discussion a debate or even a war. When used in the context of interfaith dialogue it can have two meanings.
Meaning one:
To foster co-operation between faiths so they can work together for good in the communities they live in. In the last century or so, interfaith dialogues have been an on-going phenomenon. The motivation behind them, as officially stated on almost all interfaith organisations’ websites, is this definition. Muslim scholars from around the world have understood it like this and thus participated in them. It is also understood to be distinct from syncretism which is the amalgamation of different religions into one.
Meaning two:
To meet under the understanding that all religions are correct and can lead to salvation. Or to try and unite all religions into one. This usage is much less common and is not understood when used unrestrictedly in the international sphere.
The problem:
Anyone who subscribes to the second meaning is subscribing to a view that entails disbelief in Islam. This view should rightly be spoken about and criticized depending upon its prevalence. Participating in interfaith in the first meaning is debateable. Some might feel it to be permissible and even needed in certain communities whilst others may feel it can open the door to weakening one’s belief and so it is impermissible. It is however, not kufr. The issue that is arising is when Ulama are speaking against interfaith in the second meaning, people are under the impression that all forms of interfaith are kufr and can be likened to Akbar’s syncretic Din-e-ilahi, whereas most of the usage of the word interfaith entails the first meeting. Unless this meaning is clarified and both understandings given their own respective rulings, mass confusion will ensue. Below are some senior Ulama who have signed or participated in an interfaith gathering, in the first meaning.
• Mufti Taqi Uthmani
Mufti Taqi is also one of the 138 signatories on the common word initiative.
• Moulana Khalid Saifullah Rahmani
Moulana was the keynote speaker at a conference that discussed how to engage in interfaith organised by the Islamic Fiqh Academy India.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cA-LiKmGqdFWzkscFCTrTdgg37pdE8ea
• Deoband Madrasa and Jamiatul Ulama Hind
https://clarionindia.net/religious-leaders-call-for-peace-communal-harmony-in-deoband/
• Moulana Arshad Madani
The son of Moulana Husain Ahmad Madani participating in an interfaith dialogue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLCNMUxJCwM
The point of the above is not to change anyone’s stance. It’s simply to show that the usual usage of interfaith is not one that entails acceptance of the truth of another faith. Secondly, many senior scholars have seen the need for it. Even if someone disagrees, he surely cannot act as though the matter was so clear cut that the mere mention of the word entails the deviation of an entire book or group regardless of what they meant by it.